Loading...
Minutes-PC 1995/01/23ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 23,1995 11:00 A.M. - PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARINGS BEGIN (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE, PERAZA, TAIT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Greg Hastings Selma Mann Jonathan Borrego Melanie Adams Greg McCafferty Bruce Freeman Alfred Yalda Edith Harris Margarita Solorio Zoning Division Manager Deputy City Attorney Senior Planner Associate Civil Engineer Associate Planner Code Enforcement Supervisor Principal Transportation Planner Planning Commission Support Supervisor Sr. Word Processing Operator PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. The proponents in appliptions~ Ifdin the opinion' of the IlCorunission such additional timeewill produce evidelnceal time will be granted upon req Important to the CoruNssian's consideration. 2. In contested appligtkxu, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present their case unless determined by the lenugth of dme a pa~rddpaent speaks, butt rather by whatt IsesaiC~ssian's considerations are not 3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in each hearing. Copies are available to the pubiic prior to the meeting. 4. The Cortunission wi!f withheld questions until the public hearing is dosed. 5, The Commission reserves fhe right to deviate from the foregoing if, in its opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. 6. photographs or other acceptablePvlsual repr Dons orrnvon~documen~hdry evidence, shalldbe retained g by the Corunission for the public record and shall be available for public inspections. 7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public wiA be allowed to speak on items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Corrvnisslon, and/or agenda Items. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. AC012395.wp 01123/95 Page 1 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. COD'~ITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3217- REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR Approved EXT~;?VSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF (to expire 1-23-96) APPROVAL: Frank Vandenberg, American Realty Advisors, 700 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale, Ca 91203 requests a one year extension of time to comply with conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3217 (to construct a 750-room hotel) to expire January 23, 1996. Property is located at 2061 S. Harbor Bivd. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 487 1122 1238 3241 AND Terminated 3255 AND VARIANCE NOS 555 AND 3290 -REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Tarsadia Inc., 650 Town Center Dave, Swte 1910, Costa Mesa CA 92628, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 487 (to establish a clubhouse, bar restaurant, beer- garden, and dancing with continuous use of office space), Conditional Use Permit No.1122 (to permit a car rental agency in an existing building), Conditional Use Permit No. 1238 (to permit an office use with waiver of minimum required building height), Conditional Use Permit No. 3241 (to permit a 12-story, 364 unit hotel), Conditional Use Permit No. 3255 (to permit a 130-r• ~~m, 6-story hotel), Variance No. 555 (to establish California Highway Patrol Headquarters) and Variance No. 3290 (waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to expand an existing motel). Subject property is located at 1742, and 1754 S. Clementine Street, 1730, 1733, 1743 and 1755 S. Zeyn Street, 1733 and 1745 S. Anaheim Blvd., and 201 W. Katella Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC95-6 Recommended C. CODE AMENDMENT N0.95-02 -CODE AMENDMENT ado tion to the City PERTAINING TO "L" WORDS TERMS AND PHRASES. P Requested by the City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 S. a public hear ngfied Anaheim Bivd., Anaheim, CA 92805. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a Motion seconded by Commissioner Messe and ,41OTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend adoption to the City Council with the specification that the parcels of land referred to in items (2) and (3) of the "Lot" definition shall be specified as "legal" parcels as defined in the Subdivision Map Act. 01/23195 Page 2 2a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.281 _(PREVIOUSLY Approved CERTIFIED). Approved 2b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0.15074 (READVERTISED) OWNER: THE BALDWIN CO., Attn: Ron Freeman, 16811 Hale Avenue, i,-vine, CA 92714 AGENT: HUNSAKER & ASSOCIAI"ES, Three Hughes Road, Irvine, CA 92718 LOCATION: The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-21. Property is approximately 7.9 acres located at the northwest comer of Oak Canyon Drive and Running Springs Road and further described as Tentative Tract Map No. 15074 within Development Area 203 and 204 of The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2). Petitioner requests approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15074 to establish a 7.9 acre, 41-lot single-family subdivision including 4U residential lots and one open space lot. Continued from the December 12, 1994 and January 9, 1995 Planning Commission meetings. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Ron Freeman, Vice President, Baldwin Company, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Found previously-approved EIR 281 adequate to serve as environmental documentation for this request. (Findings in Paragraph No. 12 of the staff report.) Approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15074 Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 15074 fora 41-lot, single-family subdivision subject to the following conditions: (Findings in Paragraph No. 16 and 17) 1. Street improvement plans for Oak Canyon Drive, from Weir Canyon Road to the east 01123/95 Page 3 specific plan boundary, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Bonds for said improvements shall be posted in an amount approved by the City Engineer and a form approved by the City Attorney. The street improvement plans must be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the final tract map. 2. That prior to final tract map approval, the petitioner shall submit additional information on exterior building materials for review and approval by the Zoning Division. 3. That prior to final tract map approval, Condition Nos.1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 4. That the developer shall be responsible for complying with all applicable conditions of Ordinance No. 4977 pertaining to development within the Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan. 5. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the ~sxtent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable laity, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 7-0 Malcolm Slaughter presented the 10 day right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. 01 123195 Page 4 3a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY Approved APPROVED) amendment to 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3700 conditions of (READVERTISED) approval OWNER: TEJAS PARTNERS, LTD., ATTN: J. WAYNE ALLEN, 22755 Savi Ranch Parkway, Suite G, Yorba Linda, CA 92687 LOCATION: 1551 South Douglass Road. Property is approximately 7.3 acres located on the west side of Douglass Road approximately 690 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. To arriend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to required iai ~dscaping. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC95-7 FOLLOWING IS ASUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Wayne Allen, Agent, was present to answer any questions. The Public Hearing was Clus~~d. Commissioner Henninger asked if this parking loc is being parked using event parking procedures and if those procedures require that they have an unimpeded flat area in which to direct the cars. He was concerned that others might s~:e this as the Commission waiving the normal landscaping requirements for just any parking lot. Jonathan Borrego, Senirr Planner, stated he would agree that is the reason based on staffs observations and the observations of others. Commissioner Messe pointed out there was assurance that the west side of the lot would be landscaped as shown on the plans. Mr. Allen responded they ultimately developed the lot pursuant to plans acquired from the City and those plans did not indicate a tree line across the western boundary; however, when they came forward with a short version of the plan, staff required the tree line. He added they would like to not have to put that tree line on the western boundary, particularly due to the fact that there is a significant tree growth area in the Caltrans right of way along the northern half of the property which completely blocks the slope and the freeway. Commissioner Henninger clarified that the original response was agreeing to plant along the western 01123/95 Page 5 edge of the property and that it might have been a "reluctant agreement", but they did agree. Mr. Allen responded that they do agree and added the reason they originally agreed -- Commissioner Henninger asked ff they still agree to plant the trees on the western boundary .and Mr. Allen responded they do agree to do it. Commissioner Henninger stated the Commission would like to have that landscaping and 'd the applicant is .c;ireeable, then the Commission can go forward with the approval of this requ~at today, but if he stiii wants to discuss it, then the Commission cannot go forward. Mr. Allen stated again they will agree to plant the trees, but wanted the reason understood and that is that the City's origin,:! plans did not provide for it, but if the Commission requires it, they will compry. ACTION: Fo~!nd the previously-approved Negative Declaration adequate to serve as the required environmental dozcumentation for this request. (Findings in Paragraph No. 9 of the staff report.) Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC95-7. modifying Conditional Use Permit No. 3700, as readvertised, deleting Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. PC94-97 and adding the following condition: That the west edLL~° of the property shall be landscaped according to plans. VOTE: 7-0 Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented written right to appeal Commission's decision within 22 days. 01123!95 Page 6 4a. CEf~A EXEMPTION 15061 Coi(31 No action 4b. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMR N0.94-02 Approved OWNER: SANDRA L. VANSOYE AND DARREN J. VANSOYE, 555 S. Avenida Faro, Anahei~~~, CA 92807 LOCATION: 555 South Avenida Farn_ Properly is approximately 0.3 acre located on the west side of Avenida Faro and approximately 680 feet south of the centerline of Nohl Ranch Road. To permit the removal of one sycamore tree. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Sandra Vansoye, owner, explained the tree was existing when they purchased the home and was really overgrown and had not been properly cared for. They have tried to get it trimmed but it is out of control and has broken the brick planter where it is planted and is doing a lot of damage. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. She also explained they will plant two replacement trees on the property. ACTION: Commissioner Caldwell offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and Motion Carried approving Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 94-02, on the basis that regard for the safety of person or property requires the removal and that the specimen tree removed shall be replaced with the planting of two trees from the specified list contained within the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. VOTE: 7-0 Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented written right to appeal Commission's decision within 22 days. 01 /23195 Page 7 5b. CONDITTIONAL USE PERMITTNON3715 (PREVI (READVERTiSED) ) OWNER: SNOYMAN DEVELOPMENT, INC., 801 S. Anaheim Bivd., Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: J. R. Haxton, INC., P. O. BOX 2815, Orange, CA 92669 LOCATION: 801 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.?7 acres located at the southw,es- comer of South Street and Anat;eim Boulevard. Petitioner requests modification or deletion of conditions of approval pertaining to the use of unenclosed hydraulic lifts and working outdoors in an approved automotive complex. CONDITIONAL, USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. _.?C95-8 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE i'.I.ANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Apprcved Approved amendment to conditions cif approval Mark Snoyman, owner, explained they would like to add the use of two outside hydraulic lifts in an automotive-related complex. The lifts have been there since they purchased the property 13 months ago and for at least 5 or 6 years prior to that. The outside lifts are used on a limited basis and the people who use them do have indoor facilities but certain vehicles are too large to go inside. That is the reason they want to be able to use these lifts which are not really within public view. There are four lifts on the property and two are on South Street and those will not be used and they would be visible from the str~aet if they were used. The two in the middle of the complex are the ones they want to be ablA to utilize. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe asked the height of the lifts and also the height of the vehicles which would be worked on at these lifts. Mr. Snoyman responded he believed the maximum on the lifts is six feet and the trucks would be at least 12 feet high because that is the ceiling height of the indoor facilities. He added unfortunately they have a large customer who has a plumbing business and some of his vehicles have large bodies. Commissioner Messe clarified that the top of the truck would be 18 feet from the ground but the line of sight prohibits that from being seen from any public street. Mr. Snoyman stated there is a high wall around the building. 01/23195 Page 8 ACTION: Commi:~sioner Messe offi~~red a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTIOIW CARRIED that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as: the required environmental documentation for this request. (Findings in Parage IYo. 9 of the staff` repart.) Commissioner Messe offered Resolution No. PC 95- 8 granting Conditional Use Permit No. 3715, as readvertisesd, on the basis that these lifts will not be seen from any public street or alley, amending Condition Nos. 8 and 9 of Resolution No. PC94-123 to read as follows: "8. That no outdoor starage of, display of, or work on vehicles or vehicular parts shall be permitted, excaot on the existino unenclosed lifts. 9. That the outdoor lifts shall only be utilized by existing tenants within the repair complex and shall not be leased out to a separate user." VOTE: 7-0 Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented written right to appeal Commission's decision within 22 days. 01 /23195 Page 9 Approved 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Granted 6b. CONDRIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3736 OWNER: ROLLINS LEASING, ONE ROLLINS PLAZA, P.O. BOX 1791, Wilmington, DE 19899 AGENT: JEFF ADAMS (Designers Collective), 1201 Park Avenue, #204, East Maryville, CA 94608 LOCATION: 1635 South State College Boulevard. Property is approximately 6.97 acres located on the west side of State College Boulevard and approximately 250 feet south of the centerline of Babbitt Avenue To establish a truck rentaVleasing and maintenance facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUYION NO. PC95.9 FOLLOWING IS ASUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. 1N FAVOR: 1 person spoke OPPOSITION: None Jeff Adams, agent, was p~esont to answer any questions. He explained they are relocating Rollin's current facility on Ball Road to this new site. Paul Seltzer, owner of property between that property and the railroad, stated he would welcome this use to that property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Tait stated he noticed there is a 20,000 gallon above-ground diesel tank and asked why it is not below ground. Mr. Adams responded they are going below ground, and explained that was prior to having discussions with the Fire Department. ACTION: MOTIONICARRIED for approvaldof thelNegative Declarationm (Find'ngs i 'Paragraph No. 15 of the staff report.) Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC 95-9 granting Conditional Use Permit No. 3736 with the following changes to conditions: (Findngs in Paragraph No. 18 of the staff report). Modified Condition No. 3 to read: 3. That the front landscaped setback shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in width, 01123195 Page 10 shall include a minimum 3-foot high landscaped earthen berm and shall be planted and irrigated with minimum fifteen (15) gallon sized trees located on maximum twenty (20) foot centers, provided, however, that the City Traftic and Transportation Manager may modify this requirement to ensure adequate vehicular and pedestrian visibility. Added the following conditions: That the diesel storage tank shall be installed underground. Jonathan Borrego asked that Condition No. 3 be modified to read as shown above and that two new conditions be added as follows: That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a letter requesting termination of Variance No. 4077. That a rolflng wrought iron gate shall be installed adjacent to the S-foot high block wall. Mr. Adams responded to Commissioner Henninger that they agree with the proposed conditions as modified and added. VOTE: 7-0 Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented written right to appeal Commission's decision within 22 days. 01123195 Page 11 !~ ~, ,,, +~ i Approved ' Ta. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION gpproved 7b. WAIVER OF CODE RE ~;irr2EMENT Granted Tc. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3737 OWNER: GILBERT - lA PALMA PROPERTIES, Attn: Stephen Claman, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, CA 90067 AGENT: JOEL COLOMBO, P. 0. BOX 17~, ;, Wrightwood, CA 92397 LOCATION: 1134 1136 and 1160 North Gilbert Street. Property is approximately 6.9 acres located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street. To permit the expansion of an existing non-industrial training center in conjunction with a radioltelevision broadcasting, and audio-video production studio including live studio audience participation with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC95.10 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None with thel~ quest whichWSn onsistent with the prev~ous waiverplaCUP 32231is intellect t days+Hecmade he following comments: a . Page 5 of the staff report - No. 10, they assigned the values of square footage and types of use for the building which they are presently using as being the highest, the assembly building. There is not a parking ratio estahblished for the other buildings that were used in the ML Limited zone (industrial uses) for the recording studio, broadcasting facilities (radio and television). They did a traffic study because there was not a book value to assign and on which to assess the total number of 500 required parking spaces. Upon the assessment when they did (;+e traffic study, thA required use was 401 cars, and with the 7-day test, field observation was sufficient. He explained he did not want the Commission to rely on the 500 since, in fact, it was not a book value for the number of required spaces. Chairwoman Boydstun pointed out the City Traffic Engineer is recommending approval of the 401 spaces. Mr. Colombo responded he understood that but that he also understood the Commission has the right to override the Traffic Engineer's recommendation and he wanted to reir+force that recommendation, so 01!23195 Page 12 there is a good support of understanding how that number was deterrninRd. He continued: b_ There is mention on the parking on Page 6 (19e) that the use of off-street parking was not required and added it was observed the off-site parking as being a sign of over-usage. This facility has not been required to use the off-site parking to maintain their density in the buildings. They, in fact, could use all of the parking spaces on site to meet their needs without a problem. However, any observed off- site parking has been used strictly as a luxury and a convenience to the occupants. c_ To reinforce the environmental impact analysis, page 5, No. 13, reassessing the density of users in more buildings is not going to impact the environment any greater than it has been. The Fish and Game Department has reviewed it, as well as Planning, and they have determined that a Negative Declaration would be consistent with the previous Negative Declaration on Cup 3223. d_ Page 7, Item 20a, reads that the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code or that the said use is not listed therein as being a permitted use. He stated under the ML Limited industrial zone, those uses they are expanding are, in fact, permitted under the radiol television broadcastinglrecording studios, so they are, in fact, part of an already existing permitted use. e_ Item 20b - as a reinforcement, the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. During the last five years, there has not bean any negative impacts for the use. Even though they are diversifying the amount of density into the other buildings, they are not creating any detrimental effects for the adjoining land uses. f_ Item 20c -the use has been consistent with keeping the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the internal and neighboring bodies. g. Page 9, No. 6 -referred to the condition that prior to commencement of activity, the owner shall offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim a corner cutoff at the northeastern comer of La Palma Avenue and Gilbe ement th O shows exactly thteng easement or dedication, they do not have any supp reason, or description for that comer cutoff and they would like some elaboration. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, stated the applicant was not able to attend the Interdepartmental Committee Meeting where these matters are clarified. The corner cutoff is needec' for the new handicapped access ramp. It needs a larger flat area in the back of the ramp and the size of the cutoff is measured from the curb, 15 feet up Gilbert and 15 feet across La Palma and then draw a triangle to the other side and that shows the dimensions of the comer cutoff needed. Mr. Colombo asked if Engineering would provide a formal delineated description from the Public Works Department. 01123/95 Page 13 WorksdEngineerpingdwou depreplare the description and a sketch and the ownerpwlouldtrev ew 'i before~c signing on the dedication. Mr. Colombo continued: h_ Page 9, No. 7 -prior to the issuance of the building permit, sewer capacity mitigation fees which total about X4,212 for expansion of the building area are required and that in this case, sine they are not increasing the occupancy load from the original 400 and not adding any more bathrooms or any units to establish this kind of impact, this would be an unnecessary hardship. He asked the reason for this requirement. Ms. Adams stated the use of the property is going from what is really an industrial building to more of a commercial use and staff foresees a higher sewer loading for the expansion area and that is not the entire site or building. She added the sewers in that area are getting overloaded and the City has developed a Master Plan of that area and the City needs to have mitigation fees as the properties get more intense uses. Mr. Colombo asked if they could substantiate 4.hat requirement since the traffic study is not showing bringing in additional cars or bodies to the area and this is, in fact, not a commercial use but still consistent with the ML limited industrial. Based on "hat, without adding any additional units or density, that fee should be waived for the expansion of the area. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated the study that was submitted was only analyzing the parking and usually this type of use generates more traffic than a regular industrial use, so they are intensifying the use of the property from Industrial use. Mr. Colombo asked if there is going to be a certified intensity increase to the expansion and not just a "guesstimated" commerciallindustrial figure so that it would be fair to his client and that would just be for what they use. i_ Page 8, No. 5 -prior to the commencement of activity, sidewalks shall be installed Tong La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer. He stated when they did the traffic study, it did not mention an additional influx of pedestrian use. Where there is not a demand, he did not believe they should be required to install sidewalks. Five years ago there was a temporary waiver of sidewalks on Gilbert based on the expansion of the overpass to I-5 and that overpass has not been installed. He read a letter from Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works, City of Anaheim dated Febn~ary I, 1990, granting that sidewalk waiver. He added they would like to add that contingency to this project since the overpass has not been constructed. Commissioner Messe stated that may not be under the Commission's jurisdiction, but under the Public Works Director's jurisdiction. Mr. Colombo responded he would like to work it out with them, but if it is within the Commission's power to not require installation of the sidewalks when there has not been a need for the last five 01123195 Page 14 edestrian use. It would be years. The expansion according to the traffic report is not increasing any p a hardship to his client and could even stalemate the expansion and development of this project completely. It is an undue hardship and he understands the owner does not wish to provide any funds to these improvements. Without the increased need for the sidewalks, he did not see why that has to ~ be a mandatory requirement. I Chairwoman Boydstun stated she did not think that is something the Commission can waive. 