Staff memorandum dated April 18, 2001, was presented pertaining to six-month review of a Conditional Use Permit allowing dancing as part of the operation of a reception hall on property located at 140 West Wilshire Avenue (south side of Wilshire Avenue, approximately 500 feet west of Harbor Boulevard) (C-3 zone) (Categorically exempt per Section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines).
Program Planner Linnell reported that a Conditional Use Permit had been granted in September, 2000, allowing dancing as part of a reception hall use. Several events have been held since that time, and no serious complaints have been generated. At this six-month review hearing, Mr. Barnum was requesting modification of two conditions of approval: (1) lifting the 12:00 p.m. curfew for all events which include dancing; and (2) allowing loading and unloading of equipment in the alley, as opposed to Wilshire Avenue. Program Planner Linnell reminded the Commission they would not be able to act on these requests at this meeting, but at a later date during an advertised public hearing.
Commissioner Sandoval asked if a there would be a fee involved for the applicant if another hearing was held to modify the conditions, and Program Planner Linnell answered affirmatively.
Public hearing opened.
James Barnum, 1661 East Chapman Avenue, reiterated that there have been no problems with this operation in the past six months. Further, he would like to change the location for loading and unloading of equipment for safety reasons. Because the stage is on the north side of the building, there is a problem with artists entering and exiting through the same door as the public, and asked that he be allowed to unload from Wilshire Avenue. He would also like for his events to be allowed to go past midnight, and noted other businesses in the area that are open until 2:00 a.m.
Commissioner Crane inquired what the latest time would be that a band would set up, and Mr. Barnum replied that it was usually around 10:45 p.m. Mr. Barnum added that loading and unloading would only occur between sets, so there would be minimal noise during the times the doors are open. Commissioner Crane further inquired if Mr. Barnum would be receptive to another six-month review, should these modifications be granted, and Mr. Barnum answered affirmatively.
Fred Mooring, owner of 128 West Wilshire Avenue, reported that while he had not had any problems with the operation over the past six months, he was still concerned that the damage his property sustained previously, may reoccur in the future.
Public hearing closed.
Commissioner Crane was satisfied that the applicant had adhered to the rules and regulations as stated. Regarding the two modifications, he would support the modification to extend the hours of operation until 2:00 a.m. Further, he felt the loading and unloading could be allowed from Wilshire Avenue, as long as it does not occur past 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Wilson concurred.
Commissioner LeQuire asked if this item had been advertised and mailed to adjacent property owners, and Program Planner Linnell answered affirmatively. Further, a notice had been mailed to each individual tenant in the Wilshire Promenade. Commissioner LeQuire stated that he had not been in support of the project in the past, and would still not support at this time.
Commissioner Wilson questioned what would happen should problems occur because of proposed modifications to the Conditional Use Permit. Chief Planner Rosen explained that if the applicant is in violation of any condition, the matter will be returned to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Sandoval was satisfied that the existing Conditional Use Permit seemed to have alleviated the problems experienced in the past. She supported the proposed modifications to the Conditional Use Permit.
MOTION by Commissioner Sandoval, seconded and CARRIED by a six-to-one vote, with Commissioner LeQuire voting no, that said report be received and filed.
Staff report dated April 19, 2001, was presented pertaining to a request to allow a human service agency, providing temporary shelter and treatment for up to 16 adults who are recovering from alcoholism, on property located at 329 East Commonwealth Avenue (north side of Commonwealth Avenue between approximately 350 feet and 400 feet east of Lemon Street) (C-2 zone) (Categorically exempt under Class 1 of CEQA Guidelines).
Program Planner Linnell reported that this type of facility would provide supervised living accommodations and treatment for up to 16 adults suffering from substance abuse. The facility is licensed by the State of California, and the applicant has operated a similar facility at 771 West Orangethorpe Avenue. The Orangethorpe Avenue facility has had a good record with both the police and fire departments. A community meeting had been held by the applicant, with three neighborhood residents in attendance. It was staff's opinion that these residents were satisfied with the explanations presented by the applicant. Staff recommended approval of the request.
Commissioner Crane questioned how the advertising had been worded for this item, and whether it had just stated "alcohol abuse" or "alcohol and drug/substance abuse" facility. Program Planner Linnell replied that the advertising listed "alcohol abuse."
Public hearing opened.
