Minutes-PC 1994/07/11~.
MONDAY, JULY 11, 1994
11:00 A.M. - DISCUSSION RELATED TO THE PROPOSED ANAHEIM STADIUM EARTHQUAKE
DISASTER RECOVERY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING DISCUSSION (NO PUBLIC
TESTIMONY ACCEPTED)
1:30 P•M• - PUBLIC HEARINGS BEGIN (PUBLIC TESTIMONY)
ACTION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Messe
PROCEDURE TO EXPECITE 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,
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 Reports 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 fairness to all 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 Commisslon 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 Items of Interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission,
and/or agenda items. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to
speak. i
AC071194.WP
07/11/94
~ Page 1
I
:1
,~
~~
~~
:J
/~
1a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved Approved
ic. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3245 Readvertised Amended conditions
of approval
OWNERS: STEPHEN 8. WONG, NORWALK INVESTMENTS, 1020 N.
Batavia, Ste. B, Orange, CA 92667
HOWARD W. FARRAND, P. 0. Box 923, Chino, CA 91704
AGENT: GLEN GWATNEY, ANACAL ENGINEERING CO., P. 0.
Box 3668, Anaheim, CA 92803
LOCATION: 526 and 532 South Rose Streei. Property is
approximately 0.52 acres located on the east side of Rose
Street and approximately 390 feet south of the centenine
of Santa Ana Street and further described as 532 South
Rose Street.
To arnend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to the time
limitation of a previously approved auto body and paint facility and to
include a 5,805 sq. ft. expansion to the existing facility with waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces.
Continued from the April 4, and June 27, 1994 Planning Commission
meetings.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94.88
i
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Glen Gwatney, agent, explained this !s an existing body shop and paint shop and this
request is to allow them to expand Into the building next door. They have worked with
the Redevelopment Agency and at this time they are in conformance with their
recommendations.
OPPOSITION:
Harry Nelson, 559 S. Rose, stated he has a light manufacturing plant and they currently
have a serious parking problem on Rosa Street; and that Code Enforcement has been
out to the location many times trying to rectify the problems.
REBUTTAL:
Mr. Gwatney stated he believed that the Planning staff and Code Enforcement staff have
addressed these problems and that the probationary one-year period for this use on this
property was to address these problems. If there are continued problems then their
existing CUP could be terminated.
07/11/94
Page 2
3
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Boydstun ssked li they will have sufficient parking on their ovm premises
for all of their vehicles?
Mr. Gwatney explained they will be moving all of the vehicles that have been located In
the front inside the building. Thoso are vehiclea that are being worked on or are being
dropped off by clients. All of the parking in front of the building is going to be left for
chant parking only or vehicles that are going to be picked up that day.
He stated they are very aware of the double parking problem and they have been doing
their best to resolve it. There are a lot of parking problems because there are a lot of
mechanic shops to the south and those people do not have anywhere to park so they
just pu11 in behind someone. He stated tt,ey have posted signs not allowing people to
park there who are not part of this business.
He further explained at this time they have room to park everything in the back and
inside the building. They ana leaving all of the area outside in the front, facing Rose for
customer parking.
Commissioner Henninger asked if the Intent of expanding their business Into the next
unit is to alleviate that parking problem?
Mr. Gwatney indicated that was correct and stated right now they are parkfnc a lot of
the vehicles to be worked on in the front, but are going to be able to move those Into
the unk where they are expanding.
Commissioner Henninger asked ff he understood that Code Enforcement has
recommended that a condition be added allowing them to inspect this business on a
periodic basis and that the applicant would aay for those inspections? He explained the
purpose of those Inspections is to see ff they are living up to the ti~ings that he has told
the Commission.
Mr. Gwatney indicated he understood and stated they are in agreement with that
condition.
Commissioner Caldwell stated item (b) under Recommendations talks about
rehabilitating the exi~:irg landscape which is minimal. He refereed to the IanCSCaping or
the look of Rose Street, the property ha leases, and asked what he intends to do.
Mr. Gwatney explained at this time they are going to repaint the building; that it is two
separate buildings, but they are Uoing to paint it so has the Illusion of a single building.
He stated the landscaping along the front is only in about an t8-inch strip, but they will
be planting flowers and small shrubbery. They are in the process now of removing any
bad shrubbery.
Commissioner Henninger stated in addition to staff's recommended conditions, he would
like to add a condition that this CUP will terminate at the end of one year.
07/11/94
~.1 Page 3
Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement, stated one of the hems stipulates that all work shall
be conducted wholly within the building and that Code Enforcement would like a
stipulation that this includes the washing of vehicles. (Mr. Gwatney explained that is one
of the conditions with the Redevelopment Agency.)
John Lower, Transportation and Traffic Manager, explained they hay e a letter which
serves as a parking study done by the developer which says the intent of this is to
correct some of the current parking problems, however, it was not approved as a
parking study given the wide variation from the Code. He also responded to
Commissioner Caldwell that he was not familiar with the property.
Commissioner Henninger stated they have heard that this is Intended to Improve the
parking situation and hopefully as they go along, they can get more people on Rose
Street to start addressing some of the existing problems. He added he thought this was
a step in the right direction.
ACTION: Determined previously approved NegatNe Declaration is adequate to serve as
required environmental documentation.
Approved request.
Amended Condition Nos. 13 and 15 of Resolution No. PC90-56 to read as
follows:
"13. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the
petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department
marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibft No. 1.
15. That Condkional Use Permit No. 3245 may be modHied to Include a
5,940 square foot expansion Into the property Identified as 526 South
Rose Street. Conditional Use Permit No. 3245 shall be granted for a
period of one year, to expire on July 11, 1995, subject to the
following additional conditions of approval:
(a) That monthly Codo Enforcement inspections shall be
required, with the cost of inspections to be Incurred by the
property owners.
(b) That the rehabilitation of the existing landscaping shall be
required.
(c) That all employee parking shall be located within the rear
yards of the subject property or within the buildings.
(d) That the storage of vehicles and business related materials,
and all work on vehicles (includiny the washing of said
vehicles) shall be confined to the interior of the buildings.
Absolutely no business related work or storage shall be
allowed within the front or rear yards, or the roof of the
buildings.
07/11/94
~ Page 4
~., (e) That signage shall be required at the front of 526 and 532
South Rose Street which state, in both English and Spanish,
that parking is reserved for customers of the subject business
only.
That this use is hereby granted for a period of one year and
shall terminate on July 11, 1995.`
VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messe absent)
Commissioner Henninger stated the City is aware of the problems on Rose Street and they
aie trying to do something about it. i=te explained they have been In the area a number of
times and they are aware that Rose Street was built without adequate parking.
~.
07/11/94
~,,,~ Page 5
2a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to
2b. RECLASSIFICATION NO.93.9411 August 8, 1994
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3687
OWNER: WILLIAM TAORMINA, P.O. BOX 309, Anaheim, CA 92815
AGENT: DAVID STOLL, 327 N. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 423 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is
approximately 1.08 acres located on tha southwest corner
of Anaheim Boulevard and Sycamore Street.
Reclass"nation from the CG and PC-C Zones to the CL Zone. To
permit a bicycle racing track with accessory uses, including a retail
area, concession stand, and picnic area.
Continued from June t3, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. _
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PlANN14JG COMMISSION ACTION.
IN FAVOR: 3 people spoke in favor
OPPOSITION: 4 people spoke in opposition/correspondence was rb ' red in opposition
Commissirn,or Boydstun declared a conBict of Interest.
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Bill Taormina, P.O. Box 309, Anaheim, CA 92815. After 4 weeks they have completed
the requests that have been made of them. Slnce their last meeting they had a meeting
with the surrounding neighbors at Michael Tucker's house located at the corner of
Sycamore and Zeyn, approximately 80 feet from the corner of his property.
Chairman Peraza stated the Commission received a letter from Rose H. Anderson at 424
N. Lemon Street. She expressed her concerns about noise and traffic.
Mr. Taormina presented a video tape of a similar facility located in Orange, CA.
David Stoll, 17256 'D" Nisson Road, Tustin, CA, explained on July 1, 1994, they met
with approximately 10-12 neighbors to address thek concerns. By the end of the
meeting, 90% of the people who were there had gNen them their blessing regarding the i
track. They are more than willing to give the track a try including the parking, noise, the i
07/11/94 ~
Page 6
ft
litter, etc. They were able to address all of their problems at that time. At the end of the
meeting, they walked them around the vacant property and showed them where they
plan to put their bicycle shop, the clothing shop and the concession stand.
He explained Mr. Tucker was unable to make it today, however, he left his phone
number and the Commissioners may call him to verity that the Issues were addressed.
OPPOSITION:
Esther Viljak, 1296 Light House Lane, Anaheim, CA., presented two (2) letters to the
Commission in opposition of subJect request from her sister in Oregon and her father.
Her family owns the properties at 316 N. Lemon, 506 N. Zeyn, 511 N. Zeyn and 122 W.
Sycamore. The W. Sycamore property is immediately next door to the proposed facility.
This facility belongs in an industrial area, not a commercial area that backs up against a
residential area. The 122 W. Sycamore property is less than t5 feet away from the
facility.
They have had the opportunity to call the Chandler, AZ facility and visit the facility in
Orange. They attempted to visit the facillry in Yorba Linda, but the day they went it was
out of business and no longer operational.
She stated in both the Chandler and Orange facilities, it was her understanding that the
homes are a minimum of 200 yards away from the racing tracks. They oppose the
facility based on operating hours, noise, type of competitions that BMX operates,
capacity, parking and the proximity to the residential areas. She submitted some
handouts to the Commission.
She explained she tried to compare the Orange, Chandler and the proposed Anaheim
facilities. Financial~y, the Orange and Anaheim facilities will primarily be profft centers,
whereas the one in Chandler is anon-profit center.
The size of the facility in Anaheim is a little over one acre. The size of the facility in
Orange based on her visual perception, Is at least 2 to 3 times the size of the facility that
they are proposing for Anaheim.
The hours of operation are of a real concern; the Orange facility operates approximately
16 hours a week; the Chandler Center operates about 20 hours and this is being
proposed for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week which is 84 hours of operation per week.
The operating hours for the Orange and Chandler facilities are late evening and early
afternoon. The Anaheim facility would be operating from 9:OGa.m. to 9:OOp.m.
