The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2001/11/19~ ~ v~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PA~IL BUSTW~CK~PI~Y~L1S ~~Y~DSTUN, STEP~F LbJ ~R~STf~L, ~AiL C-~~'~TI~~N,~~C~HN KOOS, JAMES VANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT.~NONE~:~ =~~ ~ ~~~ - ~ _.,P.~ .. , . ,, s: _..,. ,._ ~~ MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRPERS41~~'w'~~NY=-=~NOLD ~E STAFF PRESENT: ~~~ ,r~ ~ ~~ ~~ Selma Mann, Assistant ~ity Att~rn~~r" Annika Santalahti, Zorn=g~~c~min~stra'. Greg Hastings, Zonin D~ivision Mana Greg McCafferty, Pn ~ip~l Plann.er ~ David Gottlieb, Rede~el pment and~F Senior Services Mar~a~er `~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ AGENDA POSTING~ ~A,,Ecampl~ete co~ Friday, November 1~, 20(3'1,~r~side~~h the outside display kii~sk. ~ ~ PUBLISHED: Anah CALL TO ORDER ~~~; , E~~;~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSIOI ~~w • STAFF UPD~TE~~'Qa't ~: ~ DEVELOPMEN'~~~4~ PLANNING COMM~~; • PRELIMINARY PLAN RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION Manager omm. Develop. 9:30 a.m. on nbers, and also in RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Vanderbilt PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:\DOCS\CLERICAUMINUTESWC111901.DOC lannin COfTlI111SSlOtI anaheim.net NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-I on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt abstained from Item 1-I), for approval of Consent Calendar Items 1-A through 1-I as recommended by staff (with a correction noted to the Planning Commission Minutes of November 5, 2001). Consent Calendar Items (1-D, 1-F, 1-G, 1-H) were removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • • A. a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 2754 AND 3377 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04461) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Gaines B. Stanley, 1590 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92802, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2754 and 3377 (to permit a residential trailer in conjunction with an existing church). Property is located at 1590 West Ball Road. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-157 Terminated (Vote: 7-0) SR8124AN.DOC 11-19-01 Page 2 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED ) b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2466 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001- 'ANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Anaheim Fiilis Racquet Club, Attn: Russell Miller, 415 South Anaheim Hilis Road, CA 92807, requests to expand the existing Tennis Club to add additional courts (for total of 10 tennis courts). Property is located at 415 South Anaheim Hills Road - Anaheim Hills Racquet Club. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed exhibits for Conditional Use Permit No. 2466 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04458) are in substantial conformance to demolish two (2) tennis courts and construct four (4) courts for a total of nine (9) tennis courts (previously approved for 11 courts) for the existing tennis facility located at 415 South Anaheim Hills Road - Anaheim Hills Racquet Club based on the following stipulations: ~ \ J (i) That plans be modified to show three (3), 24-inch box Eucalyptus trees planted adjacent to Anaheim Hills Road near the location of the proposed tennis courts in order to fill the gap between existing trees. (ii) That plans be modified to provide six (6) additional parking spaces (39 existing) for a total of 45 spaces. Approved Determined to be in substantial conformance with approved exhibits (Vote: 7-0) SR8153KB.DOC 11-19-01 Page 3 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • C. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04289 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04481) - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL SIGN PLANS: West Coast Islamic Society, Attn: Abdel J. Hamdan, 708 North Valley Street, Suite T, Anaheim, CA 92801, requests review and approval of final sign plans for a previously approved mosque. Property is located at 1717 South Brookhurst Street. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Sign Plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04289 (Tracking No CUP 2001-04481) for a previously-approved mosque located at 1717 South Brookhurst Street based on the following: (i) That the proposed monument sign conforms to current Code for signs located in the CL Zone. • • (ii) That the proposed monument sign, which has been reviewed by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, conforms to City Engineering Standards for lines-of-sight. (iii) That the final sign plan, which includes information for the removal of the existing pole sign, is in conformance with Condition No. 16 of Resolution No. PC2001-21. Approved Approved Final Sign Plans (Vote: 7-0) SR8117KB.DOC 11-19-01 Page 4 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • D. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DELCARATION PREV.-APPROVED ( ) A roved pp b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3974 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001- Determined to be in 04482) - REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL substantial conformance with CONFORMANCE: Farano and Kieviet Lawyers, Attn: Jeffrey L. approved exhibits pertaining Farano, 2300 East Katella Avenue, Suite 2, Anaheim, CA 92806, to landscaping and signage. requests determination of substantial conformance pertaining to landscaping and signage for a previously approved self-storage (Vote: 7-0) facility. Property is located at 7777 South Santa Ana Canyon Road. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed removal of clinging vines and additional signage for Conditional Use Permit No. 3974 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04482) is in substantial conformance with previously-approved exhibits for the self- storage facility located at 7777 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - Madison Square's Self Storage with the stipulation indicated at the meeting, "that the window signs be turned off when the business is closed". SR8119KB.DOC ~ Chairperson Arnold introduced Item 1-D as a request for determination of substan tial conformance regarding landscaping and signage of the self-storage facility on 7777 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Greg McCafferty informed Item 1-D was a previously approved conditional use permit for a self-storage facility at 7770 Santa Ana Canyon Road essentially regarding two conditions; Condition No. 17 requiring landscaping and clinging vines adjacent to the building wall facing the freeway. The second condition restricted the number of wall signs permitted. The p~titioner asks Commission to find the request in substantial conformance with the previous approval and staff recommends Commission not find it in substantial conformance and require it set for future public hearing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Jeff Farano, 2300 E. Katella Avenue #235, Anaheim, CA 92806, of Farano and Kieviet, speaking on behalf of the applicants asked for clarification on two issues; clinging vines and signs. He stated the clinging vines were first planted and later removed by maintenance because it created a rodent problem. They would like to at least have a project to keep the whole area around the building clean of foliage and other matters that would allow them to control the rodent problem. He stated they are finding two problems with the clinging vines; since it is not a block wall but a stucco wall the clinging vines attachment pulled the stucco off the wall. He feels while that can be resolved by some other tacking method a second problem is formed; rodents hide in these areas and climb the walls, therefore it becomes more of a control issue. He states the condition requires clinging vines in order to control graffiti problems but it is not as direct as it states in that they have not had a graffiti problem in the area. There have been some along the freeway but they have been able to secure their property by fencing it in. He states if they • acquire a graffiti problem they will take care of it immediately, as they are required to do. Mr. Kieviet points out that there are several buildings along the 91freeway that do not have clinging vines as a condition and he feels the requirement to put clinging vines on all buildings throughout the City is a problem. The CUP gives the applicant the opportunity not to have clinging vines if they are able to provide some opportunity to prevent graffiti. 11-19-01 Page 5 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • The second issue is in regard to signs. He states the have fluorescent tube si ns, o en si ns and tube Y 9 p 9 signs that say boxes on them that take up less than 20% of the window. He explained the signs were put up after a building inspection, which required them to have a plug above each window by building code in order to display signs. He notes the ordinance states that signs approved by the CUP are permitted. There is no reference anywhere in the ordinance that refers to open and closed signs, yet throughout the City there are 95% to plus fluorescent opened and closed signs. So it is contradictory for the City to tell #hem that they cannot have opened and closed signs. The other sign, which they have been asked to take down, is a fluorescent tube sign that says boxes on it and this is lighted only during business hours. The ordinance permits a sign in the window (a nameplate sign) which identifies the nature of the business. The CUP did not specifically prohibit that and therefore under the ordinance, unless it specifically prevents it from being up, it is permitted under the code. Mr. Kieviet states neither one should require an amendment of the CUP. It would cost $1500 plus to amend the CUP and start it through public process when it is clear what they are doing is permissible. They hesitate to go through public process over an open-close sign and a fluorescent tube sign. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun stated that the building has an architectural design and is a nice looking building and vines growing on the building will ruin the stucco. The applicants have planted trees all along the property and when the state's part of the property is landscaped it will look very attractive. The property is fenced and maintained and when the trees fill out the building will be blocked even more. Commissioner Bristol concurred with Commissioner Boydstun and stated the City has received a lot of compliments on the building. He assures the City's intent is to also forego another public hearing. The applicant reported it has lighting and there has only been one opportunity for graffiti and that is when they ~ were building it. He does not feel the intent of the clinging vines is necessary to prevent graffiti as Condition No. 17 states. Commissioner Bostwick asked if there has been any graffiti on the structure, because he travels it everyday and has never witnessed any. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager replied that staff is not aware that there has been a graffiti problem recently. There was graffiti originally on the building but it has been removed and as far as they know it has not been reapplied. Commissioner Boydstun stated that it is a tight fit between the fence and the building and therefore would provide easy capture. Commissioner Bostwick stated that the lighting helps and he is okay with the signage as long as it does not exceed the allowable 20%. He feels neon looks better than painted signs because the painted signs get old and ugly very quickly. Commissioner Boydstun stated that the box signs are not on at night and therefore cannot be seen from the street, and really the people that notice them are the ones that drive into the facility. Chairperson Arnold stated that the applicant has identified the underlining intent behind the language and CUP and also the particular features of the project within the scope of the intent. Commissioner Vanderbilt concurred, with regard to the clinging vines; the points made were excellent and appropriate. He stated in regard to signage a neon sign after hours tends to stick out fairly more significant than other signage along the Santa Ana Canyon thoroughfare. For the most part, the signs are either lit from a flood light that is mounted in front of it or there is some other less intent light use. The • applicant states that the signage is similar to others that occur in that area and he does not know if that is necessarily true, so he asked if one of the Commissioners could set an example for him. 11-19-01 Page 6 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bostwick pointed out the foliowing: the shopping center at Fairmont Boulevard and Santa Ana Canyon Road, the Chinese Food Restaurant, the Fitness Center, the Travel Agency has an open sign, etc. He stated throughout the entire center there are open signs. • • 11-19-01 Page 7 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ E. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION b) RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-09 2001- VARIANCE NO. 4380 (TRACKING NO. VAR 2001-044721- REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Tony Hudson, 22974 EI Toro Road, Lake Forest, CA 92630, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with the conditions of approval for a previously-approved 48 lot residential detached subdivision. Property is located at 4000 East Riverdale Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a one-year retroactive extension of time to comply with the conditions of approval (to expire on February 15, 2002) for a previously- approved detached residential subdivision based on the following stipulations: {i) That the proposed plan remains in conformance with the proposed zoning and existing General Plan land use designation for this property. Further, there have been no Code amendments that would ~ cause the approval to be considered inconsistent with the Zoning Code, nor has the petitioner submitted plans that would render the project inconsistent with the existing Zoning Code. (ii) That this is the first request for a time extension, and Code permits a maximum of two requests for extension of time to comply with conditions of approval. (iii) That the property has been maintained in a safe, clean and aesthetically pleasing manner with no outstanding code violations affecting this property. (iv) That there is no information or changed circumstances which contradict the facts necessary to support one or more of the required findings for approval of Reclassification No. 99-00-09 and Variance No. 4380. • Approved Approved retroactive extension of time for one year (to expire on February 15, 2002) (Vote: 7-O) SR8118KB.DOC 11-19-01 Page 8 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ F. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 (b)(3) Continued to b) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00399 AND December 3, 2001 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00063 - REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INITITATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Vote: 7-0) AND RECLASSfFICATION PROCEEDINGS: City of Anaheim, Redevelopment Agency, Attn: Lisa Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, #1003, Anaheim, CA 92805, City-initiated (Community Development Department) request to consider initiation of a General Plan amendment from the General Commercial and Medium Density Residential land use designations to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation and a reclassificafion from the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple- Family) Zone. Property is located at 2330-2340 West Lincoln Avenue. OPPOSITION: A representative of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Council) spoke in opposition to the subject request. ACTION; Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED to continue the subject request to the December 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to explore whether additional properties should be included in the proposal, to address neighborhood representative concerns pertaining to the land use actions, and SR2100DS.DOC to give the Commission another opportunity to visit the site. • Chairperson Arnold introduced Item 1-F as initiation of general plan amendment a nd reclassification proceedings for 2330 to 2340 West Lincoln Avenue. Greg McCafferty, Principai Planner, informed that Item 1-F is a City-initiated request from the Community Development Department to consider initiation of a general plan amendment from the general commercial and medium density residential land use designations to the low-medium density residential land use designation and a reclassification from the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone. Staff recommends Commission initiate the two proceedings. Chairperson Arno(d cfarified that this does not approve anything in particular it just starts the process of considering the requests in motion. Mr. McCafferty concurred and stafed there woufd be a notice of public hearing that would come before Commission in the future. Applicant's Statement: David Gottlieb, Community Development Department, stated the action item is to initiate proceedings for reclassification for property that is zoned by the Redevelopment Agency. This is one half of the site that was commonly referred to as the old Home Depot site on Lincoln Avenue. The new one is on Brookhurst Street. The site that the agency owns was the parking lot of the former Home Depot site. The City has acquired the site and intends to redevelop it with homeownership opportunifies. The homeownership opportunities are consistent with the West Anaheim Vision Plan and also in accordance with the City's housing element that has been forwarded off to the state of California that identifies the property as the significant potential site for residential development. In response to Commissioner Bostwick's question in the afternoon session, he circulated among the Commissioners information regarding Community • Development's investigation as to the yield of residential units and how they could be laid out, Chairperson Arnold clarified that after Commission reviewed the plans it would be made available to the public. 11-19-01 Page 9 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Gottlieb explained that the plan depicts very conceptual in nature and the have not decided u on Y p any specific layout. They anticipate that the majority of the use will be detached single-family homes and perhaps there could be a component of attached homeownership townhome type units along Lincoln Avenue and different types of configurations so as to provide a buffer from Lincoln Avenue. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify that the layouts before Commission were four different possibilities. Mr. Gottlieb concurred that they are four different alternatives to see what they could get on that site and what the site would yield. They wanted to stay anywhere between 10 to 13 dwelling units to the acre. The plans presented depicts less than 11 dwelling units to the acre; they range from 9.6 to 10.6 dwelling units an acre which is well within the dwelling units identified for West Anaheim. Opposition: Judith Anne Gollette, 649 South Roanne Street, Anaheim, CA, representing WAND's Land Use and Business Development Committee, stated they oppose down zoning to the 3000 multi-family. They have been working with the City of Anaheim on the vision in West Anaheim and they were told that they would be working together on deveiopment of a site. They have not seen the plans presently presented to Commission. WAND has asked to meet with Redevelopment on a continuing basis and thafi meeting seems to be put aside or get mixed up in the week. She feels if Community Development is at the point to decrease zoning to 3000, with waivers they will down zone even more. She suggests if it is necessary to change to single-family housing, then zone at 7200 or 5000. WAND has been informed there would be a combination of housing and not a significant amount of townhomes as currently reported. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Commissioner Bostwick asked what the development was across Lincoln Avenue down at the old bowling alley site. Mr. Hastings responded that they were RM-3000, detached condominiums, one of the first homes the City did and it is probably one of the higher density they have seen because it was one of the first; probably about 12 units per acre. Commissioner Boydstun asked if there was a consideration for RM-5000. Mr. Gottlieb responded no, they have always wanted to go with the RM-3000. He explains one of the things to keep in mind is that the plan is conceptual in nature and they are staying well within the densities as worked with WAND and all the other West Anaheim groups during the two-year long visioning process which identify densities in the amount of 90 to 93 dwelling units to the acre. Although there may be a townhome component to the development they will be ownership units. There would not be any type for rent units in the project. Commissioner Boydstun stated that it looked like most of them were going to be detached. Mr. Gottlieb responded that they probably would be but once again they really had not done too much work on that. They identified the site for residential and their main focus up until this point has been to acquire the site to try to acquire the adjoining sites which has not proven to be a fruitful enterprise. He feels now that they are going forward with the rezoning of the general plan amendment process and they also have a short list of residentia( deveiopers they will start more closely focusing on the layout of the units; the type, the mixture, the economics of the site and things on that order. Commissioner Bristol noted that from a landbased standpoint, indications are that this is going to be for • affordable housing. Mr. Gottlieb responded that a percentage of it might be for affordable. The site itself was purchased with money from the Redevelopment Agency, which indicates that a component of it would be affordable. He 11-19-Q1 Page 10 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMiSSION MINUTES ~ explains affordable can be anywhere from the very low-income classification all the way up to the moderate-income level classification or any combination of that on the site. He states at this point and time they have not calculated how many of the units would be affordable and at what income level. Commissioner Bristol retorted very few of them could be low or even moderate based on the selling price of any units today. Mr. Gottlieb responded that on anyone project 15% of the units that are produced has to be deemed affordable and if they were listed at the moderate income level, sales price on those could be anywhere between $245,000 to $260,000, which is probably within the range of a smaller single-family home or perhaps a townhome type unit. He explains that when Community Development uses the term affordable, they are only talking about a percentage of the development. Affordable by stafe law means anywhere from the very low up to moderate-income level and not any of them would have to necessarify be on the proposed site because they could do that within the redevelopment project area. Chairperson Arnold asked if there was any possibiliry that the densities could go up if the general plan amendment and reclassification were to actually go through as proposed. Mr. Gottlieb responded that it would go no higher than 13 dwelling units an acre. