2007 - December 17
Planning Commission Minutes
December 17, 2007
1 of 29
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
17 December 2007
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
STAFF
PRESENT:
Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director
Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner
Dan Ryan, Senior Planner, Historic Preservation
Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION:
Chair Imboden opened the Administrative Session @ 6:35 p.m.
Chair Imboden reviewed the Agenda with the Commission.
The minutes from the November 19, 2007 meeting were reviewed - no changes were
noted.
Item No.2 Glos Residence: This was an Old Towne item with a recommendation from
Staff for approval. Commissioner Merino stated that the site plan Al was very small and
difficult to read. Mr. Ryan stated the setback prints were larger. Commissioner Bonina
asked for the total square footage, as he had come up with 624 sq. ft.? Mr. Ryan stated
that his measurement was correct, which was a 24% increase. The existing structure was
1664 sq. ft. and the addition of394 sq. ft. for a total of2059 sq. ft. He also noted that the
enclosed porch of229 sq. ft. was not included.
Item No.3 Chapman RV #4: Chair Imboden stated he had received a letter from Mary
Ann Sferruzza, he would acknowledge receipt of the letter for purposes of being entered
into the record. He also stated that he would have questions on the item. Commissioner
Bonina asked on page 7 of the Staff Report, under the parking information, were columns
2 and 3 transposed? Mr. Ortlieb stated that they were transposed and he would note the
correction when presenting the item. Commissioner Whitaker stated there was a repeated
reference to a prior application. He asked if there was any history or information on that
application? Mr. Ortlieb stated that Staff had tried to locate by address, cross street and
other variables; however, Staff was not able to come up with anything.
Item No.4 Beacon Day School: Commissioner Steiner asked Chair Imboden ifhe would
be willing to move this item to the front of the agenda, as the applicant had been at the
end at a previous meeting? Chair Imboden stated he had no problem in moving the item
up in the agenda. Chair Imboden stated that the item was a minute order and were there
Page 1 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007
2 of 29
any procedural differences in the action they took on the item? Mr. Knight stated that the
only difference was the motion and second would be noted in the minutes and a copy of
the minutes would be placed in the applicants file.
Item No. 5 Dance Partner: This was a final action on a CUP and Variance.
Commissioner Steiner stated the Staff recommendation was split.
Additional Business: Mr. Knight announced that the Planning Commission Institute
Conference was coming up in March and if anyone was interested in attending to let him
know. The dates were March 26 through 28 and Chair Imboden would be a speaker at
one of the seminars.
Administrative Session closed @ 6:50.
PUBLIC P ARTICIP A TION: None
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None
CONSENT ITEM
(1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING
OF NOVEMBER 19, 2007.
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to approve the November 19, 2007 minutes as
written.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
COMMISSION BUSINESS
(2) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4290-07 - GLOS RESIDENCE
A Proposal to replace a non-contributing screened-in porch and construct several smaller
additions totaling 395 square feet resulting in an expansion that exceeds 20% of the size
ofthe existing 1,654 sq. ft. contributing 1905 Hip Roofed Cottage.
LOCATION: 816 E. Culver
NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from the provlSlons of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 3 - New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Page 2 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
December 17, 2007
3 of 29
Approve Design Review Committee No. 4290-07 approving an Old
Towne addition that exceeds 20% of the existing floor area for a
contributing residence.
Senior Planner, Dan Ryan, provided a project overview consistent with the Staff Report.
Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. There were none.
Chair Imboden opened the public hearing.
Applicant, Kurt Beckmeyer, Project Architect, 5659 Berkshire, Los Angeles, stated he
enjoyed working with Staff and they were able to come up with design solutions based on
the recommendations made by the DRC, including the changes to the roofline. He
explained the square footage overage of 20% was less than a 4% increase in what was
allowed.
Commissioner Merino asked if he was licensed by the State of California? Mr.
Beckmeyer stated yes, that was correct.
Chair Imboden stated in reviewing the plans the windows were not specifically denoted
as wood. Mr. Beckmeyer stated the windows were wood.
Chair Imboden opened the hearing for public comment.
Jeff Frankel, address on file, representing the OTP A, stated the OTP A supported the
project and the addition was very complimentary in scale and mass to the Old Towne
District. The addition was sympathetic to the streetscape as it would be barely visible
from the street. This had been one of the few sets of plans that he reviewed where there
was a notation that included the demarcation between old and new.
Janet Crenshaw, 280 N. Cleveland, Orange, stated she was present to praise the project
and the sooner they completed this project the applicant could start on the barn.
Chair Imboden closed the public hearing and brought the discussion back to the
Commission for discussion.
Chair Imboden stated it was refreshing to see a set of plans for an Old Towne project
where an appropriate designer was hired for the job, and it was a good project for the
community.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to approve DRC No. 4290-07, Glos Residence,
noting the project was categorically exempt from CEQA.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
Page 3 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
December 17, 2007
4 of 29
ABSENT: None
RECUSED: None
MOTION CARRIED
CONTINUED HEARINGS:
(3) MAJOR SITE PLAN NO. 0404-05; 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 BA8-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.
LOCATION: 1582 N. Tustin
NOTE:
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1790-07 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 25070 and in conformation with the local
CEQA Guidelines (Attachment 2).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 46-07 approving the project.
Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb, provided a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Imboden opened the hearing for questions to Staff.
Commissioner Steiner stated referring to page 16, item P Mitigated Negative Declaration,
it appeared that two selections had been marked, one for no impact and one for less than
significant impact. He asked which was correct?
Mr. Ortlieb stated the correct selection was a less than significant impact.
Commissioner Steiner asked if the proposal had been reviewed by the Fire Department
and if any opposition had been received from the Police Department?
Mr. Ortlieb stated the proposal was reviewed by the Fire Marshall for compliance
with Fire Codes and the Fire Department had recommended the item for approval. No
opposition was received from the Police Department.
Commissioner Steiner asked on the article submitted with their packets, dated November
19,2007 from the LA Times, titled Edison Zaps Lease and Build Program, was it Staffs
Page 4 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007
5 of 29
position that anything proposed on the application under the power lines qualified as
commercial structures?
Mr. Ortlieb stated no, there was a modular structure proposed for the site without a
permanent foundation.
Commissioner Steiner asked ifthere were any proposed zone changes for the project?
Mr. Ortlieb stated no, there were no proposed zone changes.
Commissioner Merino stated on Page 12 ofthe Staff Report, there was reference to a wall
recommendation parallel to the northerly adjacent residents. He asked if there had been
a wall recommendation by SCE, and if there was an SCE representative present?
Mr. Ortlieb stated no, and there had been no recommendation or approval by SCE for a
wall. There was not an SCE representative present.
Commissioner Merino asked in reference to the parking study, were the individuals who
would bring the RVs to the site being considered as an additional vehicle, and was this
considered in developing the required parking?
Mr. Ortlieb stated Staff requested that information from the applicant. The applicant
indicated that at their other location there was not a need for additional parking, and he
would like to defer that question to the applicant.
Commissioner Merino asked if there was any consideration given to the requirement for a
signal to assist with vehicles turning in and out of the driveway?
Mr. Ortlieb stated he would defer that question to the Traffic Division.
Traffic Engineer, Amir Farahani, stated that a signal was not considered for the RVs
entering and exiting the storage facility. In reviewing the traffic impacts a signal was not
warranted.
Commissioner Bonina asked if the existing driveway was wide enough. Mr. Farahani
stated it was wide enough.
Commissioner Bonina clarified that an RV would have the ability to turn in without over
emphasizing a radius turn and allow another R V to turn out.