According to BMX rules, the membership fee for anyone that participates in the BMX
facility is $35.00 a year. The $5.00 membership fee is a 30-day trial and at the end of
the 30 days, you must either withdraw or pay the other 530.00.
Practice sessions cost approximately 53.00 at both the Orange and Chandler facilities
and $6.00 for a race. Mr. Taormina stated he was going to charge .25 cents an hour.
BMX rules require a flat racing fee. BMX also only allows the facillry to race a certain
number of nights a week which opens up the rest of the facility for communfty use. She
had a serious concern that the facility will be used as a hanyout.
07/17/94
~,.,,~ Page 7
i
i
She spoke with some of the operators at the Orange BMX facility and they mentioned if
they don't operate within BMX rules, they have grave concerns about it becoming a
hangout as well.
The noise in the Orange BMX came from several areas. The racing gate is a very heavy
metal and In the video you saw the racing gate, but at a distance. When that is dropped
every 30 to 45 seconds during a race or during the day, it sounds like a cannon. If that
is anywhere in the vicinity of a residential home, there is going to be a lot of irritating
noise on an on-going basis.
She expressed her concerns regarding the P.A. system and the noise including
proposed music being played during the day. She added the video was not a
professional video as far as decibel ratings are concerned. Plus, she was concerned
about parking and traffic. She stated they bring in tents to accommodate the additional
retail and concessionaire needs that the facility would require for special events. Other
concerns were the dust, dirt and safety Issues. She asked that the Commission decline
their proposal.
She presented a new Rider handbook along with materials discussed by her today.
Bruce Anderson, Apartment Manager at Park Promenade Apartments, 410 N. Lemon
Street, Anaheim, CA. He represents 24 apartments. He emphasized he is not against
bicycling and he owns very expensive mountain biking equipment and uses it on a
regular basis. He has no problems with this project but he questions the location. His
other concerns were crowd noise, view, gangs, and the disruption to the quiet setting of
the apartment complex. He asked that this request be denied.
Casey Chen, of the owner apartment building at 410 N. Lemon, Anaheim, CA. He
resides at 1265 Mannesaro Street, Anaheim, CA. His concerns were the same as Mr.
Anderson's. In addition, their apartments are immediately west of the parking lot and
some of the apartment windows are zero to 10 feet away from the property line. He
expressed his concerns regarding the hours of operation.
IN FAVOR:
Mary Jane Stoll, 1725.60 Nisson Road, Tustin, CA. Was in favor of subject request. She
hoped this would guide children Into something positive.
OPPOSITION CONTINUED:
Debbie Anderson, Apartment Manager at 410 N. Lemon, Anaheim, CA. She expressed
her concerns regarding safety for her children; noise; view; and gang activity.
IN FAVOR:
Rev. Paumier (phonetically spelled), pastor of the church one block away from the
proposed site. He was (n favor of the subject request. They need places for children to
go and they need to reach out to the youth of the area.
Sandra Perez, 412 N. Claudina, No. 5, Anaheim, CA. She (s in favor of subject request.
She is a single parent with 3 boys ages 7, 14, and 20. The BMX track would be a great
place for her 7 and 14 year old sons to ride their bikes. She would feel a lot safer taking
them to this facility. She expressed her concerns regarding safety for the children; and
drug traffic at Pearson Park.
07/11/94
~ Page 8
REBUTTAL:
Mr. Taormina stated he was not doing this for profit. He could build a high density
apartment complex, etc. and bring RM-1200 back to Anaheim or he could put in a strip
mall or anything else that brings fifth and drugs and more gangs to their neighborhood
but that he refuses to do it..
He stated his heart is broken to hear his neighbors speak and question his integrity.
He is here for one purpose and that is to put children on bicycles and get them off of
the street-to take a parking lot behind Mrs. Anderson's window, next to a commercial
property - a high density deck housing project which is a breeding ground for fifth and
leave the property empty with tress around it. He stated he is here to take an
abandoned piece of property that he has lost millions of dollars trying to improve and
put something in that will enhance the neighborhood. If there is something wrong with
that, then he is guilty. He Is sink of the drugs and the gangs and he is going to do
everything he can whether this is approved or not. It does not make any difference to
him because he is not going to stop fighting here. This is all about fighting drugs,
gangs and fifth in the neighborhoods. Bicycles are Irrelevant, but children are relevant
and that is what is driving him. He emphasized it was not profit and that he will lose
money on this. This is simply to give children an alternative. Yes, there will be some
noise, the noise of laughter and the noise of parents talking to their children and
showing them love. He pointed out that he Iivss 3 blocks from this location.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Chairman Peraza stated he visited the Chandler, AZ BMX facility right after the last
public hearing. He stated the houses are closer than 200 yards. They are right across
the street and no one was living in the homes on the south side. On the west side there
are some new homes and some people living in them. He did speak with a couple of
families and he way told while they are Indoors they cannot hear anything, however,
when they go outside, they can hear the loud speakers, etc. He explained the people
told him they loved it because they knew where their children were and the
neighborhood children loved it.
He stated the BMX track was above ground and, in fact, the starting gate was way
above ground, and it does make a big noise for the benefit of the woman who spoke
about the noise from the starting gate. He stated on one side there is a farm house
and on the other side there is an open field.
He explained Chandler is a developing City with a lot of homes going up. That facility is
open on Friday night and then on Sunday; plus, they do have some practices and they
have about 200 kids involved. He was also told that some of the bicycles cost up to
about $1,000, but they all have helmets and other safety gear. They are changing their
speaker system to the ones on the bleachers. The children do get involved. It is out in
the country and it seems like a good project for that area.
He stated he would like a noise study for the Anaheim facility. He thought what Mr.
Taormina was doing for the children was great. He pointed out that Sycamore is a
busy, narrow street.
Commissioner Caldwell stated he agreed with Mr. Taormina and agreed we cannot do
07/11/94
Page 9
---. , .~_... ___ .~. _.,. _ _. _ .._ . _ _ __--~_--i
enough for the children. There is a problem with a lack of recreational opportunities for
children, but this hearing is not just about that and this is a land use question and the
question is whether or not this development will be a detriment to the peace, health and
welfare of the properties that exist around it. A big part of that in this proposal is the
noise. What the Commission has heard so far is that thaie is not a proper study to
make that determination. He suggested a continuance in order to obtain a noise study
to find cut what the actual impacts will be on the surrounding properties.
Commissioner Mayer stated she agrees. She also noticed some representatives from
Parks and Recreation present. She indicated concern that this (s half a block or so from
Pearson Park Amphitheater which is an outdoor theater which does have evening
performances and the times could overlap. Shc would like to make sure that any noise
studies that were done would Include the Impact that this may or may not have on
performances such as the Pacific Symphony that would also be going on in the
Amphitheater as well as any overlapping parking considerations from the uses of those
two types of facilities.
Chairman Peraza stated he was sure Mr. Taormina would schedule his events around
those of the Amphitheater.
Commissioner Caldwell asked how long it would take to get a noise study?
Greg McCafferty, Asso~?ate Planner, stated it would take a couple of weeks. The
applicant would have to hire their own noise consultant.
Commissioner Henninger suggested a 4 week continuance. He stated at the last
hearing this. was continued for 4 weeks with the idea that they were going to have a
noise study done and that the applicant would have time to meet with the Traffic staff
and he guessed that was not done and he wondered why?
Mr. Taormina explained they felt the video would be adequate. He explained Paul
Singer, former City of Anaheim Traffic Engineer, did their traffic study and they did not
know how else to address it.
John Lower, Transportation and Traffic Manager, stated he would like the opportunity to
meet with the developer and his consultants, if so desired, to discuss the parking issues
and the area for drop off and pick up.
Mr. McCafferty asked if Pearson Park events should be included in the analysis or Just
the surrounding properties. After a brief discussion, it was determined it should include
the Pearson Park events.
Commissioner Mayer stated she thought there was an existing noise study done
Internally from Inside the theater and she did not know if that took Into account outside
noises coming in. Perhaps they could refer to that as well.
Chairman Peraza pointed out that at one time there were complaints about the noise
from the theater by the people in the apartmrints.
07/11/94
~, Page 10
ACTION: Continued subject request to the August 8, 1994 Planning Commission I
meeting In order for the applicant to submit a noise study.
VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun declared a conflict of interest and Commissioner Messe
was absent)
i
()7/11/94
~ Page 11
3a. ADDENDUM FOR KOLL ANAHEIM CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (Previously Certified) Approved
3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part
3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3695 Granted, in part
OWNER: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Attn: Lisa
Stipkovich, 201 S. Anaheim Blvd., #1003, Anaheim, CA
92805
AGENT: DISNEY DEVELOPMENT CO., C/0 LIAM THORNTON or
BRUCE BERG, 500 S. Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA
914216400
LOCATION: 300 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately
3.17 acres located at the southwest corner of Lincoln
Avenue and Clementine Street.
To permit an ice skating rink, including an amusement arcade and an
~m-site restaurant with the on-premise sale and consumption of beer
and wine with waiver of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b)
minimum layout and design of parking areas and vehicular
accessways, (c) required parking lot landscaping and (d) definition of
enclosed restaurant.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94-89
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
IN FAVOR: 4 people spoke in favor
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER:
Richard Bruckner, Community Redevelopment Agency, presented plans for the community Ice rink
to be located in Project Alpha in the Koli/Anaheim Center Project. They have an exclusive right to
negotiate with Disney GOALS. The objecCNe is to prepare a Disposition, Development Agreement
and sell this parcel of land to anon-profit organization for the purpose of developing a community
Ice skating center.
In their discussions with Disney GOALS, they believe that the project which they are going to
develop will be an asset to downtown. It will provide a place both for young and old to have a
positive recreational experience and will add additional life and pedestrian traffic to downtown.
Bruce Berg, Director of Real Estate Development, Disney Development Company, and also
Presid~:nt of the Disney GOALS Charity which was recently formed and is a key component of this
project.
07/11 /sa
`~ Page 12
He explained that Michael Eisner, Chairman of the Board of the Walt Disney Company, has had a
tremendous Interest in the sport of hockey for many years. All 3 of his sons have played Ice
hockey and he has always felt it was a great team sport as it teaches discipline and team play and
has been an Integral part of their thinking process as they go through the design, not only of the
rink but of this charitable program.
