2005 - May 16
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
May 16, 2005
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Enderby, Pruett, Imboden
None
STAFF
PRESENT:
Rick Otto, Acting Planning Manager
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Jerre Wegner, Recording Secretary
INRE:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
INRE:
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.
INRE:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(1) THERE WERE NO MINUTES FOR REVIEW AT THIS MEETING.
(2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) NO. 3982-05 - GREELEY
RESIDENCE
A proposal to develop a new 377 sq. ft. first floor addition, on the rear of a 1,060 sq. ft.,
single-story, contributing 1914 Craftsman Bungalow. The proposal includes expanding
the existing detached garage by 168 sq. ft., to permit parking for two cars. The site is
located at 513 E. Washington Street.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15303 (Class 3 - New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 21-05 approving Design
Review Committee No. 3982-05.
This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar as Commissioner Imboden had
questions for both City Staff and the Applicant.
(I) It was his understanding this project included a storage space over the new addition,
yet he didn't see that processed as a second story so he asked what exactly is the legal
definition of a second story and how does that play into this project?
(2) Regarding the upgrading of the original portion of this house (returning it to back to
it's original condition under the Mills Act agreement) he asked for clarification on
when they could expect to see that happen.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2005
Senior Planner Dan Ryan responded as follows:
(I) When there is a space within the attic area and the applicant wants to use that
particular space, as long as it does not exceed 60% of the floor area below it, it is
considered one story. If it goes beyond that it is considered a story and a half. The
applicants are basically just using the attic space as storage as they specified on the
plans.
(2) It was his understanding that the applicant wanted an extended amount of time (2-3
years) to remove the stucco and stone veneer at the base of the building, one elevation
at a time. They have incorporated that into their Mill's Act contract for a revision
that they propose to do and they'll have to provide a firm date for the contract.
Commissioner Imboden then asked if hypothetically the property owner could sell the
subject property within a couple years (prior to the work being done) and there would be
no obligation for the new owner to carry out the work that was agreed upon by the
previous owner. Planner Ryan responded, "no, the Mills Act contract is obligated
towards anyone who purchases the property to complete the repairs as stated by the
original owner. They are required to do that work." Commissioner Pruett asked if there
is a failure to fulfill the terms of the contract what are the consequences? Planner Ryan
responded, "there is a very stiff penalty --- 12.5% penalty against the total valuation of
the property." Commissioner Pruett interjected "and that is if they do not meet the hard
date?" Planner Ryan responded affirmatively.
Public input was provided as follows:
Janet Crenshaw, OTPA indicated they were pleased the DRC had insisted the addition be
constructed out of siding to match the one remaining original wall of this historical home.
She thanked the owner for agreeing to put in wood windows, change the porch overhang
to be more in line with historic architecture, and making the whole roof line more
symmetrical. Ms. Crenshaw acknowledged some windows would be replaced with wood
double hung ones, that the stucco would be removed on the other three sides of the house
to reveal the original siding and commented on being disappointed that the plan is for a
slab floor on grade, instead of a raised foundation of the original structure. Ms.
Crenshaw concluded by stating, "this is an issue that we have consistently commented on
at the DRC level and wish to stress again here."
Commissioner Pruett commented that he understood Ms. Crenshaw's point and added
that when additions are done they are not going to match exactly; however, with the
siding that is put on the exterior (except on the one side which he did not catch until it
was brought up) when you look at the one elevation it is not that obvious it is a slab floor.
Recognizing that the project is categorically CEQA exempt Commissioner Pruett made a
motion to Adopt Resolution No. PC 21-05 approving Design Review Committee No.
3982-05.
Page 2 of 18 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16,2005
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioners Bonina, Enderby, Pruett
Commissioner Imboden
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
INRE:
CONTINUED HEARINGS:
None.
(3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2511-04 - CREEKSIDE CHRISTIAN
SCHOOL
A proposal to expand the current private school use of a developed property from 75
students to 150 students in grades K-8, by utilizing the existing classrooms and grounds
maintained by a church (First Christian Church of Orange). The project was previously
considered at the Planning Commission meeting of August 16, 2004, where it was
continued to a date uncertain in order to have traffic and noise studies prepared to
ascertain concerns raised as the potential environmental impacts. The site is located at
1130 E. Walnut Avenue.
NOTE: Negative Declaration No. 1748-05 was prepared to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed project in accordance with the provisions of
CEQA.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. PC 22-05, adopting Negative
Declaration No. 1748-05 and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2511-04.
A project overview was provided by Contract Planner Anne Fox during which she
advised:
. The project was continued from its initial public hearing after the residential
community that abuts the property raised several areas of concern.
. Focus studies have been prepared to address issues related to noise and traffic that the
proposal might have. Todd Brody is the noise consultant, and Daniel McPherson is the
traffic consultant. Both gentlemen were present at the meeting.
