Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-19-1990 PC MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange March 19, 1990 Orange, California Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF MARCH 5, 1990 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Minutes of March 5, 1990 be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Greek IN RE: NEW HEARINGS Hart, Master, Scott MOTION CARRIED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2-90 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposed revision and comprehensive update of those portions of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the Residential Districts. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1335 has been prepared for this project. Mr. Godlewski stated the Commissioners received a memo from staff, as well as from Community Foothill Builders, expressing their concern with the current state of the Ordinance. They are not comfortable at this time to go forward with a decision and requested a continuance to a study session in order to allow further discussion. Staff requested a date of April 4, 1990. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission continue Ordinance Amendment 2-90 to April 4, 1990, 5:00 p.m. , for a study session. Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1990 - Page 2 IN RE: NEW HEARINGS ZONE CHANGE 1123 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposal to pre-zone the unincorporated single family properties on Cumberland Road, between Canal Street and Shaffer Street, in preparation for annexation to the City of Orange. Current zoning is County E-4-80, and proposed zoning is City R-1-10. NOTE: The projected annexation is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA guidelines Section 15319. Mary Ann Chamberlain, Senior Planner, Advanced Planning, presented the staff report. The site is comprised of 20 acres and has approximately 62 homes which front on Cumberland Road and one that fronts on Shaffer Street. A few years ago some of the residents came to the City and requested sewer service because in the County they are on septic tanks and do not have sewer services. It is the City's policy to annex people who acquire sewer service from the City of Orange. The first step in the process is to pre-zone the area from the County E-4-80 zoning to the City R-1-10. The County zoning that they were developed under has an 80 foot frontage and minimum sized lots of 10,000 square feet. Under the City's R-1-10 they would also have those exact same requirements. The County code is much more restrictive in the setbacks. Annexation would take place after pre-zoning. The public hearing was opened. Those speaking in favor: Kathleen Tobkin, 16551 Cumberland Road, felt this was an appropriate proposed zone designation for Cumberland Road. It preserves the single family densities and it restricts the building sites to 10,000 square f eet so there is no possibility of disrupting the neighborhood with higher density apartment buildings. They need sewer service at their home and it appears the only way they can get the service is to annex into the City of Orange. Henry Tobkin, 16551 Cumberland Road, understands this is a pre-zone step which is necessary before getting sewer service on Cumberland Road. He is for the proposed zone change and feels it is appropriate. Michael Fisher, 16521 Cumberland Road, is very much for the pre-zoning situation. Many of the older septic tanks in the area have reached their limits of effectiveness. Some of Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1990 - Page 3 them definitely need to be replaced, including theirs. The ground in the area, over the last 30 years, has reached a saturation point. He would like to take steps towards a sewer system. The current septic tank system is an outdated system. Those speaking in opposition: Chester Hill, 16352 Cumberland Road, is definitely against annexation. They have lived on Cumberland over 20 years and has no trouble with their septic tank. Robert Rnepp, 16302 Cumberland Road, thought there was a problem of misrepresentation or misinterpretation in the way this has been handled. This was initiated to be a special septic tank district by the County when it was first established. At the meetings that were held they were given information regarding a septic tank district, but now they are faced with annexation. Letters were sent out about an election and hearing. The people realize the City Council can elect and bring them into the City without any input because they are an island. They have not heard of an election or have not received any formal notification of an election or hearing about a sewer district. Annexation was never mentioned at the meetings. Many people are retired and are adamantly against annexation. The assessments of being incorporated into the City will have a financial effect on them. He would like to know what the next steps are in this procedure. The issue is sanitation, not annexation. Ms. Chamberlain responded the sewer district was proposed when they held the two public meetings at Shaffer Park. At that time, the people were told there would be an annexation process that would have to take place. The formation of the sewer district would probably happen in approximately two months. The annexation process will begin when the City decides to file the annexation with the Local Agency Formation Commission. After the Local Agency Formation Commission takes action on the annexation, then there would be a chance for protest. However, before that comes about, the first step in the process is to pre-zone the area. Commissioner Greek was looking at a letter dated December 5, 1989. The first sentence asks for annexation into the City of Orange. He would like to stay away from the annexation because it is a separate issue the Commission cannot respond to. He felt the letters explained what the procedures were. Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1990 - Page 4 P'Is. Chamberlain said letters were mailed to every property owner on Cumberland Road. If the audience cared to join her after the meeting, she would be happy to answer their questions in the Weimer Room. Mr. Johnson st the City would district cannot jurisdiction of annexation are looking at the a later date. ated a sewer district was the method by which finance the costs of providing sewers. A be formed until the property is within the the City of Orange. The district and two separate issues. The City is currently zoning; the annexation will be considered at Commissioner Greek said the people speaking in opposition have not spoken to the zoning issue. Commissioner Bosch thought perhaps those people in opposition could address the zoning to see if they had any factual concerns for any differences between the City and County zoning. William Snyder, 16341 Cumberland Road, said there were home s on the street with fences higher than the City of Orange's requirements; they exceed the four foot limit. Some people have more pets than are allowed in the City of Orange. How will these people be affected? He is basically against the annexation. Daniel Souder, 16392 Cumberland Road, raised objection to the zoning because he doesn't believe the people have been thoroughly informed about this hearing. He was under the impression it was not only for zoning, but annexation as well. The people were not prepared to come and speak on zoning alone. If they are re-zoned, will the City be responsible for adding street lights, giving them the proper curbs, and all the other amenities that the City gives other people in the City. He asked these questions at the previous meetings and was told no. What benefits do they receive if re-zoned and later annexed into the City? They will be paying a great deal more money because they have to pay for the installation of the sewer line. Darlene Bossen, 16422 Cumberland Road, was in favor of the pre-zoning and wants the annexation. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Greek commented he has not heard anyone opposed to the pre-zoning. The Commission will need to form their own opinion that if this property were annexed to the City of Orange, does it conform to the R-1-10 zoning? The only concern heard was regarding dogs and fences. Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1990 - Page 5 Ms. Chamberlain said normally when an area is annexed into a city, they accept it as is. If someone had 5 dogs and the City only allowed 3, then they would be able to keep those dogs until such time they got down to what the City allowed. The County of Orange has some requirements on animals and fences. Their fences are no more restrictive than the City's. The County of Orange is looking at their animal code to update i t. Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council to approve Pre-Zone Change 1123-90 changing the zoning from the County E-4-80' to the City R-1-10 (Single Family Residential, minimum 10,000 square foot lots). AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Hart asked when this would go before the City Council? Ms. Chamberlain was not certain of a City Council hearin3 date. When the people were notified of the Commission's hearing, they were sent copies of the County's and City's zoning codes. Again, when they notice for the City Council meeting, she will do the same thing. IN RE: N EW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1810-90 - TOM L. STULL/VINTAGE INTERNATIONAL NETWORK: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages in sealed containers in an industrial zone. Subject property is located at 1735 and 1737 West Ratella Avenue. NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301. There was no staff report and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Kurt Gehring, Vintage Network, stated the application was for a retail license on the premise. The main objection seemed to be that it would be a liquor store with a lot of heavy traffic, but that is not the case. The location is for order processing and shipping out via U.P.S. Walk-in sales amount to 1~ to 5~. They intend to only dispense wine. Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1990 - Page 6 The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 1810-90 subject to the conditions as listed. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1819-90 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY/VILLAGE NURSERIES: A proposed Conditional Use Permit application to allow the construction of a 6,720 square foot office building and a 3,200 square foot maintenance building in the M-1 zone, on property located on the south side of Taft Avenue, approximately 900 feet east of Tustin Street, adjacent to and west of the Newport Freeway. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1334-90 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Tom House, 875 West Central Avenue, Brea, gave a brief history of Village Nurseries. They have chosen to locate their headquarters for their office staff at the proposed site. This land is Edison land; it is power line land. He doubts that it will be used for anything else in the future. They have a 5 year lease, but it is a 60-day type lease. If Edison decides to do something else with the land, they have the ability to revoke their lease. For them to do a great number of improvements to the property doesn't make a lot of sense. He questioned the conditions in the staff report including setbacks, a modular (temporary) office building, adding five feet to the approach, paving, and lighting requirements. There will be no access to the public at night and the property will be locked up. Edison is rather strict in what they allow them to do with the property. Also, the TSIP fees are quite high and he asked for some relief on those. Chairman Hart thought the applicant should have asked for a variance. He personally had a problem with their request for relief from the code requirements. Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1990 - Page 7 Commissioner Greek was more concerned about the appearance that the project will have from the freeway, plus the violation of all the codes. He thought the applicant should withdraw his request. He's not sure this is even the right use for the property. Dale Rahn, 350 North Harwood and also Village Nurseries, thought as far as the parking lot they would prefer to come in under a temporary use. He understands there are code requirements, bu t they would like to have some relief from some of those code requirements and to be under a temporary parking lot code situation. The difference is the use of material in paving that parking lot. Under temporary uses, they could get by with a recycled asphaltic pavement. It mends together. If under a permanent parking space, it would be a solid surface (asphalt or cement). Commissioner Greek stated the City's standards for a temporary parking lot are very stringent and are required. Mr. Rahn believes their business is a good use for the property because they are using the property as an enhancement. They are bringing some aesthetic appearance to that site, which is more or less a dirt lot. Commissioner Master asked what their intended hours of operation would be? Mr. Rahn responded their normal hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. They do run into certain odd situations of loading at night, but that would not be done at the Orange site. Their dispatch yard is in Huntington Beach. Any loading or unloading of material here is on a short interim basis. They are a 280 acre nursery and this site is only 13 acres. It is only a small portion of their overall production area. There is no retail or public access. They do not sell to the public from the site. The office they intend to build will house the accounting process of the company. Chairman Hart wanted Mr. Rahn to understand the Commission's position on this request. Mr. Rahn said the Conditional Use Permit was required by the City because they were going from M-1; to put in an office building into a M-1 zone, they needed to have a C.U.P. He supposed they could have included a Variance along with the C.U.P. Commissioner Bosch said it appears the conditions that have been questioned are reminders of other parts of the City Ordinances that would be in effect whether the applicant was Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1990 - Page 8 here for a Conditional Use Permit or not. Since it is a temporary use, they apply with the C.U.P. There is no clear indication that the applicant will be at the site for five years. He felt they had the wrong application because there is no Variance application nor demonstration of hardship from the Ordinance. The Commission cannot waive the Ordinance. Commissioner Master asked if a representative from Southern California Edison were present? Mr. Rahn responded no. He had a letter from Edison dated January 25, 1990 saying that they do not object to Village Nurseries seeking a C.U.P. Ms. Wolff pointed out the land owner did send a letter authorizing the applicant to apply for the application. In her conversations with Edison, they were aware of the proposed office use. Chairman Hart asked if the TSIP fees were chargeable to the tenant or land owner? It would be determined via a licensing agreement between them in terms of who pays the development fees. Commissioner Bosch stressed they needed to be careful as the only application before them was a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant may protest the conditions, but they are conditions the Commission cannot modify because there is not a Variance application. The Commission must make a decision on the Conditional Use Permit. The applicant could apply for a Variance and the Commission would take a separate action. Commissioner Master had several questions for the representative of Edison, but he was not present. He cannot act on this. He questions the location, and items about how this particular location as it applies to other habitable structures (distance separation) don't apply here under power lines. Mr. Rahn thought it would be possible to have someone from Edison to address the Commission's concerns. Commissioner Greek was concerned about the use of the vacant land under Edison's right-of-way, on a temporary basis for a nursery and exposing people five days a week. If this were approved, he thought others would apply to use this land for office space or a car sales lot. What is Edison's intentions? He has no objection to the landscaping use underneath, but has objection to the office/building use. Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1990 - Page 9 Mr. House said the difference between this property and the normal power line property, although there are power poles on the property, the proximity to the buildings in the area is 400 feet away. Edison does not allow any buildings under their power lines. There is approximately 10 acres of bare property with no power lines over it. Commissioner Master asked if the separation distance was different than what is typical for residential -- the separation from the structure to the power lines? (Mr. House did not know the answer, but cited examples of narrow easements bordered by homeowners.) Commissioner Master did not have the location of the lines in respect to the structure. He had a serious question in his mind about structures underneath power lines. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Greek thought they should request a representative from the Edison Company to be present to answer their questions. It would answer Commissioner Master's questions about the effect of the radiation or electromagnetic waves on having an office building underneath the power lines. The applicant's concurrence to continue this item was sough t and he was willing to postpone action. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit 1819-90 until April 16, 1990 and request the applicant to have a representative from the Edison Company present to answer technical and land use questions. Specific concerns are: 1. Electromagnetic effect; 2. Are separation distances different than residential; 3. Is it true Southern California Edison has funded the University of Southern California to do a study on this; 4. Did they report on the findings of the telephone company newspaper article regarding cause effects of electromagnetic radiation in cancer. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1799-89 - SAM HAMBARIAN/ORANGE DISPOSAL SERVICE: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a truck and trash transfer station, which will include Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1990 - Page 10 the on-site storage of baled paper and metals. The project is known as the Orange Resource Recycling Facility. Subject property is located at the northwest corner of Glassell Street and Grove Avenue (2050 North Glassell Street) . NOTE: Negative Declaration 1324 has been prepared for this project. The staff report was presented by Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, Current Planning. The project is from Orange Disposal, the City's trash disposal service. The request is to allow a truck and trash transfer station in the M-2 zone. The applicant and the City are working on the project together to meet a State mandate that will reduce the amount of solid waste leaving the City by 25~ within the near future, and by 50~ within four years. The Negative Declaration prepared for this project had to go through the same procedures as an E.I.R. since the State requires a permit be issued by the State's Intergrated Waste Management Board. The County's Sanitation District also has to issue a permit for this project. The review required 30 days and went through the State's Clearinghouse for environmental documents. It concluded that the noise, odors, traffic and related environmental impacts to the project could be mitigated measures. The City received comments from the County and State and they were incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval. The site plan includes the construction of three buildings; the main building is going to be a processing building containing the tipping floor where the collection vehicles dump trash onto and it is sorted. Trash that will be sent to the land fill will be pushed through a hole in the floor of the building into transfer trailers that park under it by a large ramp. They take it to the regional land fill. The rest of the trash is recyclable materials and it is sorted by type of material and baled or packaged into containers on site, awaiting to be sent to further processing centers. The project conforms to the development standards of the M-2 zone according to building Neigh t, setbacks and landscaping area provided. Staff would like to add to the wording of Condition 4 that the facility is to only to be used for trash generated within the corporate boundary of the City of Orange. (To be added as a second sentence.) Staff has recommended 43 conditions of approval. Commissioner Greek asked the reason for adding the proposed wording to Condition 4? Mr. Carnes responded that it would assure that the facility is not processing trash generated from Anaheim, Garden Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1990 - Page 11 Grove, or other nearby cities. The Negative Declaration and other reports is regarding traffic volumes and the amount of material processed by the City of Orange and Orange Disposal. Potentially, they could include other areas nearby. Commissioner Greek hated to think the City would hire a trash truck inspector to check