Loading...
Minutes-PC 1996/05/29~~ SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 2;?•, 1996 11:00 AM. PRELJMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. PUBLJC HEARINGS BEGIN (PUBl1C TESTIMONY) ~ PRESf3~iT: BOSiYVICK BOYDST~ BPoSrOI, FIEi~WNGER 1AESSE, P6tI1ZA ~ ABSHdT: MAYEft STAFF PRfrS6~Jf: Selma Menn Joel Fk9r Mary McgoekeY Annika Santalahti Greg Flesttnge Jonathan Borreg0 Undo Johnson Greg McCafferty Karen Dudley Richard LaRochelk John Lower Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Tom Engle Edith tiarria Margarita Sobdo Elly Fernandes ~P~Y ~Y AttomeY Planning drector Deputy Planning drector Zoning Administrator Zoning dvision Manager SenkN PlanMf $enlor Planner Associate Planner Asaodate PlanMr Code EnforesmsM Supervisor Traf(fo and Transportation f+Aanagsr Principal Transportation Planner Assodats Civil Engineer Vice Detail Planning Commission Support Supervisor Senor Secretary Senior VNord Processing Operator pppCEDUFiE TO DtPEDf iE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC Fft:JIRiPIGS t w II be granted upon Pequest H, to ithe opinion of the Commissions suchiadditiona~time will produce evid~ce important to the Commission's consideratton. 2. k corMsted applksatkms, the proponsMs and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present their case unless add(tkNral ttme is regwsted and the complexity of the matter warrants. The Commission's conaiderattona are not determined by the length of time a part(dpant speaks, but rather by what is said. 3. Staff Reports are pert of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting. 4. The Ca;nmisabn will withhold questions until the public hearing la dosed. 5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the forsgdng H, in Its opinion, the ends of laimesa to ell concerned will be served. 6. All documents preaeMed to the Planning Commission kx review in connection with any hearing, induding photographs or other sooeptable visual representattons or non~ocumsntary evidence, shall bs retained bythe Commission for the public reaxd and shall be available for public lnepecUona. 7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will bs elawed to speak on }isms of interest which are within ttb'judsdidion of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda items. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. MI960529.Vi1P ~._ 05/29/96 Page 1 f ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA MAY 29, 1996 f ~; 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. REOLIEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION iNlTUa71ON OF Initiated redassify- ZONING REGLsSSIFlC.oTION FOR CERTAIN CITY OWNED catbn proceedings PpOPERTIES: Initiated by the City of Anaheim, Public Works Departmmerk-Real Property friivislon, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. Request for Planning Commission initiation of zoning n3dassifkation from the RS-A-43,000 (SC) (Reelderntal/Agricunural-scenk: corridor Overlay) zcne to the co (SC) (Commerdal O(flce and Professkx~al-Scenk: Corridor OveriaY) Zone. Property is approximately 1 acre at the rwrthwest comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Maude Lane. Jonathan Borrego, Senkx Planner. He stated the subject item is a request to initiate a general plan amendment and rezoning for a piece of property whkh is located at the comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Maude Lane. By the Planning Commission initiating the action h will be set for a future public hearing and all the residents in the area within 300 feet will be notified of the request. He explained that the zone change and general plan amendment would be consistent with action which was taken on a similarly shaped piece of property lasted west of the subject property. He further stated that if the general plan amendment and zone change are ultimately approved that there is a likelihood that there may be some additional entitlements which are required in order to build the property and those entitlements would be pursued at the sde expense and effort of the property owner whose contemplating purchasing the property. B. a. EIR NO. 313 (PREVIO~$LY-CERTIFIEDI Approved b. F,j!iAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO.96-04: Cox Communk:ations, C/0 Approved Preckws McDuffie, 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Sufte 440, Long Beach, CA 90806, requests review and approval of a Flnal Site Plan, inducting a roof plan and elevation plans, to construct two (2) screen wall endosures to conceal roof-mounted personal communicatk~ns service equipment. Property is located at 616 West Convention Way. Precious McDuffie, JM Consulting Group, 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 440, Long Beach, CA 90806. She stated she is present on behalf of Cox Communicatkx~s PCS and that they are proposing a personal communicatkx~ service to be located at 616 West Convention Way. She explained that the project will be totally screened and also painted to match the building. t 05/29/96 Page 2 MAY 29, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA ~. ~~~~~;;;~H~~ ~~cG PERMR NO 1731 - INmeTION_OF Initiated revocaton C• City Inftiated or modiNcation (Code Enforcement), 200 S. Anaheim Bivd., Anaheim, CA 92805. proceedings City InRiated rHyuest to initiate rE~',oCatlOn or modffk~ttion proceed ~s~ ~C~r'dr urard)~Pro~pe~ty is 11~edt at 408 South~e Bn~okhurst Street. He stated they initiated the s ~ f~ the ub ect e Rchard LaRochelle, Code Enforcement Supervisor. explained that the Alcxrhd Beverage Control has iot Issued a beer and wine perm 1 facNity. He explained the reasons why the request was initiated and stated that the business has been dosed for over five (5) years. Also, there has been a lot of criminal adNity in the area and there are many businesses in the surrounding area that do sell aicohdk: beverages. Chairman Messe asked ff h is staffs recommendat(on to hold a publk hearing for modfficatbn or revo~tion? Richard LaRochelle responded 'yes'. 'amara Martin, resent of Anaheim. She irxlk:ated that all the neighbors in the surrounding neighborhood received some material ftom the Alc~hholk: Beverage CoMrd and she asked staff ff they've also received a copy ~`'"" Chairman Messe responded that they did not receive the said material, but darffied for Mrs. Martin that the subject item wql be put on a future agerxla. Mrs. Martin then left th~9 material for staff to review. Chairman Messe indicated that staff will be sure that the Planning Commisskxiers receive a copy of ft in their packets at the time the item is considered at a Public hearing' p yeareNCE NO 19;5 3 INI ATION OF REVOCATION QI3 Initiated revocation MODIFICATION PROCEEDINGS: City In[tiated (Code or ~~~ Enforcement), 200 S. Anaheim Btvd., Anaheim. CA eedings for proceedi~ initiated request to Initiate revocation or modiHeatbn pr Variance No. 1945 (to permff the operation of a restaurant). Property is 6ocated at 1126 North Anaheim Boulevard. Jonathan Borrego, Senkr~ ?fanner. He stated the subject request is an old use variance vfik:h was approved for what is now being operated as the D Mural Restaurant whk:h was formally occupied for many years by Sancho's Restaurant. He explained that there is an old use variance wM-es granted for the property and that use variance had several conditions attadied to ff, among conditions prohibiting the sales of afcohdk: beverages and also limiting the nature of the entertainment at the property. ~~ _ o5/2s/9s Page 3 ANAHEIM CI11f PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA MAY 29, 1998 C- Is no longer be>ng operated ss ~ that He stated there has been indkk~tions recanUy that the property ThereFore~ ~ restaurant, but Is being operated more as a night dub and/or banqu~* Sadnty. It was appropriate that the Planning Commission reconsider the use variance at a fom~ai public hearing in orrier to address the concerns that have been Identffied by Code Er~orcement and the Pd~e Department. 05/29/96 Page 4 MAY 29, 1996 ANAHEIM CI11f PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA ~ ~----^ ~ •~"~'"! IMPACT REPORT N0.320 Continued t0 2b. y~Fe DEVELOPMENT ar eN N0. 120 May 30, 1996 INITIATED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM, Planning Department, ATTN: Gn3g McCafferty, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: The subject proposal is located on the approximately 159- acre Anaheim Stadium property. The proPettY ~ generally bounded by Katella Avenue on the north, SR-57 (Orange Freeway) and Santa Ana River on the East. Orangewood Avenue on the south, and State Cdlege Boulevard on the west. Proposal to establish land use and development densities on the Anaheim Stadium property EIR RESOLUTION NO. 9Cr49 AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN RESOLUTION N0. 