Minutes-PC 1998/01/21SlJ ARY ACTION AGEN®A
ANAFIEIM CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1998
11:00 A.M. NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES (RICKY RUBIO) CDBG
REQUEST FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES (TO
BE RESCHEDULED).
STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY
DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY
PLANNING COMMISSION).
• PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING.
1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
CHAIRflflAld PRO-TEMPORE: BRISTOL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, NAPOLES,i~'ERAZA
COMMISSIONER ABSENT: BOSTWICK, MAYER
STAFF PRESENT:
Selma Mann
Mary McCloskey
Greg Hastings
Cheryl Flores
Kevin Bass
Bruce Freeman
Lee Kull
Alfred Yalda
Melanie Adams
Tom Engle
Margarita Solorio
Ossie Edmundson
Assistant City Attorney
Deputy Planning Director
Zoning Division Manager
Senior Planner
Associate Planner
Code Enforcement Supervisor
Code Enforcement Officer
Principal Transportation Planner
Associate Civil Engineer
Vice Detail
Acting PC Support Supervisor
Senior Secretary
i - z .~-
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIOfdS
A. REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF AN Approved
ADJUSTMENT TO THE WEST ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA: City of Anaheim (Community Development (Vote: 4-0
Department), 201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805, Commissioners
requests review and approval of a resolution to add territory to Bostwick, Mayer
the proposed West Anaheim Redevelopment Project Area. and Peraza absent)
RESOLUTION NO. PC98-6
No discussion.
B. (a)
(b)
David Aramaki, 1221 South Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805,
requests review and approval of a Final Site Plan, to install new
landscaping and to reconstruct the main entrance driveway of an
existing hotel. Property is :located at 1221 South Harbor Blvd. -
tioliday Inn Anaheim Center.
ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded
by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioners Bostwick, Mayer and Peraza absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that
the previously-certified EIR No. 313 is adequate to serve as the
required environmental documentation for subject request.
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioners Bostwick, Mayer and Peraza absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1 through 8 on file in
the Planning Department) based upon a finding that the Final Site
Plan is in conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
No. 92-2.
Approved
Approved final site
plan
No discussion.
01-21-98
Page 2
C. (a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(bl(3) Concurred w/staff
(b) CODE AMENDMENT NO. 96-01 -AMENDMENT TO THE Recommended
DECISION PROCESS FOR TIME EXTENSIONS TO COMPLY .adoption to the
WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: City of Anaheim City Council
(Planning Department), 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA
92803, requests amendment to the decision process for time
extensions (to comply with conditions of approval) for
amendments, conditional use permits., administrative use
permits, variances and administrative adjustments.
ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded
by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIEp
(Commissioners Bostwick, Mayer and Peraza absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with
staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of
Categorical Exemptions, Class 15061 (b)(3), as defined in the
State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt
from the requirements to prepare an EIR.
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioners Bostwick, Mayer and Peraza absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council adoption of the draft ordinance attached to
the staff report dated January 21, 1998.
SR1010CF.DOC
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, Planning Department: Stated this is a minor change requiring a motion
instead of a resolution for an extension of time request. This would be for any time extensions processed
for amendments, conditional use permits, administrative use permits, variances and administrative
adjustments.
01-21-98
Page 3
D. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION IPREV: APPROVED) Approved
(b) VARIANCE N0.4323 -REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND Approved final
APPROVAL OF FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS: Howard landscape plans
Engelman, 111 N. Glenroy Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90036,
requests review and approval of final landscape plans.
Property is located at 1096 North Euclid Street.
ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded
by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioners Bostwick, Mayer and Peraza absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine
that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate
to serve as the required environmental documentation for
subject request.
Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioners Bostwick, Mayer and Peraza absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
submitted landscape plan based, subject to the provision of
landscaping the entire 12-foot width of the landscape planter
adjacent to Euclid Street with live :landscape materials.
SR1001
No discussion.
E. COUNTY OF ORANGE HEALTH CARE AGENCY -
REQUEST TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE
ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED OFFICE
USE OF LEASED SPACE: Douglas M. Gilmer, County of
Orange Health Care Agency, 515 North Sycamore, Room 618,
Santa Ana, CA 92701, requests determination of conformance
with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed lease of
.additional office space for the County of Orange Children and
Youth Services Mental Health Unit. Property is located at 1535
East Orangewood Avenue.
ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion,
seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioners Bostwick, Mayer and Peraza absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine
that the County's proposal to lease office space at 1535 East
Orangewood Avenue is in conformance with the Anaheim
General Plan.
Determined to be
in conformance with
the Anaheim General
Plan
No discussion.
01-21-98
Page 4
(a) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Prey: Aporovedl Continued to
(b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3939: Jerry Zomorodian, 2-2-98
100 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92804, requests
review and approval of final site, floor, sign, landscape and
building elevation plans (for apreviously-approved 3,750
square foot service station including a convenience market with
retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption, a
drive-through car wash, and two fast food restaurant), Property
is located at 301 South Anaheim Boulevard.
S R7026KP. W P
Commissioner Henninger: Stated it seemed that there were many open issues and therefore
recommended this item be continued to February 2, 1998, to allow the applicant to submit revised plans.
Jerry Zomorodian, 100 South Brookhurst, Anaheim, CA: Responded he was not aware until this morning
when a representative from the Redevelopment Agency called to inform him that they would like to review
the plans further. He believed they have had enough time to review the plans.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated the fact is that his plans have been reviewed and found not to conform
with plans originally submitted and tentatively approved. Therefore, Commission is requesting the
applicant to submit a revised plan that conforms with what the applicant stated previously he was going to
do.
Jerry Zomorodian: Stated he conformed to all the requests except the sign. If possible he would like to
request 13 feet. When the original .plans were submitted Code required 13 feet but now the new Code is
10 feet. He personally feels he should be allowed the 13 feet. The reason he had asked for an extension
was because he has a car wash and feels he should be able to advertise the car wash to the customers.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated all of the new gas stations have been conforming to this criteria and the
purpose of a continuance is to further work with staff.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated it is important that the applicant be aware that there is a
condition of approval that limits him to two wall signs for this particular building. If there is any change to
this, then staff would have to readvertise to change the condition.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated he realizes there are two wall signs but under substantial conformance
they might be able to explore the possibility of approving a sign that included the concept of a car wash as
well as the name of the business as a single sign.
Greg Hastings: Stated the condition is very specific, allowing only a tenant logo and fuel prices. Also that
the station is open for 24 hours. Staff can explore this with the applicant which may mean a
readvertisement of a condition which would require more time.
Jerry Zomorodian: Stated if it is necessary to readvertise, then he would prefer not to proceed with the
sign and will comply with Code requirements. He has been in business for 14 years and wanted to make
sure it was going to be a successful business. Without the sign it is going to be very difficult.
Commissioner Henninger: Offered a motion to continue this item to February 2, 1998, seconded by
Commissioner Boydstun and motion carried.
01-21-98
Page 5
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to
2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3680 (READVERTISED) 2-18-98
OWNER: The Eli Home, Inc., Attn: Lorri Galloway, Executive
Director, 4530 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA
92869
LOCATION: 100 South Canyon Crest Drive -The Eli Home.
Property is 0.22 acre located at the southeast corner of
Santa Ana Canyon Road and Canyon Crest Drive.
To consider the modification or deletion of conditions of approval
relating to the number of vehicle trips, on-site and off-site parking and
guest visitations, and modification of the approved site plan to retain an
existing wood fence along Santa Ana Canyon Road in conjunction with
a previously-approved group home for abused children and their
mothers.
Continued from the Commission meeting of December 22, 1997.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7009KD.DOC
m s o e o 0
Applicant's Statement:
Richard McFarland, representing the Eli Home, Inc., 4530 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA: Stated
they request a continuance to allow staff to review materials which they recently submitted which the
explains and supports their request for an amendment.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated for the record, there were letters received from Mr. Ken Hall, Sr.
and Mrs. Shirley Hall. There was also additional information received from Sonja Grewal. Commission
was informed at the morning session that there may be a request for a continuance. He asked
conformation, by a show of hands, the number of people present in opposition and advised them they
could either hold off in speaking until February 18th or give their testimony today, if they desire. He also
informed tie audience that this item would not be readvertised. _ _.
(The general consensus from the audience is that they would wait to comment until February 18, 1998, to
give their testimony.)
Commissioner Henninger: Offered a motion to continue this item to February 18, 1998, seconded by
Commissioner Boydstun and motion carried.
Commissioner Henninger: Made an announcement that this item would probably be the first public
hearing item and therefore recommended that anyone wishing to speak arrive on February 18, 1998,
promptly at 1:30 p.m.
Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: Stated for the record, staff provided Commission a summary
of complaint information which supplements the information that was included in the staff report.
01-21-98
Page 6
OPPOSITION: Correspondence was received in opposition.
ACTION: Continued subject request to the February 18, 1998 Planning Commission
meeting, as requested by the petitioner, in order to allow staff time to review
additional information the petitioner submitted related to the proposed
amendments.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Mayer and Peraza absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (1:47-1:52)
01-21-98
Page 7
3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3966 Granted for 2 years.
OWNER: Walter A. Friedman, 624 Barnsdale Street, Anaheim, (To expire 1/21100)
CA 92804
AGENT: Mark Scheuerman, 105 South State College
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 105 South State Colleoe Boulevard - Insta-Tune
and Lube. Property is 0.35 acre located at the
southwest corner of State College Boulevard and
Center Street.
To permit a 1,266 square foot expansion of an existing 1,008 square
foot lubrication, oil change and smog check and minor auto repair
facility.
Continued from the Commission meetings of September 29,
October 27, November 10, and November 24, 1997.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-7
o • • o ® •
Applicant's Statement:
Walter Freidman, 624 S. Barnsdale Street, Anaheim, CA: Stated the following concerns with two of the
conditions in the staff report.
1. Condition No. 15, page 8 - In the last hearing Commission had approved a drive area in front of
the proposed building that would allow for the continued vehicle circulation in front of that building,
provided they installed a planter at least 4 feet wide in front of the building. He submitted plans to
staff on Condition No. 3 which accomplishes that. He requested that Commission re-approve
such condition as they did on October 27th and appropriately amend Condition No. 15 so they
can continue to have the complete vehicle circulation around the building after the ultimate
widening of State College Boulevard.
2. Item No. 7, page 7 -This issue is the reason for the continuance of the hearing on October 27th.
The northern driveway is an important part of his tenant's business and the proposed blockage
was not acceptable to his tenant or himself. He submitted plans to Mr. Alfred Yalda (Traffic
Engineering Division) and discussed the matter with him then went back to his engineer for
revisions. The result was moving the northern driveway south to adequately address the
concerns of the City. He requested that the northern driveway be allowed remain in the plan at
this new location as shown on the map on Condition No. 3 and Condition No. 7 be appropriately
amended. This driveway would be reconstructed at their expense with the appropriate radius that
are on the plan and Mr. Yalda is in concurrence. They also plan to improve the radius cuts on the
existing Center Street driveway which was an additional condition that they are in agreement with.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated Mr. Yalda mentioned Condition No. 7 in the morning session and
therefore it will be deleted.
Walter Freidman: Stated he could forward a map, if Commission desires, illustrating how the vehicle
circulation from the building would remain on Condition No. 15.
01-21-98
Page 8
Public Testimony
C.M. Thompson, 1660 North Main Street, Orange, CA: Stated Alitec Engineering drew up the plans on
this project. He strongly recommended that they return to where they were in the approval last time, leave
the 4~/e foot planter up against the building which, he believes, helps the appearance of the building,
particularly on State College Boulevard. If the widening of State College does not happened then they are
going to be left with a planter at the building, a driveway and another planter out before the sidewalk. He
thought they had enough landscaping to meet the intent of the ordinance. They can comply with the
requirements on the signage and architectural features of the building.
Chairman ProTempore Bristol: Stated according to the testimony, Mr. Thompson is requesting that the
planter next to the building be kept and Mr. Freidman is requesting that he prefers that it not be kept.
Asked if that was correct?
Walter Freidman: Responded no. The revised planter next to the building will remain and the existing
planter adjacent to State College Boulevard will remain until the widening when it would be removed due
to the construction. They would always be allowed to have vehicle circulation around the front of the
building even after the widening.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Henninger stated to Melanie Adams (Public Works Department) that at the morning
session she indicated that this part of the critical intersection widening was not in the current funding
phase and asked how long would it be before this part of the critical intersection is built?
Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: Responded it is difficult to say at
this time. She estimated that they would attempt again for that funding in another two years. So it will
depend on how successful that applicant is.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated he feels the appropriate solution is to "roll" the variance into the
conditional use permit. Have the applicant terminate the variance and then put a time limit on this. This is
a business that has had continued Code violations. It seems this would be the most effective way of
dealing with continuing violations. If they were to put on a time limit (i.e. two years) and it did not seem
the critical intersection was going to happen then he would be comfortable in removing that portion of the
condition dealing with installation of 10 feet of landscaping. He asked staff if it would be difficult to roll the
overall entitlement into this conditional use permit out of the variance and what would be involved.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Responded it appears what would need to be done would be to
terminate the old variance and this conditional use permit would cover the new exhibit with whatever new
changes Commission would recommend. Staff would also want to look at all of the conditions to make
sure that there are no conflicts.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked if staff has all the conditions that are needed?
Greg Hastings: Responded the intent was that anything under this new use permit would cover the entire
facility not just the portion that is being expanded.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Recommended Mr. Freidman move the existing northern driveway south.
If that is approved, that there be landscaping replaced with an equal width to the existing landscaping
along State College Boulevard wherever there is not a driveway opening.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked the operator of the business, Mark Scheuerman, if this is primarily a
smog check business?
Mark Scheuerman, 105 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA: Responded 50% is smog
checking.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked what the other 50% wasl
01-21-98
Page 9
Mark Scheuerman: Responded minor break jobs, tune-ups, oil changes. They do not do engine
overhauls, transmission overhauls, no body or paint work.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked that Item No. 11 be clarified regarding no overnight parking.
Mark Scheuerman: Responded they do not have any intentions of leaving cars out overnight. The
problem is that people come in and park their cars without his knowledge or there are people who break
down and use his lotto park their car.
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Supervisor: Highly recommended that the applicant post his property
to have any unauthorized vehicle towed.
Mark Scheuerman: Said that would be fine.
Chairman ProTempore Bristol: Stated in the morning session there were several comments by Code
Enforcement of work being done on vehicles outside of his building and assuming he is adding to his
building to remedy this problem. Asked Mc Scheuerman if he was ever going to have that problem?
Mark Scheuerman: Responded no.
Commissioner Henninger: During the voting of the Conditional Use Permit No. 3966 recommended the
following:
1. Deleting Condition No. 7.
2. Condition No. 8 - to add, "when the reconstruction of driveways occur, and the adjacent right-of-
way shall be fully landscaped, irrigated and maintained",
3. On Condition No. 15 -leave the first sentence and delete everything beginning with the word
"further' to the end of that condition.
4. Add: A condition that states the applicant will, within 60 days, request for a termination of
Variance No. 2683.
5. Add: A condition that this CUP will be good for two (2) years.
Cheryl Flores: Recommended the following:
1. Add no. 1 to Condition No. 28.
2. Delete no. 1 from Condition No. 29.
01-21-98
Page 10
3. Delete no. 25 from Condition No. 28. Add no. 12 to Condition No. 29.
4. Add no. 12 to Condition No. 29.
After the vote, Mark Scheuerman requested a clarification on the limit of two years for the conditional use
permit.
Commissioner Henninger: Responded he needs to return and submit for another permit in two years.
That is typically the way businesses are handled that have been a Code Enforcement problem to the City.
Mark Scheuerman: Asked what that involved?
Commissioner Henninger: Responded it involves going to another hearing like this.
