The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1994/05/16 ACTION AGENDA REGULP.R MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 16, 1994 1 •0.00 A.M. - PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW (NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY ACCEPTED) 1:30 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARING BEGINS (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BODYSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE, PERAZA, TAIT , COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: MAYER PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS I 1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their evidence. Addkional time will be grnnted upon request k, in the opinion of the Commission, such additional time will produce evidence Important to the Commission's consideration. .- 2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to ~ present their case unless addkional time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. The Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a participant speaks, but rather by what is said. 1 3. Siff Reports are part of the evidence deemed receNed by the Commission In each hearing. 1 Copes are available to the public prior to the meeting. 4. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is closed. 5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing k, In ks opinion, the ends of i fairness to all concerned will be served. 6. All documents presented to the Planning Commisston for review in connection wkh any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or nontlocumentary evidence, i shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be available fcr public inspections. 7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on kerns of Interest which are wkhln the Jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda hems. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of fhie (5) minutes to speak. ACA51694JJ.WP ;4 ~Y+ 'Ia. r'EQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21 Continued to ib. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREM~.NT June 1, 1994 ic. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NU. 2905. 3253. AND 3414 (Readvertised) INITIATED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 OWNERS: SO CAL CINEMAS, INC., Attn: Bruce Sanborn, 13 Corporate Plaza, Nowport Beach, CA 92660; DEBEIKES INVESTMENT CO., Attn: Richard DeBeikes, 2300 Michelson Drive, #200, Irvine, CA 92715-1336 LOCATION: CINEMAPOLIS - Property is approximately 5.54 acres located on the north side of La Palma Avenue and approximately 300 feet wept of the centerline of Imperial Highway (5635 E. La Palma Ave.). IMPERIAL PROMENADE -Property is approximately 4.4 acres located north of the northwest comer of La Paima Avenue and Imperial Highway (5645.5675 F.. La Palma Ave.). Possible revocation or modification to cenditlons of approval of an existing movie theater complex and comn:arcial retali center. Continued from the January 10, 24, February 7, Man,;i 21, April 18, and May 2, 1994, Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM: Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated I~er the Commission's direction and the parking study that was provided to them, they came up with a set of recommendations for Imperia! Promenade and Cinemapolis. They are requesting to delete CondN,'~n No. 6 of their memo. Instead there is another condition in the staff report, page 10, that would be added to those condftions. He explained these condftions were pulled out of the parking study and also the meetings they have and the Plaiming Cormission. (He referenced the last meeting). He did fax all of the information on Thursday morning to all of the property owners and their representative. 05-16-94 Page 2 ~~ Commissioner Messe stated you want to delete Condition No. 6 from their memo. He asked ff he ~--, was talking about a substitute condition? Commissioner Henninger stated Planning staff recommends a condition that the number of seats be capped at that level (2,403). Bruce Sanborn stated Commissioner Caldwell had requested that in 2 days they get this report so they could comment in writing so they did not have to be up here for two hours. They did not get this until Thursday. He suggested they respond in writing and continue this for 2 weeks. Apparentiy what the Commission asked for did not get to the appropriate persons. Commissioner Messe stated he does recall what he Bald and since he did get k on Thursday, did he not have enough time to review H? Mr. Sanbom explained he was out of town on Friday and their attomey was out of town both Thursday and Friday, therefore, they did not have enough time to respond to h. Unfortunately, since the Traffic Department keeps coming up with new things and does not want to follow the $11,000 report, h makes more work for them to respond. He thought they had responded last time. They are in favor of most of the things in the report, but apparently a lot of those are not what the City desires. They do need to respond with their attorney in a legal way and he did not have any confidence that the Traffic Department even understands this report. Commissioner Caldwell asked ff they could get this done in 2 weeks? Mr. Sanborn indicated they could. ~ Commissioner Henninger stated there are some tune-ups that could be done to these conditions. Perhaps they should review these conditions and Alfred Yaida's memo to see ff there is anything they would like to do wfth them so that they have close to the finalized recommendation that they can review. Mr. Sanbom asked ff they were throwing out the condftlons? Commissioner Henninger explained they are taking Mr. Yalda's memo and are going to refine k briefly so he has as close to what his final recommendation is as possible. Mr. Sanborn asked ff he wanted to hear from other property owners first before they started going through this? Commissioner Tait stated h may be easier to get their written statements and go from there for a final draft. Commisstoner Henninger stated he thought they should ask Mr. Yalda to update his memo in some minor ways. They can leave the pubilc hear'.ng open and hear the comments in 2 weeks. Commissioner Henninger referenced the conditions that relate to off-site parking. He thought they were going to add the modifier that off-site parking would be at a convenient location. There are 2 places they would have to insert that (Conditions 3, and 5). i 05-16.94 Page 3 ;'{ ;~~ ~~ He asked if they needed to add a condftion that says the property owners, either one of them r. depending on where ft lands, dedicate the necessary easements for the traffic lights? Commissioner Messe stated he noticed they do not have anything about signage on the promenade property. Commissioner Henninger stated he thought the slgnage condftion in general where it talks about the slgnage around the bank site, needed to be expanded to Include alt of the directional slgnage on both properties. Instead of saying they are eliminating Condition No. 6, ft should be worded differently. condftion No. 6 should be worded to say that there will be a maximum of 2,403 seat in the theatre. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated that condition is contained on page 10 of the staff report. It is a racommended conditi^n which could replace that. Commissioner Hern~l~.ger suggested they amend Condition No. 6 so ft reads that way. Commissioner Messe asked about the rationale of the 9 month time frame to accomplish all of this? Mr. Yaida explained this was brought up at the last meeting, i.e., the applicant indicated that they needed some time. Commissioner Messe asked if they asked for the 270 days? Mr. Yaida stated he believed there was a discussion at the last Planning Commission hearing and they did ask for k. Commissioner Henninger suggested they add a condftion that says that both of the developments will do what is necessary to maintain convenient parking. It Is sort of a general condition. He explained ft is conceivable to him that the off-site employee parking could be some distance away and to make ft convenient some shuttle service may be needed. The customer parking might happen through a joint use agreement at the use site and in that case convenience might mean a pedestrian bridge across the storm drain at that location or perhaps across the street at the adJacent shopping center In which case 'convenient" probably means a pretty good crosswalk facility. Therefore, they need a condition that would cover those convenience ftems. Commissioner Messe stated N he recalls, the parking study asked for angled parking on the east side of the theatre. He asked ff they discounted that? Mr. Yaida explained they did not follow that because by putting in the angled parking they would further reduce the on•sfto parking that exists right now on the she. Commissioner Messe stated at the last meeting they discussed how that would improve the circulation. Mr. Yaida stated if the Commission would like, they could condftion that but he would not recommend ft. 05.16-94 Page 4 4~ ~ ~ Commissioner Messe stated then lets leave h this way until the next meeting and think about It. He ~ would like to know how many spaces they were going to lose, not necessarily with the maximum ' angle, but with something less than the maximum angle. Mr. Yalda indicated they would do that for the next meeting. Commissioner Henninger asked if they could make these changes by 5:OOp.m. tomorcow affemoon and then make distribution? Mr. Yalda indicated they could fax the information to the property owners. ACTION: Continued subJect request to the Wednesday, June 1, 1994, Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to come back with a final list of conditions. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) r 05-16.94 i - Page 5 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Continued to 2b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 93-9408 (Readvertised) June 1, 1994 OWNER: LIVING STREAM, Attn: Andrew Yu, 1853 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 1301 S. Empire Street. Property is approximately 2.97 acres located on the west side of Empire Street and approximately 700 feet south of the centedine of Bail Road. Reclassification from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) or a less Intense zone to construct a 2-story, 40-unft condominium complex. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition/correspondence was received in opposition ,~. PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: ~ Frank DeLuna, 19142 Sierra Marla, Irvine, CA, fie stated each previous time they were here, they had a tie vote. He explained they had a meeting last week with some of the neighbors and one issue they rased was that 40 families would be moving in and, therefore, Impacting schools, etc. He further explained at the time, In order to do this project, they are required to pay over $10,000 for each unit to the City and a substantial amount of that was for school fees. Any family then that would move Into one of the units would contribute their fair share for the school. OPPOSITION: Chairman Peraza Indicated that the Commissioners have ail received letters in opposition to this item. Alma Boone, 215 Primrose, Anaheim, CA. She has beon a resident of Anaheim for 37 years. She submitted a letter from the Loara Little League and read the first paragraph into the record. She is representing many of the families residing around Modjeska Park. They are asking the Planning Commission to re-evaluate the General Plan for all of West Anaheim. She gave some background regarding concerns about their neighborhood. Any increase in density would continue to erode their quality of life. They stand ready to challenger the City to work in partnership wkh their families to keep their neighborhood a great place to live. In addition, many hours of research and in talking to the neighbors came to one overridding Issue and that Is the safety of their children due to the increase in density. OS-16.94 Page 6 !~+ Mi Andrew KulJis, 1420 Penbrook Lane, Anaheim, CA. He moved to Anaheim with his family in r'^ February of 1950. His property was on Ball Road and abutted the property in question. As Ms. Boone stated, many of them researched how this development would Impact them. They also had meetings with families In the area and have submftted a pettion with 1,000 signatures and are prepared to bring many more before the Commission. It is Important to note that most of the signatures aro wfthin the 4 square miles surcounding Modjeska Park. ModJeska Park is the third most widely used park following Pearson and La Palma Parks. These factors contribute to the overburdening of the resources In the area. There is little or no parking on weekdays and no parking on weekends. The traffic on Empire is a constant flow. This exists even though there is a high vacancy factor in the apartments in the area. Add to this 3 churches and 3 schools in the area and this is why the problem has exacerbated and why they are here today. Scott Key has 3 more students per classroom than is recommended by the State. Loara High School has been averaging 45 children per classroom and to top ft off has only one counselor for every 1,200 students. City resources are shrinking at an alarming rate. The budget for Parks and Recreation has shrunk 25% over the past 2 years. Anaheim ranks 91st in the top 10 cftles wfth the fewest numbers of police officers per 1,000 per capita. The Fire Department would further be taxed by making this area mere dense than ft already is. (He was a former Flre Captain). Mr. De Luna mentioned the people would be contributing more money per capita to the City. This issue is not about money. We are not against development in the area. Development in the area is desirable, however, they petition the Cfty not to go to the recommended densty of RM-3000. They would be happy to live with RS-3000 or RS-5000. He asked that the Planning Commission work wfth them for the reassessment of the General Plan for West Anaheim. West Anaheim has been an orphan for a long time. He gave some examples. They are continuing to have meetings and they represent a large number of voters in the area. Their concern fs strictly for their neighborhood-ft is not a money Issue. It is the density and overcrowding of the area. They have trouble getting in and out of theft tract as ft is. If they go ahead wfth the plan as is asked for, they will have nothing but more problems. REBUTTAL: Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated prior to the close of the public hearing she would request if the Commissioners have received any letters that they be placed on the record and also ff they have had any communication since the last meeting of the Planning Commission. Mr. De Luna stated they are not unsympathetic about the neighbor's concerns regarding densty and that is the reason they did not apply for 55-units per acre or even 36-unfts per acre, but only the RM-3000 which is the lowest possible multiple-family zoning. The density problem as they view ft, Is grossly over exaggerated by them 'in their minds. This is strictly speaking from a development point of view objectively according to the General Plan which allows greater density. They were being conciliatory to the neighbors by applying for the lowest possible multiple-family density. It is not nearly as dense as people: make ft up to be. 05-16-94 Page 7 ~~ Commissioner Henninger stated he received a number of letters and they were essentially /'~ consistent witl..he testimony they Just heard. In addff(on, there was a sense of misunderstanding of the proposal. The letters talked about more apartments in the area and what (s proposed are not apartments. He also had a meeting this morning with some of the neighbors and they essentially expressed the same concems they have heard in the public testimony today. Commissioner Messe stated he received 28 letters, 14 of which had no address on the letter or envelope ftself and 4 of them were duplicates. Some of the letters referred to the development as apartments also. Commissioner Boydstun received about the same number and only counted 14 because they had names and addresses on them. She also meant with a group and they do have a lot of genuine concems. Commissioner Caldwell stated he has also received a dozen letters and has meant with a group and their concerns are his. Commissioner Tait stated he has received 4 faxes and has had one conversation with a neighbor fn the area. Chairman Peraza received approximately 29 letters. Some had addresses and some did not. He also meant with a group and sgreed with some of their concerns. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Messe asked ff staff had a chance to come up wffh some of the parking statistics for the park? They had asked for Parks and Recreation to be here to discuss parking at ModJeska Park. Commissioner Boydstun stated they also asked for Information on the two churches. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated they have relayed their concerns to the Parks Department. They could find cut very quicMy what the status of that is. Commissioner Boydstun asked what about the information on the two churches and the schools in the area? Mr. Hastings stated he believed the Commission had asked Code Enforcement to do some work on that. Chairman Peraza stated he went by yesterday (Sunday) and there was a Cdcket game going on and there was lots of parking. (There was some disagreement wfth the audience). Commissioner Peraza admitted ft may have been a bad day as it was overcast. 05-i6-94 ~ Page 8 Commissioner Henninger stated he had no doubt that there Is a serious problem out there. He n stated the testimony Is correct and the problem seems to be generated by the park, and the 3 ' churches and the three schools. They also received a letter from the Little League and they have 1,000 Little Leaguers. He asked how much traffic does that generate? Commissioner Messe stated he did believe there are times during the week when there is a traffic problem. Certainly when church goes into and out of session there is both a parking and traffic problem. He has not seen that much of a problem at the park, however, he may be passing by at the wrong time of the day. Generally there are some traffic and parking problems around the park. He was not certain whether units would increase that or not, however, K would intensify it somewhat but he did not know by how much. He stated he would like to get some reports from the Parks and Recreation Department and from the Traffic Department as to what is going on out there. Commissioner Messe asked how many unts would be allowed, approximately, on this lot H they approved RS-5000? Mr. Borrego stated they did kick around the Idea of the RS-5000 this moming and came up to about 17. Mr. Borrego stated he believed it was a 36-foot wide street which included sidewalks with 100-foot deep lots on that side of the street. Commissioner Messe asked if they had approved narrower streets for that type of development on 3 acres? ~'^ Me,anie Adams, Public Works-Engineering stated they would not recommend anything narcower than that. That Is their smallest private street. Commissioner Messe asked for clariflcatlon on the width of the private street? Ms. Adams indicated that would be 36 feet total which Includes 4-foot sidewalks on both sides and 28-foot of roadway. It would also call for a cul-de-sac because it is over 300 feet in length in order to acquire a Flre Department tum-around and that would call for a larger cul-ds-sac then what was discussed this moming. That would be a 38-foot radius on the roadway and that would extend to 42 feet behind the sidewalk. Commissioner Messe stated then they might be only a 16-unit development? Ms. Adams indicated that was corcect, i.e., it might be less than what they discussed this morning because of the extra room needed for the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Taft asked H ft would be feasible to put in a single street cul-de-sac on the properq/t Ms. Adams stated they have had a few similar developments like that. It would be a question as to how they meet the Zoning standards, but a private street could easily go In at that location. 