The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1999/05/10SUMI~AR~' A~TIt~N AGENDA ClT~Y OF AlVAHEIM I~LA~N~~~~ COMMIS~ION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 10, 1999 10:30 A.M. ~ PRESENTATION BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPPJIENT DEPARTMENT OF THE ANAHEIM COLONY HISTORIC DISTRICT PRESERVATION PLAN • CEQA UPDATE BY CITY ATTORNEY/PLANNING STAFF 11:00 A.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. • PUBLIC HEARING TESTiMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOST! VICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, ESPING, KOOS, NAPOLES 1 VACANT SEAT STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Cheryl Flores Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Mark A. Van Meter Melanie Adar:is Margarita Solorio Ossis Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior ?lanner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Maheim Police Depa~tment Associate Civil Engineer Planning Commission Secre'.ary Senior Secretary 05-10-99 Page 1 ITEMS OF PUBLIC {NTEI2EST: None 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMEtdDATIONS A. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 15 Concurred w/staff TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 96-132 - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Approved OF TIME: Vi~ta Del Sol L.L.C., Attn: Reza Dadashi, 856 North Cammerce Street, ~range, CA 92667, requests an extension of time to comply with (To expire 7-22-99) conditions of ap~roval to establish a 3-lot single-family subdivision for custom homes. This petition was originally approved on July 22,1996. Property is located at Vista Del Sol, east of Country Hills Road. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRiED (one vacant seat?, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the oroposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 15, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Commiss?oner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles ~, and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning ~ Commission does hereby approve a one year time extension for Tentative Parcel Map No. 56-132, to expire on July 22, 2000, to comply with con~itions of approval. SR1038KP.DOC Chairman Bristol: Stated, ~or the record, according to the staff report the applicant has complied with most of the conditions. 05-10-99 Page 2 B. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CUaSS 3 Concurred w/staff CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS.15 AND 172 - REQUEST FOR Determined to be in DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Robert substantial Edwards, 501 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801, requests conformance a determination of substantial conformance to locate a new o~ce trailer in an existino imobile home park. Property is located at 501 East Orangethorpe Avenue (Rancho La Paz Mobilehome Parkj. ACTION: Commissionor Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falis within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Comm~issioner Eioydstun and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does nereby determine that the placement of a 560 square foot office trailer near the new driveway entrance is in substantiai conformance with the originally approved plan because an office was permitted with the previous entrance and parking is provided in accordance with Code requirements for the office use. 11 (This item was heard together with Item No. 8.] Applicant's Statement: Robert Edwards: Resident Manager and Agent for Rancho La Paz: Stated they are a gated and fenced senior community and have a population of approximately 800 senior citizens and a number of handicapped seniars. Their gate and fence allows for a certain amount of security and privacy for the seniors. Chairman Bristol: Asked Mr. Edwards if he had any comments regarding Item No.1-B or Item No..87 Mr. Edwards: Item No. 1-B regarding their new office location. Ten feet ins"e the old entrance they had an office building and with the installation of the traffic light and the new entrance, it is unfeasible to keep the existing office and they have room there at the new entrance. They are putting up modular manufactured unit which is 14 feet by 40 feet on a permanent foundation which will act as their park office. The existing old office will be turned into a maintenance office. THE PUBLIC HEARIh^v WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bristol: Explained the recommended changes to the applicant to ensure he understood. 05-10-99 Page 3 C. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION IPREVIOUSLY-APPROVED~ Continued to CONDIT~uRAL USE PERMIT N0. d090 - REQUEST FOR 5-24-99 DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Michael Hearn, 8180 East Kaiser Boulavard, Anaheim, CA 92808, requests a determination of substantial conformance for final landscape and elevation plans. Property is located at 2890 East La Palma Avenue. Continued subject request to the May 24,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit plans that are readahle: SR1110JK.D ApplicanYs Statement: Ralph Hastings, Hastings Partners Architects, 5031 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA: Introduced hirnself but did not give an opening statement. Chairrnan Bristol: Stated at the morning session Commission could not determine the species o~ the trees on the appli;,anYs plans and asked staff to elaborate on this. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Staff discovered that they were unable to read the species of the trees that were on plans. She recommended that the applicant provide a better plan. Ralph Hastings: Responded that he would be more than happy to comply. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked ~vhat is going to be at La Palma7 Ralph Hastings: On the master plan that was brought before Commission a few weeks ago there is a piece of property that is being held for a build to suit. They are constructing buildings for use by a company. They are currently previding the boundary setback landscaping and the perimeter landscaping areund the property to enhance ihat so it ooes i,ot sit vacant until the build a occurs. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Ms. Flores when it returns as a build to suit will it return to Commiss~on? Cheryl F!ores, Senior Planner: Responded this is an industrial property that can be built with industrial buildings that are permitted by right and it will not come before the Commission for just the industrial buildings. They will probably receive a parcel mzp to divide the ~roperty into parcel. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if Commission could request a Reports and Recommendation iteml Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: No, they could not because the only building that Commission has jurisdiction over would be the building that would be used for the roller hockey. That is the one that they approved the conditional use permit on and these are the landscape plans for that building. Commissioner Bostwick: He recommended a two-week continuance to allow time for the applicant to submit clear plans. Ralph Hastings: They have been in contact with staff several times and had that been brought to their attention earlier then they would have taken care of that. 05-10-99 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING fTEMS: "L8. CEQA GATEGORIGAL tXEMPTION•GLA55 Z1 Concurred with staff 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2231 (READVERTISED) Modified CUP 2231 for 6 months INITIATED: City-initiated (Code Enforcement Division and Police Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA (This item is to be 92805 readvertised for a public hearing in 6 months OWNER: American SK Trading Company, Inc., 831 ~outh Beach io reconsider this Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804 request) LOCATION: 831 South Beach Boulevard - Rainbow Inn. Property is 0.65 acre located on the west side of Beach Boulevard, 830 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. City-initiated (Code Enforcement Division and Police Department) request to consider revocation or modification of Conditional Usa Permit No. 2231 which permits a 41-unit, 2-story motel. Continued from the Commission meeting of April 26, 1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-72 SR Ch~iirman Bristol: Stated, for the record, this morning a letter was received from the law offices of Robert W. Snyder. NpplicanYs Statement: Robert W. Snyder, on behalf ~f the applicant: As indicated on his letter, the owner/operators of this motel understa.nd what is being done here. They have been under examination. In his letter he trie~ to breakdown his evaluation in speaking with them to two major concerns as he can see. One was the upkeep and the major item that he thought was the letter from the Anaheim Police Department. As early as January 1998, he tried to contact the Anaheim Police Department to see if he could be of any assistance in helping this owner/operator. 7hey feel that they have tried. They would like to work with the Po!ice Department in developing a plan. i-lis client, on many occasions, has asked people to leave when they were known to be unruly or not complying with their rules. They have always opened their records to the Police Department. If someone who previously rented a room had been arrested by the Police Department then their staff has no way of knowing that. If they could receive a report then they could help the Police. Their ccncern is that a uniformed security officer is not eno~gh, they need a better plan. They want to develop a plan but do not !;now how to do that and need some guidance in this area. He asked Commission to reconsider the recommendation of a full-time security officer until such time that they have develuped another plan that will be less intrusive. This motel has been under a 30-day inspection from August 1998 through the present time. He can offer no objections to the conti~,uing of the monitoring to make sure the recommendations are complied with. At the last meeting whe~ this item was conti^ued it was stated that there has been a gradual improvement. He did not have any ob'ections to the recommendations as outlined. Some have already been done on a vul~ntary basis. No ~me is there longer than 30 days and there is maid service. 7hey are 05-10-99 Page 5 making a transition from a battery operated fire alarm system to a wiring system. The owners want to do whatever is necessary to comply. Opposition: Steven Wozny, 818 South Hayward Street, Anaheim, CA: Stated ha lives directly behind subject property and has lived there since 1979. They have tolerated all the problems with the motel for so many years. He felt what Mr. Snyder recommended is too little and too late. On either side of him lives snme widows who call him often about problems related to the motel. They have a 20-foot setback from his property line. The chainlink fence at the motel is suppose to be locked at sll times except for the gardener but it is actually opened 90% of the time. He has four children, 11 grandchildren and he is afraid to go into his backyard at time and afraid to bring the children in for what they might see. He has pleaded with the motel on several occasions but they do not listen to him. There are pine cones at subject site that are approximately 6 to 8 inches which can be dangerous if someone is hit with them. He has gone out and cleaned up the pine cones, cans, bottles, etc. From the bottom of this patio to the +op of the fence it is 10%2 feet. He has caught children sitting on the fence and has screamed at them to get off the fence because he is concerned should one of the children fall down on the concrete. Recently during the viinds a tree fell down at the subject property and the tree was moved next to an electrical box which is a very dangerous situation. He urged Commission to give his concerns a serious consideration since they have tolerated them for a long time. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Rubert Snyder: He is aware of Mr. Wozny's concerns. Regarding some of the back property owners, he knows there have been reports of the motel but his understanding is that whatever the grievances were that they were taken care of. He was not certain iF these were some of the occasions that require that the police be called or not. If these incidents are happening then he did not see those in the reports. He is not prepared to address the specific complaints. When the motel receives a complaint they do respond to it. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enfercement Officer: Planning Commission granted a conditional use permit for a 41-unit 2 story motel on P,ugust 10, 1981. On November 16, 1992 ancJ December 4, 1992 Code Enforcement started actions at the property and became active with the motels along Beach Boulevard and other areas of the City in 1996. On January 31, 1996 a substandard ho~sing inspection was conducted and code violations were found consisting of hazardous electrical wiring, inoperable smoke alarms, holes in the walis, mold and other substandard conditions on the property. A letter of violation was sent and the violations were complied on March 12, 1996. On May 14, 1997, there was an inspection of the site which resulted in 86 code violations. They came into compliance on August 19, 1997. On January 1,1998 another inspection was done where there were 103 code violations and they were complied on February 13, 1998. On August 5, 1998, they returned to do another inspection and found 112 code violations and since then they have done several follow-up inspections where little to none of the violatior+s have been corrected. On several occasions they have tried to meet with the property owner and were informed by the niece and nephew that the owner was out of the country and they told the responsibility of completing the repairs. On ~pril 15,1999, he conducted a survey of the neighborhood directly to the east which there was testirrony today from one of the neighbors. 05-10-99 Page 6 Qn May 5,1999, he conducted an inspection prior to Commi:~sion's meeting. He rtieet with Sheri, the niece, and she informed him that very little corrections have t~een made. He asked her regarding the maid service and she indicated they were having a communication .problem because they only speak Spanish. He suggested they rectify it or get someone to interpret for them. Based on citizens compiaints, activity and Investigator Mark Van Nieter from the Police Department, the owner has exercised Conditional Use Permit No. 2231 in a manner which is detrimental to the peace, safety and general welfare to the citizens of Anaheim and he therefore requested that the CUP be modified. He mentioned that he had taken photos of the site last Tuesday regarding some of the violations. He also had a 15-minute video tape. Chairman Bristol: Asked if the owner of the motel is the same owner? Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer: Responded it was. Investigator Mark Van Meter, Anaheim Police Department: He showed 9 arrests for warrants and showed 35 arrests for narcotics related activity. There is usually a reason why they run warrant arrests. The letter received by the Police Department on January 20,1998, he had no knowledge of that and have never seen it before. Today is the first time he has seen the letter. He has not received a formal request for information or a meeting from the applicant. Having a security guard at other premises on this street (Beach Blvd.) have worked well. He felt a security guard acts as a deterrent just by being present. Commissioner Boydstun: There are Ietters from the Health Uepartment as recent as April 23,1999 that they have not fully complied and wondered how mur,h more time should they be given. Chairman Bristol: Asked A4r. Snyder about his letter that Commission received this morning. Mr. Snyder: The letter that he sent to the Police Department was directed to the Police Department. He has on his telephone records, as he stated, an actual call from the Police Department. He did not provide that since he did not know it was going to be an issue but can only report that he did receive a telephone call. Chairman Bristol: He asked Mr. Snyder about page 4, paragraph 2 of his letter, "In reviewing these violations it seems that a substantial number of notices are minor violations....:' and asked what he considers a minor violation. Mr. Snyder: For example a guest room shall not be rented to someone un~er 18 years of age. They ask for identification and to their knowledge it has not been down since they enforce this. On September 17, 1998, one of the certified letters received (see attachment fo staff report] indica;es that there was some damage to the wall surfaces. He did not know what that was off-hand and therefore could not comment on that. He could not say why the Iamps electric cord was spliced. The bathroom light fixture cover was missing which is not cosmetically good and shoufd be d~wn but it does not endanger the health nor an extreme danger. The carpet is cleaned but then the stains eve~tually reappear. Chairman Bristol: On the second paragraph in his letter regarding daily maid service he asked Mr. Snyder what was meant by "There is only an exception for extended stay occupants a week to two weeks". Mr. Snyder: Responded the major of occupants come and go every night and sometimes the rooms are not even lit. Commissioner Koos: There should be maid service regardless. Mr. Snyder: Sometimes a person is staying for a week and does not want maid service. They could instruct their guest that they need to allow the maid to come in. 05-10-99 Page 7 He wrote the letter and received a call back indicatinn, that everything is fine and they were handling it. He has that in his rolodex and he has a note of it anr did not think of bringing that. Commissioner Bostwick: He asksd Mr. Snyder when there are 120 or 130 Health Department violations consistentiy month after month does that show that they are tryiny to clean up? Mr. Snyder: If they are the same violations then the response is ~o, but because there is a situation where people are in and out then there are going to be damages and repairs. Nevertheless he is very concerned. . Commissioner Esping: He was concerned that for the past several years there has not been any type of diligent effort to make any improvements, some of the problems have even escalated in terms of complaints to the Police Department and health violations. Mr. Snyder: He has instructed the owner that they have to correct all the violations. The owner has told him that they understand the seriousness of the situation and are trying. Commissioner Boydstun: They should have understood the seriousness when they recsived the letters from the Health Department listing hundreds of items th2t were wrong. Mr. Snyder: The owner indicated when the letters were received then they dealt with problems, some items were completed and other were not. He agreed they should have treated it far more se~ iously~ than they did. Chairman Bristol; He was concerned with the lack of communication and wondered if the Commission was to impose conditions how would they know that the owner was going to follow through on them because they have no! been complying in the past. Mr. Snyder: Currently the person who is there most of the time speaks both Engli;;'~ and Chinese fluently so the problem should be solved with a full-time person there. There needs to be a maid servicQ that either speaks English or Chinese and he will inform them of that. Commissioner Boydstun: She wondered why Commission received copies of all the bills? Mr. Snyder: He tried to show that the owner is purchasing items for the repairs. Commissioner Koos: Asked Mr. Snyder if he had read the conditions of approval and asked which conditions are difficult to comply with? Mr. Snyder: The only condition he objected to in his letter was Condition No.1, regarding fhe securiry gua~ d, which would be a trerrendous expense. He would like to see if there wsre other al!ernatives to use that money that must be spent to correct the other conditions immediately. Commissioner Koos: Asked if other motels in the City have on-site security guards? Commissioner Bostwick: Yes, they have required many of them on Beach Boulevard. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer: There are four motels on Beach Boulevard that are required to have security guards and have been proven to be successful. Chai~ man Bristol: He is conce; ned for the safety of the neighborhood and a full-time security guard is not an unreasonable request considering the problems that can arise from not having one. Mr. Snyder: The condition he had a concern with was Conditicn No.1 and thought that rather than going into the expense of a full-time security guard that the mor~ey would be better spent on complying with the other items that are serious health concerns. Q5-10-98 Page 8 Commissfoner Boydstun: She felt the money should have been spent a fong time ago since they have received numerous notices. The gate on the buffered area was not even kept closed which does not cost anything to comply with. Mr. Snyder: He did not feel he could address that because he was not aware of it. He was told that any complaints that were received from neighbors was corrected. Commissioner Boydstun: From the testimony of the neighbor he indicated he tried to give the owner a chance to coirect it and v,~.as ignorea. Mr. Snyder: His understanding was that they did not ignore it, Voting: Commissioner Bostwick: Recommended that this item be returned within 6 months for a rehearing to give them another chance to comply. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Asked for a clarification that it would be a readvertised public hearing in 6 months. Commissioner Bostwick: Confirmed that it would be. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Asked if there was a consideration to require a 24-hour seeuriry guard? Commissioner Bostwick: It does need to be left in because it shows cause and the findings should that there is a considerable problem with crime on the property. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Asked Commission if they are giving the police department discretion or. that condition if they feel it is appropriate less than 24 hours a day? Commissioner Boydstun: For the first 90 days it should remain 24 hours a day. Inspector Van Meter: Recommended to leave as is and see how it works and then when this returns as a Reports and Recommendation item then at that time the police department will give a recommendation. Following the vote: Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Announced if there is anyone in the audience who would like receive a notice by mail of the Reports and Recommendation item then they should go to the Planning Department counter and give their name and address so they can receive a notice, even for this unadvertised hearing. • ~ • • • • IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor of revocation or modification. OPPOSITION: ~!one ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 21, as defined in the St~te EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIQ. Modified Conditional Use Permit No. 2231. Am~:nded the conditions of approval of Resolution No. PC81-170 in iPs entirety with the following conditions of approvai: 05-10-99 Page 9 1. That a minimum of one (1) Ucens~ed uniformed security guard, appro~~ed by the ,4naheim Police Depa~tment, shall be provided upon the premises at ali times specifically to provide security, and to discourage vandalism, trespassing and/ur loitering upon or adjacent to the subject property. 2. That the ownedmanag~r shall maintain a complete guest registry or guest card system which includes the full name, address, and verified driver's license or legal identification and vehicle ~egistration number of all registered guests, date of registration, length of stay, and room rate, and shall be made available upon demand t~y ~ny police o~cer, code enforcement officer, or license inspector of the Ciry of Anaheim during reasonable business hours. 3. That guest rooms shall not be rented or let for periods of less than twelve (12) consecutive hours, nor more than thirty (30) consecutive days, exc~uding one (1) manaQer's unit. 4. That every occupied guest room shall be provided with daily maid service. 5. That the owner and/or management shall not knowingly rent or let any guest room to a kno~vn prostitute for the purposes of pandering, soliciting or engaging in the act of pros;itution, or any person for the purpose of selling, buying, or otherwise dealing, manufacturing or ingesting an illegai drug or controlled subsiance; or for the purpose of committing a crimi~al or immoral act. 6. That no guest room shall be rented or let to any person under eighteen (18) years of age, verified by a valid driver's license or other legal identificatioi i. 7. That all av~ilable room rates shall be prominently displayed in a conspicuous place within the o~ce area, and that the property owner and/or motel management shall comply with the provisions of Section 4.09.O~i 0 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to ihe posting of room rates. 8. That the property owner and/or motel management shall comply with the provisions of Section 2.12.020 of the Anaheim Municipai Code pertaining to the operator's collection duties of transient occupancy taxes. 9. That this property ~~d these buildings and accessory structures shall be brought into compliance with the statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations of the State of California, as adopted by the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and Uniform Mechanical Code, and permanently maintained thereafter in compliance with such statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations. 10. That on-site landscaping shall be refurbished and permanently irrigated and maintained, including regular removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 11. That the property owner shall pay the costs of Code Enforcement Division inspections once each month for six (6) months from the date of this resolution, and as often as necessary thereafter until the subject property is brought into compliance, or as deemed necPssary by the City's Code Enforcement Div~sion to gain and/or maintain compliance with State and local statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations. 05-10-99 Page 10 12. That a statement shall be printed on the face of the guest registration card to be completed by the guest when registering, advisfng that the regfster is open to incpection by the Anaheim Police Department or other Ci'ry of Anaheim personnel f~r law enforcement purposes. 13. That no guest room(s) shall be rented or let to any person unless compliaiti~: is determined by the appropriate division or department, with statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations of the State of California, as adopted by the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and Uniform Mechanical Code. 14. That any tree planted on site shail be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 15. That the property owner shall submit a letter requesting termination of Varian ~e No. 2338 (to permit a medical office building ~vith waiver of minimum setback, required 6 foot high block wall, required tree screening and maximum permitted height) to the Zoning Division. 16. That the existing 6-foot high masonry wall adjacent to the west property line shall be maintained in good condition and that the landscaped buffer area between this wall and the building will consist of groundcover and trees and will remairi enclosed with a 6-foot high chainlink fence with gates to discourage prowlers in accordance with the original approval of this conditional use permit. That this area shall be cleared of all debris and dead landscape materials and maintained in good condition at all times. 17. That hot plates shall not be permitted in the guest rooms. 18. That smoke alarms in the guest rooms shall be hard-wired rather than battery operated and shall be maintained in good working order at all times. 19. That the subject property shall be developed, as conditioned, and substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner in conjurction with the approval of Conditiona~ Use Permit No. 2231, and which pians are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4, and as conditioned herein. 20. That Condition Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12,13 and 17, abuve-mentioned, shall be complied immediately. 21. That Condition Nos. 9, 10,15, 16, 18 and 19, above mentioned, shall be complied with, within 60 days nf the date of the resolution. 22. That this Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed for compliance with conditions of approval and other City and State laws and regulations as a Reports and Recommendations item within a period of 90 days of the date of this resolution. 23. That this Conditional Use Permit shaU be reviewed for compliance with conditions of approval and other City and State laws and regulations as an advertised public hearing on November 8, 1999 and to determine if the Commission should further modiry or terminate it. 05-10-99 Page 11 24. That approval of this application cons;itutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Fed~ral regulations. Approval does not fnclude any action or fir~dings as to compliance or approvai of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistanf Ciry Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal tights. aISCUSSION TIME: 39 rninutes (1:43-2:22) 05-10-99 Page 12 sa. l:t4tA IVtC~AI IVt UtI:LAKAl1Urv ~ Continued to 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5-24-59 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4114 OWNER: James Tsai, 7002 Moody Street #105, La Palma, CA 90623 AGENT: Jose R. Villaflor, 3150 West Lincoln P.venue #128, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCA710N: 3150 West Lincoln Avenue. Suite 128. Property is 5.8 acres located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Western Avenue. To establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and to permit a dance studio and public dance hall within the sama commercial center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. Chairman Bristol: Informed the applicanYs representative (who did not identify himselfjjust before he spoke at the podium that there was an administrative error which will result in this item being continued. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: The request is for a dance studio and public dance hall and part of this request code requires that all uses in the property be conforming uses prior to any new uses being approved. Staff identified the commercial shopping center itself as not having a conditional use permit which was advertised for this. However, there is another component which is a liguor store which staff discovered exists at the center as well wfiich also needs ta be reviewed by the Planning Commission before the decision is made on the dance hall. Therefore, staff is requesting a two-week continuance for this item so the liquor store oan be advertised so the Commission has the authoriry to approve all this together. Chairman Bristol: Explained to the applicanYs representative why this item was being recommended by staff to be continued. Commissioner Bostwick: Suggested to the applicant's representative that he ensure the property owner review the conditions and is in agreement with them before returning in two weeks. Cneryl Flores, Senior Planner: Advised there would be a new staff report which will contain conditi~ns regarding the liquor store as well. Therefore, the applicant should pickup a copy of the new staff report at the zoning counter on the Thursday before the meeting. • a • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 24,1999 Planning Commission mesting in order for staff to advertise a request to establish conformity with current Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing liquor store and the Planning Commission has the opportunity to consider the whole project. VOTE: 6-0 !one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (2:23 to 2:26) 05-10-99 Page 13 4a. C@QA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continu I 4b. CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 4113 5-2499 OWNER: Andrew Y. Lui,1458 James Way, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Shanti Dewan, 6540 East Carnegie Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 500 North Brookhurst Street - La Estrella Restaurant. Property is 1.19 acre located at the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Alameda A~~enue. To permit a restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption including a bar, entertainment, dancing and banquets. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. to Public Testimony: Mr. T. Nguysn, 8412 Peachwood, Anaheim, CA: His property is located at the corner of Alemeda and Brookhurst. He is concerned with the tenants children living near the site, should the sale of alcoholic beverages be permitted and aiso the noise factor. He felt it would also bring down the value of the properties in this area. e e • • • • OPPOSITION: 1 concerned person spoke ACTION: Continued subject request to the May 24,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit revised floor plans. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCIJSSION TiME: This item was not discussed. 05-10-99 Page 14 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approv 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4117 Denied OWNER: Clausen Enterprises, 2795 West Lincoln Avenue #F, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: George HallocWHallock Coin Jeweiry, 2060 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 2060 West Lincoln Avenue - Hallock Coin,Jewelrv• Property is 0.91 acre located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Empire Street. To establish a pawn shop in conjunction with an existing jewelry/coin shop. COtdDITtONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99•73 SR1 Applicant's Statement: George Hallock, President and Chief Executive Officer of Hallock Coin Jewelry: 3060 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA: He is accompanied by his son who will be involved with the operation should they are successful in going ahead with this plan. He understands the need for the petition to be disallowed because of the BCC (Brookhurst Commercial Corridor) Overlay Zone which pre-empts them from being able to do this. They feel there are a few extenuating circumstances that should be considered. • They had this in process at ihe time the new zoning law went into effect. • What they propose to do is extremely limited. They have been a buyer of precious metals, platinum, gold, s?Iver and diamonds for 25 years. All they are seeking to do in a few instances where a customer would prefer not to sell the item but needs the money then they could accommodate them by pawning the object. ~n those situations when they buy the object they seldom every resell them because they are a manufacture ofjewelry and therefore do not sell items they do not make. If they do they would then disassembls the article. They were lead to believe when they spoke to the City Council that they understood when they permitted the ordinance to go in effect that there was a possibiliry for them to have another ordinance creating an exception to permit them to do this and they are going to speak to the City Council about that. Craig Clausen, owner, 2795 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated Mr. Hallock and his family have been a great tenant for 25 years. He is present to support his request. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated, for the record, a letter was received from Glenda Fiora at 106 North Bern~ce Drive, Anaheim who is in opposition to this request. She forwarded copies of the letter to Commission and gave a copy to the applicant. Commissioner Boydstun: Her interpretation after reading the letter appears that Mrs. Flora believes this project is a regular pond shop. • . • • • o OPPOSITION: None 05-10-99 Page 15 ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 4117 on the basis that the pawn shop use is not properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code. This use is specifically listed as a prohibited use within the BCC (Brookhurst Commercial Corridor) Overlay Zone. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (2:27-2:33) 05-10-99 Page 16 6a. CEG1A NEG~471VE DECLARATION Continued to 6b. COMDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4106 6-21-99 OWNER: Jack Culp Jr. and Nancy Culp, 6614 Ocean View, Carlsbad, CA 92009 AGENT: Ernie Quijada, 2898 East Miraloma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2898 East Miraloma Avenue. Property is 0.86 acre located on the south side of Miraloma Avenue, 620 feet west of the centerline of Red Gum Street. To permit an on-siteloutdoor construction equipment rental and storage facility including the washing and maintenance of the equipment. CONDITlONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. ~ `. FOCLOWING,IS A SUMMARY OF THE P-LANNING COMMISSION.ACTION. :. ' uPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 21, 1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to address staff's concerns and to submit revised plans. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 05-10-99 Page 17 ~ . . . .. . ... . .. : . 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continu 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4116 6-21-99 OWNER: American National Properties Inc., P.O. Box 100T7, Santa Ana, CA 92711-0077 AGENT: Jeff Jonsson, 23120 Alicia Pkwy., Mission Viejo, CA 92682 LOCATION: 1516 West Embassy Street. Property is 5.8 acres at the terminus of Embassy Street. To establish a rental/leasing facility, and outdoor starage for approximately 100 tractor trailers. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. t~ Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: There was a discrepancy between the continued date on the agenda and the staff report. She clarified that staff has requested a continuance to June 21 st to allow a sufficient time for the applicant to submit the information requested. Commissioner Boydstun: Offered a motion for a continuance, seconded by Commissioner Bosiwick and motion was carried. • ~ ~ s o a OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 21,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to readvertise the conditional use permit proposal to include trailer maintenance and for the applicant to submit a more detailed Init~al Study addressing the potential environmental impacts of thp requested use. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUS510N TIME: This item was not discussed. 05-10-99 Page 18 8a. CEQA iVEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMI7 NOS.15 AND 172 (READVERTISED) Approved amendment to conditions of OWNER: George A. Cade and Rancho La Paz, Inc., Attn: Richter approvai Farms, 777 Campus Commons Rd. #200, Sacramento, CA 95825 AGENT: Robert Edwards, 501 East Orangsthorpe Avenue, Ar.aheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 501 East Orangethorne Avenue - Rancho La Paz iNobile Home Park. Property is 24.77 acres located on the north side or Orangethorpe Avenue,1,440 feet west of the centerline of Raymond Avenue. To amend conditions of approval pertaining t~ the relocation of the main entrance. GONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLIlTION NO. PC99-74 SR1109JK.DOC ~7'his item was heard together with Item No. 1-B. j ApplicanYs Statement: Robert Edwards: Resident Manager and Agent for Rancho La Paz: Stated they are a gated and fenced senior community and have a population of approximately 800 senior citizens and a number of handicapped seniors. Their gate and fence allows for a certain amount of security and privacy for the seniors. Chairman Bristol: Asked Mr. Edwards if he had any comments regasding Item No.1-B or Item No. 8? Mr. Edwards: Item No. 1-B regarding their new office location. Ten feet inside the old entrance they had an office building and with the installation oF the traffic light and the new entrance, it is unfeasible to keep the existing office and they have room there at the new entrance. They are putting up modular manufactured unit which is 14 feet by 40 feet on a permanent foundation which will act as their park office. The existing old office will be turned into a maintenance office. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bristol: Explained the recommended changes to the applicant to ensure he understood. ~ EOLLOWING IS A SUMMAf~Y OF l'HE PL/~NNING COMMISSiON ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved request. Modified Resolution No.123 of Conditionai Use Parmit No. 172 by adding the following condition of approval: "4. The existing main entrance to the park from Orangethorpe Avenue shall be gated and closed, and shall remain closed at all times except when necessary: to provide access to vehicles providing emergency services to the Qark or its residents; to move mobile homes in and out of the park; and to provide access 05-10-95 Page 19 to the park from East Orangethorpe Avenue during any period the Cypress Street entrance is closed and passage is not possible." Modified Resolutfon No.184 of Conditionai Use Permit No.15 by adding the followfng aondition: "2. The existing main entrance to the park from Orangethorpe Avenue shall be gated and closed, and shall remain closed at aii times except when necessary: to provide access to vehicles providing emergency seroices to the park or its residents; to move mobile homes in and o~t of the park; and to provide access to the park from East Orangethorpe Avenue dur:ng any period the Cypress Street entrance is closed and passage is not possible. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (2:34-2:38) 05-10-99 Page 20 9a. CEQA NEGATiVE DECLARATION Approved 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4112 Granted OWIvER: Living Stream dba Anaheim Palms Corporate Center, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, CA 92801 AGENT: Larry A. Wilde,1900 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 ~.OCATfON: 2411 West La Palma Avenue. Property is 27.9 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street. To permit a private school within an existing industrial/office complex. CONDITIeNAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99J5 ApplicanPs Statement: Larry Wilde, Principal of Acaciawood School, 2001 S. Eileen Dr, Anaheim: They are requesting a conditional use permit to relocate their school at the Anaheim Palms Corporate Center. He requested permission to be allowed to give his presentation as weil as have 15 other people speak who will limited their testimony to 3 minutes each. Chairman Bristol: Requested the applicant to limit the number of speakers. Larry Wilde: The property has been depictetl one way in the staff report but they feel the property is very different than what is depicted. He indicated they would be brief and to the point. They ask that Commission grant their request according to the facts presented, which they feel show that this project is fully in compliance and in harmony with the neighborhood, and in compliance with the conditional ~se permits that have been granted on similar projects. He disagreed with the concerns of the Planning staff regarding the safety and welfare of the chilc~ren. They are a very small independent school which began 3 years ago with about 60 students. This year they have just under 100 students, and next year hope to have between 110 and 125. They have a mandated board policy of a maximum student teach ratio of 17 to 1 per classroom. They are strictly adhering to that because of the way they teach and what they are trying to do with their school. They held their student to strive to develop work habits, organizational skills, responsibility, accountability, diligence, perseverance and public service and do this through a very rigorous academic program. They mandate all of their students to participate in all local, state and national competitions for the purpose of improving their character. They have a remarkably high academic achievement level. They do it with very hard working students who have learned to apply their very best efforts with what they undertake. The permit would allow them to have their school at a great location that is safe, secure and ~vill meet their every need in the foreseeable future. Their proposal is fully compatible with all the existing uses that actuaNy are on the site, both in the campuses and in the neighborhood. In fact, there are 5 schools within a half mile of this site 3 of them within blocks, one of them within a few feet of their school. They operate the school as a closed campus. (Mr. Wilde fonvarded to Commission an exhibit of the enlarged site plan on the overhead projector.J The site plan shows that there are 6 buildings on this location, 4 of which are for office use. Building 1 ~n the northeast corner of the property, building 2 and building 3 and building 4, are all office buildings. The largest building o~ the campus is building 6 which is approximately 60°10 leased to high technology communications switching equipment. The south portion of the upper level is now occupied by Westwood 05-10-99 Page 21 College. The n~maining Buiiding 5, the center building, is a one-story building in the center of campus and the east end of that is the proposal for the school. On the entire 28 acres there are no industriai use nor any pianned. The only portion of the campus that is unleased for long term leases is 30,000 square feet in Buiiding 6 and the back half of Building 5 which is occupied presently by the service company that serves Calcomp Computer, soon to be out of business and will become vacated. The staff report mentions dust orders, noise and traffic as an incident of the industrial zoning that is on this property. None of those factors exist at this site and none are anticipated. The playground area just south of their building, is all grass and they have been designated the north half portion of the grassed area as a piayground. The portions to the west will be basketbali court and young children's and school aged children's playground equipment. Thei~ plan calls for a crosswalk across this parking area. Some zones for parking piaces have been marked to provide visibly clear free zones. They have indicated to the staff that speed bumps could be install on either side to slow any traffic down that does go through the area. There are two primary entrances to the campus. One is via Gilbert Avenue on the east and this is the primary access to the entire campus. This also accesses the four-s4ory building and one can get around the north side of the property along the i-5 fre~way. The only other street that goes through the campus area is the westerly entrance to the campus off of La Palma Avenue. This also goes direct building 6 and back to the parking lot that services buildings 2 and 3. The center drive to this campus and the one that is anticipated to be used almost exclus~~~~!y by the schocl does not go through. It provides a natural flow for traffic. One can enter off La Palma Avenue proceed north, a natural turn around zone on the north end and proceed back through this parking lot to a drop off zone in front of the school, exit the parking lot and then exit La Palma Ave. There are few places that he is aware of lhat naturally allow such traffic flow for student drop off and pick up. Using this for the scheol will not add measurably to the traffic flow on the balance of the campus. The actual characte~ of the parking lot is substantially different then is depicted in this staff report. It has been depicted that there will be frequent crossing of that parking lot by the students. That is not the case. They have two designated times of the day that students will be allowed in to the playground area. One during a designated recess period and one during the lunch time which will be for a minimum number of students because they only have a 30-minute lunch. Most of the students will stay in the school building at that times. Of course, some of them will cross that area after school. They have indicated by their letter of operation that it will be manned by crossing guards at all times (either teachers parents or hired crossing guards). It indicates on the staff repoft that there is hundreds of cars daily that use that parking lot. That is not the case, due to the nature of use in all the buildings located on that site and due to the nature of traffic flow that he has depicted and shown is very little or no traffic that uses the parking lot. He was there at noon today and there were 5 cars parked in this entire area just south oF this building. Then~ are simply no cars that use that area because the traffic flow is not facilitated by going through that parking lot. This will remain the use for the anticipated future due to the extended leases that are there and the kind of uses that are currently on that property. The actual use of this property is no longer industrial or adverse to a school in anyway. The staff concerns over students going to and from the playground are based on facts that do not exist, They have cooperated fully with the staff and have offered to work out any agreements, conditions or limitations in order to provide for their concerns. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked Mr. Wilde if he had read the conditians and did he have any concerns with those? Applicant Larry Wilde: Yes. The there was one clarification, via their letter of operations, apparently the staff referenced to a maximum student load of 125. 1'hat was used for illustration purposes in their Ietter of operations that stated next years school population was anticipated to be 125, but that letter also indicated their student teacher ratio of 17 to 1 per classroom. However, they are willing to consider a limitation to the total number of students. In the staff report, the ~ire Department indicated a maximum of 593 students could house at the school. They could certainly agree to a substantially smaller number than that for this school. 