Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 - March 3 c...~OO.Gt'd .3 Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 1 of 28 Final Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange 3 March 2008 Tuesday- 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker STAFF PRESENT: Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Robert Garcia, Associate Planner Sharon Song, Assistant Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Chair Steiner opened the Administrative Session @ 6:30 p.m. with a review of the Agenda. Consent Calendar: Item #1, Approval of the February 4,2008 minutes. No changes or corrections noted. Continued Item: Item #2, Chapman RV #4: A continuance from the February 20, 2008 meeting per the applicant's request. There would be many public speakers on the item. Chair Steiner requested that the Commissioners have as many questions answered when they had the floor to eliminate having to go back and forth on various issues. New Hearings: Item #3, Santiago Creek Bike Trail: Assistant Planner, Sharon Song would be presenting the item and be available for questions. Item #4, St. Mary's Church: A proposal to operate a bingo hall at the church location. Item #5, CHOC Hospital Lobby: A proposal to expand the lobby. Chair Steiner stated he understood this would be an interim lobby. Item #6, King Lobster Palace: A proposal for a Type 41 ABC license. Chair Steiner confirmed that a representative from the Police Department would be present. The last occupant of this location had been China Olive and they did not have an ABC license. Page 1 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 2 of 28 Other Business: Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated that The Taco Company conditional use permit had been appealed by a City Council Member. Commissioner Whitaker asked when a Council Member initiates an appeal were they subject to appeal fees? Assistant City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, stated no. Generally, an appellant would appeal the item on behalf of another party; this appeal was being generated on the Council Member's behalf. The hearing was scheduled for March 25, 2008. Administrative Session closed @ 6:40 p.m. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: CONSENT ITEM (2) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 2008. Commissioner Bonina made a motion to approve the February 4, 2008 minutes as written. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Imboden Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED HEARINGS: (1) MAJOR SITE PLAN NO. 0405-05; MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1790-07; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2554-05; VARIANCE NO. 2173-07 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4220- 07-CHAPMAN RV #4 A proposal to establish a Recreational Vehicle Storage Facility within a 13.48 acre Southern California Edison property that will continue to maintain towers supporting overhead power lines. A Variance is requested to waive a requirement to install a solid wall or fence enclosure within a 20- foot landscape setback from the residentially zoned properties to the north of the site. LOCA nON: 1582 N. Tustin NOTE: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1790-07 was prepared to Page 2 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3,2008 3 of 28 evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the Local CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 46-07 approving a Variance to waive a requirement to install a solid wall or fence enclosure within a 20-foot landscape setback from the residentially zoned properties to the north of the site, for a recreational vehicle storage facility with up to 382 spaces within a 13A8-acre Southern California Edison property located at 1582 N. Tustin. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Merino asked if the plans, which were provided in the Staff report dated January 8, 2008, included the changes and/or conditions that Staff had placed on the applicant? Mr. Ortlieb stated the plans provided were the current plans that the conditions would be subject to. Commissioner Merino asked if the plans included the changes that were requested of the applicant? Mr. Ortlieb stated the plans would need to be revised during grading and plan check to meet the conditions and requirements. Commissioner Merino clarified that the plans he was looking at did not include the mitigation issues that had been brought forth at the previous Planning Commission Meeting, and did they meet the conditions? Mr. Ortlieb stated the plans were the applicant's response to the concerns from the previous meeting and the Commission would make the determination whether or not they met the conditions. Commissioner Merino stated on the plan sheet PI, Staff had made a requirement for a permanent hedge, and looking at the documents he had not seen a permanent hedge noted. Planning Manager, Leslie Aranda Roseberry stated it was typical and customary for City Staff to review the plans submitted by the applicant and through that analysis add conditions to a resolution. The plans that were being presented were the type of plans the Commission was generally given. For clarification, stated the Planning Commission typically approves projects with a list of conditions listed in the resolution, and before Page 3 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 4 of 28 permits would be pulled Staff would review the conditions and a revised set of plans would be submitted in order to obtain building permits. The plans are adopted with a resolution and conditions. Commissioner Whitaker stated at the December 17, 2007 meeting, it had been brought up that the Los Angeles County Fire Department felt that there was sufficient hazard to restrict R.V. storage under power lines. He asked the Fire Department representative what the Orange Fire Department's position was in regard to RV storage under power lines? Captain MacDonald stated that the Los Angeles County Fire Department had taken a stance that they did not want to fight fire underneath power lines and they did not want storage or buildings under power lines. The current requirements that the City of Orange had in place for development under power lines was such that they had approved RV storage in the past and their mitigation included access requirements to fight fire. They had gathered information from other fire jurisdictions, one was obtained from Los Angeles County who had concerns and the Orange Fire Dept. had contacted Edison for their response. Edison responded with mitigations and the City of Orange Fire Department did not have a strong enough opinion either way to allow that to be a factor. They were interested in gathering more information and make their decision based on that information. Commissioner Bonina stated that Captain MacDonald had stated they were still gathering information and that they had not made a decision on the issue, was that correct? Captain MacDonald stated the Fire Department had made a decision, and their position was that there was not sufficient information either way regarding whether RV storage could or could not take place. There was a concern regarding high heat release boats that he would be addressing with Staff. Commissioner Bonina stated he was hoping to get a more definitive answer from the Fire Department. Captain MacDonald stated one of the concerns that had been brought to his attention by several residents was that a power line might fall, contact an R V and cause the propane or gas tank to rupture and explode. He felt the statistics regarding power lines snapping should be left to the expertise of the Edison representatives. Propane was stored in a tank and could not explode as it would not be within its flammable limits and that was also true of gasoline. There were concerns and there had been mitigations. The Fire Department was comfortable with the conditions that had been placed on the project and they would be presenting additional conditions for boat storage. Commissioner Bonina clarified that the Fire Department had reviewed the application in great detail, and based on the information provided the Fire Department, was comfortable with an RV storage facility at that location. Captain MacDonald stated yes. Page 4 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3,2008 5 of 28 Commissioner Imboden asked if the Fire Department was considering placing a condition on boat storage and was it an issue that could be discussed for part of their decision making process? He had a concern about the comment made regarding high heat release boats and asked what that risk might be? Captain MacDonald stated he would defer that question to an Edison representative and find out what the statistics were for power lines falling on RV lots and the potential for fires being created that the Fire Department could not handle. Commissioner Imboden asked what was the fire threat that would be imposed by the storage of a boat vs. motor home storage? Captain MacDonald stated they were still gathering information and in their fact gathering one of the other jurisdictions had indicated a potential problem with boat storage and he wanted to include that as an option for mitigation. He personally did not have a concern, nor did he feel the Fire Department as a whole had a concern with boat storage. His position was not strictly administrative, he would be the one riding on a Fire Truck responding to incidents, and it was the Fire Departments obligation to insure safety. Commissioner Merino stated, on the