Minutes-PC 1997/09/29SUMMARY ACTION AGE ®A
ANAHEIM CITY
PLA ING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1997
11:00 A.M. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY
DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES
1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, MAYER, NAPOLES, PERAZA
_ COMMISSIONER ABSENT: BOSTWICK _
STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Assistant City Attorney -
Greg Hastings Zoning Division Manager
Cheryl Flores Senior Planner
Greg McCafferty Associate Planner
Judy Kwok Assistant Planner
Bruce Freeman Code Enforcement Supervisor
Taher Jalai Associate Traffic Engineer
Tom Engle Vice Detail
Mark Yuravich Community Policing
Margarita Solorio Senior Secretary
Ossie Edmundson Secretary
P:\DOCS\CIERICAL\MINUTES\AC092997. W P
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
NONE
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3741 -REQUEST FOR Continued to
TERMINATION: Gerald T. Unterkoefler, CPM, 8294 Mira 10-13-97
Mesa Boulevard, San Diego, CA 92126, requests termination
of Conditional Use Permit No. 3741 (to establish an auto
alarm and stereo sales and installation facility). Property is
located 1696 West Katella Avenue.
TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO.
SR1000MA.DOC
B. a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREY.-APPROVED) Approved
b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3924 -REQUEST Approved, in part
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: David
Jackson, 1557 West Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802,
requests review of final elevation and landscape plans
(to construct agymnasium/auditorium and classroom for
a private educational facility). Property is located at
2212 West Sequoia Avenue.
ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion,
seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby determined that the
previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve
as the required environmental documentation for subject
request.
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED _
(Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby approve the final building _._
elevations provided the color of the building walls be the
same as the school building walls and trim; and, further
.approves, in part, the general landscaping type and
placement with the stipulation that 9, 24-inch box trees be
planted along the south property line and that all of the trees
on the west and south property lines be upgraded to 24 inch
box size to provide adequate screening for the proposed
building elevations in lieu of increased architectural
embellishment of the elevations and that plans shall be
submitted indicating these modifications for review and
approval by Zoning Division staff.
SR6802KP. W P
09-29-97
Page 2
Applicant's Statement:
David Jackson, Executive Director of Fairmont Private Schools: Stated they were
before the Commission for review and approval of building elevations and landscaping
in conjunction with previously-approved Gonditional Use Permit No. 3924. They do
have the plans for the nine trees and eight 15-gallon trees on the other side. It is
much more expensive to plant a 24-inch box trees rather than a 15-gallon size trees.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated the condition requires 24-inch box trees along the
west property line.
David Jackson: Stated that is because they were told that is what was required. He
would prefer to plant 15-gallon trees.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated they definitely want the 24-inch box trees. In
addition to that the staff would like to see 24-inch box size trees along the south
property line. It is a relatively plain metal building and stafFs thoughts were to do
something with the architecture or do something with the landscaping in order to view
screen it. In addition to that staff had a question about the color; instead of going
with white they want it to match with the existing building.
David Jackson: Responded they will try to match it as closely as they can since there
are only limited choices that they can have on that building.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated the Commission would prefer the nine (required)
15-gallon size trees shown on the plans on the south property line be replaced with
24-inch box trees.
09-29-97
Page 3
C. a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREY.-APPROVED) Approved
b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3922 -REQUEST Approved
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS:
Steve Philips (RHL Design Group Inc.), 1201 South
Beach Boulevard, La Habra, CA 90631, requests review
and approval of final exterior elevation and canopy plans
for apreviously-approved service station and
convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for
off-premises consumption. Property is located at 1244
North Harbor Boulevard.
ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion,
seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim
City Planning Commission does hereby determined that the
previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve
as the required environmental documentation for subject
request.
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner Bostwick absent), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby approve the revised
elevation plans and canopy plans, with the following
stipulations: that a stucco finish be provided on the
supporting columns of the canopy painted to match the
service station building; that the canoov cornice elements be
painted to match the cornice elements on the service station
building; and, that said information be noted on the plans
submitted for building permits.
S R68001CB. W P
Applicant's Statement:
Paul Loubet, Arco Products Company, 4 Center Pointe Drive, La Palma, CA: Stated
before Commission acts on this item he wanted to make one correction, under the
_"Discussion" section of the staff report, page 1, it states there will be a stainless steel
band wrapped around the canopy. He wanted to modify it to give it more flexibility in
the installation and would like it to read either brushed aluminum or silver ACM type-
of material.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked if Mr. Loubet if had read staffs comments on
Paragraph No. 7 of the staff report regarding the posts that hold up the canopy.
Paul Loubet: Responded the change had already been made previously so they do
not have any problem with that. Regarding painting the cornice details white, thought
it might be better to paint the top one white, but if they would like both white then they
would do that.
09-29-97
Page 4
Commissioner Henninger: Stated staffs desire was to match details from the canopy
to the building. There are two different colors and staff felt he could choose
whichever one he wanted as long as they both match.
Paul Loubet: Stated they will match the building color.
09-29-97
Page 5
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3952 Granted.
2c. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY Approved for 1 year
NO. 97-11 from the date of
issuance of an
OWNER: LEDERER ANAHEIM LIMITED, 1990 Westwood occupancy permit
Boulevard, Suite 250, Los Angeles, CA 90025
AGENT: ANAHEIM INDOOR MARKETPLACE, Attn: Robert
Weiss, 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim,
CA 92805
LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard -Anaheim Indoor
Marketplace. Property is 14.74 acres located north
and east of the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue
and Anaheim Boulevard.
To permit a 6,809 square foot addition for a television studio and
entertainment area and determination of public convenience or
necessity for retail sales of beer for on-premises consumption and a
second level, 1,209 square foot office area in conjunction with an
existing indoor swap meet.
Continued from the Commission meetings of July 21, August 18,
September 3, and September 15, 1997.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-135
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY
RESOLUTION NO. PC97-136
SR6799JK.DOC
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke with concerns - -
ApplicanPs Statement:
Robert Weiss, General Manager of the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace: Stated this is a re-submittal of
plans and information requested at the last public hearing. He provided, in the Commissioner's
packets, the different limitations on the beer license that they were requesting and a schedule which
stated they would Tike to have a limited serving for events on weekends and up to two evenings per
week. Also included was a menu which listed the proposed food items to be served and a small
reference map which showing the green room, bathrooms and security personnel. Security personnel
09-29-97
Page 6
will be posted at all entrances and exits during any service of beer, under Type 40 (ABC) license.
(See Attachment Item No. 2 of the staff report). On Condition No. 5 which states there shall be no live
entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premises at any time but at the issuance of
proper permits as required by the Municipal Code. In the past, this applied to outdoor events but
obviously this CUP is for an indoor event area so he thought this would be the permit they-would need.
Condition No. 14 states they are allowed to have live music and the events. As he understood it,
these events will be allowed without additional permits in the entertainment area itself but if they want
outdoor events then they would need a special events permit.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated there are separate requirements for entertainment licenses
and dance permits that are determined on a case by case basis that are distributed by the Business
License Division. He indicated they could speak with the applicant in more detail after the meeting.
Pubtic Testimony:
Leroy Salazar, 9771 Dakota Ave., Garden Grove, CA: Stated he is an Elder with the Calvary Chapel
in Anaheim. They are concerned about this request for sale of beer for the following reasons:
1. Safety - -there is a school nearby and the moral aspect of having beer in close proximity to a
school is dangerous, and is sending a wrong message to children regarding morality.
2. Crime - -they are concerned that the crime rate might go up due to alcohol use.
3. Current locations to purchase alcohol - -there is an area already at the Swap Meet where beer
can be purchased and consumed. Nearby is the Plaza Garibaldi Restaurant where the putilic
can purchase beer and are open the same hours as the swap meet. His point is that there are
already other places to purchase alcohol in the immediate area. Directly .across the street is a
liquor store. There is already enough places where the public can purchase and consume
alcohol in the area. He felt all of this needs to stop somewhere. We need to teach children
they can do things without alcohol.
Carol Stanley, 235 S. Beach Blvd., Anaheim, CA: Stated she once attended the swap meet as a
representative of the American Red Cross during a health fair this year. It presented a protilem for her
because she did not speak Spanish and she was trying to represent the Red Cross. She observed
many people coming In to a dance floor type area in the center of the swap meet. Several df the
people appeared intoxicated. She became very concerned for her own safety because of the
atmosphere in that place. It is not a good place for children to be with the alcohol that will be there.
She is extremely concerned about that and feels a stand needs to be taken against alcohol and urged
Commission not to approve the request.
Applicant's Response:
Robert Weiss: Stated Mr. Salazar's had mentioned schools being nearby but the use on this license is
very restrictive and would only be for specific events. In the staff report there is a letter from the
Anaheim City School District in which they stated they approved and supported the project as long as
there were no beer sales during school hours on the weekdays. He stated they are a family orientated
facility. He has never met Ms. Stanley but most of their clientele is lower income Hispanics. He is not
aware of any of the problems such as Ms. Stanley referred to. The health fair that they had was
primarily for families that came to get inoculations or free counseling from many of the doctors. He
had already spoken with the Police Department and although they do not approve of the project
because of the amount of licenses already in the area, they felt that their restrictions and everything
else imposed was adequate. They have operated for five years and they do not want problems. That
is why they are proposing sale of beer only.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
09-29-97
Page 7
Commissioner Mayer: Stated there is a similar area in the interior of the Marketplace and as she
understood it the applicant is moving the similar uses into the newly constructed area adding boxing
events?