96.50 FOLLOWING IS A DETAILED SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke Joel Fick, Planning Director -This matter is for the environmental Impact report and area development plan for the Sportstown protect A little over a year ago in order to assist w~ Ch~y ~°u~~ ~ugM development enhancement of the Anaheim Stadium and surround~nrgke lea, an and ervironmental proposals from qualified consultants to prepare a concept pia , n9 Pl documentation for the 807-acre greater stadium area. Increased visft Ducks atithe Arrowhead Pond of stadium and certainly the phenomenal success enjoyed ~~ Mhlgs area. Perhaps the finest consultant Anaheim warranted an examinatlon of land use opport ovidin oversight, team that we c:ouid assemble at that time was assembled with the Spectrum Group pr 9 MBA being tho environmental consultant, SWA and The Jerde Partnership being architects and the Concord Group and Way~ff side did ermendous amotunt City staff work conntributing to the project McCafferty on the City as welt. The City Council subsequerrtiy approved atwo-phase work program that was started with the first phase Induding the preparation rat the concept development plan, marketing study and environmental documentation for the stadium property. The second phase then branches out Into the larger 807-acre 9fea. Today you are considering the EIR and the Area Development Plan for the Stadium property. The Plan >s the implementation tod for Sportstown and sets forth the permitted land uses for the project. The Draft EIR has also been comprehensively prepared and for virtually every comment that was submitted to the City, a ~prehensive response was prepared to those comments. Staff has a brief presentation 05/29/96 Page 5 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COM~AISSION - SUIIIIiAARY ACTION AGENDA ~AAY ~~ ~~ ~~ for you tod~.y. This is a large project so we have a number of consultants here who are ava6a a to answer any questbns that you may have, but we have two presenters today. The fir,~t is Joan Kelly, with Mkhael 6randman Associates (MBA) and the second is Dan Young with the Spectrum Group to give you an overview on the project itself. Joan Kelly, Mictwel Brandman Associates -Good Afternoon, Chairman and Members of the Plann'.ng Commission, { am bare to just gNe you a real brief overview of the CEQA procress. We were hired by the City to complete an EIR for the Sportstown project. The Notke of Preparation was released to the publk on AprA 7,1995, for a 30•day publk review period. On AprN 26, 1995, there was a scoping meeting here in the f.;ouncN Chambers, as suggested by CEOA, although not required, and the NOP period dosed on May 8, 1995, and those comments that were recx~ived were addressed in the EIR wRh dher issues that had already been identified. I am sure you know the draft EIR was released in January on the 17th and that public review period dosed on March 1st. You have been provided the Response to Comments on the letters that were received on the draft document whkh have addressed the comments of all of tt~e letiers and individual points therein and have also addressed the Issue related to the project modfficatksn. There is an assessment (n the beginning of the Response to Commenrts which gives an overview of the impact of the modified project as associated with that whkh was originally addressed In the EIR. As was in the original document, the modified project also leaves three unavoldabie slgnfiicant impacts. Two are directly project related and one is an indirect impact and those are air quality and the impact is ftom the short temp construction impact, release of PM10 or partkulants, and the long-term air quality impacts are from carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, and readNe organk carbons. To put this in proper perspective, this is a significant impact because the area is currently over the thresholds se+ by the Air Duality Management District and any additkxial Increase wpl keep ft above the Yhresholds. Therefore, it - is a signffikant impact. Sdkf waste is also found to be a significant impact because this is a major project and landfill capacity is a finite resource and this wUl continue to deplete that resource. The third impact is to schools whkh is an indirect impact due to the empF~yees that wpl relocate to the area as a result of employment at this project. And although the compliance with State legislation is to require a construction fee to be paid and that wpl be imposed on this project, and the State has found that is midgat~xr of the impact, this was determined to be a significant Impact because the fees _ollected will not fully cover the cysts to the sehod district to lnplement facAities or accommodate the new students. Joel Flck -The next speaker is Dan Young, principal of the Spectrum Group. Dan Young -Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. It's a great pleasure to be before you today. There has been a tremendous amount of work and creatNity that has gone Into what you are going to see and, hopefully, approve today. I want to take you through the process that we went through on the design and conceptualizing ftont. As you look at the plans themselves and the EIR that is before you. With Greg's assistance, ICI need two boards, one for the ,lanuary 3rd Sportstown and one woukd be the retrofit About a year and a half ago, as Joel mentioned, we had the great honor of being hired by this Cfry to lead a team of world dass designers and experts >n real estate to take a look at the property owned by 05/29/96 Page 6 MAY 29, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA ~. the City that has come to be known as Spor<stown and today contains the Stadium. Our goal was to really try to accomplish three things on your behalf. Flrst, to provide a new vision for this property and the surrounding area, both from an economk: development Print of view, as well as fitting wRh your tourism base. Secondly, to Investigate those market uses that could be brought to the Property and, In fact, would be synergistic with professbnal sports venues, as well as the nearby conventbn center and Disney properties. Thirdly, to create land value for the Property that the City oMVrs on the 158± acres and create the bash entitlement Package so that when you went out and sought irnestment on this property, You would have not only a vision, You would not only have synergistlc uses t ~take~ o the marktetplace That really was also you would have the basic entitlements of the property our assignment. That's what we attempted to do. So starting a little over a year ago, we had a great deal of fun wfth this project because K has the opportunity to take a look at the base that you have here in this area. We INe In this place. I happen to INe very dose b Barrie Ana and we tend to take for granted how terrific this market is. There are over 51 /2-mplbn people who INe in this area who would come to this place if we made it attractive enough. That constitutes one of the best demographb markets In the country. Also, within this area we not only have lots cf people Wing and working here, but you have within two miles of this site, one ~~ the best and most frequently used converrtion centarsvenuesW You alalso have an hemisphere. You also nave a stadium whbh is used for professkxral sporting area that is home to professkx~al hockey and other types of entertainment that seems to be growing by the week with new opportunftles and you are also within two urges of one of the greatest resorts on the globe, Disne~dand. So what you have here Is a tremendous market opportunity. We locked at those terrific demographics, those wonderful amenftles you already have in place and asked ourselves what kind of compatible uses could we find, compatible with sports venues and the vision for this City. Our market study took us to several different types of uses. First of all, retaA with an emphasis on entertainment retail and on sports related retaq. The world of retail as we ail know has changed dramatically, just over the last decade. Instead of going to the local supem~arket or the local store, whbh in our Iffetfrne weYe seen started out as the oNy place to go to buy goods and services, we now have places that mix not only shopping, but shopping and entertainment aril we call that today, entertainment retail. In fact, down in the City of Irvine, in the Irvine Spectrum, there's now the Irvine ErrtertalnmeM Cer?tor, ;;~st is nothing but entertainment retaH, some 250,000 square feet and they~areeare track to outdraw Knott's Berry Farm in attendance, this magnificent entertainment retaY spot. the kinds of uses that are attracting to the marketplace today. The questk~n for use b our market research was, wUt those kinds of uses work in this part of the County. In this part of the County, our determination was that entertainment ratan is looking for a home, as ft Is anchored more toward the south in Irvine, tl wnl look for a central North Orange County ar-chor, whether it is this site or some other property that is srxx~ssful in attracting those uses, restaurants, specialty retail and entertainment types of uses, movie theaters, and the Ilke. Our opinbn was and ou~ need to recommendation was that you ~tt>et Y~ haveland y~can creates tr temendousasense of place, that these wonderful sports properties on January 3rd we announced is a Glace called 'Sportstown.