Selma Mann: Stated for clarification that the termination of an old variance is normally done prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
Walter Freidman: Stated he has difficulty with a two year conditional use permit. They are spending
approximately $50,000 to $75,000 to enlarge this site in order to eliminate future Code violations which
are predominately related to some work outside the building. By enlarging this to seven bays virtually
eliminates the problem. He thought to compel him with having to return after two years with an entirely
new CUP is unreasonable and unnecessary. He suggested there might be a condition that states that, if
there are several Code violations, then the applicant would have to return.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated basically when they have had Code Enforcement problems this is
typically the way they are handled. It has generally worked very well.
Walter Freidman: Asked if this means they would just need to apply for an extension and not have to go
through the an entire public hearing.
Commissioner Henninger: Responded no. They have to go through a public hearing.
Walter Friedman: Which means paying conditional use permit fees again, etc.?
Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated there is a fee to amend the condition of approval to reinstate
conditional use permit which is less than the original fee, but it does involve a public hearing.
Walter Freidman: Restated he feels this is totally unnecessary and very restrictive.
Chairman ProTempore Bristol: Stated most of the people in here are for the same reason. They get a
conditional use permit for a certain amount of time, it is a standard.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3966 for 2 years with the following changes to
conditions:
Deleted Condition No. 7.
Modified Condition Nos. 8, 15, 18, 28, and 29 to read as follows:
01-21-98
Page 71
8. That the driveway on Center Street shall be reconstructed to accommodate
ten (10) foot radius curb returns in conformance with Engineering Department
Standard No. 137. Further, that when the reconstruction of driveways occurs,
the area adjacent to the right-of-way shall be fully landscaped, irrigated and
maintained.
15. That the property owner shall construct a 4-foot 6-inch wide landscaped and
irrigated planter in front of the building (east elevation).
18. That any tree, shrub, or flower planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely
manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased, and/or dead.
Further, that any trees or other landscape material shall not be unreasonably
trimmed.
28. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year
from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 4,
5, 6, 9, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in
accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
29. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 3, 8, 12, 15,
25 and 27 above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
Added the following conditions:
That within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, the owner of
subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Variance No. 2683
(waiver of permitted uses and maximum access drive width l30 feet maximum; 40
feet approved) to establish an automotive diagnostic and service center) to the
Zoning Division.
That subject use permit is hereby approved for a period of two (2) years, to expire on
January 21, 2000.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Mayer and Peraza absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 22 minutes (1:52-2:14)
01-21-98
Page 12
4a.
4b.
4c.
OWNER: Lewis R. Schmid, Attn: Jason T. Schmid, 1725 South
Douglass Road, #C, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 2000-2620 East Katella Avenue - J.T. Schmid's
Brewhouse and Eatery. Property is 3.1 acres located
at the southeast comer of Katella Avenue and
Douglass Road.
To permit a 25-foot high, 210 square foot freestanding sign including 30
square foot of marquee slgnage with waiver of prohibited signs.
Continued from the Commission meetings of December 22, 1997 and
January 5,1998.
Withdrawn
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
SR6871 KB.WP
""'.~ _„FOLLOWING,IS,~AiSUMMARY~;OF„THE~PLANNING~COMMISSION'~AGTION. ~ ~:~~;°_
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick, Mayer and Peraza absent), that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request
to withdraw this request.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Mayer and Peraza absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
01-21-98
Page 13
Sa. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED)
5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3703 (READVERTISED) Withdrawn
OWNER: Lewis R. Schmid, Attn: Jason T. Schmid, 1725 South
Douglass Road #C, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 2600-2620 East Katella Avenue - J.T. Schmid's
Brewhouse and Eatery. Property is 3.1 acres
located at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and
Douglass Road.
To modify or delete a condition of approval pertaining to freestanding
signs.
Continued from the Commission meetings of December 22, 1997 and
January 5, 1998.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
;;~ ,_„'`,~< FOLLOWING~IS,ASUMMARY;OFTHE,P,LANNINGCOMMISSIONACTION:==, ~- ,i~
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick, Mayer and Peraza absent), that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request
to withdraw this request.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Mayer and Peraza absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
01-21-98
Page 14
6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved
6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3995 Granted
OWNER: Gilbert U. Kraemer, c/o North Street Partnership, P.O.
Box 275, Placentia, CA 92871
AGENT: Taormina Industries, Inc., Attn: Jeri Muth, P.O. Box
309, Anaheim, CA 92815-0309
LOCATION: 1071 North Blue Gum Street. Property is 1.42 acres
located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue
and Blue Gum Street.
To permit an outdoor household hazardous materials
recycling/resources recovery transfer facility with waivers of minimum
structural and landscape setback adjacent to the Riverside Freeway and
permitted encroachments in setback areas.
Continued from the Commission meeting of January 5, 1998.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98.8
FOLLOWINGIS A SUMMARY OF THE P,LANNING'COMMISSION ACTION. - ; , ,
Applicant's Statement:
John McNamara, Taormina Industries, Manager of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, 1131 North
Blue Gum Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated the petition is for a relocation of a couple of existing facilities on
their property. One is the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center and the other is the buy back
recycling center. The general overview of the project is that these are existing facilities. They are
providing the services to the City of Anaheim citizens as a service since 1990. It should be noted that the
Orange County Integrated Waste Management District administrates and runs the Household Hazardous
Waste Collection facility in accordance with all the required standards and regulations set by the State
and Federal government. They conduct these types of operations at three other facilities in Orange
County. It is seen as a benefit to the citizens by collecting and disposing of household hazardous
materials. This is an obvious benefit to the environment reducing contamination of the soil, ground water
and the air as a result of those kinds of household materials. The types of materials received are oil,
paints, pesticides, etc. One of the main reasons for relocating these facilities is to increase safety at their
current site. Currently traffic where the public is coming into their facility is commingled with trash trucks
and other commercial vehicles. They would like to separate that traffic which will increase the safety.
They concur with the staff report. There were a few conditions on the staff report that required special
recycling plans for trash truck turnaround. The plans that they submitted cover those issues. He
introduced Ms. Jeri Muth, Manager of the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program for the County
of Orange and Integrated Waste Management Department who would give a brief overview of these
facilities plus other facilities in the County.
Jeri Muth, Manager of the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program for the County of Orange and
Integrated Waste Management Department: Stated the County of Orange operates a regional program.
They have four different locations, one of them being in Anaheim. Almost 8 years ago Taormina
Industries realized the value of this to the citizens of Anaheim and provided a site for them to use at $1 a
year. This program also complies with mandates of the State of California to provide a mechanism for
citizens of Orange County to properly dispose of their household hazardous waste. The Anaheim center
is designed in accordance with all the State and local regulations in terms of storage, handling and
transporting. It is operated to minimize any environmental risks. They have been in operation for almost
8 years in Anaheim and it has been swell-managed site, very low risk, and as a result there have been no
01-21-98
:Page 15
spills. No incidents that have required the Fire Department to respond. All of the health care agency
environmental health inspections have resulted in no violations. The program only accepts residential
hazardous waste. They mostly collect paint, automotive products, pool and hobby supplies, motor oil,
batteries, etc. These products are received in sealed containers and are then placed into heavy metal
drums. The heavy metal drums are then stored on raised palettes and most are on a raised palette inside
of a heavy metal storage module. They make sure items received are properly stored and handled at all
times. In addition, none of this waste stays on site for more than one week. They ship out of Anaheim
every Thursday so there is nothing there that is accumulating for a longer period of time. Every
transportation of this material is done in accordance with the Department pf Transportation regulations.
Approximately 45% of what they collect is either processed and reused as a blended fuel or recycled and
reused. The benefits to the City of Anaheim is that this is an environmentally sound program is in
compliance with State mandates. They do not charge a fee to the citizens of Anaheim. It reduces the
inadvertent disposal of materials into the landfill system where it can actually contaminate ground water
supplies. It also reduces illegal dumping. The City of Anaheim uses this as one of their compliance
factors for their 88939 Plan. They were set up as a regional program in the City of Anaheim and they are
a regional partner with them in that.
Public Testimony:
Bruce Randall, 716 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA: Stated he is testifying as a private citizen.
The only reason he is present to speak is that he learned that there is some organized opposition to the
issuance of this permit. He is somewhat mystified. He has had many occasions to observe the traffic at
La Palma/Blue Gum area and he believes that this would eliminating a hazard. The types of items
received are household waste materials. The law states that people now have to properly dispose of
these items. The law also states that they have to be collected in a proper and safe manner. They are
making it much more accessible to private citizens. There is a barrier of a freeway and very large block
wall from any residents that could be remotely conceived as impacted. It seems to be a very good idea
and very appropriate. It is presently an ongoing operation that is simply being shifted slightly to make it
more accessible and safer to the public.
Don Chamberlain, 501 North Lemon, Anaheim, CA: Stated he has been an Anaheim resident most of his
life and has been in the automotive industry since he was sixteen years old. He has used this facility
extensively to dispose of his waste oil. They educate everyone who goes into that facility. He has had
the occasion to use other facilities and found he does not get the information at other facilities. They
make sure that the correct containers are used. They give the public pamphlets. It is a needed service
for the community to keep it away from the water systems and soil contamination areas.
Public Testimony:
Richard Newland, 1 Technology Drive, Suite I-803, Irvine, CA: Stated he is representing Suburbia
Homeowners Association, 325 homes which are located across the freeway from subject site. They do
not object to proper waste and hazardous waste material disposal. Regarding the CEQA Negative
Declaration (in the staff report), he wonders whether the CEQA declaration was viewed as to it's
cumulative affects. Does the Negative Declaration takes in consideration the cumulative affect of having
the waste disposal, recycling, hazardous waste plant in the same location immediately adjacent to a
community. Apart from the 325 homes there is also an apartment complex and Rio Vista Elementary
School. They do not see it as a relocation, they see this as an expansion. You could have the same
safety effect by moving it to some other part of the City. No one is advocating closing down the benefits
of the home hazardous recycling and waste disposal but asked does it all have to go here?
Richard Newland (continued): The following are the three factors that they feel are going to be negatively
impacting the homeowners.
1. The hazardous materials themselves and the health factor. The Suburbia Homeowners
Association are already receiving a regular dusting of particulates which they believe comes from
that specific area on their automobiles on a daily basis. No one has done a study to determine
whether or not it comes from the disposal site, the recycling site or what particular parcel of the
existing five seems to be generating it. It may even come from the alloy plant which is also close
by. There is already particulate matter in the air that the members of the community, that the City
01-21-98
Page 16
is serving, are concerned about. The Suburbia Homeowners Association is also concerned about
the health of the Rio Vista Elementary School children as well. Until you reach the critical limit
there is no affect that is apparent on the person as a result of contact with the allergens or
hazardous materials. It is only when you reach a certain level that you are going to get the full
bloom reaction that is apparent. At the present time they are not living at that full bloom level and
do not want to get to that level. They already have a situation where theassociation and its
owners are tired of the noise, fumes and particulate from the freeway and wonders how many
more uses are going to be parked at the front doors of these homeowners instead of spread out
around the community?
2. The nuisance factor. They live right next door to the freeway. Noise is already a problem and
they do not want it increased. More importantly, they are concerned with the smells, the fumes,
which are already coming from the existing five sites. Is it necessary to expand these five sites by
an additional 20% to make a 6th site?
3. The devaluation of the residential property. When you cluster, as has happened here, these
types of uses this close to a residential facility potential buyers are going to be very nervous. It is
one thing to haul green waste, paper waste, etc. but when it is being moved to a vacant lot which
is much closer to the home sites then you are going to impact the value of these homes. Is it
really necessary, fair or convenient to cluster the centers at this one location?
Richard Newland submitted signed petitions with 142 signatures and asked that they be made as part of
fhe public record. The request of the petitioners is not to grant the conditional use permit and not to
approve the negative declaration until its cumulative affects have been studied and reviewed by staff and
Planning Commission.
Applicant's Response:
John McNamara: Stated this property is a contiguous part of the other properties that are associated with
Taormina Industries and CBT and the other operations at their facility. This is a completely separate and
stand alone operation. It is not something that they are conducting as part of their core business but
rather a service to the community which provides a collection center for the household hazardous waste
materials. It is unique because to permit one of these facilities takes a great effort. There are not many
private entities that are willing to do that. That is why Orange County Integrated Waste Management
operates these facilities throughout the County in various location to provide this type of service that
would not otherwise be provided. This is a crucial and necessary service that they feel is a benefit to the
community. The do not see this that as a cumulative affect that would need to be covered under
additional CEQA considerations. Those types of considerations are naturally a part of the CEQA process.
The City staff has considered this site previously and these operations have been included in those
considerations when the facilities come before the Planning Commission at other times. So this is not a
new, added or cumulative issue.
[The rest of the applicant's response was given by Jeri Muth.]
Jeri Muth: Stated the arrangement with Taormina Industries for $1 a year would be very difficult to beat
anywhere in this County. For instance, they have one of their facilities at the landfill in San Juan
Capistrano and the landfill is running out of space and they are having an extremely difficult time even
finding space to lease there. To put this in another location would perhaps make the service not available
to this part of the County. Their operations do not generate any kind of odor. She welcomes the citizens
to make arrangements with them to visit any one of their centers, for example, the Irvine center which is
not right next to a waste disposal facility. They do not have problems with odors. The current location will
be completely enclosed and cleaned up. The storage units that are there now will be moved to the new
location, if approved. So they will not be adding a new site to that general vicinity. It will be the same site.
John McNamara: Stated there has been a lot of effort and expenditure to make this a facility that looks
good from many different vantage points, especially along La Palma Avenue. They are taking special
efforts to meet the requirement of the City as set for them as part of the project to do shielding and
beautification efforts along the perimeter of the project. It is going to be an improvement of the overall
aesthetics of the site at that intersection. The actual movement of the household hazardous waste
Ot-21-98
Page 17
collection center will be from the north to the south side of La Palma Avenue, a distance of about 100 to
150 foot towards the freeway. This is an existing facility and the movement is not that great. It is within
their contiguous properties that are already permitted and allowed for these kinds of uses.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Mr. McNamara if they would be able to get an access permit from
Caltrans so that they will get access out there to maintain the vines before the wall. She would like see
that in as a condition because they should get the right to maintain them.
John McNamara: Responded yes. They have already started working with Caltrans to obtain that permit
and will be submitting plans for their review.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated they did not have any signs in their plans. How were they going to mark
it7 She recommended that this return as a Reports and Recommendation Item when they figure it out.
John McNamara: Responded they discussed that with staff as well. There will be a complete submittal of
plans for review.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she has used their facility and she feels it is a great asset to the
community.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Asked if the table listed on page 3 of the staff report included all materials
they accepted for collection?
John McNamara: Stated they brought brochures along with them. These brochures give an overview of
the facility and the types of materials accepted.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated the purpose of the question is to limit them to the materials they collect.
Therefore, is this the complete list?
Jeri Muth: Stated her staff reviewed the list of materials and yes it is all inclusive.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Asked staff what they thought of Condition No. 6 and 7?
Cheryl Flores: Stated these are typical conditions and if they are already shown on the plans and meet
the approval of Public Works Department then they will be fine.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated this is not a new facility but rather moving an existing facility.
John McNamara: Stated that was correct. These are existing services and both facilities exist currently
and the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center has been operating since 1990.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked if the new site is bigger?
John McNamara: The part of the property that they are moving to now has the same amount of room.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked what will happen to the land that will be liberated under the existing
use?
John McNamara: Responded there are some traffic re-routing issues within the facility on the north side
of La Palma that will allow them to do some of those things, to move traffic around. It is meant to increase
safety. They want to make it even safer.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked Code Enforcement if there have ever been complaints about this
facility?
01-21-98
Page 1S
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Supervisor: Responded to his knowledge, as the primary inspector
for the last 14 years, he thinks it has been a clean operation. He agreed there is a congestion problem
which makes it unsafe at the present site.
Commissioner Henninger asked Jeri Muth where the hazardous waste facilities are located in the County
and what areas they serve.
Jeri Muth: Responded the locations are as follows:
1. taandfill at San Juan Capistrano off of Orgeta Highway located inside of the landfill itself.
2. City of Irvine, located in Oak Canyon next to City of Irvine corporate yard.
3. Huntington Beach facility off of Warner right off of Nichols at Rainbow Disposal.
4. Anaheim Disposal.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated the facilities are spread various areas in the County and this facility is
needed to serve northeast Orange County.