. Staff used the full analysis along with the conclusions and recommendations of the
consultants in development of the initial study for the project. While these specialized
studies found that the project would have less than significant impacts in the areas of
noise and traffic, Staff determined that there was a potential for impacts as they relate to
land-use conflicts. As such, Staff determined that mitigation measures should be
included in any such conditions, should the Commission consider approving the project.
. The measures address the conflicts that arise from privacy issues, operational
constraints related from the use, nuisances created from outdoors activities and traffic
related impacts to the surrounding neighborhood that are potentially inconvenient.
. The initial study was circulated for public comment, for a period of 20 days.
. At the close of the comment period on May II, the City had received three pieces of
Page 3 of 18 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16,2005
correspondence to this mitigated negative declaration. Staff has responded to the
comments, and those were provided to the Commission as a supplemental report.
. Generally, there appears to be a continued disagreement over the findings in the noise
study. Specifically, there is a feeling that the mitigation measures that Staff has included
do not adequately address the neighborhoods concerns. Staff would disagree, and bases
this determination on the requirement that CEQA requires a rough proportionality, which
is a direct relationship between impacts and the mitigation measures that might be
imposed on a project.
. The findings required in considering a Conditional Use Permit as well as a thorough
analysis of each of them were provided in the Staff Report.
Planner Fox itemized the findings required and commented that Staff believes the
findings can be made. In addition, several conditions were included, specifically:
. Limitations have been placed on the before-school care and supervision to be
consistent with that of the public elementary school, which is next door. A traffic
management plan is required to be submitted and reviewed by the City's Traffic
Engineer, and includes addressing those mitigation measures that were identified.
. The secondary vehicular access to Sycamore is going to be restricted to church services
use only, which is consistent with how it currently operates.
. Staffrecommended that the perimeter wall that encloses the church property on the east
and south side be improved to current standards and be the maximum height allowed by
the city code. (The area of the wall location was highlighted on an exhibit hanging on the
wall in the chambers.)
. The private school limit its special event activities and that those be coordinated.
. Staff recommended approval of the requested proposal to increase the enrollment at the
private school to 150.
. A few pieces of correspondence including a third party review (contracted by one of
the residents) in regards to the noise study that was prepared by the City's consultant was
received after the Staff Report was prepared. Generally, this analysis disagreed with the
City's noise consultants methodology; however, Planner Fox pointed out, their consultant
did agree that the mitigation measures that were identified and placed on the project were
good and sufficient, particularly as it pertained to the landscape buffering and the wall.
. The City's consultant prepared a response to the third party review for the
Commission's consideration.
George Bragg, Chairman of the Board of Trustees for Creekside Christian school, retired
business executive, and also a member of the board of elders of Creekside Christian
Fellowship introduced himself, provided some background information about the
formation of the church and discussed the student population and the intent to consolidate
campuses. On behalf of the school board Mr. Bragg thanked the Planning Department
for attempting to balance the needs of their neighbors while at the same time providing a
workable program for the school. Mr. Bragg stated the estimated costs for completion of
all items requested may be as high as $100,000 dollars. Further, Mr. Bragg stated the
First Christian Church would accept the recommendations; however, they will require
ninety (90) days from the date the approval is granted to fix all the issues.
Page 4 of 18 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2005
Mr. Bragg stated that during the recent public meeting of the Planning Department he had
heard a question regarding the value of Creekside Christian School to the City of Orange.
The thrust of the question was what does the City of Orange get out of approving the
Conditional Use Permit? Mr. Bragg responded to the question commenting that:
. Creekside Christian School provides an outstanding academic and spiritually based
education for its students.
. Parents of approximately two-thirds of their students live in and/or work in the City of
Orange and most of the remaining students live in the nearby cities that immediately
adjoin the City of Orange.
. Over $1 million dollars per year in educational expenses and taxes will be saved, and
with 2/3 of their students being from the City of Orange that represents $650,000. per
year saved teaching students in Orange.
In conclusion, Mr. Bragg apologized for any inconveniences that result from the
behaviors of children and offered assurances Creekside Christian School will do
everything they can to work with their neighbors and with the City of Orange to make
sure the guidelines that were set by the Planning Department are in fact followed out.
Public input was provided as follows:
Rick Cavecche. address on file stated he was not opposed to the school being there at all
and he was glad to see that the school is being utilized; however, he stated there is an
impact to the neighborhood by increasing the number of students from 75 to 150. Mr.
Cavecche stated there are a number of residents in the neighborhood that are home during
the day and he asked that the impacts, both privacy and noise, be addressed via landscape
or the sound wall going forward.
Rev. Nina Merkle, address on file stated she is personally a resident of Old Towne and
was in attendance along with several members of their leadership to offer unqualified
support for the Staff recommendation that the Commission approve the subject
Conditional Use Permit request. Rev. Merkle indicated they had reviewed the Staff
Report, the summaries of the technical studies and the Staff analysis, and they concurred
with the conditions of approval.