` 05/29/96 Pale 7 MAY 2fi, ifl9f3 ANAHEIM CRY e~LANNING COMMISSION - SUfiNMARY ACTION AGENDA all of these varkws What we saw in the newspaper announced for Sportstown was a vision of puffing mately 750,000 uses together, depleted on the odor graph to the left on the wall. That contained approxi square feet of retaN, entertainment styled retaN space, a maximum of a mNlbn square feet of office, a maximum of 500 hotel rooms and a 150,000-square foot exhibition enter. Now the exhibition center you are very famUlar with is your own cornention center, and lts tremendous success as a facNity, its long term success is predleated on attracting more conventkx~s, defined as those shows that create stays in your hotels, not necessarNy local shows. Today You have a number of local shows, the golf show I go to every year, the RV show I go to every year, and I cxxne from the local market. I dont stay in the hotels because l am 15 minutes away ou become so busy t T you need publle shows are marvelous as bac ~I f«o a~entbn ~So as standalone property, 100,000 to 150,000 that convention space even expand square feet, You have the opportunity to fNl almost year-round, ran exhi~ Y~ local tourism base here but Iocal shows. A marvelous ecorwmk: development oPP~ ltY within the City and we have included that opportunity here on the site plan. So those are generally tha uses that we described in a Ifst and through the magic of Jerde and SWA's design capabNitles displayed on the grapple that you see to the left surrounding the stadium and also a football stadium that has not been bugt yet We left b~asBeballA' wher ~ ~~ took place Just in the course of this pro ~,to leave it there and pefiaps play To the left Is the proposed entitlements for a new football stadium. So in addition to the retaN, the office, the hotel rooms and the exhibition center, fs a footbaN stadium. AN of those uses were put together into a quality land plan and announced on January 3rd. One of our hopes was that lt would attract irnestmerrt first from anchor tenants such as spacing venues, such as teams. In fact, what haPP~ was Disney came to the table, acquired the Angels, and let the course of doing that, entered k~to an ~- agreement with this City which has been approved by the City CouncN and is leading to the re-creaYwn, the re-invention of the Bing a'A'~lu~i n ~ i~ ~~~ ~ ~® die ire, Jul rnernext couple one of the most specta of years. So the first step along that way has already taken place. Now I want to focus your attention on the graphic to the right Many questons came up as to how lt was that under the Disney agreement which spells out that there must be 12,500 parking spars, what impact did that have on the entertainment retaN, hotel, office, the variau uses in the original plan. What lt resulted in was a more specific area for those uses to be in, which ~9~ ~ b~ from«a mNlbn ~ that map to the right and secondly, a reduction in only one cate9~Y square feet to about 250,000 square feet In other words' a prailk~l ma~dmum buildout, maximum development of the vision announced on January 3rd fitting in t~td andYexhibftion space as was i~ office but the opportunity to move forward was as much retaN, for changed, the amount of office originally Proposed on January 3rd. So the space that is proposed and are still space for prailk~l buildan dropped to 250,000 square feet and all the other p~ ~~ ~ would avaNable. What you have before you today is an ernrironmental impact report allow you to entitle those uses on that site when taken into the context of the Disney contrail, and wNi allow you to move forward to the marketplace with an entitled situ implementing the full vision as we came up wlth lt after a year and a half. Mr. Chaimtian, I am more than happy to answer any questions as Your hearing develops and thank you for your attention. Joel Fick - No further comments, Mr. Chaimran, but we are happy to answer any questions You might have. ~ 05/29/96 f age S MAY 29, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PUWNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA ~- to the pubik: for any comments.. Is there Chaknan Messe - WeA, perhaps now I'd throw ?this open anybody here that wishes to address us on the EIR or the Area Development Plan. Dominic fCractd, Busch t-Gm, 2532 Dupont Drive Irvine. CA 92715. I have prepared comments for the Commissioners. In general we represent a diem by the name of Everest Electronic Equip~rn~e reel areas is kx;ated across the street from the Arrahelm Stadium and we are corx~med in general with the Draft EIR, one being tratflc, and I understand that the report concludes that there are no unavokiade adverse knpacts arnicipated by the traiflc. The ma{n issues are the traffic in the area. We have aU gone to the Anaheim Stadium for a game and we are concerned that that traffk: impact will be there, even though the report shows that it will not be there. In addftion to the tntiflc, we are also concerned that there fs not going to be any change in the zoning, existing permits, licensing requiremens or any new govemmentai restrictions imposed on the businesses in the surrounding area. In addition we have a major concern about the air quality, in panicular to the numerous amounts of PM10s that are going to be brought up into the air during the construction process~~. And there are going to affect the local residents and employees as well as our manufacturing pr more details in the written presen*~ation. Chairman Masse -Could you be a Ifttie more particular with us as to where exactly Everest Electronk; Equipment is located on what street. the bottom of the rfirst map theme I~eftyft is the th~buflding IwiU walk overethere and ffshow you. at Chairman Masse - O.K Before you leave the m~rophone, h may be a good time for any of the Commissioners to ask any questions. Commissioner Robert Henninger -What sort of manL~cturing is it that the firm you represent does? Mr. Kracht -Metal products and plastk: products. Commissioner Henninger - I see, and is that sensitNe to dust? Mr. Kracht -Yes they are. Our customers demand a very high quality flnish and the increase in dust particles wal affect that process. Commissioner Henninger -You know there is dust in the a(r all the time. What sort of dust finering systems do they have in place rww. Mr. Kracht - WeU, we meet aA the requirements to mitigate the dust that we c~ntributa, as well as any internal dust. We are not sure with the overload on those systems with the proposed constructfon• Commissioner Henninger - O.K Thank you. Chairman Mesas -Thank you. The written comments. 111 have staff pick those up and Include those in our record. Any other comments here from anybody from the pubik;. 05/29/96 Page 9 MAY 29, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COIIAMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA - District. We want to thank the Planning group for Mike Perez - I am with the Anaheim Oily School providing us with the abtlity to respond to the Draft EIR. We do want to add a little more information in case you are unaware. The se~te does require a commercial fee be pakl for this prMelk~•Roos Districts, does mow you to provide ottrt-r mitigation measures, l.e., crossing guard distrkxs, other things which can help with this full vision of a premiere Sports Center. a premiere City and a premiere Schaoi District. We look forward to continuing the dialog with the Clry and a good resolution. Thank you. Chairman Masse -Thank you, Mr. Perez Any questions. Anybody else from the publk:. Now's your chance. Afi r(ght staff, any other further input. Joel Fick - Mr. Chairman, lust some brief comments. The gentleman representing Everest Electronk;s raised several issues. The first related to trafik: and as he pointed out, the Draft E!R does contain rrtative ftom Austin detailed studies that were undertaken by .Austin Foust and Assxiates and a repress Foust is here today to answer jury questions You might have. But the report did conclude upon that detailed analysis that there are no adverse ernr(ronmental Impacts created by this project. Second, the issue of air quality ~-+as raised and as discussed in the repott, again that issue was comprehensNely addressed. Tf~ere are short term impacts related to construction that wUl be abated upon completion of that conswotion and long term impacts frankly relate primarily to the fact that this the report andiJoan {(ally from k ~A~can answe any further~questionsthat you~may have about that in And finally the question was raised about whether this project would affect any zone charn~ge lonahe~ property and I want to tell you thit this Project doesn't affect the zoning on those props Y Y• Chairman Masse -Thank you. Any questions ftom the Commission at this point. Commissbner Henninger -Well, let's see, I'd like to hear a little more about the comments that are raised in this letter regarding traffic and circulation. You know the paragraph on traffk: makes the point that the purpose of this zoning actim is to intensify the use of the site. The author of the letter says that the streets wil{ be more heavily use<f during much of the year if we are success{ul in intensf{ying the use. I think that is probably a fair s~'atement that there will be more traffic and the EIR says there Is going to be more traffic. The question is, is there going to be a significant Impact to that traffic or are the streets capable of handling it? Chairman Meese -Either Joan or our City Traffic gentleman, John. John Lower - Treffk: and Transportation Manager for the City of Anaheim -The EIR evaluated the added traffic, the traffic added by this project to the existing peak hour of street traffic. That ~he~commute peak hour and on that basis, determined that there is more than adequate capacity acxeptable service levels. Commissioner Henninger -But there ~Nill be more traffic. John Lower -That's