Minutes-PC 1997/11/24SlJ A Y ACTIO AGENDA
ANAEI CITY
I'LANNI G CO n/IISSIO EETI G
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1997
1 1:00 A.M. STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS
CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES
• PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
• PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION:
STATUS OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS 17
(EAST ANAHEIM), 1 AND 3
1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, NAPOLES, PERAZA
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: HENNINGER AND MAYER
STAFF PRESENT:
Selma Mann
Greg Hastings
Cheryl Flores
Karen Freeman
Greg McCafferty
Bruce Freeman
Alfred Yalda
Margarita Solorio
Ossie Edmundson
Assistant City Attorney
Zoning Division Manager
Senior Planner
Associate Planner
Associate Planner
Code Enforcement Supervisor
Principal Transportation Planner
Senior Secretary
Secretary
P:\DOCS\CLERICAL\M INUTES\AC 112497. W P
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
NONE
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. REQUEST TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE
ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN FOR USE OF DONATED SPACE:
Thurman Hodges, Senior Real Property Agent, County of
Orange, Health Care Agency, 515 North Sycamore Street,
Santa Ana, CA 92701, requests determination of conformance
with the Anaheim General Plan for County use of donated
space for a public health care clinic for the aged. Property is
located at 501 East Orangethorpe Avenue (Rancho La Paz
Mobile Home Park).
Continued from the Commission meeting of November 10, 1997.
ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners
Henninger and Mayer absent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby find that the County's proposed use of
donated space at 501 East Orangethorpe Avenue for a public health
care clinic for the aged is not in conformance with the Anaheim
General Plan.
Determined that
subject request is
not in conformance
with the Anaheim
General Plan
SR1014KF.DOC
Karen Freeman, Associate Planner: Stated subject space is zoned ML (Limited Industrial)
and designated General Industrial in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Staff is
recommending the Planning Commission find the proposal not in conformance with the . _
General Plan based on the use .not being consistent with the General Industrial land uses.
However, Planning Commission may wish to note that regardless of whether or not they find _ _.
the proposal in conformance with the General Plan, it does not preclude the County from
moving forward with the project.
11-24-97
Page 2
B. a. CEQA MITIGATED NEG. DECLARATION (PREY.-APPV'D)
b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14130 -REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3301 -REQUEST FOR A
RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: Blash Momeny, 22351
Amber Rose, Mission Viejo, CA 92692, request: (Tentative
Tract Map No. 14130) aone-year extension of time to comply
with conditions of approval (to establish an 18-lot single-family
subdivision) and (Conditional Use Permit No. 3301) aone-
year retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of
approval (to construct 2 dwelling units within the Flood Plain
O/L Zone to establish a 19-IoU18-unit RS-5000 single family
residential subdivision with waivers of required lot frontage and
minimum distance between units). These petitions were
originally approved on August 21, 1990. Property is located at
the northwest terminus of Garland Circle.
CUP EXTENSION OF TIME RESOLUTION NO. PC97-165
Continued from the Commission meetings of October 27, and
November 10, 1997.
ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Bristdl and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners
Henninger and Mayer absent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby determine the previously approved
Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required
environmental documentation for this request.
Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Bristdl and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners
Henninger and .Mayer absent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby approve aone-year time extension for
Tentative Tract Map No. 14733, Revision No. 1, to expire on
August 21, 1998.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal
rights.
Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC97-165 and moved
for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby approve aone-year retroactive extension of
time to comply with conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit
No. 3301.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL,
Approved
Approved extension
of time
Approved extension
of time
(To expire 8-21-98)
(Vote: 5-0,
Commissioners
Henninger and
Mayer absent)
11-24-97
Page 3
C. a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREY: APPROVED)
b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3839 -REQUEST FOR A
RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: Knott Avenue
Christian Church, 315 South Knott Street, Anaheim, CA
92804, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with
conditions of approval (to expand an existing church facility to
include a 2-story administration, classroom, fellowship, hall,
and gymnasium building with waivers of maximum building
height and minimum number of parking spaces). This petition
was originally approved on June 10, 1996. Property is
located at 315 South Knott Street.
Continued from the Commission meeting of October 27, 1997.
CUP EXTENSION OF TIME RESOLUTION NO. PC97-166
Approved
Approved
(To expire 6-10-98)
(Vote: 5-0;
Commissioners
Henninger and
Mayer absent)
SR6534DS.DOC
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated this was continued from the meeting of November 10,
1997 so that staff could check on the status of the two trailers that are located on the
property. It was found that they were permitted by Conditional Use Permit No. 622 in 1964.
They will be removed at the beginning of construction granted under this conditional use
permit. If the applicant chooses to place the trailers elsewhere on the property, they will need
to be looked at as a separate conditional use permit or readvertisement.
Commissioner Peraza: Stated for the record, he was absent at the previous meeting but he
read the minutes.
11-24-97
Page 4
D. REQUEST FOR INITIATION OF RECLASSIFICATION Initiated
PROCEEDINGS: City-initiated (Planning Department), 200 reclassification
South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, request for proceedings
initiation of reclassification proceedings. Property is at 2630-
2650 East Katella Avenue., County of Orange Katella Yard.
ACTION: Chairman Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners
Henninger and Mayer absent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby initiate two reclassifications of the subject
property as follows:
Portion A: from the M1 (FP-2) (Light Manufacturing, Flood Plain
Overlay) Zone to the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone;
and
Portions A and B: from the M1 (FP-2) (Light Manufacturing, Flood
Plain Overlay) Zone (Portion A) and ML (Limited Industrial) Zone
(Portion B) to a Resolution of Intent to the PR {Public Recreational)
Zone.
SR6849GM.WP
Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: Stated this is the first step in the process. The actual
formal reclassification will be brought to Commission in a separate public hearing at a later
date.
11-24-97
Page 5
E. EIR NO. 320 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) Approved
AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 120 (PREVIOUSLY- Approved final
APPROVED) -REQUEST REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: Ogden plans
Entertainment, Inc., Attn: Thomas C. Etter, Two Pennsylvania
Place, New York, N.Y. 10121 and Turner Constructipn
Company, Attn: Joel A. Seaton, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite
3700, Los Angeles, CA 90013, requests review of final plans
for "Tinseltown Studios", a 700-seat themed dinner theater.
Property location is the Anaheim Stadium property.