Jeri Muth: Responded that was correct. She mentioned Anaheim Disposal is the second highest used
facility in the County.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked about particulate matter.
Jeri Muth: Responded because there are not studies done she thought it might be due from traffic from
the freeway. She could not see how anything that they do at the operation would create any kind of
particulate dust.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated most of the items on the list are liquid rather than solid.
Jeri Muth: Reiterated that most come in containers which are put in other containers.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked about noise from this facility.
Jeri Muth: Responded it is a matter of vehicles arriving one at a time, pulling up to the attendant, the
.attendant removes the materials from the car. No machinery is operated on site. The materials are put
into drums. Once a week a large haul truck comes and removes the drums. It comes very early each
Thursday morning approximately 7:30 a.m. and leave before 9:00 a.m. Her staff goes out to supervise the
shipping and ensure that the manifests are filled out properly.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked for verification that they are not expanding the facility but rather moving
it.
Jeri Muth responded to Commissioner Henninger's question by stating there is a very minimum difference
in square~ootage.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated with regard to storing things on-site that might be potential allergens,
what amount of quantity will they be having of those types of materials?
Jeri Muth: Responded they do not anticipate any increase in the quantity of potential allergens. Their
staff use protective gear to handle anything. Nothing remains out overnight.
(John McNamara submitted brochures regarding household hazardous waste to Commission.]
(Commissioner Peraza abstained because he arrived later and so did not hear all the testimony.]
During the voting process:
Commissioner Boydstun: Recommended that the signage program return as a Reports and
Recommendation Item and stated that they are working with Caltrans to have access to be able to
01-21-g8
Page 19
maintain the landscaping on the wall. That paragraph no. 9 includes the listing the items that will be
allowed to be collected at the facility.
Commissioner Henninger: Requested that under Rules of Acceptance (also paragraph no. 9), the second
bullet point (•), the wording "its original" be deleted and replace with "and approved".
Cheryl Flores: Requested the word "or" be deleted and combine Condition No. 1, page 9. For the record,
staff did forward a letter received from Dorius Garstka to Commission.
IN FAVOR: 2 people spoke in favor of subject proposal.
OPPOSITION: 1 person stating he represented 324 homeowners spoke and submitted a petition
with 142 signatures in opposition.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Approved Waivers of Code Requirement
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3995 with the following changes to conditions:
Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows:
That the developer shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to refurbish
the slope landscaping in the La Palma Avenue right-of-way (including a minimum of
7, 24-inch box Canary Island Pine trees and 36, 5-gallon Crepe Myrtle shrubs) to the
Department of Public Works and the Community Services Department for review and
approval for the proposed landscaping on the slope adjacent to La Palma Avenue
which is in the public right-of-way. The developer shall be responsible for recording a
landscape.maintenance agreement subject to the review and approval of the City
Attorney for content and form. This agreement shall be recorded .prior to the approval
of the associated grading plans. The irrigation shall conform with Chapter 10.09
Water Efficiency.
Added the following conditions:
That household hazardous materials collection shall be limited to the following:
fertilizers household cleaners wood preservatives
household paints, coatings
and solvents unused road flares photographic chemicals
pesticides weed killers hobby supplies
pool chemicals auto and furniture polish chemical drain cleaners
automotive products,
including motor oil, anti-
. freeze, batteries, etc.
That the following rules shall apply for acceptance:
* The product is in an approved container
* The container is sound and not leaking
* The contents of the containers are the same as stated on the labels
* The total quantity per visit does not exceed five (5) gallons or fifty (50) pounds
* Glass containers are protected from breakage
* The material or waste does not originate from a small business
01-21-98
Page 20
That the following materials shall not be accepted:
' Extremely hazardous materials
' Radioactive
Compressed gas cylinders (full or partially full)
' Biological wastes
' Asbestos
' Ammunition and/or explosives
Note: The collection station shall utilize watertight containment modules for storage of
hazardous materials. Additional containment shall be provided by a curbed
concrete slab/apron where the materials will be handled. Licensed hazardous
waste haulers shall be under county contract to categorize, package and
transport the hazardous materials from this collection point to the appropriate
treatment center and/or disposal facilities.
That the petitioner shall provide evidence to the Zoning Division showing permission to
encroach into the Caltrans right-of-way in order to maintain the vines planted adjacent to
the freeway side of the 10-foot high block wall on the southerly property line.
That a signage program shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval
by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Mayer and Peraza absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 41 minutes (2:14-2:55)
01-21-98
Page 21
7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
7b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-07 Granted, unconditionally
7c. VARIANCE NO. 4327 Withdrawn
7d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97-201 :Approved
OWNER: Lois Hightshoe, 1250 South Nutwood Street Anaheim,
CA 92804
LOCATION: 1250 South Nutwood Street. Property is 0.5 acre
located at the northeast corner of Castle Avenue and
Nutwood Street.
Waivers of minimum lot area and minimum lot width to establish a 3-lot
single-family residential detached subdivision and to reclassify subject
property from the RS-A-43,000 (ResidentiallAgriculture) to the RS-7200
(Residential, Single-Family) Zone.
Continued from the Commission meeting of December 22, 1997.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC98-9
SR6872KB.WP
~~~~"'~° ~';'FOLLOWINGIS'AiSUMMX~IRYOF,THE~P,C%>NNING-COMMISSION;/~CTION
Applicant's Statement:
Bob Sedillo, 404 North Monterey Avenue, Apt. G, Alhambra, CA: Stated he is the agent for Lois
Hightshoe, the owner of the property. They have taken into consideration the public testimony and the
recommendation of Planning staff and now recommend the variance be withdrawn and to go forward with
the two parcel split.
Public Testimony:
John Turanitza, 1873 West Castle Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated he was unaware of the changes. He
reviewed his concerns presented against the project at the last meeting and complained that he nor any of
his neighbors had seen the new plans. (He submitted into the record signatures from three neighbors on
Castle Avenue. He also submitted photographs of the area at Castle.]..
John Turanitza (continued): Stated his main concern remains that any additional driveways onto Castle
are going to be a major problem. Mr. Sedillo is now proposing two houses. They never opposed the
second house. He felt the existing driveway could be used for both houses. If Mr. Sedillo puts in the new
garage behind the existing house then that driveway could be used for both houses. He feels that the
applicant has shown a disrespect for his neighbors and his goal is to make a profit. He requested
Commission to only allow one house on the vacant lot and not allow any additional driveways onto Castle.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Bob Sedillo: Stated it is a territorial situation. He just wants to request a reclassification of subject
property to RS-A-43,000 and move forward with the project.
Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer: Recommended a correction to the conditions of approval
striking Condition Nos. 2 and 3. These will actually be paid at the time of a new building permit being
issued on the property.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated the plans have been conformed to meet the concerns at the last public
hearing.
01-21-98
Page 22
OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration.
Granted Reclassification No. 97-98-07, unconditionally.
Accepted request for withdrawal of Variance No. 4327 as follows
ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick and Mayer absent), that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request
for withdrawal of Variance No. 4327 for waiver of minimum lot area and minimum lot
width based on the submitted revised tentative parcel map which indicates a 2-lot
subdivision with no waivers of code requirements necessary for either the creation of
the lots or the remaining existing single-family residence.
Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-201 with the following changes to conditions
Deleted Condition Nos. 2 and 3.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and Mayer absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights for the reclassification portion of
this request and the 10-day appeal rights for the tentative parcel map portion of this request.
DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (2:55-3:03)
01-21-98
Page 23
8b. VARIANCE NO. 4331 12-18-98
8c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15565
Sd. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 97-03
OWNER: Mary Yaeko Murata, Robert Kenzo Murata, Paul Seichi
Murata, Sachiko Murata, 2312 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach,
CA 92663
AGENT: Salkin Engineering Corporation, Attn: George E. Kerns,
1215 E. Chapman Avenue, #2, Orange, CA 92866
LOCATION: 421 South Country Hill Road. Property is 8.0 acres
located on the south side of Country Hill Road, 270 feet
east of the centerline of Old Ranch Road.
Waivers of minimum private street width and maximum structural height
to establish a 13-lot 11-unit single-family detached residential subdivision
and approval for the removal of 68 (advertised as 103) specimen trees.
Continued from the Commission meeting of December 22, 1997.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO.
FOLLOWING,IS A 5l9MMARY;OF THE P~LANNING'COMMI$SION ACTION. ; ~,
Applicant's Statement:
George Kerns, Salkin Engineering Corporation, 1215 East Chapman Avenue, Suite 2, Orange, CA:
Stated Brian Kerr, the developer, is in the audience. They reviewed the staff report and concur with all
that staff has recommended with the exception of the specimen tree removal plan. They will have a great
deal of difficulty preserving as many trees as the staff desires. After reviewing the plan again, and he
thought he could save some more trees in and around the perimeter. The trees he thought would have to
be removed are:
27 trees
3 trees
6 trees
2 trees
6 trees
2 trees
4 trees
3 trees
Total: 43 trees
Lot A
private driveway
Fairmont Boulevard
Lotl
:Lot 5
tot 9
Lot 10
Lot 11
removal / 108 trees retained and preserved
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated that is a change of 83 and 68 which he submitted previously.
George Kerns: Responded that was correct.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked staff their opinion if (8-D) Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 97-03 was
continued until the applicant submits grading plans.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated that could be done but normally they like to keep items together
as one project.
George Kerns: Stated the grading is depicted on the tentative map.
01-21-98
Page 24
Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer: Stated it is true that the differences in elevation between what was
existing and what is proposed is fairly clear on the existing tentative map and on the pads that they were
looking at in the morning session. It would be very difficult to save those trees within the building pad
areas. In most cases they would either be buried and substantially under cut. She was not certain to
what extent any of the trees could be relocated.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked .Melanie Adams if she was satisfied with the trees the applicant indicated
would have to be removed.
Melanie Adams: Responded the ones shown within the building pads, definitely would need to be
removed. Some of the other trees could be reviewed on a case by case basis.
Public Testimony:
Linda Chapman, 415 S. Country Hill Road, Anaheim, CA: Stated her property is directly in front of this
proposed development. The Muller Drive Country Hill area is very unique and that is why most people
choose to live there because of the trees, scenic corridor, the habitat (which includes coyotes, owls,
hawks). Her concerns with this development are:
1. Why do we have code and ordinance if someone comes in and asks for a variance. The
applicant is not asking for a small variance but rather over 60 trees. She is also concerned with
the death of the trees. Eucalyptus tree roots are intertwined together and she thought there would
be some loss there.
2. Horse trails -She understands there are funds available for the widening of Fairmont Boulevard
but there is nothing to be done with the horse trails which are located along the back fence of her
property and on the other side is where the applicant's development starts. Mr. Kerr stated he did
not have to do anything with the horse trails and had no intentions of doing anything. She would
like to see the preservation of the horse trails. This is an area where people are housing their
horses, like to ride, and these trails are beautiful.
3. Page 7 of the staff report -She feels this development is going to deprive her of her privileges as
a property owner as stated on Item No. 20-B as well as her neighbors on the other side.
4. Page 7 -She :has concerns about Item No. 21(2) and 21(3). These areas are 1 Y~ acre lots, very
spacious. She can not understand why the applicant can not select another site. Why should the
maximum amount of homes be squeezing into one area? Why can't the habitat and trees be
preserved?
5. Variance of height limit -The applicant is asking for 7%. She is concerned she would have to
look at those tall roof lines. Therefore, she asked that the Code be enforced. _ __
Linda Buckles, 437 South Country Hill Road, Anaheim, CA: Stated Linda Chapman is her neighbor and
they are both affected by the road that is going to be used to access these homes. She is surprised a
tract home development is going to be allowed to be built when all the other homes are custom built
homes. She owns a horse and she uses the trails. There is no mention of the horse trail that cuts across
this development. She is also concerned with the animals (deer, bobcats, owls, hawks, oak trees) that
they have out there. Their area is very different. It is very rural. It has just a two lane highway. The
development will create more traffic and a risky situation for the children living around there. She
concluded that this development is going to affect them greatly,
Jim Buckles, 437 South County Hills Road, Anaheim, CA: Stated his concern with 11 homes out there.
There will be a minimum of 22 cars which will be going righPby his home. He wants to live in a place
where he can have animals (chickens, horses, etc.). He raised 5 owls in his fireplace. If he had touched
them, the City said there would have been a $100,000 for destroying those owls. If these homes are built,
it takes away land from the animals and puts more traffic on that street. He is concerned should there be
afire. The residents only have atwo-lane highway. Now there is going to be another two-lane highway
between his property and Linda Chapman's property. There actually was a fire not to long ago and all the
01-21-98
Page 25
houses were burned in that area. So there will not be enough room far the traffic to come through. He
purchased there to get away from traffic and now he is going to have 22 cars go by his property each day.
They are putting 11 homes on a "flag lot". Normally when they have a flag lot they put up block walls on
each side of the driveway so it does not disturb the existing neighbors. There is another road, Old Ranch
Road, which they use instead.
Nori Uimatu, 429 South Country Hill Road, Anaheim, CA: Stated his 4-acre property is located on the
east side. He has lived there for over 30 years. The reason he moved there is to get away from the city
atmosphere. The City has allowed no sidewalks or street lights which is what attracted them to this area.
The trees have been in existence for many years. One of his neighbors accidentally removed 3 or 4 trees
and the City was going to site him for that. He has been approached many times by developers to
purchase his property but he was never interested because he wanted to maintain the rural atmosphere.
There are two ravines on this property and the ravines have drainage pipes on the south end . When it
rains they have water running in the Maraca's (his neighbor) driveway, which is no longer a driveway due
to all of the erosion that has happened after the rain. During the summer months there is water that runs
from above resulting in mosquitoes. He asked the Commission to reconsider the request for a variance
and also look into the drainage system.
Linda Suchie, 421 South Old Ranch Road, Anaheim, CA: Stated this is a very unique area and they
would like to see this preserved as well as retain as many of these trees as possible because this is part
of the charm of the area. She feels it is possible to do so if the project is scaled down in size.
Roy Wunder, 418 Country Hill Road, Anaheim, CA: Stated his property is directly across the street. He
has lived there for over 30 years. He was the person who was taken to court because he accidentally
removed some trees in his front yard. The Police came by and gave him a ticket and he had to go to
court. (Submitted photographs of fhe problem of the water after a ran.J He spoke with Mr. Kerns who
indicated it would drain out to the street. A normal rain comes up to his driveway, that is why he has to
put some cement blacks across to keep the normal rain out. Once the land is saturated it comes down
heavily. He would like to see the horse trail and the trees remain.
Nori Uimatu: Stated over twenty years ago the Del Giorgio property was developed and they wanted to
remove the trees and the Planning Commission did not allow that. In addition, they were required to put in
horse trails, which they did.
Jim l3uckles: He stressed if the project goes through then he requests that block walls be installed so the
neighbors would not have to listen and see the cars going in and out constantly. It would make more
sense to reduce the amount of homes built.
George Knapp, Seven Gables Real Estate: Stated he has been a Realtor in the Anaheim Hilis area for
over twenty years. He represents the Murata's, property owners in the sale of the property to the
developer. The eleven homes that they are proposing to build on the eight acres will not be tract homes.
These are semi-custom homes and are certainly going to increase the value of the property of the
adjacent owners. These homes are going to be in the $700,000 to $800,000 range. The neighbors
concerns will certainly be addressed. They would like to leave all the trees but it's just not possible. They
have not requested a zone change but rather are complying with RS-HS-22,000 half acre zoning for the
area. He believes the proposal will enhance the area for all of the neighbors despite what they think.
This may be George Kems from Salkin Engineering speaking - he did not identify himself. I am very
pleased that someone mentioned the Del Giorgio tract as a good example. Some trees were saved.
They are proposing to save 73% of the trees.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Asked if he had spoken with the residents?
Mr. Kerns: Stated he spoke with Mr. Wunder and showed him the proposal.
Chairman Pro Tempore Pro Tempore Bristol: Asked if he has meet with the residents?