correct. Chairman Masse -There will be rtrore trafl{c than there IS currently. John Lower -During the commute peak hour, yes. 05/29/96 Page 10 ANAHEIM CITY ,PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA MAY 29, 1996 ' whk:h was not even Sportstavvn, but was Chairman Meese -The original plan for this PIS enticement before this. Would that have been more the large amount of office bugdings that had golf or less traffic than we are planning now. John Lower -Far more traffic. Chairman Meese - So ft's less traffic under this plan than there would have been ff we had developed according to the original. Joel Fick - Mr. Chai;::~: you raise a good poirrt. It Is pointed out in our staff report there were more than 2.1 mgllon square feet of office development that was previously approved on this efts and not only entitled but subject to the Development Agreement between the City and the previous project applicant Chairman Meese -And the streets were bugt to accept that type of impact. John Lower -And as an example I would point to the crftk~l intersedlon that has been constructed at State College and Orangewood and another ~~ knterCF~ian eat GeneteA~ ~Waynd Katella and wfth the I-5 Improvements, a new high occupancy 9 Chairman Messe - O.K Thank you. Joan, do you have any other input about the question of the air qualfty? Commissioner Henninger - Waft, let's stay on traffic a second. So you addressed peak hour. The letter has a concern about the coming and going of shipping, woks and that sort of thing, during the rest of the day and what did the EIR find out about the traffic circulation in this area, let's say during the mkldle of the business day? John Lower - There was no such analysis completed for those time frames. We looked at the peak commute traffic hour and then there is an average daily traffic analysts which compares the forecast traftk: vdumes to what is referred to as a service vdume at an acceptable level of service. Is the threshold exceeded and the answer Is 'no'. Acceptable service levels for average daNy c~ndftions exist. Commissioner Henninger - So you dkl look at that? John Lower - On an average oapy basis, yes. But not at a specific hour during the middle of the day. Commissioner Henninger -Presumably, you believe -1 don't want to put words in your mouth - do you believe that traff~ wAl meet acceptable levels during the middle of the business day. John Lower - Absdutely. Yes. Joan Kelly -Regarding the construction air qualfty emisskxu which were brought up by the speaker, there Is, as 1 addressed earlier, an existing problem wish PM 10s in the area and ft Is acknowledged that this project would add to that level; however, there are a significant number of mftigatkm measures that are outlined in the EIR that would prevent or signific;antiy reduce this impact However, there is noway to measure how much that is going to be better. For Instance, wetting down the grading area, washing down the trucks prbr to them leaving the site and such hat is unimproved nnorrrially ffff the mpact is very slight, and you review that i~anNarea that ins not past 05/29/96 Page 11 MAY 2si,1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMANY ACTION AGENDA the threshold, then You can say, 'Well, wRh the mitigation, thL is not going to be an impact, rather than say there wasn't going to be an Impact, we erred on the side of being conservative and saying that, 'Yes, this has the poterdial of being a signifk;ant Impact and on site there wpl be all the measures implemented to mitigate that to the extent posside. CArnmissbner Henninger -The PM10, there is a prodem in this area with the PM10. I mean in Southern Calffomia. Joan Kelly -Yes. Commissioner Henninger -The amount of additional PM10 that this project would cause in the immediate area, could You quantffy ~~ Joel Flck - I would Just add to the conversation while Ms. Kelly is looking up the answer to that question is that we did send notice to the Air ~ua9ry Management District and suggestions they had in terms of mitigation measures have all been incorporated Into this dxumentation and mftigatlon measures for the project as well. Commissioner Henninger - Yes, I understood that. Joan Kelly -It's on Page 3-131n the Response to Comments document in i ade 5.3~. T~i~ot~ 'ROtai daily project c~n~nxttion emissions by pollutant and PM10, the numbers are listed there, emissions are 799 pounds Per ~Y on sfte. Again, th>,S is without mitigation and with mftlgatlon, the majority of that would be left on sfte. Commissioner Henninger - So let's say that we have 400 Pounds a day, that's a Iftde more than the majority of K, how much PM10 Is there in the vicintry of the Stadium, like on a normal day? Joan Kelly - ~Jn page 3-10, the latest Air Quality Management report that was availade Is 1994. 1995 Tahat istnot~the~lrr~a~icimum excuse me. That is whatls measured atthepAnaheilm Statbn~~ pounds. Commissioner Henninger -For what area, 106 pounds Per cubic mite of air, cubic foot of air? Joan Kelly - Cudc meter Commissioner Henninger - And, of course, the Anaheim Stadium area is probady mUllons of cubic meters. Joan Kelly -Yes. Commissioner Henninger - So we are really talking about a very, very small percentage orange, this added 400 pounds. Josn Kelly -Yes, that is correct Co ~iss~~ ~ near as-much aserence bebetween a day that was absolutelyacalm and a day that had a very slight wind. 05/29/96 Page 12 MAY 29, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA Joan Kelly - Yes, I would say that is a good analogy As you get a wind pk:k up, You get more PM 10 !n the air. Commissioner Henninger - So ff someone had a manufacturing process that was sensitNe to dust and had facilities for fikering the dust for the purpose ~ their manufacturing process, It would probably be abetween a calm day and a~reallY wD~dygday, forginstance, when we had Santa Ana wlndsthe dffference difficult tol saynbut yesyes! most finering systems in high tech buAdings would be able to fNterthatoutery Chairman Masse -John, could we discuss parking a little bft? The EIR discusses that no two stadium events wUl ever occur at the same ttme. What about a Stadium event and a comrantion center event at the 150,000-sq. tt. com+ention enter. John Lower - Y ~~ c~ndud to has imultaneousueventsro~uid be a dccommodated. a shared parking analysis Chairntsn Masse -And that would work? John Lower - I wUl leave k to Austin Foust to tell me otherwise, but the documents I reviewed indk~ted that it would. Joel Fick - Mr. Chairman, I would add that one of the mitigation measures again contained in the a ftleedto with eah phaase o the project sit goes Innto Insu a that parkingrwUl be adequate as the ~ 9 project is implemented. presentl~at the StadiuMmkis the nrew exhibition centegoing to be in addition to !heiexisting exhibftion center. Jocil Fick -Right now that is really in the preliminary stages of analysis. There certainly has been an ider>iffled need of additional space out at the f,',onvention Center and precisely what form that wAl take in terms of the expansion hasn't been 100% fkialized, but adding additbnal exhibition space here certainly does afford an opportunity to provide more long term shows and the large exhibition shows at the center. Again transferring some of the local shows to this site so that K affords a vehicle potentially that doesn't exist today. Commissioner Bostwick -1n looking at the Disney plans for the renovated stadium, are they intending to keep that exhibition center that is presently there, do we know? refeRing~toais Just oing't be formalized into a bupdi~~~ltOs Wort 9d 9 t be any ne Increase in the are amourM of exhibition space under the plan. Chairman Masse -But this EIR for Sportstown is really a concept and although we may certify this EIR, as individual d un op o decide~whtether tthat fits within this er~rvironmental documentationCkls that~right?I have an oppo fty `. 05/29/96 Page 13 MAY 29, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMAgY ACTION AGENDA recommended one ~ ninon to youbt ~- a"oni the PlanningTCotnmission thathat veryreview. Chairman Messe - O.K Any other questions ftom the Commission. Commisaioner Perasa - I have one on schoos. Jcen Kelly said that we were mitigating the impact through construction fees. but ft would not fu11 ammo a (costs. And I understand because we are building houses that we cannot legally Impose y Chairman Messe _ Let's ask our City Attorney that question. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney -The question I believe, Is whether school facNfties fees In addition to those that are statutorily required could be Imposed upon this project. The schools faciities fees on new development are set by the Calffomia Legislature. I think that there is recognlzatton in the EIR and probably by the Commission that the fees may be inadequate f.^ fully offset the facilities costs that may result indirectly ftom n6 w ddvelopmertt. However, that (s a determination by the legislature that higher fees or ot;rer mitigation is not feasible in light of competing social and economic interests such as job creation and economic productivity. The action that is actually before you in conjunction wfth this ~vironmental impact report is an Area Development Plan. The Area Development Plan Is not a legislative ad, it is an adjudicative ad. In some instances the courts have permitted public entities to Impose mitigation in addition to the stsitutorify required fees where there are legislative approvals that are required in conjunction with a project such as zone changes, specffk: plans, where you are setting up rules for an entire area rather than making an adjudicative decision which is a decision tha.