Rev. Merkle indicated that shortly after the August 16, 2004 Planning Commission
meeting they reviewed their schedule of operations and their tenants compliance with the
rental agreements and made immediate modifications. In addition, they established a
process for communicating with the neighbors going forward and correcting any
operational issues that may arise. In conclusion, Rev. Merkle urged approval of the
application.
Kurt Greenwav, address on file stated he resides approximately 100 yards away from the
First Christian Church and he wanted to comment on the conditions of approval,
specifically:
Page 5 of 18 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16,2005
(I) "Condition #5 (where it states the use of play areas such as lunch tables and blacktop
space is limited by the use of the private school to 55 students at anyone time during the
instructional period) implies Creekside is planning to be using their smaller playground
concurrently with their larger playground for the first recess, which will result in more
than 55 students outside at one time. Despite accepting the mitigating measures, the
plans submitted by Creekside appear to be in conflict with the City's Conditional Use
Permit mitigations. Furthermore, Condition No. 5 should explicitly include the same
limitations of 55 students before school and for after school childcare." Mr. Greenway
asked why they weren't limited to 55 students and if children play quieter during the non-
instructional hours? The phrase "instructional hours", he believed should be changed to
"operational hours" as his opinion was the after-school care and the after-school sports
programs are the loudest part of the day.
(2) Condition #8 allows Creekside children to play in the area as early as 7:00 a.m. This
is a huge expansion of the time on the playground since the school opens at 8:30 a.m.
They will now be listening to playground noise each morning and he did not see where
this is addressed. He stated this expanded use of the play area would be disruptive and
unnecessary and that children should not be allowed to play until 8:10 a.m., 20 minutes
prior to their 8:30 start time.
(3) Poor lighting in the parking lot is a safety issue. Mr. Greenway referred to Page 4 of
the project description in the Staff Report, "the school has special event activities such as
open house, back-to-school night, performances, and fund-raisers that may occur during
evening hours when parents are available to attend." Mr. Greenway stated First
Christian's parking lot is dimly lit; doesn't have effective lighting for the bulk of the
spaces (refer to the neighborhood report Pages 22-25); the playground is dimly lit at one
end and becomes dark at the southeast end. Mr. Greenway pointed out that despite this
issue, children at Creekside play on it just the same.
Laurie Cornforth, address on file stated on Page 3 of the August 16th, 2004 Planning
Commission Agenda it states that the applicant is proposing to use ten (10) classrooms,
the multi-purpose room, an office of the church's Sunday school facilities, and existing
playground facilities. It did not include a grassy area adjacent to the chapel, or the grass
area just south of the sanctuary; yet this is an area where children have played from time
to time and there has been loud extended cheerleading practice. Further, Chris Carnes
confirmed to her in August, that the application did not include that grassy area and other
buildings to the south. She has called the school on a couple of occasions and the
students have left the area; however, they have returned and she doesn't think she should
ever have to call.
Secondly, Ms. Cornforth commented on the 1975 Conditional Use Permit that limited the
school to seventy-five (75) despite the fact that one hundred (100) were requested and
questioned why one hundred and fifty (150) would be accepted now?
Ms. Cornforth stated she and her husband have been looking forward to retirement in a
Page 6 of 18 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2005
year and when they're not traveling they don't think they should have to deal with
playground noise and be driven from their home.
Ted Cornforth, address on file stated:
. He lives in one of the three houses along the eastern perimeter of the church property.
. He was unaware a CUP was granted to the First Christian Church in June 1960.
. The Conditional Use Permit states that a 5 ft. solid block wall shall be installed on the
east side of the property; however, along his property and the Cavecche's much of the
wall is 3-1/2 foot and is significantly broken down to ground zero.
. There are times when they have seen children pop through the wall and are on his
property, which presents a privacy and security issue. The school should assure the
safety of their own students.
Mr. Cornforth questioned why after nearly fifty (50) years the church has not complied
with the requirement to build the 5 ft. block wall; why Creekside Church ofIrvine
doesn't have their school next to their church as others do (examples were cited); and
why the Planning Commission representing the City of Orange seems to be working so
hard for an entity from Irvine.
Commissioner Pruett asked Mr. Cornforth if the front of his home is on the other side of
the right-a-way facing the church, and his yard is on the east side. Mr. Cornforth
responded affirmatively.
Mrs. Gisela Gary, address on file stated she is opposed to granting the Conditional Use
Permit with the current recommendation of landscaping as a permanent mitigation.
Mrs. Gary stated that their personal experience with this landlord, First Christian Church,
is that they will not maintain their landscaping. Mrs. Gary cited an example of bushes
growing out of control and onto their roof. When a Code Enforcement Officer told them
the bushes were diseased and represented a fire hazard they were removed at the expense
of Mrs. Gary.
