Minutes-PC 1998/03/02SUMMARY ACTION AGEN®A
CITY OF ANAHEI
PLANNING CO MISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MARCH 2, 1998
11:00 A.M. STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY
DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY
PLANNING COMMISSION)
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
COMMISSK)NERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, NAPOL~S, PERAZA
ONE VACANT SEAT
STAFF PRESENT:
Malcom Slaughter
Cheryl Flores
Greg Hastings
Alfred Yalda
Melanie Adams
Tom Engle
Margarita Solorio
Ossie Edmundson
Deputy City Attorney
Senior Planner
Zoning Manager
Principal Transportation Planner
Associate Civil Engineer
Vice Detail
Acting PC Support Supervisor
Senior Secretary
03-02-98
Page 1
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
None
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. (a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 150611b1(3) Initiated
(b) REQUEST FOR COMMISSION INITIATION OF reclassification
RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS: City of Anaheim proceedings
(Planning Department), 200 North Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805, City-initiated request for the Commission
to initiate reclassification proceedings from the CL to the CO
Zone. Property is located at 1543 and 1557-1565 West Katella
Avenue.
ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby initiate the
reclassification of the properties located at 1543 and 1557-1565 West
Katella Avenue from the CL Zone to the CO Zone to establish conformity
with the Commercial Professional land use designation of the City of
Anaheim General Plan.
SR7071 KB.DOC
No discussion.
03-02-98
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEnflS:
2b. VARIANCE N0.4330 3-30-98
2c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP idO. 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.
Continued from Commission meeting of January 21, 1998.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO.
SR6549DS.DOC
® s e ® o
Applicant's Statement:
Gari Kreutziger: Stated he was representing his mother and father-in-law, the applicants. They also had
a team of experts that were hired -Ross Hammond, a soils engineer; Steve Miller, a geologist and
retaining wall specialist. [He distributed handouts to Commission and staff, which he would be referring to
in his testimony.].
On January 21, 1998 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review, for the first time, the plans
for the Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-212. During the hearing a number of issues came up regarding the
feasibility of building on the lots, the soils conditions, schematic grading and drainage studies and
potential impacts to adjacent neighbors. Due to those questions, the Commission issued a continuance
and requested the applicant to provide additional information.
The Calkins have assembled a team of experts in the fields of surveying, geology, civil engineering, soils
engineering, architecture, retaining wall construction, grading and general contracting. All thek team of
experts have been doing business in the Anaheim Hills area for over 15 years, with a majority for over 3
decades. These professionals have provided factual information of their analysis on the project, with
written confirmation that they have proposed not only a feasible project, but one that is very common in
the Anaheim Hills area.
On the 17th they submitted a report to the Commission staff which addressed the issues of concern that
were brought up in the pubic hearing. They provided a master plan for the construction, a schematic
grading and drainage plan, layout of drawings and setbacks, soils investigations and pictures of similar
projects in the areas.
03-02-98
Page 3
The Calkins took a proactive position and sent out letters to all the adjacent homeowners inviting them to
attend an open house held on February 28th, to go over plans and discuss any concerns of the project.
There was one person who showed up, that was present at the public hearing today. Another neighbor
called that was unfortunately out of town. They did ask people to attend and express any of their
concerns. They appreciate the time that was spent out on the site with members of staff, Commissioner
Bristol, and Melanie Adams. They were taken through the site in order to get a visual analysis of exactly
what they are proposing. He addressed the staff conclusions regarding the March 2, 1998 staff report as
follows:
Environmental Impact Analysis -The first meeting held back on January 21, Item No. 10 of the staff
report, indicated that after review of their initial study, and visit of the site found that there was no
significant environmental impact and recommended that a negative declaration be approved. On the
March 2nd report, Item No. 14, it appears that staff finds potential for environmental impact and therefore
recommends that a negative declaration be denied. The basis of this finding is included in Item No. 18
and 22 of the report (that he later addressed).
In reviewing Item No. 15, the growth management element analysis, their project meets those
requirements.
In Item No. 17, the permitted density range, of .93 dwellings per acre., their project meets those
requirements.
In Item No. 18, the Public Works Department Subdivision Section has reviewed the soils report, drainage
plans, grading plans and determined that this project has been properly engineered and that there will be
no negative environmental effects from this development. This statement based on facts, actual data,
soils reports, engineering, everything that they presented on this package they submitted on the 18th. But
also in Item No. 18, it states that the Planning staff is concerned about developing on slopes, that the
impact such as private yard area for parcels 3 & 4 and the potential aesthetic and privacy impacts of the
multi-level houses and retaining walls on the residents property to the west.
The same statement is expressed in Item No. 22 under recommendations in which Planning suggests that
it does not meet the goals of the City's General Plan. jHe referred to the handout, Exhibits 1 through 4.]
What they provided on page 4 of the exhibits are residents in the Anaheim Hills area and Mohler Drive
that have these retaining walls for their projects. Their project has retaining walls that are considerably
less in height and so he was trying to understand the actual impact. They have some of these retaining
walls that are in excess of 30 feet high, what they are requesting is a retaining wall somewhere in the area
of 12 to 14 feet high.
[He referred to exhibit, Item No. 4.] The property located off of Anaheim Hills Road. The amount of
grading that was required to complete this project appears to be very large. The houses that are adjacent
to this have multi level tiered retaining walls, some are in excess of 18 feet tall. There area series of over
three retaining walls in elevation differences of 60 or 70 feet. Again, he stated that their project is far less
than any of those retaining walls shown in the diagram.
Item No. 22 -Staff believes that the development of parcels 3 and 4 with minimum yard area is not
keeping with the suitable living environment envisioned by the General Plan. [He referred to exhibits 5
and 6.] Those are exhibits taken off of Mohler Drive where the average lot in the backside of the canyon
has no yard. They are constructed on a small parcel of land that can actually be accessed, the project is
cantilevered over the hill. The project for lots 3 and 4 would have larger yards than those. Lot 3
especially has a considerable pad size that leaves the lot having a back yard, side yard and front yard.
Exhibit 12 - A house has been placed on a 40 foot retaining wall. That has been built up and the yard is
very minimal. If the staff believes that the development of these parcels with minimum yard area is not in
keeping with the General Plan, then how do these keep with the general plan? He referred to their
exhibits in the initial report, issued on the 17th. He referred to tab 7 of the report. He labeled three
different tracks in their immediate area, all visible from that lot where Tract 8456 (Lots 25-30) which are
03-02-98
Page 4
right up the hill. These are 6 lots that are cantilevered over the hill, with no back yard, no side yard and
very minimal front yard. He does not agree with the conclusion of the analysis.
Item No. 22 -The basis of the recommendation refers to the preservation of a semi-rural uncontested
character of the hill and canyon area by keeping grading to a minimum, while keeping development
following natural contours of the land. They have attempted to do this with lot 4, minimizing the visible
retaining walls and stairstepping the house up the hill. The design of the house will be conducive with the
rural surroundings. The design of parcel 3 is less visual and aesthetically impacts than many of the
parcels in the surrounding areas.
Exhibit 10 is a house up the street, this house is a much higher elevation and is cantilevering right over
the adjacent neighbors properly. They feel this neighbor is not impacted.
He has reviewed the Condition Nos. 1 through 6 by the various City departments. In the event that
Variance No. 4330 is approved, they concur with those conditions and they will specifically address Item
No. 3 regarding the retaining wall vegetation. In the event that Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-212 is
approved, they concur with Condition Nos. 1 through 6.
Line of sight and distance and location of the dwellings -There seems to have been a misinterpretation of
the plans by the residents for the location of the dwellings, and the relative distances from their home. He
referenced the page of the exhibits, where he provided a layout. The layout is a line of site which
indicates distances and elevations. House 1 which is at the entry, the adjacent house 2 to this resident is
50 feet away and has an elevation of minus 10 feet. House 3, the other neighbor, is 90 feet away and is
16 feet less in elevation. If you look at the proposal houses (2 on lot 4), it is 115 feet away from that point
with a 20 foot elevation. Standing at the back yard looking up, the first thing seen is a row of Eucalyptus
trees heavily populated that provide a screening.
He addressed the retaining walls, Item No. 3, which has to do with vines on the walls, which would create
vegetation on that. They also included a hedge that they would put up on top of the wall that would
screen any lights and sound from the adjacent neighbors, the visibility is very minor. In fact you would be
looking above that house for that parcel. Looking at house 3 at those elevations, those 2 houses are 130
feet away from this portion of the backyard [and are included as the second page of that].
The saving of the Eucalyptus trees -They do not intend to take down any of the trees. They have been
there for years and intend to.build right around them, using them as screening on the property. One of the
good things about having an access back there is that they will be able to maintain those Eucalyptus
trees. Currently they are simply cut and dropped to the ground. They have over 5 feet of trash and debris
that have been put over the fences in the back yard which is clearly a fire hazard. With this they could
access those, and keep those cleaned up.