Robert Weiss: Responded that is correct. Currently they have an interior facility where they have
music concerts on the weekends or have been taping television shows and they have a permit on the
outside area on the patio where they have the wrestling events (already approved). All they are doing
is enclosing the exterior patio and turning the interior entertainment area back to retail space. So they
would have a larger facility that would hold just over 600 people rather than having separate facilities.
Commissioner Mayer: Asked the applicant whether those are family orientated events.
Robert Weiss: Correct.
Commissioner Mayer: Suggested adding language to the conditions that no adult type entertainment is
planned for use at this facility.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she has been at the Marketplace a number of times with her family
and she personally was not uncomfortable about the facility. In the past the Marketplace has been
cooperative with whatever Commission has asked of them and perhaps having a time limit on the sale
of beer to see how it works would be best.
Robert Weiss: Responded that would be fine, perhaps for one year at a time.
Commissioner Mayer: Asked about the capacity of the facility.
Robert Weiss: Responded it is 670 audience and up to 30 performers/staff.
Commissioner Mayer: Asked if there were enough stalls in the women's restroom for that many
people.
Robert Weiss: On the revised plans they submitted the restrooms will meet the requirements
according to their architect.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated staff checked with the .Building Division and the men's restroom
should. have 6 stalls and the women's should have 11 stalls. That is based on the occupancy load of
670 people in the facility.
Commissioner Henninger: He believed there was a condition regarding meeting the UVC regarding the
restrooms.
Cheryl Flores: Stated she did not see it but that could be conditioned that the applicant provide the
number requirement by the UVC.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked the police to comment on the number of licenses in the area.
Investigator Tom Engle, Vice Detail, Police Department: Stated no they have not had any problems at
that location.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Investigator Engle is it would be helpful to have a one year time limit
on beer sales to see how it works.
09-29-97
Page 8
Tom Engle: Yes it would work very well.
Commissioner Peraza: Stated Commissioner Henninger suggested just the opposite, in the morning
session, to go one year without beer sales.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated that he suggest it might be something to consider
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated due to their past cooperation, she would Tike to try allowing sales for
1 year and then the applicant returns for a re-evaluation.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated his thoughts regarding the testimony from the representative of the
church. He agrees with him completely on the concept of being more responsible for alcohol use and
our society. The thing to encourage is more personal responsibility. He feels the way to get there is
to encourage people to improved personal responsibility rather than trying to do it through government
regulations.
Commissioner Mayer: Asked about events currently in other places in their premises, asked who can
buy beer at the existing locations? Can they bring that beer to those events or do they have to stay in
the area to consume that beer?
Robert Weiss: Responded that they have a very limited restaurant area. There are about 6 to S
tables and the clientele must consume the alcohol (beer and wine license with food) in a contained
restaurant.
Commissioner Mayer: Asked whether they had good attendance even though people can not bring
their beer and wine with them to watch the event.
Robert Weiss: Yes and no. They are hoping with bigger capacity they may be able to bring larger
groups and since larger events cost more, they are hoping to generate a small amount of income.
One of their competitor swap meets in Santa Fe Springs allow clients to carry beer throughout the
whole swap meet. That really helps them fund to bring bigger acts which then generates more
shoppers and customers. That was actually the main reason for having the license. He addressed
Commissioner Peraza regarding his suggestion that they wait a year for the beer. They have already
been having these events for 4 to 5 years so the only change would be the allowing beer in the
contained area and that is why they are building an area to keep everything under control.
Commissioner Bristol: Stated it appears that the newly considered conditions for adding UVC
(compliance of restroom stalls), potential of 1 year limit on use of the beer, no adult type
entertainment. _
Cheryl Flores: Suggested adding another condition to identify the schedule of events to read. that beer
would be served only during weekend events and holidays and further only two evenings per week
between 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. to coincide with the schedule of events that was submitted by the
applicant. She also suggested Condition No. 1 can be deleted.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked about the condition Commission is adding referring to no adult
entertainment. There is a city ordinance that addresses this and this. He asked Selma Mann for her
recommendation whether it is necessary to add the condition.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated it is up to the Commission to add that condition. The
purpose it would serve would be giving additional notice to the applicant with regard to the existence of
it. She suggested rather than saying adult entertainment it should state, they will not engage in
09-29-97
Page 9
activities that would trigger or requirement for asex-orientated business permit under Chapter 18.89 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Commissioner Mayer: Stated she felt comfortable with Ms. Mann's suggestion. Her concern was that
they are building a theater entertainment area that some other owner might put it to a use of which the
Commission would not approve.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked doesn't some ABC licenses have age restrictions on people having
to be 21 years of age and no children in a bar.
Tom Engle: Responded yes there are. In this case they are applying for a beer and wine license only.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated another problem they have with this concept is that it does not cover
any ABC license that would carry with it an age restriction.
Selma Mann: Stated she is not very familiar enough with the ABC regulations and it may be that all
ABC licenses have some kind of an age restriction just by virtue of the fact that no one under age is
allowed to purchase alcohol.
Commissioner Henninger: Yes, but there are some licenses for a night club where they serve alcohol
and no one under 18 or 21 is allowed to attend. The testimony is that this is going to be family
orientated entertainment which means it is entertainment suitable for children as well as adults.
Selma Mann: Stated if they wish to have a condition on the CUP that this is for a family
entertainment, ABC will honor conditions placed on a resolution far public convenience or necessity.
Possibly in conjunction with the resolution of public convenience or necessity, there could be some
specific conditions with regard to the operation i.e. hours and the type of entertainment or there be a
license for beer only, and only such license as consistent with having family type entertainment with
multiple age groups.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3952 with the following changes to conditions:
Deleted Condition No. 1
09-29-97
Page 10
Modified Condition No. 13 to read as follows
13. That the portion of this permit regarding the retail sales of beer shall expire
one (1) year from the date of issuance of an occupancy permit.
Added the following conditions:
That plans shall be submitted to the Building Division showing compliance with the City
of Anaheim, Uniform Building Code pertaining to the minimum number of bathroom
stalls for both men's and women's restrooms for this addition.
That the entertainment facility shall be operated as afamily-oriented business and
shall not include activities that would constitute or require approval for asex-oriented
business permit under Chapter 18.89 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
That beer shall only be served during weekend and holiday events, and on a maximum
of two evenings per week, between 7 p.m. and 11 p.m.
APPROVED Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 97-11 with the
following conditions:
That beer shall only be served in conjunction with family-oriented type entertainment
and is hereby approved for a period of one (1) year from the date of the issuance of an
occupancy permit.
That beer shall only be served during weekend and holiday events, and on a maximum
of two evenings per week, between 7 and 11 p.m.
VOTE: Conditional Use .Permit Resolution: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent)
Public Convenience or Necessity Resolution: 5-1 (Commissioner Peraza voted no and
Commissioner Bostwick was absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 30 minutes (1:47-2:17)
09-29-97
Page 11
3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21
3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3949
OWNER: SUMANBHAI N. PATEL AND NIRMALABEN S.
PATEL, 426 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA
92804
LOCATION: 426 South Beach Boulevard -Pacific Inn Motel.
Property is 0.36 acre located on the east side of
Beach Boulevard, 406 feet north of the centerline of
Orange Avenue.
To retain a 23-unit motel.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-137
Concurred w/staff
Denied
SR6517DS.DOC
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
IN FAVOR: 2 people spoke in favor of subject request.
Applicant's Statement:
Commissioner Bristol: Stated, for the record, there were two letters received from West Anaheim
Better Business and Concerned Citizens and from Halecrest Heritage Estates Neighborhood Watch.
They have written letters for three items and this is the first of the three items.
Hari Lal, general counsel to the Pacific Inn Motel: Stated the application is regarding Conditional Use
Permit No. 3949. They submitted the application along with all the submission to the Commission with
the application. There is the declaration of the owner included in the matter included but not limited to
the response to the Police Department memorandum dated September 26, 1997. He gave a brief
background. Conditional Use Permit No. 1979 expired sometime in December of 1996. That
conditional use permit had gone to the City Council and the City Council at that time appointed an
arbitrator to look into the matter and make recommendations. Apparenkly, there were some
stipulations reached between the City Attorney's Office and the counsel for the owners at that time
subject to 15 to 20 conditions that were outlined. That application became due in December 1996 and
the new application resulted in Conditional Use Permit No. 3949. The owners have not had much
time to review the Police report in detail but they did receive it (via fax) on Friday. Hepointed-but that
he felt there were gross inconsistencies., hearsay, etc. with the Police report. That report never came
out during the hearing last year or the year before that, as to the allegations outlined for the years
1992, 1994 and 1995. The Police report is recommending a rejection but the staff report dated
September 29, 1997 approves the environmental portion of the proposal. The Police Department is
recommending a rejection but, in the event of an approval, they are noting approximately 20 conditions
to be complied with on page 5 and 6 of the staff report. In the Code Enforcement report dated
September 19, 1997, there was a joint review and the County Health Department, Code Enforcement
and himself were present at the motel site on or about August 20, 1997. An extensive report was
done. He does not know if the needed repairs have been done. Code Enforcement was of the opinion
that there was tremendous improvement at the site. It is the request of the applicant at this time that
Conditional Use Permit No. 3949 be approved subject to the 20 conditions outlined on page 5 and 6 of
09-29-97
Page 12
the staff report. Staff recommends a 6 month approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3949 and then it
would return after 6 months for further review and recommendations.