Mr. Kerns: Responded no -not everyone.
01-21-98
Page 26
Mr. Kerns: Stated he explained to Mr. Wunder their proposal of picking up the drainage out of those two
gullies, put it in a pipe, directed along the street to Old Ranch Road and into a pipe. It will substantially
alleviate the drainage problems that are in the area. Water in the future will be underground. They would
be agreeable to building a wall along either side their entry driveway but did not see how they can build a
wall and also save trees. They understand that the trees are a very emotional issue, particularly to
residents in the area. Their proposal which is saving almost three quarters of the trees is making more
than a substantial effort to save trees. In addition, their intention is to comply with the ordinance which
would plant replacement trees.
Brian Kerr, 2312 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, CA: Stated he would like to address a couple of comments
that were mentioned. Mrs. Chapman's property does not border on this development. There is a full one-
acre lot separating the two properties (no. 1). The horse trail has been accepted by the City. It is a
continuation through the project that meets up with the Old Bridge project. The other item is the height
restriction. In developing semi -custom homes he met with the Planning Department and discussed the
possibility of building, rather than all single stories, perhaps three two-story homes. The height would be
approximately 27 foot maximum. Of the three homes proposed, less than 12% of the roof of those three
homes is above the height limitation, which is excessive in order to create a different street scene with
semi-custom homes. He builds quality and fire safe homes. The homes will be custom built, each home
will be different with a different elevation on it.
(Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol was interrupted 6y Ms. Chapman seated in the audience.]
Linda Chapman: She wanted to clarify by stating Mr. Kem is incorrect. He stated that her property line is
not there. It most certainly is. She does not want somebody to tell her that they are going to raise the
quality or standard of her life by building $700,000 homes. If she wanted a big, fancy home, she could
have purchased a tract or custom home. She chose instead this area because of Its style and the
property and surrounding area.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated the public hearing portion is over.
Linda Chapman continued by saying she just wanted to clarify the inconsistencies.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked if this property abuts Old Ranch Road?
Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer: Stated this property does not abut Old Ranch Road. That road
would currently stop quite short of the property. She does not know of any plans to extend it.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Kevin Bass to explain about the horse trail.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked Mr. Bass to point out on the exhibit where the horse trail currently is
and how it's going to be continued.
Kevin Bass, Associate Planner: Responded the horse trail will start at the northwest corner of the
property, continue along this northern boundary line and then come along this east boundary line until it
connects with Deer Canyon.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if that has been agreed on as far as the size.
Kevin Bass: Responded yes, it is a ten foot wide trail that will meet the City standard number 603 for trail
easements.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked :Melanie Adams if there is a pipe on Country Hill Road that will accept
the drainage coming off from here.
Melanie Adams: Responded the pipe is much further down the road. The applicant's engineer, Salkin
Engineering, has submitted a preliminary drainage report. Unfortunately, due to staff overload, she has
not had an opportunity to review it. She understands he is proposing to have a storm drain system within
the new tract. That storm drain would extend down to Country Hill Road, go underneath Country Hill
Road to the north side. Anew pipe would be constructed in Country Hill Road and extend farther to the
01-21-98
Page 27
wesk to discharge into an existing inlet. She asked Mr. Kerns to give a further explanation. There are one
of two choices, either allow a continuance for their office for further review or a condition could be added
and placed as part of the conditions of approval.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked if the water is going to stay in a pipe the whole distance or are they
going to move it in the street somewhere along the way.
Melanie Adams: Responded the drainage would go into the pipe and stay in the pipe.
Commissioner Henninger. Stated so it would never come back out onto the street and flow into the street.
Ask the applicant's engineer confirm that this was correct.
Mr. Kerns: Responded yes, that is indeed his intention. The water will be picked up in the two gullies to
the south, go along the easterly side of the property, be in a pipe out the driveway and then a pipe along
Country Hill Road down to the next intersection where there is an inlet. The intention is to size the pipe to
take the water coming from this project and the water up-stream on Country Hill Road.
Commissioner Henninger: They are going to take it underground and keep it underground. Mr. Kerns
said that is correct. And your belief is that there is a pipe somewhere further down Country Hill Road that
is correctly sized?
Mr. Kerns: Stated there is a culvert there. He has done calculations to size that.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked what the improvement looked like further down when you get to
Country Hill RoadT
Mr. Kerns: Responded there are two pipes going underneath the existing roadway there, it goes under
the roadway and comes out somewhere on the other side. It is open flow beyond that downstream. He
is proposing to connect a pipe to those culverts with some kind of a structure.
Commissioner Henninger: Further downstream it is an open culvert and that is what the improvement
looks Iike1
Mr. Kerns: Responded that is the way it is now.
Henninger: Asked if he had a study done to see if the culvert is adequately sized.
Mr. Kerns: Responded he had not.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated the applicant has changed to 43 trees being removed versus 48.
there is a difference now of 11 trees.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Yes, there probably are some situations where, because of the areas
where some of these tress are next to a graded area or, in fact, being in a graded area, staff does
understand that those would need to be removed if the street system is put in and these lots are graded
as shown on the plan. It's certainly a lot closer than the original 103 as originally advertised.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated if staff meets with the applicant does he think they could agree on
another 11 trees? Asked if staff has seen this plan and if so was it the same plan that they reviewed at
the morning session?
Greg Hastings: Stated he believed it probably is the same plan. The plan that they showed at the
morning session had indicated the trees that would be removed and the trees that would remain. Of the
trees being removed staff was recommending that a portion of those remain as well. It appears they are
getting closer to that number. Staff does realize that some of the trees that staff was looking at could be
negatively effected just by the grading of the road and some of the pads..
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: So 43 remaining is probably more accurate than what was looked at this
morning.
01-21-98
Page 28
Mr. Hastings: Replied yes.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated it is his understanding that the purpose of this waiver being requested
for the minimum private street width is to save some trees on the site.
Mr. Kerns: Confirmed that was correct.
Mr. Henninger (continued): Stated he thought there is a windrow that comes up the entry drive on the
east side of that road so you could not put a wall in there.
Mr. Henninger: Asked Mr. Kerns about on the west side.
Mr. Kems: Stated they would be happy to put a wall there.
Mr. Henninger: Asked if the Fire Department staff have any concern about the access on this tract?
Kevin Bass: Replied the Fire Dept, relies on Traffic Engineering. Traffic Engineering said that as long as
it is 25 feet wide they would not need sprinkling for those homes since there would be a wide enough
easement and that distance was not too great in order to serve those homes in an emergency.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she thought that everything out in the canyon had to have the sprinkling
now .
Greg Hastings: At one time every structure constructed in the City required sprinklers and that has been
changed. His understanding is that the canyon area has been dropped but staff can verify that with the
Building Division.
Melanie Adams, Engineering: Stated she wanted to further clarify that on Fire Department Standards.,
they require a minimum of twenty foot clear width and a maximum of a 10% street grade .
Commissioner Henninger: Stated that is to get fire engines in and out. He asked Alfred Yalda, Traffic
Engineering Division, if he had a sense if there was an adequate capacity here in case there is a fire and
people need to be evacuated?
Mr. Yalda: Responded yes., he believed so, but the Fire Department also reviews all these plans and they
did not have any concerns.
Melanie Adams: Stated one further clarification on the private street standard -the minimum standard
required in this area is a 40 foot wide easement and a more detailed discussion is contained in the staff
report, paragraph no. 16. It should be noted that there are several areas where they are not meeting the
standard._There is not only the road width but they need some area for a pedestrian to walk is and out
and they are not on the street. Even though there is not a sidewalk, a pedestrian still needs to be walking
outside of the roadway.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated that he sees that the surrounding zoning is all RS-HS-22,000, but there
was one property owner adjacent with a four acre lot, although it is zoned 22,000 it is really four acres.
Generally, what are the lot sizes surrounding this property?
Greg Hastings: Responded it appears that looking at their map that the surrounding lots are much larger
than the RS-HS-22,000 minimum, which is half acre. However, closer to Country Hill Road it appears that
most of those are half acre in size.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated a couple of lots are over an acre, but most are pretty close to a half an
acre.
Greg Hastings: Responded, that is correct. On page 3 of the staff report there is a listing of the sizes. He
thought they fit in with the neighborhood and with the lots that front on to Country Hill Road, but pbviously
are not of the same size as the lots directly adjacent to this property.
01-21-98
Page 29
Commissioner Boydstun noted some of them are three-quarters and are almost an acre
Commissioner Henninger asked Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, if Commission could condition a
tentative map to have a house that's different on each lot in terms of elevation.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attomey: Responded that Commission might want to see if the developer
concurs with that. There is some new information that she believes has been brought up at this hearing
that Planning Department may not have considered in conjunction with the environmental review of the
project. Some of it relates to the water issues, nesting birds, and other animals. At the time that the
review was done there is also some mention of some two to three hundred year old trees. it may be that
there are some issues relating to those that haven't been adequately addressed. It might be something
that Commission might wish to consider. It is up to Commission if they feel that it can be adequately
answered at this hearing. With regard to conditioning them that each one be a different elevation, that
seems like something that might be more reasonably determined by concurrence and then based upon
that made a condition..
Commissioner Henninger: Stated that he is just following up on the testimony that he heard.
Selma Mann(continued): That then if the developer confirms that is the case and Commission makes the
determination that the site is physically suitable for the development, then it does not seem to be an
inappropriate condition.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked staff their thoughts on a continuance for two weeks to review these
additional issues?
Greg Hastings: They may need longer than two weeks because of what's been identified environmentally.
He thought some study of these elements may be required. Since we are meeting on a Wednesday today
rather than a Monday, that further complicates matters. He is not certain how long it would take the
applicant to address the issues that have been brought up today.
Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: Stated that her department would
like an opportunity to review the drainage on the site,
Greg Hastings: Stated perhaps they could take this opportunity to again review the trees, sit down with
the developer and discuss whatever the difference is in the trees.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked the developer how high is the retaining wall that he is putting off of
Fairmont Boulevard?
Mr. Kerr: Responded when Fairmont was graded, portions of it (when the Del Giorgio tract went in) where
the road was widened, when it came to this particular piece of property, the City took by eminent domain
the slope area that abuts Fairmont. Now it appears as though they did not take enough of the property by
eminent domain because now the street has to be even wider. The wall that would be erected would not
be visible from Fairmont, but basically they are proposing a "living"/loffelstein type wall, which would be
planted. Basically the only property that is affected is lot 8, where the wall would be visible,
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she was wondering how high it would be at that point.
Mr. Kerns: Stated they are proposing the wall in lieu of building over the existing slope that was built when
Fairmont was built and landscaped at that time. The wall that is proposed is about ten feet high. One of
the reasons that the wall is proposed instead of a slope is that they are trying to preserve the trees that
are on that slope. In addition, he does not know how old the Sycamore trees are, but almost all the rest of
those trees were planted by somebody out there. There's nothing out there with the exception of the
Sycamore and Oak that are three hundred years old,
Commissioner Peraza: Stated that he would like to see a four week continuance so that they can answer
some of the questions that were brought up.
01-21-98
Page 30
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Summarized the concems of residents, according to their testimony, as
follows: trees, horse trails, tract homes, animals, traffic, scaled down in size, drainage, fire hazard, height
- couple houses being 27 feet versus 25 feet. He thought the elevation of those lots and the block wall on
Country Hill would not be a problem. He felt there needs to be better communication from the applicant to
the residents. If they can resolve the drainage and get closer on the preservation of the trees, then the
developer, he feels, has rights and the people being impacted also have rights. To act on this today
would be premature and a continuance is in order.
Commissioner Peralta: Motioned for a four week continuance.
Cheryl Flores., Senior Planner: Suggested that the developer meet with homeowners in the area to
discuss these concerns, and submit a line of sight drawing showing what the two story elevation would
look like from the adjacent properties.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if these houses should be sprinkled.
Cheryl Flores stated that she is checking into that and will have an answer for her the next time.
Mr. Kerr: Stated he is not sure, but he knows the County of Orange requirement is that anything
exceeding 5,000 square feet must be sprinkled. He is currently building in the City of Orange have the
same standards as the County of Orange. He is proposing four or five floor plans. Each house would
have a different elevation.
Mr. Kerr: Stated he did meet with Mrs. Chapman. He also meet with Mrs. Bucholtz and recalled she
responded positively and mentioned she uses the place for her horses. He fully understood, and she
mentioned to him that it would be wonderful if those trees were removed because they were just a
nuisance, a mess and half of them are falling over anyway. He has spoken with those two people. He did
not know what he is supposed to do beyond that.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked what the minimum square footage of the houses would be.
Mr. Kerr: Stated that the minimum would be 3800 square feet up to 4300 square feet.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Asked if he had copies of the elevations that he could show everybody.
Mr. Kerr: Stated that Kevin Bass has a complete architectural package on six different homes which is
the basic style and flow of the houses with minor modifications to conform. A couple of lots will require
something a little different. He has a complete architectural package.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked the developer if he had a problem with sprinkling.
Mr. Kern: Responded if it is a condition of approval, no - it just adds $1.50 per square foot to the cost of
the structure which then must be passed on to the ultimate buyer. He mentioned that Kevin has seen the
product he builds. There is virtually nothing to burn on the houses.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristcl: Restated the motion to continue this item to February 1 S, 1998. Motion
seconded and passed. He announced that this will .not be readvertised so they need to note that.
OPPOSITION: 6 people spoke in opposition.
ACTION: Continued subject request to the February 18, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in
order for the applicant to meet with the homeowners in the area and for additional
environmental studies to be conducted on the property.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and Mayer absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour (3:03-4:03)
01-21-98
Page 31
9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to
9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2-18-98
9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3992
OWNER: William Taormina, P.O. Box 309, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: Steve Eide, 158 Orange Street, Covina, CA 91723
LOCATION: 411 and 423 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is
1.79 acres located at the southwest corner of
Sycamore Street and Anaheim Boulevard.
To construct a 51,238 square foot indoor roller hockey facility with two
roller rinks, snack shop, pro shop and support offices and lockers with
waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, maximum structural
height, minimum structural setback and minimum setback adjacent to
residential zones.
Continued from the Commission meeting of December 22, 1997.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
e o ® ® e m
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the February 18, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in
order for the applicant to consider alternate designs to reduce the number of waivers.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Mayer and Peraza absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. - --
01-21-98
Page 32
10a. CEOAA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to
10b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-10 3-16-98
OWNER: Chiboeze J. Dallah, Sharon K. Dallah, Ernest R.
Peralta, 17380 Briardale Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886
AGENT: Chiboeze J. Dallah, P.O. Box 773, Yorba Linda, CA
92886
LOCATION: 1429 1433 and 1437 East Lincoln Avenue.
Property is 0.77 acre located on the north side of
Lincoln Avenue, 160 feet east of the centerline of La
Plaza.
To reclassify subject property from the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-
Family) and the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zones to the CL
(Commercial, Limited) Zone.
Continued from the Commission meeting of January 5, 1998.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. I SR7020TW.DOC
o s o •
Applicant's Statement:
John Dallah, 17380 Briardale Lane, Yorba Linda, CA: Stated the reasons for the change of zone on this
property to CL are: a) 70% of the area along Lincoln is already CL, b) mid-block traffic signal installation
in front of the property would make the current use of the property under the current zoning very difficult.
and c) request to change the CL. Currently he would like to address some of the conditions that the
Planning Commission gave on their conditions of approval. But before that he submitted some
photographs and drawings fo the Commission.] Looking at the drawing he indicated that about 70% of the
area along Lincoln is already zoned CL. On the corner lots on Lincoln there is only one commercial office
zoning. On Lincoln Avenue there are about one to three single-family residences, the rest of them are just
apartment complexes. The pictures were presented. The top picture shows the alley and the electrical
lines. Then down -the middle picture shows the entrance to the property the one that Condition No. 1
addresses. As can be seen, it has already been improved at the entrance there. Also in front of the
subject property is an electrical pole that crosses the line, and in the back there are also electrical poles.
At the bottom of the picture you can see the traffic signal and one of the entrances that leads into the
property. The second picture shows the top part of the already existing zoned CL property. The bottom
picture shows the street itself and some of the CL properties such as the pawn shop and the restaurant.