05-10-99 Page 22 Commissioner Boydstun: Asked approximately how many students are elementary school and high school7 Applicant Larry Wilde: There would be approximately 30 students in 3rd through 6th grade. Approximately 30 students in 7th and Sth grade and 40 to 50 in the high school grades, 9th through 12th. Commissioner Esping: Asked how many students drivers are there cur~~ently7 Applicant Larry Wilde: Approximately 4 to 6. Their senior class is oniy 11 students, their junier class is 14 students. . He indicated they would limit the number of parents and students to speak, but he felt there are at least six people that would like to give testimony which he felt would be very helpful for Commission to hear from. Public Testimony: John Pester: 513 S. Valley: He is a parent of two students at Acaciawood School. He graduated from the University of Texas with a Masters of Science in Community and Regional Planning. He served on the City of Arvin's Planning and Zoning Commission for two years prior to moving to Anaheim in 1995. He also currently serves in a volunteer on the Project Area Committee on the West Anaheim Commercial Corridor Redevelopment Project. From a land use perspective there is probably no site in Anaheim that by law allows such a diverse range of permitted land uses. The base zuning on the site is Limited Industrial but in 1997 many offices were added by Conditional Use Permit No. 3953. In exchange for this upgrade many of the land use privileges associated with ML Zone were eliminated. While retaining the right to develop uses listed in the section on permitted primary uses and structures, the owners agreed to remove all of the uses listed in the section on permitted outdoor uses, permitted accessory uses ~n structures and permitted temporary uses in structures. Consequently, many of the uses that are typicaily as~ociated with industrial zoning, especially those associated with the concerns raised in the plar~ning staffs report, were eliminated and are no longer allowed nn that Site. The office uses that were added were accounting, advertising, appraisers, banks, business systems, communications consultants, etc. The property manager is prepared to testify that the property management for this site is seeking to move this property into the direction that is more toward the higher end uses and people friendly activities. Nevertheless, a simply land use reality remains that simply cannot be ignored. Namely that the primary uses iisted under ML Zone are still permitted on this site. Without Commission's approval, this site can be used to house, for example, a bottling plant, brewery, machine and carpenter shops, to name just a few of the permitted primary structures. It is only as land uses such as Westwood College and Acaciawood School are added to the site that the pendulum will irretrievably swing toward higher end activities that are people friendly and neighborhood friendl~~. Ths real estate broker for the Ar aheim Palms Curporate Center has confirmed, through a letter, that this site for Acaciawood School can not now command office rental rates, but with the addition of a school the nature of this building will be forced to change. !! will be forced to be upgraded. Only then will there be incentive to convert this building into an office space. To deny the school is to leave it as a warehouse and thus to give the pendulum of development on this property a push in the wrong direction. In addition to Conditional Use Permit No. 3953, which added office uses, the Planning Commission recently approved Conditional Use Permit No. 4074 for a school on this site. In the staff report that recommended adoption there was no mention of any potentialiy related environmental or industrial related incompatibilities with the school. In many respects the developmental direction of this property is at a precarious point in bai~nce. It can by law go in either direction either toward more industrial or toward more office and people related uses. If it were swinging toward industrial they as parents would not want to let their children be educated there. Their application proves it is swinging to~vards people friendly uses. He mentioned of a letter from Westwood College urging approval on this matter. 05-10-99 I'age 23 He urged Commission to consider approving this conditional use permit for Acaciawood Schooi Steve Clark, i S39 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA: Stated he is the Senior Propeny Manager of Anahe!m Palms Corporate Center and was present to speak in favor of approviny the conditional use permit for the school. They have a goal at the property of providing a safe environment arid people friendly development. He felt Acaciawood's desire to be there is an indication that their gnal is ~zing reached. In 1969 Calcomp developed the 28-acre site into a manufacturing and office complex, which looks more like a co!lege campus with numerous trees, grassy areas and outdoor amenities. In 1997, the complex was renamed The Anaheim Palms Corporate Center, and in the past two years over 5 million dollars have been invested in the property to upgrade it into a multi-tenant office complex. In order to do this there was a zoning overlay that eliminated the harsher industrial uses associated with ML Industrial Zone ~nd added many high end users. The amenities and strategic locati~n have been very attractive to corporate tenants. Recently they have had two multi-billion dollar corporation sign 10-year leases on the property. What is encouraging is that both tenants do not have a large number of employees because they are an automated switching company. Neither of these tenants are involved in pickup/delivery type materials. Both operations are clean 2nd do not invoive hazardous type materials. Now they are almost near completion of their build out which will be taking 25,000 square feet in an adjacent build from the one that is proposed for Acaciawood. Even though this area is g2nerally classified as industrial they are more desirous of following the recommendations of the Planning Commission tn develop this site to accommodate office and people oriented uses rather than industrial uses. Their buildings are setback by more than 500 feet from La Palma Avenue which they believe this is safe, positive, and low traffic environment was instrumental in attracting Westwood, their school facility that was recently approved by the Planning Commission. They were surprised and somewhat disappointed by the recommendation of denial knowing that Westwood was approved. They find it inconsistent with Planning staff's previous finding related to Westwood College and their hope is that the Planning Commission will consider approval of this application. Commissioner Boydstun: Regarding the grass area between La Palma and the playground, approximately how many feet is that back there on the grass area from the street to where their playground starts? Steve Claric: The width of th~ entrance is 30 feet. Commissioner Boydstun: it appears to be quite a ways back and suggested a condition be added regarding this. Stefan Robichaux, 1827 E. Beacon Ave., Anaheim, CA: He is currently a junior at Acaciawood School and arrived there two years ago. After coming from a public high schuol where he spent hvo years of being tormented he was very glad to be in a new school. In Jr. High School he w~s tormented for several things. One was because of his love for school and aptitude with computers. He was picked on, tormented and became embittered with school, taachers and disillusioned with everybody. When he arrived at Acaciawood in 9th gr~de his parents told his this was an opportunity to start over to make something better of himself, but instead he wasted the opportunity and for the first two years he did not make uny great changes. He found himself still in the same habits of being rude, being obnoxious, not doing anything for school. He did not care about himself ~r his future. He would get into troutile and became a burden to his ~are~~ts and older sister. 05-10-99 Page 24 He now considers himself changed for the better. The school has done so much for him and he wished that he had not wasted the first two years. His grades are also on the rise although there is still room for improvement. One imporkant thing that the teachers have taught him is the need for setting goals and making them a reality. He wants to make something of himseif and something of the community that he lives in. He felt this is entirely attributed to the school, teachers, staff and the students. He urged the Commission to approve the conditional use permit for the sake of continuing their school and continuing the work that their school has done and will do in the future. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked Mr. Clark if there were industrial uses, manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, or outdoor storage present on the property? Mr. Clark: They do not have anything along that line on the property. THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked Mr. Wilde he had mentioned Condition No. 1 has 925 students on campus at any given time, would a more correct number be 250 as he stated in his testimony7 Mr. Wilde: In the long run that would be a more accurate testimony but it would take them years to get there. Chairman Bristol: Th~ two concerns that he had when he was out there Saturday was the use and the stacking. He felt this property is appropriate fcr a school because there would be no stacking problems and dropping off like some of the other private schools experience. There seems to be a lot of open space for the children to play bi,t the concern he had were trucks. The concarn is the egress and ingress right across the speed bumps an.i where the children are going to come across. He asked staff how they would mitigate? Commissioner Bostwick : Suggested the property manager put a sign at that entrance stating "No trucks". Bristol: Asked staff if that is possible? Melanie Adams: She indicated a phone call was being placed to Mr. Yalda to comment for the Traffic and Transportation Division. Mr. Clark: This is rea~ly out of the way for trucks to come through here, They would be agreeable to installing a"NO TRUCKS" sign there. Commission Bostwick: As;ced Mr Wilde if he was in agreement with Condition No. 10? Mr. Wilde: Responded yss, and he asked to comment on Condition No. 9. It ask that sidewalks be constructed along La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer: Sidewalks exist on La Palma Avenue. They still would request sidewalks be constructed on Giibert Street. She suggested striking La Palma Avenue from Condition No. 9. Mr. Wilde: He suc~gested the sidewa;k would be better constructed along the private driveway rather than Gilbert Street wh~ch would make more sense. Melanie Adams: It is her understanding that there is a bus stop very near the intersection of La Palrna Avenue and Gilbert Street and it would be a natural path for pedestrians to reaching the school t~ go north aiong Gilbert and into the school. Mr. Wilde: Actually it would be just as easy and maybe easier to come west along La Palma Avenue. t~5-10-99 Page 25 Mr. Clark: He thought the bus stop is near the comer If a sidewalk would be needed likely the students would be coming out of school and coming straight out. Applicant: I might point out that GilbeR dead ends there and there is very little traffic there. Melanie Adams: Clarified that she was not speaking of vehicular traffic but rather pedestrian traffic going to their building. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: If this request is approved, she recommended adding to Condition Na.1 that the classes shall be from 8:10 a.m, to 3:15 p.m. only, which is what was stated in the letter of operations. She recommended that there be a condition of approvai added that would state that any outdoor play equipment visible off site shall be reviewed as a Reports and Recommendation item. She also recommended that Condition No.10 be included in the timing of prior to issuance of a building permit or prior to the commencement of the activity as shown in no.12. A clarification to the staff report, in paragraph 12 regarding the environmental impact analysis. Staff addressed the impacts of the other uses rather than potential impacts of the school and would like to change their recommendation for approval of the CEQA Negative Declaration. Chairman Bristol: He was concerned regarding the traffic circulation both entrances off of La Palma and suggested perhaps restricting with signs to prevent children from walking across there. Commissioner Boydstun: They have agreed to install a"no truck" entrance" sign. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: They could work with :he management who runs the site to make sure all the deliveries take place from one specific driveway which they could control. Mr. Wilde: A clarification on Condition No. 1. The classes do end at 3:10 p.m. but they also have after school activities. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Staff was trying tie the condition to what ar2 the reasonable the hours that the students would be there. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked the applicant when are they usually fin'sshed with their aiter school activities? Larry Wilde: Seldom but on occasion they may stay that long. In most cases it from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. would be appropriate but in a few occasions students might be there for special activities. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Suggested Condition No. 5 be deleted since it duplicates Condition No. 4. Alired Yalda: Regarding the sidewalk on Gilbert Street, it is important to have a sidewalk on a public street because the applicant could in the future. Therefore, he urged Commission to request the applicant build a sidewalk on Gilbert Street. Commissioner Boydstun: Commented that Gilbert Street does not go anywhere, they can not cut through there. Alfred Yalda: There are two bus stops there. There are people who walk to the site and there needs to be a sidewalk. Commissioner Boydstun: She wondered why it was not required when the development went in on this project? Alfred Yalda: He was not certain why that was but he is trying to make sure every street has a sidewalk so pedestrians can walk safety. 05-'f 0-99 Page 26 Chairman Bristol: He felt Mr. Yalda has a good point since Commission did not os•iginally approve a school. He feels the children are going to cut across to Gilbert Street. C:ommissioner Boydstun: Do you need Saturdays for practicing. Mr. Wilde: Occasionally on weekends. Chairrnan gristol: Was concerned with any possibls noise factor and asked Mr. Wilde if there was a school band that pi•acticed. Mr. Wilde: There is no school band. FOLLOWING 1.A SUMMARY OE THE 6+LAN(~ING`CQMMISSION ACTION. IN FAVOR: 15 people were present/2 people spoke. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Decla;-ation Granted Conditional Use Permi; No. 4112 with the following changes to conditions: Deleted Condition ~lo. 5 Modified Condition Nos. •I, 9 and 12 to read as follows: That, as stipulated to by the petitioner, the hours of operation for this private school shalt be limited from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., with a maximum of two hundred fifry (250) students on campus at any given time. That sidewalks shall be constructed along Gilbert Street in conformance with Public Works Standard No.110. The sidewalk shall be five (5) feet wide adjacent to Gilbert Street. Parkway trees and groundcover shall be planted between the curb and sidewalk as approved by the Community Services Department. The developer shal~ obtain a Right-of-Way Construction Permit from the Public Works !~epartment, Development Services Division prior to construction of the sidewalk. 12. That prior to the issuance of building permits or prior to the commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 7, 8 and 10, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time ic; complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Added the following conditions: That a"No Truck Entrance" sign shall be posted on the easterly driveway alony La Palma Avenue. That any outdoor piay equipment visible from the public rights-of-way shall be indicated on plans submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 05-10-99 Page 27 VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant Ciry Attomey, prasented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 53 minutes (2:38-3:31} 05-10-99 Page 28 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 10b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 98-99-12 Granted, unconditionaily INITIATED BY: City-initiated (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 OWNER: Parcel A- 220 North Beach Boulevard Boas Family Partnership 1800 Aver~ue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067 Parcel B- 200 North Beach Boulevard Metropolitan Insurance Company 9950 Mayland Drive, #405 Richmond, VA 23233 Insurance Company 2501 Pullman Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 Parcel C-100 North Beach Boulevard Tosco Corporation P.O. Box 52085 Phoenix, AZ 85072 LOCATION: 100, 200. and 220 North Beach Boulevard. Property is 4.46 acres located at the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue. To reclassify subject property from the CH (Commercial, Heavy) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC99-76 Commissioner Bostwick Measurements on the listed parcels do not match with the map Cheryl Flores They tried to make the map clear by adding the dimensions, but did not change the staff report. The map is correct and they will correct staff report. Commissioner Koos: Requested that the Redevelopment Agency give Commission a status on tnis vicinity. Greg Hastings Responded he would request the Redevelopment staff to attend a P;anning Commission meeting. L.: . r~~LOWING 15 A 5UINMARY QF THE P.LANNING C.OMM15810N,ACTION: ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration 05-10-99 Page 29 Granted Reclassification No. 98-99-12, unconditionally. VOTE: 6-0 (one vacant seat) Seima Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeai rights. DISCUSSION TlME: 2 minutes (3:32-3:34) Commissioner Koos requested that the Redevelapment Agency give the Commission a status of what is going on in this vicinib,r. 05-10-99 Page 30 11a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 Contin 11b. VARIANCE N0.4349 (READVERTISED) 6-7-99 OWNER: John H. and Donna M. Currie, 7570 Martella Lan2, Anaheim, CA 92808 i INITIATE~ BY: City of Anaheim, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Portion A: 7570 East Martella Lane. Property is 1.0 acre, located 627 feet east of the centerline of Martin Place. Portion B: 151.161.171 South Canyon Crest Drive. 120 South Martin Pace. 7540. 7550 7551. 7560. 7561 7570, 7571. 7580. 7581 and 7a90 East Martella ~ ane and 180,181.190 and 181 South Possom Hollow Property is 17 acres, located 270 feet south of the centerline of Canyon Crest Drive. Waiver of (a) minimum private street width and {b) minimum front yard setback (on Portion A only) to construct an 811 square foot garar~e addition for an existing single-family residence. VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. to ApplicanYs Statement: (John and Donna Currie both stood at the podium.] Donna Currie, 7570 East Martella Lane, Anaheim, CA: They do not understand what has been passed down to Commission from the Zoning Administration meetings. Chairman Bristol: Explained it appears that this street should be 40 feet wide, currently staff is indicating it is 20 feet wide. The Planning staff is recommending 36 feet as a variance. When the widening occurs, their garage extension will be within a setback that is not allowed. Staff i~ recommending not to allow that garage to be built within that setback are~. Donna Currie: It all started from a need for a garage and to correct a previous building mistake when their home was built in 1986. When one drives up !he street, the only thing that can identify their house is by the garage doors. The house was originally designed to be in the opposite direction but at the last minute it had to be changed to fit it on the lot. They reviewed the immediate area and have concluded that their street would not be widened for various reasons. Most streets are 20 feet and there are no sidewalks in the area. They had a 20 foot road easement that was never developed. She asked the City if they could use ihe easement as setback from the garage addition and after receiving the approval they proceeded with the plans, only to later find out that she was confused with who she had spoken to and needed to speak to additional departments in the City. Public Works did not care if they used it as setback, but the Planning Department did. Land has been sitting there for 40 years and they had not been required to develop it. They do not see any future plans to develop and want to use it as a setbacR requirement. They look at it as a hardship on the property today. (She presented a map showing lots etc. and discussed the Standard Detail. j 05-10-99 Page 31 Natalie Meeks with Public Works indicated that the paved po~tion of the road is oniy required to be 28 feet leaving the remainder 12 feet setback to be used for sidewalks and landscapfng. She also stated Public Works did not have a problem with what they are asking them to do because they were not building on the easement, just building up to it. What is the practicality of the road being widened and if it is widened are they creating something that can not be dealt with at that time? If the addition was granted and the road was widened to meet Standard Detail, one corner of the garage would be 12 feet from the edge of the pavement and the other corner would be 20 feet from the edge of the pavement. Commissioner Boydstun: (Referring to map) Asked if it would be possible to cut the corner of garage ~ feet, come up and cut over that way they would never be right on the easement. It appears they have more than enough room to do that. Chairman Bristol: Asked Ms. Adams, this is a private street, if new applicants came in to build out those two lots, the setback requirements would be just Iike it is right now, what would happen or the street, would it be the same street width right now? Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer: By code new homes would be required to comply with the standard, so they would need additional paving, gutters and walking path. Chairman Bristol: Asked if there is no association and CC & F2's what is the likelihood of this ever being widened? Commissioner Boydstun: Asked what does your title of the property state7 If the title of the property states they have to dedicate a 40-foot roadway that can not be built on and if its private, all of the neighbors would have similar requirements. Donna Currie: That is correct, the property has a 40-foot easement that dates back to 19G0's when it was subdivided. Commissioner Boydstun: If Commission aliows them to build on this then the neighbor's all say they're going to widen the road to get the fire truck down and their house is sitting on the easement, the would have to tear the house down. Donna Currie: It wouid not be sitting on the road easement because you have 6 feet, 28 feet or inches and another 6 feet. The corner would never be right up against the actual blacktop, it would be 6 feet off. If you put in sidewalks, that 6 feet would be a sidewalk or landscaped which is what she would like to do today. Everybody builds up to the edge. John Currie: Landscaping, walls come up to the street, it is not 20 feet from the edge of the street. The original road easement was a 40-foot road easement, the road was built on the opposite side of the 40 feet which is only 20 feet. It was done because the property was not graded at the time and was economical to build road on that side of the street. Melanie Adams: Asked how they are going to accommodate drainage, will a subterranean be put in? Where will khe pedestrians walk be located't Commiss~oner Bostwick: Thirty four feet is agreeable with the design as it stands now, then where does that put it as far as the setback? Chairman Dristol: Asked if Mrs. Currie understood7 Mrs. Currie: She replied she understood but it is difficult to talk about something that is not going to happen. Melanie Adams Drainage is a safety issue and when they are alter the drainage there is the potential for flooding homes so it must be fully addressed. 05-10-99 Page 32 Mrs. Currie: Wants the road to stay exactly as it is today which will not affect drainage because it has all been taken care of in the past. Chairman Bristol: Asked that she deal with the street first, before worrying about setback. Mrs. Currie: She would approach her neighbors and would abandon her 20 feet if her neighbors agreed to the change on their titles. Mrs. Currie: Asked if Commission is going to go back to the standard in place, 40 foot or now the 34 feet, or could she get it down to 28 feet? Chairma~ Bristol: No matter what she does she still has the setback problem, and if she answers one question respective of the street, they are going to ask her why she is doing this, which is to build a garage and go into the setback area. Mrs. Currie: She did not have to do that, if she abandons her 20 feet the road stays as is, she has 20 feet. She is 5 feet over because she turned the garage doors around. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: There is a misunderstanding as to what abandonment is. What she is seeking to do is have other people agree to grant her 20 feet that is presenlly road and utility easement. Mrs. Currie: Yes they will grant her partion of the prnperty, as far as road, back to them. So the road easement will go away. They will still have the 20 feet utiliry easement which they will put the garage somewhere close to that at the corner. Chairman Bristol: He explained that she could not hr.ve 20 feet on one house and 34 on others. Mrs. Currie: Yes, it would have to be the whole area. She asked Public Works to support that and they said they could not support it. They keep going back to this standard, but she has a problem with that because the standard was also in place in 1950's for this 40 feet wide. If that is the case, when she built in 86, why wasn't she required to put that road in? Why was she not made to do it then? Is she going to be required to do it now? Melanie Adams: She did not know the procedures at that time. The worst case scenario, it was a staff error. It is not their policy to compound errors but look to correct them. Mrs. Currie: If it was a staff error it was all the way up the street being built at different times. Melanie Adams: Today they are looking at more than 20 faet of pavement. If they are talking about the 20 feet of pavement, they still need to retain an area for drainage that is an sdditional area and their recommendation is that they provide a place for people to walk, which is even more area. The minimum Fire Department safety is 20 feet of fully paved area, drainage ~;~ill be to accommodate the drainage, pedestrian path is 4 foot wide. Mrs. Currie: Said she would go to her neighbors and explain that she would like to abandon her 20 feet and if they all agree and it came off of their titles, what would Commission do? Chairman eristol: No matter what they do, they will have the setback problem, and if they answer one question respective of the street, they are going to ask why they are doing this. The applicanYs response would then be they want to buiid a garage and want to go into the setback area. Commissioner Bostwick: Offered a motion for a continuance to June 7, 1999, seconded by Commissioner Esping and motion was carried. 'F.oCLQwING;iS A SUMMARY OF:THE Pi:ANNING COMMISSION ACTION ~ ' ~ OPPOSITION: None 05-10-99 Page 33 ACTION; Continued subject request to the June 7,1999 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to meet with tfie adjacent home owners to see if they agree to a waiver of the minimum private street width. VOT~: 6-0 (one vacant seat) DISCUSSlON TIME: 54 minutes (3:35-4:29) 05-10-99 Page 34 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:30 P.M. TO WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1999 AT 9:Q0 A.M. FOR THE POINTE* ANAHEIM LIFESTYLE AND RETAIL ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX PUBLIC HEARING: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN N0. 004 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 359 AMENDMENT N0. 4 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 92-1 (INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THE DESIGN PLAN AND THE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN} CONDiTIONAL USE PERMiT N0. 4078 AMENDMENT TO THE A~IAHEIM RESORT PUBLiC REALM LANDSCAPE PROGRAM AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT N0. 99-01 Submitted b;~: ~ ..~.,..~,.~c~ Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary ~~'G~+~i~.. ~-°'„t~.C. -~'~J Simunne Fannin Senior O~ice Specialist ~ay~~. `1~a.~`~ Danieile Masciei Word Pracessing Operator 05-10-99 Page 35 Items: 1a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION/MITIGATION MONiTORING PLAN NO. 004 1 b. GENERRL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 359 1c. AMENDMENT N0. 4 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 92-1, (INCLUDING AMENDNIENTS TO THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THE DESIGN PLAN AND 7HE PUBLIC FACILlTIES PLAN) 1d. WAIVER OF CaDE REQUIREMENT 1e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4078 1f. AMENDMENT TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT RUBL(C REALM LANDSCAPE PROGRAM 1g. DEVELOPMENT AGREEf,'~iENT N0. 99-01 1h. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 1e and 1d with 1a,1b,1c and 1f Date: Wednesday, May 19,1999, at 9:00 a.m. Place: Gity Councii Chambers 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California m~4,a., ~ Osbelia Edmundson, Secretary Date: ~/~~199~ l r. 1 f r W ~ ~ U ~~ ~ ~W ~ ~ z 0 H ~~ ~ rn ~ ~.6' J ~ ~ ~ W p : j :,ti _ ~~~ In Re ) ) POINTE ANAHEIM ) ) ~ERTIFIED ~~CJPI( TP.ANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Anaheim, California Wednesday, May 19, 1999 ti Reported by: .~,,~, EVEM. JAMES ESQUIRE~ CSR No. 9934 JUB 130. 540422 DEPOSITION SERYJCGS 2100 N. Broadway • Second Floor + Santa Ana, CA 92706 714.834.1571 • Fax 714.834.9235 • 800.888.6949 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I 14 I 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In Re POINTE ANI~FIEIM TRANSCI2IPT OF PROCEEDINGS, taken on behalf of Pointe Anaheim, at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, beginning at 9:12 a.m. and ending at 5:22 p.m, on Wednesday, May 19, 1999, before EVE M. JAMES, Certified Shorthand Reporter No. .9934, 2 8 9 io il 12 13 I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 City Staff: JOEL FICR, Planning Director MARY McCLOSKEY, Deputy Planning Director LINDA JOHNSON, Senior Planner JOHN LOWER, Traffi.c/Transportation Manager City Consultant: JOAN KELLY, Managing Principal, BonTerra Consulting Representing P~inte Anaheim: • NOSSAMAN, GUTF.iNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP BY: JOHN P. ERSKINE Attorney at Law 18101 Von Karnian Avenue, Suite 1800 Irvine, California 92E12-1047 (?49) 833-7800 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Z4 I 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -. .~ _.___ _ A*~aheim, Califorzia, Wednesday, May 19, 1999 9:12 a.m. - 5:22 p.m. TRANSCRTPT OF PROCEEDIIJGS 1~II2. BRISTOL: Welcome, this morning to the Anaheim City Planning Commission. There is something big going on here today, and the first thing we~re going to do is have a salute to our countxy, (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.) MR. BRISTOL: Before we begin this morning, we have a special presentation. It~s not that the I ~ Planning Commission is easy anyway, and then to come on as a new commissioner for this date we kind of wonder about Mr. Vanderbilt, but we have the city clerk here to swear Mr. James Vanderbilt in, please. (Mr. Vanderbilt was sworn in.} 1~2. BRISTOL: I~ve got something to read, folks, so bear with me. "The purpose of this meeting is to conduct a public hearing relating to the Pointe Anaheim project, including, A, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitnring Plan No. 004; B, General Plan Amendment No. 359;~ C, Amendment No. 4 to the Disneyland.Resart Specific Plan 92-1, including zoning and development standards, design plan and guidelines.and public facilities plan; D, 4 ~::_ . , :; . 1 2 : 3 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 1Z 12 13 14 15 16 17 I 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Conditional~( ~ ~ / Use Permit No. 4078; and, E, Waiver of code requirement relating to minimum number of parking spaces; F, AmEndment of the Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program; and, G, Development Agreement No. 99-01." With regard to the last item; we havP been informed that the negotiations on the dtvelopm~nt agreement are still under way and have received a request in writing from the applicant for continuance af this item until the June 7, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. It is now time to open the public hearing on the proposed project and receive testimony and evidence, both oral and documentary, concerning this subject. Prior to openina the public participation portion of this hearing, however, I'd like to explain the procedures which the Planning Commission will f ollow in conducting this hearing. First, staff will present its staff report and the city's environmental consultant wi•11 present a report on the Mitigated Negative Declaration report. Following staff~s presentatiun, I will call upon the applicant and its representatives t~ present testimony and evidence. Following the applicant's 5 ~~ - 1 presentation, the Planning Commi~sion will_hear 2 testimony from'the public. 3 Consistent with the City~s Council rules 4 of order, the Commission will first hear tes~imony 5 from any persons wishing to testify in tavor 6 oi the proposed project. Following the receipt of all 7 testimony from persons in favor of the project, the 8 Commission will hear testimony from any persons 9 wishing to testify in opposition to the project. 10 To provide everyone an o pportunity to 11 speak within a reasonable period of time, each speaker 12 will be limited to fi.-°e minutes. If you have a group 13 presentation with a series of speakers wishing to 14 speak consecutively, the first speaker of the group 15 should let the Chair know at the beg~.nning of the 16 presentation. If•you will need more than five minutes 17 for your presentation, please request the permission 18 of th~ Chairman prior to the presentation to exceed 19 the time limit. 20 Al1 persons who testify may, at their 21 discretion, also submit written or other graphic 22 evidence to be considered by the Planning Commission. 23 Al1 such evidence presented will be retained by the 24 Secretaiy of the Commission and will become a part pf 25 the recorcl of this hearing. Any questions concerning 6 ;;::, , ;;'; ;- : w.. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the project should be posed to the Chair. Direct' qiestioning or discussion between the staff, consultants and members of the public wi~l not be permitted. The Commission desires to ~llow each speaker an opportunity to present testimony an all relevant isst?.es. However, in the interest of time, please keep your remarks as concise as possible. Please do not repeat testimony already presented by other speakers. Plea~e speak only to the relevant issues. Please do not speak more than one time during the public hearing. As Chair, I have the right to rule out of orcler any tesL-imony wY:ich is not germane to the issues or which is repetitious in nature. Following a speaker's presentation, members of the Planning Commission may ask the speaker qu.estions regarding his or her testimony. Following the completion of testimony, members of the Planning , Commission will be given the opportunity to ask questions of. the staff, its consultants or members of the public who have t;estified. After the completion of such questioning by the Planning Commission, the public ~articipation portian of the public hearing will be closed. Once the public hearing is closed no 7 1 member of the public shall be allowed to present~ 2 addi~ional testimony or evidence. However, such 3 pewsons may respond to any additional. questions posed 4 by members of the Planning Commission during the 5 Commissions~ deliberations. 6 Special note: At about a pproximately 7 12:3Q the Planning Commission will recess for a lunch 8 break. This will Y~e about an hour. I~11 let 9 eveYybody know at that time. We say ~~approximately~~ 10 because we~ll try to do that at a reasonable breaking 11 point in the proceedings. And a summary of th~se 12 procedures are available at the table located in the 13 lobby area. I now will ca11 upon staff to make its 14 presentation. ' 15 MS. McCLOSKE~: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 16 members of the Planning Commission. I~m~Mary 17 McCloskey, the Deputy Planning Director. Before you 18 today is the Pointe Anaheim Lifestyle, Retail and 19 Entertainment Complex, whicr, a~ ~etailed in the staff 20 report, is proposed to include over a half-million 21 square feet of dining, retail and entertaixunent uses, 22 two to three hotels comprising a maximum of 1,050 23 hotel rooms and an approximate 141,00~-square-foot 24 area on the top floor of the parking structure to be 25 used for parking and/or Pointe Anaheim Hotel . 8 ,` _ 1 amenities. The project also includes up to three 2 theaters with a total of 4,600 seats for 1'ive 3 perfoxmances or, alternatively, a 24-screen movie 4 theater with 4,757 seats. Finally, a 1.6-million- 5 square-foot parking structure with provisions to park 6 up to 5,200 cars and 25 buses is also proposed. The ~ 7 parking structure would also include an approximate 8 21,000-square-foot terminal for airport and 9 sightseeing buses. 10 The proposed actions include General Plan 11 Amendment No. 359, which is a request to amend the 12 land use element of the general plan to incorporate 13 the Pointe Anaheim overlay and its associated density ' :L4 and the description of the Disneyland Resort Specific 15 Plan. Amendment No. 4 to the Disneyland Resort 16 Specific Plan No. 92-1 establishing the Pointe Anaheim 17 overlay. Conditional Use Permit No. 4078, which would 18 permit the development of the Pointe Anaheim project 19 with waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces. 20 The Code requires 7,668 parking spaces if the uses 21 were analyzed separately. And as I mentioned earlier, 22 the proposed project includes a parking structure that 23 accommodates 5,200 cars. . 24 Also proposed is an amendmenz to t-he 25 Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program to 9 s;'>;':.. : ~ . . Z 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 13 I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 ~5 l .~ modify the landscape concept plans far Freedman Way ; and Cl~ment:ine Street to provide for breaks in th~ landscape median islands for access poirts ta the project. The applicant is also proposing a development agreement between the City of .'lnaheim ~nd Pointe Anaheim LLC, which woulci vest certain proje~t entitlements and further address the implementation of the project. . Relative to the development agreemen~, staff received a letter from the applicant, which has been provided to you, dated May 18, 1999, requesting a continuance of the development agreement to the June 7th Planning Commission meeting. As indicated in the staff report, negotiations are under way between the applicant and the city. And at this time we would recommend that the Planning Commission, by motion, continue its consideration of this development agrezment to the June 7th Planning Commission meeting at 1:30 in these council chambers. The completed~development agreement and a staff report providing recommendations on the agreement will be forwarded to the Planning Commission prior to the June 7th meeting, P~2. BRISTOL: Okay, Mary, so we really can't disctiss this because we don~t have this. Is that 10 1 •--1 pretty much correct? MS. McCLOSKEY: Yes. You have not received the -- the development agreement is still under negotiation and you have not received a copy of it and there hasn't been a staff report. So we believe it would be in order to now continue that to the Jur~e 7th meeting. P~2. BOSTWICK: And I'll offer a motion for the continuance.of the Development Agreement for Pointe Anaheim LLC to the June 7th meeting. MR. BRISTOL: So moved. (The motion was seconded and carried.) I NIIt. BRISTOL: Okay, Mary. MS. McCLOSKEY: Now I~would likF.to provide you with a summary of staff's recommEnrlations which are outlined in detail in the staff report. Foll~wing my comments, the city's environmental consultant, Joan Kelly of BonTerra Consulting, will discuss the environmental review p~ccess that has been undertaken for this project. Staff has carefully reviewed the proposed actions before you today and recommends that the project be madified to incorporate staf~'s recommendations which are set forth in detail in the staff rQport. Relative to signage, the applicant il w ~:: r . . . . . .. . . . ... ; . .. . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ . . . r'~~ . ~ ~ . . . ~ 1 proposes a numb f• . . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I er o amendments. The first is to exempt interior signage from all existing Specific Plan sign regulations. Staff supports this exemption in part but recommends t:~at the list of prohibited signs identified in the staff report continue to apply to the interior signs as we feel these types of signs would not contribute towards a quality environment in the interior of the project, even if not seen from the public right-of-way. The applicant also proposes to allow signs which would be exempt from the code to be seen from the public right-of-way provided they are located behind a building and positioned low enough that the commercial message is not legible to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Staff does not support this provision as it is very ambiguous and would be very dift'icult to interpret and it could also result in the project having a clutterPd and unattractive sign appearance which would be incompatible with the goals of the Anaheim ResQrt. The applicant also pr~poses to allow for views of interior'signage tk~rough three limited view corridors located at a distance of 160 feet from the public right-of-way. Al1 signs within these vkew 12 1 corridors would comply with existing.code. Staff 2 supports this provision provided that the view 3 aorridors are located a distance of at least 160 feet 4 from the public right-of-way or corresponds ~ith the 5 set-back of the last building bordering the view 6 corridor, whichever is further. Tn order to establish 7 a more logical ending point for the view corridor, 8 the boundries of the view corridor in accordance with 9 these provisians will be reviewe3 as part of the final 10 site plan process. 11 Subsequent to release of the staff 12 report, staff has reconsidered the building that is in 13 the middle of the ~arbor Boulevard view corridor which 14 helps to limit the views into the site. If this 15 building is removed for any reason, the view through 16 this carridor would be substantially increased. 17 Therefore staff is recommending that a new condition, 18 No. 94, be added to the Specific Plan and the 19 Conditional use permit conditions of approval, which 20 read as follows: That in the event that the building 21 shown in the middle of the Harbor Boulevard view 22 corr~dor on Exhibit 5.8.3.f.5 is destroyed or proposed 23 to be removed for an~ reason, it shall be replaced 24 with the construction of an equivalent structure, same 25 size and dimensions shown on Exhibit 5.8.3.f.5 and 13 1 Elevation Exhibit No, 7, in order to provide for the 2 same 7.imited views of the interior signage in this 3 view corridor. 4 Prior to the a pproval of a demolition 5 permit for said building, a final site plan showing 6 the design ef the replacement structure shall have 7 been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission 8 and ~ building permit shall have been issued for the 9 new building, Construction of the new building shall 10 conunence immediately following demolition of said 11 building. 12 Prior to the issuance of a building 13 perznit for said building, an unsubordinated covenant 14 providing for the reconstruction, approved by the 15 Planning Department in a form satisfactory to the City 16 Attorney shall be recorded with the office of the 17 Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded ~8 covenant shall be submitted to the planning division 19 of the planning department. 20 Staff has also included a condition, 21 which is in your staff report, requiring a coordinated z2 sign program to be submitted as part of the final site 23 plan. And another recommended condition would limit 24 exterior wall signs ta major tenants with over 10,000 2S square feet, of interior area in order. to prevent the 14 1 project from having the appearanCe of a commercial 2 strip center with multiple business signs. 3 The petitioner is also proposing to have 4 up to five icon or theme signage elements subject to 5 the approval of a conditional use permit. Staff is 6 supporting only one, which would be located in the 7 northeastern portion of the property as shown on the 8 Iron Theme Signage Element Plan and Attachment B of 9 the staff report. 10 The petitioner also proposes that the 11 height of the icons correspond to the height of the 12 adjacent building or in the case of those along Harbor 13 Boulevard, no higher than 75 feet. Staff is 14 recommending that the icon height be limited to 30 15 feet, which would be more in scale with the pedestrian 16 and vehicular environment rather than corresponding to 17 t.he scale of.the high building that it would be 18 adjacent to. 19 There are also other amendments proposed 20 in the plan as follows: The proposed site plan shows 21 one Pointe Anaheim driveway on Katella Avenue located 22 10 feet from the adjacent Suger 8 driveway. Staff 23 recom~ends that the plar be redesigned to combine the 24 Pointe Anaheim and the Super 8 driveways or to m~et 25 the distance of 40 feet set forth in the existing code 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 li 12 13 14 15 16 I 17 I 18 ! 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to'better serve the traffic flow-into and out of the two properties. The petitioner has also proposed breaks in the Fr.eedznan Way and Clementine Street landscape me3ian islands. Staff supports the Clementine Street median opening as Clementine Street is the main access point to the Pointe Anaheim project but not a main entxy employed into the Anaheim Resort. Staff does not support the Freedman Way median opening as Freedman Way is one of the primary accessways to the resort from the I-5 Freeway. The median opening is not necessary to accommodate the flow of traffic ~o the site and the reduction in landscaped area would detract from the garden-like environment that is being created in the resort. S~aff is also recommending two conditions of approval requiring a free right turn lane be constructed on the south side of Freedman Way from the parking garage driveway exit to Clementine Street in order to improve outbound parking structure operations. Staff is also recommen.ding the ~ installation of the ultimate right-of-way improvements on the north side of Katella Avenue from Clementine. Street to the first project driveway west of Clementine street to improve vehicular access to the 16 .. ~ _ ~:i~ .:j- ;i: . ~ . . ~ . . . ~ ~ . . ~.... project. - Staff is also recommending one additional condition of approval which is nct reflected in your staff report that you received. A new condition, No. 5, is recommended to be added to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078, which would extend the time frame for the conditional use permit for the period of time that the project is challenged by third-party.litigation and/or inititive or referendum. Condition No. 5 would rea~~ as follows: That any time limitation set forth in the condir_ions I of approval to this Conditional Use Permit No. 4G78 shall be tolled during the periad of time that the project is challenged by third-party litigation and/or , initiative or referendum. Finally, ~taff recommends that the two naise mitigation measures set forth on page 9, Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004 be modified to delete the reference to the Family Entertainment Center as that is no longer a component of the preject. with the incorporation of staff~s changes, we recommend that you find, as we did, that the project accions are consistent with the goals and policies~of the general plan and the Disneyland Resort 17 1 Specific P~an and w'll f 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 io 11 12 13 14 15 I 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I 24 25 i urther the goal of transforming the Anaheim Resort into a world-class destination by providing another quality visitor- serving venue to the area. Conversel;T, if staff ~ s recommended changes are not incorporated into the project, staff does not support the project actions and does not believe that there is consistency between the project and the general plan nor the Sgeci£ic Plan 3oals and policies. Now I need to make the following comments for the record. Staff has prepared a staff report for this project and a copy of that report has been delivered to each of you and has also been made available to the public. The applicant has also submitted an Explanation for the Proposed Amendments to the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, which was provided to you on Tuesday, May 18th. A copy of the applicant's explanation is available at tne Anaheim Planning Department. Staff has received a number of letters and postcards regarding this project, which have been forwarded to the Planning Commission and are on file in the Anaheim Planning Department. In addition, a number of~individuals have telephoned the Planning 18 5'~ 6I 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 opposition to the project. As of this morning, two additional letters have been recezved, and you have received copies of those, one from George Adams, dated May 18th, 1999 and one from Linda Neube, dated May 17th, 1999. Copies of these letters have been provided to you this morning. These lette;rs are also available for view at the Anaheim Planning Department. At this time I would like to formally enter the staff report, the applicant's explanation, the letters and postcards into the record for this hearing. If you have any questions, staff from each department who have reviewed the documentation, and will have oversight of some component of its implementation are present here to answer those questions. I would now like to turn the presentation over to Joan Kelly who will explain the environmental process to you. Thank you~ MR. BP,ISTOL: Hi. MS. KELLY: Good morning, Chairman, and Members of the Planning Commission. I~m Joan Kelly, managing 19 M1 l 1 2 3 a 5 6 7 8 9 10 11~ 12 I 13 I 1~ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .. .. . . .. . . _. ..} :;, I was prepared to prepare the CEQA documentation for the Pointie Anaheim project. as you know, the project is within the Aisneyland Resort Specific Plan iloundaries. Build-out of tne Specific Plan was evaluated in the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan EIR or EIR No. 311. CEQA encourages what is called tiering, which is the ability to use a previously certifi.ed envir~nmental document as the framework for a more ' specific project.that was addressed within the original EIR, such as a specific development within a specific plan which was evaluated within the EIR. As a result, the decision was made to addiP.SS those issues associated with this project which were different from thos~ evaluated in the original EIR. All environmental issues were thoraughly covered in EIR No. 311 for the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. Fiz~dings of fact and a Statement of Overriding.Consideration were adopted and all impacts 20 5 6 7 8 9i 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 =~--r--__.. ~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,, ..