1 Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission is in a position to impose the condition, requiring the installation of the sidewalks, but it is up to the City Engineer to grant waivers of that requirement. Commissioner Meese added if the Commission doesn't impose that condition, City Engineering can 1 rescind the letter. Mr. Slaughter stated obviously in this case, it may well be that pedestrian traffic in this area has ~ increased enough so that staff thinks sidewalks are warranted regardless of the intensification of use on site. He added they have had the benefit of a waiver for all these years, and if the City now thinks the sidewalk is necessary, they have to provide it. Melanie Adams stated Condition No. 5 and be modified to delete the references to LaPalma Avenue and that is because the sidewalk is on the south side of the current overcrossing over La Palma, so the person could r ~oss over at Gilbert. She added they want to leave in the reference to Gilbert Street. The waiver on La Palma is temporary and when the I-5 is widened and the permanent overpass is constructed, the property owner will be expected to put in the sidewalks on LaPalma at that time. Concerning Gilbert Street, if a person was walking to this facility or coming on the. bus, they 1 should be able to fully come on Gilbert on the sidewalk and not have to walk in the street or the parking lot. There may be persons with disabilities who are coming by bus and we would like them to be able to get to the facility on a sidewalk. The parking study does not adclress pedestrian movement at all and only addresses parking. Commissioner Messe noted Gilbert Street dead ends at that fteeway and there is no plan for an overcrossing there. Ms. Adams responded that is correct, but staff is looking for the sidewalk to get them to this facility and back down to La Palma. Mr. Colombo stated there has been some indication that there has been some increase or influx of pedestrian traffic and the study did not point that out. He added there is a statement which could be made available which indicates that there has not been any pedestrian traffic requiring the sidewalk. He added he did not have any problem if there is going to be an implied requirement, such as a sidewalk, if there is a need, but if there really isn't a valid need, he thought it is unjustifiable. Also, concerning the environmental impacts and CECIA requirements, the strip available along the Gilbert is only wide enough for the trees and that is going to be a visible screening for the industrial park. It will not only be a loss of enhancement, but it will have an environmental impact to provide a sidewalk and there is not a need to justify the use. Ms. Adams stated Gilbert Street is designated as .:s::ndustrial street in the Circulation Element and according to Public Works standards, calls fora 5-1l2 foot wide sidewalk with no provisions for trees. The trees are currently within the public right of way and actually should not be there. VVhile they are beautiful, that is not the place they are suppcsed to be. The full intent for that area is to have a public Q1123195 Page 15 sidewalk. Mr. Colombo stated regardless if there is no consideration for trees on that industrial street, he did not see a reason to take out the trees and install a sidewalk unless there is proven to be a use for it at this time. if there is a condition stating that they improve the property in ttae easement for the sidewalk, then so be it, tiut he thought there should be a justifiable need before- that condition is imposed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Messe asked if currently they are using the facility to house some 4.80 people on Thursday nights. Mr. Colombo responded, "yes, there is a conditional use permit in place right now (No. 3223) and they are housing that many people. Commissioner Messe asked if he felt there is no pedestrian traffic there at ail and Mr. Colombo responded there has not been any for the last five years and that is why they did the formal study. Commissioner Messe pointed out that study really did not address that issue. Edward Perez indicated he wished to speak in favor of this request. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. PAr. Perez, representing Heritage IntEmational, stated together their team was very instrumental in p;:tting together this actual use report to answer any questions. This operation has brought many good facets to the community and the type of operation and services they offer are community based, free service based, and the actual broadcasting or the radio programs are programs that are recorded an site but are taken to a studio. Therefore, they do not create any electrical interference with any type of satellite or dishes on site. They have been established for the last five years and have engaged in another three year commitment, along with the City of Anaheim, the landlords, and have had a tremendous rapport with the City management and they have not had any difficulties in the past five years. He added they develop beneficial programs, humanitarian aide programs, and it is free to the community a~~~ any added costs literally could affect the operation financially and the proceeds are directly for comrwnity base. There is a children's program, whether it be community service on Easter Sunday, they provide goods and food for needy families, etc. They do not attract a large crowd of people to congregate around their operation. 