He stated as you can tell by architecture, they have placed great emphasis on quality of design.
Most ice rinks are either renovated warehouses or box-like buildings. The Walt Disney Company
takes a lot of pride in the quality of architecture that they do. As a result they are working with the
world renowned architect, Frank O'Geary (SP?) and Associates. This is probably the first public
use facility that their office has done in Orange County and they are extremely proud of the design.
He explainer) they have plans to build 2 ice rinks inside of the facility, one of which would mirror
the size of the ice at the Pond which is approximately 85' by 200' and one which they will call
international or an olympic•size sheet of ice which is about 15 feet wider.
They also have plans for a restaurant, a pro shop; seating for approximately 1300 people, locker
room facilities for the Mighty Ducks, as well as the children who will be using the fac(Iity, and a
couple of meeting rooms.
The project would qualify under the previously approved project zoning for entertainment. This
project has been a model for public/private partnership. Although they are not here to talk about
the specifics today, the relationship they are establishing with the Redevelopment Agency, the
Parks and Recreation Department and the School Board have been model organizations.
The Disney GOALS program which he previously referred to is modeleJ after a program in New
York that was founded in 1986 called Ice Hockey in Harlem. The gentleman that originally founded
the program is David Wilk. Mr. Wilk is physically moving to Anaheim today. He is going to begin
his grassroots organizing for the charity this month.
They have had a lot of interaction with Steve Swain from the Gang Drug Program Intervention as
well as Chris Jarvl and Mark Devon.
A large portion of the ice time that they are proposing to be used at this facility will be dedicated
for under served communities and for the community at large. They are hoping to run programs
for the School District; seniors and other members of the community. They hope to bring
additional visitors to the area as they run tournaments or summer camps which will hopefully fill up
hotel rooms and bring more revenues to the City.
He stated there are social and recreational benefits that this facility will hopefully be bringing to the
communiq~ of Anaheim including Its youth programs fostering positive alternatives for children while
at the same time emphasizing education and community service.
This is a project which he considers to be a partnership with the Redevelopment Agency and the
GOALS program. The Mighty Ducks will also have a major Involvement, not only In the facility in
terms of skating, but the team typically practices between 150 and 200 hours a year. There are
over 13,OD0 hours of available ice time, so they are use to facilities about one and half percent of
the total Ice time, although they are a tenant they are clearly not the major user of the facility.
They have also declared the Disney GOALS charity their primary charity and they will be working
with them in their annual Disney fanfare which was held this past March and was a very successful
fund raiser. Some of the players will hopefully be dedicating some of their time to clinics for
children in the Disney GOALS Program and they will continue to have a community involvement,
not only with them but with the charity.
\_i
07/11/94
Page 13
In addition to the benefit of the GOALS Program, there are other fiscal benefits that the rink will
bring, i.c., property tax, sales tax and, hopefully, a revitalization of the downtown Anaheim area.
Randy Jefferson, partner with Frank O'Geary and Associates, 1520 Cloverfield Bivd., Santa Monica,
CA. They have been working vrith Mr. Berg for some months trying to find a way of configuring an
architectural program that was consistent with what they had in mind in establishing the concept of
GOALS. In working with the design, It was Important that the rink not simply be a box. They have
taken a look at a number of rinks and they have found for the most part, they tend to be Ice boxes
or refrigerators. Generally speaking, they have no character to them at all.
They felt the inside and the outside would have to have something that is significant-something
that can work to a degree as a landmark in terms of what is happening in the Anaheim Center. He
referenced the model and elaborated on the design.
Steve Swain, Superintendent of Community Services, in charge of Anti•Gang and Drug Programs
for the Ciry. He spoke on behalf of the proposed ice rink especially in terms of Its use for the
Disney GOALS Program. This is a very special program that not only offers disadvantaged youth
the opportunity to learn and play hockey, but alsa teaches social development and service to the
community. When they look at the GOALS program in relation to this Ice rink, they think it is a very
important part of the delivery system to keep kids away from drugs and out of gangs.
Bill Taromina, Anaheim, CA. Thank God for Disney. This is a great concept. He will be sending
under separate cover, a petition from his neighbors representing 60 families, approximately 140
people, all of whom are in favor of this project and cannot wait for the day this facility opens. He
looked at this in detail and he is extremely Impressed and very grateful. He asked that this be
approved, they need this downtown.
~ Mark Devon, Anaheim Parks Recreation Community Services Department, Recreation Community
~ Services Superintendent, validated Mr. Berg's comments regarding the community use aspects of
this facility. He felt there will be some real genuine community use benefit from the presence of
this facility downtown.
Don Parsons, 700 W. Julianna. The taxpayers in Anaheim are involved here and he wanted to
know who was going to oversee this use? The agents are going to provide benefits to all of the
kids, but who is going to look out for all of this? After all of the profits are counted, he asked when
are the benefits going to be tallied. He asked that there be some mechanism that will guarantee
that they will receive these benefits.
Richard Bruckner, Redevelopment, stated in response to the last comment, there is a mechanism i
which they are currently drafting in their agreement between the agency and Disney GOALS to
have an annual a ,countability to insure that the community will get the benefits that are expected
and they are all going Into this effort in good faith and he expects that on an annual basis they will
reprioritze what the annual benefits will be and they will also look to the prior year and ensure that
they received all that was promised. He wanted to ensure the community that all of the benefits
that were eluded to today will be accounted for on an annual basis if they go forward with this
project.
He stated there have been some questions raised regarding parking In the workshop session this
morning and he thought it was !mportant to answer those questions. Ms. Hamilton of Barton &
Ashman Associates took a series of parking studies on this site and she understands that the i
Commissioners have certain questions regarding the parking and it might be appropriate to address ~
those. ~
Ms. Hamilton, Barton & Ashman Associates, 2 Venture Way, Suite 550, Irvine, CA. He stated Barton
~ 07/11/94 'j
Page 14
Ashman performed a number of studies for this project including a trip generation study as well as
a parking study. Their parking study was based upon Information provided by Disney regarding the
actual operation of the site.
She stated as the Commission knows this is not a .typical facility where they have a lot of data
regarding parking, therefore, they looked at the actual operation hour by hour oach day and they
established the number of parking spaces that would most likely be required during the day. The
number of spaces required during the day even approximately 110 and that peaked around
1:OOp.m. She stated the highest number of spaces required for this facility was 450 and that
occurred late on a Friday night where up to 1,000 people might be skating at the facility.
She stated in sddlt!on !a this theoretical analysis, they made observations over at the Glacial
Gardens on 5 different occasions. They actually looked at the amount of parking that was required
for that facility as well as to validate their numbers. They found that the Glacial Gardens facility
required approximately 150 to 160 spaces during the peak activity times. The Glacial Gardens, in
terms of square-footage, is about half the size of the facility proposed, therefore, even if you applied
that rate to the facility proposed at this site, they would need about 100 more spaces than what is
required based upon the Glacial Garden facility which is about 150 maximum on a Frida evening.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Tait asked how many rinks were at Glacial Gardens?
Ms. Hamilton explained there are two rinks. Ttie total square-footage is about 44,000 square feet.
She further explained the difference is the number of spectator spaces.
Commissioner Boydstun asked how many parking spaces they had?
Ms. Hamilton stated based on the information received from the City, there are 103 or 104 spaces
for the building Itself; however they have an additional 214 spaces in the industrial park that they
share, therefore, during the evening periods, they can util(ze those spaces. She stated on the 5
occasions they were out there, the highest number was about 16D. She added at no time was that
whole parking lot used by the skating facility.
Commissiener Mayer asked if the 110 spaces were on week days or did that Include weekends?
Ms. Hamilton stated it is just Monday through Friday. She explained on Saturday or Sunday the
requirements are about 331 spaces and the high during the day occurs between 12:30p.m. and
1:OOp.m. In the evening it is about 9:30p.m. and it is about a50 spaces. That occurs when the
transition from the public skating sessic,n ends and when the adult leayues come in late at night.
John Lower, Traffic Department, stated they ha.~:e reviewed the parking study and approved it with
the suggested Condition No. 3 which they are proposing to modify to read withn one year of
operation of this ice rink, a study be undertaken tc document the actual parking demand and that
the number of spaces recommended in that study be provided.
Mr. Bruckner stated in the off-peak hours whicl ~ is where the heavy usage would occur, the agency
owns 3 parking structures with in excess of 2,000 parking spaces within the Immediate vicinity of
the rink. This appears to be a perfect shared parking use for the downtown area.
Commissioner Boydstun addressed Mark Devon. She stated at the present time the Park and
Recreation Department is running their Ice skating classes through Glacier Falls. She asked if they
had any commitment if these classes would be held at this facility?
0/11/94 n
Page 15 7
ii
Mr. Devon indicated the, dn.
Commissioner Boydstun expressed her concerns about the time of day tt~: t these classes would be
conducted. She stated she has spent a lot of Tuesdays at Glacier Falls between 3:00 p.m. and
4:00 p.m. and there are no parking spaces at Glacier Falls at that time. The 4 to 8 years old are
there at this time. She asked how this was going to work as that is a t(me when the parking
garages are full?
Mr. Devon deferred stated they know whai the demand will be for their classes and they know what
the demand will be for after school activities connected with the GOALS Program. One of the other
aspects of this is the bus drop off requirement which will be for the School District and they will be
having classes there.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if Parks and Recreation will be moving from Glacier Falls or will
there Just be additional classes?
Mr. Devon stated for the mast part most of their programming will be relocated to this proposed
facility. He explained there continues to be a significant demand (n Ice skating over the past couple
of years. It seems to increase right after the Olympic year and peaks for a while. He stated they
may have demands that could utilize both facilities, but they would expect that the maJority of their
programming would be in this proposed facility.
Commissioner Boydstun stated the reason Glacier Falls is so crowded is because they have
classes from the Buena Parks Park and Recreation also. She assumed that they would not be
coming to this facility as long as Glacier Falls was there.
Mr. Devon indicated that was correct.
Cora ~issioner Mayer stated she concurs with Mr. Parson's concerns about the community youth
and that they work to make sure that has some longevity. She is Interested to know if they have
arrangements to Uring youth in from Kids in Action program, etc. and would tf;ey be busing them In
or how would children who do not have parents to drive them, be able to come in and use theso
facilities.