Retaining-wall - He referred to exhibit 11, on the 11, 12, and 13 you can see what you can do with
vegetation along these retaining walls. Picture 11 is a crib wall that is all overgrown with Bogenvelia vines
and etc. You can not tell that that is a retaining wall. It appears to be part of the slope. Area 13 is the
Anaheim Hills area where it is going to grow right up there and there is not the presence of concrete
retaining walls on those.
Stability of the slopes and refer to exhibit 14 in the handout on the suitable type of soils present, will be
addressed by Ross Hammond, their soils engineer.
He stated Mr. and Mrs. Calkins intend to develop these lots to their highest standards, for their neighbors
.and themselves. These lots are going to be adjacent to their own house which they will be building and
retiring in. The entries, planning and maintenance of this development will be the direct responsibility of
the Calkins. They only ask that they are not deprived of the privileges commonly enjoyed and granted to
other properties in the same vicinity and zone.
03-02-98
Page 5
Ross Hammond, soils engineer, 244 N. Lincoln Street, Orange, CA: [Addressed exhibit 14 in his
presentation.] Stated throughout the years he has lived in three homes in Anaheim Hills and one in Nohl
Ranch. Also one across the valley in Yorba Linda, since the 50's he as been working in the area and in
Anaheim and Orange County -five decades of soils engineering. He is presently on the Vista Del Sol
Project which was formerly Bob Wein's development, it is now Boulevard Development, but a very similar
type of formation. It is all uplifted pre-consolidated soils of mass of structure. Their geologist on this
project, Steve Miller, will elaborate upon that.
Based on 44 years of testing through the area and in the hills these are the finest soils as far as stability.
They are non-expansive, they are sandy compositipn, have been pre-compressed, are in a solidified
state, there is no bedding planes in them, In fact, there are pictures in this brochure that shows them
standing almost vertically for many years. The main driveway up to the Calkins residence has been
enhanced with crib lock walls and palm trees, absolutely beautiful [exhibit 14]. That is a wall that has
been standing for many years. Through these last rains, there is little or no evidence of erosion
whatsoever and this is the basic type of formation they have on the total hill on both sides. This would be
the southern exposure and they would be working on the northwestern side. It is all the same type
formation. There is same slope wash, minor amounts which would be removed, and basically they are
into extremely solid material, but it would all be protected with crib lock walls or standard retaining wall
type foundation type walls.
The Calkins are building their dream home up on top, they are not building development to make some
money and clear out. They are going to be there, possibly the rest of their lives. So they are going to
make absolutely sure that everybody is happy with it including the people that will be purchasing these
two lots that we are now involved with.
The formation when coming in from the driveway is a natural slope that has been there for hundreds of
years, vegetation is heavy, it is all natural vegetation, and basically there will be no change except for
where the building pad is constructed. There will be a driveway along the bottom, which is just a natural
place to put it. It will border the property. It will be on the east side of the existing mass of Eucalyptus
trees. These trees will be retained.. At the present time, most of the branches that go over the adjacent
property to the west need attention. This will provide access not only for trimming and protecting them,
but for the Fire Department. The secondary advantage of the driveway through this area is that it will be a
natural interceptor terrace to that whole slope, so any fears of runoff on that slope on the present
conditions will be alleviated by this driveway. It will catch every bit of water coming down that slope. The
slopes will be left alone, so there will be very little excess of velocity to it. The water that does come down
and presently carries on down onto the adjacent properties, will be intercepted by the driveway which will
have drainage facilities and will be a permanent and positive drainage taken back out to the natural
drainage course and to an approved drainage system. The retaining walls will be constructed. They will
be taken down into bedrock, the basis of them with high allowable soil bearing pressure up in the 2000 to
3000 psf range. Active pressures will not be high on this type of soil because the soil is sandy, essentially
has low cohesion and has high angle of internal friction. This means that you can use a fairly passive
pressure. The actual cuts in this material will in effect be free standing. They are not going to exert any
great pressure on the wall. Even if they do, they'll be totally retained by these walls which will be properly
drained with perforated pipe and meeting all standard requirements. The criblock wall, where that can be
used, will be a gravity type wall where you use a geosynthetic fabric which actually laid down in layers
and tied into the various courses of the wall as it is constructed. This is like a grid, similar to a fishnet,
very high-tense all strength material; it lasts forever, protected away from the ultra-violet rays. This
material when interbedded with the layers with compacted fill that would be placed creates a massive
solid block almost like reinforced concrete - a reinforced soil condition. There is noway that wall can fail
in any sense. The other advantage is that an earthquake will have very little effect, it is like a wrist band
all tied together, these blocks, they are individual blocks that pinned together, they're flexible, tiny
movements can occur and there would never be any cracking in them. If there is any moisture that comes
through, any kind of planting on them would sustain natural growth from that. It has great advantage, but
either type of wall will work very satisfactorily there. The fills will be limited in nature, will all be tested and
compacted. All the top soils will be removed, benching will occur, everything will meet standard
requirements.
03-02-98
Page 6
The homes will be cut back right into the hill. They are working on some right now, in Vista Del Sol,
exactly the same situation with less favorable soils, and they are working extremely well. They are under
construction now and he is controlling them.. They have been going on now for about a year up there.
Which is the next hilltop over, about a mile to the east of this development.
He can safely say that for five decades, he has been working in the area, watched development and this
development will leave the natural hills essentially alone. The homes will be just cut back into the areas
where they are most feasible to be placed. They are kept away from the adjacent properties and are
totally secluded and the line of sight is cut off with these large Eucalyptus trees which can be properly
maintained.
When there is a dry spell, there is going to be a tremendous amount of actual vegetation up there and
people living two lots around the corner there, with access for fire properly maintained will greatly
enhance the area with respect to eliminating any fire hazard along with these large Eucalyptus trees
which will be maintained and protected. The hills are going to essentially be left alone, the homes are
going to be obscure from most peoples vision and will be blended into the hill and geologically feasible.
Public Testimony:
Gerald Bushore, 381 South Henning Way, Anaheim, CA: Stated he did not receive an invitation to the
site and therefore asked the following questions?
1. Asked how deep have the borings have gone on the soils testing on the west slopes?
2. Has the Fire Department submitted a report that they can get the fire trucks up the road? Or the
Fire Department has not objected to this at all?
3. How is the sewage going to be taken out of the property? Is it going to be sewer? Is it going to
be septic? Has there been be percolation tests?
Chairman Bostwick: Stated he was sure that there is a sewer going up Trail Drive.
Mr. Bushore: Responded there is not.
Chairman Bostwick: There's a manhole there.
Mr. Bushore: Stated, there's a sewer going up Trail Drive, but whether they'll access it or not is another
situation because the sewer at one point becomes a private sewer and the City has no access to it so
they would have to talk to the other homeowner association up there.
Chairman Bostwick: Well, we'll find that out for you.
Mr. Bushore: Asked how many safety roads are going to go out of this property? Just the one on Trail
:Drive?
Chairman Bostwick: Responded that is all it is designed for.
Mr. Bushore: Stated 20 years ago, in 1978, he became a member of the Planning Commission and
served on it for approximately 7 years. One thing he would say when he was on the Planning
Commission was that we need to make sure that when we are not around 20 years from now, someone
understands what we meant to do here today.
When Tract 11600 came up before the Commission, he was on the Commission and that was the one the
Planning Commission was sued on and went all the way to the State Supreme Court. He remembered
remarking about one of the lots being non-buildable and should not even call it a lot. Since that time, that
lot is still there and is not buildable, and has changed hands many times. Two of the lots in there had to
be changed, the pads had to be changed, because the west slopes up in that area have an ancient earth
movement. And they are off anywhere from 11 to 14 degrees.
03-02-98
Page 7
The tract directly to the south of this, the 142 acre soils report, that they gave out in some of their
information, that tract sat vacant for many years. Tract 11600 (located at Hidden Grove Drive) had not
been occupied, it was vacant for 15 years, went through several owners. One owner came to alt the
neighbors and indicated what was being proposed, and five owners later, nobody remembered what he
said he was going to do.
The tract with 142 homes sat there for a long time, there were several things that got started. They finally
sold off individual lots. Part of the reason they sold off individual lots, but before they could sell off
individual lots the sewer lines that were put in up there became cracked .and unusable and they had to
redo the sewers because of some movements. There were also some stability problems up there and
they had to put these homes on piers down to the bedrock.
The property directly to the north, where there are 6 lots approved is now up for sale again, probably for
the 8th or 10th time. That was originally subdivided when John Seymour sat on the Planning
Commission. There is perhaps two lots up there that are available.
The property to the west which would be the properties that are going to be most effected. Furthermore,
when he was on the Planning Commission, he had no idea that he would ever live up there. In 1983 he
purchased a property up there and in 1989 moved in. He had percolation tests done, soils tests done, but
neither one of them was adequate. Fortunately, his soils tests percolated :because his property was
originally intended to be 6 lots that were turned down because they could not percolate and the sewers
were not all up there. When he spoke with the Fire Department they indicated they could not get their fire
trucks up that road. He was going to have to sprinkler it. Now there is a citywide sprinkler ordinance. He
installed fire plugs and now he sees the trucks come up there all the time and they complain that they had
to get a special small truck to come up there.
