Loading...
Minutes-PC 1997/12/22SlJ fVIARY ACTION AGENDA A AHEI CITY PLA ING COn/I ISSIO FETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1997 10:30 A.M. ~ STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, NAPOLES, PERAZA COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: MAYER " STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Cheryl Flores Greg McCafferty Bruce Freeman Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Tom Engle Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager _ Senior Planner Associate Planner Code Enforcement Supervisor Sr. Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Engineer Vice Detail Senior Secretary Secretary P: DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTES\AC122297. WP 12-22-97 Page 1 ITEM PUB INTERES ; NONE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL :PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF ADDITIONAL be in conformance LEASED OFFICE SPACE: County of Orange, Health Care Agency, with the Anaheim 515 North Sycamore Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701, requests to General Plan determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed lease of additional office space for the County of Orange Women's Perinatal Program. Property is located at 1125 North Magnolia Avenue. ACTION: Chairman Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mayer absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the County's proposal to lease additional office space for its Women's Perinatal Program at 1125 North Magnolia Avenue is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. SR7018KT.WP Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: Stated this is a proposal by the County Health Care Agency to locate their pre-natal program at the same site as their existing drug abuse program at 1125 N. Magnolia Avenue. He mentioned Mr. Thurmond Hodges from the County was present to answer any questions regarding the program. Staff finds this proposal in conformance with the General Plan. TERMINATION: Stephen N. Barnard, Winston College LLC, 2030 Main Street, Suite 1630, Irvine, CA 92714, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3477 (permitting an industrially-related design center including showrooms, warehousing and office uses with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces). Property is located at 2000-2050 East Winston Road. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC97-176 SR1018JK.DOC 12-22-97 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARIPIG ITEMS 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved; in part 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3985 Granted, in part OWNER: Mary F. Buckingham, Mary Margaret Grant, Steven Park Grant, c/o Grant Tucker Properties, One Corporate 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 Village. 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 (a) permitted freestanding signs, (b) permitted wall signs, (c) minimum number of parking spaces, (d) minimum drive-through lane requirements and (e) required improvement of setbacks, Continued from the Commission meeting of November 24, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-177 SR1017JK.DOC .FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Applicant's Statement: Fred Encinas, Director of Real Estate for In-N-Out Burger, 13502 Hamburger Lane, Baldwin Park, CA: Stated he was involved in the negotiations from the inception. Their company was founded in 1948 by Harry Nestor Snyder with store number 1 based in Baldwin Park. They have since expanded and are now up to 126 stores and plan to open 8 or 9 in the next couple of years. They are not franchise nor publicly traded. They are family owned and operated. In the early part of 1996, they started looking in the Anaheim Hills Area and located a potential site which they later did not go forward with at Weir Canyon and 91 freeway. They since have located this current site. They negotiated a purchase contract which is currently in escrow to purchase the property from Mr. Steve Grant. They have gone back and worked with their engineer on a site plan that would be acceptable for everybody. They also conducted a meeting at the retail center and invited all the tenants. At the meeting they presented their site plan and intended elevations for the proposed project and tried to answered all questions. He knows that there are still some people that remain concerned with the parking issue. 12-22-97 Page 3 Mark Lamoureux, MSL Engineering, 402 West Arrow Highway, Suite 4, San Dimas, CA: Stated he is the site civil engineer working on the proposed project for In-N-Out Burger. In working with staff they came up with a much improved site plan. He emphasized a few main points. They are planning to remove a 6,000 square foot building and replace it with a new 2,912 square foot restaurant. They are cutting the existing building size in half in order to build this project. 2. This is a combination sit-down and drive-through restaurant that is being proposed. There is total of 70 seats proposed inside for customers. Their experience has shown that approximately 70% of traffic goes inside to eat their food even though they have adrive- through lane. Therefore, approximately 70% of the business parks their cars and goes in to eat and only 30% use the drive-through lane. Especially in this particular case where there is so much extra surplus parking that is existing in the center as evidenced by the previous parking study required by staff. 3. They revised the site plan by pushing the drive-through lane exit point further back from the street an additional 14 feet so that it would be 63 feet back from the existing street curb. In order to accomplish this, two parking spaces were lost along the west side of the building. Now there are only 5 parking spaces and 2 of them will be handicapped accessible. 4. As far as having access off the main center driving aisle, the building location needed to remain in the same location to maintain visibility. The building is now 11 feet further away from the street than the current building is. 5. Another major site plan change they successfully negotiated with all three property owners was to close off the first driving aisle entrance and exit point on-site, in order to provide a much longer throat for the cars to get off of La Palma Avenue and to restrict any potential conflicts of vehicles that want to exit out. They .almost doubled the amount of throat distance from 46 feet to 89 feet, a substantial improvement. 6. As far as the availability of space for cars after they have picked up their food in the drive- through lane, there is a total space for stacking 5 cars available, ample opportunity to wait for a signal change to merge with traffic. All three of the property owners are in favor of this project. They have been instrumental in helping put together a revised site plan that they feel works well. Mr. Encinas stated they submitted a petiticn in favor of the project that was circulated among the tenants in the center. They received 12 signatures from the total of 30 tenant spaces that are currently filled in the center. Not everybody in the center is in favor of this project. The primary concem is regarding street traffic. He felt the primary prdblem is the intersection of La Palma and Imperial which is a regional or City issue much bigger than just their project is concemed. Wes Pringle, WPA Traffic Engineering, 23421 South Point Drive, Suite 190, Laguna Hills, CA: Stated there was no traffic study required for this by staff because of the type of project. However, at the last hearing there was concern raised about the operation of the access. Therefore a additional detailed study was done and submitted, dated December 17, 1997. A large percentage of the traffic at this location is already on the street, called pass-by people. So, even though there are a number of new trips generated by this project, as far as the street system is concerned, it's not a great amount of traffic that's added to the current street volume. Because of the concerns voiced at the last hearing, 12-22-97 Page 4 they specifically looked at the driveway operation during the peak times -during the noon period and the evening period, on a Thursday and Friday, .December 11th and 12th, to determine the existing operations of the driveway. In 15 minute intervals, they have shown how many cars are waiting and 5 times when there were 7 cars; but the majority of the time it was quite a few less. The mid-day maximum queue was only 1.6 vehicles per