2003 - March 17
MINUTES
APPROVED
Planning Commission
City of Orange
March 17,2003
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
INRE:
INRE:
(1)
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
Jim Reichert, Acting Planning Manager/Secretary
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer
Khanh A. Le, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2442-03, AND MAJOR SITE PLAN
REVIEW 269-03 - PACIFIC MEDICAL BUILDINGS, LLC
A request to construct two medical office buildings totaling 217,000 sq. f1. and a
1,074 space parking structure on property that is presently vacant and the shared
use of parking between two properties. The site is located at 1000 West La Veta
Avenue.
NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1714-03 has been prepared for this
project in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution No. PC 15-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2442-
03 and Major Site Plan Review 269-03.
Chair Pruett addressed the applicant's request for a continuance.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero and seconded by Vice Chair Smith to continue the agenda item
to the April 7, 2003 meeting.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
INRE:
(2)
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
CONSENT CALENDAR:
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR l)'IEETING OF
MARCH 3, 2003. I
APPROVED
Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 2003
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Bonina, and seconded by Vice Chair Smith approve the Minutes from
the March 3,2003 meeting with the corrections noted.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Smith
Commissioner Romero
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
INRE:
CONTINUED HEARINGS: - none
INRE:
NEW HEARINGS
(3)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2417-02, AND ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUSTMENT 03-4 - THE ELI HOME, INC.
A request to expand an existing shelter for abused women and their children.
Specifically, the proposal is to allow additional development of a .42 acre lot by
constructing a 2-story Craftsman Style building comprised of 2 apartment units
(a combined total of 3,938 sq. ft.), a 2-story addition to the existing 2,047 sq. ft.
residence (a combined total of3,819 sq. ft.), and a 5-car 1,102 sq. ft. garage with
a 724 sq. ft. studio apartment above, and demolishing a 256 sq. ft. storage unit
along the north side of the property. The site is located at 655 South Glassell
Street.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15332 (In-Fill Development).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution No. PC 12-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2417-
02 and Administrative Adjustment 03-4.
Staff Member Chavez-Marquez presented the project as outlined in the staff report.
Questions and comments for Mr. Chavez-Marquez from the commissioners included:
. Commissioner Romero:
1) Asked about the maximum number of people the facility can accommodate. Mr. Chavez-
Marquez could not identify a specific number, but indicated the maximum number would
be regulated by provisions in the Uniform Housing Code related to the size of the
bedrooms.
2) Asked if the Eli Home has another location in the city. Mr. Chavez-Marquez replied that
there is and the applicant can give more details.
3) Commented that the statement Mr. Chavez-Marquez made about the building having an
Orange Street setback of twenty (20) feet like the neighboring buildings was inaccurate
because he visited the site and measured it.
4) Asked for an explanation of the logic behind the city staffs acceptance of the Orange
Street set back. Mr. Chavez-Marquez replied that, for purposes of reviewing the project
in relation to development standards, staff concluded the front of the property is along
Glassell Street and the rear of the property is along Orange Street. As such, the front
yard setback requirement is twenty (20) feet along Glassell Street, and the rear yard
setback along Orange Street is ten (10) feet. The applicant, however, designed the
2
APPROVED
Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 2003
setback of the building facing Orange Street to be as close to twenty feet as possible in
order to maintain the existing streetscape pattern.
. Vice Chair Smith:
1) Asked about the Floor Area Ratio of the project. Mr. Chavez-Marquez replied that it is
52%, listed in site plan.
2) Asked about the setback of the different units on the property. Mr. Chavez-Marquez
replied that the buildings' fronts face Glassell and the backs face Orange Street. The face
of the garage/studio is set back twenty (20) feet from Orange Street and the faux porch is
set back fourteen (14) feet.
3) Asked what the two (2) story addition to the existing residence will be used for. Mr.
Chavez-Marquez replied that the bottom portion will be used as a playroom area, the top
portion will be used as counseling offices, the existing garage will be converted into a
laundry area, and the area above the garage will be used as a media library.
. Chair Pruett:
1) Wanted to verify that Orange is the rear of the lot and Glassell is the front of the lot. Mr.
Chavez-Marquez confirmed that is correct and also further explained the setback details
of the buildings.
. Commissioner Romero:
1) Asked what the security for the site would entail, Mr. Chavez-Marquez replied that the
applicant is proposing a six (6) foot block wall along the park portion of the site.
Chair Pruett asked the applicant to address the commissioners.
Ms. Lorri Galloway (270 S. Solomon Dr., Anaheim, business address 301 E. Grove Ave.,
Orange) explained the services of the Eli Home for the past twenty (20) years. She summarized
the proposal and explained why there is a need for the Eli Home and then introduced Ms.