~ you make with regard to a specific piece of property. In this instance, the zoning is in place for this development. What the City is doing is actually looking at the potential impacts within what is actually permitted zoning -4 " and imposing a plan for infrastructure needs, etc. It is an Area Development Plan and it is processed in accordance with our Code like a coning change, out only processed lii:e a zoning change to give us a framework for how it would be handled procedurally, except that it is nat. done by ordinance as a zone change would be. Chairman Messe - While we have you at the microphone, Ms. Mann, ~,~e were Just delivered by hand two letters ftom Best, Best and Krieger, a firm representing both Anaheim Union Hfgh School District and the Anaheim City Scholl District and the crux of both of those letters, which are almost identical, indkx~tes that required notice may not have been provided to the District relative to this very hearing. i wonder ff you could respond. Did you receNe a copy of this? Selma Mann - Yes, I do have a copy of both of those letters, actually the letter makes two points. One is wfth regard to the District's feelings with regard to the Responses, wfth regard to mtigation measures, I believe that those have been addressed in the Response to Comments docume o CTo~m second ant as you mentioned has to do wfth the required period for providing the Reofsponf a t~ ft is that the agency. I wonder ff Mr. Perez would address the issue as to what types District will be providing. The District has actually had nine days at th>` point rather than the ten daye required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act because of the weekend that came in the middle and that was the ~ ~ available time to deliver the document and h may be that finding out what Information is going to be provided may be useful to know to the Commission. Dean Derleth, Attorney, Best, Best & Krieger, our point merely is not objection to the project at this point, we just merely believe that the scope of the Responses to Comments warrant more sufficient time for us to respond adequately to those Responses so that the Commission can make more reasoned ri 3~ 05/29/96 Page 14 MAY 29, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA ~•~ of our nts and come to the conclusion that ft wishes based upon more axurate review and analysis Poi and detailed information. ~, Chairmen Masse -Given another 24 hours, would You come to us with any different irrfom~ation or any new !nfomtation? Mr. Derleth -Sure. The point fs not necessarily the day' Although I think there is a technk;al vitiation of the Publ~ Resources Code, ft's more the fact that Responses to Comments whk;h apparently took your staff upwards of 3 months to pr tpare~l bel wot.~td pp ate a lafttle bfttmore tir~ne to IProvkle you business days to prepare a response wfth that more detailed information that I think you deserve. Chairman Massa -How much more tlrne are you talking about, sit? Mr. Derleth -Whatever you woukJ Iike to provide us with would be sufficient for our purposes. I would imagine ff your next meeting Is on June 10th, that would be more than sufficient amount of time to provide you with the response we would Iike to prepare. Chairman Masse -Any questions of Mr. Derleth. Commissioner Boydstun - I have a problem wfth that much time in the faW i~tin tum means ft is practically cutting in half what was at one time approved for that properhl bringing half as much traffic, people, - ft is an industrial area and there are no homes irnoived whatsoever. Mr. Derleth - I can appreciate that, Commissioner, but at the same time, your gaff has responded to the data and our calculations of the impacts in such a w~y~t etttwe ~n~ Ito Pei p~ the ~ ~~ ~S ~ ft's not necessarily the overall impact and I can app regaMless~he scope of the project, requireshmore~me ffor ups to adequately/nformtyoand (think Chairman Masse - I guess because of the hoiday you were perhaps short changed by a one day period. Mr. Derleth - No, ft wasn't the htiiday because the notice apparently went out on the 20th and you are htiding you meeting on the 29th. So regardless of business days, ft's calendar days that the statue goes to. The fact of Memorial Day Just impacts iL My other point is because of the project, the scope of these responses deserve more than we have provided, but ff you look at the statutory problem, ft's irrelevant that there was a holiday. It is Just a calendar problem. Selma Mann -The notke went out on tha 18th, so in terms of the nonce, certainly ft went out in a timely cont(nuing this hoarding fora eddftio+nai day toiprovide th~~,rli 1 days totthe district. ~ an altemat(ve, Mr. Derleth - As a point of clarification, I have no knowledge of any notice that went out on the 18th. We have a letter which is the notice to us that is dated the 20th. Chairman Masse -Regardless of that, another day would meet the statutory times. Is that correct, Ms. Mann, ff we ware to continue this meeting until tomorrow afternoon. `_ 05/29/96 Page 15 MAY 29, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA Selma Mann -Yes. Chairman Masse - We may consider that. Thank you very much. Any other questkxrs from the Commission or any other input frcxn the public before I dose the publk: hearing. Anything from staff? Mr. Lower. John Lower - Mr. Chairman, N I could provide a point of clarification in discussion ~Yof exhibition about the exhibft space. The shared parking analysis dkl assume same day opera space and a stadium event, but rwt at the same hours of operation. Chairman Masse -They would not occur in parallel. I was concerned about that because that does require some parking. O.K I'm going to dose the pubik: hearing and Commissioners, is Your irrtentbn to continue this fora 24hour period and maybe meet tomorrow afternoon at 2:30 p.m. to get any further publk: Input and hearing ftom the school district, or do you want to go ahead right now? Commissioner Peraza - Well, I won't be avaUable tonwrrow.o ~ C~ftyaCouncu when ft considers the otherwise the Ofstrict wql provide Rs moue detailed response project. Chairman Masse -They would have to appeal the decision of this body then' Commissioner Bostwick -Can we talk about some options here. Obviously, we have an option to continue this for 24 hours. We can vote on it now and they can appeal h, and there is also an opportunity to approve this or make a decision on this with a referral to the City CouncU. Am I correct, Selma.? Selma Mann -Yes, you do have the option open of making the decision and the Commissbn itself requesting review to the City Council. Our recommendation is the one day ccntinuance ~ that is something that v~orks within the schedule for the Planning Commission. Chairman Masse -Let me poll the Commission first to make sure that we could actually meet ,let's say tomorrow at 2:30. Mr. Bostwick (response, I would be available.) Ms. Boydstun (response - I would be avaUable. (Bristd -yes) (Henninger-Yes) (Peraza - I would not) Chairman Masse - So we would have a quorum at 2:30 tomorrow, without the prosence of Mr. Peraza. I am, of course, open to any motion by the commission. p.m t Tomorrow afteymoonn Commissioner Bristd~seconded the mo ion, al ayes, tbut Peraza votingtno2:30 Commissioner Henninger -Just so we are dear. So the purpose of the continuance is to allow the schod district to prepare and bring whatever testimony they would like tomorrow. Chairman Masse -That is correct and I thank the gentleman ftom Best, Best & Krieger. He may have to stay up uMq the weo hours of rooming, but so dkl we when we had to read It. Wherever You are, good luck. Ail right we have decided to continue this unt8 2:30 tomorrow afternoon. We'll see some of you people back bare then. Meanwhile we wUl continue with our agenda. Why don't we take a 5 minute break while the hall kind of dears. \, 05/29/96 Page 16 MAY 2g, 1si96 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COIAI~AISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA A~01,1; Continued subject request to May 30, 1996 at 2:30 p.m. to allow the School District enough time to prepare and bring back comments• VOTE: 5-1 (Commisskxier Peraza `rated no and Commissioner Mayer was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: ~ mutes 05/29/96 Page 17 ~_ ' ~ r_Fne NFrsrnlE DECLARATION ~~~~ 3b. ,~le~R OF CODE REtiUIREMENT Dented ~numm~uer ucE PERMIT N0. 3835 Denied 3c. OWNER: THEODORE K SIDERIS and EVA JOAN SIDERIS, Tnutees of the Skleris Famgy Tntst, 1520 Marine Avenue, Manhattan Beach, CA 90256 AGENT: FRANK KYRIAKOS, 899 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: $$° ~^~eh eti*_heim Boulevard Red's Burners). Property is arectangularly-shaped parcel of land located at the northwest comer of Vermont Avenue and Anaheim Bou!evard. To permit adrive-through Zane in conjunction wfth an existing fast-food restaurant with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum drive-through lane requirements. This: item was continued ftom the meeting of May 13, 1996. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC96-06 _ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None AGENTS STATEMENT: David Foster, 899 S. Anaheim Blvd. He stated a map has been provided to the Commission whk:h Ulustrates the proposed drive through. He indicated et the May 13th meeting they requested a continuance so that they could meet wkh staff and had also hoped to provide the Commission with a new landscape plan and an artist rendering, but the plan and rerxlering has not yet been completed. He stated that the existing 24foot wide driveway ftom Anaheim Boulevard is presently a two-way driveway. He referred to the staff report relative to the parking study where ft Indicates that many of the customers during the peak hours are take-out customers. He stated he was not in agreement to that statement. Chairman Messe asked Mr. Foster which paragraph he is referring to? ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA MAY 25, 1596 05/29/96 Page 18 ._.............~..........o..n nnuu~ee~n~ _ crruuApV ACTION AGENDA MAY 29~'sasi6 ~- 21, where it mentkxu 85% of the Dariid Foster responded It's Indk~ted on Page 3, Paragraph patrons are take-out customers and he explained that their peak time k on Fridays. Saturdays and ~I~ndays and kxlk~ted that fam~les do come to to sit down and eat. He stated that they contend that faUure to grant this applk~tion would deprive the property of the privNedge enjoyed by the properties occupied by drNe-through restaurarns on Ball Road, Anaheim Boulevard, Uncdn Avenue, State Cdiege Boulevard and other locations. He further stated the staff report r~mplies that permission is needed to have adrive-through facAiry and he asked since the other properties with drive-throughs are the same size as the subject property, why are they being denied to have adrive-through? He further explained his reasons why he feels a drNe-through should be permitted and also irxJk;ated that they would Iike to compete with the big natbnal drive-through places such as McDonalds, Carl's Jr., Pdlo Loco, Taco BeU, etc. He stated that they want to go along with the landscape recommendation as they wpl be Improving the appearance and the sesthetlc qualities of the subject intersection and would also hope it would be a standard for the surrounding establishments to meet. He stated that the primary argument by staff has been a possible traffic backup on Anaheim Boulevard and he then explained the proposed drNe-through setup and also spoke relatNe to the coneems made of possible vehk:ular bade-up. They feel there is adequate room for a minimum of two vehicles from the drive-up window to the order board and that there is adequate room for two or three vehicles before you get to the setback line. He spoke relative to the pedestrian issue and indicated that ft wUl be taken care of with plenty of blue paint and signs which wql indicate to the vehicles to be cautkws of pedestrians. He stated he hopes for the Commission's approval in granting the conditional use perrnR which would permit the installation of a drive-ttuough lane for the subject establishment. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. STAFF'S COMMENTS: Commissioner Bodystun Informed Mr. Foster that there has been many establishments whk:h they have not allowed to put adrive-through lane in bss:suse of the creation of cars backing up and she indk:ated ff more than three cars where Iined up at the subject facUity K would create a back-up on Anaheim Boulevard. She asked if a walk-up window without the order board woukf be acceptable? Mr. Foster responded that that would not be too succassfui. Commissioner Bristd noted that the distance of the order window and pick-up window of the other locations previously mentkxred are not comparable to the subject proposed plan. Therefore, the opportunity for a car to back up Is less for the other establishments and he indk~ted, in his opinion, that Mr. Foster is comparing the restaurant to establishments that have different cfrcunutances. 05/29/96 Page 19 MAY 29, 1896 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SU'!."n7ARY ACTION AGENDA C__ Mr. Foster reaerated that they don't believe there's going to be a problem with traffic backing up onto Anaheim F3oulevard. Chairman Messe stated he doesn't recall anytime that they ever deviated from the code relative to this issue. Alfred Yalda, Prk~cipal Transportation Planner. He Indk~ted that Chairman Messe is correct, they generally do meet the 100 feet minimum. Cotrunlssioner Boydstun indicated that she is corx~rned that approval of the request would create a safety hazard• Chaim~ar- Messe asked Mr. Yalda ff there's a way for the establishment to be redesigned? Alfred Yalda stated that the building is positioned where You can achieve so much room on it and you can't really stretch h to achieve more. They have approximately 40 to 50 feet to the order area which cxwld be two w maybe three cars, depending upon the size of the cars. Chairnan Messe indicated it's unfortunate that the building is placed on the lot in such a way that you can't des4.gn to City code. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirement Denied Condftkxial Use Permit No. 3835 VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 21 minutes Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22•day aPP~ d9~• 05J29/96 Page 20 MAY 39, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMlSSiON - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA ~ .•ens NErsYry~ECLA~R1I1Q~! 4b. watvER OF OG DE REQUIRI•MENT 4C, ~0~11' Di'PIOPLAL USE PERMR N0.3836 OWNERS: der Pointe D e(3rd Fioor,~l8 PPalma, CA 90623 4 CI,ARENCE D. and RHEA L MEDDOCK FAMILY TRUST, 1420 E. Itatelia Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: ~~ ~. Sufte 207S~Habra, CA •90631 Riggle, 1201 S. LOCATION: X01 South Star°°"° Beut9yard (Arco Service tionl• Property is approximately 0.91 acres located at the southwest comer of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard. To establish a 2,796-square foot service station with an accessory cornenience market providln9 off-premise sale and consumption of beer and wine with waivers of minimum number of trees and required parking lot landscaping. This Rem was continued ftom the meeting of May 13, 1996. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC96-4Z- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSfON ACTION. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition APPLICANTS STATEMENT: Approved Denied Granted, in part John L.irrd:~kog, Senor Real Estate Negotiator, Arco Products Company, 4 Center Pointe Drive, La Palma, CA 90623-1066. He explained that Arco currently operates a service station with a ~-~~ car wash ~ ~ southwest comer of State Cdlege and Katella. They're requesting to modernize the facARy by adding addRkxrai land to the west, property formally known as FRzgerald's Aestaurant, which will roughly double the size of the site to abou~~9,000~ are feet before dedications. The plan wql also lndude the construction of a crew gas Ry cornenience store selling off-premise consumption of beer and wine. He stated two cor-suRants are present todat~ ~~4uest(ons relative'to the site plan, landscaping, and vehk:ular and pedestria He spoke relative to the beer and wine sales and explained that Arco has a very strong training program for their employees and have worked hard wRh people in the industry to praswte anti•drunk driving measures. He explained that on their premises if an intoxicated person came into their store they would not be sold any alcohol or gasoline. 05/29/96 Page 21 MAY 29, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA He ttxficated that he has a memorandum dated today from the Pdke Department which ~_ recommends approval of the subject operation with certain terms and conditions. He stated they have read the memorandum and ft's acceptable to Arco Company. Roy bng, representing the owners (Shean's) of the Anaheim Angel Inn which is adjacent to the subject properth-. He indcated he Is concerned with the selling of beer and wine because currently when a function is held at the arena or the stadium they have to p~k up the beer cans that are left behind. He also indicated they have probler; ~ with transient crowds that hang out on the comer. He related that some time ago aJack-in-a-Box along with a drNe-through window was being proposed. They objected to that bbl' ;;-„-Went primarily because of the noise that would be generated. He relayed Ids current concerns being noise ftom the car wash, transient crowds and traffic, but indkated their main concern is the beer and wine sales. John Lindskog Indicated relative to the noise d the int frsection~ Bbl~~bli ~~ ~ ~d previously approved the use of the Fitzgerald property explained that their development wAl be a lesser intense use as they will be combining the two properties and thereby narrowing the curb cut. Relative to traffic, the traffik engineer survey shows that there is no significant impact. He spoke relative to the beer and wine issue and explained that the subject area Is 1796 below the district's average in crime. They also have a total of twelve requirements that were recommended by the Pdice Department which they will ~ g~bors a~ ~ecafedblthee wp~l d~ reo n~~ e~ too themne ghborsa~/~ exposure to the Commissioner Boydstun asked