Public Testimony:
Harshad Mody, 11406 Bertha St., Cerritos, CA 90703: Stated he knows the owner of the;motel very
well. He has seen so many other motels in the city of Anaheim where there are more problems than
with the Pacific Inn Motel. Why does Code Enforcement concentrated on only on this property. He
believes this motet has no major problems.
Richard lantorno: Stated he is currently residing temporarily at the Pacific Inn Motel. He thinks this is
a nice motel. He has seen many motels that have looked a lot worst but by his standards this is a
very nice motel. He works in Bellflower and lives in Corona and due to the long commute he decided
to stay here. The motel has done a lot of work and he has helped them with some of it himself.
Commissioner Bcydstun: Asked how long Mr. lantorno has lived at the motel?
Richard lantorno: For the past 2% or 3 months.
Commissioner Mayer: Asked if he was there on the weekends?
Richard lantorno.: Responded he is back and forth.
Carol Stanley, 235 S. Beach Blvd., Anaheim, CA: Stated she has seen the residents that go in and
out of this motel and she was under the impression that a motel was suppose to be for approximately
2 weeks only. She has worked with the Police Department many times regarding this particular motel
and several others along Beach Blvd. This motel has had problems with drugs, prostitution, etc.
Within the last two months she reported an incident regarding the security guard, that they were
ordered to have on premises, being drunk on the job. He was checked out by the Police Department
and was found to be drunk on the job and fired. This was after they had been reprimanded many
times. This activity goes on daily there. They would like some peace and quite and a clean
neighborhood. There are many motels in the City of Anaheim that are worst than the Pacific Inn
Motel. At least half of them are in west Anaheim and that is what they are trying to eliminate. They
report the incidents that they see.
Esther Wallace, Chairman of the WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council), resident
at 605 Scott Lane, Anaheim, CA: Stated Pacific Inn Motel has consistently violated all the regulations
that have been put upon them. In the beginning they were given some waivers in their conditional use
permit. They have failed to keep good standards there. They need more parking spaces and more
landscaping. She is a member of the Magnolia School Board and knows that they had many
complaints from their principals about the conditions of children that were living there. She did not
think there are many children living there now but they continue to get reports of the conditions of the
motel. She concluded by saying the motel has failed to keep good faith with the conditions that have
been given to it and therefore she feels this conditional use permit should be denied.
Applicant's Response:
Hari Lal: Stated regarding the landscape and parking issue in looking at the staff report, the staff is
recommending what really needs 4o be done as far at the landscaping is concerned. One of the 20
conditions, Condition No. 15, deals with the issue of landscaping. Condition No. 16 deals with parking.
As far as the issue of the security guard being drunk, there is no mention of this on any of the Police
reports. The security guards are hired from a professional security guard company. It was never
brought to management's attention. The security guard is there at the present time. The security
09-29-97
Page 13
company even presented a report to the City Council last year regarding their findings of that area. He
realizes that Beach Boulevard as a whole is a problem area along with a few others. The solution to
the problem is not to shut down the entire South Beach Boulevard. The solution to the problem is the
kind of recommendations and conditions (1-20) that are listed on the staff report which address the
parking, landscaping, security, guest registry list, etc. If you shut down a business you are going to
have a vacant building and that becomes more of a nuisance to the city. Based on that he said there
is nothing wrong in allowing a conditional use permit subject to 20 very rigid conditions. Perhaps after
6 month a review can be done and a final determination made at that time.
Commissioner Mayer: Asked if he referred to a Police memo dated September 16th.
Hari Lal: Responded the memo was written by Lieutenant Jim Flammini. A response to it was in the
Commissioner's packets.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Mayer: Asked the Police Department to go over their report
Investigator Tom Engle, Vice :Detail, Police Department: The conditions requested on the staff report
have already been placed on their previous conditional use permit and they did not abide by them then
and are still not abiding by them now. For the record, this is not the only motel that he visits on Beach
Boulevard. if you ask the owners of the Covered Wagon, the Rainbow, the Ruby, and others, they are
very aware that he goes on their property and looks around and they have all been brought before this
Commission, not just this motel. The Police Department has recommended denial of this conditional
use permit because of all the problems that this location presents to not only the Vice Detail but to the
Narcotics Detail, Major Assaults Detail, and the Patrol Division. The entire department is involved with
monitoring this property numerous times each week and it is taking too much of their manpower for
one motel. He helped co-author this report. Every item listed on the memo they can backup with facts
and statements and reports. They strongly urge Commission to deny this conditional use permit and
close this property down. He indicated that Officer Yuravich and Officer Moss, from the Community
Policing Detail were available to answer questions.
Officer Mark Yuravich assigned to the Community Policing Team, West Target Area, Police
Department: Stated the Pacific Inn Motel is included the in West Target Area. He indicated he had a
letter from Hari Lal and Associates. He had just become aware of the letter this morning and he
wanted to clarify what contact he has had with the Pacific Inn Motel and address some of the items in
this letter.
He wrote a memo dated April 17, 1996 in response to citizens complaints, dated April 17, 1996. It
deals with an occurrence that took place at the Pacific Inn Motel on April 4, 1996. They stated that
Rick Patel, Jr. is not the owner of the property so there is no basis for refuting any wrong doing on the
part of the owner of the motel. He thought he knew where that misunderstanding came from. During
a conversation he had with Rick Patel, Officer Adrian specifically asked Mr. Patel on April 3, 1996,
when they were in the motel office, if he was the owner of the property and Mr. Patel said yes, he was
the owner of the property. The letter indicated that Officer Yuravich and Officer Adrian have a
personal vendetta against Rick Patel and are attempting to use these proceedings as a launching pad
for their ulterior motives. He said he does not have a personal vendetta against Mr. Patel or anyone
else. On this date, Officer Adrian and he, as they do with many other motels in the area, were
searching for people who were wanted, on parole, probation, etc. They wanted to review the guest
register of the Pacific Inn. They went to the office and spoke with Rick Patel. To make clear that they
were not targeting Mr. Patel or his property, Officer Yuravich read a partial list of the motels that they
had examined prior to Pacific Inn. The list included the Americana Motel, Silver Moon Motel, EI
Dorado .Inn, Valencia Inn, the Covered Wagon Motel, Motel 6, Ruby Inn, Kings Motel, Friendship Inn,
09-29-97
Page 14
Rainbow Inn, and more. They went to the office and asked to see the registration cards and Mr. Patel
told them they had no right to look at them. He explained to Mr. Patel that City Ordinance gives them
that right and that also their conditional use permit says they have the right to do that. Mr. Patel
picked up the telephone and called someone he claimed was an attorney and after finishing that
conversation, Mr. Patel took the registration cards, one at a time and threw them at the officers. They
took their information, names, dates and driver's license numbers and .left.
They went to the substation to use the computer to check the names. They found one person who
had a narcotics warrant and on the arrest warrant was her physical description. About an hour later
they returned to the motel to look for this person who was registered at a certain room.. As they drove
onto the property in the police car, he saw someone that closely matched the fugitives description run
rather hurriedly into a room. He identified the room. They went to the office and asked Mr. Patel if
this person was on the property and he said he did not know. They went out to the parking lot and
met with Mr. Patel, Sr., (the actual owner of the motel) and the officer told him what they had seen and
why they were looking for this certain person who had outstanding arrest warrant and was a fugitive.
He informed Mr. Patel, Sr. that he had seen someone who matched the fugitives description go into a
particular room and Mr. Patel, Sr. offered to open this room and look in there. Mr. Patel did that; he
ran quickly to the back of the room, checked the small bathroom back there, turned off the lights, and
said that there was no one there. As it turned out, the person they were looking far was in that
bathroom hiding in the shower. That incident was documented by Officer Adrian and they requested
the City Attorney's office to file a complaint against Mr. Patel, Sr. for 148 of the Penal Code,
obstructing an office in official duty. He does not know why but the City Attorney's office declined to
file a complaint. As it turned out the person was an employee of the motel. The letter accuses Officer
Yuravich of being hostile and abusive towards Rick Patel. The citizen claimed in response which he
wrote the memo was investigated and taken by Sgt. Quail (his supervisor). A few days after this
complaint was filed, Sgt. Quail came to him and stated he had spoken with Rick Patel and that Rick
Patel made it clear that he wasn't complaining against him (Officer Yuravich) because he was not
abusive in any manner to him.. Office Yuravich stated that those were some of the dealings that he
has had with the motel and it does not seem they are really interested in running an orderly business.
He said he was glad to have had the opportunity to address this letter that names him in several
instances inappropriately. There is no basis of fact for any of these accusations made in this letter.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked Officer Yuravidh if the same activity has been going on in the last 6
months.
Officer Yuravich: :Responded he has not had an occasion to deal with the motel lately. Investigator
Engle has all the statistics on the calls for service passed on to him by patrol officers. They are still
get reports from the patrol officers about violations of the conditional use permit. But he could not
recall any specific incidents such as those he has just mentioned in the last 6 months. H did know that
they recQive constant reports of the general criminal activity that take place on the property.