Mr. Farahani stated there was adequate space for an RV to enter and exit. The space was
analyzed by the Fire Department for use by a Fire Truck and it was found to be adequate.
Commissioner Bonina asked ifthe RV had the same ability to make radius turns as a Fire
Truck?
Mr. Farahani stated an RV had the same mobility as that of a Fire Truck. Commissioner
Bonina asked if Mr. Farahani had an opportunity to participate in a parking study?
Page 5 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007
6 of 29
Mr. Farahani stated no, he had not participated in a parking study, as they felt what was
being provided on the proposal was adequate.
Chair Imboden stated the Fire Department reviewed the driveway and found it to be
adequate for a Fire Truck to enter and exit the site. He asked if there was an analysis
completed which looked at an RV entering across traffic into the driveway, while another
RV was leaving the site? The Fire Department did not look at a Fire Truck entering and
exiting at the same time, and was that type of analysis completed?
Mr. Farahani stated no, that type of a study was not completed. The Traffic Department
felt that the driveway and site set up was adequate as it allowed for stacking on the
driveway.
Chair Imboden stated the minimum width driveway required for such a facility was 30'
and he asked what was the proposed driveway at?
Mr. Farahani stated it was at the minimum of30'.
Commissioner Whitaker, referring to page 4 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
stated there was a proposed 20' landscape buffer along Cambridge and a 30' wide buffer
along the northern property. He confirmed that those widths were on the plans, and in
those two areas there would be 4,600 Queen Palm trees to a height of 15' feet stored there
for the existing nursery. The condition proposed in the Variance stated that adequate
numbers of box trees would need to be maintained. How was the constant landscape
buffer going to be policed?
Mr. Ortlieb, referring to page 4 of the environmental document, stated the number of
trees in the buffer was the amount the applicant had provided for and was different than
what was required by Code to fulfill their tree obligation.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he was not referring to the tree obligation, but the wall
Variance, and their intent to meet the Code was to provide the heavy landscape barrier.
The proposal states that box trees must remain in the quantities in areas of the site plan
for the duration to conform to the conditions. Did the proposal require 4,600 trees in the
landscape buffer to meet the conditions of the Variance and how would they insure there
would be 4,600 trees there at all times?
Mr. Ortlieb stated Staff did not link the number of required trees to the number stated in
the environmental document. The requirement was for the location of box trees, when
the nursery would take a tree they would be obligated to replace the trees, the policing of
that would be ongoing.
Commissioner Bonina asked what the proposed hours of operation would be?
Mr. Ortlieb stated 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Bonina confirmed that the decision made on this proposal was a final
action and it would not move to City Council.
Page 6 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
December 17, 2007
7 of 29
Mr. Ortlieb stated correct, it was a final action.
Commissioner Bonina stated a comment was made on the consistency of the plans, what
level of inconsistencies were present in the plans and the Staff Report?
Mr. Ortlieb stated in the Staff Report the setback area vs. the site plan, one showed 20'
and one showed 30' in referring to the landscape area.
Commissioner Bonina confirmed on the Staff Report it showed 20' and the plan showed
30', as he had also noted a range of23' to 30'? Mr. Ortlieb stated one was 25' the other
was 30'.
Commissioner Bonina asked if there was a title or Alta Survey completed on the
properties to identify any underground utilities that were found? Mr. Ortlieb stated there
was not one submitted for Staff review.
Commissioner Bonina asked if it was typical to not ask for a survey?
Mr. Ortlieb stated on an existing site that would be predominantly unchanged, and the
site was not being disturbed, it was not required.
Commissioner Bonina asked ifthere were any water or gas lines located in the ground?
Mr. Ortlieb stated Staff was not aware of any.
Commissioner Bonina stated that SCE did not allow a permanent fence, with the
exception of a perimeter wall. It was his understanding, if a wall between the Edison
property and the residents to the north was enhanced it would meet the SCE requirement.
Mr. Ortlieb stated it would be allowed by SCE, it was not required. Commissioner
Bonina stated it appeared that a fence would be allowed.
Mr. Ortlieb stated in speaking to the applicant they would be willing to accept a right turn
only to enter/exit the site.
Commissioner Merino stated the applicant had a similar project on Batavia and they were
using that as a comparison, did Mr. Farahani have the level of service for the Batavia
location?
Mr. Farahani stated he did not recall the level of service on Batavia. The level of service
on Tustin was at a level C. That was well below the threshold. Commissioner Merino
stated for comparison purposes he wanted the level of service on Batavia.
Mr. Farahani stated he would look for that information and give the Commission the
level of service on Batavia.
Commissioner Bonina stated he had an opportunity to speak to Larry Labrado, an SCE
representative, about the item.
Page 7 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
December 17, 2007
8 of 29
Chair Imboden opened the public hearing.
George Tindall, 610 Malabar Drive, Corona Del Mar, stated the driveway on Tustin
Avenue was 40' wide, and it exceeded all residential standards. There was no issue with
vehicles turning out and vehicles turning in. They had agreed to restrict turns to right
turns only. He passed out a letter to the Commissioners and explained it was an SCE
letter stating they were in compliance with SCE standards, and there was no permanent
structure proposed for the site. A question had been raised regarding an Alta Survey,
SCE had a survey that was similar and showed a map with all utilities on the site. In
regard to the inconsistencies, the requirement was for a 20' setback on Tustin and
Cambridge, if the Code required 30' they would comply. The closest motor home to
Tustin Avenue would be 400' away from the right-of-way, and the closest proposed
motor home space from Cambridge would be 48 11' away. Mr. Tindall added that they
were required by the Ordinance to provide a minimum of 20' of heavy landscaping
between their site and the adjacent residential properties. The heavy landscape they
proposed was 20 11' to 30' of Queen Palm trees to shield the neighbors to the north from
the site.
Mr. Tindall stated he had been working on the project for several years and with the
recent City Ordinance restricting RV parking there was a need in Orange for facilities as
the one they were proposing. Their property was zoned for an R V parking and storage
facility, and it required a CUP. The Commission was reviewing the matter to insure that
all the conditions of approval had been adopted to minimize the impact on the adjacent
properties. They had worked with four different City Planners and had prepared an
extensive Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Green Plan and a very comprehensive Water
Quality Control Plan that had been reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department. They had also prepared a traffic study that took into account the trips in per
day, including the July 4th and Memorial weekends and the result was that the traffic had
a nil impact on Tustin A venue, Cambridge and the adjacent intersections. The level of
service on Tustin was a level C or better. Village Nursery had lost their lease and they
were able to make use of the site with their proposed facility. The project had been
reviewed by the Fire Department and had listed conditions that were included in the Staff
Report. The same plan was also approved by the O.C. Fire Authority.
Mr. Tindall stated the 4 guest parking spaces were adequate for any guest wanting to park
when dropping off their vehicle for the first time. Generally when a tenant was picking
up their vehicle they would leave the vehicle that they drove in, in the spot where the RV
would be taken from. The driveway was 40' wide and 70' long with a turn in. Most
cities shied away from having 2 parallel fences that increase a "no mans land". The City
of Orange Ordinance required a fence at the 20' right-of-way line, which meant there
were two parallel fences, the other being at the property line on the north. This situation
was problematic as SCE did not allow parallel fences on their site. If the parallel fences
were built with heavy landscape in between, there would be no means to maintain the
landscaping between the fences, and therefore, they had requested a Variance. He stated
they were willing to install some type of fence along the north property line; they had
spoken with some of the residents regarding that concept. To fulfill the requirement for
security lighting they would install low profile lights that would be shielded to prevent
glare and spillage. He acknowledged that letters opposing the project had been received
Page 8 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007
9 of 29
and he stated they had also received letters from neighbors who were supportive of the
project. 80% of their clients at the Batavia storage site were Orange residents.
