The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1994/06/13ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 13, 1994 11:00 A.M. - PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW (NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY ACCEPTED) 1 ••30 P•M• - PUBLIC HEARINGS BEGIN (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, PERAZA, MESSE, TAIT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: MAYER PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. The proponents In applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request if, in the opinion of the Commission, I 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 additional 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. 3. Staff P.eports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission In each hearing. Copies 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 If, In its opinion, the ~ ends of falmess to ail concerned will be served. ~ 6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be available for public Inspections. 7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on hems of Interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, acid/or agenda items. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. AC061394.WP 6-13-94 Page 1 ~.,,J 1~ CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ^ ib. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 93-9409 Withdrawn 1c. WAIVER OF CODE REOUIP.EMENT 1d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3651 OWNER: KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, Attn: Kevin Becker, 393 East Walnut Street, Pasadena, CA 91188 LOCATION:I 441 Norlh Lakeview Ave. (Kaiser Permanents Medical Center) Parcel A: Subject property is a rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 9.45 acres, located at the northwest corner of Riverdale Avenue and Lakeview Avenue, having approximate frontages of 628 feet on the north side of Riverdale Avenue and 710 feet on the west side of Lakeview Avenue, and further described as 441 North Lakeview Avenue (Kaiser Permanents Medical Center). P ra cel B: Subject property is an Irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximateiy 3.56 acres, having a frontage of approximately 310 feet on the east side of Lakeview Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximateiy 576 feet, and located approximately 435 feet north of the centerline of Riverdale Avenue, and further described as 460 North Lakeview Avenue (Kaiser Permanents Parking Area). RFCIIISSIFICATION -PARCEL A_ Petitioner requests reclassfflcatlon of the western and southern portion of subject property (Parcel A) from the RS-A-43,000(SC) (Residential, Agriculture; Scenic Corridor Oveday) Zone and the CO(SC) (Commercial Office; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the CL(SC) (Commercial, Limited; Scenic Corridor Oveday) Zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PARCEL A & B: To permit a 588,245-square foot expansion to an existing 289,794-square foot medical center (including a 387,000-square foot parking structure, 165,000-square foot addition to the existing hospital, a 20,700•square foot central plant building, and a 8,200-square foot communication building) with roof mounted equipment with waivers of required interior setback for institutional uses adjacent to residential zone boundaries, required parking lot landscaping, permitted number and type of monument signs, permitted number of wall signs, maximum structural height, required setback from an arterial highway, and required landscaped screening adjacent to an arterial highway. Continued from the meeting of April 4, 1994. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. 6-13-94 Page 2 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO ~ BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Accepted petftioner's request for h•Rhdrawal of subject request. VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) .-, i 6-13-94 Page 3 ~• 2a. CEOA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. SPECIFIC PLAN NO 93-01 fIN(:LUDING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. DESIGN GUIDELINES AND A PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN) OWNER: B.U. PATEL, TUSHAR PATEL, MAYUR B. PATEL, fcATELLA PARTNERSHIP, HASTER 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 17°4 S. Clementine Street. 1730 1733. 1743 and 1755 S Zevn Street 1753 and 1745 S Anaheim Boulevard and 201 W I(atelia Avenue. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 93-01: Request for consideration and adoption of a Specfic Plan for the proposed Hotel Circle Specific Plan which includes 450 rooms with accessory land uses (which 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 1,12: roams. Incorporated within the Specific Plan is a Public Facilities Plan which consists of maps and text setting forth the proposed infrastructure and public facilities. SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Request for adoption of zoning and development standards and design guidelines to set forth standards, procedures and guideiines for the development of hotels and other related uses within the Specffic 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 Boulevard, and 254 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue. Approved Recommended approval to City Council with changes to conditions of approval Continued from the May 16, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLUTION NO. PC9476 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition THE PI:BLIC HEARING WAS LEFT OPEN FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD ON MAY 16, 1994. (Continued on next page). 6-13-94 Page 4 PETITIONER'S COMMENTS: ~ Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1290, Newport Beach, CA. He stated he would like to make some brief comments and explain exactly what has transpired since their last Planning Commission meeting and discuss it in the context of 4 specific areas. The first area are changes made to the Specfffc Plan that have been made in conjunction with their meetings and discussions with staff; secondly, they would like to briefly discuss the CEQA Issue; thirdly, they would like to comment on the staff report because they think there is some information in there that needs some clarification; and fourth, they would like to talk about the Mitigation Monitoring report that has substantially Increased. He stated during the last few weeks, they have basically made eight major modifications to their Specific Plan, all which in the final analysis, have an Impact in the bottom line in proforma of this project. He stated they have agreed to the Katella Redesign which has been proposed by staff as a CEQA Mitigation 'Measure whereby the revised Deveiopment Standards which are now included in the package, reflects the alternative development proposal of less density. He stated they have deleted the density transfer provision of the Specific Plan based on staff's request; they have clarffied and Increased the setback aiong Haster Street or Anaheim Blvd.; they have agreed to delete the future expansion area, exhibits and discussion from the documentation; they have further defined with staff, the vacation ownership provision of the project; as requested by Commissioner Henninger, they have provided standards far aesthetics and landscaping for the parking structure; they have Increased setback and landscaping along Zeyn Street for that area that is directly visible from Katella; and they have agreed, although ft Is not provided currently In any Code, to a layered landscapln~ for the project along Its Interface areas of Katella and Clementine and Haster/Anaheim Blvd. He stated, therefore, all of those changes have occurred. Many of those were discussed publicly, some after meeting with the staff and their discussions with them. He added they felt these additional modifications would further enhance the plan and the project. Secondly, they provided the Cfry wfth a Response to Comments which were primarily provided by the Disney Company. Also, their client has retained special CEQA counsel, Mr. Bill Ross of Ross and Scott. He noted he was present at today's hearing. They retained Mr. Scott at substantial cost to their client based on the statements made in the Latham and Watkins letters. He stated they went back and took a look at the Disneyland Resort EIR. He submitted copies for the Commission's review. He explained that is just a part of the cumulative analysis that was prepared by Disney. He stated if they look at the cumulative analysis, tables and exhibits, they would find out that their project was clearfy evaluated as it related to area wide infrastructure and other related CEQA matters. 6-13-94 Page 5 He stated of interest, there is a letter they had sent to the Ciry. He was sure they probably ~"°~ recalled that they participated in the process and were told publicly by Disney and by the City In the context of responding to comments that they made at that time, that that evaluation was included in Disney's EIR for this project. He stated this is an Important piece of information because as we know, Disney is suggesting that we start over again In the environmental process and evaluate this project because there has not been adequate study or the Mitigated Declaration is not complete. Clearly the information in that document and the letters they have sent to the City suggests otherwise. He submitted a letter for the public record. He stated in May of 1991, they spoke with the Planning Department (this was when the City was initiating their CR Area Resort Specific Plan) and ff they look at the last two pages, he highlighted the area of their understanding and there was communication back to them from the City at that time from Mary McCloskey. When the City went through this process of coming up with the Resort Area Specific Plan or CR Area Specffic Plan, they wrote the City and Bald our client has cooperated with the City; they participated in and were provided with assurances from the City vls•a-vis the new Zoning Code that when they adopted the new Zoning Code, they adopted wording which allowed the assemblage of parcels as presently proposed. They basically have participated in all of the studies and provided Input. As a result of that, they were told by staff and the City Council, that this project would be exempted from the CR process-from the CR Area Specific Plan, mainly because, again, ff was their intent to work with the City, assemble these parcels and do a separate Master Plan and Specific Plan as provided for in the new Zoning Code. He added, this is something he would like for them to consider In the t• context of his comments to follow. He referenced page 8, under the Specffic Plan Zoning and Development Standards, Section II, second paragraph, item no. 16, of the staff report, second sentence. He read the sentence Into the record. He stated their development standards for the project are their own Zoning Code and they would comply with those as set forth. He stated understand that ff they would have some proposal which was outside of that use which was anticipated, they then would comply with whatever standards were in place. He referenced page 10 of the staff report, the column dealing with density. He stated when he reads letters from the Disney Company which discussed density, he has the Impression that they are completely aware of what their proposal entails. One of the columns Indicates that Hotel Circle as submitted, including the existing uses and approved uses, is 1103 rooms. As a result of their discussions with staff and concurrence, they have agreed to a modified project Including 969 rooms which of course does not have the corresponding density. He stated there is one other number which he thought was relevant since there could be one other column, and that would be permitted under the existing CR Code, their existing approvals and that which is built. He stated ff you include 375 rooms which are currently permitted, 364 which is provided visa-vis the Katella Hotel CUP, 130 for the Crystal Suites which is existing and 139 for Peacock Suites, that comes out to 1,028 rooms. 6.13.94 ~ Page 6 The point is tha plan which they are submitting and asking the Planning Commission and ~. City Council to approve, is less than what they wcuid bu8d ff they developed the property by right and had the CUP extended as h has been for the fast several years. He added it is a substantial mitigation in that context. He referenced page 15. He stated there are 3 issues That they feel are unresolved. He would like to communicate their position to the Planning Commission for their consideration. The first one has to do with the process for approval of the She Plans. He stated this is a very unique project. He explained 8 is unique to the extent that they are proposing to create an Integrated proposal; reduce density over that which is currently permitted and somehow provide the type of proposal that will aesthetically be more pleasing. He further explained in exchange for that Specific Plan they are asking for some consideration from the City on several areas. He explained this is an Important one to their client and that is right now he would be able to go directly for, and obtain a building permit without any addklonal potential discretionary review by the Planning Commission and ultimately by the Ciry Council. He stated he understands how the Planning Commission feels about that and he knows in the past when there are special circumstances they have at least consklered h and it has been considered in the past. He added he makes this comment Just as a piece of information. He stated en June 21, 1993, when the Ciry Council considered Disney's proposal, they raised the question regarding their ability to be able to at least have some public information about how the largest parking structure in the wodd would be viewed from the ~- hovels that would be built-forget the ones that were proposed, but the ones that were already existing. They asked the Ciry Council and Tom Wood answered the question whether or not they would be able to see the final parking structure elevation that would be submitted and ultimately built. He stated in doing so, the Planning Commission approved, and the Ciry Council approved, a provision whereby that parking structure did not have to come back to this body or any body for additional review once they approved ft. He would like for them to at least consider some type of similar situation for their client, and given what they have seen to date, would prefer not to go through a similar circumstance once again. He stated the second comment has to do with compact parking spaces. He stated they had a meeting with Joel Fick and John Lower and they do not have any objection to the wording since it was his understanding from that meeting that there was a discussion of these design constraints and, therefore, the staff would look favorably upon their recommendation or request. He stated the thins hem is the wall signage on Clementine. He stated although the first item was one that was brought up by the Planning Commission, these are changes that have occurred since their last Planning Commission meeting. He stated the third one deals with an additional sign that they would like to have on Clementine and there were two reasons for that request. He stated one of reason is if they have driven the area, they think the addftlonal sign is warranted. Secondly, when they take the proposed use across the street to a monorail or some kind of people mover system, they feel having that sign makes sense as well. 6-13-94 ~ Page 7 He stated previously k was permitted by right and subsequently there is addkional wording !'~ regarding a hardship. Onb of the questions that he asked to the Planning Department was H this proposal is approved, and H their client desires to construct this project, they are one of the few builders that have actually built anything and Inkiated their proposal. He read an article in the Los Angeles Times on June 10, 1994, that indicated that Disney was at least a year away from even announcing they were going to do the prefect. He further stated ff Disney's protect is not built, but were to come in before that time, from the standpoint of their client at least, they may not be able to demonstrate that hardship because the Disney Company may have decided not to move forward wkh their project. They would like the permission, by right, as k was previously proposed, to be able to have that third sign wkhout having to demonstrate that right under the circumstances. He referenced page 18 of the staff report, under Section V, Environmental Analysts, hem no. 27, where staff recommends the Initial Study contain the following modifications. They have agreed to delete the future expansion area. He stated the second thing has to do with deleting any discussions of the Impacts of the Disney Rosort SpecHic Plan on their project. It is the City's document and ff they want us to delete k, they will delete k. However, they are concerned about that. They have made their comments and have stated publicly to the City Council, and they will do so to the OCTA, that they believe k should be in there, but k is the City's Mitigated Negative Declaration and ff they want k to be deleted they will do so, but they think it fs relevant. He referenced page 19. He stated one of the tasks that was requested by the Planning Commission at their Iasi meeting to staff, was to go back and look at the Mkigatlon Monitoring Program that was provided for Disney's project and decide which Mitigation Measures were applicable. He clarified he was referring to the third paragraph. He believes staff has done that because the size of the Mitigation Monitoring has more than doubled in terms of what they are required to do. He further stated since that has been Included, they are not comfortable with a statement neither in this section nor in the Mtigation Monitoring report which Is preserved indicating that there may be more than what is provided in the Mitigation Monitoring report. The Intent of having that revision (he believed tt was Commissioner Henninger who asked far it) was so that they understood exactly what Mitigation Measures those would be and they would not be faced wkh having to ascertain which ones would be applied to them. He referred the Commission to the Conditions of Approval. He stated k the Commission were to check the minutes, some of the comments that they are going to make are Issues which they believe were resolved since staff concurred with their statements at the time. Ha referenced Condkion No. 2. They had indicated that those underground utilities would be on-ske as opposed to ones that were off-site. Staff had concurred that Greg Hastings had indicated that fn fact was the Intent of that condition, yet in the revised wording k is not ~ provided as such. Commissioner Messe stated k says "that all new development in the Specific Plan Area." ,i Mr. Elfend stated that will be Tine and as long as k is clarftled for the record. i i , 6-13.94 ~ Page 8 He referenced page no. 24, Condition No. ?