~ u~~u a5 d Dase aocument ior the Pointe Anaheim analysis, thus tiering from that original EIR. When the three previous amendments for I I the Disneyland Resort 5pecific Plan were amended, EIR No. 311 was used as the base CEQA documention^done for q~ wng the Pointe Anaheim proj~ct. The density proposed for the Pointe Anaheim project is greater than associated with development of the 200 -- excuse me 2,182 hotel rooms currently permitted within the Specific Plan for the project site. This is because the traffic associated with the proposed project is greater than the traffic associated with build-out of those hotel rooms. As a result of this increase in density or intensity, technical reports were prepared for the environmental issue~ which included the potential for new impacts associated with the project. These technical reports, which were included in the environmental document, include transportation, circulation and parking, ai~ quality, noise, water, wastewater and electricity and hazardous materials.and a shade and shadow analysis. An / 21 t - ,-~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 io ii 12 j 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ analysis discussion was prepared for the remainirig environmental issues within .the base analysis o:E the NIldD using EIR 311 as the base documentation. These issues include land use plans and policies and land use conpatibility, earth resources, hydrology, C;r.;truction impacts, employment, ~aopulation and housing. The remaining public services and utilities, including police, fire, solid waste, garks, schools, storm 3rains, natural gas service, telephone, ~ televisi.on service and reception, visual resources and esthetics, cultural resources and energy use. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Pointe Anaheim pr~~ject because all of the potentially significant project impacts were reduced to a 1eve1 consid~red less than significant. The Mitigated Negative Declarati~n was circulated for a 30-day public review period commencing on January 20th of this year. Following the end of the public review period, responses to comments were prepared for all of the environmental comments on the project document. They were made available to the public and the Planning Commission on P.pril 28th of this year in the Response to Comments document. In tize response to comments received~-- in response to the comments 22 t ~ \1 1 receYVed, the applicant has proposed project design 2 features which add additional mitigation ~o potential 3 impacts from the project. Those will be incorporatcd 4 into the project which will be monitored as project 5 mitigation measures by the city. 6 An errata was also prepared, which is 7 included in your staff report as Attachment E. This 8 document includes corrections to the Mitigated 9 Negative De~laration and Responses to Comments 10 document, which includes rewordxng of several li mitigation measures. In addition to the 65 mitigation 12 measures from the original EIR No. 311 which were 13 incorporatecl into the Nitigated Negative Declaration, 14 an additional 33 project-specific mitigarion measures 15 have been added to the Project Mitigation Monitoring 16 Plan, which is part of your A*tachment F of your staff 17 report, to ensure that mitigation of all project 18 environmental impacts are done to a level considered 19 less than significant. 20 This concludes my presentation, and I am 21 available for any questions you may have as~well as 22 other consultants who participated in preparation of 23 the document. Thank yo~i. , 24 MR. BRISTOL: Thank you very much, Joan. I 25 appreciat.e that. Before we -- do you have anything 23 ~ '_ _ r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 i~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e].se? . . . . ...:: . :. . '.: . . . . . -. ': :':.. `. ...:; .;i1'. ., .;..: .: .~.~._:~.~: ~::~ ~ _ ~ ~. . ~. ~ .•^~~ . . M8. McCLOSKEY: No, we have nothing further fnr staff . NII2. BRISTOL: All right. Thank you, Mary. I~m, going to do something I was supposed to do 15 minutes ago. Commissioner, I~m supposed to ask, per the cit,y attorney, Commissioner Vanderbilt, did you review the in.itiation proces~ from last year and the documentation you have before you? 1~IIt. VANDERBILT: Chairman Bristol, yes, I did. ~ NIl2. BRISTOL: The reason we ask that question, as you know, Mr, Commissioner Vanderbilt just found out, what, tiiis week, you were.on, and there's a 1ot of reading material and I wanted to make sure and that ~ s saha~ we have to do . Okay. The 3pplicant. NIl2. ERSKINE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is John Erskine. I~m with Nossaman, Guthner, Knox &.Elliott. We repre~ent Pointe Anaheim LLC, which is Western Asset Management, Excell Legacy Corporation, Robert Shelton, David Rose, Stan Castelton. T~d like to welcome Commissioner Vanderbilt. to your first meeting. It's always nice to 24 _ ~ Z start with a small infill project as you begin your 2 tour of duty. Having served as a planning 3 commissioner and councilman and a coasL-al commissioner 4 in an earlier stage of my life, I know what you're 5 going through and, believe me, it'll get easier than 6 this one, I think. Good luck. 7 NIl2. VANDERBILT: Thank you. S ~t. ERSKIYE: I've been representing applicants 9 as a land use attorney around the state of Califo:~nia 10 for almost 20 years in various capacities, and this 11 project is a real pleasure to be involved in. 12 Contrary to the sort of feelings we have and sort of 13 the electric atmosphere here this morning, the 14 consultant team finds this fun. This has really been 15 a great project to work on. It's a little ironic, 16 too, that we're here with a strorg opposition. As I 17 was getting my Starbuck's this morning at the 18 Huntington Center, which is really kind of a ghost 19 town along the 405 Freeway, I thought of some of my 20 recent conversations with some of the Huntington Beach 21 councilpersons who would probably send us a van here 22 to pick up these guys and bring them to Huntiington 23 Center. So you've got a fortunate situation in that 24 you've got a number of people, property owners and 25 investors, trying to make Anaheim a better place. So 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8' 9 10 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 itTs good news for Anaheim. ~ Before I introduce the effervescent David Rose and the iconesque Robert Shelton, who I think probably by himself violates the Specific Plan height ordinance, I~d like to say just a few brief words and then I~m going to try during the morning and probably on into the afternoon to serve as the rinymaster liere on our side of the project. I'd like to say a few brief words about the project entitlements that we're going throuqh. As you know and has been described by the staff, we have a Specific Plan amendment, Amendment No. 4. It's also known as rhe Pointe Anaheim or also basically creates the Pointe Anaheim overlay. This amendment builds upon and implements the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. The General Plan Land Use Element Amendment and the CUP before you basically allows the retail, entertainment, hotel complex uses that ar.e within the Pointe Anaheim overlay. The overarching concern you have is not implementing or fulfilling or presenring, and you!11 hear all those words, of the Specific Plan, because the plan, as I will elaborate, is a dynzmic document, but the ov~;rarching concern as some of you probably will learn anew, but will hear more and more about in 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $i 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I 18 I 19 2 0 ~'' 21 22 23 24 25 the coming years as you serve on the.Commission, is that the Specific P1an amendment be consist with the General Plan. The General Pl.an, as you know, is the constitution for land use. And we have a lot of information in the record pertaining tc General l~lan consistency. There's a whole section in the staff regort so I won~t go over that, but I just want to point out that if you look at the objectives, particularly Objective 1.2 in the General Plan consistency section, you'll see that this Specific Plan amendment is very consistent with the community objectives of your General Plan in that it provides a varied base, a multi-destination resort, creates other opportunities to attract tourists and to provide visitor-serving commercial uses within the Specific Plan area. So that's an important point I think tr,at we need to remind ourselves of. Can specific plans be amended? Not only are they amended every day of the week in some jurisdiction in California, but specific plans as a creation of the state legislature, specifically in one of the sections in the Specific Plan Act, sets forth , the legislature's intent that specific plans be, and I quote, "Amended as often as deemed necessary by the I legislative body." So the process you're going 27 rc., 1 2 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 i 24 I 25 I th'rough is a very routine and increasingly frequent exercise. The whole notic+n that the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan is a plan cast in concrete and in need of vigilant preservation from those who would see an opportunity to expand that vision is fallacious. The Specific Plan has been amended, as you know, three times since 1994, and we~d like to think that the fourth time is going to be a charm for you. I want you to read in particular -- this ~aould be the only thing -- well, I don~t want to say that yet, but probably the only thing I read into the record today. Section 1.7 of the Specific Plan. "During the reviews provided for by the plan, modification to some of the design concepts may be necessary in order to accommodate new or changing conditions unforeseen in this Specific Plan.~~ It's on page 1-10, page 1-10 of your Specific Plan. "This kind nf modification is a normal part of the development process and will be permitted if the basic intent of the Specific Plan is preserved. Section 7.0, Zoning Regulations and Standards, set forth the parameters within which modifications may be considered.'~ So I think that there~s a~lear intent expressed in that section that as economic realities, 28 ,`; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I 23 I 24 25 ~ as~new opportunities arise, the Specific Plan is'to be amended, and that's specifically fulfilling the vision of this docum~nt of the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. And what we'd like to do, just in terms of procedure, if the Chair would so please, we'd like to introduce the other members of the development team who have presentations. David Rose, as I said, Robert Shelton, Jerde, a representative of Jerde Architects, and Stan Castelton. And we'd like to reserve time, if we could, after or towards the end of the public hearing, preferably after the break, to comment on the revised conditions and some of the conditions we're just hearing about the first time this morning. So if the Chair would, please, that's what we would request. NII2. BP.ISTOL: That'll give you more time. So do you want to do it at the rebuttal? I~t.. ERSKINE : Yes . NII2. BRISTOL: That would bE fine. MR. ERSKINE: Thank you. I'd like to bring up David Rose. I~IIt. ROSE: Effervescent, I don't know about that one. David Rose, Pointe Anaheim, LLC, 3870 La Sierra, Suite 193, Riverside, Califarnia 92505. I sit before this Commission and sat in this Commission in 29 ~ . 1 this hall and sat in this audience, sat at this 2 podium, sat behind staff for approximately a decade, 3 as both a consultant and as an employee of a 4 consultant. I represented numerous landowners during 5 the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and the Disneyland 6 Resort 5pecific Plan and actually wrote by my hand the 7 third Specific Plan in the Anaheim Resort area. So 8 I~ve been here a few times, you could say. 9 In 1994, when I started my own company, 10 the very first thing that 2 sought out to do ;aas to 11 learn from the experiences that I had, the opportunity 12 and the privilege of being involved with the City of 13 Anaheim. I gained a lot of experience. I learned a 14 lot. I'd seen the•variety of exciting things that the 15 Walt Disney Company had proposed as well as the City 16 of Anaheim had proposed, and it was really exciting to 17 me. I was young, I was naive, not tn say that I'm 18 still not, but I had an idea in my mind that it would 19 be a good oppo:tunity for Anaheim to catch the wind of 20 an exciting opportunity that wus happening called 21 entertainment centers. So in late 1994 I,set out to 22 find an individual, a mentor, a developer,.a somebody 23 that could lead me in the direction that I though~,. 24 from my perspective, to fill a void that I saw in the 25 Anaheim Resort area, specifically a shopping, 30 ..~ 1 2 3 ,, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 I entertainment and dining facility and also an opportunity for some additional hotels. I had worked on the largest hotel project proposed. That was in 1995. So it was really exciting to see what I thought were the opportunities avaxlable. That search literally led me around the United States and into Canada for over a year, at *r~hich point I had a lot of slammed doors and a lot of people using words like impossible, never happen, et cetera. It was strictly by chance or providenc~: that I happened to be in Palm Sp.rings working on behalf of a client that I ran into a story of a project, and I wouldn't go into the details, but that individual led me to Universal Studios CityWalk, which actually was the thing that started me down this path because it was a brand-new project. Thinking five years ago, The Block didn~t exist, the Irvine Spectrum didn~t exist. CityWalk was just opening, and there was something in Anaheim or actually in Orange County that wasn't present. The gentleman that I met opened a store at CityWalk who actually happened to be the number one tenant at CityWalk. So in my mind the light went off in my head. Here I had a gentleman who had experience • 31 . ~ _\ ~ . . ' - -~ ~ , ,. ~ t ~~~ ~ . . .. . . . . . ~ . 1~10~5.1-}- . 1~ in'developing a projPCt that not only ~ a tourist 2 or resort area, Palm Springs, but also involved hotel 3 and convention, two of the backbones of the City ~f 4 Anaheim and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, but~he 5 31so had entertainment.development experience, n~ w 6 I've been pleased ta call this person my 7 friend as well as my gartner. He and I are not here 8 as consultants. P~e are here as developers and as 9 partners. I~d like to introduce my partner this 10 morning. His name is Rohert Shelton, and Robert, as 11 well as the rest of the development team, will be 12 presenting the Pointe Anaheim project, which has 13 literally been about four and a half years of my life 14 and about three and a half years of Robert's life. 15 We~re excited, we~re glad we're here, and we hope th:at 16 we can answer any questions you may have thiG morning. 17 Without further ado, I~d like to introduce you to my 18 partner, Robert Shelton, Thank you. 19 NIl2. SHELTON: Chairman Bristol, members of the 20 Planning Commission, I~m pleased to be here. If it 21 wasn~t for Aavid Rose inviting me to lead this 22 predevelopment effort, we wouldn't be here this 23 morning. I think when David chose me, as he 24 indicated, when David chose me to help him put 25 toget?^.er this project anci to lead this effort in 32 1 p'redevelopment, he was reflecting on a couple of my 2 own experiences that I consider the most wonderful 3 things I~ve done in my life. 4 One of those was building a convention 5 center in downtown Palm Springs and another of those 6 was building the largest hotel in Palm Springs~ 7 attached to that convention center. And then my wife 8 and I opened up a retail store in Universal CityWalk. 9 And David said that we were the number one store 10 there. Actually, we were the number cne in terms of 11 retail sales per square foot. We weren~t the largest, 12 but we did more sales per square foot than any other 13 store on the street. ' la I'd like to think that in being at the 15 Universal CityWalk we learned a few things about 16 participating in an environment such as the resort 17 area, and we are hopefully calling on those 18 experiences in the design of this project. As you put 19 together a project like this, it~s not something that 20 can be done by one person. It truly is a team 21 effort. And my role as the leader of a predevelopment 22 effort has been to stand in for that team when L-hey~re 23 not around, to hire the right people, and theri when 24 they~re not available, to make their presentat:ions for 25 them. Fortunately this morning, ti;wt r.eam is here 33 .~.~._ ~_ 1 with me and they can make their own presentations far 2 retter than I can make them. 3 And so rather than me go through and talk 4 about the pr~ject a^.:I ~alk about the architerture and 5 talk about the environmental mitigati.ons, I t2link it 6 would be best if I let the architects and traffic 7 engineers and environmental experts do that. But I 8 would like to give you a little.bit of background, a ~ time line of how we got from David talking to my 10 former employee, w~za is head of redevelopment for 11 downtown Palm Springs today, and here. 12 The way we g~t here was, really, a pretty 13 simple proce:ss, at least in the key words for it. It ~ 14 was land assemblage, contacting some partners and 15 tying up with some partners who had the tenant base 16 and the financial. strength to make the vertical 17 improvements happen on the project, pu~,ting together 18 the enwironmental documentation, to substantiate that 19 we would improve the neighborhood rather than degrade 20 it. And finally coming tu this hearing and moving 21 through the process of the entitlement required for 22 the land. 23 That's frankly not where the project 24 stops, however. When we leave here, one of the tziings 25 that we're hoping to do is to create a rejoinder of • 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1G 11 12 13 :.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 al 22 23 I 24 I 25 I :, : _:.; ; _ . , ~~ , ~ , - the people that are here to preserve the vision with the people that are here with our s3ogan, ^Fulfill the Vision." This is one of th~ newspapers that was interviewing me a couple days ago and I got the feeling was trying to cast this as a David and Goliath fight. And if you read ~he interview and my comments in it, you don~t see anything about David and Goliath in that. That's not what we're here for. We're here to make the city of I~naheim better. We're here to create a better envir~nment for the to.cists who come here; we're l:ere to extend the length of stay; we're here to accomplish a variety of objectives that I feel are vital for this community. ?1nd more importanrly, that I be~ievP in listening to you and the city I councilmembers and members of the community who come to our townhal~ meeting~ and our design charrettes that you believe we ~are vital to this community. So what I~d like to do is to talk a little bit about the land assemblage and the land that form the footprint of this proj~c~, and then I'd like to introduce a couple of our team members. And then later in the day you~ll probably see me back because I tend to be the person who is Lhe rebuttal person so. you'l1 probably see me later in the afternoon. But let me first bring up a graphic ~f the various pieces 35 1 of~property that create the footprint for this '. ? project. And let me start over in the upper left-hand 3 corner at the corner of Freedman Way and Disney Way. 4 And those streets today, if you go out on the site, 5 the street signs I believe read Clementine and 6 Freedman Way, but when the dust settles and the new 7 streets are installed and the new curbs and gL.ters 8 are in place, those two -- that corner will be the 9 intersection of Freedman Way and Disney Way. ~0 At that corner the city owns a piece of li property that's roughly 1.35 acres. In November of -- 12 in October, excuse me, of 1997 the city put out a 13 request for proposal to divest that piece of property. 14 Thep received, I am told, a tatal of nine proposals ', i5 from interested parties to develop the property, to 16 acquire and develop ic. Our. org~nization was one of 17 those nine. I~ve been told that all -- that eight of 18 the nine have been subsequently declined and we're the 19 only residual proposer for the property in terms of 20 its acquisition. 21 That piece of property becomes the main 27. corner entry from the freeway access that will be 23 provided when Caltrans finishes the improvemenks of 24 the offramp that comes down Disney Way into ~he 25 ~isneyland main gate. And the property right below 36 1 it; the Melodyland praperty, the 9.54 acres is what we 2 call the swing property. And in that property there 3 is currently a church and office use. The pastor of 4 the church is here this morning, Dr. Ralph Wilkerson, 5 and Ralph may be speaking later during the public 6 comments period. But ~hrnugh David's introduction to 7 Ralph, we were able to negotiate an option to acquire 8 that property in September of -- I~m sorry, November 9 of ~96. And so all of the efforts that have gone on 10 since 1996 have been based upon the cont=ol of that il swing parcel in the L-shaped parcel that f~rms this 12 property. 13 Ralph was kind enough after we entered '_~ into tiie option to•introduce us to Mr. Rist, the 15 4.44-acre property there that fronts on Katella. And 16 we enter.ed into an option on that property as well 17 from Mr. Rist. WE were introduced to the Zabbe family 18 and entered into an option on the corner of Xatella 19 and Freedman for the -- the current use is the Rip 20 •Jan Winkle Motel, which is 1.4 acres. Behind that is 21 the Hasenyager property, which was previously owned by 22 six separate heirs of the prior own,er, and that 23 property we~ve just recen~ly acquzred. There was a 24 press release concerning our acquisition of that 25 property so it's no longer under option but, in fact, 37 . . . . . _ . , \ . . . .,. ' . '. . , . ' .. ~ ~~~ 1 we've acquired that property, 2 Behind that is the Bur er J property next 3 to the fire station. This is a nonconforming 4 industrial use. And now moving down Katella, there is 5 a property that~s referred to as the Ursini. It~s 6 actually the Ursini and Christian property. This is 7~the C.hinese restaurant and the little gift shop on 8 Katella. And then finally the Anaheim Plaza Hotel on 9 the corner. And as relates to that property on the 10 corner, I should add that we do not presently have 11 that property under option. We did for a period of 12 time. In January of this year that option endec3. A 13 number of the reasons for that is the lengthy process 14 we've g~ne through in the environmental review. I~m 15 proud of the fact that like the old carpenter story, 16 you measure twice and cut once. We've measured four 17 times in.*he environmental documentation that are 1$ before the Council or before the Commission today. 19 So in that process, the good news is that 2~ the materials I think have been reviewed and z1 rere~~riewed and rereviewed and hopefully gotten better, 22 and better and better as we've gone through the 23 process. One of the unfortunate side effects of that 24 process has been that that option has ended. We are ~5 confident -- land development .i.s risky -- we are • 38 ` 1 corifident that based upon the entitleme t f 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 I 22 I 23 24 25 . n s or doing this, for proceeding with this project, that we'll be able ~o acquire that property at the appropriate time or else we wouldn~t be standing here and we wouldn't continue to spend the kind of money that we're doing on this project. In fact, the acquisition of the .72-acre Hasenyager property at a little over a million dollars occurred after the date of termination of the option on the corner property. So we're very optimistic of being able to put the pieces together at the appropriate time to proce~d and actually build this project. And with that scated, let me move from the land to the architect, because as I think I told David in one of the first discussions we had, the project ultimately has to touch dirt, but then once it touches dirt, the project has to have a design to it. S~ in terms of the design that we anticipated for this project -- and maybe we can move up this now so we can see some of the design behiied it. Rather than me talking about the design, however, I want to talk about the design firm. I first was introdtxced to The Jerde Partnership by my friend Sonny Bono. Sonny was the mayor of Palm Springs at the time and Sonny used to 39 1 have these meetings as at his hause where he invited 2 different people from the community that had done 3 large projects there to talk about the future of Palm 4 Springs. At one of the those meetings he said I'm 5 very excited because I~ve got this gentleman by the 6 name of John Jerde who is going to help us make Palm 7 Springs great. And John is the master of doing large- 8 scale projects and Sonny was a visionary. Sonny 9 thought he was going to change Palm Springs, the 10 downtown to be revitalized. And if any of you have 11 been in the downtown area of Palm Springs recently, 12 part of his vision is coming into existence anfl the 13 whole area is undergoing a rebirth. 14 John was the person he introduced us to 15 as being the architect that cauld help with that 16 process, and John provided some great ideas. And then 17 my company won the contract to proceed with the 7•8 implementation of some of those ideas. I next ran 19 into The Jerde Partnership in 199g, when I was moving 20 forward, as David had talked about, with my wife in 21 opening up a retail store at CityWalk. Lo and behold, 22 the architect for CityWalk was Jerde Partner~hip. So 23 I renewed my acquaintances, my friendship with The 24 Jerde Partnership, and at that time they were on the 25 cutting-ed.ge project for a retail entertainment 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 11 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ceriter. ~ ^ As we started looking around for alternative locations to CityWalk, Jerde was also the architect for the primary alternative for that project location which was the Mall of America, the largest ma11 in America. So this is a company that~s done a I lot of work. Rather than talk about it, I'll let them talk about it. And so with that as a brief introduction, what I want to do is introduce Stan Hathaway who is a principal of Jerde Partnership and let 2-~im talk ab~ut their background and take you through the design of this project as they~ve laid it out. NIl2. HATHAWAY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you for this opportunity today to present the design concepts for the Pointe Anaheim. What I'd like to first do, though, is reinforce kind of the two principles that the Jerde Partnership uses in the design of all their projects. An~ I think what it does is it creates unique projects that are wa•rld renowed and become destinations. First is we emphasize the host site. Al1 our projects look very unique. You're familiar probably with Horton Plaza, CityWalk, Fashion 2sland and Main P1ace. All those projects have a very unique 41 {. r ~i . .. . ~ _ ~ . .~. ~ ~. . 1 look, and the reason being that we build upon the 2 strengths of the location and try`to supplement and 3 support the weaknesses. So we try to bring something 4 unique. We don~t have a style of architecture that we 5 just implant from location to location. We really 6 look at the host site. Secondly and probably more 7 important is we reinforce the pedestrian experience. 8 John Jerde often says the space between the buildings 9 is often more important than the buildings themselves. 10 Not to say that we don't care about the architecture, 11 but it~s the space that the ppople move through the 12 buildings that make it very crucial. And it's the 13 sense of place for the creation of what we call a 14 uniqu.e experience. The whole idea is to create a 15 unique experience as you~re moving through the 16 projects, and we kind of coined this texm 17 "experiential place making.~~ So both of th~se 18 principles you'll see in all of our projects. 19 What I~ti like to do first is go through a 20 few slides of some of our projects and show a little 21 bit of the history. And then I~11 turn it over to 22 Glenn, one of my partners here at Jerde Partnership, 23 and he can present the design concepts. You may want 24 to dim the lights a little bit here. 25 Horton Plaza, of course, everyone is 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I il 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ,~ : familiar with the Horton Flaza. It opened in about 1984. I think the important thing aaout Horton Plaza is that for the age it~s held up very well. We 3o not design trendy architecture. It looks as good today as it did when it first opened. The other aspect is when Horton Plaza was being designed, there was a lot of opposition to it, the his~oric gas lamp district adjacent to it. And what it did is transform the wholE downtown and made the downtown extremely successful. The gas lamp district is now thriving. So creating these destinations can actually revitalize entire areas. The next project is Canal City, which is in Fukuoka, Japan. It opened two years ago. As you can see, the project is situated along a river and along a canal. Again, it revitalized the entire downtown area of Fukuokz. In this case what we did was we brougl~t the canal experience into the retail experience so that the canal becomes a major feature for the pedestrians. This is a true mixed-use project. It has two hotels, an office building, five levels of retail. It has entertainment components. It was AIr!C's first destination out of the United States~ movie theaters, there's a performance theater and other.restaurants and entertainment components. 43 , . .. . . . ; , , _ , 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ~ 12 13 14 15 I 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The oth~r aspects, ~-ou~ll see the variety that the architecture has as you move through the project. So there~s always something you~re experiencing as you move through the project. Again, using landscaping as a softening element, so at times the building becomes kind of transparent but it~s the space we~re dealing with. And the entrance to Canal City from the street. I You know, entertainment is kind of on the tip of everyone~s tongue. And, actually, when Horton Plaza was built, we talked about retail could be an entertaining experience. But in terms of true entertainment experience, in the late '80s we worked on Times Square. A~nd here, again, the challenge was to incorporate the large signage components that were mandatory as a requirement of the architecture to be incorporated into L-he design of the project and also to bring that into the interior of the project. And, of course, CityWalk was one of the first entertainment proje~ts built. And it~s important to note here, originally it was designed as a-- it felt like it would be a great attraction to Universal Studios and would be mostly supported by tourists. The reality,is more locals go than tourists. Its success is based upon the 1QCals. And I think in the Pointe Anaheim as 44 ' i . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 13 I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 24 I 25 I ~. : ^.~ . well we want to create a great balance between locals and the tourist. You neefl to have an experience that people want to come back again and again. I think ~ that's testimony to CityWalk that the locals are supportive of CityWalk. Another project that opened about two years ago is in downtown Las Vegas, Fremont Street. Plow, Chis has to do with revitalizing kind of a dilapidated environment. What happened was that as the strip was being invigorated and everyone was going to the strip in Las Vegas, downtown Fremont Str.eet became no man's land. We came in and said, look, let's build upon what the strength of Fremont Street is. Fremont Street at one time was called glitter gulch. It's all about the light experience. So we created this canopy that basically goes four city blocks long that creates during the day shade and environmental -- nice environment, but at nighttime becomes the framework for a great show and experience, And the project is called Fremont Street Experience, but what it has done is revitalized the whole downtown and created a great district. So we're very fond of kind of r.einforcing the philosophy of creating great districts. ' The last two projects are resort 45 1 destin~tions. An3, again, I'm presenting these 2 projects, not that th~y lo~k anything like Pointe 3 Anaheim, but the fact that's our experience in working 4 with hospitality projects and hotels and destination 5 resorts. Treasure Island, extremely successful 6 project. We designed the entire showpiece and the 7 look of the architecture of Treasure Is'land. $ It's imgortant to note here, tao, that 9 what we~ve reinforced is to bring the pedestrians into 10 that experience. Instead of just creating a stage 11 set. Acttially, as a visitor you can participate and 12 be part of the experience. You can dine along the 13 terraces there and watch the show. So we really 14 create a participatory environment. A.~d, of course, 15 Bellagio, probably the most expens~_ve hotel built, if 16 not in the United States, in the world. We were 17 involved in not only the hotel portion of it, but the 18 entire waterfront and major interior components. 19 Again, this was Steve Wynn's idea of 20 trying to bring class to Las Vegas, but, again, these 21 grojects tend to be much more themeatic, and, again, 22 not what we would be proposing in Poir~te Anaheim. 23 Great interior spaces, very elaborare. Not only 24 necessarily replicatirg history, but cr~ating a sense 25 of history but kind of giving a new twist to it. 46 1 So what I~d like to do is pass this on to 2 Glenn Nordlow. He is a principal at Jerdp 3 Fartnership. Eie is the design director on this 4 particular project. And I th~nk what he will 3o is 5 reinforce how we've used our experiences in the p~st 6 in terms of our hatel, retail and entertainment and 7 created a new destination that's specifically designed 8 for. An~heim called Point~ Anaheim. Thank you. g Ngt. NORDLOW: Mr. Chairm.an, Members of the 10 Commission, it's a pleasure to be here today. I've il been with The Jerde Partnership for nearly 17 years 12 now and I think one of tne great opportunities with 13 this project, I had a chanc? to kind of get a glimpse 14 of over 12 years ago when we were doing work here in 15 Anaheim fer the Rather Corporation on the Lisneyland 16 Hotel property. Can we have the first slide? This 17 project was developed -- the project rather -- 18 NIl2. BRISTOL: Do ~ot: want us to dim those 19 again? 20 MR. NORDLOW: YES, thank you. 21 Here is the plan of the resort area,~here 22 is Disneyland and here's our project. And tihe project 23 that I was referring to that I was involved with 24 initially was with Rather and it was located adjacent 25 to t~e Disneyland Hotel here. .And this was at a time 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 z~ when urban entertainment was really not even thought about. And we really saw a poteztial in this project, the Rather groject, and other projects we were doing of really enlivening znd invigorating cities by bringir,g entertainment out to the street, bringing entertainment into trie u.rban fabric. And this property presented a great opportunity because it was adjacent to Disneyland. And fundamentally it had ~ almost the identical program that we have in the Pointe Anaheim project. The opportunity was to, in the. Disneyland area, provide a complementary use_ And the Rather Group cook the projec~ ta Disneyland and Disney was very intrigued by the idea. We then proceeded to develop the concept with Disney, but on their own progerty,.in this area right here. And we developed a project with Disney cal:led lTrbanopolis. And, again, it was a similar progr,am to Pointe Anaheim and pr~sented wonderful opportunities for extending the stay of visitors to Anaheim by not only offering Disneyland but also this new attraction. And the attraction was thought to be best in the evening but it would work throughout the day. Disney was intrigued by the idea hut there were several problems at the time with the 48 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i ~~, _ Anaheim site. And one of the problems that we felt all along, but T think it still exists today, is that this location here is rather hidden. And the notion was, like our CityWalk project, was to make it a nongatEd experience, something that would be open to visitors and alsc somerhing that would be for the local audience as well. So it wasn't just tourist- oriented but had a greater draw for the area. We developed the project in another form with Disney initially in Florida, a project that started off with Treasure Island and then eventually grew to Disney Downtown. Disney did that project in-house but we were involved with the initial concept. And Disn~y was a natural for really developing enCertainment and we hoped a natural for bringing that entertainment out f rom behind the gate and onto the street~. And we had great visions of bringing Disney to main street U.S.A., the real main street U.S.A., not the one behind the gate. We then moved on with Disney to take this idea and expand it beyond sort of an urban village to actually a city and work with them on the initial concepts for EuroDisney where this idea of entertainment, which would include a mixture of uses but mainly resor*_ uses, would be developed in Europe 49 ' S,I` _~ • ~i' • j _. ~~„ 1 1 and help them begin the project which was ultimately 2 realized in EuroDisney. . 3 Now, when the Pointe Anaheim group came 4 into our office and showed us the site, it was really 5 an exciting moment because we, in fact, really ]cnew 6 the site well and had a great vision for it and had, 7 as Robert said before, had realized our initial 8 concept in the CityWalk project. MCA Group saw the 9 opportunity of taking what was a gated attraction and 10 turning it and opening it up to the public and making 11 it more of an attraction for locals as well. And so 12 we knew that that concept would work, and we knew thar_ 13 one problem with the project in Anaheim was that aur 14 initial site, over here, was not behind a gate 15 necessarily, but was behind Disneyland and not as 16 accessible. l~ The great asset ~o the Pointe Anaheim 18 site and the project in general is that it has two 19 fantastic addresses, one address on Hazbor Bouievard 20 and anotner one on KatelJ.a. So this brought our 21 vision right to where it really needed to be, which 22 was right on the boulevard. And as Stan said, we 23 really believe that to invigorate cities you have to 24 invigorate the streets and the si~ewalks. And so to 25 have two major frontages Zike Harbor and Katella~gave 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 us the opportunity to create gateways into the public area which we would create within this site, and to be 3ble to bridge Katella and Harbar was another great opportunity. For the city we felt that the opportur.ity for economic development and to enhance the quality of the resort vision that the city has put out, we really needed to have a sLrong interface with the adjacent properties. And that there would be an impact that we would create, not only for our site, but over time the adjacent properties to the north and to the south along Harbor Boulevard would be invigcrated by the project and enhance value to our site in the long term. So this is another reason why we felt that by pulling these uses ou~ to the street would enliven the city and also ensure a successful future for the project. Th~ last problem I think that we had initially with this site here is the fact that at the time, 12 years prior, the city, especially the streetscape~ along Katella and Harbnr, and.to a certain Extent even to the freeway, were in pretty sad sha~e and it was really not the kind of setting wheze this kind of concept could work. And we were very pleased to find when we looked at the project that the 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ~ Z2 13 14 15 16 17 I 18 19 zo 21 22 23 24 25 city has now made great strides in developing a setting for a project like this, which is a vPry landscaped-oriented environment. And the streetscape, as you remember we said that the streets are r~ally where the life begins, are now being developed, the entire area, here, with the level of quality that we felt would be important for the success of the project. ' The uses in the project are appropriate for this kind of excitement in this kind of project. The projects that we've built in the past, shopping centers, they often suffer from a kind of one- dimensional quality. It~s just shopping and that~s it. This project is a true mixed-use proj~ct~with over 1,000 hotel rooms, dining, over 200,000 sqLare feet of restaurant facilities, 250,000 square feet of retail, and most importantly, a couple hundred thousand square feet of a very diverse entertainment program, It includes a very interesting complex/ musicplex as well as a nightclub area, whicY.. includes clubs such a music clubs, comedy clubs; m?,~i.:, activities iike that that provide for tl~e cou_•:st and also for the local resident new offerir.~~s, p~ ::.ces to spend the evening in town. ~ This whole complex sits atop parking of 52 1 one level. And it's very important in a design like 2 this to not give the impression that you're going to a 3 project that's all about parking. So we've gone to 4 great lengths in the planning of the project to 5 disguise the parking. This is the entire site here. 6 This is Disney Way, Harbor and Katella. As you can 7 see, the below-grade parking, which is a couple feet 8 below grade, is within the site and is surrounded by 9 the hotels and the retail on Katella, Harbor and 10 Disney Way. So the at-grade parking, we've gone to 11 great lengths to hide. ~ 12 We've also taken advantage of the four I 13 entry points. The possibility upon each of sites 14 developing entries for the automobile, which give us 15 the flexibility to respond to some of the traffic 16 issues by h,.;ving the ability of exiting, controled ac~S 17 entry and e~ points at all four edges or all four 18 sides, north, west, east and south. 19 Servicing is als~ an issue. And by 20 raising the project up a partial level, we were able 21 to tuck all the servicing for the project as well as 2~ bus access underneath the project so that it doesn't 23 disrupt the image,.the resort image, that we're trying 24 to create for the exterior nor does it congest traffic 25 on the sides. 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, this is actually the street lE:~•el of the project. It~s level one. And you can enter the project from the garage here, which is this L-shaped piece located 'nere at which point you can gain access to the interior street, which is shown there. The major entries ar~ from Harbor and from Katella, and all the activities, like CityWalk, are arrayed around this pedestrian street. And.that pedestrian st.reet ' starts from the real street, the automotive streets on Harbor and Katella, and comes into a central plaza, which is the main destination of the project. And this central plaza is two-level, but it~s all connected to what we call Melodyland Terrace, which is a garden setting right in the heart of the project, which is a setting for the majority of our restaurant spaces. It is also tne central activity node. Now, we've created along this sidewalk three districts. On the north, adjacen~ to Aarbor, we have the faniily district; on the south, adjacer_t to Katella, we have cahat we call the night district; and the central plaza district is the destinaL-ion in the center of the site. Each of these districts relates to a different audience. As I said, the project relates to locals and visitors, but each of these districts relates to a separate audience. The family 54 1 2 3 4 5~I 6 7 8 9 10 I 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I 18 19 20 2i 22 23 24 25 asdience for mostly daytime use but is also active in the evening, the more adult audier_ce down here where we have the theaters and nightclubs located in this area here, and a kind of mixing area, which is more of the resr,rt audience around the central plaza with the restaurants. I think the key point with this diagram here is that we're bringing all kinds of activities, and they~re not on local levels as some of our other projects. They're very much connec~ed to the sidewalk and to this pedestrian experience. Next slide. This is the upper level, and that's located here on the(,~fial perspective. And you can see the blue represents the restaurants, and the restaurants are looking out onto the central plaza. They are located.on the second level directly across from the parking. You come out and walk across on an upper level and look down into the central park and go to the restaurants. The hotels, the family hotel located on the north, the resort hotel located here on the corner of Freedman and ~,~~ne~- Way, and the group hotel located here are all connected to the second level and have entries at the street level but also have entries to the project and participate in the life of the 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 , 13 14 15 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 20 21 22 2., 24 25 ~ ~; project with connections at the second a~d at the first level. And you can s~e in this diagram here as well the parking structure. The parking structure is surrounded by buildings and disguised from the parameter and from the walk. And in the case of this str~cture, here, actually has the nightclub district located between the two structures. And this little alley of space we~re calZing Anaheim Alley, and as we proceed we'll show you what that looks like. Next slide. And this last slide really focuses on the levels above two, two and above, and it shows th~ footprints for the three hotels. And you can see herc I the family hotel has rooms that•look to the north and then also an equal number of rooms that look to the south and into the project here. Views are very important on this project. If you~re doing a hotEl, being able to look out and see the mountains beyond, et cetera, for those especially on the north is a very important feature for the hot~l, but also the view down into th~ project. So we~ve looked at that quite a bit. The lan3scape guidelines prepared by the city are very critical in this regard because they give us, when we look out at the project, something 56 ~x;; .: ~:_, . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7~ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I 25 I ve'ry beautiful to look out upon and become the ' foreground for the distant views. So we have developed the hotels on the north at the edge of the , project to look off to the mountains beyond. The group hotel looks to the south onto Katella and then ~n~o the street to the east. Next slide. These are elevation studies and the first elevation really, I think, expresses our attitude towards the project from the point o.f view of creating a resort -- quality resort character. We have taken great pains to develop the building in such a way that it integrates the landscape into the look of the project. As y~u enter the project, especially off the f reeway here and come down Disney Way, this elevation will be the first one that you drive by. And it really needs to carry the message of the project, which is that this is a quality resort ei:vironment f irst . And I think you can see here each of the hotels, and this one is the first one you see, which is located on the northeast corner. Each of the hotels has their own unique idantity, and this is important to carry the message that each of them r,as a different aud,ience and a different quality to them. Tliis is tne resort hotel. It's more adult-oriented, 57 :_ . : . , .;: _ 4 l . . . . ~. ~ . . ., . . Y . . . , ~ ' . . . . . . .'. . . ,\, . .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ' 11 12 ?3 ! i4 I 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tourist-oriented. Thi~ hotel here is our fa*.ni1y hatel, and you can see here -- this is the Harbor Street side -- you can see here that it sits within the height envelope of the Disney Resort Plan, 11nd they~re very horizontal, and that gives us a look and a feel that's sery ground-orien~ed, landscape- oriented. So we~ve taken advantage of, in fact, a requirement, which is to have the buildings fit within this height limit to create a project that's very landscaped-oriented. Next elevation. This is the Katella entrance. This hatel is the group hotel located here on Katella. And you can see here, again, it has a diiferent look. The landscaping here is primarily m.:de up of palm trees and it has a more urban feel. And this convention- oriented hotel has that same kind of look. And you can see here that we have developed a very significant enrxy gateway to the walk experience. So that leads you into the walk which then ties the project together. The hot~els, each has a very significant porte-cochere on the ground 1eve1. So cars coming down 1Catella will pull into the porte-cochere and the drop-c~ff area is lushly landscaped and played up as a major entry point anci feature of the project. Ne;xt 58 1 slide. . 2 This slide shows the Harbar elevation. 3 And similar to the Katella, it is a gateti*ay to the 4 pedestrian experience. Inside you can see here the 5 entry to the project. There are three major elements 6 on this elevation, an interactive museum piece, which 7 is right here, shuwn here, a major tenant located on ,8 the corner with Pountains and landscaping in front, 9 and then in the center, a ca.fe, a street cafe with 10 seating out on the boulevard, which, again, takes 11 advantage of the landscape and, in fact, adds ta zhe 12 landscape by creating fountains and waterworks along 13 the front of the project. Next slide. 14 These sketches, this is a sketch of the 15 central plaza. And one of the features of the central 16 plaza is that it is the heart of the project and it's 17 very heavily landscaped, and you can see here the 18 terr~ces that look down into the central plaza. The 19 terraces are populated with restaurants and then look 20 down upon an area, a plaza area, where one can dine, 21 but there's also entertainment in this area. So this 22 tent structure here, which is recalling the structure 23 at Melodyland, actuallX is the sEtting for outdoor 24 concerts. 25 This is perhaps the most significant 59 -__.___ 1 accessible, nongated public space in the city when 2 it's built. It is a very significant scale and it 3 represents an opportunity for people in Anaheim to 4 really come together in a place of significant scale. 5 And we've created the opportunity for very wonderful 6 activities to occur in this area. This section is 7 showing the street that leads up from Harbor up into 8 the central plaza, and, likewise, from Katella, as you 9 ramp gently up, this is your destination. The hotel 10 looks down into the project and all the major uses 11 feed into this part of the project, Anaheim Al1ey, the 12 theater distric~ and the family district all feed into 13 this focal point. Next slide. 14 This is the nighttime activity in the 15 night ~istrict. This section, this ar~a, this view is 16 actuaily between the parking structures. And this 17 view has parking above on both sides, but the two 18 stories of the structure are given over to clubs. And 19 so you can see here the kind of energy and nightlif~ 20 that we envision for this space. It's directly 21 adjacent to the theaters. So here are the theaters 22 located on Freedman Way and here's our pedestrian 23 walk, and as people exit the theater they can come 24 into this night area here for music, food ~nd other 25 entertainment. 