Commissioner Merino asked on the issue of parking, when an RV was picked up, the car
was left in the parking lot, would this mean there were no guest parking spots available?
Mr. Tindall stated that four guest parking spaces were adequate, and the most pick ups
that they had experienced were two at one time. The Batavia site had no guest parking
spaces.
Commissioner Merino asked where did the individual who would pick up his R V park?
Mr. Tindall stated that the car would pull up to the RV space, the RV would back out and
then the car would pull into the R V space.
Commissioner Merino stated he wanted to evaluate the data, and in reviewing the parking
he wanted to know how many trips per day that activity would generate.
Manny Goreal, 2874 Westhaven, Anaheim stated they did not require guest parking as
the person picking up their RV would park their car in the RV stall after the RV had been
pulled out.
Commissioner Merino asked how many spaces would that create as part of the trip?
Mr. Goreal stated they would not use a guest space; they would pull into the space that
the R V was in.
Mr. Tindall stated four guest parking spaces had been provided, however, based on their
need they were not required. On the Batavia and Garden Grove site there were no guest
parking spaces.
Commissioner Merino stated when someone was picking up their R V they would need a
place to park the vehicle that they had arrived in.
Mr. Goreal reiterated that the tenant would leave their vehicle in the spot that the RV was
pulled out from. 95% of the vehicle pick-ups were handled in that manner.
Commissioner Whitaker had a concern with the variability of the box trees and the need
of the nursery to take them. Would the applicant be willing to provide permanent heavy
landscaping in the 23,20, and 30' perimeter areas?
Mr. Tindall stated only one side of the property would have box trees. Village Nursery
would own and maintain the trees, and they had agreed to remove not more that 1 % of
the trees at any given time. They wanted the trees to be there as long as possible. The
Queen Palms provided a dense, forest type separation between the storage facility and the
neighbors to the north. This was the solution they had come up with.
Page 9 of 29 Pages
Commissioner Whitaker asked if the applicant was willing
landscaping?
December 17, 2007
10of29
to provide permanent
Planning Commission Minutes
Mr. Tindall stated they were willing to provide permanent landscaping, however, SCE
had a limitation on tree height. If the Commission required the permanent solution they
would be willing to look at that.
Commissioner Bonina stated he agreed there was a need in the City for an off site parking
area. He confirmed that the proposed modular building was a one-story building. On the
RV stalls the depths were 10, 35,40,42 and 50' deep, with driveways of25-30' wide, he
asked for further clarification on the vehicle maneuverability on the site?
Mr. Tindall stated the geometrics were the same as at the Batavia site, 10' worked well
with 15' angled parking to allow vehicles to back in. There was no through parking,
which allowed time for the drivers to make their maneuvers. The turning radius worked
for the site. SCE's turning radius requirement exceeded the Fire Department
requirement.
Commissioner Bonina clarified that a 45' RV was able to back into a 25' aisle
adequately.
Mr. Tindall stated only 1/3rd of the vehicles placed on the site would be RVs, some were
trailers and some were boats.
Commissioner Bonina asked if the trailers had more of a challenge to get into the spaces?
Mr. Tindall stated it did not present a problem.
Mr. Goreal stated they could make the stall width wider, 11' -12' if the Commission
recommended that.
Commissioner Bonina, referring to page 6 on the proposed landscape, it stated that all
new trees would be 24" box trees, Condition No.12 required 25% of the perimeter trees
to be 24" box, 37 proposed, 10 existing, 121 required by Condition No. 13 on the
landscape buffer area of residential properties to the north for a total of 168. He asked
what that meant?
Mr. Tindall stated he would need to refer that question to Staff.
Commissioner Bonina asked what was the intent of the applicant for landscaping?
Mr. Tindall stated they intended to place approximately 4,600 boxed Queen Palm trees,
per the drawing on the site plans, as a barrier. The layout of the palms was noted on the
photos, which he referred to.
Commissioner Bonina stated, in looking at the detail of the tree layout, he felt the intent
was to provide a residential buffer with landscaping. He was not sure it accomplished the
intent as there were aisles providing complete exposure to the residents. Commissioner
Page 10 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007
11 of 29
Bonina stated he was struggling with how the landscape met the intent of a 20' setback
and was there an alternative considered which would provide a better buffer?
Mr. Tindall stated they had looked at staggering the box trees. The reason for the gap
between the trees was to allow for tree maintenance. The trees needed to be sprayed,
watered and maintained, the aisle between the trees would allow for maintenance.
Commissioner Bonina stated he understood the reasoning, however, if the intent was to
provide landscape it needed to be clear to the residents what was being proposed.
Mr. Tindall stated the ordinance did not give a specific for heavy landscaping. They had
a neighborhood meeting with 50 palm trees delivered at the Batavia site and invited
neighbors from the north and south to take a look at what was proposed. The applicant
had the meeting to solicit the neighbors' input. He stated the goal was to be good
neighbors. The trees could be angled to give better coverage.
Commissioner Bonina stated as long as it accomplished the goal of the 20-30' setback.
The description was heavy landscape area, and to accomplish that would be great. As the
palms were to cycle out, what would be the replacement time frame?
Mr. Tindall stated he believed the trees would be replaced within a week.
Commissioner Bonina stated the property appeared to be fairly flat. Mr. Tindall stated
the property had a 2% grade from Tustin to Cambridge. There were SCE power lines
underground and an old Santa Ana irrigation line that ran across the property.
Commissioner Bonina stated that SCE did not allow a permanent wall, with the exception
of a wall at the perimeter of the property. He envisioned the area between the Edison
easement and the residential zone, was this the area Edison would allow a fence at?
Mr. Tindall stated that would be allowed or an enhancement to the existing wall.
Chair Imboden stated he had received a letter from Mary Ann Sferruzza, in lieu of
reading the letter, he wanted it to be noted that all Commissioners received the letter for
their evaluation and it was noted in the Staff Report.
Chair Imboden opened the hearing for public comment.
Evelyn Martin, 1548 E. Chestnut, Orange, stated she had resided at this address for 15
years. A comment was made by the applicant that they wanted to be a good neighbor.
That is what they had heard from Village Nursery who went on to increase their business
and increase their hours of operation. With Village Nursery as a neighbor, when looking
at the homes in the neighborhood, people like the Nursery and feel that it made the
neighborhood nice and quiet. The R V facility would have longer hours and be open more
days of the week. There would be noise created by the vehicles, emptying of the
outhouses, and the movement of people in and out. The traffic count of 81 in and 81 out
referred to vehicles, did that number include the cars that would come in and out to pick
up their vehicles? With regard to the trees, in speaking with Mr. Goreal, he explained
Page II of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007
12of29
that 4500 trees would be on the site. She thought the trees were going to be planted and
not in boxes, which would be at the whim of Village Nursery. She felt that the nursery
should be contractually obligated on the proposal.
Jean Tudor, 1035 E. Trenton, Orange stated she was proud to live in Orange and to be a
part of the community. In regard to the LA Times article, they noted problems with
access and security issues. She felt the project was obtrusive to the neighborhood and
belonged in a commercial zone, not in a residential zone. There was a potential for
hazardous waste. It would take the green away and bring their property value down.
She felt the goal would be to improve the City and would they want it in their backyard?
