2013 - April 15APPROVED
Minutes
Planning Commission April 15, 2013
City of Orange Monday 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner
ABSENT: None
STAFF
PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Jennifer Le, Senior Planner
Doris Nguyen, Associate Planner
Robert Garcia, Associate Planner
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
REGULAR SESSION
Chair Steiner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
All Commissioners present.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
None
PLANNING MANAGER REPORT:
Planning Manager Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated a flier had been distributed to the
Commissioners regarding the Orange County American Planning Association award's
banquet. The City had submitted 2 projects for consideration and the organizers
recommended that the City of Orange had representation at the meeting. The City was
optimistic that they may have won an award. The first project was the Sante Fe Depot
Specific Plan Update and the second project was a Neighbors Helping Neighbors project.
Chair Steiner reviewed the appeal process.
Page 1
Consent Calendar:
(1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR SCHEDULED
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 1, 2013
Commissioner Buttress made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the April 1,
2013 Planning Commission meeting as written.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 2
CONTINUED HEARINGS:
(2) TITLE 17 (ZONING)AMENDMENT - TRANSITIONAL /SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING
Continued from Planning Commission meetings of February 4, 2013 and March 4, 2013.
An Ordinance amending Title 17 (Zoning) of the Orange Municipal Code to allow for
"transitional housing" and "supportive housing" in Single - Family Residential, Duplex
Residential, Multi- Family Residential, Old Towne Mixed Use, and Public Institution
zoning districts either as a "permitted" or "conditionally permitted" use, pursuant to State
law.
LOCATION: Citywide
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5 — Minor Alternations to
Land Use Limitations). This exemption applies to projects
involving minor alterations to land use limitations, which do not
result in changes in land use or density. The proposed Ordinance
Amendment falls under a Class 5 categorical exemption because it
involves a minor amendment to the Zoning Code that adds
definitions for transitional and supportive housing and establishes
land use regulations allowing those uses in zoning districts where
similar housing types are already allowed. Therefore, it does not
change land use or density. It also does not propose or require
physical changes to any specific property.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 06 -13 recommending that
the City Council approve an Ordinance amending Title 17
(Zoning) of the Orange Municipal Code to allow for "transitional
housing" and "supportive housing" in Single - Family Residential,
Duplex Residential, Multi - Family Residential, Old Towne Mixed
Use, and Public Institution zoning districts either as a "permitted"
or "conditionally permitted" use pursuant to State law, and to
assign parking standards for transitional and supportive housing
consistent with existing parking standards applicable to other
similar housing types.
Chair Steiner asked Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz as the item was previously
submitted and the Public Comment had been heard, would additional public comment be
heard on the continuation of the item?
Mr. Sheatz stated that Staff would present the item and then the item could be opened for
any additional Public Comments from any member of the public that wanted to speak.
Page 3
Staff would be introducing something that was requested at the direction of the Planning
Commission based on Public Comment and there may be additional comments which
could be taken after the item's presentation.
Senior Planner Jennifer Le presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Chair Steiner asked if Ms. Le could provide further information on the Public
Institution's area and the recommendations made by Staff.
Ms. Le stated Staff was recommending the allowance of transitional and supportive
housing as a permitted use in the Public Institution's zone ancillary to existing
institutions. The reason for the PI Zone approved uses were very specific and dealt
generally with City Hall and Government buildings and they specifically called out
churches and hospitals as permitted uses. The idea behind transitional housing associated
with those uses was the idea of piggybacking onto uses that were already allowed in that
zone with no expansion beyond that.
Chair Steiner opened the item to any questions for Staff.
Commissioner Cathcart stated on the parking issue, was the manner conditioned for 2 for
each person.
Ms. Le stated it was 1 space per client bed and 1 space per staff personnel.
Commissioner Cathcart asked if there would be any in lieu fees to cover additional
parking, as parking was a problem. Was Staff sticking to their guns that one parking
space per person was required?
Ms. Le stated that was Staff's recommendation and it was a conservative parking
standard and a minimum and similar to the boarding house standard. A site visit was
completed at Hope House on S. Lemon and that facility was parked at the same parking
standard and appeared to work well. That location was a transitional program where
100% of the residents had automobiles and the 1 space per bed standard appeared to be
working well. Staff had also set up the additional process for a facility such as Casa
Teresa to allow such a facility to apply for a lesser parking standard through the City's
Zoning Administrator.