for clarification ff the car wash is proposed to be eliminated because ff so the noise Issue would then be eliminated. John Lindskog responded "yes', the car wash will be eliminated. La Habra, CA 90631 • He Tom Riggle, Robert Lee & Associates, 1201 S. Beach BNd., Suite 207, explained that they placed the fi-foot high wall and maintained the landscape across the back of the building and also provided security gates to eliminate people accessing behind the back of the AM/PM facility. Chalmian Messe asked N there Is dead space between the building and the wall that was built? Tom Riggle answered `yes', and explained that behind the back of tAt theUding therline they approximately 15-20 feet between them and the adjacent property. Pr PertY proposed a 6-foot high wall and that on their skis of the wa11 there is the required landscaping of trees. Chalmian Masse asked are you going to gate tho dead space? Tom Riggle responded "yes'. He stated they are in agreement with Planning staff relates to the parking Issue and explained they have provided a landscape break between spaces Nos. 13 and 14. He indicated he has the revised plans in a reduce format and asked if teed ~ ~ i ode W~ a Ike to see the plans since they didn't have time to get them incorpora 05/29/96 Page ',2 MAY 25, 1596 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA Chalmian Meese asked staff ff they had a dunce to review the plans. Jonathan Borrego, Senkx Planner. Fie indkated he has not seen the plans. Mr. Riggle asked maybe >t can be worked out with staff because he believes they are in agreement wah the r~ndiUons. Chairman Masse asked Mr. Riggle to describe the dianged landscape plan. Mr. Riggle explained the changes to the landscape plan relative to the required landscape break In whkh they provided a 5-foot wide landscape planter with a 6-Inch curb on both sides and he spoke relathre to the reconfiguration of the trees around the ftorn of the facility. He spoke relative to the pedestrian concerns and gave his reasons why they feel k Is best to keep K as originally submitted. He indicated h was mentioned in the slap report that the trash enclosure area was dose to State Cdlego and explained it did essentially get closer and closer to State Cdlege Boulevard because of the landscape txeak arxJ the additbnai parking that was required. They feel n Is in a very good location and believes it will allow the sanitation truck to move through the property in a safe manner, therefore, they would hope to leave the trash enclosure in its existing location. Commissioner Brlstd asked ff there are phones existing on site? Mr. Riggle responded that generally Arco Company does not have Phones on their property for many dffferent reasons and also stated they try to discourage loitering. Commissioner Bodystun relayed that she would Iike to add a condition stating 'that no pay phones wUl be allowed on the premises'. Chairman Masse asked ff staff has had a chance to see ff the new landscape plan Is within code and no waiver required? Jonathan Borrego responded 'no they haven't. Further discussion was made between staff and Planning Commissioners relative to the trash enclosure locatbn. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner. Fie commented that whk;hever way the trash enclosure is redesigned that staff needs to make sure it doesn't create a visibUlty problem. Commisskx~er Bristd asked ff they have an architectural design illustrating what they're planning to do and he asked Is h going to be Iike every other Arco AM/PM? Mr. Rlggle responded that the facility is simGar to other Arco AM/PMs', but he explained that the subject facility will be an upgraded design ftom the standard and he indicated that there were elevation drawings included in the CUP package. Jonathan Borrego explained that the elevation drawings aren'tHe stated ft is the IPlann ng Commission, however, they are described in the ~ on that staff would recommend as a Commission's desire to approve the subject appl 05/29/96 Page 23 MAY 29, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA condition of approval that final landscaped elevation and sign Plans come bads to the Planning Commission as a Report and Recommendation Item. Prior to an issuance of a building permft thetsubj~ecK intersection too ensu~ that ti~ey're totallyy comfcx~table with the design ~ the project before ft's constructed. Chairman Meese stated that he's not going to vote for the laradacaping waiver and he indicated the subject area Is very important to the Cfty of Anaheim. Chairman Masse asked Mr. Engle if he could address the beer and wine issue. Tom Engle, Vke Detail, Pdk:e Department. He irxlicated'he dkl recommend some basic conditions to be included in the conditional use Permit. Mr. Riggle addressed the 24hour sign Issue and he explained that the signs nre important to their business. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Publk: Works. She spoke relative to the two properties being merged and stated that they neglected to add the merge into the staff report. Therefore, she added the fdlowing wordage "that prior to Issuance of a building permft the legal owner or subject property shah submft a lot line adjustment to the Public Works Department/Development Servk:es Division for approval by the Cfty Engineer and then recordation in the office of the Orange County Recorder to merge the two existing kxs'. Mr. Riggle responded they did understand that ftor the comments made at the IDC meeting. John Undskog then addressed the comments made earlier relative tnos the ~~~~ the ~ stated that they will instruct the archftect to resulxnft landscape Pia concerns made. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied Waiver of Code Requirement Granted, in part, Condftional Use Permit No. 3836 with the fdlowing added conditions: That there shall be no pay phones on subject Property. That prkx to the Issuance of a building permit, the legal owner of subject property shall submit a lot line adjustment to the Development Services Divisbn of the Public Works Department for approval by the Cfty Engineer. Saki lot Iine adjustment shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder to merge the two existing lots. That prior to the issuance of a building permft, final landscape, elevation and sign plans shall be submitted ~Ia nini~Co nmissio~n afs a Re nport impartment for review and approval by 9 Recommendation item. 05/29/96 Page 24 ANAHEIM CITY PUWNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA MAY 29, 1996 That a plan showing relocation of the trash enclosure shall be approved by the Sanitation Department and reviewed by the Planning Commission as a Report and Recommendation Item. That the proposed'24-hour' sign faring east towards State Cdlege Boulevard shall be deleted from the final sign plans. That the sales of alcohdk: beverages shaA be permitted oNy between the hours of 8:00 am. and 2:00 a.m. That the gross sales of alcoholk; beverages shall not exceed 3596 of the gross sales of all retaA sales during any twelve (12) month period. The applcant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amourrts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These record shelf be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested. That no advertising of beer or wine shall be located placed or attached to any location outside of the interkx of the buAding and any such advertising strap not be visible to anyone outside of the building. That no alcohdic beverages shall be consumed on any property under the caved of the applicant That the parking lot of the premises shall be riqulpped wRh lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking Ict. That the lighting in the parking area of tt•~e premises shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably Uluminate the window area ~ nearby residences. That the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining a litter flee area adjacent to the premises over which he/she has contrd. That there shall be no pod tables or coin,~perated games maintained upon the premises at any time. That no display of beer or wine shall be located outside of a building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. That the area of beer or wine displays shall not exceed 2555 of the total display area in a building. That the sale of aicoholk: beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer Is in the building. That no person under twenty one (21) years of age shall sell or be permitted to sell any beer or wine. 05/29/96 Page 25 MAY 29, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLl;NNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) ~,_. DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes Selma Mann I.`,eputy City Attorney, Presented the 22~aY aPP~ d9~ 05/29/96 Page 26 MAY 29. 