6~ 1 , At the end of this street is the central 2 plaza and behind this view is the hotel. So the group 3 hotel is vezy much a part of this, and this is really 4 the heart of the night district, this view. The last 5 side. 6 I think just in summary, there are three 7 key points I~d like to make. One is that a project 8 like this, in order to really invigorate the city, 9 really needs to be out there on the street and not 10 behind a gate. And we have designed the project in ' 11 such a way that it not only is a destination for 12 itself but offers the economic opportunity for the 13 other properties to the north and south and really is 14 kind of a seed that we feel will lead to a great sense 15 of energy and new opportunity for Anaheim. 16 The second point is that the program for 17 this project is a very appropriate one for a resort 18 environment. It is grounded in the resQrt idea with 19 hotels. It's Ylot a shopping mall. It's a very 20 street-oriented, resort-oriented program and I think ~ 21 we've put them together in such a way that they really 22 display themselves nicely, both at the landscaped 23 level, but also showing the kind of activity that's 24 inside. 25 And lastly, T think the drawings 61 1 illustrate a level of quality that is really necessary 2 to create this kind ot destination. And we feel that 3 we like to look at this as an urban villaye, and the 4 resort quality is, I think, taken fu11 advantage of 5 but it~s still an urban village as well. 6 So thank you very much and I look forward 7 to responding to your questions. 8 . 1~2. BRISTOL: m~anks, Mr. Nordlow. 9 ~t. CASTELTON: Chairman Bristol and members of 10 the Planning Comn~ission, my name a Stan Castelton and 11 I am a partner in this project, Pointe Anaheim, but 7.2 I'm also the managing partner of the Hilton in Anaheim 13 and have been since before it opened in 1984. I~ve 14 been around town for a while and I think probably my 15 involvement in Hilton makes me, maybe, I~m not sure, 16 but the second largest private stakeholder in the 17 resort area. I would be very interested in this 18 proceeding if I were not a partner in Pointe Anaheim. 19 I have a huge stake in what goes on in the resort 20 area. 2~ I was a huge supporter of the concept of 22 the Specific Plan before it ever was conceived. In 23 fact, as I was driving up Harbor this morn~ng on the 24 way here, I passed a little restaurant and that went 25 back to somewhere around 1985 where I remember sitting 62 ~ 1 in a xestaurant Zate one night with a couple members 2 of staff and a city official literally drawing on 3 napkins the kinds of things that we could do to tie 4 together the old commercial recreation area from a 5 design standpoint with landscaping and theme signage 6 and so forth, but this has been a very prominent issue 7 for me for many, m~ny years. 8 I was a huge supporter of the Specific 9 Plan when it was adopted and I am a passionate 10 supporter of the plan :iow. There have been a lot of il things said about this Specific Plan. I'm sure we'll 12 hear a lot more today, but I~d like to summarize some 13 of the key issues of .:,ome things that are at least 14 im~;ortant to me that really make the Specific Plan 15 what it is. And there are some key p}irases thar I've 16 actually chosen to try and do that from the Specific 17 Plan itself. ~ 18 And if you'll forgive me for reading 19 these, this is in Section 1.1, which is Purpose of the 20 Specific Plan. It~s the first paragraph in the entire 21 document, and the phrase that I focus on there is ~~Ta 22 assure the planning area will become a high-quality 23 destination resort that's envisioned.~~ Going further 24 in Section 1.4, "Other Purposes,'~ ~~To encourage the 25 development of quality facilities which complement 63 1 coriventions, family entertainment, recreation within 2 the appropriate areas.~~ 3 The entertainment issue is a big issue. 4 I'm sure you~ve heard about the need for things to do 5 for our conventioneers. I remember a group that we 6 had in the hotel la.st fall. Tt was a great group. 7 They were here for four days. T~ao out of those four $ nights we put them on buses and shipped them down to 9 Newpart Beach because there~s no~hing to do here at 10 night. That~s a huge issue. 11 The next issue or the next phrase that 12 I'm taking is Section 1.5, which are the goals of the 13 Specific Plan. "To enhance the Disneyland Resort 14 Specific Plan area by providing a wider range of 15 attractions, hotel accommodations, restaurants, 16 shopping opportunities and public parking.~~ Again, 17 more things to do for people. 18 In Section 1.6, °To establish a unifying 19 character c~f the Specific Plan area wi~h extensive ~0 landscapincr within the public right-of-way along 21 pedestrian promenades and within building set-backs.~~ 22 Again, the pedestrian issue. That~s very, very 23 important. It has to be very pedestrian friendly. 24 The entire resort area has to be pedestrian friendly. 25 And last but not least, back to Section 64 1 1.1, "To ensure that the resort's various elements 2 come together to create an exciting, attractive 3 environment." And I eirphasize the word "exciting." 4 These phrases paint a picture for me that I think 5 almost everyone in this room would share. It should 6 become a place that provides both residents and 7 visitors a wide variety of ~hings to do. A place that 8 has this lush landscaping, that's very pedestrian 9 friendly, almost in a campus-like setting, a place 10 that is easy to get to and once you~re there, it's 11 easy to get around in. It has to be functional, it 12 has to be easy, it has to work. And most of all, iti~s 13 a place that's exciting. Pe~ple have to want to come. 14 We have such an incredible opportunity 15 here. I have had an opportunity to travel all over 16 the country and see visitor-based districts and 17 visitor-based projects. We have a tremendous 18 advantage over most of those places, tremendous 19 advantage. Orlando has great attractions. It's one 20 of the reasons why it's become such a prominent 21 tourist destination over the last. few years. There's 22 so many things to do there, but the disadvantage of 23 Orlando is that they're spread out. You have to get 24 in your car and drive sometimes 35, 40, 50 minutes to ~ 25 get there. 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 13 14 15 1 fi 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The advantage we have here is that we have the ability to provide these attractions, these experiences all within a tight area within walking distance. Smaller scale, certainly, but that is a huge, huge advantage from a planning standpoint, like no other place in the countxy, frankly, that I can think of . In order to create this environment we know what we~ve had to do. The improvements that are now taking place, and they~re wonderful, came at a high price, a price that we're all happy to pay, I think. I certainly am, and I am contributing my share in terms of room tax. But the reality is that the rea.l test of success ~f the resort district will be the kinds of uses that we have here. It's like a shopping center. If you don't have anchors, it doesn't quite work. If you don't have places for people to walk to, it doesn~t quite work. ~'u1d that really is the issue. And the reality also is we haven~t had a long line of quality users banging down our door in the resort area. We just haven't had it. With the change~ that are taking place and the vision that's underfoot, we do have that opportuni~y, but the hard reality is that large quality users need a presence. They need to be seen. They need to be seen 66 . . ~ ~ :1 . . . . 1 from the streets; they ne~d to be seen by pedestrians. 2 They make locational decisions based on 3 lots of analysis, but that~s very importanL• to them 4 and they have l.ots of options. Oftentimes if they 5 don~t get that kind of presence they simply decide not 6 to come. This hard fact of life was recognized 7 clearly by staff, by the Planning Cammission and by 8 Council in October of 1996 when Amendment 3 was 9 appraved for precisely this purpose, to loosen signage 10 regulations for an area of a specific district in the 11 resort area. 12 We all have to be flexible enough and do 13 the right kinds of things to attract these users. 14 John Erskine rea3 about the fact that the Spec9.fic 15 Plan is a living, breathing thing. It is certainly 16 contemplated to be amended. And, again, 2'm sure 17 we're going to hear a lot about the Specific Plan 18 sometime today, but it~s my sincere hope, not as a 19 partner in Pointe Anaheim, but as a large stakeholder 20 in the area that we all make the right decisions and 21 that we can work whatever problems we ha~°e out to 22 really improve and enhance and fulfill the vision in 23 the resort area. 24 I also will tell you that I firmly 25 believe that Pointe Anaheim will help do that. We 67 1 have assembled a team'here that really is trying to do 2 the right thing. And I believe that it will greatly 3 enhance the resort area and everybody will win if 4 we~re able to work these problems out. Thank you very 5 much. '6 Ng2. ERSKINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 7 interest and your patience, and that concludes our 8 presentation of the development team. Unless there 9 are any questions of the team members, we'll come back ~ 10 up after the -- more towards the end of the public 11 hearing. 12 NIl2. BRISTOL: Thank you, Mr. Erskine. We're 13 going to take, ladies and gentlemen, a five-minute 14 break. The proponents, the public that want to speak 15 that have signed this paper., you might want to line up 16 and in five minutes we'll come back. 17 (Recess.) 18 NIl2. BRISTOL: Okay. Before we get to the 19 public speaking on behalf of the project, s~ rn~~P`~~~ 20 suggested that, again, in case you folks don~t know, 21 we are having folks signing up who are going to speak. 22 They will fill iri the yellow sheet in favor of this 23 project and those in the blue sheet that want to speak 24 in opposition to this project. And the reason we're 25 doing this basically is to save time so you don~t have 68 V 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ~i 9 1Q 11 12 13 14 ~ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I 23 24 25 to do that when you get up to the podium because we typically do that. Before we have the public speak on behalf of this project, I think it would be a good idea to come back to Mr. Erskine and ask him a question, which we always do but we didn~t do. Sir, how do you feel about the staff report and the comments? NIl2. ERSRIN~: We anticipated that question and I had a little conversation with one of the other high-priced lawyers here. We specifically wanted to reserve time, and I know it's a little bit unusual, we support the staff recommendation but we do have comments and suggested revisions to the conditions. And as I mentioned, some the conditions we have just literally seen in the last of couple hours. So we wanted to have time to caucas, perhaps after you take your -- I think we understand you're going to take a lunch break or a short recess, so we want to come back . in the rebuttal and comment on those conditions. So support the staff recommendation with some exceptions. NIl2. BRISTOL: Okay. NIl2. ERSKINE: And while I'm at it, I'd like to enter a re~ised exhibit, 5.8.3.f.5. It's th2 site plans showing the icons in the c~rrect lacation and 69 r . .. ... . . . . . ~ . 1 the interior locations. And I understand that we 2 needed to do this, so another small oversight. 3 NII2. BRISTOL: Thank you, Okay. Let~s start 4 with the folks that want to speak on behalf of this 5 project. Do you want to cc~ne on down? If you'we 6 already signed the v~11ow ~heet, just state your name 7 and address. $ NIl2. BALDWIN: Thar.k you, Mr. ~hairman, my name 9 is John Baldwin, B-a-1-d-w-i-n. I live on West Street 10 in Anaheim. I~m retired, and as point of reference T 11 am now and have been for the last five years a member 12 of the Anaheim Senior Citizens Commission and I'm very 13 interested in what happens to the geriatric part of 14 our saciety. A part of society which I hope you all 15 will reach one day. While I speak to you I w~uld like 16 to have you think long term, because that~s what our 17 plans are for you. 18 In the information which we have garnered 19 from seni~rs in Orange County, generally, Anaheim 20 citizens particularly, transportation is the number ~1 one problem which we face. Getting from here to there 22 and getting about in the city is a very difficult 23 program for seniors, particularly since Dial-A-Ride 24 has been wiped out and Access has taken its place in 25 what we consider to be a very unsatisfactory fashion. ~ 70 i; _ .. 1 Again, thinking long term, transportation 2 hopes are that OCTA and light rail or whatever will be 3 some amelioration for the transportation problEm~ that 4 seniors face. Along with that, we face the same 5 concerns that you do, maybe a little bit more so, but 6 that is for our general well-being and safety. There 7 are very few places in Anaheim now where Anaheim 8 citizens and Anaheam seniors can walk, shop, go to the 9 movies, eat or whatever in safety. 10 We no longer have Center Street upon 11 which we can walk back and forth, have a good time, 12 meet our neighbors. We have the downtown community 13 center which is a gathering point and which is a fine 14 facility, needing a little bit more working out to get 15 it totally acceptable. So what T~m saying is that 16 with the opportunity that we have in a resort of this 17 nature where citizens could during the day or during 18 the evening go there, walk about, shop, dine, attend a 19 movie oz whatever with the feeling of safety, with the 20 feeling of comfort and companionship that this would ?.1 produce, I would urge y~u all to please cast a 22 positive vote for it. Thank you. 23 MR. BRISTOL: Thanks, Mr. Baldwin. It's okay, 24 you don't have to be shy. Come on up. A lot of folks 25 signed these. ' 71 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~'~ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I 25 I NIlt. SHIVFLY: Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Doug Shively. I'm a CPA. I am active in the Anaheim area. I've been. a resident for 43 years, which, based on my birth date, would be my entire life. Over the last several weeks as I've heard more and more about this particular project, I keep thinking to myself this is exactly what we need. This is exactly what Anaheim needs. This is exactly what the resort needs. And so I took it upon myself to try and find out a little bit more about it. I got a lot of correspondence in the mail that would have suggested to me that it svas absolutely not what we needed. Although, I heard over and over again that the proponents t~ the opposition, ~'We~re nat opposed in fact to it, bu~ fnr everything that I read it couldn~t have possibly succeeded in its present form and couldn't be negotiated around.~~ And 7 guess my point this morning is that we have an offer of a half-billion-dollar investment in ouz city. I think we need to accept that offer. Secondly, that there are mitigating factors that need to be negotiated. I think from my conversations with the developers and their representatives, I~ve heard a very positive response on zheir part to be willing to negotiate those ~ 72 1 mitigating factors. The information that I received 2 in the mail would have suggested just the opposite. 3 I'm here to say that I believe as a resident that we 4 have a group of people that have a heart for what we 5 want and a.re willing to work on needed factors that 6 would, in fact, put it in place and make it a positive 7 ~tatement and a positive contribution to our 8 community. 9 I think one of the things that I 10 initially generated in my mind from seeing the kind of 11 opposition that was, you know, confounding my mailbox 12 at home and my fax machine at the offi;,e was that I 13 got the feeling like the City of Anaheim in its 14 opposition was going to create in the long run 15 something like the State of California and its 16 unfriendly business attitude. This is the attitude 17 that I got as T continued. As I said, it kind of 18 pushed me, continued to push me to get more 19 information. The more information I got, the less I 20 believed those things that I found in my mailbox. I 21 wouldn't want that kind of unfriendly attitude to 22 happen in my city. 23 I'm not sure that further xesearch and 24 the formal process of EIRs is necessary. I don~t know 25 a lot about that fo~al process but I do know that 73 1 they~re long and.they~re lengthy and they~re time 2 consuming. I'm not sure that the City of Anaheim is 3 in a position or would want to put itself in a 4 position to defer this to the point where that offer 5 would be withdrawn and the effect of the withdrawal of 6 that offer, because of the opposition and the time- ~ consuming process that they face, would cause another 8 developer of the same quality and the same value 9 amount of investment would say it's not worth it in 10 the city of Anaheim. We'll go somewhere else. 11 And one of the things that I discovered 12 in conversations and looking is of the 5,600 hotel 13 rooms that the resort plan envisioned, this particular 14 project is offering to do 1,050 of luxu t~ ~ zy style type 15 hotel rooms. My understanding, too, is that when the 16 $ ~easureTproposal was put forth and projections ?'1 prepared is that they encountered or fi gured on a 18 thousand luxury-type hotel z•ooms out of that 5,600. 19 We're getting them all right up-front. I don~t know 2~ of other hotel rooms that are being planned in the 21 city in that resort area. This is the only one I know 2z about. And if we're getting the best of the best 23 right from the start, it seems like it's a good thing. 24 The presentation dealt with so many of 25 the positive things that I see in this particular 74 J J , . t ~. -~ 1 project myself. I would certainly urge that not only 2 you say yes but that you say yes today and not cause 3 that yes to be deferred for a longer period of time. 4 Thank you. 5 NIl~. BRISTOL: Thanks, Mr. Shively. Next 6 speaker, please. ~ MR. HALE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm 8 Glenn Hale. I~m Hilton~s general manager here in 9 Anaheim and also area director for Hilton Hotels 10 Southern California. I've been a resident and 11 professior.al businessperson in this community for the 12 last 15 years, and in that capacity I believe I've got 13 a stake in its future. I've enjoyed watching the 14 growth. It's very exciting to be a part of what's 15 taking place in this community, to watch it transition 16 into what I b~lieve will become, if not thp na~ions's 17 leading entertainment destination, certainly up there 18 among the tap. 19 I believe we have an ~pportunity to move 20 even further. As you know, in the hotel community we 21 do a lot of convention and meeting business. As•a 22 matter of f_act, it's our life's blood in our major 23 hotels, but there is a void. And that void was 24 touched upon briefly by Stan in his presentation, and 25 that void.has to do with entertainment, lounges and 75 i` ._, ~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 restaurants and retail and so forth within easy proximity or walking distance to the area. It actually hampers and hinders our solicitation of that market. As we travel abroad and send our salespeople on their mission to garner business for the area, one of the major stumbling blocks that we run into is this lack of that entity, that entertainment within Easy reach. If I could identify for you what goes on in the course of booking a piece ot business, one of the challenges that we have is twisting an arm. There is a lot of competition out there, as you might we1Z know. San Diego, San Francisco, Chicago, even as far reaching as Hawaii. They~ all have built some pretty major mousetraps, all in search of that market. And so one of .their needs is this, as I alluded to earlier, one of their n~~eds really is this desire to have something for their people to do above and beyond the normal day~s meetings and so forth. And I believe that this project will ~ulfill that need. We all have a vision: My vision is your vision. I btlieve we're all after the same thing, and that's to take this city into the prominence that it deserves. I'm impassioned to make that happen as well. See, I happen to -- I like this place and 2'm 76 :;~: 1 going to retire hera if HiZ~on allows me to do that, 2 ~nd Stan as well. I want to be a part of this. I 3 want to benefit #~e~rwhat takes place here. I want to 4 be a beneficiary of it, as 2 know all of you do too. 5 Some might say that this project is not 6 compatible with the vision but I would submit that it 7 is. The things that we're doing over in -- that 8 Disney is doing, I think are.wonderful. They~re right 9 on target and I'm certainly supportive of it. What 10 we~ve done over at the convention center is fantastic. 11 It's right on target. I've been behind it 1,000 12 percent as well as my const9.tuents have been, and I 13 think we've been catalytical, so to speak, in bringing 14 that forward. And I think we would really be remiss 15 and miss a good bet if we didn't add to that, if we 16 didn~t ice that cake with a project like this that 17 will take us and project us even farther forward than 18 we even imagined. 19 I would strongly recommend that you put 20 your vote behind this project, that you lend support 21 to it because I think it's vital. I think it's 22 important that we continue to grow. This vision that 23 I talked about, I think it's important that we bring 24 it to truition and we make it a reality. And I'm at 25 your dis~iosal at any time that I can be of help to 77 1 make that happen, and please vote yes. Thanks, • 2 NIlt. BRISTOL: Thanks, Mr, gale. ~, Hale, did 3 you fill out one of these that's floating around? 4 NIl2. HALE: Yes, I did. 5 NIl2. BRISTOL: Thanks, sir. 6 ~• BR~WN: Good morning to each of you. My 7 name is I2oy Brown. I'm an 18-year resident. of the 8 city of An.aheim. I have a unique opportunity in my 9 life. I get to travel a lot around the United States 10 and a few other countries and take a look at 11 conventions and destination resart areas and compare 12 them to what we offer here in Anaheim. And I have to 13 say that I in recent years have been particularly 14 pleased to see the rebuilding of the infrastructure in 15 the Anaheim Resort area. 16 2 think we can all agree that perhaps for 17 a time it lost a little bit of its luster, so much so 18 that I can reinforce what at least two of the 19' individuals previausly said. I'm extremely familiar 20 with several state and national associations of which o~ 'hha Co~ve,n~~onS 21 90 percent of the attendeesTare women, and they have 22 intentionally commented on numerous times and chosen 23 not to hold conventionS here at Anaheim. I don't care ~4 to have the people that'I know in that association as 25 these streets are currently presented to try ~o walk 78 ~ 1 ~ 1 somaplace and find entertainment, 2' The project that's being proposed is 3 ideal to attract new people who currently aren~t 4 attending and visiting our Anaheim Resort area, and I 5 think that should be given substantial consideration. 6 In the past several weeks I~ve been approached '' directly and indirectly to oppose the Pointe Anaheim 8 project. And the reasons given were the fear of some 9 sort of Las Vegas signs and added traffic congestion, 10 and I~ve given this a great deal of considerstion. 11 I~ve taken a very close look at the projects. I~ve 12 listened to what both sides have had to say and I've 13 more or less come to the conclusion that these 14 objections are really spurious and essentially they're 15 veiled business competition, nothing more than that. 16 The developers here are highly 17 experienced developers in building destination resort I8 convention-type facilities. They~re world class. If 19 you look at their credentials, they cannot be 20 questioned. Who else would we invite into our 21 community to add something to it? If yau aren't going 22 to have these people add to our community, who would 23 it be? This is the ideal. opportunity and the ideal 24 choice to bring world-class developers to our city 25 instead of allowing them to go someplace else. 79 1 Pointe Anaheim will provide additional 2 diverse entertainment interest in terms of r~staurants 3 and truly unique retail outlets that simply aren~t 4 available in your typical mall setting, But you know 5 what's interesting, what I found fascinating is that 6 parallel to what~s being developed to attract people 7 to come to our community, a substantial amount of this ~ project is directed towards the community itseif, to 9 provide nightly regular entertainment, dining and 10 shopging to th~ people that live in the community. 11 And you don~t see that vexy often in this type of a 12 project, and, in fact, I think you rarely see it 13 offered in destination-type•resort facilities. 14 In addition to that ~ , you re having 15 offered to the community a multi-employer base and any 16 economist will tell you that a multi-employer base is 17 superior to a single or concentrated employer base in 18 a community. I welcome these people to our community. 19 I think they deserve your consideration of this 20 project. We all have visions. I have a vision for 21 the city of Anaheim, and I think as we step across the 22 threshold of the year 2000 and we walk into the next 23 millenium, we need to realize that the city of ~lnaheim 24 has grown and it can no longer be a one-horse 25 entertainment town. We have to welcome other builders 80 1 and other developments to our community to expand and 2 give it diverse attractiveness to what we have to 3 offer, to not just the people in the community and 4 across the United States but, face it, people around 5 ~he world are looking at Anaheim as a potential 6 destination. ~ Pointe An.aheim provides an enhancemer:t to 8 th~ resert area and I think it should be given every 9 consideration by you today. Thank you. 10 I~2. BRISTOL: Thanks, Mr. Brown. Sir, did you 11 fill out a -- 12 MR. BROWN: Yes. 13 N~2. BRISTOL: Okay, great. Thank ycu. 14 MR. PROUSSALIS: My name is Constentine S4~-.. RnQc 15 Proussalis, 707 West Anahei~TStreet, Anaheim, 92805. r~o't~ 16 I'm here to give you some more earful of thingsfiabout 17 the project. The project as they described it, it is 18 excellent and a needed thing for the city. We have 19 been deprived of every amenity of good life in this 20 city and the project might fulfill some of that thing. 21 I~ going to ask you another thing, diversification. 22 We don't want only une business in this city. We want 23 more businesses. The Pointe Anaheim will fulfiii that 24 desire of mine to see another project, which is 25 excellent project, and I have been through details of • 81 Y ~ 1 the project and it would fulfill a lot and you will 2 hear a lot of good comments about the project. But 3 you look also to see the more people that will come in 4 and be at such a resort area or hotels and the 5 entertainment or whatever it is so we can get some 6 diversity. ~ When I go out of my home, all I can go to 8 by walking distance is the fast-food place. There~s 9 nothing else to go. And if I take the bus to go 10 somewhere, then I don~t have a way to come back 11 because the buses, they don~t op~rate after 6:00, 12 ~=0~, 8 o~clock. So the buses, to me, they are 13 nonexistent. Cars, s~metimes we like to drive, but as 14 you get older you don~t like to drive an ymore. So the 15 city has to look out for the older people of this 16 community and the r~sort would grovide some, for me, 17 because I live here within the doti*ntown area, it would 18 be a vexy convenient place to go to spend my evening. 19 And for the rest of the people which we extend in an 20 area of 15 miles east, west, for the ~~.ry of ~aheim 21 that don'c ha~re these amenities, alµypeople they go 22 to Ne ort Beach Costa Mesa or ~~~ ~~~~ or ~ ~ maybe~'a. g~.~. outside 23 the ccve~r~; 24 Ma.ny times I have been asked by visitors 25 here where they can buy a suitcase or a shirt and I 82 ~ 1 can te11 them go to Brea Mall or South Coast Plaza. 2 There was nothing else to tell them to go to. Anah2im 3 Plaza, we had nothing. It was almost closed, even now a it's very limited. So we got to build something here. 5 We cannot reject projects like the Pointe Anaheim 6 which would offer such a tremendous advantage. 7 Diversity, diversity, we need some other 8 people to come in and put something, I guess the 9 Pointe Anaheim and I guess Disney Corporation and I 10 guess everybody else, build diversity. And also I li would suggest to the Commission to vote affirmatively 12 on this project because we.need it. Thank you. 13 NII2. BRISTOL: Thank you, sir. Thank you for 14 your time. 15 2~2. BERECZKY: I am Emil Bereczky, 16 B-e-r-e-c-z-k-y.•In-a 31-year resident of the city of 17 Anaheim and I~m recently retired. Basically the main 18 reason I~m here is to support Pointe Anaheim, but it 19 was very surprising to me, now, that the opposition to 20 Pointe Anaheim app~.ars to be orchestrated from one 21 source, the best that ? can tell, the Disn~y Company. 22 Basically I feel that we need such a development as 23 Pointe Anaheim, as some of the previou~ speakers have 24 pointed out. 25 . If we feel that Disneyland is an asset, . 83 I 1 Pointe Anaheim is going to be even a greater asset. 2 If we feel that the convention center is an asset, 3 certainly Pointe Anaheim is going to be a greater 4 asset to visitors and certainly to permanent residents 5 of the area. The only other thing is what do we have 6 now? There are the pictures, which I~ve seen for the 7 first time. Currently we have underutilized 8 properties where Pointe Anaheim is planning to spend, 9 I believe, half a billion dollars, so this is going La 10 be improvement. The other thing I request that you 11 look at is, you need to be open••minded and fair to the 12 corporate citizens of the area as well as the 13 individual citizens like myself. Because, again, as I 14 see it, opposition is coming from one company, the 15 Disneyland Company. Obviously, if I was the Disney 16 Company, maybe I would take the same position, because 17 who wants competition? But I think you represent all 18 of us and I urge you to go ahead and approve this 19 Negative Declaration so we can move ahead and Council 20 c~n approve it and we can start moving dirt. Thank 2t you very much. ' 22 Ngt. BRISTOL: Thank you, sir, z3 i~t. CARTER: Hi, my name is JoE Carter and I 24 live at 1945 Bayshore Drive in beautiful Anaheim 25 Shores. Our family moved to Anaheim in 1955, and I 84 .., 1 be].ieve that's also the year that Disneyland operied 2 here in Anaheian. I was not able to attend the opening 3 ceremonies, but I've appreciated the importance of 4 Disneyland to this commun.ity. Time and again we've 5 seen the contribution and the vitality that they've 6 brought to this community, but I think this issue 7 today is little bit different. I think it's not just 8 a question of Disneylz~nd joining in and increasing an 9 entertainment or a sport~, activity. Now we're talking 10 about adding a diversity to our community and a 11 destination for peop~e in this community to go and 12 avail themselves of nct only entertainment but also 13 dining facilities, activities of various kinds, 14 theater activities, those kinds of things that both 15 residents and tourists have not found available in the 16 Anaheim area in the past. 17 Now, we all expect great things from the 18 expansion of Disneyland. I am looking forward to a 19 new theme park and I can't wait to see what the mall 20 area in between the old theme park and new theme park 21 will actually look like. Hopefully that will provide 22 many additional activities for these entertainment and 23 dining activities which we have lacked here in the 24 past, but I think we need more. 25 I don't think it should be under the 85 _~ 1 jurisdiation of one governing body such as the Disney 2 Corporation. I think we need that outside~ competitive 3 spirit and the new ideas that are being brought forth 4 that we've seen being presented here this morning. 5 The more the merrier. 6 As a matter of fact, the day may come 7 where people will park in the Disneyland parking lot 8 and then take an exit pass and walk across the street 9 over to Pointe Anaheim and ava~l themselves of some of 10 the opportunities over there. I don't mean 11 immediately, not righ.t away, don~t hold your breath, 12 but it could happen and I think that would be good. I 13 don~t think that would be bad. I think we'll see 14 people parking outside to save a buck in the parking 15 venue at Disneyland and they~ll try to get in, but 16 perhaps it'l1 go the other way just as well. So I~m 17 looking forward to this development. I think it'll 18 strengthen Anaheim and I think Orange County will 19 benefit by it. So I urge a positive vote. Thank you. 20 NIl2. BRIST(?L: Thanks, Mr. Carter. 21 1~2. DAUGHERTY: Lady and gentlemen of the 22 Commission, T~m John Daugherty, D-a-u-g-h-e-r-t-y, 2 23 live at 1.116 Wakefield place, which is right behind 24 the Anaheim Convention Center. I~ve worked there for 25 over 20 years as a crowd controller and a security 86 1 director. I think I know of what I~m talking about 2 when I say this has come anc~ this has gone. This is 3 someth?ng that, in my opinion, is going to give us 4 people around the neighborhood, who are anywhere near S my age, which is 83, and I'm proud of it -- 6 NIIt. BRISTOL: Congratulations. 7 NII2. DAUGHERTY: Well, a lot of my friends i3 8 didn~t make it. This is what we need,~something €e~ 9 where us older peopZe can go to and have dinner or go 10 to a show ar go to something without having to try to 11 figure out how we're going to pay $50 to get through a 12 fence over here to see something we~ve already seen. 13 IrIl2. BRISTOL: They didn't hear that. 14 NIl2. DAUGH~RTY: They didn~t hear that, huh? 15 Well, if they haven~t seen it, I could say they 16 haven't missed anything, but that wouldn't be true. 17 One of the things that we are concerned with is 18 traff ic. Some of the people have already spoken about 19 that, but one thirag is this company is a private 20 organization. It's going to be paid for with private 21 money. The taxpayers are not going to be stuck with 22 mil].ions uf dollars in taxes like they were at the 23 stadi~un.. 24 The traffic density, as far as that is 25 concer*:sd, now, what's the difference whether we have 87 J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I Poi.nte Anaheim or this huge hotel that Disney~s planning on building right here at the northwest corner of Katella and Harbor? I don~t see too much difference myself. Another thing that really concerns me -- and I~m a retired electrical engineer and a I coordinator with utilities. I~ve put in 20 years as a reserve Los Angeles police officer, so I think I've been through the traffic part of it. I would like to see a coordir_ator with the Planning Commission that knows what the heck he's doing to plan these utilities and things so that it's done at the same time, which is easy enough to do if you know what you're doing. r do And I don~t want tc brag, but°~that was or.e of my jobs. I had the whole west end of the San Fernando Valley. I had no problems because I coordinated every utility to get their jobs done at close to the same time insread of keeping the street tore up. Take it, fix it, get it all paved and everything like that and then here comes the gas company. They tear it up. They get it all paved over and ther_ here comes the phone company. They got to tear it all up. Fvery bit of that can be coordinated so that it can be done fairly close to the same time. One of them opens it up and the last one in there fills it up. And it can be done, gentlemen. Y 88 ~ .. ,.. _ 10 I il 12 13 14 15 I 16 I 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 I So that~s my part of it and I~m all for this project because I think us older people r_eed someplace to go. I can walk from my house over there, but a lot of these places to go get something like that, I can~t walk, and gas costs money. Thank you very much. NIl2. BRISTOL: Thank you. Folks, I shauld say something, when you do that,.we're taping this and nothing gets picked up and it hurts their ears, but I~m sure he appreciates that anyway. Go ahead, sir. MR. NEBEN: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Mike Neben and I'm here to represent the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. I would like to read into the record a letter that was sent from the Chamber to the Mayor and City Council of the City of Anaheim on April 30th, 1999. "Dear MaXor Daley and Members of the City Council, as one of the major organizations representing the business community of Anaheim, we believe it is our responsibility to provide lea@ership on major issues affecting the futu.re econonic growth of the city. We have had the opportunity to review the preliminary plans for Pointe Anaheim and its proposal to develap the property at Iiarbor and Katella. Our understanding is that the project 89 :p;l;..,:~,~.; ., . . . 8 9 10 11 12 I 13 14 15 16 1? 'i 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24 I 25 proposes to build over 7.,000 new hotel rooms and approximately 650,000 square feet of high-quality retail, dining and entertainment facilities in the Anaheim Resort area. °The project could bring much needed retail~shopping, entertainment and dining opportunities that are important for tourists and convention attendees, make the resort area an exciting destination and keep tourism dollars from flowing out of the city. The Cnamber supports development of underLtilized properties in the city. Tn the past the Chamber has supported the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. The chamber also encouraged and supported the renovation of the convention center, the imposition of the additional transient.occupancy tax that was necessary to carry out these improvements and the sign replacement prograzn . "We feel that responsible quality development within the Anaheim 12esort area should be encouraged. The groposed Pointe Anaheim development, along with other prospectice development for the resort ar~a, should be encouraged to create projects of the highest level of quality and should be required to adhere to requirements that will protect our city ~ 90 1 residents and businesses. One, any proposed 2 development should be required to fully mitigate for 3 the development's traffic impact. Many of our member ~~ 4 businesses in the Anaheim Resort area are looking 5 forward to 2001 when we will realize the benefits of 6 all the traffic improvements put in place. It is 7 important that traffic be able to move in and around 8 the resort area freely and with minimum congestion. 9 ~~Two, any proposed development should be 10 required to provide adequate parking for its guests in il order that other businesses in the area do not suffer 12 as a result of inadequate planning. 13 "Three, any proposed development should 14 comply with the gen~ral intent of the Specific Plan's 15 signage requireme~its and maintain the garden district 16 feel. Ydun_y :aembers in the resort area have already 17 compli~d with the signage requirements. A.n3 it would 18 seem prudent to expect that all new development in the 19 area would be expected to adopt the same standards. 20 "Four, the need for horel development in 21 and around the resort area should not be ignored. The 22 city has an obligation to repay the bonds used to fund 23 the infrastructure improvements in the resort area. 24 The TOT is the vehicle for bond funding repayment and 25 any new.developer should be required to guarantee that 91 ~ •1 a minimum number of hotel rooms will be built as• art 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I 14 I 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I P of their project and that those hotel rooms will open within a reasonable tim~; frame to ensure continued revenue f rom the TOT. "We hope that the city officials assigned , to this project will work with the developers to ensure that all of these development guidelines are followed. Anaheim should stand as a city that encourages responsible, quality economic development and the Chamber wholly supports the city's efforts in this regard. We believe that the Pointe Anaheim development can meet all of the development guidelines established for the Anaheim Resort area, mitigate all of its environmental impacts and be a successful addition to our city. "We ask that appropriate consideration be given to the benefits that can accrue to the taxpayers of Anaheim from a project of this quality and magnitude. Signed, Sincerely, Todd Emmett, 1998-1999 President oE the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce.~~ Thank you. NIl2. BRISTO~: Thanks, Mr. Neben, I appreciate u~Ci ~wOMp,n, it. Next speaker.~Good afternoon. You can take as much time, ma~am, as you want. ~+u try ~ s~lar w;~,h ~m ~ s MS. KAYWOOD: Thank you.~ I~m Miriam Kaywood. Y ~~ 92 1 I~m retired from the Planning Commission, where I 2 served for three years. Welcome, James. My first 3 meeting went to 1:00 a.m. I hope you're a little 4 luckier than I was. 16 and a half years on City 5 Council. I think my reputation is known throughout 6 the city that I always studied everything ~-I got 7 all the facts before I made decisions. We moved to 8 Anaheim in 1956, which was one year after Disneyland, 9 and that was the only place our children would move to 10 was to Disneyland because they didn't want to move at il all. And we had a wonderful growing-up period. If har~ hcr 12 you have a daughter, it's a great place to go on 13 dates. Sl:e doesn't know she's being chaperoned, so 14 it~s a really fine•place. I love all the people at 15 Disney. We've had a great relationship. And I was on 16 all of the things that they were trying to do on this 17 new project, which started out as Disney 2000 and then 18 we couldn't use that name. We made a lot of different 19 changes and it's now California Adventure, and I know 20 we're all looking forward to that. 21 I~m sort of in a different position. i~m 22 in favor of every~thing. I think that we are so luck~ 23 to have a person coming in with the background that, 24 Pointe Anaheim does. And T'~re heard everybody say I 25 want the old people to be able to go, I want the young . 93 ~ 1 geople to be able to go and I want everyone to be able 2 to go because that is something that~s been missing 3 here. 4 My niece came to visit. There were five 5 adults, and they went to Disneyland three days and 6 then they went to Universal City an~ were just worn 7 out f rom the trafEic both ways. It would have been so 8 nice if they had been able to wind up the visit right 9. here in Anaheim. And for tne tax dollars that need to ~~ come in, the TOT and not having night things, we've 11 heard tnis for many, many years from the 12 conventioneers, there is no place to go in Anaheim at 13 night. Do yr,u roll up the sidewalks and how does that Y~s 14 happen? ~1±=~~ long overdue and this project looks 15 ~aonderf~sl. 16 I have great f riends in Disney and I hope 17 that it will always remain that way, because wl~at I 18 see here is not a win for someone and a lose for 19 som2on2. I see iiot just a win-win, but a win-win-win, 20 that is, Pointe Anaheim, Disney and the City of 21 Anaheim. We musn't forget the City of Anaheim, the 22 people who pay all the bills. And I would hope that 23 with this going on, I, too, received a lot of that 24 mail which disappointed m~: terribly, an3 the phone 25 call was sort of the capper on it. I'm very 94 Y 1 disappointed that that happened. I hope there's an 2 end to ~t and th~~ we can sort of remember like it's a 3 small world after all and that let there be peace on 4 earth and let it begin with everyone in this room and 5 that we can really get to what is best for the City of 6 .Anaheim because that also will be best for Disneyland 7 and Pointe Anaheim. Tliank you. 8 NII2. BRISTOL: Thanks, Ms. Kaywood. 9 MS. SUMMERS: My name is OZga Summers. I live 1~ here 46 year• with my husbanc?. I was associated with 11 Disneyland for almost 32 years, except certain period 12 between when my husband had to move -- leave on 13 account of business, so I can speak for both sides. I 14 love Disneyland ir, the early years but la~ely was 15 everything different. You can't even buy the 16 toothbrush or anything in Disneyland unless it has a 17 Mickey Mouse on it, and you don't always have to have 18 a Mickey Mouse. 19 So Nhen we retized, my hu:band and I 20 both, ~~e both travel a lot, and we have seen the 21 project in Vegas, we saw the projeci: in Orlanao. We 22 stay at Bellagio New Year's Eve and anything Steve 23 Wynn have to do with, we love it. And I think this i,s 24 the style which Anaheim needed, because after spend so 25 many times in Disneyland and never have nothing for 95 ~~ 1 older people there. It~s always just for the Z children. Well, the old people like to have fun too. 3 So I think it's belated, but I hope you~re approve it 4 and approve soon as possible. Project is such 5 tasteful. ~ione, so you can~t go wrong. Thank you. 6 I~IIt. BRISTOL: Thanks, Mrs. Summer. I 7 appr.eciate that. 8 ~. LEPORE: Chairman anu Commissioners, I~m 9 Vince ~ pore, L-e-p-o-r-e, and I~m with the fa,-nily ~. 10 owners~the commercial property at 2101 Harbor 11 Boulevard. Pointe Anaheim will provide much needed 12 retail, restaurant and entertainment and hotel 13 ogportunities. We believe in the Disney Resort 14 Specific Plan. However, we also strongly believe that 15 these amenities are extremely lacking in this area, 16 and as such, as business owners, we're not reaping the 17 full benefits we could from being on Harbor Boulevard i8 and certainly neither is the city. 1~ We need thP improvements and amenities of 20 Pointe Anaheim and we need them now. As for the sign 21 issue, a successful business needs strong identity and 2~ advertis~• e~rt. Pointe Anaheim should be given the 23 opportunity to have the signage that they are 24 requesting which will allow them to attract the 25 quality tenants they need to compete with similar 96 Y Y .~ 1 p=ojects like The Block in Orange and the proposed 2 River Walk in Garden Grove and Downtown Disney. We 3 support the project 100 percent and as;c for your 4 favorable vote. Thank you. 5 I~2, BRISTO~: Thank you, sir. 6 Ngt. PICKLER: Mr. Chairman, Planning 7 Commissioners, thank you for giving me the opportunity 8 to speak. My name is Irv Pickler. I live at 2377 9 Mall Avenue and I~ve lived there for 43 years. You 10 know, you have ta pick sides and I just don't like 11 that because I've been a big booster of Disneyland in 12 the 43 years I've been here. It's something that's 13 not easy to do. I think they're still one of the 14 greatest and I continue to think so, and people are 15 going to be coming to the city of Anaheim b~cause of 16 Disneyland. There's no question in my mind. But 17 we've got to keep the people in Anaheim and we've got 18 to figure out what is good for Anaheim, the citizens 19 of Anaheim. 20 You know, we talk about an EIR. i 21 guarantee you that the staff that we liave along with 22 the Planning Commission and the City Council, if they 23 thought an EIk was needed, they would have s~e~e-it ~ 24 done. It would have been done by now, but they didn't 25 think it, was needed. And somehow we take away a l~t 97 IY 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the confidence, I think, of the people we have serving us who I think are doing an excellent job. As an Anaheim resident over 43 years and as a foxmer City of Anaheim aouncilman for 12 and a half years, I have had the ogportunity to vote on several important projects. And one of those important projects and one of those important votes w4s the opportunity to vote on the adoption of. the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. I have been and continue to be an avid Disney supporter. I don~t know wriat's going to happen after today, but I still am a supporter. The project before you today is not an . anti-Disney project; on the contrary~ it is a pro- Anaheim project. Pointe Anaheim will be the largest retail, dining and entertainment f~e-i-~it~p• and those ar~ the three aspects that you and everybody else in Anaheim knows we do not have. I think they're going to complem~nt what Disneyland brings to our area. Additionally the thousand-plus hotel rooms proposed make it the largest hotel development in 15 years. And I guess the k~y element that 2 would ~ike to stress, this project I think is very important to the future af both the Anaheim Resort and the City of Anaheim and its citizens. ~ 98 1 I strongly urge pou to vote for Poirite 2 Anaheim and for the City of Anahei.m. Thank you so 3 much, Mr. Chairman. 4 N~t. BRISTOL: Thank you, Mr. Pickler. 5 Pgt. FARANO: Good morning, Chairman Bristol and 6 Members of the Planning Commission. My name is Jeff ~ddress ~s ~ 7 Farano. ~-a~ 2300 East Katella in 2~naheim. I'm 8 here in f ront of you today as a business owner in the 9 city of Anaheim. I've had a long history in the city 10 of Anaheim. My family lived here since 1962. In 1993 11 I was chai*man -- or president of the Anaheim Chamber 12 of Commerce and I~m a local land use attorney involved 13 in a lot of land use ~~~~~}~s around this area. Qne 14 of them you'll know, the Festival, our office worked 1S on that project over there and many others around 16 Disneyland. 17 I also happen to be a consultant with 18 Pointe Anaheim in helping them with their process here 19 today, but I am before you as a business owner. I 20 a~so have experience in reviewing the Coopers & 21 Lybrand report that was presented. to the city when I 22 was budget advisory commissioner several years ago. 23 And f rom my experience as a president of the Chamber 24 and reviewing that report from Coopers & Lybrand, Z 25 have to te1Z you that this process and this project 99 / ~ ._.___ 1 that we see here today is exactly what I was looking 2 for and hoping would eventually come when T was 3 president back in 1993. 4 I had the great privilege to review the 5 Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and I, on behalf of 6 the Chamber, signed a letter supporting that project, 7 and I still do support that project. I think it~s a 8 great benefit to the city, but as I was reviewing that g project then I had comments; we need more for the 10 businesses around this area. That was my concern then 11 as it is now, that the businesses around this area 12 need to somehow capitalize on the improvements that 13 were being made in the street and the improvements 14 that Disneyland was making to this area, and T have ~ 15 not seen it happening yet. 16 When I first got approached by Pointe 17 Anaheim to help them, I saw that this is exactly what 18 was needed, and it fit within all the plans that I 19 know all the businesses in this city wanted to see. 20 It's part of the Coopers & Lybrand report presented to 21 the city, they said ~-- which was prepared in order to 22 justify the expaiision that you~re now seeing in the 23 convention center -- that report said that the idea of 24 the City of Anaheim was to create the number one 25 convention center in the world or very close there to Z00 1 it. They're building that building now, but that 2 building does not attract the people all by itself. 3 What that report also said, in order to bring the 4 world-class conventions that you need to bring here is 5 that you need something else for them to do after . 