Tom Engle: Stated on September 3, 1997, he was part of a combined task force involving theStreet
Narcotics Unit and the Anaheim Vice Detail and some members of Code Enforcement when they
served some search warrants at the motel and arrested some individuals for possession of narcotics
and outstanding warrants. Nothing has changed in the last six months. Problems continue to occur at
that location. They found that many of the people living there were on probation or on active parole
and that some people have lived there for more than one month. Mr. Patel in the past was taken to
court and plead guilty to charges and was placed on probation. Nothing has changed in the operation
of this motel.
OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition and correspondence was received in opposition to
subject request.
09-29-97
Page 15
ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical
Exemptions, Class 21, as defined in the State EIR and is, therefore, categorically exempt
from the requirements to prepare an EIR.
Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 3949 based on the following:
That this motel operation has been exercised in a manner which results in an
inordinate number of calls for service to this property, causing a disproportionate
draw upon Police Department and Code Enforcement Division resources causing
secondary detrimental impact to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the
citizens of the City of Anaheim.
2. That the types of calls for Police Department and Code Enforcement Division service
continue to involve incidents detrimental to the public health, peace, safety and
welfare.
3. That continuing and ongoing Code violations and criminal activity indicate the
owner's inability to operate this business in compliance with City, County, and State
regulations even after revocation and/or modification proceedings for the previous
conditional use permit by the Commission, Hearing Officer, and City Council.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 37 minutes (2:17-2:54)
09-29-97
Page 1fi
4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved
4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS Approved, in part
4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3948 Granted, in part
OWNER: GENERAL BANK, 4128 Temple City Boulevard,
Rosemead, CA 91770
AGENT: QUINCY T. DAO, 44 Montelegro Street, Irvine, CA
92714
LOCATION: 3107 - 3115 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is
0.51 acre located on the north side of Lincoln
Avenue, 95 feet west of the centerline of Grand
Avenue.
To permit the conversion of an existing 8,684 square foot
commercial center to a mortuary with waivers of (a) minimum
number of parking spaces, (b) prohibited signs, (c) maximum
number of roof signs, (d) maximum area of roof signs, (e)
permitted location of roof signs, (f) minimum distance between
signs and (g) maximum height of illuminated roof signs.
Continued from the Commission meetings of July 21, and
September 3, 1997.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-138
SR6499DS.DOC
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition
Applicant's Statement:
Kim Trinh, 2221 W. Flora, Santa Ana, CA: He is requesting establishing a mortuary at 3107-3115 W.
Lincoln Avenue. He read the conditions and staff report. He apologized that he did not speak English
fluently.
Public Testimony:
Mary Lucy Salinas, 3141 W. Valeo Drive, Anaheim, CA 92804: Stated she has lived at her home for
over 4 years and she lives in the area where the funeral home is being planned. She felt that
approving the funeral home would not improve the area. The proposed project does not have
sufficient parking planned for Lincoln Avenue. In reviewing the plans, she had questions regarding the
spacing and to restrooms. It appears there is a large number of oriental residents that live and are
moving into the area and she did not feel that this would be sufficient spacing for them.
Esther Wallace: Stated on behalf of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) and
also the Orange Avenue Home Owners Association she requested the Planning Commission to deny
09-29-97
Page 17
the waivers being request. If they .are going to upgrade West Anaheim, then they are going to have to
have buildings which adhere to Code. There are several waivers that are being request: a) the
minimum number of parking spaces, b) prohibitive signs, and f) minimum distance between signs. She
requested those to be denied. We should be building according to Code.
Maxine Peterson, 3152 Linda Cider Lane, Anaheim, CA 92804: Stated she has lived there for 40'/,
years. She felt this funeral home is not needed there and does not feel that would be an addition that
would be beneficial to them.
Applicant's Response:
Kim Trinh: Stated he would like to open a funeral home primarily for oriental people. He does feel
there is a need for the funeral home in that area.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated in reviewing the plans, asked if he could have two driveways,
entrance and exit. He could work with the Traffic Division. That way he could have a couple of lanes
where the cars could be lined up for funerals which would give him more parking spaces, instead of
having individual parking spaces as is normal for a retail business. She also felt all of those signs
were not necessary. She did not feel he should have a waiver for a sign. One monument sign out
front which would be to Code should be enough. Putting signs and statues on the roof are not going
to make it look better.
[After a short break, the meeting resumed and Judy Kwok, Associate Planner, acted as translator for
Mr. Trinh]
Commissioner Bristol: Asked the applicant what the his thoughts were regarding parking the Oriental
signs and having two driveways.
July Kwok: Stated she spoke with the applicant regarding the various issues. Regarding the dragons
on the roof, the applicant has indicated that he would be willing to remove those, if that is what
Commission requests. The applicant would work with Traffic Engineering to close the one driveway
and to provide two driveways for the property.
Commissioner Peraza: Stated his concern is also parking; 55 spaces do not seem to be enough
Taher Jalai, Associate Traffic Engineer; Stated there is no Code for funeral homes. Basically the
parking study conducted by the applicant shows that the average is 7 stalls per 1,000 square feet and
that would result in 57 parking spaces and the applicant is providing 55 spaces. The tandem parking
proposed that would mitigate the shortage.
Commissioner Peraza: Asked if the trees would have to be removed
Taher Jalai: Responded yes, those would need to be removed. The applicant would need to work
with Public Works find another location for those trees.
Commissioner Mayer: Stated his plans indicated the funeral home is 1,416 square feet and it shows
nine rectangular symbols which she is assuming are benches or pews for seating. Asked what the
projected occupancy would be for an average service.
Judy Kwok: Stated the applicant indicated that they will be long rectangular seats. He did not indicate
that they have calculated a maximum occupancy as far as the number of people seated but he did
09-29-97
Page 18
indicate that, because they would be family services, they would expect a maximum of 20 to 30 people
at one time.
Commissioner Mayer: So they could put a maximum occupancy on this room that would equate to the
parking issue.
Judy Kwok: Stated the applicant would agree with whatever the parking study indicates as his
maximum occupancy. He could agree to a 40 person limit.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked how many people did the parking study figure would attend a
maximum size funeral.
Taher Jalai: Responded that was not defined in the study. They were not told by the applicant how
many he expected.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated he would image there would be more than one person per car.
Perhaps limiting it to 75.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if that would be agreeable with the applicant if Commission limited the
occupancy to 75.
Judy Kwok: Stated the applicant indicated that would be fine.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked about the signs. She did not think he should have roof signs. All that
is needed is one monument sign between the two driveways.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated Commission would like the applicant to meet the sign Code which
would allow him one monument sign plus some wall signs.
Judy Kwok: Stated the applicant agreed to remove all the roof signs from his proposal. So he would
only have the wall signs and monument sign.
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Asked for a clarification of the waivers. She was not clear
which waiver was approved.
ACTIOd: Approved Negative Declaration
Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: approved Waiver(s),
based on the findings from the parking study outlined on pages 2 and 3 of the staff
report; Denied waivers (d) and (g) on the basis that they were deleted following public
notification; and, Denied waivers (b), (c), (e) and (f) on the basis that the applicant
agreed at the public hearing to remove all roof signs and to comply with the sign Code
requirements.
Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 3948 with the following changes to
conditions:
Modified Condition Nos. 13 and 14 to read as follows:
13. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from
09-29-97
Page 19
the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1 and 9,
above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to
complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090
of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
14. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 2 3 and 12,
above-:mentioned, shall be complied with.
Added the following conditions:
That the funeral parlor (assembly) room shall be limited to a maximum of seventy five
(75) people.
That the existing driveway shall be removed and replaced with standard curb., gutter,
sidewalk and landscaping. Two (2) new driveways shall be constructed to provide for
adequate traffic circulation and funeral parking, subject to the review and .approval of
the City Traffic and Transportation Manager.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes (2:54-3:29)
09-29-97
Page 20
5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
Sb. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part
50. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3960 Granted, in part
OWNER: BHUPESH PARIKH AND KUMUO B. PARIKH, 427
West Colorado, #201, Glendale, CA 91204
AGENT: JOHN E. BUTTERS, 27410 Laurel Glen Lane,
Valencia, CA 91354
LOCATION: 212 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 1.93
acres located on the east side of Beach Boulevard,
900 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue.
To construct an 85,000 square foot, 2-story self-storage facility with
one caretaker's unit with waivers of (a) minimum landscaped setback
adjacent to an arterial highway, (b) minimum landscaped setback
adjacent to a residential zone boundary and (c) required site
screening.
Continued from the Commission meetings of August 18, and
September 15, 1997.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-139
SR6514DS.DOC
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition and correspondence was received in opposition.
Applicant's Statement:
Commissioner Bristol: Stated, for the record, a letter received from Halecrest Heritage Estates
Neighborhood Watch.
Joe Buffers, 27410 Lori Lane, Circle., Valencia, CA: Indicated he read the staff report and was overall
very pleased.
Public Testimony:
Bhupesh Parikh, owner of the property: Stated he was available to answer any questions.
Esther Wallace, Chairman of the WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council), resident
at 605 Scott Lane, Anaheim, CA: Stated their group is made up of residents of West Anaheim and 10
neighborhood watches. They did discuss this property at their meeting last Wednesday night .and
everyone agreed unanimously that they were not in favor of having a storage unit at this site. There is
agate at the back as stated on the plans for a fire truck coming in from the back. She questioned the
need for a fire truck to come in from the alley and the need for that back gate. There has been a lot of
09-29-97
Page 21
crime in that neighborhood. Until a year ago, the Police would go into that area only in pairs. She
wondered how they are going to use the facility if, for example, there are 5 or 6 vehicles that decide to
come into the facility at one time. It takes time to come in, ring the bell, identify yourself and then pull
into the back. So she feels there should be more parking spaces in the front. She understand that
this facility will only be open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. She asked how do they know that it will not
be open other hours especially during the night. They learned last week that there were a number of
parolees living in West Anaheim. There are 1300 parolees in Anaheim and most are in west Anaheim.