Commissioner Buttress stated when she read through the Staff Report, she found it
interesting that the statement had been made that enclosed parking spaces were typically
used for other things, such as storage.
Ms. Le stated that was correct and they used those facilities for storage, for community
meetings, and generally for community storage.
Commissioner Buttress stated she had wanted to ensure that she understood that the
recommendation was not for enclosed garage parking.
Page 4
Ms. Le stated what the City had found was that when enclosed parking was required,
such as a garage, the garage was used for something else and the recommendation was
for unenclosed parking to be used for parking.
Commissioner Gladson stated the parking layout was a hierarchy for supportive or
transitional housing providers to comply with the zone that they would be going into first
and to attempt to meet the parking requirements; with those being either R -1, R -2 or
single family. If there was an exceptional circumstance for those facilities with group
quarters, an alternative parking standard could be sought.
Ms. Le stated that was correct.
Commissioner Gladson stated the Old Towne Mixed Use Zone, allowing a facility as a
permitted use for existing facilities, allowing the facilities to be conditionally approved
for new facilities. As the other part of the discussion, she wanted to understand what the
term expansion would mean to an existing facility. She would interpret that as an
allowance to add additional people.
Ms. Le stated that was correct.
Chair Steiner stated the previous presentation had been the issue for Casa Teresa and
what they had been most concerned about was if they would be able to expand. With the
resolution before them it would allow for expansion and there were 2 options that Staff
had provided for their consideration.
Ms. Le stated the two options were well outlined in the Staff Report and were subject to
the discretion of the Commission.
Chair Steiner asked for input from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Gladson stated she would want to hear public comment before she made a
recommendation.
Chair Steiner stated he had not received any request for public comment.
A member of the audience stepped forward to speak.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing to Public Comment.
Mark Murrel, address on file, stated he represented Casa Teresa and he thanked the
Planning Commission for sending the Ordinance back for revisions. The revised
ordinance was very helpful and accommodating to existing uses in the Old Towne Mixed
Use Zone. He was unprepared regarding the two options that were presented by Staff and
he had reviewed the Ordinance, which had all the components that would allow for
expansion with their new Chapman facility. The parking was obviously very difficult for
them to meet and without having a provision to apply for a different parking situation, it
Page 5
would be very difficult. The ratio for parking that had been presented was a very
stringent parking requirement for a transitional operation.
Chair Steiner asked if many of the residents at Casa Teresa would have a vehicle.
Mr. Murrel stated the only people that had vehicles were Staff members and once the
residents graduated into another version of their program, some of them might acquire
vehicles, but would be off site at work where a day time parking space would not be
required. The only place that would occur would be at Casa's main facility.
Chair Steiner stated what he understood in the revised effort would allow for a lot of
flexibility in applying of a lesser standard for parking and it appeared that parking was
something that could be worked through.
Mr. Murrel stated he appreciated that. On the two options referenced, he asked if those
were included in the Ordinance or where they outlined somewhere else.
Chair Steiner stated they needed to choose one and add it to the resolution, he asked Ms.
Le if that was correct?
Ms. Le stated Option 1 was already incorporated into the resolution, and in the copy that
was provided to the Commissioners. Attachment 2 in the Staff Report contained Option
2, which allowed for transitional and supportive housing with 7 or more persons with a
CUP in the Old Towne Mixed Use Zone. The Commission would need to adopt Option 1
or Option 2.
The Commissioners reviewed the information.
Mr. Murrel stated he would be in favor of Option 1, for the allowance of the expansion of
existing facilities in the Old Towne Mixed Use Zone as a permitted use as presented by
Staff in the Ordinance.
Commissioner Gladson asked if the concern in implementing Option 2, with a CUP
requirement, would be that Casa would need to return before the Planning Commission
and incur associated costs.
Mr. Murrel stated that was correct.
Chair Steiner brought the item back to the Commissioner for action or discussion.