Sean Martin, 1044 E. Chestnut Ave, Orange stated in regard to fire safety there would be
access problems for the Fire Department. The plans called for a fire access lane. If one
of the RVs was to go up in flames the likelihood of requiring more than one fire company
was high, and he thought the plans did not call for access of more than one fire truck to
get into the facility. On the opinion from the Orange County Fire Authority, he had
spoken with the Fire Department and was told the City of Orange Fire Department had
not completed or reviewed any study and had no opinion on the project. He also stated
he spoke with someone from the O.C. Fire Authority and they looked at a study
completed by an SCE consultant. The Edison study stated that business under power
lines was O.K., the independent study was not as clear, and the L.A. County Fire
Department study stated under no circumstances was it a safe endeavor. They stated it
was unsafe for the residents and the Fire Department personnel. Mr. Martin wanted to
clarify the comment by one of the Commissioners that the L.A. County study was based
on a commercial building; the study was based on a 350 space RV storage. In regards to
the lighting, there were 70 proposed light standards around the perimeter at 130'
intervals. The lights would be higher than the trees and even with shielding they would
reflect off of the RVs and encompass the area in a glow during the night. There would
also be a potential dust problem.
Ennis Teshe, 1022 E. Chestnut, Orange stated there was a safety issue referring to the LA
Times article which addressed RV parking under high tension wires. If it was unsafe
there, it would be unsafe here as well. The study was backed by the L.A. County Fire
Chief and he felt it was a good idea not to continue those types of developments. He was
interested in what the City of Orange Fire Chief s opinion was on the project. He stated
he was opposed to the general appearance and lighting, and he would not have bought the
house he was living in if he knew he would be backed up to the proposed type of
development. He questioned why they were looking at the site between Tustin and
Cambridge and not between Batavia and Glassell.
Anne Luce, 1032 E. Chestnut, Orange stated she purchased her residence 5 years ago and
did not seek a property next to an RV storage lot, next to lights that would be illuminated
all night, next to 522 vehicles, near vehicles that had propane tanks that could be possible
bombs if they exploded, she would not have purchased her home there. At the
neighborhood meeting the applicant did not disclose that the lot on Batavia was next to
an industrial park on one side, and a mobile home park on the other side, with a 100'
clearing and railroad tracks between the lot and the residential area. Other R V complexes
were surrounded by industrial parks. She added with $120.00 per space, 522 times per
Page 12 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007
13 of 29
month, she was certain Mr. Goreal was not concerned with the residents and their
gnevances.
Sam Miller, 1444 E. Chestnut, Orange stated he was concerned with the noise and the
proposal for a right turn in and out which would create traffic on Chestnut. His fence was
low and he had pictures showing what his view was. He had the view of the Nursery and
the green houses. He was concerned with the ambient lighting that would reflect off of
the recreational vehicles. There was no tax benefit to the City. Village Nursery had been
an O.K. neighbor and he was opposed to the RV storage facility. He passed out the
photos to the Commissioners for their review.
John Maloney, 857 N. Helena, Anaheim stated he was speaking on behalf of his parents.
His parents chose to be responsible property owners. In other cities there were areas that
had been incorporated and it brought urban blight and commercialism into
neighborhoods. He felt the RV storage was an incompatible use for his parent's
neighborhood.
Larry Honikel, 1600 N. Maplewood, Orange stated he had been a resident since 1967.
He was north of the property in question. There would be 522 motor homes invading the
neighborhood and bringing motor home traffic to the area, which would be unavoidable.
If they were thinking green, the acreage of green foliage would not be changed to asphalt
and 522 motor homes spewing exhaust fumes.
Bruce Baslee, 1125 E. Trenton Avenue, Orange stated regarding the traffic, with the right
hand turns, the main exit would be Katella and the 55 freeway; the RV traffic would be
on a two lane road to Chestnut. He had gone days, where he could not exit, because
traffic was so bad. There was an R V park in Chatsworth where vagrants had entered a
motor home, and in trying to keep warm blew the propane tank. Some cars burned in a
parking lot behind the site that was approximately 50' away. Several thousands of
dollars of motor homes burned. He felt there was a safety problem with the propane.
Regarding the manhole covers at the site, he believed they went directly to the flood
control channel, and sewage tanks could be drained there and that should be considered.
He was opposed to the R V storage lot.
Marianne Bertoni, 4041 Santa Barbara, Orange stated she was in favor of the RV lot; the
demand at the Batavia lot was overwhelming. The R V and boats were there and they
needed one locally. Mr. Goreal ran a beautiful clean lot. She had nothing but praise for
the lot and they needed one in Orange.
Bill Kerfoot, 1773 Greengrove, Orange asked where in the City of Orange was RV
parking allowed? There were very few open parcels left in the city. When the City had
passed the Ordinance for no RV parking on residential streets they had identified the SCE
property as a potential open space for an RV storage facility. The property had been
rezoned for that specific use. He felt the applicant had done a very good job on
addressing the landscape issue and it was a very creative idea. He was in support of the
RV lot and wanted them to move forward with the project.
Page 13 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007
14 of 29
Chris May, 7474 E. Calico, Orange stated he was representing his parents who were
residents of Orange. People needed to get their R V s off of the streets to a well managed
RV program. He knew the operation, and the owner, Mr. Goreal, took pride in
ownership. He stated if the residents took the opportunity to look at the Batavia lot, they
would see it was a very low impact and well-run operation. If you looked at the lot you
would see that there was nothing going on, people had RVs stored there, and some sat
there for 1 to 2 years at a time. He had been there and had looked at the operation, people
came in, left their vehicle and took their RV, there was not constant traffic going in and
out.
Mike Fenderson, 1807 Orange, Anaheim stated he was an RV owner, representing RV
owners. Cities had developed Ordinances that prohibited RVs from parking on the streets
of private property. At an RV lot there was nothing going on; the impression made was
that people were constantly coming and going. During 90% of the time there was no one
there, occasionally you would park in front of your RV to pick up something or drive it
out. There was not in and out traffic, and he felt there was a misconception of what an
RV park was. In regards to dust, he had not seen the occurrence of dust. It was not a
high end use. The nursery would have more of an impact than the RV storage lot.
Floyd Bedsoul, 408 W. Walnut, Orange stated he was an RV owner and had lived in the
City of Orange for 10 years. He previously lived in Anaheim and there had always been
a problem with RV parking. He felt Mr. Goreal had a well-maintained lot and was very
much in favor of the project.
Dan Slater, 278 N. Pine Street, Orange stated RV parking was needed in Orange. He
could not think of a better place to put one with the planning and zoning issue. He
wanted to keep industrial area zones open as places of employment, which would
generate jobs and sales tax revenue. The property under the Edison easement was a
perfect place to put that type of usage. If he lived on Trenton or Chestnut he would have
no problem with the setbacks. He had attended the DRC meeting and the Edison
representative present at that meeting was very much in favor of the project and thought
the palms trees made a good choice for the screen. Mr. Goreal's RV lot on Batavia was
clean, well run, and every time he had been to the location, there was absolutely no one
picking up their RV. It had very low activity. He was very involved in Keep Orange
Clean, and wanted people to own RVs in Orange and wanted residents to properly store
them. They were against blight and those types of things and having the RV storage in
that location would eliminate blight in Orange. He thought it was a great location and
solution. It was a well thought out and designed plan.
Mel Vernon, 2301 E. Hoover, Orange stated he was a member of Keep Orange Clean and
was in support of the project. He had toured Mr. Goreal's facility and found it to be very
professionally run, and he had no complaints or suggestions for improvement. He felt he
was doing an excellent job and wished that other storage yards did the same. There were
100's ofRVs in Orange, and many were parked in the front set back areas, in areas that
should have been reserved for open space. The impact on the neighborhoods in Orange
had been significant; impacts that affected safety, esthetics and property values. The
potential that the RVs could be moved into a central location was a benefit to the City.