Mr. Devon stated children come in from the Kids in Action sites, particularly the 3 neighborhoods
that the Disney GOALS Program is going to be in which is the Ponderosa Park neighborhood,
Jeffrey Lynn neighborhood and the Paul Revere School neighborhood. There will be provisions
made for transportation for children in those neighborhoods to come Into the ice rink. Dave Steil
has already been making arrangements to take kids to Glacier Falls to ice skate. He thought
Disney GOALS has already display d an interest and a commitment and they believe they are
going to follow through.
Commissioner Caldwell asked Mr. Jefferson about the landscaping. Also the loading and unloading
area faces onto Lincoln and he wanted to know how that was going to be screened?
Mr. Jefferson pointed out on the exhibit. He explained that the Intent is to carry out the theme that
has already been developed in the area with the palm trees. In addit(on to that, there are certain
areas that come around the edges of the buildin3 coming down Clementine and back down Lincoln
where it is the Intent to have a ground cover rather than a tall landscaped material. The type of
ground cover has not yet been finalized.
In terms of the back of the building, there are a number of Issues that come Into play and one I~
the visibility of the building on Lincoln. It has been their Intent to deal with this edge of the facade
with a treatment that is much 11ke the front of the building although at a smaller scale. There is not
U
07/11/94
Page 16
i
that much service that comes in and out of the back of the building, but it is all screened from the
street.
Commissioner Caldwell stated then it will not appear to be the rear of the building or a loading
dock area and a place where products are dropped off and picked up?
Mr. Jafferson stated if they go around and look at the front of the building, they will know where the
front door is and there would be no confusion.
Mr. Jefiferson referred to the model and pointed out the loading and unloading dock, landscaping,
heat reflecting and possible concerns from the Commission regarding deterioration of plants; and
trees on Clementine.
Comm'.,sioner Henninger asked staff how they are going to handle [` i two large signs? It is clear
from the applicant's testimony that they are an integral part of the design.
Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated when staff first looked at the signs, their first impression
was to consider ahem as architectural embellishments rather than signs. However, it has become
clear in the Planning Commission's mind that perhaps they should be considered as signs. Based
on the way the request has been advertised, the Commission could not give final approval on the
signs today because they would exceed the normal limitations and they would need to come to the
Commission as a sign variance.
Commissioner Tait stated he would agree that they are more architectural and they are not really a
traditional sign in that they are not advertising a commercial use but it are cleady part of the
building.
Mr. Borcego stated that was staff's initial reaction, however, he has also heard that the wording is
subject to change and he did not know what that wording was going to be.
Richard Bruckner stated he thought the Intent is that they are large architectural elements, Integral
to the building and are not signage in the form of advertising. They are clearly Intended to
Introduce the front door of the building on West Harbor Place and clearly screen mechanical work
along Lincoln Avenue. They will not be neon, bright lights saying "Disney" or some other
advertising, but are large sculptural elements and without them the building would be quite plain.
Commissioner Henninger felt if the Commission looks the other way and doesn't call those signs,
he was concerned that every business in Anaheim could propose basically huge words somehow
Integrated Into tha architecture of their buildings. Imagine a front like that on a shopping mall and
added a lot of people would think that was a pretty interesting way to get around our sign
ordinance.
Commissioner Mayer agread with Commissio rer Henninger. It was her understanding that this was
a sign element and would come back to the r: ommission as part cfi the sign and landscape plan.
If it is a sculpture, the Ciry has a Landscape Master and Art Plan for that area, and at least, it
should be looked at through the Art Plan.
Mr. Jefferson did not mean to imply that it is a piece of art on the building. It is a piece of
architecture, not a piece of free standing art. It is made of the same material as the building and
was des~:gned as a piece of the building. Those are the characteristics that distinguish it from the
typical sign which is applied to the building and advertises the business within the building.
Mr. Jefferson stated from Mr. O'3eary's point of view, the Disney Company has never said to put
this sign on the building. He explained they were looking for a way of crea','.ng thin very, very
,~
07/11/94
Page 17
strong identity. He explained the word "Goals" has a great deal to do with all of the good things
that are behind this program in Anaheim, and it seemed appropriate to incorporate that concept
literally into the architecture. This isn't sculpture, it Isn't art work, it wasn't Intended to be a sign,
It's an expression of what's happening here. It Isn't a commarciai sign; It's using the heart of the
program as it's expressed with the acronym to Identify clearly the entrance to the building.
Chairman Peraza stated he understood Commissioner Henninger's concern, but he saw absolutely
no commerciz~ benefit to putting "GOALS" on the front of the building.
Commissioner Mayer asked what happens in the future if Disney decides to sell this facility, some
other entity buys it and they want to change the words on the front?
Mr. Jefferson responded if Disney sells, then they would have the right to remove @.
Clearly the word "GOALS" is an acronym that is associated specifically with this group.
Bruce Berg stated this is a uniquo development by a unique architect. He shared Commissioner
Henninger's concerns and understood the situation and what goes on with the sign program in the
City of Anaheim. He was concerned that ff the Commission does approve this, how to differentiate
this sign or this piece of architectural signage from a K•MART sign.
Commissioner Henninger did not have obJections to this design and thought it is fairly pleasing and
it reminded him of the Pan-Pacific Auditorium in same ways, and it was a pity that burned. He
world like to figure out how to differentiate this in a fairly strong way because he could imagine K-
MART doing something like this.
Mr. Bruckner added another user would be hard pressed to provide the community with facilities
that are integral with the concept on this site.
Mr. Jefferson stated given the Commission's concern, it seems to be the consensus that the design
is not the Issue, and suggested they could come back for a waiver of the size of the sign and the
actual lettering on the sign. He asked if that would provide some comfort with regard to how other
signs are dealt with in the City?
Commissioner Henninger responded that might help but there might be some other way and
Chairman Peraza agreed.
Commissioner Boydstun was still concerned with no landscaping on Lincoln when we have
required it from everyone else.
Mr. Bruckner stated he thought one of the conditions of approval is to come beck with a landscape
plan, adding the Redevelopment Agency is anxious to work on that as wel':. He added they will
also be including an embellishment of street trees, certainly along Clementine, and will be reviewing
them along Lincoln. They are not completely comfortable with the landscaping at this point.
Commissioner Boydstun stated the Ciry has been working hard in other areas of the City to get
landscaping so it looks pleasant and now this is a stark look.
Mr. Bruckner agreed with Commissioner Boy~!stun and added not only are they working hard in the
redevelopment areas, but they are spending significant funds to make the downtown area greener.
Commissioner Henninger suggested asking the architect ff he thinks the landscaping along Lincoln
needs to be completely bare or could they sort of frame the thing that isn't a sign with palm trees
on either side?
I
~ 07/11/94 j
Page 18
3
I
Mr. Jefferson stated having heard Commission's comments, they would be glad to review it.
Commissioner Mayer asked if tiny have any design concepts, other than letters; that she sees the
words "ICE" and "GOALS". She asked as an artist if words always came out or was there any other
design elements so that we wouldn't be dealing with a sign, so to speak? Is the vision a word?
Mr. Jefferson responded it is difficult to answor because h has all been part of developing a
package. For 22-1 /2 months they've h~een working with this and shaping it and going over it with
the Disney Company, and in the end, it came across as something very coherent; not only in terms
cf expressing what the idea is behind the program, but also being able to integrate the shapes in
both directions. They had looked zt other facades but none of them had the presence they were
able to create with this one.
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager stated there is one circulation Issue. The traffic
analysts relied upon the Koll-Anaheim study done in 1990. Barton/Ashman comtared the trip
generation for this Ice rink project to what was assumed in the Koll-Anaheim study and found that
the trips forecast are less than the trips addressed in the Koll•Anaheim study. However, they did
look at the three intersections which the Koll•Anaheim study found to be of concern and while
everything checks out fine in the morning peak hour, during the p.m. peak hour, the intersection at
Lincoln and State College, which is at an existing unacceptable level of service - Level of Service
"E", with the volume to capacity ratio of 0.92, with this project, that increases to 0.93, so the level
of service remains the same. The needed mitigation is conversion of the east-bound right turn only
lane to a third through lane. While that could be done by re-stripping, to be an effective through
lane, there is need to widen the transition on that southwest leg. That is something the
Redevelopment Ayency is committed to in the long term for build-out of this Koll-Anaheim project,
but is something that is not going to happen within the next year or perhaps two years.
Barton/Ashman then looked at a corridor level analysis and determined that environmental
equivalency of that would be capacity improvements at the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and
Broadway. Some modifications are required then to the mitigation monitoring check list. Starting
on page 29 -Mitigation Measure:
1. The first measure identifies widening the north edge of Broadway between Lemon and Anaheim
Boulevard. This project will provide for that wideninc in front of the museum, but until such time
as the post office is relccated, it will be only in front of the :-~useum.
3. Install a 12-foot southbound right-turn lane on Anaheim Boulevard at Broadway which will be
completed as part of this Ice rink project.
Page 30 - Widening the south edge of the east approach for an east bound right turn lane on
Broadway at Anaheim Boulevard which will be constructed as part of the Ice rink project.
Page 32 • Under the measure column, the second paragraph, next to the last sentence - That
sentence reads "some lengthening on the southwest corner will be required to provide adequate
transition to third east-bound through lanes", then insert "or environmental equivalent ". That
environmental equivalent again is from the corridor analysis, the improvements at Anaheim
Boulevard and Broadway.
Commissioner Henninger referred to a memo from the Police Department and asked if the Police
Department has had a chance to review this and recommend some conditions.
Mr. Patterson, Vice Detail, stated their concern was that they did not have information on the
restaurant on the premises and did not know if it was going to be a licensed location, or Just a
restaurant inside, but that has now been resolved. There are some standard conditions they would
~~
07/11/94
Page 19
like to put on this location so it will be maintained as a restaurant. He did not have the condtions
printed at this time because they did not knoev how it was going to be operated. After talking to
the agent, and determining the way they plan to operate, the police do not have any problems. He
responded to Commissioner Henninger that the proposed conditions would have to be typed,
explaining last Friday he was not able to get the necessary information.
Mr. Patterson explained he had some of the conditions here arrd that he would review them with
the agent very quickly to mako sure he does not have any problems with them.
