The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1999/01/20SUMMARY ACTION AG~NDA CITY OF ANAHEIM PL.AN(~ING CONlMISSION MEETIRIG WEDNESDAY, ~ANUA~Y 20, 1999 10:00 A.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSiON OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS F~EQUESTED BY PLANN~NG COMMISSION) • REQUIRED DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY SELMA MANN (CONTINUED TO A FUTURE DATE) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 11:30 A.M. • ATTENDANCE BY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AT THE MHYOR'S STATE OF THE CITY LUNCHEON - DISNEYLAND HOTEL 2:30 P.M. • PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESEP:T: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, ESPING, KOOS, NAFOLES, WILLIAMS STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Joel Fick Mary McCloske~; Annika San'alahti Greg Hastings Karen Dudley Greg McCafferty Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adarns Laura Muna-I_anda Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Planning Director Deputy Planning Director 7_oning Administrator Zoning Division Manager Associate Planner Associate Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Project Manager, Redevelopment Agency Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary 01-20-99 Page 1 ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None 1. REPOR7S AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVEDI Approved CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4035 - R~QUEST REVIEW AND Approved final APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: Alireza Eahrami, 329-331 North State plans College Bivd., Anaheim, CA 92806, requests review and approval of final sign plans. Praperty is located at 329-331 North State College Boulevard - Kris Kars). l~CTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick 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 Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Williams and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the submitted sign plan based on the determination that tfie proposed monument sign meets Code requirements pertaining to the size and height for monument signs. Additionally, the monument sign is a replacement of a 23-foot high, 72 square foot pole sign and therefore, represents a significant aesthetic improvement and reduction in size of the signage on subjer.t property. SR7382TW.DOC Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: The contlition that was approved in conjunction with this project requires that if an 8 foot high sign is proposed in this project, of which there is one, that the Planning Commission have final review of that following the City Traffic and Transportatior~ Manager's input. ApplicanPs Statement: Alireza Bahrami, 329-331 NoRh State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA: Stated he is the owner of the property. He is requesting the approval of the final sign plans. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked what color Mr. Bahrami is planning ~n painting ttie base of the sign? Alireza Bahrami: City staff recommended white which he is in agreement with. Commissioner Bostwick: He reminded the property owner and Code Enforcemer~t that the original approval required that they only have 5 vehicles on display and over the pas~ coup~e of days he has noticed anywhere from 7 to 12 vehicles parked out there with signs on them for sale. 01-20-99 Page 2 B. CEQA NEGATIVE DECL~4RATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved CONDITIONAL USE PERMiT NO. 4057 - REQUEST REVIEW AND Approved final APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: Travis Engineering, Attn: Karl Huy, plans 12453 Lewis Street #201, Garden Grove, CA 92840, requests review and appro~~al of final build~ng elevation, canopy elevation, landscaping, lighting, and signage plans. Property is located at 1101 North Magnolia Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner P~-`wick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTIOP! 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 Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Williams and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final landscaping, bu!Iding elevation, canopy elevation, lighting, and signage plans in conjunck~n with a previously-approved 4,183 square foof seivice station with convenience market and integrated fast Food restaurant with a drive-through lane on the basis khat the final plans demonstrate compliance with the corresponding conditions of approval identified in the January 20, 1999 sfaff report and in conjunction with this permit provided that plans submitted for building permits shall reflect the following: (i) A 3-foot high earthen berm in the 10 foot wide landscaped area adjacent to Magnolia Avenue and La Palma Avenue (condition no. 24), except where determined otherwise by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. (ii) Potted plants with trees or shrubs placed at the end of each gasolin: pump island. (iii) Embellished architectural treatment on the east and north building elevations to enhance the appearance of this building as viewed from Magnolia Avenue. (iv) A maximum of three, 3-foot by 3-foot (logo) signs on the canopy. No other signage shall be permitted on the canopy structure. In addition, the two oroposed, 1 foot 6 inch high by 7 foot wide wall siqns ("K" ~igns) shall not be permitted on the building elevaticns. (v) The exterior public telephone must be removed irom the site plan (condition no. 15). (vi) 7he thirf.y-inch high air and water unit must be completely screened from view oi the public right-of-way. (vii) The identification of plant material for the planter adjacent lu the south building elevation. SR6920DS.DOC Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: On page 5 staff has listed the changes request, These changes would improve the plans that are submitted !oday. If approved, staff asks that the inotion stipulate that these changes be made. Kar1 Huy, Travis E:igineering, 12453 Lewis Street, Garden Grove, CA: He is representing Food Maker. They reviewed the staff report and concur with the findings and recommendations. They asked that 01-20-99 Page 3 Commission consider a modification to itc:m no. (vi) on page 5 which deal with the relocation of the air and water tower. Originaily this project was reviewed by the WAND group (West Anaheim Nefghborhood Cauncil) and then back to the Planning Commission and redesigned. Originally the air and water tower, a unit that is approximately 30 inches tali, was on the west property line. The adjacent business met with WAND on several occasions and requested that the unit be relocated to the east property line. In concurrence with that and the fact that they are required to install a 3 foot landscaped berm in the 10 foot landscape area that is goinc~ to be adJacent to west property line, he asked that they be aliowed to teave the air and water tower along the east prope~ty line. They are not opposed to properiy screening the limit with shrubs and landscaping and vec~etation if that 3 foot berm is not sufficient. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: It wouid be fine and ::taff could work with the applicant to ensure that it is completely screened from the street. C. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOU3LY-APPROVED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3915 - REQUEST FOR REV'EW AND Approved final APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: Hussein Berri, 1199 South State Coilege plans Boulevard, Anaheim, C?~ 92806, request review and approval of final car wash plans for a previously-approved service station with a convenience market. Property is located at 1199 South State College Boulevard. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved negative declar~ tion is adequate to serve as the required environmental documertation for subject request. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Esping and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final pians for the service station with a convenience market with the removal of the nonconforming billboard and support poles and the retention of the car wash facility in conformance with Revision No. 5 of Exhibits Nos.1 and 2 with the car wash tunnel maintaining a 46-foot setback from Ball Road and maintaining the enhanced landscaping adjacent to the west properry line. S Chairman Bristol asked staff if ;he plans were the same as was approved by Commission and Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager responded yes, it is nearly identical, with one enhancement, and that is that there is some landscaping on this new plan shown between the street and the car wash tunnel entrance. 01-20-59 Page 4 D. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVEDI Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3957 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW Approved final AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS: Crown Realty and Development, plans Attn: Fritz Howser, 20101 SW Birch Street, #260, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Request for review and approval of final elevation plans for the parking structure for a previously-approved planned "mixed-use" commercial center. Property is located at 2a01-222 : F~~st Katella Avenue and 1750 South State College Boulevard. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a mo4ion, secon'ded by Commissioner Esping and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved ne5 ~tive declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documF;itation for subject request. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Esping and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final elevations for the proposed 4-level parking structure ~ provided that the final E.I.F.I.S. finish, white paint sch2dule and blue glass (to match the adjacent office building) is applied to all exterior buil~ing elevations, including the north elevation facing the railroad right-of-way, and that ail exposed metal staircases and safety cables be painted green to match the parking structure trim. SR7269K6 ApplicanPs Statement: Fritz Howser, 20101 Southwest Birch Street, Suite 260, Newport Beach, CA 92660: Stated they are in agreement with the recommendation. There are a coup!e of clarifications. They will agree to put an E.i.F.I.S. matching finish on the back of the parking structure. They would like to paint the staircase green as an accent color used throughout the project. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: She confirmed that what the applicant had commented on has been the ongoing discussion with staff and staff is satisfied with the plans they submitted. E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 4081 - REQU~ST FOR A NUNC Granted PRO TUNC RESOLUTIAN: City of Anaheim, Planning Commission Secretary, 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805, requests a nunc pro tunc resolution to correct Conditinn No. 2 and delete Condition No. 15 of Resolution No. PC98-194 adop!ed in connection with the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 4081. Property is loaated at 1025 East Orangethorpe Avenue. NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION N0. PC99-8 This item was not discussed. 01-20-99 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. 2b. 2c. 2d GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 361 THE ANAHElM STADIUM AREA MASTER LAND USE PLAN fINCLUDING DRAFT ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. URBAN DESIGN PLAN AND GUIDELINES. MASTER LANDSCAPE PLAN, PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN AND IDENTITY PLAN) A11fENDMENT TO TITLE 18 "ZONfNG" Rec. approval of GPA 361 (Exhibit A) to CC Recommended that City Council approve the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan lNITIATED BY: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 S. Anaheim 81vd., Anaheim, CA 92805 L4CATION: The 807-acre Anaheim Stadium Area is generally bounded by the Edison transmission corridor on the north, the SR-57 (Orange) Freeway and the Santa Ana River on the east, the Anaheim City limits near Orangewood Avenue on the south, and the I-5 (Santa Ana) Freeway on the west. Environmental Impact Report No. 321 - Request for certification of EIR No. 321, including a statement of Overriding Considerations. Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) No. 321 has been prepared for the project and circulated for public and responsible agency review in compliance with the California Environmental ~'luality Act (CEQA) and the State and City of Anaheim CE(1A Guidelines. As indicated in the DEIR, siynificant effects on the environment related to schools, air quality and solid waste will result from implementation of the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan (MLUP). A Response to Comments document will be made available for public review 10 days prior to the final decision on the project. This dacument includes responses which address the public/responsible agency comments on the DEIR and refinements to the text of the EIR. General Plan Amendment No. 361 - Proposal to amend the Land Use, Circulation, and Safety and Seismic Elements of the General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element To add text to the General Plan Land Use Element recognizing the Anaheim Stadium Area MLUP, including zoning and development standards as an implementing zoning document of a mixed use land use designation, and establishing maximum development intensities for the area. To revise the Water, Sewer and Storm Drain General Plan Land ! Jse Element Maps to reflect the public facility improvements described in Section 5.8, Public Services, Utilities and Energy Consumption,_of the EIR. Approved - requested thai ~ity Attorney prepare an ordinance for adoption by City Council 01-20-99 Page 6 Ta redesignate'riatc~la A~~enue beiween Lewis Streot and the Katella Ave~iue entrance to the Stadium property from a Major Arterial F~ighway (120-foot right-of-way) to a Stadium Area Smart Street (130-144 feet of right-of-way) designation; and between the Katella Avenue entrance to ihe Stadium property and the east Anaheim Ciry limits from ~ rt~aj~; Hrterial High~~ay (120-foot right-of-way} to a Stadium Area Sma~t Street ;120-144 feet of right•of-way) designatie~. To redesignate Lewis Street between Cerritos Avenue and Orangewood Avenue from a Primary Arterial Highway (106- foot right-of-way) to a Secondary Arterial Highway (90-fo4t right-of-way) designation. To redesignate State College Boulevard between Gene Autry Way and Katella Avenue from a Major Arterial Hiyhway (120-fooi right-of-way) to a Modified Major Arterial Highway (129-144 feet of right-of-way) designation; and between Katella Avenue and south of Babbitt Adenue from a Major Arterial Highway (120-foot right-of-way) to a Modified Major Arterial Highway (162-foot right-of-way) designation. Critical Intersections - to delete the Katella Avenue/Howell Avenue Critical Intersection and to add a State College Boulevard/Gene Autry Way Critical Intersection. C. Safety and Seismic Element That the Fire Station Public Facility designation shown on the Land Use Element Map and associated text contained in the Safety and Seismic Element be deleted from the General Plan. Related actions addressed in DEIR No. 321, which may occur subsequent to adoption of the proposed project, are included in Section 3.7 of that document and may include infrastructure financing programs, property acquisition (which may involve the exercise of eminent domain proceedings), subdivision maps, grading permits, encroachment permits, implementation of a zoning overlay, zoning permits, building permits, and other actions related to the proposed construction and development of the Anahaim Stadium Area MLUP. Continued from the Commission meet~ng of December 21, 1998. EIR N0. 321 RE50LUTION N0. PC99-9 GPA NO. 361 RESOLUTION N0. QC99•10 MLUP RESULUTIOW N0. PC99•11 01-20-99 Page 7 THE FOLLOW!~,NG IS A DETAILE~ ~UMMARY OF ITEM N0. 2. Chairman Bristol: Okay. Now we are cr, l;e~ ~~ No. 2. This a request by the City of Anaheim and we'll go right to Mr. Fick - Joel Fick. Joel Fick, Planning Director: Thank you Chairman Bristol and members of the Planning Commission. We're really pleased to be here this afternoon to present to you the very important and exciting Stadium Area Master Plan. It includes an Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, Master Land Use Plan and also a Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone. What you have before you today is really the culmination of the strategic planning process that began when the City looked totivards maximizing the potential of both the Ciry-owned property and also maximizing the surrounding area. We decided to comprehensively examine the development opportunities and also including the relationship with the Anaheim Resort to the west. The first phase of the study was completed when Sportstown Anaheim was approved on the Stadium property under the Area Development Plan and Environmental Impact Report approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. As a result of those actions more than one million square feet of urban entertainment uses, office and exhibition space, hotel rooms and a stadium were both entitied and environmentally cleared for the properiy. Last year we actually s2w the completion of the first construction projects on the stadium property with the finalizaiion of the renovation of Edison International Field of Anaheim, and also the opening of Tinseltown Studios, which is an audience participation dinner theater. City Council has also approved agreements with Gotcha Glacier and also the Summit Commercial properties for an office building out on State College, and we're in the process working towards finalization of those agreements. In addition to public development, however, I would add .nat the stadium area planning efforts have also stimulated other development, and we've seen Stadium Crossings, for exarnple, we have worked very closely with iliat project and the Planning Commission and Council approved iF,at as well. That added several hundred thousand square feet of mixed use development at the northeast corner of State College and Katella Avenue, including a hotel building planned for the future. And also the Arena Corporate Center, a 980,U00-plus square foot development immediately north of the Arena - called the Arena Corporate Center immediately north of the A~rowhead Pond of Anaheim. We've been told that they've ordered steel actually for their first office building and that's supposed to break ground w•ithin a couple of months. IYs our plan that approvai of the Anaheim Stadium EIR, General Plan Amendment and Master Land Use Plan and also adoption of the overlay zone that you have before you will not reduce - and this is an important point - any options that are available to existing lar.d owners and business but it will instead provide additional land use alternatives that presently do no~ exist. In addition the pian will fl~rther stimulate development in the area because of the streamlined processes and also strength the connection to the Anaheim Resort. Today's presentation wil! be made in three parts and we have a brief presentation for you. Brian Meyers of the Spectrum Group will give an overview~ and description of the planning process and