He wished that other projects that came before the City had as extensive landscaping as
Page 14 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007
15 of 29
the proposed project. He felt they should move forward on the project as there was less
impact on the City with this project vs. the nursery and it would also generate less traffic
than the nursery.
Chair Imboden invited the applicant to address the comments and questions raised by the
public.
Mr. Tindall stated he appreciated the hard work the Commission did. He wanted to
clarify that the zone for the site allowed an RV storage and parking facility. They were
not asking for a zone change. He reiterated comments made by Mr. Kerfoot, how the site
had been chosen when the City had gone through the process of RV restrictions. They
had noted this specific site for RV use. He felt the site would be far more secure than
what currently existed at the site. They would have security guards and T.V. cameras and
the site would be secure. They had no problems at their other sites. There was an issue
brought up about RVs dripping oil and grease on the site, there had been an extensive
water quality plan completed. They were way out in front on the water quality control
plans. They had developed a best management practices plan and the proposed site
would be cleaner than most public parking facilities. There were no sewer manholes or
drains on the site.
Chair Imboden asked in using the inventory of Village Nursery for the landscape
mitigation, in the event Village Nursery relocated or went out of business what would
occur?
Mr. Tindall stated there was a CUP that obligated them to place 4500-4600 palm trees on
the site and maintain them.
Chair Imboden stated there was an issue regarding the light standards. He asked for
clarification on the ambient light.
Mr. Tindall stated there had been a very extensive photometric survey done. There
would be low profile lights that would be angled and directed to minimize the glare.
Chair Imboden stated he was concerned with the evening lighting that would be reflected
back up into the sky, and the light pollution, or ambient light level.
Environmental Analyst, Phil Martin, 18551 Von Karmen, Irvine stated there would be
some light spillage into the air, as Mr. Tindall indicated the photometric study showed the
off site light level was less than a foot candle. It was less than the City standard. There
would be a glow; however, the photometric study took into account the glow.
Chair Imboden stated he felt it was a legitimate concern. It was not a regular parking lot
as there were large vehicles with flat, light colored roofs. Did the study take into account
the light that would be reflected back off of the site?
Mr. Martin stated it did take into account the reflection, and that was how a .4' candle to
the off site property was determined.
Page 15 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007
16 of 29
Chair Imboden stated a term that came up was permanent walls or permanent fences, he
asked what would be the difference between a permanent and non-permanent fence?
Mr. Tindall stated SCE would not allow parallel fences to be constructed in the right of
way. On the boundary of the right of way it was allowed.
Chair Imboden asked for clarification; was a mobile structure allowed on the site, but a
chain link fence was not?
Mr. Tindall stated a modular office was allowed, but they had not allowed them to build a
parallel feI).ce. If they had allowed a fence it would have been in their plans.
Commissioner Whitaker stated the plans called for a wrought iron fence abutting the
heavy landscaping with the trees to prevent people from going through the trees.
Mr. Tindall stated a wrought iron fence was on the boundary lines on the landscaping at
Tustin and Cambridge, but not on the north boundary line. A six-foot wrought iron fence
was proposed at the entrance on Tustin and at the back of the landscape set back on
Cambridge.
Commissioner Whitaker stated theoretically someone could walk through the landscape
area and walk into the storage facility.
Mr. Tindall stated the area was fenced off and the area was not accessible. There was a
wrought iron fence that went north south from the south property line to the right of way,
to the north property line of the residential homes on Cambridge. On Tustin the
wholesale nursery would remain, with a wrought iron fence that went from the right of
way to the entry gates and back to Tustin where it turned to a chain link fence at the
nursery.
Chair Imboden asked in regard to security, would there be someone on site? He also
asked why a SCE representative was not present?
Mr. Tindall stated there would be security through a private firm that would patrol in a
vehicle. No one would be able to live on the site, as it was not allowed as a part of the
lease term. He stated he did not know the reason for the absence of an SCE
representative, they had submitted their letter for clarification, however, could not be
present. A SCE representative was at the DRC meeting.
Commissioner Merino stated that the speakers in favor of the project referred to the
Batavia facility as the type of lot that worked. He asked if the Batavia facility was in an
SCE right of way and was it next to a residential area.
Mr. Tindall stated that it did fall in an SCE right of way. There was no residential area
surrounding the Batavia facility.
Commissioner Bonina stated that SCE allowed 30' trees, but preferred to have them cut
to 15'.
Page 16 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
December 17, 2007
17 of 29
Mr. Goreal stated SCE did not allow trees in excess of 15' .
Commissioner Bonina asked with the maturity of the trees would they be at 15' heights?
Mr. Tindall stated the average height of the trees would be at 11 to 12'; they would grow
an average of a foot per year and would need to be kept at under 15'.
Commissioner Bonina asked for clarification on the ability to trim the palm trees?
Mr. Goreal stated when a tree would reach a height over 15' they would be replaced.
Chair Imboden closed the public hearing and opened hearing for discussion or comments
from the Commission.
Commissioner Bonina asked Staff if the Fire Department had looked at the project and
what comments did they make specifically in terms of access, egress in/out, circulation
and the scenario of a potential fire in an RV?
Mr. Ortlieb stated throughout the process the Fire Department's review of the project was
during access to the site. The Fire Department wanted to ensure that there was an
adequate turning radius identified on the plans and the required access, and fire lane
markings noted. The standard catch all and review of the minute details of the plan at
plan check and their conditions of approval were added at that time. In looking at the
potential for a fire in an RV they looked at it from a standpoint of making sure the
emergency vehicles would be able to enter and maneuver adequately on the site. The Fire
Department felt it appropriate to have the project go before the Commission.
Commissioner Bonina stated in the Staff s review the applicant provided a template of
the backing up of the RV's in relationship to the spaces that were anywhere from 30 to
50' deep. Had the City completed an analysis or review to verify what the applicant had
submitted?
Mr. Ortlieb stated Staff had no study; they did look at it and asked the applicant to
demonstrate the backing distance. The applicant returned with their information and Staff
took into account that they were reviewing something that there was no standard for. It
was now available for the Commission's review.
Commissioner Bonina stated Staff essentially took what the applicant had submitted at
face value. Mr. Ortlieb stated Public Works Traffic Division did review the information,
and they thought it was a possibility that it would work with different operational
variables.
Commissioner Bonina asked if the review of the project was completed by the Traffic
Engineer who had been present earlier?
Mr. Ortlieb conferred with the Mr. Farahani and clarified that the Traffic Division Staff
was going through a transitional period and it was reviewed by a prior employee.
Page 17 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007
18of29
Commissioner Bonina asked on Condition No. 14 there was a suggestion regarding RV
back up alarms and having them disengaged on the north side of the property and would
the Fire Department or Police Department have an issue with that?
Chair Imboden clarified it did not state they would be disengaged, but referred to RVs
with back up alarms would not be assigned storage spaces in the northern area of the site.
Commissioner Bonina asked if it was the norm to not provide for trash pick up?
Mr. Ortlieb stated it was not typical for most projects. It was approved by Public Works
and found it to be possible in the site's scenario. The applicant would have their
customers, security or management personnel remove the trash from the site. There was
a provision in the plan, in the event it became a problem, to review the issue at a later
date. An inspection would be prompted from a visual inspection or a complaint.
Commissioner Whitaker stated on Conditions No. 12 and 13, of page 8, there was
reference to 25% of box trees were required to be 24" boxed and Condition No.13 stated
that there would be at least 121 boxes, the mitigated negative declaration stated there
would be approximately 4600 trees and the applicant spoke about 1 % variability and he
was unable to find that anywhere. He felt there was some inconsistency in the numbers
and wanted clarification from Staff.