Looking at the conditions, he stated in his letter that he would like to see the conditions to apply at the
time he starts building on the property. He does not have a problem with Condition Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8.
He is asking if Condition Nos. 1, 4 and 5 could be amended or eliminated. Condition No. 9 regarding the
approval/denial of the reclassification of this property on its own discretion. He would like it to be
eliminated. There is only Condition Nps. 1, 4 and 5 to deal with. On Condition No. 1 he has already
accepted the fact that there will not be a new driveway on Lincoln Avenue, but he feels he should keep the
existing one for the entrance in and out of the subject property for the two adjoining lots. If he should
accept 1 or 2 it states that there should not be any entrance or exit. By the pictures he has shown, if he
can not add any more driveways he would need to have the existing one in place to allow for the parking
of the individual clients. Condition No. 4 -the easement. As the picture shows, they already have
electricals all around the properties on the north, which is the alley, on the west and on the south. He has
spoken with the Utilities Department and is getting a permit to have a minimum number of feet that he will
pay to relocate the pole. Therefore, he would like Condition No. 4 to be amended, Condition No. 5 is the
dedication of the property. As is seen on the picture the dedication of ten feet to the City of Anaheim will
01-21-98
Page 33
not permit adequate parking on the property. Currently there is enough space on Lincoln for traffic,
dedicating this additional ten feet will not provide enough parking for the property in the future. So he is
requesting that this condition be eliminated.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated that his sense of this is that the applicant makes reference to future
plans and Commission needs to see those future plans before they can adequately determine the zoning
for the property. He would like to see the whole package before making a decision.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Asked if Mr. Dallah could give Commission an idea of what his future
plans might be far this property.
Mr. Dallah: Stated that he fs thinking about having a franchised business there, such as I-HOP or 7-11,
something that would improve the area as well as growth potential. Most franchise businesses look at the
entrance/exit availability, landscaping and that the area is adequate.
Chairman Pro Tempore Brlstol: Asked if he was thinking about tearing down the two residences?
Mr. Daltah: Stated he spoke with Mr. Peralta, owner of the properly at 1437 E. Lincoln Avenue, and said
he would be interested in buying the property at the current time. However, Mr. Peralta indicated that at
this time he was not interested and wanted to wait. But Mr. Peralta did promise that he will eventually sell
the property to him.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated that he is inclined to agree with Commissioner Henninger and he
does not know what can be done with the site right now. Staff has worked hard trying to identify uses in
this area. They have not made a determination as to whether or not that is the best use for that property
at this time -retail versus office/commercial.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated that right now it is not consistent with the Plan . If you think in terms of
an I-HOP perhaps it's useful to look across the street where the pancake house is which is a successful
restaurant and compare the size of that site with these two lots. It is a bigger site. Commission needs to
see your proposal and make sure will work.
Mr. Dallah: Asked if he could put something in writing or does he need a drawing right away..
Commissioner Henninger: Stated it needs to be drawn out. The pole or the flag there is the protilem,
also.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated that it is not wide enough to use it forparking and meet Code.
Mr. Dallah: Stated that the lot would be split up. He made some adjustments on January 5, 1998.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated it should go straight across with the back line of your lot.
Mr. Dallah: Stated that is right.
Commissioner Boydstun (continued): Stated he has it almost right up at the back line of the property
behind him.
Mr. Dallah: Responded exactly. If you go up to 100 foot - if you're referring from Lincoln to the next
commercial building to the end and asked if that was what she was referring tot
Commissioner.Boydstun: Answered, no. It should go right straight across here, (indicating on the exhibit
she has) and the little strip is not wide enough for parking.
Mr. Dallah: Stated he was going to combine lots 1 and 2 and then he should have enough parking,
depending on how the parking is structured.
01-21-98
Page 34
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked why he wanted this piece in with it?
Mr. Dallah: Responded to use it for parking.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated it is not wide enough for parking. You could not legally use it for parking
there.
Mr. Daltah: Stated again it would depends on how the parking was structured. He thinks it could be used
for parking.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated the applicant is basically taking a parcel and the land and locking
it. Some of the applicant's comments were that he was not sure if it was going to go with the property to
west or go to the homes to east - it is uncertain what he wants to do with that. Where will the parking be?
Staff is not completely certain what he wants to do.
Mr. Dallah: Stated that the lot line, according to the blueprint, is going to be 90 feet from the front of
Lincoln all the way to the back.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated that she did not understand why he was taking this past his property
line. Asked if he is going to have this narrow strip attached to his front parcel?
Mr. Dallah: Responded, no. This strip -this is the alley. This is going to be the property line here - 90
feet goes to lot 2. This land is not landlocked.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated that she could see using this for access from the front but she couldn't
see what he would do with this piece (indicating the exhibit) back here that was marked on the map that
Commission looked at.
Mr. Dallah: Stated that eventually this portion all the way back (referencing the exhibit) will eventually sell
off to these property owners (again referencing the exhibit).
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated that isn't what was on the map Commission received today.
Mr. Dallah: Stated she has the same map.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, if Commission denies a request
does that mean the applicant can not refile for a period of time?
Selma Mann, City Attorney: Stated that she is not aware of any time limitation.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked if Commission denies a request, could the applicant then file soon after
for essentially the same thing? _ _.
Selma Mann, Gity Attorney: Stated that the applicant could or he could file for something similar, some
type of zoning.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked if there was an advantage to withdrawing a request versus Commission
denying it.
Selma Mann, City Attorney: Stated she is not aware of any difference. The applicant will still need to file a
new fee because it would need to be re-evaluated.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Asked if this area is zoned CL could the applicant build and ask for a
variance and build up to the westerly wall.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Responded there is no setback requirement because the property to the
west is also CL.
01-21-98
Page 35
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Said that literally we could have a potential zero lot line without knowing
what the potential plans are far this site, is that correct? That would make that parcel locked, potentially.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Responded that is correct. She believed that it would still have access
from the alley to the pole of the flag.
Commissicner Henninger: Stated it is premature to make this decision until after Commission has had a
chance to review the actual plans.
Mr. Dallah: Asked if it would make a difference if he would move the lot line?
Mr. Henninger: Responded, no. It is a tight 15,000 square foot commercial site.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated he does not want to discourage the petitioner, but there is just not
enough information to go on in order to change the zoning for something they have not seen yet. There
are many unanswered questions.
Mr. Dallah: Asked would it help if he could come up with some development plans in about four weeks?
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated that it would have to show the size of the building, parking etc.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Reminded the petitioner that the City is concerned about the northerly as
well as southerly portion. There is concern that it should become vacant and isolated.
Mr. Dallah: Stated he has some people interested in purchasing it, but he wanted to do something with it
first before he started selling it off.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated that they would need a commitment on that to see who wants to buy it
and what they want to do with it. It really ought to go to the adjacent property owners. There could
potentially be a number of things that could be done with that property that would not be very pleasant for
the adjacent property owners and they want to make sure that does not happen. He then asked the
petitioner if he would like to continue this item for four weeks so he could return with more specific plans
for development.
Mr.'Dallah: Agreed and asked for a continuance to the first week in March.
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion for a six week continuance to March 16, 1998, seconded by
Commissioner Boydstun and motion was carried.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated that the plans need to be submitted in sufficient time to be
evaluated in order to make a report. She suggested that the item be continued to March 16, 1998, and
the plans need to be submitted by March 2nd. _ __
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 16, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in
order for the applicant to submit specific development plans. Plans are to be
submitted to staff on or prior to March 2, 1998.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and Mayer absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: 21 minutes (4:14-4:35)
01-21-98
Page 36
11 a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
11 b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
11 c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3994 Granted
OWNER: California Drive-In Theaters, Inc., Attn: Jay Swerdlow, 120
N. Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048
AGENT: A. Terrance Dickens, P.O. Box 2488, Long Beach, CA
90801
LOCATION: 1500 North Lemon Street (formerly Anaheim Drive-Inl.
Property is 24.95 acres located at the southeast corner of
Durst Street and Lemon Street.
To establish an outdoor swap meet marketplace with waivers of
minimum parking lot landscaping and permitted encroachments in
setback areas.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-10 { SR6540DS.DOC
_-'"-;.,:;.:;:FOLLOWINGISASUMMARY-OF THE PLANNING;COMMISSION'AQTION:-.,;-„~, ,~ ~;,~,~
Applicant's Statement:
Terry Dickens, 4525 Atherton Street, Long Beach, CA: Stated he is representing Pacific Theaters. He is
in agreement with the conditions in the staff report. He wanted to discuss Item Nos. 18, 20 and 22 which
relate to Durst Street, the street along the northern edge of the property. Durst also services the property
owned by Brian Industrial Properties, which fronts on Orangethorpe. These items relate to the
conditioned half-cul-de-sac at the eastern end of Durst Street adjacent to the Security Capital former
Northrup property. That is discussed in Condition No. 20. Condition No. 22 refers to an existing utility
pole in the middle of that cul-de-sac. In meeting with staff on these items he indicated that the properly
required these improvements immediately. In the long term, it probably would be appropriate to have
emergency access through this cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac provides the ability to turn around at the end
of the street without going onto the property owned by Brian Industrial. He is requesting that Nos. 18 and
20 be moved from the reference in No. 27 to the reference in No. 26. No. 26 provides currently that the
widening and cul-de-sac improvement may be done either prior to the commencement of the activity -the
repaving for the interim swap meet use, or at a later date approved by the City Engineer. He thought
that based on the discussions, the latter might prevail - at a later date. It is appropriate then to move 18
and 20 to that same comment. If they stay in 27 which says "prior to final building and zoning inspection",
so that would be concurrent with the opening of project. He thought that is appropriate. None of that
would be necessarily required by the proposed project. It was never used before for whatever amount of
years Pacific operated the same kind of business there. On No. 21, the fourth item, relates to providing
a left-turn access for traffic coming out of the property heading west and the left turn access will take them
down to the now non-existent Lemon Bridge, where they could then man a U-turn if they wanted to. He
did not believe there is a need for it at this point. He would propose that No. 21 be tied in some fashion to
maybe 60 or 90 days prior to the completion of the Lemon bridge. Once the bridge is open, then the
property needs this kind of access, but until then there is no need to do that. Those are essentially his
requests. This is an interim use and he is aware that there are active plans to try to move on to the next
ultimate use of the property, but this use is certainly an appropriate one for the interim period at least until
the freeway construction is completed. He mentioned Jay Swerdlow, the Executive Vice President of
Pacific Theaters was present. He will oversee the operation and has overseen the previous operation.
He would ask for Commission's positive vote on this interim use.
01-21-98
Page 37
Public Testimony:
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineering Consultant, representing Bryan Industrial. There are two items he
wanted to address. One is the widening of Durst Street. It is really not necessary at this point. The use is
really not going to affect Durst Street until such time as a permanent improvement takes place on the
Pacific site. He does request that a couple of amendments be made. Specifically, Condition No. 18, that
an additional driveway for emergency access only shall be provided by adding the wording "For
Emergency Access Only" to be in conformance per Page No. 2, Item No. 9 as requested, so that the two
items would be in concert with each other. The primary point here is that this particular use, the swap
meet use, should in no way affect traffic on Durst Street as the traffic entering or exiting the swap meet
would not enter along Durst Street.
Applicant's Rebuttal:
Mr. Dickens; Responded that he couldn't agree more. There is really nothing different than has been
there for all these years. His request was to push back to work it out with the City Engineer at a later time.
Mr. Yalda and he had discussed this issue as well as other staff members. It is not necessary at this time
and it may be necessary in the future, but certainly, he does agree.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol; Asked if Durst has a curb right now?
Mr. Dickens: Responded, no. Durst was initially improved as a half street with the idea that ultimately it
might be fully improved to service the Northrup project. Since Northrup has gone away, Security Capital
has come in and he spoken with a Larry Harmson because he had a couple of questions about the
landscaping along the property line and told him what they were going to discuss relative to Durst. When
they developed their project they had no need for Durst, That was the concern of the property owner to
the north, Bryan Industrial at that time as well, and they are functioning just fine without the use of purst.
If there is not going to be more traffic on that street there is no reason to make it wider. He thinks with the
previous project Pacific was going to widen Durst back to a depth of about 200-250 feet coming off of
Lemon, and there was going to be a driveway there. That would be right behind Ralph's or the Food 4
Less. The rest of Durst would stay essentially the way it is but it would get a curb and gutter, no sidewalk
from that point all the way back to the Security Capital property. At the very end it would have a half cul-
de-sac to provide for the turn-around etc., with no intention to putting any particular amount of traffic, and
he thinks something like an emergency access or service delivery only would be fine. This would be long
term.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated that there was a comment made this morning regarding the
concern that no vendors -nothing could be sold outside the spaces that are going to be provided within
the swap meet.
Mr. Pickens: Stated that was correct, although they vary in size
Chairman~Pro Tempore Bristol (continued): There is a condition that there would no sales in the parking
area.
Mr. Dickens: Stated that they don't want that either and beyond that they would like the help of the City
with vendors that might happen within a half a block away on the street. He stated that they will enforce
that and mentioned that he does not think that they have ever had trouble selling on the parking lot.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated it that happens across the street is in Fullerton. The City does not have
jurisdiction over that. She asked if the snack bar plans will return as a Reports and Recommendation
approval?
Mr. Dickens: Stated those plans would have Building Department approval. There has been some
thought of making those a temporary kind of building that requires a conditional use permit. There is
going to be a decision made on that shortly. If there is a temporary building, then there will be a
conditional use permit application just for that phase. Pacific Theaters has been processing grading plans
at their risk to have this be available rather quickly. The idea being that there is some chance of
conceivably moving the selling activity at the south end of State College Boulevard near the Stadium. So
01-21-98
Page 38
there is some urgency in getting that done and that is why they have moved forward with the grading,
even though there is not a lot that needs to be done. They are doing that in hopes of a positive vote
today. Those plans do not include the addition of the screen towers. Therefore, they would have to be
modified if Commission imposes that requirement.
Commissioner Boydstun: Added that they do not want banners.
Mr. Dickens: Stated that generally the sellers will often put a banner right over their selling area.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated that those were not the kind of banners Commission was concerned
about. They are referring to banners out on the street.
Jay Swerdlow, Pacific Theaters: Stated that the selling area is well back from the street. He stated that
their request was to maintain the marquee for the only signage.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated that was fine, and asked what kind of special events are they referring to
in their request.
Mr. Dickens: Stated that at one point they had discussed small amphitheater. That has been withdrawn.
Condition No. 13 states 'that except for mobile, non-amplified types of performance music no live
entertainment shall be permitted on the premises'. This would be possibly a mariachi group or something
similar that might entertain patrons as they come and go. But nothing formal.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked the name of the project -Anaheim Marketplace. There is already an
Anaheim Indoor Marketplace already. Are there going to be confusion with the names?
Mr. Swerdlow: Responded that they could go back to Anaheim Swap Meet, that is what it was when they
started in 1981.
Commissioner Boydstun: Said she did not know if they realized that there was an Anaheim Indoor
Marketplace.
Mr. Swerdlow: Said he was aware of that and then forgot it. They will make sure that they differentiate
themselves. He feels the outdoor environment really differentiates it.
Mr. Dickens: Anaheim Swap Meet does the job. Everybody will know what that is and where it is too.
Commissioner Peraza: Stated he would like to hear from staff on Condition Nos. 18, 20 and 21 that were
mentioned.
Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, responded that they do not have any problem with :removing Condition
No. 20. Condition No. 21 could also be modified as such that if the applicant provides a study_that would
justify the installation of the modification of signals, then he should install it. Otherwise, there is no need
for that.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if that could be 90 days prior to the opening of the bridge.
Mr. Yalda: Stated that it could be 90 days after the opening, either/or, it will work for them.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated that once the bridge opens it will be needed.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated that the City would really want it once the bridge opens, assuming
that it is still operating as the Anaheim Swap Meet at that point.
Commissioner Peraza: Asked Mr. Yalda if he was recommending Condition No. 20 could be deleted?