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners
Henninger and Mayer absent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR
No. 320 is adequate to serve as the required environmental
documentation for subject request.
Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Henninger and
Mayer absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby receive and file Exhibit Nos. 1 through 8, consisting of the
final site and landscape plan, floor plans, elevations, roof plan, and
color board, for Tinseltown Studios, in compliance with Condition
No. 2 of Area Development Plan No. 120.
S R7003AS. W P
[fHE FOLLOWING IS A DETAILED SUMMARY OF .ITEM NO. 1-E.]
Chairman Bostwick: Item No. 1-E is a request for review of final development plans of
Tinseltown. Staff?
Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning
Commission, representatives from Tinseltown are here to give you an overview of the final
plans and walk you through the model as well as a video presentation they have prepared for
the project. I would like to introduce Jim Garber from Tinseltown.
Jim Garber: Thank you members of the Commission. My :name is Jim Garber and I
represent Garland Productions which is located here in Anaheim at 2400 East Katella, Suite . _,
450. Our responsibility is for the show development and marketing for Tinseltown and we've
been involved in the show creation. Joining me here today is Ron Drake who is the General
Manager for the Tinseltown project and also we have representatives here from Studio Avanti
and Turner Construction who will be responsible for the look and construction of Tinseltown. I
know you had an opportunity this morning to hear some of the particulars related to the
project. I hope you are already aware it's to be located on the northwest quadrant of the
Anaheim Stadium parking lot. The property itself, the building, will take approximately 1.25
acres. Its cost is about $15 million dollars and it's our hope to have the project open by
November of 1998. What I would like to do is take a few minutes to show you something that
11-24-97
Page 6
I don't believe you had the opportunity to see this morning and that is a quick video that we
have put together to introduce the project. From a marketing standpoint, I think it gives you,
better than I can, a quick overview and a visual look of what Tinseltown is going to be. It
takes about five minutes. So, if you don't mind I will step around and play the video for you.
[A video of Tinseltown was presented to the Planning Commission.]
Jim Garber: Just to give you an idea, the intent really of the facility is not just to create a
sound stage out in a parking lot. It is to turn around and really create what impresses people
as being a real working studio in miniature form and what we have tried to do here is create a
studio lot in terms of feel and appearance. The intent, through our mythological leader, Cohn
Warner Mayer Wynn Selznick, is that people don't buy a ticket to attend Tinseltown, they
actually purchase an invitaticn and every night 700 of .his closest friends are gathered for this
Tinseltown awards ceremony. When they walk through the gate and into the courtyard the
feel will be that there are N cameras on either side. You can be interviewed that night, be a
celebrity from our equivalent of Access Hollywood or Entertainment Tonight. On one side will
be a retail facility of about 2,000 square feet. On the other side will be a water tower, that is
kind of our icon for the project, that is about 75 feet tall. Guests enter apre-show area and
when they arrive there it's almost like an art deco look of Hollywood's past, almost like an old
town theater lobby and there will be a bar in there where Busby Berkeley blondes will serve
refreshment to those who desire them. In front of them will be N.monitors to showcase
classic films of the past and there will be a Hollywood movie set that they can get their picture
taken on or enter into the retail facility. Once inside the main show room, there are 700 seats
and we actually spend close to an hour hosting our guest for dinner. It will be an excellent
gourmet dinner for the evening and then the last hour is really into what is, in essence, a N
show, except the big difference is it's not televised around the world but it is televised to
those within the facility. There were two words in the film clip that I think are awfully
important. One is "interactive" and the other is "fun-filled". It is important far you to
understand we are not poking fun at Hollywood, we are celebrating Hollywood and that is, in
essence, what we are trying to do from a show standpoint. The other thing is we are trying to
get away from the idea that the guest is the spectator but make them very much a part of the
action and in some form or fashion whether it is on the red carpet being .interviewed by the
N cameras or the autograph hounds that we talked about, everyone during the night will be
made to feel special. Well, I guess that is about as good as I can do for a general over view
of the facility and the show that is planned. If you have any questions we'd sure be happy to
answer them.
Chairman Bostwick: All right. I think the Commission this morning had a few questions and I
will go on record stating my concern over the landscaping. So that the record shows we are
concerned about the landscaping surrounding this project. Understanding that the City is _
going to do a number of this and that, it is part of the Sportstown complex. The landscaping
plans as shown show the front being landscaped but the rest of it is kind of one large parking
lot. I guess we are going to have to take it on faith that we get landscaping throughout the
rest of this?
11-24-97
Page 7
Greg McCafferty: Mr. Chairman, you're correct. It is part of the larger Sportstown project.
There will be additional landscaping placed within the parking areas and the entry road as
well as along the public right-of-way. With this phase, there will be a new intersection placed
to align with the Stadium Crossings project across the street. When the rest of Sportstown is
built, there will be landscaped enhancement along the public rights-of-way as well.
Chairman Bostwick: I think there was also a concern Commissioner Boydstun had as to the
restroom facilities. We are not here to micro-manage your project but I think there's marked
out 10 facilities for the ladies, which if you have 700 people eating dinner, is totally
inadequate in our estimation. So, I would give that to the architects. They need to change
the design.
Greg McCafferty: We spoke with the architects and the Building Division during the break,
between the morning session and this afternoon, and maybe someone from Avanti can
explain their thinking on the bathrooms, if you would like.
Chairman Bostwick: Sure.
Brent Thompson: My name is Brent Thompson. I am with Studio Avanti, We are
entertainment architects. We do a lot of work for Sony and Disney and some other folks you
may have heard of. We originally had just over half as many toilets. We did a lot of looking
into the Codes and so forth and Code actually :requires very few. At the request of the
clients, Ogden, they doubled the number and actually added toilet rooms on both sides of the
facility instead of just one. There is also a number of other toilet rooms spread around the
facility for all the employees and so forth. So that takes some of thepressure off of them.
But our thinking is that because of the way the show functions and so forth that there won't
be a big crush at any one time but that people always have the ability to get up and go to the
restrooms and that is not like a typical theater where there is an intermission and everyone
dumps into the toilets at one time.
Commissioner Boydstun: What is the Code for this, Greg?