signal cycle. For the PM the maximum queue occurred on a Friday and was related to right turns. During the afternoon it was 1.23 vehicles. It was 1 or 2 or 3 vehicles that were waiting to enter at the end of the red period. As is indicated, there is more than sufficient space to accommodate this. As far as the signal operation goes, their analysis showed that it is operating at a very good level of service during both periods. They observed queues traffic from Imperial back to this intersection. It does occur, and it is a problem with the operation of the intersection of Imperial and La Palma due to volume of traffic there which the City is addressing as part of the smart street program. In summary, the analysis indicated there is adequate storage space for the anticipated use of this driveway; that the signal itself at the driveway operates at an acceptable level of service, so it is not expected that this particular project would increase problems. Nobody is denying that at Imperial and La Palma there is congestion at times, however, the majority of people that are going to use this facility will be people that are already on the street and therefore not adding traffic to that intersection. Charles Cintron, Togo's, 4652 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated he circulated a petition against the project this morning and received six signatures in one hour. According to the City Traffic Engineer, the trip generation resulting from this new store will be about the same as the existing KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken). He did not feel that is accurate. He referenced photos of the intersection in front of his business. He counted 6 cars in the left hand lane trying to tum out. He does not know how they are arriving at 2.1 car counts, but he can hardly get out of there right now. He has spoken with the representatives from this project. He asked them what their customer count would be. Their response was they do hamburgers. He then asked how many hamburgers are they anticipating selling? They responded they can not provide this information since it is a privately held company. He feels it is difficult to make a decision without having this type of information available. On their proposed project's drive-through they are right opposite an island. People are going to stop and they can't even go right if they want to. There is a little parking island that's lined in on the plans. If they go to this entrance into the In-N-Out and it's backed up, they're just going to stop there and wait for the cars to move, creating congestion. People will not even be able to get into the intersection before they get into the problems of trying to get out. In-N-Outs are large volume but they are comparing themselves to a 2,000 square foot KFC with walk-in only and a 4,000 square foot retail building next to it. He felt Mr. Steve Grant, the property owner, is not able to lease the business due to the traffic problems at this shopping center. He asked that Commission take his testimony into consideration when making a decision. Steve Grant, the property owner: Stated he has a mostly vacant 6,000 square foot building that is going to be tom down and replaced with a 2900 square foot building, a 50% reduction in building area. All three owners in the center are strongly in favor of the In-N-Out building. It is going to reduce building area and bring in much needed customers to the center. They have all reviewed the traffic study and do not have the concerns that a few tenants seem to have. Beedah Hashim, 5643 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated he is voicing the same concerns as he had at the previous hearing. He is concerned with the traffic problem. He has been there; his customers have been there; they know this entrance well. Now with the traffic signal put in traffic still continues to be a problem. He feels the In-N-Out Burger does not have the same type of trip generation as KFC has, nor does KFC currently have adrive-through. He once again quoted a trip generation study report by Institute of Transportation and Engineering in which 53% of the non-pass-by trips are done by people who use fast food and 47% are the pass-by. So they still have the 12-22-97 Page 5 opportunity to pick up from those 53%. Anybody who has been to an In-N-Out Burger knows how much the stacking of cars occurs. Traffic congestion is definitely going to get worse. There's no question about it. It is going to hurt the people in the area. He also quoted a study which ranked the intersection at La Palma & Imperial as one of the worst intersections in Orange County, which is currently more than 100% over it's capacity. Of course, with the new smart street construction it will change a little bit but that's not going to happen until after 1999. Steve Weiss: Stated he is the real estate broker for the property owner. With a{I due respect to Mr. Hashim and the gentleman from Togo's these gentlemen are up here using traffic as an excuse and they are looking out for the interest of their own business. Professionals have evaluated the traffic issue; the City has evaluated the traffic issue; and, as Mr. Lamoureux stated, traffic is really more of a global issue which the City is planning to deal with. Mr. Hashim was offered this property back before the property owner put it on the market and subsequently ended up entering into a deal with In-N-Out Burger. Mr. Hashim had the opportunity and he was not able to negotiate a transaction. The issue of traffic is something that should not be Looked at as the major factor. In-N-Out Burger intends to build this building after the City completes it's work on the street sometime in 1999. Mr. Hashim has a lease on this property that extends approximately 2 years and In-N-Out Burger will not be built until the street improvement work is completed. Again, the majority of tenants are in support of this and feel it will enhance the center which is in need of some help. Louie Sanchez: resident at 661 S. Morningstar, Anaheim, CA: Stated he believes that the idea of an In-N-Out Burger in Anaheim Hills is a wonderful idea. .It's a great product. However, he is opposed to the location merely due to the traffic at that intersection. He is a resident, concerned citizen of the area and a father who travels that intersection very frequently. He tends to disagree that the traffic the drive-through would draw is people passing by. The In-N-Out product is well known and a great product. People will actually drive for miles to enjoy their products which is going to increase traffic. The closest In-N-Out to the Anaheim Hills area is at least within five miles from the location. Currently in the evening time, to cross the intersection exiting from the 91 freeway and getting to Orangethorpe takes at least five minutes to get through those series of traffic lights. Therefore, for the record he stated he is opposed the approval of this project. Na Rashik (did not spell name): Stated she is a resident of Yorba Linda and has lived there for the last 12 years. She travels the intersection of La Palma and Imperial on a daily :basis. She has a teenager who is always there with the friends. Especially in summer and winter break you can see many kids around this area. Currently there is a traffic congestion problem in this area and she is concerned about the traffic if the In-N-Out is built. Kathy Longo, resident of Anaheim Hills: Stated she really does not think there should be an In-N-Out Burger because of the major traffic problems. There is no comparison between In-N-Out Burger and KFC. There are children that skateboard on the sidewalks there. If there was any more traffic it would be a danger to them. The traffic congestion is a tremendous problem and this proposed project will only add to it. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger: He asked the applicant's traffic consultant to compare the traffic generated by the proposed business and the current use? Wes Pringle: Responded they did not do that calculation. Generally speaking though, both of them are fast food facilities, there is not any real differentiation between the two. Realistically, KFC has a lower trip generation rate than In-N-Out. However, that is offset by the fact that it is a larger facility. Another important point is their peak is not the street PM peak, Their peak generally is around mid- 12-22-97 Page 6 day, so that they are not adding much more traffic during the evening peak. He thought KFC probably does more business in the evening with people picking up foods to take home for dinner than In-N-Out, whereas the reverse is true during the mid-day. Alfred Yaida, Principal Transportation Planner, Traffic Engineering Division: Stated, generally, when you have this type of facility, the traffic generation is the same. But he went out to another location for comparison. He went out to the intersection of Orangethorpe and Harbor today during the lunch hour and concluded their traffic is very similar. Therefore, as far as the traffic generation is concerned it is atypical use which generates the same amount of traffic as general fast food establishments. Chairman Bostwick: Asked the applicant if he had read the conditions of approval in the staff report and was in agreement? Fred Encinas: Responded yes. They reviewed all the conditions of approval and had no objections. Commissioner Henninger: Stated there was testimony that this In-N-Out is not going to be built for another couple of years because they have to wait for the KFC lease to expire. Then asked Traffic Engineering staff about the improvements to be made to the intersection and how that intersection is expected to operate once those improvements are completed? Mr. Yalda: Responded improvements are anticipated. The actual construction is to start in early 1999. It will improve the level of service at that intersection. On Imperial it will be a full through .lane, a right hand turn lane and dual left tum lanes. La Palma will change to a typical critical intersection, which is 3 through lanes, 2 left turn and one right turn only lane. This will improve the level of service. Chairman Bostwick: Stated a lot of the problem at that intersection is due to the trains that interrupt the flow of traffic and back it to Santa Ana Canyon Road, beyond Imperial and up the hill into Yorba Linda. Asked if there is a plan separate the crossings and whether it is on schedule? Mr.Yalda: Responded he did not think that is in the plan. But the signalization will improve at that intersection. Part of the problem that currently exists is that Caltrans (California Transportation Services) controls the traffic signal at La Palma and Imperial. The City of Anaheim controls the traffic signal at this driveway. Caltrans is very reluctant to coordinate their signals with the City. Traffic Engineering has'been working with them the last few years to somehow make the operation of that signal more efficient. There has been some adjustment to improve it but still, during the PM peak hours traffic backs up at that intersection. Commissioner Henninger: Stated that is a typical characteristic of all the streets that go east toward Riverside. They're all backed up. _ Louie Sanchez: Stated he wanted to comment on the differences he perceives between the KFC and the In-N-Out customer base. The KFC at the location does not have adrive-through and there are several KFC's within the area for Anaheim Hills for residents to choose from. But they will not have a choice of which In-N-Out Burger to go to. The applicant does not have an estimate of what traffic or how many patrons they would expect on a daily basis which is hard to believe. In Southern California most people drive to where they are going to eat rather than walk. He thought there would be a dramatic difference between whatever the In-N-Out customer count is anticipated on a daily basis versus the existing customer count for KFC. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked Mr. Sanchez if he frequented the Carl's Jr. or the Burger King? Mr. Sanchez: Responded yes. But he has 4 or 5 to choose from in the area. 12-22-97 Page 7 Commissioner Bostwick: Asked him if the traffic is backed out of the Carl's Jr, across the street, does he go down to the Burger King? Mr. Sanchez: Responded he has small children and typically they determine where he goes. Putting forth another example he stated that there are two movie theaters in Anaheim Hills., Cinemapolis and Edwards, and they trade movies. As residents they frequent Edwards and avoid Cinemapolis simply because of the traffic. When given a choice he avoids the high traffic area. In this particular case, there will be no other choice for In-N-Out. His point being that people will come from throughout the area, not just Anaheim Hills, through that intersection to go to the In-N-Out. Mr. Cintron: Stated everybody has an interest here. There is nothing bad about wanting to preserve yourself. When he called his property manager to talk to her the other day and talked to the secretary in the office, she reacted by saying, "My God, that's ridiculous". The person who first signed the petition found out months ago about the plans for building an In-N-Out Burger by accident. She walked by one day to go to KFC and she saw people measuring the building and asked what was happening? She was told an In-N-Out was proposed to be built there. She went back spoke with Audrey Wtllliams, the manager of the property, and was told to be quiet about this. So everybody has an interest to be served here. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he lives in that area and visits that shopping center a number of times every week. For a long time he used to park in back to use the bicycle trail along the river and never had a problem getting in and out of that shopping center. There are two traffic problems there. One is because of the movie theater and the shopping center across the street. People have a difficult time getting in and out of that center. The other problem is, of course, the evening peak hour volume of traffic when everyone is trying to go home. He does not see this particular driveway in the shopping center as having a problem. Chairman Bostwick: Stated he has to somewhat agree with Commissioner Henninger. He frequents that center and he probably goes through that intersection at least twice, if not more times, a day . He thinks making right turns is going to be not as much of a problem as possibly the queue up to go left for workers at the lunch hour; but dinner time traffic is going to come from the other direction, from the Hills and Yorba Linda. It is going to come down and be turning left into it. So it's going to have some impact, but he thought with the traffic signal it's a lot easier to get in and out of that center the way it is today. When it didn't have a light, people could hardly get through. Chairman Bostwick: Recommended approval of Waivers B, C, D and E. He also recommended changing Item No. 17 on page 11 of the staff report to read, "Final Landscape Plans will be submitted to the Zoning Division for staff review and approval". Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Recommended changing the timing of Condition No. 20 for Condition No. 14. Staff would like to have that be prior to the issuance of a building permit. Those are the trees that staff is requiring to be shown on the landscape plans. Chairman Bostwick: Recommended changing Condition No. 14 to be included in Condition No. 19, .and removed from Condition No. 20. OPPOSITION: 4 people spoke in opposition ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration 12-22-97 Page 8 Approved Waiver of Code Requirement, in part, as follows: Denied Waiver (a) on the basis that it was deleted following public notification; and, approved Waivers (b), (c), (d) and (e). Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3985 with the following changes: Modified Condition Nos. 17, 19 and 20 to read as follows: 17. That final landscape plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by staff. 19. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a .period of two (2) years from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10, 13, 14, and 17, above-mentioned, shat) be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 20. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 11 and 18, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 48 minutes (1:39-2:27) 12-22-97 Page 9 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3880 (READVERTISED) ~ 1-21-98 OWNER: The Eli dome, Inc., Attn: Lorri Galloway, Executive Director, 4530 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92869 LOCATION: 100 South Canyon Crest Drive -The Eli Home. Property is 0.22 acre located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Canyon Crest Drive. To consider the modification or deletion of conditions of approval pertaining to on-site and off-site parking and guest visitations, and modification of the approved site plan to retain an existing wood fence along Santa Ana Canyon Road in conjunction with a previously-approved group home for abused children and their mothers. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR70191<D.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 21, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to obtain and analyze additional information from the petitioner relative to the request. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 12-22-97 Page 10 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1594 (READVERTISED) 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3421 IREADVERTISfD) OWNER: Andrew Y. Lui, 500 North :Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 500 North Brookhurst - La Estrella Restaurant. Property is 2.1 acres located at the northeast comer of Alameda Avenue and Brookhurst Street. To amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain an existing restauranUbar and putilic dance hall. TERMINATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3421 RESOLUTION NO. PC97-178 Continued to 3-16-98 Terminated SR717TW.DOC FOLLOWING 1S A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Applicant's Statement: Rick Blake: 2700 N. Main Street, Santa Ana, CA: Stated he is an attorney representing the applicant who is present but has asked him to speak on his behalf. Having read the staff report and some of the comments attached he is surprised at what has been reported. Earlier this year the matter was brought before Planning Commission and then before a Hearing Officer for determination as to revocation of the conditional use permits. That resulted in an agreement between the applicant and City as to certain conditions to be imposed upon the conditional use permit. Those agreements were reached sometime in late April or early May and the matter became final about May 20, 1997. This is now the six-month review. During that six month period the applicant has made a significant effort and changed his operation significantly to comply with what the City had requested. There seem to be two items that were of primary concern. One was the law enforcement issue and the second was the operation as a bona fide public eating place. With regard to the law enforcement issue, they have, as they had stated to the City they would, engaged the services of an outside security company, They .have installed TV monitors and security cameras throughout the parking lot and through the premises and have made a significant effort to control exterior noise, traffic and customer ingress and egress from both-the lot and into the premises. He personally attempted to maintain a relationshifrwith the Anaheim Police Department and has on several occasions contacted and spoke with Investigator Tom Engle. On other occasions he simply left messages. The letter that is part of the package from the Police Department from Lt. Flammini, indicates that there have been nine reports taken at the location since February 1997. Keep in mind, the agreement with the City was not reached until late April or early May and many of these items occurred prior to that time and were part of the previous proceeding. Additionally, he did not know how they, as a business within the intent of what was taking place, can be necessarily responsible for burglary to their business. Those are not the types of things that their operation causes or is in any way connected to the sale of the alcoholic beverages or the operation of the business as it stands. There is a pending matter before the EDD (Employment Development Department) .regarding cash payment of some wages to some employees and that is being resolved. The $135,000 which has been set forth here is a little outrageous and did not feel this is not anything that is going to be substantiated. 12-22-97 Page 11 Regarding the food operation, he has records from the accounting firm that handles the books for this business, and submitted copies to Commission for their review. He felt they are very helpful to determine the status of matters. When the matter originally came before Commission the business admittedly was not serving the type or quantity of food that it should have been serving to be in compliance as a bona fide public eating establishment. The demand was that they have a 50% food to alcohol ratio. In discussing this with representatives of the City, they were informed at the time that as long as they were operating as a food business and making an effort then staff would work with them in accomplishing their goal. [ He forwarded copies of a summary handout to Commission members.] He stated the first page of his summary handout shows in type block the alcohol sales and in the third column it shows the month ended date and it shows in April of 1997 there were approximately $13,999 in alcohol sales. In that same month, in the second block of items -food sales were $3,677. Substantially much higher in the alcohol sales. But looking at the changes in sales each month you see that they are progressive to the month ended November 30, 1997, with $19,067 in alcohol sales and $17,321 in food .sales. The percentage gap and the dollar distance has been significantly reduced. He thought within a month or two they would surpass the 50-50 food sales. In other words, they hope to be selling .more food than alcohol. The next two pages of the handout show the food purchases that have been made by the business since the last hearing and admittedly there is one item in the first column for April, a CocaCola entry which should not have been included but was entered by mistake. All of the other entries of the months are for food purchases. It shows that in April of this past year, there was $2,236 in food purchases, whereas in November, there were $4715 food purchases. So the food that is being purchased is increasing each month. In fact, it has almost doubled since the April time period. Also understand that the food is Mexican food and there is a very high profit margin in it. Therefore, when you look at the $4,000 versus the $17,000 sales number, don't be too doubtful, because there is a tremendous mark-up in this food. They do a lot of business in seafood. They have a full menu. That menu has been presented to the City in the past. The business is operating six days per week. Closed on Mondays. They offer entertainment 3 or 4 nights per week. The other nights they are simply open for food. The business has been advertising since approximately late April, early May, weekly in the Penny Saver with an advertisement that indicates "buy one dinner, get one dinner free". They have had a very large response to that and to some extent that accounts for the dollar volume being a little bit lower because they are giving a lot of free meals away with those coupons. They reach about 40.,000 households with that coupon each week. They are advertising in four separate delivery areas in the Penny Saver. They have been also advertising in the Community coupon magazine (buy one, get one free). They now advertise on Channel 22. There have been a number of flyers distributed to cars in parking lots, etc. He does know that representatives of the City Code Enforcement and Police Department have been inside the business on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, most of the visits have been in the early hours. However, most of their business is in the later evening. They do a very large business late at night. There is a full-time cook, full-time waitresses, full-time bus boys on duty every hour they:are open. Food is available from the time they open until the time they close. The business is truly a bona fide eating place. The food is very good and well priced. The business is at this time operating as both a restaurant and a bar facility as permitted by the conditional use permit. The comments from Planning and from staff seem to be that they are continuing to operate as a night club. They are doing that but also doing a large food operation, 12-22-97 Page 12 They are working aggressively at maintaining order. People coming and going are very carefully monitored. They are not allowing people under twenty-one into the bar area. He felt they are doing everything that is reasonable and realistic to do and simply requests that they be given another six months to continue their efforts to bring this into complete compliance with what has been requested. Actually, he believes they are in complete compliance now, other than the 50-50 issue within the next couple of months they will be well over 50-50. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Supervisor: Stated Don Yourstone, Code Enforcement Officer and Investigator Tom Engle from the Police Department are both present to give testimony. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer: Stated he has inspected the business approximately six or seven times during lunch hour (between 12:00 and 1:00 p:m.) and dinner (between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m.). During his visits he observed very few, if any, customers in the restaurant section of the business. He walked through the establishment with the owner including the kitchen area where there was a chef on duty, bus boys and staff for the restaurant. They were preparing very small quantities of food. He also checked the walk-in coolers, where in his opinion, it appeared they were not stocked to accommodate a large crowd of patrons far a meal. In the bar area there was always 3 to 4 people on each inspection. Investigator Tom Engle, Vice Detail, Anaheim Police Department: Stated he has accompanied Code Enforcement Officer Yourstone on a couple of these inspections. Unfortunately, he has not been able to make every one of them. However, he did run calls for service for this location. In the last year and since May the Police Department has been there approximately 15 times. Some were anonymous 911 calls known as NVC's - no voice contacts. There were two disturbance of the peace calls, an assault and battery, a suspicious circumstances, 2 men with a gun calls, and a drunk in public call, and a couple of ABC inspections. The Police Department's position has not changed. They still do not believe the operation is operating as a restaurant with night club as an additional. It's more like a night club with some food. This is the first he has heard of the statistics that Mr. Blake stated as alcohol and food sales as being proportional. Therefore, he was not able to comment on that information at this time. He would reserve the right to comment on them at a later date. Don Yourstone: Stated staff has conducted a survey of the people who live and work in and around this establishment. Most of them indicate that there has been no change at all as far as noise, screeching tires and shots being fired. The commercial establishment to the north side of this restaurant has complained about the patrons using their parking lot and then going over to the .restaurant, especially at the late hours at night on Friday and Saturday nights. Commissioner Bristol: Asked Mr. Blake at the pre-hearing this morning there was discussion about Resolution No. PC97-16, No. 19, regarding quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages, which states, "quarterly records for the previous two year period shall be kept by the owner with appropriate back-up documentation for wholesale :purchase of food and alcohol for the premises". Is this the documentation for wholesale purchases and are there receipts? Mr. Blake: Responded absolutely. Commissioner Bristol: Asked Mr. Blake why they were not given to Code Enforcement? Mr. Blake: Stated the only personal contact he has had with Code Enforcement was a conversation with Mr. Freeman about 3 to 4 weeks ago where he contacted Mr. Freeman and asked him if there were any issues that they could resolve, or any questions he could respond to. Mr. Freeman 12-22-97 Page 13 responded they could give Code Enforcement some of the documents if they wanted. That was the only conversation he had. If there has been a request beyond that, he certainly did not know about it. Commissioner Bristol: Stated it is in the Conditional Use Permits, for both Conditional Use Permit No. 1594 and 3421, and to date there have been no documentations presented other than this. Mr. Blake: Responded unless he is suggesting the language in that condition means that they are to periodically bring the documents tp somebody. He had expected that certainty if Police Department or the Code Enforcement wanted to see those records, that they would have asked for them. He has been in contact with Mr. Engle on a number of occasions, and there has never been any request for documents. He has not heard anything from anyone requesting such documents. These documents are certainly available. He certainly would be willing to make them available to anybody that wants to look at them. They have ail of the purchase invoices and copies of many of the sales receipts. They also have other documents that could be used to .back those documents. Rather than bringing boxes and boxes here today, he tried to provide Commission with a summary. [Commissioner Boydstun made some comments -not audible.] Mr. Blake: Stated he understood that they were to be given to the Planning Commission or to the City departments upon request. [Again -comments not audible.] Mr. Blake: Stated he understood that was the progress report from the Planning Department to the Planning Commission, not from them to the Planning Commission. Chairman Bostwick: Asked Code Enforcement staff if there was a written request given to the operator or to Mr. Blake requesting the information. Bruce Freeman: Responded Code Enforcement did .not request in writing this information. He did recall a conversation with Mr. Blake prior to this hearing. At that time he did request all documentation which would further substantiate his operation. During that same period of time that he and Mr. Blake were talking, they were also making their afternoon inspections, evening inspection. He has made numerous inspections on the property as well. His concern is that Code Enforcement and the Police Department inspects a number of restaurants. Most restaurants they go into have substantial numbers quantities of food, but that is not the case for this 'location. The documentation that he's provided today shows various products being bought every 30 days. Most restaurants buy food on a daily basis, not a monthly basis. So all they can go by is what they see when go into these operations. They would like this operation to run successfully. He recalled a number of years ago it was a very successful business. The problems began after the public dance hall permit was issued. That is when the restaurant portion of the business started declining. At one time it was a successful. restaurant. Mr. Blake: Stated he would have to say the purchase or the sales are the dates that the checks are issued. That doesn't mean that they only buy on those dates. They may buy once, twice or three times a week. The date noted is the date for which the check itself is written. Many of those are only paid once a month. The level of purchases is commensurate with the amount of food that they sell. They do not buy way more food than we are going to sell. The sale of food is very close and they are coming closer to meeting alcohol sales. Commissioner Bristol: Asked Mr. Blake if he is indicating that they are averaging nearly $600 a day in food sales. 12-22-97 Page 14 Mr. Blake: Responded recently that would be very close. Commissioner Bristol: Stated this is contrary to the testimony of the Code Enforcement and Police Department that stated they very seldom see anybody eating at the establishment and Mr. Blake stated they are averaging over $600 per day. Mr. Blake: Responded yes. The Code Enforcement representative stated he has typically been there from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m, but their food sales are typically late at night. Their business is typically later in the evening. Commissioner Henninger: Stated there are two different things they are discussing. One is a night club, which is a place where people go to be entertained and drink and if they get .hungry eat. The another is a restaurant, which is a place where people primarily go to eat and sometimes restaurants .have a dinner dance facility where they have entertainment as an accessory use. Let's say your average person buying something spends $10, and then based on a 30 day month, you're talking about 57 food customers a day on average. Their business is licensed for a maximum of 250 people. In an average restaurant environment you'd probably turn them over three times a night. So 750 people a night which means one in thirteen of their customers is eating. That's where those numbers go to, which does not make sense. Mr. Blake: Responded the assumption is that we're turning tables over three times a night for 750 people. Unfortunately they are not doing that, nor serving that number of people. The conditions imposed are that they have at least 50% of the business as food sales. They are quickly approaching full compliance on a condition that the City had admittedly understood