05-16-94 Page 9 Commissioner Messe asked ff anyone knew what the setback of the {iM-1200 development is to ~ those houses that back to the development on Chalet? Does anyone know what the setback of that apartment house is? He was sure one of the neighbors must know. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated he could get the aerial photo which would show the distance. Chairman Peraza asked ff anyone from Code Enforcement has looked into what they previously asked tor, I.e., parking that the church was using? Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement, stated he did not remember the question, however, the parking, from his own perspective when he has worked the area, ff seemed to be bump; r to bumper on the weekends. They have also had an increase in graffiti activity; a lot of activity after hours throughout the park and a!! around tho commercial districts that front onto Ball Road as well as the schools themselves. They have had a lot of activity for the past 4 or 5 months that has been brought to their attention in regards to vandalism in the area. Commissioner Boydstun asked ff there has been any traffic problems out there at night wfth meetings, etc.? She stated someone asked her Saturday night that Ball Road had a lot of traffic from meetings at the churches and people are directing traffic. ivlr. Freeman explained he would not be privy to that type of information. On the weekends he has noted there are a lot of cars fuming Into Empire Street from westbound Bali Road. There is a signal there and an awful lot of traffic. Commissioner Henninger stated they have heard testimony in the beginning that The Living Stream Church had these meetings that generated qute a bit of parking demand and thoy did not have adequate on-site parking and apparently parking on the residential streets. !ie asked ff that was happening on a regular basis? Mr. Freeman stated it has been his understanding on his visits to the property and to the area that because of the school activity, and because of the churches as well, ff all adds to the problems that exist today. Commissioner Henninger stated one of the things that come to mind, is ff the existing church facility does not have adequate parking, then it ought to bo a pcrxing lot. Commissioner Messe stated he d(d not think ff was too far fetched. Commissioner Henninger stated h-thought they should hear this along with the Code Enforcement report on the act(vffles of the existing church facility. Commissioner Messe stated there Is no doubt at times that the church increases the pedestrian and vehicular traffic tremendously in this area once every 3 or 4 weeks. He was surprised that Code Enforcement has not heard about h. (there was a posftive response from the audience). He added ff has boon going on for quite some time. Commissioner Henninger asked ff Code Enforcement had an ongoing investigation Into the existing church activity? They asked for that Information at the end of the second public hearing. 05-16-94 Page 10 Mr. Freeman stated Code Enforcement does have files on properties. It is is his understanding ~ that they do not have an active file on the Liv(ny Stream Church, however, he could research that as they speak and find out if there are any active complaints. During the past 10 years they have had a lot of traffic problems to the potvt where they actually have had people parking 6 and 7 blocks away in order to attend various functions at the 2 churches on Ball Road. They have not IdentHled where the ind(viduals were going. There is parking In tho residentlai neighborhoods, the schools and the parks. Commissioner Henninger stated perhaps his me, r~ry is faulty, but he thought at the end of the second hearing they specifically requested that sort of report, no' only on Living Stream, but the Cathoiic church as well. He has heard that the Catholic church has improved their parking ever time and thought the Living Stream group had gone the opposite direction by expanding their facilRies without expanding their parking. Mr. Freeman apologized and stated he drd not have that understanding. He understands at this point and can get the information to them. Commissioner Henninger asked fl he could have that Information in 2 weeks and Mr. Freeman indicated he could. Commissioner Henninger stated perhaps the living Stream church needs extra parking and this is a good place for h. Cornmissinner Messe stated they should look at their CUP and what their building program has been and why they have created such an influx of cars over the years. He hated to postpone this because a lot of people are here today. Commissioner Tait stated they have had a couple of ties and ft would make sense to have a full Commission. (It was noted that Commissioner Mayer was absent). He moved fora 2 week continuance. Mr. Freeman indicated he would have reports ready in 2 weeks. Chairman Perza asked about the parking at the park. Dick Mayer, Park Planner for the City. He explained they feel the park has sufficient parking when you consider the off-street parking around the park area as well as the parking lot on the east side of the park. This is even wfth the construction of the group picnic facility they put in. There might be on occasion, a situation where parkiny in the neighborhood gets worse before they put in the structure such as when they have a large event and something is going on at the church or it may be a holiday. Generally speaking the parking for the park is sr~(ficlent. Commissioner Boydstun asked H they noeded the street parking for the park? Mr. Mayer indicated that was correct. Commissioner Boydstun asked then fl something comes In and takes that away then the park would be short? 05-16.94 Page 11 F 'il Mr. Mayer stated the activity that takes that away is short. He did not think the park has a parking ~ problem. If something comes In and takes away from the park then it is an overall neighborhood problem. Commissioner Messe asks ff there was a problem with Little League playing there as far as safety is concerned? Mr. Mayer stated not that he was aware nf. He does not usually get into the operation end of N and he has not really heard of any problems assoct~ red wnh that at all. Commissioner Caldwell stated parking is Important but h is not the only Issue. Ten thousand dollars would be great for the schools, but ft is not going to solve the problem over the long run. It is an Issue of an area whose resources have been stretch too thin. (The audience gave a positive response). He added piling anymore on then what they absolutely have to hurts. He explained they cannot deny a property owner the right to develop his property. They hope they ran encourage a property owner to develop his property into the least Intense way possible, so that in an area like Nest Anahelm that is suffering badly from all of the things that come from overcrowding, I.e., something as simple as adding 10 more famines to an area hurts. The reason he is voting against this reelass is because he (s doing everything he can to minimize the Impact on West Anaheim. They are trying to look at the big picturo and not Just the small picture. It is not Just about this piece of property on Empire, it is about the whole development philosophy for the past 20 years. They need to encourage single-family and minlmize densny as much as they can. He would like to see them take a vote. Chairman Pemza asked Mr. DeLuna what he thought about what he has heard here today? ~~ Mr. De Luna stated he meant with the Father at Saint Justin and he was very surprised to find out that the L(ving Stream ministry was a Christian organization. His comment to him was he wished he had known this before an ordinary developer came in. Commissioner Caldwell stated that was very offensive. Mr. De Luna stated the development should be looked at objectively from a development point of vlew irregardlet s of who the developer is. This project meets the parking requirements that the law requires. It will not add any on-street parking. It is a gated communny and meets all of the requirements. He felt the whole thing has been blown out of porportion because of who the developer Is and the misunderstandings. Commissioner Henninger seconded Commissioner Tait's motion fora 2 week continuance. Commissioner Henninger stated they have had a significant amount of testimony regarding the parking problem that has been generated by the church and he would hate to commit this property to some use ff h is really needed for parking for this church. He thought h was a realistic possibility. When he looks at it Just on its own, they are talking about a difference of 24-urns and in the scheme of things, he did not see that as br,ing a huge number. He stated that everyone needs to think in terns of what is fair. He was not sure that what was being asked for was fair. He would like to hear about the church and what their existing parking situation is and maybe they need this for parking. 05-i6-94 Page 12 s ,.. c :s ,. Ms. Mann stated she was assuming they would reopen the public hearing. They will be receNing ~ evidence from staff and they would need to have the public hearing open to receive that evidence. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. ACTION: Continued subject request to the Wednesday, June 1, 1994, Planning Commission meating in order for Code Enforcement and Parks and Recreation staff to submit a report related to parking problems in the neighborhood. VOTE: 4-2 (Commissioners Caldwell and Peraza voted no and Commiss(oner Mayer was absent) t ~, 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved I Approved 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3032 Readvertised Approved modifications OWNER: BRYAN CROW EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION AND EUCLID STREET BAPTIST CHURCH OF ANAHEIM, Attn: Bryan Crow, 8712 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA 92808 LOCATION: 8712 East Santa Ana Canyon Road (The Garden hrh Property is approxlmately 34 acres located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and approximately 3;u89 feet west of the centerline of Gypsum Canyon Road (i'he Garden Church). Modiflcatlon of a conditional use permit to permit the addition of a temporary prefabricated modular structure and modification of a condition of approval pertaining to the time Iimitatlon of a previously- approved semi-enclosed garden church. Continued from the April 18, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94-55 r- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Bryan Crow, Pastor of Garden Church. 113 Orangehlll Lane, Anaheim, CA. He had met with staff and they are in agreement with the report. He requested that they approve the CUP. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Boydstun stated they have one change on Condtion No. 108. She read the following Into the record: "Each Additional modular unit shall be sprinMered on an annual schedule wkh the first being sprinklered by July 6, 1995 and the last by July 6, 1999. Occupancy permft revoked ff schedule not met' Chairman Peraza asked for clarification H ft was suppose to be "temporary" occupancy and Commissioner Henninger stated "existing temporary' occupancy permits. It was determined it could be incorporated into 10b. 05-16.94 Page 14 ~. Commissioner Caldwell referenced Condition No. 1. Delete 'unless an extension of ~, time fs granted by the Planning Commission.' Commissioner Henninger clarified that did not mean that they could not seek an extension. For the record Chairman Peraza stated the Fire Marshall was here and details were worked out wfth Mr. Crow. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved modification to CUP 3032 as follows: Approved a temporary prefabricated modular structure. Approved a time extension for a period of five (5) years. Amended Condition Nos. 5, 15 and 20 of Resolution No. PC91-153 to read as follows: "5. That this permit shall terminate in five (5) years on May 16, 1999. Deleted Condftion No. 15. 20. That subject property shall be developed substantlaily in accordance wfth plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file wfth the Planning Department marked Revision No. 2 of Exhibit No. 1 . ~ Added the following new condftions: v 24. That any existing violations of the Anaheim Municipal Code, including electrical, mechanical, plumbing, building and grading, shall be resolved or abated prior to the installation of new facilities, modular units or other on-site improvements. 25. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval showing conformance wfth the latest revision of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 602 and 607 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained In conformance wfth said plans. 26. That unless proof of exemption is submitted in compliance wfth Cfty Council Resolution No. 89R-440 prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate major thoroughfare and bridge fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as specHfed In the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor, as established by City Council resolution. A;.tion continued on next page. ~~~ 05-16.94 Page 15 27. That prior to the Issuance of a building pernrft, the developer shall pay a traffic and transportation Improvement fee to the City of Anaheim, Traffic Engineering ^ in an amount established by City Council Ordinance/Resolution. This Division , fee will be used to fund traffic and transportation Improvements wfthin the area Impacted by this project. Said fee shall be subject to adjustment by the Ciry Council. 28. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Department of Maintenance for review and approval. 29. That an on-she trash truck turn-around area shall be provided and maintained to ' the satisfaction of the Department of Maintenance. Said turnaround area shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permfts. 30. That all lockable pedestrian and/or vehicular access gates shall be equipped wfth 'knox box" devices as required and approved by the Fire Department. 31. That fire sprinklers shall be installed for all existing and proposed structures, as required by the following schedule: a. The proposed modular kitchen unft shall be sprinMered prior to occupancy. b. Each addftional modular unit shall be sprinMered on an annual schedule with the first being sprinklered by July 6, 1995 and the last by July 6, 1999. Existing temporary occupancy shall be revoked ft schedule is not met. 32. That adequate fuel modification shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. ' 33. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or ~ within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs Condftion Nos. 24 through 32, above-mentioned, shall be o~mplied wfth. first , Extensions for further time to complete said condftions may be granted in accordance wfth Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) 05-16-94 Page 16 A~4 4a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Continued to 4b. SPECIFIC PLAN NO.93-01 June 13, 1994 4c. SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OWNER: B.U. PATEL, TUSHAR PATEL, MAYOR B. PATEL, KATELLA PARTNERSHIP, RASTER PARTNERSHIP, KASH PARTNERSHIP, TSB CRYSTAL PARTNERSHIP, C/O TARSADIA INC., 650 Town Center Drive, Ste. 1910, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 AGENT: ELFEND & ASSOCIATES, INC. 610 Newport Center Drive, #1290, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 1742 and 1754 S. Clementine Street. 1730. 1733. 1743 and 1755 S. Zeyn Street 1733 and 1745 S. Anaheim Boulevard and 201 W. Katella Avenue. SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 93-01: Request for consideration and adoption of a Specific Plan for the proposed Hotel Circle Specific Plan which Includes 450 rooms wfth accessory land uses (vvhich may included a 15,000-square foot dinner theater) within two (2) hotel buildings located immediately adjacent to three (3} previously approved hotels containing 653 rooms for a total of 1,103 rooms. Incorporated within the Specific Plan is a Public Facilfties Plan which consists of maps and text setting forth the proposed infrastructure and public facilfties. SP°CIFIC PLAN ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Request for adoption of zoning and development standards and design guidelines to set forth standards, procedures and guidelines for the development of hotels and other related uses wthin the Specific Plan area. Property is approximately 6.8 acres with frontages of approximately 246 feet on the east side of Clementine Street, 576 feet on the west side of Zeyn Street, 100 feet on the east side of Zeyn Street, 285 feet on the west side of Anaheim Bouievard, and 254 feet on the north side of Katelia Avenue. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: 14 people spoke in opposftlon PEYITIONER'S COMMENTS: Fronk Elfend, Elfend and Associates, 610 Newport Center Drive, Sufte 1290, Newport Beach, CA. He presented the Hotel Circle project by Tarsadia. Ha went over three separate elements of matters affecting the project. One of them Is to describe the application; secondly to go through the staff report regarding the condftions of approval and the Mftigation Monftoring Report; and thirdly, to go through a letter that was received on Friday from Disney and try to address some of those Issues that were Included in that aluminus information. 05-16.94 Page 17 .~w.._,.~.._ ..., _... ~,~.,.