_0 regarding on-site landscaping. He read the condftion into the record. First of all, staff has not included in this package, their concept for layered landscaping and that Is what Disney has proposed. The Commission is well aware there are some existing uses which either have no landscaping or have landscaping already and these are going to Integrate somewhere in between the two. H(s client agreed to provide layered landscaping as they have been told they need to in ilia staff report in the attached information. They would prefer that this refer to that as opposed to the Commercial Recreational Area, (Anaheim Resort Specific Pian) which he has indicated to him. He added he can submft the letter the City sent back to them K the Commission so desires that they would be exempted. He referenced page no. 26, Condition No. 40 regarding the installation of a 20 Inch water main. This condftlon was discussed previously and there seems to be a difference of understanding as to exactly what that conditlon should provide for. It was their understanding that them would be some type of development permitted on thla project wthout the need to extend the 20" water main at some phasa basis and subsequent to that provision of so many rooms, and that there would be the provision of a fee to be paid in conjunction wfth the other Improvement and this would all be provided in a study that would be prepared. He stated that fs what he thought they had last time after they had public comment on it from staff. It is what he thought they had ir, the fnter(m period which would provide for some phasing and study thereto. He referenced Condition No. 58, page 28 of the staff report regarding fair share payment for all services and infrastructure. He stated this again is what ho refers to as a wrap around condition. He read the conditlon Into the record. He stated as long as they refer that to the attached Mft(gation Monitoring report, they would not object, however, they Just ~~ want to know what to do. He referenced condition No. 63, page 29 of the staff report which states: That prior to placement of an ordinance rezoning subject property on an agenda for City Council consideration, Condition No. 54, above mentioned shall be complied with. He stated condftion No. 54 is the foe for the Mitigation Monitoring plan. He stated he did not think their client would be comfortable paying a fee for this project until it was approve;. He added he thought there could be a provision for paying the iae for the Mitigation Monitoring process, but not before ft is placed on the agenda. He asked that it be deleted. He referred to the Mitigation Montoring Plan. He stated this project involves 450 rooms and more than one hotel. It is a project that has several hotels. To the extent that this project Is burdened to pay for Improvements, which are required in conjunction wfth someone elses project, they have some concerns. They are not opposed to paying fair share, when that fair share Is something that their project creates or has some nexus as opposed to something that was created for a project which is many, many times the size of Tarsadia's proposal. He stated as he mentioned earlier and as a concern they have, some of these provisions and Mitigation Measures, which were taken directly from Disney's approved Mitigation Monitoring Program, are required purely because of Disney's project. And, if Disney's proposal/project is not commenced until sometime in the future, as indicated by Mr. Moreland's comments (s sometime at the end of next year, he wants to know how this particular proposal can move forward and pay any fee without any program in place? 6-13.94 ~; Page 9 ;~ He stated surely his client, for 450 rooms, is not going to put together for the City, a ~, program based upon that size of development as k simply is not reasonable. Therefore, - they would like to get some clarffication on that. i~ He referenced page 1 of the Mtigatlon Montoring Plan, Mitigation Measure No. 1. He i asked that this be deleted. He referenced page 4 of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. He stated some of these comments have to do with what is presently provided vie-a-vie the Code. Some are new Mtigatlon Measures that are being provided as a result of what the City has asked Disney to do which Is for a much different project than this. He referenced the second Mitigation Measure, page 4 regarding the installation of water lines for reclaimed water for landscape irrigation and other purposes. He read the Mitigation Measure Into the record. He stated there are several condftions that have been added and why would his client object to them. He stated ff you take every single request and you add them up on a piece of paper, then that is when they begin to add up and become a new tax on business. He stated obviously, his client would prefer not to have to Install two lines. He stated this Is also true of an 8-foot high perimeter under "Noise," the second comment. He stated he stood ~~p before the Planning Commission and City Council and discussed construction Impacts from the largest parking structure in the world. They asked, during the night time when people are sleeping In the hotel rooms, there would be some way to reduce the noise and the pouring of the concrete. He stated it does not matter ff you have an 8-foot barrier or not. He stated they were told there was really no Impact of noise or any construction and that ft was all covered by the Code. This is another item, which individually Is not significant, but cumulatively it is in terms of adding cost to this proJcct. He referenced page 7 of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, the first Measure. He stated In discussions of this project with the Flre Department, he was not aware this project had this type of Impact in any way, shape or form. He stated to make this project participate in a fair share for fire protection, which w(II be provided for the Disney Project, they find that to be somewhat onerous. They asked that ft be deleted. He referenced page 9 of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan under "Water." He stated even the most onerous condition that they applied on this project previously, did not refer to this project being mandated with improvements that would be on Harbor Blvd. He stated here again, this would refer back to their earlier statement and that Is allowing this project to move forward on some phase basis ff there is going to be an area wide need and that area wide need should be provided in some subsequent assessment which this project will participate to the extent that ft Is applicable. He stated when there is an Improvement that has to be made and they are attempting ~~i bring in another land owner that will pay for that, that Is a different consideration. He referenced page 10 of the Mtigation Monitoring Plan under `Water," the third Mitigation Measure regarding the need to have dual piping if and when ft ever happens. 6-13-ft4 Page 10 ~t He referenced the fourth measure, page 10, regarding the timing, i.e., "continuing on an ~ ongoing basis during project operation.' He stated ff they have been out to this particular E project, there are two existing hotels that are built. tie did not think their client would € object to providing Information to the Ciry, but when you talk about continuing h on an ~ ongoing basis during project operation, when and ff his client wanted to sell those properties, he was not exactly sure how they would communicate to a potential buyer that they have to provide this continuing information about the use of sprinkler heads, self closing valves on drinking fountains or low flow shower heads in hotels. He stated some of this they could definffely provide, but on an on-going basis each year, he think it is extremely cumbersome on business. He referenced page 11, the first Mtigatlon Measure under "Water." He read the last portion of the measure Into the record regarding undergrounding all utilities In the Anaheim Resort. ~ He stated since they took them directly out of the Disney Resort EIR, he assumes this is ~ Just a typo. Commissioner Messe stated that must be a typo because the Ciry Is undergrounding the entire City. He asked 'rf anyone was from Utilities? ~ Ms. McCloskey stated the Anaheim Resort means the entire Anaheim Resort Area and those lines which are going to be undergrounded per the City's undergrounding program, the existing program, that Is what they are talk(ng about except the on•site lines that would normally be undergroundnd per normal construction. Commissioner Messe stated their City undergrounding policy is extensive throughout the Ciry and has nothing to do wffh the Anaheim Resort. I Ms. McCloskey indicated that was correct. Commissioner Messe stated this Mitigation Measure should Indicate that. Mr. Elfend referenced page 15, the final Mitigation Measure regarding recycling of certain materials. He stated they do not have any problem doing that, It is just a monitoring and an administratNe process of how they report that to the Ciry during this on-going period. He referenced page 22, under Visual Resources and Aesthetics, the socond Mitigation Measure regarding participating in a landscape assessment and maintenance district. He read the measure into the record. He referred back to his earlier comments. He assumed that it the City adopts an area wide program, that they would Include all properties and at that time they would participate. However, this Specific Plan is suppose to be exempted from any assessment district fees, land use, and density relating to the Anaheim Resort Specffir, plan. He referenced pages 22 and ..^.3 under "Cultural Resources," Mitigation Measures 1 and 2. He stated the other two comments they have refers to the need for a an archaeologist and paleontologist on the site ff the Ciry deems that is necessary. He stated this is a fairly standard Mitigation Measure, however, it is cumbersome and is a cost that will be Incurred in addition to additional exactions which are associated with this protect. 6-13-84 Page 11 i Commissioner Messe stated he thought they covered that the last time and they Bald that ~ the archaeologist must be present only at the pregrading conference. r Mr. Elfend agreed. He referenced page 24, the first Mff(gation Measure under Transportation" regarding paying a traffic and transportation Improvement fee to the Ciry of Anaheim. He read the last part of the condition into the record. He stated he could not Imagine accepting a condulon that is that vague. Furthermore, when the Ciry adopted a transportation Improvement fee, it was his understanding that the fee would address the need for other than site specific. Traffic fees would relate to development within the Ciry and as such they could not agree to participate in all applicable reirnbursement or benefit districts. They would be waving ~ their right without even knowing what they are. It is a wrap around condtion that is onerous at a minimum. He referenced page 24, second Mtigatlon Measure under Transportation" that they will participate in a clean fuel shuttle program. He stated that is another condition which again IndNidually doos not seem slgnfficant, but cumulatively ff they are added up on one page there are substantial new fees that are being created while it seems to him that the Ciry Is attempting to encourage the redevelopment of property in that area. He referenced page 25 under Transportation," the first Mitigation Measure. He stated there Is a provision for TDM (transportation Demand Management program). He stated they understand the threshold requirement for AOMD is 213 rooms. The information was provided to him today where you have to have this type of TDM program. He exp!ain~d on an Individuel basis, neither of these hotels are going to fit that criteria where you would have to Institute this type of program. There again, it Is a burden. He read into the record under Timing': and, ongoing during project operation. He stated you are going to have someone that is going to operate a hundred room hotel that is going to be faced wffh these types of requirements that they really would not be faced with ff it was not for the fact that they were trying to integrate this into a master plan as opposed to developing the properties IndNidually. He added that they consider this. He added this would essentially address their comments. Chairman Peraza stated for the record they did receive some letters asking for an extension of time to review these plans. OPPOSITION: George Mlhlsten, representing the Disney Company. He stated the project as indicated in the staff report Is 969 rooms. The Initial Study needs to be redone to reflect the 969 rooms. He stated as they have previously indicated, they believe a Mitigated Negative Declaration is not appropriate in this case and they Incorporate their comments that they made at the prior hearing. He stated he would like to specffically raise a couple of Issues which have been touched on by the applicant today. First, the applicant's own Air Quality Analysis specifically states that this project will exceed the applicable threshold requirements of the Air Quality Management Plan. By deflnffion, that Is a significant impact and, therefore, renders the 6-13.94 ~ Page 12 i Issuance of a Negative Declaration inappropriate. He suggested that a review of their Air 4 ~ Cualiry Study will indicate statements where they admit they have exceeded some of those { thresholds. He stated, in addition, he woutd at least like to comment on the cumulative analysis that has been discussed at length by the applicant. He referenced page 7 of the Response to Comments and stated the applicant's own response to comments specifically Incorporates by reference the Disneyland Resort Cumuiative Analysis. He read ft into the record. He pointed out that this was factually Incorrect. The Disneyland Resort SpecK(c Pian Accumulative Analysis found that five areas would in fact have signfficant unavoidable impacts: transportation and circulation, air quality, construction impacts Including transportation, air quality and solid waste and energy. By definition the Council has already concluded that those cumulative Impacts were insignificant and unavoidable and could not be mitigated and, therefore, a statement of overriding ronsiderattons had to be adopted. He stated he will let the City Attorney explain how the City can now adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration by Incorporating by reference significant Impacts which are not mitigatable. In addition, and most Importantly, in two days this City will have before it, in a public setting, the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Many of the Mitigation Measures and Issues which were raised here today are presumably Incorporated or covered in the Anaheim Resort Specific. He stated they think it is imperative that this Commission and this body have before ft, the analysis of what is contained in the Anahelm Resort Specific Plan that will, with the Disney Resort Specific Plan, provide for the guidance for the next 20 years. To have this Specific Plan area be a black hole in the context of the Disneyland's Resort Specific Plan, and Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, in terms of guidelines for development, does not seem to make a lot of sense. It Is very Important that those issues be before this Commission and they hope that staff will report to the Commission with respect to many of those issues. He stated they suspect, although they really do not know, because they have not had an opportunity to review this document as no one has, that many of the issues which are talked about today are Issues that are going to be issues in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. For that reason, they believe that analysis is critically Important. He stated lastly he would note that many of the Mitigation Measures which the applicant has proposed to be deleted, were critical (n the analysis of the cumulative analysts for the Disneyland Resort. If those Mitigation Measures are deleted or significantly modified, then whatever the basis of the analysis for concluding that the Hotel Circle Specific Plan deserves a Mtigated Negative Declaration is Invalid. They respectfully request their consideration of these issues. Doug Moreland, Director of Development for the Disney Development Company, 1313 Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA. He complimented staff for addressing many of the concerns raised at the last Planning Commission hearing and for recomr,~er~ding revisions to the Specific P:sn. They still have a few concerns which he will address today. However, before he speaks about those concems he had a few observations he wanted to make. 6- i 3-94 Page 13 %} i ,~ He stated the City has been adopting planning documents that will transform the -~ ~ Commercial Recreation Area Into a world class destination resort over tho past 4 years. He stated last Thursday the American Planning Assoc(ation recognized the Cfty's planning efforts when they gave the City the Focused Issue Planning Award for the Disneyland Resort. The award panel stated the following: This protect represents a classic textbook case of utll¢ing the landscape and streetscape as elements of unHlcation, screening and scale mediation. The extent of detail and the attention to pedestrian scale are exceptional In the Specific Plan. Techniques such as tree density guidelines and design hierarchy concept of the Interface between the public and private spaces are transferable to other Specffic Plans. The plan is of the highest quality in every respect, ft sets the standards. That is the standards far the CRA area. It is Important for Hotel Circle to conform to those design elements that are a part of the Ciry's vision for recreating the Commercial Recreation Area into a world class destination resort. The new Anaheim Resort is going to be released on Wednesday. Doos Hotel Circle conform or not with what is going to be coming out in two days? Their presentation today is predicated on the assumption that the staff recommendations and Mftigation Monitoring Plan a!e adopted as part of the Specific Plan. There are 3 basic Issues that he wanted to discuss. The first Issue Is dealing with setbacks along Clementine Street. He referenced the exhibft and stated the existing CR Zoning has a 30-foot setback requirement along Clementine Street. Hotel Circle is proposing a 10-foot minimum setback and the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan has a 20•foot setback requirement along Clementine and the Anaheim Resort Specffic Plan, they do not know yet. He stated the Residence Inn which is Just north of Hotel Circle has a series of 2-story' buildings that at the peak of the roof is a maximum of 25 feet in height. He stated the setback varies from 10 to 30 feet. These are non-contiguous buildings so there are lots of landscape areas surrounding each of the buildings are you view it from the street elevation. He stated the Crystal Suites, which is the existing Hotel and Hotel Circle along Clementine Is 6-stories and 68 feet. He stated when you drive by there is approximately 25 feet from behind the sidewalk to the face of the building and it has very nice landscaping. He stated after the road Is widened that will be reduced to around 10 feet or more. The next building that is proposed adjacent to the Crystal Suites is proposed at 12-stories and 132 feet in height and they are requesting for it to be setback 10 feat from behind the sidewalk. He stated what you have here is a scale differential between the Restdence Inn which does have a few buildings at 10 feet, but most of them are setback furthar than what Tarsadia is requesting. Disney feels that the Design Guideline requiring a 20•foot setback should be adhered to along Clementine. For the next issue, he submitted some photos which shows the 2-story buildings and the much larger building. 