6 they~re done with the convention. You've already 7 heard comments about that here today. They need 8 dining, they ~eed entertainment. That~s the number 9 one dollar that they spend when they go to their 10 convention. And that is the money we need here and we 11 need them to spend that here. 12 So I encourage you as a busin~ss ownez to 13 approve this project both for the benefit of not only 14 the business owners, the property owners as well as 15 the other major tenant in this c~ty that it would be a 16 benefit to them, despite what you may hear to the 17 contrary, I think when you look at the greater 18 picture, that in fact this is a benefit to all and 19 will be an improvement to the city of Anaheim, that 20 will bring the city of Anaheim to the world-class 21 destination resort that it intends to be. Thank you. 22 NII2. BRISTOL: Thank you, Mr. Farano. Is there 23 anybody else that wishes to speak? 24 rIIt. KRAUSE: Good morning, my name is Richard 25 Krause. .I live in Anaheim at 2416 East Lizbeth 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 i 15 16 17 18 1~ 20 21 22 I 23 I 24 25 Street, and I did sign the yellow page. My wife and I are 30-year residents of Anaheim city and my children were raised here, my gran~children were born here. I'm retired, I~m senior citizen and I do not represent any group. I'm here, really, L-his morning for very personal, very selfish reasons. As a resident, Pointe Anaheim is a place that I would enjoy going to visit. Tt~s a place where I would enjoy going to spend my discretionary dollars, the few that the government allows me to keep. It~s a place that I=~ould be proud to take my out-of-town guests. So for those very personal and selfish reasons I would strongly urge this Commission to vote favorably for the project. And I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my views. Thank you. MR. BR.ISTOL: Thanks, Mr. Krause. We're still missing a few folks here that signed. Anybody? Is there anybody else? Going once, going twice.. Okay. We're going to stop on the proponents' side. We're going to go to the opposition side, but we're going to take five minutes for the opposition to set u some equipment. ~Re.~ess~ Mr'. Ross, you're on. ~ NIl2..ROSS: Chairman Bristol and fellow Planning 102 / 1 2 3 4 5~ 6 7I 8I 9 10 il ~ 12 ~ 13 14 15 16 , I 1 i ~~ il 18 I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ! Commissioners and ci~y staff, good morning or godd afternoon I guess it is now. My name is Bill Ross. I'm the vice president of Public Affairs for the Disneyland Resort and I~m really the first of four Disney speakers that will be ch~tting with you this afternoon. Disneyland has been a member of the Anaheim community for over 40 years, not only as a major employer in the city, but also as an active leader in the community and its futur~ in Anaheim. I've had the pleasure of being involved with the Disneyland Resort and the City of Anaheim for the last 26 years. This is a very exciting time here in Anaheim for Disneyland and the other resort businesses because together we're really reinventing the vision and the future of the resort area. In just a few short months we'll begin the f ormal planning of our grand milestone, the opening of a second Disney theme park, Disney's Calif ornia Adventure. By the way, this will be my third Disney quality theme park that I've had the pleasure to open. 2001 is sure to rival 1955 when Walt Disney and, of course, the Anaheim leaders opened Disneyland to the world. For more than four decades the city,of Anaheim has be~n leading the west in 103 k ~ 1 tourism and the convention industry by following one 2 clear rule: Provide quality entertainment and provide 3 a ~quality community. 4 During this last decade, the City of 5 Anaheim partnered with Disney and surrounding 6 businesses and the community to put in place a plan 7 for the Anaheim Resort for the 21st centu~ry, 8 demonstrating our commitment to quality entertainment 9 and a quality community, In 1990 Disney began working 10 with the city, the com*nunity and local businesses to 11 transform the Anaheim Resort area into a garden 12 district. The goal was to create a lushly landscaped 13 timeless, world-class resort environment and ~urn ~se ~ 14 Anaheim Resort area s~to a quality tourist and visitor ~ 15 destination. 16 The new Anaheim Resort garden area can 17 become a.world-class destination and a home base for 18 many Southern California visitors. I can honestly say 19 that only Anaheim could have accomplished this, and 20 ~oday we're seeing the results of this vision and 21 thoughtful planning. Just look at Walnut Street, our 22 closest residential community to.e~ resort area, ` 23 beautifully redesigned as part of that resort vision. 24 Look at West Street, already beginning to emerge as a 25 lushly landscaped environment. And Harbor and 1Q4 1 Katella, although still under construction, are 2 quickly taking on their own world-class look. 3 These changes are a11 part of the city 4 agreement with the resort area in the Anaheim 5 community. Disneyland sCood before this Cc~nission 6 four years ago pledging to be a major part of the 7 transformation with a$1.4 billion investment and 8 financial backing of the city bond structure to pay 9 for the revitalization plan. 10 Today, I~m standing here very concerned 11 that we're veering off course for 2001. As the 12 Register editorial stated today, the Pointe Anaheim 13 project should be subject to the same scrutiny and 14 requirements of any other project coming through city 15 hall. Simply, I think that says, mitigate all of 16 their environmental impacts, stay within the 17 guidelines of the Specific Plans and provide assurance 18 to the Anaheim residents that they will develop a 19 quality project that will meet the vision of the 20 resort area. 21 It's now my pleasure to introduce you to 22 one of my colleagues, Timur Galen, who is irom our 23 Walt Disney Imagineering area, and will provide a 24 little more detail. Thank you. 25 NIl2. GALEN: Mr. Chairman, Comm.;sioners, good • lOS ; ~ _.~_ ~ morning, I~m Timur Galen. I~m senior vice president 2 and general manager of Walt Disney Imagineering. I~m 3 the executive in charge of the Disneyland Resort 4 expansion project. My job is to make sure that the 5 entire exFansion project is successfully developed and 6 open for business early in 2001. And I'm delighted to '1 tell you that we~re very much on course and hea3ed 8 towards that successful opening. And we are, I think, 9 delivering on all of the commitments that we made to 10 this Commission some four ye~rs ago. 1~' I also want to assure you as a 12 longstanding member of the community here in Anaheim 13 ar.~ as rhe largest property owner in Anaheim, private 14 property owner ~ n a- •~-. • ~=~r I should say, t•hat we are 15 enthusiastically committed to new development in the 16 resort area so long as it's responsible new 17 development, Everyone, the city, the communit'y, 18 hoteliers, the other businesses in the Anaheim Resort 19 area, Disneyland, of course, we all benefit from a 20 diverse, vital world-class destir_ation resort. But 21 today I'm here ~o express ta you some of the concerns 22 we have about the project that has bEen *~roposed 2~ today. 24 We worked hard for man y years with the 25 community, with you, your col'!Aagues at t,he ~ity, with 106 -~ ;~~: _. . 1 other businesses to formulate the Sp.ecific Plan and a 2 broad visien tn fultill on the development of the 3 resort area. That vision is to deliver a true garden 4 district rPsort that wi1J. be unmatched across the 5 country and throughout tihe world. On that basis, we 5 are in the process of spending that $1.4 billion anc: 7 have put our financi.al backing behind the city~s 199'7 8 more than $500 million bond issuance that is paying 9 for most of that transformation. 10 . And now before the concrete is set, so to 11 speak, tY~e Pointe Anaheim develapers are askina for 12 broad exemptions from standards that a~~e set out in 13 that plan. But at the same time that they are asking 14 for these broad exemptions, they have not offered any 15 commitment or guarantee that they will build what you 16 see in their renderings, or for that matter that they 17 will build anything at all. In fact, as proposed, the '18 entire project is only an illustrative scenario that 19 could change, be sold to another developer or be 20 developed piecemeal fashion. 21 Now, in concept, a project that assembles 22 some ten separate parcels into a 30-acre project, 23 which mixes retail, hotel and entertainment uses could 24 be a very, very positive addition to the iesort area. 25 But let.me be clear, Pointe Anaheim as proposed today 107 ~ ,, ~ _, 1 is~not yet that project. Moreover, as you heard this 2 morning, on Friday staff issued appr~ximately a 3 1-inch-thick report to you which recommended 4 significant new conditions, restrictions and 5 mitigations. In fact, staff has specifically stated 6 that you should deny this application unless all of '1 these additional requirements are incorporated in the 8 Pointe Anaheim proposal. 9 We applaud and su ~ pport staff s efforts in z0 trying to move the developer in the right direction. 11 And while we are in agreement with nearly all of their 12 comments and recommendations, we still have some areas ~-3 of concern, So let me be very specific about what 14 those are. There are five changes that we believe th~ 1S developers of this project should incorporate. 16 Without these commitments we urge you to deny their 17 application. 18 They should, one, mitigate all of the 19 traffic and parking impacts of their project. Two, 20 they shou?d comply with the Specific Plan signage 21 standards. Three, they sr~uld commit to construct 22 1050 hotel.rooms by opening day. Four, they should 23 limit their entitlements to a single-phase 30-acre 24 integrated project. r~nd, five, they should provide a 25 development agreement with real guarantees. ' ~08 . .. ~ .. ; . . . . . . . 1 Let me briefly discuss these five ~ 2 commitmEnts in just a little bit more detail. One, 3 the project as proposed will dramatically increase 4 rush-hour traffic several hundred percent more than • 5 was anticipated at key intersections. This will cause 6 congestion and compromise th~ effectiveness of 7 transportation improvements currently underway unless 8 appropriately mitigated. 9 While the developers have made some 10 changes and amendments to their initial trafiic and 11 parking proposals, k*e be].ieve substantial impacts are 12 left unaddressed. Pat Gibson of Kaku & Associates, 13 the traffic engineer that designed the transportation 14 plan for the entire resort area, will speak following 15 my comments in more detail about these specific 16 traffic and parking issues. 17 T~vo, the signage regulations in the 18 Specific Plan ar~ essential to the transformation of 19 this area into a garden district, and are among the 20 key provisians that triggered our new investment into 21 the resort area. Nonetheless, this developer 22 continues to ask permission to construct icons ran~ing 23 from 75 up to as high as 95 feet tall and for 24 unlimited signage throughout the so-called interior of 25 the project. In fact, these signs could be as tall as 109 , 1 100 feet and vis~.ble from the exterior of the project 2 regardless of the 160-foot set-back nrovision. 3 Moreover, the developers~ language picked up by staff 4 in their report that attempts to limit visibility only 5 from the adjacent public right-of-way is simply too 6 narrow. These signs should not be visible from the '1 public realm, period. 8 It~s interesting to note that several of 9 the images af Horton Plaza and Canal City shown 10 earlier today by Jerde's representative, both terrific 11 projects, by the way, don't show outsized icons or 1z signs. Some of the Las t~egas images, that's another 13 story. The signs and icons that this developer wants 14 to be able to construct were specifically identifi~d 15 and specifically prohibited in the Specific Plan to 16 ensure that the area would never return to the visual 17 clutter of the ~70s and '80s. Their proposed 18 compliance with the Specific Plan only at the exterior 19 of the project is simply insignificant when combined 20 with the icons and the towering signage. 21 I think it's worth sto in and PP~ g 22 considering just for a moment, the cit y just spent 23 several years taking dowa all of the tall and 24 unsigl,tly signs along Harbor Boulevard. Now, only 25 weeks after the last outsized hotel sigr, has come iio 1 down, you are being asked to unravel these years of 2 hard work. By granting these exceptions you will send 3 a signal to every current and future property owner 4 that the plans are meaningless, that individual 5 properties can make their own rules regardless of the 6 impacts that they cause to what surrounds them an3 7 their neighbors. 8 Three, hotel tax revenues, as you've 9 heard, or TOT are critical to.meeting the city's bond l0 repayment schedule and-t-~ help pay for the entire 11 revitalization of the resort. As a result, hotels and 12 new hotel development are essential to a successful 13 destination resort. This project, however, proposes 14 to convert half of the allowable hotel room.s to zetail 15 and entertainment uses. Now, all we ask is that the 16 developers of Pointe Anaheim commit to construct the 17 remaining 1,050 hotel rooms just as they show them in 18 their 3rawings. The language in their proposal 19 currently is ambiguous and it needs to be fi.x~d. 20 Four, this developer is seeking broad 21 exe:mptions and special benefits on the basis of being 22 a large-scale integrated project but has yet to commit 23 to build what has been presented to you in these 24 drawings and renderings. Any amendmeat flr permit that 25 you might grant should vnid all rights, exemptions and 111 J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.2 13 14 15 16 17 18 ].9 ~: 0 2i 22 23 24 ~' 5 I entitlements if this developer or for that matter some other developer attempts to alter or piecemeal the project. Five, in the absence.of a development agreement there are no guarantees that the proposed project will be constructed or the necessary mitigations for that matter implemented. It~s simply not possible today to understand the impacts of the exem pt-iaru broad ~s~s..being requested without a thorough review of the proposed development agreement together with the proposed entitlements. Moreover, today is the last time that the public will have an opportunity to comment on the entitlements for this project in front of your Commission. Only with these two documents together ~an you understand the true impact of the proposed changes to the Specific Plan. So we have to ask, is there enough information to fully understand the consequences of the changes you~re being asked to make today? We believe the answer is no. The staff c;:~es a tremendous distance to addressinq ~~; r r~~,~;~erns, but there i•s more work to be done. S~ ~'- concZusion, let me just summarize. We ask that the dev~lopers be required to make five commitments: To mitigate all traffic and parking I~ 112 1 impacts; to comply with the Specific Plan signage 2 standards; to complete 1,050 hotel rooms by opening 3 day; to seek entitlements that are valid only for an 4 integrated single-phase 30-acre develogment; and to 5 provide a development agreement with real guar.antees. 6 By requiring these five commitments, you 7 can preserve our collective vision, protect the future 8 of the resort and allow Pointe Anaheim to go farward. 9 Thank you for your consideration. I now introduce Pat 10 Gibson of Kaku & Associates. 11 I~2. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman and members of the 12 Commission, my name is Pat Gibson. I'm a vice 13 president with Kaku & Associates. We're traffic 14 ezgineers and transportation planners from Santa 15 Monica. I'm the traffic engineer/planner for the 16 Irvine Spectrum, for the Aquarium of the Pacific, for 17 Disney's West Side retail/entertainment center in 18 Orlando, and for the proposed major retail and 19 entertainment center in downtown Long Beach cal.led w.ay 20 Queens Y~ee~ Bay. For you folks, I've wor)ced on the 21 reconfiguration of the Anaheim Stadium parking lot 22 twice and I've worked with you on evaluating the 23 Interstate 5 improvements through the city of Anaheim 24 to looic at what our interchanges should look like. 25 Oh, yeah, and for the last 15 years I've been the 113 ~ 1 transportation plan:ler for the Disneyland Resort. 2 When i started planning for the 3 Disneyland Resort, I still had both my hair and my 4 short-term memory. I~ve been around a long time. I 5 have a lot invested in the commercial recreation area, 6 and, like ;~ou, I really want this transportation 7 system t~ work. I~d like to taY.e ~ou quickly through 8 our traffic concerns with the project. You were askea 9 by one of the speakers early in the presentation, ~~You 10 were going to build hotei rcoms here anyway, what~s 11 the difference be*ween what we~re doing now and what U!~ 12 weXvr'e going to do? ~~ Let me show you what that 13 diffe.rence is. The difference is the intensity of the 14 project that~s praposed. 15 What I navp here is a graph that shows 16 th.e traffic that•would have been generated by 2,180 17 hotel rooms on that site versus what will be generated 18 by the Pointe. In the 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. hour the 19 hotel rooms would have generated 750 trips. The EIR ?.0 says 1,885 by the Point2. We think it's 2,575 if all 21 three of those thEater venues operate on a 22 two-show-a-night basis. The difference becomes even 23 more ~ramatic in the 7:00 to 8 p.m. and midnight to 24 1:00 a.m. when we were hoping the hotel distri.^,t would 25 settle down and be a resort area. We were at 378 with 114 Y J 1 a fiotel, between 3,000 and 4,000 with the project. At 2 midnight we were at 300, we're now at over 3,000 with , 3 the project. So the difference between what was 'I 4 there, what was in our plans and what~s there now is 5 the difference xn tihe evening hours of ten times more 6 traffic. I 7 What does this mean? It means that we I 8 change the transportation planning we've been doing ~ 9 for 15 years. Tt means we put together a new set of ~ 10 mita.gation requirements to accommodate this project. I li ?•?t me take you through a couple of those. Tn the EIR 12 or in the Mitigated Neg Dec it talks about pedestrian 13 impacts at Harbor and Freedman. In order to 14 accommodate that we need new signal improvements and 15 we need traffic control officers. Without those 16 improvements we have a significant impact at that 17 point. 18 At Freedman and Cleme ~~ine, on the other 19 end of that street section, we need~left-turn lanes in 20 two dir.ections, we need new signal equipment. Without 21 those improvements we have a significant impact. I~m 22 going to talk to you in a little mc~re detail about 23 Freedman and about the intersection of Clementine and 24 Katella. 25 The issues that I~m going to touch on 'l15 ~ ( 1 include trip generation and then we want to talk'about 2 the mitigation and parking proposed for the program. 3 You need to understand that the estimates in the 4 mitigated Neg Dec, the estimates are based on a 5 theater trip generatinn assumption that assumes the 6 ].argest theater is empty, has no afternoon matinee, 7 has no show starting before 5:00 p.m. an any weekday. 8 The other 1500-seat theater generates some trips in 9 and the 750-seat theater generates some trips out but 10 are zero in the other two directicns. 11 Tfie assumptions in the Mitigated Neg Dec 12 assumes that two out of three theaters would never 13 have matinees and assum~s that none of the three 14 theaters w~uld ever have two shows a night, which is 15 very common in resort areas, especially on Friday 16 night. There are no conditions in the Mitigated Neg 17 Dec that says this is huw the theaters will actually 18 be forced to work. It just says thxs is what the trip 19 generation basis is. We also have some pretty 20 aggressive assumptions regarding pedestrian transit 21 and internal capture. The result is that we believe 22 the trip generation rates, the trip generation in the 23 Mitigated Neg Dec are low, Why are we concerned about 24 that^ Obviously because that means traffic on the 25 roadway system. But the traffic levels are not the 116 1 only thing that influence whether or not the streets 2 are going to operate s~tisfactorily.~ • 3 I'd like you to look at the design of the 4 access system for the project. And what you'll see on 5 the four sides of the project are 11 project 6 driveways. il driveways serving the site, another six 7 driveways on that block serving other land uses that 8 will not be part of the Pointe. 17 driveways around 9 the four streets on this block. Now, let me try to 10 put that in perspective for you. 11 On the entire block bounded by Harbor, becK o~ 12 Katella, Disneyland Drive and Ball, the~house in 13 Disney, two theme parks, service to those twa theme 14 parks, access in and out of those theme parks, we have 15 11 driveways on a piece of ground seven times the size 16 of the Anaheim Pointe parcel, just to give you a 17 perspective on how close together these driveways are 18 and how many driveways there are. l~hE~ fact is if they 19 don't function properly, the street -- there's a 20 greater chance that it will disrupt traffic on those 21 streets. So we need to look at mitigation. And the 22 fact is you have a mitigation program in the Mitigated 23 Neg Dec We agree with that mitigation program. We, 24 think it's short in two areas, and I want to talk to 25 you about L-hose two areas. One on Freedman Way and ~ 117 ~ 1 . ' . - . . - . .. . ~ . . . . . . . . - ~ I ~~ . . . . .. ~ ~ . '' 1 one at the intersection of Clementine and Katella. 2 I should point out that both of these 3 mitigations and extra mitiga.tions that I~m going to 4 talk about are supported k~y y~ur staff in your staff 5 report. They are recommended to yau by staff. If we i 6 look at the Freedman corridor, we have a curb that I '1 starts here, jumps in for a right-turn lane into ~he 8 porte-cochere of the hotel, comes back out next to the 9 porte-cochere, comes back, drops dawn for the entry 10 to the garage, jumps out for the entry -- for the il piece next to the garage and then drops back down. We 12 have a curb line that keeps mo~ring back and forth. 13 What that means is that ~ur pedestrians are moving 14 back and forth as they move in.that corridor. It aZso 15 means that our landscaping is moving back and forth as 16 ~.t moves down that corridor. We think, and staff 17 agrees, that this portion of that curb line ought to 18 be set back for a continuous right Lurn lane. 19 In this area, in the area immediately 20 adjacent to the hotel porte-cochere, we think there~s 21 a serious ~otential problem. As we see on the site z2 plan, the hctel porte-cochere is designed as 15 feet 23 wide, one lane. Folks, nobody designs a one-lane 24 porte-cochere for a hotel to handle hotel checking and 25 drop off, to handle hotel valets, if the valets are I ii$ 1' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 15 2C 21 22 2? 29 25 there, and to handle the shuttle buses which are listed on the site ~lan. Let me tell you why no one designs a one-lane p~rte-cochere. if you check into a hotel with as many bags as my family travel~ with, it'l1 take 15 minutes ~o unload the car and your entire porte-cochere is shut doF~n. Or what if you ~rop your car off L•o the valet and you walk away with -c.oehtra the keys, that entire port{~is shut down while the valet guy chases you for your keys. Or what if the shutr_le bus stops in there and half the family gets on the bus and says, "One second, one second, they~re on their way. They'll be here in just one second.° The entire operation is shut down while we wait for the rest of the family. What we think for a safety valve is that the area immediately outside that porte-cochere also ought to be a part of the continuous right-turn lane and that could be where the shuttle bus stops i~' there is congestion inside tine area. We need a safety valve in here and we need that continuous zight-turn lane along Freedman. Let me talk about the traffic signal, the new access point that's been proposed mid block in this area. tVe strongly agree with staff that you should not allow this new access point and this new traffic signal. Number one, the Mitigated Neg Dec ~ Y 119 1 proves it's not neces;ary. We have capacity at both 2 en3s of that. Number ~wo, it disrugts rhe median 3 landscaping. And number three, it certainly disrupts 4 traffic, the important role of connecting traffic 5 between the commercial recreation area and the 6 freeway. You've heard, well, we may need this 7 driveway because what if somebody misses the turn at 8 Clementine, then we want to be able to get him into 9 the site. Here's what they see when they come off the 10 freeway. The tallest building in the area, the 11 biggest signs in ±•he area. It~s going to be pretty 12 tough to miss that turn. What if they do? Would it 13 ~z better to put in anot~er signal and 1et them turn 14 left or should we take th~m down to Harbor and let 15 them U-turn and come back to th~ project driveways l~ through a U-turn. 17 Ladies and gentlemen, any time you add a 18 traffic signal. to the system, no matter how good it 19 looks on paper, you~re going to end up causing traffic 20 delay. You~re going to end up stopping cars. The 21 fact is, by taking people dovrn and letting them turn 22 left for those folks that missed turn, we have a left Y 23 turn available, a U-turn available on a protected left 24 turn. The Mitigated Neg Dec says we have capacity at 25 Harbor and Freeclman. We just don't need anather ~ 120 : , ~ - ._~ 1 signal in there. 2 Let me go back to some of the planning 3 that we've done on this very piece of street. And 4 when we looked at the Pointe Anaheim site as a 5 potential parking location, you didn~t want a traffic 6 signal in that section so badly that we put in full 7 grade separation t~ get people in and out of the 8 parking garage propose8 there. This is a critical 9 link in connecting the commercial/recreational area to 10 the freeway. We just shouldn't be compromising that 11 piece or street. 12 The last mitigation I want to talk about 13 is Clementine and Katella. If I'm right and the 14 theaters ever have two shows a night, our numbers :.,ay 15 that there's going to be a significant impact at the 16 intersection at Clementin~ and Katella. It~s 17 relatively easy to fix that impact. We either put 18 another southbound lane on Clementine or we put a 19 fourth westbound lane cn Katella for a short stretch. 20 One of those two choices should be part ot your 21 mitigation, and staff agrees with that and has 22 recommended the Katella lane. 23 If we look at parking, and I'm almost 24 done, we'll looking at parking for a second. S;.aff 25 report told you that the code required 7,668 parking 121 1 spaces. The ori.ginal proposal here was for 4,400 2 parking spaces. That's now up to 4,800 parking 3 spaces, and on busy nights we~ll cram extra cars in 4 there so we get up to 5,200. We should point out that 5 we were surprised when we got the staff report that 6 the developer is asking for the potential to replace 7 restaurant and theater space with amphitheaters. 8 We're talk~ng about special uses, we~re talking about 9 studios with live broadcast audiences and we~re 10 talking about using sone of the set-back area for il dining. Al1 of those are traffic-and-parking-intense 12 uses which are not evaluated in the EIR. So we 13 believe the 5,200 is absolutely the minimum that you 14 need. In fact, we think that on certain nights of the 15 year you~re going to exceed that. Unless you park 16 staff offsite, you will have a spill-over effect and 17 impact on adjacent properties. 18 Even given 5,200 parking spaces, how does 19 the proposed project compare to other Southern 20 California retail entertainment c~nters? If we look Z1 at the parking ratio proposed for the Pointe, 22 exclusivE of their hotel, you~ll see on the f ar right 23 that the Pointe offers a parking demand with 5,200 24 spaces of 6.2 spaces per th~usand square feet, which 25 is about half of what we have at The Spectrum, 50 122 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I 19 20 21 22 23 24 I 25 I percent less than what~s at The Block of Orange and even less than what's at Queens Way Bay or 3rd Street whi~h Promenade. Both projects~will have significant 1~ walk-in traffic available fr~m their downtown developments. So in conclusion, 1et us just say that we agree with your staff recommendations. There is a mitigati~n program in the EIR -- or in the Mitigated Neg Dec, which should be followed. There should be no Freedman Way signal. There should be a continuous right-turn lane along Freedman. There should be a fourth westbound lane on Katella. And we have to tell you folks that trading amphitheater for restaurant space, trading dining space for landscapa cpace are not traffic and parking neutral trades. If you're going to allow those trades, then those trades need to be analyzed in ter.ms of their traffic and parking impacL-s. That concludes my presentation. MR. BRISTOL: Thank you, Mr. Gibsori. NIlZ. GIBSON: Next will be Mr. Ge~rge Mihlsten. NIIt. MIHLSTEN: Hi, George Mihlsten, Latham & Watkins, representing Disney. I've hac[ the good fortune of being involvecl with the City of Anaheim and Disney Resort for almost ten years now. Pat has lost 123 .` 1 soine of his hair and some of his.short-texm memory and 2 I~ve lost most of my hair. This h~s been'a terrific 3 experience for the last ten years because in this 4 experience we are creating a fabulous new resort area 5 with the City of Anaheim. When we started this almost 6 ten years ago, we all shared a common vision of 7 creating a garden district. We think that vision is 8 as applicable today as it was four years ago and ten 9 years ago when this process started. 10 Community leaders, staff, commissioners 11 and elected leaders joined together *:o create th? 12 Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and the Disney Resort 13 Specific Plan. The Disney Resort Specific Plan and 14 the Anaheim Resort•Specific Plan represent thousands 15 of hours of work, comprehensive EIRs and substantial 16 public input and comment, And the result was an 17 award-winning plan, a plan that won the American 18 Planning Association award for urban vision, a plan 19 that has been written up by Urban Land Institute, a 20 plan that represents one of the great public/private 21 partnerships in America today. z2 And, unfortunately, the first major 23 project that we see today which is seeking approva~ is 24 requesting major changes ta that plan. And these 25 major changes would have a significant negative effect 124 ~ 1 on the plan and the resort area we are all trying to 2 create. They are seeking a change of over 50 percent 'fhe.• 3 of'rpermitted hotel density from hotel use to 4 retail/entertainment use, and without doing an EIR for 5 it. Secondly, they're seeking substantial changes to 6 the signage regulations that create the garden 7 district, and, again, without doing an EIR for it. 8 Al1 of this without an EIR, something which the Disney 9 Resort, Anaheim Resort and many projects in the city 10 have had to undertake. And that analysis that is in 11 the EIR is important for the public and for the 12 decision leaders of tr,is city to be able to understand 13 what the significant impacts are of this project. 14 What ar? those impacts? First, is the 15 significant visual impact: that is created r~ the 16 signage exemptions. Wb.atever you think about the 17 merits of the conceptual drawings and plans that 18 you've seen here today, ther~ are no specific 19 requirements and no spPCific provisions as to what 20 ultimately will be built there. There is nothing here 21 that binds them to build what is presented here today, 22 and that is a critical problem as we move forward with 23 this project in the future. But even more importantly 24 is once you grant the approval for these exemptions t~ 25 the signage and icon requirements, you will not be 125 J ----._._ 1 able to deny that to the next applicant that comes 2 forward. 3 The next applicant ma re Y quest something 4 that is visually intrusive and that we would all agree 5 i.s visu~ally instrusive, but it will be very difficult, 6 if not legally impossible, for you to deny that. Next ~ to Pointe Orlando are other developments that have 8 SArung up using icons and signage that we would 9 probably all agree are not the kinds of signage and 10 not in the best of interests of the City of Anaheim or li the resort district. But equal protection and the 12 First Amendment are going to make it vircually 13 impossible for this Commission and this city to deny 14 those requests in the future. ' 15 Secondly is the standard of visual 16 intrusion that has been proposed at this point is that 17 it can't be seen from the acljacent public 18 right-of-way, but it may well be seen from many other 19 areas within the Anaheim an3 Disney Resort area. And 20 that is problematic because that will create the 21 signed kind af visual clutter and blight that we have 22 all sought to avoid within the garden district. 23 I'm counsel for Universal, as it turns 24 out, and I~ve had many years of working with Universal 25 on CityWalk. And I will tell you that CityWalk was 126 1 intended and required'by the city and county to be 2 designed so that ~he signage generally was not at all 3 visible from the exterior e~ the property, and great 4 efforts were undertaken tc~ ensure that. And some of 5 the designs that were shown by Jerde was the Bellagio, 6 which is a high-quality development, and Harton Plaza 7 don't make great use oE signage and icons, and, in 8 fact, are world-class developments. And I think that 9 is the issue here is to create a world-class 10 development and not a development which creates and 11 adds to what we have just cleaned up in Anaheim, much 12 of that visual blight and clutter along the boulevard. 13 The second impact is a traffic impact, 14 wh.ich Mr. Gibson has noted, and I won't go into that 15 in detail, other than to note that it is important b~+~ 16 that the traffic changes that are~requested by Pointe 17 Anaheim be rejected. The median break is not 18 someth~ng that would improve traffic but, in fact, 19 would be negative with respect to t.he traffic flows. 20 In a~dition, providing the additional c~ntinuous 21 right-turn lane on Freedman Way or Disney Way, 22 whatever it~s called this week, would be very 23 importa:zt to providing for the long-term traffic 24 viability of this area. 25 Unfortunately, utilities are not 127 ~ Y ,._. ~. adequately analyzed in the report~, sewage and stozzn 2 ~rains and water are not accurately analyzed and 3 neither is air quality or.~¢cumulative impacts. There 4 are significant new ~cumulative impacts which are not 5 analyzed in this document. We believe that an EIR is 6 needed for this project and tha.t one should be 7 required for this projsct. $ Lastl y, withaut guarantees as to what is 9 going to be built, nobody knows what is going to be 10 built. There is no development agreement before us 11 today and we may not have one for several weeks, if at 12 all. There is no commitment to build the hotels. 13 There~s no limitations on assignability as to who la ultimately will develop this project. There~s nothing 15 to stop the entitlements to be flipped to any ~ther 16 property -- any other developer in the future, ~nc3 17 tr.ere are no cruality standards ~~e n-~' L -------..~~ 18 established here. In the Disney development agreement 19 there are in fact quality standards that staff 20 required. And we th.ink quality standards are 21 necessary and important to any development project as 22 we move forward in this garden district. 23 To close, we believe an EIR is required. 24 We believe that to open up the Specific Plan is to 25 uiido ten years of planning and to undo the 128 ~ J ~ 1 opportunities that we are seeing in the creation of 2 this garden district. This project can be built. We 3 would like for it to be built, but we would like for 4 it to be built consistent with this Specific Plan. 5 Let me be more specific. Number one, if you decide to 6 proceed with this project for any reason, we request 7 the signage criteria and the signage exemption ensure 8 that it is not visible from any of tne public rights- 9 of-way, public realms within the Anaheim Resort and 10 Disney Resort area. We think that is a critical 11 component to an1 signage requirements. 12 Number two, we request respectfully that 13 you require the addition of the continuous right-turn 14 lane on Freedman/Disney Way without the bump-out at 15 the porte-cochere that is represented in the site plan II 16 presented by the developer. l~ Number•three, that you provide guarantees I 18 for the construction of all the hotel components at ~ 19 ope~ing day, and that further you require a quality 20 standard .for the devplopment of this project. In 21 addition, we request that you require guarantees to 22 ensure that the project is built as a single-phase 23 project because it is an integrated whole and cannot 24 and should not be piecemealed. ~e request that you i 25 deny the applicant's request for a median break on 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Freedman Way. We request that you approve the staff recommendations. We think staff has gone a lang way to resolving many of the issues that have been a coricern to the community and to Disney, but we do think we nee@ to go further. ~ Moreover, as I~m sure you have ncted, tYiat none of the appendices and the attaahments to the staff report have been revised consistent with the staff recommendations. And often the devil is in the detail and we hope that this Commission will bring back to the Commission the finalized conditions and finalized planning and zoning code amendments consistent with the staff recommendations. In addition, we would ask that the developer come b~ck to the Commission and Council with finalized site plans consistent with staff recommendations that will be then tied into the project plar, approvals so that we all know, if this Council and this Commission approve this project, what is going to be built. It is critical that these site plans, these renderings and the other graphi~~s that have been pra_sented here become a part of the official file, become a part of the conaitions of approval to ensure that what is being represented here is actually built. Lastly, I~d like to paint out that we do 130 i think it~s important that we ses the final staff 2 conditions and changes before this Commission approves 3 them. We know that there is a desire certainly on 4 applicant's part to move forward w.ith this project; 5 but I think it's important that we all see those 6 finalized staff conditions and zoning code amendments 7 so that when we proceed, we know exactly what we are 8 proceeding with. We have submitted some additional 9 information with regard to the CEQA clearance, and 30 we've given that to staff. And, in addition, since 11 the applicant has not indicated any objections to the 12 staff recommendations, we assume that they are 13 embracing those staff recommendations. If, however, 14 on rebuttal they indicate any objections to those 15 staff recommendations, we would respectfully request 16 some time to at least comment on whate~*er those 17 changes might be. 18 Lastly, we ask you to preserve the 19 vision. It's important, we've all made a commitment 20 to that. I~m going to turn it back over to Bill Ross 21 and then we'11 be happ~ to answer any questions you 22 might have. Bill. 23 NIl2. ROSS: Mr. Chairman, just tw~ short final 24 comments. Every property owner in th~ Anaheim Resort 25 area participated in the creation of the Specific Plan • 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I 19 I 20 21 az 23 24 25 and the regulations to guide future growth. Tough decisions were made at that time. Old signs are coming down. A new vision is emerging for the resort area. Just when we start to see the results of all the hard and painful work, you have before you a project that could make all of this effort meaningless. Let~s not go backwards and return to the uncontrolled growth of our past. Anaheim has a long history of moving fnrward and welcoming the future. I urge the city, as you consider the proposals before you today, to stay on course. Let°s not drift back to the past and watch the vision unravel before our eyes. Of course, you should consider new and reasonable development. We all understand why the community would be excited about new development, but only after you have required this developer to meet the standards of the Anaheim Resort area. Thank you very much for your time. ' I~Il2. BRISTOL: Thank you, Mr. Ross, is there anybody on your side, Mr. Ross, that wants to speak right now? We're probably going t~ break for lunch. Folks, we°re going to come back at 1:45, promptly at 1:45, and those wishing to speak will do so at that time. 132 1 ~ (Lunch recess.) 2 NII2. BRI~TOL: We left off at the opposition. I 3 don't know if you had completed your testimony. We 4 wsre getting ready for public speaking, the 5 opposition, those against this proposal. In fact, 6 .nost of you signed this blue sheet of paper. That's 7 where I think we ended before the break. Did you have 8 more, Mr. Ross? 9 Ng2. ROSS: We'd like to h3ve some public 10 comments . 11 MR. BRISTOL: That~s where we're going to right 12 now. That's where we're heading right now. So those 13 of you who want to speak and oppose this project at 14 this time, you're welcome to come on up. 15 MR. PAWLOWSKI: Good afternoon, my name is Stan 16 Pawlowski. My wife and I live at 1430 West Jeanine 17 Avenue in Anaheim. Forgive me for my laryngitis 18 today. My wife likes it, my staff likes it~ I hope 19 you're going to like it, but I hate it. Anyway, we're 20 going to muddle through it anyway. I would like to 21 say that I am executive vice president of Pacific 22 Century Bank here in Anar.eim. I~ve been a resident 23 for 48 years and also the co-chairman of The 24 Preservation of the Anaheim Resort Area. Our 25 committee, has organized to share with you some of our 133 1 concerns about the Pointe Anaheim project that this 2 astute body will be voting on this afternoon. 3 Before 2 get to that, I have a list of 4 1,256 voters in Anaheim who do not want the Planning 5 Commission or the City Council to change their minds 6 on the Specific Plan that was outlined some four years 7 ago, as we11 as not to amend the vision that had been $ carefully crafted some time ago. And I~d like to be 9 presenting this to you, Mr. Bristol, as well as the 1Q 2dayor when they hold the City Council meeting. So 11 T'11 leave it up here. All right? 12 NII2. BRISTOL: Yes. 13 NIlt, pAWLOWSKI: Oka y. You know, on the 14 surface of this particular proposal, it sounded like 15 an ideal and attractive plan for Anaheim and our city. 16 And our committee feels that it can be if the ?~7 developer adheres to the Specific Plan that was 18 drafted about four years ago by the City Council to 19 protect our city .residents and our business~s. The 20 first concern we have, you~ve already heard it and I~m 21 going to repeat it again, the traffic. I know a11 of 22 you agree that this is an important issue, and we 23 should be able to move in and around the resort area 24 with minimal conc~estion. With the addition we will 25 see anywhere from a 200 to 300 percent increase in the 134 ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 io ' 11 12 I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 traffic on Harbor. And witMout additional lanes, ingress and egress, from the freeways, Preedman Way and Katella~ I think you're going to find complete gridlock on those main arteries that go into the Harbor Boulevard, Katella and Freedman Way. I'd like to tell you a little story that 2 had. I went last week, we had several meetings at the Marriott Hotel, one at Hilton as we11 as at the Disneyland Hotel. Last Tuesday, at 9 o'clock in the morning, coming north on Harbor, it took me 22 minutes from Convention Way to Ball. And then the next day at 5:30 in the evening, going south on Harbor to Quality Inn at Convention Center Drive, it took 28 minutes. N'ow, I recognize the streets are still under repair, but can you imagine what will happen when you increase that traffic anywhere from 200 to 300 percent during peak hours for the residents without additional lanes and without additional traffic lights and other amenities that should be done before the project is built. Parking poses another problem. Not only do developers want to have the city subsidiz~ the parking structure, but thzy also want concessions on the parking space, from anywhere from 7,600 down to about 4,800. Who suffers? •The businesses in the 135 i' , ~ - ~ 1 a'rea. And I want you to know, do we continue to 2 subsidize every business, every builder that comes 3 into the city that wants to develop something 4 interesting and exciting? That~s a question you~ll 5 have to ask yourselves. 6 Our signage requirements. Many 7 businesses in the resert area have already complied 8 with the signage requirements. In fact, there was 58 9 signs that I read about that have been taken nown over 10 the past th.ree years. And I think if you look at 11 Harbor Boulevard right now, north and south, you can 12 see it~s much improved and looks so much better than 13 what we had before. Let~s keep it that way. Let's 14 not have additional icons that reach up into the skies 15 100 to 130 feet, four or five of them that you can see 16 from Harbor. Al1 of a sudden we revert back to the 17 old policy. Where do you stop? 18 You know, i.t a ppears to me that the city 19 staff, trying to get a project in development on 20 Freedman Way and also Harbor Boulevard, have been 21 quite eager to do anything possible to go ahead and 22 bring som~thing in. We know this is a young, 23 attractive, exciting development on Freedman Way and 24 Harbor, but let's not overreach and give them the moon 25 and the stars and skies and also the keys to the city 136 1 at the same time. I remember when we had a partrier 2 right across the street from Freedman Way and Harbor 3 called Disneyland. When they came up to their second 4 project, and I happened to have been a spokesman for 5 them at that time, T remember an EIR study that was 6 6 feet tall, probably cost millions of dollars, that 7 they had to ~roduce, other variances that they had 8 come up, other ideas and other dollars spent, but they 9 did it. They jumped through hoops. But that project, 10 now, as you can see, that $1.4 billion project is 11 underway and it's going and it's a nice addition to 12 the city of Anaheim. 13 You know, I think in this particular 14 meeting I've heard a lot of people say it's Disneyland 15 who is fighting this particular project. They don't 16 warit it. They don't like the competition. I don't 17 think that's so. They have been here a long time. 18 Disney has been here for 40 years and they brought $3 19 billion -- almost a$3 billion to $4 billion 20 investment to ou~ city. They created thousands of 21 jobs and millzon of dollars to the revenue of our 22 city. They are leaders and a world-known company. 23 They've supported everything good and decent in ~ur 24 community as well as in Orange County, an}nahere from 25 the arts, the schools, the YMCA, the Boys and Girls 137 1 Clubs, Boy Scouts, a community campaign that they 2 have, they give out $25A,00~, the churche's, the 3 Chamber, the Visitors Convention Bureau. I could go 4 on and on because I~ve witnessed it and I~ve been 5 here. I~ve lived witi: it, and the list goes on. 2 6 think we all owe them a debt of gratitude instead of a 7 cold shoulder. Whether you like it or not, Disnev 8 has turned Anaheim from a sleepy little village to a 9 worl@-class city. 10 Now, in their case we can make some 11 exceptions to someone like Disney because they have 12 proven themselves to our community. I think what we 13 need is for this new developer and owners to prove 14 themselves before we give away the store. Let~s let 15 them play by the rules we~ve heard today. They~ve had 16 a lot of pretty pictures. They painted a lot of nice 17 things. They said -- they~re very articulate in their 18 comments. They did a good joh in presenting their 19 case and T have to commend them for it, but there~s 2~ not one time did they say, ~~We~re going to guarantee 21 that this project is going to be developed.~~ And as 22 you gentlemen know, that when a project is -- when you 2~ receive your entitlement, you can take this project. 24 and you can sell it to somebody else, and when that 25 transfers, other things happen. I'm not saying these 138 1 gentlemen are going to do tYiat or this developer/owner 2 plans on doing that, but that does happen and it does 3 happen in this particular world of ours. 4 Now, as a resident of this city and a 5 businessman for over 48 years, I feel the citizens 6 deserve something of quality, attractiveness, world- 7 class development an~ we shouldn~t settle for anything 8 less. And once the city decides to make an exception 9 and sets a precedent, lets its guard down by not doing 10 their homawork, then you can see every developer in iZ Southern California wanting to come in ana asking for 12 concessions, consideration, subsidy for their project. 13 And how do you turn them down? Remember, you set the 14 pace. 15 Let me remind you that there~s a saying 16 that says it's not safe to look at the future with 17 eyes of concern and fear. There are definitely 18 concerns with the residents as well as businesses and 19 I think these concerns should be addressed before we 20 move fozward aith this particular project. We'd like 21 to see the project go because we think it could be 22 very beneficial to Anaheim, the city and the residents 23 but let's do it the right way. Thank you very much. 24 NIlt. BRISTOL: Thank you, Mr. Pawlowski. 25 MS. TERRELL: Good afternoon. 139 ~_ 1 NII2• BRISTOL; Good afternooa. 2 MS. TERRELL: Good afternoon Mr, ~ , Chaixman and 3 Planning Cor.ttnissioners and staff. I'm Jackie Terrell 4 and I~ve lived in Anaheim a long time, since 1956. I 5 reside at 1307 North Jasmine Place in Anaheim. I am a 6 citizen here to speak because I~m concerned. I want 7 growth, I love Disneyland and I.hope for the best to 8 make Anaheim a better place. As a long-time resident, 9 I'm excited to see the great possibilities for 10 Anaheim's future. I would love to see a new li development like Pointe Anaheim come into the resort 12 area as long as it is a responsible development that 13 falls within the specifics of the plan that has been 14 put in place. • 15 I have talked with many people in the 16 city and many of them have never heard cf the Pointe 17 Anaheim project. This is an enormous project that the 18 city is undertaking and considering, and the public 19 review process has been too short. Many residents 20 never have had a chance to give their opinion on what 21 is going on. This is a must in the city of Anaheim. 