it will take them a little while to get there. The fact that they are only selling X number of dollars in food, but yet have more seats, really is not relevant. There are times when there are few people inside of the bar and we may have more sales. Commissioner Henninger: Ask how much their drinks arel Mr. Blake: Responded he did not know the cost of the drinks. Mr. Henninger: Stated beer was $4.50 six months ago. Mr. Henninger: Stated suppose they are $5.00 adrink -that comes out to $127 or 127 drinks a night? So there. are a lot of drinks being sold every night. Mr. Blake: Stated he assumed some of those drinks are being sold to people who buy meals and many of them are also sold to people that do not buy meals. So, there is no way to track that. Again, the condition is not on how many plates of food they serve versus how many drinks, it's on dollar volume. __. Commissioner Henninger: Stated according to the testimony given it appears the business is a night club. Commissioner Bristol: Stated he was in there at their business approximately six months ago from 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 pm, and did not see anything that resembled a food item. He questioned whether they are be able to change this, and by Mr. Blake's own testimony he stated typically their customers eat later at night. That is not a bona fide restaurant. That is typical of a night club. Mr. Blake: Stated those people that come in :later in the evening are eating and that makes us a restaurant when we are sensing food to those customers. The fact that their clientele is a later night 12-22-97 Page 15 dining crowd does not make them any less of a restaurant, it just means that the hours they're serving are later. Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement: Stated in the past regarding a bona fide restaurant, one of the issues were the hours of operation for the typical lunchtime/dinner hour as well as the dinner hour at night. At that particular time they had indicated that the normal lunch time crowd would be from 11:15- 11;30 to about 1:00 p:m. and dinner would be anywhere between 5:00 and 9:00 p.m. They have no problem with those hours and have always tried to gear inspections around those time frames to ascertain if they are operating as a bona fide restaurant. If they are indicating that the majority of their meals are being served after 9:00 p.m., then that statement speaks for itself. Most restaurants are serving dinner between 5:00 and 9:00 p.m. Chairman Bostwick: Stated he agreed. He thpught even if testimony had been given that they have coupons 2 for 1, that is something that customers are generally going to go to dinner sometime :before 11:00 p.m. If they stay afterward for entertainment then that is something else. Therefore recommended terminating Conditional Use Permit No. 3421. Commissioner Henninger: Recommended continuing Conditional Use Permit No. 1594, pertaining to the restaurant, and continue it for ninety days to see if they can get their restaurant operation more in conformance as a restaurant. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the .previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Continued Conditional Use Permit No. 1594 to the March 16, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order to re-evaluate if the establishment is being operated a "Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code. Terminated Conditional Use Permit No. 3421. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 36 minutes (2:27-3:03) --- 12-22-97 Page 16 5b. 5c. OWNER: William Taormina, P.O. Box 309, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Steve Eide, 158 Orange Street, Covina, CA 91723 LOCATION: 411 and 423 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is 1.79 acres located at the southwest corner of Sycamore Street and Anaheim Boulevard. To construct a 51,238 square foot enclosed roller hockey facility with two .roller rinks, snack shop., pro shop and support offices and lockers with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, maximum structural height, minimum structural setback and minimum setback adjacent to residential zones. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 1-21-98 SR1016JK.DOC ------------------------------------------------------------ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 21, 1998 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in order to consider alternate designs to reduce the number of waivers. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was npt discussed. 12-22-97 Page 17 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT I 1-5-98 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3993 OWNER: Lewis R. Schmid, Attn: Jason T. Schmid, 1725 South Douglass Road, #C, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION; 2600-2620 East Katelia Avenue - J.T. Schmid's Brewhouse and Eatery. Property is 3.1 acres .located at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. To permit a 25-foot high, 210 square foot freestanding sign including 30 square foot of marquee signage with waiver of prohibited signs. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. S R6861 KB. W P ------------------------------------------------------------ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 5, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to work with staff regarding options for a monument sign for this commercial shopping center. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 12-22-97 Page 18 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3703 (READVERTISED) 1-5-98 OWNER: Lewis R. Schmid, Attn: Jason T. Schmid, 1725 South Douglass Road #C, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2600-2620 East Katella Avenue - J.T. Schmid's Brewhouse and Eatery. Property is 3.1 acres located at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. To modify or delete a condition of approval pertaining to freestanding signs. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. S R6860KB. W P FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 5, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to work with staff regarding a possible monument sign for this commercial shopping center. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 12-22-97 Page 19 18b. OWNER: Carl Karcher, 1200 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: RHL Design Group, Inc., Attn: Tom Riggle, 2001 Beach Boulevard #207, La Habra, CA 90631 LOCATION: 1244 North Harbor Boulevard. Property is 1.0 acre located east of Harbor Boulevard, 240 feet north of the centerline of Romneya Drive. To reclassify subject property from CG (Commercial., General) to CL (Commercial, Limited). RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC97-179 Granted, unconditionally SR6846KB.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 97-98-08, unconditionally VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (3:03-3:04) This item was not discussed. 12-22-97 Page 20 9b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15565 11-21-98 9c. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO.97.03 OWNER: Mary Yaeko Murata, Robert Kenzo Murata, Paul Seichi Murata, Sachiko .Murata, 2312 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92663 AGENT: Salkin Engineering Corporation, Attn: George E. Kerns, 1215 East Chapman Avenue, Suite 2, Orange, CA 92866 LOCATION: 421 South Country Hill Road. Property is 8.0 acres located 270 feet east of the centerline of Old Ranch Road. To establish a 12-lot, 11-unit, single-family residential detached subdivision and approval for the removal of 103 specimen trees. SR6859KB. W P FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION [Before Commission voted to continue this item to January 21, 1998, Ms. Chapman requested she be allowed to give testimony.] Public Testimony: Linda Chapman, 415 Country Hill Road, Anaheim, CA: Stated she lives next to the subject property where this tree removal is being proposed. She brought with her a snapshot of some of the trees, Her primary concern is for the preservation of the 103 specimen trees. These are protected trees for a number of reasons. There are screech owls that nest in those trees, great horn owls and hawks. She feels there needs to be an environmental study done because the habitat in this area is going to be disrupted. Also, this area, where she understands the applicant is proposing to build 11 homes, is being served by a 30 foot road. Mohler Drive is already a narrow loop serving many homes. If there was a major disaster all of the residents of these homes would be required to exit the area~on this one narrow entrance at Mohler Drive. She, as well as many of her neighbors, does not understand why the entrance can not be on Fairmont Boulevard, which would be saving the trees, be a safer eiiif"for these new homes and would save a lot of the habitat. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 21, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order to advertise a variance for maximum structural height in conjunction with the tentative tract map request. 12-22-97 Page 21 VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 12-22-97 Page 22 10b. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 97-201 11-21-98 10c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-07 10d. VARIANCE NO. 4327 OWNER: Lois Hightshoe, 1250 South Nutwood Street Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 1250 South Nutwood Street. Property is 0.5 acre located at the northeast corner of Castle Avenue and Nutwood Street. Waivers of minimum lot area and minimum lot width to establish a S- lot single-family residential detached subdivision and to reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agriculture) to the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR6857KB.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Applicant's Statement: Bob Sedillo, 404 N. Monterey Avenue, No. G, in Alhambra, CA: Proposed subdividing his property zoned RS-A-43,OOp into three residential lots which staff says must conform to adjacent RS-7200 specifications. He wanted a variance to allow smaller lot size and less frontage than required by those specified in RS-7200 which requires a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet and a minimum frontage of 70 feet. He presented an exhibit which highlighted properties within 800 feet of his which, though zoned RS-7200, nevertheless had less area and less frontage than required. He also cited a tract north of Ball where almost all the residents had less than minimum area and frontage. He wants the opportunity to create similar lots in the RS-7200 area. He also pointed out that the planners say that his lot under RS-7200 should support 4.4 units yet they will only allow two. The proposed Subdivision would create three properties: the current building will remain as it is and its lot size will be reduced to 6613 square feet; another lot would be created with an 82 foot frontage on Nutwood; and a third; smaller lot would have a Nutwood frontage of only 46 feet but an area of 2200 square feet. The staff did not get a chance to consider this proposal because the Planning Counter asked him not to submit any plans as normally done with custom lots for custom homes. In retrospect, this was a mistake because when planning did review it they did not understand what he was trying to do. He presented a complete description of the proposed lots, building floor plans, and landscape treatments to the Commission at this time. [Comments by Commission and others not audible.] 12-22-97 Page 23 Public Testimony John Turanitza, resident at 1873 W. Castle Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated he has .lived next door to the subject property since 1969 and has gathered signatures for 9 of the 12 residents on the Castle who also oppose building 2 additional houses. They did not oppose a second house facing Nutwood but it would be over building to put an additional house on Castle Avenue. It would also negatively impact traffic which is currently overwhelmed by use of the park across the street, the schools in the area, and by the problems residents are having with the Living Stream Ministry. At this time there is tiarely enough on street parking for residents. It is his understanding that the applicant is planning to move the current garage to the south side of the house which will block his view and that of every house from the mid point of the street to the north end. Georgeann Proitt: Stated she has lived on Castle Avenue since 1971 and is concerned that the added driveway for the new residential lot will cause an even greater problem than now exists with park, apartment house, and Ministry traffic. It would be more dangerous to pull out of Castle than it is now. (Please note: File indicates she resides at 1852 Castle Avenue.) Applicant's Rebuttal: Bob Sedillo: Rebutted that he understands the resident concerns not having seen the plans which allow for each house to have a two car garage and room for two more cars on property in front of the garages which meet code requirements and is more than provided on neighboring lots. Commissioner Henninger: Advised the applicant to take the time to explain his plans to his neighbors. Mr. Sedillo: Pointed out that he met with Mr. Turanitza when he first purchased the property and when he mentioned his plans, Mr. Turanitza pointed out that he was the preserver of the neighborhood and that he and other residents would never let anything change. He told me that the lot next door was 311 feet wide and that there's no way they would let .anything be built behind their homes. Another time they mentioned that they crushed some Modjeska Park improvements because they did not want any additional traffic in the area. The additional house that is being proposed on Castle will have negligible .impact on traffic. Commissioner Bristol: Agreed with Commissioner Henninger that the applicant should sit down with this neighbors and explain the plans he is showing to the Commission. His plans do not conform to what is currently the property character of Castle Avenue. It does not make any difference what char- acteristics property has on the other side of Ball Road. Chairman Bostwick: Suggested the applicant take a two week continuance, to January 21,_1998, to come to an agreement with his neighbors and if necessary City staff could help him to rework his plans. _._ Commissioner Henninger: Stated that the Commission would deny his request for three lots as it stands without some sort of neighborhood consensus in favor of it. [Please note: Due to problems with the recording equipment a brief portion of testimony did not get recorded. Therefore the following summary was compiled from staff notes:] Selma Mann, !Deputy City Attorney: Stated to the applicant that the findings for the required findings for a waiver are set forth in paragraph no. 17 and they do not just include that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of .privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classifications in the vicinity. There is also a finding that must be made that there are special 12-22-97 Page 24 circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity. It is up to Commission to determine what the vicinity is in each case. [Please note: The recording equipment began recording from this point forward -Tape No. 3.] Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated if the applicant decides to reduce his proposed subdivision to two lots, staff would require him to return with final plans to be presented to the Commission. The item would be continued to January 21, 1998 and if the applicant needed more time to finalize a two lot proposal more time could be granted. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, Public Works Department: Wanted to know more about the underground tank mentioned in the testimony but it was pointed out by Mr. Sedillo that the Fire Depart- ment had already concluded that investigation. Chairman Bostwick: Requested a copy of that investigation to be sent to staff from the Fire Department. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to subject request ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 21, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to review the project with his neighbors and for possible submittal of revised plans. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 29 minutes (3:04-3:33) 12-22-97 Page 25 11 b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT I Approved 11 c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3991 Granted OWNER: The Salvation Army, 1300 South.Lewis Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1300 South Lewis Street. Property is 14.51 acres located on the east side of Lewis Street, 820 feet north of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue. To construct a women's rehabilitation center in conjunction with the existing Salvation Army men's rehabilitation center and work therapy unit with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-180 SR7015TW.