~ - - ~~ He explained this Is a project that was inftlated in 1989 for Tarsadla. The Cfty, around that time, inftiated several actions which affected this project. The City enacted a moratorium in the Commercial Recreation Area (CRA) and that was enacted in May of ~' 1990. When the moratorium was enacted Tarsadia's project was exempted from that moratorium. The City then proposed a new Zoning Code in September, 1990. They worked closely with staff and provided appropriate wording in the new Zoning Code which would allow this project to move forward and encourage the assemblage of smaller parcels of land. The next ftem was the New Design Guidelines which the City adopted in September of 1990. Once again they worked closely wfth staff in coordinating those design guidelines. Subsequent to that, In September of 1991, the City inftiated the preparation of their CR Area Specific Plan and now referred to as the Resort Area Specific Plan. Tarsadia was exempted from that process mainly because again they started the process about 4 years ago. The other major event that took place out in that area was when Disney proposed their protect and prepared a very comprehensive environmental document as well as a Specfic Plan. One of the reasons why it took them so long to get here, Is because when they originally submitted their information to the City and submftted their environmental document, they were told by staff that it would be wiser for them to waft until Disney completed their environmental Impact report so they could Incorporate some of the findings they had regarding mftlgation measures and other considerations. For the last 4 years they have been working with 3 or 4 planning studies the Ciry had and then more Importantly they stood up during the Disney process and had questions about how their project was evaluated in Disney's report. They were told by many people, most notably Pat Gibson, that their project was completely covered in their analysis. He gave a slide presentation. Following is a discussion regarding the staff report relating to the conditions of approval: He stated staff is recommending approval subject to the condtlons. He referenced page 16, Condftlon No. 2. The underground utilities that are installed are primarily wfthin the interior property lines and do not Include some of the relocation of some of the large electrical facilities which they always understood would be included as apart of the area wide Improvements provided in the CRA. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated that' did check wfth Electrical Engineering. That is correct. They are requiring that any utilties placed on the property be underground, however, what is existing outside of the property would not be included. Commissioner Henninger asked if there was some language change that would clarify this? Mr. Hastings stated this does indicate that the Specific Plan area, which would be the boundaries of the property, shall be served by underground utiltles. v 05-16.94 Page 16 J A i. Mr. Elfend referenced page 18, Condtion No. 24. They meant w8h Della Hercick and those are basically the requirements that are set forth in the Specific Pian, and are the normal requirements of providing copies, etc. They understand that is what their Idea !-'~ was as well. Commissioner Henninger asked ff this was the place where Final Site Pians come back for review to the Planning Commission or not? Mr. Hastings indicated that was correct. Mr. Elfend referenced page 19, Condition No. 31 regarding areawide signage standards. It was his understanding that this applies primarily to design. Since they are asking for some reduced setbacks, there may be conflicts wffh those setbacks. Mr. Hastings stated that would only pertain to the design of the signs. Commissioner Messe asked for clarffication ff fl pertains to the design and not the location? Mr. Hastings indicated that was correct. Joel Fick, Planning Director, pointed out that the proposed standards are not in conflict with the standards for the setback, therefore, there is no conflict. Commissioner Messe stated ff there is no conflict what is the concern here? Mr. Fick stated Just the future design of the sign flself in terms of what may come out of the Anaheim Resort project. ~ Commissioner Henninger stated ff there is no conflict then they should not be concerned that they would have to meet the new setback requirements. Mr. Fick stated that was corcect in terms of setbacks. Commissioner Henninger stated obviously someone thinks there is a problem. Mr. Elfend stated they went over these this morning very briefly and they are satisfied with Mr. Ftck's comments. Mr. Elfend referenced page 20, Condition Nos. 37 and 79. He stated both of these condftions deal with a requirement that this protect is to pay a Lair share for the installation of certain water related infrastructure. In the Soecific Plan as well as the Mitigation Monitoring Section, the stipulation fs that they provide a fair share payment on an areawide basis for these Improvements and what they want to do is to make sure that both of those conditions are stated in that fashion. He read Condition No. 39 regarding the installation of a twenty (20) Inch water main In Clementine Street and f(atella Avenue. He explained his understanding regarding this issue (because the cost could be slgn'rficant) would be that there was a study that was prepared and they will comply with the recommendations of that study and pay into a fund on a fair share basis based upon the areawide needs and that was included within j their Mftigation Monitoring report In the same fashion, I.e., paying a fair share rather than actually constructing the facility Itself. ~ J 05.16-94 Page 19 ';;, z ~' ~ Mr. Hastings stated they have discussed this wfth the Water Division. They did indicato that Condftion No. 37 should remain the same. Regarding Condftion No. 39 they would add the following wording: Ro the extent the property owner/developer may qualffy for '~" reimbursement from other benefded properties, the property owner/developer may petition the City Council to establish a reimbursement agreement or benefft district to include other areas of benefft. Costs associated wfth the establishment of any such district shall be at the expense of the property owner/developer.' Commissioner Henninger asked for clarification ff this pipe line does not exist now and ft is needed to serve this property? Mr. Hastings indicated that was correct. Commissioner henninger asked Mr. Elfend ff ft was his desire to waft for someone else to build ft? Mr. Elfend stated his understanding has been that this is something that is required and ff they could clarify ft now, then they would have the corcect information. He explained this is an areawide Improvement. There are many areawide Improvements for w~:~r and sewer. Commissioner Henninger asked ff he was comfortable wfth the recommended changes regarding reimbursement? Mr. Elfend stated to the eMent that ft indicates, they would participate in a fair share areawide assessment fee and that Is what they would propose. To the extent that they would have to build that on their own, ft would not be economically feasible for them to do that. Commissioner Henninger stated he just asked ff he was going to waft for someone else to build this and Mr. Elfend Indicated no. Commissioner Henninger stated ft is needed for the development, so he has two choices. He efther builds ft and get a reimbursement or he wafts for someone else to build ft. He asked which one of those he wants? Mr. Elfend stated he would like to get some clarification. It was his understanding that ft was not needed, I.e., ff they proceeded wfth one of their hotels then that water line was not required and that was why they always believed that was a fair share requirement. Comrissioner Henninger asked then there is anothor possibility where they may build a phase of the project and not the whole project. Mr. Elfend indicated that would be correct ff that were the case. Commissioner Messe asked we are considering approval for the Specific Plan, and what Mr. Elfend is saying, is ff they do not build the whola thing at once, add the 2!l" pipeline when ft is absolutely necessary? Mr. Elfend stated In their document, they do not have this requirement. The first time they saw ft was when they received the condftions of approval. They were always under the impression that there would be three items that would require construction which are ~ listed here and In the Mftigation Monftoring, but ff you look at the Mkigation Monitoring k ~ is worded differently. It really provides for a payment of a fee in Ileu of construction. ,~ :~ 05-16-94 ii Page 20 ';~ s `i. C~'~ Commissioner Messe asked your documentation states if the City Council does not pass that fee in time, ft is forgiven? Mr. Elfend explalned ft does not say that at all. If you look at the Mftigation'Monftoring report ft says the payment of a fee on a fair share basis. If there is no more capacity to the line, then that is something they will deal with, however, that has not been what they understood to todays date. Commissioner Messe suggested that they have someone from Utilfties come to the hearing to speak. He asked to skip this condition and come back to ft later. Mr. Elfend referenced Condition Nos. 41 and 45. He stated both of these conditions relate to certain englneering standard plans that the SpecHic Plan has a different standard for. They were suggesting that the Commission add to each of these after the standard is noted, the following statement: 'or as set forth in the Specific Plan.' They had a meeting a week ago with Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, and they understood that this was, in concept, acceptable to him. Commissioner Messe asked if this would Include the substandard parking stalls, spaces and sizes? Mr. Elfend was not sure if the englneering standards apply specfflcaily to those numbers. Commissloner Henninger suggested they catalog these and come back. Mr. Elfend referenced page 21, Condftion No. 50, regarding the Transportation Network (TMA). He did not understand the condition. John Lower, City Traffic and Transportation Manager. He explained TMA is the Transportation Management Association and they do have a consultant on board looking at how s~lch an organization can assist the major employers in the area. This proposed project would become a major employer In meeting the Air Quality Management District (A~MD) mandated rideshare programs, I.e., what measure could be put in plane and operated to enable the major employers to meet those rideshare objectives? Mr. Elfend stated they would not have a problem with that condition. Commissioner Henninger asked Mr. Lower ft this was an outgrowth of the initiatives that provided transportation funding a few years ago? Mr. Lower explained they do pursue competftive funding programs which were created through Proposftfons 108, 111 and 116, however, the requirement is separate from those mandates. This is from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the rideshare programs, which are annually submitted by major employers. Commissioner Henninger asked if Condition No. 50 then relates to rideshare? Mr. Lower further explained ft relates to this major employer's participation in a Transportation Management Association. The TMA's Intent is to provide services to 'facilitate ridesharing and making ft easier for the major employers to meet the AoMD's directives. Commissioner Messe asked what constitutes a major employer? 05-i6-94 Page 21 ~°"~ Mr. Lower stated 100 or more employees. He stated fhey have over 30 major employers in this area. Mr. Elfend referenced page 22, condftion Nos. 59 and 60. He read Condition No. 59 under "Misre!!aneous." He stated this basically requires them to participate in any areatolde fair sham mftigation that is caused by the Disney Resort Project of which their project would be required to pay some fair share contribution based upon fts intensity. He does not have t problem wfth this condition, however, to him this condftion is primarily for those areawide Improvements more in the area of sewer and water rather than any area of landscaping, land use, building design or signage or any condftion that is not wfthin Disney's areawide Impact mftigation where there is a fair share requirement for all property owners. Those would be the ones they would comply with as opposed to any of the ones that relate specifically to their project. Commissioner Henninger asked ff he was really asking which ones? Mr. Elfend indicated that was correct. He thought having a list of those would be a good idea. He referenced condition No. 60 under "Timing.' He understands there was some confusion regarding the condftions that were included. He was not sure why there was a 2-year requirement for some of these conditions that are not normally associated wfth a Specific Pian. He deferred to staff. Mr. Hastings suggested they take out the wording, "or wfthin a period of two (2) years)." He added these items would still need to be complied wfth prior to issuance of a building permft. N.r. Elfend agreed. r^^^~nissioner Messe stated the final sentence under Condition no. 60 should come out regarding Extensions for further time, etc. Mr. Elfend and Mr. Hastings agreed. Mr. Elfend stated there were 2 Issues identified in the report that needed to be resolved at the Planning Commission before he gets to the Mftigation Montoring report. He stated one had to do wfth irrevocable offer (he Thought ft was the second hem In the staff report). They will go along wfth staff on that and will not contest that condition. The other condftion related to signage. They concur wfth staff and will keep all the signage at 2 signs with the exception of the signage which staff has recommended for Clementine which is where they would have 3 signs because the parking structure would affect the ability to have the signage seen from surrounding areas. They have no further comments and they are concurring wfth staff's recommendation. He referenced the lulftfgation Monitoring report, Attachment C. They need clarification on the first measure which is a vague measure regarding their requirement to help finance Disney's project. He referenced page 2, Attachment C, regarding Hydrology. They would like to change this as follows: " A hydrology study and drainage plan for each project or each parcel." 05-16-94 Page 22 !!~ He explained for discussion purposes the phase Into the project may be such that one property develops eadler than the other one and doing the hydrology study for the other property wthout a final plan being submitted would be dffflcult, so they would like to ~' make it for each." Natalie Meeks, Public Works-Engineering. She explained the Engineering Department recommends that this condfflon stay ask (s. It is possible at this point that he needs to know what areas are basically coverage and what areas are landscaped. It is Important that an overall hydrology study be done so that as he develops the property the main storm drains can be Installed at the appropriate size and as the other hotels develop, they can be tied into whatever main linos are installed. Mr. Elfend referenced page 3. He asked for clarification under Police Services, No. 2 regarding private security. His client asked ff that meant he was going to hire a guard? Commissioner Henninger stated he thought ff might Include a guard or more than one guard. Mr. Elfend explained they have their own security on the two projects which does not require them to have any patrol, etc., so he was not sure what was meant by this measure. Debbie Fank, Planning Department, stated the intent is to the satisfaction of the Police Department. It depends on what they feel is the best procedure whether h is security guards or security system. It is something that is up to the Police Department's Judgment. He is not necessarily locked Into hiring a security guard. He referenced page 4, measure 1, regarding water requirements. He asked for clarification. Diem Vuong, Water Engineering Manager. Commissioner Henninger asked Mr. Vuong about the 20" water line. Mr. Vuong stated it Is part of the entire Anaheim Resort. He explained normally when you have a high hotel you need about 6,000 gallons per minute of fire flow. It can be reduced up to 4,000 gallons depending on the Fire Department and fire sprinMer systems, etc. They need a big pipe line to carry the water. They did not want to Install anything smaller than that so they can supply the entire Anaheim Resort Area. Commissioner Henninger asked on this site, for example, could 200 hotel rooms be built today without this waterline? Mr. Vuong explained it depends on the high rise building. It Is not determined by how many hotel rooms, but by how high the hotel will be. The demand is around 180 gallons per room. They could run a 200 room hotel in a flat area (less than 3 stories) without a problem to the system, but when the building Is higher than that, the fire demand would dictate the size of the main in that particular area. Commissioner Messe asked when he reviewed the Specific Plan, the height of the building caused them to state the mftigation must be a 20" pipe? Mr. Vuong stated normally it is dictated by the Fire Department. They run a network to find out ff ff is needed or not. If it is needed then they put the demand in. It is determined by IndNiduai projects. He gave some examples. 