They understand there are 33 parolees who are counseled at the Americana Motel which is next door.
They do not know how many are living there but they do know there are parolees living at the other
motels in the area. There are a number of storage units in the area, approximately 9 within two miles
of this site and 5 of them have between 600 and 1100 units. They are concerned that building storage
units on this property would preclude other good commercial business from coming in and building on
that site. They feel this is prime commercial property and they would like to see some good
commercial companies coming into this but not storage units.
Carol Stanley, 1300 W. Orange Ave., Anaheim, CA: Stated she also agreed they have too many
storage facilities in that area. At one time the City Council discussed using this site (of the American
and Silver Moon Motel) to build a police substation and a possible senior citizen center. They hope
that one day that will come to pass.
Esther Wallace: Spoke again on behalf the Orange Avenue Home Owners Associates. She attend a
BBCC (Better Business and Concerned Citizens) meeting last week and this proposal was discussed
and the people attending the meeting were also opposing the storage facility.
Applicant's Rebuttal:
John Butters: Stated regarding the back gate, it is important to have a second exit from the property.
The gate will only be used in emergency situations. It will be closed all the time. He feels a storage
facility is a much better choice than the motel that is currently there. They revised their plans and find
that these plans are now much better than it was before. The plans do not show how the landscape
wilt make it look more attractive.
Bhupesh Parikh: Stated if they want to eliminate the back gate he would be agreeable to that.
Commissioner Bristol: Stated it is really a decision of the Fire Department. They need to have
access.
THE .PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Commis"sinner Henninger: Asked Ms. Wallace what type of use would they Tike to see at this location?
Esther Wallace: Responded some good restaurants, good business offices, medical buildings. Lincoln
and Beach Boulevard are suppose to be one of the business intersections in northern Orange County
and therefore prime property. There is a Redevelopment study currently being done but unfortunately
it is not completed.
Commissicner Henninger: Stated Anaheim seems to have allocated more commercial land than it
needs and a lot of the commercial uses are being degraded and are being converted to unintended
uses which are detrimental to local communities. For example places that have been allowed to be
restaurants somehow become bars or night clubs instead. There is a problem with motels up and
down Beach Boulevard and they are falling into uses that are not good for Anaheim. As he reviews
the proposal he understands what everyone would like to see developed but it seems some of the
09-29-97
Page 22
commercial uses as a good thing. He views the self storage facility, as a good use. He asked Ms.
Wallace what sort of problems are actually associated with self storages?
Esther Wallace: Stated she understands there is a lot of theft from them. It is also a possibility to
store stolen items from other areas. She is concerned with the traffic, primarily the number of parking
spaces in front. She wonders what sort of a business would want to go in next door to a self storage
facility.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked Code Enforcement whether they have seen self storage facilities as
being a problem.
Bruce Freeman, Code :Enforcement Supervisor: Stated he is familiar with a majority of the western
portion of the city and the three storage facilities out there. The biggest problem that he is aware of
are advertising banners and signs. He is not aware of any large number of break-ins, thefts or any
other problems associated like that.
Commissioner Mayer: Asked Commissioner Peraza if he had heard any plans for a possible senior
citizens' center building at that location.
Commissioner Peraza: Responded not that he is aware of. At the present time the City may not have
the money to build any centers or police substations anywhere. But nothing has come up from the
Parks and Recreations Commission for a senior center. The one at Trident was .moved to the
Brookhurst Community Center.
Commissioner Bristol: Thanked the public for coming out to voice their opinions, especially for three
items. This is not an easy decision but it is a matter of supply and demand. What we want now may
not be what we get, If the activity begins on Beach Boulevard as we all hope it will, this business may
be obsolete in a few years, due to the value going up.
Commissioner Bpydstun: Stated if the two units to the right of the driveway were removed, then they
would have room for a couple of parking spaces, since it appears they need mare parking spaces.
John Butters: Stated yes he agreed but he wanted to explain that Mr. Parikh owns another storage
facility (a class A operation) and has much experience in storage facilities. He has never seen 10
people at the same time going in a storage facility.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated they only have two spaces and that would give them 4 spaces. Are
customers going to be allowed to go inside, so they will not have to wait and line up out front?
Mr. Parikh: Responded the manager can see the traffic and can open the gate and let the customers
in. If they want more parking in the front then that would not be a problem. They could consider
moving the gate further back so there would be more stacking area in the driveway. They can also
consider adjusting the office in order to make more parking.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated that two covered spaces for the manager's unit are required by
Code on the site, if there is an on-site manager.
Commissioner Henninger: Ask them whether they could provide two covered parking spaces inside.
John Butters: Responded yes.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated it is not immediately apparent how they would fit four parking spaces
09-29-97
Page 23
there but they will ask them to return with plans to review them as a Reports and Recommendation
item.
Cheryl Flores: On the same R&R submittal, staff requests that on the elevation facing Beach
Boulevard and also on the north and south be updated to add more architectural interest. They could
work with the applicant on this.
Commissioner Napoles abstained.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Denied Waivers (a) and
(b) on the basis that they were deleted following public notification; and, approved
waiver (c) only for the rear property line where the building wall takes the place of the
required block wall.
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3960, in part, with the following changes to
conditions:
Modified Condition Nos. 4 and 18 to read as follows:
4. That minimum 1-gallon size vines on maximum 3-foot centers shall be planted,
irrigated and maintained along the building wall adjacent to the alley (east), the
building wall facing north, and along the block walls facing Beach Boulevard
(west). Said vines shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building
permits.
09-29-97
Page 24
18. That an on-site trash truck turn around area be provided per Engineering
Standard Detail No. 610 and as required by the Department of Putilic Works,
Street Sweeping and Sanitation Division and shall be specifically shown on plans
submitted for building permits.
Added the following conditions:
That to the extent possible, a 6-foot high block wall shall be installed along the south
property line.
That final site plans and enhanced elevations visible from Beach Boulevard and
showing four (4) customer parking spaces outside of the security gate facing Beach
Boulevard, shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for approval by the Planning
Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Napoles abstained and Commissioner Bostwick absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes (3:29-4:04)
09-29-97
Page 25
6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11
6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3484 (READVERTISED)
OWNER: SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL COMPANY, 1825 West
Collins, P.O. Box 4159, Orange, CA 92867
AGENT: SIGN DEVELOPMENT INC., Attn: Fernando Baluyot,
1366 West Ninth Street, Upland, CA 91786
LOCATION: 1431 North Raymond Avenue -Ultramar.
Property is 0.61 acre located at the southwest corner
of Raymond Avenue and Orangefair Lane.
Request to amend or delete a condition of approval to permit
additional wall .and canopy signage for an existing service station.
Continued from the Commission meeting of September 3, 1997.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-140
Approved
Approved
amendment to
condition of
approval
SR6791JK.DOC
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
Applicants Statement:
Fernando Baluyot, Sign Development, 7598 Plumeria Drive, Fontana, CA: Stated regarding"the staff
report, page 3, Item No. 16, they do agree with staff in eliminating the two signs located on the north
and east elevation of the building. They would like to address Item No. 15, the canopy signage. Staff
recommends only two canopies, on the north and south elevation. They would like Commission to
consider granting them a sign on the long side of the canopy, east elevation. That sign is needed so
they can have visibility, coming off of the 91 freeway, the westbound offramp going into Raymond and
East Avenue. Limiting the north and south elevations to the 10% of the canopy area, they figure the
proportions in signs is the height of the canopy and not exactly by the length. He prepared a rendering
which was given to Commission for their review. If all three elevations are combined (north, south and
east) they would be allowed 77 square feet for the canopy. They are proposing are signs on_the three
elevations and that would give them 66 square feet.
Deland Holbrook, employee of Southern Counties Oil: Stated they built the project four years ago and
in keeping with their desire to maintain a clean, modern looking facility, they are proposing these
changes to keep it looking nice and keep up with the new image that Ultramar is now presenting to the
public. Asked Commissioners to please consider their proposal for the signage, especially the east
portion of the project where they are currently being asked not to put any signage on a very lengthy
piece of canopy that will appear with no kind of identification even though it is a major presentation to
the freeway traffic as it emerges from the freeway.
09-29-97
Page 26
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED
Commissioner Boydstun: Agreed after seeing those two sketches that they need the eastern canopy
because she did not think the smaller print would be readable by people driving off the freeway. It is a
clean, neat look (each side) and she feels they need the 20%.
Commissioner Henninger: Had a question concerning the east side. He could not imagine being able
to see that east sign from either of the off-ramps. As he recalled, it seemed it was a long way down
the street and one that would actually be seen would be the one on the south end.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner Stated that was the thought conveyed at the recommendation
committee that it would seen most likely from the south elevation. Staffs concern was that of too
many signs on the canopy. If the applicant feels signage would be more visible on the east elevation
that is where they should put it but not both on the east and south.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked the applicant which they would choose between the east and the
south?