master land use plan; Bob Jacob from SWA Groua will discuss the stadium area identity and landscape concepts that we believe will work toward strengthening the overall quality and the character of the area; and Annika Santalahti from the Planning Department will describe the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone and sort of the mechanics of how that works. And Annika to my left and Greg McCafferty to my right on City staff worked very hard on this plan. At the conclusion of the presentaticn certainly we would welcome any suggestions you would have. V'Je know you have several good ones and we would be happy to answer any questions you'd have. With that I would like to continue tha presentation with Brian Meyers. Chairman Bristol: Okay. Thank you, Joel. Be(ore you do that I forgot to make a mention that ;t apoears that we have a transmittal from Atkinson, ,4ndelson, Loya, Ruud and Romo which I think represents 01-20-99 Page 8 Placentia School District. That came in this morning before our meeting so I thought I would have to make that of record. Okay, sir. Brian Meyers: Chairman Bristol and members of the Commission. It is my honor to give you a brief overview of the Stadium Area Master Plan and give you some of the details behind the effort that has gone into this project over the last couple of years. If I could have someone dim the lights? Is that possible? Oh great. We have coordinated an effort with Planning st~ff - IePs take the last couple of years in lo~king at a master plan for an 800-acre area that we'll show you some exhibits on, but is roughly bau;~ded by the City limits to the south, by the utility corridor by Edison to the north, by the Santa Ana River to the east and by the Santa Ana Freeway to #he west. In this 800-acre plan the major destination within the plan, of course, is the stadium - the Edison International Field of Anaheim - and the arena - the Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim - and the Sportstown Project, which was previously approved as ADP 120 two years back and has since, as Joel just mentioned, been seated with a couple of major tenants. i want to introduce you to some of the planning principles and goals of ihe Master Plan to give you the framework of how we came up with the concept and how the plan developed. The first Master Plan goal that we had was to create unique urban environments so we looked at pedestrian and auto connections, mass iransit issues we wanted to create as th~s area begins to urbanize. We wanted to create a unique environment that allowed the future development of this to be coordinated and have a strong pedestrian feel, mass transit feel in the future. We also looked at providing guidelines or lools for development, to streamline that process to allow for land owners znd future developers of those parcels to have a streamlined process to process their plans. We wanted through that process to stimulate development interest in the area. There are a number of reasons and compelling reasons as you will see in the exhibits as to why development in this area reaily is eminent and with all the pubiic investment and private investment that has taken place, we want to continue to stimulate that investment. We also wanted to have public programs to encourage private investment. There are significant areas that are not only in public ownership as Sportstown is, but also the Redevelopment territories within the district that are very important to the City of Anaheim as well as to public/private partnerships in the future. And of course, through this, creating economic developnient opportunities in the planning area. The planning principles that we used, and these are outlined in the Master Land Use Plan itself, as Joel mentioned, one of the highlights of lhis pian is really to connect the area - the Stadium Area Plan to the Anaheim Resort. There was an immense effort put forth, as you folks know, to put together the Anaheim Resort Pian which has in it the Disneyland Resort, has in it the new California Adventure, the Second Gate, and the Convention Center, and we wan;ed to make sure that there was a seamless transition into the stadium area to connect the Anaheim Resort to the stadium destination. Also, we wanted to create a hub around the stadium and arena which is the major destination and, in fact, draws over three miliion people a year, or three million visits a year, to the stadium and arena. We want to create a hub of development around those two facilities. We wanted from tha! hub to create or develo~ corridors. Natural corridors that would feed off of those attractions and obviously feeding off the arterials and the freeway access to the area; then creating a design framewor~ off of those corridors and through that creating a base identity or a context of identity to really give something that this area hasn't had for a long time and that is an identity of iYs own. An address, if you will. And specifically as we talked about and the focus on the Katella corridor. As we looked at the organization of the plan we intensified land uses along those major corridors and those areas of those gateways or major connections into the Anaheim St~dium Planning Area. By intensifying those land uses we see those as becoming the urban core of the plan. The land use plan itself we've mentioned a couple af times, and Joel just mentioned ii again, that our primary goal as we develop this land use plan was to make sure that we protected the interest of the existing land owners, lhose existing land uses and businesses that exist out there today so that this, in fact, is an overlay to an existing plan, and all iPs going to do is allow for anybody who decides to redevelop their property to streamline that process and give them the abilit;~ to gst additional entitlement. We afso wanted ~o encourage sports entertainment uses that were synergis!!c with the Sportstown project and the stadium itself. We wanted to create orientation to these corridors so we looked, as you'll see in the land use plan, you'll see the intensity along the major corridors. Intensifying land uses along those corridors, in the fiscal plan itself I think iPs important that as we start to look at the framework of that plan, 01-20-99 Page 9 to look at it in contex: with the majcr areas around it. First of all, as ! mentioned the plan itself is bordered by the utility corridor to the north, the river to the east, 4he City boundary to the south, and the Santa Ana Freeway to the west, and thaYs important as we start to lool; at the a~terial lengths to this plan and th~• major elements that are included. As I mentioned the arena and the stadium are significant public investments and major draws or anchors to this area. The freeways themselves and the interchanges off those freeways are significant public investments in themseives. There is a$1 billion improvement program going along the i-5 freeway tuday as we speak that will change the landscape liter211y of the entire viewshed along the I-5 freeway and, of course, improve access along there as well. Tnere will also be a new intercliange that will be added, for those of you who are familiar with the i-5 improv~ment program, that will be a HOV, high occupancy vehicle access off of Gene Autry Way as well. And then there have been landscape improvements recently along the 57 freeway along those major interchanges as well. So again, we have two major freeways, we have five interchanges that feed this area and start to develop the framework for thesP major corridors that we talked about. Also critical to this plan is the station, the Anaheim Station which is located in the Sportstown project and adjacent to Anaheim Stadium, and that station is linked to Los Angeles and San Diego through the AMTRAK system and also is a Metrolink station as well. Future plans could h~ld mass transit, light rail transit, and other types of local transit shuttle systems within the resort area as well. Then as I mentioned the Anaheim Resort,1,100-acre area which is located to its west, which has been previously approved by this Commission and the Council, which includes as I mentioned before, Disneyland and the second gate, the California Adventure, and the Convention Center. And that critical link, which links the two, which is literally only two miles apart. Sometimes it seems further than it is, only because there have been physical barriers, for example the overpass at Katella which curves around, which is going to be straightened out of course when the 1-5 improvement is done. And we want to take advantage of the fact that two miles away from the Stadium and the Arena you have literaily 24 million touri~ts that are going to be showing up every year, tourists and visitors, to the Anaheim Resort including Disneyland and the Convention Center. So that link along Katella is critical to this plan. Cf course, as we look to the future, there's also intentions of connecting Gene ,4utry as a secondary access to the resort as weli. The core of this plan, as I mentioned bef~re, is the hub of the Stadium and the Arena. We wanted to enhance those public investments and encourage synergistic uses which~ occur around them. I'm just going to show you some of the building blocks that took place as we developed this plan. As we looked at those connections of course, we took that hub and literally created spokes that fed off of the hub itself, off the stadium and the arena, that created these corridors. So these identified the main corridors of development and then we looked at intensifying the land uses along those main corridors. Then as we looked at significant gateways or entrances into this area, we looked at those areas that off of the freeway and major arterials and off of the major destinations that exist there today, what are the gateways that exist there today and how do we identify the stadium area as a destination in the future? So we looked at that and created a hierarchy of those gateways off the freeways and arterials again, and then built the framework with the design and the plan off of that. I'm going to give you a short tour of the plan, so we can look at some of the land use intensities that we are considering for this area. First, we'll start ~vith ihe basic framework which is the Stadium Area Master Plan and really in the context of what we're trying to do here under a master pfan. The identity and the landscape is really the critical link and the major public investment in this area and that is, as we mentioned before, the I<atella corridor, strong identity that that will have through this plan and then the sec~ndary accesses off of Gene Autry and State College linking to the Stadium and then off to the west to the Anaheim Resort. The critical corridor that we taiked about earlier was Kateila corridor and that is the highest ~ntensity land use of the plan and, in fact, we have dedicated a 1.0 F.A.R, to this area which incl~~des 170-foot height limit which is a guideline for height which would allow for anything from 15 to 17 story buildings along that area, for about 2 million square feet of new development, incremental development, on a base of 5 million, meaning the total entitlement for that area is 5 million square feet with about 2 million square feet of new development that would take place through the entitlement of this plan. Then we have the Gene Autry District, and as I mentioned eariier, Gene Autry also is an important 01-20-99 Page 10 corridor to this plan. In the Gene Autry District, we have a..4 FAR with a 50-foot height limit which is roughly about 3 to 5-story buildings and would have about 230,000 square feet of new development on top of a 1 million square foot base that is currently ent~tled in that area. Then we have the gateway area which is located at the intersecti~ns of Orangewood and State College and the gateway has a.5 FAR with a 100-foot height limit, roughly 8 to 10-story buildings, with 200,000 squ~re feet of redeveloped professional uses that would take place on a base of about 360,000 square feet. Then the Sportstown Area which I mentioned earlier was previously approved as ADP 120, has entitlement of 1,700,000 square feet of new office, hotel and destination retail and that really is the destination anchor to this site of the I-5 Freeway. Then lastly the Arrowhead Pond District which is IocatFd, of course, around the Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim, has densities which range from .45 FAR to I.0 FAR, has height limit guidelines that go from 100 to 150 feet, 600,000 square feet of new development on a base of about 1,700,000 square feet in th~t area. As we mentioned earlier, the critical task far us was to crea;e a link, not oniy a physical link, but also identity and landscaping to the Anaheim Resort and to truly create a destination here that one would recognize as they travel, if they were a tourist or a local, traveling off the I-5 freervay or the 57, as they arrived into this area. The P,naheim Resort, of course, being first up and one of the most critical assets to the City as far as destinations is concerned, and then the Stadium Districts to the east would then be connected along the Katella Corridor and really that is the primary area of identity to create an area which has been coined in the past and continues to be phrased as the Destination Anaheim, is a location which someone can identify with as they come to this area. That is all I have for you. I am going to turn it over to Bob Jacob who will describe to you some of the critical issues for identity and landscape as part of the master plan. Bob Jacob: Thank you, Brian, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. First of all, I apologize for hiding behind this machine here. I am going to use this drawing to speak to some of the things that I think are important about creating an identity for this place because I think this does have some unusual conditions that provide some opportunities that I think will make this piace a much more interesting urban environment. First of all, you know we have these two major freeway corridors and one thing that we noticed about this place is that with the construction of I-5 and actuaily having raised lands next to this D;strict and also on 57 actually having a relationship where a lot of this District was visible directly from these roads, that that visibility pruvided an opportunity for people passirg by, the hundreds of thousands of people that pass by here everyday, to create some kind of statement, a large statement, particularly using landscape, that is things that could be placed in the public rights of way by the City that would help foster an identity. The idea of this place which is about 800 acres, a little over 800 acres, the importance of doing something that people can see and recoc~nize at a high speed as they are moving along, that whole issue of scale, is extremely important when considering how an identity might be made for that. I think we were also very interested in creating something that could be implemented for time because we realized I think that this District is something that will not sort of spring full grown afterjust a few months of development; that this project will be something that carries on for a number of years and so we wanted to create something that could be developed wiihin public rights of way essentialiy and could be implemented through time and that really cailed for several very simple, straight-forward ideas about what identity could be. I could call your attention now, I think, to the section of the document which includes the landscape concept plan and also the identity plan. I think Brian has touched on a few of the things that have been important to us bu! let me just talk about a few more here. First of all, because the place is so visible, the opportunity for creating a skyline identity for this place, I think, was something that we felt was an opportunity that we should take a hold of and using trees, especially that get very tall and have a distinct signature, like the fan palms, is something that we felt could be very useful to serving that end. In addition, we felt that the planting along Katella which has already begun, or is actually soon going to be implemented, through the Anaheim ResoR, that extending that treatment of the date palms actually into Sportstown and through the whole Stadium Disiricts Area would reinforr,e that connection and give people a visual link between these two important areas. So with the combination of skyline trees like the fan palm on streets like Orangewood and State College and 01-20-99 Page 11 essentially all the major streets in the Districts with the exception oF Katella where we would have the date palms, that thos.e bn;o base plantings would give us that skyline identity that we wanted. The second factor is that we have now and will continue to have, we will actually increase the amount of pedestrian use of those areas, and you know, we have made provisional land use plan for some of those activities aiong Katella, but we also felt that Gene Autry and State College, in particular, were areas where we would like to see a serious increase in the growth of the number of pedestrians through the years and we felt we needed te have some way of addressing their needs because, of course, the fan palms being so tall with such a small head on them would not really serve the needs of protecting pedestrians. So an idea of supplementing the planting with a kind of lower canopy, smaller scale tree was important to our second concept cf creating pedestrian scale sidewalks. I have mentioi~sd and Brian has mentioned Katella. There are I think in the plan a number of references, a number of cross sections, that show the kinds of chings that we intend there. In addition, some additional exhibits have been createa wtiich I believe you have seen which show what the character of thet place would he. And in addition, we have also provided some guidance for the development on private land within setbacks areas, especially on tne key streets of State College and Gene Autri, Lewis and Orangewood. These streets we believe that setbacks to deal with concealing automubiles or to supplement the landscape identit;~ of the public rights of way would be of great use to us. In addition, I think finally the last concept, the idea of using the agriculturaf landscape tradition of this area, is something that we have encouraged in our work in Anaheim over the last ten years, really beginning with the work that we did with the Redevelopment,lgericy downtown, and of course, the City seal shows ample evidence of this City's heritage and we believe in using planting designs that are geometric that use plant materials that are ~eminiscent of that tradition, that that would be meaningful to the people who live in this area. I tnink the other thing to maybe talk about in terms of identity would be sort of the more kind of tradit?onal identity element such as signs, gateways and that kind of thing. Brian showed a diagram that identified some of the major c~ateways. Obviously, the Katella/I-5 and the Katella/Orange Freeway interchanges are very import,~nt. We've also identified some other important gateways. Actually this area right here is not just a gateway to the Destination Anaheim, but in fact to the entire city and we have identified this area as being placed where it would be possible for the City to make a landscape statement on Intersta-e 5. In addition, the firm doing consulting work for us in signs has created some identity elements that could be used at important gateway areas for the project. Specific designs for those has yet to be established, but we have just tried to establish what the scale and location and character of those exhibits might be and in addition, I think we've tried to address issues such as lighting and you know quite a bit of detail in terms of cross s~ctions and other information that could be useful to guide staff in develepment of this area as it proceeds over the next 10, 15 to 20 years. So with that, I Nould like to pass this on to Annika who will discuss the overlay zone. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: Good afternoon, I am Annika Santalahti with the Planning Department and I'll describe some of the features of the proposed Sports/Entertainment (SE) Overlay Zone. The proposed ordinance is attached in its entirety to the staff report. Zoning is e method by which the City's General Plan is implemented and the SportslEnlertainment Overlay is a specific zone that will implement the Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan and provide the regulatory tools for development. It is designed to operate in conjunction with the desigr standards or guidelines contained in the Master Land Use Plan. When adopted, the SF development standards will replace certain standards in the underlying zones such as permitted and conditional uses, lot coverage, buildi~g height, structural setbacks along arterial highways, landscape setbacks along arterial highways, and slgns. The properties included in the development districts are currently in six zones (limited industrial, commercial office and professional, limited commercial, heavy commercial, residential/agricultural and public recreation.) The SE overlay establishes development standards for four of the development districts (the Katella Corridor District, the Arrowhead Pond District, the Gateway District and the Gene Autry District). As to the other two districts, the Sportstown District is reguiated under an r~rea Development Plan and environmentally cleared under its own EIR and the p~operties designated existing wil~ continue to be regulated by the existing zoning with 01-20-99 Page 12 a few exceptions relating the minimum structural and landscape setbacks on the arterial highways and permitted signs. 7he uses permitted in the Katella Corridor, Arrowhead Pond District, Gateway District and Gene Autry District by the SE overlay consist of retail and entertainment, offices, hotels and/or industrial depending on the specific district. The front setbacks along all the arterial highways wilf be 20 feet, fully landscaped, although pedestrian amenities will be permitted. Additionally, minimum 3% foot high landscaped earthen berms, or hedges or solid walls will be incorporated into the 2Q-foot setback to screen parking areas, drive-through lanes and service stations. This requiremer+t will also be required for nev~ development in the existing district and for properties located in the other development districts, but developing under the existing zone standards. Only monument signs will be permitted with pole signs being prohibited with the exception that special signs may be permitted by conditional usa permit where lively and thematic signage will compliment the sports and entertainment orientation of a development proposal. Monument signs will also be the only permitted freestanding signs for new development including new or replacement signs in the existing district or the properties that remain in the underlying zones in the other districts. Following addition of a new chapter to the zoning code titled "Sports Entertainment Overlay" (SE Zone), the city will initiate a reclassification for a resolution of intent to the SE Overlay. However, unlike most reclassifications in Anaheim, ordinances actually ado~fing the zoning for specific parcels will not be processed until the owners request it. In this way existing businesses and buildings will not become legally non-conforming and expansion and new construction or redevelopment can occur under the existing zone. It will be the propzrty owners decision whether and when to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the SE Overlay. Prior to the construction on property rezoned to the SE Overlay, a final plan process will be followed whereby the required plans and exhibits, including proposed uses, are submitted for Planning Commission review and approval without a public hearing. Typical plans will include a site plan, floor plans, exterior• elevations, parking, landscaping, signs and other exhibits as m4;~ be necessary to fully describe the project. If the plans are found to be in conformance with the overlay standards, the Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan and the Design Standards and Guidelines, and a determination can be made that the proposal is environmentally cleared by the master EIR, the Planning Commission shali approve the project. If the plans and exhibits are not in conformance, the final plan shall be denied. The Planning Commission's decision will be final unless appeal to the City Council. I'd also like to make a few comments about some good suggestions that were made at this morning's work sassion to improve the Master Land Use Plan. First, regarding the Katella District. In recognition of the plan's intent to preserve views towards Edison's International Field of Anaheim, that portion of the K.atella District that reaches down into the Gene Autry District shall have a maximum height of - or was recommended would have a maximum height of 50 feet. This would meet the objective to preserve views of the stadium property. This situation is illustrated on the map on page 4-5 of the Master Land Use Plan. Regarding the Gateway District. The Gateway District could be expanded to include properties witY~in the existing district located east of State College Boulevard on both sides of Orangewood Avenue. Expanding the district would be a possibility while retaining the existing FAR for CEQA purposes. And the final item regarded mass transit, the mass transit plan and transportation, and that is that the master plan should reccgnize OCTA's on-going eiforts with regard to both bus routes and the urban rail study currently in process. These suggestions can be addressed in hvo ways. First in the one that staff recommends is that the suggestions be incorporated into the document that will be presented to the City Council at a public hearing. Alternatively these items could be continued - the public hearing, I should say - could be continued to incorporate the suggestions prior to Planning Commission's voting on the matter. Thank you. Chairman Bristol: Thanks, Annika. Greg, do you want to say something? Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner, Planning Department: Commissioner Bristol, as you mentioned we received two letters from the school districts, one representing the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified Schooi 01-20-99 Page 13 District and one representing the Anaheim Union High School District. Both these letters don't raise any additional school impact issues ihat weren't responded to in the Response to Comments Document and so the findings that we are recommending that you adopt along with the recommendation for certification of the EIR still remains our recommendation. Chairman Bristol: Thank you. Joel Fick, Planning Director: Chairman Bristol, Planning Commissioners, that concludes our presentation. We would like to acknowledge too the support we've had and assistance from the City Attorney's office from Selma Mann, and we appreciate that very much, and staff's certainly happy to answer any questions Commission may have for following public iestimony issues or comments that get raised. Thank you. Chairman Bristol: Thank you. We want to get these lights popped back on? Right - thaYs the applicaiiYs side. is there anybody here that wishes to speak on this item? Really7 ThaYs good, that's good. Okay then, we'll close this public hearing. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: Maybe I'll note for the public record that during the process we have had many conversations with a series of five to eight developers or land owners who have been very interested in it, with a public scoping session as well for the EIR and we've tried to keep them up to date with all the changes. Sometimes they got first drafts and then we updated it, so I guess we're happy that they didn't feel the need to show up and that they were pleased with the results that they saw. Chairman Bristol: I think iYs a great.... Commissioner Esping: ...credit to you. Chairman Bristol: I think iPs fantastic. I think iYs going to be wonderFul for us. Can I bring up one question? I'm going to start the questioning that I brought up this morning, because thaPs one of the rules we have, whatever we bring up we have to come back in public hearing. And, Joel, I made this to you. It says all over the EIR that we will lose about 500 give or take thousand square feet of industrial, and that by Joel Fick, Planning Director: Thank you for asking that question because iPs a very important point in the plan and for some very quick background, when the Planning Department in the mid-80's approved and City Council approved an office development planned for this area there was a lot of interest in insuring that the existing businesses and land owners were afforded the opporturiity to completely remain and continue with their operations and the mentions in the plan with any of that substitute land use is soiely at the discretion of the property owner or developer or applicant, and that would just be through replacement attrition when they would propose a higher and better use for the property. Chairman Bristol: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Koos. Commissioner Koos: Thank you, Chairman. I guess I'd like to open my remarks with thanking staff for the hard work on this item and, again, the fact that no one's here shows that their public involvement process throughout has obviously been pretty robust. Normally something of this magnitude would receive at least some members of opposition, but iYs clear that i~ey'~e done a great job in that respect. Thank you, Annika, for mentioning some of our comments from this murning's meeting, in panicular I wanted to sort of go on the record and reiterate some of what I had concerns with this morning. Regarding the urban rail - obviously we know iPs not engraved in stone yet. I think we should - as a City we should definitely encourage the alignment to be integrated into this site directly as opposed to some of the more recent OCTA proposals showing it just going down the arterials. I think iPs important that we have that connection at the Metrolink station. The issue of the existing zone - I think I would be really supportive of modifying the boundary of the existing zone - in the southern existing zone to be changed to reflect to what you said regarding the Gateway Zone. I think whi~e we recognize there are some long standing businesses there and they've 01-20-99 Page 14 made big investments, over time I think we want to show that we would encourage maybe an upzoning - or an increase in commercial development or something else to fit in better with the long range view of this area. So thank you for that. And just on the circulation section and specifically the mass transit, I would very much support more language on on-going coordination with OCTA in terms of short term and long term transit service up and down Katella as well as the other arterials. I think this is a great opportunity to link the resort area via transit and things are going to play out obviously with urban rail, but I definitely think we should play that up more in jusl in the wording on that section. Other than that, maybe I do want to reiterate one thing. I'm not sure if iPs gaing to directly impact the plan itself as much as over time and maybe someone from transportation staff could comment on it. 7he question I had about parking issues with respect to ihe Metrolink station and whether or not thaYs going to play out over time. I know that maybe John wants to answer some of these questions. On the PSR list I saw recently from District 12, it included potential parking structure for the stadium and, you know, is there room for us there on the parking site. If we build a structure and it has a sort of a joint use application for the stadiurti and the station, would that free up surface area for t~s to use for something else. So maybe - I don't know - maybe John wants to comment on that. John Lower, TrafficlTransportation Manager: Sure. We've been working with the OCTA to explore opportunities for a regional transportation center in the stadium area. In the document that Commissioner Koos is referring to is a study prepared for OCTA looking at expanding parking opportunities. They looked at a thousand space parking structure, which in practicality is moveable around the Stadium Area Land Use Plan. And we've got that footprint and know of at least one place where we ceuld make it work adjacent to the AMTRAK/Metrolink station. Commissioner Koos: So tfieoretically, a thousand space structure might free up some surface parking that we could maybe take advantage af? Is that correct? Joel Fick, Planning Director: Commissioner Koos that is a good point and obviously with some of the large venues also, there are existing agreements and things like that. But'.t certainiy affords lots of opportunities and I, just in addition of what John said, wanted to echo that each - virtually every one of the comments that you've raised were supportive of and would incorporate into study and examination for the final Council report as well. Commissioner Koos: And just one more point on that. We do have the Spieker site (Stadium Towers). They have a structure I think it might be worth including language in promoting shared parking policies for tlie area. I know there are certain things that need to be worked out and there are certain things maybe ongoing, but I mean at night, the Spieker structure is probably empty and therP is a lot of give and take there. I think we need to explore those opportunities. Other than that I think iYs a fabuious plan and thanks a lot for answering the questions this morning. Chairman Bristol: Okay. Anybody else7 Commissioner Boydstun: I would like to make one comment which now may not be the time, but with going over the landscaping and ttie trees and things that putting in, I'd like to see somehow tliat we get into the maintenance plan that I think the palm trees are great, but they've caused us lots of problems on Anaheim Boulevard and I'd like to have it in the maintenance contract about them being sprayed so they don't flower so that we don't have all of those littfe seeds that make black marks on the sidewalks and that people slip and slide on, being as this will all be public right-of-way and the City would be the one that is liable. Joel Fick, Planning Director: Commissioner Boydstun, great comment and we factored that into our thoughts for looking at that with the future implementation plan. Commissioner Boydstun: Hopefully, you can add Anaheim Boulevard to it too. 01-20-99 Page 15 Commissioner Bostwick: That would be great on all the trees, palm trees and everything. I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask. You mentioned that this plan would stimulate development in the area. How? What brings you to that conclusion7 What do you feel wili really stimulate development? Joel Fick, Planning Director: There are sevLral aspects to that Commissioner Bostwick and members of the Commission. First of all it provides a development opportunity that frankly doesn't exist. The existing zoning out there is industrial and anyone who comes in the city and, for example, Stadium Crossings project and Arena Corporate Center are very good examples of that. That vehicle is not available right now for them to be able to do that so it both affords them an opportunity and at the same time streamlines development opportunities because a lot of the environmental work and the other processing has already been completed. I would mention though, in addition, just in passing that we actually have heard from a lot of the people, private property owners in the development community that frank~y a lot of the good work that you have already done with the first phases of the study, Sportstown being a prime example, that got incredible press, incredible notoriety and brought a lot of attention to the Anaheim Stadium Area and we have been told that by a number of landowners and property owners. Commissioner Bostwick: And along with that, exactly how is this going to protect those that are presently there7 Having worked with an overlay zone for mobilehome parks, it is another definite layer of government to get rid of when you want to chanae your property and so when you present me with an overlay, I get real nervous and wonder how this is yoing to improve development with an overlay. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: This overlay isn't quite like the mobilehome park overlay, or the Flood Plain Overizy, which is in the Scenic Corridor. This is an overlay which will not actually be, even though a reclassification wiil be there and there will be number on the property, it will not be implemented. So when anybody asked wha: the zoning is on the property, all you will be told is what that base underlying ML, CO, or whatever the zone is. When the land owner c~iooses to implement the zone, he or she makes the request, pays for the public notice for the ordinance to go before Council and submits a title repo~ t and as a result of that, the zoning would be finalized when an ordinance is adopted. But it isn't an overlay quite like the others. It will not be ML (SE) which with the mobilehorne park is the case. Commissioner Bostwick: As part of this, you mentioned the fact that the landscape was a critical part and I have to agree with you that the landscaping of the public right of way will make the true connection between the Anaheim Resort and the Stadium Area and continue the theming from, obviously, from the 57 freeway west to the Anaheim Resort Area, but that could take place without this overlay zone. That could be done by the City at any time in their desire. Is there anything in this that speeds that up, or obviously this is going to have to be budgeted into the overall public works budget to come up with these improvements. Joel Fick, Planning Director: Two things that I would respond to there and your comments are exactly right. What this does do though is put the plan in place as to what the desired program is for continuity. And also, when we have individual property owners coming in again Stadium crossing being a good recent exampie, there actually will be a plan in place when they develop their projects and programs that fit in with the overall landscaping theme. But your comments are correct that it will have to be examined and taken into account on the whole. Commissioner Bostwick: I w~uld make another comment on the landscaping, and particularly like Lewis Street, there are heavy industrial buildings in that area, the Register's paper, the Coors Beer distributor, the other ones on the other side, it doesn't come to my mind right away, where they do have lots of heavy truck traffic. And obviously we're building in dividers and landscaping down the middle of the road which are going to impair the turnaround of those trucks and access to those properties, so I don't know if that is really appropriate in that area. Commissioner Esping: Has that been looked at? Commissioner Bostwick: I was going to say, have we thought about whaYs really there when we're talking about keeping industriai, have we looked at that? 01-20-99 Page 16 ~ ~4nnik~ Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: I think what will probably happen when we study in detail the process that will be made, that a hierarchy wil! probably be established out there, that identifies the arterials that are the most critical ones because as the Ciry's able to fund it, we're going to want to start with the ones that are the most meaningful and, in fact, your comments about Lewis may turn out to be entirely true, that it is not going to be worth our while in that instance. Joel Fick, Planning Director: And that is consistent frankly with how the Cily Council has approached these project on the Citywide Street Beautification Program. They've established A and B priority citywide and we would anticipate something like that likely here too. Commissioner Bostwick: I've got another question on landscaping. Why did we pick 3'/: feet, when everything else we're doing in the City is 3-foot high berms, why did we go half a foot more? Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: Well, iYs those sports utility vehicles. We've been out, 3%: is probably not enough. We've been out and looked at parking lots and drive-thru lanes and service stations and we've seen some of the 3-feet, first of all when iYs a berm, the earth sinks some how oddly in a few weeks and it rains, and so we went 3%z on the hope that maybe that'll pull it little further up, but we did take a look at some existing examples that were higher in Irvine versus some not so successful ones in Anaheim. Commissioner Sostwick: Yeah, we made mention this morning and I think iYs very appropriate that the area ~f the Katella District that dips south into the Gene Autry District would have a similar 50-foot high maximum height applied to it, as the Gene Autry District, so that the supposed benefit of the viewshed from the freeway to the Stadium would be kept in tact. The premise of this whole plan would be kept in tact. And I don't know whether you need to redraw the lines or you just need to.... Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: We will look to changing that specific exhibit or the exhibits in text in the master land use plan to reflect that component as a change. Commissioner Koos: IPII be straight across, the boundaries will change? Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: ~Ne'll do something. Something will be straight across. We will definitely try to make it real clear on the exhibit that the height issue is adjusted in that area. Chairman Bristol: Are there any property owners in here that are in different districts that are adjacent property, that are split? This looks like thaYs one of them. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: This is probably one of them. I'm not sure that ihere's any others, there may be along Katella, but I know it was an objective to try to maintain parcels existing as a whole shape. This would certainly be the largest instance in something like this. Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: When we do the district boundaries, we made sure that we didn't cut off any parcels midway between the parcels themselves. Commissioner Koos: On the gateway boundary, what are we n~w proposing7 Are we changing the boundary? What do you suggest? Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: Yes, we will change the boundary of the gateway district to include those other properties to the south and to the east. We will also, however, on those areas indicate that the F.A.R. would remain at the existing level thereby allawing the E.I.R. and the CEQA. work to stili be pertinent. Commissioner Koos: On that, would there be a problem with including the entire southern existing district as part of the gateway district or.... 01-20-99 Page 17 Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: ThaYs what i assume you had meant. Commissioner Koos: O.K. thaYs fine with me. So the only existing District woufd be the one on the north. Bostwick: I guess the only other thing that I had is can tve approve this without the light rail being mentioned? And wnen I was reading the EIR there was not a mention of the Anaheim Stadium redevelopment in there. Is that something that needs to be placed in there to be legal? 1 don't know what the legal rarnifications of these are. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: Yes. The Stadium redevelopment area is entirely on the Stadium property, so ttiat one is covered under the area development plan. There is however the South Anaheim Corridors Redevelopment project. i noticed myself that there were no exhiu~ts in here on that. Redevelopment staff is fully aware of that, we've discussed with them their concerns because of some of the efforts they are making in that area and as far as I know we have answered satisfactorily their questions when they've seen the text of the documents, so if, on the other hand, you feel iPs appropriate to put into the master land use plan an exhibit that shows that boundary, we can certainly do that. But, thaYs a very straight forward addition. Commissioner Bostwick: Could someons throw it out if it wasn't there, If wa don't include it? Greg McCafferiy, Associate Planner: Under the project description in the future anticipated ac[ions, one of the actions could be implementation of the redevelopment project area and that is listed as a potential other forwarding action after the certification because of some of the projects that could come in those districts. Commissioner Koos: On this issue, I actually thought of that question too. Reading the plan, not the EIR, I'm not concerned about the EIR in ternis of the Redevelopment Project Areas, but I think as an informational item, it might be valuable, at least as part of the appendix, or something, to at least have the map to show a shaded area where the redevelopment project areas are for people who may want to know. I think it is valuable. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: Yes that could be included. Commissioner Boydstun: I had one other, it really isn'i a question - it is more of a statement - in reading the EIR, we are very far behind in some of the intersections when they said what the LOS count was and I think if you drive them today, you know we are outdated and is there any way we can put pressure to get a new traffic model sooner than we might have one so that we know what the actual traffic is - to seil the Council on spending the money to do this, or is this something you want, John. John Lower, Traffic/Transporiation Manager: It is something I want and feel the City needs. Commissioner Boydstur~: Well, this is it. I mean, I think sometimes when we look at these things, we are so outdated that we aren't really very accurate. Is there anything that this Commission can do to get up to date instead of 10 years ago. John Lower, TrafficlTransportation Manager: This is quite a spot you put me in. Perhaps I could leave it that I think it is a valuable tool that is needed and there are a couple of considerations. That being that we need to be consistent with the regional model, the SCAG socio-economic data and the r~gional highway network and that is what is called OCTAM 3(Or:~s ge County Traffic Analysis Mode~ 3) whi~:h is not yet compieted by OCTA. OCTA's position is that w,it~~i;; one year after they adopt OCTAM 3, each city model has to be consistent, so that is the highway network side of it. The socio-economic data is something different and as you probably heard, we are two versions behind. Although in the comparison, we felt the 1988 data, compared to the 1996 data was about even ~ceel, so while it is different, in terms of regional trip generation coming through, iPs our position that iPs about the same. We would like to get a model, no doubt about it, an updated model. In the interim, for purposes of this, the suggestion is that every major development within this Master Land Use Plan Area would be directed to OCTA to use their existing 01-20-99 Page 18 OCTAM 2.8 model to run the regional analysis. So the short of it is, yes, I very much would like to have an updated traffic model. Commissioner Boydstun: It is hard for me to understand the statement that the 1988 and the 1966 give us the same count when I drive those streets every day and sit through those lights three or four times. Mr. Lower: I'd like to introdur.e Joe Faust who actually did the comparison ofjobs versus dwelling units. Joe Faust, Austin Faust Associates: Thank you, John. Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, for tf;e record, my name is Joe Faust with Austin Faust Associates. We are the modeling people, we prepare the models, so I'll answer John's question for him,. "You need it, yes:' I am in that business, so iPs a little bit self-serving for me to say that, but the reality is that the comparison that we did when the question was raised, well, IeYs take a look at what the 88 socio-economic data and how it compares to the 96 and there were some significant differences. The employment numbers were down, the residential numbers, what I am talking about is a large portion of Anaheim to the south and west of the I-5 freeway and then a large portion of Anaheim and Orange, just to the east and parallel to the 57 freeway. So we looked at a pretty representative and a pretty large size area and what we came out with was that the employment figures were significantly different and the residential figures were significantly different, but when you put them back together, there wasn't that m~ch difference and if there was any difference at all, it was probabiy on the conservative side. In other words, the 1996 socio-economic projections result in a little bit less of a worst case scenario than we get when we use the 88 data. So that is all we are saying. IPs not that the data is that much different. The employment based data, and I know I 2m getting real technical here, and the home-based data, there were some significant differences, but call it what you will, we were just lucky, if you will, that they tended to balance one another and as a matter of fact, it turns out the 88 data was more of a worse case scenario than the 96 would be. Now that is in two rather significant areas that will affect Anaheim and this area. Whether I can extrapolate that statement to the entire region - thaYs, of course, another question, but for this area, thaYs the hind of analysis we have prepared and I'm fairly competent standing here before you that at least how it affects the Stadium Area wouldn't be that big a difference. In fact, it would probably be a conservative, a reduction somewhat. How iYs going to affect your whole Anaheim model, certainly, I don't want to taKe this little analysis we did for the stadium area and project that for the entire city and then in turn project that for the entire Orange County and say, "Yeah, iYs probably not going to be a difference " We do expect some significant differences. Certainly on a county-wide basis, and perhaps on a city-wide basis as well. Commissioner Boydstun: I would think that part of our city is going to be greatly affected in the traffic because of The Block, once that part of the freeway is through workiny. I mean, we are going to get traffic from other places. We can't just look at this. IYs our streets that are going to be stopped. Mr. Faust: W~II, again, looking at the model data, or what was in the tra~c model, The Block, as big and as successful as it is, actually is actually constrained to what is entitled from The City Shopping Center. Remember that many years ago and the last 10 or 15 years ago, lhere has been very little there. I happen to remember that I can quote the number. It is 811,909 square feet because I did work on that project too. So that actual project is the same size as what the City Shopping Center was entitled to. Commissioner Boydstun: That is not the same number of people in cars. Mr. Faust: That's true. 1'he Ciky Shopping Center was a conventional regional shopping center and, of course, this is the enlertainment based retail. It is a whole new ballgame. The conventional retail shopping hours are r,ot the same as it will be for The Block, so again, I'm just saying, their overall entitlement. WhaYs more cri4ical to look at is your afternoon, your 5 o'clock to 6 o'clock peak hour and then iPs becoming, and The Block is going to make it very famous, is you should be looking at Friday night and Saturday too b~~cause those ars going to be significant periods of time. So just a real quick answer ~o your ouestion was, The Block happens to be the same square footage as what the City Center would havc; been if they had rebuilt it. Yes, you are making a very good point, the travel patterns for those twc types of uses are dramatically different. But is kind of a little bit, the same thing I am talking about when I say update the model, what we looked at was the differences between the 88 and the 96 socio- 01-20-99 Page 19 economic data. They are significantly different, but they tended to counter-balance one another. Whether thaYs going to continue to be true for the entire city, and in the entire county, I certainiy would doubt it, but IeYs just say, maybe we were lucky here, but we did look at it because the question was raised, but no question about it, again, iYs a seif-serving statement a little bit, but certainly eventually you are going to have to do it because when the OCTA model is ready, you've got a year's timeframe to get in there and you want to have that information and have that now anyhow. On the other side of my commercial is that it is a substantial investment and you've got to look very careful at what you are going to get for that - the bang for the buck. So the approach and how much the budget determine to spend on that has to be looked at very carefully - what approach you take. Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: Mr. Chairman, I ju5t want to add a couple of things into the record, just what Joe Faust was saying. Under the existing General Plan, what we can have now, under General Plan build-out conditi~ns for this area is over 20 million square feet, iPs about 22 million square feet total of development. So actually the General Plan buildout currently is worse case and this project would really be beneficial in terms of traffic impacts to the area. With regard to the Redevelopment Project Area, what we are going to do is include a brief discussion about that Redevelopment Project Area in the Land Use section of the EIR. But on balance, if you approve this plan, or recommend approval of this General Plan Amendment, the actual buildout conditions will be more beneficial to traffic than ~vhat you have with the existing General Plan. Chairman Bristol: ThaPs correct. Thank you. Anybody else? Commissioner Bostwick: I still have concerns. Under the listed prohibited uses and structures, automobile, truck, trailer and other vehicie sales, presentiy we have a couple of bus companies that operate, Airport Coach and Pacific Coast Sightseeing, in these Districts and I believe that Airport has to do some rework to their site o^ce Caltrans is finished with their development down there, how is this going to affect them? Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: You may be aware that they were before the City Council several months ago. They were under a conditional use permit that has been basically, as I recali, in five- year increments. There was a great deal of concern at City Council about that. From the original approval of that location, which is, well now, iPs the northeast corner of Anaheim Way and Gene Autry Way, I believe. IYs a transit facility. If the property and that is one of the potential uses !hat could occur in the overlay, but the site development standards relative to setbacks and landscaping and screening are very important and that one is an incredibly visible location. When they were given their additional time, it was with the understanding that they were going to take a good look at that area to see if that was going to work for them in the future because their site has been reconfigured and, I believe, it has actually been reduced a bit, even though I think they picked a little bit, they lost more and with the success they have had in the past, they are going to have to realiy analyze that location as to how functional it is because of its huge visibility from the elevated freeway and the Gene Autry future HOV. Personally, I viewed that one more as a, "how can they eft'ectively screen the use or make it fit into the area without looking like simply an outdoor storage yard for buses." Commissioner Bostwick: But if they come back to us for another extension, another five year extension. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator; I don't believe that we wiil go with a 5-year extension again. I believe we would be looking at a new conditional use permit in the existing ML zoning. Commissioner Bostwick: But you are going to apply the standards of this overlay to that property. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: We wili look at it very critically. I personally went, when this went to Council, I went through all the minutes that I could find to the original approval and almost every time it was discussed that the freeway widening was going to have a big effect on the property; we are really cor ~cerned about how these types of uses, you know, can look and they were given extensions and they have • what is the term - the red-light has been indicated to them that they really need to carefully look at what they have right now, i believe it is new owners, by the way, also in the last few years. 01-20-99 Page 20 Cemr,:issioner Bostwick: The other one is the freightliner truck sales on Katella. They would not be permitted. Annii;a Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: That's carrect. As long as they remain as they are, they are o.k. Commissioner Bostwick: Any change Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: Excuse me, Greg just reminded me - that use permit sunsets after the freeway widening work is completed, so they also chose to go in that location with the time limitation constraint. Commissioner Bostwick: Yeah, we did that. But I mean they just invested a lot of money in buildings and everything along that freeway side and everything else and you are going to prohibit them. Ms. Santalahti: We have tried to be very straight-forward, you know, no garden paths to go down, with all the developers in this area, particularly the ones that had that type of outdoor use because they can be kind of troublesome to make it really clear to them what we are concerned about and not in any way to mislead them into thinking that the fact that they go in there and choose to spend a lot of money is going to carry in the Icng run. We don't know until, if and when they come back, to extend or get a new CUP. Chairman Bristol: Annika, along Katella Corridor right now what do you think the average setback is on Katella? Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: The industrial setback is 50-foot structural setback, with minimum 10 feet of landscaping. My guess because a lot of them have parking in front, that it actually is quite a bit larger on some of those properties. The industrial setback is big. The commercial setbacks are 10 feet or 0 depending on the zone. But I think the average is over 50 feet actually. Chairman Bristol: Commercial on Katella right now is somewhere less than 10 feet. You are talking about a parking encroachment - right? Annika Santalahti, Zaning Administrator: There are some pieces, let me get my zoniny map out, at the northeast corner of Claudina and Katella, that is zoned commercialiy. It's the plumbing supply location, that has a larger setback, but technically if the overlay werQn't around at all, and somebody came back to redevelop that property a year ago, the required structural and landscaping setback would be 10 feet only and for the reason of properties like this as well as commercial office which also have a 10-foot setback, that's why we intend to apply the structural and landscaping setback of 20 feet to iiiose properties if they were to redevelop. Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: and lhat is similar to the Anaheim Resort along Katella as well. It is about a 20 feet structural setback. Chairman Bristol: But the overlay would give the opportunity for a landowner along Katella to have a lot more square feet. ThaYs the advantage if I owned property there, industrial, and thaYs probably why they are not here, is their value is going to go up, am I correct? Their value's going to go up. If I am an owner, I'm going to love that. Does anybody here own property on Katella? Well, i think thaYs why they here or not here. I think iPs a great idea. They can stay if they 4vant to. Anybody else? Commissioner Esping: in terms of expansion for anyone of those, it would be a whole different ballgame. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: To remain in the existing, they can expand. What vrould happen for instance, if somebody came in and potentially could expand under Code to double the buildinc~ size and there does need to be a connection between the amount of work and the cost to whether the City is going to come along and say, "Hey, we want that 20-foot setback, as well as the 20-foot landscaping 01-20-99 Page 21 basically, there will be a judgment call, but yes, they could expand and ihey could expand without any changes, depending on where and how much expansion there is, Commissioner Esping: I guess, like we talked earlier, you are encouraging businesses to be there and they would be given consideration, but it sounds a little bit now like it would change over a certain period of time and they run the risk of having a penalry. No7 Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: The reason we didn't want to rezone the property, the main reason was not to create that legal non-conforming status. We've seen in other locations where people, for instance, have houses in commercial zones that are totally houses, or commercial businesses in residential zones, inevitability, they seem to want to refinance or a person purchases the property and they want the assurance that if the thing burns down or something, they can rebuild. Under the zoning code, you can go down a peresntage, but after that it is considered that you've torn it down and it is gone and they can't rebuild, and so that discourages expansion of the level, or a large financial investment. We believe in this area that those whose uses are viable and work out will stay and can stay as long as they like and those who start going around the edges, eventually they are going to have to perhaps go to the overlay, or then just relocate because of the value of the land. Not have to relocate - choose to relocate. Chairman Bristol: The big difference beriveen this and other EIRs that 1 have seen is that it is not project specific - being an overlay, it is going to take 10 - 20 years, according to - and this is a draft EIR so we can make any aomments that we want to which we are doing and I think i am going to summarize it - it looks like, according to staff, it is 5320 approximate jobs uver 20 years, adding 2.8 million square feet, 205 potential high school students, 395 school which the reason ~ am bringing this up is that all of these have been mitigated through ihe findings and with the exception of one property owner that we discussed this morning, Tejas, I'm not sure, the property owner or interested party, if they are here or not, they have one letter in the EIR that aska q~estions regarding the zoning and their ability to buildout, just like across the street on Douglass. And, I like it and I think it is a good idea - a good project or overlay, I should say. Greg McCafferiy, Associate Planner: Chairman Bristol, just a quite clarification on the schools issue, in your findings we do have a statement of overriding considerations for the schools, so we are requesting that you adopt that as well and we are mitigating to the extent that is required under state law and to the extent that indirect housing construction prompts future school construction in other districts outside the Anaheim School Districts and that is the purview of the school board in terms of the decisions they make with their budgets and their compliance with CEQA, but we are mitigating compliance with SB15 and current state law, but regardless we are still doing the statement of overriding considerations. Commissioner Esping: I have a question of the number of students, financing, etc. etc., who does the City work with in terms of having them have a working knowledge of whaYs taking place and how it affects them, etc.? I talked to Jan Billings today and she said she had talked to Rita Newman, I trusted Rita Newman would be the one for the Anaheim Union High School District, that she said that they're looking to sit down with individuals so that they have an understanding of what is actually in the specific reports. Do you work with the business person and will ihere be someone that they can come to and work with on understanding this total report? Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: There's a couple of ways that happens. One is actually through the scoping and EIR process. I do believe that they receive the Planning Commission Agendas so they know whaPs coming up on your schedule and I believe also that there are some discussions with regard !o schools on more of a policy level with other staff people and the Council. Commissioner Boydstun: I know the minimum is set by State Laws to what goes, what are any of the surrounding communities, are any of them paying over what the state law requires? Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: We actually conducted a survey back when we were going to certify the Sportstown EIR, and at that time the overwhelming majority of surrounding cities did not have mitigaticn above and beyond the Schools Facilities Act Law or didn't have mitigation agreements with the school districts. 01-20-99 Page 22 Commissioner Boydstun: I know through my business, they gave us a list of this when we were working on legislative and there where a lot in the rnid and northern part of the state that were, there was a full page list of ones that were paying more. Because it was important that they kept the schools up. Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: Ironically, in this case, actually the general plan, how it is now is the worse case scenario for the schools in terms of build out. This actually reduces development and focuses it along specific corridors in terms of the theoretica~ maximum that could occur in the area. Commissioner Boydstun: Well, I know iYs less so it'll be less money to them. I mean the City talks about education all the time and so does the Mayor, but they don't seem to think iYs important that we have enough schools to go around and we are sitting on double sessions, and year-round and portab~es and the new schooi that this City is getting in a few months is a portable school because that is all they can afford and that realiy bothers me that our schools are declining like they are. It is going to do nothing but turn around and bite us eventually. The business I am in now, the people will not buy in Anaheim because of the schools when you go some place else and not go double session and year-round and our prices are under every other city in the county because of this. As you know that is my main soapbox item. Chairman Bristol: I have a question for staff. All these things, the changes we want that have been noted by Greg and Annika, do we have to continue this and do you put them in, or do we have to do it by resolution. How would you recommend that we do this? Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: I believe that the suggestions that you are making and the recummendations would be pretty straight-forward to incorporate into the text of the Master Land Use Plan exhibits. What we can because this item will be advertised for a City Council public hearing which means that it doesn't go next Tuesday, we can bring them back to you as a report and recommendation, as an informational report and recommendation to show you what it is that we are going to do. 1'he document is not actually adopted until tlie City Council approves it, so IePs say it comes back to you the Monday before it goes to the City Council, the day before, even then if you had some concerns, we could raise those types of specific changes at the Council meeting, so I think it would work just as well io go ahead if Council feels favorable about it. :o approve the project as recommended with those changes. We will bring them back to you to take a Icok at before the Council meeting and if you are not happy with it, you can suggest some further changes which we will bring up. C~mmissioner Espiny: The other thing I was interested in as far as talking about transportation and the ~ifferent modes of transportation in the language that comes before the people and comes out in the final ~eport, will they specifically talk about the different ones, the Metrolink, or the OCTA ^r the rail, will they include all of those things so people will know whaYs being done in terms of a good package or good program where transportation flows well, etc. etc. Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: Commissioner Esping, in the final document, the mass transit plan will include all of OCTA's programs, all of the City's programs, including the private Anaheim Transportation Network. Commissioner Esping: I think people would be genuinely interested in that. Thank you. Chairman Bristol: Is there anyone else that wants to make a recommendation on this. Selma Mann, Assistant City At!orney: I would like to make just a few comments on schools. I'm certainly sympathetic to the comments that have been expressed with regard to the importance of schools, but the Planning Commission ~s in a situation where what it can do to assist the schools on this type of a project is limited and is further limited in the changes in the law that have occ~rred since the time that this EIR was circulated. I think as indicated in the EIR documents you have seen and the responses to the schools, a$9.2 million school bond authorization was passed at the last November 3, 1998 general election and the bond issue, there was some legislation that had been passed that was contingent upon 01-20-99 Page 23 the passage of that bond issue. That legislation reiterates the find~ngs that mitigation of school impacts is a state mat:er. it is a matter of statewide concern and whereas before we have had some law that suggested where you have general pian amendments or reclassifications, what are refened to as leyislative approvals, that there was a possibility for imposing additionai fees upon developments based upon the impacts upon schools. This reiterates again that the scliool fees as provided by law and the various means of mitigating as provided by law which ara made a mitigation measure of this project are the exclusive means of mitigating school impacts and that you cannot deny a project based upon the school impacts alone. It may be one of the reasons, but it can't based upon the school impacts alone. You are bound to mitigate to the degree that it's feasible. I think that you have considered in conjunction with other projects that where you have an urbanized area thaYs developed, that some of the possibilities that may be feasible in some areas like Anaheim Hills, where iYs all under ownership of one person, such as a Mello Roos district or some sort of an assessment district that would require the approval of the property owner are not feasible where you have multiple owners ttiat would have to vote to ir.crease the taxes upon their own property, so that the EIR has considered feasible alternatives and even considering indirect impacts and even considering the possible impacts that are identified in some of the letters that are mentioned here, the end result is the same with regard to the limitation on the mitiga!ion measure that may be imposed upon the project. And iPs up to the Commission to determine if it still feels that the findings fcr the statement of overriding consideration with regard to school is applicable in this instance. Chairman Bristol: Thank you Selma. So, you are saying that ~ve can give them a lot more money, is that what your saying? Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: May ! restate that? Chairman Bristol: Anybody want to move on this? Commissioner Koos: Sure. I move we approve EIR No. 321. Chairman Brisiol: This a resolution to recommend to the City Council. So this will be button vote. Maggie Solorio, Planning Commission Secretary: Resolution pass with 7 yes votes. Commissioner Koos: I'll offer a resolution to approve General Plan Amendment No. 361. Chairman Bristol: This is a resalution to recommend the City Council Generai ~~a~ Amendment No. 361. This is resolution and button vote. Maggie Solorio: Resolution pass with 6 yes votes. Commissioner Bostwick voting no. Commissioner Koos: I move to recommend the Ciry Council approval of Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan with the changes to include language about working with OCTA on long range and short range transit issues, language encouraging shared parking to maximize land use opportunities, and a change to the Gateway boundary t~ include the southerly area of the existing district boundary and the change regarding the Katella/Gene Autry border or land use requirements. Was there any others? Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: To include the Redevelopment Araa type of exhibit. Commissioner Koos: As well as that. Chairman Bristol: O.K. 7haYs resolutio~ and a button vcte. Maggie Solorio: The ~•esolution passed with 6 yes votes, Commissioner Bostwick voting no. Commissioner Koos: And I will make a mo;ion to amend Title 18 - Zoniny. Commissior2r P:apoles: Second. 01-20-99 Page 24 Chairman Bristol: This is to ask staff to prepare the zoning change. Those in favor say "aye". Ayes - except Bostwick "No " Commissioner Bosb.vick: I jusi, for the record, I just really feel that we are imposing something thaYs going to force out thE small business owners in that area and that is why I can't vote for this. Commissioner Esping: For the record, a wonderfui presentation. Selma Mann, Assistant City h!-orney: This matter wi~l be set for a public hearing before ;he City Council. Chairman Bristol: O.K. Thank you. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Recommended that the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report No. 321, and adopt a Statement of Findings and Facts and a Statemer,t of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring Program No.106. (Vofe: 7-0) Recommended that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. 361 (Exhibit A). (Vote: 6-1, Commissioner Bostwick voted no) Recommended that the City Council approve the Anaheim Stadium Area ~.4aster Land Use Plan with the following changes: 1. Add language to text regarding mass transit opportunities, both short and long term, being coordinated with OCTA. 2. Add language to text promoting shared parking opportunities in the area. 3. Modify Gateway District boundaries to include the areas east of State College on both sides of Ora,,~ewood; however, leave the FAR for those areas at 0.30 (the same as "Exfsting District"). 4. Modify Katella Corridor "gerrymander" portion which fronts on Gene Autry Way to limit structural height to 50', the same as for the Gene Autry District in order to protect the view shed from the I-5 Freeway to the Stadium. 5. Show the Redevelopment Project Area along Anaheim Way on a map or exhibit in the Master Land Use Plan. (Vote: 6-1, Commissioner Bushvick voted no) ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CHRRIED (^ommissioner Bostwick voting no), ihat the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby request that the City Attorney prepare ordinances for the following am~ndments to Title 18 "Zoning": Add a new Chapter 18. _ titled "Sports Entertainment Overlay (SE) Zone " 01-20-99 Page 25 2. Amend the Zoning Code as it pertains to "CO" Commercial, Office and Professional Zone prope~ties located in the Anaheim Stadium Area, to requfre minimum 20-foot, fully landscaped, setbacks along arterial highways and to require that outdoor advertising and signs comply with the Sports Entertainment Overlay (SE) Zone standards. 3. Amend ihe Zoning Code as it pertains to "CL" Commercial, Limited Zone properties located in the Anaheim Stadium Area, to require minimum 20-foot, fully landscaped, setbacks along arteriai ;~ighways and to require that outdoor advertising and signs comply with the Sports Entertainment Overlay (SE) Zone standards. 4. Amend the Zoning Code as it pertains to "CH" Commercial, Heavy Zone properties located in the Anaheim Stadium Area, to require minimum 20-foot, fully landscaped, setbacks along a~terial highways and to require that outdoor advertising and signs comply with the Sports Ente~tainment Overlay (SE) Zone standards. 5. Amend the Zoning Code as it pertains to "ML" Limited Industrial Zone properties in the Anaheim ~'.adium Area, to require that not less than 20 feet parallel with and adjacent to the front property line along arterial highways be fully landscaped, with the remainder of the required 50-fool structural setback limited to p2rking or vehicular circulation, and to require that outdoor advertising and signs comply with the Sports Entert~inment Overlay (SE) Zone standards. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this matter will be considered by the City Council at a duly noticed public heariny. DISCUSSlON TIME: 1 hour and 20 minutes (2:50-4:10) 01-20-99 Page 26 3b. VARIANC'e NO. 4352 OWNER: JMW Family Enterprises, LP,10401 Femwood Rd., Suite 300G, Bethesda, MD 20817 AGENT: Lorenzo Reyes,1224 E. Katella Ave., Suite 105, Orange, CA 92867 Millie's Restaurant, c/o Ramm Associates, 27111 Aliso Creek Rd., Suite 195, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 LOCATION: 1480 South Harbor Boulevard - Millie's Restaurant. Property is 4.3 acres located on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, 282 feet south of the centerline of Manchester Avenue. Waiver of (a) permitted wall and permitted canopy signs, {b) prohibited signs and (c) sign standard matrix to permit twelve (12) wali signs (including two business identification wall signs and ten internally- illumin~ted canopy signs with sign copy advertising products and/or services). Continued from the Commission meeting of January 4, 1999. VARIANGE RESOLUTION N0. PC99-12 Granted, in part until 12-31-99 e • • • • e ApplicanPs Statement: Lorenzo Reyes, 1224 East Katella Avenue, Suite 105, Oranye, CA 92867: Stated he is representing Millie's Restaurant and present with him was the manager of the restaurant. Chairman Bristol: Asked Mr. Reyes if he fett ;.taff's recommendations were an acceptable compromise? Lorenzo Reyes: It certainly helps and asked for a clarification on the actual size of the letters required after December 31, 1999. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: After December 31, 1999, the lettering will be required to be 18 inches. Lorenzo Reyes: Asked if there was a sliding scale on the size of the letters depending on the height of the building7 Mary h9cCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: Yes, it is true but that is typically for high rise buiidings. Lorenzo Reyes: What has happened now with the new sign code is that they are literally creating a"Main Street Disneyland" and that a!I of the businesses are forced to build out as close as possible to the street. Their building placement with the landscaping and parking is set back approximately 100 feet. A building further down the block that has perhaps a 15 to 20 foot setback will get 18 inch letters and Millie's Restaurant is being penalized because their parking is in front of the building and not behind it, He asked for the same consideration. 01-20-93 Pa,~ 27 Commissioner Esping: The issue is not with the location of the building it is with the size of the letters being consistent throughout the entire Resort for all businesses. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning L~irector: He is correct. That is not the subject of today's public hearing. Staff found no hardship that was not self created relative to the letter size. Staff is recommending a"temporary" waiver for a limited period of time in order for the applicant to keep his existing signage until such time at the end of the year when all the businesses in the Resort would need to comply with the new standards. The City hired a nationally recognized communicaticns firm at the iime they did the signage program for the Anaheim Resort Program and those are the recommendations that staff has been following and incorporated into the Specific Pian. If any of those signs standards are be to be re-examined then staff would recommend that the City Council authorize an additional study because in-house stafF are not sign experts. Staff did not find any hardship and that was not really the issue at hand of the smaller sign copy. That would require a new study of the whole issue and then if the City Council, along with the Planning Commission's recommendations, were to decide that fhere should be different size signs then that would need to occur through a Specific Plan Amendment outside of a variance or conditional use permit application because then the standard would be changing for the entire Resort. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked what height would be permitted for a building 100 feet tall? Karen Dudley, Associate Pianner: It is based on the number of stories of the builrJing. For example for a one and two story building there is an 18 inch letter height, for a two to 5 story building it is 24 inch letter height and then a six to nine story building is a 30 inch letter height. Commissioner Williarns: Asked if the applicant would be allowed a monument sign to match the rest of the Resort at the parkway the same as the rest of the businesses? Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: He already has a monument sign out at the street and their busiress is identified on that monument sign. It is a dual use that is incorporated into a hotel complex (Fairfield Inn). Public Testimony: Val Palmer, General Manager at Millie's Restaurant, 13859 Dogwood, Chino, CA: She is present with many concerns. They lost their monument sign and they now share a sign with the Fairfield Inn which they were not advised about at the time. The sign is placed on the lower half of the monument sign and if a car parks there then it blocks their sign. It is also difficult for people driving by to see their sign. She has been the Generai Manager at the restaurant for 5 years. Unfortunately they had to remodel and their corporation did change the awnings. At that time they incurred some confrontation because they did not go through the right channels. Her concern is specifically the safety for customers with the lighting that is now underneath the awnings which has always been there and asked that they be allowed to retain the lighting under the awnings for safery purposes7 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: Code does not allow the canopies in the Resort to be lit, effective December 31, 1999. Millie's was advised that it was not allowed and that is why it resulted in a Code Enforcement action. Karen Dudley, Associate Planner: In July 1998 Millie's changed the previously existing canvas awning that had the light underneath but the light shines down and does not illuminate the actual canopy itself. They changed the material to a mylar material which "glows" with the light underneath. The existing code prohibits illumination of canopies. The applicant basically needs to provide some sort of a cover of the 01-20-99 Page 28 canopy so it does not illuminate. They could still have the light that would shine down but would not illuminate the canopy itself. Otherwise, they could change the material to one that does not illuminate. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: Perhaps they could replace it with the one that they had before with the ligh# hitting down versus trying to eliminate the canopy. Val Palmer: The problem with all the construction is that the appearance of the area changes on a daily basis. Chairman Bristol: Asked who controls the monu7ent sign? Val Palmer: She thought it was the Fai~eld Inn and they removed it when they moved in. They did have their own sign undernea!h it and were never consulted when the sign came down. Regarding the lighting underneath the canopies, they are the same lights and they did not move them. If the problem is the illumination then they would be glad to change the awnings so that they did not illuminate. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: They need to take the lettering off as well. Chairman Bristol: He is trying to determine what has been self imposed on their facility and what hardships they might have. Mary McCloskay, Deputy Planning Director: The hotel is the primary use on the property and Miilie's is an accessory use and that is why they have a"secondary" position on the monument sign. Fai~eld Inn which is the primary user did allocate that amount of space for Millie's to have on that sign. The way to address any sort of increased letter height in the Resort would be to commission a study to determine whether the height of the lettering should be changed. If Commission recommends a change, then it would need to have a Specific Plan Amendment. The nature of that study is something that the City Council should authorize. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked whether Commission could just grant a waiver for the height? Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: They would be settiny precedence and they would have to find a hardship why the applicant is being denied a right that others in the resoR have, or because of size, shape or typography, of which staff did not find any liardship. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked if there :s only one monument sign allowed per property? Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: P! depends on the width of the property. Karen Dudley, Associate Planner: The code allows one monument sign for each 300 linear feet of property frontage and this property is approximately 251 feet. They are 50 feet short. Commissioner Boydstun: She felt it was a h~rdship when their sign can not be seen. Their sign on the building does not appear to be taking up a block space of 30 inches and felt it looks very tasteful and did not see a problem with it. If they go down to 18 inches on that sign then no one will be able to read it the way the traffic moves there. Karen Dudley, Associate Planner: They have had several people contact them regarding signage in this area. Once the precedence is set they would be required to look at them similarly for any other requests that came in. This particular use is an accessory use in conjunction with the primary use of the Fairfield Inn. Fairfield Inn dictates to them how much square footage they are going to allow on their sign, if any. The code allows the hotel to advertise up to three accesscry uses on their sign and on this particular case they have the one which is the Fairfield Inn. 01-20-99 Page 29 Commissioner Williams: The hardship is that Millie's is back 100 to 125 feet and everyone is right on the street. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planni~g Director: A majority of the businesses along Harbor and Katella are near ihe street but not all of them. She recomme,ided that if the sign size is of concern to Commission that maybe they should request that staff look inta a possible study as mentioned before. Staff is recommending t~iat Commission find that the applicant has a temporary hardship until December 31,1999. At that point when everyone else needs to conform to the code, their hardship goes away and that they record an acknowledgment agreement to that effect. The applicant could keep the kwo wall signs with the size lettering that they have. Staff strongly recommends that Commission require them to remove the lettering on the canopy signs. If the light was put back to the way it was, then it would not be a problem. They recommend that the canopy signs be taken down in 14 days since the applicant was informed before they installed them that it was not allowed. A notice of violation was also issued over the past few weeks and the applicant has already had a significant amount of time to comply with code. Therefore, staff recommends that they be removed now and the rest could stay until the end of the year. If it is Commission's desire, they could have a study to re-examine the letter height. Chairman Bristol: He agreed with staff and felt this would be a good compromise Mary McCloskey: It is going to be approximately 10 feet closer to the street when the ultimate right-of- way improvements are put in as well. Staff wouid need to address the City Council to authorize a study to examine the standards at the Resort. Staff carefully reviews each circumstance and reviews their code compliance tc, determine whether or not there is a hardship. Signage is a critical part of the overall package in the Resort. The business community has been very supportive of the specific plan and all of the elements of the specific plan. Commissioner Esping: It is true the restaurant is set back for and it is difficult to see in that particular area; however, the concern of staff and the greatest concern in the ResoR area is setting precedence. Mary McCioskey: Over 4 million dollars has been spent buying out a lot of signage in the resort. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: There are findings that are required for a waiver to be approved at the request of the Commission. Their Attorney's office did go back and look at something that was unprecedented as far as granting a temporary variance. The temporary variance could be granted on the basis that one of the findings for the waiver would be true until December 31, 1999, when all of the properties in the area would com~~l; . If what Commission is interested in is a change in the Specific Plan, that should be addressed as a change in the Specific Plan zoning and not as a case by case variance determination. She clarified that legally there is no precedent tF~at is set by a variance but as a practical matter what happens is that every applicant for a waiver will point to cther granted waivers to the Commission and to the City Council. Although legally it may not have that effect, it does practically have a similar effect when the projects come before the Commission. There should be a distinction maintained between the granted waivers because of a characteristic of a property that is depriving a property owner of the privileges enjoyed by others and the desire by the Commission to modify the zoning to allow for changes among different properties. It may be legitimate to look at the distance from the street but that wouid be a separate issue that would be applicable to the specific plan rather than to just one property. Lorenzo Reyes: They see the distance from the current right-of-way or ultimate right-of-way as a separate issue. They would be happy with the compromise. The General Manager has agreed that as long as she is allowed to keep some lighting out there, that Millie's is willing to change the material on the canopy. They would ask that between now and December that there be some type of finding with the horizontal distance versus the vertical. 01-20-99 Page 30 There is basically a"boardwalk" situation by only allowing one sign and the size of the letters encourages everyone to be as close to the street as possible. It is a highly competitive market. Commission Bostwick: Stated that the applicant will submit a letter that they know that the signs are sunset by December 31,1999, and within 14 days will remove the letters from the canopy signs. Karen Dudley: C~arified that the applicant could either remove the lights or they could change the fabric, as long as whatever they do the canopy itself does not glow or illuminate. Mary McCloskey: If the applicant changes the material to what they had originally on the canopy so it does not reflect or become illuminated by th~ lights, then it would be permitted. Following the voting: Commissioner Bostwick: Directed staff as a separate item, by Motion, to conduct a study within the Anaheim Resort Area of the size of lettering on wall signs in relationship to the distance from the street, seconded by Commissioner Esping and motion was carried. ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Catec~orical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements t~ prepare an Elf~. Granted, in part, Variance No. 4352 until December 31,1999, as follows: Approved, in part, waiver (a) permitted wall and permitted canopy signs and waiver (c) sign standard matrix to temporarily retain two nonconforming 22.5-~quare-foot, 30- inch high, open-pan channel letter wall signs on the basis that: (i) There are special circumstances applicable to the property based en its location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically-zoned properties in the vicinity; (ii) For a temporary period of time, other properties in the same vicinity and zone would have similar nonconforming wall signage; (iii) The Code requires all legal, nonconforming signage located on property on Harbor Boulevard between the I-5 Freeway and Orangewood Avenue to be removed, altered or replaced with signage that conforms to the requirements of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan by December 31,1999; (iv) The wall signs were previously legal nonconforming wall signs located elsewhere on the building prior to the effective data of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2; and, (v) Because of the special circumstances shown above, strict application af the Zoning Code would temporarily deprive the prope~ty owner of the benefit of wall signage that other property under identical zone classification in the vicinity enjoy, but only until December 31, 1999, at which time the property wouid no longer be deprived of said bensfits in that all other properties in the same viciniry and zone would be required to comply with the Code by removing, altering or replacing legal, nonconforming signage. 01-20-99 Page 31 Denied wa(ver (b) prohibited signs on the basis that there is no special circumstance or hardship applicabie to th~ property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which does not apply to other identically-zoned prope~ties in the vicinity has been identified; and, that the granting of the requested waiver would, in effect, be granting a special privilege to the property not shared by other properties. Modified Condition No. 3 to read as follows: 3. That within a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of this resolution (by February 4,1999) the lettering on the canopies shall be removed and the canopies shali cease to glow or illuminate by either removing the lights or changing the fabric. VOTE: 7-0 ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Espinc~ and MOTION CARRIED, tf~at the Anaheim Ciry Planning Commission does hereby direct staff to conduct a study within the Anaheim Resort Area (subject to the appropriation of funds for such a study) relating to the size of Isttering for wall signs in relationship to the distance the sign sets from the street. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 32 minutes (4:10-4:42 } 01-20-99 Page 32 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 4b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 342 Recommended adoptlon of GPA 342 (Exhibit A) to OWNER: City-Initiated (Plannfng Department), 200 S. Anaheim ~~~Y Council Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Convention Wav between West Street and Harbor Boulevard. A City-initiated amendment to the Circulation ~lement of the Anaheim General Pian to Convention Way between West Street and Harbor Boulevard from a Primary Arterial Highway to a Local Street. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEN7 RESOLUTION NO. PC99-13 _ SRi 376KD.DOC • • e • s • This item was not discussed. OPPOSITION: None ACTiON: Approved Negative Declaration Recommended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 342 (Exhibit No. A) amending the Circulation Element of the Ciry of Anaheim General Plan to delete Convention Way between West Street and Harbor Boulevard as a Primary Arterial Highway. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, indicated this item will be set for a public hearing before the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (4:42-4:43) 01-20-99 Page 33 5a. CEgA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTiON•CLASS 1 Concurred 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Na. 4092 Granted OWNER: Boon Hoo Yee, Ah Tai Yap, Ah Sang Te, Heng Fatt Wong, Kwee Hee Yap, Seet Hua Ooi and Pauline Phuong Lieu,1761 S. Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: Tien Chu, 3354 E. Colorado Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91107 LOCATION: 1761 South Harbor Boulevard - ABC Market. Property is 0.17 acre located on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, 215 feet north of the centerline of I<atella Avenue. To reconstruct the exterior facade of an existing legal non-conforming retail building. CONDITIOMAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC99-14 SR7383KD ~;FOLL:OWING 1S A SUMMARY OFTHE PCANNING COMMISSION AGTIO~} ' ApplicanPs Statement: Tien Chu: He is in agreement with the staff report recommendations and is available to answer any questions. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls tivithin the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4092 based on the following: (i) That the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 provides for the proposed improvements to legal, nonconforming buildings or structures subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. (ii; That the proposed improvements to the exterior facade of ii s legal, nonconforming retail building will not adversely affect adjoininy land uses or the growth and development of the area, nor be detrimental to tfie peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the community; and, lhat the size and shape of the property is adequate to aliow the full development o~ the property as proposed in that: (a) No additional square footage or expansicn beyond the existing building footprint is proposed; and (b) The proposed improvements would bring the property more into conformance with the design criteria and the site development standards of the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, (iii) That no additional traffic would be generated that wouid impose an undue 01-20-99 Page 34 burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carcy the traffic in the area in that the proposed improvements are architectural treatments only and do not add to the overall square footage or traffic generating characteristics of the use. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorrey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (4:43-4:44) 01-20-99 Page 35 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Denied 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4068 (READVFRTISED) Denied 6d. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT N0. 98-04 Denied OWNER: Joseph T. Kung and Emma W. Kung, 20866 E. Quail Run Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91789 LOCATION: 5555 - 5665 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - Imperial Canyon Center. Property is 5.03 acres located at the northwest corner of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road, on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Conditional Use Permit No. 4068 (Readvertised) - to permit the expansion of an existing 55,557 square foot, 45-unit, commercial center by adding 2,266 square foot to an existing building and the construction of a new 1-story 2,820 square foot building with 5 new units, for a total of 50 units (office, retail, financial and restaurant uses) with a total of 60,643 square feet with waivers of a) permitted number and type of commercial iaentification signs, b) minimum number of parking spaces, c) maximum structural height adjacent to a residential zone, d) minimum structural setback adjacent to a scenic highway and e) minimum structural and landscape setback adjacent to a local street. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 98-04 - to permit the removal of 1 eucalyptus tree. Contin~~ed from the Commission meetings of October 26, November 9, December 7, 1998 and January ~, 1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-15 = SR6924DS.DOC ° • • s e s ApplicanYs Statement: Joseph Kung: He reviewed the staff report and then made some written co~ ~iments which he forwarded to Commission. The comments stated in his letter were basically ali the comments that he had. He just obtained a copy of the faxes received toda~ 1`rom Planning staff. Chairman Bristol: Stated for the rpcord, there was correspondence received from Lisa Francis, Maria Bessem, Robert Vargo, Patrick Pepper, Kitty Esckle, iVlr. Dave Howard, and from Joseph Kung (the applicant). Public Testimony: Peggy Fipher, 6450 Stonebridge, Anaheim, CA: On behalf of the board of directors of !he Anaheim Hilis Citizen's Coalition, she read a letter from Patrick Pepper dated January 19, 1999 to members of the Pianning Commission (see case frleJ. Earl McManis, 5581 E. Edgemar Aven~~, Anaheim, CA 92807; He is concemed with the traffic congestion, the inadequate parking spaces and the parking area at the rear. (He submifted photos of the 01-20-99 Page 36 subject site.] On Santa Ana Canyon Road there is double parking at the corner of Avenida Margarita to unload for the restaurant in the street. ApplicanPs Rebuttal: Joseph Kung: Most the comments address the parking and traffic. They did do another parking and traffic report and studied specifically the situation in the Old Santa Ana Canyon Road. ThPy have the car count of Old Santa Ana Canyon Road and still find that they have adequate parking on-site to accommodate them. Regarding congestion. As a result of the study they do not feel the two buildings ~vill affect the traffic to Avenida Margarita. The major cause of the traffic congestion was actualiy the post o~ce. He has observed extensively the traffic pattern there. They believe they have handled the traffic and parking situation adequately, which was reviewed and approved by staff. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner Even though they reviewed the parking study that was completed they stili have a concern that there would be a certain time of the day that the~p is going to be congestion with people driving around, looking for a parking space. Specifically at the ;t end of the building where tr,ere are many small shops. There may be some additional parking t~ ~ northeast of the pr ~erty but in the majority of r,ases people do not parking a distance but rather ;ry to find parking closer to their destination. Commissioner Koos: He would accept the analysis based on the site in terms of the number of parking spaces and traffic if staff is comfortable with it but he has concerns with the configurat:on of the proposal. He was at Don Jose's on Sunday during the dinner hour. The parking lot was full and he tried tc envision another restaurant where Mr. f:ung is proposing it. He can not imagine where customers would parking in a convenient manner. He could concede that someone could park on the other side of the bank or on the other side of Domino's and walk, but did not think it is good urban design nor is it good for the Scenic Corridor area. This site appears to be treated in an incremental fashion and this project would only add to his existing concerns with th~ site as it currently stands. He also has some concerns with the historical marker and does not like what has happened over time with that issue. He believes in iiistoric preservation. In spite of the fact that Traffic Engineering staff are in agreement with the "one way issue" and the off-ramp at Imperial Hwy., he does not feel it works well. Commissioner Esping: He agreed with Commissioner Koos as well as the recommendation with staff in terms of the traffic confusion and the density of the number of people involved in that area. Commissioner Williarns: It does not appear that there is any sign organization nor conformity in that entire center. Chairman Bristol: The circulation inside the site with the new Building Y between the bank and :,un Jose's is so confusing that he could perceive probiems with that. He was hoping to see that addressed but it was not. The building was reduced but it still does not address the concerns regarding circulation. He noticed the length of the parking stalis have been reduce ~'own from 18 to 16 feet in order to keep the 24 foot setback from stall to stall. An automobile overhang in those stalis is going to cause a problem. Commissioner Bostwick: He realizes that these buildings have bee~ cut down to 1 story so they do not impact visually onto the neighborhood. He was at the site on Sunday night, had dinner at a nearby restaurant and there was no parking problem at that end at the time although at certain times of the day there is a parking probiem there. He cou~d not see how this expansion itself could create a detriment to the aesthetics or tra~c and add a significant amount of traffic. Perhap~ the restaurant pad in between may create a traffic problem. He tended to lean on going with part of this rather all of it. 01-20-99 Page 37 Commissioner Boydstun: They need to have room for two-way traffic going in and could not see how it could work having Building Y. They need that area for parking and for access and a two-way drive through there. John Kung: Regarding the historic marker. He has been working closely with the local historic society and there is a positive letter f~om the vice president of the society that feels that the move is actually better. Thus far everyone he has spoken with is in agreement in moving it. Commissioner Williams: The monumeht is not what is in question. John Kung: The building on Imperiai Hv,ry. which he proposed as a restauran- will no longer be a restaurant, it will be for retail only. Chairman Bristo!: The building in that area between the bank building and Don Jose's is so tight that he could not imagin .aking, for example, a 17 foot vehicle trying ingress off of Imperial and maneuver around that site with traffic coming i~wards you. If someone wants to go off of Imperial and go straight through the c~nter, they have to go through where the bank customers and pedestrians are headed and it is a great concern. John Kung: He is willing to increase the drive isle to whatever Commission feels is necessary. Chairman Bristoi: He felt that Building Y should not be there. The applicant is trying to fit something that does not fit the site. OPPOSITION: 2 paople spoke in opposition/correspondence was received in opposition ACTION: Denied Negative Declaration on the basis that there are potential significant environmental impacts generated by this expansion relative to parlcing, traffic, circulation, aesthetics, displacement of historical monuments, and noise. Vote: 6-1 {Commissioner Bostwick voted no) Denied Waiver of Code Requirement as follows: Denied waivers (a), (d), and (e) on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to this property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do no apply to other fdentically zoned properties in the viciniry to iustify these waivers, snd further that any waiver granted pertaining to these requirernents could be considered a special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the iirnediate vicinity. =Vote: 7-0) Uenied waiver (b) pertaining to minimum : iumber of parking spaces on the basis that parking and circulation could become congested as a consequence of the expansion of this commercial center. (Vote: 6-1, Commissioner Bostwick no) Denied waiver (c) on the basis that it was deleted following public notification. (Vote: 7-0) Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 4068 based on the following: 01-20-99 Page 38 (1) That approval of this request could adversely affect the adjoining land uses (predominan;ly residential properties to the narth and west) and the growth and development of the area in which it is located. (2) That the higher densfty of this proposed expansion, potential vehicular circulation congestion, the close proximity of the new buildings to other buildings, residential properties, and public rights-of-way, and the loss of existing mature landscaping could be detrimentai to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anahelm. (3) That the size of the property may be adequate to allow for tf~e expansion of the commercial retail center without the need for Code waivers, if properly designed. Othervvise, this property may have reached its ultimate development capacity. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Williams and MOTION CARRIED that pur•suant to Anaheim Municipal Code Se;.;ion 18.84.038.050, the Anaheim Ciry Planning Commission does hereby deny Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 98-04 based on the following: (1) That the reasonable and practicai development of the property on which this tree is located does not require removal of the tree. (2) That the topography of the building site does not render removal reasnnably necessary. (3) That this specimen tree removal is not required with regard to the safety of persons or property and the petitioner has not deinonstrated that the leaning eucalyptus tree poses a safety hazard. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 27 minutes (4:45-5:12) 01-20-99 Page 30 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUtREMENT Tc. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4080 7d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NQ. 98•09 OWNER: Anaheim Ball Landmark,1536 Stone Canyon Road, Los Angeles, CA 90077 AGENT: Travis Engineering, Attn: Karl Huy, 12453 Lewis Street #201, Garden Grove, CA 92840 LOCATION: 1120-1150 South Anaheim Boulevard - former DodQe deaiershia. Property is 1.18 acres located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road. To construct a service station and convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and an integrated fast food restaurant with a drive through lane with waivers of (a) permitted types of signs, (b) minimum distance between freestanding signs, (c) minimum landscape setback adjacent to an interior boundary line and (d) minimum number of parking spaces. To determine public convenience or necessiry to allow retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in a proposed service station convenience market. Continued frum the Commission meetings of December 21,1998 and January 4, 1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOI.UTION N0. PC99-16 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTiON N0. PC99-17 Approved Approved, in part Granted, in part Denied • e • • • e (Commissioner Williams declared a con8ict of interest.) ApplicanPs Statement: Karl Huy, Travis Engineering: They concur with the recommendations of staff report. Alfred Yalda, Principle Transportation Planner: On Condition No.17, page 10, they request that the applicant ailow an easement from 50 feet to 80 square feet. Karl Huy: They concur with that. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bristol: Asked if there was any reason why there was a dollar amount ($7,500) indicated? 01-20-99 Page 40 Alfred Yalda, Principle Transpcrtation Pianner: This project is wiihin an area that the tra~ic study was not applicable because of the construction around the fteeway. It would not really give the condition as far as the level of service would have been if they would have done a study due to the conversion of the traffic in the area. They looked at the area to see what improvements could be made. The most advance tra~c cabinet (2070) is available which would improve the traffic throughout the City. They are trying to attach more of these conditions into future projects. It is to upgrade the ;raffic signal at that intersection. The cost is not $7,500 total but rather over $30,000 but they spoke with the applicant which is on one comer of the intersection. They asked him to pay one quarter of the cost. They want to move the cabinet. It is currently on the southwest corner and they developed a new design which they hope they will be able to move all the traffic signal cabinets to an area which would be more desirable with the landscaping around them which will improve and enhance the City. This is a condition that will be seen more on new projects. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Read the following changes into the record: 1) All the trees ~n-site be 24-inch boxed rather than just those in the setback areas as indicated in Condition No. 3. 2) On Condition No. 11 add, that roof-mounted balloons and any other inflatable devises should not be permitted on this property. 3) Clarification on Condition No. 26, if the beer and wine is made a portion of this since this standard condition utilized in convenience market, staff wanted to ensure that the 35% of the grass sales is for the convenience market and does not add in the proposed Jack-In-The-Box. 4) Clarification on Condition No. 39, staff is requesting above ground exhaust vents for the underground tanks. It was not made clear fhat they would make sure that the exhaust vents are out of the setback and placed to the rear of the property. Additional conditions: Staff would recommend that the applicant wark with staff to make sure that the drive-through lane is screened as much as possible from Ball Road. Commission may wish to consider that before issuance of a permit for this application that the Planning Commission be able to review as a Reports and Recommendation item a plan for the remainder of the property. Karl Huy: Regarding the screening of the drive-through Iane from Ball Road. The drive-through lane will start running northbound towards the north property line and make a left and head to Anaheim Boulevard. Since the entrance to the drive-through lane is the only thing that faces Ball Road, he asked fur a clarification of what was being requFSted to be screened on the drive-through lane? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: They can work with the applicant on the landscaping that would be in the planter area adjacent to Bail Road to make sure it is bermed correctly and that there are no shrubbery or trees there ta screen it from westbound traffic. The transformer would neea to be out of ttie 10 foot setback area. Karl Huy: They can work with staff on this. The other item regarding the exhaust vents for the underground storage tanks, they have no problem with that providing it meets the requirements of the County, John Wise from the Fire Department and A.Q.M.D. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked Mr. Hastings to repeat the condition staff is requesting for fhe other property. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Staff's suggests that before a building permit is issued for this particular project that the Planning Commission be given an oppo~tunity to review as a Reports and Recommendation item the design for development of the remainder of the prope~ty to the north. It wculd demonstrate that these two properties could be integrated at some point in time. 01-20-99 Page 41 Kari Huy: Since they are not aware of what is going to happen on the reminder of the portion nor when it will occur, he feels it is an unjust requirement for their project to be held up depending upon what may occur in the future on that property. The Planning Commission has the authoriry to make sure that whatever is proposed on that remaining portion is integrated and appropriate. They are not aware of what or when it may be proposed for the remaining portion of the property. Commissioner Boydstun: This is a major intersection and it is going to be an entrance to downtown Anaheim. She is tired of looking at that old empty building but she is not sure whether a service station is quite what she had in mind at a corner such as this, particularly when there are so many service stations in the area. She certainly would not vote for the determination of public convenience or necessiry. She did not feel this is the appropriate location. Commissioner Koos: He concurred. He asked a representative of the Community Development Department to comment of their departmerYs position on this project. Laura Muna-Landa, Project Manager for the Redevelopment Agency: They have worked with a consultant looking at the whole Anaheim Boulevard stretch, from Cerritos to their Redevelopment Project Area. They have basically identified what they think are potential uses in certain areas. They had once hoped that corner could be used for additiona~ medical uses given the proximity to the hospital. Although given the shallow depth of the site they are not convinced that they will b~ abie to secure additional medical use facilities for that corner. It is their understanding that the hospitai has ample property on their site to do further development. Given that evaluating other potential uses, additional office and residential which both seem out of the question. While the intersection of Ball and Anaheim Boulevard does carry a great deal of traffic. It is not a major intersection that will support substantial commercial retail. As long as the Agency continues to work with the developer and they met last week with Mr. Ripinsky (with Continental Development), as long as the Agency stays involved in terms of overseeing the site design then they are comfortable with the use. (Chairman Bristol announced he was /eaving due to a flight that he had to catch and announced that Commissioner Boydstun would take over the public hearing.J Commissioner Koos: He commented that the lot sizes from the site all the way ~,p to downtown are rather narrow and asked what th: long term plan of Community Development was to improve the Corridor if it is all constrained by this issue? Laura Muna-Landa: That is correct. The parcels are very narrow, shallow lots and the Redevelopment Agency has been hampered by a number of things in terms of having very low tax increment in that area. So the feasibility of assembling parcels has been limited. Currently the Agency is underway doing extensive landscape improvement through that entire stretch. This is basically phase II of that effort where additional mediums will be seen which only address one aspect of that. They are also looking at larger opportunity sites which are further south near Cerritos. As opportunity presents itself of assembling larger sites they will look at those but now on a"piece-meal" basis. Commissioner Koos: This is coming on the heels of a recent discussion at the City Council level on gas stations in general. The memorandum from City staff shows that there are 7 gas stations within 1 mile and 3 existing within %: mile. He called the City of Irvine and asked their Senior Planner how many gas stations they have in their City and he indicated they have 10 serving 100,000 people and Anaheim has 7 within subject site. This gives credence to the City Council who are arguing that perhaps they should take a look at this issue. He is questioning the use at this site. Regarding the traffic on Anaheim Boulevard, once the street is completed, the street is very wide and once downtown is developed and active it will be the chief route from the I-5 Fwy. That is the last major arterial highway before getting to downtown. He thought that the long term vision should include a gateway into Anaheim. Laura Munda-Luna: Most of their action has been hampered by the limited tax increment in that area. One of the other things they are doing to help create a gateway to the downtown is in addition to th~e enhanced tree program that they are doing, they also have a signage program which will be installed 01-2Q-99 Page 42 probably with(n the month that leads you from the main freeways into the downtown. Anaheim Boulevard is one of the streets targeted for some signage leading into downtown. Commissioner Bostwick: He is correct that it does cut up a parcel that co~ld be put into a larger use but the problem is waiting for this use. If the parcei is cut then they will probably never have it but would this lend itself to bringing something else o° value and what wauld that be7 Given the industrial and residential neighborhood around it does it actually lend itself to something else? Commissioner Boydstun: There is a nearby hospital which looks very good and a soon to be a park nearby and there are 7 gas stations in that area. Commissioner Bostwick: He feli it would be ni~e to have a sit down restaurant such as a Norms Restaurant rather than all the fast foods that are at that intersection. Urie Ripinsky, Continental Development Group, 3878 Culver Cenfer, Culver City, CA: Stated he is one of the principals in the company that as of December 30th acquired this parcel from an ownership group that has owned it. Norms Restaurant just rejected the site today. They have had an enormous amount of leasing effort going into leasing this property to nationwide credit chain recognizable tenants. They have gone absolutely nowhere. As far as medical uses, there is no possibility of that since the health industry is essentially bankrupt. The same goes for other types of office uses. There is an office building just north of their property, on the corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Clifton. He could not build a building for what this building is selling for. The only thing that can be afrorded to be built at this site is commercial/retail/food development. The prior owner tried to lease it to a number of tenants and uses including motels that might support the Disneyland tours trade but it went absolutely nowhere. This property is currently permitted for under a conditional use permit not a gas station but a fueling station, paint and repair station for tour businesses. They closed on this property at the end of December 1998 because they thought that this entire development concept was welcome in the City. They went to the Redevelopment Agency indicating that they were interested in developing the property. They are not interested in any kind of friction and do not want what is not welcome. Let him know what they want and if they can afford to do it then they will build it. That is the attitude that they have had towards the City on this parcel. The biggest nationwide tenant that he could come up with to date is Starbucks. Starbucks was requesting major economic concessions. Starbucks pays $3.50 a square foot in most locations a month and they asked that he pay them for the first year. That is above and beyond also paying fur their tenant improvements such as plumbing, coffee machines, Formica, etc. and giving ;hem a termination right for the next 24 months before Starbucks would even consider going into this ~ite. This is the same Starbucks that opens 50 locations every quarter and he still has not received a signed lease from them. While he was trying to negotiate for this site Starbucks was already signe~' and opened in another location that they were involved with. The intersection has two freeway entrances and off ramps but he can't rent it "to save his life:' The reason why is that it is not big enough to have a critical mass of retail tenants where they can have other tenants come in. Not big enough to have a market and a drug store. Rite Aid passed on the deal four months ago. They were turned down by Walgreens Pharmacy Iast week. They have not approached markets because the property can not support a 40,000 to 50,000 square foot market. A warehouse does not want to come in because they have two locations down on State College. Chief Auto Parts just purchased a location down on Anaheim Boulevard. He can go through an extensive list of tena;~ts that they have approached and are still trying. He has four people who are doing nothing but trying to lease Anaheim. Without the Jack-In-The-Box lease they are broke. They have a monthly note on this property of $30,000. He realizes it is not the concern of the Commission but the problem is that no one could afford to do it since 1994. Without the income of the gas station Jsck-In-7he-8ox can not afford to pay the rent in order to defer some of the land costs so they can buy down the rents on the remaining portion. 01-20-99 Page 43 He realizes a gas station is not what they want but the fact is that this is a major intersection. This is a light industrial commercial section with two freeway on-ramps and off-ramps, that is how the City turned out. He can not materialize a tenant out of thin air and he has covered a lot of ground since June. Yesterday he was meeting a tenant at the site and he had to use the payphone at the 7-Eleven across the street. A gang of about six punk rockers came in and started a 4umble with one of the employees at the 7- Eleven. One of the punk rockers pulled down his pants at the corner in the middle of everyone and issued about 60 seconds wo~th of explicatives, threatened to come in and bust his head. Two police cars drove by, did not stop. He then hung up the pt~one and went across the street. All of the punk rockers went across the street to their property. They broke in while he was there and asked him what he was doing at the property. When h~a left it was 6:30 p.m. and this group was breaking into the corner building. Three motorcycle policemen were stopped at the corner and did nothing. When he left the punk rockers were still there. He felt that the parcel without 24 hour a day tenancy on that corner will continue to be vandalized. His point is that yes there is a 7-Eleven across the street, they are open 24 hours a day and they are not stopping those punk rockers from ~oming onto their property, they can't and won't because there is no reason to but a tenant that is open and has an economic interest and have lights on 24 hours a day is the best way this City has to keep vandalism out of that corner. There needs to be a public and private partnership for this corner to be successful. Commissioner Koos: Asked what type of negotiations have they had with the Redevelopment Agency working as a private pubiic partnership? Urie Ripinsky: They asked the Redevelopment Agency what they wanted on that corner. Last week they had a meeting to update the Agency on tenants that they have been looking at,. The meeting was initiated because he approached the Agency and indicated that he was having a difficult time with tenants and asked who they had in mind. There was a listed created and Norms Restaurant was one of the tenants, the next morning when he cantacted them and today they were turned down. He also contacted Denny's, Carrows, Coco's because they ident;fied those kinds of restaurants as potentials as well. If they had some idea of what he could build and make economic sense of it then he would be happy to do it. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked what Norms Restaurant and the other restaurants reason for their response on this property? Urie Ripinsky: Norms just opened up an operation on Euclid and LaPalma and it is within three miles. They have a minimum of three mile radius that they have to honor. The representative for Denny's has been waiting for him for an hour at the corner and hopefully is still there. Carrows and Coco's, they are worl:ing on their new 1999 plan and next week they are calling to meet with him. This is an ongoing battle. The reason they are reluctant to honor the Planning DepartmenYs request to on the rest of the property is that they do not know who iheir tenants are going to be. Chairman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Asked if this was approved would it be without the beer and wine7 Urie Ripinsky: The beer and wine is not an issue. Commissioner Koos: He is not unsympathetic to his situation, however he is concerned that if they do not plan long range what uses they want in this area then years from now there may be an over-concentration of uses or mixed uses that are undesirable. Urie Ripinsky: He realizes that it is difficult to try to plan ahead but unless there is a very defined focus of what is wanted there then it is not going to appear by default. Commissioner Koos: If the Redevelopment Agency is going to set up a planning area then they should have a good idea of what they want there. 01-20-99 Page 44 Urie Ripinsky: He has found Redevelopment Agency to be very cooperative and very helpful. They also came to discuss other areas that they wculd like redeveloped properties in the event that they can figure out a use for those properties that would work. Each property because of its size and location is difFerent. The Redevelopment Agency can not materialize tenants out of thin air - they are not a brokerage company. Chairman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: She felt Mr. Ripinksky has some good points regarding cleaning up the area. Commissioner Bostwick: If Redevelopment had taken in some of the residential and actually included a larger area along Anaheim Boulevard then it could have been condemned and c4mbined into larger parcels that wculd then create the development that they are looking for. Chairman Pro-Tempore Boydstun: Redevelopment needs to work with the Police Department to make them proactive because the problems are true all over town. Laura ~Aunda-Luna: She gets the sense that they may feel that the Agency has not been progressively working on that area. While there is not a lot of activity on south Anaheim Boulevard, they have looked at that whole stretch rather extensively and they are looking to target larger commercial or industrial on the southern end. They are looking at the intersections as being the best opportunity for neighborhood serving commercial. Going further north towards dawntown because of smaller parcel are trying to do further residential to the north. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement as follows: Approved waiver (b) pertaining to minimum distance between freestanding signs, based on the irregular configuration of this propefty, and that there are special circumstances appiicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. Denied waivers (a), (c), and (d) on the basis that these waivers were deleted subsequent to advertisement. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 4080 denying the retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption with the following changes to conditions of approval: Deleted Condition Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 related to alcohol sales Modified Condition Nos. 3, 11, '17 and 39 to read as follows: That 24-inch box sized trees shall be planted in the landscape plarters immediately adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Roa~l at 20 feet on-center (maximum) in accordance with City standa~ds and that all other trees on site shall also be 24-inch box. Said information shail be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 11. That roof-mounted balloons and any other inflatable devices shall not be permitted on this property. 17. That the applfcant shall provide an easement to the City of Anahelm for 01-20-99 Page d5 approximately eighty (80) square feet to the rear oF the required landscaped setback area along Ball Road for the relocation of the traffic controller cabinet. The plan for this area, including landscaping to'screen the cabinet, shall be submitted and approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and the Zoning Division. 33. That any above-ground exhaust vents in conjunction with the service station facility shail be located outside of the setback and placed Yo the rear of the property and shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. P(ans shall also identify the specific treatment of each vent (i.e. landscape screening, color of vents, materials, etc.) and shail be subject to the review and aporoval of the appropriate City departments. Added the following condition: That the applicant shall work with staff to make sure that the drive-through lane is properly screeneo from Ball Road Avenue. Vote: 4-1 (Commissioner Koos voted no, Commissioner Williams declared a conflict of interest and Chairman Bristol absent) Denied Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 98-09 based on the following: (1) That the Anaheim Police Department indicated that an additional ABC license in Census Tract No. 874.02 would create an undue over-concentrat~on of licenses in this area (6 permitted; 11 currently issued), and further that the subject property is located within a reporting district which has a crime rate 2'18% above the City average. (2) That the Community Development is recommending denial of this request based on the goals of the Redevelopment Plan. (3) That the petitioner has not demonstrated that this request w~~uld serve to benefit the public in terms of convenience or necessity. Vote: 5-0 (Commissioner Williams declared a conflict of interest and Chairman Bristol absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 47 minutes (5:13-6:00) 01-20-99 Page 46 8a. CEQA NEGA7IVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLI'-APPROVEDj Request for 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REgUIREMFNT withdrawal. 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PcRM1T Nt~. 4081 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Wells ~~~r~e ciank, 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90071 AGENT: Brett Marchi, 2 Strawberry Lane, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 1025 East Orangethor~e Avenue - CM School SUDp~V. Properry is 1.67 acres located on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, 193 feet west of the centerline of Raymond Avenue. To permit and retain a 40-foot high pole sign in conjunction with a previously-approved commercial school supply, showroom and warehouse business in lhe ML (Limited industrial) Zone with waiver of a) permitted type of signs, b) maximum area of freestanding signs, c) maximum height of freestanding signs and d) maximum sign width. CONGITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. • • • e • e ApplicanYs Statement: Brett Marchi, architect and representative for CM School Supply, 2 Strawberry Lane, San Juan Capistrano, CA: 7he applicant has asked whether this item could be acted on now since it was a request for a withdrawal? Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: She did not think there wouid be a problem with that. The matter is set for a hearing at 2:30 p.m. and it is past the time that it was set for the hearing so it is now within the Planning Commission's discretion. Chairman Bristol: Asked if there was anyone present regarding Item No. 8. ~)'here was no response.J He explained that since this item is a witrdrawal then Commission is going to act on this item at this time. Brett Marchi: They are requesting withdrawal of this ~pp;ication because the found that the sign was approved. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a metion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request to withdraw the request to permit and retain the existing 40-foot high pole sign based on Commission's concurrence with staff regarding the legal non-conforming status of the sign which establishes compliance with cor.dition of approval no. 2 of this conditional use permit. VOTE: 7-0 ~ISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (2:48-2:49) 01-20-9~ Page 47 ADJOURNED AT 6:00 P.M. TO I-AONDAY, FEBRiJARY 1,1999 AT 9:00 A.M. FOR A RE7AIL STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WORKSHOP PRESENTATION FOR'PHE PLANNING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONS BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT THE CITY COUNCIL CHRMBERS. Submitted by: ~ ..oa.,, a~ ~-^^~u~-.~cs~~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary ~Ou.~tt~ ~~ Edith Harris Planning Commission Support Supervisor 01-20-99 Page 48