22 We must alert our citizens here so they're well- 23 informed and Lhey don~t have to find out when it's all Er~c~ 24 ~1eue. Somethi.ng like this magnitude that wi11 af~Eect ~ 25 the city in such a large way should have really been 140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 taken the time to see~what the residents had to say about this proposal bero,re the public review process closed. Any major d~~avelopMent should be required to go through a longer period of public input. And if I they decide not to, then the citizens should ask the question, why not? We have seen no assurances that the beautiful pictures that I~ve seen -- and I have gone to see Pointe Anaheim~s pictures one night because I was concerned and I wanted to know about what was going on, and I wanted to make sure that they are really going to build the facilities that I~ve seen and that these people will actually be the ones to build this said property. Theref~re, we really have to look into what they are asking for, and that is permission to make drastic changes in the plans that all of us have spent many hours and years to develop. I~ve been thGt way, I've sat in on them. It's aothing tha~ has been done overnight. The Specific Plan anticipates a variety of quality development projects in the Anaheim Resort area, and Pointe Anaheim could be one of those. Please make sure that the Specific Plan is not changed, altered or amended. Tt~s a good plan. It~s u plan that we've worked hard for in the city of 141 . ~ . . ... .. . . ~ ~..' . 1 Anaheim. And I want to thank you very much for this 2 privilege. I have served over 40-some-odd years 3 making Anahpim a better place in wh9.ch to live. I 4 have not gotten paid for my services, but in my heart 5 I've se.rved Anaheim to make it a better place in which 6 to live, to work and to play. And all I ask is I want 7 growth but I want it done in the right way and I want 8 to make sure that all of the,people, the residents in 9 the city of Anaheim will love the new development as I 10 hope I will. I thank you very much. This has been my 11 privileae. ~ 12 MR• BRISTOL: Thank you, Ms. Terrell. 13 MS. MANES: Good afternoon, Planning 14 Commissioners. My name is Andrea Manes. I live at 15 1475 West Wedgew~od in Anaheim and I'm a 41-year 16 resident of Anaheim. I come here today hopefully not 17 to be repetitive, because it would tend to get that i8 Way, but I think it~s important that we do state and 19 maybe, even just a little, restate a couple of things. 20 When we are asked to speak, interestingly enough, it~s 21 to the opposition of the project, and a project that~s 22 so beautifully conveyed in these conceptual designs, 23 it~s hard to be opposed to. So perhaps I'm not 24 opposed to the project as much as T~m opposed to the 25 prospect af looking at the Anaheim Specific Plan and 142 _,, 1 alterinr~ it. I have the privilege of driving through 2 that area every day, twice a day, taking my children 3 to and from school. What's happened on Walnut is 4 beautiful. I'm so proud of it and so proud to be a S part of Anaheim and a part of that process. I recall 6 those days, as Jackie does, years ago that we stood 7 together with communit}~ members and businesses and 8 yourselves in a lot of ways as Planning Commissior~ers 9 and also Cits~ Council to put that plan together and to 10 support iL. It took time, it took a commitment and I 11 think it~s a commitment that we all still have in a 12 great degree. 13 So suffice it to say that I'm pleased 14 with what I see. I'd like to see the final fruition 15 of that plan. I'd like to see how it will really look 16 when the process is done, and that probably would 17 necessitate us not looking at altering that plan as 18 it is. I think it's a good plan. I know it was when 19 we all sat down together, community, business and 20 civic leaders and looked at it and said, °Tb;s is the 21 way we want Anaheim to be," so it's something for us 22 to be prcud of. 23 I'm proud of it and I'm proud o£ what I'm 24 seeing ai~d I'm happy with what I~m seeing. And I hope 25 that we will proceed with the plan as it is and ask ' 143 1 that not just this project, but as many projects~that 2, come forward that are good projects also adhere to 3 that plan and stay in line to what we hope to see for 4 Anaheim. I thank you for your time. 5 1~Z. BRISTOL: Thank you, Ms. Manes. 6 MR. ROYALTY: Good afternoon, Mr, Chairman, and 7 members. My name is Reed Royalty and I~m the $ president of the Orange County Taxpayers Association, 9 which is headquartered in San Juan Capistrano. In 10 1996 OC Tax, as we call our organi;.ation, strongly 11 supported your improvements to the Anaheim Resort 12 area. As a matter of fact, that year we did something 13 wn very seldom do, we actually signed the ballot 14 argument in fav~r of the TOT that would bring these 15 impro•~-ements to fruition. We did this because we 16 believed then and we continue to believe that the tax 17 meets OC Tax~s four criteria for a good tax. 18 Number one, it is fair. It is paid by 19 voluntaxy visitors tn the ARA, not by the general 20 taxpayers. Number two, it is understandable, the 21 voters knew then and they know now exactly what they 22 are getting for their money. Numt,er three, it's 23 efficient. It was a key element in the financing of 24 o~•er half a billion dollars~ worth of impravements. 25 And, number four, it~s good for business. Even the 144 1 hotel operators who are most affected by the TOT 2 supFort it. And OC Tax and ultimately the•voters 3 supported the extension of the TOT because we saw it 4 as part of an excellent package that included 5 environ,T~ental mitigations, a specific plan for the 6 pedestrian environment, a development plan and this 7 innovative finance agreement. We saw it as setting 8 standards for the dev~alopment of Anaheim that would be 9 a source of pride as well as revenue to Anaheim and 10 all of Orange County. 11 Now, it appears, as the previous speaker 12 said, we have at least the prospect that this 13 Commission is being asked to lower its standard for 14 the Specific Plan vision and the signage and the 15 transportation and parking and number of hotel rooms 16 in the AR.A. If you do that, you would be breaking a 17 compact, a three-year-old compact that you formed with 18 the voters when tY.zy voted for the TOT. OC Tax 19 believes that all projects, this one, any project done 20 by Disney or anyone else, should meet the standards 21 that were set forward, including an enforceable 22 agreement to build hotel rooms because, as 23 representatives of the taxpayers, we think that any, 24 doubt about the ability to build a thousand hotel 25 rooms might cost you a million dollars a year or more 145 1 in TOT that the taxpayers are relying upon to retire 2 those bonds. The additional retail and commercial and 3 entertainment facilities are great. We love them, 4 li.ke the pictures, looks like a good project, but 5 those things will stress the infrastructure of the 6 ARA, but without the hotel rooms and the TOT that the 7 hotel rooms produce they will contribute nothing to 8 the ARA improvements. 9 OC Tax is not antidevelopment. One of 10 our guidelines is that we are pro business. We love il it. On the contrary, w~ support it enthusiastically 12 only if it is built in accordance with the compact 13 agreed to by the voters and taxpayers. And surely you 14 can find ways that this project, any project bu~lt by 15 Disney or any other developer, can be built without 16 jeopardizing the stanciards of quality that induced OC 17 Tax and the taxpayers and the voters to support the 18 ARA plan and the TOT in the first place. Please do 19 not violate that compact that you formed with the 20 voters. Thank you very much. 21 NIl2. BRISTOL: Thanks, Mr. Royalty. 22 NIIt. JACOB: Mr. Chairman and Members of the 23 Commission, my name is Bob Jacob. I'm u principal 24 with the S~VA Group. W~e are planning consultants, 25 urban design, landscapa_ consultants. And we were 146 _ .. . . ..... .. ~ 1 responsible for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan as 2 well as the Disn~eyland Resort Specific Plan and 3 recently have worked for the city in the development 4 of the stadium area plan as well as worked for the 5 City of Anaheim Redevelopment Agency downtown. I'm 6 here to speak today, and I'm using some images that 7 2'm going to be showing with my presentation in a 8 moment here, but I~m here to speak in opposition to 9 the project as currently envisioned. , 10 One of the most important things I think 11 I learned in my professional training was that 12 approximately 85 percent of what we know about the 13 world is information that we take in through our eyes. 14 Consequently, seeing is believing, and g.etting an 15 impression of a place through what we see is a very 16 iinportant part of creating an image and creating an 17 identity that is attractive and compelling. Now, if I 18 could have the first image, please. If you would look 19 at the image, and perhaps I could have the lights 20 dimmed on the screen. Thank you. 21 This is really the situation that we were 22 confronted with when we began work on the Specific 23 Plan in 1991. There's lots of confusion in this 24 image, caused primarily by the proliferation of signs; 25 although, there were a nt~mber of ather issues too as 147 1 well that we were trying to deaZ with. And although 2 individual signs or projects might be attractive in 3 and of themselves, I think you can understand that the 4 total effect was not very attractive. And it 5 represented I think, and T think Disney and the city 6 agreed with us on this, that this is in fact something 7 that was one of the most unattractive features of the 8 whole area and what some people dislike about Southern 9 California, in fact, and in coming to a resort area 10 that's based in Southern Califor:iia. We felt that we il really had to deal with this issue. A new vision 12 literally was needed, a bold vision that would 13 transform the appearance of that district. ~4 The answer that emerged was really -- 15 there were a number of answers, but the two parts that 16 we were particularly concerned with, one, to create 17 this memorable landscape on the street, what we call 18 the public realm. And we felt that doing that, 19 essentially dealing with the right-of-way, would 20 transform the area and still allow flexibility of the 21 development of private property that the city and 22 everybody else seemed very interested in preserving. 23 Another very important part of that, 24 however, was the development of a sign program which 25 would address tPiis visual clutter that's illustrated 148 . s~gn . 1 in 'this dcc~~. As you know, over the last number of 2 years this has been addressed by the removal of 3 existing signs and regulations in the Specific Plan 4 that controls the future development of signs. Go to 5 the next image. 6 Now, you can see here in this pair of 7 slides, Walnut Street on the left, in terms of what it 8 looked like in about 1991 or 1~92, and on the right 9 was a sketch, actually, that we prepared in our office 1Q showing what we thought Walnut Street might look like 11 after the trees had matureci fo~ a few years and, you 12 know, how that would actually t:ransform that street. 13 Next slide, please. And I think if you've been out 14 there recently or even maybe nnt so recently, you can 15 see that that has been implemented and that is well on 16 the way to achieving the vision that we intended. In 17 fact, T think this picture is several months old and 18 there~s probably another six months of growth on these 19 trees since these pictures were taken. So the etfect 20 that we're trying to create there is well on its way 21 to fulfilling what we showed you in the images that we 22 presented to you in 1993. Next image, please. 23 This is an image that shows Harbor, 24 again, on the left, and a sketch on the right-hand 25 side. Next image. And you can see that through the 149 ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ip ~ I 11 12 13 I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I transformation of landscape and signs that a number of the issues that concerned us we have begun to deal with. Next image. And I think that it~s important to understand that when we look at a project like Pointe Anaheim to understand that even though the transformation of Harbor is underway, that it's important to understand the developer or the proponent of Pointe Anaheim and their partners, the kinds of projects that they have been involved with to understand how that might fit into this development. Now, the image that I have on right here is actually a project that was done by one of their partners in Orlando. This is called Pointe Orlando. And I think the first thing, of course, that strikes me is the commitment to the public realm, and this is not quite the same as it is in Anaheim, which is perhaps not so much their problem, but it certainly sets a different kind of context for the project. Next image, please. This is also from Pointe Orlando on the right and it shows the use of iconography or icons. ' NIlt. BRISTOL: Mr. Jacob, can I ask you a question? ' NIlt. JACOB: Yes. i~t.. RRISTOL: How long is this presentation 150 1 2 3 ~i ~ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I 25 I -~ ~ ~, ~ ` going to go? . Ngt. JACOB: About another Lwo minutes. N~2. BRISTOL: I wasn~t aware that you were going to do this, so you have exceeded your five minutes. Go ahead. NIl2. JACOB: I'm sorry. I'l1 try to be brief. This project shows these icons in the context of that project. Next image, please. And this also shows a so-called interior sign, which is the same kinds of signs being proposed for the Pointe Anaheim project. Next image. One of the concerns that we have is such interior signs may be visible offsite from significant distances, other areas of the resort area or even fr~m Interstate 5. And so control of interior signs we think is very important and something that you should consider in looking at this project. NIl2. BOSTWICK: Or maybe from the top of a rollercoaster? MR. J~1COB: We think the public concern is primarily from public rights-of-way. NIl2. BOSTWICK: I don't want to go into this, but there's no question in the staff report or anywhere that they're not going to do the landscaping. NII2. JACQB: That's correct. NII2. BOSTWICK: And I thought you started out on 151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I 18 19 20 21 22 23 I 24 25 that, and I~m kind of where we're at with the signage issue here, I'm wondering where you~re going. I~t.. JACOB: 2 think the next two slides wilY show that. Next image, please. This is actually not Pointe Orlando. This is a project that was done next I door, and this project also contains icons as part of the way to attract busi.ness to their project. Next image, please. And this is also part of that same project. And I think the point here, really, is to make that -- allowing the kinds of signs that were prohibited by the Specific Plan is very important and something that you should pay close attention to when you're establishing conditions of approval for this plan. Thank you. •That concludes my presentation. MR. BRISTOL: Thank you, Mr. Jacob. Se~inner,~-. ,,,g'cF,i nner~t- ~• '~'~~: Good afternoon. I'm Rod. ~hm_~, the general manager of the Disneyland Hotel. I~m actually here today representing Bill Stoval managing partner for Stoval~s Best Western Hotels. He asked that I read a correspondence to the Chairman and the Commissioners dated IKay 14th, 1999, regarding, of course, Pointe Anaheim. "On May I9th the Planning Commission members will be votinq on the Pointe~ Anaheim project. It's uz~fortunate that such a large development is Y iS2 ~',:. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ~I $ 9 10 I il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 ~ being heard during ~his midway week time slot when many concerned people will be working. I cannot be there as I will be in Miami, Floritla on a business trip. I would like to take a few minutes of your time to explore the concerns I have about Pointe Anaheim development as it is presently being proposed. "The developer is requesting more than 30 percent reduction in the parking requirements versus code. This could easily have a very negative im.pact on all of the businesses in this area because visitors will be forced to park offsite. With this major development, more consideration should be given to widening the streets that are boundaries to this development to allow for better traffic flow. "Pointe Anaheim continues to ask for exemptions to Specific Plan signage regulations which will have long-term negative effects on the area. I= this development receives signage exemptions, future developers will want exemptions and the resort vision will be destroyed. Pointe Anaheim icons and signage will significantly alter the vision and image of the resort area. "Most importantly, in 1994 the city adopted a Specific Plan for the Anaheim Resort area in order to correct the mistakes made in the past and to 153 .u s~ . , .. . ,.~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . i ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1$ 19 20 21 ?2 23 24 25 ~ ensure and pres~rve the major enhancements that are presently being made throughout the resort area. The enhancements are 50 percent complete. Please, let's not consider development that wants to change the Specific Plan. Let~s keep the Specific Plan intact so that we can all enjoy the Anaheim Resort area. Thank you very much for your cor.sideration. Bill O~Cannell." Tnank you. . 1~Il2• ~RISTOL: Thank you, sir. NII2. WILK: Hello. I'm Dave Wilk and I~m 2xecutive director of Disney Goals. And I rarely come to this chamber because :[~m involved in youth work, not real estaL-e, but I think that my organization, ;vhich works with underserved children here in the city of Anaheim, primarily, has a common denominator with real estate development and that is youth development. There~s ar. ingredient in both of those forms of development which I think needs to be underscored, and it was referred to earlier, and that~s the essence of commitment . I want to just brieily say a bit about goals, tha*_ we were formed in 1994. As our name suggested, Walt Disney Company had something tc do with it. Interesting enough, our birth stemmed fro-n another real estate development, that of the l3isney 154 ' ' - ': . ._.""_,. 1 . . _;.... . . . ' ~_" _ 1 Ice Arena here in downtown. That opened in 1995. The 2 idea then was to give opportunity to those ch~~dren 3 that might never benefit from an upscale, costly 4 coi~~nunity enterprise and help build better citizens 5 and a better community as a result. 6 Disnev Goals has involved more than 3,000 7 poor children in this community in meaningful 8 after schoal activities, including plenty of ice 9 hockey, since 1994. The Disney Compan~ has directly 10 or indirectly been involvPd in leveraging ~ver 11 $7 million to support Goals' resources which have been 12 focused on the needs of those who live, somewhat 13 metaphorica~ly, in the shadows af the principal 14 devnlopments of this area. No oi:e told them to do it, 15 no one threatened them to do it, no one begged them to 16 do it. Disney c:id this because their k2y leaders, 17 f rom the company chainnan, all the way down the line, 18 believed in the cause, saw development as more than 19 just brir.ks and mortar or another business 20 opportunity. •rhey understoocl correc.tly then, and I 21 believe even more today, about the value of committing 22 substantially and strategically to the greater 23 community. , ~4 I~ve never been asked by Disney to speak 25 publicly.about their contributions to Disney Goals, 155 1 which is a not-for-profit organizati~n. I~ve not been 2 asked by Disney to speak in any way about this 3 particular development proposal. The implications 4 that I~ve read, that Disney is out to destroy the 5 competition, are, I think, outrageou~ rom my ~ 6 perspective. And that perspective is that Disney had 7 always stood by, for and with efforts to build ti~.s 8 community and help keep it moving in a positive ~ 9 di.rection of development. Their investments are 10 indeed staggering and therefore should they not be 11 concerned about the character of this area~s 12 development? I don~t think that should be questioned. 13 Thank goodness they are; moreover, thank goodness they 14 think about the genera]. welfare ~f the surrounding 15 community, and have been and continue to act quietly, 16 constructively and comprehensively with local 17 leadership in the course of defining both the resort 18 area's physical character along with the long-term 19 possibility of how those characteristics could be 20 changed by those whose concern might only be on a 21 short-term profit basis and not necessarily those 22 long-term implications affecting the resort area and 23 by extension the greater conununity. 24 If strategies or dreams once deployed are 25 then deferred or deflated, if promises made are then 156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I 23 I 24 25 ~ ~ ' ( - ~ t modified in major ways, how can those of us who engage in any private, public or nonprofit or for that matter any general social endeavor, be prepared to place our faith in those who would point us to our community~s future? Good development requires commitment. Thar's true for children just as it is for real estate. . Commitment isn~t just showing up for a party, for a graduation, for a wedding ceremony, it isn~t ju~t about a ribbon-cutting or a champagne toast, it isn~t about press releases and public r~lation~s promises. it's about staying thP course and investing in the future of an entire community, not just a 29-acre piece of it. I think it~s good that Disney has helped to elevate this proposal inta such a public issue, anc~ I think whatever development that ultimately ensues will b~ the better for this public review and debate. Thank you. NIl2. BRISTOL: Thank you. MR. DOMINGUEZ: Good afternoon. I'm Ron Dominguez. It's a pleasure to be here before you today. I~ve live in Villa Park, 18472 Rosenau Drive. I~m also a property owner at 1200 South State College Boulevard in Anaheim. I have many deep roots in this community, goes back many generations in Orange County and many of those generations right here in the city 157 1 of Anaheim. So you can see that my roots go deeg, and 2 I'm c~ncerned over the outcome of this community and 3 how it grows in the future. 4 I grew up where Disneyland is located. 5 In fact, my folks were orange growers and we had a 6 small parcel of land right about at the Pirates of the 7 Caribbean and north there into Frontierland. Again, 8 my roots xun deep in this comn~unity. I started my 9 career here in Anaheim at Disneyland as a ticket 10 taker, a summer job, and that summer job lasted for 40 il years and I retired in 1994 as executive vice 12 prPsident. 13 Anaheim has always been a very l~f progressive city. When Disney br~ught his theme park 15 to Anaheim in 1955, it was welcom~d with open arms. 16 Right after the success of Disne1land and the tourism 17 it generated, Anaheim, again, was very progressive and 18 they built a canvention center. ~uid look at the ~9 success of that facility and what's going on over 20 there now as far as growth and exFansion, which wiZl 21 be prorably one of the top-rated convention facilities 22 in the country. From there, the stadium, with a major 23 league baseball team, and on to th;e Pond where they 24 have a hockey team and hopefully a basket~all team in 25 the future. ~ ' 158 [ 1 ~ Then in the late ~80s and early ~90s 2 Disney talked about expansion of a new theme park. 3 And that certainly became apparent that the Anaheim 4 Resort area needed a long-term plan to ensure that 5 competitiveness of the future. Hence a plan was 6 created to eliminate visual clutter and aging signage 7 in the area and aging facilities and aging power 8 lines, all those things that were a visual blight to 9 the community. I was proud tc be part of that team 10 that helped develop the plan for Anaheim. 1~ The Pointe Anaheim project proposal is 12 something that should be looked at very c'losely and 13 not to have it change the Specific Plan that~s been 14 developed to create a very beautiful, visu4l site as 15 caell as a plan that allows growth for the future. We 16 can~t afford to take one project and change the plan. 17 If that happens, look out what happens down the roa~. 18 in the future. You~re going to have people knocking 19 on the your door constantly with growth, and it's 20 going to occur and it's going t.~ continue, not with 21 just Pointe Anaheim but with other projects, asking 22 for changes. 23 In f act, some of the businesses in town 24 now that have made changes to their property at a cost 25 to them, you might have a problem looking ahead with a 159 1 lawsuit if you change the plan now and mak~ exceptions 2 for this particular project. I~ve dedicated, it seems 3 like years, but many months ensuring that this plan 4 would be to the betterment ~f Anaheim and for the rest 5 of the businesses in the community. And I think that 6 we need to stick to it, not waiver, not make changes. 7 There~s foux issues, in my opinion, signage, density, 8 parking and traffic that are very important to the 9 overall success of this project and the community at 10 large, 11 So as we enter the 21st century, 1et~s 12 stick together, stay with the plan, stay with the 13 course and not waver and make changes with the first 14 p:coject out of the box. I thank you for your time and 15 good luck. 16 2~Il2. BRISTOL: Thanks, Mr. Dominguez. ~nybody 17 else wish to speak? 18 ZdS. 'H0~?KINS: I'm not going to talk long. I 19 just want to say I~m with him. I remember when he was 20 born, and I was his neighbor where Disneyland is. 21 MR. BRISTOL: Your name, ma'am? 22 MS. HOPKINS: Bessie MariP Hopkins, 621 South 23 Anthony, Anaheim, California. 24 1~IIt. BRISTOL: Okay. You're right here on this 25 blue thing. 160 i 2 3 g 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I 24 25 ' 2~42 . HOPKINS : Yes . ' I~Il2. BRISTOL: Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak? All right. Applicant, we have now rebuttal time. ', NIlt. ERSKINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. We'd like to start off by going back through some of the recent comments and then we~ll give you, if you please, we'll give you our comments on the conditi~ns and suggested revisions, and there's a couple additional conditions that have been presented to us this morning. First of all, we'd like to bring up Glenn Nordlow from Jerde to comment on the quality of this development as opposed to some of the images and the set-backs shown relative .to Pointe Orlando, which I~m sure most of .the Commissioners appreciate is a completely different partnership and a completely different city,and a completely different architect. But a couple key points before Glenn comes up, the images that you've been shown which were an attempt to show you or to create the impression that one project will spawn another project immediately next door, the projects that were shown were built appr~ximately two miles away from Pointe Orlando. I think the statement was made and a misrepresentation was made that they were next door or in the same 161 1 neighborhood. ~ ' 2 In addition, one of those projects was 3 built prior to Pointe Orlando, so they certainly 4 didn~t spawn that pr.oject. Additionally, there is no 5 requirement in the Pointe Orlando or in the Orlando 6 area for that area I~m told, and, obviously, you can 7 see it from the images, there's no requirement of 8 adherence to public realm set-backs, which this 9 project completely complies with the Specific Plan 10 set-backs. Finally, different architect, different 11 quality level and different circumstances regarding 12 architec.ture and site plan and design. So, Glenn, 13 would you like to elaborate? 14 NIl~. NORDLOW: I~ d like to respo~ld to the 15 landscaping issues specifically. I think the nature 16 of this project, as Stan alluded to in his 17 presentation, is something that we see as being 18 resort-oriented. Each time we do a project in ttie 19 community we laok at the specifics of that community 20 and look for the positives. And as I said earlier, 21 when we looked at this project, one of the most . 22 positive things we saw was a commitment from the city, 23 from the public sector, in the public right-of-way to 24 achieving a level of quality and.we fully embrace that 25 in the planning of the project. I think you can see 162 IS, .1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I 23 24 25 ~ . . ~ . . . ' . ' 1` 1 it on the illustrations, specifically the elevations here. These illustrations are i].lustrating exactly what would be required of the project and we fully embrace them. One of the things that we did notice in this Specific Plan as we looked through the sections was the fact that many of the sections in the landscaping in those sections were meant to disguise parking structures. And we have, in our planning, put our parking structure deep into the site and, in fact, used the hotels and the :;ui:dings to hide the parking structure and have taken advantage of the landscaping both on oiir own property and, of course, the views to the landscape in the median and across the street. So we think that this is a very positiv~ aspact to the Specific Plan and we fully embrace it. The other aspect I think is one that perhaps we were anticipating a streetscape that was more pedestrian oriented. I think if you look at the SWA imac~es, there is plenty of planting, but really no anticipation of pedestrian life, and that's one thing that we see. we see a resort garden, we see a garden environment, we see a garden environment peopled with cafes and things, fountains, other amenities to look 163 ~ ~ ~ . ..._.. . 1, out upon, noG just for ,the.car, but for the Z pedestrian. And so I think, as you look at our plans, 3 you~ll see we orient our buildings in such a way that 4 people inside the buildings can look out into the 5 landscape and see beyond as well, so I would take 6 exception with that. ~ And I think the other aspect of the 8 project is the blank walls that we have around the 9 site. I think in a context where you have 'large 10 properties like the Disney property, it has been an li issue to us that the other side of Harbor Boulevard 12 really doesn~t contribute in a pedestrian way to our 13 project. So we welcome in a case where you have along 14 Harbor nearly two miles or a mile and a half of blank 15 wall that a condition like that would require and 16 would be enhanced by the landscaping. In our case 17 we~re not presenting•a blank wall. We're presenting a 18 very inviting image to the pedestrian and to the car, 19 so we're not trying to wall-up with the landscaping. 20 We~re trying to use the landscaping as an edge, but 21 also something that allows people inside to look out 22 and the outside to look in, and we see it as a very 23 positive thing. 24 I~Z. EP.SKINE: Mr. Chairman, the other key item 25 that we would like to have some discussion on and 164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ~ 10 11 12 13 I 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 23 24 25 i ~-.•1 . ._..,~ we''re in a little bit of dilemma, the traffic issues that have been raised need to be addressed. And I think staff would prefer that you question the traffic consultants since the city traffic consultant is consulting with the city. So if there are questions about the need for improvements, you might want to do that either before or after we give you our comments on the conditions of approval. Robert Shelton will now come up and discuss some of Timur Galen's five items. ~ I~2. SHELTON: I think what I was just asking John was whether you would invite up the traffic consultants because that was a large part of Mr. Galen~s comments. Ngt. BRISTOL: You~re asking us to go to the city staff? MR. SHELTON: Right. MS. McCLOSKEY: Staff believes that would be the order and that would be our preference would be to have our city traffic consultant respond to the concerns that were raised relative to traffic and parking. NIIt. SHELTON: Basically the concern is this, Chairman Bristol, the traffic consultant is not -- while we're paying for the traffic consultant, he 165 t,. : ~ 3 4 5 6 ~ 8 9 10 11 12 13 Z4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ^ _ ._ . -- .~ • tiuly is a consultant to the city, So for us to direct him to respond to the questio~s would be inappropriate because he~s not our employee. He~s an employee of the city's. 1~• BRISTOL: Do ynu c~ant to do th~,t now? tYte.y@r' ~ • ~: Commissioners, Michael meyp~-' ~r, Ima principal witheY~~ ~ ~~01~~e~ ~~ ~'ts & Associates . We h;x ~e offices throughout California.. I~m pleased to say we just recently opered one here in Anaheim as well. We prepared the traffic and parking analysis that was included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. I don't know if you want me to just respond to the comments as I noted them down in terms of points that I thought there needed to be some clarification on or if yau want to ask questions -- MR. BRISTOL: Yes, go ahead, and if we have questions, we~ll ask. ~ey~ex- ~• M~~: There were a number of coimnent's that have been made either today, verbally, or I~ve seen in writing previously that allude to hundreds of percents. of increase.in traffic associated.with this Pro)ect. And I think those arp misstatements in the sense that iP you~re looking at comparing the number of trips generated by the previously allowed 2,1C0 hotel rooms and comnaring tr~t to the proposed Anaheim ~ / V 166 :1..._.._ .. .. . . _ .. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I i3 I :l4 I 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .... . .._ .. _ ;;; ._,, - , ~ . project, we did clearly document that the proposed project would generate more traffic r_ha~ the previously approved motels, 18Q0 trips versus 753, but that's just frc~m this in3ividual site. When you distribute that traffic ou~: or~': e tk~e street system and you louk at what other traffic is there in terms of background traffxc, the p~rcentage change in tezm's of the background traffia associated with this projnct is quite small, and I can give you some ~xamples. If you look at the intersection of Har.bor ~nd Ball without the Pointe Anaheim project, in the p.m. peak hour~there's 9,Q00 cars passing through that intersection. The Pointe Anaheim project would increase.that by 70, which is less than 1 percent. If you look closer to the project at Harbor and Disney, without the Pointe Anaiheim project there are 5,34a cars passing through that intersection in the p.m. peak hour. The Pointe Anaheim prajert adds 360 cars, which is a 6.7 percent increase. The intersection closest to the project and that gets the most project traffic because of the freeway access is at Freedman and Katella -- Freedman and Disney Way -- these names change on these streets -- Freedman znd Disney Way, without the project in the future it would ' . 167 ~ .- . ..' l~ ~. Z he -- would have 1,880 cars in the p.m. peak hour. 2 Pointe Anaheim adds 560. That~s the absolute largest 3 increa~e and that's 29.8 percent. `~ So ahen people have talked about the 5 proje~t increasing the volumes on Fiarbor Boulevard or 6 the volumes in the neighborhood of 100s of percentage, 7 that~s really a mischaracterization of the impact of ~ the project. We did look at, as I~m sure you saw in 9 the Mitigated Neg Dec, the chazges in the levels af 10 service at all of the intersections, iden~ified that 11 only one intersection would be significantly impacted. 12 And at th 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 , 23 24 25 Y e pro~ect is going to be implementing signal system improvements at 16 intersections because to do this kind of a SCOOT system, you can't just do it ~t ane location, you have to do it along corridors. Sc~ with the improvements that Pointe Anaheim is putting in, you actually end up with improved intersec,tion levels of service at many of those locations compared to without the project, parti.cularly in the morning peak hours, since this projecr would generate ]ess traffic in the.mornin~C commute period than the hotel project that had previausly been approved. We also looked at in this analysis the 7:00 to 8•UO p.m. time perioc~. `i'his is kind of unusual, it's not typically done, but because 168 ~ _ l we've had comments about what's going to happen later 2 in the evening and this is a theater-, entertainment- 3 type complex, we did look at how many trips would it 4 generate ~rom 7:00 to 8:00 p.m., and actually t~ok it 5 to the point of looking at the intersection level 6 service analyses. '1 The key thing that wasn't brought out in 8 Mr. Gibson's slides where he showed that the project 9 does ger~erate more traffic from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. is 10 that the background traffic is a lot lower 7:00 to 11 8:00 p.m. because you don~t have as many commuters out 12 on the street. So, again, if the background traffic 13 has gone down by 25 to 30 percent, even if the Pointe 14 Anaheim project is adding traffic and is higher in 15 terms of trip generations between 7:00 and 5:~0 p.m., 16 the overall levels of service are better between 7:00 17 to 8:00 p.m. with the project than they are from 5:00 18 to 6:00 p.m. So we did not have an imp~ct at any of 19 tne intersections during the 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. time 20 period. 21 We also looked at the '!2.:00 p.m. to 1:00 22 a.m., again, to address the issue on Disney Way of 23 would we be impacting Disney Way with the Disneyland 24 traffic exiting from 12:00 to 1:00. So we tried to 25 make sure that we looked at these alternate time 169 .: ... . . .. ._... _....__ _ . ~ . 1 .._ ~ _........_--•--- ----_ ~ periods. We also had included multiple theater 2 arrivals and departures, both in parking analysis 3 where we showed by hour of the day how the parking 4 demand varied as weZl as in the traffic analysis. 5 It was also mentioned ~r implied that the 6 double left-turn lane at Freedman and Clementine or '1 Disney and Freedman, whatever y~u want to call it, was $ not being included as a mitigation measure, and that 9 is included as a mitigation measure for the Pointe 10 Anaheim project. Similarl y, the traffic control li officers at Harbor and Disney Way, it was implied that 12 that should be re quired. It has been included as a 13 mitigation measure there, so I just wanted to clarify 14 that. ls As far as the issue related to driveways, 16 there are .11 driveways around the project site, but I 17 think it would be worth pointing out that all, except 1$ one, of those driveways is proposed as a right-turn in 19 or a right-turn out, Virtually all or most of them 20 are right L-urns in and right turns out, with 21 deceleration lanes so that the traffic turning into 22 the driveways can pull off the through lane and turn 23 in, so that the driveways shoull not be causing any 24 significant impact on through craffic on the streets. 25 The onl,y drivpway that's propo~ed to have a left-turn 170 -1 - 1 out is the one that's on Clementine or future Freedman 2 Way which is kind of on the eastern side of the 3 project where there would be a signalized drive. 4 There was also some discussion about, 5 again, parking. I wanted to point out that the 6 parking as proposed is not a reduction from code- . required parking. The Anaheim Code allows for, in 8 mixed use projects like this, that you don't just add 9 up all the individual parking requirements for the 10 different land uses, but that you do a shared-use 11 parking analysis. And that's what we have done is 12 looking at each of the individual land uses and how 13 does the parking for them vary throughout the day and 14 how can you potentially take advantage of the fact 15 that one use may ioe generating parking demands at 16 different hours and sharing the parking with other 17 uses, so we did do t•hat anal}~sis. 18 I might point out, svhen we first startecl 19 on this ~roject, it was proposed to have 4,000 parking 20 spaces. W;~en we did our analysis, we concluded that 21 wasn~t enough a.nd the project applicant has increased 22 the amount of parking being provided initially to 23 almost 4,500 and then 4,800 and now to 5,200 to make 24 sure that there is a cushion abov~ what we forecast, 25 which is 4,200 space~ to be the peak demand at 8:00 171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I 18 I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ P•m• But, obviously, if 4,200 is the peak demand~, you want to have a cushion on top af that so they~ve provided now a cushion nf up to 5,200 spaces. A couple other points raised with some of the other uses, and I might r3efer to staff on this, there~s going to be an additional eondition ai~out special events on site to make sure if they would trigger any additional parking demand. The other uses though that were referenced would be substituted for square footages or for seats in the theaters that were already analyzed. So I think a11 those other uses were already covered by our parking and traffic analysis, other than a special event. And, I don't know, Linda, if you want to mention that now or I can turn it over to you later. Okay. MS. JOI~ISON: I~11 do it. Linda Johnson, Planning Department. I'd Ii}ce to review a revised condition. We would recommend adding ~ new condition which would read as follows: °That prior to advertising for any special evAnt which ~.~.~.11 draw visitors to the Pointe Anaheim prn~,~:~; ;_re c3etails of said event shall be submitted to ard a~prc-.r.~? by the City Traffic and Transportation Ma.~ivger, :~.d we would re:,ommend that thi.s condition be adde@ to the Specif~c Plan as well as the conditional use permi.t,~~ ' 172 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I 17 18 19 20 21 22 i 23 24 25 I -.. .1 , y And with regard to the amphitheater use, we would also recommend that the code be revised, the CUP provision, on page 17 in Attachment B, relative to indoor amphitheater to read as follows: "Theaters, including dinner, legiti.mate or motion picture theaters, performance theaters or nightclubs and i.zdoor amphitheaters," and in parenthe::~s, °the square footage of the indoor amphitheater use would be deducted from the maximum theater square footage." Previously it said, "Theaters/restaurant," so we would rec~mmend deleting restaurant f rom that code provision. meyec- . Nat. ~F'r&: I think I hit most of the points, other than I was al•so going to mention the additional ri~ht-turn lane on Freedman and the additional through lane on Katella, it~s my understanding that staff is making those part of the conditions of approval, so those are going to be required. MS. JOHNSON: Linda Johnson. I'd also like to makti~ a correction or actually to all of the conceptual site plans in that regard. Currently the conceptual site plan ~n the Attachment B to the staff report inadvertently shows the wrong alignment in front of, the 300-room hotel. It shows the alignment of Freedman Way jutting out a little bit into the street. J 173 .--.,\ . . . . ' ~ .- . 1 And, really, the correct alignment was shown in the 2 Mitigated Negative Dec where, as they turn ri~ht onto 3 Freedman Way, the curb line would remain the same all 4 the way to the entrance to the parking garage. And 5 then staff is recommending as a condition.of approval 6 that from the parking garage anto Clementine that that 7 whole curb line continue. 8 And the condition setting forth that 9 requirement for Freedman are set forth in the staff 10 re~ort. On page 14 of the staff report under °Staff 11 Recommended Street Improvements,~~ one condition is 12 .requiring that free right-turn lane on the south side 13 of Freedman from the parking garage to Clementine 14 Street. And the other staff recommended condition is 15 that the project install the ultimate right-of-way 16 improvements on Katella from Clementine t~ the first 17 driveway entrance. And associated with that, they 18 would be relocating the bus stop to be at that corner ~9 location. And that would be another change to the 20 concept-ual s~te plan. We have marked up an exhibit, 21 and we~ll make copies of this and give it to you and 22 we have some notes that illustrate these changes. 23 I~2. BOSTWICK: Please, as well as the written 24 change, your proposed amendments to the CUP, have them 25 w•ritten so we can see them. Mr. Chairman, can I have 174 ~. -1 ~, - -: ^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2i 22 I 2~ 24 25 a question of the traffic engineer since we~re starting on that? NII2. BRISTOL: Yes. I~Il2. BOSTWICK: We discussed about that ~ Mr. Gibson made comments about these right-turn in and the traffic going in and out along Disney Way and that staff is recommending now that that right turn or that entire lane be there, in other words, instead of three lanes wide, four lanes. Do you feel that that~s appropriate? Does this create to the driver going down the street that this is nc,w then a drive lane rather than a deceleration and turn lane? I~t. MYER: That~s what it's going to beg~n to appear to be, yes. I think the way it was initially designed, you had a deceleration lane into the porte-cochere and a deceleration lane into the other main entrance. And then once you start to connect all the decel.eration lanes with -- at through lanes, it starts to become a through lane. My understanding of Mr. Gibson's rationale for that was not so much for .right turns but for pedestrians to walk straight and Q.~i Al.~r trees to be ~ more straight and to provide a sp~t ~or a potential bus drop-off in front of the porte-cochere. But, personally, I think the capacity of the street with three lanes in each direction and ~~~' 175 V ~ ,~ ^\ "'' ~~ . ~ decelera~ion lanes for right turns at the driveways is 2 adequate. 3 I~Il2. BOSTWICK: What is your comment on there 4 about the one single lane entry into the porte-cochere oc~ 5 ~~ the hotel? 6 MR• P'nER: I do think that the internal design 7 of the site plan in terms of the porte-cocheres and $ the parking garage still needs to be finalized and 9 reviewed and approved by city staff. A single-entry 10 lane turning in in terms of a single deaeleration lane 1~ I think is fine. ~nce you get into the actual site 12 and in the porte-cochere arPa, I definitely agree, it 13 needs to have more than one lane so if somebody is 14 puZling up to the front of the hotel, somebody can get 15 around them or the valet parkers or shuttle buses can aae. ~s~ 16 move around~ So the internal portions of the 17 porte-cochere definitely need to have more than one 18 lane. 19 NIIZ. ERSKINE: I think the archiL-ects can 2~ clarify th.is issue. I think there is a 21 misunderstanding. 22 NII2. NORLLOW: My apologies. That was an error 23 on the drawing. It should be two lanes. pel,tevable ~n +he c~t,sl~,n A~. i~ ~S 24 1~2• BRISTOL; That solves everything, 25 1~t. BOSTWICK: The mid block on Disney, the '176 ~Y J ~ ~ ~l % ~ • ---- _.- 1 entrance or left-turn lane mid block, in the staff 2 report and in Mr. Gibson~s comments he made r.ote that 3 there needs to be mitigation at the corner of Harbor 4 and Disney Way as well as traffic control personnel 5 there. If that left-turn lane is not provided mid 6 block and the traffic is caused to make a U-turn at 7 Disney and Harbor, will this not create further 8 tratfic problems?' 9 Nat. MYER: Well, we did look at it in the 10 Mitigated Neg Dec traffic study with and without the 11 mid block left turn and the differences in terms of 12 having that mid block left turn versus not having it 13 affects essentially two other locations. One is at 14 the Freedman/Clementine or Disney/Freedman 15 intersection where we would decrease the number of ~6 left turns there.if you had the mid block left turn 17 further to the west. We did mitigate that 18 intersection by having a double left-turn lane there, 19 again, at Freedman and Clementine. So we showed that 20 it could work without the mid block left turn, but the 21 double left-turn lane is then justified at that 22 intersection. The other place is, as you noted, at 23 Harbor and Disney. You have the potential for U-turns 24 there. Again, the U-turns were not shown to 25 negatively impact that intexsection and the SCOOT ' 177 , , -~ , .. be: . . Z system that~s4x plemented will help that intersection 2 as will the traffic control officer, 3 The traffic analysis didn't show there 4 was a definit~ requirement to have the mid block left 5 turn, but it also showed that having the mid block 6 left turn did not cause any impacts and provided some 7 benefits at the adjacent interse~tions. 8 MR• BOSTWICK: And the SCOOT system would also 9 be in place at that intersectian. There was a~comment 10 made that the traffic coming from the freeway would be il inhibited getting to the park, to Disneyland, by that 12 additional signal. But that system, the SCQOT system, 13 would help with that, wouldn't it? _+ wouc~.r1~-h 4.~ ct+~y.. 14 ~ ~• MYER: Yes, the SCOOT system is made to 15 monitor traffic on a real-time basis, so it monitors 16 the flow of traffic and adjusts the signals to respond 17 to that, so it would•certainly help. If the signal 18 there was only -- if the opening there was on~y a 19 left-turn in as well, you wouldn~t disrupt the 20 westbound traffic at all. ~1 NIl2. LOWER: Commissioner Bostwick, if I could 22 add to that, John Lower, City Traffic and 23 Transportation Manager, the SCOOT system is, simply 24 put, signal timing software which is real-time. It 25 adopts to the actual demand by approach. So it is 178 1 , -.~ t, .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 io 11 12 13 ~' 14 I 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I 25 1 going to smooth traffic operations, no question about that. Howeve•r, what we~re looking at, this proposed mid block signal, by ints~oducing that the concern is in the evening Disney outbound traffic heading eastbound on Disney Way conflicting with the left-turn arrow for westbound feeding into Pointe Anaheim. So we hav~: conflicting grEpn demands at that location and that's the concern. NIlZ. BOSTWICK: My concern was without that left turn there, the U-turns at Harbor, and then if tihere isn~t a U-turn at Harbor, if for some reason the city says, no, we don~t want U-turns on Harbor and Disney Way, then you~re talking about impacting Katella and Harbor and Clementine and Harbor -- I mean Katella, -~o Clementine and Katella, you're addinglfurther ~e the traffic problems? . NIl2. LOWER: Weil, let's take this as a traveler heading off of the 5 Freeway. The theater traffic, which is a sizable portion of the trips generated by Pointe Anaheim, is going to have an address and be directed to exit at Katella and come in that way. The other uses probably will use the Disney Way exit off of the freeway. And after getting off the freeway the first traffic signal that they approach then will be existing Clementine, future J 179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ii 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 ,; •Z J1MP! iG (iaN , 2 ~ 21 22 23 24 25 -~ . Freedman Way and Disney Way where the intersection will be widened for dual westbound left turns. And as presented by Mr. Gibson, there is adequate capacity at that location and they~re going to be looking at one of the tallest buildings in the area, the hotel on that northeast corner of this project. So it would be hard to miss the Pointe An3heim left turn, And, actually, that's another possibility that Freedman ~.. existing Clementine may be renamed Pointe An«heim Way, further providing directional orientation for the traveler. MS. MANN; Mr. Chairman, I~d like to remind the Cammission ihat we~re actually still in the rebuttal portioii of the applicant~s presentation of the comments with regard to some of the questions that have been raised. And fol?owing the close of public p~rticipation, the Commission will have further opp~rtunity to ask questions of any of the consultants or any staff that's presenL. /nk.. myeQ ~ aors 7~-s~r ~r~~v s sMOUcq s~T' oa.uN ? _~¢ 641a'TD/.: •W ~T MG-A~S Tiry~ iu Tt0/dGC Ydr!'R6 ~i~tJt~~ NC' LOT /yJC /N T MS. JOIiNSON: Linda Johnson. With regard to traffic, I~d like ~o make one more change to a condition of approval. It~s Condition of Approval No. B-1 of the CUP, and it would be to change the reference in that condition from the Parking Demand Study to the Pointe Anah~im Transportation Study, IJ ~ 180 • Mcye.