6.13-94 Page 14 He referenced the staff report and Indicated he wanted to discuss the Interior property lot ~. lines. He stated adjacent to the Residence Inn, the Hotel Clrcie SpecNic Plan is proposing to build a now defined 4-story, 48-foot maximum height parking structure with a zero setback on the property Ilne. He stated adjacent to the Motel 6, the Hotel Circle Specific Plan is proposing to build an 8-story hotel maximum 66-feet tall with a 5-foot setback. He explained in 5 feet you can only put in very minimal landscaping. He stated the next issue is not part of this section, however, it applies to this. He stated in terms of parking structures, subterranean parking structures can also have a zero setback from property lines. He stated he was not quite sure how the elevation, which has been included in the Hotel Circle Specific Plan, shows landscaping in front of the parking structure. (Copies were handed out). He explained ff you have zero setback from the property line, you cannot put landscaping in front of the parking structure and if you have subterranean parking that also has a zero setback, and trees will not grow on top of a subterranean parking structure unless they do something about adding planters and dirt. Therefore, there Is a problem between what is shown on the elevation and the actual sftuation which Is proposed in terms of setbacks. He stated a compromise would be interior lot lines where the applicant owns both pieces of property. They could have zero setbacks, but on the perimeter where they are adjacent to other property owners they should be required to have the 10-foot setback which is required curcently in the Commercial Recreation Area Zone and is also required In the Disneyland Resort. He stated in the area of parking there are a couple of Issues. One has to do with restaurants that are contained within the hotels. He explained currently the Hotel Circle SpeciFlc Pian allows fora 5,000 square-foot restaurant to have zero parking spaces provided for that use. He further explained that the CRA Code requires 14 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area of eating and drinking areas. The Disneyland Resort requires one space per 10 feet of eating and drinking capacity. He stated what is provided in the Disneyland Resort is approaching the same issue that Hotel Circle is trying to get at, I.e., most of the people that are staying In the hotel v+ill probably eat in those restaurants, but there are still a few people who ~,iay decide tr use those restaurants who will come on-site and need parking spaces. Therefore, the Disneyland Resort provided for reduced parking because of that situation, but ft did not have zero parking spaces. He stated in terms of meeting and banquet space, the Hotel Clrcie Specific Plan has that as an allowable use, but ft has no parking requirements stated for ft. The curcent CR Zoning requires 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet and the Disneyland Resort had a requirement of 6.7 spaces par each 1,000 square feet of area. He stated if this fs going to be an allowable use then it needs to have Its parking addressed in the Specific Plan. He stated possibly the most Important issue, and it already has been raised by Mr. Elfend, is the future processing for approvals. He stated the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan requires hotels In the hotel distr(ct and any associated parking with those hotels, to come back before this Commission as a Report and Recommendation item. He stated they feel 6-13-94 i ~ Page 15 t c 1 5 the amount of detail that has been given here is not great enough for the Planning r Commission Just to give this a blanket approval and not see any future plans. He F recommended that the Commission require the future Site Plans to come back for a Report li and Recommendation. He stated they just went through that process with the Disneyland Administration building-it is not an onerous process to come back before the Commission and it would give the Commission the comfort that the plan Is being implemented per the City's vision. He stated he has the feeling that a lot of the variances and setbacks and a lot of the special conditions that are being requested are due to the density of the project. Further, when you look at the density of other hotels in the Commercial Recreation Area, you can see Hotel Circle was 162 rooms per acre and is now down to 142 rooms per acre. He explained the Residence Inn to the north is 32 rooms per acre; the Anaheim Sheraton is 45 rooms per acre; the Anaheim Marriott is 70 rooms per acre; the Pan Pacific Hotel is 110 rooms per acre; the Anaheim Hilton is 113 rooms per acre; and the Disneyland Resort is 58 rooms per acre. He stated he Is not questioning whether or not Tarsadia gets 142 rooms per acre, he is questioning H ft requires all of these variances in terms of setback in order to achieve that density, and maybe the density is too high. If they are required to follow the setback requirements, they may not be able to build all of that. He stated it is Incumbent ff this area is going to have a vision and is going to become a destination resort in the future, that this vision can only be realized through the Impiernentatlon of the standards and the guidelines that the Ciry has been steadily adopting, over the past 4 years, to improve the appearance of this area. He stated the Planning Commission is making decisions today for our ch~idren and their children's children. There have been many mistakes made over the past 35 years. He asked that they please do not repeat those mistakes. They would urge the Planning Commission to revise the Hotel Circle Specific Plan to Incorporate their concerns. REBUTTAL: Mr. Elfend stated there were some comments made by Mr. Mihlsten, Disney's Agent, regarding CEQA that their counsel Mr. Bill Ross could answer for the administrative record. He made reference to Mr. Moreland's comments and stated Mr. O'Connell's comments, coming from a competing interest in the CR Area, he accepts those comments under that criteria. Mr. Moreland's first comment refers to the fact that they should wait until the City adopts the Anaheim Area Resort. This is a project that basically has been held up by the City because of Disney's Resort Specific Plan. When they came in to do the Environmental Impact Report, which they had inftially proposed to do before they substantially down s(zed the project, and before Disney's plan was approved, they were told that they could not do it because they needed a cumulative analysts for Disney's proposal and those numbers were not available so they could not proceed. 6-13-94 Page 16 There were moratoriums that were enacted in this area; then there was a new Zoning Caie; then ' r"~, new Design Guidelines and now there is another new Specific Plan. They obviously feel they have participated in ail of the other studies and thsy have done the best Job they can. Staff has recommended approval and they feel comfortable with the proposal as presented. He was sorry that the Disney Company does not, therefore, they see no reason to waft another 6 months to a year or however long ft takes for the City to adopt another plan. He did not know how many other plans they were going to adopt, but they did not feel that they had to waft for this addtional one. Mr. Elfend stated he would like to discuss Mr. Moreland's comments about Clementine. Most of the Commissioner's have been out to the site, and recognize ff you go to the Clementine Hotel, which is the Crystal Suftes, ft has a 10-foot setback and looks pretty nice. If you go to the Residence Inn, they have a 10-foot setback as well. Therefore, the setback on Clementine, exclusive of the fact that ft is the largest parking structure in the world accommodating 12,000 cars, a 10-foot setback Is consistent with what is out there presently and their clients agreed to Increase the landscaping as staff has recommended. He referenced the comment by Mr. Moreland regarding the interior lot line. Mr. Moreland's information was incorrect. Right now if you walk the property, you have an approximate 5-foot setback on the Residence Inn and the Motel 6 side, and there is a wall which is on the property line. He stated there Is also some fairly substantial landscaping that exists on that side, i.e., on their side of the'pro(ect" He did have slides, however, he chose not to show them. He added ft fs substantial in terms of the amount of trees. They are proposing an additional 5 feet on their side which would be 10 feet total with a wall and ~-. not zero as Mr. Moreland suggested. There is also no subterranean parking as Mr. Moreland suggested on that sfte. They think that is a sufficient buffer. Staff has been out there to take a look at ft and thought ft was reasonable as well. Mr. Elfend stated Mr. Moreland made a comment about the density. Once again the Disney Company will decide the future densty of all other developments in the CR Area. For the Commission members who have been out to see both the Crystal Suites Hotel or the Peacock Suftes Hotel, the Peacock Suites Hotel received an award from Anaheim Beautiful. It was given an award for the way k looked because the landscaping was aesthetically pleasing. The density of that particular hotel, as well as the Peacock Suites, is somewhere between 160 and 180 rooms per acre. As staff has Indicated in their staff report, the proposed density for this project overall is 142, so it is even less than what Is presently permitted. He stated he would have Mr. Ross make his comments about CEOA, only for the administrative record. William D. Ross, Law Flrm of Ross & Scott, 520 S. Grand, Sufte 300, Los Angeles, CA 90071. He stated he would like to briefly comment concerning remarks of the opposition's counsel on 3 principal areas In CEOA. 6-13.94 ~ Page 17 He explained the first one Is dealing with respect to the project's description as dealing with 969 ^ unfts. He thought that is one of the principal basis for arguing that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is inappropriate. They dealt with that specifically in their communication to this Commission. They are really talking about 653 hotel rooms; 269 that have already been built and 384 that were previously analyzed In an EIR that has been certHfed at 293. That gets to the comments that there is a "black hole" environmentally. They respectfully differ. There has been specific analysis on each of these proposed Incremental increases. That relates directly to the comment on the sufficiency of the Air Oualiry Analysis and exceeding the threshold ilmftations of the district on a per hotel room basis. The Mitigation Measures proposed which begin on page 69 of Initial Study specifically addresses that and go into Mitigation Measures that are to be Imposed so that threshold level is never met. That is precisely the Intent of what a Negative Declaration and what a Mitigated NegatNe Declaration should do under CEQA Guideline, Section 15070, i.e., changes or modifications to the project are Incorporated Into the Mtigated Negative Declaration. He believes that all of this then relates to the prior analysis on the issue of is there adequa~e information before the Commission? If the Commission looks at those specific portions of the analysts they will find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as recommended by staff, is in fact the appropriate method to analyze this. This should address the specific Issues raised by Mr. Mihlsten and he noted respectfully, that given the prior analysis, there is specific environmental analysis on the proposed Incremental Increase in the Specific Plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: ~ Commissioner Henninger stated for the record there are 2 or 3 letters on file noting the volume of the staff report and asking for a continuance so that there is adequate time to review this. Commissioner Henninger stated he has approximately eighteen specific comments on conditions of approval and mftigations. He sensed that this was a lot to deal with in the public hearing. He thought there might be good reason, after the discussion, to give staff time to review this further. Commissioner Meese stated he would like to see it taken care of today. He asked staff for their comments. Joel Fick, Director, Planning D;partment. He stated they would be happy to go over the issues. There were 2 specific questions that were raised several t(mes during the Initial testimony. There was a specfic request for deletion of a condition or Mitigation Monitoring Measure. One of them was Condition No. 63 (Condtions of Approval, page 29). Commissioner Henninger stated Condition No. 54 dealt with the payment of a fee or to establish the Mitigation Monftoring Program prior to agendizing this item on the Council agenda. Mr. Fick stated that is correct, and their recommendation would be that Condition No. 63 be deleted as requested since it Is addressed in the other condition. 6-13-94 ~ Page 18 ,; Secondly, there was a request that the first Mitigation Measure, referred to as a wrap around ~"~ Mftigation Measure, and a carry over from the Last staff report, be deleted. Having said that, k obviously emphasizes the importance of leaving in tact the other Mftigation Measures for which the Negative Declaration relies upon in this report. Commissioner Henninger stated one of the comments that was made, for Instance, you have a j water mtigation and k talks about using low flush toilets and shower heads for water conservation, and the condkion says to build the hotel that way and then continuously maintain those during the operation of the hotel. He stated k obviously emphasizes the importance of leaving in tact the other Mitigation Measures for which the Negative Declaration relies upon in this report. Commissioner Henninger stated there was a comment made, that for instanco, you have a water mtigation and k talks about using low flush toilets and shower heads for water conservation, and the condkion says to build the hotei that way and then continuously maintain those during the operation of the hotel. He further explained that CEQA does require you to monitor the Mitigation Measures that you put forward in the plan. Since that is an ongoing requirement of the project, they felt that was the easiest way to monitor k, i.e., to do k on an annual basis through the submktai of a letter to the Planning Department demonstrating that they are continuing to comply. Commissioner Henninger stated in regard to the 14 or 15 other comments, regarding the Mftigation Measures, are the Mtigatlon Measures appropriate as they are currently dratted? Ms. McCloskey indicated they were. .- Commissioner Masse asked even a Mitigation Measure such as duplicate water lines for the potential for reciaimed water, Is that appropriate for something this size? Ms. McCloskey stated the reason staff retained that measure, which is a measure that was included in the Disneyland Resort Specit(c Plan, was that this project basically used that EIR as the basis for their Mitigated Negative Declaration and that is one of the Mftigation Measures that was included within their Mitigation Monkoring Program. Further, in their own Initial Study that they submtted Independently, they also talk about using reclaimed water as a way to conserve water In their Specific Plan area. Commissioner Messe stated logically what they are talking about in reclaimed water is for landscaping use only. They do not have the vast landscaping that Disneyland Resort has. Ms. McCloskey stated they had that included within their Initial Study, i.e., that they submitted k to supplement and support the information. Commissioner Henninger asked k they plan on having some sort of system of del(vering reclaimed water generally to properties in the Recreation Area? Ms. McCloskey stated she knows there are plans at the County level. They are examining the feasibility of making reclaimed water available to th(s area and the thinking is when that does become available to the extent feasible, that properties could Install dual piping now to accommodate that in the future. She further explained at a minimum when that water is available then they will be conditioning and recommending that the projects do tie Into that. It (s a benefit to them financially as well as to the environment of conserving the water. 6-13-94 ~ Page 19 u She suggested that Dlem Vuong speak to them about where the plans are as far as the County on r providing that type of facilfty. Diem Vuong, Water Engineering Manager with the City. Commissioner Henninger asked H they have plans of providing a source of reclaimed water i generally In the CR Area? Mr. Vuong Indicated they do. He explained in conjunction with the Orange County Water District, In the year 2000, they are starting to have the reclaimed water rome from Fountain Valley and to the river and will be spreading at Anaheim and then they will provide a line between 8" to 12' which will serve the entire CR Area. They felt the best thing right now wouid be to have everything ready to accept the water, rather than having to modify it ten years later. By then the cost may be a lot higher. He stated with dual piping you have to have 2 separate systems wfth two separate meters. If they do it right now the cost is minimal. After the building is built and needs retrofitting, the cost could be horrendous. Commissioner Henninger stated then this would basically be usi~d for non contact landscaped irrigation? Mr. Vuong indicated that was correct and stated that inr.,ludes the flushing toilet. He explained that the City of Irvine does have some flushing toilets currently in use. In the next ten years they hope they have enough information so they have an approval on those. ~. Commissioner Henninger stated he had him somewhat convinced when he was thinking landscape architecture, because h seems like that would be fairly easy to provide a separate system because Ii is essentially a separate system and that may be teed out of the existing water meter and then later retrofitted with a new water connection, however, ft sounds like having a separate water system in the building itself seems a Ifttle onerous. In summary, Mr. Vuong stated they will look at that and it depends on the situation. He explained it depends on the flexibility and the cost involved and they would have to look at the plan. Chairman Peraza stated how about the mitigation for an 8-foot portable construction barrier along the street scenes? Commissioner Henninger stated he remembers that came out of an issue because at the Disney Resort they were adjacent to some residential areas and this particular project does not have any residential near it. Ms. McCloskey explained basically that was a construction impact section Mitigation Measure that again is being applied to all the other properties in the Commercial Recreation Area. It is not only for noise, but for public safety as well. It is a Mitigation Measure that was identified in the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. It was not particular to one street, for instance over by Walnut. It was applicable to the entire Disneyland Resort Area as well as anything included within that property Including the CR Overlay properties. It is a Mitigation Measure that has been Incorporated Into the Anaheim Resort EIR that is about to be released. 