Mr. Ortlieb stated on page 6 of the Staff Report it was indicated what was required by the
code, which was the 25% tree requirement by the landscaping code, which would be in
24" boxes and the other 75% of the trees on site would need to be in at least 15 gallon
containers. On the bullet point that followed the report described what the applicant was
providing on site. To clarify, Staff was stating what was shown on the landscape plans
by the applicant was that everything was at least a 24" boxed tree. In Condition No. 12
they were looking at the fact that the landscape plans did not show exactly where every
single boxed tree was proposed on the site. It showed a heavy landscape area, and the
intent was to show heavy landscape, with the absence of every tree being physically
shown. There needed to be some assurance by the time the project went to plan check,
that the code required number of trees to be provided would be listed. The applicant was
providing more than the required trees and that was noted in the environmental
document. The Commission could indicate, as a condition the 4600 trees to be noted on
the site plan ifthey chose to.
Commissioner Bonina asked if the 4600, 24" boxed trees were sufficient to cover the
1700 linear feet area, 20 to 30' in depth?
Mr. Ortlieb stated in Staffs opinion it was a sufficient amount. They had discussed an
angled orientation to provide more of a buffer.
Commissioner Bonina asked if the angled orientation would require more trees? Mr.
Ortlieb stated no. The result would be an effect of a more dense buffer. In looking in at
the site you would not see directly between the trees with the angled orientation.
Page 18 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007
19of29
Commissioner Bonina asked from the resident's perspective, if they were standing in
their backyard, looking at the angled row of trees, would they see an RV, assuming the
trees would be 15' in height? He also asked why palm trees were chosen?
Mr. Ortlieb stated it would be quite likely they would, as there was space between the
trees. He did not know why palm trees were chosen and would need to differ that
question to the applicant.
Commissioner Merino asked if a level of service for Batavia had been determined?
Mr. Ortlieb stated Batavia was a level of service A, and Tustin was operating at a Band
C range.
Chair Imboden looked to the Commission for discussion and deliberation. He stated
there were a lot of loose ends and he needed further clarification.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he thought the project was good in its conception. He had
concerns on the execution of the project and especially the heavy landscaping to the
north. He had not heard a good answer with respect to how the landscape would be
monitored. A condition was being made on a CUP on one applicant, with another entity
that was reducing its lease hold space and providing the landscape which moved in and
out of the site. He could not be in support of the project unless there was permanent
landscape in the 20', 23' and 30 'l1 ' buffer area and would be sufficiently full as to screen
the RVs. He felt the palm trees were not full enough to sufficiently screen the RVs. He
wanted to see a landscape plan that showed foliage of trees to a height of 15' that would
be permanently placed to screen the view. The project was a wonderful concept and it
was definitely needed in the City. It was a location that was identified by the City
Planners and the City Plan that would be appropriate for that use. Low impact such as
this would not be developed in commercial or industrial areas, this property under the
Edison easement would not be used for any other purpose. The nursery usage was
reducing its space and it was an appropriate place for the storage facility. They had
completed an adequate job of parking and other concerns; however, the execution of the
screening was too little.
Commissioner Bonina stated he agreed with Commissioner Whitaker and the City needed
off site R V parking. The question being, would this be an appropriate spot? He had a
few concerns. He agreed that they needed a more permanent landscape buffer, and the
palm trees and their type of foliage did not screen completely. If a permanent fence was
not allowed, there needed to be something in the set back that needed to be of a
permanent nature. He had concerns over the parking stalls, and appreciated the study the
applicant had put together, the City had not reviewed that and he felt it was very tight. It
was suggested that there be a right in and right out, he thought it was the right thing to do,
however, the surrounding streets would experience enhanced traffic. There was a lot of
reflective light and he needed further research on that issue. There were some
inconsistencies in the plan. He felt the residents of Orange needed the R V storage;
however, the neighbors should not bare the burden of having the off site, off street
parking. The issue with two different entities involved in the project needed to be
addressed more fully.
Page 19 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007
20 of 29
Commissioner Merino stated it was clearer for him. The applicant had brought Batavia
up as a comparison; however, there was not residential areas bordering the Batavia
project. He would have been more impressed if a resident adjacent to that property came
forward and stated they had no issues, it was well managed, but it was not the same. He
felt it was not a valid comparison. The process in evaluating this project was clear with
the required findings, under major findings asking if the project design was compatible
with surrounding developments and neighborhoods, he felt it was not. On item #5 was
the project designed to fully mitigate or substantially minimize adverse environmental
affects - clearly it was not. Development standards and design guidelines were based on
the Batavia project that was given to Staff and the two sites were not compatible. In
reviewing the CUP, which stated it shall not be granted if it caused deterioration of
bordering land uses or creates special problems for the area in which it was located.
Clearly the residents who came to speak felt that was the case. A CUP needed to be
considered in relationship to the effect on the community or neighborhood for the area it
was located in, the neighbors in the adjacent properties would not agree with that. The
major site plan and the CUP were not supportable based on what he had seen in the
project and he could not support the project.
Commissioner Steiner stated the Commission listened to issues like this and one of the
speakers had indicated it was difficult to weigh these types of issue. He would never
want anyone to be under the misimpression that they didn't care about what happened in
some ones backyard, he wanted people to understand it was not an effective way to make
policy based on how they would like the project in their own backyard. As City officials
elected or otherwise a decision had to be made for the greater good and the City, your
elected officials, had made the determination that RVs could not be parked on City streets
and residential zones were appropriate locations for RV storage. He was not permitted to
make the decision based on what he would personally like. He needed to apply the facts
to the law; it was appropriate and it was better for the City, than it was bad for the City.
He believed specifically on the Edison property use issue, he could not be persuaded that
Edison was opposed to these types of projects when the article was about Edison banning
particular conduct on their property. We had a letter from Edison supporting the
proposed use. The one hang up he had was the 4500 trees on the site, and to be
effectively shielded from the residents it would require permanent landscape. He would
be supportive of the project if there would be a condition of permanent landscape and that
was the only area where he had concerns on the project.
Chair Imboden stated his concerns would reflect what was already stated. He had
concerns and needed more convincing on traffic comparisons, on the parking, the safety,
routing of the RVs, and there had been issues that had been presented that were not
included as part of the documentation. He wanted to see a stronger comment from the
Fire Authority addressing some of the concerns that were brought up. He had concerns
about the lighting and would be very sensitive that the lighting be controlled very, very
carefully. He was disappointed that an SCE representative was not present; they were
seriously compromising the City standards due to a landlord limitation that they were
placing on a potential tenant. They had not received an Edison policy, but a letter stating
what the agreement was on the issue and he felt that they needed Edison present to pose
questions directly to them. Lastly, he agreed the biggest issue was the screening; the
intent of the ordinance was clear and the proposal in front of them skirted the issue and
Page 20 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007
21 of 29
did not provide full protection to the neighboring properties. He had fully supported
restricting RV parking in Orange, and Orange needed a parking facility. They needed to
take into consideration the neighboring properties and he would like to see the applicant
come back addressing their concerns.
Commissioner Whitaker stated the sense he was getting from the Commission was to
have the applicant return with a revised plan for consideration, he would not like to see
the applicant have to go back to square one.
Chair Imboden stated, addressing the applicant, the consensus was that the Commission
would not be voting favorably to approve the project and asked if they would consider a
continuance. The applicant agreed with continuance.
Commissioner Whitaker made a motion to continue to a date certain of February 20,
2008 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
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
RECUSED:
Commissioner Steiner
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Steiner and Whitaker
Merino
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
(4) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2535-05- BEACON DAY SCHOOL
The applicant is requesting Commission consideration and approval of one of four fence
design and material options (vinyl/chain link) for a six foot high fence surrounding the
school's sensory play area. This request is for an alternative material to the wood fence
that was originally required by the Commission for CUP 2535-05.tive Tract Map for
condominium purposes.