The proposed property has a much steeper road. Approximately a month ago he was run off that road.
Their road is about 12 to 15 feet wide. They spoke to the City about widening it. The road is off of the
easement so that was a problem.. Another problem was in talking with the different departments, they said
that the standards are 25 feet for private roads. He sees this is proposed at 20 feet.
When Tract 11600 was built they had them widen the streets, we had them redo the streets. The traffic
up there is horrendous, people go up there and don't know these are private roads. When he built his
:house he was told that it could never be subdivided up there unless they could percolate or provide
sewers.. Then someone purchased the property, told the neighbors, he was building his retirement home
and live up there. So, they went to the Engineering hearings and requested that if it does not perk, make
sure they get sewers. Currently those lots remain vacant because the "property owner will not put sewers
up there nor will the property percolate. The easements are not there and the owner has been told that if
he puts the sewers up there it will be a private sewer, the City wants no part of it. It is a private sewer to
Tract 11660. He ended up on his hillside, on the back hillside on the west there, which again faces a tract
where the City allowed 7 properties to be subdivided on that. Two of them totally unbuildable. That
property is now up for sale, for the 3rd time. He had to go down with 20 foot borings or more. He ended
up taking out the width of his back lot, 136 feet, 12 foot wide and 38 feet down and recompacting it
because not only are the slopes off on that west hillside, the sandstone is like rock and cement when it is
dry but when it rains and is wet, as it is now, you can go out there with a toothpick and break it up. It
becomes very moist and is slideable. There have been other problems in Anaheim Hills. He is
concerned for the people who live down below.
In terms of the access up there, there is one road in and one road out, the same road. When the track to
the south was put in, the 142 lots, right now there is a chain link gate up there which originally was to be a
crash gate. When Tract 11600 came through, he fought for the neighbors to have a crash gate. He did
not own property up there. To this date the city has no standards for crash gates. They talked crash
gates 20 years ago and nobody knows what they're about. Tract 11600 never got the crash gate. In the 5
years that he has lived up there he has had to use that gate 6 times because the Eucalyptus trees dry out
and then fall over and block the roads.
03-02-98
Page 8
They were once trapped there for 24 hours. He hauled one of those trees down to the parking lot at
Eucalyptus Park with his tractor to cut it up in the parking lot because that is where the City did it and
there was no place else up to do it. He was out there until midnight sweeping and cleaning it up. For
doing this he got in trouble trespassing on City property.
The roads up there are maintained by the homeowners, there is a homeowners association. The Homers
are present. Mr. Homer has lived up there many years. He had this progressive type maintenance
agreement completed. Unfortunately the attorney he went to did not have all of the signatures notarized.
The people in Tract 11600 do not know what you are talking about because the real estate people never
disclosed that to them. It is an unrecorded item so the roads are maintained by the public up there, but no
one wants to take care of their part.
His road upfront is in a big mess because the neighbor up above him got caught putting illegal dirt up
there. He just got a letter from the Public Works Department stating they have no record of any
complaints on that.
In 1990 when they were forced to take out a permit because they were illegally stockpiling, he was told
they had one year to pull out their engineering plans, but they never did. All they can give him is a
grading ordinance, nobody has given him the ordinance invdlving the stockpiling permit.
His wall is cracking. He had a call from the neighbor up there this morning again. That same neighbor
went up there and bought another house and did the same thing. No one has any records of complaints.
This proposed tentative tract will only have one way out. He did not see it in any of the reports about
using a crash gate to the south for those 142 homes. That is where they are supposed to come out, it is
padlocked and locked. A crash gate is one that can be pushed open or the Police or Fire Department
would have available a knox box on there which they would come up there with a key and open it up in an
emergency situations. That has not happened in 20 years.
The idea was that Tract 11600 could come down their way. They have that gate open up there. There is
no lock on it. Anywhere past Trail Drive where it meets Henning Way and turns into Quintana before it
meets Arboretum Road, if that gets locked, you're going to have 30 homes up there with noway out.
There was a fire through there in the past. It used to be the Henning brothers property, they were 5
brothers. That property was completely burned all the way across there. In the early 80's there was a fire
up there. There is absolutely no way to get out. The homes are built in more buildable areas and then
there are gullies in between. Six months from now those gully areas are going to be dry.
There are soil stability problems, fire problems, access problems, sewer problems and a 20 foot road
going up there.
When the property to the south of him was finally subdivided, it was subdivided on what he would call
"executive order" because it had a general plan approving the zoning up there and one day it was all
finalized all the zoning which meant they did not have to come to Commission for permission and went to
the Engineering Division instead.
There is one home and the potential for two more if they can ever find out how to percolate or get rid of
the sewage, because there are now two approved lots up there. They made them not only put in a huge
cul-de-sac so the Fire Department could turn around, but they had them install the road approaching the
cul-de-sac 25 feet in width when everything up there for half a mile off the road is probably close to three
quarters of a mile at that point, anywhere from approximately 15 to 25 foot down at the very bottom.
He reminded Commission that the decisions that are made now will effect the area in the future. There
are a lot more things at issue there than just someone's property rights. He was told by one of the
neighbors that the man was going to live up there, retire and build a home but now it is 4 homes.
03-02-98
Page 9
They need to get a road easement up there, a maintenance agreement that can be recorded for all of the
homeowners up there, notjust the associations that has their own and ignores theirs. It needs a lot more
in-depth study, and the conditions, if it is going tp be approved need to be very specific - if it will not
percolate then require sewers. There needs to be adequate access for fire trucks, adequate emergency
access.
If this earth wants to move it is going to move based on what has happened these last few weeks, despite
what the experts have indicated.
Basically he has no problem with this property being developed, .but 4 homes, 2 of them on hillside is not
going to work up there. We do not want to let one person benefit, to the detriment of all the rest of the
neighbors around there. There are soils problems, sewer problems, access problems and it is all a
private road up there. They are not going to help them solve these problems, that is what the Commission
is here for.
Gordon Capel, 284 Quintana Drive, Anaheim, CA: Stated he lives directly below the proposed property.
He does not know anything other than what others have told him. His family and .himself are very
concerned about the erosion. That hill is very steep but is totally overgrown with thick brush, natural
growth and it has been that way for years. There has been slippage in Anaheim Hilis, that has caused
severe damage in the past. If the brush is cleared away and that hill is cut, where is all the runoff going to
go? There has been tremendous amount of rains this season. So far they have no runoff problems
whatsoever. If this development had been started six or eight months ago and all this rain hit, what would
it look like back therel They have fears of this ending up in their back yard in the pool and they do not
know who would be responsible should that occur. The other concern is personal. They purchased the
property for its uniqueness, an ambiance of rustic area and treelined. He did not really know who those
trees they belong to, they could possibly belong to him. His bedroom sits right on top and looks directly at
these Eucalyptus trees. He could not vision where these cars are going to be driving through and being
able to turnaround and come out the same way. He was also concerned with all the possible traffic
activity going on right in his backyard. They thought that that hill could never have been developed. They
also feel that it will have a dramatic effect on their property value.
Bob Cicero, at 270 South Riverwood Circle, Anaheim, CA: Stated he feels his property will be impacted
the most by lot 3 as it comes right into their back yard. He appreciates the opportunity to own land and
develop and for everybody to have their business and to grow their fortunes. That is why we enjoy being
in America and having those opportunities. One thing that drew him to that property in 1989 was the
ability to ook out from by backyard, from my pool area, from my master bedroom and to enjoy that hillside
and to enjoy the rustic setting but at the same time being within 5 minutes to the 91 freeway. He agreed
with the Mr. Capel that when this earth decides to move, there isnot anything that can be done to stop it.
He is concerned that should the development start and if they are besieged with additional rains, that mud
and rock would come down in a hurry and some of that hillside may end up in his backyard.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she received and gave Commissioners a copy, as well as staff, a letter
received from Neil and Susie Seagull listing in detail their concerns about the cutting and grading of the
steep slopes adjacent to their home. She requested a copy of this be submitted for the record of the
reasons why they are opposed this project.
03-02-98
Page 10
Applicant's Rebuttal:
Carl Kreutziger: Addressed the following issues raised:
1. Gerald Bushore had 3 concerns and several others that he needs to take up with different
members of the Public Works Department. First, how deep were borings were? Ross Hammond
will address that and other concerns regarding the soils.
2. The Fire Department truck access -This did go through review of the Fire Department in the
Preliminary Review process. There were no comments that came back from them to indicate that
this project was a detriment or could not be dealt with.
3. Sewage out to the property -The City's Engineering Division can answer that. There are sewers
to the adjacent properties that are put in, it would not be on a septic system, but on a sewer.
Chairman Bostwick: Asked if the sewer comes down Trail Drive?
Mr. Kreutziger: Responded it actually comes down the property line right along Trail Drive, correct
Chairman Bostwick: Asked whether the present house is on the sewer up top?