05-16-94 Page 23 F"~ Commissioner Messe asked looking at the Speciflc Plan, could the SpecHic Plan be built wfthout putting the 20" main with Just using what is burled right now? Mr. Vuong stated they could do that. He explained normally they would run a network to find out ff they need to change the pipe size or not. if they do need to change K, then they look for the ultimate pipe size needed. Commissioner Henninger stated his answer surprised h;+n as it did not seem to follow his previous responses. He asked ff this whole development couold be served off the existing water facilties? Mr. Vuong stated for this particular developmer.: they have determined it cannot be for the existing pipe size. Commissioner Taft stated for clariflcation the 20" pipeline provides excess capacity and Mr. Vuong indicated that is correct. Commissioner Tait asked if he knew what would be required for this development? Mr. Vuong stated he would have to look at the network to find out. Right now they are requesting the developer to advance everything up to the 20" p(pe. (It is noted by the Secretan,+ that this portion of the tape is somewhat muffled and not entirely clear). Commissioner Henninger stated then the conditions could be reworded something along the Ifnes that development phases will be served by water facilities to the satisfaction of the Water Utility Department and they will participate on a fair share basis on this 20" line. ~-. Mr. Vuong suggested that the rules and regulations be brought out In more detail as h is not stated very clearly. Mr. Elfend stated the wording that was offered by Commissioner Henninger was pretty much what they would understand would he applicable. Commissioner Caldwell asked for clarff(cation if what would happen Is that the applicant would be required to put the money up for the 20" main and then would ba reimbursed later, i.e., his money would be tied up and would be reimbursed at a future development? Mr. Vuong indicated that is correct. Commissioner Caldwell stated then the developer would pay for the installation of the main and then their money would be held for a period of time. Mr. Elfend stated he understood that he would pay for their fair share requirement. Commissioner Caldwell stated h is his understanding that the develop~~ will put all of the money up front for the 20" main and then get reimbursed down the lin: as other developments come in and share in the enhancement to the water supply. Commissioner Henninger stated what they both are saying to an extent is correct. He explained the situation is that he wants to preserve an option to be able to build a phase of his project that might be able to be served off of the existing water line and then sit and wak until this line is built by others. ,..tip 05-16.94 Page 24 C''`~ He stated that is o.k. if they let him do that because that Is his business decision. When ft gets to the point that he needs the larger line, then he will have to put it in ff sc+meone else has not put ft In beforehand. Selma Mann, Deputy Ci;y Attorney, stated before they proceed she would like to make a recommendation. It appears that this discussion keeps slipping into the merfts of the project prior to the time the Planning Commission has really heard the evidence from both sides. Just the information can be received from the proponent and as was previously suggested, set aside for discussion at a later point. It appears to be difficult to keep the merfts and the condftlons separated. Mr. Elfend stated the entire need to make this a larger water main as indicated in Disney's document Is based upon the Disney Resort project. He knows a condftlon is a condition, however, he has not been told by anyone including Disney that Disney Intends to do their project. In fact they told him that theey were as likely not to do ft as to do ft. The needs created by a project which they are going to be responsible to pay a flair share of, may not happen. He referenced page 10 and 11 under Cultural Resources regarding a certified archaeologist. They have been asked to have an archaeologist and paleontologist present for grad(ng. If ft is necessary then obviously they will have one, but ft seems like there would be oth~~ areas In which such experts might be needed. The last part of his ~~resentation is to address some of the Issues that were raised in a letter sent by Disney's consultant on their project. Commissioner Henninger stated the Disney people were present and they may have add(tional testimony. He added he thought that would be appropdate for him to do that in rebuttal. OPPOSITION: Doug Moreland, Disney Development Company, 1313 Harbor Blvd. He stated Disney fully supports new development and believes ft is key to the revitalization to the of the Commercial Recreation Area (CRA). However, they feel ft needs to be in conformance with all of the ~nitlatives that the City has taken over the past 4 years. A number of new ordinances that have been adopted are aimed at improving the appearance of the CRA. They are the CRA Zoning; new slgnage ordinance; undergrounding of utilities; and the Disneyland Resort was adopted last year with a number of new guideline which are going to oe Incorporated Into the CRA SpecKic Plan which will bo com(ng forth in a few weeks. They feel it is very Important that this vision is carried out as each new project comes forward and is part of the revtalization of the CRA. What they need in Anaheim is to create a destlnatlon resort wldch makes tourists want to come here. Hotel Circle is located on Katella Avenue at Hester and that is the entrance to the new CRA. It is a vital area that first sets the impression as a visitor comes to the area. Hots! Circle has requested several variances from the existing Zoning standards. Along Katella Avenue the fCatella Hotel wants a 7-foot setback from the public right-ofway rather than 11 feet. Commissioner Henninger stated ft is probably more appropriate to talk about the changes they are asking from the proposed Resort Specific Pian Standards. He asked him to address that. 05.16.94 Page 25 G~ Mr. Moreland stated the standards he could address were those that were adopted as part of the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan for setbacks along Katella assuming that the CRA Specific Plan would be consistent. Along Katella Avenue behind the public right•of-way, (remember the public right-of-way historically is 12 feet and The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan enacted a 24•foot parkway) the parkway became wider than the actual setback and behind the parkway ft became less than what ft was previously. Therefore, with the 24•foot parkway there was an 11-foot setback required. This particular Specific Plan requested a 7-foot setback rather than the 11 feet. In terms of the landscape treatment that fs proposed along Katella Avenue, there is suppose to be an 8•foot parkway; an S•foot sidewalk; and another 8-foot parkway behind the sidewalk. There are proposed palm trees 24-foot on center on both sides of the sidewalk. In terms of this particular Specffic Plan, they are talking about meandering sidewalks; trees that are 50 feet on center and a different variety. All of this Is Important because this creates the consistency starting at the I-5 Freeway that will go all the way over to Walnut. The Idea behind the Specific Plan is to have a consistent appearance In the CRA. In addition, there Is some language in the Specific Pian that talks about zero setbacks on interior lot lines. It is very nebulous and ft appears that it is regardless to ownership, so you could potent(ally have a parking structure on a lot line that is adjacent to another person's property wfthout landscaping to shield the views. It is not clear. In terms of the signage changes, one of the condftfons that staff recommended changed what the applicant was asking for which was three (3) wall I.D. signs per building. The ordinance allowed 2. Another request Is currently you are required to have a 4 acre parcel to have a changeable message sign. They are asking to have changeable message signs in their Specific Plan and that does not meet the 4 acre requirement on the restaurants. The other issue is no public hearing for She Plan Review. Currently She Plans are required to come before the Planning Commission. In the case of the Disneyland Resort, the CR Overlay which covered properties which were not owned by Disney, are required to have a public hearing and the Disneyland Resort Hotels are also required to come before the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Apprava! of these variances sets a dangerous planning precedent for the CRA. He asked why should anyone in the future have to conform to these new standards? It is Important at this point in time that the Cfty sets those standards so that everyone knows they have to abide by them in the future. The next Issue he would Ilke to discuss is the Initial Environmental Study for Hotel Clrcie. Many of the Issues he was Just discussing about sewer and water, etc., ff there had been a proper environmental analysis, they would know what the demand this project creates on the existing infrastructure. For example, currently in the sewer system in Katella from Walnut Street to Ninth Street, there are deficiencies In this line. These deficiencies were not identified in the Initial Study or in the Negative Declaration. There was some discussion cn the existing storm drains, but the existing storm drain system handles a two year stony in the CRA. Portions of the Hotel Circle Sfte will increase drainage going into those lines. 05-16.94 Page 26 ~'"~ These flows off-she were not discussed In the Inftial Study or in the Negative Declaration. The impact of building an 88-foot high hotel tower adjacent to Motel 6 was not analyzed. There (s no shadow analysts in the Initial Study. The impact of building a 250 to 300 space parking structure wfth no identified height in this particular Specific Plan is proposed adjacent to the Marriott Reskfence Inn and it was not analyzed. The Hotel Circle's Specific Plan is being proposed on a former industrial park where hazardous materials may have been used. The Inftial Study does not address hazardous materials. The environmental analysis for this project has been done pisce meal and the Negative Declaration for Hotel Circle does not meet CECA requirements. The last point he would like to discuss is the density of this particular project. The Hotel Circle's SpecN(c Plan includes 1,103 rooms on 6.8 acres located in 5 hotel buildings. Two hotels have been constructed totalling 269 rooms. This leaves 834 new hotel rooms to be constructed. This project has a density of about 160 roans per acre which Is very dense-ft would be the most dense area in the entire CRA. As a comparison, the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan was approved at the following densfties: the hotel district wfthin the Disneyland Resort was approved at 54 rooms per acre. The CR Overlays in the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan were approved at 50 and 75 rooms per acre. As a comparison, the Anaheim Hilton is approximately 110 rooms per acre. Part of the reason the Hotel Circle is asking for setback variances is to achieve such a high densfty. When the City prepared the Disneyland Resort EIR, the staff gave the Traffic Engineer land use assumptions for the future land uses In the CRA of 50, 75, 100, and 125 rooms per acre. It does not seem consistent to allow 160 rooms per acre at the Hotel circle. In closing, he stated Disney believes that new development is the key to the revftalizatlon of the CRA, however, new development must conform to those standards that will make the CRA an aesthetically pleasing environment for tourists. It is Incumbent on all hotels to participate In creating the vision for a destination resort. They believe that the Hotel Circle's project should be referred back to staff for a full environmental review. Marion Harvey, Attorney for Latham and Watkins, representing the Walt Disney Company, 701 'B" Street, Sufte 2100, San Diego, CA 92101. She stated Disney supports the Cfty's efforts to revftalize and enhance the CRA, but believes the Hotal Circle project as proposed contains such serious deficiencies that ft cannot be approved as ft stands today. Addftionally, there has been inadequate environmental review which must be corrected by the City. They have submitted written comments which were prepared prior to the avallabilfty of the staff report. They have reviewed the staff report and believe that staff has done a good Job In responding to some of the deficiencies in both the project and some of the deficiencies in dealing wfth environmental issues. Nevertheless there are fatal flaws in these documents and these flaws cannot be corrected by tacking on new condftions of approvals and mftigation measures without the underlying analysis to determine what is required for the project. 05-16-94 Page 27 She expla(ned the deficiencies are many. The project has failed to comply wfth CEQA; there has been no public review and comment period on the proposed NegatNe Declaration as required by CEQA; an EIR is clearly required for the project and in fact ~ the Cfty determined that an EIR was required for the protect in 1990. They have also submftted addftional evidence supporting the requirement for an EIR. The applicant has and continues to piece meal this project, thereby, minimizing the environmental review which Is forbidden under CEQA. The Inftial Study as k stands, Ignores Important areas of environmental concern and Inadequately deals wfth those Issues that it does cover. As a result there is no basis to determine what mk(gatlon measures or c~ndftions of approval are required. In the absence of this Information, they believe ft would be an abuse of the Cky's discretion to approve this project, even ff the staff's recommendations are fully incorporated. Addftionaliy, the Specific Plan findings cannot be made for this protect. The Municipal Code requires specHic findings which include a finding of conformfty with the General Plan and a finding of compatibllfty of the proposed land uses wkh surrounding land uses. There is no basis to make those flndings based on the Information the Commission has today. Briefly on the CEQA defic(encies, there has been no opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed protect or the environmental study, and the lnftlal study offered by the applicant. Without the Input that could be gathered through such a public review process, the City does not have the input from the protect neighbors; public agencies that will have jurisdiction over the project; and there is a lack of information that the Commission needs to make an Informed decision on this protect. An EIR is clearly required. The Cfty ftself determined than an EIR was required for this project in 1990. They included the Notice of Preparation for the EIR in their packages. The following addresses a few of the reasons that the Cfty previously determined that an EIR was required: The Inftial study for that project back In 1990, stated that there could be significant environmental effects related to air qual'~ty; noise; dust; vibration; radiation; hazardous or toxic materials; variations from environmental standards and cumulative Impacts. What has really happened since 1990 until today? Really all that has happened is that a piece of this protect has been chopped off and moved over to what is curcenfly called the future expansion plans and described in the Specific Plan. Again and again the California Supreme Court and other Courts throughout the State have condemned the chopping up and segmentation of a project In order to avoid full environmental review of the effects of that project. The Courts have stated that the test that they must use is to consider the whole of the project. That is they must consider an accurate, stable and finite protect description and to consider the reasonably foreseeable consequences of future actions as well as the current proposal. 05-i6-94 Page 28 The piece mealing of this project has created special problems which go beyond even what the courts considered in these cases. CUP 3241 appears to be void and invalid on its face. When the CUP was last extended by the City in August of 1993, a new condition was added that the applicant would dedicate the ultimate right-of-way along Katella Avenue rn~ later than December 8, 1993. As far as they can determine that dedication has not been made. This is supported by the staff report which includes a new condtion of trpproval that would require that dedication as part of this project. Limfting the environmental review as the project applicant has proposed to 450 new hotel rooms; chops off 2/3 of the proposed project and deletes that from the Comm(ssion's consideration and review, although 384 of those units still must be constructed under the Specific Plan. The applicant seems to look towards the cumulat(ve Impact analysis and other documents that the City has prepared including the Disney EIR to satisfy its own CEOA requirements. While they support efforts to reduce paperwork under CEOA, there are numerous reasons why simply referring to those cumulative impact analysis cannot adequately cover the proposed project. First of all, there Is a requirement for public Input. Although certaln related projects were assumed, for example the Disneyland EIR Cumulative Impacts Analysis, that analysis assumed compliance wfth CEQA for those related projects, compliance with the General Plan, compliance with the Zoning Standards and the City's master plans for various infrastructure improvements. In their written submittal, they provided additional information and evidence as to what an EIR is required for this project. First of all ft detailed their quality analysis which is required for this project. The South Coast sets a standard of requiring such an analysis for any project over 213 units. Even at the most optimistic description by the applicant, this includes 450 units and the air quality a:~alysis is required. Based on the applicant's description of previous uses of the project, there clearly seems to be a potential for hazardous waste to be identified on the project site. There Is no evidence in the Inftral Study whether those have been considered. The lists that are provided by various public agencies have not been consulted. There are numerous assumptions regarding parking and traffic that are not supported by the applicant's Initial Study and which require additional environmental review to determine what mitigation measures and what Improvements will be necessary in order to make the CRA work in the future. These are some of the examples of the areas fn which additional environmental review is required. On the Planning and Zoning side, the City is required to make certaln Specfic Plan findings. The first one is the conformity of the project wfth the General Plan. There is a brief discussion In the proposed Specific Plan of the conformity of the project wfth the Specific Plan. That discussion omfts probably 70 relevant policies that are included in the City's General Plan today. They simply have not been addressed. The ones that have been addressed are addressed in the most cursory fashion. Therefore, there is no evidence for the City to adopt a finding of conformity of this project wfth the General Plan. Thero is a requirement that the City find that the project be compatible with the surrounding land uses. How can that determination be made when there has been no analysis of the compatibility of the project wfth the surrounding land uses? 1 :~ 05-16-94 Page 29 The applicant offered no such analysis in ks Inkial Study; k was already mentioned that there is no discussion of shade and shadow Impacts of the project on the surrounding land uses such as The Residence Inn or the Mote16. There is no discussion of any ~'~ other Impacts that would be relevant to land use compatibility question. Therefore, for all of these reasons and the information they have provided, they urge the Planning Commission to recognize that this project must be considered as a whole, I.e., the entire Speckic Plan for the 1,103 unks and that the Cky must consider under CEQA the future expansion plans that are clearly described in the Speckic Plan. If there was ever a case In which the future expansion and future actions associated wkh the project must be considered in the environmental review, k is for this project. They urge that the Cky substantially modffy to comply wkh the City's requirements, goals and programs to ensure the success of the revkalization of the CRA. They further urge the City to prepare adequate environmental review pursuant to CE~A based on the evldenre that k has before k on the potential Impacts and make an environmental review available for public review and comment. Stan Polowski (phonetically spelled), 1433 W. Jeanine St., Anaheim, CA. He stated in speaking as a resident for the past 42 years, he is delighted to see a hotel construction planned for the Disneyland area. He would like to see more construction and more businesses and jobs adding to the local economy. They need to update and rovkalize the CRA in order to keep Anaheim as one of the most safe and most