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that decisions are often easier when there are citizens buying into them and just based on the commentary he wonders if there is any intent to work more closefy with community groups as far as the four proposals are concerned. Mr. Gottlieb responded that he was somewhat taken aback by the comment that Community Development has not worked with the community. He explained that they had over 1%2 year long process ~ with the West Anaheim Vision process of which Ms. Goffette and Ms. Waflace were present as members of WAND. He attends the WAND Land Use meetings every monfh at Denny's Restaurant on Beach Boulevard, and also every WAND meeting and Community Devefopment recently held weekly meetings with Ms. Wallace recently attended by Ms. Gollette which have been switched to monthly meetings to better accommodate time schedules. He feels they have done an excellent job in terms of outreach to the community and concede they could certainly try to do more but have done a very good job in the past. Commissioner Koos responded to Commissioner Vanderbiit's concerns and stated he was on the committee about a year ago and walked away feeiing very positive about the level of bond they had at the time. It did end about a year ago so maybe something has gotten lost within a year. He recalled specifically as they wound down the meetings trying to get away from focusing so much on the number of units an acre because when it comes down to it, it has to do with design. He illustrated South Irvine and their recent development of Oak Creek, which has huge densities, and is selling for $400,000 up. He states it is just the nafure of the market right now. He recalls many discussions on how people do not necessarily want the massive yards and the amenities of the 1960's per se; it is a different world right now. The proposed site is boulevard residential and he feels it is a housing prototype that he can support across the City. He would like to see the City look at the whole corridor so not to appear as spot zoning or spot general pfanning. During his time on the committee he appreciated the process they went through and thought they would come back with more comprehensive general plan amendments and rezonings than a parcel at a time. He understands there are difficulties regarding the furniture store and missed opportunities but from a pure planning perspective he would like to carry the vision through and maybe change the general plan on some property even if they do not have any short term business relationships with the owners. Mr. Gottlieb stated Commissioner Koos' comments are well founded and Community Development has started working with the Planning Department in the general plan amendment process to change those properties in accordance with the West Anaheim vision, which was approved by both the Planning • Commission and City Council. The task is probably second only to the City's overall general plan amendment process and it takes into consideration hundreds and hundreds of parcels. Community Deve(opment has been working with Planning Staff specifically David See, Greg Hastings and Greg McCafferty on the process and in regards to specific zonings, as the properties become acquired by the 11-19-01 Page 11 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • agency and they know better how to develop those properties, they wiil come in with the rezoning but has started along the process to do the general plan amendment process specifically for West Anaheim so that they would not have to wait until one gets done for the City and the overall general plan amendment process. Mr. McCafferty suggested one alternative to be considered is the possibility of modifying the reclassification request to say RM3000 or less than 10 zone in order for this lease to begin the process of bringing other alternatives back fo Commission. Chairperson Arnold stated many of the issues that have come up would come up again. He explained that Commission was not actually making any decisions about the general plan or the reclassification but just starting the process. So the critical question is what sort of guidance should Commission give Community Development in terms of what to bring back as far as options. Commissioner Koos concurs with Mr. McCafferty's suggestion but would also like staff to explore expanding the scope for the sake of good planning and following through with division planning and not leaving it just as parcel. He states whether or not there is a project already in the pipeline is irrelevant in terms of carrying the vision through and feels he would really want to support a motion that would encourage more than just a parcel. Commissioner Bristol stated that specifically the commercial directly to the west has the remnant southern piece on the map. Mr. Gottlieb stated that the parcel to the west does not include even the smaller parcel on the shaded area. ~ Commissioner Bristol stated that he agrees but his question is on the CL on the Conditional Use Permit No. 1999, and what is currently on the site. Mr. Gottlieb responded that it is part of the overall shopping center. Commissioner Bristol asked if the southern remnant piece was being used. If not, that piece would abut between the proposed property and Land Lane. Mr. Gottlieb responded that he could not visualize it right now but does not think it would be availab(e to fit in with their project. Commissioner 8ristol stated that would be a logical choice to probably include within the project otherwise it would not be of any use if they cannot think what it is right now. Commissioner 8oydstun clarified that it is the back of Ralphs Grocery where unloading takes place. Trucks have to go to the back because there is no where to unload from the front. Commissioner Bristol stated if loading is occurring in close proximity of the residential area then it creates a noisy atmosphere for the neighborhood. Mr. Gottlieb responded that he did not know off hand. Commissioner Bristol attested they are fitting this in between two uses they are not sure about. Commissioner Bostwick affirmed that the larger parcel of the two together made a better project, would obviously give them more room and would be a better process. He is ambivalent in initiating the general plan amendment because obviously it has to come back for public hearing but asks at the same time is ~ the City ahead of itself in putting together the proper properties to make this a workable situation. Commissioner Bristol stated that they are trying to take care of the state of California and they might not be taking care of the City of Anaheim by trying to force the properties. 11-19-01 Page 12 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNtNG COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Koos su ested that is wh ma be Commission should car throu h with a more 99 Y Y rY 9 comprehensive general plan rezoning process rather than just one parcel. Commissioner Bostwick stated that it is in their general plan review not to work on each little parcel as it comes up. It cannot be done to the property next door (Daniel's) because there is litigation on the property and they would only be increasing the City's liability. Chairperson Arnold asked about the timing of it because Commission is in the process of the general plan update in which there is going to be a whole variety of land use options looked at and explored in a more comprehensive way. He asked if this project is part of the urgency to get ahead of the general plan update to show progress on housing development. Mr. Gottiieb responded that is one of the main points, yes. It was actually Community Development's intention to proceed with the general plan amendment process for the properties in West Anaheim that were the subject of the West Anaheim vision separate and distinct from the City's overall general plan process. Community Development started the process almost two years prior to the City initiating the overall general plan process. The way the schedule has been laid out for the City's general plan amendment process would push them so far out in the realm that it would preclude the devefopment of the parcels in a way in which the community would wanf to see changes occurring in the community. Community Development woufd not want to have the site vacant for the next two to three years while the City's general plan process is carried out. One of the other considerations in the reclassification and the general plan amendment of this site itself is that this site has been identified in the City's housing element as a housing development opportunity site and the City has a responsibility to develop housing within the City of Anaheim. He states it would be great if they were able to do all of Lincoln Avenue as identified in the vision plan all at once. Unfortunately, the City of Anaheim is a built out city with many different • parcels under many different ownerships. It has always been Community Deve(opment's intention to wherever an opportunity presents itself to acquire property to provide for the developments as in line with the plans that have been approved. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if he was saying part of the result of the City being built out and both the actual needs of the citizens as well as the demands of the state with respect to housing means that Commission may need to take a more incremental approach at times than a more comprehensive approach. Mr. Gottlieb responded that Community Development looks at it more from a city perspective as opposed to a statewide responsibility, but it does provide a significant housing opportunity site for future residents of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Boydstun stated she would be more comfortable if Commission added as suggested, (RM3000 or less intensive zone) so that they are more open to what Community Development brings to them. Commissioner Eastman asked if WAND would be supportive of the discussed plans. She would like to see people representing that part of West Anaheim supportive since they were in on the front end of the planning. Judith Anne Gollette responded that the project at Knott Street and Ball Road was under the original zoning of RM5000 or 7200 and then it was waived down to a sing(e-family home on a condominium size lot after the development was presented to Commission with design plans. If the developer is allowed RM3000 she feeis they would then come push every button possible. Ms. Gollette feels a larger plan would be beneficial to West Anaheim affording the community choices instead of a boxed in opportunity. She concurs with Commissioner Koos' insight on the Irvine $400,000 smaller lot design projects and feels • they can be produced on a smaller sized lot if the amenities for the community are there but West Anaheim does not have the amenities. West Anaheim does not have a park and almost all of the grammar schools are year around. The state of California presented the results of year around schooling to the state board and discovered that they were the worst results of any schooling out there. Traditional 11-19-01 Page 13 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ schooling is the most beneficial and West Anaheim is getting targeted and impacted to year around. The City is subjecting West Anaheim children to a poor education. The City needs to provide sports programs. The Boys and Girls Club is impacted they are bringing people in from all over the piace, not just West Anaheim resident children. Central Anaheim recently received Ross Washington and they are enlarging La Palma. West Anaheim does not have any of that but the City is still putting in more housing. She states WAND only asks that West Anaheim meet with the vision and the City approve the vision going forward by taking some of the strip malls that are difapidated and blighted and change it. Look at a balance of what this design should be not just what the state has to put in to meet its quota. Ms. Gollette states they live there and are long time residents, they have lived a quota too and they want amenities, safety and beautification to the neighborhood. They ask not to be boxed in so that they have to come in with more waivers and variances and then get the bottom of the barrel just because that is whaYs good. West Anaheim has had three senior complexes; The Presidential Track, The Old Home Depof, and on Brookhurst between Orange and Broadway, The Site 2000 Area, and all are affordable housing sites. She states affordable is not bad but asks where is the private developer, where is the balance to West Anaheim, why is it just West Anaheim getting the highly impacted areas or "we need to meet the quota"? She affirms fhey want what is good for the whole neighborhood, what is good for everybody else and asks when the City does 5 per acre out in Maag Ranch or Anaheim Hills, and then do 10 or 13 max in West Anaheim, where is the balance? She asks that they be given a chance to enjoy their community again. Chairperson Arnold clarified with Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, that this is not a public hearing item it is simply to initiate the process. He asked if Commission were to incorporate other parcels into a general plan amendment and reclassification proceeding would they need to continue and readvertise • this particular item, because the agenda only refers to the proposed parcel. Ms. Mann responded that this is an advertised item, it just needs to be agendized. If there were additional parcels that were going to be included there would be a new report and recommendation item that would bring in the additional parcels. That would give the Planning Commission an opportunity to initiafe with regard to those as well. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify that it would have to be continued and reagendized. Ms. Mann clarified that it would not need to all be done in one hearing. Commission coufd act upon the proposed item and then if there were additional parcels that became available that would harmonize with the proposed item, that could come in as well and the staff report would address the item already initiated with regard to adjacent parcels. Commissioner Bristol stated that he would fike to spend more time to take a iook at West Anaheim and see what is out there. • 11-19-01 Page 14 NOVEMBER 19, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . G. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 (b)(3) b) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00400 AND RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00064 - REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMtSSION INITITATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS: City of Anaheim, Redevelopment Agency, Attn: Lisa Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, #1003, Anaheim, CA 92805, City-initiated (Community Development Department) request to consider initiation of a General Plan amendment from the General Commercial land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation and a reclassification from the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) and CL (Commercial, Limited) Zones to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple- Family) Zone. Property is located at 3119-3169 West Lincoln Avenue. OPPOSITION: A representative of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Council) spoke in opposition to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of CEQA Exemption Section 15061(b)(3), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Concurred with staff Approved Initiation for GPA proceedings Approved Initiation for Reclassification proceedings (Vote: 7-0) ~ Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARR(ED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Initiation of Reclassification proceedings for 3169 West Lincoln Avenue property from the CL Zone to the RM-3000 Zone, and the twelve (12) properties at 3119 to 3165 West Lincoln Avenue from the RS-7200 Zone to the RM-3000 Zone. and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Initiation of General Plan Amendment proceedings to redesignate the subject properties from the Generaf Commercial land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation. SR2099DS.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item 1-G as a general plan amendment and reclassification proceeding initiation process for 3919 to 39 69 West Lincoln Avenue. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed Item 1-G is also a City-initiated (Community Development Department) request to consider initiation of a general plan amendment from the general commercial land use designation to the low-medium density residential land use designation and a reclassification from the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) and CL (Commercial, Limited) Zones to RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone. Applicant's Statement: • David Gottlieb, Community Development Department, stated this is a number of parcels that the agency has acquired commonly known as the Lincoln frontage of the presidenYs track out in West Anaheim. This strip of land that is composed of about 13 to 15 single-family lots and some commercial lots identified for 11-19-01 Page 15 NOVEMBER 19, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ residentiai development. They will have boulevard residential, attached single-family townhome type development with sizeable setbacks. Judith Ann Golette representing WAND echoed same sentiments that was said earlier. Added three- fourths of residents west of Beach Boulevard are multi-family attached units and impacts need to be reviewed. Commissioner Arnold asked if detached homes by themselves are not her concern. Judith Ann Golette said definitely, design is the key to the whole thing. Commissioner Koos asked if the homes on Broadway are an acceptable design. Judith Ann Golette said design is nice, but traffic considerations should have been taken into consideration. Commissioner Koos stated if that is the product type that WAND finds acceptable and has appropriate zoning, what is the disconnect. Judith Ann Golette stated the disconnect is that they are putting the cart before the horse, putting zoning in before they have a project. Why put limitations on a project that hasn't been developed. Commissioner Koos explained that the City is reviewing the whole Zoning Code and there will be changes that will create a situation where there won't have to be as many variances to accomplish good design. ~ Judith Ann Golette stated they were promised that there would be no more apartmenfs in West Anaheim. Attached homes are acceptable as long as they have amenities in the design so that there are sidewalks, playgrounds and facilities. Commissioner Arnofd stafed there are conceptual alternatives that need to be made available to the public. Commissioner 8osfinrick stated this area is very blighted and it is time for it to go so he doesn't have a problem with it. Commissioner Koos offered motion to determine that this action is exempt under CEQA Guidelines. ~ 19 -19-01 Page 16 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ H. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 (b)(3) b) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00012 - REQUEST FOR A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING 70 MOTEL CONVERSIONS: City of Anaheim, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, City-initiated (Motel Task Force), request for a code amendment pertaining to motel conversions. City-wide. CONCERN/ COMMENTS: A representative of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Council) spoke with concerns; and a person spoke with comments pertaining to the subject request. ACTiON: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED to continue the subject request for six (6) weeks in order to provide staff an opportunity to meet with area school districts and neighborhood representatives; and, to make changes to the draft ordinance as appropriate. Continued to January 14, 2002 (Vote: 7-0) SR1029GH.DOC Commissioner Arnold stated 1 H is a proposal for a Zoning Code amendment 2001-00012 regarding motel conversions. Greg Hastings stated City Manager's office established a task force in February of 2000 to examine issues with transitional living and gave a history of this issue. Today's ordinance creates a new chapter for conversion of motel complexes to long-term residential uses by conditional use permifs. Staff reports ~ gives a list of requirements needed under the ordinance. Pointed out that under this proposed ordinance there is a list of findings that could be utilized for variances or waivers from these provisions, which are different than those outlined in current Zoning Code for other waivers or variances for other portions of the Zoning Code. Commissioner Arnold asked if there was anything on the open space. Greg Hastings said there is nothing in the ordinance that pertains to recreation area or open space. It would be up to the Commission, through the conditiona! use permit process, to make the determination, or alternatively, they could refer it back to underlying requirements for apartments and have that component be a requirement of this chapter. Gary Frazier, Acacia Housing Adviser, consultant and real estate development partner to Anaheim supportive housing for senior adults. Feels that because the proposal is so close to existing development standards, that no project will be built without a significant number of waivers. Another consideration is parking. There is an opportunity to look at historical parking requirements that projects have been approved under and have waivers. Providing flexibility in the ordinance for increased affordability in exchange for increased density and decreased parking might be something to consider. They feel there is an opportunity to look at something less than current standards for new market rate rental housing, and through the conditional use permit process, you would always be assured that it would be first class maintenance and operation, just not first class layout. Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND. Their concern is stability. There are no playgrounds or parkspace and no room in schools. Requested a continuance on this ordinance because schools should have time to comment on this ordinance. There are 40 hotels in West Anaheim, 2200 rooms, how easy would it be fo converf them to apartments versus tearing them down and building single family homes. ~ Greg Hastings clarified that the intent of this is for a conversion to family apartments or senior apartments not SRO's. Some of the motels would have quite a few waivers because some of them are so far away from what we would expect a typica! residential long-term project to be like. The intent today is to get 11-19-01 Page 17 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ comments back from Planning Commission so that staff can bring back a clean copy to Council. It will be brought back as a report and recommendation item after fhe Commission makes its comments. Selma Mann stated a continuance would be appropriate to make changes that need to be made. Commissioner Arnold liked the approach about code waiver findings that give more flexibility to accomplish the intent of what the waiver process is designed for. Feels Section 040 where the language results in significantly improved design, it is an ambiguous phrase and it is not clear what it is improved over. Also asked how much detail they will get into with waivers as far as specific details of architecture and design. Suggested recommending language that does not result in a design of lesser quality than the design that would be required in the absence of the variance. Allow the waiver as long as it doesn't result in a lesser quality design. Brad Hobson, Community Development. Explained the handouts. Clarified that Section 040 identifies room and household sizes and is for the purpose of calculating the affordable rents to determine whether or not one of these projects meets the affordable guidelines. It has nothing to do with determining how much a family could afford to pay it simply identifies the affordable rents for the purposes of determining if it is an affordable project. Advised all children and adults are counted in household sizes. Report indicates $829 is affordable and that includes utilities. If tenant pays for the utilities, utility allowance would be deducted from the $829. Commissioner Bostwick stated the code says it includes utilities, it should be mute in case some project sub-meter utilities. Brad Hobson stated it allows for both methods of collecting rent. ~ Commissioner Bristol asked if any motel on the West Side is paying this kind of rent, it seems like they are paying $120-130 per week. Brad Hobson said that on a per square foot basis, some hotels far exceed any rents being charged in apartments in the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Bristol said if they encourage long-term stay, open space must be provided. Commissioner Arnold clarified that Commissioner Bristol was suggesting language that would not be subject to the waiver section. Commissioner Bristol stated that there is the potential that the density will be more than what they are really seeing as there has to be something for the quality of life if they are going to make these findings, open space is needed. Commissioner Koos asked if any new senior housing was approved in the last few years without air conditioning or ceiling fans. He would like to see ceiling fans eliminated. Greg Hastings stated most complexes have air conditioning and fans could be eliminated. Commissioner Koos said this needs to be circulated to the school districts before Commission votes on it. Commissioner Arnold pointed out that he understands the concern about the stability of housing in Anaheim and is critical. This process that allows the conversion of motels will improve the stability and housing situation. Commissioner Koos asked Brad Hobson to explain the economics of converting the hotels versus tearing • it down and rebuilding. He agrees with Esther Wallace, the visioning process goal was to see them go away, not convert. 11-19-01 Page 18 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Brad Hobson stated this ordinance provides an alternative for the reuse of the motels. It would be consistent with the West Anaheim Vision Plan, converting mid-block commercial and retail uses to residential. IYs not likely that there will be a rush to convert the motels, it is very expensive and certain motel developments may lend themselves to a conversion easier than others. Until someone comes forward with a specific piece of property to propose a conversion, it is difficult to tell how the numbers will fall out. Preliminary work shows it is unlikely that someone will do it without a subsidy. • ~ 11-19-01 Page 19 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of November 5, 2001. (MOTION) ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of November 5, 2001, with a correction to page 22, 2"d paragraph: At the meeting, it was noted that the following verbiage may have been incorrectly typed: "Hector Jose Castellanos stated that they have been in business for 15 years a tota) of 25 in Anaheim and they are in fufl agreement with the staff report." Following the meeting, it was found to be correctly typed as the above was stated as such. ~ • Approved, with a correction to be made (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt abstained) 11-19-01 Page 20 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: ~ 2a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) Continued to 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT December 3, 2001 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04366 OWNER: Living Stream, A California Non-Profit Corporation, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: John Pester, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2411 - 2461 West La Palma Avenue and 1212 North Hubbell Wav. Property is approximately 40.4 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street, and at the northern terminuses of Hubbell Way and Electric Way (Living Stream Ministry and former Hubbell Site). To permit a teleconferencing center and private conference/training center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the June 4, July 16 August 27, September 10, September 24, October 22 and November 5, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR1114TW.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED to continue the subject request to the December 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to provide additional time to prepare the traffic management plan and provide staff with time to review the plan. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 11-19-01 Page 21 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION A roved PP 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04404 Granted for 5 years OWNER: Synod of Southern California, 1501 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90017-2205 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Paul Kim, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 850, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 2580 West Orange Avenue. Property is approximately 2.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Orange and Magnolia Avenues (St. Pauls Presbyterian Church). To permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the August 13, September 10, September 24, October 8, October 22 and November 5, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-158 SR8143VN.DOC Commissioner Koos abstained from this item because of a perceived conflict of interest due to his ~ relationship with telecommunications industry. Chairman Vanderbilt stated although he missed the meeting on November 5th, he reviewed the minutes and was in attendance of the August 13th meeting where substantial discussion had taken place, so he will participate in this item. Commissioner Arnold stated item 3 is a request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04404 to permit telecommunications antenna and accessory ground mounted equipment at St. Paul's Presbyterian Church, 2580 West Orange Avenue. Greg Hastings stated staff continues to recommend denia! of this project because of the out of scale nature that such type of antenna structure would present to the neighborhood. Paul Kim, the consulting group representing Cingular Wireless, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Irvine, California. He disagrees with staff's recommendation. Went over the merits of the project so that Commission could see a way to approve the project. He explained the technical side of the particular area. He discussed placement and scale of the structure and feels it would add an architectural element, character and foca! point to the community. Sprint is also willing to improve the overall area with an attractive landscape plan and he elaborated on the plan. Church also wants to make it a better physical impact to the community. He submitted a preliminary design of what the church would like to do with the revenue they generate from this project. There is no official proposal or guarantee that the church will rebuild, it depends on financial stability. Reverend Bill Haliday, St. Paul's Presbyterian Church asked Commission to approve the project. Either they build a tower and begin to develop the financial structure to proceed with the sanctuary or the termites win. They have to rebuild and they need the financial impetus that this tower will give them to begin the campaign. They have already started working on a concept for the new church. ~ Laurel Van Heiss has been with the church for 40 years. Asked for approval of the project. The tower would attract attention to the church and bring in more followers. 11-19-01 Page 22 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i Judith Anne Gollette WAND representative said they aren't asking for denial, nor can they support it. Church has been good for the neighborhood but area is blighted. The City uses the property for various reasons, using large equipment which has ruined their sprinkler system. The church community consists of only 79 people who have been going there for 40 years, but many do not live in the neighborhood. It is unclear how many real active members are in the church. How can 79 people have the money to build a new church? If Sprint puts a 50-foot structure on that corner, it will be an eyesore. WAND has no recommendation because Sprint did not give them the full design of the park-like setting or of the installation of the tower and they are not sure that the church will be able to put the funds together to build a new church. So even though the area is blighted, they are not sure that putting a 50-foot tower there would be a plus. Mr. Haliday is not sure where WAND got their information. Their official membership is only around 80 people, but they have many people who attend on a regular basis who are not official members. The majority of Presbyterian churches in the nation are less than 300 people and they all thrive quite wefl. They will be building on that corner and they will not go away. The City has occasionally driven multi-ton trucks across the property and has ruined the sprinklers, and repairs that are done are less than adequate, so it has been difficult to keep the corner well watered. Their sign is subject to vandalism, no matter what they put out there, it gets ruined. The tower would be a solution to the vandalism problem and Sprint would help with maintenance. Mr. Kim stated landscaping they do would be permanent, and they could negotiate the height of the tower rather than get it denied. Commissioner Bristol asked why he can negotiate now. All along he has been saying the tower has to be a certain height, now he says it can be negotiated. ~ Mr. Kim said they want to stick with the 50 feet and if they lower the height, they will compromise their signal. It will be posed to the Engineers that they won't have an ideal site, but at least they will have some coverage. Sprint may take the denial because it may be an issue of principle. Gommissioner Bristol said Sprint is not being fair to them. They have been putting the neighborhood, staff and Commission through this for months, now they want to negotiate. It is just like in the tower in Santa Ana Canyon which came back shorter. What do they have here, 35 or 40 feet? What is the lowest it can be to work? Mr. Kim said he has been trying to push Sprint for 45 feet because he knows the City would look more favorabiy on it. Sprint feeis they can't work with anything less than 45 feet. He would like to achieve the most ideal coverage objective, but reality is that Sprint will take a hit in their coverage objectives. It is not an issue where they could have been at 45 feet all along, they just don't want to be denied solely on the height. Commissioner Arnold asked if they had a plan pertaining to the landscaping and parklike surroundings that they talked about. Mr. Kim said this item has been continued in the public hearing process and they have meet with the homeowners association and have gone back to them with revised conceptual plans on the tower along with additional landscaping. This particular landscape plan came up at the last homeowners meeting a week ago, so they have been working on a plan since then. Sprint has asked them not to come up with anything concrete. They do not have an actual sketch, but have a plan with cost estimate, just not actual placement. Commissioner Arnold clarified that Sprint does not want them to bring anything concrete to Commission unless they have to. ~ Mr. Kim said they have not had enough time to deal with the landscape issue, they have something preliminary. 11-19-01 Page 23 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Arnold said Commission has been attentive to landscaping and City Council has been even more so. Seems like it would be an important factor in helping them mitigate some of the impacts that this tower has in the interim before the church is built. It would be critical to have the landscape plan incorporated into conditions of approval. Mr. Kim said they do not want to continue this item again, therefore Sprint is willing to take a condition of approval that says they will work with staff on final landscape plan that will be approved by staff prior to issuance of any building permits. Commissioner Bosfinrick offered motion to approve CEQA Negative Declaration, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, vote taken, motion carried. Offered resolution approving conditional use permit 2001-0404 with changes to the following: condition 2, that the bell tower shall be limited to 45 feet and that condition 13 be added saying a final landscape plan that includes all of the trees and planting material as specified by the applicant will be returned for a R&R for approval. Landscape plan will be returned to the Planning Commission within 45 days. Commissioner Boydstun stated a condition should be put in stating that if at the end of 5 years, if the church is not under construction that the tower be taken down. Commissioner Bristol said the church is not the issue, it is whether or not the tower is out of place. It will look nice, but the height. Commissioner Bostwick said they are taking down the telephone poles, but are putting up palm trees that are just as tall. Given the example on Sunkist, it looks really nice and it didn't detract from the neighborhood. In this particular case, the landscaping and improvement on the corner will definitely create a much better atmosphere for the neighborhood and hopefully it will stimulate the church growth. • Commissioner Arnold thinks the tower looks good and hopes the staff will ensure that it matches closely with what has been proposed. Doesn't think that every structure that is taller than what is in the surrounding neighborhood is necessarily a bad thing. OPPOSITION: NONE CONCERNIFAVOR: A representative of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Council) spoke with concerns and suggestions; and two people representing the subject church spoke in favor to the subject request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04404 for 5 years, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 19, 2001 with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 2 to read as follows: 2. That a maximum of three (3) panel type antennas may be located within the proposed bell tower with the accessory ground-mounted equipment enclosed in the base of the tower. The total height of the bell tower shall be limited to 45 feet. Said information ~ shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. No additional antennas or equipment cabinets shall be permitted without the approval of the Planning Commission. 11-19-01 Page 24 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES S Added a new condition of approval: That within 45 days from the date of this approvaf, a final landscape plan inciuding all trees and planting material as specified by the applicant shall be reviewed and approved by the Commission as a Reports & Recommendations item. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights, DISCUSS(ON TtME: 35 minutes (3:15-3:50) A 15-minute break was taken from 3:50-4:05 p.m. ~ ~ 11-19-01 Page 25 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04417 OWNER: Leedy Ying Trustee, 12550 Whittier Boulevard, Whittier, CA 90602 AGENT: GPA Architects, Inc., 1240 North Jefferson # J, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 101 East Ball Road. Property is approximately 3.4 acres located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard.* To establish a six-unit commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. *Origina(fy advertised as a three-unit commercial retail center. Continued from the August 27, September 24, October 22 and November 5, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Continued to December 17, 2001 SR8154KB.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED to continue the subject request to the December 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the property owner additional time to meet with Community Development staff regarding the potential sale ~f the subject property. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 11-19-01 Page 26 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) Sb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3948 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04436) OWNER: Taylor Bus Service, Inc., P. O. Box 1062, West Sacramento, CA 95691 AGENT: Daniel Boulange, 917 East Gene Autry Way, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 917 East Gene Autrv Wav. Property is approximately 4.3 acres located at the southeasterly corner of Lewis Street and Anaheim Way. Request to reinstate this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approva! pertaining to a time limitation {originally approved on July 17, 1984, to expire on September 1, 2001) to retain an existing bus storage terminal. Continued from the September 24 and October 22, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Withdrawn SR8152KB.DOC FOLLOWING fS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIQN ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristoi and MOTION CARRIED, fhat the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept petitioner's request for withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 3148 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04436), as it is necessary since it will take approximately 8 to 12 weeks to comply with the conditions of approval pertaining to the existing unpermitted modular office buildings. Following, the petitioner will then request reinstatement of the subject conditional use permit. Zoning and Building Division staff will coordinate with the petitioner to help complete the plancheck and permitting procedures for these modular structures as quickly as possible. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 11-19-01 Page 27 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSIC?N MINUTES ~ • Continued to 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION December 3, 2001 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.1424 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04446) (READVERTISED) OWNER: Corky Robert Smith Trust, P. O. Box 5440, Los Angeles, CA 90054 AGENT: Excel Auto Body, Attn: Jon Thompson, 554 South Atchison Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 2223 East Katelfa Avenue, Unit C. Property is approximately 5.48 acres located north and west of the northwesterly corner of Katella Avenue and Howell Avenue. Request to permit an automotive center with three independent automotive businesses, including an automotive sales dealership with accessory auto finance services, and an automotive repair facility with a modular office building. Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 2001. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8151KB.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTtON: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED to continue the subject request to the December 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting since the petitioner was out of town and unable to attend today's meeting. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. i 11-19-01 Page 28 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. ADDENDUM TO THE POINTE ANAHEIM INITIAL STUDY AND Approved, including MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONIMiTIGATtON MONITORING corrections to the Modified PLAN NO. 004 Mitigation Monitoring Plan No, 404 lb. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 393 Recommended adoption of (TRACKING NO. GPA 2001-00393) Exhibit A° pertaining to ~and Use Elementtext 7c. AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1 (INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE PLAN, Recommended adoption of Amendment No. 5, including DESIGN PLAN, AND ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) corrections and revisions (TRACKING NO. SPN 2001-00012) 7d. AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT PUBLIC REALM Recommended adoption of LANDSCAPE PROGRAM Amendment No. 3 (TRACKING NO. MIS 2001-00027) 7e. AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4078 Approved Amendment to (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04356) CUP 4078, including corrections and revisions 7f. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMEN7 Approved Waiver 7g. APPROVAL OF FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT Defermined that the AGREEMENT NO. 99-1 development proposal (TRACKING NO. DAG 2001-00003) meets the required showings and applicable • development criteria to enter into the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement 7h. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT Recommended Ciry Council TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4078 CONCURRENTLY WITH Review of Items 7e and 7f tTEMS 7b, 7c, 7d, and 7g with Items 7b, 7c, 7d and 7g OWNERS: Price Enterprises, Inc., c/o Excel Legacy Corporation, Attention: William J. Stone, 16955 Via Del Campo, Suite 240, San Diego, CA 92127 Zaby Motor Lodge, Attn: Angelo Zaby and Thomas Zaby, 444 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 Francis A. Ursini, Joanne T. Christian, 1803 Hummingbird Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Pyrovest Corporation, Attention: Jeff Kok, President, 1101 East Garvey Avenue, Suite 208, Monterey Park, CA 91755 City of Anaheim, Attn: Elisa Stipkovich, Community Development Director, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 ~ AGENT: Anaheim Center for Entertainment, LLC, Attn: Robert H. Shelton, 11 Keats Court, Coto de Caza, CA 92679 11-19-01 Page 29 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ LOCATION: 400 West Disney Way, 1737 South Clementine Street, 1785 South Clementine Street, 1700 South Harbor Boulevard, 301 West Katella Avenue, and 401-409 West Katella Avenue. The irregularly-shaped project area, which is located in The Anaheim ResortT"', consists of approximately 29.1 acres located between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street, and Disney Way and Kate!!a Avenue. It has approximate frontages of 1,500 feet on the south side of Disney Way between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street, 1,185 feet on the west side of Clementine Street between Disney Way and Katella Avenue (excluding Fire Station No. 3 at 1713-1717 South Clementine Street), 728 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue between Clementine Street and a point 771 feet west of the centerline of Clementine Street, and 585 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard between Disney Way and a point 615 feet south of the centerline of Disney Way. Request for approval of an amendment to the Pointe Anaheim Lifestyle Retail and Entertainment Complex to permit the following: 634,700 gross square feet of retail/dining/entertainment uses, which includes a 94,000 square foot aquarium; up to four hotels comprising a maximum of 1,662 hotel rooms/suites (of which up to 200 units may be vacation ownership resort units) with approximately 322,071 gross square feet of re(ated ~ accessory uses of which up to 178,120 gross square feet on top of the parking structure may be used for a hotel conference center (the hotel rooms/suites and accessory uses would encompass a maximum of 1,370,711 gross square feet); and a 1,949,800 gross square foot parking structure with up to 4,800 striped parking spaces (the minimum number of striped parking spaces would be 3,752) and 15 bus spaces with a 10,200 square foot bus terminal/facility for airport transport and to/from sightseeing venues. The development of Pointe Anaheim, as proposed to be modified, would take place in up to five phases. Addendum to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004: Request for approval of the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004, which addresses the proposed modifications to the Pointe Anaheim project, including development in up to five phases. General Plan Amendment No. 393: Request to amend the Land Use Element to reflect the description of the Pointe Anaheim project as it is proposed to be modified. Amendment No. 5 to the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1: Request to amend the Pointe Anaheim Overiay to describe the Pointe Anaheim project as it is proposed to be modified, as an integrated, mixed use development. The Specific Plan Amendment includes text and exhibit changes throughout the document to reflect the proposed modifications to the Pointe Anaheim project including, but not limited to, the following: • • Amendment to the Land Use Plan to modify the project description including development in up to five phases. • Amendment to the Design Plan to modify the conceptual plans depicting the layout of the Pointe Anaheim project, to add a 11-19-01 Page 30 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMtSSfON MINUTES ~ Phasing Diagram, to modify the requirements for interior setback landscaping adjoining The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 zoning and for landscaping along the perimeter of parking facilities, and to permit a median break on Disney Way for vehicle access to and from Pointe Anaheim. • Amendment to the Zoning and Development Standards to add vacation ownership resort units, aquariums, on-site and off-site directional signs, and murals as conditionally permitted uses. Amendment No. 3 to The Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program: Request to modify the landscape concept plans for Disney Way (former Freedman Way) to permit a signalized median break on Disney Way between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street to provide vehicle ingress and egress to the Pointe Anaheim project. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078: Request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 to modify the land uses and maximum square footages of the Pointe Anaheim Lifestyle Retail and Entertainment Complex including development in up to five phases, to modify the waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, and to amend the conditions of approval to reflect the project modifications. First Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99-1 between the City of Anaheim and Excel Pointe Anaheim, LLC: Request for consideration of the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99-1 vesting certain project entitlements and addressing implementation of the Pointe Anaheim project, as ~ proposed to be modified, including development in up to five phases. The Planning Commission's role is to look at the land use aspects of the Agreement, specifically whether to make a recommendation to the City Council that the eligibility criteria has been met and whether the findings in Section 2.3 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 82R-565 can be made. QDDENDUM TO THE INlT1AL STUDY AND MlTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION/MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 004 RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-159 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 393 RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-160 AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-9 RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-161 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT PUBLIC REQLM LANDSCAPE PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-162 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4078 RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-163 FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 99-1 RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-164 SR8157AS.DOC r~ ~J 11-19-01 Page 31 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u The following is a detailed summary of discussion for Item No. 7. Introduction by Staff: Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department. The corrections that have been distributed relate to transposed numbers, cross-referencing conditions, missing paragraph number, missing portion of a sentence and similar minor changes. Also, I have some revisions to several of the conditions of approval for Condition Use Permit No. 4078 which I need to give to the Planning Commission. Copies of these are also available for members of the public who are interested. The applicant requested these revisions but the revisions have been modified to staff's satisfaction. FinaNy, I have also distributed the following, copies are also available to the public: a letter dated November 16, 2001, from John P. Erskine of Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, Attorneys, representing the applicant; a letter dated November 19, 2001, from Cynthia M. Wilcott of Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm and Waldron, Attorneys, representing Pyrovest, the owners of the Anaheim Plaza Hotel property at the southeast corner of Disney way and Harbor Boulevard requesting that the public hearing be continued and an E-mail received today during lunch from Cynthia M. Wilcott and Joel P. Q. of Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm and Waldron, Attorneys. Annika Santalahti stated the item before you today is the modified Pointe Anaheim project, on a site consisting of about 29 acres in the Anaheim Resort area and located befinreen Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street, and Disney Way and Katella Avenue. • If Commission considers the proposal favorably, there are a number of actions which will be taken to reflect the proposed modifications. Before commenting on the developmenf proposal, however, I want to note that: I have distributed the following to the Commission and the applicant (and have copies available here for interested persons): A colored illustrative exhibit of the project. Minor corrections to: -The staff report. -Attachment B(which is Amendment 5 to the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan), -Attachment D(which is the recommended conditions for CUP 4078), -Attachment F(which is the Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 004), and which correction should include deleting reference to a traffic signal at the project entry on Clementine St. These corrections relate to a transposed number, cross-referencing conditions, a missing paragraph number, missing portion of a sentence, etc. 2. Also, I have some revisions to several of the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 (forwarded to Planning Commission). Copies are also available for interested persons. The applicant requested these revisions, but the revisions have been modified to staff's satisfaction. 3. And, finaily, t have aiso distributed the following (again copies available for interested persons): ~ Letter dated November 16, 2001 from John P. Erskine of Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott, an attorney representing the applicant; 11-19-01 Page 32 NOVEMBER 19, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Letter dated November 16, 2001 from Cynthia M. Wolcott of Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm and Waldron, an attorney representing Pyrovest the owners of the Anaheim Plaza hotel property at the southeast corner of Disney Way and Harbor Bivd., requesting that this hearing be continued; and An e-mail received during lunch today from Cynthia M. Wolcott and Joel P. Kew of Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm and Waldron, attorneys. The actions associated with this proposal consist of: (A) Addendum to the Pointe Anaheim Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004, as proposed to be modified, which address the proposed modifications to the Pointe Anaheim project, including development in up to five phases. (B) General Plan Amendment No. 393 amends the Land Use Element to reflect the description of the Pointe Anaheim project, as modified. (C) Amendment No. 5 to the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 is to amend the Pointe Anaheim Overfay to describe the Pointe Anaheim project, as modified; to make text and exhibit changes throughout the Specific Plan document to reflect the proposed modifications; to modify the requirement for interior setback landscaping adjoining The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 zoning; to add "vacation ownership resort units," "aquariums," "on-site directiona! signs" and "murals" as conditionally permitted uses in the Pointe Anaheim Overlay; and to amend to certain conditions of approval accordingly. ~ (D) Amendment No. 3 to The Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program would permit a signalized median break on Disney Way between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street to provide vehicle ingress and egress to and from the Pointe Anaheim project. {E) Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 to describe the land uses and maximum square footages of the modified Pointe Anaheim project, to modify the previously approved waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, to permit development in up to five phases, and to amend the conditions of approval accordingly. The waiver of minimum number of parking spaces is also proposed to be amended to reflect the project modifications. Specifically, 6,581 spaces are required for the combined total of proposed uses; and up to 4,800 spaces in the parking structure are proposed with the minimum number being 3,752 spaces. (F) First Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99-1 to vest certain project entitlements and address implementation of the Pointe Anaheim project, as modified, including deveiopment in up to five phases. The Planning Commission's role is to look at the land use aspects of the proposed Development Agreement, specifically whether the eligibility criteria has been met and whether the appropriate findings can be made. The applicant indicates that the overall proposed increase in project square footage is due to orienting the project less toward evening entertainment uses (which tend to have a greater traffic impact) in favor of adding more f~ote( rooms and accessory uses (which tend to produce less traffic but require greater square footage area), and increasing the parking garage to accommodate speed ramps for quicker parking. In summary, the project modifications include the following: t • The number of hotel rooms increases by 612, from 1,050 to 1,662 rooms. 11-19-01 Page 33 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . • The hotel square footage including accessory uses primarily for hotel guests (restaurants/lounges, banquet/meeting room space, retail space and health club) increases by 406,971 square feet ~ • The retail/dining/entertainment and other commercial uses (such as specialty retail, dining, nightclub, games/video arcade, museum, etc.) decrease by 15,300 square feet (from 650,000 to 634,700 square feet). • The bus terminal/facility decreases by 11,400 square feet (from 21,600 to 10,200 square feet). • The parking structure square footage increases by 349,800 square feet (from 1,600,000 to 1,949,800 square feet). Other modifications to the development proposal include that: • Up to 200 of the hotel rooms may be developed as vacation ownership resort units; • The originally approved live theater complex with 4,600 seats has been deleted; and • A new commercial attraction, an aquarium, is proposed. The specific changes are shown on Table 1 in the staff report. Staff recommends that based on the evidence presented and depending on the information received during the public hearing, that Planning Commission take the actions recommended on pages 14 through 20 of the staff report, including the corrections and revisions that I disfributed today, to approve this • project based on the findings addressed in the staff report. Staff will be happy to respond to any questions that you may have. In addition to Planning staff, Traffic Engineering and Community Development staff are also present. Applicant's Statement: John P. Erskine, ESQ, of Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, Attorneys, 18101 Von Karman, Suite # 1800, Irvine, CA, serving as coordinator, introduced the speakers on the team. He stated they were avaifable for questions on any legal issues and would like to reserve some time after the other public comments to answer any questions that might come up during the hearing. Robert Shelton is the Manager of Predevelopment Activities for Pointe Anaheim. David Rose, a partner in the Pointe Anaheim project, told me to describe him as the progenitor of the Pointe Anaheim concept, but that is too big of a word so how about mid-wife, that might be a little bit better in the birth process. Bill Stone, senior vice president of Price Legacy and executive in charge of building the Pointe Anaheim project. The Price Legacy Group is a merger of Excel Legacy and Price Enterprises and Price Enterprises is the soul price of the Price Club fame based in San Diego. They certainly have the ~nancial wherewithal to finance and build this project. Bill Engle, of Kalus and Architects, Seattle, Washington, and Bill Reed, Wimberly Allison Tongue and Goo, are the retail architects. Together they have created some of the mosf notewor~hy hotei architects actually in the world and they will be providing the hotel architectural for Pointe Anaheim. Additionally, they have a report on the aquarium architectural and its status. ~ Joan Kelly, and Jennifer Marks, of Bonterra Consulting, Environmental Planning Consultants, are present to answer questions and comment on some of the sequel issues raised. 11-19-01 Page 34 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Vigan Dividian, of Myer Mahat, is the traffic consultant. Mr. Erskine stated their firm has been involved in lots of urban retail and large projects around the state of California but has never seen this type of large land assemblage in a very difficult expensive area in the formation of a redevelopment project area. This is a very ambitious and unprecedented undertaking attributed to primarily Excel's perseverance, patience and deep pockets. A lot of time has been spent with Economic Development staff and Planning staff and there has been some frustration over the amount of time that the Commissioners had to involve themselves in the development of the project, but we have been at this for three years. So lots and lots of time has been spent behind the scenes working with the Planning Commission staff. A letter has been submitted to Commission dated November 16th in response to the first October 31 st from Mr. Joel Q. of Palmieri, 7yler, Wiener, Wilhelm and Waldron, Attorneys relative to the P~rrovest litigation and some of the issues that were raised in that letter. Also a letter dated November 19t from the same firm has been submitted and there are some of the same issues that were raised in the October 31 St letter. Robert Shelton, 11 Keats Court, Coto De Caza, CA, 92679, Excel Pointe Anaheim, LLC, stated the last time he attended a Planning Commission meeting Commissioner Bristol was the Chairman and there were about 400 people in the audience. Some were wearing buttons that said, "Preserve the Vision" and others wore buttons that said "Fulfil the Vision". For the benefit of the Commissioners not present 2%2 years ago we were mutually trying to either preserve or fulfil the vision. 7his project dates back 6 years in terms of planning, activities, assembling the property and working with members of Planning Commission staff and others who have been on the Planning Commission and in City Council to work on the entitlements for the project. The original project was entitled at 650,000 square feet of retail commercial, dining, entertainment facilities and 1050 hotel rooms in either two or three hotel towers on approximately 29.1 acres. ~ Table 1 on page 5 of the staff report illustrates comparisons between the original project as approved with the changes and the current project as proposed. There are four essential elements that the original plan proposed to fulfill and the modified plan is consistent with. {1)The assemblage of multiple parcels without the benefit of the Redevelopment Agency to assemble those through a private acquisition process. (2) To replace nonconforming uses, predominantly industrial and aging hotels, with a conforming use that would be consistent with the direction of the resort. This dates back to Disney's and the City staff's work in terms of flushing out the Anaheim Resort as being a destination that is known nationwide both inside the berm and outside. (3) To create an integrated project that contained a mix of uses for which there was an identified market need. (4) For the uses to be presented with very high quality architectural and with a presence to the street that was consistent with the landscaping and the signage ordinances that were applicable to the rest of the resort district. The objectives have been to implement that plan. There are a couple of primary differences between the project as originally approved and as proposed today. In summary those have been to try to overcome some impediments to development and some concerns about the original project as proposed. One of those was raised in the tra~c generation issues and it was an issue surrounding the live theater and 4,600 seats. So in the original project as proposed there was an origina! project of a 4,600-seat theater with 85,000 square feet and that has changed to a 94,000 square foot commercial use. That is presently being envisioned as an aquarium. The square footage has gone up by 9,000 square feet, a relatively small change, but the dramatic change is the reduction of 4,600 seats of theater. The concern with traffic was that there would be an exiting peak arrival and departure concern as al! three theaters potentially exited their patrons, a coincident with a 10:00 p.m. departure from Disneyland down the same thoroughfares that Pointe Anaheim's traffic would exit onto. There were also some concerns with the commercial liability of that proposal and the market liability of it. For all of those reasons we have decided to eliminate the theater proposal by dramatically reducing the traffic impacts and opening up capacity and to replace it with a use that does not have peaking characteristics, being the aquarium. ~ Secondly, each of the uses had a Bourbon Street or entertainment quality. That has been dropped. We have looked at the market area and we have looked at the terrific job that Disney has done at downtown Disney, we are trying to do a project that is compatible with the uses in the area and focus on the needs 11-19-01 Page 35 NOVEMBER 19, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • of the area. Enfertainment uses are high traffic generators so we have reduced dining by 50,000 square feet or approximately 2,000 seats; we have reduced entertainment uses by 30,000 square feet or roughly 1200 seats; and across the board we have moved from orientation towards entertainment and sort of a city-walk like project to retail at 54,000 square feet. In that regard we have increased retail. Third, since we have dramatically reduced the traffic impacts we have also taken a piece out of the economic equation. We have replaced that with additional hotel rooms which, notwithstanding, the current climate and the world climate post September 11th, will ultimately be needed in this area when the market dictates. Fourth, we have provided an access entry at the front door of the project, meaning instead of putting the predominant access entry on Clementine which is sort of a side street, we have put the main access throat to the project on Disney Way. So as a mid-block turn along Disney Way we have proposed a curb cut that would allow traffic to turn into the project at that point, roughly mid-point between Clementine Street and Harbor Boulevard. Fifth, in fairness, a little denigrating in the comment but one of the major concerns raised was do David Rose and Robert Shelton and the people associated with them as the developer have the financial wherewithal to build the project and make it real. Previously all of our land was controlled under options or through negotiations. Behind the scenes there were some questions about whether we coufd convert those options to reality. Today, with approximately $50,000,000 worth of hard cash, approximately 20 acres of that land has been converted from the option characteristic to ownership characteristic. So in large measure what we are looking af is a project which has been before Commission before not withstanding the large amount of community concern which prompted careful consideration of each of the environmental issues. ~ It was approved by the Commission previously on a 7-0 vote and subsequently was brought to the City William (Bill) J. Stone, 17140 Bernardo Center Drive # 300, San Diego, CA, Executive Senior Vice President of Development for Price Legacy. Price Legacy of which Excel Legacy was the predecessor is a public real estate investment trust with properties worth well in excess of $1,000,000,000. The majority worth of the company is in the net worth of the company itself. Price Legacy has assets in 16 states, Canada and Bermuda and primarily all of its developments are retail oriented; they do own hotels and some destination resorts but they are primarily retail. They have a lot of experience in this type of prototype and opened two very similar centers this year, one about a week ago in Newport, Kentucky which is Newport on the levy. It has a lot of similar tenants to Pointe Anaheim. Also they opened shops at the Old Mill District in Bend Oregon of which the first phase is very similar to the first phase Pointe Anaheim. Excel Legacy was involved in this project almost from the initiation. Price Legacy was involved as the equity investor in the project but two years ago took a very hard look at the project and wanted to turn the dream into reality. Council where it was approved on a 5-0 vote. We are proud of what we have done in the planning process, the predevelopment stage and the land assemblage stage. At this point we want to move forward with fhe project and provide for phasing which would allow us to deal with both the absence of controlling all of the land (there is one parcel which we do not control) and move forward with the rest of the property. There is presently a piece of litigation concerning the equitable rights that we have to that that last parcel. We looked at the challenges that were involved in the project at that time, what it would take to change things to make it fit the reality of the business climate. We have since been challenged with a few other things, not the least of which was the terrorist attack on the September 11, 2001, and we are still willing to move forward. We have in access of a$50,000,000 investment in the project through (and acquisition and soft-cost. We are almost willing to make a"kind investmenY' immediately to get things going. For those of you that are in business you can undersfand our urgency and like i said I did not think that it ~ would take us two years to get where we are. Our daily carry on this project right now is in access of $10,000 per day. So time is money in this situation. 