pick up trucks on a full time basis. This condition is unreasonable and unenforceable. He would rather not include it. Commissioner Scott said the transfer station in Anaheim, off of the freeway, has a big advertisement - "Public Welcome". If you don't solicit it and it's only to be generated within the City, it would eliminate this big advertising. Other Commissioners did not feel it made a lot of sense to include the additional wording to Condition 4. Commissioner Bosch asked under State law to mitigate the current conditions in waste management, what do the other cities have to do? Are they required by State law to have similar stations within their corporate boundaries to serve theirs? Mr. Carnes responded that under a blanket, they are required to reduce the amount of trash leaving their city. It depends on the trash district. Each city is left on their own to resolve the problem to meet the State mandate. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Mike Hambarian, Orange Disposal, 1932 Batavia Street, has been investigating this transfer station for about 2 1/2 years. They have done a lot of work as far as what is going to be the simplest and most effective way of using this particular piece of property. They are going to bring in their own refuge trucks and their recycle vehicles. Half of the property will be for commercial use, which will be doing recycling of the commercial vehicle that would be coming in with trash. They are looking for 50$. By 1995, they need to bring out 25~ divert from the land fill. By the year 2000, 50~. He is not really concerned about other cities. They won't have to depend on other cities because they will have their own facility. It will be a beneficial type situation for both the City of Orange and their company. Commissioner Scott asked if Orange Disposal's drop off bins D.O.B.'s) are going to be recyclable? Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1990 - Page 12 Mr. Ham barian said yes, they would try to recycle as much as possible. In the new bill, they have to address the green waste. Commissioner Scott asked if they would bring in their D.O.B.'s from other cities (because that would be violating the condition) ? Mr. Ham barian did not know at this time. He did not discuss that part of it with staff. They will need to go along with whatever the State mandates them to do. He thinks the intent of Condition 4 pertains to other cities bringing their trash into Orange. They're not looking for that. Joe Risnor, Orange Disposal's engineer, Clemens Engineering, 6290 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, said after they obtain the appropriate land use permit from the City, Orange Disposal also must obtain what is essentially an operating permit from the State of California. This process involves working with Orange County Health Department and the State Board in Sacramento. The condition of the permit will be the maximum tonnage that could be brought into the facility will be 1,500 tons per day. That will be the limit on how much can be brought in. Everything they have done in preparing the materials before the Commission were based on the maximum level of 1,500 tons per day. The facility will have a scale where vehicles will weigh and records will be kept. That information can be audited. When they obtain their permit from the State, there will be a number of conditions, some of which will be for Orange Disposal to file periodic reports with the County and State on such things as how much waste is coming in and are you within your permit limits. In working with several cities, it has been determined that the recycling goals will require them to go beyond just curb side recycling. It will involve the homeowner in the whole recycling process. Chairman Hart asked for an interpretation of the Negative Declaration pertaining to the amount of trash handled -- is that generated in the City of Orange? How do they justify the D.O.B.'s bringing outside trash in when the Negative Declaration only calls for trash within the City? Mr. Risnor thought the way the document reads right now, it didn't really anticipate specifically the source of the trash. It anticipated the volume of trash. It included all D.O.B.'s and the normal trucks and private vehicles. Commissioner Scott asked if the 1,500 tons per day were predicated on a State permit? Mr. Risnor said that was correct. The State's permit will say the maximum daily capacity will be 1,500 tons per day; Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1990 - Page 13 it's very specific. Fifteen hundred tons per day of trash is not being generated in the City of Orange today. They were making provisions for future growth. The State permit will be reviewed every five years. Commissioner Scott asked staff if tonnage were based on population? Mr. Carnes responded Orange Disposal processes approximately 900 tons of trash a day now. The City's population is approximately 104,000. It is projected, by the year 2010, to be 124,000 -- a 17~ or 18$ increase. The 1,500 tons per day is projected for the year 2010. That's including our increase in population -- a 66~ increase in processing capability, which was built in. Mr. Risnor also said the State always looks to the City, the local community, before they establish their conditions. When they make their submittal and application to the State for a permit, part of the submittal will be the