Mrs. Gary commented on the removal of the block wall that separated her property from
the Church and suggested a 10 ft. solid block wall would eliminate issues in the future
with landscape maintenance.
In conclusion, Mrs. Gary stated it is not Creekside they have a problem with, it is
Creekside's landlord, First Christian Church who will reap the benefits of the Conditional
Use Permit long after Creekside is gone.
Jim Gary, address on file stated he also opposed granting the Conditional Use Permit
under the current recommendations and mitigations based on the past non-compliance of
the existing Conditional Use Permit as well as the First Christian Church's neglect of
their facility, which is unsafe, and their historical disregard for the surrounding
community.
Page 7 of 18 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16,2005
Mr. Gary stated the original Conditional Use Permit of 1960 has never been complied
with and the City has never enforced it. Further, he stated they felt that if this
Conditional Use Permit is approved, specific detailed language should be written into it
for conditions and use so it can be enforced prior to the increased use. Mr. Gary spoke of
his frustrations with the First Christian Church on the use of the facility and stressed the
issue was not with Creekside Christian School.
Mr. Gary stated there is no basis to Joanna Vogel's argument that if the Conditional Use
Permit is refused it is based on discrimination against religious assembly as on the
contrary, he supports religious based schools. He reiterated points made by Mr.
Cornforth and Mr. Greenway that he felt the facility was unsafe; it was never intended for
permanent school use and stated if they were to upgrade the facility for that purpose and
meet the surrounding community's needs, then he personally would have no problem
with Creekside or any religious school operating at this church.
Tom Turnbaugh, address on file stated he is a night worker so he sleeps during the day.
The Cambridge School has never bothered him because of the distance and openness of
the schoolyard; however, his experience isn't the same with Creekside because Creekside
is a closed area and all sounds reflect offtheir school buildings.
Mr. Turnbaugh stated he wanted to address the unsafe condition of trees on the
playground. An arborist has considered the trees diseased and recommended they be cut
down within a reasonable amount of time. Mr. Turnbaugh stated the trees are hanging
over his yard and one in particular (a photo of this one was provided) will take out an
Edison pole or a telephone pole, if it is not removed soon.
Another concern expressed by Mr. Turnbaugh was the PE changing facilities. He stated
he works at a company that provides clothing for employees and there are laws that
require adequate changing facilities since changing in restrooms is not sanitary. He
added he didn't know if this law applied to schools; however he wanted the parents of the
Creekside students to be aware of this requirement so they could appropriately address it
with the school.
Diane Turnbaugh, address on file stated she has lived at her current residence for 28 years
and contrary to the opinions and perceptions of some she is not anti-children, anti-church,
nor anti-religion; however, she is no less inclined to try to preserve the privacy, peace,
and comfort of her home simply because the other property is owned or operated by a
religious institution.
Ms. Turnbaugh stated she opposes the approval of this Conditional Use Permit for the
following reasons:
(I) She works from home and her experience has been the noise level has increased over
the last year despite what the noise report states. She is concerned that doubling the
number of students will only make things worse.
Page 8 of 18 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2005
(2) There is very little privacy since the students can look over her wall. She is unable to
use and enjoy her backyard because ofthe noise and privacy issues.
Ms. Turnbaugh agreed with the statement made by Ms. Cornforth regarding the
appropriateness of denying a permit for 100 students in the original Conditional Use
Permit and now approving it for 150 students.
Ms. Turnbaugh stated that in documents from the City it repeatedly states that a
Conditional Use Permit shall not be granted if it will cause deterioration of bordering
land uses or create special problems for the area in which it is located. Her opinion was
granting this Conditional Use Permit would create special problems for the area.
Phyllis Wilson, address on file stated she is a grandmother and admires the faculty for the
education they give the children. Ms. Wilson pointed out that the kindergarten, first, and
second grades are at this facility and her grandson is devastated that he is separated from
the other classes. Further, Ms. Wilson commented they have to transport the students
back and forth and for safety reasons it would be better if they were all on the same
campus.
Mike Worcester, address on file stated he resides on the east side of the church and he
wanted to address the findings in the Staff Report with respect to noise and privacy. The
noise report states that the predicted noise generated by doubling the number of children
at Creekside School should be considered insignificant with no impact to the neighbors.
He was astonished at this result, as he has personally experienced how loud it is on the
playground when the children are present. He therefore had the report analyzed by
Gordon Bricken and Associates, Acoustical and Energy Engineers. They explained to
him the reason the sound was considered insignificant with no impact, was that the noise
study averaged 2 hours of Creekside children noise with 22 hours of Creekside non-
children noise, thus guaranteeing that the noise impact would be insignificant. He quoted
from the report, "it appears that the Creekside Christian School noise study applied the
3DBA change threshold only to the CNEL so that no impact could be demonstrated."