Deland Holdolk: Responded that a customer sees the eastern presentation first from the freeway and
on existing the freeway. Once off the freeway, a customer sees the southern presentation and it would
facilitate finding the facility to purchase their product if a customer could see their sign from the south,
also. Therefore, he feels they are not asking for excessive signage in terms of footage and he did not
feel it was an unsightly presentation. It is instrumental in facilitating their customers and finding the
facility to purchase their product.
ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical
Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State EIR and is, therefore, categorically
exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR.
Approved Request. Amended Resolution No. PC92-16 to permit canopy signs 2 and
4, not to exceed 10% of each canopy band and sign 3 not to exceed 20% or the
canopy band and sign 7 and amended the conditions of approval, as follows:
Modified Condition No. 11 to read as follows:
"11. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which
plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 1 of
Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3 and Revision No. 2 of Exhibit No. 4, and as
conditioned herein:'
Added the following new conditions:
15. That the canopy signage shall be limited to a maximum of 10% of the canopy
bands on the north and south canopy elevations and a maximum of 20% of the
canopy band on the east canopy elevation. No signs .and/or logos are
permitted on the west canopy band.
16. That the building wall signage shall be limited to the south elevation and shall
not exceed 10% of the south building wall.
09-29-97
Page 27
17. That within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution, all signage, other
than that specifically approved herein, shall be removed.
18. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to that shown on the exhibits
submitted by the petitioner. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval
by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (4:04-4:16)
09-29-97
Page 28
7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3
7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3967
OWNER: MARILYN M. SEALS, 2544 East Pearson Avenue,
Fullerton, CA 92831
AGENT: WILLIAM H. SEALS, 215 19th Street, Newport
Beach, CA 92663
LOCATION: 1181 South Belhaven Street. Property is 0.20 acre
located on the west side of Belhaven Street, 250 feet
north of the centerline of Ball Road.
To retain a board and care facility for up to 15 residents.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
Continued to
10-13-97
SR6792TW:DOC
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
IN FAVOR: 4 people spoke in favor of subject proposal.
OPPOSITION: 5 people spoke in opposition and correspondence, including a petition with 60
signatures, opposing subject proposal was received.
Commissioner Bristol: Stated, for the record, a letter was received from the Anaheim City School
District. The letter indicated that they are not in opposition to this at all.
Applicant's Statement:
William Seals, 215 19th Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663: Stated his family owns the building. in
question at 1181 S. Belhaven Street. They also own three other buildings on Belhaven as well. When
they bought the building they were aware of Helen Gay and the people that she is renting rooms to.
They did not feel that there would be any problem. He researched it before they bought the building
and he could not find anyone that complained about any problems. Since that time there-have been
complaints filed. There is a need for a conditional use permit and that is why they were present. After
reviewing the letters and complaints thus far that were given to him in the packet, he did not-find that
much was unsubstantiated. He was particularly concerned with the letter from Linda Agate. He has
spoken with her before and was somewhat troubling that the letter did not come on letterhead and it is
not signed stating her position with the County Services, so he did not understand what that was
about. He called to speak with her supervisor today but he has been on vacation for a couple of
weeks. Therefore, he .really could not address that.
Commissioner Bristol: Stated, for the record, just prior to the meeting a letter from the Department of
Social Services .and a letter from Linda Agate arrived just a few hours prior to the meeting.
Public Testimony:
09-29-97
Page 29
Steve McMannis, 1197 S. Belhaven, Anaheim, CA: Stated he and his wife both signed the petition but
the more they thought about it, they have not had any problems with these people. He is up most of
the day and night in his garage and he has never observed any problems. He has three children (3, 4
and 5 year old) and they have not had any problem with these people at all. They have been in their
home for about four years.
Helen Gay, the operator of the business, 513 E. Devon, Orange, CA: Stated she has been on
Belhaven since and she ran a board and care license for 14 people. She has never had a problem
with the neighbors at Belhaven or Almont. She has never had any complaints from Community
License until Linda Agate came along. Linda Agate took a disliking to her and she (Linda Agate) has
done nothing but harass her ever since. In November 1995, she gave her board and care facility up
because Linda was on her constantly. She went across the street at 1181 and first she had a shelter
there and then she turned it into board and care facility. Almost all of her clients at the board and care
followed her across the street. She asked that she be able to keep her place of business.
John Baker, 1181 S. Belhaven, Apt. A, Anaheim, CA: Stated he has never had any problems with the
any of the neighbors. He indicated he wanted to address the petition letter on some of the items that
he is familiar with. Ms. Gay did not address the statement that there are approximately 60 adult
residents at their care. When it is at full capacity, there are 34 people. The unit at 1181 there are 3,
at the other one there are two, and at two other ones there are one. He does not know what they are
referring to when they mention the other 30 separate buildings. On the attachment to the staff report, it
refers a man arrested for indecent exposure to August 30, 1997. Yes, there was a man arrested but
this man did not live at 1181 Belhaven or any of Helen Gay's board and care facility.
John Len, 2504 Oscar Ave., Anaheim, CA: Stated he has owned the 3-unit building on east Almont
Avenue. He has been there for 24 years and he never had any problems with his tenants until he
rented to Ms. Jean Baker came to 2127 E. Almont Avenue, Apt A. That is when his problems began.
Ms. Baker was one of the individuals who circulated a petition against the .board and care facility.
Vernetta Hulls, 2120 E. Almont Unit A, Anaheim, CA: Stated she is the person who the submitted the
letter which is an attached to the staff report. She is also the block captain for their neighborhood
watch. They oppose Helen Gay's room and board facility. She spoke with Linda Agate whd is with the
State of California Community Care Licensing as well as Mr. Michael O'Grady who is the Director of
the Board and Care for the County of Orange Mental Health Services. Both of them have explained to
her that mental illnesses can only be treated voluntarily; no one can be forced to go in. They have
nothing against the mentally ill but their opposition to this is business based on the letter that Linda
Agate wrote which point out many violations with which Helen Gay has been cited in the past when
she was a licensed board and care operator. Because she was in danger of having her license
revoked she switched her designation from board and care facility to room which means she will rent
an apartment house (like she is renting from Mr. Seals) and then the clients will sublet from her.
Her concern is that currently the Department of Mental Health Services with the County of Orange and
the State of California are not referring patients to her. The State was going to revoke her license
because of numerous violations. She subsequently voluntarily gave it up and switched her designation
again. Her patients are suppose to be living independently and at this point Linda Agate and Michael
O'Grady have no idea where she is getting these people that are living in these various units. Ms. Gay
has more than one unit. She has others which are mentioned in the staff report. The community has
no way of determining whether her clients have a criminal background. In their neighborhood they
have families with children. One of the residents that subltted from Helen Gay has accosted some of
the children and exposed himself. One of the men asked a little girl to come into his apartment.
They feel that Ms. Gay is not providing a community service because she is not licensed and does not
09-29-97
Page 30
fall under any jurisdiction of the State or County Mental Health. It is left up to them, as residents, to
monitor her activities and become, in essence, an adhoc division of Code Enforcement and turn any
violations over to the police department. They do not feel it should be left up to them, as citizens of
the city of Anaheim. They feel the findings in the staff report that indicate that state this is not
detrimental to their safety, general being and health and peace they feel is erroneous because they
have to put up with this on a constant basis. The State and County will be holding mare inspections at
Helen Gay's facilities because there have been further complaints. They feel issues were not
addressed in the staff report. They are therefore asking that Commission deny Conditional Use Permit
No. 3967.
Jean Deter, 2126 E. Almont Ave. Apt. A, Anaheim, CA: Stated she formerly resided at 2127 E. Almont
Ave. Apt. A for six years. When she moved in, she was looking for a nice affordable home, a nice
community near schools that they could affordable. Helen Gay came into the community first with one
unit then it increased. The problem between Mr. Len and her, she prefers not to get into, but they are
going to Fair Housing Council for a mediation for the third time because he has tried retaliatory
evictions on her three times. She finally moved out because she got tired of the harassment. She
feels it has nothing to do with Helen Gay. She did not know why he brought that up. Mr. Len owns
three units on Almont Ave.
Presently two of those units he rents to Helen Gay, the third unit is the one she vacated. He is
planning to rent that one also to Helen. He also evicted a tenant after 12 years to rent to Helen Gay.
They can not afford to pay the kind of rent that Helen Gay pays. She has noticed the patients are out
all hours of the night wandering the streets. They are not supervised properly. She is also being
harassed by Helen Gay. When Code Enforcement came out Helen Gay accused her of starting all this
trouble. She lives in the neighborhood so she stayed on the block and moved across the street.
Leann Lujan, 1168 S. Belhaven, Apt. C, Anaheim, CA: Stated she has three children. Her daughter
was approached at one time by one of her individuals and he invited her into his apartment and that
really frightened her. Other than that they just walk around the neighborhood all day and it really
concerns her because of children playing outside.
Tina Delvillar, 2114 E. Almont Ave., Apt. A, Anaheim, CA: Stated she is a concerned resident. When
they first move into the neighborhood it felt safe. She has three children. Slowly she began to notice
a change coming from Belhaven. She takes her children to school every morning and there is one
individual who walks right behind the children staring at them as they walk to school. She does not
know where he is from or his background. She is concerned.