Greg McCafferty: The Plumbing Code, I believe, requires one toilet per 100 occupants and
that doesn't distinguish between male and female. So you would divide that by two to come
up with the spread between the women and men's restrooms or toilets. So, if you took that
literally, 1 per 100 with 700 seats that would be 7 toilets. However, this does not take into
account, and we believe this has validity, that in addition to the fixed seats, you have the pre-
show area where you can get a cocktail and you spend some time there. So we will be
working With the Building Division and the applicant to address that open area as well. Just
to make sure that they have enough toilets. _,
Commissioner Boydstun: What you have just does not seem like enough for that number of
people for that long a time. We have had this situation in other facilities. They meet Code
but then people are screaming all the time that there aren't enough toilets and when they
remodel they add more. You want something people aren't complaining about afterwards,
think.
Brent Thompson: It probably bears further looking into
11-24-97
.Page 8
Chairman Bostwick: Yes, I would imagine that one on the upper portion there if you just
doubled that, just took it out even with the edge of the building it would probably ...
Brent Thompson: Actually our property line comes about here.
Chairman Bostwick: Well, take it to the property line. I think it will pay dividends in the long'
run. Are there any other questions?
Commissioner Boydstun: When you look at it you have more than one bay at The Pond and
there are several bays on every level.
Brent Thompson: We'll take a look at that.
[Voting as follows:]
Commissioner Bristol: I'll make a .motion for previously-certified Environmental Impact Report
No. 320.
Commissioner Peraza: Second.
Chairman Bostwick: We have a motion and a second for apreviously-certified Environmental
Impact Report. All those in favor say Aye? Opposed? Motion carried.
Commissioner Bristol: I'll offer a motion to receive and file these final development plans for
Tinseltown, per Area Development Plan No. 120.
Commissioner Peraza: Second.
Chairman Bostwick: Okay, we have a motion and a second to receive and file these plans.
All those in favor say Aye? Opposed? Motion carried. Good luck. It is going to be great.
Glad we have some excitement in Anaheim.
11-24-97
Page 9
F. CEC+A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREY.-APPROVED) Approved
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3920 -REQUEST FOR Approved final
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAN: OTR Ohio plans
General Partnership, c/o Donahue Schriber, 3501 Jamboree
Road, #300, Newport Beach, CA 92660, requests review and
approval of final plans for apreviously-approved child day-care
facility. Property is located at The Anaheim Hills Festival
Shopping Center.
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners
Henninger and :Mayer absent), that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby determine the previously approved Negative
Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental
documentation for this request.
Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Gommissioner
Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Henninger and
Mayer absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby approve the final plans for the previously-approved child day-
care facility, provided that the owner/developer shall submit a paint
schedule to the Zoning Division for review and approval prior to
issuance of a building permit.
SR6850K6. W P
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated this is was a request fora 15,000 square foot outdoor
play area and a 10,000 square foot child day care facility. The plans are in conformance with
the guidelines of The Festival Center. Staff had concerns regarding the color scheme that it
match with shopping center. Just prior to the meeting, she gave Commission some color
schemes. They do match the rest of the center and staff recommends approval of these final
plans.
Cheryl Flores: Stated for your information, there is a condition of approval that they will be
coming back. There is a requirement that any roof-mounted air conditioning units, needs to
be 2 decibels reduction over what is there now.
11-24-97
Page 10
PUBLIC HEARIidG ITEMS
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued'
2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3966 to 1-21-913
OWNER: Walter A. Friedman, 624 Bamsdale Street, Anaheim,
CA 92804
AGENT: Mark Scheuerman, 105 South State College
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 105 South State College Boutevard - Insta-Tune
and Lube. Property is 0.35 acre located at the
southwest corner of State College Boulevard and
Center Street.
To permit a 1,266 square foot expansion of an existing 1,008 square
foot lubrication, oil change and smog check and minor auto repair
facility.
Continued from the Commission meetings of September 29,
October 27, and November 10, 1997.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
S R6845KP. W P
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNfNG COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 21, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, as
requested by the petitioner in a letter dated November 19, 1997.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Henninger and Mayer absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
11-24-97
Page 11
3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3978 Granted
OWNER: Pick Your Part Auto Wrecking, 1301 E. Orangewood
Ave.., #130, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: Cindy Galfin, 1301 E. Orangewood Ave., #130,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1235 South Beach Boulevard -Pick Your Part.
Property is 4.5 acres located on the west side of
Beach Boulevard, 330 feet south of the centerline of
Ball Road.
To construct a 2-story 3,700 square foot building for automobile
glass and stereo/alarm sales and installation and awalk-up
restaurant with outdoor dining.
Continued from the Commission meetings of October 27, and
November 10, 1997.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-167
SR6848KP.WP
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
Applicant's Statement:
Cindy Galfin, Vice President of Pick-Your-Part Auto Recycling, 1301 E. Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim,
CA: Stated Pick-Your-Part Auto Recycling proposes to build a mediterranean style building in the
parking lot of the existing Pick-Your-Part facility. The two-story building will house an automobile glass
.and stereo/alarm sales and installation shop and awalk-up dinner with an outdoor patio area. There
will be a sales office and waiting area downstairs and storage upstairs. The building will be situated
on the southwest side of the property, abutting the Stanton property line where the existing retail sales
yard is. The property is zoned Commercial and Pick-Your-Part Auto .Recycling operates a portion of its
recycling facility at this site under a different conditional use permit. Customers go through the parking
lot southbound and exit the parking lot at Beach Boulevard southbound only. They will park in
designated parking stalls and enter the building to make their purchase. There will be sales of new
.and used stereos and new and used auto glass. All installation will be performed inside the proposed
building, in the designated bays only. There will be no installation allowed in the parking lot and the
same conditions that apply to Pick-Your-Part will apply to this particular use. They will .manage the
parking lot, the building, the use and everything else.. This facility will provide an added service to
Pick-Your-.Part customers. It will eliminate the catering truck that currently parks inside the retail area
of the Stanton facility and that will now go indoors as a walk-up dinner.
11-24-97
Page 12
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Bostwick: Asked Ms. Galfin about Item No. 21, page 5 of the staff report. The Mitigation
Monitoring Plan under their existing Condition Use Permit No. 3608 requires establishment of a
telephone hotline for parts and vehicle availability which has not been meet.
Cindy Galfin: Responded this condition was discussed at City Council. It is not something that Pick-
Your-Part could do. It was suppose to have been eliminated and for some reason it was left in. They
spoke to the City staff about this and came up with a way to resolve this. They are going to apply to
have that deleted. She thought it may have been initially a comment made in a letter from Air Quality
where they did not actually understand the operation and staff picked up their comment and
incorporated it into the conditions.