mitigation measure for lighting, some of the lights would be pulled from the perimeter and into the site. There were 15' light standards approximately 23' from existing properties with security glare shields. He asked the Police Department representative if they had looked at the potential zone of darkness and was it an acceptable situation, as there would be a zone of darkness between the RV storage area and the adjacent properties? Crime Prevention Specialist Brad Beyer stated when they looked at lighting they looked at the entire lot as their standards included the entire surface of the parking lot. Commissioner Merino asked if the Police Department found the lighting unacceptable they would require the applicant to provide additional lighting? Mr. Beyer stated yes. Commissioner Bonina stated in the Staff Report, Item No.7 of the Traffic Study, there was reference to a traffic gap analysis. It appeared the City was relying on the analysis that had been completed by the applicant and why had the City not performed their own traffic gap analysis? Mr. Ortlieb stated the concerns from the previous meeting had been forwarded to the applicant, and the applicant was relying on information from the City traffic engineer regarding the traffic gaps. The applicant made a visual observation themselves. The City Traffic Engineer did not acknowledge an exact number, however, based on the limited number of a.m. and p.m. trips, the gaps that occurred would be sufficient for the project. Commissioner Bonina inquired if, based on the information the traffic engineer had received from the applicant and his observation, were there sufficient gaps in traffic to Page 5 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 6 of 28 allow for the turning radius of the proposed RV to be conducted in a safe manner? Mr. Ortlieb stated yes, that was correct. Commissioner Imboden stated they were looking at 81 trips daily, 7 days a week and had that data been broken down to weekend trips vs. weekday trips? Mr. Ortlieb stated he would need to obtain that information. Chair Steiner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant's representative to come forward. Applicant's representative, George Tindall, address on file, stated there were two representatives from Southern California Edison, and various members of the architect team present to answer questions. They had been working diligently to revise the plans to address the issues brought up by the Commission and those concerns of the neighbors. Mr. Tindall stated that a number of years ago the City Council went through a process to adopt an Ordinance that restricted the parking of RVs on private property and public streets. Along with that Ordinance, the City Council looked at areas for RV parking and storage and amended the land use regulations for R-l zones through Ordinance No. 16- 05, which was adopted unanimously by the City Council in December, 2005. They had made that determination looking specifically at Edison right-of-ways. By changing the Ordinance in 2005, they had zoned the particular property being presented in the application for an RV storage facility being placed on the site subject to a CUP. When the Ordinance was adopted, it gave the Planning Commission authority to mitigate plans for RV sites that might be near residential areas. Mr. Tindall stated the application met all of the City Ordinance requirements, with the exception of a parallel fence being constructed on the site due to Edison regulations. RV parking and storage generated very little activity and noise generated from an RV facility. The site would be open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and there would be controlled gated access. The site would be patrolled by a private security system. At their Batavia storage facility site, 80% of their tenants were Orange residents. They anticipated the same percentage of Orange residents for the proposed site. Mr. Tindall stated they heard the Commission loud and clear at the previous meeting regarding landscaping. They had felt that the 4,500 boxed trees was a creative solution; the Design Review Committee had felt it had been and it was noted in the meeting minutes. The neighbors had a concern about being able to see between the trees. The new plan included planting of a hedge along the north edge of the property which required going back to Edison for their approval. They proposed to maintain a Ficus hedge at a height of 15' and it was noted on the landscape plans provided to the Commission. The remainder of the 20' landscape strip would be planted with lawn. The code required 20' and they had provided 23' for most of the right-of-way. There was an area that was over 30' in width. The closest an RV would be parked next to a neighboring property was approximately 48'. He stated that the applicant would be responsible for planting, irrigating and maintaining the trees. The hedge would be placed Page 6 of28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 7 of 28 back from the property to maintain adequate growth. They anticipated that it would take approximately one year for the trees to grow into a hedge, and during that interim they would place boxed trees to provide a dense landscape. Edison had reviewed the plan and noticed that there were power lines in the backyards of some of the neighboring properties although there were easements for access to the poles, they required that a 10' area on either side of the poles not be planted with trees. Their concept would be to place the same hedge material in boxes to fulfill Edison's requirement of no permanent planting in those 20' areas. In the areas where turf was proposed they would also be laying pavers that would allow the Edison vehicles access to power poles. Mr. Tindall stated there would also be changes to the landscaping on Cambridge and Tustin. Edison realized they had facilities on those streets and prohibited planting within a 25' area of those facilities. On Cambridge, the area that would be landscaped included an area of approximately 5' and on Tustin the landscaped area would be maintained next to the drive aisle. Those changes were made to allow access to the facilities as required by Edison. On the issue of traffic, he stated, the number of spaces had been reduced from 522 to 382, with the trip generation of 60 trips per day. The peak trips per hour being 5. They had conducted a traffic distribution study to indicate where the trips during peak hours would be and were included in their packet that had been submitted. The volume generated would be very low. They had reduced the spaces for various reasons, initially to reduce the impact of the project on the neighbors, to make the spaces wider to allow adequate turning radius for the RVs and they were proposing restriction of exits from the site to right turn only. They would allow left turns in to limit the use of Chestnut Street to the north. The traffic engineers at the previous meeting had stated that there were adequate traffic gaps and it was verified by the counting of vehicles during peak hours. They felt confident that the traffic gaps were adequate. Mr. Tindall stated that they had surveyed current tenants at all three of the current sites and found that roughly 2/3rds of their tenants had RV trailers, travel trailers, boats, and small trailer w/water craft. In reducing the number of spaces, they had reduced the number on the north side of the property adjacent to the neighbors on the north and would only lease those spaces to low profile or travel trailer type vehicles. Lighting was another issue. The lights would be at a height of 15' and with the hedge of 15' the neighbors would not experience light spillage or glare. They had met with the Orange Police Department and had looked at alternatives for light reduction. There was a condition that included turning off Yz of the property lights, and the applicant would be willing to turn off all the lights on the north side of the property to minimize any light that would affect the neighboring properties. The lights would be shielded and angled toward the drive aisles and parking spaces. Mr. Tindall stated the City Council Ordinance that allowed for RV storage facilities to be built in residential areas included a clause, Section II, F -4, lighting and security provisions and other sign improvements would be considered on a case-by-case basis in relation to the contents. The Council understood that by allowing RV storage facilities to go into residential sites could create potential conflicts for neighbors to those sites. The City Council had allowed the City and residents flexibility. He felt turning off Yz of the lights was a good start and perhaps the Commission could make a ruling for more than Page 7 of 28 Pages that, they were willing to work with the Commission and conditions along those lines. March 3, 2008 8 of 28 Staff on any reasonable Planning Commission Minutes Regarding the concern about sewer spills, they had never experienced any type of sewer spill at any of their other sites. If they experienced a spill they were more than willing and able to handle that issue. They had a Water Quality Control Plan in place. He stated he was surprised by the comments made by the Fire Department as their conditions had been addressed in March, 2007 and there were no further issues presented by the Fire Department regarding their proposal. The article in the LA Times presented various issues and most cities allowed for RV storage facilities on Edison property. Commissioner Merino asked if the plans the Commission had before them represented the