~- 1 dated December 21st, 1998 and prepared by Mprr, t~ohoddes 2 ~s & Associates. And that~s ir~ response to one 3 of the comments presented earlier about whether or not 4 this project was tied to the assumptions stated i.n 5 that transportation study. And this condition does 6 tie the project to operate in accordance with the'~et;,.~.~, 7 Anaheim Transportation Study that was conducted for 8 the project. And that would be -- 9 MS. McCLOSKEY: While Linda is looking for 10 that, we will probably need a break later on. And 11 we'll have these all prepared and hand them to you, 12 all of our conditions that we're reading kind of in 13 rebuttal, we'll hand those to you. 14 NIl2. BRISTOL: Okay. 15 MS. JOI~SON: That's on page 15 of Attachment 16 G. 17 NII2. BRISTOL: Go ahead Mr. Shelton. 18 I~Il2. SHELTON: Thank you. I wanted to discuss a 19 couple of ~ie issues that were raised by the 20 representatives o£ the Disney Company in terms of 21 interior signage, the signage exemptions and 22 amendments that w~ proposed and also in texms of 23 lettir~-them put their money wherE their mouth is, to 2~ put it bluntly. Basically an appeal to say thESe are 25 all pretty pictures but there's no guarantees that ~ 181 V Y I~ I~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .. . .. .. ~ ... . . . i -•~ ~ . thosel'p~ictures are going to come into existence and how can we trust these guys that they~re actually going to make it work. That~s what I'm here to discuss. And T~m going to try to parse my words carefully because 2 don't want to sound like T~m attacking Disney, because I really don~t intend to, don~~ want to and don't think it's good for the city for me to, but there are some incongruities between the presentation that's been presented concerning, for instance, that we set a bad p~ecedent for other people to come along and amend the Specific Plan. And I think Mr_. Mihlsten's comment was that it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, for you to deny someone else a Specific Plan amendment. There is equal protection requirements, there~s First Amendment requirements that you'will have to abide by if someone else comes behind us and attempts to amend the Specific Plan. First off, let~s talk about which Specific Plan we~re in. We~re in the Disneyland Specific Plan, not the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. T'he land that we're talking about has already been incorporated in the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and so ~he amendment precedent that we're talking about doesn~t create a precedent in the Anaheim Fesort ' ~.8 2 IJ :~ 1 Spscific Plan at all.' It, creates a precedent in the 2 Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. 3 Now, the irony of that statement is the 4 precedent is already in place in the Disneyland Resort 5 Specific Plan. Ameisdment No. 3, which we talked about 6 earlier and whiah is addressed on page 3 of the 7 Applicant's Explanation is specifically directed to 8 extending the signage exemption for the Wa1t Disney 9 Company for a retail/entertainment center along West 10 Boulevard -- or West Street and Disneyland Drive. 11 That signage exemption, in the case of Disney, asked 12 you, asked the Commission, asked the Council in 1996 13 to amend the ~lan to provide free rein. I think one 14 of the staff inembers referred to this in one of our 15 meetings as blani:-check capabilities for anything, any 16 sign inside or. ~utside the retail entertainment center 17 proj~ct that was proposed at that location. 18 I'm not trying to d.redge up the past, but 19 I am trying co say that when we're talking about a 20 precedent and we're saying that we set a precedence in 21 another Specific Plan area, which I think is a ~ 22 stretch, and then we don't reflect on the fact that 23 there is already a precedenL• in this Specific Plan 24 area, I think there is a definite incongruity there. 25 In ad~iition, I~d like to compare the ~ 183 ^ ~l '`~) 1 language that we have provided to you, the Commission 2 and ultimately to the City Council as well, to give 3 you discretionary rights to a variety of issues that 4 you have no discretion L-or in what creatss the 5 precedent in a Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. We've 6 asked for five icons, we~ve specified where they will 7 be located in the project, we specified the height $ constraint of those icons. We specified that they 9 must relate to a national tenancy, someone that is 10 ~esirable to be attracted here. 11 We~ve not specified who that someone is, ~2 we~ve not specified what that icon looks like, we~v~ 13 not specified whether its 8 feet tall or 48 feet tall 14 or 88 feet tall, just to preempt someone else coming 15 back and saying, well, it could be 88 feet tall. 15 We~ve not.specified that for a good reason, and the 17 reason is because we believe that you need to have the 18 discretion in the future to review the specifics of 19 the application that~s mad~. You need to know who it 20 is, you need to know what their name is, you need tu 21 know whether you want them in Anaheim, you need to 22 know whether you ~ike their design. All of those 23 details you have every right to know, 24 I would add, you don't know any of those 25 details when there's no discretionary authority, but 184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I 21 22 I 23 24 25 ~, % •~ we not «sking for no discretionary authority. We're giving you that discretion in the way we've created the proposal. That discretion is in the form of a CUP. So we would be -- the applicant for that CUP would be right back here at this podium with their specific designs at the ti.me that they are proposing that. And if it was Neiman-Marcus with a great Yaig M and a great big N and that was theix icon, I would suspect they would have more discretion granted to thezn than if it was Kmart, and that's the point. We want you to have that discretion to review the tenancies after we go out and do our job, which is to bring them here, but we don't feel it is reasonable to ask those tenants to have to go through a process of amending the Specific Plan to have the possibility o~ coming to Anaheim. That's what we're doing. That's our job as the developer and we're trying to plow that field for those future tenants. Once we bring thcse tenants, once you have an opportunity to look specifically at what they~re pr.oposing, then please exert your discretion, please turn to the Disney Company, turn to the community, ask them if this is the kind of loak that they want. That's what we would expect. That's wha~~ the CUP process is for. We're not here today for I.8 S ---. . . 1 that. That~s number one. . 2 As relates to interior signage, it's a 3 little bit different, because in the interior sig~nage, 4 I guess, to put it simply, this has been an 5 interesting process because in some ways I felt like 6 we're wading our way through a minefield in this 7 process. We're discovering as we go. And what you~ve 8 done in the past is terrific in terms of putting the 9 Specific Plan in place. We're the first major project 10 to come to town under that Specific Plan. And I was 11 told long ago that the first guy that goes out ~ 12 normally gets arrows in their back. Well, we~re 13 catching a few arrows in our back and that's 14 appropriate, but, in effect, we're finding out some 15 issues that are implementation details of the Specific 16 Plan that are concerns. 17 For in~tance, I would encoura e g you to 18 reflect on whether you think it was reasonable that at 19 the time the Specific Plan was adopted there was a 2~ contemplation of a large linear street that would be 21 an internalized street with tenancies up and down that 22 street that have their needs for signs oriented z3 strictly to pedestrians behind compliant landscaping, Z4 beh.ind exteriors that are fully compliant with the 25 signage regulations and the se.*_-back regulations and 186 ~ ~ , ----_ _ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 ?. 0 21 22 23 24 I 25 I the height regulations bu.t inside that project has signage. , I would beg to say I wasn~t there, but ~~ looking at the f~lcts that I can look at, someone must have thought that wasn~t contemplated because the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan was amended bv Disneyland to allow that sort of an internalized street. And in their case, again, they've asked for interior and exterior rights without your discretion. In our case we said, you know what, we like this concept of a pedestrian-oriented garden dist.rict on the exterior of the project. We are adhering to that. Hopefully you see these renderings and you wi:11 agree that they are garden oriented. To choose words that Bob Jacobs said in one of our design charrettes that we had, Bob said, I, don~t like your -- this is old generation of architecture -- Bob said I don't care for your architecture because it's too outstanding and it needs to be a backdrop for the architecture. It needs to set a backdr.op for it. And lo and behold J'erde ~vent away and revised th.e architecture entirely as a result of that desa.gn charrettes and revised it to a series of colors and shapes that they felt would be exactly what Bob Jacob outlined. He may not like it, but as it presently i~~ 1 stands, actually, I think he said when h` was standing 2 here that he did like it. But what it was done fQr 3 was to be res onsive to L-he ~~ ~"~~d~ P garden district.T Those 4 c~lors are intended to cause the landscaping to pop 5 and to allow the green to show up. But on the 6 interior of the project, the place where we~re go~ing ~e bG 7 to havcld~aling$ with dozens, several dozens, 8 hundreds, potentially, 110 tenancies on ~he interior 9 of the project we have asked for an exemption, an 10 amendment. And that amendment is giving us the same 11 rights that Disney has gotten for its 12 retail/entertainment center. And I think that more 13 than the precedent, I would ask you to look at the 14 other projects around the country that are successful 15 7n this genre of development. Look at the Universal 16 City4~~lks, look at the Irvine Spectrums, look at the 17 Denver Pavilions, look at the projects that are in 18 some of Jerde~s materials that they~ve done around the 1° world. In all of those projects they create an 20 atmosphere. ~~ 21 The last thinglwe want to create in 22 Anaheim in a project like this i~ where people say, 23 '~Oh, I went to Pointe Anaheim. I went to that 24 entertainment center in Anaheim. We have something 25 more interesting, more exciting, more festive than 1$8 I~ ~~ Y _ __._._. _........_ . .. ..____.._...._.. . .. ..~1 .... ~ _ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 , 20 21 22 23 24 25 I that in Iowa. I don~t think that~s what we want to create in this area. I think we want to create that t~ interest and'~festivity inside. Now, we've defined inside as one of three things, and I would direct you to page 7 of the Applicant's Explanation. We defined interior areas of the project to mean, "An interior area is a location within the project that is not visible at all to the public.right-of-way." So interior means reg~rdless af where its located on the inside of the project, it~s not visible from the public .right-of-wa_y. And we've asked in that circumstance~ that we have an amendment to the Specific P].an to provide signage such as people expect when they go to these types of projects. Second, "An interior area is an area of the project that is at one least 160 feet inside the project." That means 160 feet back from the public right-of-way, and is only visible through very limited view corridors that are created by the pedestrian entrances to the project. I know George Mihlsten earlier mentioned Ur.iiversal CityWalk. Universal CityWalk, I had a store there. I had a store with a pretty large sign.. When Jerde was showing the images, I could see the sign that our store had on it and the image they showed. That was part of the design theme IY ~ 1$9 ~.~_ ~ -~ 1 that they had for that project. • 2 In that case, Universal CityWalk sits on 3 the top of a hill removed from any parameter streets. 4 And yet you can still see signage that's insi~3e the 5 project, over the tops of tl~e buildings from down at 6 the bottom of the hill and along the freeway. Now, 7 we~re not asking for that in this Item B. Insteac~ 8 we're saying from the two locations at the ends of the 9 project where pedestrians are going to be walking into 10 the project, that creates a very zarrow view corridor. 11 It~s a view corridor that -- I~m sorry. We talked 1z about something to put together for you to talk about 13 how many seconds someone wauld be impacted by that 14 view corridor moving at 25 miles per hour. And I will 15 promise you that by the time this moves to Council, 16 ~re~ll have that answer. 17 But use your common sense for a moment, 18 we're talking about a view corridor that's 150 feet 19 wide and now someone is moving by in a vehicle at 25 20 miles an hour or on foot at 3 miles an hour, that view 21 corridor is extremely limited in its size. And within 22 that limited view corridor we said, yes, sameone can 23 look up the street and see interior signage, and we're 24 asking for an amendment to deal with that. But staff 25 has encouraged us to constrain that by the first 160 190 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il I 12 'I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ feet of that view corridor being the.same signage requirements as the Specific Plan requirements, so Cnd. it's only once we get past that,T we're on the inside even further. t~Ilt. F.SPING: I think the greater concern, however, was the people walking along the pedestrian walkway and coming in from that area seeing it, if I'm not mistaken. MS. McCLOSKEY: Robert, are you going to also be commenting, if it~s okay for me to ask him this question, whether or not you're going to support staff's additional clazifications or modifications. For instance, with this view corridor, we agreed that 160 feet is appropriate; however, we believe that corridor should extend to the back of that building to provide a.logical.cutoff. I think in order to not have to rehash this, it would be appropriate for Robert to share -- Ngt. SHELTON: We'll go straight into that. NiS. McCLOSKEY: Okay? NIl2. ERSKINE: I~11 just go through the S;~a conditions.~ We've been promising ~hat all day. I~11 just go through the conditions on interior signage, page 10. We would r~quest Commission direction, that for purposes of the view corridor a tenant will be ~ .~ ~ ~ J 191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 j \ deemed located within the interior of the project if some or all of the fenant space is past 160 feet from the adjacent public right-of-way. And __ MS. McCLOSKEY: Could you go over that one more time, please. 1~Il2. ERSKINE: Sure. •The discussion is on page 10. And this isn't picked up in any condition. It~s going to need to be added to.the definition of interior signage, the 160-foot xule. Are you with me? ~o6~'wtc~ . ' ~, T"',~,~T-^~,: What line? Pnqe ~o o~ ~he. 5~~' rq IrII2. ERSKINE: The staff report, the goldenrod ~i~~ eeM~`~ section.~ We would request Planning Commission direction that for purposes of the view corridor a tenant will be deemed located within the interior of the project if some.or all of the tenant space is past 160 feet from the adjacent public right-of-way. All that's saying is that we don~t want a tenant who has X amount of frontage to have two sets of sign standards. So that if half of the tenant space is closer to the public.right-a-way than 160 feet and the other half is outside the 160 feet of the public right-of-way, the interior signage rules would apply. That's what the applicant is asking for. MS. JOHI~ISON: Linda Johnson. I'd like to comment on that. When we look at signage, especially j~ 192 Y ~ Y ' - .1 1 these view corridors, what we're talking abaut is an 2 area, a given area that needs to comply with the code. 3 So I would not be supportive of it being revised to fY-!'4 4 apply to a tenant. We're^concerned with the actual 5 length of the wall, that the given space within th~a 6 view corridor, anything in there complies with the 7 code. So I'm not certa~n what the applicant is 8 thinking in that regard, but I believe that we should 9 stick with what staff is recommending in the staff 10 report. 11 And I~d alsa ].ike to put one additional 12 clarification on that. Right now we're saying the 13 sign objects or structures are proposed to be 14 considered interior if they're not visible to 15 pedestrian or vehicular traffic from adjacent public; 16 right-of-way. We'd like to refine that to say instead 17 from the public right-of-way at an equal elevation as 18 the Pointe Anaheim property line. So that is mors 19 specific. That is the surrounding public right-of-way 20 at the same elevation as Pointe Anaheim, right at 21 their property line. 22 NIl2. ESPING: Far those walking? 23 MS. JOHNSON: Yes. 24 MS. McCLOSKEY: Basically, it's just not 25 across the street. It's anywhere within the pub].ic • 193 J \ ~ ---~. 1 right of way that~s at the same 1eve1. I think from a 2 practical sense, if you look at that, it's'probably 3 little or no impact as to what the signage would be. 4 So if you~re a block away, you~re at the equal level. 5 You~d have to be reallyi~ll to be able to see that S mean we~d ho~vc, .~ be, 6 a~ the sign7~ really tal7, for that to be a problem. ~ MR. ESPING: And the entranceway that they made 8 reference to, is that not the entranceway that looks g into the corridor and looks into where all the shops 10 are? 11 MS, McCLOSKEY: Yes, it's three *+- r~ints that are 12 specified on the plan. 13 l~t. ESPING: Right. ' 14 MS. McCLOSKEY: That are v:;P;~ corrido rs and 15 we~re recommending from the public right-of-way point 16 160 feet back or to wherever the last edge of the l~ building is, furtherest point, that that should be 18 where there's a consistent code, existing code- 19 required signage in that area. 20 ~. ESPING: Also, I have a question too. A 21 comment was made about the individuals that •are 22 renting these particular venues, that they have a say 23 in or will want further signage. Is this something. 24 that they ~lave an option or is this something that's z5 cantrolled by the Specific Plan? Y J / 194 ._.. ~ 1 '~ MS. McCLOSKEY: It~s controlled by the 2 conditions, including the one that we talked about 3 about a coordinated si ~ gna~ pragram that needed to 4 come in and te11 us in an R and R what the theme was 5 going to be, reflects what you d~cide today, addresses 6 maintenance, addresses a11 the things we talked about 7 that are set forth in that condition on a cor,rdinated 8 sign program. It reflects all of that. So we will 9 know when those tenants come in, we want th~am to know 10 what the game plan is. 11 I~Ilt. ESPING: And they' 11 kr.ow exactly. 12 MS. McCLOSKEY: We don~t want them to have to 13 go through discretionary reviews. We just want them 14 to comply with what already has been reviewed by you 15 all and. approved. 16 MR. ESPING: This is your reference to it being 17 too difficult to enforce? lg MS. McCLOSKEY: No, that's a whole different 19 thing. And I think it's important to note that the 20 elevations you're seeing today don~t show a bunch of 21 signs poking up beyond those walls, which is where 22 staff wants to be. If we did not gut that condition 23 in there, eveii though those renderings do not depict 24 that, they could very well be allowed by code to do 25 that. So,that's why we're recommending that you not 195 ,J . ._ .....__ ... . . .I ._. ~ , ~ ~~, , w~ , 1 go along with the provision thatl~allow~ signs to 2 exceed the height. We think that~s extremely 3 important to ~ 4 the Specific Plan in ensuring that there w-i-~} not be a 5 cluttered sign appearance. 6 MS . JOHI~ISON: I' d like to ~make one more 7 clarification. Going back to that definition where we 8 want to change the words from the adjacent public 9 right-of-way to f rom the gublic right-of-way at an 10 equal elevation as the Pointe Anaheim property line. 11 And that would be as measured fror~ 5 feet above grade 12 on the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street. 13 So someone looking, say, if they~re on Freedman Way Z4 and they~re across the street from the Pointe Anaheim 15 project standing on the sidewalk looking -- 5 feet 16 above grade -- looking at the project, we do not want 17 them to be able to see any signage that does not 18 comply with the code. 19 ~2. SHELTON: As relates to that I , guess just 20 to tell you where that has evolved in our discussions~ 21 We are willing to accept that in the language that 22 you'll read into the ordinance or~the conditions of 23 approval. Do you want to do that? 24 IrIlt. JOF~ISON: That would actually be a chanqe 25 to the zpning code. And, again, once we have a break ' 196 ~~ ~ we can provide you with that actual language. II Y~II2. SHELTON: In fact, it says, with the exception of these narrow view corridors I was referring to previously; with the exception of those areas, that the third item in the Applicant's Explanation, what is the definition of interior, that third item would be removed. J7~ yo~ cencur w,~* +ha.~3 MS. McCLOSKEY: Yes, we do concur. I~2. SHELTON: Okay. I sensed that there was a misunderstanding in terms of what John was proposing with respect to the first tenancy or the back of the first tenancy and 160 feet and how all that works out. So let me try to clarify that for a moment. I don't think there'~ any difference of spirit in what we're proposing and what staff is proprosing, but we do have a concern with one of the words being the use of the word building as opposed to the use of the word tenar~cy. I'm going to assume for a motion that this is 160 feet created here. If that's 160 feet at that corY.er, which I c~n't keep the light on strong enough, if that's 160 feet, then that tenancy, that entire tenancy would be covered by the 160 f.eet and forward. If, however, 160 feet occurs here, if 160 occurs mid course in that tenancy, in that case that tenancy is that entire building, then that entire tenancy would J 197 ~ ~,t ~ 1 fa7:l in it even ttiough a dramaticallp larger portion 2 than 160 ~eet would be covered. The idea is that no o~ 3 tenant would have half'~its building in the standards 4 and half of its building ou.tside of the standards, 5 half of its space. 6 NIl2. BRISTOL: You~re sa in Y 9' you fall within the 7 view corridor? g ~~ 1~II2. SHELTON: ~' We fa11 within the outside 9 portion. Now, the concern is~~160 feet we have 10 multiple tenancies. So let's pretend for a moment 11 that 160 feet occurs here. If it occurs trere, we're 12 in one long building that has about 18 tenancies. We 13 don~t want to take 160 feet all the way back to the 14 end of that building. We want to take 160 Peet back 15 to the tenancy that is interrupted by t.hat 160 feet 16 and stop at the back side of that tenancy. S~ I think 17 that~s what staff was attempting to accomplish. 18 MS. McCLOSKEY: That is the intent. When we 19 come back to you we will get th~ proper words in 20 there. That definitely was the intent. If you 21 measure that corridor, it gets you to about the back 22 of that building anyway. 23 I~2. ESPING: Inside they couldn.'t go above the 24 height, but they could have signage that was larger; 25 is that correct? 198 IV I~ .. ^1\ .. . . . . . . .. . I . - . . .. . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ia 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 N~t. SH~LTON: I~11 tell you what I interpret it as, and if it's correct, then maybe that's the more A~'~h~S pelo~ • importanti~so we make certain we all agree. On this entire frontage, from here to here there~s no view corridors at all. So on that entire frontage unt~l you get to right. here, which is the first view corridor, that entire frontage would have no signs popping up above these buildings. And on the other side of this view corridor we'd have no signs popping up behind any of these buildings. Conceivably, and I think what staff was concerned about, and as I understood the representatives of the Disney Company~s concerns, the concern was that this building is, let's say, 75 feet here, but at this point the height cone might allaw 90 ieet of height. So the concern was that we.were going to have a sign that would stick up another 15 feet over the top of that building. We would not do that. That would be what would not be permissible. What would be allowed would be on this drawing, on this view corridor that's created here at the throat of L-he project, here, on the plan view, in that corridor and in the corridor that's created here that there cauld be signs that would be higher than some of the buildings at that narrow view corridor. V 199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ Ndt.. FICK: I~ d agree with Robert ~ s comment's provided that the signs that are locat d1'i.~ that view corridor aren't visible from other rights-of-wa;~s elsewhere other than from the view corridor locations. MS. McCLOSKEY: And also there is a third view corridor on Katella Avenue as well. And, Robert, on the Harbor Boulevard corridor, when Robert had -- the building in the middle -- and earlier in my presentation we talked about making sure that that building or snme other building of its equivalent stays there. I~t. SHELTON: Right. MS. McCLOSKEY: That's what that condition was referring to. So you're agreeable to that? NIlt. ERSKINE; I think what might be helpful is to get into the whole sign issue because I think one of Mr. Mihlsten~s concerns was that there be a signage program site specific that could be understood and identified prior to this project moving forward. So in the spirit of that we~ve prepare3 sort of a comprehensive revision to Condition No. 77, very back of your package. I believe that's Attachment G. MS. McCLOSKEY: Linda will be passing out to you now the wording that they are recommending. I~2. ESPING: That~s on page 3 of -- ~ ~ 200 61 7 8 9 io 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I 18 I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 --~) ~ .~ ~ N~2. ERSKINF: It's Condition No. 77, Commissio^pr Esping. . I~II2. ESP:[NG: That the property owner/developer shall submit a coordinated -- I~. EkSKINE: Correct, and what she's handing out right now is the proposed expansion af that condition. MS. JOHI~ISON: That~s Condition 77 in Attachment F, which are Specific Plan conditions, and G which are the conditional use permit conditions. NIl2. ESPING: So it~s in both F and G? MS. JOHNSON: Yes, it's in both the Specific Plan and conditional use pexmit conditions. ~ I4Il2. ERSRINE: • And if the ~:.air would like, for the benefit of the audience I could rEad it or -- N~.. BRISTOL: That's a good idea. NII2. ERSKINE: Ukay. This is Condition No. 77, Attachr:~ents F and G. That the property owner/developer shall submit a coordinated signage program for the entire Pointe Anaheim development tor Planning Commission's review and approval as part of the Final Site Plan. The program shall, at.a minimum, include the f ollowing: A, A sign theme concept for. the Pointe Anaheim project which demonstrates an averall appearance, quality and type of sign, banner 201 ., _ 1 • _~ 7. of ~other display device similar to those utilizPd at 2 Universal CityWalk, Fashion Island or Irvine Spectrum. 3 "B, Sign criteria for interior corporate 4 sponsorship displays (said displays could include 5 Jumbotrons, banner.s or placards) which are.intended to 6 be visible/oriented primarily for patrons of the 7 Pointe Anaheim project.^ In other words, not the 8 definition in your ~o3e of billboards. 9 "C, sign criteria limiting interior wall 1~ signs from prajecting more than 50 percent of the 11 vertical height of the sign above the roof pa•rapet or 12 50 percent of the horizontal length of the sign beyond 13 the side of a building. Such signs shall not be 14 visible frozn the adjacent public right-of-way 15 (measured at 5 feet above the grade of the sidewalk on 16 tre opposite side of the street from the Pointe 17 Anaheim project) except throu~h the limited view 18 corri.dor set forth in the Pointe Anaheim overlay.~~ 19 And that's what Robert was just going through. 2~ Let me explain, this addresses -- and if 21 you look down at the bottom, I~11 read it in a 22 minute -- but this addresses the proh.ibition on roof 23 signs. We're willing to live with the prohibition of 24 roof signs, but if the sign is -- what's the example, 25 Robert, that we've used? If Chang~s starts on the 202 1 2 3 r} 5 6 7 8 9 li 1: 1: l; 1! l: lE l; lE 15 2C 21 2:i 23 24 25 .~ ~ side of a building and goes up and the G and the S protrude abave the top of the roof parapet, that sign would be allowed under C, but there would be no roof signs allowed in the project. Roosevelt Hotel, for example, that sits on the top of a roof and protrudes out. IrIlt. ESPING: Would that then be in compliance according to the plan and according to the intent of? NIl2. ERSRINE: The P.F. Chang~s would be in compliance, ~ccording to the intent of this. bIIZ. ESPING: It's still going above -- MR. ERSRINE: Right, it would go above the parapet of the roof, but it would be attached to the front face af the building. And, again, you would see all of this and approve it as part of a coordinated sign program. NIlt. ESPING: But then it's n.ot something that would be in compliance, correct? MR. ERSKINE: It would be in compliance with the dePinition of interior sigr.age for the Pointe Anaheim overlay. This is not the interior -- we're not asking for what Disney got on West Street. That exemption was exterior and interior. Thi$ is a modified exemption for the interior of the project. NIl2. ESPING: Inside t.otally? 203 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ ~, _ ~_ Ngt . ERSKTNE : Right . NII2. BSPING: I have a question here about the prohibited signs -- no, that's not the one. I~Il2. ERSKINE: Do you want me to continue? I~2. ESPING: Yes, please. Ng2. ERSKINE: '~D, Sign criteria shall be consist with the adopted sign regulations for the Pointe Anaheim overlay.~~ Tha.t was jus~ the point we were aiscussing. "E, Standards for maintenance and replacement of damaged, broken signs and banners and installation and maintenance of changeable sign copy, neon signage or electronic reader boards." ~~F -- this is tne prohibition section -- ~~Prohibited signs include billbaards, off premises ur offsite directional signs, on site directional guidance and on site directory signs which are not part of the coordinated architectural, information, directional and regulatory sign system. Paper signs, permanent come-on signs, example, sale today, stop, look, going out of business, et cetera, roof signs, vehicle signs, signs displayed on a vehicle for advertising purposes or the parking or storage of advertising vehicles on public or private property or replicas of official traffic cAntrol signs that are attached to the parking structure. ~~ 204 - -~. . 1 So those would basically, be prohibited signs in the interior. And, again, just in case there's any confusion, on the exterior, as defined, the exterior of the project, we 100 percent comply ~ with the existing Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. ~o yav u;anf' -la ¢a-~flnue. our rebr{•~ j~ ... NIlt. SHELTON': I think I'm going to stop on signs for the moment, I think we've covered that until we hear the reserved rebuttal from Mr. Mihlsten, and turr. to the subject of the criticality of the hotel tax revenues, the need to assess a guarantee before we move to the first stage of the effort. Really, as I put it bluntly before, who are you guys, we don't know you and maybe you won't perform concern, and, again, this one is a bit of a challenge because I was reflectiny on an article that I read last night when I was flipping through some articles in preparation for these hearings. It was an article concerning the 1954 approval of the Walt Disney Company to build a theme park on 160 acres. It talked about that the theme park would open in 1955 at an investment, by the way, of $5.5 million. And I thought, wow, we're approaching $5.5 million ourselves today, we're three and a half years invested in this project, we have the walt Disney Company being vocally concerned and we haven't opened a damn thing. And my l~ 205 .~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 concern is this: I~m hoping that -- well, let~s start at what this hearing was about. This hearing was about a land use approval. This was not an architectural approval and yet as an applicant we presented architectural drawings. This is a hearing to talk about a series of Specific Plan amendments for how this property, these 29 ac~es are used. And yet we're going well beyond the requirements of that sort of an application to show you things that I believe in many ways are more detailed than what you know today, what any of us know today about what is under construction to be opened next year across the street. Now, I'm not saying they got it right and we got it wrong. That~s not the point. The point is let~s be realistic. We have investors that are fairly well-heeled. They~re a real estate investment trust, they~re publicly traded companies, they~re geople that you can check out. We have backgrounds that are of activities that you can check out. I can tell you that the night before we closed $110 million vrorth of debt for the Palm Springs Convention Center project, myself and the planning director for City of Palm Springs were saying this is 50/50 tomorrow. That's how this goes when you're talking about something that 206 1 z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I 18 I 19 1 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 I ybu have to go to Wall Street and raise money to' finish. T~ais is a$500 million project. It has roughly $5 million worth of risk money invested in it today. We obviously believe we'll be successful or we wouldn~t be spending this kind of money. To require a guarantee that we will stand here and tell you today that it will be built and it will open in 7.4.5 months and three days is not something that I think is part of the land use approval process. And beyond that, I think that it is truly setting up the project for failure. I think that the fir.ancial p«rtners that we hope to -- that we have and that we hope to have are looking to your actions, looking to find out, frankly, whether there's litigation from the Disney Company after your actions and the Council~s actions. And to the extent that there~s litigation, to the extent, that there's problems af ter this, then that project, all those pretty renderings aren~t going to happen. It just isn~t going to happen. This is a hard process, and it gets harder when you start imposing shackles cn people irying to run a hundred-yard dash. It's not that we don~t have a full belief that that's what we're trying to put together, it's qre~,~.l" not even that we we~txr~-t willing to have you add those 207 V 1 to the record and say that~s the quality standard, I 2 want that, I don~t want a bait and switch.' We~re 3 happy for you to put that in the record. We encourage 4 staff to do that. If they want to craft that, please, 5 if that will satisfy you, the rest of the people in 6 the audience that we're not here to bait and switch 7 you, do it. We wouldn~t be putting them up on the 8 board unless that was our full intent. But to shackle 9 us moving forward before we know w~ether there~s an 10 approval or not, before we know whether there's 11 litigation or not and say ~hat we're sup~osed to now 12 go to Wall Street and confirm that we~ve got the 13 money in the bank to do this, which is the only way I 14 can give you an assurance, is, I think, frankly, 15 unrealistic. I won't even say it's unreasonable, it's 16 beyond unreasonable. It~s unrealistic in today~s 17 world of how a$500 million project is financed. 18 So the one other subject that was raised 19 was the guarantee of the hotel rooms, the hotels 20 assured. And there was language that was in our 21 Response to Comments•document to deal with.that 22 subject. That language has been picked up in the 23 mitigation measures, that language has besn picked up 24 in the staff report. I believe staff is comfortable 25 with that.language, and certainly it expresses an • 208 ~ ^~. ~ 1 intent to open up -- actually, there was a word 2 change. We said a majority of the hotel rooms 3 concurrent with the grand opening of the retail. In 4 fact, it's been changed to be 51 percent. And I'll 5 tell you, in fact, if you count the hotels, there's 6 three hotels and there's no way we're going to hit 51 7 Fercent. It's going to be two out of the three hotels 8 the day we open, the grand opening for the center, 9 and then the third hotel lags behind. And if you talk 10 to a series of contractors about how long a project il like this is to build, this is a project that will 12 probably have three or four construction crews working 13 on it while it is going. And all we're trying to do 14 is make certain that those portions of the project 15 that oc.cur earlier, those lower levels of the project, 16 the parking garage, the retail on top of it, some of 17 the hotels that are not as fully integrated in the 18 projec~, those can come on, open their doors and star~ 19 to, like Walt Disney, make money while you're 20 finishing up the rest. It doesn~t mean that the 21 construction is ever going to stop. In fact, part of 22 the condition of the mitiga~ion measure is that there 23 has to be building gennits pulled and construction 24 commenced on the Zast hotel at the time that the rest 25 of it opens. 209 1 . ~ ~1 . . ~ ~ . ` 1 ~ So this isn't a hide the ball on you or 2 on the community. This is just trying to be 3 realistic about a massive project that is going to be 4 done as a single integrated whole because that's how 5 it will function best for the community and for the 6 guests who will patronize it someday. 7 NIl2. BRISTOL: Thank you. Do you have any -- R NIlt. ERSRINE: There was one othe.r issue I think 9 that the Disney representative raised ~nd that was the 10 development agreement. And if you~d like us to 11 address that, Mr. Chairman. 1Z I~Ilt. BRISTOL: You have every right to address 13 it. 14 NIl2. ERSKINE: The development agr.eement is in 15 negotiation, and as staff has indicated in the staff 16 report, we are moving forward with that. The 17 recommendation of the staff i:a to continue the hearing 18 open with respect ta the development agreement to June 19 7th. And we just respectfully remind Disney and the 20 Commission tnat their develop~nent agreement trailed 21 their land use approvals by a~~proximately two to three 22 years. So that should answer your question. 23 NII2. BRISTOL; Thank yotz, sir. Okay. Now, let 24 me ask a question. Are you done, sir? 25 NIlt.. ERSKINE: I can come back to the other 210 • . i _ ^ ` ~ ~ 1 coriditions if you'd like. 2 MR. BRISTOL: Okay. Is this the time or would 3 you like *_o hear -- go ahead, Joel. 4 N~2. FICK: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 5 Comm~.ssion, at the conclusion of the rebuttal period 6 we would like to request a 15-minute period just for 7 staff to caucus to make sure that we h.ave 8 comprehensively addressed all the items or will 9 address the items that have been raised. And we'd 10 like to ask for 15 minutes rather than five. We'll be 11 back in 15, whEnever that break occurs. 12 Ngt. BRISTOL: Let me, Joel, conclude that if 13 this is the end of rebuttal, am I going to close the 14 ~ublic hearing at this time or keep it open? 15 MS. McCLOSKEY: I believe you should hear from 16 Joan Kelly, our environmental consultant before you 17 would close that ~ecause I believe she has some 18 additional things about the testimony from the 19 environmental impact. 20 NIl2. BRISTOL: Shoul.d we do that now or take the 21 15 minutes and come back? . 22 MS. MANN: S believe also that it was indicated 23 that since there was going to be discussion that 24 hadn't been considered with the original presentation 25 of the applicant, t:at there was going to be an aii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ii ia 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I 25 I opportunity for aome of the oppo,nents of the project to address those. NIl2. BRISTOL: Right. L:.t~s do that now, right? MS • MAN13: Right . I~2. MIHLSTEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. George Mihlsten of Latham & Watkins representing Disney. I guess a couple of items, and maybe a little ~larity , would be help~ul for me. As I understood the original presentation by Pointe Anah.eim, they were embracing the staff recommendations with a couple of exceptions with respect to items that staff had brought in this morning. What I Yieard for the past few minutes, and I'm n~t quite clear on what, is I~m not quite clear on what they are embracing, if they are embracing in general all of the staff reco~nendations, and some ciarity with respect to that would be helpful. In particular, staff has made it clear that a single icon is what staff is recommending. And I assume that Pointe Anaheim is embracing a single-icon concept as was recommended by staff, from what I~ve heard at this point. And if there~s something different, we'd like to know that. Secondly, with respect to the issue of the 160-foot proposal that was made by Pointe Anaheim, we concur with staff, that the staff recommendation 212 ~ ~ _ , . . 1 should remain as is with respect to the measurement of 2 tihe 160 feet or the end of the building. We think 3 that is critical. Otherwise the effect could be to 4 substantially increase the signage within the set-back 5 area and we think that would be very problematic. 6 The third point is the new provision that 7 has been established, just han~ied out a few minutes 8 ago, which literally we've had two minutes to look at, 9 regarding the revisions to Amendment No. 4. And we 10 are concerned about it in a number of regards. If I 11 can articulate those concerns, I will in a minute. 12 MR. BRISTOL: Sure. 13 MR. MIHLSTEN: Number one, we understand that 14 the fir~t point is to try to establish some comparable 15 quality criteria for what the city is looking for in 16 signage.. And we understand that is the intent of Item 17 1. My concern with Item 1 or Item A on the list as 18 drafted, it may create an implication not as tc~ the 19 quality of the signage but rather that there could be 20 additional signage that is not otherwise permitted by 21 the Specific Plan or signage criteria. 22 So if Item A is intended to get to 23 quality issues, that may be samething that is 24 appropriate far staff to recommend. But if it is 25 something that is permitting additional signage that 213 i. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 I 22 23 2g 25 . may otherwise be evident at Fashion Island or IIniversal cr at any other place, that would be problematic. Secondly, the issue of corporate , sponsorship is a fairly new issue that has been raised as of today, that, in tact, are billboards. Any way you classify it, that's billboards. And wha~ they're asking for is can they have bil~.boards that are not _related to tenants within the inter:ior of their properi:y, which may, in fact, be visible. The words are primarily visib'.e to patrons. And we are very concerned about the sightliness of that and how it may be visible, certainly, within the vi~w cor~idors. And the whole issue of billboards was a prohibited use i~ withpthe city. The city has certainly undertaken in recent years to limit the use of billb~ards within the city and we think by now, opening up to quote, unquote billboards or sponsorships is very problematic, particularly when they are not tied to a bona fide i~ tenant. That's~I~em B. With respect to Ttem C, we're also concerned about signage that Extends above the parapet. If I recall correctly, the Specific Plan requires signs be brought down below t_ne parapet currently. And to allow signs to be above the parapet ~ 214 ,~ 1 I~tihink is inconsistent with the Specific Plan. I 2 don't think it's necessary for what they're ~rying to 3 achieve on the interior. Moreover, it increases the 4 potential that this will be visible. Moreover, with 5 respect to that Item C, we agree witlz staff's 6 recommendation that the point of visibility for any 7 sign should be measured within the area of any public 8 right-of-way at the same grade of the groject. 9 With those comments, we're happy to 10 answer ar~y other questions. We would appre~iate 11 clarity with respect to the applicant, whether they 12 are end~rsing all the other recommendations of staff 13 or not. Thank you. ~ 14 NII2. BRISTOL: Wait a minute. You're opening 15 tY.:~t up again. Xou just asked whether or not the 16 applicant is going to or going to agree zaith any more 17 conditions? Are you asking to have another -- 18 NIl2. MIHLSTEN: I would ask that if this 19 Commission is clear that they've embraced all the 20 other conditions of s:aff, then I~m fine. 21 NIlt. BRISTOL:~ What we're going to do~here is 22 we're going to break. We're going to get some 23 information back from the staff and we'll have a good 24 idea of what we're going to do. 25 I~t. MIHLSTEN: I appreciate that. Thank you, 215 ~--. 1 sir. ~ ~ 2 l~t. BRISTOL~ All right. We~re ~ going to break, ~ folks, until about 4:15, 15 minutes. 4 (Recess,) 5 NIl2. BRISTOL: W~. ~ ~ft -eff~ with comments made by 6 the opposition by,z Disney representative, and now 7 we're back and we~re going to give n opportunity for 8 Pointe Anaheim to respond. ~r~2-if you wish to 9 respond, you raay. 10 1~2. SHELTON: I thi.nk John referred to me as an 11 ic~nesque guy so here I am on icons. We had a].ittle 12 break and we were talking about how t~r ~ d?close the gap 13 between staff~s recommendation and our request, and 14 unfortunately we cannot at this point agree with staff 15 on this. So why dor~t we do a little bit of 16 discussion of icons for a moment. Let s~~ ' ~ up that 17 image for.starters. What I~m showing here is a 1$ picture of a guitar and it's not dissimilar from the 19 guitar that~s shown there on the rencl~ring, 20 So this whole discussion of icons is 21 revolving around that sort of a tenant, that sort of 22 ~n icon, at that sort of a location and that sort of a 23 height. Now, the staff recommendation was one icon at 24 30 feet, and our request was fiv~e icons. Actually, 25 our request originally was unlimited and to the height 216 IV IV ~ ~ _ .i i~ .. ~. , 1 oE~the height cone. And I want to remind you of my 2 earlier comments. We're not talking about that being 3 an approved icon. We're talking about giving the City 4 Council in Anaheim and yourselves as the Planning 5 Commission in Anaheim.the discretion to talk to a b tenant about .*.heir proposed icon. That's it. At~a 7 later date you can say I don't like Hard Rock. If I 8 don ~ t want Hard Rock i:_ this town, a.t,~i~ the guitar 9 goes away. But we're proposing that we think it is in 10 the best interest of the community to allow tenants to 11 come here and present *_heir wares and to at least have 12 the ability to make their case before you as a 13 Cc,mmission and ~efore the Council in open session in 14 public hearings to make that case, and you can either Ya+ ~o~ 15 decline it or~accept it or you can send them back for 16 restudy. A number of 'the cities that I have done work 17 i_n ha*ae architectural advisory commissions which 18 report to the Planning Commission and fulfill that 19 function. In Anaheim you do not have such a body, and 20 so what we were trying to do is to use the processes ia 21 that you do have ? the C'Tp proc~ss, to give.you pure 22 discretionary authority to either think the tenant is 23 worth it or the te.r.ant is not worth it and to think 24 that their implementation is either tasteful or not. 25 Now, I recognize that that may be an • 217 V ~ ~ . t ". --~ ~ . ) _. . ~ 1 anathema to have that sort of freedom to make that 2 choice. And, you know, I used to years ago talk about 3 Ulysses and th.e wax in your ears so you couldn~t hear 4 the sirens. And the old Biblical story -- not 5 Biblical, but mythological story, I understand, and 2 6 understand there~s a place and a time for putting wax 7 in your ears. And if you~ve ali determined that this 8 is the place and Lhe time to place wax in the city's 9 ears, then that's your prerogative. ZO I think that you will find the city will 11 be better served to not have the wax in your.ears and 12 to listen to the tenants that are willing to come here 13 and look at their specific impleanentations. And 14 within that context if you're willing to accept that G.S 15 ~a~-a possibility, then we're talking about the 16 envelope edges of thac tenant's, that perspective 17 tenant~s design freedom to design within that 18 envelope. So we~re not talking about a 30-foot 'fa.ll 19 guitar, we're talking about a 30-foot-tall icon or 20 envelope in which someone will -- some hopefully great 21 designers will design a specific icon f~r their ~ 22 tenancy. 23 Now, the question of number and height is 24 at issue. What ~ae have talked about doing is 25 modifying our request to being three icons, one on 218 V / . ~~ . _ 1 _. . ~ 1 each of the three major corners or street f.ronts that 2 we've talked about. The corner that the staff has 3 recommended and Harbor and Katella, those three 4 locations. Aiid we've talked about modifying the 5 height request. Just to give you an order of 6 magnitude in texms of parameters to places and 7 context, as John Erskine is oft to say, this guitar is 8 sitting right below Donald Bren's office in Newport 9 Beach at Fashion Island and it is 60 feet ta7~.1. That 10 is a one-story bv.ilding behind it. 11 This icon is sitting in front of a 135- 12 foot-tall building. We think that there needs to be a 13 relationship -- you are the Planning Commissioners and 14 you have esthetic sense -- we think there needs to be 15 a relationship between the mass of the building and 16 the size of the envelope that a designer desig,zs into. 17 Just because someone has an envelope -- we have an 18 Pnvelope to make this whole thing a wedge-shaped 19 project that was 100 percent building and a wedge that 20 started at 75 fe~t and went to 135. We didn't fill 21 that entire space. We didn't think it would be as 22 attractive as doing what we've done. Just because 23 someone has an envelope that's bigger doesn't mean 24 the~'re going to fill the whole thing. It just gives 25 them a little bit more creative latitude. 219 ~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I 21 22 23 24 25 ,_~ , '~ ~ So our request would be that that creative lata.tude for those three -- now reduced to three locations, would be no more than 30 feet on Harbor Boulevard and no more than 60 feet on any other of the frontages, on Ratella or the back side of the project. And that~s purely related to the heights of the building masses at which those icons are positioned. Thank you, ~. ERSKINE: Continuing on, Mr. Chairman, we~ll try tn go through all of the conditions with some clarity here and then the remaining conditions and then respond to questions. The driveway relative to the Super 8 Motel, this is Condition 80 in both the Specific Plan Amendment, Attachment F, and Condition 80 for the conditional use permit, Section G. We want to combine the driveways. We ;~upportfstaff~s recammendation. Thi~s is a condition that requires action by a third party that we don~t control, g~~ what we would prefer is language that requires us to utilize best efforts to work with the Supex 8 Motel to combine the driveways, but we would like to have the flexibility to have the driveways apart if we can~t obtain that. ~. BRTSTOL: What do you mean apart? You mean comply to the 40 feet or not? Do you want to keep V 220 : ~ ~r , ~ ~t ~-- . . 