Serino Cardinas, 2114 E. Almont, Anaheim, CA: Stated she has lived at her home for five years. She
works for the Orange County Health Care Agency Mental Health but was speaking for herself not in an
official capacity. They have treated a couple of the residents. One in :particular was a danger to
others. She did not tell anyone at her job that she was going to speak today for reasons for _ __
confidentiality. She has been working with the Mental Health for eight years. She indicated that the
therapists are very reluctant to send patients to Helen Gay. These people do .need a place to stay but
they do not need to stay where there are children. They need more of an adult community. She
asked that the permit be denied for the safety and security of their children and the once safe
community that they had.
Vernetta Hulls: Stated a recommendation in the staff report was that Helen Gay have a 24-hour on-
site supervisor. Even though she may have a supervisor, it will still be left to neighborhood residents
to call Code Enforcement and the supervisor on-site if they feel there is something out of the ordinary
with these people. They have not way to track them. There are privacy issues involved but the last
woman that spoke indicated they do need more care and supervision than what Helen Gay is able to
09-29-97
Page 31
provide in the setting they are currently in. Because of that and the fact that there are many children
that walk to and from the local schools she is against the proposal. Many of the landlords in this area
are absentee landlords. They feel this residential area is an inappropriate setting for Helen Gay to run
a business.
Applicant's Rebuttal:
William Seals: Stated primarily what he heard from the testimony is that the issue is that the
community does not know where these people come from and what kind of people they are. It was
rather upsetting to him to listen to people being discriminated against simply because the are a little
different from the rest of us. He did not see how a person walking down the street is a threat to
anyone simply because they look a little different. Regarding the incidents of exposure and fear for the
children, if that were a issue then there would be testimony from the police department concerning
problems and incidents. He said he had letters from other residents in the area that they do not have
a problem with the residents living at Helen Gays board and care facility. Regarding the exposure
issue, they know for a fact that it was not one of Helen Gay's people. He indicated that all Helen
Gay's people are self sufficient. Helen Gay has been in that community since 1990 and if this had
been such a problem. He asked that this item be looked at by putting emotion aside and reviewing the
facts. As far as the monthly rent, Helen pays him $900 a month for his 3-bedroom, he does not get
above market rent. He felt Helen is performing a service to the city and to society by dealing with
these people and giving them a place to stay.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Mayer: Stated the request was initiated by Marilyn Seals, so is she the property owner.
Helen Gay leases the property. Does Ms. Gay have a business license? She turns around and
sublets to people. So each person does not fill out an application with him.
William Seals: Responded they own the property in a trust and he is Marilyn Seal's son (the agent).
He confirmed that he does not receive applications.
Commissioner Peraza: Asked the parents that gave testimony whether they brought up their concerns
to the school? Since there has been a letter from the school district expressing their approval of the
conditional use permit. He suggested that it be brought to the attention of the school so they are
aware of the concerns.
Tina Delvillar: Stated she had not but she will notify the school tomorrow.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked the applicant if he had read the staff report.
William Seals: Responded yes he had.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked the applicant if he was aware that he had unpermitted patio covers?
William Seals: Responded yes he was aware. They added to the exiting patio covers when the
property was purchased (March 1997) and it came as it is.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked if smoking was permitted anywhere on the premises?
William Seals: Responded they smoke in the patio and outside.
Commissioner Bristol: Stated he met Mr. Baker and went into the Units A and B and saw units C and
09-29-97
Page 32
D. Mr. John Baker .indicated there were 6 people Unit A, 2 people in Unit B, a cook in Unit C and 4
people in Unit D. He also showed him 2009 Almont. There are 6 women in Unit A; 2135-A has 5
people (including a married couple); 2145-A contains 6 women; Unit B has none, unit C has 4 men. He
observed people come to lunch (11:39 a.m.) and it appeared a lot of people came in the atrium area
and waited for the bell to ring. He noticed when he was in Unit B, a sign indicating the time that lunch
would be served. The staff report indicated Unit 8 is where the meals are served but he was surprised
to see the food was being prepared in Unit A. That was because Ms. Gay was gone and Mr. Baker
indicated he had to watch the food. He observed many people coming from different locations going to
Unit B. If 34 people are eating lunch at 12:00 Noon then there is no way they can eat lunch in Unit B
because the tables can seat about 12 people.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated they have discussed the issued in the past of how many board and
care facilities of various types can be in a residential area and asked a staff member to speak on that
issue.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated a board and care facility is defined as 5 to 15 people that
receive meals and boarding in a location and there are no distance requirements on the Code to be
meet between these types of facilities.
Commissioner Henninger: He thought there were some State requirements.
Cheryl Flores: There are State requirements with regard to health care homes and social service type
homes. It is staffs understanding that this home does not require State regulation.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated there are a lot or residential uses for living arrangements that are
traditional and in a past work shop they did discuss the concern that there are some localized areas
that seem to have a lot of those next to each other and the character of the neighborhood is changing
because of that. He discussed it as a problem but no policy has emerged from those discussions.
Cheryl Flores: Stated that was correct. The Commission did ask staff to try to develop a map that
would identify the locals of these various type of residential living situations, which they are in the
process of currently doing that. Some of the types of homes, i.e. health care homes, there is a
distance requirement between them and then there is a distance requirement between them and then
there is a distance requirement between the congregate living type homes, but it gets complicated
because of the different types of homes. There could be an area with several different types of homes
because there are not distance requirements between all of them.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked Selma Mann (Assistant City Attorney) if Commission ultimately finds
that there are a lot of these various types of arrangements and some are concentration problems. Ask
if she tfTOUght that they will be able to formulate a police to address that?
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Responded it is something that if Commission wanted their
office to review it then they could certainly do that and if that is what the Commission is requesting that
the City Attorney's Office do then they can certainly do that if they provide some direction that they
would like them explore. She thought that perhaps the answer may be that it depends.
Commissioner Mayer: Asked about controls the City has an business licenses. In this instance the
owner is renting to someone and in turn they are subletting to someone else who then in turn is
subletting to someone else. Someone in there is operating a business and asked if there are
conditions on that business that is operating in a residential area that could help Commission deal with
the over concentration.
09-29-97
Page 33
Selma Mann: Responded what they have is a board and care facility. It may be that there are
additional classifications that may be appropriate and Commission could possibly take a look at but
they have currently have the authority in a requirement for a conditional use permit.
Commissioner Mayer: Stated she would like to put the use back to the property in question and
currently there are other people coming in from other properties who are no in questions today using
community type kitchens situation. The kitchen in this particular area could only serve the residents in
this particular unit. That might start to control the migration in that neighborhood.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated staff proposes a condition like that. He asked the applicant if he
noticed in the CUP documents and what is their thought is on that.
William Seals: Responded yes he was aware of that. They meet recently with staff and discussed
that issue.
Commissioner Bristol: Stated he mentioned about 34 people eating at Unit B, he suggested that Mr.
Seals ask Ms. Guy how many people eat at 1181.
William Seals: Responded he knows that they all
once, he thought they might eat there in shifts. T
people.
eat there but he did not know if they ate there all at
ie seating by itself certainly can not support 34
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Bruce Freeman (Code Enforcement Division) if he was familiar with
that area or what is going on there?
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Supervisor, Code Enforcement Division: Responded for the most
part prior to 1994 they had no complaints regarding this particular address. It is a relatively quite
neighborhood. They do not have a lot of calls for service. From their standpoint, then they issued
notice to obtain a condition use permit for the board and care facility this is the reason the applicant is
before Commission. As far as violations there have been other problems but they were corrected after
they were notified. One of the questions asked was regarding the licensing were the apartments in the
different layers. A four-plex apartment unit does not require a business license, the license itself if
merely a tax, anyway. Because it is a four-plex unit Mr. Seals owned ten of them throughout the
neighborhood. There still is a four unit project. It does not require a license. The questions could be
if the facility is operating as a board and care facility or renting out rooms then chances are there
would be a license required but they could be addressed before Commission today with this
application.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked the applicant if Commission approved this then they could only serve
meals to the persons at 1181. What are they going to do with everyone else? ---
Mr. Len: Responded that Helen Gay would in then deliver food to the other people.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked then would this become a catering kitchen and put her into another
category?
William Seals: Responded he spoke with Helen Gay earlier this morning and he concurred with
Commission on her concerns. Each apartment that she rents has a full complete kitchen in it and so
he believed that the food could be oreoared within subiert apartments
Commissioner Bristol: Stated in Helen Gay's letter of operation it stated she was the only employee
09-29-97
Page 34
(7:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.). She is going to be extremely busy. There are three or four locations. He
stated that she would feed people at 1181 then deliver or make food at the other locations.
William Seals: Responded these people live independently. Just because she feeds these people
does not mean they can not do it themselves.
Commissioner Bristol: Then why do they come down to be feed?
William Seals: Responded it is easier for them to have food prepared for them and that is part of what
they are paying for.
Commissioner Bristol: If they can prepare their own food then why do they need this service?
William Seals: Responded he did not understand his question.
Commissioner Bristol: Stated he understands Ms. Gay is very busy because he has tried to contact
her yesterday and today and in her own words (in the letter of understanding) she is the only location.
Now she will be going from a central location to potentially two or three other locations tp prepare food,
even though she is the only employee.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated it is clear that she is the only employee but there are other people
working and asked her about that.
Helen Gay; Responded she has two ccoks, 7 days a week.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked if they are employees?
Helen Gay: Responded she is going to be helping out.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked but are they currently employees?
Helen Gay: Responded yes.
Commissioner Boydstun: Asked then why didn't she list them? Why did she say she was the only
employee if she has two employees?