Without this averaging, the real situation is that the noise level would be almost 6 times
the residential limit and 20 times the neighborhood ambient. Mr. Worcester stated this is
why the neighbors are so upset and complaining about noise, because it is real and they
hear it every single day.
Mr. Worcester stated privacy is another concern that has not been adequately addressed.
He said their private yards are constantly in plain view of the children and easily
accessible with little effort. His opinion was that the recommended landscaping
mitigation is neither immediate nor permanent and will require long-term maintenance
from the neighbors.
In conclusion, Mr. Worcester stated if the Commission approves this Conditional Use
Permit without immediate and permanent mitigation, the Commission is basically telling
the neighbors:
Page 9 of 18 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2005
(I) Their rights are less important than the demands of a commercial enterprise.
(2) They have no rights to noise limits in their homes; that they should not consider 5
hours of noise at 6 times the residential limit as a problem.
(3) They have no rights to privacy, and that doubling the number of children that have
visual access with little effort to physically access the private yards of the residents is not
a problem because they are going to plant some bushes.
(4) Be patient this CUP is being granted immediately; however, the neighbors privacy
issues should follow in a few years, we hope, if the bushes live.
(5) It is okay for a school to force its way into an established neighborhood and demand
an intensified and increased use of the facility without any consideration for the
neighbors because it costs too much money to be considerate.
Mr. Worcester urged the Commission not to approve this application without immediate
and permanent mitigations for noise and privacy, which could only be addressed with a
10 ft. wall along the property line.
Cynthia Worcester, address on file stated:
· One Creekside board member summed it up in a letter written to the Commission
stating "it is sad to see so many children going to school in industrial parks."
· All that Creekside stands to lose by not having the CUP approved is they will have to
conduct their school at another location. They will continue to exist regardless of what is
decided by the Commission at this meeting.
· The decision made by the Commission can forever put an end to the home life of the
neighboring residents.
· The voices of 75 additional children cannot be mitigated by landscaping. The families
of the local residents will suffer due to the noise and lack of privacy that will last from
breakfast through dinner.
· Creekside students come into their fenced yards to receive balls;landscaping and a
promised (but not yet realized) 6' wall will not keep them out. The liability and onus to
keep them out rests on the residents; therefore, if the Commission will not require the
church to build a wall higher than 6', a variance to build a 10' wall to be built at the
homeowners expense was requested. The expense of the wall is not insignificant but
neither is the noise.
· No City Planner recommending the approval has ever visited any neighbor to witness
the impact of the school on the adjacent homes. The reports and recommendations do not
reflect the reality of the situation.
· They do not feel the City has established a fair balance between the residents and the
applicants.
· The City of Orange is sending a message of not supporting residents of its community.
· The standards of Creekside would not be allowed at a public school. This is not a
temporary state of disrepair but one of years of delayed maintenance. It needs to be
brought up to safe standards for children prior to granting an additional CUP.
. The way in which the noise study was conducted is impractical.
Charles Tripi, address on file thanked the Commission for listening to all the
Page 10 of 18 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2005
representatives and stated further:
· He has lived directly behind the church for the last ten years and it has been a
nightmare.
· The problems with kids throwing things over the fence, looking into the yards and
creating noise is causing three of the residents to entertain selling their homes.
. At his expense he added 3 feet to the wall to prevent things from coming into his yard
yet trash continues to be thrown into his pool.
. Something has to be done - a sound wall possibly would help.
Steven DeSilva, address on file lives across the street from the church and stated his
biggest concern is the additional traffic that will be brought to the neighborhood. Safety
of the children is a major concern. Further, he stated that the noise is a factor.
Linda Livingston, address on file stated she is part of Creekside and she thinks Creekside
would be an asset to the community, not a significant negative impact.
Darrell Williams. address on file stated he is a credentialed teacher although he doesn't
live nearby Creekside. His son attends Creekside and often mentions he would prefer to
have stayed at the other campus. He added that Creekside meets a different need than a
lot of other Christian schools in the area. They are a developmental education facility.
He doesn't think there will be any traffic impact and he rarely hears after school noise
when he picks up his son. For these reasons he wants to support the CUP of Creekside.
Richard Vogel. address on file stated he hadn't planned on speaking but after hearing all
the rhetoric he felt compelled to address it. He is a parent and on the school board at
Creekside. He doesn't understand what the complaints mentioned have to do with the
school being located there. Schools, parks and churches belong in the community. He
wrote the letter referenced by Ms. Worcester. This is a charitable operation on the part of
the church and no one is turning a big profit with the school. The school and teachers at
this school are extraordinary. There has been hatred and threatening actions directed to
the children by the neighbors.
Lavin Cuddihee, address on file stated his house is adjacent to First Christian with
approximately 70' of his home and back yard facing the school. He has lived there 13-14
years and is well aware of the increase of noise level over the years. He has tried to deal
with the church to bring down the noise level. No one ever gives any guarantee there will
not be an intrusion in his privacy. He does not support the CUP.