Chairman Bostwick: Stated it was a mitigation measure obviously to reduce traffic trips to and from
the site.
Cindy Galfin: Stated that was correct but they do not keep an inventory of cars and parts. Cars are
recycled approximately every twenty-five to forty days. So it is not something they do at their facility.
The cars are moved on a regular basis and there is no inventory maintained. They are checked in and
sent out for scrap. She stated that they are in agreement with all the conditions proposed,
Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Referenced the chart on page 4 of the staff report, relative to
parking. The restaurant being proposed should actually be parked at 5% spaces per 1,000 rather than
16 which reduces the parking down to exactly the number that is provided on the property. So there is
no parking shortage in terms of our Code requirements.
Karen Freeman, Associate Planner: Stated in regards to Paragraph No. 21 of the staff report,
regarding the mitigation measure. This morning there was discussion regarding that and whether or not
it was included within the City of Stanton's Mitigation Monitoring Plan as well. Staff has not heard
back from the City of Stanton but their records indicate that as of 1993 that there is a similar mitigation
measure in their documents. So the applicant would need to go back and speak with the City of
Stanton as to how to remedy that in their city.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3978
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Henninger and Mayer absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (2:03-2:13)
11-24-97
Page 13
4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Withdrawn
4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3975
4d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY
NO. 97.12
OWNER: Arthur B. Wilmsen, c/o Wells Fargo, P.O. Box 63700, ,
San Francisco, CA 94163
AGENT: Arco Products, Attn: Paul Loubet, 4 Centerpointe
Dr., La Palma, Ca 90623
LOCATION: 1000 North State College Boulevard -Arco
Service Station. Property is 0.50 acre located at
the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and
La Palma Avenue.
To demolish an existing automotive service station to construct a
new automobile service station with a 3,584 square foot canopy and
a 1,200 square foot convenience market with sales of beer and wine
for off-premises consumption with waiver of minimum structural
setback and to determine public convenience or necessity for sales
of beer and wine for off-premises consumption.
Continued from the Commission meeting of October 27, 1997.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY
RESOLUTION N0.
SR1004JK.DOC
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and
MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Henninger and Mayer absent), that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby accept the applicant's request for withdrawal of
subject petition.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Henninger and Mayer absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (2:13-2:14)
11-24-97
Page 14
5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPT. CLASS 11 (PREY.-APPROVED)
5b. VARIANCE NO. 3883 (READVERTISED)
OWNER: Dr. Melvyn Henkin and Faith Henkin, 1300 Ouail
Street, Suite 106, Newport Beach, CA 92660
AGENT; In-N-Out Burger, Attn: Raymund Villanueva, 13502
Hamburger Lane, Baldwin Park, CA 91706-5885
MSL Engineering Inc., Attn: Mark Lamoureux, 402
W. Arrow Hwy., Suite 4, San Dimas, Ca 91773
LOCATION: 5640 East La Palma Avenue -Anaheim Hilis
Villasae• Property is 3.9 acres located on the south
side of La Palma Avenue, 370 feet west of the
centerline df Imperial Highway.
To amend or delete conditions of approval to relocate an existing
shopping center identification monument sign.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC97-168
Concurred w/staff
Approved amendment
to conditions of
approval
SR1010JK:DOC
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
Applicant's Statement:
Mark Lamoureux, President of MSL Engineering, Inc., 402 W. Arrow Hwy., Suite 4, San Dimas, CA
91773: Stated he is the authorized agent for In-And-Out Burger and with respect to their application to
relocate the existing Anaheim Hills Village Shopping Center monument sign in conjunction with Item
No. 6 and the proposed In-And-Out Burger. They reviewed staffs conditions of approval .and have no
objections to what has been proposed.
Charles Cintron: Stated he owns two Togos in Anaheim; one in The Festival Center and one in the
shopping center where they are proposing this In-And-Out Burger. He did not feel that Mr. Lamoureux
was very familiar with that intersection. He travels in and out of that shopping center every day to and
from work. He felt the staff report was not accurate.
Chairman Bostwick: Stated this is Item No. 5 and refers just to the sign, moving the sign to the east.
Charles Cintron: Stated he did not have a problem with the sign and so he would wait for the Item No.
6.
11-24-97
Page 15
Chairman Bostwick: Stated yes, Item No. 6, he thought was the one Mr. Cintron probably wanted to
address, which is the actual plans for the In-And-Out Burger.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated if they decide to approved this then she wanted to recommend
that Conditional Use Permit No. 3234 (in Paragraph No. 7 of the staff report) and Conditional 'Use
Permit No. 1722 (in Paragraph No. 10) be terminated because these businesses are no longer in
operation and would request that this be done in 30 days.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner .Bristol: Asked Mr. Lamoureux if they were to install a monument sign., where would
they put it? He referenced page 4, Condition No. 13 of the staff report, regarding tree plantings and
asked if he is familiar with both trees at the site?
Mark Lamoureux: Responded yes he is
Commissioner Bristol: Stated the south tree seems to be in good shape. Are they going to be able to
save that one?
Mark Lamoureux: Responded yes, it is their intent to save it.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked about the tree located on the north side?
Mark Lamoureux: Responded they do not want to remove any of the trees except the one on the
north side because it will significantly block the sign. They have every intention to try and save the
tree on the south side. They are going to have to work with staff to confirm the site and to work with
the Traffic Engineer to determine that the tree is in the best possible location. As of right now they do
not want to remove any trees, although it appears that the northerly tree is going to be in way.
ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical
Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the .requirements to prepare an EIR.
Approved relocation of existing sign. Amended Condition of Approval No. 6 of
Resolution No. PC88-334 to read as follows on the basis that the sign relocation is
necessary for the reasonable operation under the variance as approved and to allow
the property on which the sign is currently located, to be developed with a separate
(restaurant) use:
"6. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2
and Exhibit No. 3, Revision No. 1, and as conditioned herein"
Added the following conditions:
10. That any specimen tree removal shall be subject to the tree preservation
regulations in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the
"SC" Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone.
11-24-97
Page 16
11. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, each existing tree to be
removed shall be replaced with two (2), minimum 24-inch box sized trees of the
same species, to be planted, irrigated and maintained in the front setback area,
12. That the location of the proposed sign shall be subject to the review and
approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for line-of-sight
consideration.
13. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event
that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead."
14. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of
Conditional Use Permit No. 1722 (to permit sales of beer and wine for on-
premises consumption in a proposed restaurant) and Conditional Use Permit
No. 3234 (to permit sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption
with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces) to the Zoning Division.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Henninger and Mayer absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (2:14-2:21)
11-24-97
Page 17
6a. CEQA NEGATNE DECLARATION Continued to
6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 12-22-97
6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3985
OWNER: Mary Buckingham, Mary Margaret Grant, Steven
Park Grant, Attn: Grant Tucker Properties, One
Computer Plaza, 2nd Floor, Newport Beach, CA
92658
AGENT: In-N-Out Burger, Attn: Raymund Villanueva, 13502
Hamburger Lane, Baldwin Park, CA 91706-5885
LOCATION: 5646 East La Palma Avenue -Anaheim Hills
Villas~e• Property is 0.55 acre located on the south
side of La Palma Avenue, located 257 feet west of
the centerline of Imperial Highway.
To demolish an existing 6,000 square foot building and construct a
2,912 square foot drive-through fast food restaurant (In-N-Out) with
outdoor seating and roof-mounted equipment with waivers of
permitted freestanding signs, permitted wall signs, minimum number
of parking spaces, minimum drive-through lane requirements and
required improvement of setbacks.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
SR1003JK.DOC
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: 5 people spoke in apposition
Applicant's Statement:
Mark Lamoureux, President of MSL Engineering, Inc., 402 W. Arrow Hwy., Suite 4, San Dimas, CA
91773: Stated they are the authorized agent for In-And-Out Burger. It is a proposed 2,912 square
feet combination sit-down and drive-through restaurant. There are 70 seats proposed inside. It is a
part of the Anaheim Village Center. He emphasized there is an existing building that currently-has a
2,000 square foot KFC business and a 4,000 square foot retail area totalling 6,000 square foot building
which will be demolished before the new In-And-Out Burger can be constructed. In doing the parking
analysis, it was determined that the In-And-Out Burger proposed use will actually require 7 less
parking spaces than the current building. To go hand-in-hand with that as well the traffic trip
generation is going to be, therefore, equal to what the existing building is currently with their proposed
approved uses. He also emphasized that the existing center has plenty of extra parking spaces. It
only has approximately 359 parking spaces out in the field, with the proposed In-And-Out Burger and
assuming 100°/a occupancy on the units on-site it only require 193 based on the peak hours of parking
studies that were done repeatedly aver a period of three days (including a weekend). Therefore, they
feel confident that there will not be any parking problems or any traffic concerns in comparison with
what currently is there or has a potential for being there. They are in agreement with all of staffs
11-24-97
Page 18
recommendations. However, he would like a clarification on Condition No. 1, regarding a 3-foot wide
landscape planter. They are in agreement for putting in extra planting in between the outdoor seating
in the building, however, this particular site is fairly tight with respect to the distance from the curb to
the building. They will have constraints with respect the ADA access compliance in and around those
particular outdoor seating. Therefore, he asked for a modification of Condition No. 1, to provide a a-
foot or as large possible. They would like that flexibility to do so in order to be in compliance with ADA
requirements.
Public Testimony:
Charles Cintron: Stated he wanted to address his concerns regarding the staff report.
1. Page 7, Item No. 31-D -- The staff report states, "Increased on-site traffic congestion is not
anticipated". He strongly disagreed with this statement. He can not see how an In-And-Out
Burger drive-through restaurant can be built 37 feet from the intersection. The majority of the
people leaving that shopping center are going to take a left turn on Imperial Hwy. towards La
Palma Avenue and "bottle neck" that intersection. They currently do that now getting out of
Cinemapolis and out of their intersection.
2. Page 7, Item No. 31-D - It states "not expected to increase traffic congestion or impede
ingress/egress". He does agree. OCTA (Orange County Transportation Authority) rated
intersections in Orange County "A" through "F". They had 34 "F" intersections in Orange
County; this rating is an intersection that is going well over 100% of capacity at peak times.
This intersection is 17th out of the 34 in the County.
3. Page 8, Item No. 34 -- States the intersection of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Hwy. is going
to be widened in a year. So now the entrance and exit that is set back only 37 feet from the
intersection is going to be even closer and is going to cause a major congestion at that
intersection.
4. Page S, Item No. 37-D -- States, "That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not
impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways as designed and approved to carry
the traffic in the area" and Item No. 37-E states, "will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety". He disagreed with both statements and feels certain this proposed use is going to be
detrimental to this intersection.
In conclusion, it is a very congested intersection. This proposal is going to increase the already
serious traffic congestion at that intersection.
Niki (last name .not given), from Yorba Linda, CA: Stated she is also concerned with the traffic. Due
to the delay in traffic she has observed car passing the yellow and red signal lights. She feels In-And-
Out will attract more people and will worsen the traffic congestion at that intersection:-
Dan (last name not given), lives in Anaheim, CA: Stated he works at the Texaco Station located next
to KFC. He goes to eat there frequently and feels there are already too many hamburger stands. He
feels there should be a KFC rather than an In-And-Out Burger.
Hassan (last name not given): Stated he works at L.A. Cellular. He also agrees there is a traffic
problem at the intersection and he also prefers to eat at KFC rather than an In-And-Out Burger.
Charles Cintron: Stated he feels free trade is great if the intersection and would support it but is
concerned about the threat to businesses and the safety issue with this particular proposal. It would
help his business if it wasn't for the driveway. That center does need help but he does not feel this is
the answer.
11-24-97
Page 19
Mr. Hashim: Stated he is the franchisee for KFC, the site where the In-And-Out Burger is being
proposed. His main concern is traffic congestion that this proposed business will generation. As it is
now, during rush hour traffic it is major chaos entering or exiting that location. This proposed business
will generate much more traffic than is currently there. On page 9 (Item No. 37-D) of the staff report
reads, "That the traffic generation of the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed .and improved to carry the traffic in the area". He disagreed. In-And-
Out Burger is mostly adrive-through business and it is going to generate much more traffic. He
referenced a report published in the L.A. Times on February 11, 1997 related to the most troubled
intersections in Orange County rated "A" through "F". Of the 34 intersections listed in Orange County,
Imperial and La Palma was rated 17. He also referenced a report he obtained from Traffic
Engineering regarding trip generations in the City of Anaheim reported by the Institute of the
Transportation of Engineering. It states that 53% of the non-passby trips are made by the fastfood
business and 47% are bypass trips.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: Stated the 91 Freeway construction, the 57
interchange and all the HOV lanes have increased the traffic throughout La Palma Avenue and
Imperial Hwy.. This intersection is one of the intersections on the list of OCTA to be widened possibly
next year, as soon as the funding is available. In this case, there is an existing 6,000 square foot
building that will be demolished. Perhaps it had been vacant for a few years, but the traffic was there
when the center was approved and also KFC is a similar type of use. In looking at the overall picture,
it is probably going to be an equal number of trips generated. He felt the situation will improve once
the 91 Freeway construction is completed, the "Smart Street" project goes through and that
intersection is widened. It will definitely improve the level of service at that intersection.