Mr. Kreutziger: Responded no, the present house is on septic on top but there are two six inch stub outs
that tract 11600 put in and there's an 8 foot easement along the property line for the future sewer right
now. Gordon Capel did talk about the runoff and erosion and I believe that we addressed those issues
and his concerns the roadway that they would be putting in would be a diverted, that cuts to the slope
would be placed with vegetation like in so many aspects and other areas in Anaheim Hilis that would be
grown again. As far as what is going to happen during the grading procedure, guidelines have been
established for grading and erosion control during the process and during the months they do the grading.
.Ross Hammond: Stated he will say a few words then perhaps Steve Miller, geologist, will tell you more
about the overall stability and geologic origin and structure of this particular hill.
At the present time they have studied all the exposures which are all around the property.. They have
made excavations up on top and over the side. We haven't made them directly in any particular location
for a building because the spots are just arbitrarily chosen and mainly to provide as much privacy to the
neighbors as possible. He was referring to homes and a driveway servicing the two homes. Nobody else
but those people and their friends will be going on that driveway. It'll all be structurally designed and
artistically constructed and it'll be worked out with the people to give them every amount of privacy
possible.
As far as stability goes in this area, essentially these are large areas, the building pads will_be.small
compared to the overall size of the {ot. The rest of the lot will be left alone and will be maintained in
accordance with standard procedures, building code and fire requirements. The people living there will
take care of their own land. There is not going to a be tearing down of the side of the slope. Only in the
areas of the driveway and where the building pads will be concerned. Everything will be done with the
utmost of care and with ail the geology and soils engineering criteria that would be involved.
Basically there is a sand stone deposit up there. It does not become insensitive or lose stability when it
becomes wet, it doesn't become wet, only on the surface. These mass of highly dense formations have
not changed in thousands of years once you get below the surface and they are not going to change,
There are no slides involved here, we have a massive stable formation.
It will be far more statile when we finish on that side. All that does happen through the years is that you
tend to get some colovium and slope runoff which is more or less restricted by the natural vegetation
which will be left or enhanced with man-made vegetation, all with deep root systems and etc.
03-02-98
Page 11
Steve Miller, a geologist, 386 East 15th Street, Costa Mesa, CA: Stated he is working with the Calkins on
the development of their property, mostly with respect to retaining walls that are proposed. With respect
to the geology and stability of the slopes and issues like that , he addressed the one photograph [exhibit
14], which is a representation of the cut for Trail Hills Drive that was probably made some years ago when
Trails Drive was cut through. This is the upper member of "Fernando Formation" which is defined as a
fairly massive sandstone with some thin beds of clay, generally with an easUwest trend and dipping to the
north. The ridges that the development has proposed on are both east/west trending ridges which means
there is little case for adverse bedding. All the cuts proposed would be transversed to that, so adverse
bedding would be very unlikely especially in the case of these being very massive sandstones. Massive
meaning that there is no thin bedding of the geologic material, that if it was oriented in the wrong direction,
could be adverse to grading practices. Everyone has probably heard of adverse bedding because we
have that problem in other places throughout Southern California. This specific site of the entire hillside is
mapped as the upper member of this geologic formation. There is no geologic contact through there, it is
happening much to the north of there, so what they could observe from the ground and the test pits and
borings that have been done, the entire hillside appears to be composed of the sandstone member.
In the field of geotechnical engineering and geology, it is so important to specifically lodk at any one site in
it's entirety. It is very difficult to generalize from one specific land point to a neighborhood across the
.street, because the geology can change in a short distance. What can be seen from this site is that this
specific site is very different from what might be seen 100 yards to south or over to Fairmont Avenue
where they are currently working on another project there where the geology is completely different and
the soils are much clayier more fine grain, more susceptible to slope instability, this project is not that
case.. Look at the geologic maps that are published, you look at the information that we have obtained
from the site it is clearly a giant sandstone ridge. The entire ridge is composed of this sandstone and you
could not have a better geologic setting for doing hillside grading. When the hillside grading is done you
look for nice consistent granular geologic conditions, granular meaning sands and gravels and things like
that unlike expansive clays and silts and things like we see in Newport Beach. The soils there are terrible,
Laguna Beach has some good areas, other than the Bluebird Canyon Landslide, which is a bad area,
there are good sandstone ridges in Laguna Beach that can be built on. It takes a trained geologist and a
good geotechnical engineer to identify where they are going to build and make sure to follow ali the
current practices for doing that.
In looking at the hillside currently proposed at the site, we just had one of the largest series of storms that
has ever been seen here. In some places like Laguna Beach it was a 200 years storm event and in other
places it was a 25 year storm event. Clearly some of the largest rains in volume and intensity that has
been seen in many years. This particular side of the hill shows no evidence of surticial erosion, in its
current state. Some of those slopes are steep. In other areas across the street where the soils are finer
grained there is obviously evidence of erosion there, but not on this hillside..
If the homes are built with the current standards for hillside grading the road is going to be essentially a 20
foot wide Terrace drain to collect any surtace runoff and channel it into the appropriate storm drains.
It is very difficult to have the opposition give examples of problems throughout in Orange County when
you .actually need to look at each site specifically. You can not say what happens at a large landslide
complex in the Blue Bird Canyon or elsewhere in Anaheim Hills is similar to what is happening at this
location. Geologically this is a very different location.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if there was any drilling done on the west slope above Quintana?
Ross Hammond: Stated they examined the face of the slopes on that side. They did not attempt to take
any drill rig on those slopes and it would not be feasible at this time. It would be detrimental to the foliage
and difficult to get there. They have examined the exposures all over the complete property. They have
made excavations all along the accessible areas and they find it to be the massive sand stone that they
have been talking about.
03-02-98
Page 12
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if the sandstone in this area have a tendency to get fissures which
absorb water?
Ross Hammond: Responded no it does nat.
Chairman Bostwick: Stated he made the comment that the retaining walls would go down to bedrock and
asked how far down that was.
Ross Hammond: Responded bedrock in this formation is anywhere from two to five feet or six feet. In all
instances would penetrate well into it. Bedrock is a term referring to the dense massive of formation. It is
not actually a rock, it is an extremely dense soil condition that is essentially undisturbed in its natural
state.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if this is all sandstone on lot 4 where they want to dig out the hill, how
they would get it out of there?
Ross Hammond: Responded it is the sandstone formation. Normally you get through the soil mantle on
top, humus, and disturbed material, then you get into the undisturbed which is when it is solid and in a
massive condition like that, it is just known as bedrock. It is not actually rock it is sand that is fine grain
uniform particular that has been under tremendous pressure. Its uplifted at one time. It had huge
amounts of over burden on it so it is very dense. It will come out for the most part with rippers and with
normal type excavation. He did not feel there would be a need for any form of dynamiting of this material.
They have already done cutting and trenching and have not had any problem, it is just difficult to cut.
Steve Miller: Stated the entire hillside has a very thin mantle of soil. Soil mantle is no more than 5 feet
thick and that is in the swale area on the west ridge but it is definitely a bedrock material. That sandstone
formation is called a bedrock. It is not like a hard rock. It is an indurated sandstone. It is breakable with
conventional construction equipment. It is not highly jointed. This particular formation is not known to be
highly "jointed", meaning natural fractures that occur in it. You do not see much evidence of that in the
road cuts and in some of the exploratory cuts that they have done.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked Mr. Miller about a comment he made that the land can be different 100
yards away, and how do you know from one parcel to the next that it could be different without boring?
Steve Miller: Responded they look at surface exposures initially which would indicate what is going on. It
would indicate areas where they would do exploratory work. For the means of a lot split they Icok at the
surficial expression and look at the massive road cut going up and all of the cuts on top of the hillside.
When they walked it, they look at the surface expression of the hillside. There is nothing on it that would
indicate it is a lot different than what is seen over the road on their exploratory work on top,_ If they saw a
rock outcrop that was not sandstone then that would suggest a need to do more work. But there is
nothing there that would indicate it is not.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked if they were to receive approval for this project and would they do borings?
Steve Miller: Responded yes, borings for the engineering study of the materials would be done. They
would follow the standard practices for hillside grading.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked if there was going to be some fill on that road?
Steve Miller: Responded the road way going in is mostly a fill section.
Commissioner Bristol: Stated there is concern about the damage to the Eucalyptus trees, directly effected
by parcels 3 and 4. Asked how close are they going to get to the Eucalyptus trees on the closest part,
leaving from Trail Drivel
03-02-98
Page 13
Steve Miller: Responded 15 feet
Chairman Bostwick: Asked .Melanie Adams to comment on photographs that were presented of other
properties in the Anaheim Hills area where the retaining walls are much higher than the 10 foot that is
allowed by Code.
Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer: On the photographs you see the 10 foot retaining wall height is
a recent addition to the Code. There are many walls that were built before that time that were higher than
10 feet. That Code was adopted in February 1990 at the request of both the Planning Commission and
City Council for having large massive walls that were aesthetically unpleasing. It was not that they were
not unstable, they just did not want to see large wall heights continuous throughout a hill. Now being used
is a terraced wall approaching that each wall should not have an exposed height exceeding 10 feet.
When you go higher than that you would terrace back and start another wall to soften the impact of the
wall by having plantings in front of them or draping down.