Mr. Yalda: Responded yes
01-21-98
Page 39
Commissioner soydstun said that Condition No. 18 could just have an additional driveway for emergency
access will be provided on Durst Street.
Mr. Yalda: Stated that should not be a problem.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol : Stated it should have some kind of a crash gate or something similar.
Commissioner Napotes: Asked what kind of security will they have there.
Mr. Swerdlow: Responded that they have a good track record with the City for the past 20 years that they
have been there, and will certainly provide security.
Commissioner Napcles: Asked about Condition No. 3 on page 6, how is the City going to enforce this
condition.
Mr. Swerdlow: Stated that they are not going to offer it for sale and have always on their own policed the
vendors. They are trying their best to police that.
Commissioner Napoles: Stated that he is not talking about the petitioner selling, he means someone else
bringing liquor in the place, how are they going to control that?
Mr. Swerdlow: Stated the way it is now their security and personnel check for that. They have a list of
items that they do not allow for sale at the swap meet. It is in prior conditions that they have applied for
approval here that no fire arms, etc. and they enforce it.
Mr. Dickens: Stated when you start doing that in this type of operation, all of a sudden you lose the
general public and that is not the goal here. The goal is to make this a friendly place where people can
come, enjoy themselves and have a entertainment experience of browsing through the outdoor swap
meet.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Mr. Yalda if Condition No. 22 can be deleted?
Mr. Yalda: Responded that is correct. If they do not do it then there is no reason to move the pole.
Melanie Adams, City Engineering: Added that the first sentence of Condition No. 23 could be modified by
striking the reference to street improvements.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated that there are a couple more conditions that could be modified.
Does Commission want to consider that the property owner request the termination of Conditional Use
Permit No. 3834, which was for the previously-approved multi-screen theater and entertainment complex,
and that would be requested prior to the issuance of a building permit. Also, with Condition No. 2, that
Commission add to this condition which pertains to signage, that the existing theater sign shall be
refurbished to the satisfaction of the Planning Department, and that any other additional signage shall be
subject to the Reports and Recommendation item review. The last item is Condition No. 4. In order to
clarify this condition, the second sentence states that the lighting should be directed so as to not
unreasonably illuminate window areas of adjacent land uses. That should be corrected to read 'that the
lighting would be contained on-site and not spill over onto the other properties'.
Mr. Dickens: Stated that they actually do not plan on putting in any lighting because it is a day-light only
type of operation. It also is a very temporary type of thing and there is no reason to light the lot.
Investigator Tom Engle, Anaheim Police Department: Stated that the Police Department would like to see
a condition included requiring security.
Mr. Swerdlow: Asked if they could meet to define what "security" is? They have no objection because
they have had it in the past and it would be approved by the Anaheim Police Department. They do not
recall what the level of security was.
01-21-98
Page 40
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Recommended that the applicant meet with the Anaheim Police
Department to discuss this.
Mr. Dickens: Stated that they are operating in the City now.
Investigator Engle: Stated that would feel better if it is in writing.
OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3994 with the following changes to conditions:
Deleted Condition Nos. 20 and 22.
Modified Condition Nos. 2, 4, 18, 21, 23 and 27 to read as follows:
2. That the existing theater sign shall be refurbished to the satisfaction of the
Planning Department and any additional signage shall be subject to the
review and approval of the Planning Commission as a Reports and
Recommendations item.
4. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of
sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance
and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall not
exceed 12 feet in height and shall be contained on site. Plans reflecting this
information shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for the review and
approval of the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations
item.
18. That an additional driveway for emergency access shall be provided on Durst
Street.
21. That ninety (90) days prior to the completion of the bridge and the opening of
Lemon Street, the traffic signal on Lemon Street and Orangefair Lane (in the
City of Fullerton) shall be modified to provide for a second westbound left turn
lane to southbound Lemon Street. A plan shall be submitted to the Public
Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division, of the City of Anaheim and
also with the City of Fullerton for review and approval by the respective City
Engineers. _ _.
23. The developer shall construct the public sewer and storm drain
improvements originally proposed for the previous development Conditional
Use Permit No. 3834. The plans for these improvements have been
approved by the City and the associated bonds have been posted. All
improvements must be completed and accepted by the Field Engineer prior
to use or prior to the commencement of the activity or a later date approved
by the City Engineer.
27. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 5, 7, 12,
18, 22, 23 and 24 above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
Added the following conditions:
That prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner of subject properly shall submit
a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3834 (to permit amulti-
screen theater and entertainment complex including 2 full service restaurants and 1
01-21-98
Page 41
drive-through restaurant with waiver of required parking lot landscaping and minimum
structural setback) to the Zoning Division.
That all vendor sales shall be conducted within the selling areas designated on
approved Exhibit No. 1 only,
That licensed uniformed security guard(s), approved by the Anaheim Police
Department, shall be provided on the premises specifically to provide security, and to
discourage vandalism, trespass and/or loitering upon or adjacent to the subject
property. The number of security guard(s) and time to remain on-duty shall be
determined by the Anaheim Police Department.
That no banners shall be permitted in areas directed towards the public right-of-way.
That plans for the proposed snack bar building shall be submitted to the Zoning
Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and
Recommendations item.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Henninger and Mayer absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 27 minutes (4:35-5:02)
01-21-98
Page 42
-_
12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
12b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
12c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3987 Granted
12d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. Approved
OWNER: Tokiko Nakamura, 8430 Pebble Beach Drive, Buena Park,
CA 90621
AGENT: Steve J. Rendes, 521 Laguna Road, Fullerton, Ca 92635
LOCATION: 2631-2637 West Lincoln Avenue - 98 Cent Store.
Property is 0.84 acre located on the north side of Lincoln
Avenue, 390 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia.
To retain an unpermitted 7,624 square foot convenience market located
within a 9,424 square foot commercial center and to permit sales of beer
and wine for off-premises consumption with waiver of minimum number
of parking spaces and to determine public convenience or necessity to
permit the sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-11
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY
RESOLUTION fVO. PC98-12
® ® o e s o
Applicant's Statement:
Sammy O'Day, 1249 N. Tustin Avenue, CA: Stated in November of 1992 when he started his operation,
there was also an Alta Dena Dairy with a beer and wine license and some groceries in this complex. The
customers of his store requested that he expand the type of merchandise he was selling because they
liked his store. He started expanding and now occupies 5 suites in this center, approximately 1700
square feet of the building. They are now amini-super market and have installed the necessary
equipment to accommodate this use. In late 1995 the owner of the Alta Dena store suggested that they
purchase his store and move the beer and wine license to this location. He then contacted the Anaheim
Police Department, Mr. Tom Engle, and asked for an inspection of the area.. After the inspection the
Police Department stated that they did not see a problem with the transfer of this license to his store.
Encouraged by that he then applied for this conditional use permit. The only objections that he is aware
of is the objection of the Police Department, which he does not take very lightly. He said he spoke briefly
with Mr. Engle and reminded him of what happened a year and a half ago. They are not bringing a new
license to Anaheim, it existed less than fifty feet away from where they are now. He felt it definitely will
serve the public's convenience, especially on Lincoln Avenue. Based on this he hoped the Commission
will consider this request positively.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated that at the pre-hearing this morning Investigator Tom Engle did
state what the applicantjust indicated. He advised Commission of that. He then asked the applicant if he
had read all the conditions.
Mr. O'Day said he had. He stated that he has along-term lease on the building for groceries. The
conditions that are imposed upon him that are within his control, he will comply with. There are other
conditions such as the planter to be expanded and'he said Mr. Rendes is here on behalf of the owner and
her agent, and he probably can better address these conditions. Mr. O'Day stated that he will comply with
the conditions within his control within the 60 day period. On page 7, Item No. 5, there are five fascia
01-21-98
Page 43
signs on the building that we occupy because they used to be separate suites. The staff is suggesting
only one of these five. He would like to have two, one at each end, to make it a little more visible.
Commissioner Peraza: Stated that he was not at the morning review and asked to hear from Investigator
Engle.
Investigator Engle, Anaheim Police Department: Stated that approximately a year and a half ago he was
approached by this gentlemen with regard to what they just talked about. When he first received this
project he did not correlate the two together; he thought the petitioner was applying for another original
ABC off-sale license, which the Police Department would definitely be against the additional license.
What he has done is purchase a license that is approximately thirty feet away from him and moving it into
his location. The Police Department at this time is recommending approval of this, as far as the ABC
license is concerned. It has always been a concern of the Police Department that the Alta Dena Dairy
had that drive-through/walk-through/run-through off-sale beer and wine. It was just too easy for underage
persons to go through, grab it and keep on running. The Police Department feel that this operation will
deter that by having closed doors and staff. At this time the Police Department is recommending
approval.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Mr. Engle if there were some additional conditions he wished to add.
Mr. Engle: Stated the Police Department would like to add the basic off-sale premises conditions. He
would like to hear from the applicant what his hours of operationare going to be.
Mr. O'Day: Stated that the hours of operation are Monday through Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and
on Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Engle: Stated that they are in agreement with those hours.
Mr. O'Day: Stated Mr. Rendes is present and thought perhaps Mr. Rendes would want to ask for an
extension of time in order to complete some of the work that has to be done on the planter. It probably will
take more than 60 days to come up with plans to the City staff and have the plans approved. Condition
No. 5 on page 7 and Condition No. 7 on page 7.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Asked if Mr. O'Day means that it will take 120 days.
Mr. O'Day: Said it will be difficult to complete in 60 days. In response to a suggestion from Commission,
he said 90 days would be better.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated that there is one addition thing that should be included with the
refurbishing of the property and that would be to resurface the parking lot and remove any pot holes.
Commissioner Peraza: Asked if staff had any concerns with Condition No. 5? He said there are 3 and
the petitioner is asking for 2.
Cheryl Flores: Stated that staffs preference would be that there would only be one sign, which is what we
normally do in a strip shopping center where the business has expanded.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if the petitioner said that he covers five places in there.
Mr. O'Day: Stated that there are five individual places, so there are actually five individual facia up there,
and they are asking for one to be at each end, rather than just one.
Cheryl Flores: Stated that it would be up to the Commission. Typically staff feels that one sign is
sufficient.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked the petitioner if he understood about the pole sign; that it is supposed to
be removed, Condition No. 2.
01-21-98
Page 44
Mr. O'Day: Stated he did understand that it is to be removed. This is an existing one that is part of the
Code and they need to make it comply with the new City Code.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3987 with the following changes to conditions:
Modified Condition Nos. 2, 5, 7, 12 and 16 to read as follows:
2. That the existing 25-foot high pole sign shall be removed within ninety (90)
days of the date of this resolution. Any proposed freestanding sign shall be
monument type incompliance with code requirements including a maximum
eight (8) foot in height as measured from the grade of the sidewalk, and a
maximum of sixty five (65) feet in area, and shall be subject to the review and
approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager to determine
adequate lines of site and the Planning Commission as a Reports and
Recommendation item.
5. That a maximum of two (2) fascia signs shall be permitted for the subject
convenience market. The other three (3) existing fascia signs shall be
removed.
01-21-98
Page 45
That within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution, the
existing 3-foot wide planter adjacent to Lincoln Avenue shall be expanded to a
width of ten (10) feet and planted with minimum 15-gallon size, broadheaded
type trees at intervals of 20 feet on-center. That a landscape and irrigation
plan for subject property shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review
and approval. Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding said plan
may be appealed to the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
12. That as stated by the petitioner, the hours of operation of the subject business
shall be limited to 8 a,m. to 9 p:m. Monday through Saturday, and 9 a.m. to 8
p.m. on Sunday.
16. That Condition Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, and 13, above-mentioned, shall be completed
within a period of 60 days from the date of this resolution..
Added the following conditions:
That the parking lot shall be resurfaced within ninety (90) days from the date of this
resolution.
That no alcoholic beverages distributed from this establishment shall be consumed
on the property.
That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient
power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of ali
persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall not exceed 12 feet in height
and shall be contained on site. Plans reflecting this information shall be submitted to
the Zoning Division for the review and approval of the Planning Commission as a
Reports and Recommendations item.
That there shall be no pool tables maintained upon the premises at any time.
That there shall be nocoin-operated games maintained upon the premises at any
time without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code.
APPROVED DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY
NO.98-01.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Henninger and Mayer absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. __
DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (5:02-5:15)
01-21-98
Page 46
13b.
PLANS
OWNER: Standard Pacific, Attn: Mike White, 1565 W. MacArthur
Blvd., Costa Mesa, CA 92626
LOCATION: Development Area 101 of the Summit of Anaheim Hills
Specific Plan (SP88-21. Property is 65.6 acres located on
the east side of Ashfield Lane, 170 feet east of the
centerline of Taylor Court.
Review and approval of final site plans for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
Nos. 13513 and 13515 and Tract No. 13514.
Approved final
site plans
® ® ® o m
Applicant's Statement:
Mike White, Standard Pacific Corp., 1565 W. MacArthur Blvd., Costa Mesa, CA: Stated they have been
a publicly traded home development company in Orange County for over thirty years. They have a strong
reputation towards architecture, stand behind their product and are excited about building in Anaheim.
They have worked closely with the Summit Pointe Homeowners Association and the Board of Directors to
try to provide a product that is a complimentary to the community, but also meets the intent of the Specific
Plan. In addition to what has been presented to staff, they have agreed to some other changes to the
architecture that he wanted to point out today as follows:
They are not going to build the same product as Baldwin; their product will be what Standard Pacific
builds, and they are not going to please everyone in the community. It is almost impossible to get
complete consensus. Their goal has been to find a middle ground that all could agree on and then build
a product that works for everyone.. On all the floor plans, three of them had double entry doors and one
had a single entry door. That has been revised and all plans have a double entry door. The fronts and
sides have been embellished by adding more brick and stone to give them a more up-graded feel than
what is currently shown.
They will work with staff to show them the revised designs as they go through the building permit process.
They have tried to provide more contrast in the window elevations by adding different color-variations in
the stucco, which they think it will make the window element stand out a little stronger. The sliding glass
doors on the rear elevations have been eliminated, by going to single French doors on three of the plans
and on the fourth plan to standard French doors, which was a concern of the community. Optional French
doors have been added to the dining rooms in the Pian 1 and Plan 3. They will be merchandised in the
model complex to show the up-grades that can be made to the homes. Decorative chimney termination
caps which will be similar to those in the existing community. The plans do not show'it but the laws have
changed so much that architects can not actually show them on their plans. They will work with staff and
the community to develop acceptable treatments. The windows have been up-graded from aluminum to
vinyl, which is a significant up-grade which will be an added value to the community. Both staff and the
homeowners had a concern with Plan 2, because of the big gabled four car tandem garage. They are
working with staff and the community to revise those elevations, to soften the look and add some
architectural elements to the help break it up. In addition those up-grades are things that will be done
within the houses themselves, not something necessarily that the City gets involved with, but Standard
Pacific is trying to find ways to add value back into the house. They are adding additional cable TV and
telephone outlets to the rooms, providing for built-in refrigerator options, providing standard pre-wiring for
computers, satellite dishes and video distribution. They are trying to make a lot of up-grades that will add
01-21-98
Page 47
value to the community. They are not going to build the same product but think that what will be built will
be a compliment and add to the community.
He is aware of some other letters received and would like to address those if the Commission feels it is
necessary.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated he was entering those letters received by Commission this
morning into the record. One of those letters is from Mr. White dated the January 19th to Mr. Scott,
President, Summit Point Homeowners Association. There is also a January 15th letter to Chairman
Bostwick from John and Marilyn Ryder, in opposition to this project.
Public Testimony:
Mari Penny, 8125 Oxley Court, Anaheim, CA: Stated that she had a small outline she wanted to present
to the Commissioners. (1'he outline was distributed to Commissioners.] She stated that they.have been
working with Mike White from Standard Pacific and the board and Standard Pacific has been working
together very amicably. They have made some changes and concessions. It is appreciated that they
have taken the time to meet with them and are concerned about how they want their community to look..
They still have these concerns on this outline. The tract that they would build the models on is Tract No.