progressive places in this State. If we begin to lower our standards and safeguards and allow this proposed Hotel Clrcie owner to get by wkh their new development, then the the Cky is bending their standards and taking a big step ,- backwards. Why should they as residents and businesses allow Hotel Circle to skirt the rules and make themselves the exception? If the Planning Commission allows this project to move forward then they are setting a dangerous precedent by exempting the owner from the Caikornia strict environmental review process plus they would be exposing the Cky to a lawsuk as well as showing a callous disregard for the public's interest when k comes to environmental Issues. If the Commission approves the Hotel Circle's Specific Plan, you are giving them a signkicant edge over every other hotel in Anaheim wkh much higher densky and little consideration for ks environmental Impact. The owners will be able to charge lower room rates then the other hotel owners who are playing by the rules. Why shouldn't Hotel Circle pay their fair share of costs connected wkh the development such as in traffic, storm drains and landscaping that are involved in this planned development? He did not think anyone else had received a free ride. They cannot see why the Hotel Clrcie should be an exception. If they receive these special and also privileged advantages, then the Commission should be prepared for every owner and developer to request the same rights. How do you refuse them when they come before you especially when they are setting dkferent rules and standards for Hotel Circle? Andrea Mattis (phonetically spelled), 400 N. West Street, Anaheim, CA. She is a resident for 36 years. The CRA is a pieced together area now. 05-16-94 Page 30 They are hoping for a more attractive Anaheim, a place where they want to raise their children. When they start introducing projects that do not have to adhere to this process, they are looking at reintroducing a hodge pot effect. The look and feel of ~~~ Anaheim should have a certain look. The Commission and City Council have committed themselves to how this City will be in the future. We should stick to our plans and that Involves an EIR and a Specff(c Plan and all of those things they have said will make Anaheim an attractive area. Bill O'Connell (phonetically spelled), partner in the Stovall Hotel chain In Anaheim. He has resided in Anaheim for the past 30 years and has recently moved to the City of Orange. A lot of people in this Industry have worked for several years with the City and wfth Disney to try to create something new and much better for the City of Anaheim. They would Tike for everyone to play by the same rules and he feels this project is not yet ready to come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Brondi, General Manager, Jolly Roger Hotel, 640 W. Katelia, Anaheim. She read a letter into the record and Indicated they had not been noti0ed or had a chance to read the staff report. She submitted the letter to the Commission. They requested that the subject petition be continued for at least 2 weeks in order to give the Jolly Roger Hotel and other property owners the opportunity to more closely review this proposal and fts effect not only on immediately surrounding properties, but property in the nearby vlc(nfty as well. Chairman Peraza asked for ciarBicatlon if everyone wthin 300 feet was notHied? Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated on a typical public hearing project, they notffy all property owners within 300 feet of the project site and in addition to that the project Is published in the newspaper and the sfte is posted. John Schultz, General Manager of the Anaheim Plaza Hotel, 1700 S. Harbor. He cannot say a lot about the development ftself, and he does agree with the development in Anaheim and he thinks ft is Important. He expressed his concerns about the condftlon of Anaheim, f.e., he has heard comments in his travels regarding the condftion of Harbor Blvd. and the CR Overlay Area; ft is run down; ft Is a hodge podge of signs and buildings. He stated ft is important that we all play by the same rules and that we move ahead to develop Anaheim and develop it in such a way that ft Is equal and fair to all. Kefth Murdoch, 516 Wedgewood Drive, Anaheim, CA. He expressed his concern regarding setbacks. There are a number of goad points and they are progressively innovative. He is very much concerned that the developer has overdone the treatment of the setbacks and the Increase in the density and some of the landscape features. The signs should be looked at very carefully to make sure we are not dropping the standards. Kathy Detin (phonetically spelled), Director of Sales and Marketing, Holiday Inn, Anaheim Center, 1221 S. Harbor Blvd. It was determined that a resort environment would need to be created fF ft was going to attract new business and retain their current client base. The purpose of creating the Zoning standards in the CRA was to create this necessary environment to compete as a world class destination. 05-16-94 Page 31 5 ~} i r ~~ if the first project being considered after setting these standards is significantly altering the standards and the concept for the CRA and the Anahelm Resort, they will find theirselves, after spending significant time and resources, In the same competitive ~ ~ position in just a few short years. She urged the Commission to adhere as closely as possible to the Zoning laws and condftions that are In effect as essential to creating the resort environment. Ned Snavely (phonetically spelled), General Manager, Anaheim Marciott, 700 W. Convention Way, Anaheim, CA. He echoed what was previously said already. None of them are opposed to growth. Katella Street is the main street and in the future the gateway to their resort destination. They need to follow the same rules, I.e, to require them to have an environmental impact study. Jonathan Giloff, General Manager, Residence Inn. He gave some background on the Residence Inn. He stated they will cast a shadow on his properly. He was not notified and he was within 300 feet. He Just got the message from the last speaker before he came to the hearing. He asked that they go slow and check this out. He hates to see another Motel 6 because of the crime. Ken Sammons, 709 Agate Street, resident for 20 years. He voiced his concerns that the property around Disneyland is a mess and the plan that the City has put forth is to upgrade that. He was concerned they were in a rush and that they would bypass same of the Important considerations that have been set forth already such as the environmental impact. He wanted to make sure that everyone follows the same rules. Larry Peckter (phonetically spelled), 1537 Laster Avenue, west of the Disneyland Hotel. He is a retired Anahelm homeowner and has INed in the area for 30 years and he was very concerned about the health and economic growth of the Anaheim properties. He expected to see the same type of effort being made to determine what negatNe Impacts they have and how those concerns could be adriressed. Leo Vasquez, resident manager of the Anaheim Hilton. He echoed what everyone else was saying. He felt they were moving too fast with this project and that they have not had an opportunity to express their concems. They are not pro or against it-they Just want an opportunity for their staff to review the project. REBUTTAL: Mr. Elfend stated there were many people here today that appeared for a lot of different reasons and some of their comments were of substance and he would respond to those. Some who spoke are necessarily familiar with their proposal and indicated such. The one IndNidual that was here that really contuses him is Disney. He gave some background regarding their participation in the Disney hearings. Additionally, this City spent a considerable amount of money In preparing numerous environmental documents for Disney. If you look at their cumulatNe analysis, a project that was much more intense then what they are proposing today, was included In Disney's EIR. They evaluated their project; they looked at the traffic; they looked at the land use; they looked at the circulation; sewers and now they are suggesting that our information is not sufficient when their documentation covered our project in total. He stated they changed the scope of the their project-they reduced K in size. They had some meetings with the Redevelopment Agency. There was a discussion in doing the type of master planning that the City was encouraging in order to revftal(ze some of the areas in the City and they looked into the kiea of working into a future expansion area. OS-16-94 Page 32 He stated their approach was to be much different than Disneys. They did not want to do what Disney did as they did not think ft was appropriate for them. 7o submft a plan to the City and to rezone property that they did not own. They did change that, because they do not want t~ do what Disney did. Mr. ivtoreland thought their protect needed to be in conformance with the new Zoning Code, etc. His inftial response is that he guessed ft did not apply to his project, but they attempting to work the constraints of the property in a similar manner that Disney told them they were going to work the constraints of their property. They had substantial variances including the parking structure. They are going to have next to their project, the largest parking structure in the world-12,000 cars. Then there will be a 5,000 car parking lot across the street from them. That has a pretty substantial Impact on their land use. He commends his client for wanting to build a project that Is going to be located next to the largest parking structure in the world. He referenced the gentleman from the Marriott Court Yard. Disney, in their EIR, did a shade shadow analysis. (He submitted a handout to the Commission). The document Indicates that the parking structure is going to substantially create a shade Impact on the Marriott. He asked that they keep in mind that the sun goes in an east/west direction. Their project is in a north/south direction as it relates to their project. Therefore, a substantial impact Is going to be created by that parking structure. They never mentioned any concern for that but they do for their project. He referenced Mr. Moreland's comments regarding landscaping treatment along Katella, he would defer to Staff's condftion which they have agreed to which is to, provide the layered setback along Katella. ~ With regards to Mr. Moreland's comments regarding signage, as indicated earlier in his presentation, they are going to comply wfth Staff's recommendation. With respect to Mr. Moreiand's comments regarding changeable message signs, they do have that, but h will require a CUP. He referenced the Final Sfte Plan Issue. Disney's Final She Plan will come back to the Planning Commission as a Report and Recommendation hem and not a public hearing. He referenced comments made by Mr. Moreland regarding the Intial Study and stated ff their Initial Study is not sufficient then Disney's EIR is Inadequate. As far as sewer and water and the other Infrastructure requirements, they Incorporated all of the City's studies that have been approved and adopted by the City Council. Regarding the hazardous material, he submftted for the record, the Environmental Sfte Assessment that was done. He stated ft was submitted to staff a few months ago and it was not Included in the expanded Inftial Study. He added there Is no hazardous material. Regarding densty. As a part of this project they are proposing to reduce the Katella Hotel project from 384 unfts to 250 units. In essence, ff this project is to be approved, ft will have less density then what would be permftted by right. He d1d not believe the comment regarding density was appropriate. He stated Marlon Harvey discussed the cumulative analysis. Regarding compatibility with the surrounding land uses, his project is deffnftely a compatible use. ~~~ 05-16-94 Page 33 As far as public review goes, tie would have to defer to staff in terms of their public review and notification process. He referenced the comment regarding the Notice of Preparation (NOP), that k was changed and therefore, not adequate and, therefore, and had to go through another process. He referenced the Air Quality Analysis and stated there is an extensive Air Oualfty Analysis provided in the Appendix as well as a traffic study by Wes Pringle. He was not sure about some of the other comments. It seemed to him that many of them were made wfthout knowledge of their plan. Stan Polowski made a comment about ti Heir project not paying their fair share of the cost. They are going to pay their fair share cost and he was not sure where that information originated from. There was a statement made by Ned Snavely regarding the impact of Katella. They have included as part of this project, a redesign of the Katella Hotel project which Is a 384 room all suftes hotel by reducing the densfty; the height is substantially less; ft is 250 versus 384 rooms wfth a free standing restaurant and he thought k was a very attractive Interface for Katella. He referenced a statement regarding the gang and crime problems. He hopes when this project moves forward that ft does help the problem by eliminating some of the attractive nuisance on the property. He referenced the comments regarding the economical viability and someone being concerned how this hotel would affect their hotel and perhaps they were building too many rooms. He stated his client feels their is a marketplace for this project or they would not proceed wkh k. i~ He stated, in conclusion there has been substantial and considerable environmental review that this City has participated in and paid for wkh respect to cumulative development. The need to do another EIR is a wasteful expenditure and is not necessary to the basic Intent of CEQA which Is to reduce papervvork and delay, especially because the person who is requesting ft had ft Included in their cumulative analysis and their environmental document. He stated they could build 5 hotels on this project, but he thought they were offering the City a much better proposal by Integrating those small hotels, f.e., the 10 separate parcels into 2 hotels which would be much more aesthetically pleasing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Chairman Petaza stated the Commission may have some speckic questions and ft looks like there may be a need for a continuance. A record should be kept of any questions asked and answered today so they may be put down in wrftten form for future reference. They may ask for written responses for any questions that cannot be answered . Commissioner Henninger asked about the setback along Katella and the landscape plan. He asked how does the staff recommendation relate to the proposed improvements envisioned in the CRA for the Katella right-of-way landscape setbacks? ,~. 05.16-94 Page 34 Linda Johnson, Planning Department, explained in connection wfth the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, there was a General Plan Amendment which Increased the right-of-way width, the ultimate right-of-way width for Katella and put forth a streetscape plan which T - would now include a 24-foot area which would be an 8-foot parkway next to the roadway; an 8-foot sidewalk; and then another f3-foot parkway. That would be the ultimate right-of- way. She further explained this project is abutting Katella so they would be required as a condftlon of approval to dedicate to that ultimate right-of-way and then install the parkway and the sidewalk in accordance wfth the City's plans. The documents, drewings end perspectives in the Specfic Plan show a meandering sidewalk, however, that is not the case and those were developed prior to the adoption of the General Pian Amendment. As a correction to the document, the ultimate right-of-way would not have meandering sidewalks. She stated in addition, when the Disneyland Resort document was adopted, the setback for the ultimate right-of-way was reduced to 11 feet, however, that was In recognftion that they were having addftional parkway area. There was a matrix in the Disneyland Resort document which showed that the overall difference was about 5 feet in terms of the overall landscape area and the setback area that was required with the CR Zone and then to the Disneyland Resort. They felt the 11 feet was appropriate. They have recommended, and ft is a condftlon of approval, that this project also have an 11-toot setback from the ultimate right-of-way. They have 21so recommended that the landscape within the setback area be a layered landscape concept and that would be similar to the standards in the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan document which shows those layering concepts as well as the actual tree densftles which is based upon the street frontage. This is what they are looking at also for the Anaheim Resort Specific Pian so that the entire length of Katella would have a consistent look. Commissioner Meese stated, for this Specific Plan there is a condition for an 11-foot setback, however, he has only seen 7 feet. Ms. Johnson explained the Zoning Code, as ft is wrftten, says 7 feet and that is in recognftion of the approved condftional use permit, however, staff is recommending adoption of the design alternative along Katella which shows an 11-foot setback. The condftlon of approval should actually be rewrftten to say 'adoption of the design alternative" and also changing the Zoning Code to say a m~~imum 11-foot setback. Commissioner Messe asked what about the distance between trees center to center on the landscape? Ms. Johnson explained all of the tree density information Is kJentifled In the Design Plan of the Disneyland Resort. If this protect is continued they could come back and show those specific pages and attach them to the staff report so k would be on record what they are looking for. Mr. Fick stated they would suggest that the condftlon also be clarified that the plant materials and density plant materials be consistent with the plan as well. 1~ 05-16-94 Page 35 Ms. Johnson stated in terms of the tree spacing, that went back to the previous plan of having meandering sidewalks and street trees, etc. They do have a plan wfthin the uitlmate right-of-way to have 25-foot spacing between the trees. Again, this projec4 would be required to Install the parkway in accordance with the City's adopted plans. Commissloner Messe stated one of the questions that Mr. Elfend did not answer was on the zero lot line. He asked what is meant by Intsrlor lot lines in this Specific Plan? Mr. Fick stated ft is his understanding that that circumstance would arise potentially on two occasions where the parking structures meet. He asked Mr. Hastings to expand on this. Mr. Hastings stated the only exception to that is where there would be a 5-foot setback rather than a 10-foot setback required for bulidings and Mr. Fick is correct, i.e., where you have two parking areas or two parking structures that meet and where there is a property Tine. Commissioner Messe stated then ft could be under someone ekes ownership and could be outside of the Specific Plan? Mr. Hastings stated that Is correct, either within or adjacent to. Commissloner Henninger asked ff they were planning on keeping the parcelization on that property or are they going to merge all of those properties? Mr. Hastings suggested they asked the project applicant as he was not certain. Commissioner Henninger stated they have a copy of the EIR That was handed out and on ~- page 4~ they show as a related project under Projects in Process, The Hotel Circle. It shows 1,349 units that were analyzed. He asked ff that was correct? Ms. Fank stated she would have to respond back to the Commission in wrfting. Commissioner Henninger stated he did not qufte understand the future expansion area. He asked ff that has been dropped out of this proposal? Is ft not going to be done or Is k Just not being examined now and how does it relate to this Issuo of doing the environmental analysis sooner rather than IateR Mr. Fick explained the area outs!de, as he referred to ft, is not part of this Specffic Plan request and would not be entftled as a function of this proposal. Commissioner Messe asked then there would be no entitlement even though there were illustrations of the future expansion area in the Specific Plan? Mr. Fick indicated that was correct. Commissloner Henninger stated the Specific Plan proposal as ft is curcently proposed is a draft that they are going to approve. He asked ff ft was anticipated that those graphics would be changed in the final SoecHic Plan ff the concept is they are eliminating that from the Specffic Plan? Mr. Fick explained the practice they have had on all Specifo Plans has been following the Commission and ultimately the Council hearings when the final decisions are reached on all of the items and that there are corcect copies that are prepared and submitted by the applicant at the app!