.Mac Slaughter: Stated it is also possible that any walls out there may have been put in at the time this
was County territory. They would have to look at an individual wall to see when it was put in and under
what Code it was permitted.
Chairman Bostwick: Stated he wanted to make that point so the applicant would understand why some of
those walls are out there. It is not because Commission is being unduly harsh on them but it is that the
Code has changed since those were built.
Melanie Adams: Stated the Public Works Department has reviewed the grading concept as prepared and
submitted by the applicant. The grading concept is consistent with the grading code. The soils reports
that were submitted are for the house on the top of the hill and address the areas on the top of the hill.
What would be required by Code, Chapter 17.06, the hillside grading ordinance is that prior to any
approval of any grading plan that the City Engineer would require a report that would include findings both
from an engineering geologist and a civil engineering specializing in soils areas. They would also be
required to submit a detailed drainage plan which would be approved as part of the grading plan. They do
have the freedom and latitude at this tentative map stage to request any additional information needed in
order to make the findings particularly paragraph 21(c). They are trying to determine that the site is
physically suitable for the type of development and also make the CEQA Findings. The grading concept
is in keeping with hillside grading. The question is as to what detail they would like to have the soils
information at this time.
Commissioner Boydstun (inaudible).
Melanie Adams: Responded it would not be a city sewer. They would be connecting into a private sewer
system. All in the areas (private streets), on Quintana Drive, Henning Way, Traii Drive, Hidden Grove
Lane; those are all served by private sewers.
Commissioner Boydstun (inaudible).
Melanie Adams: Suggested Mr. Slaughter to speak on the legal aspect. That is possibly what the
homeowners were alluding to.
Mac Slaughter: Stated there is no way of knowing what the terms and conditions might have been at the
time of the institution of the private sewers. In some cases the private property owner has the right of
condemnation to acquire its own ability to get to those sort of things. They have to pay for them but there
is a lot of private issues they would not necessarily know about in that regard.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated he visited the site and he was surprised the Fire Department had no
comment about these potential building sites. The driveway up to the existing home site is fairly steep.
Asked how do they get fire trucks up there? Where is the nearest fire hydrant? How do they pull the
hoses? A possibility might be that they have an emergency access that comes down from the top side.
03-02-98
Page 14
Melanie Adams: Stated it probably best go get testimony directly from the Fire Prevention Division. It is
her understanding that their main access is through Trail Drive at the top. She does not know whether a
fire truck can make it up that hill.
Commissioner Henninger: Another question would be how would they get into these two lots that will be
at the bottom of the hill and take access.
Melanie Adams: Stated they would take access on the bottom of the hill and she presumed would pull an
engine part of the way down that private street. Fire engines by their standards will back up to a
maximum of 150 feet.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated there is very little turnaround even on the existing streets there. This is
a question that needs to be answered along with the sewer question. One of the photographs [exhibit 14]
is of the existing driveway that has been graded. At the bottom of the driveway is a curb and cutter that is
unfinished and peters out in an unfinished fashion. The water apparently comes down there and goes into
a gully next door. Asked how storm drain is handled in this areal
Melanie Adams: Responded, in general, the drainage is surtace drainage until it reaches where Trail
Drive intersects Hidden Grove Lane. At that point, there is a storm drain system, there is a catch basin
and it takes it down the hill, From observing at the site there does appear to be a relatively short gap
between the drainage ravine and bringing it down Trail Drive that should be addressed in any grading or
future drainage of the site.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated the soils reports on these two lower lots that are proposed have not
been done yet and those would typically be done before the grading permit, but Commission could ask
them to be done now.
Melanie Adams: Responded that is correct.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated there has been a lot of discussion on the soils and other technical
issues but what they have not heard much about are visual impacts of these two lots. There are a lot of
photographs that the applicant has provided of various retaining walls that have been developed
throughout Anaheim Hills and they are fairly common. After visiting the site, he felt these that are
proposed very close to a couple of existing houses. In the past Commission has not permitted any that
close to existing houses. Having spoken with the neighbors, there was a fair misunderstanding of what
exactly was proposed. For instance, the neighbors thought that the row of Eucalyptus trees there would
be removed and according to the drawing they are not, they would be saved. So there are a lot of
questions and some controversy with the neighbors. Perhaps the best thing to do is take time to answer
those questions. There are still many questions to be answered before they can decide on this.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she would like to hear from the Fire Department.
Commissioner Henninger: Agreed. He brought up 5 issues and he would like each of those issued
address by the Fire Department. During the continuance the applicant should meet with the neighbors.
He realizes that he has tried in the past. The testimony is that he invited the neighbors to a meeting but
they did not attend but he knows the neighbors are concerned because they called and wrote letters and
perhaps a meeting would be in order because there is some misunderstanding of what is being proposed.
Perhaps after the meeting the neighbors may still be concerned and at the point they can come to the next
public hearing and give testimony.
He would like to request the soils report be done now. He understands the testimony given that it is hard
material. He knows for a fact that it is very hard material because his home is located up in the Hills.
Asked Mr. Hammond how long it would take to get the soils work completed?
03-02-g8
Page 15
Mr. Hammond: Stated if he started right away on the study, considering the rain situation, he could
possibly take a backhoe in there. A drill rig would be absolutely impossible, it would be wedged up on the
top of the hill and that is totally unnecessary and unreasonable, .but he can certainly get in and determine
exactly what the formations are. He could get in there with a 4-wheel drive backhoe, make a temporary
road just about where the driveway will go and work on the side of the hill, take undisturbed samples and
log the material and possibly have an answer in about one week. A formal report would be in about two
weeks.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked if it is possible to get in there by foot and take soil sample?
Mr. Hammond: Responded yes, he could do that.
Commissioner Henninger; Recommended that he do that the soil sample by foot.
Mr. Hammond: Stated he could do that along with an assistant and make some exposures, get some
undisturbed samples, run some consolidations and strength perimeters on the material and classify it.
Melanie Adams: Stated if they are going forward with the report then it would need to be a joint report not
only from the geotechnical civil engineering side but also engineering geologist because they are looking
for the level of report that they require with a grading plan. They would need to be working together -one
joint report.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated the constraint that he would like placed on that is that the work be done
in such a manner that it does not create a major impact to the existing area - to preserve the native area
until a decision is made. To the extent that that does not give Melanie Adams all the comfort she needs,
he would prefer to do slightly less and get 75% of the way there rather than get 100% and create a big
impact to the existing condition.
Melanie Adams: Stated if Mr. Hammond would fax his work outline review with his supervisor and give
him the go ahead from there. They want to make sure they have all the information they need to fully
analyze the scope of stability.
Mr. Hammond: Stated he is trying to expedite this situation, within two weeks he can have some stability
work and some undisturbed sampling down.
Commissioner Henninger: Recommended it be continued for 4 weeks and then if they need to continue it
further then it will be handled at that time.
Commissioner Bristol: Stated they have all been out there and spoken with the residences, spoken with
Mr. Calkins, walked the property. It is not an easy decision to make. He outlined the following concerns:
First, the foils report is one of the concerns of residents below parcels 3 and 4. Secondly,-regarding the
esthetics, Dr. Seagull and his wife have a real concern about that. He spoke with Mr. Calkins about that.
In fact, the drawings submitted indicated that they can have a small wall plus some hedging. They
discussed going a little further than that, that the residents never hear and see anything. Thirdly, staffs
recommendation to deny this proposal. When they make a recommendation Commission needs tc take
this in consideration. Staff is basically concerned how this is going to look. For example, it indicates a
wall being 10 to 12 feet and the testimony today indicated 14 feet, but it is really 10 feet. And how that
wall is going to look and the line of sight.
Chairman Bostwick: Stated another issued is Item D that the site is not physically suitable for the
proposed density development and he!believes they have not seen yet how -perhaps that is going to take
renderings of the proposed homes that they are proposing to put on these lots in relation to the
neighborhood. Some way of seeing how this is going to look to the neighborhood and surrounding
homes. He is not convinced yet that this is physically suitable as well as the geological problems that it is
stable and will not have a problem with slippage or water, particularly on lot 3 where there is a 2 to 1
03-02-98
Page 16
grade into Mr. Calkins rear yard. Also is it actually physically suitable - is it going to be right for the whole
neighborhood. Those items need to be addressed along with the neighbors a well.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated after reading the staff report he was convinced to vote against this and
he had the sense that one of the pictures that was in the first set of documents the applicant gave was this
picture of a house with these walls and he had the sense that these were higher than what the applicant
was proposing. The applicant has taken a lot of effort and made a good presentation but he thinks they
need to go and make peace with the neighbors, if that is possible.
Elaine Calkins, 6263 East Trail Drive, Anaheim, CA: Stated the photographs are examples, in most
cases, of extreme examples of the feasibility. They have never intended in any way to make these homes
have retaining walls and structures like those in the photos, they were just using them as an example, in
the worse case scenario of what works. From an engineering standpoint, their proposal is far less and yet
they meet the engineering standards. They were supposed to do a feasibility study which they completed.
