Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-1990 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange November 19, 1990 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart 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; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 5, 1990 Moved by Commissioner Bosch, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Minutes of November 5, 1990 be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1363 - CITY OF ORANGE: Environmental Assessment of an Arterial Highway Funding Program (AHFP) project to widen Santiago Canyon Road between Windes Drive and Newport Boulevard. Ms. Wolff made a few remarks about the environmental process. This assessment has been prepared to comply with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The method used in preparing the assessment was to first prepare an initial study. An initial study is a preliminary environmental analysis of a project, to identify any potential impacts that might be expected with implementation of the project. Next, a number of technical studies were conducted. These included geotechnical, vegetation, wildlife, archaeological, noise and air quality evaluations. The information and analysis contained in these studies were used to formulate mitigation measures. The Environmental Assessment proposes to mitigate project impacts to a level at which the project complies with City or state standards. For example, the City's General Plan establishes noise/land use compatibility standards. These standards specify the noise levels which are acceptable with respect to various types of land uses. Therefore, Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 2 mitigation has been proposed only where necessary to meet the City's General Plan standards. It is the City staff and environmental consultant's opinion that project impacts can be mitigated to comply with applicable City standards. Therefore, the document before the Commission is considered a "Mitigated Negative Declaration". With the implementation of mitigation measures as proposed, the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission is being asked to make a determination on this Negative Declaration. The City Council will have to provide the final authorization for the road widening project before work can be initiated. The Commission's action on this Negative Declaration will be part of the documentation forwarded to the Council for their consideration of funding for the project. Gary Johnson gave a brief description of the project itself. A strip map was displayed on the board showing the limits of the project, which starts at Windes Drive and would continue around to Newport Boulevard on the east. The Environmental Assessment has divided the road into five different segments and each segment was discussed: (1) Windes Drive to Kennymead; (2) From that point south and easterly to approximately Hunters Way; (3) County section that would be widened by them; (4) the cemetery property; and (5) across the Broadmoor project. The intent of the project is to widen the street from a present two lanes to a four lane plus continuous left turn pocket and bike lanes. In certain areas where right-of-way can be acquired in exchange for improvements or a logical extension of existing ultimate improvements, the City will widen the street to that ultimate width, but the City will not stripe it for six lanes at the present time. The mitigation measures will extend to the six lanes at the present time even though the City is not proposing to stripe it for six lanes. The project will be submitted for approval to the Arterial Highway Financing Program by January 1, 1991. The environmental documentation will identify the mitigation measures required to proceed with the project; however, the complete design has not been completed. Scoping meetings were held with the residents in the area to determine what the concerns were. At that time they were able to review the environmental document to voice their concerns. All written concerns were documented in the addendum presented to the Commission. Most of the concerns were noise issues along the entire route, the establishment of a horse trail along Santiago Canyon Road (it's an issue that cant be resolved with this E.I.R.), drainage, potential fills and cuts along the road, and replacement of facilities that are lost in the form of foliage and walls. Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 3 Michael Allering, 790 North Stevens, Fullerton, is the. environ- m~ntal ~~nsultant fci.r this project. The Commission received a blue sheet before the meeting which was the summary of mitigation measures that are contained in the Environmental Assessment. Ten letters and a signed petition were received from The Wilderness residents because the original document did not completely detail the number of units involved. It was a mapping problem that has been revised. They also added a paragraph to the Assessment. Specific reference is now made to The Wilderness project. Mr. Allering referred to Page 2 of the blue sheet of what is being proposed. The standard is to assure that interior living spaces are maintained at 45 CNEL or less. They assume a new house constructed post 1974 with energy standards will provide 23 dB attenuation or more. This noise reduction would attenuate an exterior noise impact of 68 dB CNEL sufficiently to meet the interior design limit of 45 dB CNEL. They will look at any house that would be significantly above 68 dB. If the ho~ise is judged to be post 1974, any house above 65 dB would be looked at. The intent is to produce the acceptable interior noise levels by weatherizing and weatherstripping the houses to minimize leaks and cracks. Also, as necessary, to upgrade the windows (which produces