6-13-94 ~ Page 20 Commissioner Henninger askod H this was like a wood view screen like you see around a ,~ construction site in most cities? Ms. McCloskey indicated that was correct. Commissioner Messe stated before they continue with the nlitigation Monitoring, there was one question that was brought up that Mr. Elfend did not answer. He asked the Engineering staff about the parking standards for restaurants. There was an indication by Mr. Moreland that there is a 5,000 square•foot restaurant with no parking and no parking for banquet and meeting rooms within the SpecKic Plan. ~tohn Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager, stated the restaurants are addressed on page 20 of the zoning and Development Standards. It Is spelled out that restaurants will cater primarily ~oin- house guests and there will be no advertising signage on the exterior. Commissioner Messe asked about meeting and banquet rooms. Mr. Lower stated as they understand it, there are no banquet facilities provided. He explained that the meeting rooms are seen as part of the hotel operation. Commissioner Messe asked for clarHfcatlon that they were not entitling Hotel Circle to have any banquet facilities? Della Herrick, Associate Planner, stated it does not specif(cally exclude, but is listed as a permitted use. None are shown on the plans that they submitted. Commissioner Messe stated ff it is a permitted use, they do not have parking for it. Ms. Herrick stated they do not have parking that will refer them to the underlying CR Code or the Anaheim Resort Code. if there is nothing addressed in this Code as it stated before, then h would revert back to the CR which will be superseded by the Anaheim Resort. Commissioner Messe stated then in essence, they do not have banquet facilities and ff they do occur, they will have to furnish parking? Ms. Herrick Indicated that was correct. Commissioner Henninger asked how many hotel/motel or vacation ownership resorts are there in this protect? Ms. Herrick explained that they are looking far 331 units. Commissioner Henninger stated he is on page 20 at .030. Mr. Moreland was talking about a 5,000 square•foot restaurant. What this actually says is that one restaurant/coffee shop per hotel/motel or vacation resort will be allowed without additional parking. Ms. Herrick stated what she meant by vacation ownership was that they decided earlier that H they did a vacation ownership, the whole hotel or whatever, would be a vacatlcn ownership unR, meaning that k would not be a mix of hotel and vacation ownership. Commissioner Henninger asked how many hotels were on the site that fall under this? 6.13-94 Page 21 Ms. Herrick explained they would be allowed one per each hotel. r Commissioner Henninger asked for clarification ff they were talking about 25,000 square feet of restaurant use that has no parking? Ms. Herrick explained the only restaurant that they showed them was the free standing one-the ~ other ones they have not indicated they are going to have that much restaurant space. Commissioner Henninger stated to allow 25,000 square feet of restaurant wfth no parking associated wfth it seems Ilke an 2wfui lot of restaurant without benefit of parking. He stated he was not even comfortable with 5,OOD square feet and 25,000 square feet begins to sound Iik~ qufte a bft. Ms. Herrick stated you must remember that the hotels are existing, so we are only talking about 3 hotels. Comrissioner Henninger stated they may be existing, but presumably they have parking with them also. Mr. Elfend stated as a point of order so the Commission does not get lost, there Is only one and his clients indicated they would agree to only one restaurant as shown. Commissioner Henninger recommended that they amend the language so ft shows one. He Indicated he was referencing (page 20 of the Specific Plan, Paragraph .0303. Commissioner Messe clarified then ft Is one restaurant/coffee shop? Commissioner Henninger stated gas for the whole Specific Flan area, ft is 5,000 or lesE 1 ^ Commissioner Henninger stated he was a little troubled with the initial comments regarding the Planning Commission review of this. He probably would not be qufte so uncomfortable ff ft had not been prefaced with the comment that really what governs here is the design criteria listed in this Zoning Standard. Regardless, it sounded like they could be faced with a situation where the existing Site Plan, which has been shown to them, is discarded and that some alternate Sfte Plan which conforms wfth this Specftic Plan might be proposed. There was a fairly detailed comment prefacing all of this discussion that basically said that. Given that, he is not comfortable seeing this come back. Commissioner Messe asked H he was comfortable with staff's recommendation? Commissioner Henninger indicated he was. Commissioner Messe agreed and stated he was comfortable with staff's recommendation and verbiage on page 15, (a). That would necessitate a change in the Specific Plan language. Commissioner Henninger indicated ft was on page 2, top of the second column where ft would say Just `Planning Commission' and delete "/Planning Director." Commissioner Messe stated however, it does permit changes to be reviewed by the Planning Director later on. 6-13.94 Page 22 :i Mr. Fick explained that the Intention there (and it really was the ap^!icant's request) was to clarHy almost exist(ng procedure on hems that the Commission has previously approved. Anytime a building plan would come in, staff would review that in effect for substantial conformance to ensure that the Planning Commission's aprroval was upheld. Commissioner Henninger stated it does say tin substantial conformance' on page 9. It says substantial conformance with the provisions of the Speclilc Plan. He stated they should probably amend that to say substantial conformance with the previously approved Final Slte Plan.' Ms. Herrick stated if the Commission would look on page 15, the wording stall had was to also change that second section to add 'previously approved by the Planning Commission.' Chairman Peraza asked about the wall signage on Clementine Street. He stated h may be years before the Disneyland Resori takes shape. They are allowed 2 signs, however, they are asking for Commissioner Henninger stated he thought the justification for having a third sign was that one of the signs might be blocked by a monorail, or some other Improvement that was going to be built by others. He stated until that is built, he did not think he needed the third sign. Mr. Fick stated they viewed all of these items as being clarifications of their understanding based upon prior meetings. They did make it very clear when they Initially meant that it would really be a function of the Commission's comfort with the level of de . 1. That basically, at least now, reflects their recommendation of what h s~iould contain. He stated t`~ compact parking space Issue was discussed about a particular bay where there was known design constraints and Traffl;; Engineering indicated a willingness to work with the applicant. The third hem r~gardlrg the wall slgnage really did revolve around there being an obstruction, and that this particular hotel should be different with respect to other hotels in the area for an addftional sign. They view this more as a clarification that there would be a demonstrated hardship visa-vis construction by Disney or whatever the blockage would happen to be. Tha sign would be legitimately Headed and from their viewpoint that Is the time that k should be considered. Commissioner Messe referenced page 24 of the conditions. The applicant again referred to staff's reference to the Commercial Recreation Area, the Anaheim Resort and the landscaped concepts and asked that they show that the landscape plans submitted comply with and are compatible with the graphics that are fn the staff report. He asked ff there was any problem with that? Commissloner Henninger stated that is a fair request. Mr. Fick explained that that was the app:lcant's request. They believe that the language that requiros the landscaping to be compatible and consistent with those guidelines is equally reasonable and will be applied reasonably. That is their recommendation on that item. They really do want to Insure that there is a cone' ?ency of streetscape in terms of landscaping and slgnage to the extent practical. Commissloner Messe stated in all honesty, they may have gotten an award for a plan that they have not seen yet, but ro one has seen this p{an. 6-13.94 ~ Page 23 f Mr. Fick explained the award that was referenced earlier was actually for the Disney Resort Specific =; Plan and Environmental Impact Report. i Commissior,..r Messe Indicated he misunderstood. Commissioner Henninger asked for clarification if he was saying that he did not think k was adequate to hold them just to the graphics that are contained In these reports? Mr. Fick indicated that was correct. Commissioner Henninger stated there was some discussion about the parking structure and they heard there might be subterranean parking under where the screening trees are going to be and then they heard rebuttal testimony that there was no such obstruction that would prevent these trees from growing. Ms. Johnson stated for clarification there is no subterranean parking on t~~ ~ original proposal. This graphic on Attachment "E" is the new proposal and it will have a 5-foot ; :~ck along interior line:. She explained the only time h would ever go down to '0" would be on the petitioner's own property when he is abutting another one of the parking structures or hfs parking lot. She added against the Marriott, they will have 5 feet. Commissioner Henninger suggested they add a condition that says there will be no obstructions, subterranean or otherwise that would prevent the full maturity of the proposed landscape screens. Commissioner Henninger referenced the water line and Condition No. 40, page 26. He does remember some discussion at the last hearing and staff made the comment that at least some portions of this development could go forward before the water line was put in place. He asked fl ' they had changed their mind? Ms. McCloskey slated she spoke and worked with Mr. Vuong on the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the language in the new Mitigation Measure concerning the water services. She stated h could supersede this condtlon of approval and can be deleted. Basically, what the new Mtipation Measure requires, is that prior to the first building permit that there be an agreement. (She clarified she was referencing page 9 of the Mtigation Monitoring Program). She explained that the entire first measure would supersede and reflects the language that is needed per the water system for the protect. Commissioner Henninger stated this is one of the conditions that the applicant ob)ected to. Ms. McCloskey Indicated that was correct. Commissioner Messe asked then ft is a pure fair share? Ms. McCloskey stated ft may or may not be. It will depend upon what the subsequent study would identify. If it is needed In the project, then it would go fonrrard, and they would need to provide it, otherwise K would be fair shared depending upon what the analysis indicated. Commissioner Henninger stated then we can delete Condition No. 40 because R is taken care of in the Mitigation Monitoring Measure? 6-13-94 ~, Page 24 Ms. McCloskey stated there would be reimbursement back from others ff their fair share exceeded- ~ ff there was reimbursement due back. Commissioner Henninger addressed Mr. Fick and stated he suggested that they take out Condition No. 63. He referenced Condition No. 54. He stated that was basically the same condfion. He asked what the appropriate timing for payment of this fee would be? Mr. Fick stated condition No. 54 contains the appropriate tlming. Commissloner Henninger asked prior to the adoption of an ordinance approving this Specific Pian? He asked Mr. Elfend ff he was comfortable with that? Mr. Elfend's response was not audible. Commissloner Messe stated the Ordinance comes about after the approval of the project. Mr. Elfend stated they would probably suggest that after the referendum period has expired or at some point thereto. Commissioner Henninger stated that would be 30 days. Mr. Elfend indicated that would be fine. Mr. Fick stated that would be acceptable. Commissioner Henninger stated they should probably say 60 days after adoption. ~^. Mr. Fick stated 60 days after the adoption or prior to the Issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Henninger stated there was a clarification desired on Condkion No. 58. That clarification was to make sure that this condition related to the Mitigation Measures that are attached in this Mitigation Program Attachment'C.' Ms. McCloskey stated that Condition No. 58 may now be deleted. She explained ff the Mitigation Measures stay in tact and the program they set forward, Condition No. 58 would no longer be necessary. It will be part of the Mitigation Monitoring. They believe everything that would be applicable to this project is included in that Monitoring Program now. Commissioner Henninger asked if they had a condition of approval that says that they will conform with the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached as Exhibit "C"? Ms. McCloskey stated State law requires that. Commissioner Henninger stated ff probabiy does not hurt to double a condition ff like that. He ../4 " suggested they amend Condition No. 58 to say that. Mr. Eliend stated or you just add !t in Condition No. 54. Commissioner Messe stated or Condition No. 53. 6.13-94 Page 25 Mr. EIlend stated somewhere around there. ~ n Commissloner Henninger stated to add it in wherever it is appropriate. Commissloner Messe asked for clarfffcation on page 11, the undergrounding Issue. He referenced the first sentence. Commissioner Henninger asked ff this was the public right-of-way directly fronting the property? Ms. McCloskey stated this is their actual hookup. Commissloner Messe stated he did not think that sentence actually said that. He asked should k bo "to the puN.ic right-of-way" rather than "in' the public right-of-way. Ms. McCloskey stated `to'the public rlghtof--way. Commissioner Henninger asked Ms. McCloskey, you did not want them to underground those facilities that went by their property in the streets or did you? Ms. McCloskey stated they should clarify that with Utilities. Commissioner Henningar stated they have heard that they did not like these open ended mitigations that occur on page 22 where ft says that the property owner shall participate in the landscape assessment or maintenance district if one is established. He asked what other way is there to get everyone on board? They do have an awful lot of landscape In the Resort Area and they will need to have an Assessment District, so what other way is there to get everyone on bard .- other than to have this sort of condition? The same could be said for Condition No. 24, the second ~ item, regarding transportation. Commissioner Taft referenced page 25 of the Mitigation Monitor(ng. He asked ff that is anymore restrictNe than the AQMD requirement under Regulation 15? Mr. Lower stated no, they do nut see ft as being more restrictive. The Intent is to have an aggressNe ride share program for this major a;nployment center and to participate in programs that would be put in place by the Aran Transportation Management Association. Commissioner Messe stated ft is supposedly only for hotels of over 213 rooms? Mr. Lower stated he believed he did say that as rotated to Regulation 15, but that is separate from what we are asking for here. Commissioner Taft stated his concern was that he did not want it anymore restrictive than the normal AQMD regulation. Commissioner Henninger asked are they asking hotels, for instance, like the Hilton? Are they participating in a program like this under some means? Mr. Lower sated they are hopeful that they will participate in the Transportation Network once ft is established. commissioner Henninger asked ff they figured out a way to hook them? 6-13-94 ~ Page 26 Mr. Lower stated they will not need a hook. They will see it is to their benefit to a+rail themselves of ~ programs to help them achieve thn Air Quality mandates, one of which is Regulation 15. Commissioner Henninger asked Is this the sort of program that he would envision being on any hotel proposal that came through of this size? Mr. Lower stated in this area and in the Stadium area. Commissioner Taft stated he would like to see the landscaping plan in a Reports and Recommendations item. He referenced the dual piping for the hotels. He stated he has never heard of that before. He has heard about ft far golf courses for landscaping, but to require a hotel or any building is speculatNe and seems somewhat unfair. Commissioner Henninger stated he thought they could do that for the landscaping. The landscaping would be easy to do. Ms. McCloskey stated there are two measures. One deals strictly with landscaping and the other talked about the structures. They could leave the /andscaping one !n tact and take the structure out. Commissioner Tait stated that would be flno. Commissioner Henninger asked Mr. Elfend if he would like to respond regarding the Transportation Management? ~ Mr. Elfend stated whether his client would or would not participate, for discussion purposes, he was sure would be determined at the date when the City would bring forth the Assessment District. They would participate as any property owner and he was sure that the City would set some timing for its Implementation. He explained the reason they are not happy with that Mftigation Measure is not necessarily so much that they are not going to comply with ft, but ft is the timing of ft. He stated ft is dffflcult to agree to something that you cannot see. He added that is something that the City is going to go through in their process and they will participate. Commissioner Henninger asked staff N it would be appropriate on each of these condftlons where the property owner is agreeing to participate in sort of a blind way In Assessment Districts, if they should add language to say that they will participate on terms no better or worse than similarly situated property owners? He thought aerhaps their main concern is that they not be put at a disadvantage by this. Mr. Fick stated they would like to review that with Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney. He stated clearly the Intention is that they would Just be paying their fair share which he thinks is similar to the intent he is referring to. Commissioner Henninger stated he had no commitment to the language. 6-13-94 ~ Page 27 x Ms. Mann explained she believed the Intent of having the ayreement of the applicant to participate ^ in whatever future Assessment Districts are set up for these particular things, ff they distinguish this 3 property from other properties that may at the time that such assessment district is adopted, be already constructed. The intent is that this property is Intended to be included in whatever Assessment District is set up for these particular types of Improvements for tha area and to make R clear that there Is not going to be a grandfathering. She further explained ft would obviously be, as would be required of any assessment type of instrument or mechanism that was set forth on a fair share basis, because they would not be permitted to assess a property more than fts fair share for whatever benefits were being received. Therefore, the fair share, ff that is the concern, they could certainly add fair share language since that would be an Integral part of any assessment procedure they had, but what this would do is clarify that this property would be intended to participate in whatever process fs finally utilized. It Is noted by thr Secretary that tape no. 3 malfunctioned at this point for approximately 5 minutes. Mr. Elfend stated he wanted to make a statement for the record. He stated the question they raised earlier, given the uncertainty, he does not share the opinion of the Deputy Cfty Attorney. Ms. Mann stated they could enter Into an agreement to participate In the future and that would suffice until the project was in place. Commissioner Henninger stated do they have something similar in the Stadium Area? Ms. Mann stated ft is similar, but not the same. .- Commissioner Henninger stated if they want something to happen before the building permft, then ~ they could enter into some agreement to enter into something in the future. Ms. Mann stated that is a way ft could be handled. Ms. McCloskey stated the Mftigatlon Monitoring requires that they participate, therefore, that would be agreeable prior to Issuance of the building permft that they enter into an agreement. Commissioner Henninger stated these agreements will be done on a fair share basis. Mr. Fick brought up an hem discussed earlier on page 11. He stated it is o.k. to say "to" the public rfg~ r•of-way. A brief discussion took place regarding the overriding considerations. It Is noted by the Secretary that the tape is back on. Commissioner Messe stated right before the Pledge of Allegiance they were handed a letter from Best, Best and Krieger relative to schools and what this project would mean to the High School District. He asked Ms. Mann ff she received a copy of the letter and ff there was an answer to that question? Ms. McCloskey stated there is a Mftigation Measure on page 17 that did cover the school issue. She read the measure Into the record. 