LOCATION: 576 N. Glassell
NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA guidelines
15305 (Class 1- Existing Facilities) because the project consists of the
approval of an existing chain link fence (and/or removal of an existing chain
link fence, to be replaced with a wood fence).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Final Determination by Minute Order.
Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, gave a project overvIew consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. There were none.
Page 21 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
December 17, 2007
22 of 29
Chair Imboden opened the public hearing.
Dr. Mary Lang, 588 N. Glassell, Orange stated she had Eric Renezegor prepare an
informational document to be read to the Commission.
Chair Imboden asked if they had come to a determination on the safety of vinyl for use at
the school?
Dr. Lang stated their research showed that very inexpensive vinyl produced in China
contained lead, and those types were eliminated.
Chair Imboden asked if she believed there was a resource that would be safe? Dr. Lang
stated yes.
Commissioner Steiner asked if she had a preference in the options that were presented for
the fence?
Dr. Lang stated that the fence they had now was working, and she wanted to work with
the Commission and go with what they suggested.
Commissioner Whitaker asked if option 4 was chosen, which was the lattice placed over
the chain link, would the green slats be removed? Dr. Lang stated yes.
Commissioner Bonina asked on option 4 what would be the mechanism for attaching the
lattice?
Dr. Lang stated they would use zip ties.
Commissioner Merino asked in using zip ties were there any concerns for student safety?
Erik Renezegor, 2357 N. Riverside Drive, San Diego, stated the method of attachment
would be to use zip ties on the outside of the fence. They had looked at other options and
this had been the best solution.
Commissioner Merino asked Dr. Lang if she felt that method of attachment was
satisfactory and if it would provide the safety required?
Dr. Lang stated with the zip ties on the outside, and not in the inside it would be a safe
method of attachment. It was the method of attachment recommended by the
manufacturer.
Mr. Renezegor stated when you looked at the fence from the street it presented a
prominent design line and to add white lattice over that large of a mass in order to
comply with the wood like condition would seem to detract from the property. The fence
in its present form was green and blended in, and was not an obvious form.
Chair Imboden closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission
for discussion.
Page 22 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007
23 of 29
Commissioner Whitaker stated he felt option 4, with the wood lattice treatment was the
best option in maintaining that the fence had a wood character. It complied with the Old
Towne standard and kept the strong chain link which provided safety to the children. He
did not feel the color should be dictated to the applicant.
Commissioner Bonina stated he concurred with Commissioner Whitaker. He hoped it
was the most cost effective and the least disruptive and suggested the use of option 4.
Commissioner Steiner stated option 4 was the most practical and reasonable approach in
resolving the issue.
Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt CUP No. 2535-05 Beacon Day School by
minute order to recommend option #4 with the lattice color to be chosen by the applicant,
noting the project was categorically exempt from CEQA.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
NEW HEARINGS:
(5) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2618-06; CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 2635-07; AND VARIANCE NO. 2184-07 - DANCE PARTNER
A proposal to operate a dance school and banquet hall with a dance floor within an
existing commercial establishment. In association with the banquet hall with accessory
dance floor, the applicants are requesting a variance in the required parking.
LOCATION: 347-349 E. Grove
NOTE:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA guidelines
15301 Class 1- Existing Facilities) because the project involves the
operation of a dance school and a banquet/dance hall in an existing building.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 52-07 approving the dance
school and Planning Commission Resolution No. 53-07 denying the banquet
hall and variance.
Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur, gave a project overview consistent with the Staff
Report.
Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff.
Page 23 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
December 17, 2007
24 of 29
applicant been operating
Commissioner Steiner asked how many years had the
unlawfully?
Ms. Thakur stated the applicant had been operating from the facility for 7 years. There
was an issue where the Business License Department and the Building Department issued
a certificate of occupancy and a business license without a CUP. It was possible that
there was a lack of communication between the departments.
Commissioner Steiner asked given that there may have been a lack of communication, at
some point was the applicant instructed that a certain type of activity needed to cease?
Was it the case that within the last 7 days City officials had been to the location and the
repeated admonitions to the violations had continued?
Ms. Thakur stated that recently there were advertisements that showed a banquet hall
event was being offered, Staff contacted the Code Enforcement Department to send a
patrol out to the venue, other issues arose which prevented Staff from determining what
took place. The fact remained that there was advertisement for a banquet hall event.
Commissioner Steiner stated in looking at the Police Dispatch log he was able to
determine that at least 4 separate crimes occurred just from one incident that happened on
September 9, 2006. The crimes were disturbing the peace, brandishing of a deadly
weapon, assault with a deadly weapon and possession of a deadly weapon. The records
suggested that upwards of 80 subjects were inside the hall, there were physical
descriptions provided, and a reference to D.U.K.E. which was the O.c. Sheriffs
helicopter which used its infrared to determine the source of a subject who had
brandished a pistol, suspected to be a 9mm, at or around the location. There was also
notation of 10 males standing by a black Acura all wearing black jackets. There was that
type of activity in a place where the applicant was still insisting on the need for a banquet
hall. What was it about the applicant's behavior in the last week that would believe us to
conclude that they would abide by the conditions set forth in the CUP for just the dance
hall?
Ms. Thakur stated Staff had similar concerns, the only reason Staff was recommending
approval of the dance school was because there were not conditions before and Staff felt
that this CUP with all of the conditions would make it abundantly clear to the applicant
what would be considered a dance school, and what was closer to the lines of a banquet
facility.
Commissioner Steiner asked if Staff considered a dance school to be open until 11 :00
p.m. and open 7 days a week?
Ms. Thakur stated Staff understood classes could be offered at different times, and it was
possible that classes could be offered closer to 9:00 p.m. if the Commission wanted to
make that a condition.
Commissioner Steiner stated erroneously in his judgment, which would surmise that the
condition would be abided by. He asked the City Attorney, Gary Sheatz, if it was
customary to provide conditions that appeared on the application as Condition No. 14?
Page 24 of29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
December 17, 2007
25 of 29
Mr. Sheatz stated he had not seen those conditions before.
Commissioner Steiner asked if a violation of such a condition was subject to prosecution
by the City and the O.C. District Attorney?
Mr. Sheatz stated yes, that was correct.
Ms. Thakur stated as far as Condition No. 14 was concerned it was not in every CUP,
there had been cases where they were included in the CUP in the past.
Commissioner Bonina asked in September 2000, did the dance studio require a CUP?
Ms. Thakur stated that it did, in the Orange Municipal Code it was still a CUP
requirement.
Commissioner Bonina stated there appeared to be a pattern of misbehavior, clearly when
Staff spoke to residents of the businesses they were pretty straightforward. In approving
something like this it would be rewarding bad behavior. He was very hesitant to move
forward on these items.
Commissioner Merino stated assuming the complex was noticed, there were no adjacent
business owners with issues and asked if Staff had been contacted by any of the business
owners in the complex and did the applicant understand the recommendations and
conditions, and had Staff discussed them previously with the applicant?
Ms. Thakur stated she had not been contacted by any adjacent business owners. She felt
the applicant understood the recommendations, when the applicant initially applied for
both the dance school and the banquet facility the item was taken before the Staff Review
Committee and at that time the applicant was informed that the recommendation for the
banquet hall would be for denial. Initially they withdrew the application, then came back
to Staff wanting to move forward with the banquet facility.
Chair Imboden opened the public hearing.