plans the applicant wanted approval on? Mr. Tindall stated they had submitted plans that complied with the code; the conditions were then placed on the project, between those conditions being imposed and the hearing there was not time to address those changes on the plans. Generally what occurred, if the project was approved, the site plan would be modified to contain the conditions of approval prior to plan check. Commissioner Merino stated the applicant had time to submit the requested changes that Edison had required. Mr. Tindall stated yes, they had to, as they were the landlord. Commissioner Merino stated in reviewing sheet P-2 of the plan, there was a section that had a different landscaping approach that showed (Section BB, 1 of 3) boxed trees. He asked if that was what would be provided? Mr. Tindall stated the boxed trees would be placed between their site and the retail nursery on the applicant's north side. The concept was to have a hedge all the way across with the exception of the 20' strip where the power poles sat. Along Cambridge there would be turf block for access to the towers. Commissioner Merino stated there was inconsistency in the plans that appeared to be gaps in the hedge. Mr. Tindall stated there would be hedge planted with the only exception being those areas where single power poles were located in the resident's backyards; there would be a 20' strip where boxed trees would be located to allow Edison access. Commissioner Merino stated on the plan, looking at the lighting, there was a 25' road access with a 15' light standard at the end of that access with a 15' section of turf block and then the hedge, with another 25' to the nearest residence. He felt one of the aspects of the application was to provide security on their site and that they could not remove lighting for security purposes. Mr. Tindall stated the gates would be locked at night with security personnel at the site. Page 8 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 9 of 28 Lights would be better; however, they were willing to work with Staff on the lighting levels. Commissioner Merino asked if there was a need for future lighting wouldn't that impact the neighbors? Mr. Tindall stated he felt Commissioner Merino had not understood. They had a lighting plan that included a photometric study that had been provided. The lighting levels at the boundary line were .1 foot candle. Commissioner Merino asked if that included the new roadway with the 15' gap, as it appeared the plans called for lighting of the roadway? Mr. Tindall stated the photometric study addressed that lighting. Most of the lighting would be placed toward the roadway towards the RVs; there would be some lighting on the north side on the property lines. Those levels were well below the City Ordinance of .1 foot candle and with the hedge screen, the lighting level would be less. Moonlight was .02' candles per square foot. Commissioner Merino stated the applicant had made comparisons to the Batavia storage and asked if the lighting at that location was indicative to the lighting that they perceived for the proposed storage lot? Mr. Tindall stated no, there would be a difference between the two areas. Batavia was in an industrial area and there were no glare shields provided at that location. In the proposed project the lights would have glare shields and upon installation the lights would be directed to insure minimal light spillage. At the Batavia site the lighting level was increased at the entrance, which was not being done on the current proposal. Commissioner Whitaker stated that Condition No. 17 required closing of the facility no later than 8:30 p.m., and the applicant had mentioned the gates would be closed at 7:00 p.m., he asked what would the close of business be? Mr. Tindall stated it would be 7:00 p.m. Staff stated there was a statement based on the Ordinance that referred to lighting. The lights would turn on at dusk and some of the lighting would turn off at approximately 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Whitaker stated the condition read: the business shall close no later than 8:30 p.m. daily. He asked what was the proposed close of business for the site? Mr. Tindall stated 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Whitaker asked if the applicant would accept an amendment if they chose to approve the project. Mr. Tindall stated in the affirmative. Page 9 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 10 of 28 Commissioner Whitaker, addressing the Edison representative, stated a portion of the project required a Variance not to install a permanent wall or fence based on a requirement by Edison to not have a permanent fence within a certain number of feet from the towers. In reviewing the site plan, currently the residents own walls within that limit, and asked if that was correct? Edison representative, Larry Labrada, address on file, stated many of the guidelines came from the Public Utilities Commission, with General Order No. 95 being the primary guidance structure. The key point for Edison was to maintain operational access and was the primary role of the right-of-way for the project. Commissioner Whitaker stated there was a concern regarding security for the residents' property and concern with access by Edison. If Edison was allowing a 15' hedge, why wouldn't Edison allow a 15' fence, a fence that was removable, with security requirements to be installed on the inside of the hedge, necessitating a Variance? Edison representative, Frank Salimone, address on file, stated the reason for the Variance was due to accessibility. If the Commission wanted a fence adjacent to the neighbor's wall they could install a fence in that location as long as there was not a large gap, as that would inhibit Edison's ability to service the overhead lines. Commissioner Whitaker asked would the applicant be authorized to install a fence just inside the hedge area? Mr. Salimone stated they could go back and speak with operations to seek approval for a fence. Mr. Labrada stated they were unable to engineer on the fly, as every applicant's request required submission through their transmission and distribution department to be engineered and reviewed for total operational access. He understood what Commissioner Whitaker was stating, however, the space was needed for accessibility. Commissioner Imboden stated there was an existing easement on the residential side of the wall, what type of restrictions did the homeowners have in terms of the use of the area that was under the easement? Mr. Labrada stated they owned that land in fees; the easement documents outlined what could and could not be done within the easement area. The main focus of that outline was to ensure access for maintenance of their equipment and he did not foresee any changes to that policy. Commissioner Imboden stated he felt Edison was creating small areas of compromise on the Edison side and that was at conflict with what they were currently reviewing. Mr. Salimone stated Edison had distribution easements for the equipment that was on the resident property side. Those sites allowed Edison access from the residential properties; it was their preference to gain access from the Edison property side. The requirement for the boxed trees around those sites would allow them to gain access from the Edison Page 10 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 11 of 28 property side to service the poles. Commissioner Bonina stated he had met with the applicant and with Mr. Labrada. He asked how had Edison serviced the power poles that were located in the residential property in the past? Mr. Salimone stated he understood that those poles were serviced from the larger Edison property side and not the residential side. Commissioner Bonina asked in other areas where poles sat in residential areas, how were those poles serviced? Mr. Salimone stated the poles were serviced from the resident's property. Commissioner Bonina asked what was the typical height of a pole that would require servicing? Mr. Labrada stated each of the distribution poles were slightly different. He was not sure of the height of the poles at the proposed location. Commissioner Bonina stated he recognized the need for Edison to have access to the power poles. He asked if permanent landscape could be planted, to a height of 15', with access to the poles from the project site via lift equipment? Mr. Salimone stated that often times, Edison representatives climbed the poles and machinery was not used. Commissioner Bonina stated the poles were currently located in the residential backyards and were they currently using the yard access to service the poles? Mr. Labrada stated they had the right to access their equipment through the residential backyards. Commissioner Bonina inquired if Edison access would be coming from the larger Edison easement side, wouldn't that require equipment to gain access to those poles? Mr. Labrada stated they could gain access from a vehicle or through climbing of the pole. Commissioner Bonina stated the applicant had the ability to place permanent landscape along the perimeter line to a height of 15', and inquired if a machine could elevate an individual for repair or maintenance of the Edison equipment. Mr. Labrada stated Edison needed to have both options for line crews to access the equipment. Line crews needed to have access from the larger Edison easement side as well as residential access. Commissioner Bonina stated permanent landscape would not preclude an Edison representative from accessing the equipment from the residential side to