~c;ant'c ,.cct tc the City. ~~ 05-16-94 Page 36 x Commissioner Messe stated then not only the `:~ustratlons but the verbiage relating to those future expansion areas would be eliminated? / Mr. Fick indicated that was corcect. Commissioner Henninger referenced page 8 of the staff report. He asked, these setbacks along Hester Street, Clementine and 2eyn, are those proposals relatNe to the existing structures on the sfte or are these regarding future structures on the she? Mr. Hastings stated he thought they were reflective of the existing structures, however, they would also be applied towards the new structures so they would have the same setbacks. Commissioner Henninger stated someone commented at the bottom of the page about the maximum structural height. The structural height Is wfthin the area height cone map and asked ff that was corcect? Mr. Fick indicated ft was. Commissioner Henninger asked about the densfty. They have 162 unfts per acre and the number that seems to be In the Disney report seems higher than that or perhaps there were more acres. It sounded like there was some history of agreement that this was not part of the G!; SpecHic Plan area and there has been a number of fairly long history of proposals. How do those relate tf:e densfty proposal today? Mr. Fick stated they may want to bring some information back since there were a variety of reproaches on the densfty Issue looking at ft on the basis of existing parcels that have an entitlement of 75 unfts as an Pxample, regardless R they are an acre or not. He added this hem is very complex and h would be best to respond back to the Commission. Commissioner Messe referenced page 9 of the staff report and asked to hear from the Traffic Department regarding compact stails and why a design consideration should be involved. Mr. Lower explained the City standard parking bay dimension width is 8-1 /2 feet by 18 feet in length. The Hotel Circle's Specffic Plan proposes to provide the 8-1 /2 foot width which is the most crftical part of the dimension. Where design constraints exist, up to 25% of the stalls could then be reduced from 18 feet in length to 16 feet in length. Commissioner Messe asked ff they were in agreement wfth that? Mr. Lower stated they are in agreement because the 16 feet length encourages vehicles which are less than 16 feet in length (which are of the majority) to pull fully into the parking bay. Commissioner Henninger stated they had a discussion earlier about the sign standards. He asked ff ft was true that they basically believe they are y.~ing to Ilve up to the new sign requirements that are coming for the CRA? Mr. Fick stated there is a condition that actually requires the signage fl the signs are not constructed prior to the adoption of the revised standards by the fifty. If sign permits are not pulled I;does require the signs to be in conformance wfth the new standards. ~~ OS-16-94 Page 37 ,; ;,; ~" MW,~ Commissioner Henninger stated this is a Specific Plan and k does not really relate to their existing zoning. It is a way for a land owner to come and propose unique zoning standards for their property. He asked ff that was corcect? Mr. Fick indicated that was correct. In effect this would set up a zoning district for this particular area. Commissioner Henninger stated then for instance they could put in unique signing standards. If they knew them today they could put in the future signing standards that they believe are going to be in the CRA, or they could have a paragraph or condftion that simply says the signing standards will be as adopted by the future CR standards. Commissioner Messe stated for Instance at the time building permits are pulled. Commissioner Henninger stated wfth the response that was given to him there was a IIttIe opening that maybe they could get their signs permitted and would not be in conformance wfth the future, but we do not really have to leave that opening. Mr. Fick stated one possibilfty is that they could meet wfth the project applicant and again we are taiking about standards that have yet to be totally developed and certainly yet to be approved by the Planning Commission and Cfty Council. They could review those wfth the applicant. He added Commissioner Henninger is correct, I.e., whatever the guidelines are on those standards, those could be Incorporated in terms of dimensions, as an example, Into this project. Commissioner Messe stated one thing that really bothers him (s on She Plans and how they get approved. It shows Mr. Fick would be the source of approval. It does have a 10 day appeal. Mr. Fick stated staff is open on that matter. It is really a function of the Planning Commission's comfort and the level of detail on the plans in this project or any other project in this sftuatlon. Commissioner Messe stated there is not enough detail that they have been presented wfth that would make him comfortable. Commissioner Henninger agreed. Chairman Peraza asked ff they could comment on studies that have been d~.ie on hazardous waste? Ms. Fank explained each of the parcels involved have had a sftF• assessment done and the soil has been analyzed and there has been no hazardous waste found in the soil according to the studies. Therc is also a mftigatlon measure that during construction ff there is any asbestos or any other hazardous materials present, ft will be handled in a matter according to State law. Commissioner Messe stated they spoke at another hearing about a private street that is 36 feet wide. Here we are talking about a private street that is in the mkldle of the hotel district that Is 24 feet wide wfth parking on both sides. He asked ff he was comfortable with that width? Mr. Lower stated he did not believe there was parking on the private street. .~ 05-1G-94 Page 38 ~! Commissioner Messe stated from what he has read there is parking permitted on both sides of the street. Mr. Lower stated he understands there is parking on a private street, but this really Is going to be serving as a driveway that !s restricted to right-turns in and right-turns out onto Katella and Clementine. Commissloner Messe asked ff that could be changed in the Specific Plan? It is noted by the Secretary that nothing further was stated, however Commissioner Messe indicated "o.k." Commissioner Henninger referenced the parking structure. He asked how tall did they think the parking structure was going to be? Mr. Hastings stated he believed ft was governed by the height for the actual hotel structures. He added that may be something they could get back to them on. Commissioner Henninger asked if it could be up to ti8 feet tall and Mr. Hastings indicated that would be possible. Commissioner Henninger stated he did not think there were any standards regarding the design of the parking structure in terms of how pretty ft might be and he wondered fl that was something they should think about, i.e., controlling the design of the parking structure so that ft has a good appearance. Mr. Fick stated the applicant Just indicated that the parking structure Is Intended to be about a 3 to 4 story structure. He thought the point that the Commission was raising is that ft would be desirable to have more deflnftive standards or guidelines for the design and height of that facility. Commissloner Henninger asked iF that was something they could work on and bring hack to them? Mr. Fick indicated they would do that. Commissionor Henninger stated he wanted to ask some yaneral questions about some things thoy heard testimony about regarding storm drains and the capacity of the sewer. There vas also some discussion on the water system. He asked if all of those Issues ware actually covered in some way by reference by Including the mftigation measure for the Disney EIR? Mr. Fick explained there are two generic Issues: the condftion of approval and the Mtigation Monitoring Program. He explained the environmental documentation for this project relies upon the Disney Resort Spocftic Plan EIR and also upon the Mitigation Measures that are contained wfthin that document. Hence the catchall recommendations that ail of the terns in fair share participation that are addressed In the monitoring plan has to be borne by this protect. He stated ft certainly Is the spirit and Intention of the conditions and the Mtigation Monftoring Plan that is contained in this package that the project would pay fts fair share for both the areawide items and project specific hems as they might pertain to this project. He added ft is clearly the intention of those specfic condtlons and mftigation comments. Commissioner Henninger asked if the same could be said for the Air ~uaifty Analysis? 05-16.94 Page 39 Ms. Fank stated that was corcect and the cumulative was taken care of in Disney for the areawide, but there was a she specific Alr Oualfty Analysis done. She added ft Is one of the appendices in the back. Commissioner Henninger asked fn the Mftlgated Negative Declaration and Ms. Fank indicated that was corcect. Commissloner Henninger asked what Mftigation Measures are proposed for site specific air quality? Ms. Fank stated they will particlpate In the TMA; there is a list during construction where the roads are watered down; trucks are covered as they leave the she loaded wfth dirt. She added there Is a standard Ilst. Commissioner Henninger asked then the main one for after the project is complete, is to participate in the TMA? Ms. Fank stated that fs the only one she could recall. Commissioner Henninger addressed Ms. Mann and stated there was a comment regarding the public notice period on the Negative Declaration. He asked ff these things have been available for 21 days? Ms. Mann stated k is her understanding that they have been available and they would anticipate that they would have a written response for him on those Issues. Commissioner Messe asked about vacation ownership which was not discussed much today. He addressed Mr. Fick and stated our standard is one thing and they are asking for a certain number of rooms. Wili they all be in one hotel? Will they be scattered throughouC! Will they be able to add them whenever they want? Mr. Fick stated vacation ownership units as proposed in the concept here would have to be contained entirely within a hotel or potentially two hotels ff the number of unts were small enough. He added they would have to first notify the City prior to their intention to do that. Commissioner Messe asked ff the City felt there was enough control, i.e., knowing where they are and how they are being booked? Mr. Fick indicated that was correct and stated they have had some discussions in terms of the parameters of the notfffcatlon, i.e., being put on notice to first know where those unts are proposed to be converted. Bill Sell could answer questions about the Issue of Transft Occupancy Tax (TOT). Commissloner Taft asked on CUP 3241, the approved Kateila Avenue Hotel which is 384 rooms-the attorney for Disney stated that was a dead CUP. He was under the assumption that that was approved a few years ago and was entftied. He asked ff he could have some background on that? Mr. Fick stated the hotel or CUP was originally approved and has experienced some eMensions by the Cfty Council. The point that was raised is that one of the condftlons related to the last extension did require an offer of dedication to be offered or made to the City. Public Works have had some discussions. 05-16.94 Page 40 ~r Hls feeling was perhaps there was some written correspondence at the time wfthln that time period, however, there is an opened endad question still as to whether there was compliance wfth that condftion. It was his understanding that the formal offer of ~` dedication for the full dght-of-way was not made during that 120 day period, but has since been made. Commissioner Taft asked H there has been any notice given to the applicant that the CUP has lapsed or expired from the Cfty? Ms. Meeks stated they have not ghren the property owner any such notice and as a matter of fact they are in the process of preparing the actual deeds. They have not indicated that they are unwilling to make this dedication. It was probably more the fault of the Cfty for not sending thorn the appropriate documents wfthin the 120 days to execute and make the dedication. Commissioner Henninger stated ft seems to him that a lot of the comments he had were perhaps the result of some miscommunicatlon or misunderstanding about what was actually being proposed. He thought that a continuance would be useful to get a revised staff report that shows the design alternative of what is being proposed and allow people to digest that. Commissioner Messe stated one other thing that Mr. Elfend brought up was the archeologist and paleontologist person having to be present. He asked staff to take a look at that to see if that was really a requirement. Ms. Meeks clarffied that the requirement and the way the mftigation measure Is written is that the archeologist and paleontologist be present at the meetings to establish procedures and policies ff anything is discovered during the grading operations. It is not required for the archeologist or paleontologist to be on-sfte during all of the grading. Chairman Peraza stated there were also some condftions that needed some clarHicatfon and asked ff there was a list? Mr. Fick stated they did take notes as all of the hems came up. They will be happy to respond to those kerns when they come back. Commissioner Messe stated it would behoove staff and the City Attorney's Office and the applicant for their next meeting to have some written responses for the Commission. Certainly the question of the applicabilfty and legalfty and adequacy of the Inft!al Study and of the Specifc Plan should be addressed. Commissioner Caldwell stated in addition to that, on pages 8, 9 and 10, where they have Development Standards, then the existing CR Zone and then the Hotel Circle's Specific Plan, could they add a fourth column and show how the condftlons affect all the Issues on these 3 pages? Commissioner Henninger stated there was a comment asking which of the specfi{c mftlgation measures were going to apply to this protect. Ms. Fank asked for ciarfficatlon H he meant the areawlde ones? Commissioner Henninger asked if ft was all of the areawlde ones? Maybe they should somehow Indicate that on the mftlgation plan by asterisks or something of that sort. 05-16.94 Page 41 ~"' `°1 Mr. Lower stated he would like to clarify something on an earner discu~slon regarding Hotel Circle, I.e., the private driveway. He explained his first understarxling was correct. Wfth(n the 24-foot there will be no parking. If parking is to be provided k would be ~` adjacent to that 24-foot. Commissioner Messe stated some of the language in the SpecHlc Plan has to be corrected. Mr. Lower indicated they would do that. Bill Sell, Treasury Manager, followed up on the vacat(on ownership. He explained the Finance people have taken another look at it and having looked at some of recent things going on throughout some of the other cities, there is a real corcem that the TOT loss as a part of vacation ownership needs to be better analyzed because there is potential for signHfcant loss to the City General Fund revenues. Chairr.,an Peraza asked Mr. Solis to have that analyzed and to report back to the Commission in written form. Mr. Solis stated they could try to provide some better Information. Mr. Fick stated there are some additional things that the applicant would need to prepare, analyze and submit including, as an example, shade impacts from some of the structures. He stated a minimum of 4 weeks is needed to prepare documentation and then actually review and prepare a report on those items. Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commission Messe and MOTION CARRIED that subject petit(on be continued to June 13, 1994. Ms. Mann requested that the public hearing be reopened. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED. ACTION: Continued subject request to the J;:ra 13, 1994, Planning Commission meeting In order for staff to prepare a revised staff report based on further Input from the petitioner, that contains the Katella Hotel design alternative and the revised conditions/mitigation measures discussed at the public hearing. In addition, the petitioner was given another opportunity to justify the CEQA Inftlal study and the proposed development c~tandards. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) 05-16-94 Page 42 t°^ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. VARIANCE NO 4250 OWNER: EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, 511 E. John Carpenter Fwy., Irving, Texas 75062 AGENT: THE ELI HOME, INC., 140 S. Imperial Hwy., Anaheim, CA 92804; JEFFREY FARANO, 2100 S. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92606 LOCATION: 100 S. Canvon Crest Drive. Property Is approximately 0.22 acre located on the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Canyon Crest. Waiver of maximum structures height within the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone to convert an existing barn to a habitable single-family residential structure. Withdrawn VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Accepted request to wRhdraw application for Variance No. 4250. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) 05-16.94 ,~ Page 43 C 6a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved sb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3680 Granted for 1 year OWNER: EMC MORTGAGE CORP., Attn: Sheri Wlison, 511 E. John Carpenter Fwy., Irving, TX 75062 AGENT: THE ELI HOME, INC., 140 S. Imperial Hwy., Anaheim, CA 92804; JEFFREY FARANO, 2100 S. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 100 S. Canvon Crest Drive. Property is approximately 0.22 acres located at the southeast comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Canyon Crest Drive. To permit a group home for abused women and their children. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC9456 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNIPia COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED C'FFICIAL MINUTES. DIALOGUE FOR THIS ITEM TO BE DISTRIBUTED SEPARATELY. IN FAVOR: 4 people spoke OPPOSITION: 25 people spoke/correspondence was received/a petftion was submitted ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration j Granted Conditional Use Permit for 1 year from the date of occupancy wfth the following changes to conditions: Modified Condition Nos. 1, 3 and 5, to road as follows: 1. That subject permit shall expire one (1) year from the date of occupancy. ~ 3. That the occupancy of said residence shall be limfted to a maximum of seven (7) adults, fourteen (14) children up to age twelve (12) and one live-in manager. 5. That the residents (other than the resident manager) shali not use their cars or store them on subject property while residing at subject facilfty. Deleted Condtion No. 9 Added the foliowing condftions: That group transportation shall be provided for the residents of subject facility. That security for the facility shall be provided, iF deemed necessary by the Anaheim Police Department. That the children at the facility shall not be involved in outside play activfties after 7:30 o.m. `/ 05-16.94 Page 44 3 5 n `~,, That there shall be no visitations to residents other than by counselors and operators of ~. the facility. That the children staying at subject facility shall be supervised at all times, whether Indoors ar outdoors. That the "bird's nest" on the roof and the patio cover on the north side of the structure, as depicted on plans submitted by the petitioner at the public hearing shall not be permitted. That grading of subject property shall conform to Chapter 17.06 "Grading, Excavations, and Fills In Hillside Area` of the Anaheim Municipal Code. That the existing structure shall comply with the minimum standanis of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the Cfty of Anaheim. VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) ~~, 05-16-94 tom, Page 45 Iftmttlioli~i~r+td. .. ._ ; ....... r-. i 7a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Previously Approved) Approved 7b. rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3606 (Readvertised) Approved amendment to OWNER: LEDERER ANAHEIM LTD., 1990 Westwood 81vd., 3rd. condition of approval Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: JOHN SCHROEDER, 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property Is approximately 14.74 acres located north and east of the northeast comer of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Blvd. Amendment or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to the time IlmRation of an existing restaurant with on-premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with an indoor swapmeet facility. CONDITIONAL t1SE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94-57 FOLLOWING IS A SUMII~ARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: It is noted by the Secretary that the applicant for this item had to leave. Chairman Peraza read into the record a note from the applicant stating he had read the staff report and is in full agreement with the condftlons of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING VVAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager,, made one minor corcectlon, that the expiration date should be June 14, 1995. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved subject request, amended Condition No. 11 of Resolt.~tion No. PC93-70 to read as follows: '11. That this candftionai use pemalt shall expire on June 14, 1995. VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Boydstun voted no and Commission Mayer was absent) 05-16.94 Page 46 ~../ t \ ,~ 8a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REd IRU EMENT Approved, in part Bc. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3878 Granted, in part OWNER: ELLWIN E. ASHWILL AND ALICE BENAE ASHWILL, 333 City Blvd. West #2150, Orange, CA 92668 AGENT: JOANNA BARNES, 333 City Blvd. West, #2150, Orange, CA 92668 LOCATION: 1010 N. Grove Street. Property is approximately 1.14 acres located on the east side of Grove Street approximately 895 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. To permit a boat sales, repalr and manufacturing facility wkh retail sales of parts and accessories with waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94-58 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. ~.. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Sam Boller, 1010 N. Grove Street, Anaheim, CA. Commissioner Henninger asked H he agreed with the staff report and condftlons of approval? Mr. Boller stated they are requesting that. the Planning Commission approve the Planning Department's recommendation with somo provisos. They approved no. 1, but would need to add with boat sales and repair. They do not do high volumes of boat sales. They sell about 100-150 boats per year. Along with that they will sell bumpers, skis, etc., that are not in conjunction wfth boat sales. He clarified he was speaking of kem no. 20 subparagraph no. 1 under Recommendation. Insert'wfth boat sales and repalr facilkies.' Chairman Peraza stated that is considered incidental sales. Commissioner Henninger asked for clarification. F. understands they manufacture boats on this site and those are the boats they sell and they are a.:aast partially manufactured on the site. Mr. Boller explained they are basically an assembly compsmy. They buy their motors from Mercury and basically build the hull. Commissioner Henninger asked if they have a parts outlet? 05-16-94 Page 47 .-~ Mr. Beller explained they have a parts department. They sell replacement parts and water skis, ~ bumpers, tie downs and things t~~ stock the boat that is leaving. Commissioner Henninger asked for clarification H that was accessory to the boat sales? Mr. Beller indicated that was correct, i.e., not accessory to the repair. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated the request is for boat repair which requiros a CUP; the boat sales is what is manufactured on the property, I.e., manufactured and assembled, and the retail sales of parts and accessories is all covered under the CUP. The manufacturing Is covered by right, as well as the warehousing, as long as all of this occurs indoors. Mr. Belier stated they also requested that they be able to put up 2 or 3 boats on stands as they have freeway frontage. They do not have any boat storage, nor do they Intend to store boats there. Staff has recommended denial. He referenced hem no. 20, subparagtpah 2. Commissioner Messe asked H there was an underpass at his property Ilne and how high would he have to place the boats? Mr. Belier stated in the Pomona facilh they had some boats on stet: stands that were in the showroom and they had 2 stands for that. They would like to be able to wheel them out by the road. They did pay a premium to be by the freeway. They are talking about E or 3 boats. They are not talking about stacking boats pr having a high volume of boats. Commissioner Henninger asked ff there was a place on the she where they can be displayed whhout putting them in a parking place? Mr. Beller indicated out in the yard against the fence. Commissioner Henninger stated the yard is his required parking. Mr. Beller stated the yard, and also there is a frontal area. He explained they do not have a high volume of people coming in and out. They had 4 spaces at their Pomona facility and never had a parking problem. Commissioner Henninger stated they have a parking study that says you Hoed 37 spaces (he later corrected himself and said 47). Mr. Beller stated hem no. 3 is a waiver of that. Commissioner Henninger explained that is a waiver from 63 required to 47 spaces. Mr. Beller stated he can expand the facility they have. They have c:.: stomer parking spaces In the front and behind the gates they store boats. If need be people can park Inside of there. Commissioner Henninger asked how many employees did he have? Mr. Beller stated thoy have 17 employees. He explained h varies anywhere from 15 to 20 and could go up as high as 25 during the peak season. Commissioner Henninger asked what if h fumed out that he needed 47 parking spaces? 05-16-94 Paga 4ti L. .. . .-. Mr. Beller stated that is according to Planning. He personally did not think they needed that many. Commissioner Messe stated that is acconding to the parking study. Planning says you need 63 spaces. Mr. Beller stated the fact that they were going to a shC:~room created a higher densfty of parking space requirements and, therefore, they were asking for a waiver d:.wn to a manufacturing level of number of parking spaces required under the Code. He refterated they do not Head that many spaces. Alfred Yalda,l'raffic Engineering, explained the study was based on the amount of office use and tha areas that manufacturing is going to take place. Their recommendation was based on what the applicant said, i.e., that he is going to have 47 parking spaces on the she. It is not exactly why? his needs are, because he indicated that they may have anywhere from 15 to 25 employees. Their recommendation is based on what the applicant provided to them. Commissioner Henninger asked who was going to use the other spaces? Mr. Yaida stated ft is unlikely that all of those spaces will be used. Since the applicant was willing to prov(de those spaces, they Just recommended that. Con,:nissioner Boydstun stated she could see whey he wanted the outdoor display. She statd they could put a Ilmft on ft and put a couple of boats out there as she did not see anything wrong wfth ft. Commissioner Messe suggested a Ilmft of 2 or 3 boats. Mr. Beller stated 2 or 3 would ba fine. He stated they were talking about the stands against the freeway. Commissioner Henninger asked ff the 2 existing stands that hold one boat each were moveable? He added they have no securfty on the sfte. He asked ff they take them In every night? Mr. Beller stated they are stored behind the gates. He e~cplained in the yard they will have boats. They cannot storo all of the boats inside. They will have customers that will he dropping off boats that are put inside the yard. He asked ff this was addressing only the Issue of the tilt up ones? Mr. Hastings asked for clarification. First of all where the boats will be. Secondly, Code requires that any outdoor storage be screened from view. This was not advertised. There is no provision in the Coda that allows outdoor boat sales. The one on LaPaima was grandfathered in previous to this being an Industrial area. Tile Code specfffcally does not allow outdoor boat lots for display. Chairman Peraza asked for clarification ff people bring in boats does he have to screen them? Mr. Hastings stated the Code wotiid allow an outdoor storage yard as an accessory use to an Indoor building, however, that would have to be totally screened from ~rlew according to the Code requirements. Also they would want to know where that is going to be to see how ft impacts the parking tot as it is not shown on the plans. 05-16.94 Page 49 ~~ ,-, Commissioner Messe stated this weekend they were in the fenced off area. ~` Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement, stated their records go back to 1981. Their extensNe records indicate that 2 previous boat manufacturers have occupied the same site. On both occasions they have always had the same problems, I.e., excessNe numbers of employees parking; no place to park; boats, equl;:ment, materials, trailers, etc. in the parking areas as well as In the public street; employee vehicles double parking on the street because there is no parking or they are parking in the landscaped areas destroying all landscaping and vegetation at the end of the street adjacent to the freeway. There is a lot of activity in regards to boat acftNfty businesses that has created a lot of problems for the Code Enforcement Divisions. Commissioner Henninger asked wkh those problems how many employees did they have, I.e., is k a matter that they covered their parking with their boat building activity and there was not on-site parking or did they have a lot more than 20 employees? Mr. Freeman explained that previous photogrphs and documentation indicate that their parking lot was occupied by boats and trailers and materials to manufacture boats. Some further background was given on previous occupants of this facility. Mr. Freeman stated on May 11, 1994, they had an inspection and took photographs at this facility with this operator. Boats were parked in the parkig lot and on the street, in the driveway and the parking facility and In the front as well. Commissioner Henninger asked how many boats do they typically have in their facDityt Mr. Beller stated they are making reference to a previous boat manufacturer that did 400.600 boats a year. They do 100-150 boats per year. Commissioner Henninger asked typically how many boats do they have on-site at any one time? Mr. Beller stated they are doing about a 4 production per week. They may have 2 to 4 boats coming in to do 20 to 100 hour services. The customsr will drop the boat off in the street or in the yard and it has to be pulled Inside. Commissioner Henninger asked ff :itey manufacture the hulls? PAr. Beller indicated they do manufacture the hulls. It is ail hand laminated. They do have r*.sds. Some further dic~usslon took place regarding this Issue. Mr. Beller stated they have bays inside and repairs are to be done inside. They only want to do minor services not major repairs. Commissioner Henninger stated they have plenty of room inside. Commissioner Messe asked about the lean-to. Mr. Beller stated they do waxing and buffing In a covered area. Commissioner Messe stated then they are doing outside work? 05-16-94 Page 50 Mr. Beller explained they prep the molds. The molds have to be waxed and then they are taken ~ Into a spray booth. Commissioner Boydstun made a statement, however, k was not audible on the tape. Mr. Hastings explained the Code says everything needs to be Indoors wffh the exception of a screened from view accessory storage area. It is noted by the Secretary that Commissioner's Boydstun's mic is off. Mr. Hastings stated it would still be display ff they are going according to Code. Commissioner Caldwell asked ff the applicant understood that nothing in the yard should be seen from the public right-of-way? Mr. Beller stated that makes h dffflcult. Commissioner Caldwell stated he could store things out there as long as :t is screened from view. Mr. Beller stated they do have a storeroom inside. At any one time a customer is going to pick up his boat and want to take a look at h. Commissioner Henninger stated a boat on a trailer is like a car. He asked ff the Code would look at it that way? Mr. Hastings stated they would look at ft that way, i.e., ff k is in the process of someone bringing h in or taking it out. ~~ Commissioner Caldwell indicated there is a dffference In storing a boat on a trailer. Mr. Beller clarified they do not take in customer's boats for storage. Commissioner Caldwell clarffied that the boats would be brought in, worked on and then back out again. Mr. Hastings pointed out that the Code dons not allow any flags or banners or balloons for advert(sing purposes in an Industrial zone. Commissioner Henninger asked ff he had any further questions on the conditions? Mr. Beller stated they are going to have boats outdoors and are they considered display? He would have a problem with no bats In the yard. Mr. Hastings stated they better establish the number of parking spaces that the Commission wants to see because over the years they will have problems in Interpreting what they are doing here. THfi PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 05-16-94 ~ Page 51 ~ r DISCUSSION: Commissioner Henninger asked staff how many parking spaces are currently behind the fence? Mr. Freeman stated he believed there were 44 spaces behind the fence. Mr. Hastings stated for the record the plan does not show a fence. Commissioner Messe clarified there was a chain link fence there. Commissioner Henninger addressed the applicant and asked ff he always had room inside the building to maintain the boats he is manufacturing? Mr. Belier indicated that was true. Commissioner Henninger asked ff h was true that the only boats he had outside in the parking lot are customer boats that are being either picked up or dropped off on a trailer? Mr. Belier indicated that is true, I.e., they could be finished boats where they are still on the dolly and are wafting for a trailer or wafting for the customer to do their signings; there could be a used boat where they traded in a L•oat that would be behind the yard. They also have the finished boats in the showroom that pretty much stay there unless they go out to the lake for tests. Most of the production boats are wfthin the facility and at that stage the customer wants to pick them up. He further clarified they are a seasonal business. Their season starts from March through July or August. At the end of the season there is not a high production or high demand so the yard gets cleaned up and there is not as much activfty. Commissioner Henninger stated ff no more than 10 of the parking spaces could be incumbered by that sort of storage, could he live with that? Mr. Belier stated inside the gated facility would be tough. Commissioner Henninger stated what he has told them is that they will have up to 25 employees and ft seemed to him that they would need 10 spaces for customers. He suggested 15 spaces that he could encumber wfth that sort of storage. Mr. Belier stated currently behind the yard are the molds that they store; parking does not seem to be a problem; they currently have 17 employees; in the very front spaces there is adequate facilities for employee parking. Commissioner Caldwell asked ff 15 spaces would be enough room to store everything in the rear yard? Commissioner Henninger stated the other way to go would be to Iimft the number of employees. The reason they are asking for them to leave that many available for employees is because he has told them they might have 25 employees. He asked what about limiting the number of employees to 20? He explained the basic idea is that they are suppose to provide on•sfte parking for their needs. 05-16.94 Page 52 ~..