Helen Gay: Responded she thinks he misunderstood what was being said when he wrote that letter.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated she wrote the letter and signed it.
Helen Gay: Responded she did! Then indicated she was not trying to hide anything.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated then you are just correcting your letter.
Helen Gay: Responded to Commissioner Mayer by stating that they come in two shifts at 1181
Belhaven and she has always done it that way. She has never allowed them to cook because she is
afraid of a possible fire (i.e. turning the stove on and forgetting it). If they make him split it up then she
would deliver the food on Almont. The cook would prepare it and she would deliver it because she is
at Belhaven everyday.
Helen Gay: Responded to Commissioner Mayer by indicated that she does monitor it very closely.
09-29-97
Page 35
Commissioner Henninger: Stated the other two units are not on the agenda today. He did not feel he
was ready to make a decision but his leaning was that one of the locations the people residing at the
locations need a place to live and they have right. He has a sense that there are problem where there
are a concentration uses and it seems to be bad for the neighborhoods. What is disturbing is a letter
from Linda Agate which appears to be a personal letter and this should be explored more before
further before a decision is made.
Commissioner Boydstun: Stated it is not on company stationery and implies it may be a personal
letter.
Commissioner Bristot: Asked Ms. Gay, in 1991 was she operating at 1180 Belhaven?
Helen Gay: Responded yes she was. She operated from 1990 to 1995.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked if she was under State regulation?
Helen Gay: Yes she was.
Commissioner Bristol: Asked if she had a business permit?
Helen Gay: No, she did not. She did not know she was suppose to have one. She did have one with
the State.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated he requested this item to be continued for two weeks .and requested
staff to find out whether this letter received from Linda Agate is an official letter or a personal letter. If
it is an official letter then he would like to hear more about it from County Health and what is going on.
Testimony from the applicant indicates that they are not running a facility that needs to be licensed and
have also heard testimony that someone believes that the State would not agree with that statement
and that needs to be clarified whether that is a true statement. He also felt they should have a follow
up workshop into this general issue of concentration of these types of uses and set a policy regarding
concentration along with the issue of individual rights.
Commissioner Henninger moved for a two week continuance to October 13, 1997 and motion passed.
William Seals: Asked from out in the audience, what will they be doing at the next meeting. Will there
be more public comments and discussion?
Commissioner Henninger: Stated the pubic hearing has been closed and they may reopen it.
Selma PAann, Assistant City Attorney: Stated if Commission is going to be taking additional evidence
then they should reopen the public hearing before the matter is finally continued. _ __
Commissioner Bristol: Stated he then reopened the public hearing and then continued it to October
13, 1997.
Selma Mann: Stated the Planning Commission has continued this item for two weeks, having
reopened the public hearing so that additional testimony may be taken at the next Planning
Commission hearing.
ACTION: Continued subject request to the October 13, 1997 Planning Commission meeting
in order for additional information to be submitted..
09-29-97
Page 36
RE-OPENED PUBLIC HEARING so that additional testimony can be taken at the
October 13, 1997 public hearing.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent)
DISCUSSION TIAflE: 1 hour and 6 minutes {4:16-5:22)
09-29-97
Page 37
8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3970
OWNER: VIC PELOQUIN, 4740 East Bryson Street, Anaheim,
CA 92807
LOCATION: 108 South Fairmont Boulevard -Hibachi Steak
House. Property is 2.4 acres located at the
southeast corner of Fairmont Boulevard and Santa
Ana Canyon Road.
To permit the expansion of an existing 1,655 square foot restaurant
to 3,490 square foot with sales of beer and wine for on-premises
consumption.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-141
Approved
Granted
SR6796JK.DOC
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
Applicant's Statement;
Vic Peloquin, 280 Peralta Way, Anaheim, CA: Stated he is the owner of the EI Rancho Shopping
Plaza. Hank Camada has a restaurant at the shopping center for approximately 11 years . He has
been very well received in the community and everyone loves his food. Therefore, he would like to
expand. The Planning staff recommended due to the beer and wine sold on the premises then there
would be a need for public hearing and that is the reason he was before the Commission. He
acknowledged that he had read the staff report.
Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated she wanted to clarify on paragraph two under this request, it
would read this request is to permit the sales of beer and wine for bn-premises consumption in a
previously-approved expansion of this restaurant. The expansion has already been approved.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration
Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3970 with the following changes to conditions:
Modified Condition No. 22 to read as follows:
22. That prior to finding building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 2, 15, 17
and 20 above mentioned, shall be complied with.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and Peraza absent)
09-29-97
Page 38
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (5:22-5:23)
09-29-97
Page 39
9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 Continued to
9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3966 10-27-97
OWNER: WALTER A, FRIEDMAN, 624 Barnsdale Street,
Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT: MARK SCHEUERMAN, 105 South State College
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92606
LOCATION: 105 South State College Boulevard - Insta-Tune
and Lube. Property is 0.35 acre located at the
southwest corner of State College Boulevard and
Center Street.
To permit a 1,266 square foot expansion of an existing 1,008 square
foot lubrication, oil change and smog check facility.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
SR6801 KP. W P
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the October 27, 1997 Planning Commission .meeting in
order to advertise a CEQA Negative Declaration in conjunction with this request.
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick absent)
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
09-29-97
Page 40
10a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED)
10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3253 (READVERTISED)
OWNER: IMPERIAL PROMENADE PARTNERS, Attn: Richard
DeBeikes, 5289 Alton Parkway, Irvine CA 92604
LOCATION: 5645-5675 East La Palma Avenue - Imoerial
Promenade. Property is 4.4 acres located north and
west of the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue
and Imperial Highway.
Request to amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to a
limitation of restaurant uses with waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-142
Approved
Approved
amendment to
condition of
approval
SR6782MA.DOC
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
Applicant's Statement:
Dick DeBeikes, 5289 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA: Stated he was one of the owners of the Imperial
Promenade Shopping Center. He reviewed the staff report. There was a question that staff had and
he responded by indicated that they would not be going with Alternative No. 1, it would be Alternative
No. 2 only. In Alternative No. 2 they have elected not to renew the Zendejas Restaurant lease and
that had about 5800 square feet of designated food use for all the designated sit down dining. While it
was designated a sit down dining, it was a Mexican restaurant and sports bar and had very intensive
evening usage. He visited with Alfred Yalda (from Traffic Engineering) and it discussed the two
proposed fastfood uses and looked at the traffic modeling for that and both of those will be less
intensive than the Mexican restaurant. They are going to take 1700 to 1800 square feet of that food
use and designated that at general retail
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Henninger: He asked staff how the parking requirements for Alternative No. 2 compare
with the parking that was previously needed for the Mexican restaurant?
Taker Jalai, Associate Traffic Engineer: If you look at the Code requirement it is higher. Code for the
existing Mexican restaurant requires 46 and the proposed use would require 73.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked what radio was he using for the fastfood?
Taker Jalai: Responded 16.
Commissioner Henninger: Asked if there is a difference when you are inside a shopping center for
fasffood?
09-29-97
Page 41
Taher Jalai: Responded in this case the hours between 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturday. With a
sit-down restaurant people would be going into the restaurant as their primary trip. But at a fastfood
restaurant, would basically be a shared use as far as parking is concerned.
Commissioner Henninger: Stated at one point it was thought that maybe some evening parking could
be shared with the office complex and perhaps put a pedestrian bridge to the flood control: Asked if
that was ever going to happen?
Dick DeBeikes: .Responded that they explored that and found that the flood control is very
complicated, the flood control channel was not owned and feed by Cinemapolis, it wasn't an easement
and therefore land usage right would need to be purchased from the County Flood Control District.
Ultimately the parking tenants with the office space decided not to have shared parking. They have
discussed this with not only the theater uses but also with the bank and everyone is pleased with what
they are doing. The theater has made arrangements for parking across the street, and the have
posted signs where theater parking is permitted. They have a very good parking management
program.
ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as
the required environmental documentation for subject request.
Approved Alternative No. 2 described in the Staff Report dated September 29, 1997 far
Conditional Use Permit No. 3253 and amended Condition No. 37 of Resolution No.
PC96-123 to read as follows:
"37. The total area of restaurant uses shall not exceed 24,261 square feet and shall be
limited to the following:
Juice Bar Fast Food Fast Food Restaurants with
(Space #135) restaurants with restaurants with outdoor seating
10 customer seats or 10 customer seats 11 customer seats
less or less or more
1,300 sg.ft. total 1,612 sg.ft. total 6,442 sg.ft. total 12.907 s.f. total
Required parking: Required parking: Required parking: Required parking:
5.5 spaces per 1,000 5.5 spaces per 1,000 16 spaces per 1,000 8 spaces per
sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. 1,000 sq.ft.
esfauran regwnng ess p a ng may a su s o r res uran requinng more pa ng i.e. a restauran
with table service may occupy space entltled far a fast food restaurant with 11 customer seats or mare)."
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and Peraza absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights.
DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (5:25-5:29)
09-29-97
Page 42
ADJOURNED AT 5:30 TO
AAONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1997 AT 9:30 A.M. FOR
CONiflAUNiTY DEVELOPflAENT ADVISORY BOARD
STRATEGIC PLANNING INPUT AND
A PUBLIC WORItS SEWER CAPACITY UPDATE
Respectfully submitted,
Ossie Edmundson
Planning Department
09-29-97
Page 43