climb the pole if Page 11 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 12 of 28 that was needed. Mr. Labrada stated that was correct. Commissioner Imboden stated there was discussion of a potential fence directly behind the tree screen and asked Staff if that was what the Ordinance requested and had Edison already considered the addition of a fence? Mr. Salimone stated there had been a request for a fence to be installed with a 20' setback from the residential property lines. Edison would not approve that. Were they asking for a fence adjacent to the residential block wall? Commissioner Imboden stated that was not a fence they were discussing. The consideration was for a fence directly behind the landscape screening. Commissioner Merino stated with all the concerns for safety and everything else, why would it be a good idea to have an RV lot on the Edison property? Mr. Labrada stated the project had been reviewed, it conformed, was compatible and safe and they would not have allowed it to move forward if there had been safety concerns. If there was the slightest bit of concern, the project would not go forward. Mr. Ortlieb commented the Ordinance stated that RV storage areas shall be setback 20' from all property lines abutting other residentially zoned properties, dense landscaping shall be provided in the setback area in conjunction with a solid wall or fence enclosure at or beyond the setback. Commissioner Whitaker stated on the 25' road with 23 Yz' setback there was 15' of grass, which left 8 Yz', if at the 8' mark from the wall, behind the hedge, could a wrought iron or chain link fence be installed to address the security concerns of the residents? It would not require a Variance as the fence would be within the 20' setback area. Mr. Tindall stated a fence was feasible. They had been told all along, for 2 Yz years, that the fence had to be at the 20' setback line, not zero to 20'. The code read heavy landscaping with the wall at the setback line. There was also the issue with the Edison Company not wanting parallel fences within their right-of-way. The applicant would be willing to install a fence if Edison allowed it. Commissioner Bonina clarified what was being suggested was a security fence behind the landscape and would that not create a 3' gap between the fence and block wall? Commissioner Whitaker stated the wall would be behind the hedge. Chair Steiner clarified that there would be a wall, tree and fence, with the fence at a height of 15'. Commissioner Bonina asked what material the access road was made of and had they considered asphalt? Page 12 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 13 of28 Mr. Tindall stated it would be a compacted base material that would cover the entire site. The material would be sealed, compacted and maintained and was not any noisier than asphalt. Regarding a parallel fence there were areas along the 75' perimeter that Edison would not allow a fence to be installed around tower areas where clearance was required. Commissioner Bonina stated that the landscape plan shows the height of the trees as 15' minimum, and there was a statement on the plans that noted a tall hedge 13" and asked if that was an error? Mr. Tindall stated yes that was an error and the hedge would be at 15'. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for public comments. He noted for the record that Commissioners had met with many of the residents and the applicant. Bill Kerfoot, 1773 Greengrove, stated on October 3, 2005 the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3 to 0, adopted Resolution PC 47-05 that added RV storage facilities as a permitted use in residential zones. The minutes of that meeting note that Chair Bonina asked Staff to describe what dense landscaping entailed and if Staff considered reducing the set back to 10'? Commissioner Bilodeau inquired about the Staff report and stated while the City was targeting Edison easement areas to be used for RV storage, he doubted Edison wanted more fencing on their properties as they wanted uses that were more mobile in order to maintain their towers. Commissoner Pruitt stated Edison would probably not allow structures to be put in their right-of-way. The same issues that were being brought up had been addressed in 2005. On December 13,2005 by a vote of 5 to 0, City Council adopted Ordinance 16-5 that added RV storage facilities as an additional permitted use along with the Ordinance that changed private property RV storage. The applicant had provided permanent landscaping as requested by the Commission, the number of spaces had been reduced, and moved RV storage further away from the residential properties, the width of the parking spaces had been increased to 12', and the applicant had addressed all previous concerns. If the Commission votes against the project, Mr. Kerfoot wanted an explanation of where they would be providing RV storage since the City would not allow storage ofRVs on private property. Dan Slater, 278 N. Pine St., Orange, stated this was a project the City of Orange needed. The applicant had done many things to meet the concerns and the proposed mitigated measures were adequate. The largest issue was that the project was adjacent to a residential neighborhood, and if his property backed up to the site, he would not have a problem with the RV site being there. It was a project the City of Orange definitely needed to have. Years ago when a dog park was proposed in the City many neighbors disapproved of that addition, the dog park went in and since then he had not heard of any complaints with the park. He viewed the project similarly, once the project was in and in place, people would wonder what all the fuss was about. He supported the project and felt it was a benefit to the City, and he would much rather see a green screen than a block wall from his property. Mel Vernon, 2301 East Hoover, Orange, stated he had met with the applicant and had seen his operation on Batavia and it was a good operation. He believed the project would be the same. He had been involved with RV storage in the neighborhoods, and as a Page 13 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 14 of 28 member of Keep Orange Clean the project complimented the situation. The storage of RVs in front of homes and in grassy areas had been a detriment to residential values and the project needed to go forward. For many years he had painted out graffiti on block walls and he had not experienced graffiti on a landscaped hedge. Everyday he noticed RVs parked that were not in compliance with the current Ordinance, he was disappointed that the number of spaces for RVs had been decreased in the applicant's plan. He felt the number should be increased to the original proposal, as there was a definite need for the project. Robert Delaney, 1220 E. Trenton Ave, Orange, stated he lived in Orange for 65 years. He remembered when Tustin was a 2-lane road. The City had grown so much and Tustin Avenue was busy and Cambridge was over used. They had asked the Commission in the past that a sign be installed to allow them to exit from Cambridge. If they added to the current traffic with RVs it would slow down traffic further. He had not heard Edison talk about how they would high pressure clean the power lines with the RVs parked under them. He stated there was a noise factor from idling RVs and there would be fumes associated with the RVs. He also had concerns about vandalism. Gary Derek, 1410 E. Chestnut, Orange, stated he had issue with RV owners preparing their vehicles and needing to climb on top of their RV, he had a yard with two children and the RV owners could look into their backyards which was their privacy. The RV generators would create additional noise and he is concurred with the increase in traffic. When he moved in there was a great view of the Southern sky and that would be no more. Sally Gier, 1603 Silverwood, Orange stated she was not in favor of the project. She asked the Commissioners if they had a copy of the Long Beach Press Telegram article and asked that they read it? Chair Steiner stated the Commissioners had received it and it had been read. Jean Griffin, 1002 E. Chestnut, Orange stated she was against RV storage in a residential neighborhood. The project would be an attractive nuisance and it would open up their backyards to the public. With any barrier proposed, it would not keep people from hiding between the barrier and her block wall and coming into her yard/home at night. Jose Gutierrez, 643 E. Oakmont Ave., Orange stated he agreed with the other residents. Noise, light, pollution and why the applicant would think the project would be the same as the facility on Batavia. The Batavia storage facility was in an industrial area and he saw no benefit in this project for the community. Lawrence Honikel, 1600 N. Maplewood St., Orange stated he had been a resident of Orange for over 40 years. He felt Orange was divided into 3 distinct residential areas; Old Towne, Mid Town, and New Town. Old Towne consisted of homes built in the 50's; there was zoning in that area that would restrict the project. New Town was homes built since the 80's and primarily on the east end of Orange and he did not believe there were any residential storage facilities in that area. He understood there were plans to expand Orange out to Irvine, he had reviewed that proposal and he did not see a plan for RV Page 14 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 15 of 28 storage in that area. He lived in Mid Town, those were homes built during the 60's and 70's, and the proposal was for storage in their residential