6-13-94 Page 28 Commissioner Henninger stated staff has said that where there is not a specific parking ~ requirement mentioned in this Specific Plan, then they fall back on the CR requirements? Mr. Fick explained since that is both their understanding and their belief is the applicant's understanding, their suggestion would be that maybe a statement like that for everybody's clarification be added. Mr. Elfend stated that is correct. If h is not in the standards for development, then it would defer back as so stipulated In the staff report, Commissioner Henninger stated with regard to banquet facllitles-there are no standards? Mr. Elfend stated for the record, there are none proposed and !f they were proposed, he was told by his client that they would comply with the standards of either the CR or the Yo be adopted' subsequent plan by the Ciry. Commissioner Henninger recommended they add a condition that makes that clear. Ms. McCloskey stated there were also two Issues that were raised in a letter received from'~he Walt Disney Company. One was concerning fair share funding for police personnel and equlprnenl. They did not specH(caily add a Mitigation Measure In that regard. The City will be addressing ;he police personnel and equipment through the revenues befog generated through to the Ciry by the project and other projects in the area. Relative to the second Issue that was raised concerning fair share funding or the construction of baseline transportation improvements will be addressed by John Lower. She added they did r, Include a Transportation Improvement Fee requirement as well as the requirement to participate in l any benefR or reimbursement districts. She believed that did provide for a fair share participation from the project. Mr. Lower stated what they currently have in place is a city wide Traffic Impact and Improvement Fee Program. fie explained that was calculated on the basis of the actual cost of transportation Improvements and then was reduced by 68%, so there Is a 68% shortfall that is going to have to be made u~ somewhere. He added they do envision some type of district being put in piece. Ms. Mann clarified that all of the actions taken are in the form of recommendations to the City Council. It is the City Council who will be making the final decision on the SpecHic Plan and all of the hems that are before the Commission. Ms. Mann asked fi there was specific direction to add a condition of approval that the applicant was required to comply wfth the Mitigation Monitoring Program? The Planning Commission indicated that was correct. 6.0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) Scheduled for consideration by the Ciry Council 6-t 3-94 Page 29 ~/ ACTION: Recommended approval to City Council of Mftigated Negative Declaration ~'`~, Recommended approval to City Councii of Spec~fc Plan No. 93-01 fi~cluding Zoning and Development Standards, Design Guidelines and a Public Facllfties Plan) with changes to condRlons of approval as discussed at the public hearing. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) ~ 1 "~~: •~;;t, 3a ~EOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Previously Approved} 3b. WAI~~ER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT_NO. 3500 (Readvertised) OWNER: C. DARLE HALE REVOKABLE TRUST, Attn: C. Davie Hale, Trustee, 3910 E. Coronado St., Unft B, Anaheim, CA 92807 Approved Approved Approved amendment to condftions of approval AGENT: ZACHARY M. ANDERSON, CAPITAL INDUSTRIAL Properties, INC., 310 W. Orangethorpe, Placentia, CA 92670.6972 LOCATION: 4001 East La Paima Avenue. Property Is approximately 0.95 acre located on the northeast comer of La Palma Avenue and Van Buren Street and further described as 4001 East La Palma Avenue. To delete condftions of approval pertaining to off-site parking and time Iimftation for a previously approved industrially related office building with minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94-77 4~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Jack Anderson, 310 W. Orengethorpe, Placentia, CA. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Messe stated ft was his understanding, that the company that occupies this building has 40 employees at the present time. Mr. Anderson stated actually they have 35 employees at the present time and a maximum of 40 employees. Commissloner Messe suggested they put a 1lmitation on the number of employees because he was asking for a parking waiver. Mr. Anderson Indicated they would not ob)ect. He clarified there are actually 46 on-sfte parking spaces, but the staff report Indicates 46 spaces. 6-13.94 Page 31 ACTION: Approved CEQA NegatNe Declaration ~ Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Approved request as follows: Deleted Condition Nos. 5, e, 9 and 11 of Resolution No. PC92-80; Amended Condhion No. 6 at Resolution No. PC92-80 to read as follows: 6. That the proposed office uses shall be limited to the following Ilsted uses and that an unsubordinated covenant, reviewed and approved by the City Atto-ney's Office so-limiting said uses, shall be recorded in the Oiflce of the Orange County Recorder, a copy ..~ which shall be submitted to the Zoning Division: 1. Accounting -Bookkeeping, CPA Firms or temporary CPA Firms 2. Advertising 3. Appraisers 4. Banks 5. Brokers -Real Estate, Business Opportunities, Etc. 6. Business System Companies 7. Communication Consultants 8. Computer Analysis Firms 9. Credit Reporting Agencies 10. Designers -Industrial, Interior, Graphic 11. Development Companies 12. Facility Maintenance and Planning 13. Insurance Companies/Agencies 14. Inventory Services 15. Leasing Companies i6. Management Consultants/Companies 17. Marketing Research 18. Personnel Agencies 19. Quality Control Analysis 20. Sales ONices (which serve the Industrial area) 21. Secretarial and Business Services 22. Any use permitted under Zoning Code Section 18.61.020 "Permtted Primary Uses and Structures," and subject to all conditions of Bald Section. Each individual use shall require the written approval of the Zoning Division prior to occupancy which approval shall only be gNen when it Is demonstrated that such use is eRher an expressly permitted use in such zone or meets the criteria of Section 18.61.050.145 "Conditional Uses and Structures" of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Added the following condition: That there shall be a maximum of forty flue (45) employees. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) 6-13-94 Page 32 4a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 281 (Previously Certified) Approved 4b. REVISED SITE PLANS FOR TRACT NOS.13513. 13514. Approved 13515. 13516. 13517, and 13518 THE SUMMIT OF ANAHEIM HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN SP88-2 1Deveioament Area 101) OWNER: BALDWIN COMPANY, Attn: Ron Freeman, 16811 Haie Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714 LOCATION: Tract Nos 13513 13514 13515. 13516. 13517. and 13518 ,(Development Area 1011 of The SummR of Anaheim Hilis SoecNic Pian (SP88-21. Property is approximately 85.7 acres, located at the eastern terminus of Bailey Way, and being located approximately 550 feet east of the centerline of Taylor Court, Petitioner requests approval of a revision to the previously approved site plans for Tract Nos. 13513, 13514, 13515, 13516, 13517, and 13518 within The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2) In order to construct 155 single-family structures ranging from 3,395 to 3,911 square feet. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: 5 people spoke PETITIONER: Ron Freeman, Senior Vice Presioent for the Baldwin Company, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA. 92714. He stated they are requesting approval of the remaining lots within Development Area 101 of the Summft of Anaheim Hills project to allow a Site Plan revision to allow them to construct the proposed homes that were approved by this body and by this Ciry Council for Tract No. 13266. He stated they note that staff's recommendation fs positive with the lack of one tract which they have requested be excluded from the approval. They would like to see all of the tracts approved as revised Site Plans to build a new Summii Point proposed project. He did not see a need to discuss any of the Issues that they have been over during the past number of months regarding the plans, however, he would open himself to questions. He reiterated he would like all of the tracts approved with the revi~ai Site Plans. OPPOSITION: Doug Mahaffey, respresent, 1 the homeowners group who retained him for purposes of presenting some information nth on some legal points, as well as some factual issues. He has taken the liberty of preparing a 4 page memorandum of his points. He submitted copies to the Commission. 6-13-94 ~ Page 33 Mr. Mahafey stated from an overview, the Commission is familiar wfth the history--originally a .-, 10-unk revision until Tract No. 13266 came in front of the Commission which was subsequently approved by the City Council on May 17th. This is a follow-up proposal apparently wfth the same architectural plans now drastically expanding the proposal to 155-unfts as opposed to 10. Fundamentally the issue they are addressing in opposition to this is the expansion to what was originally 10-un~'~ and now to 155-unfts and the effect that is going to have on the archtectural guidelines. He stated there are really 4 ports that he has raised in the written memorandum that he will summadze. The first has to do wfth the Environmental Impact Report. In the staff notos under Recommendations, they reached the conclusion that the Environnental Impact Report is adequate. They do not comment on what investigation went into that Environmental Impact Report analysis nor do they provide any foundation for that. Their comments have to do with the Public Resource Code Section 2157.6 that makes the State law the limitation of the Environmental Impact Report use for 5 years after certH(cation. He explained after the 5 years has expired ff there is a finding of no substantial changes or new information then that certification can be continued or there can be an amendment or supplement to the Env!ronmental Impact Report. Here they find no evidence that the staff has done anything other than to say that they found no impact. The homeowners do believe that the traffic flow would have an Impact. Specifically where they are proposing these 155-unfts, ft appears to have no rear access, at least that they have disclosed. He stated ff you look at the plan, there is a road that does access K from the rear that is currently a dirt road. The homeowners are prepared to testHy that they have seen 4 wheel vehicles use that and in fact during one emergency exit they exited that direction. He stated one of the conditions they would like to suggest be implemented Is that a study be done, or a confirmation made, if they are going to have heavy construction going on, not just with 10-units, but 155-unfts at one time that there be a requirement that the traffic flow be directed away from the existing homes and aK~ay from the established families. They take the position under the Resource Code that this is a substantial change-you now have a developer whc did not complete the original plan. They maintain it was economics and in any event they have now slowed down the progress substantially according to what they originally proposed and was approved. Now they are coming in after the fact. They are building smaller home, 155 at a time and they suggest there is a substantial environmental impact that needs to be considered. He stated the second point they would like to raise has to do with how these specific new homes archftecturally comply. That has been addressed somewhat in great detail in the previous proposal, but they do not believe that the Commfsslon had the benefit of looking at the actual blue prints. One of the homeowners, Marey Penny, brought the blue prints and would like for the Commission to at least compare the two different blue prints to determine whether or not the Commfsslon believes there is compatibility or not. He stated on that note, the Specific Plan does require that there be an actual architectural compatibility. He stated that is not in all City Plans. This Specific Plans are unique in some respects in that it actually includes this element of architectural compatibility and makes that a very signff(cant feature to approval of a revision of a plan. 6-13-94 ~,.i Page 34 He referenced a San Diego case called Martinez it was a Specific Plan that had some similar !-` language. What does the word "adverse effect" mean? It went onto say that 'adverse effect' is an cbjective analysis. One of the things that ft held Includes economic evaluation, i.e., is ft going to be economically detrimental to the current use or not economically detrimentaf7 He stated the Anaheim Specttic Plan en this issue specttically includes the language that there must be an :•,thancement, i.e., that the General Specific Plan is to enhance communfties overall long term value. He stated the homeowners want the Commission to look at the traffic; blue prints and economic impact. His fourth and final point is the staff report's recommendation that one way to meet middle ground to make both sides a little mor In harmony, is to make this nev proposed 155 lots identity separate. He stated that is In comment 4 of the staff report's recommendations where they say they recommend that there be a separate identity or Independent identffication of the existing Tract No. 13415. Point no. 4 is what do they have in mind specHically when they suggest to the Commission that they "remain Independent of the tract type construction proposed to the remainder of the Development Area." The homeowner's suggestion on that is that there needs to be a gate at both sides and the reason ; , ff you are going to cal' something an independent community and one community is partially gated, you cannot make the other community Independent without having some physical identhiwtton barrier between the two. He explained that vbuld serve two points; one that would undermine what one of their biggest concems is which is the economic impact to smaller f,ones; and ft would suffice the need of the staff s comments that there needs to be a separate identffication. He expressed his concems regarding having tract style homes next to custom homes. He wanted to make ft clear far the record that this appeared to be inconsistent and on that basis they abject to the proposal. He stated they would like some guidelines on how to make their tract independent and they would like Baldwin to catstruct a gate on both ends. OPPOSITION: The following individuals commented on the 4 points that Mr. Mahafey brought up: Marey Penny, 8125 Oxley Court. Ms. Penny submitted blueprints for the Commission's review; Mary Ellen Dwyer, 1059 S. Taylor Court; she commented on the reality of the resale values of the homes and what the gated community would effect; Diane Shanken, (phonetically spelled), 1062 Sunstream Lane; she INes In Tract No. 13514 which are all custom homes; she demanded that they he separated; she commented on the overall effects of the proposal in conjunction to where she INes. 8-13-94 Page 35 L.i REBUTTAL: ~ Mr. Freeman, stated in response to a number of the Issues that were raised, some of them clearly are not grounded in any sense of responsibility from a building standpoint. In reference to the comment about constructing 155 homes at one time is not physically possible from a financing or a construction standpolnt. They have come back to the Commission with a request to revise all of their Site Plans because they all have previous approval of the old product type, so this is nothing more than a request to amend the rest of their tracts to make them consistent with the previously approved tract which would be their model complex tract. In additicn there was a comment that the 155 homes would generate additional traffic. He explained they will phase in the construction of all of those units as financing permits. He further explained these are not new lots. They have been approved In the SpecNic Plan since 1988 and a!I Summit Point residences are aware of the fact that there would have been as many as 213 units within the Summit Point Project. To claim t4 ~qt these are additional houses above and beyond what they understood to be built do~_ Prot seem to coincide with the understanding of their review of the Speciflc Plan document. He stated there were some floor plan comparisons submitted between the product Summit Springs and the new Summit Point plans. He did not see how this i~ even an issue in that the compatibility between the two Summit Point projects has already been determined. He would like to stay away from the issue of trying to review compatibility since that seems to have been determined both at the Commission and very overwhelmingly at the Council level. The staff report recommending the separaticn of Tract No. 13514 from the rest of the proposed revised She Plans is difficult if impossible to do because of so.ne traffic flow conditions. Thera are :-riJacent tracts to Tract No. 13514 which are not graded yet. Homes in those tracts under the scenario of being proposed would be the new Summit Poir,i homes immediately adjacent to a proposed old Summk Point home, so there really is not any separation from a value standpolnt that they are discussing. It appears to them that ii is not possible to separate the entire Development area into a subsection. It was conceFeed as one Development Area In the Speciflc Plan and they have proposed and received approval on a limited basis for a compatible structure to go in that Development Area and thoy believe that the Development Area Rself should stay as one harmonious contained community. He clarified there would be a second guard gate at the end of the Summit Point Community. He explained there is one existing now and the other one is -;:,t there because they are not in the construction phase that would entail the construction of that guard gate. ;fie stated the reforeiice to "tract style" versus "custom" homes is a misnomer as well. In the first 30 homes that they built, they built them in a tract style and by that he means they built them ail-23 at one time and then another 10 as financing dictated. They did not allow wholesale, custom changes to those houses as they are not a custom builder. The proposed new product is in tl;e same construction theory as the existing. They are both very nice upscale homes, but to try to categorize the first set of homes as truly custom homes is truly a misnomer as they were built in tract style conformance. He requested that they move to approve all of the tracts as proposed revised Site Plans. Ms. Penny stated the petitioner made a comment that the original homes they bu(It were built tract style and there wero not custom changes to be made, however, she made many custom changes in her home approved by the Baldwin Company. R-13-94 Page 36 t ADDITIONAL OPPOSITION: i'` Nannette Minnow, t~71 S. Taylor Court. She stated they put $75,000 to $100,000 of upgrades through the Baldwin Company before closing escrow on their home. She stated anything they wanted and they pail the price, they were allowed to do. They were sold as semi-custom homes and they were given the approval going through them and paying their prics to do the upgrades. ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Henninger asked about the construction access. Mr. Freeman stated they would make every effort to try to come around the back way ff possible. The problem is there are hundreds of feet difference in elevation and should there be any Inclement weather they will not be able to access the tract. Commissioner Henninger asked if there was some way in there right now, I.e., a dirt road? Mr. Freeman stated there Is an area that is rough graded and is not anywhere what he would tali a drNable road for heavy equipment in any kind of wet weather at all. He stated they would like to accommodate the neighbor's concerns from a construction access standpoint. However, he cannot allow himself to be closed off and not be able to reach his tracts because of rain. Commissioner Messe stated then when weather permitting, they will come in the back way4 Mr. Freeman indicated that was correct, but he did not want to limit himself by saying ite would solely come up that way. He stated they would have to remake the road. He also stated that the proposal of a manned security gate at this time is not something they would agree to. He stated there is a gate that his field staff is suppose to keep locked. Commissioner Henninger stated then there Is some access, however, k is not adequate to serve as a construction road and they are willing to upgrade h to serve as a construction road that would work dudng the dry seasons? Mr. Freeman stated they would certainly be willing to do that. Commissioner Caldwell asked ff they had a chance to see the 3 sets of plans that the homeowner's submitted? Mr. Freeman stated he did not. Commissioner Caldwell stated that the plans resemble the Summit Springs more than they resemble the Summit Point homes. He asked Mr. Freeman to comment on that. Mr. Freeman stated extensive review by the C'dy's own staff has Indicated that the Summit Point II plans are compatible with the Summit Point I plans. That does not necessarily mean that there cannot be a tie-ln between Summft Springs {n either of th;,se plans. 