Commissioner Gladson stated there were benefits to Option 2, but she understood the
wisdom in Option 1 for Casa Teresa, and she understood their needs. The reality as
Planning Commissioners was to look at the broader picture and beyond Casa Teresa's
immediate needs and to consider the needs of other transitional and supportive providers
that may want to locate to the City of Orange. It was not a question for areas outside of
Old Towne, but a question of whether the uses should be conditionally approved or
Page 6
permitted uses. Essentially if the recommendation was for permitted uses, it would allow
for only those uses that currently existed and maybe that was the direction they wanted to
move in. In that situation, it would preclude other providers from establishing their
business in the Old Towne Mixed Use Zones and she was not certain she would want to
go in that direction. The issue for her was not for the 6 or less residents, but it became
more of a challenge at 7 residents and beyond and there was value for oversight. Some of
the facilities were well managed and some were not and for the latter she would want
conditions on those uses and the only manner in which to ensure that would be through a
CUP. She could probably go with Option 1 as written in the Ordinance with further
discussion. She felt the parking solution was exceptional with a lot of flexibility.
Chair Steiner stated they were just speaking to existing transitional and supportive uses
and Casa Teresa had been a part of the community for a long time and was well
recognized and a very much appreciated service in the community. He felt comfortable
with Option 1.
Commissioner Buttress stated she agreed with Chair Steiner. Commissioner Gladson
also had a valid point regarding a new business coming in. She asked Staff if Option 1
would absolutely preclude someone else from coming in.
Ms. Le stated that was correct. The manner in which the Ordinance was written was that
it would apply to existing transitional and supportive housing and just those uses would
be recognized as permitted and allowed to expand. A new use would not be allowed in
the Old Towne Mixed Use Zone.
Commissioner Buttress asked if Option 1 precluded new uses only in the Old Towne
Mixed Use Zone.
Ms. Le stated that was correct and transitional or supportive uses could come into other
parts of the City with a CUP.
Chair Steiner stated would that be allowed as a duplex or single family residential.
Ms. Le stated that was correct.
Chair Steiner stated it had been State Law as of 2008.
Commissioner Cathcart stated he favored Option 1 and had not wanted to preclude other
uses from coming into Old Towne; however, with the parking situation and the parking
requirement, he had not felt anyone could move in and meet those requirements in the
Old Towne area. For those who lived and worked in the district and understood the
reality, there was no parking.
Commissioner Buttress stated with the clarification, she was more inclined to recommend
Option 1.
Page 7
Commissioner Buttress made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council, PC
Resolution No. 06 -13, approving Title 17 (Zoning) Amendment - Transitional /Supportive
Housing, with Option No. 1 as written in the resolution and subject to the conditions
contained in the Staff report and noting the items categorical exemption from CEQA.
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 8
NEW HEARINGS:
(3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2881 -12 — WORLD CHAMPION
KARATE
The applicant proposes martial arts and character building classes for children and adults
in a commercial center. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the school use and
shared parking agreement.
LOCATION: 1621 E. Walnut Avenue
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 —
Existing Facilities) because the project includes no
expansion of the existing building.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 16 -13 approving
the allowance of a martial arts and character education
school.
Associate Planner Doris Nguyen presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions for Staff. There were none.
Chair Steiner opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to address the
Commission.
Raymond Daniel, address on file, stated World Champion Karate had been in the City of
Orange for about 5 years on Chapman and Newport and they wanted to open a new
location. He had been in martial arts for many years and it was a way of life for him. He
was a Police Officer in the City of Long Beach for 7 years and he was very fortunate to
be able to understand the benefits of martial arts. He wanted to continue to grow his
business and there was plenty of parking at the site.
Chair Steiner asked Mr. Daniel if he was in agreement with the 9 Conditions of Approval
as well as the additional condition regarding parking.
Mr. Daniel stated yes.
Chair Steiner asked for any further public comment, there was none. Chair Steiner closed
the hearing to public comment and brought the item back to the Commission for further
discussion or action.
Page 9
Assistant City Attorney Gary Sheatz stated before they got to far down the road, it was
the first that he had seen the added condition regarding parking and he was not thrilled
with the components of the condition. He was not quite certain what the intent was as it
related to the applicant before them. As he read through it, he was troubled that if there
was a change to the strip mall or in the shopping center, the condition could require the
applicant before them to come back and make a change. He could not understand how
that responsibility could be held to the applicant.