Antonia Monzon, address on file stated she lives across the street from the church and she
cannot hear any activity due to where she lives but she is affected by traffic. She
expressed surprise with the results ofthe traffic study as there will be a very big impact
on the neighboring residents.
As several speakers spoke of the noise study, Commissioner Imboden asked Staff for a
brief synopsis of how the noise study process works.
Page 11 of 18 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2005
Todd Brody, Synectecology, address on file provided an overview stating the use of the
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for averaging the school noise is often done
in many communities where the CNEL is the standard included in the general plan.
Basically, the sources of noise that are exempt from local regulation are not exempt from
CEQA. CEQA defines the ambient noise as the all-encompassing noise; therefore when
an average is taken over 24 hours it is considered as the all-encompassing noise.
Another way of analyzing it is on an hour per hour basis. How this would be done was
explained which correlated to the copy of the study provided by Mr. Worcester and
analyzed by Gordon Bricken.
Commissioner Pruett asked Mr. Brody if in his professional opinion there was an impact.
Mr. Brody responded, "the impact is less than significant". Commissioner Pruett asked
where the noise measurements were taken. Mr. Brody responded they measured at the
back side of the road on the east side. They were approximately 27'-40' from the
property line and the homes were approximately 50'-60' behind them. Commissioner
Pruett asked for clarification that from the location where the measurements were taken
(which is a distance from the property itself to the property line) there is dissipation and
then from the property line to the residences there is further dissipation. Mr. Brody
responded that was a correct statement.
The applicant was asked to comment on the maintenance level of the facility and in
operating the school if there are any State licensing requirements the school must abide
by that deal with the maintenance. The applicant responded the Fire Marshall does an
annual inspection and if there is something that must be done it's taken care of.
Commissioner Pruett asked for clarification as to whose responsibility it is to ensure the
facility is operated in accordance with the regulations. The applicant responded it is the
church's responsibility as the school leases the facility from the church.
Commissioner Imboden asked for further discussion from the property owner in regard to
maintenance as many of the instances cited by the public and contained in a report
provided to the commission related to safety issues. Reverend Merkle deferred the
response to Joe Parring. Commissioner Pruett interjected that many of the pictures were
taken before Creekside began to operate as a school. Mr. Parring stated:
. He is a member of the church leadership and has been involved with this project since
. He has specific responsibility for capital improvements.
· It is a very large campus but if you look at the campus as a whole, he believes there is
an adequate level of maintenance.
· There are still some areas that need to be painted; however, they are doing the best they
can.
· They are trying to achieve a higher level of maintenance that occurs when they have
full occupancy ofthe campus.
. Many of the issues seen in the photographs have already been resolved.
· The wall is perceived to be a good thing for the campus and the neighborhood and it
fits within the long term capital improvement plan.
· They have already spent approximately $600K (not counting the funds that were
Page 12 of 18 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 2005
expended as part of Creekside coming to the campus).
. Building a new wall and installing the privacy landscaping are the church's
responsibility and are accepted as such.
. The intent is to demolish the existing wall and build a new one 6' from the high side of
the property line.
Chair Bonina asked how long it would take the plant material to mature to the point it
would be effective in providing privacy and how would it be maintained? Mr. Parring
responded it would not have any impact on the noise, only privacy so their desire is to
plant something that will grow quickly so it does the job in the short term versus the long
term. Further Mr. Parring added they have a full time maintenance staff member that
would be responsible for taking care of the plant material.
Chair Bonina asked how they would monitor the number of students on the playground at
one time. Mary Poole, Principal respondeQ that the recess times would be staggered and
there would be adequate staffing to supervise the activities. Commissioner Pruett asked
for clarification of the start/end times. Ms. Poole responded their official start time is 8
a.m. and she reviewed the start times for the surrounding schools. She explained that the
staggered start times were designed to alleviate a traffic flow issue. Commissioner Pruett
stated he would be discussing with Staff an adjustment to the start/end times to be
coordinated with other schools in the area
Commissioner Enderby asked how many students attend the early morning daycare? Ms.
Poole responded that they average 3 to 7 students in the early morning session and the
afternoon population ranges from 8 to 23 students. Commissioner Enderby asked if it
creates a problem to keep the children inside until 7:45 a.m. Ms. Poole responded, "no,
they stay in the Multi-Purpose Room."
Chair Bonina asked if they have Staff that greets the students as they arrive. Ms. Poole
responded, "yes, they have a number of Staff on a rotating schedule that are in the car
drop off/pick up location."
Chair Bonina asked if the project was approved what actions could adjoining neighbors
take to increase the height of the wall if they were so compelled. Ms. Fox responded if
it's built on a shared property line consent by both parties must occur and it must not be
in excess of the City's maximum height without obtaining a variance. Alice Angus,
Community Development Director provided further clarity on provisions for adding on to
the block wall and the acceptable materials.