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Applicant's Statement: Paul Ruffing, 1101 Dove Street, Newport Beach, CA, the architect for the applicant: Stated Major Stenvick, the operator of the adult rehabilitation center on South Lewis Street, is also present. They read the staff report, met with the staff, feel that all of the conditions are reasonable and are willing to accept the conditions and abide by them. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Recommended changes to Condition No. 6 on Page 6 of the staff report, that the wording be changed to state that the proposed women's residence is approved solely in conjunction with the existing rehabilitation center. The proposed use of the property will be limited to that stated in the letter of operation and if the existing rehabilitation center should cease it's operation, the buildings on this property shall .not be used for any other residential uses. Chairman-Bostwick: Asked Mr. Buffing if he was in agreement? - Mr. Buffing: Responded yes. -" OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3991 with the following change: Modified Condition No. 6 to.read as follows: 12-22-97 Page 26 6. That the proposed women's residence is approved solely in conjunction with the existing rehabilitation center. The proposed use of the property shall be limited to that stated in the letter of operation and if the existing rehabilitation center should cease it's operations the buildings on this property shall not be used for any other residential uses. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner .Mayer absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (3:33-3:34) 12-22-97 Page 27 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1225 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Courtline, Inc. 2130 West Crescent Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Schuller Bussett, c/o Tara Hills Apartments, 2130 West Crescent Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2130 West Crescent Avenue -Tara Hill Apartments. Property is 12.16 acres located on the south side of Crescent Avenue, 380 feet east of the centerline of Brookhurst Street. To modify or delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain achild-care facility within an apartment complex. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-181 Approved modification to conditions of approval SR7013MA.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Applicant's Statement: Hoss Eftekhari, Hoss/Wiliiams & Associates, 5945 Settler Court, Anaheim, CA: Stated he is representing Tara Hills apartment management. The original conditional use permit was granted on March 1971 for one year, with the further extension of time to .renew the use. Tara Hills management, during the financing attempt a few months ago, realized that an active time extension is required. This use has been in existence since 1971, providing services to the apartment complex, tenants, and immediate surrounding residents. To renew their use, Planning staff informed them that a parking study was required for this use due to the increase of parking demand. Therefore, they conducted a parking study. This facility would not have any negative impact on this site or in the immediate surrounding area THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger: Stated there is a correction Paragraph No. 5. It should read, that this was approved to 1997. -" OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved request. Deleted Condition No. 6 of Resolution No. 71 R-150 pertaining to a time .limitation. Added the following condition: 12-22-97 Page 28 That the maximum number of infants and children enrolled at this facility shall not exceed sixty two (62) or any lesser number of infants and children as may be permitted by the State of California, Department of Social Services. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. pISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (3:34-3:38) 12-22-97 Page 29 13b. OWNER: First Security Bank, Attn: William Wade, 3100 West Big Beaver Road, Troy, Michigan 48084 AGENT: Jeff Rawitch, 2531 Agua Santra, Tustin, CA 92782 LOCATION: 1095 Pullman Street. Property is 18.69 acres located south and west of the southwest corner of Old Canal Road and Weir Canyon Road. To retain an arcade within an existing "Super K-Mart" store. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-182 Granted SR6855TW.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Applicant's Statement: Jeff Rawitch, General Manager, ENR Games, Inc., 2531 Agua Santra, Tustin, CA: Stated he was present to answer any questions. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if he has read the staff report? Mr. Rawitch: Responded yes. Regarding landscaping, if they must conform to the landscaping then they will. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cheryl .Flores, Senior Planner: Stated she had a couple of recommendations regarding conditions of approval. Add that there be no exterior signage on the store for the arcade. Another recommendation would be that the arcade use shall only be approved in conjunction with the use of the remainder of the store as the retail department store operation. It is staffs understanding with regard to Condition No. 6, that the activity has already commenced. She recommended that the timing be within thirty days of the date of this resolution for Condition No. 5. - OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 15061 (b) (3), as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3990 with the following changes to conditions: 12-22-97 Page 30 .Modified Condition No. 6 to read as follows: 6. That within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution, Condition No. 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Added the following conditions: That exterior signage on the store for the arcade shall not be permitted. That the arcade use shall only be :permitted in conjunction with the use of the remainder of the store as a retail department store. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Bristol and Mayer absent) Selma .Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (3:38-3:41) 12-22-97 Page 31 14b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3464 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Community Christian Church, 5100 .East La Palma Avenue, Suites 111 and 112, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 5100 East La__Palma Avenue, Suites 111 and 112 - Community Christian Church. Property is 6.3 acres located on the south side of La Palma Avenue, 3,560 feet east of the centerline of Lakeview Avenue. To modify or delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain a 3,900 square foot church within a 138,350 square foot industrial complex. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-183 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approved modification to conditions of approval (To expire 10-31-01) SR7016KP.WP [Commissioner Henninger chaired this item until Chairman Bostwick returned.) Applicant's Statement: Greg Curtis, pastor at the Community Christian Church, 5100 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite 199, Anaheim, CA: He was present to answer any questions. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if Mr. Curtis had read the staff report? Greg Curtis: Responded yes, He asked for a clarification on the conditional use permit related to Item No. 17. He asked if the recommendation by staff was that in four years the conditional use permit would be renewable or would it terminate permanently. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Responded the reason that staff recommended that this expire concurrent with the lease agreement is .because that is something that is typically done whenever there is a lease agreement with a church in an industrial area. After the four year time period the applicant can ask to reinstate the use at that time. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved request. Modified Condition No. 17 of Resolution No. PC94-164 to read as follows: 12-22-97 Page 32 "17. That this conditional use permit is granted for period of four (4) years and shall terminate pn October 31, 2001 in concurrence with the termination of the current lease agreement " VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSStOtd TIME: 4 minutes (3:41-3:45) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:45 P.M. TO MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 1998 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Submitted by: Ossie Edmundson Secretary 12-22-97 Page 33