If the application before them and their entitlements were approved and the business was
up and operating and through no fault of theirs the landlord or someone else rented a
space out and the use had a more intense parking situation, he would not be comfortable
to have the applicant before them come back in and pay for the process to amend the
parking situation. If he had a better idea of what the attempt in parking was, they might
be able to come up with some different language that would address the situation. As it
stood currently before them, he would discourage the Planning Commission from
adopting the added condition.
Commissioner Buttress stated she understood the situation at the center as three property
owners who agreed to share the parking. What Staff was attempting to do was to
formalize a parking agreement. She agreed with Mr. Sheatz that the applicant before
them would have sole responsibility for any future parking amendments. What if it was
the Apple One business that had changes to their business, why should the responsibility
fall to World Champion Karate?
Commissioner Gladson stated she had raised the question to Staff as she reviewed the
packet and had correspondence with Ms. Nguyen. The Staff Report referenced a shared
parking agreement with the three different parcels and she raised the question of placing a
binding agreement or the adoption to memorialize a parking situation beyond the CUP.
The CUP would be binding, but she had questioned if there should be an additional
requirement to bind the 3 parcels together. That was what she had been seeking and
Staff had made the attempt to resolve the situation. There were probably other ways to
do that with other language and she had questioned if there was something additional
needed and maybe that was not the case.
Chair Steiner asked Ms. Nguyen if she would respond to Mr. Sheatz concerns.
Ms. Nguyen stated the condition that was added was a standard condition that they were
able to choose to place on a project. The 3 parcels had one owner and historically since
1960, it had been that way. A shared parking situation had existed at the site without any
formal documentation. Each building was developed at different times, but there had
always been a shared situation at the site. The parcel on Walnut was quite overparked,
but in looking at the center as a whole, if they were to look only at the one parcel and
ignore the other business's parking needs, the Walnut location would be short parking
and it would not be fair. She was suggesting that with the addition of the shared parking
agreement to formalize, the City recognize that all properties shared the parking.
Another way to formalize the situation would be through a deed restriction on all three
Page
10
properties so that if any one of the buildings was sold independently, there would be
documentation on the title report that all three parcels shared parking. The Commission
had the discretion to implement a deed restriction rather than the added condition.
Mr. Sheatz stated Planning Staff was very well aware of his feelings on standard
conditions. He preferred the latter suggestion of a deed restriction. It would be
appropriate with the situation of 3 separate parcels and one common owner that made
sense. He had not recalled reviewing the standard condition that was being submitted
before them, he might have, but he had not recalled it and it seemed that it would not
work in the situation before them. Standard conditions were not a one size fits all
situation. He had an issue with that. He would recommend that a deed restriction be
placed in the application to tie the properties together.
Chair Steiner asked if that would need to be included in the resolution.
Ms. Nguyen stated as part of a motion, the Commission could request that a deed
restriction be added to all three properties with language being added. When Chair
Steiner had it before him for signature, he could review it at that time.
Chair Steiner asked the applicant if he was in agreement with their discussion.
Mr. Daniel stated yes.
Commissioner Gladson stated she thought the proposed project was smashing and she
supported recommending approval.
Commissioner Gladson made a motion to adopt PC Resolution 16 -13, CUP No. 2881 -12,
World Champion Karate, with the draft resolution condition to add a deed restriction, and
subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report, noting the item was categorically
exempt from CEQA.
SECOND: Commissioner Buttress
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page
11
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2883 -12 — GAME DAY FIRE
GRILLED HOT DOGS
The applicant is requesting an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 41 (On -Sale
Beer and Wine — Eating Place) License to have on -site consumption of beer and wine for
patrons of the establishment.
LOCATION: 3009 E. Chapman Avenue
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class
1 — Existing Facilities) because the project consists of the
operation and licensing of an existing private structure.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 18 -13 allowing an
ABC Type 41 license.
Associate Planner Robert Garcia presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff?
Commissioner Gladson stated with the facility having a drive -thru, it was her
understanding that no alcoholic beverages could be sold at the drive -thru.
Mr. Garcia stated that was correct, alcohol was only available with indoor dining.
Chair Steiner opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the
Commission.