On an engineering aspect, they have completely surpassed all the requirements. The next thing to
complete is the aesthetics and make the neighbors feel comfortable with what they are doing, which they
may never do, even though they go beyond what is required, with privacy walls, berms and plantings.
Everyone wants to be at the end - no one wants someone behind them. It gets to be that they can not say
they are going to lose their privacy so they bring up other things.. They are going to make sure they give
them several options. They will never see the properties the way they are going to be built with the green
walls, vegetation. When the neighbors look up it is going to stay the way it is. They are not going to
create havoc and grade down the hill.
There has been a misconception from the beginning of where the pads are going to be. Everyone that
went out to one of the meetings went into the meeting with a negative decision for them because they
were misinformed. Standing on the road looking up the homes will not be able to be seen. Whoever buys
there is going to be very private. The driveway that will service those two lots, 3 and 4, that is going to be
private. They have spoken with the Fire Department with respect to the fire issues. They required
sprinklers in all houses and knox boxes on both gates. There is more access than some of the other
houses because they have two accesses out whereas some of the other streets have only one - up and
down.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked Mrs. Calkins about the elevation of the driveway, suggested they stake out
what is going to be their elevation to give the residents an idea so they can see what they line of sight and
know is being discussed..
Mrs. Calkins: Agreed that would be helpful. In cases where they want to do some boring tests there is
probably 5 to 6 feet of debris of bushes and dead leave back there - it is a mess back there. They will do
the best on the borings and to locate the pads.
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion to continue this item for 4 weeks, to March 30, 1998, seconded
Commissioner Boydstun and motion was carried.
Commissioner Henninger; Announced that this item will not be readvertised. The public hearing will be
on March 30, 1998 at 1:30 p.m. He urged the residents to please meet with the applicant and see what
they have to say then feel free to call or write to let them know if their opinion.
OPPOSITION:: 3 people spoke and correspondence was received in opposition to subject proposal.
ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 30, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in
order for the applicant to submit a soils report, to meet with the surrounding
neighbors, and to submit elevation drawings of the type of homes proposed.
VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat)
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 31 minutes (1:35-3:06)
03-02-98
Page 17
3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Continued to
3b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-14 3-16-98
OWNER: County of Orange, PF&RD, Real Property, Attn:
Donna Garza, P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702
INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South
Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 2630-2650 East Katella Avenue tCounty of Oranoe
Katella Yard. .Property consists of two parcels
totaling approximately 16.6 acres located on the south
side of Katella Avenue, 340 feet east of the centerline
of Douglass Road.
Request for reclassification of Portion A, from the County of Orange M1
(FP-2) (Light Manufacturing, Flood Plain Overlay) Zone to the City of
Anaheim RS-A-43,000 (Residential Agricultural) Zone; and, Portions A
and B, a Resolution of Intent from the County of Orange M1 (FP-2) (Light
Manufacturing, Flood Plain Overlay) Zone (Portion A) and City of
Anaheim ML (Limited Industrial) Zone (Portion B) to the City of Anaheim
PR (Public Recreational) Zone.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
FOLLOWING IS,A SUMMARY bF, THE P~LANNING;COMMISSION-ACTION: --.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 16, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in
order for staff to resolve procedural issues related to finalizing the rezoning.
VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
03-02-98
Page 18
4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Denied
4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3055 (READVERTISED) Denied
4c. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE Denied
OR NECESSITY NO. 98-02 (Advertised as PCN No. 97-02)
OWNER: Wayne Morgenthaler, Trust, 21709 Tahoe Lane, Lake
Forest, CA 92630-1932
LOCATION: 511 West Chapman Avenue -Near Market. Property
is 1.7 acres located on the north side of Chapman
Avenue, 290 feet east of the centerline of Harbor
Boulevard.
To permit the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises
consumption (currently permitted for retail sales of beer and wine for
off-premises consumption) in an existing 1,772 square foot
convenience market in an existing 10-unit, 19,504 square foot
commercial retail center. To determine public convenience or
necessity to allow the retail sales of alcoholic beverages far off-
premises consumption.
Continued from the Commission meeting of February 18, 1998
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO PC98-27
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY
RESOLUTION NO. PC98-28
SR6544DS.DOC
0 0 • e o 0
Applicant's Statement:
Dennis Pointon, Property Manager representing the applicant: Stated he is in support of the bid to
upgrade the existing beer and wine license. The tenant is very responsible, runs a responsible business
and has never had any problems with the law or with the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). He is
requesting to upgrade the license because there are people from the over 400 condominiumssearbywhp
frequent his store. He needs to upgrade othervvise he feels the customers will go into Garden Grove to
buy their products. The Police Department said that there are five licenses out in the census area. They
believe two of those licenses are out of the boundary, leaving three licenses in the area. The applicant
has an existing beer and wine license and just wants to upgrade it due to customer requests.
Chairman Bostwick: Asked if anybody else wanted to speak for or against the item.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Peraza: Asked to hear from Police Department.
Investigator Tom Engle., Vice Detail, Police Department: Stated he received a fax from ABC that
indicated there are five off sale licenses. Even though they are in the City of Garden Grove they are still
in the boundaries of the census tract, not necessarily the reporting district. He stated that in this memo he
indicated that there is a very high crime rate of 134% above average in that area. There is an
overconcentration of licenses in that area and it does have some of the strongest restrictions placed upon
03-02-98
Page 19
it. His license from ABC states that he cannot sell beer in less than a six pack, he cannot se[I individual
cans. He cannot sell wines in less than a four pack or more that the manufacturer sells them to him. He
has to have security according to his ABC license. He is required to have the services of a private
security patrol which will make a minimum of three visits to the premises front and rear parking lots
between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. each day of the week to maintain order and to prevent any
activity which would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the property of nearby residents. Those
conditions are placed on him by the ABC because of the concerns of the citizens that live in the area.
This was a request made by the local citizens when the applicant applied for this license. It is true that
they do not receive many calls for service there, but is due to the conditions that have been placed upon
it and the security. The Police Department is still recommending denial of this upgrade to a full liquor
license.
Commissioner Peraza: Stated his opinion on this request was not anything personal towards the
applicant but agreed with the Police Department and did not feel he could not vote for this request.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Denied Negative Declaration
Denied Conditional Use :Permit No. 3055, as readvertised.
Denied Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 98-02.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat)
Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (3:07-3:13)
03-02-98
Page 20
__
Sa. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to
5b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 352 3-16-98
5c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98.09
5d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
5e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4000
5f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15610
5g. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 5a. 5c. 5d. Se and 5f
OWNER: Dow's Acreage, Attn: Linda Kenski, P.O. Box 6295,
Garden Grove, CA 92645-0252
AGENT: The Olson Company, Attn: Anna-Lisa Hernandez,
3010 Old Ranch Parkway, #400, Seal Beach, CA
90740
LOCATION: 112 - 218 South Brookhurst Street. Property is 6.25
acres located on the east side of Brookhurst Street,
216 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue.
General Plan Amendment No. 352: To redesignate this property from
the General Commercial land use designation to the Low-Medium
Density Residential land use designation.
Reclassification No. 97-98.09: To reclassify this property from the CL
(Commercial, Limited) Zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-
Family) Zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4000: To construct a 60-unit (advertised
as 62-unit) detached RM-3000 condominium development with waivers
of (a) minimum dimension of parking spaces, (b) minimum recreational-
leisure areas and (c) minimum structural setback abutting one-family
residential developments.
Tentative Tract Map No. 15610: To establish a 68-lot, (including 8
lettered lots and 60 residential lots (advertised as 62-units)) subdivision
for a detached RM-3000 condominium development.
Continued from the Commission meeting of February 18, 1998.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
SR6544DS.DOC
~„ ,;,; FOLLOWING IS'A SUMMARYaOF THE P~LANNING!COMMISSIQN ACTION:,,-~„ "; ~ ='- - ~~
Chairman Bostwick: Stated a written request was received from the applicant requesting a continuance
and asked if there was anyone present to speak on this item.
03-02-98
Page 21
Public Testimony:
Esther Wallace, 604 Scott Lane, Anaheim, CA (Chairman of WAND): She and the residents meet with
the Olson Company to discuss this development. At that time the residents were shown a large rendering
of the layout and not given individual plans. They liked the design and plans, but they were not given
complete information. She spent the next two days trying tp obtain additional information and concluded
with the following concerns:
Driveways -The lots were 3,000 square feet which they were not informed about. They were told there
were a couple of short driveways, and later found out there were 10 short driveways. But now she found
out there are going to be 33 short driveways.
Garages -They were not told about the 18 foot garages. She feels these garages are too small and
would not want to set a precedent by allowing these short garages. She suggests a couple of homes be
removed to make room for regular size garages and regular size driveways.
Sidewalks -She is also concerned about having sidewalks only on one side of the street. Again this
would set a precedent. They have been trying to get sidewalks in front of all existing homes in the area.
Resale value - When the homes are resold and people see the short garages and driveways. Those
homes will not be attractive to the buyers. Homes next to Target next to Mueller and Lincoln are very
close together. They are 11.9 homes per acre which is too close, They are supposed to be 9:6 but were
told 8.8 at the meeting.