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA „~......Te~nRI,CAI t:xEMPTION -CLASS 11 I Continued to ~~ rnunrnnN~L USE PERMIT N0.3837_ 7-8-96 5b. OVYNER: PBS BUILDING SYSTEM, 155 N. Riverview Dfire, Anaheim, CA 92808 AGENT: JM CONSULTING NRa U~ A ~ ~ ' ~Mc~~ ' 3760 i0lroy Airport Y LOCATION: ~~~ Nnrtn Riverview Drive. Property is approximately 1.34 acres located at the northwest comer of Sarrta Ana Canyon Road and RNerview DrA-e. To permit roof mounted telecornmunk:atkxis equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 2 people were present. Chairman Messe indicated the subject ftem has been requested for a continuance and he asked ff anyone Is present who wishes to address the item. Paul Fuller, 8417 E. Amberwood, A~eei ~ ~ ~t~ ff n wU~ ~useamny ~terfer~ence with height and width of the proposed local television reception for non-cable users. Chairman Messe irxik~ted that the applicant has asked for a continuance to June 10th and he asked Mr. Fuller ff he or the neighbors would be ade to attend the meeting? Mr. Fuller stated he will be out of state and will be back July 4th. Chairman Messe suggested the item be continued to a date where the neighbors would be able to attend the meeting and suggested a continuance to July 8th. Mr. Fuller responded he would be available that date and would also have more neighbors In attendance. Jonathan Borrego stated the applicant is present in the audience as they will be addressing a different ftem on the agenda. 05/29/96 Page 27 MAY 29, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA Wa X440, Long Beach, C,4 ' Preckws McDuffie, JM Consulting Group, 3760 IGroy Nrp~ Y 90606. She stated she is representing Cox Communication PCS and Inf ~ ~ I~ppy to Commission that the proJed k going through a redesign f athat the project was lowered share that information with arty of the neighbors. She explained and h wNi fft in with the community and that the project wfU not have any effects on the television rays. Commissioner Henninger asked if they have a problem with the July 6th continuance. Precious McDuffle responded that they can wait untA July 8th. ACTION: Continued subject request to the July 8, 1996 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to redesign the project and to give the people present in the audience a chance to be present at the next scheduled public hearing. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes 05/29/96 Page 28 ~, MAY 29, 1996 ANAHEIM C1111 PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA FIR N0.281 ,(QREVIOUSLY CERTJEIE~ Approved ~ ~~.~ ewe or eN REVIEW FOR VESTING Approved rr.~.~e ~roerK ueP NO 15144 OWNER: SHEA HOMES, 655 Brea Canyon Road, Walnut, CA 91789 AGENT: HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES, Attn: Dan Hosseinzadeh, Three Hughes, Irvine, CA 92716 LOCATION: Property is approamately 5.2 acres, having a frontage of approximately 700 font on the north and south side of goudview Road and located approximately 25 feet north of the centerline of Crestview Lane and further described as Vesting TenlatNe Tract Map No. 15144, within Development Area 204 of The Summft of Anaheim HGis Specific Plan (SP88-2). petitioner requests review and approval of a Flnal Site Plan for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15144 pn order to construct a 27-unit, single-famUy detached re.~; dential subdivision). FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Dan Hosseinzadeh, Hunsaker & Associates, 3 Hughes, Irvine, CA 92718. :ie stated he is representing Shea Homes and that they do concur with the conditions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. STAFF'S COMMENTS: No comments were addressed by staff. ACTION: hetee~quiredternironmental documentation for subject regtuest. serve as Approved the final site plan for Vesting Tentati\+e Tract Map No. 15144. 05/29/96 Page 29 MAY 29, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA C ~ ~ VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, Presented the 22-aay appeal rights. 05/29/96 Page 30 eNnNettu CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA _ MAY 29, 1996 7a. rr:nn NEG-enyE DECLARATION 7b. WANER OF CODE RE~iUIREMENT 7c. ~ONDITIO USE PERMR N0.3634 Approved Approved, In part Granted, in part OWNER: CALIFORNIA DRIVE-IN THEATRES, Attn: A. Terrance Dkkens, 120 N. Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90040102 LOCATION: ie~0 North Lemon Street (A~aheim Drive-In). Property is approximately 23.13 acres located at the southeast comer of Durst Street and Lemon Street. To permit amulti-screen theatre and entertainment complex (induding two full-service restaurants and one drive-through restaurant) with waivers of (a) minimum structural setback, (b) maximum number of fteestanding signs (deleted), (c) minimum distance between fteestanding signs (deleted), (d) permitted types of signs (deleted) and (e) required parking lot landscaping. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC96-48 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Teny Dickens, Calffomia Drive-In Theatres, 120 N. Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90040102. He stated that the City of Anaheim deserves astate-of-the-art multi-screened, stadium seated, multi-plex theatre and indicated that they have worked with staff relative to traffk, circulation, publk works, etc., and he will be haPPY to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. STAFF'S COMMENTS: Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner. He stated there's a few additional conditions that need to be read Into the record. Alfted Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner. He referred to the wording on Page 8, Condition No. 3, and changed the wording to read "that the traffic signal on Lemon Street and Orangefalr Lane (located in Clty of Fullerton) shall be modified to provkle for a second westbound left tum Zane to southbound Lemon Street as deterrnined by the 05/29/96 . Page 31 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA MAY 29, 1996 Director of Public Works' He also indkated that the wording prior to issuance of a buAding pem>IC shall be deleted, but the remafrrder of the paragraph to remain as is. Chairman Masse asked fi the City of Fullerton has any Input on the subject request. Mr. Yalda irrdk:ated there was some initial discussion with the City of Fullerton relatNe to the peak hours of the movie theatre and how R would Impact the intersection, but there ~ a need for a dualeleft tum out of albs f~acNfryetated staff would ike~eike option to review k further just in case R's necessary. Mr. Dkkens stated if it's necessary, they as operators woukl also want It because it would affect the discharging of cars from their site. Melanie Adams, Associate CNA Engineer, Publk: Works. She stated they would like to modify Condition No. 6, by adding the fdlowing phrase to the first sentence, 'in the location of proposed structures'. She also indicated that a third sentence needt shall be added to read, "that any publk: easements cxx~flicting wfth project developme abandoned and new easement shall be granted as necessary'. Chairman Masse asked ff that is ail part of Condition No. 6? Mrs. Adams responded 'yes'. Jonathan Borrego stated there is also one other condition to be read into the record, he believes the applk;aM receNed the condition during the IDC meeting, but it wasn't mentioned in the staff report. The condition should read 'that a 12-Inch water main with a 20-foot wkie easement Is required to loop from the exlsUng 12-Inch water main on Lemon Street to the existing 16-Inch main at the east side of the properhr• dCTION: Approved NegaWe Declaration Approved, in part, the WaNer of Code Requirement: Approved Waivers (a) and (e) and Waivers (b), (c) and (d) were deleted fdlowing publk: notificatbn. Granted, in part, Canditionai Use Permit No. 3834 with the fdlowing changes to conditions: Modified Condition Nos. 3 and 3 to read as fdlows: That the traffic signal on Lemon Street and Orengefafr Lane (located In the City of Fullerton) shall be modified to provide for a secor-d westbound left tum lane to southbound Lemon Street as determined by the Director of Publk: Works. A plan shall be submitted to the Traffic Engineering DNision of the Anaheim Public Works Department 05/29/96 Page 32 MAY 29, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA and the City of Fullerton for review and approval by the respective City Engineers. 6. That the developer shall submit to ~ Deveto delipmeMneatihe Divisbn of the Publk: Works Department Y P~ property lines of all separate legal parcels (as defined by the Subdivision Map Act, with supportln9 deeds), the location of the proposed strrxxures, and all recorded easen-ents. A lot Iine ad ustment plat may be required to adjust or merge parcels to confonn with requirements of the Publk: Works Department, and the Zoning and BuOding Codes. Any publk: easements c~nfllcting wfth project development shall be abandoned and new easements shall be granted, as necessary. Added the fdlowing conditions: That a 12-irx:h wa12-inch water main on Lemon 8tremet to exist(ngt16-inch from the existing main at the east side of the property. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) DISCUSSION TiME: 8 minutes Selma Mann, Deputy City Attomoy, presented the 22~Iay aPP~ rights. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:55 P.M., TO THURSDAY, MAY 30, 1996 AT 2:30 P.M. FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN N0. 120 (SPORTSTOWN) Respectfully submitted, _/ ,, Elly F es, Senkx Word Processing Operator Planning Department 05/29/98 Page 33 .~Y..C O Y:i .fit .4~i~ 7 `rt C' -''~ :, T, Y1 x tv'~`.k N 4~j ',l l~q `c. ~ X 'V - :y" 4 a r i ~~N 5 E r ~. t t ? ~ r" ; x q .~ n -r, 4. t4 _ ~ ~ r`~irf r c~3~ t 51~ ~ a .f ~ ~ ~ i 4 ,~ 4 ~ . i ~ ~ ~ . 4~ r~ .' ~ ~ ~ r~ 7~x~f ` ~` F - t~ M1 l~~ f ~ ~ ~ 1R.. ', -~,.s~. f ~~ _ ~2 t ~'~/~, ",1L 1