Conditional Use Permit and the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Bosch asked what types of programs were in place for commercial trash that will be impacting this in addition to the D.O.B.'s that account for the 50$? Mr. Risnor said this facility will have provisions for and will be designed to recover materials from commercial waste not quite 50~) . Hours and truck routes can be staggered to avoid peak traffic. Those speaking in opposition Wanda Bose, 12411 Rebecca Lane, Santa Ana, owns six large buildings directly across the street on Grove and Glassell. They have complied with the City's requirements including landscaping and lights. Now they are faced with an extremely large amount of dirt coming from across the street. Their tenants have suffered, as well as the shrubs. This is not an asset to the neighborhood. She is concerned about the noise, roaches, odors and dust; it will lower their property values. Rahuttal Mr. Hambarian:~id Orange._Disposal will be taking a great .amount of pride in the appearance of their facility. The facility will be fully landscaped. The problem with the current dust is because the site is not paved. When the facility is developed, the curb line along Glassell will be extended to conform with the rest of the property on the street. A wall will be built along the front of the facility. The processing of trash will be done indoors. They addressed Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1990 - Page 14 the issues of rodents, noise and dust in the material submitted to the Commission, and also addressed in the Negative Declaration. The trash will not remain on site for any period of time. The site will be cleaned daily. Residential trash will not be sorted too much because there is currently a curb side program; it will be pushed into the transfer trailer and removed from site. Mitigation measures should not be an issue. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission accept the findings of the Environmental Review Board to file Negative Declaration 1324-89. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Hart, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1799-89, deleting the additional wording (added by staff) to Condition 4. It's not an enforceable requirement and he feels the capacity indicated based on the Negative Declaration can be handled up to the year 2010, but also there is a provision in the Negative Declaration for a 10~ increase capacity. If there is any additional material that is available, there is no need to have a policing action that would try to determine where the trash is coming from. AYES: Commissioners Greek, Hart NOES: Commissioners Bosch, Master, Scott MOTION FAILED The Planning Commission discussed at length the amount of trash brought into the City, tipping fees, segregation of trash on a tonnage basis (all computerized), the protection of the City and the traffic generation. The traffic study is based on trips per day, 1,500 tons of trash per day -- an ultimate capacity. They debated the issues of Condition 4. Commissioner Bosch thought this was irrelevant discussion because they were looking at several things. Is this an appropriate site for this utilization, are the figures correct for 1,500 tons, and then, in fact, doesn't the City have to handle all the trash and meet State law somewhere? What is the most economical way to do that? The real point is that Orange must provide a site and Orange Disposal must give it first priority in order to stay in business. Mrs. Bose spoke again in defense of her property and tenants. She felt there will be too much truck traffic if the project is approved. She was against the amount of money the trash company was making. Planning Commission Minutes March 19, 1990 - Page 15 Moved by Commissioner Greek to deny Conditional Use Permit 1799-89, but there was no second. MOTION DIED Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1799-89, subject to the 43 conditions as listed so as to assure the project will be designed and built to preserve the general welfare of the citizens of Orange and so that the project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The facility will give first priority to waste generated within the incorporated boundaries of the City of Orange and will only process waste generated outside the City as long as the facility has excess capacity. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: OTHER ITEMS 1. CELLULAR ORDINANCE - Mr. Godlewski reported that Mr. Carnes went to the PUC hearings concerning the cellular antennas. It was their opinion that the cities will be superseded in anything they do. Instructions to staff is to proceed with the Ordinance as originally outlined and wait until the PUC's decision is made. Guidelines are forthcoming in the near future, but until that happens, staff will proceed with the Ordinance as proposed. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission adjourn to their regularly scheduled meeting April 2, 1990 at 7:00 p.m., proceeded by a 6:30 p.m. Administrative Session in the Weimer Room. A study session will be held April 4, 1990 in the Weimer Room regarding the zoning ordinance. Another study session will be held April 9, 1990 at 5:00 p.m. to discuss the landscape ordinance. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Hart, Master, Scott NOES: None MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. sld