Chairman Bostwick: He feels the traffic congestion is due to a number of factors that contribute to the
problem, it is not just one factor.
Alfred Yalda: Stated this is one of the intersections that are on their CMP (Congestion Management
Program) that they are required, by law, to monitor every year. The traffic counts are taken at that
intersection every year.
Chairman Bostwick: Asked if Cinemapolis finished the bridge across at the back?
Alfred Yalda: No, there has been some discussion on that but nothing has taken place. Actually, the
traffic at the Cinemapolis has decreased because the restaurant has been closed for some time and
attendance at Cinemapolis has decreased.
Chairman Bostwick: Stated he has the same concerns as some of the people who gave testimony
today as far as the location of the outlet of the drive-through. When the street is widened in ---
approximately a year there will be about one car stacking before reaching the street. To get across
that lane and get over to the left turn lane and get the traffic back out to the commercial area to the
west of this is going to be a problem. He would like to see the business there but he thinks there will
be a problem created with this project. He wondered if there was some way to push it back away from
the street.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if there was going to be some type of divider or raised area between
those two exits, the left turn and the straight and right out?
Alfred Yalda: Responded he did not believe they are making any changes as far as the actual exiting
of the shopping center. That is going to remain as is.
11-24-97
Page 20
Commissioner Peraza: Asked if someone was coming out of the drive-through and wanted to go left
into the shopping center, how would that effect traffic going out?
Alfred Yalda: Stated there is approximately 80 feet from where the order is picked up to get to the
main exit to the street. There could be times when traffic is backed up on that center. There are
about 4 car lengths before you exit. They do not see a big problem with that because it could adjust
itself when the traffic signal turns green to the center. When it clears, the center it will provide room
for them to move. If not, they will be stopped there until such time.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked the applicant if there was any way to reconfigure this site, possibly
removing some parking spaces?
Mark Lamoureux: Stated this is a very tight site. Especially with the street dedication required along
the frontage. They have reviewed various site plans and unfortunately this is the only one they found
that would meet the operational needs of In-And-Out Burger. They felt they could probably move the
drive-through lane exit another 20 feet further away from the street by making an "S" curve exit. But
they would not be able to come all the way paralleling the building and exit out. They need to keep
parking spaces by the front door for the ADA requirements.
Chairman Bostwick: Suggested taking a four week continuance to revise the plans.
Mark Lamoureux: Asked if their intent is to have them completely redo the site plan or just to see if
they can shift the exit down 20 feet?
Cheryl Flores: Responded they would need the plans .redrawn. Staff would need an exhibit that could
be approved and placed in the file. In addition to that, she would recommend a continuance to the
December 22, 1997, in order to allow time to draw those plans, get them submitted for staff to analyze
and prepare a staff report.
Alfred Yalda: Stated Traffic Engineer could work with the applicant to make it a better drive-through
than what they presently have.
Raymond Villanueva, Manager of Development for In-And-Out Burgers: Stated this In-And-Out Burger
restaurant will not actually be built until probably 1999, which is when KFC's lease expires and long
after the improvements on La Palma. This would help out in making the sites layout work. Most of
their other sites are freeway oriented, freeway influenced sites which tend to attract more traffic to the
sites because of the exposure of those locations. This site will have no freeway exposure at all. So
this site would basically make use of the existing traffic that. is already with that system. He sincerely
feels that their layout at this location is going to work. _
Chairman Bostwick. He feels a four week continuance will not be a problem used on the previous
testimony but he still feels it needs to be moved back from the intersection.
Mark Lamoureux: Pointed out one of the following reasons why they wanted to place the building up
as far as they could: 1) The whole building is essentially blocked by the existing car wash building.
So the visibility from Imperial Hwy. is virtually non-existent. 2) Regarding redesigning the site plan, he
is still unclear what is being requested. Are they asking him to redesign in order to pull the whole
building back farther or in pulling the drive-through back?
11-24-97
Page 21
Chairman Bostwick: Stated they could accomplish both of them, ultimately to get the drive-through
back, but that is going to take moving the building back unless they loose something there, such as
patio area. Possibly taking, for example, the back row of parking. Relocating the trash enclosure to
bring the building back, moving the drive-through and reducing the size of the sign out front to meet
Code. Then they could probably request a monument sign.
Alfred Yalda: Stated that they could work with the applicant to shift some of the building further south
and rework some of the parking spaces. He feels there is potential to improve the drive-through.
ACTION: Continued subject request to the December 22, 1997 Planning Commission meeting in
order for the applicant to submit revised plans.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Henninger and Mayer absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: 40 minutes (2:21-3:01)
11-24-97
Page 22
7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to
7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 12-8-97
7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3983
OWNER: J.D. Gantes Airport Properties, P.O. Box 80340,
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
AGENT: Jack Abi, 170 N. Maple Street, Suite 103, Corona,
CA 91720
LOCATION: 8295 East Santa Ana Canyon Road -Burger Ktng.
Property is 2.33 acres located at the northwest
comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon
Road.
To construct a second story 1,309 square foot indoor playground for
an existing drive-through restaurant (3,724 square feet total) within a
commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
SR6536DS:DOC
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the December 8, 1997 Planning Commission meeting in
order for the applicant to meet with staff and resolve issues pertaining to the project's
visibility and aesthetics.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Henninger and Mayer absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. -
11-24-97
Page 23
8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3984
OWNER: Ming International Group, c/o Partners Realty Group,
5406 Alton Pkwy., Suite 631, Irvine, CA 92714
AGENT: T.C. Crownover and Wendy Wild-Myers, 5405 Alton
Pkwy., Suite 631, Irvine, CA 92714
LOCATION: 5247 East Orans~ethorpe Avenue. Property is 1.47
acres located at the northeast corner of
Orangethorpe Avenue and Post Lane.