Karen Freeman, Assistant Planner, asked that the following additional condition of approval relating
to the mitigation monitoring plan be added. "That the developer or the Redevelopment Agency, in
the event a Development and Disposition Agreement between the two parties is approved, shall be
responsible for any direct costs associated with the mitigation monitoring program established by
the Ctty as required by Section 21081.06 of the Public Resources Code to ensure implementation of
those mitigation measures identified in Mitigation Monftoring Plan No. 26 for the Koll•Anaheim
Center that relate to Conditional Use Permit No. 3695 as identified in Attachment "A" of this staff
report and as further revised at the Planning Commission public hearing as proposed by John
Lower, Traffic Manager."
Commissioner Mayer wanted to clarify that any buses bringing ch(Idren to the site would be
unloading on Clementine and not using West Harbor Place, and that there would be a bus turnout.
John Lower stated there is a turnout planned which will accommodate one bus.
Commissioner Mayer was concerned that persons using West Harbor Place going east would
circumvent the existing circle and then turn north Into the parking lot.
Mr. Lower responded as it is currently planned, about three fourths way around that traffic circle,
there is a right turn which would to to access 32 spaces adjacent to the building for the users of
the building (the Mighty Ducks hockey players), but access to the public parking would not be from
that circle.
Chairman Peraza suggested Condition No. 9 be deleted.
Natalie Meeks, Engineering/Public Works, agreed that condition can be deleted because there is a
mitigation measure in the Kotl Project which requires a sewer study in Phase III.
Commissioner Henninger suggested Condition No. 5 be divided, explaining it relates to site plan
conformance with the various driveway and parking standards, and then minimum parking spaces.
He thought the condition should read "that a minimum of 125 parking spaces shall be provided on
an adjacent property, per agreement with the Redevelopment Agency, for use during the peak
hours by the offices users. In addition, during the evenings and on weekends, a minimum of 450
parking spaces shall be provided". He added it doesn't sound like the Planning Commission is
going to impose anything contrary, so the first introductory phrase could probably be deleted
"unless conditions to the contrary are Imposed".
Commissioner Henninger asked if anyone had thought of a good way to deal the features which
are not signs.
Karen Dudley, Assistant Planner, stated staff is looking for direction from the Commission on how
to address those features, pointing out the developers are not even sure what the final wording is
going to be. The drawings that were presented here are a bit different t an what staff reviewed and
if they are going to be looked at as signs, she thought the developer would want to bring them
back with the total sign package rather than attach it or readvertise it as a sign waiver at this time.
L.J 07/11/94
Page 20
Commissioner Henninger asked Redevelopment staff what they need to stay on schedule, adding
he thought with the way those features are currently designed, they are probably part of the whole
building permft process.
Mr. Bruckner responded building permits are anticipated to be pulled in the first week of
September. Prior to that time the applicant could return with the exact dimensions and exact
wording of those signs. If Commission wishes, that could be done under a separate advertisement
for a waiver, ff there is time. He added they appreciate the posftion that puts the Planning
Commission in with regard to other developments.
Commissioner A9ayer preferred that approach, especially if more landscaping could be provided on
Lincoln that is more in conformance with the other landscaping in the area. That might change
how she views that facade or the sign that is not a sign in the back.
Commissioner Henninger suggested a condition that "if a sign waiver is needed, the applicant will
petition it separately"?
Karen Dudley asked for clarification regarding the condition and if staff should consider these as
signs rather than architectural features of the building.
Commissioner Henninger responded he was not sure and dkl not know what they are going to say
or what they are going to look like and he did not think tl ~e Commission had made that decision
yet, and needs to see the final plan.
Karen Dudley explained when this goes through plan check, that particular design element will have
to be engineered, with the building plan.
Greg Hastings stated he checked the Code a little white ago and in the strictest sense, ti~is would
t be considered a sign since it relays a message. It doesn't necessarily need readvertis(ng of the
name of the business, but if there is a message that's portrayed, which in this case is what the
Commission may wish to consider it, then it would definitely be considered a sign. This is very
similar to Anaheim Plaza where a determination had to be made, ff ft is attached to the building, ft
becomes a roof sign; if it is detached, ft becomes a free standing sign. In any case, the
Commission may wish to consider it a sign by the strictest definftion of the code.
Greg Hastings continued in order to determine if it needs a waiver, staff needs to analyze the size
of the sign in comparison to the code and whether or not it is attached physically to the building.
Mr. Bruckner stated Redevelopment staff, would I(ke to bring all the signs back separately and if
there are waivers, bring them back as a separate variance.
Commissioner Henninger stated a landscape plan has to be done before building permfts are
Issued and, perhaps they can bring the signs back along with the landscape plan and at that time,
staff can tell the Commission whether they need a variance.
Mr. Bruckner stated he hoped they will have made that determination by that time, but today they
are here for approval, and have no choice but to call these a sign according to code.
Mr. Hastings stated it is up to the Commission to make that decision. It is staff's opinion from
reading that section of the Code, ff there is a message portrayed, then it is a sign and it is his
understanding that the message could change.
Commissioner Mayer stated ff it had more design qualities and less word qualities, then it might not
be a sign in the final presentation.
`~ 07/11 /94
Page 'Lt
Mr. Hastings responded that is not clear in the code.
Chairman Peraza asked what the acronym "GOALS" means, for thri public's information.
Bruce Berg responded "GOALS" stands for growth opportunfties through athlete's learning and
service, and noted he has been listening to the whole conversation and hasn't had a chance to
comment. He explained they don't know exactly what the signs will ultimately say and requested
for the time being that the sign not be decided today, and they will come back with a landscape
plan and a sign plan. If it is not in conformance, then they will be asking for a waiver at that time.
Mr. Lower asked that Condition No. 10 be deleted requiring the dedication on Harbor BoulAVard,
because that alignment has not been finalized and that will be dedicated with Phase III of the Koll
project.
Mr. Patterson stated the Anaheim Police Department requests the followinsl conditions be imposed
on the license, and that he had discussed this with the agent and he has agreed to these
conditions:
1. Sales service, and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted Sunday through
Thursday between the hours of 11 a.m. to 1 a.m.; Friday and Saturday 11 a.m. to 2 a.m.
2. There shall be no bar or lounge area upon the licensed premises maintained for the purpose of
sale, or service of aicoholic beverages directly to patrons for consumption.
3. Food service with available meals shall be available until closing time on each day of operation.
4. The premises shall be maintained as a bonafide restaurant and provide a menu containing an
,_ assortment of foods normally offered in such restaurants.
5. The subject alcoholic beverage control license shall not be exchanged for a public premise type
license nor operated as a public premise.
6. The sale of beer and wine for consumption off-premises is prohibited .
7. The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of food or
other commodities during the same period.
8. There shall he no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premises at
any time.
9. There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or any advertising directed to the exterior from
within promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverage.
10. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed adjacent to the licensed premises under the control
of the licensee.
11. The parking lot of the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate
and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking
lot.
12. The petitioner shall be responsible for maintaining slitter-free area adjacent to the premises over
which he has control.
13. There shall be no pool tables or coin operated games maintained upon the premises at any
`"~ 07/11/94
Page 22
time.
14. There shall be no coin operated games maintained upon the premises at any time.
Commissioner Henninger asked if he was referring to the limited area that is shown for restaurant
fac11(ties within the Ice skating sink? Response from Mr. Patterson was "yes". Commissioner
Henninger continued there should be a condition saying something to that effect.
Jonathan Borrego added his concern is that there probably will be amplified music vaithir, the facility
and dancing on the Ice and there is also a video arcade which is a part of this request today. He
understood the video arcade fs going to be in the main lobby near the entryway.
Commissioner Henninger stated these conditions relate to the restaurant area only and the Intent is
to confine the drinking of alcoholic beverages to the restaurant area.
Mr. Patterson clarified these conditions would apply to the restaurant or licensed location only, and
not the skating rink; they will have arcade games inside that location which would not affect the
licensed location which would be the restaurant.
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, asked for clarification on the written condition with regard'o the
parking demand study that is going to be provided after the rink is in operat(cn, She believed the
written material says one year from commencement and that when Mr. Lower was reading it for the
record, he said within one year.
Mr. Bruckner added he thought "within one year of commencement of operati.m" is the Intent, and
asked ff that is acceptable.
Chairman Peraza asked if that is within one year or at the and of om~ year, and Mr. Bruckner said
~~ "within one year« and added they will complete it within the one year.
Commissioner Boydstun asked sinco this is going to be a community facility, will non-profit
organizations, senior citizens, etc, have access to use the community rooms upstairs and if those
facilities will be available for groups to rent?
Mr. Bruckner responded it was his understanding that they will be available and there may be a fee,
but the developer could answer that question.
Bruce Berg stated as part of the community service program, they will be providing free Ice time to
members of the community; and will make sure the meeting rooms are available; at other times of
the day, the meeting rooms may be available for rent as well, so it is a combination of both.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if organizations which are not Ice skating, such as senior citizens or
non profit groups, will have access to these rooms or will they have to rent them?
Mr. Berg stated they will be working out the details of the Community Service program with Mr.
Bruckner. If that is one of the things the Commission or Redevelopment would like considered as
part of that program, they will consider it.
ACTION: Found previously approved Addendum to the EIR for Koll Anaheim Center adequate to
serve as the environmental documentation for the revised project. Adopted changes to Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
Approved, (n part, Waiver of Code Requirement: Denied waiver (b) on the basis that it was deleted
follow(ng public notification.
07/11/94
Page 23
Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement: Denied waiver (b) on the basis that it was deleted
following public notif,cation.
Granted, in part, Conditional Uso Permit No. 3695
Deleted Condition No. 9.
Modified Condition Nos. 5, 10 and 14 to read:
5. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his
review and approval in conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard
Plan Nos. 436 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway location. Subject
property shall thereupon bs developed and maintained in conformance with said plans.
10. That prior to Issuance of a building permit, the legal property owner shall irrevocably
offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim, easements along the following streets in
conformance with the approved public Improvement phasing plan for Koll Anaheim
Center (i.e. CUP 3286):
a. Lincoln Avenue
b. Clementine Street
14. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are
on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 6; provided,
however, that the project conforms with the Anaheim Sign Code or an approved sign
variance.