the acoustic losses). Glazing configurations were discussed (Page 3). There are two phases to the funding program: Right-of-way acquisition and then actual construction (about one year apart). The intent is to identify the construction detail required to meet interior and exterior standards. Then each of the homeowners or homeowner associations will be presented with a listing of what needs to be done on a unit-by-unit basis. They will have two options: The City or County will do the required upgrades as part of the construction project, or the owners may accept payment equal to that amount and do the improvements themselves. They interpret the standard to say there should be a reasonably quiet outdoor space accessible to each home that is at 65 CNEL or less. In those cases, a freestanding noise barrier in the form of a solid wood fence or masonry wall could be used to selectively shield these areas from view of the roadway and reduce the exterior noise impact (up to 400 square feet). Commissioner Bosch said the terms of noise mitigation environment of a home, yet windows. What is the law with standards being discussed in speak to the exterior wall it is talking about sealed regard to mitigating noise? Mr. Allering stated the existing standards state to get the 20 or 23 dB attenuation, windows must be closed which require some type of mechanical ventilation or air conditioning. The windows to be concerned with front the highway. The windows to the rear of the highway can remain Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 4 open. The assumption was made there was air conditioning or provisions were made for mechanical ventilation. There are no established legal requirements that he's aware of. The windows do not need to be sealed. Commissioner Bosch thought the retrofitting was a bit gray in terms of precedent, but at least the people are afforded the opportunity of mitigating the noise if they desire to do so. Commissioner Bosch asked if the CNEL lines shown in the study were absolute or conditional, and whether a check of properties as required in the design phase, would provide alternative mitigation measures depending on the type of room or land use? Mr. Allering said the way the contours are plotted, they're not strictly generic; there are a lot of input parameters with respect to traffic, grade, truck mix, which were adapted to this project based on highway counts and truck counts. It's a Federal Highway Administration Noise Prediction Model they used for this project. Commissioner Bosch stated that was a good Model and stressed that the actual study that goes into the design phase to identify specific mitigation shouldn't be limited to those 10 properties, but the line should be utilized to identify a threshold point where an adjacent property might be just beyond the line drafted on a map, but still might have an impact. Mr. Allering responded the lines were set up as screening criteria. Their intent is to represent the maximum extent of a noise level based on the 6 lane configuration. They feel they have identified the areas that need further investigation. Commissioner Bosch said as the detail studies are done, what methods are used to identify where the actual lay of the land is with regard to noise? Is there some sort of base level sound generator utilized or is it formulas? Mr. Allering said it was modeled once again out of the barrier segment of the FHA Noise Prediction Model. Commissioner Bosch said it was mentioned mitigating exterior livable area or outdoor use spaces up to a maximum of 400 square feet. Where does that criteria come from as a standard? Mr. Allering stated that was not a matter of standard. In many jurisdictions, it's assumed you mitigate the minimum Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 5 required open space for the zone. The 400 square feet was developed based on a 20 x 20 area; some indication needed to be made of how much area was to be screened. It was an observation of what is out there now. Mr. Johnson mentioned this document is intended to identify the mitigation measures and assuming the project goes ahead, the City's partner, the County of Orange, will also participate in the mitigation measures that are required to the legal limits. Anything over and above the legal limits, they will not participate in. Commissioner Murphy asked if they knew what the legal limits were (i.e. , the outdoor space of 400 square feet) ? Ms. Wolff responded the City's zoning ordinance does not have minimum outdoor area requirements for single family zones. The City doesn't have a standard there. It was something determined to be a reasonable figure. Commissioner Murphy asked how the County would decide whether it was over the minimum standards from a funding stand point? Mr. Johnson thought they were talking about the identified measures in the Assessment as being the legal limits. The public hearing was opened. Concerns expressed from the audience Lauren Ficaro, 11202 Meads, Orange Park Acres, gave some additional requests and some recommendations for improvement on this project. She understood it was not within the purview of the staff to make recommendations about recreational trail facilities, but she felt it was important to keep that idea in the foreground. The improvements of the road will have a major effect on the way their community addresses itself to the world outside of Orange Park Acres. They are an outdoor community and the fundamental premise of the road not having an impact and the noise having impact only on the people living there is probably true in most cases, but in their case, there is significant noise. She would like to see a discussion about the inclusion of safe crossings for this road for pedestrians, children and equestrians. The entire area behind the