Traffic problems -Some of the residents had concern with residents coming out onto Brookhurst from the
tract and trying to move over to the left hand lane to make a left onto Lincoln, especially with the high
school children in the morning.
Security -The applicant did mention the waiver behind the garages because some garages on the back
were going to be two or three feet. Her concern with the two or three feet from the fence is whether
people will try to get into that tract by going over the fence and onto the garages to try to get in.
There seems to be an inconsistency and incorrect information from the applicant to the residents. She
would like Commission to reconsider the size of the garages and removing a few of the homes. She
visited the Peppertree Homes next to Target and they were built well. She did not want to discourage this
applicant from building in their area, but does not want waivers to be approved.
Mike Perez, Director of Facilities and Planning for the Anaheim City Sdhool District: He referenced a
letter that was sent the Commission and indicated he would hold off his comments until the next public
hearing (on March 16, 1998). He complimented the staff. They were instrumental in getting the developer
to speak with them last Friday and in turn they received needed :information about the project.
Chairman Bostwick: Offered a motion for a continuance to March 16, 1998, seconded by Commissioner
Peraza and motion was carried.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated he thought 18 wide and 20 deep probably works but if that was going to
be done that it would need to be fully clear and have room for a stair unit water heat and trash cans
somewhere else outside that clear rectangle. He was concerned with precedence being set and how that
might be handled. If the applicant comes to an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency regarding the
affordability, he felt Commission has to give them certain waivers. So if they were going to do that then
he might agree with the waiver, but only with that agreement.
OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke with concerns,
03-02-98
Page 22
ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 16, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for
the applicant to address the issues related to Code-required garage and driveway
dimensions described in the staff report and for the applicant to meet with the local
neighborhood committees to address additional concerns regarding the proposed project.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat)
DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (3:14-3:21)
03-02-98
Page 23
6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 615 (READVERTISED)
OWNER: Larry Haupert, 18341 Cerro, Villa Park, CA 92807
INITIATEp: City Initiated (Code Enforcement Division), 200 S.
Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805
OPERATOR: Francisco Gutierrez, 1266 E. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim,
CA 92805
LOCATION: 1266 East Lincoln Avenue -Gutierrez Tires.
Property is 0.28 acre located on the south side of
Lincoln Avenue, 810 feet east of the centerline of East
Street
To retain an existing fire sales and service facility.
Continued from the Commission meetings of December 8, 1997 and
January 5, 1998.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
Continued to
3-30-98
FOLLOWING,IS A SUMMARY OF THE P.~ANNING COMMISSION ACTION., . ;;,
Commissioner Peraza: Offered a motion for a continuance to March 30, 1998, seconded Commissioner
Henninger and motion was carried.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 30, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in
order for the petitioner to complete the improvements and address the outstanding
Code violations and conditions.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat)
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (3:22-3:23)
03-02-98
Page 24
7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREY. APPROVED) Continued tp
7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2992 (REAOVERTISED) 3-16-98
OWNER: Leonard and Cyndie Chaidez, P.O. Box 29, Anaheim,
CA 92805
LOCATION: 507 South Lemon Street -Leonard Chaidez Tree
Service. Property is 0.56 acre located at the
southwest corner of Santa Ana Street and Lemon
Street.
To reinstate this conditional use permit by the modification or deletion of
a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain a tree
service contractor's yard.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
SR1041 MA.DOC
~,' ,;; - -„ ".;,; ~~,F,OLL`OWING IS~A SUMMARYOF THE F,LANNINGCOMMISSION ACTION. ;,~:-. : ~~ ~ ~ h,;,;;.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 16, 1998 Planning Commission meeting as
requested by the applicant in order for him to comply with the conditions of approval.
VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
03-02-98
Page 25
8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5
8b. VARIANCE N0.4354
8c. REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A FINAL SIGN PLAN
OWNER: Changiz and Rebecca Zomorodian, 100 South
Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: 301 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is 0.93
acre located at the southwest corner of Broadway and
Anaheim Boulevard.
Waiver of minimum number of trees adjacent to interior property lines
and review and approval of a final monument sign plan.
Advertised as a Negative DeGaralion.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC98-29
Concurred w/staff
Granted
Approved
".~`,,;;,;' ~ - 'FOLLOWING IS,A SUMMARY;OF-THE P,LANNING~COMMI$$ION AC,TiION:', ~, ,-_" ~ ~; "~-.~,~
Applicant's Statement:
Shane Shaw, Growth Management Company, 3820 E. La Palma, Anaheim, CA: Stated they are the
architect and the engineer for this project. They are requesting a waiver of the 5 foot landscape behind
the building. Code requires that they have a 5 foot landscape, however, that 5 foot landscape does not
serve any purpose and is hard to maintain.
The size of the canopy has been enlarged. It does not mean that the posts or the equipment of the
canopy has been enlarged only the top portion, to create more of a cover for their client.
The monument sign meets all the requirements for the triangular shape sign, however, they request to
have their option open for either adouble-faced or triangular sign.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Bostwick: Asked staff their opinion regarding the sign.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, Planning Department: Responded staff is comfortable with either of the
signs. The sign that was approved under the conditional use permit meets the code requirements and the
other one does as well. The applicant would like the option if for some reason, the triangular faced-
monumentsign is not feasible that he be able to construct the double-faced monument sign that was
previously approved.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: The applicant may want tp indicate the size of the canopy since that
information is not in the staff report.
Chairman Bostwick: Asked the applicant how large is the canopy proposed to be?
Shane Shaw: Responded 50 feet by 100 feet.
Cheryl Flores: Stated staff had concerns regarding the car wash wall which would be facing west. The
wall will have a stucco finish and, if approved, it be conditioned that the wall be textured to match the
other walls of the service station.
03-02-98
Page 26
Shane Shaw: Stated they do not have a problem with that.
Discussion during the voting:
Chairman Bostwick: Recommend that the west car wash wall be finished and stucco to match the
building.
Cheryl Flores: Regarding Condition No. 1. She clarified that the 123 additional square feet of
landscaping shall be provided.
Shane Shaw: Stated they had a meeting with the Redevelopment Agency and explained their position of
what would to be functional and workable. They offer a resort type landscape for the area, however, it
was not required. They agreed that they were going to put the potted plant (large trees) in lieu of the
landscape which they are short on. That is going to be facing Broadway.
Cheryl Flores: Stated the four potted trees that are required adjacent to the north elevation are not to be
counted towards the total tree requirement which is 40 in ground trees. The plans and owner have
indicated that there will be 40 in ground trees planted on site. However, Condition No. 1 requires 123
square feet of additional landscape area -meaning planting area to be provided on the site.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if that was the space that was lost with the 5 feet?
Cheryl Flores: Responded no. On the original approved plans there were two planters facing Anaheim
Boulevard at the front of the service station building. Those have been deleted from the revised plans.
They are making up 57 square feet of the 180 square feet that was lost by deleting those two planters but
there are still 120 feet missing. It would be up to the Commission whether or not they felt they should
have to provide that square footage by meeting this condition. The applicant feels it is impossible to find
an area to place that in.
Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested that be taken out. They are going to have the boxes along the side
of the building also.
Chairman Bostwick: Stated the trees and the planters were in the original approval and they are adding
some landscaping on the north side towards Broadway in the corner, but they are still short the 123.
Shane Shaw: Stated he felt they far exceed the requirements of the landscaping. Perhaps they are a
little short on square footage, however, the landscape they proposed meets the resort requirements (not
for the area). He asked Commission take that in consideration that 123 foot shortage.
Chairman'Bostwick: Recommended modifying the resolution to change Condition Nb. 1 and remove the
last 3 sentences, leaving only the first two sentences and a minimum of 40 15-gallon trees shall be
planted on the property not including 4 Cape Chestnut trees to be planted in pots adjacent tc the north
building elevation.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical
Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR.
Granted Variance No. 4354 with the following changes to conditions:
03-02-98
Page 27
Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows:
That a minimum of forty (40), minimum 15-gallon size trees shall be planted on
the property, not including four (4) Cape Chestnut trees to be planted in pots
adjacent to the north building elevation. Said information shall be specifically
shown on plans submitted for building permits.
Added the following condition:
That the west carwash wall and the south elevation shall be stucco-finished to match
the front of the building.
MOTION: ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby:
(1) Approve the submitted plan for atriangular-shaped monument sign to include 9-
inch high address numbers and a brick base (to match the convenience market
building), on the basis that it is consistent with conditions of approval and Code
requirements for a freestanding sign;
(2) Give the applicant the option of installing the double-faced monument sign
approved on February 2, 1998 or the proposed triangular-shaped monument
sign; and
(3) Approved a larger pump island canopy not to exceed fifty (50) feet by one
hundred (100) feet in size.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat)
Malcom Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (3:24-3:33)
03-02-98
Page 28
9b.