Added the fdllowing Conditions:
1. That the developer, or the Redevelopment Agency in the event a Development and
Disposition Agreement between the two parties is approved, shall be responsible for
any direct costs associated with the Mitigation Monitoring Program established by the
City as required by Section 21061.6 of the Public Resources Code to ensure
implementation of those mitigation measures identified in Mitigation Monitoring Plan
#26 for the Ko!I Anaheim Center that relate to Conditional Use Permit No. 3695 as
identified in Attachment A of the July 1 t, 1994 staff report to the Planning Commission
and as further revised at the Planning Commission Public Hearing.
2. That within one year of commencement of operation, applicant shall provide a parking
demand study prepared by an Independent traffic engineer licensed by the State of
California or such other study as approved by the City Traffic and Transportation
Manager and provided to the City by the petitioner at petitioner's sole expense. If the
City Traffic and Transportation Manager determines that parking is not adequate for the
intensity of use, applicant shall provide additional parking or modify operations to
reduce the parking demand to the satisfaction of the City Traffic and Transportation
Manager.
3. That the granting of the parking waiver Is contingent upon operation of the use in
conformance with the assumptions relating to intensity of use in the parking demand
study that formed the basis for review and approval of said waiver.
4. That a minimum of one hundred twenty five (125) parking spaces shall be provided on
adjacent site per agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and the developer for
~~
07/11 /sa
Page 24
use during peak office hours and that a minimum of four hundred fifty (450) off-site
parking spaces shall be provided during the evenings and weekends.
5. The following conditions of approval shall apply to restaurant use or licensed location
only:
a. That sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to
Sunday through Thursday from 11 a.m. to 1 a.m., and Friday to Saturday from 11
a.m, to 2 a.m.
b. That there shall he no bar or lounge area upon the license premises maintained
for the purpose ofi sale, service, or consumption of alcoholic beverages directly to
patrons for consumption.
c. That food service with available meals shall be available until closing time cn each
day of operation.
d. That the premises shall be maintained as a bona fide restaurant and shall provide
a menu containing an assortment of foods normally offered in such restaurant.
e. That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public
premise type license nor operated as a public premises.
f. That the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the premises shall be
prohibited.
g. That the quartedy gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross
sales of food or other commodities during the same period.
h. That there shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted j
within the restaurant area at any time.
i. That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including
advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicat(ng the
availabll(ty of alcoholic beverages.
j. That no alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the
licensed premises under the control of the licensee.
k. That the parking lot of the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient
power to Illuminate and make easily discernable the appearance and conduct on
or about the parking lot.
I. That the pet(tioner shall be responsible for maintaining a litter free area adjacent to
the premises over which he has control.
m. That there shall be no pool tables or coin operated games maintained within the
restaurant area at any time.
VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Messe absent) i
Recess 3:45 p.m. ~
Reconvened 3:55 p.m.
l.,/
07/11/94
Page 25 s
r
:.;co,
4a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Previously Approved)
4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2667 (Readvertised)
Continued to
7-25.94
OWNER: KENNETH W. HOLT and HELEN L. HOLT, TRUSTEE, 1557
W. Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92702
AGENT: FAIRMONT SCHOOLS, INC., Attn: Glen Noreen, Bus. Mgr.,
1557 W. Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802
LOCATION: 121 S Citron Street (Fairmont Ciiron Camausl.
Property is approximately 0.73 acres located at the
northwest corner of Chestnut Street and Citron Street.
To permit a 486-square foot modular classroom, a 450•square foot
expansion for classroom/storage use and amendment to a condition
of approval pertaining to maximum student enrollment with waiver of
minimum structure! setback.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
r
i
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: 3 People spoke in opposition.
Glenn Noreen ,Business Manager for Fairmont School, 1F57 W. Mable Street, Anaheim, explained they
are asking for an extension of an existing building at the 121 S. Citron Street and the addition of a
modular class room to that campus. It serves pre-school through first grade students. They have
approximately 225 students there, and that (s all that is permitted at that location at this time. The
demand for that campus has been very, very high and they have real problems trying to handle tho
students they have already, and have a number of other people who would Ilke to go to that campus,
these two additions would help relieve that pressure.
Noe Lao spoke on behalf of his family who owns property adjacent to the school, at 800 West Lincoln
Avenue. His main objection is parking. The school has been there and he sees it expanding. The
problem is that about a year ago, they expanded their reserved parking onto the easement which is for
general use and they use it as reserved parking. He presented a copy of the easement that says "an
easement for egress and parking purposes to be used in common with others." In addition, they have
also been parking in his restaurant parking lot, which he owns, and they are saying they tve,
"customers". The cars are parked there for the whole day. This is a fast fond restaurant and he did not
know how they can be teaching in school and also eating at the same time in the restaurant.
Joe White, 809 W. Broadway, Anaheim, stated when the old YMCA was first converted to the school, he
had no complaint against the school, except for parking and the traffic problems that would have to be
addressed. He was assured that there would be no problems, but there are problems. The side street
is Chestnut which is a short street that runs between Ohio and Citron. It's two lanes wide, with five "no
parking at any time" signs ,and yet, that is where the school bus parks, loads and unloads which
restricts Chestnut Street to a one lane street. The bus sits there for quite some period of time any limo
in the morning and evening. That's one of the Ingresses and egresses of the bu(Iding on the side street.
Unfortunately the school rush hours are (n the morning and evening when everybody else is busy, and
07/11/94
Page 26
they are either picking them up or dropping off students. It creates a hazard because they double park,
thinking they can do anything because they'll Just be there a few minutes.
Citron Street was partially widened to about 175 feet from the corner, and wasn't done because the City
would have had to buy the land, so it narrows approaching the school. They park on both sides of the
Citron Street to pick up the children. Some double park. It is a tragedy waiting to happen. Those who
park on the east side of Citron have no safe way to get across the street that's legal. There is no cross-
walk at Chestnut because Chestnut doesn't go on through, so everybody jay-walks. Somebody is going
to get hit there one of these days. The adults are even worse than the kids and they don't mind walking
out from between cars into the traffic and Citron Street gets pretty good traffic at those two times of the
day. The school itself is a wonderful neighbor, and he has no complaints against the school , if they
would take care of the parking and traffic problem.
Mr. White responded to Commissioner Caldwell that he did not know a solution, and that's why he had
questioned it when they first converted the YMCA and also suggested that they acquire additional land
so they could provide an area for the school bus to pull off the street.
Fernand Rivera, 800 W. Lincoln Avenue, explained he owns a new restaurent called Mexico Lindo, and
also that he is a general contractor and was in charge of remodeling at Citron and Harbor Boulevard.
Concerning the street between Lincoln and Citron, he objected to that because there is an easement
there and he had to put chains on Citron and on Lincoln because people from the school were parking
in the restaurant's lot. The teachers used to park there, at least eight to ten cars, and he was concerned
about parking once the restaurant is open for business and he asked the City for permission to put a
chain across the access and the chains did help, but he can see they really have a problem with the
parking.
Mr. Noreen said this is a very modest Increase, from 225 to 257 students. He agreed there have been
parking p,oblems; that the restaurant was vacant for quite some time and teachers were parking there,
but that there has been a chain put across the access and they are not parking there any longer. They
have addressed the parking problem by making arrangements with the nearby First Baptist Church for
22 parking spaces and the entire requirement is for 22 parking spaces. They are also permitted 11
parking spaces in an easement that is Just north of the school. That brings the total number of spaces
available to 33. When there is high traffic or when they have a number of parents visiting for tours, they
are going to move most of the teachers. Also they are using the spaces in the easement down to the
First Baptist lot, so there should be less traffic there. He thought parking will become much less of a
problem.
Commissioner Peraza asked if it is possible to move all the employees to that lot all of the time?
Mr. Noreen said that's possible, but that he would hate to be the one breaking it to them. It is about
150 feet away.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if there is any place the school could make aloading/unloading zone, or
could they move the teachers. He added she goes up and down Citron a couple of times a week about
the same time the school starts in the morning, and she is always afraid of getting hit.
Mr. Noreen interjected that the street is very slow; and that this project is going to make the parent pick-
upand drop-off area more efficient as well. The parent drop-off and pick-up area is on Chestnut and the
modular classroom forces them to move the gate about 20 feet and that gives an additional maybe 2 to
3 car lengths, so there can be more cars. The parent pick-up area will be further back so more people
will be able to queue on Chestnut and not on CRron.
U
07/11/94
Page 27
Chairman Peraza asked if that is a "no parking" zone where the buses are stopping?
Mr. Noreen said he was new to the school and did not know the history, and he thought It might say "no
parking", and there shouldn't be anyone parked there, pointing out they are only having people stop
there.
Chairman Peraza responded he has Just heard testimony that the bus parks there, and they don't Just
drop off but they park and wait.
Mr. Noreen said he has not personally seen the buses park there. He is the business manager, and will
talk to the transportation manager about it because they should not be parking there. He explained they
ask the parents to do that and that is what the buses should be doing -- simply stopping, picking up, or
dropping off people and moving on.
Chairman Peraza asked about the easement and whether they have to turn around and come back out
on Citron, and does the easement go through?
Mr. Noreen said the easement wraps around so that you can actually get out on Lincoln. There is a fire
store right next to the restaurant and you can enter from Citron into the easement, park, and then go out
neM to the the store and onto Lincoln.
Commissioner Boydstun asked why the teachers couldn't be moved and then make that a loading zone
or drop off and pick up point so the cars are off the street?
Chairman Peraza agreed and thought that would be safer.
Mr. Noreen said they could look at that; that he thought when they talked about safety being a problem,
the concern was on Citron not on Chestnut.
Commissioner Caldwell asked if Chestnut was a "no parking" zone?
Mr. Noreen stated it is a very narrow street.
Commissioner Boydstun stated that Chestnut was not wide enough for parking and Commissioner
Caldwell added that Mr. Noreen did know that the parents were using Chestnut for a dropping off and
pick up point?
Mr. Noreen stated that was his understanding, again he is very new to the organization, that in the past
there w.as some correspondence between the City and Fairmont School about this very Issue and his
Impression is that it was pretty much unresolved. He added ho will try to get more information on that
subject.