Villa Park Dam has been designated a recreational area. There will be a recreational area and park from Irvine Park all the way down Santiago Creek. More people will be crossing that road just to get to the recreational area. She has looked for alternative funding f or design and impleme ntation of increased landscaping for recreational trail facilities and noise attenuation and also for AQMD standards. Those funds Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 6 are available from the state. She would like to make sure they are included when they talk about landscaping. She checked with a design company in Ohio that does bridges and found she could get a 110 foot bridge that would cross the road for a reasonable amount of money. There is a bridge like this in San Juan. They would be able to use that bridge in case of a natural disaster in order to cross the road. A pedestrian road should also be considered and she would like to see it placed behind the sound barrier rather than out next to the road. She was also concerned about the drainage situation. The trail she cited in her original letter is not in the bottom of the creek; it's up on the side of the creek (dry wash) . But if there's a lot of water coming off this road on a regular basis, eventually erosion will take hold. Some program is needed to assure that the water course stays at least stable and accessible for wildlife or recreational use. She would like to see some information about equal mitigation for all residents and users of the trail/street. Mitigation to the community at large is requested in replacement for what they're going to be losing as a result of the widening of the road. She would be willing to work with the City and other people to do whatever is possible to help make a better project. Thomas Flynn, 2811 East Villa Real, Director of Catholic Cemetery for the Diocese of Orange, submitted a letter and addressed two issues that were not in the E.I.R. On Page 22, the consultant says the cemetery is not expected to be adversely impacted by the road widening. The road will provide for a left turn key access into the cemetery. The people who come to the cemetery are obviously going to be impacted by the noise. They conduct religious services every day. The road widening will impact the entire area. He strongly objects to the street widening; the noise will impact their ability to conduct business. Noise attenuation will be a problem. Mara Brandman, 7319 Equitation Way, "The Wilderness", stated for the record that O.P.A. had no desire to hold up this project. They had four concerns and hoped they could work out some process of mitigation. She had a wonderful conversation with staff and Mr. Johnson has taken care of their concerns in bringing them to the Commission's attention. The continuation of the O.P.A. trail along Santiago at O.P.A.'s expense needs to be taken care of. There is a wall at Hunter's Way and Santiago Canyon Road that has been there for several years. They have not pressed to have it taken down; it was built by a previous homeowner. But they cannot continue their trail until that wall is taken away. She understands that when the road is beginning to be widened at that point, the City will then step in and speak to the homeowner. An undercrossing across Santiago Canyon Road at Coyote -- O.P.A. has got to get Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 7 across that street at that area. At this particular time they are not discussing an undercrossing down by the Church area (Salem Community Church), but up the east portion by Lolita. There will be a horse crossing at Windes Drive, but it still requires to get the residents across the street and into those trails. The drainage at Rattlesnake and Santiago Canyon Road: Ms. Ficaro addressed that concern. With regard to the sound wall at The Wilderness, the O.P.A. board is aware of agreements made by the City with other associations and O.P.A. regarding sound attenuation. They hope the entire O.P.A. community would be dealt with in the same manner. The noise from the roads is now extreme and will only increase with additional lanes and a full traffic signal to be installed at Windes Drive and Santiago Canyon Road in the immediate future. The O.P.A. board supports the position of The Wilderness in their pursuit of a sound wall, which was required by the City for the D&D project. Hollis Fitts, 20672 Santiago Canyon Road, lives in an older home and he didn't understand about the mitigation procedures. They do not have air conditioning in their house. They have a big lot and it's larger than 400 square feet. Tom Mullen, 7318 Equitation Way, "The Wilderness", has lived in the tract for 15 years. He paid a premium for his lot. He's not against change and he knows the road is coming. However, some thing needs to be done for the noise he experiences from his back yard. He thinks their community is entitled to the taxpayers dollars to compensate them for what this project is going to do. Max Strayhorn, 1611 Dressage, submitted a letter November 2, 1990 and would like to get a copy of the revised plan regarding noise abatement. He spoke about the arena area and the equestrian facilities. The arena is adjacent to the street. He wondered if there were any plans to address that impact? Rebuttal Mr. Johnson knew the concern about a safe crossing for pedestrians, horses, hikers is an issue that has high priorities as far as the Orange Park Acres Association is concerned. The first thing that is needed is to establish a Recreation Trail Master Plan, which would locate a viable crossing of the road. The road splits the community and as traffic volumes increase, it becomes more of a problem. He didn't have the answer at this time of where that would be located. Both the overpass and underpass have