11-19-01 Page 36 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ We hoped we could come to both the Council and the Commission and get things completed before the end of the year. We budgeted this project for next year and the thing we always hated is that when things get delayed budgets change and money gets reallocated. We also don't want to jeopardize any of our potential financing for the project. When we got involved with the project, we looked at what the project was and immediately being beset with certain problems we looked at redesigning it into a type of phasing project where we could get things built and get them started. The other thing we looked at regarding possible competition between Disney and Pointe Anaheim, is what we could add and not what we could compete with. The type of project we are planning on building will be very compatible with downtown Disney. !t will have some tenants that are similar but tenants that will be a little different. The restaurants will be a lot different. We are going to have family oriented restaurants but also nice dinner houses to attract both the local business people and the local restaurants for dinner, and also attract all the convention visitors who may want to have a quiet business dinner or a quiet romantic evening for locals. We will also have restaurants that will be great for children that are coming to the area that are leisure tourists. We also looked at the type of product mix that is offered and not offered in the City and right now there is a tremendous leakage of tax dollars that is going outside the city limits to go shopping. When somebody comes to town, whether it be on a business trip or a leisure trip and have forgotten a shirt or pair of pants, they now have to drive outside of town, and the other cities are more than happy to have them spend their money there. So we are going to provide those types of tenants in Pointe Anaheim; tenants like Gap, Banana Republic, and Ann Taylor where you can get more of your soft-goods in the project. We took the architectural which was more of a Citywalk type of architectural and soften it up to be more of a comfortable familiar place to be, a kind of place somebody wants to wander around on a Saturday night. Bill Reed, 2042 South Capella Ct., Costa Mesa, CA, of WATG, stated the company has been in operation ~ for about 55 years. WATG specializes in hotels but also work in casinos, retail and entertainment. Bill Engle's firm (ikewise does all of those things but happens to specialize in retail and entertainment, so their skills overlap. In the last couple of years they have formed an alliance between their two firms to work together to go after large projects; mixed use projects such as this where they can provide strength on strength in terms of expertise in one area as well as another. There is really no second tier level of expertise within their companies working together. Bill Engle, 6656 Muirlands Dr., La Jolla, CA, stated the difference you will see in the solutions presented is that they are integrated. It is not one architect and then another architect, it is the two working together as one team. Bill Reed went through various components of the project and explained in depth the overall project and plans as follows: We thought what we would do is start off with an overview of the project maybe using one of the area perspectives to begin with and then we Gan go into some of the plans in sections and in as much detail as you'd like. The view we are looking at here of the overall project is along Katella Avenue and Clementine Street. So we are looking at the southeast corner of the project towards the northwest. In the distance you can see Disneyland California Adventure in this location and Disneyland itself here. The project is bordered on the north by Disneyway and by Harbor Boulevard to the west. As we are looking along the project here you can see one of the major corners of the project here on Katella Avenue and Clementine Street. We have a hotel located here, which is termed here the "Toy Hotel". In the original scheme this hotel was in this location and we had the music theaters along this street here up to the firestation which you can see in this location. So one of the changes that you will notice right away is that the music center or the theaters as we call them are gone in this area and the hotel is moved from this location to this location. This has actually helped to make the plan a little simpler in that our parking is located along the interior of the project, connecting Harbor Boulevard to Katella in this location. Along Clementine Street . there is a second and a third hotel, I think in the original scheme this hotel did not exist. And this hotel being added we saw an opportunity to create more site potential for another product in this location and we are illustrating that here in this project and we will show in the plan as well. Convention Center we show located on the roof of the parking, utilizing the roof here, and then in the distance here as part of the 11-9 9-01 Page 37 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PL4NNING COMMISSION MINUTES • final phase of the project, these are some of the 200 timeshare units which are proposed for approval in this location and that will be part of this facility here which is located on the corner of Harbor Boulevard and Disneyway. This viewpoint just shows it a little more clearly from the opposite viewpoint it is a little higher angle here. Again we are looking along Disneyway towards the freeway, and this will be Harbor Boulevard here in this location and you can see the final phase of the project as proposed in this location here with another major pedestrian access from this corner connecting to fhe park area. Again, the hotel I originally, first mentioned here, the second hotel and third hotel, this being the new addition to the plan. Let's look at the overall site plan and we can talk a little bit and maybe try and explain sort of the major means of ingress and egress. This isn't a hotel, this is a lower level plan really a pedestrian level connecting the two corners and the hotel towers get lost a bit in this but I will point to where they are. This is again the corner of Katella, this is that first hotel we talked about the second, third and fourth and you start to get an idea of the footprints that represent the room modules that we are showing here. It is actually a roof plan with the exception of the conference facility here and the vacation ownership in this location. The main points of access to the hotels are off the streets off Clementine Street here for these two hotels, off the corner here of Disneyway and Clementine for this hotel, and again off Disneyway for this hotel. From these locations you can enter into the parking off the grade without going back onto the street as well as for the overall project, the parking entrances are from Katella Avenue in this location to the south, Disneyway to the north and eventually in the latter phase of the project off of Harbor Boulevard. The strategy with the parking which again is under this location here is to bring in the first two phases, in the first several phases to bring people off the south off of Katella Avenue and off Disneyway. So we have two mid-block entrances for the parking, one off Katella Avenue and one off Disneyway. The strategy in the parking is to allow peopie to come in and enter from either direction. We know that ~ some people are familiar with the property will come in from the freeways either off Katella Avenue or Disneyway and also there will be local traffic coming from other directions as well. The strategy for exiting the project is recognizing really the busy nature of Harbor Boulevard is to keep people off that as much as possible and direct people to the freeways using the northern exit to Disneyway out of the parking from this location then it is right hand turn and you get off the freeways very easily. We will direct people away from Katella Avenue for that same reason. We do not want people coming out seeking the freeways, coming out to Katella Avenue and having to make a right hand turn, finding themselves on Harbor Boulevard and having to go around the block so that is the strategy for the major entrances and egresses. The third entrance here off of Clementine Street to the south of the fire station would be the service entrance, buses and so forth, so we will keep again the public, the guest separated from the service by bringing service here off Clementine Street and we have a one-way circulation route that will take them ouf to the north and again if it is service trucks, vehicles, buses and so forth, they will be using that street to get in and out of, so timing and deliveries and so forth as well would be early morning hours off peak hours that sort of thing for the hotels for the retail and so forth. I think what I wanted to do now is maybe give this over to 8ill Engle a little bit to go into more detail about the retail/entertainment experience. Chairperson Arno(d asked while you are pointing out the circulation, could you also identify signage that will direct people with respect to the circulation? Mr. Reed responded yes, we have entered into some studies regarding that and in fact discussions with the City as well. I think the major entrance, we do not really have the drawings extended out far enough to see but off of Disneyway here as you are coming up off the freeway, what we are looking at is a program for signage which would help get people in the right lanes, in the correct lanes, and it is even more as you know that there is planning in the future for a parking structure to the north here of • Disneyway and as a result it is even more imperative that we create the right experience here so we have done some initial studies which would help direct people into the correct lanes, getting them into the turning lanes and in here and fhose signs obviously don't start right at this point, they start as you get off the freeway directing you straight ahead, left lane and that sort of thing to bring you in. So there would be 11-19-01 Page 38 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • signage at this location, this location, and again here, help ensure there is no confusion. We don't really have exhibits at this point; we are not that far along to show you specifics about that but I would say that we are thinking along those lines. Commissioner Bostwick asked if he were to go northbound on Clementine and turn into the hotel and anticipated parking could he get from there into the parking structure. Mr. Reed responded yes, Exhibit 2 is a ground floor plan and it shows the port kosher or turnaround for the two hotels including lobbies. There is a drive that goes straight into the parking and it is all ground level parking. There is valet parking as well and there is entrance accessibility to parking and also on the north. We provided a way in without going back onto the street. Mr. Engle used Exhibit 4 to explain the matter in which fhe retail environment serves as the thread of continuity that knits the various complex components of the resort project together. Emphasizing first that we are endeavoring to compliment the improvements the City of Anaheim is making with the Anaheim Resort streetscape and landscape improvements. It will be more garden oriented and a restful, peaceful environment with places to relax but also various activities and interest occurring to appeal to the visitors and the local community as well. The archifectural vernacufar is composed of stucco and some stone accent trellises and lots of landscaping and various water elements to knit it all together. Referring to Exhibit 4, starting down at the intersection of Katella Avenue and Clementine Street, we would be transitioning through a very gradually sloped plain of that really contains an experience of restaurants and shops. There are a number of activity and decision making notes along the way that direct people to the hotels and restaurants and various other activities throughout the project. The reason it slopes up is, well it does create kind of an interesting terrain, however, we are accommodating the parking or actually bus servicing the loading docks, various other back of house hotel uses, etc., subgrade so that it is all hidden from the view of people arriving and using the project. So we want to emphasize the pedestrian ~ connectivity and attractiveness of Pointe Anaheim. So as we are continuing through and I will just take you through a roufe that starts down here at the corner of Clementine Street and Katella Avenue and routes through and back to Harbor Boulevard and Disneyway. As we are moving through, I mentioned that the plain continues in an elevation and then it terminates basically, it doesn't terminate but it is focused on a center court area really that acts more as the Central Plaza that contains restaurants with AI Fresca outdoor dining, shops ringing at end, the combination for various entertainment venues, and you can see the hotels obviously that Bill is describing as they are located around this site as well. The entrance then from Katella Avenue would continue through and we have another entrance opportunity along Disneyway. So there is Vistas that are opened from the interior portion of the site, extending beyond this site as well. So from the exterior looking in you have visual opportunities or visual expressions of the interior likewise from the interior you have Vistas looking out and then it would continue around and pass this fourth hotel, shops, dining experiences and on to Harbor Boulevard and then in proximity to the California Adventure. The interior environment is not just a quiet garden resort environment but the transitions between levels is designed fo be very graceful and rather than an abrupt two-story elevation change we have designed terraces almost like our version of the Spanish steps that transitions gracefully through the restaurants and some of the pool-deck water feature areas to a second level of more restaurants and the entrance to an aquarium. That describes on micro basis the overall configuration but added that we really feel that this environment, the overall project will be a tremendous asset not only to the City but to the community members as well and a very attractive destination for visitors travelling to the City of Anaheim. Mr. Reed stated we have various other levels also as well as a board with some elevations which we would be happy to show you but I think one of the issues we raised just a moment ago when we started discussing the project being raised is the aspecf of phasing and how we are going to get the project built. When we began working on it several years ago, it was all intended to be built at once and of course the difficulty in that is coming up with not $50,000,000 but coming up with $100,000,000 or a$150,000,000 in equity and the hurdle that that represents so I think strategically we have got a much better plan the ~ developer sees the opportunity here to move ahead and the challenge we have been faced with on how to do it in a cohesive way so that each phase of the project is whole on to itself and yet as the project completes as the next phase is completed the project continues to grow, becomes richer and more interesting. This really represents a couple of options to how the phasing may go and I am just going to 11-19-01 Page 39 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ go through them briefly and then Bill Stone, we have some other illustration that will show what the likely phase 1 might be and we can kind of tie this picture in with that picture and sort of see how the end goal can be achieved and what maybe phase 1 would be. When looking at this 1 St phase it is described showing some parking, some retail, and entertainment and the 1St phase hotel; this is area A-1 on Exhibit No. 1. The balance of the site would be used for surtace parking to help ensure that we have enough parking in phase 1 so we would not build all the parking at once. Moving to area B then, we complete additional parking with a second hotel and aquarium and additional retail. So our site density goes up, our parking requirements go up with the addition of the hotel, retail and aquarium. The next phase in this scenario here between C-1, C-2 is the addition of a conference center here a larger hotel here on the corner of approximately 500 keys, 500 rooms, and the finishing of this retail court that Bi(I Engle just described a minute ago here. So this really completes the development for the currently owned parcels here in three phases. The last phase of the project then would be on the vagabond end site here would be the fourth hotel, additional retail parking and timeshare. As an alternative of that a more aggressive development might take phase one and expand it to include the aquarium, additional parking and additional retail, really taking rather than approximately half, taking more like two-thirds of the property owned today. The second phase of that would include the second hotel as it is done here but as in area B-1 again the retail parking in that is already built in phase 1 and then the final build out as we go through it would be the conference center with the large hotel, the finishing of the court yard, and eventually the vagabond end site, the development of that. So that, I guess in a nutshell, I know it is, maybe it confuses me at times, I welcome any questions. It is all based on market demand. Bill will explain if the demand is ~ greater for hotels which it is not at the moment, of course the hotels go forward and the phasing, any one of these components might go forward at any time. Chairperson Arnold directed to press forward with the rest of the presentation and then come back to questions. Mr. Stone stated we talked about the phasing and we're, initially when I became involved in this or when we decided to take over the active development and be the physical developer of the property we were prepared to go ahead with the project as a whole. The problem we had to face at that time, I mean it is no secret, we were stopped from doing that because we did not own all of the property, did not look like we were going to own all fhe property at the beginning. So that is one of the reasons we looked at phasing. Everybody knows what the economic conditions are today and prior to September 11th we had a signed letter of intent with the hotel developer to co-venture three of the four hotels in the project. After September 11'h that developer was unable to go ahead because they had a large number of hotels in the Orlando area which was hit the hardest. So post September 11, we looked at what is the potential for the first phase and what we are required to do per the documentation is a 120,000 feet. Scheme 1 is what we are required to do and what we have agreed to do. In reality though, where we are going today is really Scheme 2. Bill Reed about two weeks ago, spent time in London, England, negotiating with an aquarium developer out of London now for sometime now. They have just opened at the Bluewater aquarium in Chester, England, in the project that we own in Newport we have an aquarium in there about the same size, same design, which was one of the other aquarium developer was competing for the location in this project has been very successful and we did a lot of market analysis. Currently we are on track to try and do the concept and open the first phase with Scheme 2 which is about 230,000 square feet of retail. We are very aggressively pursuing other hotels right now. That is probably the toughest market, today when you look at the occupancies that are there but we actualfy ~ have about three chains that we are actively negotiating with right now. So as soon as physically and economically possible, we will add the hotel to the first phase. So that is alternative three there. So that is reality of what we are talking about doing right away. 11-19-01 Page 40 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ We would like to move through this project and build it as quickly and economically as possible. One of the things we did after September 11th because immediately we knew we had problems with the hotels, the hotel people