community. It was not being proposed in an industrial area that would be a more appropriate area. Under Edison wires sounded dangerous to him. The Los Angeles County Fire Department seemed to agree. They proposed to build the site without any consideration of the resident's safety, privacy, excessive RV traffic, bright lighting and lower property values. The neighborhood would become less desirable and quality oflife was the issue. Dena Horn, 1270 E. Chestnut Ave., Orange, stated she was a 4th generation Orange resident and she felt angry that the project was before them. There were strict regulations that Old Towne residents and business were held to and it would not be proposed in that area. She wanted to know why it was different for their neighborhood. She chose to raise a family in Orange and felt they deserved the same treatment. Brian Kinder, 1671 N. Silverwood, Orange, stated he had been an Orange resident for 5 years and felt there was an ambiguity in the interpretation of the Ordinance. The Odinance called for a solid wall or fence. He felt that the proposal should be for a solid wall or fence and that a chain link fence would be inappropriate, given the Ordinance stated solid wall or fence. He was not sure of the environmental studies that may have been done; he had seen coyotes, squirrels, chipmunks, birds of prey and a lot of wildlife that foraged in the nursery area. He wondered what would happen to those animals in the area as it was an attractive part of the area. If the project moved forward many animals would be displaced. Chair Steiner stated in reference to Agenda items 5 and 6 it was unlikely that those items would be heard and deferred to Staff for a date that the items could be heard. Ms. Aranda Roseberry stated the applicants for those items were anxious to get their items heard and they could move the items to the next meeting, which was March 17, 2008. The applicants present concurred that they agreed with the continuance. Meeting recessed at 9:00. Chair Steiner resumed the meeting with public comments at 9:15. Norma Maloney, 1148 E. Chestnut, Orange, stated she had lived in Orange for 42 years and there had not been an issue in their neighborhood before and she was firmly against the project. However you dressed it up, it was still a motor home in their backyard and they did not want it. Janice Martin, 1602 N. Silverwood St. Orange, presented a petition to the Commission. She stated Edison's comments did not make sense, and the Orange Fire Department did not agree with the Los Angeles County Fire Department. There were comments about graffiti, the whole project was crazy. On Chestnut, they had come forth requesting speed bumps and she felt the RVs would come down Chestnut and there was already an increase in traffic. There were other areas in Orange that would be more appropriate. Sean Martin, 1044 E. Chesnut Ave., Orange, presented photos and a letter to the Commission. He stated he was surprised that there was not an independent study done Page 15 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3,2008 16 of 28 and they were relying on the applicant's study. The applicant had described 81 trips in and out as low traffic; in looking at a former City traffic analysis of Chestnut Street volumes, it showed 664 trips up and down Chestnut, which were 36 trips shy of necessitating speed bumps. The proposed project would make them eligible for speed bumps. The RVs were slow, noisy and would pollute. Tustin was a very busy street; with RVs pulling out it would slow traffic and cause accidents. Los Angeles County Fire Department did not want building under power lines due to the risk of electrocution to the fire fighters. Edison maintained a platoon of linemen for downed power lines and with the addition of earthquakes, they did come down. The RV park would destroy the character of their neighborhood and it created a noise factor. Mr. Martin shared a video of an RV idling. Shawna Martin, 1044 E. Chestnut Ave., Orange, presented information to the Commissioners. She stated they lived at their current residence for 4 years. She reviewed the information she had passed out regarding crime, the study focused on an area in North Carolina. The research found that crime was associated with commercial land use. She had provided the information as visuals of the quality of life that would be impacted by the proposed project. There were pictures of the wall height and location of where an RV would be located in comparison to their property. She felt the Batavia and Garden Grove sites were an eyesore. She stated the Ordinance required a solid wall or fence, and light would billow through an open fence or trees. If there were no lights, as suggested by the applicant, there could be people living in the RVs and there was the potential for child abduction. All of those things needed to be taken into consideration. Melissa McNew, 1317 E. Trenton Ave, Orange, stated she had lived most of her life in the City of Orange. She was concerned about the possible explosion hazard. She had researched the threat of light pollution. Many studies had been done regarding the negative affects on the body when there was sleep deprivation. Studies showed that even a small night light had potential health risks and with the lights from the RV storage lot, she imagined there would be potential health risks. There were ongoing studies related to sleep deprivation and breast cancer. She was also concerned with traffic problems and invasion of privacy. She felt the project was not good for the City of Orange. Wayne Millard, 1138 E. Chestnut, Orange, stated he had been a resident of the City for 22 years and he doubted he would have bought his current home ifthere had been an RV storage facility behind it. There were 72 single-family homes on Trenton and Tustin that would be impacted. He was concerned with security. The storage facility on Batavia had a sign that stated there was 24-hour surveillance, security cameras and security lighting, obviously security was a concern. He felt if there was a storage facility behind their homes it would be a problem, he could visualize criminals entering his backyard and living in the RVs. Power poles were mentioned and Edison needed access from the other side of his yard to service the poles. The area was also a wildlife habitat. Village Nursery was a good neighbor and he would like to see them remain. Sam Miller, 1444 E. Chestnut Ave., Orange, stated his home faced the nursery. He wanted to talk about pollution. Mr. Goriel seemed to be a decent man, but the proposal he put forth did not make for a good business decision or a good neighbor. The proposal was a moneymaking opportunity for the applicant and Edison at minimal costs. He was Page 16 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3,2008 17 of 28 concerned with fluid spills, light pollution and loss of privacy. He had lived with ambient lighting for a number of years and shared photos with the Commission. He experiences light spillage from the Toyota dealer. He felt they should look at the current lighting at the storage lot on Batavia. The daylight light from windshields and windows would beam into the back yards of the residents. No plant screen would prevent that. Ed Mobrey, 1010 E. Chestnut Ave., Orange, stated he had lived in his home for over 40 years. He had a great experience with the easement and had never had any unpleasant experiences and it was a great part of their property. Regarding the lighting, he woke up in the middle of night and the only light he saw was moonlight. He wanted to stress the importance of good neighbors. At the December 17, 2007 meeting, Ennis Teske made a statement that he would not have purchased his home if there had been RVs behind it. He asked if anyone would like to have an RV behind their home, would they like many RVs behind their home, and lastly would they like to have all of those RVs behind their home? The project should not be allowed in their beautiful residential neighborhood. Joan Peterson, 2902 E. Hillcrest Ave., Orange, handed out a letter to the Commission. She stated in 1982 there had been a massive fire at the corner of Ball Road and Euclid caused by power lines that had been downed by Santa Ana winds. They drove by the site and it appeared as if a bomb had exploded; 50 structures had been destroyed and 1500 people were left homeless and the fire was listed as one of the worst fires in Anaheim's history. She could not imagine adding fuel to the mix, and what could happen if a power line were to fall in the lot. Propane and gasoline were very volatile and the lot was adjacent to the Toyota dealer that housed many more vehicles. At the December Planning Commission Meeting there was a comment made that power lines did not fall very often. Once would be enough. It was reported that five of the fires last November were cause by fallen power lines, including the massive Malibu fire. It would create concerns for the safety of the residents and their children. The impact of a fire would be devastating and the City of Orange would not have the manpower to handle such a disaster. Peloyo Pelayo, 942 E. Chestnut, Orange, stated the project would increase traffic on Chestnut. He would not have bought his home ifthere had been RVs there. It presented an incredible danger; there would be kids breaking into them. If the Commission was going to move forward on the project they needed to make a cul-de-sac on Chestnut. The fact was that they would be taking away an area that created oxygen, had animals and would replace it with concrete, motor homes and