OWNER: Dutchman Plastering, Inc., 525 N. Main Street,
Orange, CA 92626
AGENT: Neff Rental, 1354 North Red Gum Street, Anaheim,
CA 92806
LOCATION: 1354 North Red Gum Street. Property is 1.85 acres
located on the east side of Red Gum Street, 390 feet
south of the centerline of La Jolla Street.
To permit a large equipment rental yard.
CONDITIONAL uSE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-30
Granted for 3 years
(To expire 3-2-01)
„~~ -' - ~ " , FOLLOWING iIS A SUMMARYOF, THE P,LANNINGiCOMMISSION~ACTiION.; " - -. - ~-, ~~,~;-'~
Applicant's Statement:
Dan Bhone, 3032 East Palmar Avenue, Orange, CA: Stated he is currently managing a branch for Neff
Rental on Red Gum in Anaheim. They rent equipment mainly to contractors, cities and anything to do
with maintenance activities. Neff Rental is a national corporation with over 66 branches across the
country. Anaheim is the second branch to open in California, with plans to open or acquire many more
branches in southern California over the next few years. They chose Anaheim for many reasons.
Anaheim is the best place for them to be for the long term outlook. They are secured with a 7 year lease
with two 5-year extensions on the property. They play a significant rcle in the City by growing jobs,
helping grow the economy, providing a good and safe place to work, donating funds and equipment to
.non-profit groups. On a national level they raise money towards many worthy causes. Locally, they have
become part of an emergency response team. He raised the following concerns:
Page 2, Item No. 11 -The plans indicate 27 parking spaces plus 8 more spaces for a total of 35.
He understands the guidelines set before them today but they are only going to have 8 to 12
employees, especially over the next few years. The previous tenant only had two spaces striped.
He further addressed this issued by referring to page 5, Item No. 4 ,regarding the 35 code
required spaces. He stated in some cases they might need this space for their equipment. He
asked that the number of parking spaces required be reduced.
Page 5, Item No. 1 -Regarding the displaying equipment. Displaying equipment is part of their
business and it is one form of their advertising. It is something that they need in order to show
that they are in business and what they have to offer. They would never park any equipment on
the street or in the driveway areas. They do need to raise the equipment sometimes and leave it
in the raised position for hours or over night to see check the equipment for safety reason. They
need to know when they send it out to a job site that it is going to function properly.
Page 5, Item No. 9 - It takes time to establish business relationships so they do not want to
relocate after it has begun. In their business location and longevity play key factors in
establishing and maintaining long term customer relationships.
In 1975 the previous tenant was granted a conditional use permit with no restrictions or provisions for a
contractors storage yard. To date there is nothing found in the public record to indicate any problems with
the business neighbors or the community in general since 1975 to present. It is evident by the absence of
opposition that the contractors storage yard never adversely affected the community. The previous tenant
03-02-98
Page 29
had a much greater negative impact on their neighbors and community. He asked that Commission
reconsider Item No. 9 on page 5 and change the expiration date to be in line with their lease agreement.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Peraza: Asked staff the reason for the two year recommendation?
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, Planning Department; Stated it is typical that they put a two year limitation
on a new use. This use is different from the contractor storage yard that was there before. Due to the
type of equipment they are concerned about equipment being elevated and displayed. Staff wants to
make sure this is an appropriate use for this site. At the end of two years the applicant can come back
and ask for an extension of time to remain at this location. This is the first she has heard that the
equipment would need to be left overnight in an elevated position. They did indicate that there would be
times when they would need to elevate it to show a customer, then bring it back down.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked about the parking waiver request since that was not advertised.
Cheryl Flores: Stated staff was not aware that the applicant wanted a parking waiver. There is room to
stripe the spaces. She thought perhaps the applicant is not aware that this would take an official waiver to
grant that.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated the other rental yards throughout the City have this condition regarding
display. The applicant mentioned the business at Lakeview and La Palma but he did not recall seeing
things displayed in the front yard setback..
Cheryl Flores: Mentioned there was one recently before Planning Commission at the 1500 block of
Katella and there was the same condition of approval that stated the lifts not be elevate. Staff tries to
evaluated each one of these types of requests individually according to the surrounding neighborhood.
Commissioner Henninger: Wondered whether this is an improper location for the use.
Dan Bhone: Responded in their particular case, they are not a home owner rental yard, they are a
contractor with equipment so they are not looking for a lot of traffic coming in to their location. Basically,
all of their equipment is delivered from their location to the site. Freeway exposure is something they did
not look for.
Chairman Bostwick: Asked Mr. Bhone if he had a problem with striping more spaces to achieve the 35
that are required. Obviously they may not be parking in but that they are striped and available.
Dan Bhone: Responded no. They did not have an objection to that. They wanted the City and
Commission to understand that they may need that area to park their equipment from time to time, and 35
spaces may not necessarily be available. They will be having 12 employees.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated unless you have a parking problem no one will care what is parked in
the spaces. Someone will care if they have their employees parking out in the street.
Can Bhone: Stated there is adequate space to park in the property outside the gate.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager, Planning Department: Stated he would agree that staff is not actively
looking for those kinds of violations but if it does occur it is important that the plan indicate the parking
spaces should they need to have them striped. Staff is concerned with esthetics and concerned with the
excessive display of equipment where items are elevated just for purposes of display. Their concern is
that there are other industrial uses who may also wish to display their goods a well in public view.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated the applicant indicated the equipment is delivered at sites which was a
response to his previous question, whether this was the right location. If that is the case can they really
03-02-98
Page 30
live with this condition regarding the display? The reason display is in quotes is because that is what staff
is concerned about. They are not concerned about the applicant testing his equipment occasionally.
Dan Bhone: Stated he could accept that clarification of the condition. He added that their lease is based
on receiving their permit to be able to operate.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked Commissioners their thought on the time limit.
Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested perhaps going 3 years, then the applicant could request to extend it
at the end of the 3 years to the terms of their lease which would be 4 years after that time. She then
asked the applicant his thoughts on this suggestion and explained that normally Commission puts a limit
on the permit the first time to make sure the applicant is complying . They have not had problems in
extending the use of permits in those instance.
Dan Bhone: Responded that is why he explained to Commission that the previous tenant, in 22 years,
had no problems. They had a lot more activity then the applicant will ever have. They have no problem
living up to their terms. He was just trying to obtain some security.
Chairman Bostwick: Stated if they are as good a civic partner as he claims to be then he probably would
have no problem.
Cheryl Flores: Requested a condition be added to tie the signage to the exhibits submitted and if there
were any new additional signs proposed that they would need to return to Commission as a Reports and
Recommendations Item.
During the voting:
Commissioner Henninger: Recommended changing Condition No. 9 to state that the conditional use
permit shall expire in 3 years. Also add a condition to state that the sign on the property conform to the
approved .plans and return as a Reports and Recommendation Item on any new signs.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaraticn
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4006 for 3 years with the following changes to
conditions:
Modified Condition No. 9 to read as follows:
9. That subject use permit shall expire three (3) years from the date of this
resolution, on March 2, 2001.
Added the following condition:
That signage for subject facility shall be limited to that shown on the exhibits
submitted by the petitioner. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by
the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 16 minutes (3:34-3:50)
03-02-98
Page 31
live with this condition regarding the display? The reason display is in quotes is because that is what staff
is concerned about. They are not concerned about the applicant testing his equipment occasionally.
Dan Bhone: Stated he could accept that clarification of the condition. He added that their lease is based
on receiving their permit to be able to operate.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked Commissioners their thought on the time limit.
Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested perhaps going 3 years, then the applicant could request to extend it
at the end of the 3 years to the terms of their lease which would be 4 years after that time. She then
asked the applicant his thoughts on this suggestion and explained that normally Commission puts a limit
on the permit the first time to make sure the applicant is complying . They have not had problems in
extending the use of permits in those instance.
Dan Bhone: Responded that is why he explained to Commission that the previous tenant, in 22 years,
had no problems. They had a lot more activity then the applicant will ever have. They have no problem
living up to their terms. He was just trying to obtain some security.
Chairman Bostwick: Stated if they are as good a civic partner as he claims to be then he probably would
have no protilem.
Cheryl Flores: Requested a condition be added to tie the signage to the exhibits submitted and if there
were any new additional signs proposed that they would need to return to Commission as a Reports and
Recommendations Item.
During the voting
Commissioner Henninger: Recommended changing Condition No. 9 to state that the conditional use
permit shall expire in 3 years. Also add a condition to state that the sign on the property conform to the
approved plans and return as a Reports and Recommendation Item on any new signs.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4006 for 3 years with the following changes to
conditions:
Modified Condition No. 9 to read as follows:
9. That subject use permit shall expire three (3) years from the date of this
resolution, on March 2, 2001.
Added the following condition:
That signage for subject facility shall be limited to that shown on the exhibits
submitted by the petitioner. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by
the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Bristol absent and one vacant seat)
Selma Mann, Assistant Ciry Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 16 minutes (3:34-3:50)
03-02-98
Page 31
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:55
TO MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1998, AT 9:00 A.M.
FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
AND A TOUR OF THE STADIUM
Submitted by:
Ossie Edmundson
Senior Secretary
03-02-98
Page 32