13514, which has only custom homes. There are 26 lots there, 5 custom homes are already built, and two
other lots are sold. They think that those homeowners are the most heavily impacted and if there were
custom lots for sale, it might transition better from the new homes to blend in with the existing homes.
Regarding the brick and stone treatment on No. 2 that'it would wrap around on both sides for about 10
feet minimum to break up the empty walls. Regarding the front doors, they all have nine foot quality wood
front doors, solid mahogany doors. Standard Pacific has said that they will use wood doors as an option
and that they will put wood doors on two of the models -model three of four homes and then put their
standard synthetic door on the other model. They request that all the homes built within Tract No. 13514
all be built with wood doors as opposed to the synthetic door; that when these models are no longer used
go to final occupancy that this one model that has the synthetic door would be converted to a wood door.
That would keep that tract more uniform. Also, their homes all have three chimneys and some of the
plans only have one chimney. They would prefer that there be a minimum of two chimneys because it
preserves the features of the entire community. They also have the photo cell or automatic lighting on the
garages which softens the community and keeps it lit. It is very dark there and that would keep the
streetscape similar if they would be installed. One of their models has afree-standing garage and they
should do that treatment on all four sides of the garage since it is visible from all four sides. They request
that the Commission consider these items that have been mentioned. They understand that some portion
of the property may be sold to another developer and they want to see that these concessions already
made which would be the minimum standards that would be acceptable for their neighborhood.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Asked if there was anyone else to speak on this item.
Mr. White; Said he would address the points just mentioned. The custom lot is the biggest one.
Standard Pacific does not traditionally build custom lots and they sell very few custom lots in their housing
program. Of the 26 lots that are in that tract they have five existing homes and three are vacant. The rest
of the 19 are Standard Pacific's. There are four different plans with a total of twelve different elevations.
With the types of architectural upgrades made today and the concessions that have been made working
with staff, these houses are not going to be a drastic contrast if you would compare the original homes at
Summit Pointe to the other homes that were approved two years after those original homes. They are
trying to make these houses as compatible as can be made by having the twelve different elevations. The
street scene can be littered with various types of architectural treatments. They go from three car garage
doors to two car garage doors, to two car with the tandem detached garage doors. The street scene is
going to have several different variation. The front treatments they do agree with. The caveat that he
would place on that would be is that ten feet is a minimum but sometimes where the walls return in the
side yards it can sometimes be ten feet or sometimes six feet. He would like to work with staff to
terminate that where the side yard fencing would terminate so they are not terminating a wall into an
architectural element midstream. They are going to build the side yard walls but then there is a return
element where a gate would be and they usually try to set the architectural treatments that come around
the side of the elevation to a logical point where they want to terminate. The entry doors and wood doors
- there.was a time they built using wood entry doors. Over time they have Teamed that some products
01-21-98
Page 48
that you use with houses require maintenance, and wood doors and windows require that maintenance by
the homeowner. Over time they have noticed that one of their biggest customer service problems are the
French doors, wood windows and those types of things. They are a little reluctant to make that as a
standard. That is why they are added as an option. It will be merchandised in at least two of the three
model homes. Each plan has a chimney for a wood burning fireplace, and do option and will merchandise
the chimneys in the living room. It is really a buyer preference. They think that they can do a lot with the
elevations and the architecture to provide variety where you are not going to focus on whether there are
one, two or three chimneys. With the termination caps that match the existing community they think it is
going to blend nicely. They have resisted the photo cell because it requires more eave blocking of the
actual eaves of the house and it is more maintenance problems. They do offer it on occasion as an option
but that was one thing that they did not agree on in terms of what concessions they would be able to give.
They will with work staff on the acceptable treatment of the freestanding garages. With reference to some
of the other lots being sold to another developer, they always have that right and they would make sure
that any future developer that would buy from them would build to the highest standard or greater than
what we have. They would have to come before the Commission as well.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated that she does not understand why the photo cell lighting would be a
problem. In an area like that she thinks they would want that on every house.
Mr. White: Stated that Code requires they have a lighted address, a light on the houses. With the front
lights that they provide on the houses and the street lights, they do not think the street scene is going to
necessarily be dark. It is an architectural element that they have not considered and did not want to
necessarily go in that direction. If it is something that the Commission strongly disagrees on, he will work
with staff to try to resolve that difference.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if the homes were going to have dens and family rooms.
Mr. White: Responded they would have family rooms, living rooms and dining rooms. The fireplace goes
in the family room as a standard. The living room is the option, the family room is the standard with the
exception of plan 4 where the family room and living room will get the standard fireplace. It has to do with
the architectural layout of the house.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated on page 4 of the staff report, staff's recommendations are
basically what has just been discussed. Asked what the applicant would want to change regarding 10
lineal feet (Item No. 18 of the staff report, first asterisk)?
Mike White: Responded he would recommend a minimal setback acceptable to the Planning staff and
would work with staff to establish that. They are in the process of obtaining a landscape architect and
actually laying out the ways and he wanted a little flexibility.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated he is going to summarize the applicant's testimony as follows:
1. They do not sell custom lot homes.
2. Agree with the front treatment.
3. Reluctant on all homes to have wood doors.
4. Three chimneys versus two -the applicant feels the two would not be a problem.
5. Reluctant with the issue of the photo cell.
Mr. White explained each house will have one chimney in the family room, the living room
chimney is an option, buyer preference. When they model the homes, they will build the
chimneys in the models so that they merchandise it. So the buyer can see exactly what they are
offering. Not everyone wants to have a chimney in fhe living room and not everyone uses a
chimney in the living room. Over the last several years they have tried to build a product that is
not only architecturally sound but will also stand the test of time and that is an important factor
when they build in the community.]
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Asked Kevin Bass his thoughts on the issue of chimneys.
01-21-98
Page 49
Kevin Bass, Associate Planner: Regarding the Summit Design Guidelines -asked that they find
compatibility, including roof structures, exterior elements and treatments. The idea of going from three to
one chimney is a significant difference. The request to have two chimneys is not excessive and it still
allows for something that is less than existing. He is not making a recommendation that they have to
have three chimneys in order to be exactly the same as the existing neighborhood but there is an element
in the design guidelines that they have compatibility with all exterior appointments.
Mike White: Stated on Tract No. 13514 with the existing 19 homes on those houses, they will build two
chimneys. The other homes are far enough removed that it should not be a serious problem.
Kevin Bass: Stated the compatibility question is going to be the most prevalent where you have the new
homes being built next to the existing homes. He believes that the two chimneys should be next to the
existing homes. The 19 homes are within Tract No. 13514 where there are existing homes that have
three chimneys and therefore having two chimneys would be more compatible as opposed to one. As you
get to the other two tracts there are no existing neighbors except where you veer upon one another. He
would therefore strongly recommend two chimneys for the entire area.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she does not have a problem with the doors because now there are
beautiful door not made from wood and they do not require the same maintenance. Asked Ms. Penny the
reasoning for the lighting -are the street lights not adequate?
Mari Penny: Responded they are not adequate they go off and on. If the lights at the garage would come
on automatically it certainly would brighten up the area. The development will be the furthest out of the
community where there is nothing. It would soften the whole streetscape and blend with the community.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated if they are installed at the time of building she did not see how the
lighting would be a very big item.
Mike White: Responded it is an architectural element. Typically the down lights in the garage work better
when there are three individual garage doors. When there are two with the one set back, in his opinion,
they do not look as nice.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if the ones installed could be put on a photo cell?
Mike White: Responded they have not worked out the lighting on the homes. If it becomes an issue that
they would like the applicant to study further with staff then they will. He does not mind conditioning that a
photo cell type light to the homes but to require them to be right underneath the garage might be
something that is too restrictive.
Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: Stated the street lights within this
development are private street lights, privately maintained. If the homeowners are having problems with
those they should contact with their maintenance company. _ _.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated the applicant stated there are 19 homes on Tract no. 13514 and
also indicated 12 different elevations. Asked Mr. White how many of those 19 remaining homes including
the five models would be the same?
Mike White: Responded there are 12 different elevations and 19 lots. Very few are duplicated. They will
work with the HOA Community to ensure that they have a variety of streetscapes.
Commissioner Boydstun: Recommended conditioning one photo cell in front of each home and the
applicant would place it where they feel is best, as long as it was in the front area.
Mike White: Asked what about conditioning this to Tract No. 13514 only?
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Asked if they are going to build the two other tracts or sell them?
Mike White: Responded at the present time it could go either way. It is an option that they have not
resolved yet.
01-21-98
Page 50
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked staff for conformation that no matter who builds they will still have to
return to Commission for approval.
Kevin Bass: Responded yes, the Planning Commission will review any site plan reviews and subsequent
.revisions regarding this development area.
Ms. Penny: Stated they already have the lighted sign with the street number on it which is a photo cell
and on their garage they have either two light fixtures on the outside of the garage or some down lighting.
It is different on every house. Since they already have to put this numbered street sign on a photo cell
she thought they could easily link it together since the number sign is close to the garage.
Commissioner Boydstun: Recommended to change Condition No. 5 on Tract No. 13514 that there be two
chimneys throughout. On Condition No. 6 there be a photo cell light in the front area of each home and
the number sign does not count.
Kevin Bass: Asked for clarification. On the photo cell is that for all of the homes, in all three tracts.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she would like to see it in all three tracts and if they return with
something different then Commission can review it at that time.
OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns.
ACTION: Determined that the previously-certified EIR No. 281 is adequate to serve as the
required environmental documentation for subject request.
Approve the final site plans for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 13513 and 13515,
and for Tract No. 13514 with the following changes to conditions.
Added the following conditions:
That two (2) chimneys shall be provided for each home on all three tracts.
That photo cell lighting (not including the number sign) shall be provided for the
front area of each home on all three tracts,
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Henninger and Mayer absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights. __
DISCUSSION TIME: 31 minutes (5:15-5:46)
01-21-g8
Page 51
14a.
14b.
OWNER: Milton G. Johnson, Trustee of the Johnson Family Trust,
1214 W. Kateila Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802
AGENT: Keyvan Yousefy, 6007 Camino Manzano, Anaheim, Ca
92807
LOCATION: 520 South Walnut Street -Anaheim Collision Craft.
Property is 2.1 acres located at the southeast corner of
Walnut Street and Santa Ana Street.
To retain an unpermitted auto repair, auto body and paint facility.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-13
Denied
After reviewing the documents Mr. Yousefy responded as following:
1. Over spray -There is a body shop behind the school which sprays outdoors. He feels most of the
over spray comes from that business. The paint that he uses is sprayed in the spray booth and
the quality of paint used does not travel since it is a fast drying paint.
2. Fumes - He spoke with an agent from AOMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). It
was agreed upon that he would do his spraying in the afternoon when there is not school in
session. They have a permit from the AQMD to have a spray booth.
3. Conditional Use Permit No. 1052 (page 2, Item No. 8) - He was of the understanding that he was
operating under that conditional use permit which is approved for auto and truck repair which is
what they do -auto repair. Since that is apparently not the case, he is now before Commission to
apply for a conditional use permit.
Cheryl Flores: Clarified (page 2, Item No. 8)'by stating there is a conditional use permit to allow an
impound yard, however, there are additional permits that are required for the operation of the yard that
Code Enforcement will be addressing.
Public Testimony:
Mitchell Norton, attorney with Best, Best and Kreiger: Stated he is representing the Anaheim City School
District and along with him today is Janet Grant, the principal of Betsy Ross Elementary School, Mike
Perez, Director of Facilities and Planning, Peggy Okimoto, Vice Principal, Carol Stover, teacher. They
want to go on the record opposing the applicant. The district sees this as a very serious matter. The
district is planning within the next several days to actually file litigation and seek a temporary restraining
order against Mr. Yousefy because they feel that the use of the property as it is currently operating
constitutes a nuisance and trespass under the law. The following are their concerns:
01-21-98
Page 52
1. The risks to the students and the staff at the school caused by the paint over spray. They have
testimony regarding staff members suffering dizziness, burning sensations in their nostrils.
2. The damage to the vehicles parked on the school property from the paint over spray.
3. They have :information that it is not a permitted use.
4. :Findings 24-B and 24-E which staff indicates that Commission would have to find true before
granting the permit. They do not see how these could possibly be met when you look at the
attachments to the staff report with respect to the memorandum (from Andy Agle, Project
Manager dated January 16, 1998) and issues regarding the planned Betsy Ross Park. They do
not see how this use is possibly going to be anything but adversely impacting that area.
They have seen the spray booths that Mr. Yousety refers to open and therefore not containing the paint
on their property. The problems have lasted far over a year. Despite several attempts by Mr. Perez to
abate this activity speaking with Mr. Yousety and people that operate Anaheim Collision Craft and their
attempts have been unsuccessful. Therefore, they agree with staffs recommendation that the conditional
use permit and the CEQA Negative Declaration be denied -clearly incompatible with the surrounding land
uses.
Janet Grant, Principal of Betsy Ross Elementary School, 535 South Walnut, Anaheim, CA: Stated they
are present to represent the children and they are very concerned. The Vice Principal and one of the
teachers is also present. They request that Commission deny this request. The smell is awful. The
children are constantly complaining of the smell. The teachers cars have been littered with paint and they
have had it buffed out but a week later it is back again. They have been working with the AQMD for
almost a year as well as Code Enforcement. They know for a fact that the paint over spray is coming from
Collision Craft. They ask for Commission's help in this matter because they are very concerned with their
children.
Applicant's Rebuttal:
Keyvan Yousety: As he stated before when he spoke with the agent from AQMD they agreed upon
painting after hours when there is no school in session. They do have a license with AQMD to have the
spray booth. Regarding the over spray -they have been there for 10 years and they have never had a
problem until last year when an auto body opened behind the school that spray their racks with enamel
paint and that is where the over spray comes from. If you look at the cars they have the three colors that
the rack company uses (tilue, yellow and orange). The agent from AOMD also agreed with him that it is
the auto body but he has to cite Mr. Yousety because he is across the street.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Lee Kull, Code Enforcement Officer: Stated he is the Code Enforcement Officer for that area. He referred
to his memorandum of January S, 19913 (attachment to the staff report) Mr. Yousety's brother, Kambiz
Yousefy, plead guilty to the same violation of operating an unpermitted auto body repair shop in 1994.
The probation on that ran out last April. Therefore there would be no way that they would not have been
informed that it was an unpermitted. He referred to a building permit from 1963 from Mr. Johnson who is
the owner of that property. Back in 1963 there was a plan check only for a garage and paint booth. In the
building permit file there is no permit for spray booth. Concerning the AQMD -they were out there at
several occasions and it was determined that these are water based paints at 500 South Walnut (not 520
South Walnut) and that the other paint was a different type of paint more conducive to an auto repair
business. Currently on the property there is suppose to be 15 parking spaces available for customers but
at this time there are stills ready to be painted, repaired and stored in those parking spaces. Outside
there are cars being taped, refuse and waste, trash cans are visible through the doorway of across the
street with the trash ready to be taken out. There are sections of chain link fence located on the left hand
side of the entry door rusted at the base. On the site screening on the boundary of the property, the slat
screening have been broken away and can be seen through it. From October 20, 1997 to December 18,
1997 there was also one other complaint since then received. When he receives a complaint from Betsy
Ross Elementary School he also refers it to AQMD.
Commissioner Peraza: As he understands it the applicant has permission from AQMD, is that correct?
01-21-98
Page 53
Lee Kull: Responded yes, a State law can not be superseded but it be enhanced by a city or county law.
The City requires a standard building permit and the applicant needs to go through the Fire Department to
approve the spray booth to ensure the sprinkler systems are in accordance with fire code, that there are
no hazardous materials and it is built to building code standards. There is not building permit for this
building (spray booth). The applicant would also have to have AQMD approval in addition to the other
approvals which the applicant does not have and were made aware of prior to 1994.
Commissioner Peraza: It states (in the memorandum) that they have been cited in the past for violations
including failing to keep records on a daily usage of paint
Lee Kull: Stated he has spoken with Manuel, the representative AQMD, he point out that after 10
violations their office will take action to close down a business until the problems are rectified.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Asked the applicant why he agreed with the AQMD to spray in the
afternoon if he thought his site did not provide the over spray?