~ Mr. Geller stated all he could do was to organize the facility as best as he can to accommodate the size he has. He cannot say he could always save 20 spaces for the employees. There will betimes in peak June and ff he cannot do that, would he get ctted? Commissioner Henninger explained he would get ctted for that. This Is the problem they have had wfth boat uses. They get into these Jams and all of sudden their whole she is covered with boats and then they tell their employees to park where they can. Commissioner Henninger stated everytime someone has a consistent problem they get a visit from Code Enforcement and they end up back at the Planning Commission. The basic concept is they are suppose to provide parking on-sfte. Mr. Beller stated they will try to live wfth whatever provisions are set forth. They were given the Impression by the Planning Department that this would not be a problem. Commissioner Henninger stated in Industrial places, there are very few that allow outdoor storage. He asked ff he preferced a condftion that states a maximum of 20 employees and that 20 of the spaces can be encumbered by storage? Mr. Beller stated the previous operator had full manufacturing and they had a 40 space requirement. Since they added the showroom the parking requirement Increased. Commissioner Henninger explained he has 47 spaces on the sfte; they are talking about 20 employees and that leaves 27 spaces; they could encumber 20 of those leaving 7 customer spaces. That seems consistent wfth what he has been asking for. Commissioner Messe stated he may need to squeeze more Into his facility. Commissioner Henninger suggested they add a condftion that says that what is aprpoprlate is 27 spaces; there will be a maximum of 20 employees. He further suggested that they also add a condition that all outside storage will be screened from public view. Mr. Beller stated they currently have a fence in the front that meets Federal screen requirements. Commission. ~nning3r asked ff he had chain link on 3 sides? Mr. Beller indicated that was correct. Commissioner Henninger stated this would Include inserting vinyl or redwood slats. They are not talking about a big expense in terms of screening. Commissioner Tatt stated rather than Ilmtting the number of employees, Iimtt the number of employee vehicles, so ff they did go above the 20, they could request carpooling. That would give him some flexibility ff they do get up to the 25 number. Mr. Beller stated the goal of the committee seems to be an organized yard. The goal is so tt is not disrupting the traffic flow. 05-16.94 ~; Page 53 ~` (~ Commissloner Henninger stated In general that is corcect, that the basic concept is that you ~- ought to have enough parking on-sffe for your employees and customers. Chairman Peraza stated another condffion Is no parking of boats or trailers in the public right-of-way. Mr. Beller stated customers will drop off thelr boats and typically will set them in the street or put them in the 2 bays. Commissioner Henninger suggested they say no storage of boats in the public right-of-way. Commissoner Henninger suggested that they add another condition that they will pay for Code Enforcement inspections. Commissioner Messe asked ff they addressed the question of the display? Commissloner Henninger stated he thought they had decided not to go with the display. Mr. Hastings explained in other areas of town where there has been a prohlbfflon of outdoor uses, the use itself would be waNed and ff is considered a land use variance. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, explained where there is an expressed prohibition of a use, you really cannot waive that. Commissloner Henninger asked Ms. Mann then he cannot even ask them to do outdoor display because ff Is specifically prohibffed7 ~~ Ms. Mann stated their office ordinarily takes the position that ff there is an actual prohibftion on use in the Code, you cannot get a waNer on that. Commissioner Henninger asked ff there was such a prohibftion for outdoor display fn this zone? Ms. Mann deferced to Mr. Hastings. Mr. Hastings stated there is not a prohibftion section. The Code states that all uses shall be Indoors unless specifically Indicated in the Code that they are allowed to be outdoors. There is no provision in this zone that allows for outdoor display . ~ any vechicles as there are In other zones because h Is the Canyon Industrial area. The only :.me you will see that is the Omega Boats where ff was grandfathered in before the ordinance. Mr. Hastings further explained that the Redevelopment Agency is looking at a Specific Plan in this area that will allow this in areas out there. This is not one of them. They Indicated this would be part of an office area eventually on this side of the street, I.e., on the east side of Grove going over to Tustin Avenue. .5~1ti^4 P.~e :~ ('~ ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement, in part, a minimum of 27 parking spaces shall be provided. Granted Conditional Use Permft, in part Added the following conditions of approval: That a minimum of twenty seven (27) parking spaces shall be provided on-site (20 for employees and 7 for customers/vendors). That there shall be a maximum of twenty (20) employees due to the limited number of avaliable parking spaces. That all outdoor storage shall be completely screened from public view from any public street or adJacent property. The storage area shall occupy the paved parking area only, provided a minimum of twenty seven (27) usable parking spaces shall remain. That the storage of boats and trailers in the public right of way shall be prohibked. That the applicant shall pay the cost of any future Code Enforcement inspections which may be needed to address and resolve violations. That 19,300 square feet shall be provkled forwarehouse/boat repair uses and 3,500 square feet shall be provided for showroom use. That no flags, banners or balloons shall be used for advertising purposes. \_, VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) 05-16-94 Page 55 ~ __ ___i 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 No Action 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3677 Granted OWNER: WEST ANP.HEIM COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND WAMED MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP, ATTN: David Culbertson, Executive D(rector, 3033 W. Orange Ave., Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: EDWARD H. ENDO, 3916 Sepulveda, #208, Culver Cky, CA 90230 LOCATION: 3033 West Orange Avenue (West Anaheim Medical Center). Property is approximately 11.2 acres located at the northwest comer of Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard. To permk an approximate 390-square foot addftion to an existing hospftai for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) use. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC9459 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: The applicant did not give his name tar the record. He agrees wkh the staff report and the condkions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, read the changes to the condftlons into the record as noted below. ACTION: Granted Condftional Use Pernik No. 3677 Modified Condkion Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to read as follows: 1. That prior to the Issuance of a building eR rmk by the State or wfthin 90 days from the date of aooroval of this project, whichever occurs first, the applicable traffic signal assessment fee shall be paid to the Cfty of Anaheim in an amount established by Cfty Council Resolution. Action Continued on next page. 05-16-94 ~ Page 56 %"1 2. That prior to the issuance of a bulldina perrnft by the State or wfthin 90_davs from the date of aporoval of this project, whichever occurs first, the developer shall pay a traffic and transportation Improvement fee to the City of Anaheim, Traffic Engineering Division, in an amount established by ne City Council Ordinance/Resolution. This fee will be used to fund traffic and transportation Improvements within this area impacted by this project. Said fee shall be subject to adjustment by the City Council. 3. That wfthln a period of 30 days of occupancy of the new facility, the owner of subject property shall submft a letter requesting termination of Condftlonal Use Permft No. 3591 to the Zoning DNision. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) ~', ,_ _ c~1, 05-16-94 Page 57 ! 1' jE ~ r. n 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved tOb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N*J. 3681 Granted OWNER: HAROLD G. PETERS, 3990 East Miraloma Ave., Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 3990 E. Miraloma Avenue. Property is approximately 0.51 acres located at the southwest comer of Miraioma Avenue and Van Buren Street. To permit a medical b111ing office within an existing industrial buliding. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC9460 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIOiJ. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Dr. Harold Peters. He agrees with the recommendations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. __ DISCUSSION: None. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Condftional Use Permft No. 3681 VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) ~~. OS-16-94 Page 58 f~ (^ iia. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 11 b. RECLASSIFICATION N0.93.9412 Granted, uncondkionally OWNER: LARS T. JENSEN, 15579 Ashgrove Drive, La Mirada, CA 90638 LOCATION: 131-135 West Elm Street. Property is approximately 0.11 acre located on the north side of Eim Street approximately 120 feet east of the centerline of Lemon Street. Reclasskication from the ML (Industrial, Limked) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) or a less intense zone to retain an existing duplex. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC9461 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Applicant not present. ~~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: "!one. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted ReclassNication No. 93.94-12, uncondkionally VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) 05-16-94 ~, Page 59 a ~ r.. i~ 12a. c:EOA NEGATIVE DECLARATIQN 12b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 12c. rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3679 Approved Approved, in part Granted, in part OWNER: ORANGE COUNTY ASSOCIATION FOR BUDDHIST PRACTICES, INC., 1501 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: DR. RUH-MING LI, 3636 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 0~~0 LOCATION: 1501 West Katella Avenue. Property is approximately 0.98 acre located northwest comer of Katella Avenue and Ninth Street. To permit a 2-story, 6,136 square foot dormftory In conjunction wfth an existing Buddhist temple with waiver of (a) minimum number of parking spaces and (b) minimum setback of instftutfonal uses adjacent to a residential zone boundary. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC9462 FOLLOWING !S A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: Larry Lazar, 3636 Berg Street, Suite 290, Newport Beach. He has read through the report and the one crftical Issue he has Is the setback. The home behind the setback Is also owned by the Buddhist Temple. It has always been their Intent to provide as much landscaping as they can on Katella Avenue. It is the major public right-of-way and the main view corridor. Currently, under the proposed plan, they are providing 21 feet of landscaped area. The Code requires 10 feet. They are somewhat encumbered by apre-existing condition in that the existing Buddhist Temple has a 42-foot setback from Katella and their existing classroom and administrative office building has a 21-foot setback along Katella. If you look at the rear property line, there is approximately 88 feet of lineal feet on the north property Ilne. About 40 feet of ft where the proposed building is adjacent to the resident, maintains a 42-foot setback and exceeds tie City's Code requirement it provides an area for landscaped material; and ft exceeds the City setback requirement based upon the 2-1 horizontal plane. The only area they are deflclent is where the parking area abuts the residence. He has read the staff report and has discussed ft wfth staff. He stated there is an opportwifty to reconfigure the parking area, but by doing that they will lose some of the landscaped material along Katella BYvd. They have provided 16 parking spaces according to the staff report and there are 15 required. 05-16-94 Page 60 ~' ~~.~_u'.~'.u.:.u'.:w:r,an:.:CL16':,... '.::Li.ufu~1P•ailu.-.~ _:u._'.,.~......~....:.:.1...u..,.. ._~ ~.~..:-.a~wr~..~.-._a ..t . ....'._~......~.~ ._.. ~: .. _ -_~'tiVC~t~~_ ~_- - He further explained they could eliminate one parking space and move 2 of those spaces closer to Katella. That would provide 12 or 13 feet of landscaping along Katella rather than the 21 feet. They do not believe there is going to be an Impact on the temple owned property adjacent to the north. It is a very passive use. The portion of the proposed project where there is activfty, which is the actual structure, maintains the 42-foot setback. As far as the parking lot abutting it, that parking lot for the most part will not bpi used. The dormatory will be for high school aged students coming from Tiwan for anywhere between 3 and 6 months to study Buddhism and American culture. There are a couple of temple owned vans for day outings. He added ft is not going to be heavily use. Commissioner Messe asked ff ft would be used During services as ft was certainly needed? Mr. Laraz stated theta ~s a possibilfty that ft would be. Approximately 100 people show up on Sundays. Commissioner Messe stated there were a lot more this past Sunday. Dr. Li, 3636 Birch, Newport Beach, CA. He explained this past Sunday happened to be the first day of the Buddha. Mr. Lazar explained this is a relatNely small Buddhist temple. It is not as large as some of the ones in Southern Calffornla. Commissioner Caldwell stated they have always been good neighbors. However, ft is s rasldertial use and they do have a Code that says to set it back. !t does not matter whc owns K. ~ The ownership can change. If there Is a way to provide the setback and still do the expansion, that is what they would all want to see. Mr. Lazar gave some farther specifics regarding a security gate along Kateila and 2 of the parking spaces would be outside of the security gate. They could be used for guest parking and ft would work. They can eliminate one of the parking spaces. They had designed this project assuming 1.5 parking spaces per room. When they read the staff sport ft was actually 1.25 parking spaces per room. They do have the flexibility of that one space. Comrissioner Henninger stated he guessed he would provide the security gate in Ilne wfth the front building setback? Mr. Lazar indicated that was corcect. ~~ Commissioner Henninger stated then ft would make sense to have a couple of parking spaces in front in case someone needs to drop by. Mr. Lazar explained ft is not qufte as efficient for vehicle stacking, but ff people do drop by in the evenings when the security gate is closed, there would be a place to park there. Commissioner Henninger concurred. i 05-16-94 Page 61 Mr. Lazar stated the only other option was when they assumed 1.5 par!cing spaces per room, that car., ~ to 18 parking spaces. They worked with Mr. Yaida and with Cheryl Flores in the Planning Department and they did recommenc a waiver of 2 spaces which would bring h from 1 ~~` down to i6. Since they do have the flexibility of eliminating one space which puts them at 15, ff they wanted to maintain that 21 feet of landscaping along Katella, which would be consistent wffh what the existing temple structure and classroom has, and ff the Commis~lon is comforatable going from 15 spaces to 13 which (s still a waiver of 2, they could provide the 13 spaces. They could provide approximately 20 feet of landscaping along the north property Ifne and still have that full 21 feet along Katella Avenue. It is looking for the waiver of the same 2 parking spaces and providing additlr,:~al landscaping along Katelia. Commissioner Caldwell asked Mr. Yaida to common;. Mr. Yaida stated there should not be any problem, however, the only concern he has Is with the gate. If they put the gate there, they recommend that they provide a tum•around area so ff the gate Is closed they do not back up Into any public street. Commissioner Henninger asked ff the 2 parking spaces would provide that? Mr. Yaida explained ff both of the parking spaces are occupied and someone turns in, there is no way for them to turn around. They might provide one of the parking spaces for a turnaround area. Mr. Lazar stated the gate along Kateila would be set back 21 feet. He explained that is vehicle stacking for one car, but they would have to back out onto Katella. It was determined that the gate closed around 6:OOp.m. Mr. Yaida explained usually ff the gato is open during the business hours and there is no one coming, then there should not be any problem. Commissioner Henninger suggested they put in the 2 parking spaces in front of the gate in the 21-foot setback. It was determined they needed to leave 15 spaces open. Commissioner Caldwell clarified that in Waiver B, the wording "north and" should be deleted. Mr. Hastings explained the waiver would only apply to the east property line and not to the north. 05-16.94 Page 62 ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved WaNer of Code Raquirement, in part Approved WaNer (a) for 15 open spaces Approved Waiver (b) for the east property line only Granted Condftional Use Permft No. 3679, in part Modified Condftion No. 9 to read as follows: 9. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the Ch; of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 6; provided, however, that a 15-foot wide landscape area shall be provided adjacent to the north property Ilne v.''ch would displace three (3) proposed parking spaces. Two of those three spaces shall be provided outside of the gated parking area towards Katella Avenue. VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) ~- ~, `~~. t~ t 13. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3065 -REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Terminated Grace C. Blanchard, C/0 David Sheegog, 735 S. Ruby, Anaheim, CA 92807, requests termination of CondRional Use Pernik No. 3065 (to permft a day care center fur 318 children with waiver of minimum building setback). ' :RMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC9463 B. PLANNING COMMISSION INI'.'!ATED REQUEST TO DISCUSS Continued to INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE June 1, 1994 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1301 SOUTH EMPIRE STREET Continued from the March 21, and April 4, 1994 Planning Commission meetings. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:45 P.M. TO THE WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1994, PLANNING ~.. COMMISSION MORNING SESSION AT 10:00 A.M. ,. ~y 05-16.94 ~ Page 64