2 NII2. ERSKINE: Right, we would use best efforts 3 to combine the driveways. If we couldn't, we would , n~ct 4 have to be 10 feet; isr~t thatTcorrect, David? That's 5 the minimum. The next item is discussed on page 13 of 6 your goldenrod staff report, and this is the mid block 7 break, which has already been discussed. I think a 8 couple of the commissioners had c~uestions of the 9 city's traffic consultant. And ior all of the reasons 10 that some of you expressed and f.or the reasons I think 11 that come through sort of an attempt to be neutral by 12 the traffic consul~ant, we really need t.he mPdian 13 breaks on both new Disney and Clementine. If not, 14 we're going to have the U-turn problem that•we tal?ced 15 about, we're going to have four left turns be.fore you 16 can come back around the entire project. . I think 17 you're going to exacerbate the traffic problems. 18 I know there's been some discussion about 19 how other parking structures work in other locations. 20 S~me of the commissioners have had some bad 21 experiences in stacking, trying ingress and egress 22 parking structures such as the one at the Performing 23 Arts Center. If you don't have multiple accesses into 24 the parking structure, that's the prablem you're going 25 to have where you narrow it down to one or two, that 221 V ~~ •_ . ____ . 1 will be your experience, we think. So we badly need 2 the median break. 3 Next, street improvements. This applies 4 to both the Specific Plan and the Conditiona'1 Use 5 Permit. Condition 81, again, Condition 81 of both the 6 Specific Plan and Conditiona7. Use Permit, we are in 7 agreement with that condition and that i.;, acceptable 8 to us, r_-~ ~,a.,~ the improvement on the north side of 9 Katella, we believe that should address or sh~uld 10 address at least one of Disney~s express concerns. 11 Condition 82-A and B, we are not in 12 agreement with. This is the through lane on Freedman, 13 and this is the discussion you had earlier that la Michael Myer presented about the value of deceleration 15 versus a through lane. So we would respectfully ask 16 the Commissi.on to delete those conditions. 17 The next condition would be a condition 18 that has not been written yet but could be directed to 19 the staff and that would be relative to quality 20 standards. We would support stipulating that the 21 elevations presented by Jerde wh9.ch are not.part of 22 the staff report would be made an exhibit, number 23 those as an exhibit as you see fit. And Pointe 24 Anaheim will agree to implement that quality level of 25 construction, design, architecture r.epresented in 222 I ~/ .._._..._._._.___:,:.___.......... .. ..__~C.._.. -1 ' - . ; ; ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9'~ 10 ~ 11 12 ~ 13 II 14 15 16 17 18 19 I 20 I I 21 22 23 24 25 I those elevation site plans. As you know, the site plans are alrzady an exhibit. Is that one clear to the Commissioners? Any questions on that? The special event condition that staff has discusse3 during the earlier portion of the meeting, Pointe Anaheim is agreeable to that condition. You have a new draft condition of approval, No. 94, relative to a concern I believe that~s been expressed to staff in ~he last couple days by representatives of Disney. And we are agreeable to d+-~ that condition No. 94 relative to7 building in the middle of ~.'_:~„ view corriclor. Condition of Approval No. 5, staff, I believe that's just on the CUP.Condition No. 5, new Condition No. 5, just the~conditional use permit, I believe. MS. ~TOHI~iSON: Yes, Condition No. 5 only applies to the CUP. NII2. ERSKINE: That wauld toll the period of validity of the CUP fo~ third-party litigation moritoria, initiative, referendum. So in other words, the period that the conditional use permit you issue on this project would be valid for one -- we're still at one year, I believe, and we would have preferred a longer period, but we'Z1 live with that, as long as we 223 J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ! 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ • ., , '_,_ .~- toll that by those pravisions and we~ll have a force majeure section of the development agreement. That's for Mr. Mihlsten~s benefit. I believe those are the items. With those modified conditions and new conditions -- we misspoke earlier, at least I misspoke, and 1'I~ ant to clarify. I think Robert partially clarified it, but on ~ our attempt at trying to define tenancy within interior and exterior, if a tenancy falls at the 160- foot line or the 160-foot line falls in the middle of a tenancy, the whole tenancy will be deemed to be exterior and must comply with the exterior ru1es. So that works against Pointe Anaheim. I hope that clarifies that position. Anything else?. That~s it. Thank you, Mr. Chaixinan, With that we support the balance of the staff recommendations and we thank you for your patience today. It's been a long week. N~2. BRISTO~,: Yes, i~ has. Are we all done? Does anybody want to speak? Last chance. We~ll close the public partici.pation part of the meeting and we'll go to staff. I~IIt. FICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Meznbers of the Commission. We really appreciate your attention and conscientious review of the project thus far. And all though we have five people on staff that 224 IV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 19 20 21 2 2 II 23 ' 24 25 ~~\ ' .~ . need to address various aspects of items and questions you've had or iss~.~es that came up, the comments are very brief. The most important comment that I would initially offer pertains to the preservation of the vision for the Anaheim Resort and also the compatibility of the project with the Anaheim Resort goals and objectives. ' The staff report and also the bacicground technical. analyses and studies and reports completed f or Pointe Anaheim comprehensively address virtually evexy conceivable aspect of this project. The staff that worked directly on the Pointe Anaheim project is the same stafi tliat's completed major studies, reviews and Specific Plans for projects throughout our city, including thousands of homes in the Anaheim Hills portion of our city, the Specific Plan for the stadium area, the expansion/remodeling of Edison International Field of Anaheim, the Arrowhead Por~d of Anaheim. And 1i~~ most notewarthy, both the Disneyland and~Anaheim Resort Specific Plans. The list goes on and on. And I wo~ild ~dd that staff from all city departments • certainly have substantial experience completing some of the most comprehensive and thorough environmental reviews and project analyses undertaken for highly visible, complex and noteworthy projects done ~ 225 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I i~ i 18 I 19 2Q 21 22 23 24 25 anywhere. And, again, this is the same staff team from city c~.epartments that worked with Disney and all of the landowners in the .Anaheim Resort area really to establish the Anaheim Resort vision and also t~ establish the framework for alllthe areawide improvements, including the traffic improvements, including all of the other infrastructure improvements for the A~zaheim Resort. Our goal is consistent with a11 of the vision statements that were expressed today. And as Mary mentioned in her opening remarks, our belief is that the vision is preserved, f rankly enhanced, if the project 3s initially submitted is changed or amended ~y incorporating the s~aff recommended conditions and also the mitigation n;easures that are outlined in our staff report. The 93 conditions of approval that were designed specifically for this project and the 98 mitigation measures, 33 of which were also designed specificalif~ for this project, and the other numerous conditions that have been ~cussed today at the meeting will really ensure+the quality of the pr~ject and also that the project will be constructed as a one-phase devel~pment and it truly will be compatible and a complement to the Anaheim Resort area. With that, I~d like to initially have IV J 226 ~!,: ~ ~ . s_. _. ~ Y Lirida Johnson comment and just provide you or draw 2 your at~ention ~o the conditions and mitigation 3 measures that ensure the phasing and quality. Maxy 4 McCloskey will then briefly comment on some ef the 5 signage and icon issues that were raa.sed. J~3n. Relly 6 will tallc.about, very briefly, about one or two of the 7 environmental issues, and I believe Selma Mann, had a 8 closing comment. Thank you.. J~S~' 9 MS. JOFINSON: Linda Johnson. I~d~like to 10 comment very briefly on the project phasing and the 11 quality. We have added several conditions to the 12 project regarding both of these issues and we did 13 include a section in the staff report, parac~raph 24 on 14 page 16, which goes into detail about the conditions 15 of approval relative to phasing. And the project will 16 be cor:di.tioned to be constructed in one continuous 17 single phase and staff is very car~fortable with the 18 conditions and the mitigation measures imposed that we 19 will achieve this. And we do not believe that we need I 20 to make any changes to those conditions. 21 Also, we did ad~3 another condition to the 22 conditional use permit. That requxres that witYiin a 23 period of one year from the date of the resolution 24 that a final site plan for the entire 29.1-acre si*_e 25 shall have been apnroved by the Planning Commission 22'7 Y and the first building permit shall have been issued 2 and construction sh~ll have commenced on the Pointe 3. Anaheim project unless talked about -- unless tolled, 4 as we suggested in that other condition we handed to 5 you. What we~re looking for is to reatly tie down the 6 phasing of this project and we believe that we have. ~ With regard to quality, staff has 8 included several conditions of approval which address 9 quality, inclnding Conditions No. 76, 88, 91, 92 and 10 93, to name a few, which set forth the items~ e'll be 11 looking forward to getting when we get the final site 1~' plan. And we dc have Condition No. 2 of the 13 conditional use permit, which requires the project to 14 be developed in conformance with the elevations and 15 illustrative exhibits that have been prepared for this 16 project as further stipulated by the applicant, but 17 they are already required to be -- the final site 18 plana are required to be developed in conformance with 19 those exhibits. An1 the Pointe Anaheim overlay in the 20 zoning code itself would reQsire the final site plan 21 to be devel~ped in conf.ormance with the cnnceptual 22 site plans tha~t will be a part of the Specific Plan1~~~ 23 So we believe~we have very firmly ti~~d down all ot 24 these exhibits to the Pointe Anaheim development. And 25 when we see the final site plan it will neEd to come j/1 228 V ~/ V , . t . _, . . _, , .__ . 1 int~.conformance with those exhibits. 2 MS. McCLOSKEY: As was just stipulated by the 3 Pointe Anaheim representatives as well. That hands it 4 over to me. Staff has heard all ~af the discussions. 5 We understand all the discussions about icons and our 6 recommendation has not changed. We are still 7 recommending only one icon s~ the nartheast portion of 8 the property that is no higher than 30 feet tall, as 9 indicated on the exhibit. Relative to the wording 10 that was suggested by Mr. Erskine that talked about 11 the amendment that said what was goix~g to be on the 12 coordinated signage p.rogram, we do support that 13 condition as written, and I~d like to explain some of 14 the questions that•were asked by the Disney~- 15 representatives. 16 As far as Provision A, I think the ~.7 question was asked as to whether or not we were just 18 ensuring quality or whether or not wP were going to 19 provide some sort of unclear message that we might 20 have signs that might be in the CityWalk or Fashion 21 Island or Irvine Spectrum in Anaheim by virtue of that 22 provision, that purely was a quality standard. If you 23 look at paragraph D, we also have the criteria that 24 the sign criteria must be consistent with the adopted 25 sign regulations for the Pointe 1~inaheim overlay, as , • 229 ~~ J ~ ' ' . _. ,. . - '*'ll ... . . 1 . . ~ .. ~ --. ~~i , --~ ~'~r~~.~ `- I . ~ . . _. . . . . .. ~ - . . ~ .. ... - ~ . . . : . . . ~ .. ' ,.. ~ ~ ~ . 1 you will be considering today. So that was a quality 2 standard, not intended to provide any additional 3 provisions for any type of signage that might be in 4 those projects. 5 Relative to ara ra h B p J P , basically this 6 providas for interior corporate sponsorship displays, 7 and we do not -- these are things that we view, such $ as Jumbotrons and things of that nature, we do not 9 view these as billboar.ds.p We believe~'f~l~they will not be 10 visible from the public right-of-way except as 11 provided for within those three view corridors. They 12 will be set back and they will primarily be focused 13 for patrons of the Pointe Anaheim project. Relative 14 to the sign criteria and the projections that are set 15 forth in C, these are entirely all interior and you 16 will not see these from the public right-of-way, z i7 believe that was all the questions that were asked on 18 that. So staff is supportive of the inclusion of this 19 condition of approval as recommended by the applicant 20 in that regard. 21 RelativP to other issues, Mr. Erskine 22 asked to change the drivewa y condition, the one that 23 is next to the Super 8 Motel and that we put language 24 in there that says they wi11 use their best efforts, 2S we do not support that. We feel that if those efforr_s 230 ~~ ~ 1 1 1 fail that they should redesign and provide the 40- 2 foot distance between driveways because we believe 3 that that's a practical concern from a traffic safety 4 perspec~ive. So tney do have another option if they 5 can~t combine it. Hopefully they will be able to 6 combi.ne that and work with that property owner but if 7 not, they should provide the 40 feet that is currently 8 rcquired by code. 9 Relative to the mid block break, we have 10 not changed our adamant position on that and we 11 believe that the wording on that should not change and 12 that should not be provided for. Relative to our 13 position on the Freedman Way Street improvem~nts, that 14 position has not changed as well. And I believe that 15 that wra~s up the rebuttal or our staff~s position on 16 those points that were raised. I'll now turn it over 17 to Joan Kelly to touch¢~on a couple of the technical 18 environmental issues. 19 MS. KELLY: Joan Kelly. -~r}3. of the written and 20 or.al testimony provided for the hearing today has been 21 reviewed in terms of environm.ental issues and we 22 believe that there are no new environmental issues 23 raised which were not previously addressed in the 24 groject initial study and Mitigated Negative 25 Declaration, with two exceptions, and I'd like to 2~1 ~ V 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Z4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .~ 1 ' _ ._ address those. ' ~ ~ In reviewing the submittal that was submitted today, it became obvious in going through thar, that the letter originaZly submitted from PCR, pag~ 45 was missing and so the two comments on that page were not responded to. So I would like to enter responses to those two comments into the record. The first one is comment Roman numeral ' XI-C regarding school issues, and that response i~ covered in the respnnse to Latham & Watkins~ original comment letter in response 7-0. That is on page 4-27 and 28 of the Response to Comments document. It's comment 7-0, would respond to the missing XI-C. The other comment that was not addressed was comment XI-D, and this was in relation to the maintenance of public streets during construction from wear and tear from construction vehic_les and vehicle and equipment. And in consultation with city staff it has been pointed out that, first of all, the applicant is required to have haul routes for equipment ~:nd grading approved beforehand and that those xoL;~ ~_~ w.;.i 1 be on streets which have been designed t~~ ac~-~~~~a odate the weight of construction equipment. •l.'riat i~ built into the design of thase streets to accomrnodate ::hat wear and tear. And with that, that concludes my comments unless there ' 232 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I 14 I 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I 25 I are any questions. . I~t.. BRISTOL: Okay. Thanks, Joan. Anybody else? MS. MANN: Very brief comment with regard to the development agreement, as you know, the public hearing was left open and continued until the next regularly scheduled -- well, the June 7th Planning Commission meeting. At that time there will be a staff report and there will be an opportunity for interested parties to give testimony and evidence with regard to the development agreement itself., T just wartted to clarify a little bit what the Planning Commission~s role is with regard to development ~greements. The City Council has adopted Resolution No. 87R565, establishing the procedures and requirements for development agreements. Now, the Planning Commission's role in the development agreemen~ pro~ess is to make a recammendation to the City Council regarding the land use aspects of the agreement. The Commission determines if the eligibility requirements have been met az~d if wertain findings required by the procedures resolution can be made, their findings regarding the consistency of the development agreement with the General and Specific -. .. ' •-, 1 ; _ . , 233 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 li 12 13 14 15 16 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plan, compatibility with authorizec;~ uses, orderly development of the property and also that the project is not detrimental to health, safety and welfare. The reco~n.mendations are forwarded to the City Council and then the City Council will have a hearing and will then consider the Commission~s recommendations. And it's the C9.ty Council that will consider the fiscal aspects of the development agreement before making its decision on the agreement itself. I~2. BRISTOL: Thank you, Selma. I~2. FICK: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that concludes staff~s comments and certainly staff here and -f~n staff from all departments are available to answer any questions you might have. NIlt. BRISTOL: ' Okay. Thank you, Joel. Okay, folks, now it's time to turn the mikes on. Let~s go at it, questians. MR. KOOS: I~11 start off with some comments. A few hours ago, I guess, a few people commented on the Specific Plan and its significance ta our community. And, you know, some of you may o•r may not know, I~m a planner by trade. Let me assure you, plans are not static documents. They~re not engraved ~ 234 ' . ~-: 1 in'stone or marble. And I think that a plan doesn~t 2 change -- a plan that does not change every so often 3 must not be a very significant or meaningtul plan 4 because as the process goes on, policymakers and 5 interested parties find out that, you know, maybe the 6 plan isn't working exactly right and they tinker ~ V 7 it and make it work for them and make it work for the 8 community. . g A few months ago back in the fa7.1 we had 10 a project in the resort area that we didn~t 11 necessarily think we shculd modify the plan on. And 12 we had a split vote and these are not ea~y decisions. 13 So I wanted to sort of frame that, you know. We take 14 it very seriously. In fact, I personally look at the 15 resort area as sort of -- and staff's recorrsnendations 16 on the resort area very closely, more so •than I do the 17 rest of city because the success that it~s had in just 18 a short period of time is so striking. And saying 19 that, I mean information that is filtering to me 20 before I even got any staff reports over the last 21 months had me concerned over a great many things. 22 Even since last Friday so much has happened, so much 23 movement has occurred between the developer and those 24 who oppose the project as well as staff. I mean it's 25 almost funny to me that 2'm about to say ~ I'm ~, 235 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 , 13 14 15 ~61 17 I 18 I 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S about to say that I~m entirely supportive of all of the staff~s recommendations right now. I wasn't just a few days ago, but there's been some tweaking. Except for one item, I would be open, based on my fellow commissioners~ comments, on the ican issue to be supportive of an icon on Katella, frankly. And I almost lean towards Harbor, and I know that we go through the CUp process and we have a final say in the future anyway, but in a moment of weakness I might in the future allow something on Harbor, so I~m against it now so I won~t do it later. So I would support Katella right now. ' And just I want to go back to one more thing that we were•presented with just a few months ago. We had a workshop ~n redevelo~pment, some hf' ~+~tS ~`ppjGl~l.n,$~ eDe•rIG~OP~ ~n ~p~t"~'~e redevelopment issues,l~and a retail market study was broLght up that Anaheim had done about a year ago. And in that study it said something to the effect that Anaheim was in the top ten in the amount of retail space in the entire state or something to that effect, yet we were over 100 =n sales per capita. I think that sums up the significance of this project and what it will do to Anaheim. I am personally tired of shoppin~ in Brea and shopping in Costa Mesa and Irvine. And I think this will be a huge boon to V ~ 236 _~ 1 Anaheim and I think it's only the beginning. And I 2 think that there's enough to go around and I think 3 they~re all going to feed off each othex, so I'11 4 leave it at that. 5 NII2. ESPING: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to 6 comment. I'm speaking as a resident, now, of Anaheim 7 of 35 years and planning commissioner. And as we 8 approa~h this decision-making time, I feel very 9 strongly that we need to preserve the Anaheim Resort IO area, the garden environznent and Anaheim Specific 11 Plan. However, I feel there's a great need for growth 12 and dimension in retail, entertainment and dining for 13 young and old alike in our city and a multiple 14 destination attraction. I also feel vezy strongly we 15 must re.quire the project be in compliance with the 16 Specific Plan and the recommendation of our very 1? capuble city staff. Let me tell you, they spent hours 18 and hours and hours and are greatly concerned about 19 what happens within the city of Anaheim. I feel 20 strongly that competition is yood and we need to 21 consider all racommendations and make sure that we're 22 on the right tracl: foz growth in the city of Anaheim. 23 In. the intere~t of our community, let's make wise 24 decisions and all of us approach this from honest 25 motives purely. 237 '~ .= 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 , P~t• BRISTOL: Thank you. Nr.S. BOYL~STiJN: I want to a~d that I belong to a large national organization. We have our convention here every few years. And so far at this point we have never once when we~ce gon~ to our groug dinners gone to Anaheim ex~ept one time, and that was just one night out of the five days they were h~re. Anfl I think this is something that's badly needed. I think the developers have given on a lot of things. I think that they are going to be an asset to Disney and I think DisnEy is going to be an asset to them. Disney is a very important neighbor, and I hope that with the changes~that are made everybody will be happy with this because I tnink•it's a great opportunity for us as a city. As far as shoppin~ goes, I even had to change my make-up because you can~t buy it i.n Anaheim. We need some variety of_ stores that are name items. So I do think that I agree with John that the two icons for K~tella and the other end of Clementine, if we see them, they might be acceptable and I would be for letting them bring two of them to us and then we have to make the decision. But coming from the east those are going to be thei.r two corners and I would like to see us do that. And I aon~t kn~w how the rest of the Commissioners feel, but 238 ~ ;~ 1 I think they should be able to at least come and show 2 us what two of their icons are. I dan't kno*a if 3 anybody else agrees with me or not. 4 I'm also a little concerned about not 5 having the entrance in the middle of the block on 6 Disney Way. I think it is going to affect our other 7 corners and that this would eliminate some of our 8 traffic problems. I don~t al~ways agree with the 9 traffic department. I~m sorry. But I tiiink that this 10 has been -- I guess the newspapers and things may be 11 what have caused this, but have ma~ie this like we were ~.2 two elements fighting each other. We're one community 13 and we all want to work for the best of the whole 14 community and I hope that ev~erybody leaves here 15 feeling that way today. I think we~re all working for 16 the same goals and T hope everybody will leave with an 17 open mind to working with evexybody else. Thank you. 18 NIl2. BOSTWICK: Let me say that I~ve been around 19 Anaheim since 1956. I~m old, yeah, right. I've still 20 got my.hair, it's gray, but I~ve got it. Probably 21 Jack Dutton back there, our former Mayor and ~ 22 Councilmember, is probably the only one olc~er than 23 some of us today. And I think everyone sitting up 24 here is here for the benefit of the city of Anaheim. 25 I don't think they would be appointed to this position 239 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 li 12 I 13 I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~ 24 25 if~they didn~t have the concern and care for the city of Anaheim and for the ~r~per and good development that we need wit.hin the city of Anaheim. And that's what our task is given to us is to provide good development in the city of Anaheim. I have to -- I''ll agree that I think two icons with a maximum of 30 feet in height is appropriate, onP on the corner of Disney Way and Pointe Anaheim Way and one on Katella. I, too, have a problem with the mid block intersection, but 2 guess I will acqui~sce as to that because I have the real, true feeling that in the future Disney will build a parking structure where the Grand Hotel and Odetics are and they~ll bu:.ld a ramp into that like they~re doing off of Ball Road and so there won~t be the traffic problems~and they will be able to put in a mid block turn lane. Maybe that's my futuristic look. This is Star Wars day anyway, isn't ~t? I have a couple questions for staff. On the drawing that you gave to us, the revised drawing, Exhibit 5.8.3.f.5, am I correct that you are going to widen to the ultimate right-of-way on the Harbor Boulevard side? MS. JOFIIISON: Linda Johnson. Yes, that is correct. They will be installinc~ the ultimate 240 ,._.~ _ . 1 right-of-way improvements on Harbor Boulevard, which 2 includes a back 8-foot parkway and they will be 3 installing that landscape as part of this development. 4 MR. BOSTWICK: Okay. On Disney Way, you have 5 draw~ at the.• Lop of it an adjusted ~urb line and 6 public right-of-way in front of the first hote~., the 7 farthest west hotel. ~ 8 MS. JOI~SON: That's correct. 9 I~Ilt. BOSTWICK: Is that the only change to that? 10 MS. JOHI~TSON: This is the correction to this 11 exhibit to reflect an inadvertent error to it. And it 12 would include the installation of the sidewalk and 13 parkway at that adjusted location. However, that's la not the only correction staff is recommPnding as a 15 condition of approval that the free right-turn lane ~6 continue from the parki~g garage exit to Clementine. 17 So we're also recommending the balance of that street 18 heading eastbound. 19 NIlt. BOSTWICK: So in f~ont of the 350-foot 20 hotel would also set back to that same right-of-way? 21 MS. JOHI~iSON: That's correct and that's our 22 recommended condition of approval. 23 MS. McCLOSKEY: While you have the e:~hibit out 24 in front of you, if the Commission's decision 25 ultimatel,y is to allow for two icons, this would be 241 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ' 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ ,. the exhibit you would want to reference to show ~he icon on Katella and the one on the northeast portion of the property. This would be the exhibit you would direct us to correct to eliminate the other three. NIl2. BOSTWICK: How would you like us ta dn that? I~IlZ. BRISTOL: When we get to it, when we vote. Is that right? MS . JOF~iSON: That ! s right . 1~II2. BRISTOL: I was right. Are you done? I'm going ta make one comment. 1~Ilt. BOSTWICK: Well, one other thing. I truly believe that there are adequate safeguards within this plan to protect the community and the city should this not go forward. There are time lines and requirements for completion of the project within given time lines, so there are protections should this not happen, the whole thing goes away, and we are back to ~he original plan you had before this hearing. Am I correct? MS. McCLOSKEY: Actually, you~re there anyway, because this is an overlay so that underlying base entitlement has stayed intact and this is an overlay ~n top of that. So that right is sti11 there and this ?rovides an addi~ional provision for the properties Eor this project per the CUP. ' 242 , ~ _1 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I 25 I T~Ilt. BRISTOL: S want to put my two cents in. I think Mr. Pawlowski said. it earlier about 'shopping at Disneyland and commented about Disneyland, what a great friend and business partner, well, let's face it. They are Anaheim for 40-some-odd-plus years. No use kidding ourselves. However, in looking back in the comments ahout the shopping opportunities and the indication of what this could provide to the city, you only have to go back to what several of the people have commented on the Specific P.ian, 1.5, and see what the goals and objectives are with the Specific Plan. And that's to l:re~},e., try and R'_'_=_= additional stays, additional income, a resort-type activit~y, and this is perfect~. I don't think it was perfect a few weeks ago, but it's getting better and better all of the time and it fits all those criteria. And then it hit me, when was the last time I went to that area, other than business, ~ther than Planning Commission, other than looking at property. What my wife and I used to do.is we'd drag our kids over there. We'd yo to the ho~el. Tt's inexpensive, we'd walk around and we'd spend a few . bucks. We always tried to get validated t:ickets so we didn~t have to pay for that. But the reality is we ' 243 V ~ ---.~ _ , 1 lilced that walking environment, we~d spent a few 2 dollars but we liked it and it was~close. And I~m 3 saying to myself am 2 going to dc this here? You~re 4 darn right z'm going to do it here because my kids 5 won't be around. But I think it fits and I think, 6 especially the audience, because there was a lot of 7 differezce of opinion coming in, but my gut feeling is 8 a lot of people have learned what we just learned a 9 few days ago about the difference in the plans and the 10 set-back landscape realm that is protected. I~m sure 11 a lot of you thought you were going to have a 12 basket~all on top ~ 13 of a sidewalk and you~re not. And this fits the 14 vision of Anaheim. I like it. Are we ready to go? 15 By the.way, I support the two icons. 16 DIl2. KOOS : One last thing, I sa b a Y y pproving 17 this Negative Dec we're showing that our investment in 18 the EIR was well spent. Mr, 3ris-faJ : '+~ tgh-f-. 19 1~2. ESPING: I think it's also important to 20 look around and realize that there's a 1ot of great 21 people in Anaheim that are genuinely concerned in our 22 city by the number of people that have written, the 23 phone calls we have received, the correspondence and z4 everything. It's great to see that there is concern 25 about something good happening within our community. V V 244 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~' 13 ~I i 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I 25 I ' ) ~ NII2. BRISTOL: One more thing before we vote, it really is true, the staff -- T know the applicant has learned this and I'm sure the folks from Disney, but the staff have put in unbelievabie hours. I don~t think we've ever seen.any~hing tighter than this, maybe. 2 don't think you've ever been more tired. 1~Ilt. BOSTWICK: I have to agree with you. I think they've done a fabulous job, and you have to applaud the developer and the staff for working to get all the problems answered and worked out at the time. And I know it's come a long way and we really appreciate that because that makes our job much easier. MR. NAPOLES: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to compliment the city planning, in particular, of course, Joel Fick. He put in many, many hours putting this together and I appreciate him for this. As a young man I worked at Disneyland and I worked in the first phase of construction of Disneyland. I moved to Anaheim in 1956 but, however, I was workin,v, there prior to moving to Anaheim, so I know Disr.~ylanfl pretty well. I know their people, they're genuine people, they're good people. And today they gave a good presentation and I acimire them for that.. 245 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 19 20 21 22 I 23 I 24 25 ••"\ . ~ ' . , .. . .. -. . , . . . . .~;1 . , .. , , . ( I have really mixed emotions abaut what's going on today because, actually, in neutrality, what I was thinking is that maybe both sides would get together and somehow work together in unison on this project, Pointe Anaheim. But, however, that didn~t happen, but maybe someday ~ae will all get together and work together. ~ I like the pr~ject, personally T like the project. I~m just like John, my wife goes to other towns to -- I~m not going to men~ion the towns, but she goes out of the city to shop and I would rather for her to come over and shop over here in Anaheim, you know, Pointe Anaheim, for that matter, or, you know. But somehow or another I think that: this project~is going to work well for everybody concerned in this great city and I~m very thankful that I live in the city of Anaheim. And I~m working for the best outcome, not only for myself but the whole people of the city of Anaheim. So for that I want to thank the people.from Pointe Anaheim. They've don.e a beautiful job and gave a good presentation. So with that, good luck. NIl2. BRISTOL: James, you've got to say something. N~t. VANDERBILT: I want to echo the comments of 246' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 10 11 12 I 13 ~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 _~ _~ , , .. ___ my~fellow commissioners: I do want to state, however, that in regar~, to the staff recommendations that I~d like to fully support staff recommendations in all respects, including the limitation to one icon in the 30 feet height limit. And my reasoning for that is I think that one aspect that we've talked a lot about has been the Specific Plan an~3 the idea that a lot of the other neighboring businesses have already confoxmed by lowering their signs or creating monument signs in that area. And I think that it's important to them to remain consistent with all future projects. NIl2. BOSTWICK: Can I ask staff one question? In regards to the icons, the aeveloper has exhibited aa exhibit, the arial view or lookdown view of the corner of Disney Way and Harbor. There's a glass tower. If they put a large -- some type of stuffed animal or scmething in that -- MS. McCLOSKEY: A bear? IrIlt. BOSTWICK: A bear, would you consider that an icon? MS. McCLOSKEY: No. MR. BOSTWICK: It's inside the building. MS. McCLOSKEY: If it's z:~side the building, it's not considered an icon. It's part of the interior space. ~;47 ~` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I ~4 ~ 15 ~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I~t. BR~~TOL: So we might have a motion to go forth with twa icons. We~ve had a couple comments that are not supporting th.at. Are tnere any other issues you want to talk about? We talked about the median on Disney Way. MS. MANN; Mr. Chairman, if I can clarify something, the location of inedian breaks is actually within the jurisdiction of the city engineer. And although just completely apart from~any resolution on the project, you might want to make a recommendation to the City Council to possibly have the city engineer look at something. It's actually not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to be making decisiozs with regard to median breaks. It°s included in the plans and the applicant of course asks for what the applicant wants to have and hopes to have, the concurrence of the c'ity engineer, but it is the city engineer that will ultimately be making the safety decisions that dea~ with the flow of traffic and traffic breaks. MR. BRISTOL: Okay. Thank you, p,ny other issues? I~Il2. BOSTWICK: All right. Let me offer a resolution, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring Plan No. 004, including all the 248 ~ --` ~ 1 associated errata are adequ~te to serve as the ~ 2 required enviranmental documentation far the proposed 3 project actions. Based upon the finding by the 4 Planning Commission that the Declarati4n reflects the 5 independent judgment of the lead agency, that it has 6 considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004, together with 8 any comments ancl responses received during the public 9 review and process. Further tinding on the basis of 10 the initial study that there is no substantial il evidence *aith the imposition of the mitig~tion 12 measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan 13 No. 004 that the pr~ject will Y~ave a significant 14 effect on the er~vironmenr_. 15 MR. BRISTOL: Okay. This is the resolution and 16 a button vote. . 17 MS. McCLOSICEY: That would also include the 18 changes to the two mitigation measures concerning 19 n~ise, eliminating the family entertainment center as 20 it's no longer a project component as well? 21 MR. BRISTOL: Yes, ma~am. That's just what he 22 was going to say. 23 NIlt. BOSTWICK: Thank you very much. ~o~ oc- i p 24 MS • 39i~~2~I~6: Resolution passes, seven yes 25 votes. ~ 249 J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I 15 I 16 i 17 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "~, ~ NIlt. BOSTWICK: I~11 offer a rssolution recommending t;hat the City Ccuncil adapt G~neral Plan Amendment No. 359 to amend the land use elerlent of the City of Anaheim General Plan to incorporate Pointe Anaheim overlay and its associated density in the description of the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan based on the findings in paragraph 37-B, page 19 of the staff report. N~2. BRISTOL: It ~ s a resolution and a buttc:n vote. so~~i p MS. ~g; Resolution passes, seven yes i VOt@S. ~O~S ~• ~: Mary, which one of these are the changes for icans? MS. McCLOSKEY: That would be an exhibit of the conditional use permit, I believe. I~Il2. BRTSTOL: The CUP? M5- ~'ohn.SOn • . That i~xhibit is actuall,y gaing to be an exhibit in the Specific Plan document. That would be part of any action you take on the Specific Plan Amendment. i~t. BOST'WICK: I~ 11 offer a resolution recommending City Gouncil approval of Amendment No..4 to the Disneyland Resort Specific P1an No. 92-1, including the zoning, development standards, design ~I~~ V V 250 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2~ 23 24 25 .. -.::...~ _..~ plan and guidelines and public facilities plan based upori the tindings in paragraph 37 on~page 19 through 21 of the staff regort, and subject to the staff~s recommendations of approval identified in Attachme,r.t F of the staff report with the modification that there be allowed two icons not to exceed 30 feet in h.eight, one l~cated at the corner of Disney Way and Clementine or Freedman Way and Clementine and the other on the Katella Avenue entrance. MS. JOHNSON: Does that include the conditions of approval that we recommended be cnanged today at the meeting and we gave you a handout listing those? NII2. BOSThTICK: Yes. Well, that was amendment i-l- i r~ -~~.. No. -- we have ~.condition report. It's also in the signage plan. MS. McCLOSKEY: And Linda also read verbatim to you those.conditions into the record as we gave you our presentation. NIl2. VANDERBILT: Mr. Chair, I have a request. NIlZ. BRISTOL: Yes? NIl2. VANDERBILT: Is it possible to pull the icon issue out from this and vote ~n it separately before voting on this particular resolution? Can we make a recommendation ~bout -- can we vote on the motion? 251 _ ~, '"~ ; , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NII2. BRISTOL: You're making it tough your first n1r.~.s-~F~Wick.; -ti'-r.3~is+n~ ~ day. ~' Dr~ you want to do a straw poll? 1~I think I know what you°re asking but T dor.~t know if we can do that ar not. NIl2. VANDERBILT: I'm only opposed to one portion of this resolution, so T have a sense of what of the Commission is feeling, but I would like to f ocus on it first and then based on if it passes by majority, then I will be able to vote in favor of the Resolution No. 3. MS. MANN: I think if you want a straw poll of the Commission on just that one issus, it will just be a straw poll and then you~ll take your vote on the resolution as it's offered with the items that were included ir the offer of the resolution. MR. BRISTOL: A71 those in favor of allowing (Ay c s- 1~05 ~3~-~sfol ~ 3oYc1,s-Fi.n , 8as-E-w i cjc.' two icons? T All those opposed?,~ Five to two, is that G N o-~s p~~ Ar,A ~o,r~de.r- b i f-t what I got? Now kha~ do we do? Now we're going to the resolution. Resolution button vote. Soloria MS. S6i~3~?~6; Resolution passes with se~Jen yes votes. I~t. ERSKINE: Just a clarification, a second on the prior votes, is th~re a second to the motion? 1~II2. ESPING: No, there was not. 1~II2. BOSTWICK: But do we need one when it~s a ~/ ~ ~ 252 ' ~ ,~ _ . 1 ~traw vote? Oh, they~re resolutions so they don~t 2 require a second. 3 NIIt. BRISTOL: They don~t require a second, ~ orily motions. 5 NIlt. BOSTWICK: The next one does. I'l1 move 6 that the Planning Commission approve the requested 7 waiver pertaining to the minimum number of parking 8 spaces, bringing the total number of spaces available 9 to accommodate in the garking structure to 5,200 cars 10 proposed. And if Canditional Use Permit No. 4078 is 11 approved based on the findings in paragraph 37-D-2 on 12 pages 21 and 22 of the staff report as supported by 13 the information contained in the approved parking 14 analysis in the Pointe Anaheim traffic study, dated 15 December 21st, 1998 and re ared bMey~ `~'aDhaad~es p P Y M~r, ~s & 16 Associates, and given the testimony and input in 17 today's hearing. ~a~~~ 18 ~• ~ '° Second. 19 N~2. KOOS: Second. 2~ I~Il2. BRISTOL: We have a motion and a second. 21 All those in favor sa a eCn,O ~(~~~, Y Y pposed. ~ The motion •is 22 carried. 23 MS. JOHI~ISON: I have a clarification on that. 24 As indicated earlier in our handout, one of the 25 conditions of approval we recommended be changed would 253 / / V . _ ~~ 1 change the parking demand study or parking analysis to Z instead say the Pointe Anaheim Transportation Study, 3 so that's the full title of the report. 4 1~Ilt. BOSTWICK: I~11 offer a resolution 5 approving Conditional Use Permit No, 4078 to permit 6 the development of Puinte Anaheim Lifestyle, Retail 7 and Entertainment Complex with waiver of the minimum 8 number of parking spaces as amended and in accordance 9 with the resolution recommen~d approval of Amendment 10 No. 4 of t;he Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, Ivo, 1~ 92-1, based on the findings set forth in paragraph 12 37-D-1 on page 21 on staff report which are supported 13 by the evidence represented at the public hearing, 14 subject to the recommendations of approval identified 15 in Attachment G of this staff report, modified as 16 follows: .We are.adding conditions. First of all, 17 going to change Condition No. 77 to the condition as 18 prepared by staff today. Do you want me to read that 19 into the record? 20 I~t. BRISTOL: We ~lready read it, didn~t we? 21 MS. JOHI~ISON: You could reference all of these 22 conditions ttxat we had recommended some changes and 23 the additions to, and that was Condition No. 94, 95, 24 77. 25 l~t. BOSTWICK: We~re going to leave Condition 254 ~ - , ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 i ~.3 14 15 16 i~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 ~i No: 80 as recommended by staff. And on page 15-B-2, are we going to add the language that "Subject proper'ty shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specification submitted to the city by the petitioner, and which plans are on file with the Planning Department, marked Exhibits No. 1 through 8, and that the developer will cer.tify to the quality, design and architectural integrity of the plans as present2d°? MS. McCLOSKEY: Y~s, with the exception that the applicant stipulated that they would be not in substantial but would be in conformity with the plans. So we would change that to say conformity versus substantial conformity as stipulated by the applicant. I~IIt. BOSTWICK: Very good. Any other additional changes? I~t. BRISTOL: ~I don't think so. It~s a resolution and a button vote. Solaa-i~ MS. ~~.: Resolution passes, seven yes votes. t~. BOSTWICK: I'll offer a resolution recommending to the City Council the amendment of the Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Plan Program as set forth in paragraph 37-E on page 23 of the staff report. And I think this is to bring this project V 255 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9~ 10 11 12 13 I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I 25 I irito conformity with the rest of the resort areas. Am I correct? ~ MS. McCLOSKEY: Actually staff~s recommendation would be that you support the amendment relative to the Cl~mentine Street break but not the Freedman T~1ay break. NII2. BOSTWICK: Can you say that again? MS. McCLOSKEY: Staff is supporting the break, the mid block break on Clementine street, as we discussed prior, but we are still not sunporting as requested by the applicant the Freedman Way break mid block. NII2. BOSTWICK: Do we want a straw poll on this? NB2.. BRISTOL: We could do exactly what Selma recommended. Is this the place where we would tell traffic that we want a study on this prior to Council? NII2. BOSTWICK: We could recommend to the Council that they provide them with it. MS. MANN: What you have here is the recommendation of the city engineer as stated by Linda Johnson. That is the recommendation of the city engineer. You can act on what's before you, which is that recommendation, and then if over and above that you wish to make some other recomniendation to City ~ - ~ 256 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 i 13 I 14 15 16 17 18 19 2~ 21 22 23 24 25 1 Co:incil or some request of staff to make some presentation to City Council, you may do that. , l~t. LOW£R: Commissioner, there~s been a study of this. It's the applicant's study which demonstrates that the ~roject and the area operates acceptably without this meda.an bz~eak. Given the concerns previously stated about the conflict of the shorter season when the Disney trafEic exits 7:00, 8:00 p.m., conflicting with that eastbound tt.rough movement conflicting with westbound left turns into that 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. restaurant, theater crowd, that traffic conflict is key to our position of not having a median opening and signal at that mid block location. • ~-~o~ ~ NIl2. BOSTWICK: I°11 move4a resolution recommending that the staff has recommended for the brealc on Clementine and no break on Freedman Way. NIl2. BRISTOL: Okay. Resolution and a button vote. Solor~ p MS. ~; Resolution passes, seven yes votes. NIl2. BOSTWICK: I~11 make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council consider the wai.ver of code requirement, the Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 concurrently with the ' '~ ~ - ~ ..~ ~, - ~ . ~ V 257 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il iz 13 14 15 16 17 18 I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I ~ ~ : ' 1 _ ~ `_ Gerieral Plan Amendment No. 359, Amendment No. 4 to the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 and the amendment to the Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program. MS. B03c'DSTUN: Second. I~IIt. BRISTOL: Okay, folks, this is a motion. ~A 11~ CN on~~ All in in favor say aye.~ Opposed?~ The motion is carried. ' MS• MANN: Planning Commissions actions on this project will be set for a hearing before the City Council. I~Il2. BRISTOL: That's it. Cangratulations, let~s go home. MS. MANN: You need to adjourn the meeting, Mr. Chairman. NIl2. BRISTOL: I~d like to adjourn the meeting. Move to adjour.n. MR. KOOS: Second. NIlZ. BRISTOL: Al1 those in favor say aye. Opposed? ~, mr.'3r-tis1o~: AdJcu.~ne~cl:-f-o 9:30o.r,r~ o~ Mvr~do. (The meeting was adjourned at 5:22 p,m,) May a~c~ /// ~// ~ J 258 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 zi 22 23 24 25 ~i . ~~ . .. . .~ . ~ . . ~ . I, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand Reportex of the State of California, do hereby certify: That the foregoing proceedings were taken before me at the time and place herein set forth; that any witnesses in the foregoing proceedings, prior to testifying, were placed under oath; that a verbatim record of the proceedings was made by me using nachine shorthand which was thereafter transcribed under my direction; further, that the foregoing is an accurate transcription thereof. • I further certify that I am neither financially in~erested in the action nor a relative or employee of any attorney of any of the parties. IN WITNSSS WHEREOF, I have this date subscribed my name. ,UN 0 31999 Dated: ~,Vv ~~ EVE M. JAME CSR No. 9934 ,, ' C~IANGES/CORRECTIONS Wltness signatur~ D~ts l ra9e~L~n• ~ from To ~ ~ ~ ` :~~ `*`~ ~ ~i .'4 ~y~lr ~~3~ ~ ~f~~r,~i~rF~ ~~ir~{~i7~~~~~ , ~ f a °~-~~~,~ ~~ 7~,~~ ~ ir~~~~~y~~L~ , ~~~~ 1 Y/ ,{~ref•{~~ ,~n~,b~ }ki'~ +~~ . ct 'r . t ~ ~ S.+! >Ft~'`~Yrt t~ ~ .CS ~~ y t; a JA~l: Y ~C A'l~t~-.j 5 i -.~ I ~~}'~7 ,~li , r c _ *.~btn~ : ~tqf2 ~ ~ ~ ry t ~ ~ ~, ; ~. .+,ka 1, ~. i t. .t~ ~ i. ~~.I t ~1 . " ~~~k4 ~ . i~:. -. . t ~~iy ~ ~~(~ 7, ^ ~'j ~ ,~ • ~ ~ . ' .. ' t ~: r~ ~5 ~4 { N 1~ . ~ . . . - I~, ~. ~~ S ~ 17 7 l ~ ~ . ' ~ z '~,1 " ~ ~ ~, ~ . , ~ i t' t I ~ 1 , ~ ~ . ~ . . ~ :.'1. ~ ~ y ~ ~ 1~ T t . "~~ f~. . ~ +1• ~ F Y . !-~ .[t:~ ~ . . . N 1 ~.~, C ~ . i . . - s .{ ` , 1! 5.n /t S.. , ~ . C ^ t~t` ~ ~ : yi~ y y. , ,'v ~~, t t~~~~ t4y-._. k~ ~.i C t~~! ~ ;~~'~ '~ r~ ~s+~~ r-ri4 yt,'~,~ .: i° t~ ni ~r .~i{ f'l~~t~. ~~1. y~`~-p}~ti~ f~ .~ r t ~'i .` 7J~ ...~ rcrtt 71-i3~~..~~ ~ .{t~i-e~y1,'~~r.*~ F t~~, Y ~~~~ i -.~'J s 1 ~ : ,~,u ~ ~ ~r• ~ , ; 5 4 ~ i 7 'kt ~ /~ ~~ r,k ~~~`yy4~'~cp~ ~v ~ ~ ~ ,~}i~~ ~~liix:: t, ` ~'~ r i'~ 3 ~.~~f 7f`~"~r~~y ~ .yEp~h _ 3r~~ . '~ ~~ `X ~ i ,Y ~k e 7 ir~~%ti~ r~'~~ y~~,'~,t~ly~ d~ ~~r'~~r ~Y~'n~,f~( A~ ~4#tkk i~ -K tb~ ~1~ , IF~ti f~ Ls 1 ~~ 7 ~''.'> ~{ ~ ~ t~~~ v z.~iF Sa~7h~ pj F l lfii§ ~`a ~, ~r ~ ticsW1'~ ~~ ~F r~ Frr n.,T T`f~+tl ~, i. t 3 t ~ t ~Y ~ W~~i 1~ ~~', 4~yy5}9~ if fi{'0 µ Y y~f ~ R' r~ flld}~ ~~ij~!~ ~ . ~ ~~~r,~'~ fJ~ ~e~"j~' ~c"~~. ~~~y`~A `~,~~! ~v~t~'y'~~?~~° ~jy~ ~~` ~,, ~ f~, ~ ~.~;~ r~?~C""~~ , t~ J~~"a~CS~t~ U~c iG~~~ . ~ . ~ r ~ } :..:''~'~ 7. ~. I.. -,~ ....4 ~ ... x.~.~n. .. l7;~-~:~. i~dai. ~!'i ~.r~§t~r. !~.1n~r