Grace Hansen, 22831 Via Santa Maria, Mission Viejo stated the Dance Partner studio
had been in business for 7 years and the studio was designed to bring together family,
friends of performers and numerous dancers from the community. The studio centered
around Ball Room dancing and other dances of all ethnic groups. They wanted to
continue with the venue in providing a safe and happy environment. People take dance
classes for fun and it changes human well being, and that was the message they wanted to
convey. Their purpose was to make a difference by providing a place where people of
different ages could enjoy dance classes and exercise at the same time. The applicant's
goal was to provide a place to learn and practice dancing and be the best place for
everyone in the City of Orange. When it came to safety they were on the Cities side, they
did not want any trouble. They wanted a safe and happy environment.
Albert Hansen, 22831 Via Santa Maria, Mission Viejo stated in the year 2000 they first
Page 25 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007
26 of 29
applied for a permit to operate as a dance hall. At that time they were obligated to run the
dance school and hall. The City gave them occupancy of 280 people. The applicant
inquired if there was anything else they needed to do and they were told there was
nothing else needed. They had been paying their taxes for 7 years. They had not
received any complaints from their neighbors. The one incident that took place last year,
they called the police and it was stated that there were 400 people, which was not correct.
At that time we were told we did not have the correct permit. A year ago they applied for
the permit and they had been following up with the status of the permit. They paid their
lease on a month-to-month basis and they needed to know what was happening with the
permit. The City notified them that the parking was unacceptable and they were forced to
hire a parking surveyor. The parking survey was completed with 174 parking spaces;
they had never occupied that many spaces. The occupancy was reduced to 250. They
complied with everything and we were told we needed to improve safety. We added
security guards to the business.
Mr. Hansen stated they supported various charities and held fundraising events. The
business was not a moneymaker. His wife was a registered nurse, and this business was
their passion and they wanted to give people a place to go and raise money for donation
purposes. The flyers were put out for fundraising events. They meant no harm and doing
the right thing led them to their situation.
Commissioner Whitaker stated Staffs recommendation was to allow the dance school on
a CUP and not allow the banquet facility. He asked the applicant if they followed that
recommendation could their business continue in that way?
Mr. Hansen stated when people used the banquet facility they brought their own food and
they just provided the space. For fundraising and charity work they needed the banquet
hall.
Commissioner Whitaker stated Staff had said no to the banquet hall and asked the
applicant could they stay in business without the banquet hall?
Mrs. Hansen stated no, the dance school could not survive without the banquet hall. The
banquet hall helped them with having an event 2 to 3 times a month.
Commissioner Merino asked if there were dance classes throughout the day, or was it
more of a club with the dancing classes as part of the club? If there were instructors how
many classes did they teach per day?
Mr. Hansen stated there were instructors. Mrs. Hansen stated they had 4 teachers and
they had group classes in the evening; 7:00-8:00 p.m. for beginners, 8:00-9:00 p.m. for
medium and 9:00-10:00 p.m. for advanced.
Commissioner Merino asked who taught the classes and did the applicant pay them?
Mrs. Hansen stated Michelle Adams; she was one of the best and was given recognition
by the City. Louie Herrera was another teacher who taught on Tuesdays. They did not
pay them as they collected money directly from the students. They paid a percentage to
Page 26 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
December 17, 2007
27 of 29
the applicant.
Commissioner Merino stated they were not a dance school, they solely provided space to
dance teachers.
Chair Imboden opened the hearing for public comment.
Paul Chiavatti, 1340 W. Pearl Street, Anaheim stated he was the landlord of the
establishment. He had initially come to speak for the applicant, in listening to
Commissioner Steiner and the police report information he had not been aware of those
issues, and was seeing different people for the first time. He stated the applicant could not
survive and pay the rent without the banquet facility. They had been good citizens. He
monitored the shopping center and never saw a beer can lying around or any other
problems. The Fire Department had allowed year after year 280 occupants in the
establishment. In the last 5 11 years there had not been any code violations and he was
not aware of any resident complaints. He had a problem with the parking survey that was
completed by a temporary employee, and in his report he noted there were 80 cars in the
lot, Mr. Chiavatti stated he had never witnessed that many cars in the lot. The report also
stated there were 117 cars in the parking lot, it was a Saturday night when all the other
businesses were closed and they were having a party.
Chair Imboden closed the public hearing and opened the hearing for discussion by the
Commission.
Commissioner Bonina asked the Code Enforcement Officer about a memo dated August
9, 2006, it suggested the Dance Partner studio had a live entertainment party serving
alcohol, charging a cover charge and exceeding 500 occupants - was that correct?
Code Enforcement Officer Michelle Echeverria stated the neighbors had called about a
large party and a disturbance on August 1, 2006. Sergeant Cook was the responding law
enforcement officer and the occupant estimate came from his report. The voice mail he
left stated they were serving alcohol, there were a lot of people and he asked her to look
into the matter. She checked with licensing and planning and realized there was a
missing CUP. At that time the applicants were notified about the process they needed to
go through to obtain the CUP and they were advised not to hold any more parties until
the issue was resolved.
Commissioner Steiner clarified that the occurrence happened in August of 2006 and
asked if it was last week that they were advertising for the same type of event?
Ms. Echeverria stated yes, that was correct.
Commissioner Steiner stated the most damning statements made were from the applicant.
They stated they had no intention of running merely, what Staff was recommending them
to run. He wanted to make it clear that he did not feel the applicants were co-conspirators
with gangsters in Orange and accepted their representation that they were well-intended
people. The Commission could not continue to permit a business to make money on the
backs of their citizens and the only way it was discovered was through the neighbors who
Page 27 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 2007
28 of 29
alerted the Police Department. In allowing the business to go forward as a dance school
would not be safe, and would place the neighbors at risk. He could not allow the
applicants to go forward and comply with the conditions, which by their own statements,
they would not be able to. Police do not get called to most dance studios, there was
documentation from peace officers that there were in excess of 500 people at the location
and at that point for him the inquiry was closed. Did they have 5 to 7 years of that type
of continuous behavior, they did not, however, just having one month of that behavior
was indefensible, especially when public safety was at risk.
Commissioner Merino stated they had a quasi dance club under the name of a dance
studio, and in all defense they could not make a go of it with just the dance school. He
agreed with Commissioner Steiner, and he was ready to move forward to make a finding.
Commissioner Whitaker stated he agreed with the Staff recommendation to deny the
banquet facility. The location was not set up for that type of business; it was adjacent to a
residential neighborhood. He was conflicted on the dance school, as his two daughters
went to classes at a dance studio where the instructors were paid directly and they paid
the dance studio. He had a hard time with the comment from the applicant stating they
could not make it as just a dance studio. If you look at the dance studios around they
have hours until 11 :00 p.m. and they have instructors going non-stop and that was how
they made it as a dance studio. With most dance studios the owners were generally
instructors and it was their passion. They did not need to rent out the studio for parties. A
dance studio with committed people could work and that permit he could justify. He was
having the dilemma with these particular applicants stating they could not run it, and
would deny it.
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2618-06,
Dance Partner.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
Commissioner Bonina
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Commissioner Steiner made a motion to Adopt Planning Commission 53-07 denying
Conditional Use Permit 2635-07 and Variance 2184-07 - Dance Partner, noting that the
item was categorically exempt from CEQA
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
Page 28 of 29 Pages
Planning Commission Minutes
December 17, 2007
29of29
(6) ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Steiner made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled
session of the Planning Commission held in the Council Chambers Monday, January 7,
2008.
SECOND:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Merino
Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, Steiner and Whitaker
None
None
None
MOTION CARRIED
MEETING ADJOURNED @ 11:12
Page 29 of 29 Pages