Kimberly Tulleners to explain the operation of the program.
Ms. Kimberly Tulleners (31402 Isle Vista, Laguna Niguel, work address is 301 E. Grove Ave.,
Orange) explained the operations of the Eli Home. The program is a forty-five (45) day cycle,
transitional housing program for abused women and their children. She also explained the
screening process, the requirements of the participants, and the rules and regulations of the
program.
Commissioner Brandman asked Ms. Tulleners to re-explain the overall program operation, which
she did; and Commissioner Brandman also asked if the program has taken into consideration the
unwanted or uninvited visitors to the home (i.e. the abusive husbands or significant others). Ms.
Tollerners explained that the home does have a security system. But aside from that, she has
never had a perpetrator come to the home; they would only visit secure places, like school,
grocery stores, etc.
Vice Chair Smith's comments and questions for the applicants:
. Asked about the discrepancy between the mission statement--which states that the
home's goal is to assist abused children and their families, and the staff report states that
a woman can come to the shelter without her children. Ms. Tulleners explained that,
many times, the children have been removed from the mother's custody until she can
provide safe shelter; therefore, she may be allowed to enter into the Eli Home, and then
be given the child back into her custody.
3
APPROVED
Planning Commission Minutes March 17,2003
. Asked what happens when there is spousal abuse, but no child abuse. Ms. Tulleners
replied that they only take in cases with documented abuse; and in California, when there
is spousal abuse, the state assumes that is a form of child abuse, or at least there is child
neglect, which will allow for entrance into the home.
. Asked about the maximum number of people who may be living in the facility at anyone
time and expressed concern for this matter. Ms. Tulleners stated that the home operates
under HUD guidelines, which states that there may be three (3) people per bedroom. She
assured the commission that the goal is not to fill beds, but to provide the best care for the
people there, trying to keep it at a manageable number.
. Asked whether the role of the caretaker will be spelled out and if there will be a staff
member, involved in the program, present at all times. Ms. Tulleners replied that there
would be caseworkers present; the caretaker is on site for property maintenance purposes.
. Asked who is taking care of the landscaping. Ms. Tulleners replied that the staff and a
gardener take care of the landscaping.
. Indicated she concurs with her fellow commissioners concerning the sentiment that the
maintenance of the property has not been well taken care of.
Commissioner Romero's comments and questions for the applicants:
. Asked how many bedrooms will there be after all the renovation is complete. Ms.
Tulleners replied that there would be a total of nine (9) bedrooms and a studio above the
parking garage.
. Stated that he was not happy with the maintenance of the property and asked what the
home's plans are for future maintenance. Mr. Richard Chavez (1235 E. Lincoln,
Anaheim) replied that the home had a volunteer who was taking care of the gardening
and they have been having some problems in the last couple of months.
. Asked what the occupancy ofthis home was compared to other Eli Home facilities. Mr.
Chavez replied that the families tend to be smaller because they do not accept families
with children older than twelve (12) years old; it tends to be one family per bedroom,
although there are some variations to that because of the different family sizes. He
presented the commissioners with a packet of information containing their public
relations attempts and letters of support.
. Asked if there will be two (2) full time counselors on staff and how that affects parking.
Mr. Tulleners replied that there will be two (2) case managers, but their schedule will be
varied based on the residents' schedule, and therefore will not adversely affect parking on
site
. Asked if there will be visitation days or scheduled visits. Ms. Tulleners replied that
visitation is very limited, but there will be visits from social workers.
Commissioner Bonina's comments and questions for the applicants:
. Asked how the funding for the shelter is handled. Mr. Chavez replied that they are
receiving a three (3) year grant; and historically, they have been successful at receiving
long term funding.
. Asked for clarification of the lot coverage. Mr. Todd Bently (1200 N. Jefferson #A,
Anaheim), project's architect, gave details of the lot coverage.
. Asked Mr. Bently to walk through the site plan, which he did.
. Asked how the trash is handled. Mr. Bently replied that it is handled just as a regular
residence. Commissioner Bonina questioned whether the size of the facility will
necessitate a trash dumpster.
. Asked Mr. Bently to explain the architectural style of the Orange St. fa<;:ade of the
buildings; which he did.
Chair Pruett invited members of the public to speak.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
March 17, 2003
PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDED (In Alphabetical Order):
Jeff Banner (604 S. Orange St.);
Julie Banner (604 S. Orange St.);
Janet Crenshaw (464 N. Shaffer);
Chris Lopez (629 Yz S. Orange St.);
Laree Lopez (629 Yz S. Orange St.);
Dan Slater (278 Pine St.);
Lorrie Stastny (649 S. Orange St.);
Michael Stastny (649 S. Orange St.);
Ann Subert (340 S. Olive).