fumes. He had a pool and if there was a 15' fence it took away from his pool. There was no reason for the project in a residential area and why a billion dollar company wanted to put it in their backyard. It was an incredible danger. Ray Peterson, 2902 E. Hillcrest Ave., Orange, stated he was strongly opposed to the project. At the December 17, 2007 meeting there was a statement made that the project would be better for the City than worse for the City. He had not understood how this project could be considered in a residential neighborhood. If the item was on the ballot it would never be voted in, no neighborhood in Orange would want the project. It needs to be in a commercial section, and not in a residential section. Page 17 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 18 of 28 Frank Romano, Jr., 1125 E. Van Owen, Orange, stated he was concerned with safety and the Fire Department had spoke about his concern and the insufficient data available. He found that there would be an extreme hazard for firefighters who would fight electrical fires. It was in a confined area with flammable elements. If there was not sufficient data to determine safety they should not move forward with the project. If there had been an RV park there when he was looking for a home, he would not have moved into the neighborhood. Diane Rombough, 1035 E. Van Owen, Orange - Ms. Rombough's card was submitted; however, she was not present. Her speaker card was noted as opposed to the project. Eileen Romano, 1125 E. Van Owen, Orange, stated she was disappointed with the Fire Department's comments. There did not seem to be a sense of urgency to research the matter further. When there was an adjacent county that had concerns, they should look at that. She had done research and was aware that Edison would be making $337,000 for the next five years on the Batavia site and it was being done for income purposes. Ms. Romano stated she felt the choice of Ficus trees might not be a good choice as they are a very invasive tree. She had spoken with Scott Poster, L.A. County Fire Marshall, he related a story where he had seen power lines fail and had concerns, there was a study conducted on the heat generated by just 2 RVs and it could create a 20 mega watt fire and that played into their consideration ofRV storage areas under power lines. Barbara Sapp, 929 E. Trenton Ave., Orange, stated she was born in the City of Orange and had lived in her current home for 28 years. She was concerned with the traffic issue and the need for not only residents, but the motor home tenants to use her street. She had not heard much about the Trenton side of the issue. There were no barriers to lesson the impact oflight from their side. She was opposed to the project. Hickman Sapp, 929 E. Trenton Ave., Orange, stated when Toyota moved in they closed their street and promised there would be a walk through installed and Fire Department access which had not been done. They had the nursery now with compost being dumped and they had a problem with rats. He could not see an RV storage being put in. Joanne Schwartz, 930 E. Chestnut Ave., Orange, stated she had serious concerns. She felt the RV storage would create a juvenile delinquent haven. They only had a 5' fence and they would jump over. She was concerned with the diesel fuels, it would cause a noise disturbance, and she had a dog that would bark at anyone near her fence. The lighting would go into their backyards. She had an Edison pole and the barrier would not be sufficient to block the view into her backyard and there would be increased traffic. Dan Seleska, 1039 E. Candlewood Ave., Orange, stated, in regard to the sewage issue, Mr. Tindall stated that there would be someone at the facility to insure there were not sewage problems. There would be approximately 380 vehicles and only one person maintaining the lot. He felt it would be an issue. He was concerned with the vehicles exiting onto Tustin, upon entering the street a vehicle would be in the flow of traffic. The traffic on Tustin was traveling fast and there would be problems. With regard to the fires, he had been in the RV industry for many years and most of the vehicles had gas tanks from 75 to 120 gallons, with propane tanks up to 55 gallons and if they ignited it would Page 18 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 19 of 28 be a torch. He was against the storage facility. Ennis Teske, 1022 E. Chestnut Ave., Orange, passed out information to the Commissioners. He stated he was opposed to the RV storage facility and he pointed out that most of the properties on Chestnut had only a low block wall. What was being proposed was to add vegetation and would leave the residents open to the people using the RV area and it created a safety issue to the residents. Chair Steiner noted that a 2-page letter had been received from Anne Luce and it had been distributed to all Commissioners. Jack Snoddy, 1656 N. Silverwood Dr., Orange, had submitted a speaker card, however, was not present and his speaker card noted he was opposed to the item. Jean Tudor, 1035 E. Trenton, Orange, stated she concurred with all the people who had spoken in opposition. The qualifications for the Planning Commissioners were to be residents in the City and have general knowledge of land use development. Their duties were to make decisions in accordance with State law and the City's General Plan, goals and policies. The purpose of the General Plan, specifically Article 54, is that the major focus of the Plan was to achieve the goal to preserve the character and density of the existing residential neighborhoods. Article LUl, reiterated the objectives. Article LU7, promoted balance of any economic gain. Article LUI, promoting industrial elements in Orange, stated the project would not compromise the quality of the environment. Policy 3.2 protects residents from adverse impacts from industrial operations. Policy 3.21 monitored the emission of smoke, particle matter, industrial noises and nuisances. Article LU9, promoted good urban design. Article LU12, works to reduce land use conflicts. She felt the RV storage did not preserve or maintain the neighborhood character, protect the residents, promote good urban design or avoid land use conflicts and it appeared to promote economic gain to only the petitioner, it was contrary to the General Plan and must be denied. Chair Steiner thanked the public speakers for their comments. He invited the applicant to respond to any of the comments that were heard. Mr. Tindall stated the entrance and exit to the facility would be only off Tustin, not off Cambridge. They did not have crime issues at any of their other sites. There would not be anyone living on the site. The Ordinance stated solid wall or fence. He stated no maintenance would be allowed on site and the running of generators was prohibited. The driveway on Tustin was 45' wide with commercial driveways, there was a lot of commercial traffic currently on Tustin and many commercial driveways on that street as well. The lighting levels were well below those of other businesses in the area. Commissioner Whitaker asked if they would be agreeable to add to the conditions the use of generators being prohibited? Mr. Tindall stated yes. Chair Steiner invited the Fire Department representative to respond to any of the Page 19 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 20 of 28 comments heard. Captain MacDonald thanked the Commission for their concerns and recognizing the Fire Department as a neutral party who was present to give a Staff Report. He had received a comment that his information might have been ambiguous. He had spoken with Chief Poster, L.A. County Fire Department, and with the Fire Marshall of Orange County Fire Authority. Chief Poster had concerns and they were not allowing RV use under their transmission lines. O.c. Fire Authority felt the concerns were mitigated and allowed for RV storage under transmission lines. Both agencies were excellent Fire Departments and both have different opinions. The only regulations that Orange has at this time were access regulations that would be found in the Staff Report. Commissioner Bonina stated the O.c. Fire Authority allowed for the type of proposed activity and there were mitigating circumstances. He asked what were those mitigating circumstances? Captain MacDonald stated L.A. County had stated they had looked at all the fine details and they would not allow it, O.c. had looked at all the fine details and they would allow it. He was basing his comments on the Orange County findings and if the Commission was interested he could forward the report that contained all the details. There were conflicting opinions from two different agencies, and in the fire departments opinion, it was a land use issue and not hinging on fire safety. Chair Steiner asked the City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, if there was evidence that a prior applicant was in violation of a particular condition what would be the method of enforcement? Mr. Sheatz stated there were several different ways of enforcement. If a mitigation measure was in the Mitigated Negative Declaration there would be a mitigation monitoring program to insure the mitigation measures were being followed. Code Enforcement could monitor or there could be revocation of permits for failure to comply with conditions. Depending on the conditions the proper enforcement would be used. Chair Steiner asked if there were any further questions for the Edison representatives? Commissioner Whitaker asked with the recent Los Angeles County Fire Department stance