Steven Dagampat, address on file, stated the restaurant was a fast casual restaurant and
family- oriented with a sports theme. There was a drive -thru and they were seeking a
license to sell beer and wine, the beer would be on tap and served in pint glasses and not
sold at the drive -thru. He had been in business for 18 months at that location with his
partner and he sold gourmet hot dogs and hamburgers. He also had a pizzeria in
Oceanside that had a Type 41 license and he had been in operation for 5 years without
any issues or ABC infractions.
Chair Steiner stated there were a lot of Conditions of Approval placed on the application
and he asked Mr. Dagampat if he was in agreement with the conditions.
Mr. Dagampat stated yes he was in agreement.
Page
12
Chair Steiner closed the hearing to public comment and brought the item back to the
Commission for further discussion or action.
Commissioner Buttress made a motion to adopt PC Resolution No. 18 -13, approving
CUP No. 2883 -12 -Game Day Fire Grilled Hot Dogs, subject to the conditions contained
in the Staff Report and noting that the item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
SECOND: Commissioner Cathcart
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Page
13
(5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2893 -13 — COMMON GROUND
INTERFAITH SPIRITUAL CENTER
The applicant proposes to open a church and host workshop classes at an existing office
complex. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the church use, classes, and shared
parking.
LOCATION: 1926 W. Orangewood, Suite 102
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 —
Existing Facilities) because the project includes no
expansion of the existing building.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 17 -13 approving
the allowance of a church with classes and a shared parking
agreement.
Associate Planner Doris Nguyen presented a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Steiner opened the item for any questions to Staff. There were none. Chair Steiner
stated he had received written correspondence from a Mr. Bradford who objected to the
shared parking situation. He invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Judy DePrete, address on file, stated she was a co- founder of the center and they were
seeking relocation to Orange.
Chair Steiner asked where they were moving from.
Ms. DePrete stated they were moving from Tustin where they had been located for 9
years. She was available for questions.
Chair Steiner opened the hearing for public comment.
Dot T., no address listed, stated her home backed up to the office buildings and she
signed a disclosure when she bought her home that she was aware she backed up to
Orangewood. Her concern was for the parking situation and she had not wanted her
privacy invaded with people practically in her backyard and she was against the
application.
Shahram, address on file, stated he was the architect and had completed the drawings for
the proposed project. There was no change to the footprint; just some opening up of doors
to the outside. The parking situation would be for the use after regular business hours
Page
14
and on the weekends. There were no parking problems at the current location and he had
not anticipated any problems. The proposal was just for a change of use and nothing else.
L. Anvar, address on file, stated she was the broker for the property. She had spoken
with all of the current building tenants and they were all for the project. All the tenants
had different hours and hardly anyone worked on the weekends; there might be a few
executives that came on the weekend. The landlords welcomed the project. The problem
they had was when there was an Angel's game they had people trying to park in their lot.
They were glad the church would be there to stop others from coming in. She was asking
for an approval to allow the use.
Chair Steiner asked if there was adequate parking at the site.
Ms. Anvar stated there were open spaces during the week as people worked all different
hours. Some from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., some from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and on the
weekends, the only people she had seen were the executive suite people and that was only
about 2 or 3 and having the church there on the weekend was also a security and safety
issue for them.
Chair Steiner asked if she was aware that the property owner had objected to the shared
parking agreement.
Ms. Anvar stated the owner of the subject site was La Linda LLC and they owned 3 of
the buildings and had not objected to it at all. The property owner Chair Steiner referred
to was the business behind them and those parking spaces were not used by their tenants.
That business was closed on the weekend.
Chair Steiner asked if there was intent to use parking at 1820 W. Orangewood.
Ms. Anvar stated when the church would occupy the space on the weekend, there was
adequate parking at their site. There was ample parking. The building at 1820 W.
Orangewood was an office building and not occupied on the weekend.
Chair Steiner asked if there would be any spill over to that parking lot.
Ms. Anvar stated there might be, but that lot was already receiving spill over from the
Angel's stadium patrons and was the property complaining about that situation and had
that business owner wanted to close off the lot?
Chair Steiner stated the correspondence only addressed the proposed subject site.
Commissioner Gladson stated the addresses at 1820 and 1940 W. Orangewood were also
referenced in the letter; there were 4 addresses.
Ms. Anvar stated 1926 was where the church would be and the assembly room had been
warehouse space. Prior to that, there had been a construction company that had occupied
Page
15
the space with engineers and forklifts and many other things that created more noise and
congestion than the proposed use before them.