COMMENTS INCLUDED:
. This is a good program, but the project is not appropriate for the neighborhood.
. Questions whether this project is truly categorically exempt from CEQA.
. The applicants have not been good neighbors and have not kept their promises made from the
last permit requested in 2001.
. Parking and traffic is an issue.
. Eli Home is an institutional use that this neighborhood cannot support.
. The drawings are not drawn to scale.
. Questions how schools, emergency care, parking, and other issues will be affected by this
project.
. The home will add to the trash problem in the neighborhood.
. Ask what happens if the property gets sold in the future and gets turned into an apartment
complex.
. Concerned that a portion ofthe project will be used for a thrift store.
Chair Pruett asked the applicant to address the issues brought forward by the public.
Mr. Chavez responded:
1) He re-explained the exhibit showing people's homes who support and oppose the project,
including the home of the gentleman who stated he was opposed to the project but was
wrongly noted as such.
2) He stated that the Watson's children sold the building to the Eli Home and are in support
of the project.
3) He explained that the property cannot to be sold, as stipulated in the grant requirement.
4) He explained the maintenance situation, including the presence of dirt mounds and
playground.
5) He stated that the property has never been vacant, as claimed by one of the public
speakers.
6) He assured that the home does not have a plan for a thrift store, as claimed by one of the
public speakers.
The commissioners had more questions for the applicant.
Commissioner Romero:
. Asked that since there doesn't seem to be any storage area, would the garage become
storage area. Mr. Chavez replied there are storage areas provided.
. Asked what the traffic generation estimate will be. Staff Member Hohnbaum replied that
the estimate will be eight trips per unit, or twenty-four trips per day; adding that it's hard
5
APPROVED
Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 2003
to fit the guidelines into this project because of the fact that there will be approximately
one family per bedroom, making it three families per unit, not one family per unit like
other residences.
. Asked staff to verify whether this project is exempt from CEQA. Mr. Chavez-Marquez
replied that it is and explained why.
Commissioner Bonina:
. Asked if there were any plans for expanding the property during the initial CUP request.
Mr. Chavez replied that they did not have any plans to expand at that time.
. Asked if the funding will be allowed to use for other location, or is it only for this
property. Mr. Chavez replied that it is only for this property.
Vice Chair Smith:
. Asked how many people will be living in this building. Based on discussion from the
applicant and the commissioners, the conclusion is that there could possibly be up to
forty-eight (48) people, although Mr. Chavez assured that it would not be feasible to care
for forty-eight (48) people and the home would not want to accommodate that many
people.
. Asked why there is a full bathroom near the library area. Mr. Galloway replied that it
was added due to architectural reasons.
Chair Pruett:
. Commented that the way the bathroom door is located, it can easily be construed that the
area could be used as a closet or storage area for a bedroom, not as a media library as the
applicant claims.
. Asked when it is required that a multi unit property have a large trash receptacle. Mr.
Hohnbaum replied that since the units share a kitchen, the trash volume should be
relatively low, so the trash would still be treated as a single residence.
. Asked what the proximity of the block wall is to the driveway. Mr. Chavez-Marquez and
the commissioners discussed this matter in detail.
Commissioner Brandman:
. Asked if the applicant can scale down the design with this grant? Mr. Galloway replied
that the studio and garage parking was added based on the Design Review Committee's
recommendation, so it can be omitted because it was not part of the applicant's original
plan.
Vice Chair Smith:
. Asked about the number of parking spaces required, whether they have to be covered,
and what the required ratio is. Mr. Chavez-Marquez replied that the number of parking
spaces is related to the number of bedrooms; he gave the different ratio requirements and
the calculation resulted in ten (10) spaces needed. He also added that there has to be one
(1) covered space for every unit; therefore, four (4) covered spaces are needed.
. Expressed her opinion that the faux porch on the caretaker's unit is not a good
representation of a front main entrance.
. Asked if the commission is allowed to limit the number of residences on the property.
Mr. Sheatz replied that he is unsure. Mr. Chavez-Marquez replied that the number is
limited by the housing code.
Chair Pruett closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the commissioners.
Comments from the commissioners included:
6
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
March 17, 2003
. Commissioner Brandman indicated she is very sympathetic to the mission of Eli Home,
and believes it is a wonderful program. She stated she is not in favor of the project as
proposed, however, because it is too much development for the neighborhood. She also
feels trash receptacles would be a problem and suggests the applicants go back to the
neighbors and work to gain their support.