Commissioner Pruett asked Staff to review for the public the City enforcement policy as
it relates to Conditional Use Permits. Acting Planning Manager Rick Otto responded it is
basically complaint based monitoring so if a neighbor observes non-compliance to a
Conditional Use Permit they would address their complaint to the Community
Development Staff. Community Development Staff would then be responsible to ensure
the issue was appropriately addressed.
Page 13 of18 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16,2005
Commissioner Pruett asked Staff to respond to the public question about why the original
Conditional Use Permit that was for a capacity of 100 was only approved for a capacity
of75? Ms. Fox responded "there isn't a great deal of historical information available as
to the reasons for the decisions made at that time and it would be difficult to speculate on
any of the public concerns presented. The conditions imposed today are intended to
capture potential operational issues for the short and long term."
Commissioner Pruett asked Staff if it would be better to include some verbiage that
provides greater flexibility in terms of time i.e. a statement that says it is to be
coordinated with the adjoining elementary school so as to minimize peek hour traffic.
Ms. Fox responded that they were looking at a 30 minute offset. Commissioner Pruett
stated he thought that was a good idea and asked Ms. Fox to look at Condition #7 and
propose some language specific to the 30 minute offset.
Commissioner Enderby asked Staff to correct Condition #8 to read the start time is 7:45
a.m.
Chair Bonina asked in the event there are after hour activities if there is language that
provides a time limit. Ms. Fox responded there is not an operating condition that
provides a limitation; however, it is within the commission's purview to impose one.
Condition #13 could be modified if it was an exterior activity.
Commissioner Pruett summarized stating that the findings in the noise study submitted by
the neighbors are basically in agreement with the City's noise study and the appropriate
mitigation measures are being proposed. Commissioner Pruett also cautioned that a
request for increasing the height of the fence would have to be taken in context of the
request, how it would appear and what it would mitigate. He didn't want the property
owners to think, or the church to believe, that all they have to do is come in with a
Conditional Use Permit request or a variance and it is going to be approved. The final
mitigation measure recapped was the traffic management plan.
In closing Commissioner Pruett stated it was pointed out to him that 90% of the
photographs provided in the report he referenced were taken on 4-29-05 and if that is the
case the school is going to have to address the maintenance issues to meet requirements
ofthe State.
Commissioner Enderby concurred with the comments made by Commissioner Pruett and
stated further he thought there was some due diligence required on the part of the City to
ensure enforcement of a policy as it relates to after hour activities.
Commissioner Imboden agreed with most of the comments made by the other
Commissioners, reiterated to Creekside the need to address the safety issues brought
forward and their responsibility to live up to the requirements being placed on them in the
Conditional Use Permit.
Page 14 of 18 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16,2005
Chair Bonina stated that this is a far better project because of the participation of the
neighboring residents adding that he hoped the church, the tenants and Creekside would
continue addressing any issues in a highly professional manner.
Ms. Fox summarized the revisions to the Conditions as follows:
(I) Condition #8 will change from 7:00 a.m. to 7:45 a.m.
(2) Condition #13 (after the first sentence) will have the addition that special events held
on the playground areas, should conclude by 8:00 p.m. and/or move to the interior of
the buildings.
(3) Regarding Condition #7: since this was identified as a mitigation measure, if the
Planning Commission is going to take an action to modify this mitigation measure to
read differently, a statement needs to be made on the record that modification to
Section 2 of the Approval Resolution is just as effective as the originally suggested
mitigation measure and in the end has the same effect in mitigating the concern for
traffic. For the proposal, Condition #7 would be stricken as it is almost impossible to
insert.
The new mitigation and condition would read: "Normal daily start and dismissal
times for the private school (regular school day hours of instructions) shall be offset
one half-hour in comparison with the adjacent public elementary school."
Mr. Otto added there was one other comment that was made and it was relative to
Condition #11, maintenance of plant materials. It would impose a requirement ofthe
property owner to replace any plant material that dies.
Commissioner Pruett made a motion to Adopt Resolution No. PC 22-05, adopting
Negative Declaration No. 1748-05 and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 25 11-04.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Enderby
Commissioners Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
Acting Planning Manager Rick Otto, read the appeal procedure as stated on the last page
ofthe Agenda.
Page 15 of 18 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16,2005
INRE:
NEW BUSINESS:
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2510-04 - DR. JAY A. MILLER (NEW
BEGINNINGS CHURCH)
A proposal to establish an approximately 1,000 square foot church within a 22,150 square
foot industrial complex upon property located on the west side of Glassell Street,
approximately 150 feet south of Taft Avenue. The site is located at 1650 North Glassell
Street, Unit 'D')
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions ofthe California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1-
Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Environmental: Find Conditional Use Permit No. 2510-04 categorically exempt from
the requirements ofthe California Environmental Quality Act.