Commissioner Buttress stated it was to the east of the property and not behind.
Ms. Anvar stated that was correct.
Commissioner Gladson asked if all the buildings were owned by separate people.
Ms. Anvar stated 1926, 1914 and 1940 were all owned by La Linda LLC., 1820 to the
east was owned by another property owner and he had submitted the letter in
disagreement of the parking. That person who submitted the letter was friends with the
prior business owner of the construction company who had engineers, forklifts and they
had placed their trucks into the warehouse.
Commissioner Gladson stated that property owner to the east was concerned that his
parking lot would be utilized by the use before them.
Ms. Anvar stated in the agreement they would be placing signs for church parking and
would not be using the adjacent lot.
Commissioner Buttress stated she now had a better understanding of the business
locations.
Commissioner Gladson stated the space that the proposed business would be using was
large and were there plans for further growth and had the business owners understood
that they would be limited by the parking allowance?
Ms. Anvar stated they had an understanding of that and if they wanted to expand they
would need to find a larger space.
Chair Steiner stated there would be classes held during the week as well. There was a lot
of parking available 122 spaces.
The Commissioners reviewed the site map.
Chair Steiner closed the hearing to public comment and brought the item back to the
Commission for further discussion or action.
Commissioner Gladson stated on Condition No. 2 regarding noise, if there had been an
objection from a resident she asked Staff how they would ensure there would be some
controls in place for noise.
Ms. Nguyen stated the Condition read that any noise, music or instruments shall not be
audible at the exterior of the building, whether the doors and windows were open or
closed. She had written such a tight restriction because on their website there was
Page
16
information about chanting and drum circles that were being proposed at the new site.
The drum circles were not currently occurring; however, it was advertised on their
website as a new service that would be in place in the coming weeks. As part of the
alcohol licenses and entertainment, the language was pulled from those conditions. If
there was live entertainment that music would not be audible outside of the building
when the doors were open and that was where the condition was pulled from. She could
change the condition that the music or noise would not be audible at the parcel line. The
other concern was that if there were other tenants there during the week, they would not
be disturbed.
Commissioner Gladson asked if Ms. Nguyen had any sense of how far away the doors
and window were from the adjacent residential properties? That would be a factor if they
would want to modify the conditions.
Chair Steiner stated the applicant was aware of all the Conditions of Approval and had
not presented any opposition to those conditions, and he asked the applicant if they would
be able to operate under the conditions as presented?
Ms. DePrete stated yes.
Commissioner Gladson stated with the conditions in place, it would be very quiet outside
of the building.
Commissioner Buttress stated there were two rows of parking spaces between the
building and the driveway area.
Ms. Nguyen stated a two lane drive aisle was required to be 25'.
Commissioner Gladson stated she would be inclined to request that doors and windows
remain closed.
Chair Steiner asked Ms. Nguyen if she could review the parking situation.
Ms. Nguyen stated as an office use, the business would require 35 parking spaces;
however, as a church use, due to the assembly situation of a church, they were using an
assembly situation of non -fixed seats and that was the highest amount; in using that with
the office space, the requirement was for 98 parking spaces and an increase of 63 spaces
above the office use. There were in total 122 parking spaces and if the suites were
closed on a normal basis at 6:00 p.m., the business before them would host classes at 7:00
p.m. which would allow for vacating of the day parking users and adequate space for
those attending classes. The weekend parking situation would allow for the use of 122
parking spaces. If there were other tenants there during the evening or weekends, there
would be adequate space for all of them.
Page
17
Commissioner Buttress made a motion to adopt PC Resolution No. 17 -13, CUP No.
2893 -13- Common Ground Interfaith Spiritual Center, subject to the conditions contained
in the Staff Report and noting the item was categorically exempt from CEQA.
Chair Steiner stated the proposal before them was for a CUP and the City had the
authority to have the applicant return for modifications to that CUP if there were any
problems.
SECOND: Commissioner Cathcart
AYES:
Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
MOTION CARRIED
Page
18
(6) ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Buttress made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled
meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, May 6, 2013.
SECOND: Commissioner Gladson
AYES: Commissioners Buttress, Cathcart, Gladson, and Steiner
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION CARRIED
Meeting Adjourned @ 8:05 p.m.
Page
19