. Chair Smith concurred that she supports the mission and intention of Eli Home, but does
not feel comfortable with supporting the project because of the parking issue, the
massiveness of the plans, the awkwardness of the side addition to the existing house, and
the faux porch On the parking/studio structure.
. Commissioner Romero stated he is not in favor due to the density of the project, the fact
that it does not fit into the neighborhood, the setbacks, the faux porch, and unanswered
questions related to parking and traffic impacts
. Commissioner Bonina indicated he feels the use is good and right for the neighborhood
and that, although he was not On the Commission at the time of the original approval, the
Commission made the right decision to allow this type of use in the neighborhood. He
does feel, however, that access to the property off of Orange Street is a problem. He
suggested that the applicant reduce the number of units and determine the correct
calculations for the number of parking spaces required and vehicular trip generation..
. Chair Pruett expressed concerns with the elevation of the garage and the intensity of the
proj ect.
The Commissioners commented on their support for the Eli Home as a very worthwhile program,
and On the possibility that the applicant would agree to a continuance in order to revise the project
to address the issues discussed this evening.
MOTION
Moved by Vice-Chair Smith and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to reopen the public
hearing to ask whether the applicant would like to continue the public hearing in order to revise
the plans to address COncerns discussed earlier.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Pruett asked if the applicant would like to continue the hearing. Mr. Chavez replied that
they did not have time, given tight deadlines related to their grant application.
MOTION
Moved by Chair Pruett, and seconded by Commissioner Romero to deny Conditional Use Permit
2417-02, and Administrative Adjustment 03-4.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Vice Chair Smith wanted to express disappointment that the applicant did not agree to a
continuance. The other commissioners concurred with Vice Chair Smith's sentiment.
7
APPROVED
Planning Commission Minutes
March 17, 2003
(4)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2437-03 - TOP OF CHINA BUFFET (XIA
YING YANG)
A request for an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine
for Bona Fide Public Eating Place) license in conjunction with a bona fide
restaurant and make the finding of public convenience or necessity. The site is
located at 512 East Katella Avenue.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15301 (Existing Facilities).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution No. PC 11-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2437-
03.
Chair Pruett asked if there were any persons in the audience opposed to this project. Since there
were none, a full reading of the staff report was waived.
Staff Member Chavez-Marquez presented a brief synopsis of the staff report.
Mr. John Petza (4126 Vonna Ave., Anaheim) stated that he represents the client, who wants to
add beer and wine to complement the meal menu. He added that they are willing to comply with
all the conditions set forth in the staff report, as long as they receive verification on all the details
of the requirements. Mr. Petza asked for clarification on two issues: resolution number fourteen
(14) addressing coin-operated games, whether it applies to gumball machines. Staff Member
Chavez-Marquez explained that the condition only pertains to video games and such, not gumball
machines. Mr. Petza also asked about condition number sixteen (16) addressing employee
training, inquiring whether it is a standard requirement by the city. Mr. Chavez-Marquez again
verified that it is a standard requirement of the city.
Vice Chair Smith expressed concern for condition number four (4), proposing to modify the
language to read, "Sales and service of alcohol shall not to start before 11 :00 am and shall cease
at least one hour before closing."
Chair Pruett asked if there were any members of the public who wanted to speak. Since there
were none, the public hearing was closed.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Brandman to approve Conditional
Use Permit 2437-03 with the following condition:
1) Modify condition number four (4) to read, "Sales and services of alcohol shall not start
before 11 :00 am and shall cease at least one hour before closing."
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
8
APPROVED
Planning Commission Minutes
March 17, 2003
(5)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2441-03 - SO. CAL COLLECTIBLES
(CHARLES GERST)
A request to allow the retail sale of automobiles in conjunction with the operation
of an auto restoration and repair facility. The site is located at 327 West Collins
Avenue.
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15332 (In-Fill Development).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt resolution No. PC 13-03 approving Conditional Use Permit 2441-
03.
Staff Member Chris Carnes presented a brief synopsis of the staff report.
Mr. Jack McGee, representing the applicant, added that car sales will take place indoors and that
the business is not a used car lot, it is only for collectible and classic automobiles. He indicated
that many items are offered over the Internet.
Commissioner Bonina asked if the restoration activity would affect the display area. Mr. McGee
replied that it would not. The business only handles light repairs and no painting is done onsite.
Commissioner Romero asked where the cars would be located. Mr. McGee replied that all the
cars will be displayed inside.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Romero, seconded by Commissioner Bonina to approve Conditional
Use Permit 2441-03 as submitted.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
INRE:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Bonina, seconded by Vice Chair Smith to adjourn to the next regular
Planning Commission meeting April 7, 2003.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Brandman, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 10: 15 pm March 17, 2003.
9