6-13-94 ~ Page 37 F Commissioner .^,tidwell asked H he felt, based on those plans, that the Summft Point II homes ~ more resemble Summft Springs than the original Summft Point homes? Or did he even want to answer the gt~astion? Mr. Freeman stated that is asking him to make a subjective comment that is not part of the proceedings here today. Commissioner Caldwell stated his feelings have not changed. They are not compatible and would have worked much better if they would had downsized the Summft Point homes and changed them to make them fft In with their marketing strategy to sell the rest of those lots In these hard economic times. But Instead they have taken Summft Spring homes and made some relatively minor changes to the exteriors and, therefore, they are not compatible in his mind. He stated the Plans show cleady that they resemble the Summft Spring homes and not the Summft Point homes. To him that is significant. To the Council ft obviously was not signfticant except for one member and to four members of our Planning Commission ft was not signficant. They still remain, to him, clearly Incompatible and there will be a tremendous difference between the existing homes and the homes that they Intend to build and that is why he voted against them before and the reason he will vote against the project again. Commissioner Messe asked about Tract No. 13514. He asked if there are 26 or 27 lots? Mr. Freeman stated there are a total of 26 lots in the tract. Commissioner Messe asked how many lots had been sold? Mr. Freeman stated they have sold 7 lots to date. He asked how many of those have been built upon? Mr. Freeman stated 5. One owner who built a custom home, and the other 4 they served as the general contractor to build for the homeowner who bought the lot and obtained their own construction financing. Commissioner Henninger asked if those 4 were built in plans s(milar to the models they had up there? Mr. Freeman stated the old Summit Point, yes. Commissioner Messe stated then there are 2 lots under ownership that have not been built upon? Mr. Freeman stated to his knowledge, one lot is for sale. Commissioner Messe stated then roughly 28% of the lots have been sold or built upon. Commissioner Henninger asked how that compares with the existing tract that has been approved for different floor plans? 6-13.94 ~ Page 38 Mr. Freeman explained there would be 10 houses that would be new Summft Point and 4 old ~ Summft Point, so that is roughly the same breakdown. He stated as an addtlonal comment, the reference made to building the 10 homes, they only plan on moving forward wfth the model complex at this point, and not the additional 7 within that tract. The approval of the existing Tract No. 13266 had in ft, the old Summft Point models and now will have the new Summit Point product, so you already have a precedent of a blending of harmonious archftectuml considerations wthin the boundaries of one tract. He stated all of the other tracts do not have any homes in them yet and would be completely the new product, but Tract No. 13514 would have a mix of the two Summft Polnt products. Commissioner Henninger asked out of that there is only one home that is bulit that is a pure custom home? Mr. Freeman indicated that was correct. Commissioner Henninger stated a number of them got up and took a look at the street layout In response to the comments regarding trying to separate off the old area from the new area. He asked staff to explain whether that is a viable concept. Jonathatt Borrego, Senior Planner, stated he would defer the question of the gates to Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, but in looking at the existing tract layout he would say there Is one sftuatlon where the tract boundary runs In the middle of the street. It would be more dffflcult because there would not be any provision for any sort of a turnaround area. In other words you would just have the gate in the middle of the street with no turn-around area. He stated some of the other tract boundaries happen at street Intersections and in those instances there would be room for aturn-around. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated he has not looked at that so he could not make any comments. Initially when he spoke with Kevin Bass, Planning Department, there are two areas that could provide a gate as Mr. Borrego mentioned, but one area does not have a tum-around area. Also the question would be what Impact is it going to have on the whole tract because he beileves at the entrance there is already a gate. Mr. Freeman stated the existing entrance for Tract No. 13266, which is the tract off of Serrano, and which has been prior approved by the Commission and the Council, has a manned, gated entry. Commissloner Henninger asked for clarification if there was a second gate planned? Mr. Freeman stated ft would be at the very upper portion of the overall She Plan. Commissloner Henninger stated the purpose of that was to try to gate off the entire group of tracts. Commissioner Henninger addressed Kevin Bass and asked about staff's suggestion to Leave Tract No. 13514 essentially out of this application. He asked what he saw when he went there? 6-13.94 Page 39 ~Y Kevin Bsss, Planning Department, stated Tract No. 13514 has scattered houses that are developed. Four of the 5 homes are the old Summit Point floor plan. It was his understanding that these homes were built as a custom type of project in the sense that the homeowner bought a custom lot; retained his own financing and then through his decision, built a custom home which happened to be similar to what was already built out there. Commissioner Messe asked if he saw any difference between those homes and the Initial product that Summit offered? Mr. Bass stated not visually. Commissioner Caldwell asked ff he saw a problem? Mr. Bass stated the concept of Tract No. 13266, which was previously approved, was model homes facing model homes at the beginning of a tract where you have 2 groups facing each other. Here you have a separation of homes an and attempt at custom or widely varied ~ frontages. He believed with the implementation of Mr. Freeman's program that you would not I have that vaded street presentation for that tract and you would no longer have that custom intent. He further stated whether or not the homes could be built more on a custom feature, or wfth extreme elevation changes or front elevation changes to give that custom feel, he has not seen plans to that effect. He believed the intent was for custom homes and thought that you would see various types of homes built as opposed to a tract where you have 3 styles of homes being proposed. r-- Commissioner Caldwell asked if he was saying that the Summit Point II homes are built on the 1 street where there Is asemi-custom version of the estate style tract that is built on Taylor Court I and Oxley and that they would not blend well? Mr. Bass stated he did not have any plans that would show that they would look well or nat. He was concerned about the Intent. He explained the Intent of custom homes is that they would be different from each other. There are only 3 elevations proposed by Baldwin with their new Summit Point. Considering only 5 homes have been built and the remaining would be built via only 3 elevations, it is difficult t~~ conceive whether or not it will work. Therefore, he falls back on the Intent which was originally approved for the varied street frontage because he has no other plans to review. Mr. Freeman asked ff the elevatoa+ comment made in terms of plan type as in plan 1, 2 and 3 because they are proposing at least 3 if not 4 elevation plans for each of the 3 plans. Mr. Bass explained he is looking at more than Just materials. He is looking for actual structural changes. Mr. Freeman wanted to clarify that not only 3 plans were being built with one elevation. They are proposing 3 plans and each of them have multiple elevations. fi-13.94 P.^ge 40 ~...i Mr. Borcego stated the dffference between Tract Nos. 13266 and 13514 was in 13266 when that modHication was approved, I.o., the only existing homes were the three or four model homes which were lined up on the one side of Bailey and there was not an opportunity to have homes plunked down on a checkerboard effect, but he thought that was the case with Tract No. 13514 and that the existing homes are scattered throughout the tract so what you would have is a true mix and there would not be a need for separation. He stated you could make an argument that a mix would be preferable to having one skle of the street lined up with one style and the other side of the street lined up wfth a different style. Mr. Borcego stated that could be the case, however, they were a little concerned about some of the existing homes (Tract No. 13514) which were sold with the idea of that being a custom development area where that was not the case In with Tract No. 13266. Commissioner Henninger commented that there are 26 lots and 19 left wfth twelve different elevations. Commissioner Taft stated they like states Idea, but they do not see where they have the authority to implement something like this once they say they are compatible. Commissioner Messe stated this is clearly a different tract and that fs where he is having a problem. ACTION: Approved EIR 281 Approved revised she plans with the following added conditions: ~. l That the construction road at the northeast corner of the Development Area be upgraded to be suitable for dry weather travel. Furthermore, said road shall be the primary means of construction treffic (weather permitting). That the revised site plan far Tract No. 13514 is hereby approved, provided, that a minimum of twelve (12) different elevations be used within the remaining lots. That the 4-car garage option shall be limited to a maximum of 2596 of the units wfthin subject tracts (wfth the exception of Tract No. 13514). VOTE: 4-2 (Commissioners Boydstun and Caldwell voted no and Commissioner Mayer was absent) 6-13-94 Page 41 ~ II 5C. COND S ONALAUSENPERMIT NON 3687 I Ju yt11 X994 OWNER: WILLIAM TAORMINA, P.O. BOX 309, Anaheim, CA 92815 AGENT: DAVID STOLL, 327 N. Anahelm Bivd., Anahelm, CA 92805 LOCATION: 423 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.08 acres located on the southwest corner of Anahelm Boulevard and Sycamore Street. ReclassH(cation from the CG and PD-C Zones to the CL Zone. To permft a bicycle racing track with accessory uses, including a recall area, conresslon stand, and picnic area. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. IN FAVOR: 4 OPPOSITION: 4 PETITIONER: William Taromina, P.O. Box 309, Anahelm, CA 92815. He stated he was here to talk about children and bicycles. He described some of the motivation as to why he would Involve himself in a project that involved children and bicycs and why he was personally motivated to do something to preserve what quality of Iffe in the neighborhood. His personal motivation as a property owner is that it is basically a con.inuation of what he has been trying to do personally during the past 12-15 years relative to trying to clean-up his neighborhood. He personally has spent over 3 million dollars over the past 15 years purchasing property; bulldozing bars; tearing down buildings that were not compatible with what he thought was appropriate for the area; and removing tenants that got gut of hand. He added this has cost him all of the energy he had. He explained when he purchased the Elk's Club about 7 years ago, after a long court battle, his goal was to restore the building and make it Into a community center and donate it to the Ciry. He never had the opportunity to do that because about 6 months prior to the close of escrow and before he owned the property and had insurance, the building was burned to the ground. He ended up having to tear the building down, not because he wanted to, but because structurally the concrete would not hold itself up In an earthquake and they had to remove the building. 6-13-94 ~ Page 42 He stated that forced him to another way of thinking. He wanted to put senior housing on ~ the property, but was unable to obtain ffnancfng for such a project. He stated instead of leaving the property vacant, he chose the alternative of children and bicycles. He stated he would like to bring business to the area downtown and he would like to network this particular development with the other developments that are going to be happening soon. He clarffled that they absolutely want to respect the neighboring property owner's and their concems. He emphasized ff they cannot address and mitigate everyone of their concems, they will not open this facility. This is an absolute statement. He was sure ff anyone knows his reputation, ff he makes a statement, he is not going to go back on his word. Property rights; property ownership and quiet enjoyment of a person's property is paramount and all they are trying to do is enhance and make better something that is presently just a vacant lot. IN FAVOR: Clayton John, President of the American Bicycle Association, 9831 S. 51ST Street, Phoenix, AZ. He stated they have been involved with bicycle motorcross since 1977 when they were formed and have over 200 tracks throughout the United States and over 65,000 members stretching from Hawaii and Alaska, to California to Connecticut. He gave a brief history of the sport and emphasized that it is a family sport. Membership is comprised of children from age 3 to adults age 60. He stated a controlled atmosphere is provided where every rider has certain safety regulations that they have to adhere to and on a track that is designed for skill with safety in mind. They handle boys as well as girls: their Job is to come up with the rules for the sport that governs the sport and make it uniform throughout the United States. He stated they are excited about this new fac(liry coming into Anaheim and are very pleased to see a community that Is Interested in taking the youth and gNfng them a piece to realize family values. Mark Thomason, 160 S. "B' Street, Tustin, CA. He explained the basic design behind the track was to create a track that is basically surrounded by landscaping, picnic area and something that would enhance the beauty of the City. He stated the tract is approximately 10 feet below the street level and cannot be viewed from the street. The Idea Is to create a small park setting where children and families gather. He stated there would be concession stands; small retail shops to sell BMX gear; bike rental and food facilities. It accesses their main parking facili' ~ which is 74 parking spaces. He emphasized that 90% of the time that will be all of the parking they will need. Dave Stohi, trar;k operator, 17256•D Mission Road, Tustin, CA. He stated his objective is to take 2 vacant lots that were doing nothing for the Clty and allow them to do something where they could gNe back to the City, along with the youth, which is the future of our City and surcounding cities. They looked at many different sports including football, basketball and soccer, but there was always someone that was left out. They came across BMX by driving past the Orange "Y" BMX track which is located off of Chapman off of the 55 Freeway. He stated they found a sport that is family oriented and everyone participates. He stated one of the problems that had been addressed in the past was the parking. They 6.13.94 ~ Page 43 made a model and ft shows that the parking is adjacent to the property and their access is ~'~ through the back area so there would be no need to park on Sycamore or Anaheim Blvd. As the archftect stated, 95% of the time this will be ample parking. They have offered two off-site parking locations wfthin walking distance to the site for additional parking which would give them almost 100 addtlonal parking spaces which is more than they were required to have. They want to give the youth a place to come; keep them off the streets and not be hassled by peer pressure. They can participate in a sport that will actively affect their mind and their body and gNe them a place to come and feel safe along wfth any and ali neighbors that are welcome to come by to watch. They really want to do something posftive for the Cfty. Commissioner Caldwell asked Mr. Stohl is he has operated a BMX track before? Mr. Stohl explained he has not operated a BMX track before, but he has his own business in Anaheim for about 5 years. He has ran other businesses in the past. This will be his baby. He will be there from morning to right. He passed out some brochures. He also has a pager no. that Is listed In the brochure. This will be his full time obligation. Commissioner Caldwell asked if this was anon-profit entity? Mr. Stohl stated they do want to make some money off of this. The one thing that they are striving to do is to give back to the community. He will be working very closely with the YMCA, YWCA, the boys club, the girls rlub, the Parks and Recreation Department and the local schools, etc. He explained they want to give the children the opportunity to strive for something. Some tracks in other areas have goal programs, i.e., If you become the no. 1 student for that semester they get a bike. If you do well and get all A's they can race for free. They want to encourage excellence in school and on the track. OPPOSITION: Mrs. Desiree Thomas, 117-1 /2 E. Sycamore Street, Anaheim, CA. She stated she has been a resident for the past 28 years and she is concerned about this operation. She Is very pleased that they want to do something to encourage the youth, but she is also very concemed about the problems that might evolve from this. She is here representing her grandmother, Mrs. Josephine Lopez, who lives at 117 E. Sycamore Street. They received a notice in the mall which did not share much information as to what is going to be there concerning the retail area, concession stand and the picnic area. This Is her primary concern. She stated she is against the bicycle track as to where they want to place ft. They do not need anymore drinking parking lot problems. Mr. Stohl shared wfth her that there would be no alcohol. There Is no 100% guarantee that there would be no alcohol. Whenever there is a sporting event there Is alcohol. She stated adjacent to the area, down the street, there is the Guadalajara Restaurant and that is a 24 hour restaurant that does serve alcohol. iF they do not have alcohol when their child wins, then they will want to celebrate. 6-13-94 ~ Page 44 She brings this up because she has encountered dangerous problems in this area with ~ bullet holes in her bedroom walls; she has had a theft and an undescribable incident on her 8 year old son's birthday. A gentleman broke into their son's bedroom and molested him in his own room. This was due to alcohol In the parking lot. They supposedly had security officers walking the premises, but nothing was seen and nothing was done. Her main concerns are the drinking and the traffic congestion. Sycamore is a narcow street She elaborated. She asked why did they need to build this track in a quiet residential area. She understands they want to get children involved and chinks that is wonderful as she is a mother of three herself. She asked H they could build this near a Commercial araa? She asked about the affordability to all children to access the track. She asked H Mr. Taromina and the Commission could reci,; sider putting in something else? Casey Chen (phonetically spelled), P.O. Box 2868, Anaheim, CA 92804. He represents the owner of the property at 410 N. Lemon, a 24-unit apartment complex adjacent to the parking lot to the wart of the proposed project. He Is of the same opinion, I.e., he welcomes the facility in Anaheim although he does not think it is compatible in this neighborhood. There are two aspects. He fs concerned about the noise it will generate. Right now ft is a nice, quiet residential neighborhood. He does not see how they can alleviate the noise problem. He is concerned about the P.A. system and the crowds. He is also concerned about the traffic that this will attract from the neighborhood. The property is fronting Anaheim Blvd., however, the parking lot dips into the residential neighborhood. The parking will be accessed from Adele Street which is essentially a residential street. He did not see how that street could accommodate this kind of traffic volume. He expressed his concerns regarding the lighting. What will the operating hours be? Will it operate into the late evening? Will the lights shine into the bedrooms of the apartments along the western property line of the project? He Is strongly against the location of the protect. Esther Viljk, 1296 No. Lighthouse Lane, Anaheim, CA. She is representing herself, her sister and her father. They own properties at 122 W. Sycamore which is directly adjacent to this proposed site; 505 N. Zeyn Street which is 2 houses north of the site; 511 N. Zeyn Street which Is across the street from the site and apartments on 316 N. Lemon Street which is less than 1/2 block away from the parking structure on Adele Street. She stated many cf the neighbors on Zeyn Street did not receive notffication about todays meeting. Her father found out that the North Zeyn block had not been notHfed about the hearing. They own 2 properties and received only 2 notifications. She stated they are opposed to this particular project primarily because they feel there is an attempt to bring into a residential area, something that is Commercial. This belongs in an Industrial area and does not belong in an area that backs up against residential. 