problems associated with them (i.e., financing, policing, crime and liability). The intent of the O.P.A. is to attack this thing on the basis of getting started on solving the answers Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 8 rather than having all the answers provided with this project. He's not sure there is a mitigating measure that could be implemented at this point in time. The question of placing pedestrians behind sound barriers is not feasible. It is the City's intent where the horse trails exist that they are both horse, hiking and pedestrian oriented; they cannot tolerate a wall of 42 inches or higher adjacent to the curb for many reasons. The problem of having that wall at the curb line as opposed to behind the property line is of concern. Within the street right-of-way it would be impossible to provide a barrier on the street side of the pedestrian walkway. There seems to be a concern about the drainage in the canyon. The canyon that is in back of Ridge line does have erosion from time to time and unfortunately it goes down to the intersection of Kennymead and Randall and it has flooded. They have to provide adequate maintenance of that facility. If there is a conflict between horses and drainage water, maybe the horse trail should be up on the side of the hill and there should be culverts at crossings. Mr. Flynn indicated a need to address the noise issues connected with the cemetery. The noise standards for the City indicate that 70 CNEL is the standard for cemetery zoned property. According to the study, he believed the addendum addressed that. He believed the 20 feet behind the property line would be affected, but the rest of the cemetery would not be, including the administration building. The City will work on the removal of the wall at Hunters Way because it is encroaching. He thought the consultant had gone back and identified the structures that are involved in "The Wilderness" tract regarding noise issues. He has recomme nded mitigation measures regarding those structures. That would not include a sound wall along the entire lengths of The Wilderness project. That stretch of road is not being widened. It's not moving any closer to the residences. Most of the other concerns were surrounding noise mitigation, particularly along The Wilderness and the City is prepared to stand behind and accomplish those mitigation measures as recommended by the consultant. Chairman Master observed that so many of the issues regarding the recreation trail and other trails through out the City seems to keep turning on the lack of a citywide/county interface trail system. Without a Master Plan, there isn't a plan for trails and crossings; it should be implemented. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott concurred with the City Engineer's statements regarding the Recreational Trails Master Plan be developed and presented to the City Council. As far as a barrier was concerned between the curb and the recreational trail, it might be a potential crime problem. Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 9 Commissioner Bosch thought the Recreational Trails Master Plan could be solved independently of this particular project and E.I.R. His main concern was about noise mitigation and the consultant's explanation helped to clarify the City is interested in minimally meeting the legally required noise standards and need to look at funding sources and the City Council for any greater effort than that. In looking at the existing adopted Noise Element of the City, it's interesting an application of a 70 CNEL line is acceptable in a riding stable, golf course, recreational area and cemetery area. We're judging the E.I.R. against what the code and General Plan are. That may need some more input, a greater research in the future as the City moves ahead. The City needs to gather and keep current information with regard to what is being done elsewhere. His particular concern beyond that is mitigation of noise into residences, identifying through further study as part of the design phase of this where there might be some legal standards set by case law or legislation elsewhere in the state that talks to 400 square feet (or whatever it happens to be) for usable outdoor recreation space, and also to the active types of mitigation of having a resident decide between fresh air and air conditioning or noise as an impact imposed on their house. The scope of the project is limited; it's recognized it is going to happen. He would like for everyone to be good neighbors. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to recommend to the City Council to accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1363, the Environmental Assessment of an Arterial Highway Funding Program project to widen Santiago Canyon Road between Windes Drive and Newport Boulevard, subject to the input by concerned residents and staff that has been presented to the Planning Commission. The City Council should also be alerted to the need of a Master Plan of Recreational Trails. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Mr. Johnson stated this item would be heard before the City Council December 11, 1990. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1849-90 - DIANE GLENN: A proposal to allow the conversion of an existing four unit apartment building into a board and care facility for persons with developmental disabilities. Subject property is located on the south side of Fairway Drive at the Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 10 intersection with Fashion Park Street, addressed 340 West Fairway Drive. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303. Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of an existing four unit, 2 story apartment building to a communal care facility for 22 persons with developmental disabilities. The specifics of the proposal are to do minor building improvements to add several doors within the building to allow internal access on the second and first floors, and to convert three of the existing four kitchens to bedrooms. Each bedroom will have two residents. The proposal includes six on-site staff: four will be full-time; two part-time; and one person will live on site at all times. The facility would provide a board and care program for the 22 residents. The programs would include therapy and classes to improve their motor skills. State regulations do regulate this kind of facility, but their main concern is with the programs provided in the facility under a safe and healthy environment. State regulations do allow cities to control the placement of these facilities. Staff feels the existing parking is adequate for the six supervisors on site. It is not anticipated that any of the residents will have cars and few visitors are anticipated. The facility does include one on-site van that is used to transport the residents to and from the site. Most of the residents will have jobs or go to work programs elsewhere and they will depend on public transportation. Some of the concerns with the proposal is that the building will not be improved to allow internal access between the second floor and first floor. Residents will have to leave the second floor, go outside the building and enter through exterior doors to go to the kitchen and dining area on the first floor. The facility lacks any outdoor recreational area for the 22 residents. The only area available for it will be a 9x23 foot outdoor patio that is being paved and will have outdoor seating and patio tables. Staff recommends adding Condition 17 which would require the installation of a trash enclosure per City standards. The existing facility does not have that. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Diane Glenn, 402 West Fairway Drive, said her program will provide continuous services for the developmentally disabled. They will be preparing them to live a meaningful life where they will be able to make choices, have dignity Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 11 and recognition. The clients will be moderate and mildly mentally retarded. They will be high functioning. They are capable of living in a semi-independent situation. Many of them have the potential of living independently. She has clients who are living in the community in apartments on their own because of the training they have received. Many of them work at the work shops, some are in competitive work. Those speaking in opposition William Bamathie, 612 South Cypress #A, owns the fourplex and would hate to see it go commercial. He submitted a petition and read their objections to this project. They felt a board and care facility was incompatible with the residential use in the neighborhood. There was not adequate outside yard area. The proposed conversion does not provide for sufficient parking. The proposed facility is not conveniently located within practical walking distance to local shops and service providers. It is located at the opposite end of the only ingress and egress to the entire neighborhood. The neighborhood would be impacted by increased traffic. Bob Phillips, 636 South Cypress, #A, has lived here 12 years. They rent apartments which are family oriented. There are a lot of children in the apartments. He feels 22 people in a building of this size would be considered overcrowded. There is a tremendous parking problem now. Most people fear the unknown; the people do not know who the developmentally disabled people are. They might be subject to possible harassment by the children in the neighborhood. Everyone will be affected if this project is approved. Elizabeth Thomas, 3216 East Gainsborough Road, owns one of the fourplexes on Fashion Park. She has been a teacher for 15 years and has had experience with developmentally disabled children. She knows they can be put under stress very easily. Very young children can cause more emotional stress and this could incite problems with the frustration for the mentally disabled people. They will have to be exposed to going through the tract to get to other areas so they cannot avoid the children. Their health is not always good and this will cause additional problems. They have noticed new windows have been installed in the garages and also that the petitioner has purchased the adjacent property. They're concerned if the garages are going to be used for other activities rather than cars. Where will these people have their recreational facilities? It is ill planned for this community and could be best placed in an open area. Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 12 JoAnn Newman, 1210 Park View Court, Newport Beach, is one of the original owners of the building, 609 North Cypress. She doesn't understand about fire hazards. The building is against the freeway. There is no room at the back of the building for any kind of recreation. Rebuttal Ms. Glenn appreciates everyone's concerns, but she is not dealing with children. She is dealing with adults -- mentally retarded, but not stupid. These people have gone through tremendous amounts of prejudice towards them. They have been taught to look at the problem and say that is someone else's problem; it's not theirs. Because they're different does not mean they're not entitled to have the same home as normal people. She described her clients to the Commission and the type of training they will receive under her care. The learning capability is there; it just needs to be tapped. She is under a lot of scrutiny to make sure she is doing a good job. The residents and applicant discussed the number of residents living in the apartment complex, as well as the number of parking spaces required for the project. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch appreciated what Ms. Glenn was doing. There is a real need to include these people in the community. His concerns relate to the building itself and the proposed occupancy of the building and the use of it as a home environment. He sees the conversion of two bedroom apartments by removing a kitchen into a third bedroom apartment and a proposal to assist in the communal living environment by introducing doorways between the apartments on the same floor. The document received by the Commission includes several doors between bedroom to bedroom to facilitate access rather than using hallways. He was concerned about dignity and privacy for individuals living there; he was concerned about both indoor living space and outdoor living area. The applicant would be putting a significantly greater population of people into an area designed for a limited number. What are the state laws of standards imposed on similar facilities in terms of square footage of indoor and outdoor space per person? Is the application of standards in terms of assembly (living and dining areas) identical to that for other assembly and dining uses under the Uniformed Building Code as applied in the California Administrative Code for this facility? The two persons per bedroom is adequate, but what about the communal spaces? Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 13 Ms. Glenn said the state licensing law requires one bathroom per six people; however, they will have two bathrooms per six. It also requires in the dining area feeding people in shifts. There will be adequate space for the dining area. In order to obtain a license she would have to apply to all the licensing rules; otherwise, the state would not give her a license. She has measured the facility to see if she were in compliance with the state's regulations. Bedrooms must be 120 square feet to accommodate two people. Living rooms will be used as sitting areas. Recreation will take place in the living rooms during the evening hours. She is not required to have outdoor recreational areas. They spend their free time on the weekends out in the community on their own or in group activities. She is not opposed to cutting the number of people down. Commissioner Scott asked if the applicant were familiar with the proposed conditions and if she were aware there was another condition recommended about providing a trash enclosure? (No.) In reviewing the plot plan, he could not see where it would be installed that could adequately be served by the trash contractor. Would the applicant have adequate green space if they're going to pave out the 9x23 patio? Ms. Wolff responded that was difficult to answer because in the R-3 zone there are outdoor living standards; however, with a Conditional Use Permit those regulations would bend to allow some flexibility and allowing another type of use to take place. Although the outdoor living space that is required for an R-3 residential apartment, is not directly applicable and would not be met by this proposal. Commissioner Scott asked what the normal requirement for green area in an R-3 zone as far as coverage is concerned? Ms. Wolff thought it was 200 square feet per unit. She looked it up in the code to be sure. Commissioner Murphy had concerns with no interior access between the first and second floor. He thought about the inclement issue and the supervision issue. Ms. Glenn said the clients would not get wet or be affected because the doors and patio (partially covered) are close together. There is 24 hour supervision and a staff room is utilized. She will put in an intercom system for the units. Commissioner Bosch asked about the community meetings? Ms. Glenn said the community meetings are with the clients. Meetings would be held in the dining area. Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 14 Commissioner Murphy wondered if they should look at the number of clients because it seems the density of people is a concern. Commissioner Bosch shares the concern. He felt the density of people was too high. Outdoor access is also a concern. Commissioner Scott was concerned about the saturation of open space per se with concrete. It takes away from the present type of family style living. He personally feels the density and the elimination of the green area is not appropriate. Chairman Master reaffirmed there is an absolute need in this community for a board and care facility, but not at this location; it's not adequate. Taking an existing apartment and converting it into something that is serviceable because of the basic configuration of what is there currently is not favorable. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to deny Conditional Use Permit 1849-90 for the reasons expressed by the Planning Commission. AYES: Commissioners Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: Commissioner Bosch ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Bosch voted no because there needs to be more than a "pat on the back"; the City really needs to find some way to assist in helping in these programs. There needs to be some kind of guidance to help identify ways to verify a good environment. Ms. Wolff stated this decision is final unless appealed. There is a 15-day appeal period during which any party can appeal the decision of the Commission to the City Council. Forms are available in the Planning Department and staff is available to assist if needed. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1873-90 - BILL THOMAS: A proposal to allow the operation of a board and care facility for persons with mental disabilities and disorders. The conditional use permit is requested for two adjacent lots on property located on the north side of Chapman Avenue, 200 feet east of Monterey Road, addressed 1305 and 1315 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303. Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 15 In addition to the Conditional Use Permit the Commission will also be considering an Administrative Adjustment request, which is part of the site plan design. This will be to permit a minor variation from dimensional requirements of the code regarding the back up area from the parking spaces. Staff has received one letter in opposition to this proposal. It was dated November 12, 1990 and it was from Marjorie Thompson, 149 Monterey Road. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Bill Thomas, 2005 East Palm, currently has a licensed board and care facility at 1305 East Chapman. He has 28 residents and it has been in operation for 10 years. It was a board and care home before he purchased it; it has been in the community for many years. He is requesting an increase for the three bedroom home next to it for six people. He has a very structured program. During the day the people are at their jobs or in socialization programs at the County. They would be moving next door for independent type living. There will be no changes in the building. Commissioner Scott commented on the trash enclosure. The plot plan shows redesigning the parking lot. He noticed the trash bin was at the north end (where parking is proposed to be) . With the redesign of the parking lot, an added condition should be recommended to provide a trash enclosure to City code. Mr. Thomas said the trash bin is usually under the ramp. According to the plot plan it should be beside the ramp. Commissioner Bosch was interested in the Title 22 standards for development standards. Mr. Thomas said licensing requires a maximum of two people per bedroom. As far as outside activities, there are no ratios. Licensing staff has already been to the facility, checked it over, and they are waiting for their approval. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott would like to add Condition 15 if the proposal were favorably acted upon: "Trash enclosure shall be constructed in accordance with the standard plans for the City of Orange and at the approved site by the Department of Public Works." Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 16 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1873-90 and Administrative Adjustment 90-25 subject to the 14 conditions listed in the staff report plus the additional condition 15 as previously stated. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1877-90 - MARIE DAVOODBHOY/GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH: A proposal to allow the operation of a preschool within existing church classrooms on property located on the north side of Taft Avenue, 400 feet west of Tustin Street, addressed 1515 East Taft Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303. Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a daycare/nursery school operation in existing classrooms. The buildings are presently used by a church for their Sunday School operations and are not used during the week. The proposal is to operate the school during weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The specifics of the proposal are to have a school with a maximum of 40 students. The applicant will initially start with 25 students from the ages of 2 1/2 to 5 years old. As the children age, they will expand the school to 40 students. The maximum age would then be 7 years old. The proposal is to use three of the classrooms; two of them are in the existing classroom buildings on the ground floor and one within the seminary building. The second floor of the existing classroom building will not be used as part of the proposal. Staff feels the site contains adequate parking for the proposed school. The code requires seven off-street parking spaces and there is space for up to 155 parking spaces. The proposal will not conflict with the existing church use of the site. Staff had a concern that the existing entry and exit driveways, which are too narrow for two way traffic, are not presently marked. The existing parking area is not stripped for parking. The proposal was to have parking and unloading and loading on both sides of the existing parking between residential uses and the church buildings. Staff has recommended as one of the conditions of approval that the unloading and loading only be on the parking spaces directly adjacent to the church building. Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 17 This was to reduce the factor of noise being created and disturbing the residences. Staff also recommends a condition be added requiring that a trash enclosure, which does not presently exist on the site, be added as part of the project. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Marie Davoodbhoy, 9502 Guinida Lane, Anaheim, proposes to start a daycare Montessori school at Grace Baptist Church. She does not believe the school will adversely affect the adjacent properties because there would be no major construction. She will be putting up a four foot fence to enclose the playground area and setting up playground equipment. She doesn't believe the children will contribute to the noise because they will be contained by a high wall and there is a 100 foot distance between the children and the residences. The Montessori program will not be a detriment to the public welfare, but will be a great service to the community. Public input Vera Mater, 1774 North Lincoln, addressed the traffic problem. People use their street as a short cut (Briardale to Lincoln to Taft). It's impossible for her to get in and out of her driveway. She has fought this problem for 15 years. Three cars have been hit in front of her house; she