To retain a 6,876 square foot private school within a 19,858 square
foot commercial retail center with waivers of (a) minimum setbacks
for.institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone boundary and (b)
minimum number of parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-169
Approved
Approved, in part
Denied
SR6844KP.WP
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
Applicant's Statement:
Ms. T.C. Crownover, one of the owners of Crown Private School: Stated their parent company is Five
Star Educational :Research and Crown School is a Division thereof. This school is not a day care
facility. It is a private school and different from others in that they are studying and gathering
information on the way children learn. They are interested not only in how children are taught but in
the materials as well. They share this information with any and all interested parties. There is a lot of
new thought about education. As you know, there are a lot of problems with education and there are
many factors that contribute to that. They are studying one phase of that. Mainly, they feel that
perhaps we are waiting too late to try to educate children. There is currently a lot of study of brain
mapping and the MRI studies on how the brain grows. They are proposing tp have a schooh --
Presently, they are operating there and this is because she was given the go ahead which she claimed
she had with a signature from a planner which is written, "with no CUP needed, Judy Kwok". She
circled ".0106 Business trade school and training center". Not knowing what the rules are, she, in
good faith, moved forward accordingly. She was on Tustin Avenue then moved to Orangethorpe
because she needed a larger facility and an outside play area. She does want to continue operation
there. As soon as she found out she needed a CUP she did start the process. In reviewing staff
recommendations, she had a number of questions and concerns. Page 3, Item No. 13 -- Asked if that
was correct that for office they need 4 parking spaces per 100 square feet? She thought it was 1000
square feet?
11-24-97
Page 24
Cheryl .Flores, Senior Planner: Responded that was a typographical error on the staff report, it is 4
spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area.
T.C. Crownover: Stated they are proposing 7 classroom, which would be 7 spaces, and the office
space is under a 1000 square feet so that should only require 4 which totals 11 spaces. So, she does
not understand how they came up with 17 space required. Page 6, Item No. 25 -- She asked for a
clarification, it appears staffs recommendation is for denial of the CUP 3984.
Chairman Bostwick: Responded yes.
T.C. Crownover: Stated if that is the case then she would definitely like to get clarification on this.
Under Item No. 25-B, asked to have that explained and how it would be detrimental to the citizens and
to the children?
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated on page 1, Item No. 2-A, explains that Code requires a 20-foot buffer
and the 15-foot open setback and she is putting her play area in the buffer zone. She would actually
need 35 feet back there for the type of business that she is doing.
T.C. Crownover: Stated schools by the General Plan are permitted within a residential area and all
public schools are right next to residential areas, quite often surrounded on three sides. She did not
think there were residents home during the day and they are not out in the play area very much at all.
After schcol they go out for a half hour and they are back in again. They also offers extended services
which that helps with the traffic flow since not everyone is leaving at the same time. So she did not
see how that is detrimental to the community if residents are not there when they are in operation and
she understands that there have been no letters received opposed to this project.
Chairman Bostwick: Stated the consideration is the amount of space for 150 children. There is not
very much play area available for them and that is the determent to the children. Commission need to
consider the entire neighborhood, Those neighbors need to have the protection of the Zoning code
and that is why the staff made this recommendation.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated she wanted to question Ms. Crownover's question regarding
parking spaces. In the chart on page 3, for the parking in this facility. It is based on 7 spaces for the
classrooms (1 per classroom) and 3 spaces for the office area and 7 spaces (one for each teacher)
and that would be the 17 spaces required for this school. Staffs recommendation for denial is based
on the lack of play area for the children and also as far as the impact the adjacent resident neighbors.
T.C. Crownover: Stated they have an inside gym where they do tumbling and climb bars and exercise
machines. She does not believe that area has been considered, it is a 1,400 square foot area. As
soon as they open up another section they have almost another 400 square feet that will be available
for the children to play in.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked Mrs. Crownover if she was involved with the original CUP back in
March 19977
T.C. Crownover. Responded no.
Commissioner Bristol: Explained when this .property was :before Commission in March 1997, their
concerns were the parking (stacking coming westbound off of Orangewood), 1 unit for day care
(toddlers), and noise. Now the current proposal is for up to 150 students with 7 classrooms. However,
11-24-97
Page 25
the conditional use permit approved in March does not now exist. He could not imagine children
playing in a 20-foot buffer area. He also does not feel there is enough parking available there.
Commission had problems approving 40 cars coming and going to this located but now there are 150
potential cars. He is also concerned that liquor is being sold within a few feet of the property.
T.C. Crownover: Responded she does educational instruction not babysitting. The only reason they
provide extended services is that the parents need a safe place to leave their children. They have
indoor activities that children enjoy. They have 6,000 square feet outside plus another 1,400 square
feet inside. She feels staff is not looking at the total square footage that is actually available..
Regarding the sale of liquor being sold near their property, she said a Montessori school has been
approved on Santa Ana Canyon Road. They have a continual non-revocable conditional use permit
already granted to them. Immediately behind their property there are two buildings that service open
liquor. Within 500 feet of that particular building is a grocery store that sells hard liquor. They are
going to be putting signs to stated that this is private property, for customer parking only, no loitering is
allowed. Any violators will be towed away. Regarding the traffic. She has already spoken with Traffic
Engineering to discuss adrop-off area to alleviate the congestion. They do not use the facility for
large gatherings. They always rent a place for their Christmas and Spring program. She put down
150 children but according to their square footage they would be allowed 192 children according to the
fire and safety code. This would be 22 children per classroom.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked about the signing-in procedure. Do the parents come in and drop off
their children rather than signing them in?
T.C. Crownover: Responded they are not required to have asign-in at all but, for example, on rainy
days where the parents are in a rush, she has someone at the gate to receive and sign in the child in
order to expedite the traffic flow in and out of their school.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated there shouldn't be a stacking problem here as there would be in a
preschool. It should not take them as long to unload.
T.C. Crownover: Page 6, 2 under Item No. 25 -- She did not understand the undue burden on the
adjacent residents due to the close proximity. She asked if this was all one and the same concern?