80% of their business in the day time is that of business administration. He added as one of the executive members of the operation, he would request that the Commission assist them in the process of maintaining this goodwill effort for the community. Ms. Adams stated the sidewalk installation c~~st is $2.50 to $3.00 per square foot along the frontage on Gilbert Street, and the total is $14,0^0 to $15,000 for 800 feet of 5-112 to 6-foot sidewalk. She responded to Mr. Slaughter's questic that that is the cost of construction, and does not include removal of any existing trees, etc. It was noted the expansion area is about 8000 sq. ft., so there is a total of about $25,000 for sewer 01123195 Page 16 capacity mitigation fees and sidewalk improvements. Commissioner Mayer asked how the disabled currently access the site ;f there is no disabled access with sidewalks. Mr. Colombo responded currently access to the property has been by vehicle and at this time there is no public transportation bringing people to the site. Commissioner Mayer asked what percentage of people coming to the facilities are Anaheim residents. Mr. Colombo responded he did not have that information. Alfred Yalda stated their parking study Indicates that there is a bus stop there. Mr. Perez stated approximately 5 to 7% of the people are ftom Anaheim and based on fneir tracking system, a large percentage come from Woodland Hills, Sylmar, Santa Fe Springs, Downey, Bellflower, Long Beach, etc. They do have one handicap employee who has his own transportation and there are handicap parking s;~aces allowing access for employees with no difficulties. They do provide a service, either by commuter van, or by family membership, and those who are handicap come by family vehicle. They have never had a complaint or challenges in that area. Commissioner Tait asked about the temporary waiver for sidewalks and whether there was a time limit on it? Ms. Adams responded that was connected to the widening of the I-5 freeway and there will be a permanent overpass on LaPalma. Currently, the construction of that segment of I-5 is scheduled to start sometime in 1997 or 1998, but with the County crisis, things may be pushed back. Mr. Slaughter explained once the waiver is granted, it may be rescinded as :he City's needs dictate. Commissioner Tait clarified that the applicant does not expect any larger number of people to use this facility with this expansion than the current n~.imber using it. Mr. Colombo stated according the study and the space they have allocated, this is the maximum space, other than to reallocate spaces fog the internal use of each department to have their own spaces, they cannot expand any further, per parking and seating requirements. lie added he can get information from their study and he can provide that in writing, indicating that from :snannounced observation, there has not been any pedestrian use to that site requiring the sidewalk Commissioner Mayer stated the auditorium or assembly area which has the capacity for 400 people could have two or three different situations in one day, which means 1200 people coming and going from this site in one day. The parking spaces could be re~:sed numerous times in one day. Mr. Colombo stated this is scheduled on a conditional use permit, so they are limited to only those hours for assemblies. Commissioner Mess.- asked if there is a sidewalk on the Calcomp side of Gilbert Street. Chairwoman Boydstun asked if the expansion is in the auditorium area? Mr. Colombo responded the auditorium area is not expanding. The offices and different age level 01/23195 Page 17 areas in different portions and in different adjacent buildings are expanding. He also answered that those facilities are equipped with restrooms. Commissioner Henninger stated he thought the applicant is not correct to speak of these sidewalks in terms of their need by this particular use. He thought the City of Anaheim has determined that sidewalks are a public safety issue within the City generally and he thought it was a reasonable requirement, in general, to require property owners, as a condition of development, to install those sidewalks without regard to th© exact connection betn~een the specific use and the sidewalk:.. He did not think that was a reasonable argument. He thought it is a reasonable argument to consic'er whether now is the appropriate time to install a sidewalk along Gilbert, particularly since there is a line of trees There which might be nice to save for a little awhile longer. He suggested maybe leaving this condition in and suggest the applicant use the normal waiver procedures. Ms. Adams noted there are no sidewalks on the west side of Gilbert Street (the Calcomp property). She added she will review the request for a waiver with the Division Manager. Commissioner Henninger stated obviously the City is open to allowing a waiver, and that they have waived this requirement in the past because it was not timely. h4s. Adams stated the condition can be modified related to La Palma and that can be removed from this request, but she felt because of the use they are requesting, sidewalks on Gilbert Street would be appropriate at this time. Jonathan Borrego added ff the Commission is going to be taking action on this request, he would like to recommend modifications to Conditions 1, 5, 9, and 10 as shown below. Commissioner Henninger asked if the sewer fee for a change in use was paid originally for'.he existing area. Ms. Adams explained the change in use fee was not paid with CUP No. 3223 because the area Master Plan had not been completed at that time. Commissioner Henninger clarified the sewer fee originally was based on an industrial use and there has never been a fee paid for this change in use. He added the argument that they are simply spreading the existing density out over a larger area really is not valid. He asked if this was the appropriate fee request or if there is another way to calculate it based on the number of people in the building, compared with the calculatian used for industrial. Ms. Adams stated the Master Plan is based on the type of use per thousand square feet and this is the figure they have calculations to suppoi t. Chairwoman Boydstun asked if it is for new construction where the fee was never paid. Ms. Adams explained this is for new construction for intensified uses. It is considered additional loading to the system. Commissioner Messe noted the buildings are in place and a fee was paid for sewer and wat?r originally and he thought only the differential should be charged now. Ms. Adams responded they could work out something in that regard. She did not have the figures with her to show the difference. Commissi~~ner Henninger suggested amending the condition to indicate the fee is the difference. 