talked to us, we went out there and called all the retailers we were dealing with because we wanted to find out are you still in business, do you still want to go ahead, and we got a tremendous response from the retailers for this location. They want to be in Anaheim. So the retail interest is there. We are in the midst now of finishing up a number of leases that we have been negotiating and we will have the signed leases here fairly quickly and have a number of tenants that are ready to go ahead and move forward on phase 1 and we feel very confident we have enough to feel the entire 230,000 feet initially. At this time I will turn things back to John and we also have our traffic engineer here too if there are any fra~c questions. John Erskine stated he would answer any questions that the Commission may have and we will close with that for the moment. Chairperson Arnold directed it might be useful to go ahead with the other comments and at the time of rebuttal then entertain questions. Cynthia Wolcott, 2603 Main St., Suite 1300, Irvine, CA, I am with the law firm of Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm and Waldron, Attorneys and we represent Pyrovest Corporation the owner of the nine acres of property at the corner of Harbor Boulevard and Disneyway which is currently the site of the Anaheim Plaza Hotel. pyrovest property comprises almost one-third of the acreage of the proposed new Pointe Anaheim project. We had asked for a continuance to review the lengthy staff report which we did not receive until mid-afternoon on Friday. We expect a reasonable amount of time to review and comment on the staff report before any action is taken by the Planning Commission. The letter presented to the City at today's hearing describes Pyrovest opposition to the new project and • the applicant's failure to conduct to proper environmental review. So today at this public hearing I will just address a couple of issues. One has to do with the zoning overlays, our firm has been involved in the planning of the commercial recreational area of the City of Anaheim over the past 10 years so we are painfully familiar with the Disneyland Resorts specific plan, the Anaheim Resorts specific plan, the hotel circles specific plan and now the Pointe Anaheim Overlay, so we know about the CR Overlay, District A and the Pointe Anaheim Overlay. The new Pointe Anaheim project allows development under the Pointe Anaheim Overlay to be developed in phases with the Pyrovest property as the last phase and the site for parking which is required by prior phases of the Pointe Anaheim project. The construction of the Pointe Anaheim project up to the doorsteps of the Pyrovest property is tantamount to condemning the Pyrovest property for parking. Pyrovest will not be held hostage by the Pointe Anaheim Overlay. We will actively oppose this new project, including the filing of litigation if necessary. I just received a copy of this letter from John Erskine to Annita Santalahti and much to my dismay he basically states that for the applicant's failure to acquire the Pyrovest property this project would be completed and opened for business and that no amendments would be necessary. This is a preposterous statement. Robert Shelton just gave you at least 10 reasons why the project needs to be changed and nine of them are not related to the current ownership of the Pyrovest property. I will not address the current litigation by the applicant against Pyrovest in this pubfic forum. It will be played out in a courtroom and Pyrovest will prevail. Ed Chuchla, 888 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA, Vice President of Walt Disney Imagineering, (neither in favor or opposition, comments only) thanked staff for the tremendous line of work gone into preparing the information. Obviously a project like this requires a lot of review. We have a couple of points that we would like to address and questions about important issues in the project, the first one is parking. The proposal includes reduced levels of parking and staff has proposed a condition to ensure that every ~ phase of development and ongoing operations would have the ability to prove adequate parking provided for the project. We think that is an appropriate condition. Under this condition it appears that staff can require the applicant to develop additional spaces and up to a maximum of 4,800 spaces and that is the number prior to the reduction. He asks, on a phase by phase basis specifically what can staff do tv 11-19-01 Page 41 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • require that each phase meets the needs, so for example, would each phase be subject to the maximum parking requirement? Secondly, since future phases of the parking and the convention spaces and the vacation ownership units are constructed atop the new parking structure, for example, levels 1 thru 3 get built and levels 4 thru 6 gets built and then on top of that the convention center or vacation units, how would ongoing parking operations be managed and what will that impact be to the overall project? Regarding signage, the concern is tied to the potential language proposed to the exemption section in the Pointe Anaheim Project Overlay only. The proposed change would allow signage to be permitted in conformance with existing regulations or under unspecified waivers or variances. We are just not clear what this feature is providing for the project and would suggest that all Anaheim Resort Development be subject to the same sort of regulation with regard to signage. City staff and everybody has worked really hard to ensure that compliance with the signage program is there and we are kind of curious as to what this little phrase does and what door it might open. Condition No. 81 requires some clarification. This is again, a recent change to the conditions. The installation of the ultimate public right-of-way on the north side of Katella Avenue from Clementine Street to Pointe Anaheim's first project driveway is tied to the submittal of the final site plan application for Area A. I think we understand Area A is the first to be developed so this makes sense that this action would be tied to the first area that is developed. Here is our question, if development begins in an area other than Area A, for example Area D, for whatever reason would this condition still be tied to that first phase of development, so at the end of the day less concerned about is it A, B, C or D buf is it the first phase of development? Lastly, a revision to Condition No. 68c has been inserted that there is some flexibility in terms of the schedule of performance and naturally it is tied to market conditions. Everybody is subject to the ups and downs of the market; the financial market, etc. We understand why that change has been made but there is a phrase in the second to the last line that through redesign and land use revision so that the project can be changed, and again our question is, if substance changes like modifications to conditions, zoning ~ regulations, or proposed uses are required we would hope that an opportunity for a public hearing before the Planning Commission would be required to air these issues and review them. Applicant's Response: Joan Kelly, 19142 Stingray Lane, Environmental Consultant of Bonterra Consulting, offered responses to both the comments made by Disney and the letter that was submitted by Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm and Waldron, Attorneys. Regarding Disney's parking up to 4,800 parking spaces, although that has been added as a condition there was a mitigation measure in the addendum that required the same thing. We have just added that condition in. In each phase there is an assessment that is required by staff to ascertain parking onsite is adequate, not only covering the existing uses but forecasting what the next development phase is going to be, ensuring that if for some reason the parking has been tight that it is compensated with the next level of development. I am going to defer on the vacation ownership and have the applicants address that themselves. On Condition No. 81, which is the condition on Katella Avenue, the applicanYs intent is to develop Area A first. If for some reason development occurred somewhere else, I don't think they would have any problem tying it to first development, but the intent is that the first phase is Area A. If there is a suggestion to change the condition that it is Area A or first phase developed, that is agreeable by the applicant. On 68c regarding the flexibility on performance through redesign and land use revisions, the intent was that these would be minor revisions. It is understood that should modifications occur in the projects as has just occurred, that the applicant would be before the Planning Commission again as they are now. !f the revisions are such that it is found to be consistent with the overall plan but is a minor change, I think we would leave it up to staff to determine if it was in the clearance of the plan or whether it needed to be brought back to Planning Commission. ~ Regarding comments from the Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm and Waldron, Attorneys letter that was submitted just before the Planning Commission started this afternoon, there were many comments made in the letter in reference to the current litigation. As Ms. Wolcott said, I am certainly not in a position to 11-19-01 Page 42 NOVEMSER 19, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • comment on that litigation and don't feel it is appropriate for me to at this time or at anytime. There were comments referring that this project is being forced onto the Pyrovest property. it is important that everyone understand this is an overlay and Ms. Wolcott did say that she understands the various overlays, the existing entitlements stay in place. This would not happen unless the applicant was to develop by first acquiring title to that land and so everything that is currently allowed on that site now stays as is, this is just one more option on top of that. In many places throughout the letter there is a quotation saying that EIR No. 311 as well as the original mitigated negative declaration stated, "Further environmental review would be required if there were any changes to the project, both when the original Disneyland Resort was envisioned", meaning environmental review would be required if anything other than what was anticipated be proposed or if there was ever any changes to the projecf. The context was that environmental review has not been done and I would like to argue that point and say that the original mitigated negative declaration was substantial environmental documentation on this project and the addendum that is being entered into the record tonight documents that there are no substantial environmental changes that result from the project modifications. The letter states that the MND specifically excluded any environmental analysis of the midblock turn on Disneyway. This is nof accurate. On page 4-21 of the draft EIR this was analyzed in detail and it is stated that it would better serve traffic approaching the project on the Santa Ana freeway via Disneyway off ramp. The approved project did not include the Disneyway midblock turn, but the environmental documentation did analyze it and that is in the record and the addendum builds on that. It is again analyzed in detail in the traffic analysis that was part of the addendum. 7here were many references in the letter to significant unmitigated impacts but I could not find what those significant unmitigated impacts are other than there are some and so I am at a loss at how to respond to that. It states that the addendum introduces new uses, aquarium, nightclubs and vacation timeshare that were not identified with the original project. It is true that the aquarium and the timeshare were not specifically allowed with the earlier projects, the nightcfubs were in fact, I think there was a reference to it earlier, I believe it was referred to • as Anaheim alley at that time. Although an aquarium was not included as part of the project as a specific land use, from an environmental standpoint I think it is very important to understand that we are looking at the impacts from a use as opposed to what that use is. Museums are allowed, I think the impacts from an aquarium are very much like a museum. For all of the changes as well as the project overall, we looked at traffic, air quality, noise and public services to make sure not one of those issues addressed in the first document increased in with this revised project. Thus making sure there would be no need for a revised EIR or mitigated negative declaration. In regard to the timeshare, although there is an ownership differential the timeshare in effect operates like a hotel so therefore the impacts are similar enough. The letter also stated that the MND specifically postponed environmental review of discretionary approvals. Page 3-6 of the originally approved document states that this is the primary environmental document for the project, covering all project discretionary actions. So I think that clearly was a misstatement. The letter states that the applicant's addendum fails to analyze the significant unmet impacts resulting from the construction of the significantly smaller new project. I have to say I don't think I have ever heard someone protesting a significantly smaller project before. This was in reference to the development being proposed on the Pyrovest site and all I can say is that the project environmentally has been reviewed for impacts and they have been determined to be the same or less than. 7he letter also states that the project description is not proper due to it not being finite, accurate or stable. The project has a lot of options. It has phases and it has flexibility, but I do see that it is finite. It has a maximum number of square feet defined by each use. It is accurate in that this is the maximum allowed it is defined by phase and all the alternatives are also defined by phase. Regarding the statement that the project description is not a project at all, it is definitely a project. I feel that this is the type of project that Sequel envisions looking at the entire project over the long term and addressing those impacts that could happen as a result of market changes that need to be built into a project like this. i There was a statement that the document must incorporate mitigation measures developed in the program EIR (which is the original Disneyland Resort EIR) into the subsequent actions stating that this was not done and that project design features which were part of the original Disney project were 1 'I -19-01 Page 43 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • eliminated in this project. 7hat is true, some of them were eliminated, some of them were included, but some of them were completely irrelevant that reflected Disney's project very specifically. We worked very closely with staff and went over mitigation by mitigation to make sure that all of the ones that applied to this project were incorporated and any additional mitigation measures that were needed were also included. There was a statement that the phasing was not addressed, I think you know that we have addressed phasing, we have looked at it very specifically, we have incorporated mitigation measures by phase when that is appropriate to make sure that the impacts are mitigated as the project moves forward. Issues 9 and 10 in the Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm and Waldron, Attorneys letter were primarily by the Nossaman letter that was submitted to you this morning so I will pass on those at this point. There was a statement on land use that 3 out of 4 mitigation measures for the land use section have been eliminated. That is true, these were not deemed appropriate as mitigation measures. These are now conditions of approvai because they related to timing and commitments by the applicant and were not related to environmental impacts. That is Condition 51, 51a, b and c. The letter continuously reference the new project, I would just like to make this statement that this is not a new projecf it is a modified project. The majority of the project has been kept intact. It is the same location, has the same fill and modified mix uses but overall the same ones. John Erskine stated just in conclusion and then Bill Stone would like to make one quick comment on the parking and phasing issue that Disney raised just for the record. I would like to address a couple of points and one is, it is my understanding of the process that each phase will be back before this Commission for site plan review. So you have additional control through that process which I am sure you are very familiar with. Secondly, with reference to our letter in response to the Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm and Waldron, ~ Attorneys letter on behalf of Pyrovest, to highlight the last paragraph on page 4 of our letter (Nossaman) in which we say it is precisely because of Pyrovest's prior actions which improperly thwarted Pointe Anaheim's effort to move from equitable ownership to legal ownership of the Pyrovest parcel also known as the Vagabond End Anaheim Plaza Hotel that Excel has filed the above referenced litigation (which we refer to in the letter) against Pyrovest and Orange County Superior Court and requested and amendment of the project entitlements and development agreement to provide the flexibility of sequential phasing of project components pending the outcome of such litigation. That is not to say that there are not other reasons besides Pyrovest efforts to thwart our consummation of that transaction. There are other subsequent reasons for the phasing, and I think Bill described them very candidly to you. We have had a very increasingly bad market, I think all of you were nodding during his presentation, we have all read in the business section of all the papers that the hotel market has been going in the tank for about a year and then we had September 9 9 occur, which if it was not in the tank put it there after those tragic events. So we have been very candid about those other reasons and it is not solely Pyrovest that has caused us to go to a project that is complete on the 20 acres, I hope that clarifies that. Bill Stone, stated I just wanted to address a couple of the statements made about parking and there was one misstatement made about the parking; the fact that we needed the Pyrovest property to meet the parking requirements. Actually if you look at the way the parking is located we actually overparked the 20 acres to make up for the difference of the additional GLA and the next 10 acres. So actually we don't need that, there would not be enough parking on that property the way it is designed right now to support afl the GLA on that property without using the parking on the other 20 acres. The other question had to do with the phasing and the way we are going to handle the parking and the construction of the parking and the timeshares. The way the project is going to practically be built is number 1, we wiil over build parking beyond what we are going to need for each phase to mitigate that and the second thing is we are not going to build it in phases going vertically but in phases going horizontally. With the timeshares, we can`t build that unti! the very last phase, until all the parking is done, because otherwise there is no place to put the timeshares, there is no pad there. We are very cognizant of that because of the fact that we will be • bringing other retailers and hotels on later. We don't want to have a case where we have a hotel built and all of a sudden have to start building parking because that would really impact our project dramatically. 11-19-01 Page 44 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ John Erskine stated Robert just wanted me to remind you of fhe efforts that have been made to try and bring along the rest of the community to support this project. The absence of any community opposition or business community opposition of this project is self-evident by the lack of any other opposing testimony other than the one interest well represented. We will continue to work with our good friends and neighbors at Disney on their issues as we move forward and we hope we can get Commission's support for the project this evening. Chairperson Arnold asked Annika for further revisions or responses. Annika stated she has two things basically and one is Mr. Chuchla commented on the concern that the parking as each phase was constructed would be adequate for each phase cumulative as you go through. On page 15 of attachment D, which are the revised conditions to the conditional use permit, there were two basic conditions to Condition No. 66 that has to do with parking in conformance with the parking study that was performed. The new Condition B requires that in connection with the development final plan application for each development phase, a parking analysis shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval showing that the proposed number of spaces will be adequate for the phase. Further because parking of Pointe Anaheim is being shared between multiple land uses the analysis shall include information regarding the number of parking spaces and the land uses and building areas in the previously approved phases. So as it moves along, for instance, it starts out good on the first phase and then there is a bid of a problem that would be coming up for potential discussion on the next phase and that study would have to be satisfactory to the City Traffic Engineering staff prior to consideration of that phase's final plans by the Planning Commission. On page 3 which concerns Condition No. 68. There was some text added by the petitioner to that condition, subparagraph C, and in looking at that again I think it is probably inappropriate that all of that be included. So I would like to delete on the sixth line down which starts out "project finance in acquisition of land for the proposed uses" and then make it a oeriod and delete all of the followina terminoloav and text because thev must • meet the requirements of the zoning of the Disney Resorts specific plan. Any modification will have to conform to the appropriate standards not fo any outside impacts or adverse conditions. Chairperson Arnold stated before I close the Public Hearing I will take questions from the Commissioners, the applicant or any speakers, or staff. Commissioner Sostwick recalled Disney asked for comments about the signage and waivers for signage, which no one responded to. Annika Santalahti, Planning Zoning Administrator, stated that the intent was not to give this overlay as proposed any additional opportunities that anybody else might have because, in fact, anybody in the City can always request a variance or waiver from a code section, so that doesn't do anything new, and to that point Mr. Chuchla is correct it is permitted otherwise. She agrees with Disney on this point. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify that staff's recommendation is to delete the handwritten addition on page 7-9. Ms. Santalahti concurred. Commissioner Koos asked giving the statements made about market conditions which caused phasing to occur, how does the architectural accommodate for potential? He states between the phases it is most likely going to be a seamless project eventually but should market conditions dictate they have to stop at a phase, he asks, would each phase be designed in such a way that the project looks complete if that occurs (if phase one is it for instance)? Bill Reed responded that is a concern and they certainly do not want to have the backdoor to this project where one phase leads anticipation to the next phase. He assures they will have documentation that will • illustrate what each side in total is of each project. And in the early phases the north side of the property will become the front door, which eventually a phase wil! be added onto. He assures they will work to ensure that does not appear to be anything other than the front door to the project. There will not be any 11-19-01 Page 45 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • entry statements, etc., and there will be an investment on the elevations and developing the master so that it looks like a completed project at each phase. Ms. Santalahti stated that under Condition No. 45, page 9 of 19 attachment D concerns submittal of the final site plan application. Subparagraph H states "additionaliy where a development phase adjoins a future development phase as yet undeveloped under the Pointe Anaheim Overlay a colored rendering shall be provided to illustrate the building elevation's facing that future phase". That was intended to make it real clear that all 360° of any development phase will always be presented to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bostwick inquired during the initial phase barring there isn't the hotel or the aquarium and the retail shopping restaurant protorype, how would it be transformed from a flat surtace upward and yet have surface parking rather than the parking structure? Mr. Reed responded that the surface parking to the north side would have a separate entrance by an elevator and an escalator to the upper level, which would be approximately 14 feet above natural grade. On the south side it would be possible to walk from the corner up the gentle ascent which would be at 1 and 20 slopes or less not requiring handrails for handicap access. The termination of the gradual ascent would access vertically directiy from the parking structure via elevator or stair escalator. This plan is not left to an afterthought it is a major entrance from the north side. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify with Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, that given the nature of all the requested actions Planning Commission is not the agency for purposes of Sequel but City Council is the agency because they will make the decision on the number of issues. Ms. Mann stated that Planning Commission is the agency for purposes of Sequel with regard to any ~ action that it takes that would be final. Planning Commission goes ahead takes this action and in effect appeals its on action to the City Council. She feels it is appropriate for Pfanning Commission to make the environmental determination but the environmental determination will ultimately be made by the City Council when it reconsiders the entire project. Chairperson Arnold concluded that there would be more than adequate opportunity for further study, comments and input before a final determination is made on the project as a whole. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick stated obviously it speaks to the time and to the current attitude and economic conditions that we are experiencing and he always believed that it needed to be phased and was amazed when it was proposed as a single project initially. He still stands firm for a turn in off of Disneyway and is pleased to see the agreement of others. Commissioner Bristol stated it is a great idea and he appreciates the fact that plans are still going forward in spite of current events over the last two and a half years, especially September 11, 2001. Commissioner Koos commended the developer for such a comprehensive presentation and doing a thorough job in explaining the project. He is excited the project is going forward. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 2 persons spoke with comments/questions pertaining to the subject request. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition to the subject request. • ACTION: Determined that the Addendum to the Pointe Anaheim Initia! Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration dated October 29, 2001, including the Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004 as corrected, is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed project actions, based on a finding by the 11-19-01 Page 46 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Planning Commission that the Addendum and the Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004 as shown in Attachment F to the Staff Report dated November 19, 2001 including certain corrections made during the public hearing, reflect the independent judgment of the lead agency; that it has considered the Addendum and the Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004, together with any comments and responses received during the public hearing process; and further finding on the basis of the Addendum that there is no substantial evidence, with the imposition of the mitigation measures identified in Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 004, that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; and that the corrections to Attachment F(the Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004) consist of the following: Corrected the Location description on Page 1 to read: "Location: East of Harbor Boulevard, South of Disney Way, West of Clementine Street and North of Katella Avenue within District A/Pointe Anaheim Overfay and Portion of Parking District (East Parking Area)/C-R Overlay and Pointe Anaheim Overlay of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan" Corrected the second Measure on Page 3 to read: "A phasing plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the City Engineer demonstrating how the following improvements, as approved by the City Engineer, will be constructed by the property owner/developer: - Clementine Street/Pointe Anaheim driveway intersection; and - Clementine Street between Disney Way and Katella Avenue (including the ~ median)." Recommended City Council adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 393 (Tracking No. GPA 2001-00393) to adopt "Exhibit A" as shown on Page 10-1/Insert J, and Pages 10-7 and 10-8/Insert A) of Attachment B to the Staff Report dated November 19, 2001 to amend the Land Use Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan by incorporating text to describe the land uses and densities of the Pointe Anaheim projecUPointe Anaheim Overlay, as proposed to be modified, into subsections 10.1 "lntroduction" and 10.2 "Land Use ElemenY' of Section 10.0 "General Plan AmendmenY' of The Disneyland Resort Specific Pfan, and based upon the findings as stated in the Staff Report. Recommended City Council adoption of Amendment No. 5 to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (including the Land Use Plan, Public Facilities Plan, Design Plan, Zoning and Development Standards, and the Conditions of Approval) as shown in Attachment B to the Staff Report dated November 19, 2001 including certain corrections and revisions made during the public hearing, as follows: Proposed text on Page 7-9 of Attachment B was not added to subsubsection 18.78.040.020.0201(d) of Section 18.78.040 "Methods and Procedures for Specific Plan Implementation." Corrected Page 7-42/Insert I of Attachment B to read: "(3) For the Pointe Anaheim Overlay, on-site directional signage may be included as part of the overall Coordinated Sign Program if considered and approved as a part of the Final Site Plan or as • amended." Amended The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Conditions of Approval in Attachment B, as follows: 11-19-01 Page 47 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Corrected the first page, first paragraph under "Introduction," to read: "INTRODUCTION The conditions of approval for development in the Theme Park, Hotel, Parking and Future Expansion Districts, District A and the C-R Overfay include all mitigation measures and project design features included as part of Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0067 (as modified October 8, 1996) (as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). The conditions of approval for development in the Pointe Anaheim* Overlay include all the mitigation measures including project design features included as part of Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004 (as modified )(as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). For purposes of these conditions of approval, the following terms are used:" Corrected Condition No. 76, first paragraph, to read: "76. That Final Site Plans required pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 29 shall be supplemented with the following plans/materials/information which shall be submitted as part of the Final Site Plan application for each development phase (as shown on Exhibit No. 1, titled "Phasing Diagram" and dated November 19, 2001). All plans shall be fully-dimensioned and drawn to scale:' Revised Condition No. 81 to read: ~ "81. That prior to submittal of the Final Site Plan application for the Initial Phase of Development or for Area A(as shown on Exhibit No. 1, titled "Phasing Diagram" and dated November 19, 2001), whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit a street improvement plan to the Public Works Director for the installation of the ultimate public right-of-way improvements on the north side of Katella Avenue from Clementine Street to the first Pointe Anaheim project driveway west of Clementine Street to improve vehicular access to the project. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with the preparation and processing of the street improvement plan and all costs associated with the construction of the improvements to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. These improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of the first final building and zoning inspection, or prior to commencement of activities/uses pursuant to Section 18.02.026.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, whichever occurs ~rst." Corrected Condition No. 82.b to read: "82.b That prior to submittal of the Final Site Plan applications for Area C and Area D(as shown on Exhibit No. 1, titled "Phasing Diagram" and dated November 19, 2001), the property owner/developer shall redesign the site plan adjacent to the Disney Way improvements addressed in Condition No. 82.a to maintain the minimum building setbacks adjacent to Disney Way." • Added new Condition No. 97 to read: 11-19-01 Page 48 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ "97. That approval of Amendment No. 5 to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 is contingent upon the approval and adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 2001-393:` Recommended City Council adoption of Amendment No. 3 to The Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program as shown in Attachment C to the Staff Report dated November 19, 2001, to modify the landscape concept plans for Disney Way shown on the drawing labeled "Landscape Concept Diagram for Anaheim Resort Public Realm" on page 9 of The Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program) to reflect a mid-block median opening between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street to provide for turns into and out of the Pointe Anaheim site inasmuch as Disney Way is proposed to be a main entry point to the Pointe Anaheim project. Approved Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 to permit development of the Pointe Anaheim Lifestyle Retail and Entertainment Complex, as proposed to be modified including development in up to 5 phases, based on the findings as stated in the Staff Report dated November 19, 2001, and subject to the recommended conditions of approval identified in Attachment D of the Staff Report, including certain corrections and revisions made during the public hearing and the submittal of 4 new exhibits illustrating development alternates for the Initial Phase, as follows: Revised Condition No. 50 to read: "50. That prior to submittal of the Final Site Plan application for the Initial Phase of Development or Area A(as shown on Exhibit No. 1, titled "Phasing Diagram" and dated November 19, 2001), whichever occurs ~ first, the property owner/developer shall submit a street improvement plan to the Public Works Director for the installation of the ultimate public right- of-way improvements on the north side of Katella Avenue from Clementine Street to the first Pointe Anaheim project driveway west of Clementine Street to improve vehicular access to the project. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with the preparation and processing of the street improvement plan and all costs associated with the construction of the improvements to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. These improvements shall be completed prior ta issuance of the first final building and zoning inspection, or prior to commencement of activities/uses pursuant to Section 18.02.026.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, whichever occurs first. (SP Condition No. 81)" Added new Condition Nos. 51.b and 51,c, to read: "51.b That prior to submittal of the Final Site Plan application for Area D(as shown on Exhibit No. 1, titled "Phasing Diagram" and dated November 19, 2001), the property owner/developer shall submit street improvement plans to the Public Works Director for construction of a right-turn iane on the south side of Disney Way from Harbor Boulevard to the mid-block project entrance. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with the preparation and processing of the street improvements plan and all costs associated with the construction of the improvements to the satisfacfion of the Public Works Director. These improvements shal! be completed prior to the issuance of the first final building and zoning . inspection, or prior to commencement of activities/uses pursuant to Section 18.02.026.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, whichever comes first. 11-19-01 Page 49 NOVEMBER 19, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 51.c That prior to submittal of the Final Site Plan application for Area C(as shown on Exhibit No. 1, titled "Phasing Diagram" and dated November 19, 2001), the property owner developer shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, the feasibility of constructing dual left turn lanes in Disney Way between the mid-block project entrance and Clementine Street; and that prior to submittal of the Final Site Plan application for Area D(as shown on Exhibit No. 1, titled "Phasing Diagram" and dated November 19, 2001), the property owner/developer shall construct, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, the dual left turn lanes. The property owner/developer shali be responsible for all costs associated with the preparation and processing of the street improvements plan and all costs associated with the construction of fhe improvements to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Working in cooperation with the City of Anaheim and property owner on the north side of Disney Way, these improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of the first final building and zoning inspection, or prior to commencement of activities/uses pursuant to Section 18.02.026.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, whichever comes first." Corrected Condition No. 54 to read: 54. That in connection with submittal of the Final Site Plan application for each development phase, the property owner/developer shall provide information regarding the ownership and/or long term lease status of each of the underlying parcels, including any airspace or vertical subdivision, of the 29.1 acre Pointe Anaheim project (i.e., whether the parcels are owned, • leased, under negotiation, etc.). (SP Condifion No. 84) Revised Condition No. 66, paragraph C, to read: 66. "C. That following completion of the Pointe Anaheim project and on- going during project operation, the property owner/developer shall submit an annual parking demand study to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval, to assess the adequacy of parking for the Pointe Anaheim project. The study shall be paid for by the property owner/developer and shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. The study shall evaluate the peak parking utilization for the entire project to determine whether the available parking is adequate or whether additiona! parking is needed. If the study indicates that parking is deficient, then additional parking spaces, up to a project total of 4,800 spaces, shall be provided in accordance with the recommendations of the evaluation and in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. The parking demand study shall be prepared annually unless otherwise required by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager." Revised Condition No. 67 to read: "67. That subject property shall be developed in substantial conformance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 9 • (dated November 19, 2001), as follows: Exhibit No. 1 "Phasing Diagram" Exhibit No. 2 "Overall Plan - Level 1- Street Level" 11-19-01 Page 50 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Exhibit No. 3 "Overall Plan - Level 2" Exhibit No. 4 "Overall Plan - Level 3" Exhibit No. 5 "Overall Plan - Conference Center and Hotel Towers" Exhibit No. 6 "East Elevation - Clementine Street and South Elevation - Katella Avenue" Exhibit No. 7 "West Elevation - Harbor Boulevard and North Elevation - Disney Way" Exhibit No. 8 "North Elevation - Phase 1" Exhibit No. 9 "Section A- Thru Grand Hotel/Retail/Parking and Section B- Thru Toy Hotel/Retail/Parking" The Pointe Anaheim project will be developed in accordance with the quality, design and architectural integrity as shown on the illustrative exhibits. The referenced exhibits are conceptual and development options included in the project are not all depicted on the exhibits. Additionally, in accordance with subsection 18.78.130.020.0201(b)(2) of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the view corridors shall be shown on the Final Site Plans for those development phases which have view corridors, as shown on Exhibit 5.8.3.f.5 "Interior Signage and Icon/Themed Signage Element Plan" of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 document; and that the widths of those view corridors shall not exceed the corridor widths shown on said Exhibit 5.8.3.f.5. The Pointe Anaheim project shall be developed in accordance with the quality, design and architectural integrity as shown on the illustrative Exhibit Nos. 10 through 12 (dated November 19, 2001), which exhibits are on file with the Planning Department. • The following four exhibits (dated November 19, 2001) illustrate and summarize development alternates for the Initial Phase: Exhibit No. 13 "Initial Phase ALT-I" Exhibit No. 14 "Initial Phase ALT-II" Exhibit No. 15 "Initial Phase ALT-III" Exhibit No. 16 "East Elevation (Initial Phase ALT-III) and North Elevation (Initial Phase ALT-III)" Revised Condition No. 68 to read: "68. That the Pointe Anaheim project shall be developed in up to five (5) development phases, as shown on Exhibit No. 1, titled "Phasing Diagram" and dated November 19, 2001, as follows: A. The property owner/developer shall obtain approval of the Final Site Plans, obtain the appropriate building and other permits, and commence construction of the Initial Phase within a period of three (3) years from the date of this resolution. B. The property owner/developer shall complete the construction of and open the improvements comprising the Initial Phase within a period of two (2) years after commencement of construction of the Initial Phase. "Opening" of the improvements shall be defined as the opening of at least seventy five percent (75%) of the total square footage of the uses within the underlying phase. ~ C. Following the Initial Phase, the property owner/developer shall use reasonable commercial efforts to commence construction of subsequent development phases within approximately two (2) years, 11-9 9-01 Page 51 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ but in no event later than four (4) years, following the opening of the previous phase, provided the timing of each subsequent phase will depend primarily on market demand at the time, the availability of project financing, and acquisition of land for the proposed uses. D. The property owner/developer shall complete the construction and open the improvements comprising each subsequent development phase within a period of two (2) years after the building permits for said phase were issued; provided, however, that the final development phase shall commence construction within a period of ten (10) years from the date of this resolution. Extensions for further time to comply with these conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code:' Approved Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to the minimum number of parking spaces based on the information contained in the parking analysis in the Pointe Anaheim Transportation Study (Revised), dated March 12, 2001 and prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc., which supports the findings as stated in the Staff Report dated November 19, 2001. Determined that the Pointe Anaheim project, as proposed to be modified including development in up to 5 phases, meets the required showings and applicable development criteria to enter into the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99-1 as set forth in paragraphs (26} and (27) of the Staff Report dated November 19, 2001; and based upon the analysis set forth therein. • Recommended City Council consideration of the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces concurrently with their mandatory consideration of General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00393, Amendment No. 5 to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1, Amendment No. 3 to The Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program, and the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99-1. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item would be set for a public hearing before the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 41 minutes (4:05-5:46) A 5-minute break was taken from 5:46-5:51 p.m. • 11-19-01 Page 52 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04277 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04457) OWNER: Gock Woey Jung, 433 South Vicki Lane, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: De Hua Tr, 12201 Brookhurst Street, Garden Grove, CA 92640 LOCATION: 420-504 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 1.5 acres with a frontage of 205 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street located 492 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue - Seafood Place Restaurant. Request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on November 6, 2000 to expire November 6, 2001) to retain a banquet hall with service but no sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Continued to January 28, 2002 SR8149VN.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED to continue the subject request to the January 28, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to comply with all conditions of approval. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 11-19-01 Page 53 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4128 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04462) OWNER: Yassini Marteza, P. O. Box 2110, Ventura, CA 93002 AGENT: Dan Van Rosen, 700 North Brookhurst, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATtON: 600 - 626 North Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 4.8 acres located at the southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Gramercy Avenue. Request for an amendment to a condition of approval to permit the sales of propane in conjunction with a previously-approved gasoline service station. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to December 3, 2001 SR1036CW.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ~~ ~J ACTiON: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED to continue the subject request to the December 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time for the petitioner to submit revised plans for review by the Planning Department staff. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 11-19-01 Page 54 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10b. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2001-00003 OWNER: Marcia J. Nishino, 1780 North Winlock Street, Orange, CA 92865 AGENT: Diamond Pacific Homes, Attn: John Tharp, 5400 South Ohio Street, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 LOCATION: 195 and 201 South Peralta Hills Drive. Property is approximately 2.31 acres with a frontage of 90 feet on the south side of Peralta Hills Drive located approximately 1,569 feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Request for approval of a specimen tree removal permit to remove 22 specimen trees. Approved Approved SR1034CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 10 as a request for Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 200100003 at 195 and 201 S. Peralta Hills Drive. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, informed 13 of the 22 trees have already been removed and there are 9 left that the applicant is wishing to have removed in order to construct two new homes. Staff recommends approval (the code requires a 2 to 1 replacement with 15 gallon trees) with 4 to 1 ~ replacement with 24-inch box trees (which have been the standard practice of the Planning Commission). Staff recommends approval based on plans submitted showing necessity of tree removals. John Tharp, owner of Diamond Specific Homes, a custom home builder, located at 5542 E. LaPalma Avenue, Anaheim, CA, 92807, admitted the trees were unintentionally removed when the property was purchased. They were unfamiliar with the City ordinance at the time. They took photographs when they presented the project to their investors and have photographic evidence prior to touching the land that 6 trees reported on the 1998 parcel lot line adjustment were not on the property when purchased. Staff has been made aware of the photographic evidence. They submitted a new design showing the 88 trees at the ratio as if all 22 trees were removed and illustrated the area of the missing 6 trees (two in the right-of- way, two close to the property line and two where one of the existing homes are). They ask consideration for those trees. Also at the ratio of 4 to 1 they feel the property is not large enough to sustain that many trees as there are at least 15 existing trees that will not be moved and with the additional 88 it totals over 100 trees on a 2 acre parcel, which are also specimen. There would not be room for children to play on the grass if 88 trees were put on the property. So they ask for a reduction in the ratio, 3 to 1 or something that is more comfortable for the property. Greg Cruzan, 189 S. Paralta Hills Drive, stated he has been a neighbor to the property for 15 years and the land was abandoned about 20 years ago. It was previously an orchard and over that time it collected a big group of pepper trees that are totally unmanaged. The trees grew up right next to each other in big clumps on very close centers. He feels the quantity of specimen trees greatly overstate the aesthetic value to the neighborhood. As residents next door, they were very glad to have a contractor plan to develop the area. Chairperson Arnold acknowledged Angie and Robert Gould's presence at the beginning of the meeting and indicated their favor of the project if the 4 to 1 mitigation were complied with. ~ William (Bill) Grun, 211 Peralta Hills Drive, Anaheim, CA, stated he borders the entire eastern edge of the property and has two concerns: one is the visual quality of the property, particularly on the northeastern segment because access to his property is up the driveway that runs down. He concurs with the previous speaker's comments that specimen trees have been unmaintained at least for the last 10 years that he 11-19-01 Page 55 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~~ L_J has lived there. He feels the proposal is going to be an improvement to the area. The second issue is timing. The soil is constantly bare, it is a rather steep hill and the rainy season is fast approaching. There has been a grading plan approved but things are upheld because of the current issue and he is concern that the remedial grading plan will not move forward before the rainy season. His pool sits on a steep hill right above the proposed area and he is concerned that it might not remain in his yard. Scott E. McDaniel, 8148 E. Timberland Avenue, Orange, CA 92869, a representative of the two investors who contributed $900,000 1~~2 years ago to get the two houses built, reports they are very anxious to see the project move forward. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun stated the offer the applicant made of 3 to 1 ratio is more than enough. She banter "it would be nice to have a little yard when you have a house and with that many trees you would have a foresf'. Commissioner Bosfinrick feels the 2 to 1 ratio is adequate with the amount of existing trees and foliage in the neighborhood and by the time the trees mature it will be well forested. Chairperson Arnold noted that staff was responding to the issues and concerns raised by the Maag Ranch development but that is a substantially different type of property; much more visible and less heavily forested. Commissioner Bristol asked if there would be 15 trees remaining on the property that aren't being cut. John Tharp responded yes, there are 15 on the flat area and there is a large dense area at the bottom of the slope with an undetermined amount of trees. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify that the 15 trees remaining would be at least 24-inch boxes or greater. OPPOSITION: NONE FAVOR: 3 people spoke in favor of the subject request; and a person submitted a"speaker card" indicating in favor of the subject request provided removed trees were replaced at a 4:1 ratio. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2001-00003 (to remove 22 specimen trees) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 19, 2001 with the following modification: Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows: ~ That a final Specimen Tree Removal Plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division and Urban Forestry Division for review and approval showing the on-site replacement of twenty-two (22) specimen trees authorized for removal and the replacement at a minimum 2:1 ratio for a total of forty-four (44) trees. All replacement trees shall be minimum 24-inch box sized specimen trees. Said trees shall be properly maintained and any replacement tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. VOTE: 7-0 11-19-01 Page 56 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (5:51-6:05) ~ • 11-19-01 Page 57 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i 11a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 1 11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04464 OWNER: Jillbridge Corp., 2141 Glendale Galleria #107, Glendale, CA 91210 AGENT: Lee, Lee & Pao. LLC, Attn: Gei-Jon Pao, 1407 North Batavia #201, Orange, CA 92867 LOCATION: 851 South Harbor Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.6 acres with a frontage of 338 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard located 340 feet south of the centerline of South Street. Request to permit a self-serve laundromat. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to December 3, 2001 SR1035CW.DOC FOLLOWWG IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. I OPPOSITION; None ~ ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED to continue the subject request to the December 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the property owner time to meet with an engineer regarding a sewer study required by the Public Works Department. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 11-19-01 Page 58 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) Approved 12b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 12c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04460 Granted OWNER: CMC-Nine, P. O. Box 81290, Chicago, IL 60681 Ming-Cheug Chang, 27520 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 215, Rolling Hilis Estates, CA 90274 AGENT: Cornerstone Bible Church, Attn: John Crandall, 6501 East Serrano Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 6501 East Serrano Avenue. Property is approximately 3.0 acres located at the northeast corner of Serrano Avenue and Nohl Ranch Road (Cornerstone Bible Church). Request to.establish a church within an existing commercial center with waiver of a) minimum number of parking spaces and b) maximum number of waff signs. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-165 SR8150VN.DOC ~ Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 12 as a request for Conditional Use Perm it and waiver of code requirements for the Cornerstone Bible Church at 6501 E. Serrano Avenue. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, informed there are two waivers involved, one of them has to do with minimum number of parking spaces and the City Traffic Engineer has reviewed and approved a parking demand study. The other is a waiver for the maximum number of wall signs, one being permitted and two being proposed. It is staff's understanding that there is currently one sign on the building and they want to add an additional one in addition to some religious icons, which are not considered advertising devices for purposes of our code. Staff received a letter of correspondence via fax, which Planning Commissioners dated November 19, 2001, from Nathaniel Behurra who voiced concerns about the parking situation. ApplicanYs Statement: John Crandall, 6501 E. Serrano Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated they understand staff's concern and the viewpoint that it is a point of destination and not normally a place that people would respond in a spontaneous way. They have been in existence for about 6 years and have been meeting at various hotels, etc., displaying a sign out front. In fact, they have had people spontaneously drop in as a result of signs. Regarding the current sign in use, they understand from staff it was permitted and they have had people stop in during the week as a result of seeing the sign to their office. Therefore, they offer that it would be helpful to them to have a sign on the Nohl Ranch site. Also recognizing Serrano Avenue is going to be connected into the Orange portion of Serrano Avenue, it is conceivable that people would travel up Nohl Ranch, turn right on Serrano Avenue going to the south side without ever going on Serrano Avenue. While they may have a cross as a religious icon designating it as a Chrisfian piace to worship, people would not necessarily know what denomination it is. So they ask Commission's consideration with regard to the second sign. ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun asked how large would the sign be on the south side of the building. 11-19-01 Page 59 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Crandall res onded it would be identical in size to the si n that is currentl on the Serrano Avenue P 9 Y site. Chairperson Arnold stated that churches use the idea of destination-oriented sites rather than passerby stop sites. He states it is something that is changing, it may have been true at one time but today there are an increasing number of people who do just happen to see a sign and stop by. Certainly in light of the various events in the last couple of months there is plenty of evidence of people stopping by various religious facilities. Staff recommends the limitation for more neighborhood-oriented areas. However, the proposed sign is relatively small, it is going to be in major crossways, and the fact that Serrano Avenue is going to be connected diminishes the neighborhood oriented nature of the limitation. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Mr. Crandall, in regards to staffing, if he intended to be there throughout the week as well as on weekends because Monday through Friday operational hours were approximately 40 hours a week and it stated there would be two employees which pastor and one administrative assistant. Mr. Crandall acknowledged he is the pastor and whether he would be there literally 40 hours or away at times is inconclusive, he would be in and out. However there is really not a high traffic issue during the day or during the week. So in terms of parking or people present would not create a high traffic issue. Commissioner Boydstun stated that the times their staff would be there the pre-school would be closed and there would not be any traffic. Commissioner Vanderbilt clarified that his issue has to do with signage and the probability of people dropping by. ~ Mr. Crandall responded that his assistant would be there and there would always be somebody onsite during the hours of operation. Commissioner Boydstun feels there is nothing wrong with the sign. The sign is not that large and is a good directional point particularly with Serrano Avenue opening it is a necessity. Commissioner Sostwick states the property has specific differences, it is a corner property with access to major streets which gives it something different than just an on-the-street strip mall effect. Commissioner Boydstun explained that without the sign on the other corner, people coming up Serrano Avenue would not see it until they had passed it by. OPPOSITION: A letter of opposition was submitted at the meeting. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirements, as follows: Approved waiver (a) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based upon the recommendation for approval by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and based on the findings as stated in the staff report dated November 19, 2001. (Vote: 7-0) Approved waiver (b) pertaining to maximum number of wall signs based on the • Commission's determination that additional identification visible to Serrano Avenue was needed. (Vote: 5-2, Commissioners Koos and Vanderbilt voted no) 11-19-01 Page 60 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04460 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated November 19, 2001. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (6:06-6:15) ~ r 11-19-01 Page 61 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 13a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREV.-APPROVED Approved 13b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4097 Approved reinstatement (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04463) for 1 year (to expire on December 31, 2002) OWNER: Joel Saltzburg, 18022 Medley Drive, Encino, CA 91316 AGENT: C& M Automotive, Attn: Charles A. Perez, 420 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 420 South State College Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.4 acre located at the northeast corner of Westport Drive and State College Boulevard (C & M Automotive). Request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on March 23, 1999 to expire on December 31, 2001) to retain an automotive repair facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-166 SR8144KB.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 13 as a Conditional Use Permit for C& M Automotive and auto ~ repair facility at 420 S. State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA. Applicant's Statement: John Perez, the owner of C& M Automotive stated he attended a Planning Commission Meeting three years prior and has complied with all rules and regulations set forth by Planning & Zoning and City Council, and therefore request an extension on Conditional Use Permit No. 4097. Chairperson Arnold stated that there was no one else present to comment on the Item and noted that staff recommends approval. Commissioner Boydstun did not feel there was any reason to limit the CUP to 3 years and asked Mr. Perez if he planned on being in business for the next 5 years. Mr. Perez responded his intention is to be in business for 1 additional year. Commissioner Bristol asked if the property was up for sale. Mr. Perez responded yes. Commissioner Boydstun suggested the CUP be tied to the applicant so that when Mr. Perez terminates the business the CUP would also terminate. She explained because it is a corner that is for sale and the City would not want to have somebody come in that is a problem. Commissioner Bristol stated he was by there yesterday about 5:00 p.m. and he saw about 8 or 9 vehicles outside and a tow truck delivered a motorhome. He asked Mr. Perez if he worked on the motorhome this morning. ~ Mr. Perez responded no, the motorhome could not be driven and a tow truck delivered it for repair to the water pump. He informed that it was a bigger job than he liked to tackle and could not repair it immediately. The motorhome was left at his site because damages rendered it immobile. 11-19-01 Page 62 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE5 ~ Commissioner Bristol asked if it was common for him to store numerous vehicles of similar circumstances that he could not service immediately. Mr. Perez responded no, Code Enforcement inspects his lot faithfully every month and all vehicles are lined up and well organized, and his lot is well landscaped and clean. Commissioner Bristol asked if he kept cars on the lot overnight. Mr. Perez responded yes, he tries to park as many cars inside as possible but there are always a few cars outside. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ ~ OPPOSITION: NONE ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4097 (Tracking No. CUP 2001- 04463) for one year. Amended Resolution No. 99R-61 in its entirety and replaced with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition No. 1 was modified in today's meeting): ~ 1. That this permit shall expire one (1) year from the date of the prior approval (December 31, 2001) on December 31, 2002. 2. That a six (6) foot high masonry block wall shall be maintained along the east property line. Minimum five (5) gallon sized clinging vines shall be maintained on five (5) foot centers adjacent to said wall to eliminate graffiti opportunities. Said vines shall be properly irrigated and maintained. 3. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within finrenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 4. That a minimum of six (6), twenty-four (24) inch box, trees shall be maintained in the landscaping planter areas along and immediately adjacent to State College Boulevard and Westport Drive. 5. That all landscaped planters along the east, south and west property lines shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 6. That public telephones shall be permitted and maintained either within the building or within fifteen (15) feet of the entry to the building. 7. That no vending machines shall be permitted. 8. That window signage shall not be permitted ~ 9. That no propane tanks shall be permitted. 10. That no banners or other advertising shall be displayed and that no special event permits shall be issued for this automotive repair business. 11-19-01 Page 63 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 11. That signage far subje~t faciiity shalf 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. 12. That plans shall be maintained as approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 13. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. 14. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. 15. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be maintained with the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. ~ 16. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be maintained per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. 17. That no outdoor storage shall be permitted for this property. 18. That outdoor storage of, display of, or work on vehicles or vehicle parts or materials shall not be permitted. 19. That lighting for this facility shall be designed and positioned in a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate or cause glare onto adjacent or nearby streets and/or properties. 20. That no freestanding sign shall be permitted. 21. That subject property shall be maintained 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 Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and as conditioned herein. 22. That the subject facility shall be subject to quarterly inspection by the Code Enforcement Division. The cost of such inspection shall be borne by the operator of the facility. 23. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and ~ any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. 11-19-01 Page 64 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (6:16-6:24) ~ _J 11-19-01 Page 65 NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES f 1 \ J Chairman Arnold stated at the meeting of November 5, 2001 that the appointment of a representafive to the AUHSD Facilities Task Force was continued to November 99, 2001. Unfortunately, it was not on today's agenda and he requested fhat it fhen be agendized to January 94, 2002. ADJOURNED AT 6:25 P.M. TO MONDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2001 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~ r ~" L-- Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2001. ~ 11-19-01 Page 66