Chairman Bostwick: Responded yes
T.C. Crownover: Page 6, C under Item No. 25 -- She was told by other residents that there use to be
people that loitered in that area. There is evidence of that by broken beer bottles, etc. She does not
know where if not there that they would want a school to operate. It is very different to find a location
on Page 7, Condition No. 3 -- She did not understand what the termination of other CUP's is referring
to.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated these are old CUP's that are no longer in use before she arrived.
T.C. Crownover: Condition No. 8 -Regarding the planting of special plants. She wants to plant some
nice flower instead of vines. She would take the responsibility to paint out any graffiti that would be
there.
Condition No. 10 -She does not agree with granting the CUP for only one year. It is very difficult
the find a location for a school and to set up a school is very difficult. Who would enroll their child in
any school if there was that uncertainty. She does not feel that the continuity of a Childs education
should be broken. How would this effect their pilot programs? They are seeking government grants
so they can study how children learn. She feels this is a worthwhile school.
11-24-97
Page 26
Condition No. 14 -She spoke with the Traffic Engineering Division and does not feel they have a real
problem there. She concluded by stating she wants to continue to have the school there. She does
not want to interrupt the childrens education. She apologized for "jumping the gun" but she said it was
not intentional and she has the proof.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she suggestion Condition No. 4 be changed to no more than one
classroom at any one time.
Commissioner Bristol: Stated he feels this property is too small and not appropriate for the proposed
use.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she is considering the fact that it has a lot of inside exercise play
area. Most schools do not do not have any place to go but outside.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked about the letter that Ms. Crownover referenced?
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated she needs to get a copy of that letter for the file. She has not
seen it. It is possible that the original school on Tustin was an industrial area and was permitted as a
technical school. But this would definitely require a conditional use permit for this type of school in
this zone and apologized for any misunderstanding with the applicant.
Chairman Bostwick: Stated he is certain there is a mistake as far as the information as to what was
intended and was already there.
Cheryl Flores: Stated the vines against the block are a requirement of Code and that would go along
with Condition No. 2 that vines would be required.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if it was explained that with the one year approval that it could be
renewed at that time but that gives time an to see if the approved use is working.
T.C. Crownover: Stated she would prefer the conditional use permit be granted for two or three years
rather than one year.
Chairman Bostwick: Stated it does not preclude her from asking for a renewal or extension of the CUP
but it gives us a chance to see if the approved use is working. It gives us a chance to look at the
whole operation and that is the reason for a one year approval.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated this would not be a renewal but it would be an
application for a reinstatement of the use. Not to give the wrong impression that it will be reviewed.
The same' findings will need to be made for reinstatement as are made for the original approval and
what that does is give the City an opportunity fora "test run" for a limited period of time. _.
T.C. Crownover: Asked if that was normal practice that is done with all the other schools in the area.
Chairman Bostwick: It all depends on various factors such as the location, conditions and all the
problems related to the particular property.
11-24-97
Page 27
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement, in part, as follows:
Denied Waiver (a) on the basis that the play area would eliminate the existing and
required 20-foot landscaped buffer between the commercial use and single-family
residences.
Approved Waiver (b) on the basis that the total number of parking spaces required by
this particular use is less than the number of spaces which would be required for a
retail or service business occupying the same floor area.
Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 3984 based on the following:
(1) That the design of the site, as proposed, cannot adequately allow the full
establishment of the use withput detriment to the peace and safety of the
surrounding citizens and children that would utilize the facility; and
(2) That the use will impose an undue burden on the adjacent residents due to the
close proximity of the proposed play area.
VOTE: 4-1 (Commissioner Boydstun voted no and Commissioners .Henninger and Mayer were absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 43 minutes (3:01-3:44)
11-24-97
Page 28
9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
9b. VARIANCE NO. 4326 Granted
OWNER: Koll Metro Centre, L.L.C„ 4343 Von Karmen Avenue,
Newport Beach, CA 90660
AGENT: Hogle-Ireland, Inc., Attn: Kelly Ireland, 4200 Latham
Street, Suite B, Riverside, CA 92501
LOCATION: 2060 South Santa Cruz Street. Property is 6.1
acres located north and east of the northeast corner
of Orangewood Avenue and Santa Cruz Street.
Waivers of minimum parking lot landscaping and minimum landscape
setbacks adjacent to interior property lines to construct additional
parking spaces for an existing 22,599 square foot office building.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC97-170
SR6842TW.DOC
----------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
Applicant's Statement:
Kelly Carlyle, from Hogle Ireland who is representing the Koll Company: Stated the application is for a
variance from landscaped setback for an existing structure. The structure was constructed in 1986. At
this time they are not proposing any changes to the structure, however, for the past two years the
structure has been vacant. They have obtained a tenant, Mead Partners Inc., who have taken several
of their district offices and put them all in one structure. The parking originally approved for the site
was to Code. At this time they need additional parking to meet the needs of the number of employees
for this facility. They .have proposed to add the additional parking. In addition to that provide
landscaping in the form of landscaped diamonds every five spaces along the north property line and
throughout the interior of the parking lot as well as taking two of the parking end islands that are
currently all concrete. Removing the concrete and landscaping them as well. Per Code they will
include vines and comply with required size of landscaping, etc. The improvements will significantly
improvement the esthetics and will allow them to meet the needs of their tenant.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated she wanted to point out that they have reviewed the plans and
do agree that there will be improved aesthetics by the distribution of landscaping throughout the
parking area. It is important to point out after reviewing the plans again that there is currently
approximately 5,000 square feet of landscaping now. That is going to be reduced significantly to 1,OOp
square feet of landscaping. It will be distributed better throughout the parking lot.
11-24-97
Page 29
Kelly Carlyle: Stated they do have a concern with Condition No. 9. Their concern is that there are 16
compact spaces on the building structure site, known as Parcel 1. No changes were proposed to the
parking on that side. There is no means to enlarge those due to some existing utilities along side the
building.
Chairman Bostwick: Asked whether Condition No. 9 would effect the area that they are dealing with?
Kelly Carlyle: Responded no, they are not proposing any :new compact spaces. They ask that the
condition be modified, that no additional compact spaces be added to the petitioned site.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Granted Variance No. 4326 with the following changes to conditions:
Modified Condition No. 9 to read as follows:
9. That no additional compact spaces shall be permitted.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Henninger and Mayer absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (3:44-3:49)
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:50 P.M.
TO MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1997 AT 11:00 A.M.
FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
Submitted by:
Ossie Edmundson
Secretary
11-24-97
Page 30