Commissioner Caldwell noted the reque~~t is about increasing the enrollment at the school by
approximately ten percent, or maybe a little bit more. If they didn't have a narking problem and a drop
off/pick up problem and if they didn't have an ingress or egress prc~iem, then 25 more students
wouldn't be a big deal. But when you already have a problem, then all of a sudden any increase in the
use is a huge deal. It just depends on what the condition is of the piece of property and what the
applicant is doing. In some cases a ten percent Increase in the use of a property is extremely modest
and has no impact on the rest of the property. But in this case, since they already have a problem,
adding 25 more students Just exacerbates an already bad situation. He added we need to find a
solution to it; that he knows classroom space is needed and Fairmont (s a great school, but Ite did not
think 25 more students should be added until we find a solution to the problems that exist on site now.
When the applicant comes before the Commission for a change in the use, it gives the Commission an
opportunity to hear these things and try to find resolutions of the problems for the safety of the students.
~ 07/11/94
Page 28
Mr. Noreen stated that he thought they had brought up solutions by providing additional parking spaces
and also are lengthening the student drop off and pickup area.
Commissioner Boydstun interjected that that was ~~ot a pick up or drop off area, and that it is a "no
parking" area. She added that street isn't any wider titan an alley.
Commissioner Mayer stated the applicant mentioned they have a transportation manager as a part of the
staff. Mr. Noreen answered 'yes'. She continued that Commission might suggest that perhaps Mr.
Noreen talk with the transportation manager since he is new to the staff, and that maybe those are
where the Issues are, and maybe that is who Commission needs to hear from. She added the applicant
is saying that the proposed application today is going to resolve some of these issues but she did not
quite understand how that resolves the Issues of traffic.
Commissioner Henninger asked about the parking to the north on an easement, pointing out the way
those bays are pointed, and asked how do you get out of those parking spaces?
Mr. Noreen referred to the exhibit posted, pointing out the restaurant and a Lire store to the east of the
restawant, then a small alleyway that goes Into a mini•mall between them, and Indicated Lincoln is the
street to the north. He stated somebody suggested that the problem is that their traffic is during rush
hour. But actually it is off rush hour; that most of their traffic is actually when the parents pick up the
children around 3:00 to 3:30 p. m. He pointed out there are two ways to escape from the easement
parking area.
Commissioner Henninger asked if there is parking along Citron in front of the school property?
Mr. Noreen said it was a 15-rr!inute parking zone and that across the street there is a condominium
complex and parking is for a longer period there. He stated they do have parents sometimes crossing
the street and it is a relatively dangerous situation. He explained on days when they expect high
parent traffic, they would try to reduce the number of staff that are here and move them over to First
Baptist Church.
Mr. Noreen responded to Commissioner Henninger that high parent traffic tends to be clustered around
March, April and May, when they are enrolling their children.
Chairman Peraza stated parents drop off children on a regular basis.
Mr. Noreen responded that they do drop them off on a regular basis; and that the way it is done is that
they come down or up Citron and try dropping off the child right at the 15-minute parking area. He also
explained that it is manned by one or two of the staff. The problem comes when two or three cars
queue there and there are people trying to enter from Citron onto Chestnut. He pointed out the modular
is forcing them to move the gate back, and will enable them to add a couple of extra car lengths for the
queuing which should help signfficantly.
Commissioner Caldwell said it seems they would be adding to an Illegal situation, since the drop
off/pickup area is designated now as "no parking".
Commissioner Boydstun said she goes by Citron two mornings a week about 7:15 a.m. and that whole
curb on the west side of Citron is full and cars are double parked sometimes to unload ch(Idren. They
are not turning onto Chestnut Street, they are stopping right on Citron and you have to wait until it is
clear the other way before you can get around them.
Commissioner Caldwell said he was certainly prepared to look at any solution to the problem but he
could not think of any way he could vote to approve it under the circumstances. He felt they still have
' .~
07/11/94
Page 29
to find a solution to the existing problem and thought what they are doing now is Illegal. He added the
school is not going to move so we have to find some way to do this legally and safely.
Mr. Noreen responded he did not think what they are doing is (Ilegal. He understood that there was
some correspondence with the Clty before, so it might be that it is not a "no parking" sign.
Commissioner Boydstun asked about the buses sitting there. Mr. Yalda said that he would recommend
that "no parking" signs be placed along the South curb of Chestnut Street.
Mr. Yalda answered Chairman Peraza that ff the curb is painted red, cars can't stop but N there is only a
s'~gn stating "no parking" you can stop.
Mr. Noreen stated the curb is not painted red.
Commissioner Henninger stated there is probably not an elementary school in the City that doesn't have
a congestion problem at opening and closing times. Schools start at a specific time and people all want
to be there at the right time. Having dropped his own children off for years, he knew there is always a
congestion problem.
Commissioner Boydstun Interjected that most schools are bounded by normal size streets and Citron is
not standard.
Commissioner Henninger continued that that is not quite true either. He thought a lot of the elementary
schools are on local streets, not collector streets. He stated it troubles him that he has heard the kids
are walking across Citron, and thought that sounds like a prescription for someone getting run over, and
that he would like to do something about that.
Mr. Noreen responded that is what they are trying to address by moving the parking.
Commissioner Henninger stated perhaps there is something more that could be done and maybe we
should continue this so Mr. Noreen could ask the transportation manager to take a look at this and
maybe there is something he could do to resolve some of that problem.
Mr. Noreen asked how long the continuation would be?
Commissioner Henninger said that would depend on how quickly they could react. If they could react
within a couple of days and get an alternate proposal back to staff by Thursday or the end of this week,
then it could ba done in two weeks. He added he was thinking that maybe they could bring the traffic
through the site. He did not think the alley or the easement area are really the best way in and out.
Mr. Noreen said the problem is that they share the easement.
Commissioner Caldwell stated one option he sees is to use the easement area, which means all that
traffic is going to come out through the Winston Tire property and he didn't know how the City Traffic
Engineering Department would feel about that. The second option, as he sees it, would be to make
Chestnut Into aone-way street, allow stopping, move the gate down further so that you can queue cars
and maybe some signage on the side of the street to encourage parents not to drop their children on
the east side of Citron as a safety Issue. Those are at least two options and there may be others after
the Traffic Engineering Department looks at it.
Commissioner Boydstun asked if the school has a written agreement with the church for the 22 parking
spaces and Mr. Noreen that they have an oral agreement.
~ 07/11/94
Page 30
Jonathan Borrego stated ff the Commission wishes to approve this request, staff is going to recommend
p ovidintg offsite parking without the need of a parking waiver) thatagr ement~needs toybereecorded. be
Chairman Peraza clarified that the applicant understands that they need to have a recorded reciprocal
parking agreement, to which Mr. Noreen responded "fine".
ACTION: Continued subJect request to the July 25, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.
Re-opened public hearing
VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Messe absent)
~.,/
07/11/94
Page 31
5a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 12 I No act(on
5b. VARIANCE N0. 4254 Granted
OWNER: C. V. TAORMINA TRUST, P. 0. BOX 309, Anaheim, CA
92806
AGENT: RICHARD WINN, 1131 N. Blue Gum Street, Anaheim, CA
92806
LOCATION: 1231-1235 Norlh Blue Gum Street. Property is
approximately 8.87 acres located at the northwest corner
of Coronado Street and Blue Gum Street.
Waiver of permitted location of decorative screen type walls within the
ML Zone to construct an 8-foot high wall.
VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. PC9490
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
~ Commissioner Boydstun declared a conflict of Interest and Commissioner Messe was absent.
Richard Winn, agent for petitioner, C. V. Taormina Trust; and Director of Safety, Health and
Environmental Affairs for Taormina Industries, explained they are proposing to replace an existing chain
link fence on the property line. There is approximately 500 feet of frontage on the north side of
Coronado Street, and under Conditional Use Permit No. 3372, the 57,000 sq. ft. maintenance structure
was approved. It's southerly wall is on the property line and they feel by continuing that fence to the rear
of the property, they can retain the use of the parking areas they currently have.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Peraza said there was some concern regarding the walls and the siding for the transportation
department where it comes to the corner.
Commissioner Henninger asked if Mr. Winn had seen condition number 1?
Mr. Winn responded that he had spoken to the Traffic Engineer's Office since the morning review and
that condition should not be a problem. The fence !s about 515 feet long with one single gate which is
their emergency egress gate onto Coronado Street. In fact, they have been using another gate while
they are constructing the building and did not have a problem.
Commissioner Henninger said the concern centers on the corner of Coronado and Blue Gum and asked
if they would be able to see past this fence to see on-coming traffic?
Mr. Winn explained their Intent is to bring one or two panels out at eight feet, noting there it is a 50•foot
setback there, and then step down to four feet and then slap down again to nothing or halt.
l.a
07/11/sa
Page 32
Chairman Peraza said there was also a question regarding the landscaping.
Jonathan Borrego asked Mr. Winn if he had submitted the landscaping plan.
Mr. Winn said he hesitated to bring this up at the public hearing because there were some
misunderstandings about the landscaping plan. There is a landscaping plan that was approved along
with CUP 3372. The only nice way to describe this is that under CUP 1142, the fence was permitted on
the property line, and there was some requirement for landscaping between the fence and the curb, in
the public right of way. At least that is the way they read it and that's the way Anaheim Truck Depot
reads it, and they are the owners of the property.
Anrvay, when CUP 3372 came up, this problem of the f(ve-foot additional setback was made known to
their architect, who is no longer their architect. Consequently, one of the arrangements was that the
trees that were required by the Code would be placed behind the fence. That is a minor problem for
them and they would prefer simply to landscape the setback area up to the property line. There are
sidewalks on the other side of the street. He explained because of this condition, he has watched this
corner on numerous occasions and has never seen anyone walk down that street. They are in the
process of acquiring those parcels at the end of that street to further reduce the need for people to
access that end of the street. It is a cul-de-sac that terminates at the 57 freeway. He asked If an
additional landscape plan is needed because that plan is filed and the only problem they have is the
trees inside the fence.
Mr. Borrego said the trees inside the fence really don't do as much good as they would if they were on
the outside. As long as staff has a little guidance from the Commission as to what they would Tike to
sea in that five foot area, he thought they could go along with it and just create a condition of approval.
Commissioner Henninger asked if the five foot area was in the right of way, and Mr. Borrego indicated
that was correct He asked Melanie Adams if there was going to be a sidewalk there.