Walt Erickson, applicant, 771 West Orangethorpe Avenue, clarified that the proposed facility is a "substance abuse" center, and the other facility has been in operation for 11 years, with little or no problems. They also have a high success rate of recovery, and the structured program requires that each resident must report his/her whereabouts at all times. Because of high demand for this type of center, a second facility is being proposed.
Commissioner Sandoval asked if this would be a "detox" center, and Mr. Erickson replied negatively.
Commissioner Crane inquired how long each resident would stay, and Mr. Erickson answered that the maximum length of stay is 90 days. He gave a brief description of activities for residents during each of the three months. Some residents are court-ordered; most persons come in on their own seeking recovery. All residents must follow the rules and regulations; if they do not they are asked to leave.
Chairman Simons asked how the facility is funded, and because there are only 11 on-site parking spaces, do the residents drive their own vehicles. Mr. Erickson answered that the operation is partly funded by the County; the remainder is funded through private fund raising. Mr. Erickson reported that residents seldom have a car, but those who do must show registrations and proof of insurance.
Mary Hale, Program Manager with the Orange County Health Care Facility, spoke in favor of the project.
Tom Lee, represented the adjacent property owner who was concerned that the proposed facility would affect the future use of his property. He asked that staff require the applicant to sign a stipulation that they would not oppose any future use of the adjacent property. Chief Planner Rosen explained that staff could not place that stipulation on this applicant, or any future property owner. Further, he could not foresee any restrictions or limitations that would be placed on any future development of the adjacent parcel by granting a Conditional Use Permit for this proposed use.
Patrick Hartnett, is the owner of the law building at 350 East Commonwealth Avenue, across the street from the proposed facility. While understanding the need for this type of facility, he questioned the location for this use. He expressed concern that the downtown was becoming a "rehab" area. He referenced the Harbor Lights project, which has already attracted an undesirable element. He reported that clients who frequent his law building have already been subjected to persons using drugs and urinating in the parking lot. He also noted the presence of liquor stores within close proximity to the site.
Amber Dysenoff, owns the property at 315 East Commonwealth Avenue. She stated that the neighborhood already experiences problems with parking, and she feared that if this facility were allowed to go in, it would have a negative impact on her rental property. She also advised the Commission that she had not received notification of this hearing by mail.
Dr. John Marshall, has a chiropractic office at 319 East Commonwealth Avenue. He felt that this use would negatively affect property values. Further, his property had been vandalized, and his clients had been harassed by residents of a previous rehab center in the area. These residents have also loitered on his property, left trash and consumed alcohol on the premises. He did not feel this was the proper location for this type of facility.
Public hearing closed.
Commissioner Crane was concerned that the advertising had not used the term "substance abuse", thereby sufficient notice had not been given to the public. He did not support the project at this time.
Commissioner Wilson also felt that proper notification had not been given to the public, because only "alcohol" abuse had been advertised. He could not support the project as presented.
Commissioner Price deferred to staff's opinion that proper notification had been made. He was also comfortable granting the Conditional Use Permit as conditioned, because this type of facility was needed in the community.
Commissioner LeQuire stated that because of the inaccurate notification, and the fact that a member of the public had already indicated she had not received notice of the hearing, he could not support the project at this time. He clarified that he was not opposed to the project itself, however.
Commissioner Sandoval supported the project as presented. She felt it was compatible with the area, and was comfortable with the fact that one condition stated that grounds for revocation of the CUP would apply if three or more complaints were filed within a six-month period.
Program Planner Linnell advised that in checking the notification list provided by the County Assessor's Office, a notice had been sent to Ms. Dysenoff at a post office box in Oceanside. Ms. Dysenoff said that she had owned the property on Commonwealth for three years, and currently receives tax bills from the County.
Commissioner Sandoval questioned if staff ever sends notification to the physical property itself, as well as to the property owners' addresses. Program Planner Linnell explained that staff did not normally advertise in this manner, but could do so if warranted. Commissioner Sandoval felt this would be advisable, because the tenants who live at a specific address would also be concerned with issues such as this.
In answer to a question by Chairman Simons, Chief Planner Rosen reported that the Commission could direct staff to readvertise the notice and mail directly to the property owners, as well as the physical site.
MOTION by Commissioner LeQuire, seconded and CARRIED by a four-to-two vote, with Commissioners Sandoval and Price voting no, that said item be CONTINUED to the next regularly-scheduled meeting to allow for proper renotification and readvertising, and mailing to property owners and physical site.