6-13.94 ~ Page 45 She expressed her concerns regarding the lighting. The staff report indicated that fire ~ facility could remain lit as late as 10:OOp.m. Tlrat will intrude on the privacy of the homes and the tenants that they have, in particular at 122 W. Sycamore. There is also no stated opening time and she would Tike to think that the facility would not open at 6:OOa.m. to B:OOa.m. in the morning and operate until 10:UOp.m. Sha expressed her concerns regarding noiss and the 20-foot tower that is directly adjacent to the bedrooms at 122 W. Sycamore which would pose a problem. She understands that the tower has a platform and with the P.A. system and ampliffcatlon they might have, that noise will directly either carry Into the Sycamore property or directly up Zeyn Street. She agreed parking is a problem and Sycamore is a very narrow street. She explained Adele Street is hidden from Anaheim Bivd., so those poople driving up the street to look at this park like setting will turn directly onto Sycamore Street congesting that area. They already have the free clinic on the corner that does not have any parking, so Sycamore Street is heavily used for that. This will complicate that particular problem. She referenced the parking structure off of Adele Street. She stated she understands there Is a walkway that takes the users from the Adele Street parking lotto the stn!cture ftse!f which means K Is directly cutting the corr,ars of her father's property at 122 Yf. Sycamore. She has a very sincere concern for the amount of noise; the fumes from thc~ cars and what happens when the 74 space structure parking lot is full. Safety is another concern. If you have individuals utilizing Sycamore Street as the primary access to this'acility you are talking about children who potentially could run out Into Sycamore Street. She added accidents could increase on that street as well. She did not notice anything in the staff report regarding attendance or capacity restrictions. if this project should be approved, this is something that needs to be addressed. She added ff the idea is to look for a picnic area and an area where families can go and spend some time, Pearson Park is just down the Street and she does not feel that this particular area is suited for this type of a project. She stated she Is also representing an individual who resides at 407 N. Anaheim Blvd. that is also in opposftion, but was unable to attend today. She submitted a letter for the record stating opposition. It was noted later by Chairman Peraza that k contained 4 signatures in opposition to the proposed project. IN FAVOR: Steve Cervantes, 427 N. Claudina, Anaheim, CA 92805. He stated he has resided there for 21 years. He stated the proposed project is located right behind his house. He stated he is totally for the project and ff he were a kid he would want to go there. He was speaking on behalf of his family. He stated they are on the corner of Claudina and Sycamore. He stated they just widened Anaheim Blvd. and did not see why it would be too congested. As to the parking, they could Just let everyone know where it Is. If the families bring their children, he was sure they would be responsible enough to not let them run Into the street. OPPOSITION CONTINUED: Jim Romero, 521 N. Zeyn, he is opposed to this project only because it is in the wrong area. They have 2 large lots next to the Savon/Vons area that is open and it would be perfect at that location. There are a number of reasons by the interdepartmental Committee that made stipulations and the first five are his points exactly. 6-13-94 Page 46 ,~ He does appreciate Mr.1'aromina's concern with the children ir, tf~ neighborhood. If this ~ project does not go through, he would propose that he build a teen center at this location e^•; he would volunteer two Saturdays a month or evenings a month to teach the children ~ how to use a computer. He noted he was a comprder technician with Hughes Family Markets. He stated you have to use a little common sense. If something went wrong, there are too many homes in the area that the law enforcement agencies would have trouble taking care of a problem. If it was next to dons and Savon, ft is wide open and there would be no problem whatsoever. It is a good concept but thought ft was in the wrong location. REBUTTAL: ~I Mr. Taromina stated every point that was made was valid and he would like to attempt to answer those concerns with the 3 individuals he brought wfth him. Mr. Stohl stated the points that were brought up were very good. He stated when they had their staff meeting he was asked ff he planned on selling alcohol and his first response was no. The reason Is parents and alcohol wfth children in sports do not mbc. They will never attempt to soli alcohol at their functions. He does not believe in that. He stated people can go anywhere and drink. He has no control over that. If they are at his facility and they are drunk ar being obnoxious they will be asked to Iea~•e. If they do nut leave the pollee will be called and they will be taken away. He stated anyone is allowed to ride there. The only stipulation Is to be a member of the American Bicycle Association. They offer a $5.00, 30 day trial membership. Almost ,- everyone can afford $5.90 and ff they cannot, they will work with them. They are trying to do something for the underprivileged and ff they cannot afford ft, they are going to try to figure out a way to get into ft at no charge. This would allow them to give them a 30 day trial where they can attempt to see ff they Ilke ft or ff they do not. They will work every way they can to get ti19 bike and accessories they need so they can participate not only at their track but at any track across the Unfted States. He stated tho $5.00 fee covers all of the in: urance and ff by chance something would happen, they are fully covered. Mr. Taromina stated these next comments will be In regards to Mr. Chen's comments. These comments were in regards to compatibility, specifically noise from the crowds, P.A. system, traffic on Adele, and lighting. Mr. Thomason referenced the noise from the crowds. He stated there are a lot of things they have done to eliminate the noise from going Into the residential areas. One of them Is to set the track 10 feet below the street level in order to keep some of the sound from distributing. The other way would be to have a landscaped buffer which would ?Iso absorb some of the sound. The sound wall they are required to put up will be lushly landscaped since the area directly adjacent is residential. 6-13-9ti ~ Page 47 He referenced the P.A. system. He stated they will have speakers directly adjacent to the r^~ bleachers so that they do not have one stage that is blaring all of the sound in order to reach everyone. They will have specters next to all of the bleachers so they can keep the sound at a minimal level so everyone can hear k. He referenced the traffic nn Adele Street. He stated he does not think that will be an Issue. The parking lot is very accessible and they can access the parking lot. They have worked h out so they can take a IIttIe parcel of the auto shop's land so they can access the property without accessing their property. They have worked that out and it will be right around the corner from the track and as people said before, you get a lot of repeat business so they will know where the parking lot is. He referenced the lighting. They have strategically placed the 12•foot poles of lighting. All of the lighting i~ pointing out towards Sycamore Street and Anaheim Blvd. away from the the residential. They are all located at the back of tt~,: property and are pointing away from the residential areas. Mr. Taromina referenced Ms. vilJk's comments and stated the lighting has been addressed; the noise was addressed with regard to the 20-foot towers. He passed a Bowes digital audio speaker to the audience. He stated the parking on Sycamore was addressed by Mr. Thomason with respect to the fact that there are 74 spaces. The parking study done by Mr. Singer indicated that would be adequate. He stated as a side note, the off-site parking as referred to In the parking study will be utilized by all of the employees and k is just up the alley approximately 1/4 of a block south at Adele and Anaheim Blvd. There is a used car lot and a body shop behind r~ h. He stated the comment regarding the danger for children pointed out by Ms. Vllkj was very appropriate. He did not know how to address that because he knows when he takes his children he holds their hand or they are Insida of the gate. That is something he Just does not know how to speak to. He added yes there will be more children around and yes than will be more children on bikes. He has no answer for that particular problem. He :'clad one other comment from Ms. Viijk which was excellent, was access from Sycamore. He explained on the corner of Sycamore and Anaheim Blvd. there is a small sign monument and some palm trees. He explained that is a pedeetilar, entrance only. People will not be able to bring their bicycles. There will be a sign that states no bicycles allowed. It is a person gate only and that is not for public entry relative for bicycle participants. But Indeed people can walk through the gate on foot. Commissioner Masse asked tha~~ the only bicycle entry is through the parking lot? Mc Taromina answered :hat ~:~ correct. Mr. Taromina stated ff there is a parking problem with respect to off-site parking, it is probably going to occur on Adele aid Lemon. Ms. VilJk does own property than and they are very sensitive to that. 6-13.94 Page 48 a •~ He referenced Mr. Romero's comments regarding the teen center. He explained he ~v originally proposed a teen center before the building burned down. That was exscUy what he wanted to do. When the building burned down they had to remove the buiiding and he could not afford in terms of cash flow to build a building like that. Instead they have chosen to build an Anaheim Community Center through public financing and other methods end k is going to be built adjacent to City Hall. Trt~E PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Henninger stated there is a note here about the outdoor P.A. system which is normally not allowed. He asked with the P.A, system in place will this she be able to meet the normal noise Code requirements? Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner, stated for extended periods of time k is 60 dBA, but for residential uses, the General Plan calls for 65 CNEL at the property Ilne. Commissioner Henninger asked if they knew U this proposal would meet that or not? Mr. McCafferty stated wfth the evidence submftted wfth the Initial Study, ft is not conclusNe. Commissioner Henninger asked how they would find that out? Mr. McCafferty stated there was public testimony given today that there may be some noise impacts so they could request that a noise study be done. He stated U they are in compliance wfth the one section on sound amplilicatlon, ft does not necessarily mean they will meet the other suund requirements of the General Plan. Commissioner Messe asked about crowd noise. He stated although the track is below grade, the bleachers come up to grede and he thought H they ask for a noise study ft should address crowd noise also. Commissioner Henninger stated I~iftially the Traffic Department was asking for a continuance so they could work out the traffic problems. They have heard the testimony and asked what their thoughts were? Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated they are not opposing this specific project, however, they do not think Y~ Is appropriate for this area due to the fact there Is no parking directly to this sfte. He stated for anyone to find the parking they have to go down Anaheim Blvd. and look for parking and that would create congestion and a concern about people crossing the street. He asked Mr. Taromina iF they were going to have tournaments and national events that will generate more than what they are proposing? He asked where are those people going to park and how will that be taken care of? They, as staff, are recommending 129 parking spaces and not 79 parking spaces. If parking is provided adjacent to the prnnerty then it is approp~late, but not having different parking areas and then tell the employees to park 2 blocks away. Also how is the overflow parking going to be resolved? The safety of their citizens is of great concern and also people driving down Anaheim Blvd. will all of a sudden have problems wfth children crossing Anaheim Blvd., Adele and Sycamore Streets v:fth their bikes. 6-13-94 ~ Page 49 Commissioner Messe addressed Mr. Taromina and stated he noticed the present parking n lot was not a part of the application and asked ff there was any specific reason why? Mr. Taromina stated they have always considered that one parcel of land. The County Assessor has it as one tax bill, so ff was an oversight and not fntentionall~ left out, but certainly he can modify his application or do whatever is necessary. Commissloner Messe stated all ff would take is so+r.9 farm of agreement that that would be the parking lot. Commissioner Henninger asked Mr. Taromina if there was a BMX facility Ilka this one that is in the middle of a residential developed area that they could go look at? Mr. Taromina indicated there was. He had some aerial photos of the one in Orange. Commissloner Henninger stated ff that is the one at the YMCA, ff is much more separate than this one. It is shielded from the adjacent residents by the YMCA building itself and then k has a freeway as a neighbor on one side and then ball fields and a school on the other two sides. He asked ff there (s one that Is really in the middle of a developed urban area? Mr. John stated there is one in Chandler, AZ which is completely surrounded by residential housing with the exception of the two streets that intersect the residents. The only thing that separates the residents from the track is a 5-foot concrete buffer wail on one side and nothing on the other side. ,,. He further exN wined they did have to make some sound changes so he knows the sound they are projecting to use will be no problem because the sound is directed right at the people view(ng ft and is not thrown up into the air to travel. They have used that in the Chandler area in that particular place when those houses completely encompassed the track Thsy have overtwo-hundred tracks a,.~ they have over 7,000 events that they sanction a year and abcut 11 of them are in tight residential areas. Some of them are grandfathered, i.e., they were there first and the residents bull[ around h. In cases like that they adapted to what was there to meet the needs of the people (n the area. Chairman Peraza asked in the Chandler facility where the homes are, do they complain about crowd noise? Mr. John stated they use to have some problems, but that one is completely above ground. They have a 1,000 seat bleacher. It is quite a bit larger at 1.25 acres. They had some complaints a couple of years ago, but they use to have one central announcing system from a pole in the middle that blasted out. At that time they had sound engineers come in that do golf tournaments and events such as that. They did a study based on how far they were from the residents and put in speakers similar to the one they have here today right at the bleachers and they have never had a complaint since. Chairman Peraza asked what the address was for the Chandler track? Mr. John stated at Fry and McQueen in Chandler, AZ. 6-13-94 ~ Page 50 Commissioner Henninger stated ha greatly respects the intentions behind this project. He ~., Is worried that while ft is a great project, ft is not qufte in the right place. He thought they should look a little more into the noise Issue and have a better sense of the parking before they go forward. Mr. Taromina stated he would agree because he would want them to be confident in any decis(on they make. He would stipulate to a noise study and to answer Mr. Yalda's question with respect to the spacial event parking aspect, he would add that to their existing parking study. He thought it was very appropriate that full disclosure be rnade and tests of noise and everything they could possibly think of be done, therefore, he has no problem wfth that at all. Chairman Peraza stated he would be travelling to Arizona on the 23rd and would be there Friday and Saturday morning and would be able to take a look at that facility. Commissioner Henninger asked what the schedule was at the Orange "Y" and would they be operating that track right now? Mr. Taromina stated they operate on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday from about 5:OOp.m. to about 9:OOp.m. It is located east of the 55 Freeway, south of Chapman behind the baseball held. Commissioner Messe asked with the off-she parking lots that are shown on the parking study and with the only bicycle entrance being on that comer, then you know what will happen on Adele? People are going to use the street as much as they can. Mr. Taromina stated that is true. They could paint the curb red or do whatever he can in front of the properties he owns. They could work with the neighborhood to make sure no o^ ;,arks there and have people police ft. They have to train individuals to use the parking lot. He added those are very valid questions. Commissioner Caldwell asked for clarification ff the track was dirt? Mr. Taromina stated N. s clay material similar to adobe. Commissioner Caldwell stated then there is no dust problem? Mr. Taromina indicated that was correct. Mr. Caldwell stated ft is also a relatively expensive sport. A used bike can run $300 plus the gear. If they are going to address the children In our area that are in need, they do not have $300 for a used bike and all of the gear. He asked how they were going to address that? Mr. Taromina explained that is what the bike rental shop is for. For .25 cents or a price of a video game, they can rent a bike for an hour including the protectNe gear. Hfs son brought forward his bike for the Commission to view. Ho explained their goal Is to purchase 200 bikes from GT Bike in Santa Ana and have them available for Individuals to buy on installment. fi-13.94 Page 51 Commissioner Henninger suggested that this be continued for 2 weeks and come back ~, wfth a noise study. Jonathan Borcego, Senior Planner, stated he would recommend ff they were going to continue this, that ft be continued for 4 weeks to July 11, 1994, and wfth the noise study ft typically takes some time to get the data together and then some additional time for their staff to review ft. They would like the opportunity for staff to take a look at comparable facilities to get a better feel for the issues. The request was amended'to 4 weeks. Mr. Borcego stated the issue of notification came up earlier and in taking a look at the ffle ft looks like they did notify ail of the people within that block. fie explained some of them are absentee property owners and ff someone were to go door to door, the tenant themselves may not have received notice, but their records do show that the property owners upon Zeyn were notified. He clarified they will not be doing a renotfficatlon for the July 11th meeting. Commissioner Messe stated if the Adele parking lot had been included in the application, a great many more people would have been notified. Mr. Borcego indicated that was corcect. fie added ff the Commission desires they can renotffy the public. It wes determined that the public would be renotifled. Mr. Taromina stated he will bring a video next time of various sites while the (acpfties are in process. They can compare noise levels with ft. ~_ Commissioner Caldwell suggested that Mr. Taromina talk with the neighbors and set up a meeting and go over the issues with them. ACTION: Continued subject request to the July 11, 1994 Planning Commission meting in order to conduct a noise study and re-notify neighboring residents. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun declared a conflict of Interest and Comrr:;ssioner Mayer was absent) 6-13.94 Page 52 !~ 6a, CEng NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3688 Approved Granted OWNER: LEDERER ANAHEIM LTD., 1990 Westwood Blvd., 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: JOHN SCHROEDER, 1440 S. Anaheim Bivd., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard (Anaheim Indoor Market Place). Property is approximately 14.74 acres loca!ed north and east of the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard. To permR a private outdoor roller hockey rink in conJunciion with an existing Indoor swap meet facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94-78 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING CO~NMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: John Schroeder, General Manager for The Anaheim Indoor Marketplace, 1440 S. Anahelm Blvd., Anahelm, CA 92605. He stated he agrees with all conditions except Condition Nos. 2 and 3 having to do with the traffic light tee as well as transportation improvement fee being assessed on this project. By his calculations, the size of the project and square- footage by this assessment, the fees would run in excess of $15,OOD to $20,000. He stated it is Imperative that these fees be waived because the project is not viable. He explained that the construction is being funded by donations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION. Commissioner Henninger asked staff about the two conditions. This proposal is for an outdoor, open air use and these square-footage figures seem to relate to an actual building. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated they have a new Traffic and Transportation fee since last August and this use will intensify the use of the property and, therefore, they are required to require the fee far this property. He explained there are two fees involved. One is the traffic signal assessment fee which is used for City wide improvements for their existing traffic signal and the second fee is a traffic and transportation impact fee which will be used to improve the intersections throughout the City. 6-13-94 ~ Page 53 He stated the way the ordinance Is written, there is no section as far as if ft is a non-profft ;{ ~ organization to get exemption. He explained the only body that could waive the fee is if y they appeal it to the City Council. He did provide the applicant with a copy of the ordinance and the resolution which Indicates how they could apply for exemption. He further explained in this case the fee was based on the trips, i.e., 2.0 trips per 1,000 square feet at $679.00 per trip. Commissioner Henninger asked for clarification if they would have to appeal this or is there a separate waiver process they would have to file for? Mr. Yalda staled he believed there was a separate waiver they would have to file for the exemption of the fees only. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated there are three ftems in the ordinance that would possibly be applicable. The first one is the situation where the fee does not apply at all and that would be for a use that would be substantially the same as what was being used before, such as ff something is being reconstructed. It does not appear that this fits squarely Into anyone of those. The second item is that she is told that this property is i~ the Redevelopment Area. The Redevelopment Agency has paid millions of dollars tow trds street Improvements and has been making in-lieu payments for certain properties in Fedevelopment areas based upon the Agency's determinations of the conformance and th a benefit to the Redevelopment Plan for the benefit of the citizens of Anaheim, so that may b e a possibility. ~.. The third one would be the fee adjustment or the waiver that Mr. Yalda spoke about and that would be an application to the City Council far a reduction or adjustment to that fee or a waiver of the fee. however, it would be based upon the absence of a reasonable relationship or nexus between the transportation Impacts of that development and either the amount of the fee charged or the type of facilities to be financed, so that would be the argument that would need to be made. Commissioner Messe asked if there was Just going to be cne restroom and if so was ft going to he a unisex facility? Mr. Schroeder stated ft is not that there is not restroom facilities for females within the Marketplace, but in trying to keep the plan down as low as possible, they did Just provide the restroom and locker room facilities for one sex. Mr. Borrego stated there are days (he believed Tuesdays) that the Marketplace is closed and he was not sure ff thfs facility would be operating during that time, and if so, then that could pose a problem. Commissioner Messe asked if his days of operation would Include Tuesdays for the roller hockey? Mr. Schroeder stated he believed that the; could Include Tuesdays, He stated in fact their soccer facility does stay open when the leagues are scheduled during the times when the Marketplace is not open and they do have access to the facilfties at that time. 6-13-94 Page 54 Commissioner Taft asked ff there are co-ed leagues? Mr. Schroeder indicated he has not gotten into the development with tho Disney Goals program as far as what their suggestions are in the development of the leagues. If he were to anticipate a guess, he would say they would offer it from existing programs. Commissioner Caldwell stated then ff does not specffically exclude females? Mr. Schroeder stated absolutely not. Commissioner Caldwell stated they were putting up somewhat of an impediment to female participat!on by not providing facilties for their use at least not faciitles that would be convenleitt to the track that you are providing for the boys. Mr. Schroeder stated they do have both male/female and co-ed leagues for the indoor soccer that they have in operation right now. Since they do not have changing facilities or specific restroom facilities for those operations, those questions have never come up befc.'e. Commissioner Henninger stated why not make ff cheaper for yourself and not provide a locker room for the boys? Mr. Schroeder stated he would be speaking for too many people at this point and perhaps It would be easier to Isolate and provide an additional facility rather than to delete them. He clarified the plans ":ere not set in concrete. He stated k is their opinion that in order to draw the type of people that will be able to if finance through the league fees etc., that this facility has to be top notch and to delete that would make it much like any other facility where they could play in a park or a play ground. Ms. Mann stated the applicant may want to look at the provisions or have their attorney look at the provisions under the Civil Rights Act with regard to an estabflshment that Is setting Itself out to provide this type of service to the public and then discriminating upon the basis of gender and the facilities that it is providing. Commissioner Henninger stated lets either have !ocker rooms for both or locker rooms for none. Mr. Schroeder stated he would stipulate to complying with all of the rules that Selma Mann is indicating. Commissioner Henninger asked for clarification if there was going to be any alcohol? Mr. Schroeder indicated none at all. I :~, Commissioner Henninger asked ff he was going to have security? Mr. Schroeder stated they already have securfry around the Marketplace and they will have ` some assigned to keep an eye on that area as well. 6-13-94 Page 55 Commissioner Henninger asked when the Marketplace is closed and th(s is in operation, ~''~ will you have security? Mr. Schroeder stated they have at least one security guard on duty at all times. If there are people on the field for Indoor soccer, they would continue that for the roller rink. ~ He suggested they add three conditions. One regarding security to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department; no alcohol beverage consumption; and a condition that says either no locker rooms or locker rooms for both sexes. Ms. Mann suggested that they use licensed, unKormed securky guards that are expressly for this purpose and no other. Mr. Schroeder indicated that is all they use. Ms. Mann stated with regard to an issue that may be outstanding about street Improvements with the original conditional use permit, there may be :,ome issues that are unresoived wfth regard to that and she Just wanted to be clear that any decisions that are being made by the Planning Commission on this are not intended in anyway to be a waiver or any sort of a decis!on that is intended to suggest that approval of this particular application has anything to do with any unresolved Issues on the conditional use permit relating to street improvements. Commissioner Messo stated there may be a nexus that says they should not approve this ff they knew what those unresolved issues were. .-. Ms. Mann stated there was no ins from Public Works-Engineering, however, she did ~ understand from speaking to one of the other attorneys, Malcom Slaughter the City Attorney's office, that there is a dispute in place right now with regard to the bond having to do with the street Improvements for the project. Commissioner Henninger asked H she wanted to add a condition? Ms. Mann stated she felt she had Insufficient information to formulate a condition and so k is on the record, that this is an outstanding Issue and that the applicant Is aware that K the matters are not resolved that there certainly is a possibility that the entire CUP may be called bank for consideration. Commissioner Henninger stated he would add a finding to the conditional use permit that the approval of this conditional use permit has no Impact on existing conditions of approval on any of the previous CUPS on th(s property. 6-13-94 Page 56 ACTION: Approved CEOA Negative Declaration r! ~ Granted Conditional Use Permtt No. 3688 with an added finding that the approval has no Impact on existing conditions of approval of previously approved conditional use permits. Added the following conditions: That licensed and uniformed security guards shall be provided to tha satis(actton of the Anaheim Police Department, That no alcohol beverage consumption shall be permitted. That either two (2) locker rooms be provided (accommodating both sexes) or none I at all. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) .T, l i ,.,,~ 6-13-94 Page 57 1 (`~~ 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3690 Granted OWNER: LARRY ARMOUR COMPANY, C/0 ARh4OUR BUILDING CO., P.O. BOX 1214, Tustin, CA 92681 AGENT: JOHN SCHWART2, 5022 Lincoln Ave., Cypress, CA 90630 LOCATION: 2731 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.51 acre located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and approximately 199 feet east of the centedine of Syracuse Street To parmit sn automotive lubricaticn and tune-up facll;ty wkit coin-operated car wash facilities with waiver of required site screening and minimum landscaped setback adjacent to a residential zone boundary. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94-79 FOLLOWING iS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None l _ PETITIONER: John Schwartz, 5022 W. Lincoln, Cypress, CA. He referenced page 7, Item no. 23, °d." He stated staff requested that they move the Iube building 3 feet off of the westerly property Ilne. He believed h was because of graffiti due to the wall. He stated he has a lot of walls in that area--there are 3 other walls. He stated ff there is graffiti, he takes it off immediately. The facility operates 7 days a week and the graffiti will not sit there for even one day. He explained right now the building sfts on the proper., Ifne, however, ff they think there is a problem he may be able to move It one foot. On the property next door, the curbing is ~ approximtely 1 fcot to 1-1 /2 foot where K is like a no mans land and he could still put in some shubbery and a sprinkler system In and plant some vines on that side, but he prefers not to have to move fi over 3 feet. Commissioner Henninger asked how he would get access to h ff it is right on the property line to maintain that side of the building without tresspassing on the neighbor's property? Mr. Schwartz explained there is a parking lot next door so it is really not tresspassing. He emphasized that they will maintain the building and there will be no graffiti on it. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. `~c {: 6.13-94 Page 58 DISCUSSION: ,,.o, Mr. Schwartz stated for clarification it is not atune-up shop, it is strictly a 10 minute lube and fit ', oil facility. Commissioner Henninger asked what the harm was of moving the building over 3 feet? Mr. Schwartz explained because of the traffic pattern and the car wash there is a staging area that Juts the building out. It would not create a major problem but he foresees on Saturday and Sunday when there aro more cars to get washed, he would prefer not to have ft Jutting out. If there is one car or two cars stacked far the car wash, ft would Just work better that way. Commissioner Messe stated the bays for the tune-up facility are facing north and south at Lincoln Street. He asked ff there was a way he could intensify the landscaping with a couple of larger trees in the landscape planter on Lincoln in front of the facility! Mr. Schwartz stated they could do a better job of landscaping, however, the facility is very clean when you look Into ft and they do not have anything hanging and there will Just be the two cars parked inside. Most of the work is done from underneath. Commissioner Messe explained that lately they have been trying to only approve those types of facilities where the direction of the bays are facing the street. Chairman Peraza asked staff ft he did not want to move ft 3 feet, could he move ft back closer to the other building? ~, Mr. Borrego explained that would be another s:+t:~native, however, the only problem with that is ft he does push the building back so that ft would be In line with the existing commercial building to the left, then ft may impact his traffic flow into the building. He stated ft would be a lot easier just to pull ft back 3 feet. He explained ft was not only for the concept for pulling ft off of the property line 3 feet and graffiti preventing landscaping, but Just to provide some visual relief from the 25-foot high block building that would essentially be built right up next to the property fine and be visible to the traffic on Llncoin Avenue. He added k would create a landscaping buffer to the building wall since there are not any windows or anything else proposed on that elevation. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Condftionai Use Permit No. 3690 with the following added condition: That dense tree planting shall be provided along the western edge of the front landscaped setback area to further screen the service bays. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissionsr Mayer absent) ,.~,c. 6-13.94 Page 59 8a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Sb. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 8c. ,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3689 Approved Approved Granted OWNER: 3530 LA PALMA PARTNERSHIP, ATTN: Brian Bargemann, C/0 INVESTMENT BUILDING GROUP, 500 N. STATE COLLEGE BLVD., # 525, ORANGE, CA 92668 LOCATION: 3550 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 5.20 acres located south and east of the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Grove Street and further described as 3550 East La Palma Avenue. To permft an indoor volleyball training center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC9480 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: ,-. Charlie Wado, 8057 Larson, Garden Grove, CA. He referenced page 7, Condition No. 4 ~, regarding installation of sidewalks along La Palma. o. ian Bargeman (phonetically spelled), he works for Investment Building Group who owns the property in cuestion, 500 N. State College Blvd., Suite 525, Orange, CA. He stated Condition No. 4 is requiring a sidewalk to be installed in front of the property. He brought a copy of a letter that is addressed to them from the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and signed by Larry Hftson, dated February 26, 1993. He stated in the letter the Redevelopment Agency commits the City to bu(Id the sidewalk in front on La Palma Avenue for this property. This was set forth in a stipulation where they granted an easement to the City for an electric utility and they requested that they replace the landscaping back to fts original placement, and put the trees and the irrigation system back. He explained they have done that although they have had to spend some addftional money because the Irrigation system has not worked well to this date. He stated ft has been over a year and they are waiting for the City to do what they agreed to do in the Flrst place. He was sure ft was just a misunderstanding. Commissioner Henninger stated the frontage listed on the map is 405 feet and the letter references 175 feet. He asked if the rest of the sidewalk was Ir, place? 6-13.94 ~ Page 60 Mr. Bargeman explained the way the City put together the utility easement, is thy; undergrounded the electric utfifffes from Tustin which is the street immediately :o the east where all of the widening and other Improvements took place. They took it down half way through their property Just across their access onto La Paima. He stated it was his understanding that they were going to continue to dig that all up and it does not make sense to put in a sidewalk in when it is going to be torn up sometime in the next year or two. The sidewalk that was specffically addressed was something they asked for because there is a public bus station on the east property line and ft is better than having people stand on the wet grass and mud during the winter time to catch a bus. . Commissioner Henninger suggested that they change Condition No. 4 and Instead of saying 'as required by," say "to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." It sounds like he has a commitment on part of this and he may have a good point on the other and ff he does have a good point, he could probably work things out with the City Engineer. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit N~. 3689 Modffled Condition No. 4 to read as follows: ,., 4. That sidewalks shall be installed along La Palma Avenue to the satisfaction of y the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on fiie in the Office of the City Engineer. VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) DISCUSSION ITEM: Request for appointment of an alternate to the Continued to Underground Utilities Committee. June 27, 1994 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:25 P.M. TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MORNING SESSION OF JUNE 27, 1994 AT 11:00 A.M. "''~ 6-13-94 Page 61