protects her house by parking her cars in front of it. One more car on their street is one car too many. The neighborhood cannot handle it. Tom Mason, 1723 North Lincoln, submitted a petition of property owners in the 1700 block North Lincoln. They opposed this proposal because of the noise and heavy traffic experienced on their street. Another large preschool establishment is located across the street from Grace Baptist Church. Judas Sumerda, 1722 North Lincoln, was concerned about the increased traffic from Tustin. People will use Lincoln as a short cut. Taft is a very busy street. Jerry Allen, 1907 Ridgewood, represented Grace Baptist Church and was in favor of the preschool. The church has voted on this in hopes that this will be approved. Their church is going through a process to increase their membership and they're looking for younger people to be around during the day so the people in the neighborhood can see that this church is alive and functioning. He doesn't feel there is going to be a problem with traffic. Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 18 Rebuttal Ms. Davoodbhoy will place entrance and exit signs and advise the parents to enter from one driveway and then exit the other with minimum disturbance. They will not be adding too many additional cars to the existing traffic. Commissioner Bosch was confused about the differentiation between the proposed Montessori school and the church. Is this proposal by the church to operate a preschool or is it a proposal to allow a lease hold, coming into manage the preschool for the church? What kind of operation is this? Ms. Davoodbhoy said she was a private individual. Since she is working with children she will try to help the people and do whatever she can to work with the church. She will be a tenant with a lease; it's an independent program. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bosch stated accurate documentation for the use permit is really essential for everyone involved to understand the full ramifications of the proposal and to assure that if the proposal were approved that the applicant can carry out physically their proposal on the site. The plan before the Commission is not drawn to any known scale, shows 91 parking spaces although around 155 are said to exist, and the sizes of the spaces and drives are not clear on the plan. There needs to be a way to cause applicants to give the City proper documentation. He was concerned about operation of the preschool at the church; we're seeing something that may develop into a more commercial type of enterprise and it may have a different impact on the neighborhood. It's a thin line between the similarity and uses -- there's still children; there's still a maximum number involved. Commissioner Scott believed the church required a Conditional Use Permit when it was built. They do not have any conditions from which to refer to. Mr. Carnes said the church was approved in 1964 under C.U.P. 261. There were no restrictions placed on the operation of a school on this site as part of that C.U.P. The accessory use would be like a Sunday School classroom, which is part of the church operation. Once the church begins to operate during the week and would operate a school, they would also need a C.U.P. for that or incorporate that in their original approval. What the applicant is doing is similar to what an existing church could do if they were operating the church themselves. Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 19 Ms. Wolff referred to the code section of the R-1 zone that specifies the type of conditional use permits that can be requested. There are two things that are pertinent: (1) day nurseries, day schools and preschools can be permitted as an incidental activity to the church; and (2) that schools can be permitted subject to a conditional use permit in the residential zone. Chairman Master commented on Item 21 of the staff report regarding the average daily traffic count. It only addresses Taft, Cambridge and Tustin and does not relate to Lincoln/Briardale. Commissioner Scott suggested to the opponents that addressed the traffic issue to submit a request to the Traffic Safety Committee and ask them to look into the traffic situation. The Committee has created diversions in other areas where they are using residential streets as a bypass. Chuck Glass, Traffic Engineer, said Commissioner Scott was suggesting a Neighborhood Preservation Study, which was done in the Southwest area of the City. The Neighborhood Preservation Study is still not complete and it was started six years ago. They are rather long and involved. Commissioner Bosch suggested if there were a motion for approval, that a condition be added or condition 3 be amended to require some traffic study to look at the access and egress into the property to see if there should be traffic controls in addition to the entry and exit drive signage indicated on #3. The Traffic Division shall review the driveway access and egress relative to Taft to identify whether further directional entrance and exit controls should be installed to limit movements on and off the site. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to approve Conditional Use Permit 1877-90 as amended by both Commissioners Bosch and Scott (trash enclosure location and amendment of Condition 3 - further traffic study) . AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Murphy, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED Ms. Wolff stated the decision of the Commission is final unless appealed. The appeal period is for 15 days. Applications are available in the Planning Department. Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 1990 - Page 20 IN RE :ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart Master, Murphy, Scott MOTION CARRIED sld