01123/96 Page 18 Commissioner Messe referred to No. 6 of the conditions and asked ff that is acceptable. Mr. Colomba responded he will get the exact delineation from the Civil 'engineering C7ffice. He referred to the suggestion for the fee to be the difference from industrial to commercial and wanted to make sure that it is understood that the broadcasting studio facilities are, in fact, within the industrial designation and there ~z not an additional surcharge. Commissioner Messe stated Mr. Perez tesYrfied earlier that this was a commercial project. Mr. Colombo stated Mr. Perez is his client and he is representing him and the correct terminology is according to the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Henninger asked staff ff a broadcast studio is a primary use allowed in the ML zone. Jonathan Borrego responded a broadcasting studio is a primary permitted use; however, that typically would not include a large seating or assembly area. ^ommissioner Henninger pointed out they could delete the assembly area, clarifying that the; did not pay anything for that area. Mr. Colombo stated the expansions of Buildings at 1136 and 1160 are the ones to justifiably title as industrial and he thought it would be fair to go ahead and correctly title those and make those adjustments. Commissioner Henninger stated the Commission does not have the ability or desire right now to make that determination and it is something they nesd to work out with staff. It is somewhat unfortunate that they did not go to the Interdepartmental Committee meeting where these things are normally resolved. Chairwoman Boydstun asked if the applicant would like a continuance in order to work these details out, so they will know exactly what the fees will be. Mr. Colombo stated the Commission can make the condition upon the definitions by staff or they can make it finite and he thought they are ready to agree to that portion. Commissioner Henninger clarified that he would like this condition to read that they will pay the diffenance In fees on the building area that is determined to have changed use, as determined by staff. Ms. Adams responded that is acceptable. Mr. Slaughter suggested leaving Paragraph 7 as is and add language as follows: "or the difference between commercial and industrial uses for the expansion area, whichever is lesser." The applicant would pay either what is shown here or an amount calculated by staff at a lower level. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe, and MOTION CARRIED for approval of the Negative Declaration (Findings in Paragraph No. 13 of the si:aff report). Approved Waiv?r of Code Requirement (Findings in Paragraph No. 19 of the staff report.) Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3737 with the following changes to conditions: 01123195 Page 19 (Findings in Paragraph No. 20 of the staff report) Modified Condition Nos. 1, 5, 9 and 10 to read as follows: 1. That the property owner shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3223 prior to the commencement of activities, or within one (1) year ftom the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first. 5. That prior to commencement of activity sidewalks shall be installed along Gilbert Street in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer. A request to waive #his requirement may be made to the Public Works-Engineering Department. 7. That prior to issuance of building permit or commencement of activity, whichever occurs first, (a) a fee in the amount of $324/i,000 s.f. of expansion building area shall be paid to the City of Anaheim for sewer capacity mitigation or (b) the difference between the commercial and industrial sewer fees based on the non-industrial area within subject buildings, whichever is less. 9. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or prior to issuance cf a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 4, 6 and 7, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 10. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 1, 5 and 8, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. VOTE: 7-0 Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attomey,presented the written right to appeal the Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. OTHER DISCUSSION: Commissioner Meese requested that the appointment of a Planning Commission representative to the Utilities Underground Conversion Subcommittee be agendized for the February 6, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2:45 P.M. TO THE FEBRUARY 6, 1995, PLANNING COMMISSION MORNING SESSION AT 11:00 A.M Res ~c~tfully/ subm dith Harris Planning Commission Secretary 01123195 Page 20