on Edison land use, there had been implications that caused Edison to change its policy on any new lease not permitting RV storage and was that correct? Mr. Labrada stated approximately 3 years ago Edison, as a standard course of business, reviewed its secondary land use policy resulting in passive use of the facilities. Parking was considered passive use. The proposed project did meet the requirements imposed by Edison, and yes there had been a change in Edison policy. Commissioner Whitaker asked if the proposed project had come before Edison now would it be an approved use by Edison? Mr. Labrada stated yes, parking was allowed and the project would be considered. Page 20 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 21 of 28 Commissioner Bonina asked if they knew why L.A.County Fire Department was not allowing RV storage under Edison easements? Mr. Labrada stated he did not know their reasoning and could not speak to that issue. Mr. Salimone stated it was a policy that L.A. County Fire Department made and their scope of review was to ensure maintenance of the lines with the proposed use of the land. Commissioner Bonina stated in the past it appeared that Edison had very rigid standards and they had gone back and forth on many occasions along those lines. Had there been concessions made on the land use with this project? Mr. Labrada stated the proposed project had come before them prior to the change in policy and they had worked more with the applicant to make compromises as they wanted them to move forward with the City. If an application came forward now with a request for RV parking, Edison would consider it. Commissioner Merino stated he felt the question that was being asked was as a matter of Edison policy if Mr. Goriel had brought forth the project now, under Edison's' current policies would it be approved? Mr. Labrada stated yes it would be approved. Commissioner Imboden asked a follow up question to Staff regarding the 81 trips and was that averaged out over 7 days? Mr. Ortlieb stated it was an average of a count from May 21, 2006 through July 10, 2006. The high being 119 occurring on a Wednesday; and the low of 37 occurring on a Friday. Chair Steiner closed the public hearing and brought the discussion back to the Commission. Commissioner Merino stated he empathized with Mr. Goriel. Mr. Tindall had reiterated that the zoning had been approved by the City Council and he was within his rights to bring the project forward and he wanted to support businesses in the City. As a Commissioner he was tasked with making decisions based on the findings before him. Previously in reviewing the project he asked if the project was compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods - with all of the emotional and factual comments aside - it was clear to him that the project was not compliant with land use in that neighborhood. One of the key issues needing consideration was that Mr. Goriel had been asked to look at concerns that had been brought forth by the Commission, community members and Staff; he believed that some of the mitigation measures had negative unintended consequences. In pulling back lighting there would be unintended criminal consequences and it was not necessarily a situation where Tustin A venue was crime free. In looking at the applicant's other locations crime was not a factor probably due to the fact that the lot was intensely lit and they had surveillance. The condition to lower lighting due to the location of the proposed project would have unintended criminal consequences. Commissioner Merino stated in looking at the findings if there was an issue for safety Page 21 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 22 of 28 and just one possible concern he felt from a public safety standpoint that he could not make a finding for compatibility with the neighborhood. Commissioner Whitaker stated he felt there was some confusion with respect to what the Planning Commission did, they were not a policymaking body, they were not elected officials, the policymaking body was the City Council. City Council rezoned areas to allow residential areas, with a CUP, to have RV storage facilities in them. The Conditional Use Permit were the conditions that the Planning Commission could place upon an application to make it consistent with the land uses surrounding it. The use was allowed as long as there were mitigation measures to make it compatible. He felt the thing most concerning was visual mitigation, with respect to screening for the residents and the security measures. He was not in favor of the Variance application as he thought it went against the City code. There needed to be screening, and the hedge was an appropriate one, but there needed to be a fence behind it to prohibit someone from coming thru the RV parking into the residential neighborhood. The hedge with a fence would provide sufficient security. He had visited the Village Nursery and he was able to walk up and down in that area and there had been only one employee he saw that paid no attention to him. He stated if the applicant was able to place a fence behind the hedge he felt there was sufficient mitigation to cover the fire issues, the traffic issues and the lighting issues. Commissioner Bonina stated he agreed that an RV storage facility was needed in the City of Orange. He had spent time with the applicant and he was a good operator, he had done a good job with his other facilities. They were not talking about operation but the site specific. Edison had property rights and the right to improve their property, and the reality was that they had improved their property. They had a very functional property with power lines and the opportunity of the income from the nursery. There was a mention of findings and facts. The reality was that there was not a lot of information available regarding many of the issues and the uncertainty would dictate hesitancy and caution. The one thing that provided a problem for him was the security issue, and in listening to the residents, they had a 5' wall that would separate them from the proposed use. The hedge and the possibility of adding a fence to mitigate security was not enough. He felt it was not reasonable and he could not support the project. Commissioner Imboden stated most of his comments had already been shared by the other Commissioners. They had received numerous correspondence about the proposed project and they had reviewed each and every one of them. He commended the applicant for making a serious attempt to respond to the questions and concerns raised by the Commission during the last meeting. He could not come up with the required findings to support the proposed project and many of the questions posed had not been answered to allow him to move forward. He had supported the RV parking restrictions; unfortunately he was not able to support the project. Chair Steiner stated he joined in Commissioner Whitaker's observations and felt the project before him satisfied his concerns. He respected the opinions expressed by the neighbors and the decisions reached by his colleagues. Commissioner Imboden made a motion to deny Major Site Plan No. 0405-05; Page 22 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3,2008 23 of 28 Conditional Use Permit No. 2554-05; Design Review Committee No. 4220-07 and Variance No. 2173-07, a Variance to waive a requirement to install a wall, a fence or enclosure within a 20' landscape set back from the residentially zoned properties to the north of the site for the Recreational Vehicle storage with up to 382 spaces within a 13.48 acre Southern California Edison property located at 1582 N. Tustin. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioner Imboden, Bonina and Merino Commissioner Steiner and Whitaker None None MOTION CARRIED NEW HEARINGS: (3) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2006-0002; ZONING CHANGE 1239-06; ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1772-06- SANTIAGO CREEK BIKE TRAIL A proposal to construct a Class I (off-road) bike trail along Santiago Creek from Tustin Street to Walnut Avenue and on a City-owned abandoned railroad right-of-way from W alnut Avenue to Collins Avenue. A portion of the proposed bike trail is located on un- zoned railroad right-of-way; therefore the project also proposes zoning the un-zoned railroad right-of-way to Recreation Open Space (R-O) and a General Plan Amendment changing the General Plan land use designation of the railroad right-of-way from Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Open Space-Parks (OS-O) for consistency (Attachments 4 and 5). NOTE: MND No. 1772-06 was prepared to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the project, in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and in conformance with the local CEQA Guidelines (Attachment 8). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 03-08 recommending that the City Council approve construction of a Class I bike trail. Assistant Planner, Sharon Song, presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff, there were none. Chair Steiner opened the hearing to public comment. Pamela Galera, 5835 E. Jimson Ct., Orange, was not present. Her speaker card was submitted and noted in favor of the project. Page 23 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 24 of 28 Shirley Grindle, 5021 E. Glen Arran, Orange, stated she was in support of the project. She was a member of the Santiago Creek Alliance and she had been trying to get trails along Santiago Creek for over 40 years. They had accomplished more working with City Staff over the last 7 years. They had a chance to have the trails along the creek that would join Hart Park with Santiago Regional Park. Supervisor Campbell had allocated 5 million dollars of Proposition lB money to be spent on the Santiago Creek Trail system. The City of Orange would have a big project on their hands and the Parks Commission had already approved the project. She stated they needed to hire a project manager to handle the project. Commissioner Merino asked if the project manager could be funded from the Proposition 1 B money? Ms. Grindle stated yes. John Moore, 2707 Killingsworth, Orange, stated the trail would be a great asset to the City and it would positively affect the City. It was a real transportation corridor. The project would extend the trail beyond the 55 freeway and would connect Villa Park to the trail system and most of the parks in the City. Chair Steiner closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt to recommend to the City Council Planning Commission Resolution 03-08 with General Plan Amendment 2006-0002; Zoning Plan Change 1239-06; Minor Site Plan 0446-06; and Environmental Mitigated Negative Declaration 1772-06 Santiago Creek Bike Trail, noting Mitigated Negative Declaration 1772-06 was prepared to evaluate the physical and environmental impacts with CEQA per State CEQA guidelines. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioner Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED (4) CONDITIONAL CHURCH USE PERMIT NO. 2675-07- ST. MARY'S A proposal to operate a bingo hall on Wednesday evenings from 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. The bingo games would be conducted in an existing multipurpose room. LOCATION: 1515 E. TAFT NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I-Existing Facilities) because the Page 24 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 25 of 28 project will take place within an existing use RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 08-08 recommending to the City Council approval of the bingo use. Associate Planner, Robert Garcia, provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for any questions to Staff, there were none. Chair Steiner opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward to answer questions. Applicant, Joseph Jabbour, 7349 Marine Ave., Rancho Cucamonga, stated Father George was unable to be present and apologized for his absence. He was responsible for the bingo activities and he was a member of St. Mary's Church. St. Mary's Church moved into the location in April,1997, the parish consisted of approximately 125 members, 75 of which were active members, with many of the members living in the City of Orange. They had maintained excellent records with the Police and Fire Departments, and they had maintained mutual respect and understanding with the neighbors. A new hall was built in 2006 with their expenses a bit more than they had planned. To relieve some of the financial burdens and to provide entertainment for their members and community they wanted to open a bingo activity. They would abide by the rules and regulations imposed by the City of Orange. Chair Steiner opened the hearing for public comment. There were a number of speaker cards that were submitted, however, the speakers did not wish to make a public comment and wanted cards noted as being in favor of the project. The speaker cards submitted were: Rose Abdallah, 5444 La Luna Dr., La Palma Georgette Adam, 195 S. Lincoln, Orange Wadi a Adam, 27852 Torroba, Mission Viejo Grace Mourey, 5572 Maplewood Ave., Orange John Mourey, 2416 E. Palmyra Ave., Orange Afram Safar, 5070 Clifton Way, Buena Park Younan Safar, 5225 Somerset, Buena Park Norma Safar, 5070 Clifton Way, Buena Park Marlin Salman, 2416 E. Palmyra Ave., Orange Simon Tabello, 8971 Los Coyotes Dr., Buena Park Sylvia Tabello, 8971 Los Coyotes Dr., Buena Park Abbey Adams, 195 S. Lincoln, Orange, stated he was an active member and the secretary of the church for the past 4 years. He had 13 grandchildren that attended Sunday school at St. Mary's Church. St. Mary's neighbor, Kirkwood Assisted Living, had submitted a letter to the Planning Commission to verify that they had no problems with the bingo activity being added. He asked the Commissioners to approve the much needed activity Page 25 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3,2008 26 of 28 at the church location. Susanna Shortall, 1747 N. Lincoln, Orange, stated she owned both properties that bordered the church on both sides. They had not received any notice that the Church was going to go through major renovation. Dumpsters had been placed right up against her block wall and back yard. She was frequently in her backyard and the placement of the dumpster was not pleasant. She had a concern with the hours of operation of the bingo activity that it would operate from 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and at 11:01 all business would cease, no P.A. system operating, no noise issue, no car alarms going off, what happened when she wished to go to bed at night. The traffic on Taft was already congested and there was an issue with cars parking on Taft and the restricted view it represented for people turning onto Taft. The comment about needing funds would make bingo more of a business entity rather than a needed Church activity. She was concerned about how the activity would affect the character of the neighborhood. Chair Steiner stated asked the applicant to come forward to respond to the public comment. Mr. Jabbour stated the hours of operation would be from 5:00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.m., with the bingo game finishing at 10:00. A few of the church members would remain to count the money and clean up. The actual bingo would go from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. In regard to the traffic, he had never had a problem going in or out on Taft and had never received a complaint from neighbors. The trash cans were placed in the location based on the Planning Commission's request. Commissioner Bonina stated Condition No.ll, stated operation 5 :00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.m. Mr. Jabbour stated they would be on the premises from 5:00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.m. with the bingo stopping at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Bonina asked if the condition stated business would cease at 10:00 p.m. would that be agreeable? Mr. Jabbour stated yes, that would be agreeable. Chair Steiner closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Bonina made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 08- 08 recommending approval to recommend to the City Council Conditional Use Permit No. 2676-07- St. Mary's Church, allowing them to conduct a bingo hall facility at 1515 E. Taft Avenue. To modify Condition No. 11 for hours of operation for the bingo activity to go from 5:00 to 10:00, recognizing the item was categorically exempt from CEQA. SECOND: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioner Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None Page 26 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3,2008 27 of 28 ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED (5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2648-07 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4319-08-CHOC HOSPITAL LOBBY A proposal to remodel and expand the existing hospital lobby by 3,568 sq. ft and reconfigure the existing entry drive plaza to the existing CHOC Hospital North Tower, which will result in the relocation or replacement of pedestrian access, landscaping, and slgnage. LOCATION: 455 S. Main NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I - Existing Facilities). This exemption applies to the project because the addition will not result in more than 10,000 square feet, there are services and facilities that support the facility, maximum development of the site is permissible under the General Plan, and the area is not environmentally sensitive. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution NO.1 0-08 approving the lobby expansion. Chair Steiner made a motion to continue to a date certain of March 17, 2008 Conditional Use Permit No. 2648-07 and Design Review Committee No. 4319-08 CHOC Hospital Lobby. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioner Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED (6) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2694-07- KING LOBSTER PALACE A proposal for approval of a Type 41 ABC license (On-Sale Beer and Wine-Eating Place) at a new eating establishment. LOCATION: 2045 N. Tustin NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State Page 27 of 28 Pages Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 2008 28 of 28 CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class I-Existing Facilities) because the project consists of the operation and the licensing of an establishment within an existing private structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-08 approvmg the on sale of beer and wine. Chair Steiner made a motion to continue to a date certain of March 17, 2008 Conditional Use Permit No. 2694-07 - King Lobster Palace. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Merino Commissioner Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED (7) ADJOURNMENT Chair Steiner made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission held in the Council Chambers on Monday, March 17,2008. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker None None None MOTION CARRIED MEETING ADJOURNED @ 11:11 P.M. Page 28 of 28 Pages