Project: Adopt Resolution No. PC 20-05 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2510-
04.
Acting Planning Manager, Rick Otto provided a project overview during which he
advised:
. The applicant was operating the church without a Conditional Use Permit.
. In May 2004, the initial application for the CUP was submitted and over the past year
details related to the requirements have been worked out.
Chair Bonina asked, "the application is for a Conditional Use Permit to operate the
facility in this light industrial zone as a church?" Mr. Otto responded affirmatively.
Donald Larkin stated he was affiliated with the church and would answer any questions.
Commissioner Pruett stated he had no problems with the project and recognizing it was
categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA made a motion to Adopt
Resolution PC 20-05 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 25 I 0-04.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
(5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2527-05 - ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
(KNOWLEDGE POINTS)
A proposal to establish an after-school tutoring center (for kindergarten through 12th
Page 16 of 18 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16,2005
grade) within a 2,078 sq. ft. tenant space in The Brickyard Retail Center. The applicant is
proposing to tutor a maximum of 12 students per hour.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provIsIOns of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I -
Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Environmental: Find Conditional Use Permit No. 2527-05 categorically exempt from
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Project: Adopt Resolution No. PC 19-05 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2527-
05.
Acting Planning Manager, Rick Otto provided a project overview consistent with the
Staff Report.
John Meredith advised he and his wife had purchased a franchise, which was actually
started by the same gentleman that started Sylvan. Mr. Meredith described the program
as follows: It is very similar to Sylvan, where a student comes in and they do extensive
diagnostic testing to determine where the child's weakness is. At that point a lesson plan
(out of 20,000 lessons that they have) is described, to specifically target the deficiencies
that the child has in his/her learning. Then they describe a quick way to get the student up
to speed at his/her grade level. Should they want to continue in an enrichment program
they can do that too. The goal is to get the student in and out of the program as quickly
as possible, so that they basically achieve better in school.
Commissioner Pruett asked if their parents brought in most of the students. Mr. Meredith
responded, "Yes, they would all be brought by their parent or guardian. It would be very
rare that they would ride a bike or anything."
Commissioner Pruett asked, "Is this going to be below the Arthur Murray Studio, or is it
going to replace the Arthur Murray Studio?" Mr. Meredith responded it is below it; it is
not going to replace it.
Commissioner Imboden asked if it is designed for grades, what grades? Mr. Meredith
responded, "Well actually the program covers Kindergarten through 12th grade, but
primarily the students are Grades 3 through 8. That is going to be the bulk of our
students. Usually, learning deficiencies are found somewhere around third, fourth and
fifth grade."
Commissioner Imboden asked how many staff members they will have? Mr. Meredith
responded they would have a credentialed teacher that serves as a Manager that will
oversee the facility; they will also have tutors (primarily they look for credentialed
teachers to do the tutoring).
Commissioner Imboden asked Mr. Meredith to elaborate on the layout. Mr. Meredith
Page 17 of 18 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16,2005
responded there is only room for four tutoring desks. The desks are like a half circle, an
arc shape, where in the center the tutor sits and there is room for three students. Basically
when you do the layout, you are using up about 10 feet by 6 feet and the way it is set up
there is only room for four. That's a standard layout for the franchise.
Commissioner Imboden asked if it was primarily a computerized instructional format.
Mr. Meredith responded, "Oh no, it's not computerized; the only thing that is
computerized is the diagnostic testing. Everything else is hands-on with the teacher."
Commissioner Pruett posed a question to Staff related to the proximity of the liquor
stores asking if there were any requirements with that or any issues related to the
proximity of the liquor store being there? Mr. Otto deferred the response to Alice Angus,
Community Development Director. Ms. Angus stated there are no conditions, or
licensing requirements she was aware of in terms of the proximity of a tutoring facility to
a liquor store. She elaborated that on a going forward basis, if another alcohol-related
use came in, they would look at kind of the converse of that, of the proximity to a
sensitive land use--- churches, schools, and daycare, would be looked at as sensitive land
use. Ms. Angus stated she didn't know if they had ever picked up tutoring facilities or if
State Code looked at those as sensitive land uses. She stated she would have to get back
to the Commission on that one. Further, she didn't know that this establishment being
there would in any way affect future alcohol-related uses from going into the Center.
Commissioner Pruett asked for clarification of what would be done if the Commission
took an action and then found there was a State requirement. Ms. Angus responded the
State action would supersede the City's action.
Recognizing this project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA
Commissioner Enderby made a motion to Adopt Resolution PC No. 19-05 approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 2527-05.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Imboden
Commissioners Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
Commissioner Pruett made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting on Monday,
June 6, 2005.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioners Bonina, Enderby, Imboden, Pruett
None
None
None
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 10:05 p.m.
Page 18 of 18 Pages