Keyvan Yousefy: Responded because of the fumes which they could travel that far.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Asked if he felt this is an appropriate use next to a school and what about
the affects to others in the area?
Keyvan Yousefy: Responded it is a business that is necessary and AQMD approved the spray booths.
They are actually in the process of moving to another location.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Asked if there was a reason why he has not requested a conditional use
permit for this usel
Keyvan Yousefy: Responded he was under the understanding that on Conditional Use Permit No. 1052
(page 2, Item No. 8) states "truck and auto repair".
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Asked the applicant what that has to do with painting?
Keyvan Yousefy: Responded that is what they do -auto repair.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated that he does not have a conditional use permit for painting.
Keyvan Yousefy: Responded no he does not. He thought auto repair included painting.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated the applicant is claiming he did not know he needed a conditional
use permit for this site despite all the previous activity with this site.
Keyvan Yousefy: Responded the problem they had previously was the auto salvage and thatas what they
were cited for.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated if for no other reason, he can not find a finding to allow this due to
environmental issues.
Keyvan Yousefy: Stated the paint is approved by AQMD and they are not using anything illegal.
Commissioner Peraza: Suggested if the applicant is planning to move to another location, as indicated,
that he find a location where this use is appropriate.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated there is an error in paragraph no. 15 of the staff report. It should
state that staff recommends denial of the negative declaration based on substantial evidence that there
are adverse affects to the neighborhood and a long history of code violations.
01-21-98
Page 54
OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition
ACTION: Denied Negative Declaration
Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 3977
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Henninger and Mayer absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: 22 minutes (5:46-6:08)
01-21-98
Page 55
15b.
15c.
OWNER: Shell Oil Products Company, P.O. Box 25370, Santa
Ana, CA 92799
AGENT: Service Station Services, Attn: April Smith, 3 Hutton
Centre Drive, Suite 711, Santa Ana, CA 92707
LOCATION: 3085 East La Palma Avenue -Shell Service
Station. Property is 0.51 acre located at the
northwest corner of Kraemer Boulevard and La
Palma Avenue .
To construct a 1,200 square foot service station with an accessory
convenience market and automated car wash facility with waivers of
minimum landscaping abutting an arterial highway and minimum
landscaping adjacent to :interior site boundary lines.
Continued from the Commission meetings of June 23, and September
15, 1997.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
Withdrawn
- ~.~= - - :~~-- FOLL"OWING iIS A,SUMMARY bF THE F~GANNING;COMMISSION %aCTION.'~ -' -~. ' ' ~=~
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and
MOTION CARRIED {Commissioners Bostwick, Mayer and Peraza absent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the request for withdrawal of this
petition.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Mayer and Peraza absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
01-21-98
Page 56
16a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved
16b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
160. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1816 (READVERTISED) Approved amendment
to conditions of
OWNER: Norman D. McDanei, 1381 N. Miller Street, Anaheim, CA approval
92806
LOCATION: 1381 North Miller Street - Mc Danel Grid Roliina
Company. Property is 1.08 acres located at the west side
of Miller Street, 1,109 feet north of the centerline of
Miraloma Avenue.
To amend or delete conditions of approval to expand an existing
contractor's storage yard with waivers of required improvement of
parking areas and minimum number of parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-14
JK.DOC
.,~ „ -,,; , „ FOLI:OWING,IS"A,SUMMARY OF THE"P,LANNINGCOMMISSION ACTION. ; ~;,.;- _~::,~
Applicant's Statement:
Norman McDonald, 1381 Miller Street, Anaheim, CA: Concurred with staffs recommendations in the staff
report.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated the Commission requests that the applicant add texture to his
metal building in order to comply with this recommendation.
Norman McDonald: Asked what type of texture is he referring to?
Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated only the portions visible to the public street need to comply. This
.requires that there be eave line and some texturing on the building.
Norman McDonald: Responded nothing is exposed to the street.
Greg Hastings: Stated then there would be compliance with that. He suggested that the condition still
remain.
Norman McDonald: Stated they submitted acolor-coated chart with the building plans which were
approved.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as
the required environmental documentation for subject request.
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement.
Approved request. Modified Condition No. 3 of Resolution No. PC78-69 to read as
follows:
01-21-98
Page 57
"3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1,
Revision No. 1 and Exhibit No. 2, and as conditioned herein "
Added the following new conditions:
5. That prior to issuance of building permits, landscape plans shall be submitted
to the Zoning Division for review in accordance with Code requirements
providing; a minimum of 8, minimum 15 gallon size trees and a 3-foot high
shrub screen within the 11-foot setback, 4-trees in the remaining required
setback area, and 2 trees in the remaining parking and accessways on the
property. Such landscape plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for
review and approval.
6. That gates shall not be installed across any driveways in a manner which may
adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street. Installation of any
gates shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 609 and shall be subject
to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager prior
to issuance of a building permit.
7. That prior to issuance of building permits, plans shall be submitted to the City
Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval showing
conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436,
601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject
property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with
said plans.
8. That no required parking area shall be fenced or othervvise enclosed for
outdoor storage uses.
9. That prior to final building and zoning :inspections, if any combustibles are
stored at this facility, the numeric street address in 2-foot wide by 4-foot high
letters in contrasting colors shall be painted on the roof of the building in a
manner not visible from the street.
10. That the metal structure shall comply with Council Policy Number 524 "Metal
Buildings" and said requirements shall be specifically indicted on plans
submitted for building permits.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Henninger and Mayer absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (6:08-6:12)
01-21-98
Page 58
17b. VARIANCE NO. 4330
17c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97-212
OWNER: Gary Calkins and Elaine Calkins, 6263 E. Trail Drive,
Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 6263 East Trail Drive. Property is 3.75 acres located on
the north side of Trail Drive, 162 feet west of the centerline
of Whitestone Drive.
To establish a 4-lot single family residential subdivision with waiver of
minimum lot frontage abutting a public or private street.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO.
3-2-98
o ® o e o •
Applicant's Testimony:
Carl Kreutziger, 680 Londerry, Anaheim Hills, CA: Stated he is representing his father-in-law, Gary
Calkins, the owner of the property who is not able to be present due to his recovery from surgery. The
proposal is a 4-acre property is proposed fora 4-lot subdivision with lots that would meet the code for the
custom houses that would be placed up there. In addition they are requesting a variance for the minimum
lot frontage abutting a private street. The request is one that the adjacent lot and the other people in the
neighborhood have and the topography of the lots are similar to the neighboring one. To date they have
improved the area. The lot sat for many years unattended. A large amount of rubbish, overgrowth and
trees have been removed. They have added 60 trees to the property to give it a nice appearance. He
has reviewed the staff report and concurs with staff recommendations for the approval of the negative
declaration. The conditions of approval 1 through 9 he is in agreement with.
Public Testimony:
Suzie Siegel, 6221 Trail Drive, Anaheim, CA: Stated her property is located at the base of the proposed
location. The petition involves a 20 foot road and subdividing the property into four parcels. She does not
have an objection with Parcels 1 and 2 because that is upon the top of a very steep mountain. However,
she is concerned with the road and with Parcels 3 and 4 which are right above her house. She has the
following concerns as well as several of her neighbors:
1. Stability of the hillside. This project would involve removing a substantial portion of the hillside
which is virtually vertical. [Chairman Pro Tempore Bdstol stated now that he knows where she
lives then he will visit the site. Ms. Siegel suggested he enter through Quintana and Santa Ana
Canyon Road.]
2. Geological soundness of the hill. There has been a history of ground water and underground
springs in the area (referred to the "Hidden Grove Project") which had problems with ground
water. This is ail directly around her home. There have been mud slides in the Anaheim Hills
area and she is frightened with the prospect of having the road run along side her house and have
two houses right on top on heron this steep incline.
3. Drainage -Every time it rains Trail Drive becomes a mud river.
4. Fire Access -Trail Drive is a very narrow road and the traffic has increased significantly on it
since the Hidden Grove Project went in. Neighbors are concerned whether a fire truck could
make a turn onto the proposed road.
5. Traffic -Since the !Hidden Grove Project went in they have two very steep roads emptying right in
front of their driveway. Trail Drive continues up the road and Hidden Grove but adding another
road would increase traffic. They would loose their privacy and the property values would be
01-21-98
Page 59
severely impacted to have a road run the whole length of their house. Even if a retaining wall was
built, she would feel enclosed when currently her view is of a beautiful vegetation and animals.
As a homeowner you have the right to privacy, safety, peace and quiet and hopes Commission will deny
the subdivision.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked exactly where her property is located.
Suzie Siegel: Responded she is at the very base of the property, below Parcel 3 and 4.
Gordon Capel, 284 South Quintana Drive, Anaheim, CA: Stated he lives directly below the proposed
subdivision, directly below the hill. He has two primary concerns which are:
1. Erosion - It is a very steep hill and the hillside is covered with thick natural growth. The reason he
purchased the home 10 years ago was because of the privacy. His concern is what will the
impact be of cutting a 20 foot road half way up the hill. During the rain he is afraid the hillside
may slide into their yard and who will be responsible for that?
2. Financial impact of the property values -They paid a lot of money for that home and they
purchased it because of the country like setting. At the time they were relatively sure
geographically or geologically that there was nothing that could be built there.
Applicant's Rebuttal:
Carl Kreutziger: Stated he understands the concerns and the part about the sliding, size and steepness
of the hill which would all be addressed in Engineering as the other subdivisions were above them which
are literally houses built on the side of the hill. This is no different from the elevations that are incurred up
there. The same for drainage which would be addressed in the civil end.. They are -incurring a lot of
water run off from the property above that comes down through the fire access gate and washes all the
way down Trail Drive. They are doing their best to sand bag that and get that ready for "EI Nino" and
apologize for the dirt that has come down. They have cleaned that. The fire access concerns did not
come up when they met with the Fire Department. They still have access through there, if it is required.
There were no traffic impacts from the Traffic Division that they were aware of with this subdivision. He
understands the loss of privacy.
Elaine Calkins, 6263 Trail Drive, Anaheim, CA: Stated her husband is ill and could not be present. When
they moved in this summer before they even proposed this lot split, they had qualified licensed civil
engineers, surveyors and architects, along with her husband who is a general contractor and has worked
in construction for over 30 years, study this plan. There have been soil reports. The vegetation is actually
pulling down the land. On the back section those retaining walls and big heavy concrete columns are put
in and the key ways are made and all the vegetations, they are going to be putting in groundcover, big
heavy treesand make it stronger than it currently is. Currently it is very much subject to erosion. The
house was built 30 to 40 years ago and they are going to be directly on the top, on the point of 6263
(Parcel 1): Directly below them will be the lot that neighbors are concerned with as being very'steep. She
would not want to live there if she knew she was going to erode the hill below her. She would be
concerned if she did not know there were plans to improve this land. She understands the neighbors
concerns but feels they do not know exactly what the plans will be. They have been currently putting up
500 feet of retaining wall that is holding that hill but never had a retaining wall before. It is 12.inches thick,
beyond what is required, 3 foot staggering all up the hill, going to be putting in irrigation (groundcover and
trees with heavy rooting systems), it will be far better than it is when they are done. The overall plan has
not been submitted, they are in the splitting stage at this point. The lots are way over what they need per
building site.
Elaine Calkins (continued): She realizes some trees and bushes need to come down in the construction
but they have every plan to make it private and beautiful. They have beautiful brick work design. The Fire
Department is in agreement with them. They have a knox box entry that they have offered to give them,
in fact they said they did not need it because they could come up from the gate above which is actually a
fire entrance and they do have a key for that. They also offered another option of an knox box entry from
the bottom to which they said fine.
01-21-98
Page 60
Traffic -There would ultimately be four houses back there and there are almost 4 acres there. There will
be two lots at the top and two lots on the bottom. It is a private road and they are going to install
expensive paving for 700 feet. They are going to be maintaining the road. It is not going to be open, that
is why they are putting the gates in. Her husband is going to be the builder. They are not going to sell
these lot to anyone. They are going to control the whole process. They have spoken with several of the
building officials and they have not formally submitted house plans because they are not completed yet.
Until they sell Parcel 2 then they will not be doing anything for quite some time. They are doing all the
cleanup, hardscape, drainage work, going underground with utilities; everything that should have been
done years ago. For example, the electrical and gas line. When they moved the road fixed it they (pound
it was three inches under the asphalt which was a dangerous situation. With this last rain they found out
that there was severe dirt running down the road and they are going to make an effort to sandbag and
keep that from happening again.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated it comes back to the issue of communication with their neighbors.
Elaine Calkins: Responded she did not realize that they are required to make a public report.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated no it is not required but as she can see from reading the staff
report (page 4, Item No. 19), they would like the applicant to submit plans indicating the location and
orientation of the four proposed residential structures in order for a determination to be made as to their
impact on the neighboring residential properties.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated on 19-A there is a correction. It would be premature to
approve a negative declaration before there has been an opportunity to evaluate the information that is
requested in 19-B. There are two types of information being requested in 19-B. The first is to submit
plans indicating the location and orientation of the 4 proposed residential structures in order for a
determination to be made as to their impact on the neighboring single family residential properties
(relevant to the CEQA determination and consideration of the waiver). Secondly, there is additional
information being requested regarding proposed structures and the potential ability to comply with
standards of the zone, that in addition to portions of other information would be relevant as to whether the
site would be suitable for the map that is being requested.
Commissioner Peraza: Recommended this item be continued and asked staff how long they would
recommend.
Cheryl Flores: Responded it would depend when that information would be submitted. She suggested a
continuance to March 2, 1998 and that the information be submitted prior to February 18, 1998.
Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer: Stated the applicant stated that they had already had a
geotechnical report prepared and that they had some civil engineering conceptual plans done. She
recommended that information be submitted into the record. That may give the public a better comfort of
what is going on. _ _.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated to the applicant that Commission requests copies of that
information.
Elaine Calkins: Stated they were of the impression that those would be submitted upon the grading plan.
Chairman Pro Tempore Bristol: Stated she is indicating that on Parcel 3 and 4, the testimony given by
neighbors below are concerned with soil erosion, line of sight and staff has some concerns about where
those homes wpuid be. Again, this stems from lack of communication and that it appears that information
might be helpful in answering some of the concerns addressed.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked how they are going to get to Parcel 37
Elaine Calkins: Responded there is an easement on Parcel 4.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked whether they could take that easement to Parcel 1 so they would be
away from the edge of the road.
01-21-98
Page 61
Elaine Calkins: Responded Parcels 1 and 2 are different elevations
Carl Kreutziger: Asked staff to explain to him what they are requesting from him as far as the placement
because they had done that but unfortunately left that at home.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Responded they would like to see the orientation of the house on the
property to make sure a house could be built there to meet the development standards with regards to
setback and also to determine which would be the front side and rear property lines for each lot.
Melanie Adams: Stated with that it would also be helpful to show some proposed building pad elevations
and proposed street grades.
Suzie Siegel: Stated she would like to know if the geological reports come from the top of the property
which is relatively level where Parcel 1 and 2 would be or from the lower levels on the hillside which are
Parcels 3 and 4. She felt that would make a significant difference where the soil study came from
because part of the property is very level and part is very steep. She welcomed Commission to visit her
property to review the situation.
Melanie Adams: Stated the report should cover the entire site. Typically a geotechical engineer goes out
and investigates the property together with what is proposed by the developer and then they make an
analysis whether it is feasible.
Commissioner Peraza: Offered a motion for a continuance to March 2, 1998, seconded by Commissioner
Napoles and motion carried.
OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition
ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in
order for the petitioner to submit plans by February 18, 1998 indicating the location
and orientation of the 4 proposed residential structures in order for a determination to
be made as to their impact on the neighboring single-family residential properties.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Henninger and Mayer absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: 30 minutes (6:12-6:42)
01-21-98
Page 62
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:45 P.M.
TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1998 AT 11:00 A.M.
FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEd11
Submitted by:
® ~a.J
Ossie Edmundsan
Senior Secretary
01-21-98
Page 63