Melanie Adams, Engineering, responded that was not official at this time. Anaheim Disposal is
proposing to buy that property, but that sale could fall through for any number of reasons and additional
landscaping should not be within the public right of way. The only way they could get around it would
be to get an encroachment permit, which is another process at the City Council level, so their fence
really should be set back to allow them to have any landscaping in front of it, outside the public right of
way.
Commissioner Henninger asked if the applicant doesn't really want to set the fence back five feet.
Mr. Winn stated that would require them to remove 5' x 515' of concrete which is eight inches thick
which is presently in place. It would also require the removal of the clarifier that is conveniently located
them for removal of waste water, etc., and it is an extreme hardship on them. And it would reduce the
number of marking spaces by a significant amount, as well.
Commissioner Henninger suggested a condition be added that says, "that prior to building this wall, an
encroachment permit will be obtained', so they can do the landscaping in the five feet of right of way
that is there.
f.1r. Borrego added it sounds like the main concern is with the trees. He suggested perhaps if they were
interested in putting in some sod or something of that effect along with the vines on the wall, he thought
that might satisfy the Engineering Department.
Commissioner Henninger asked whose concern was with the trees.
Chairman ~Qraza interjected that he thought the Engineering Department was concerned with the
~..i 07/11 /94
Page 33
sidewalks.
Commissioner Mayer asked if trees were required there.
Mr. Borrego explained trees are typically required with new development. In other words, if they were
starting this site from scratch, we would require trees.
Commissioner Henninger said it did not sound like the applicant had a problem putting in trees, ff they
are on the right side of the wall, and asked ff that was correct.
Mr. Winn said they would object strongly to putting in trees and Commissioner Henninger suggested
they would be in the public right of way. Mr. Winn continued then it becomes a security Issue as
opposed to an aesthetic Issue because it offers a way for somebody to climb over the fence.
Commissioner Henninger clarified that they do not want to put in trees at all?"
Mr. Winn responded they would propose to plant variegated larger shrubs and smaller shrubs in the
entire area. They had originally planned 210 fNe-gallon shrubs, some ground cover -16 flats perhaps -
some geraniums and needle point ivy. They would prefer not to put in sod because it would require
mowing all the time and it would be hard to work Into the plan.
Commissioner Mayer asked if they are proposing no trees at all.
Mr. Winn said they would strongly object to putting the trees in for the security Issue. Whether they are
on the inside of the fence coming over or on the outside of the fence going in it offers the opportunity
for somebody to get over the fence and they are trying to put a photo cell security system, along the
top of the fence to Ilmit that access.
Commissioner Caldwell asked if he meant that the trees would offer someone the ability to climb the tree
and get over the wall, and Mr. Winn responded, yes. Commissioner Caldwell said there must be some
solution short of just eliminating trees.
Mr. Winn stated that razor wire on top of the wall was suggested at another Commission meeting he
attended.
He stated they would strongly suggest landscaping the area with multi-height plants that meet the
criteria of the Planning Department, or some reasonable combination.
Commissioner Caldwell indicated that if trees present a security problem, we wouldn't have any trees in
the city. He thought we need to balance that with what we are trying to accomplish.
Mr. Winn stated they are working with the Redevelopment Agency with regard to Specific Plan 93-01 and
some of the Input Into that document relates to cul de sac streets with the potential for a single tenant
owning all the properties on cul de sacs to relieve them of some of the City requirements in anticipation
of probable abandonment of the street. He added they would hate to make all these Improvements to
meet the Ciry Code, then acquire the street and have all the space that would offer no utility for their
operation.
Commissioner Mayer asked if this is a temporary situation? After Mr. Winn replied yes, she continued
that maybe Commission needs to grant a temporary approval.
Melanie Adams responded the Commissioner Henninger they may be able to an encroachment permit
but they would need to check with Utilities; and in that area normally there would be full sidewalk
without the trees.
~^-~ 07/11 /94 II
Page 34
j
Commissioner Henninger asked about Blue Gum Street and Ms. Adams responded that along Blue
Gum, the City is looking to have sidewalks all the way up and down Blue Gum to facilitate people
walking to work or taking the bus and moving aoout and also to comply with the Americans With
Disabilities Act, getting more access for people.
Commissloner Henninger asked about the setback on B~ue Gum and whether they are right up against
the property line of Blue Gum?
Mr. Winn said that Blue Gum is the frontage for the facilities so they have the 50-foot setback, with the
exception of the existing structure which is 25 feet on the north end and the wall is on the southerly
portion of the property and it is an extension of the southerly wall of the building all the way to the rear
of the property. Basically, it appears that ii is being treated doubly and it is being treated as side yard
for purposes of the structure and frost yard for the purpose of the fNe foot setback because it fronts on
Coronado Street. He asked if that makes sense to anybody? He noted in the commercial area, you can
build a structure on the property line, but apparently are being held to a different standard as far as the
masonry wall going all the way to the rear of the property.
Commissioner Henninger stated this is not a commercial area but it is an Industrial area and there are
setbacks along streets, and we are not talking about an interior property line.
Commissioner Caldwell asked the applicant if he had said that Taormina Industries Intended to buy all
the properties that border on both sides of Coronado Street?
Mr. Winn responded that he had said they were very Interested in the property at the depth, at the end
of the street, the Alband properties.
Commissioner Caldwell asked about closing off the street and Mr. Winn explained they have been
working with the City on a five year and ten year plan. Five years is something they can look at, but ten
years has a lot of "ifs".
Commissioner Caldwell said he is in favor provided they put in landscaping based on the City's
requirements, and that would Include trees and, hopefully, their security system will be the thing that
stops anyone from climbing walls.
Commissioner Henninger asked what kind of trees are in the front yard setback. Mr. Winn said they
were palms.
Commissloner Henninger then asked Melanie Adams if she thought that the City might grant an
encroachment permit along Coronado.
Ms. Adams replied not knowing what conflicts might come up, she really couldn't guarantee it. She
suggested they could make their application for the encroachment license and see what happens.
Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution Number PC94-90 approving Variance No. 4254 adding a
condition that prior to building the wall, the applicant seek an encroachment permit from the City so that
they can landscape in the public right of way along Coronado Street in front of the wall, and that
landscape plans be brought back to Commission for that area .
Discussion between Commissioners regarding the landscape plans resulted in a suggesti~r tha' perhaps
the applicant could enhance their front area and have some tall shrubs there that would proua4ly meet
both needs.
Ms. Adams said tall shrubs within the area does present a problem because we still have an obligation
to provide some kind of walkway access to the people at the Alband property, and with tall shrubs in the
`"~ 07/11 /94
Page 35
way, it doesn't really provide them with a place to walk on their side of the street.
Commissioner Caldwell said that the only thing that would fit Into a landscaping schemo would either be
a sidewalk or sod.
M. Adams added low ground cover might be acceptable. She further indicated that they are really just
trying to comply with Federal guidelines, the Americans With Disabilkies Act, to provide uninhibited
access.
Commissioner Henninger said he would withdraw the extra condition he added and just go with the staff
recommended conditions.
Commissioner Caldwell asked ff this means no landscaping, so what they are basically going to do is
build a wall up against the sidewalk and there will be no landscaping.
Chairman Peraza stated that there would have to be graffiti vines grown to protect it from graffiti.
ACTION: Granted Variance No. 4254
Added the following conditions of approval:
1. That the proposed wall shall provide proper visual screening of the truck yard.
2. That the proposed wall shall be landscaped with clinging vines to reduce graffiti
opportunities.
VOTE: 5.0 (Commissioner Boydstun declared a conflict of Interest and Commissioner Messe
was absent)
i
i
.~
07/11/94
Page 36
-.
6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Previously Approved) Continued to
6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3417 (Readvertised) July 25, 1994
OWNER: A.G. CASSIS, 413 Sharon Road, Arcadia, CA 91007
AGENT: ADVANCED PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL, Attn: Sim C.
Hoffman, M.D., 585 S. Knott Street, Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: 545-595 South Knott Street. Property is approximately
.68 acres located at the northwest corner of Knott Street
and Orange Avenue.
Requests for the deletion or amendment to conditions of approval
pertaining to the time Ilmitat!on of a previously approved mobile
medical unit within an existing medical complex.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
ACTION: Continued subject request to the July 25, 1994 Planning Comm!•_sion meeting in order
- for the applicant to be present.
~;
VOTE: 5.0 (Commissioners Boydstun and Messe were absent)
-,,`4..
~./
07/11/94
Page 37
7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved
7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3697 Granted
UWNER: KEITH GOODELL/LEISURE COURT ALZHEIMER CENTER
INC., 1135 Leisure Court, Anaheim, CA 92901
AGENT: PATRICIA SMITH, 12232 W. Chapman Avenue, Garden
Grove, CA 92(140
LOCATION: 1135 North Leisure Court. Property is approximately
1.34 acres located on the west side of Leisure Court and
approximately 285 feet north of the centerline of La
Palma Avenue.
To permit the addition of a storage building to an existing skilled
nursing facility with waiver of minimum setback of Institutional uses
adjacent to a residential zone boundary.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC9491
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Bob Wells, 11031 Crelet, Huntington Beach, stated he is the project manager for three facilities, Including
this one on Leisure Court, which is a facility for patients with Alzheimer. He explained they would like to
put up a 25 x 40 foot metal shed to use for storage . He added he believed there is a waiver for a five
foot setback.
Chairrnan Peraza asked if Mr. Wells read the conditions in the staff report and if he was in agreement
with those conditions.
Mr. Wells replied that he did not have a problem with any of them.
PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Henninger offered a motion approving the CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion was
seconded and carried.
Commissioner Henninger oftared a motion approving the waiver of Cade requirement with the finding
that this is an irregu!?rlyshaped site and strict application of the Code would not permit benefits that are
normally associated with properties of this type.
Motion was seconded and approved.
Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC94-91 approving Conditional Use No. 3697, subject
to conditions.
L../
07/11/sa
Page 36
"~a
The resolution passed with 4 yes votes -Commissioner Bcydscun, Messe and Taft were absent.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Boydstun, Messe and'iait were absent)
l
" r~''sn.
~ o~/t t /9a
Page 39
Sa. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLAAATION I Approved
8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3894 Granted
OWNER: 1340 CURSON CO., 5650 W. Centinella Ave., Los Angeles,
CA 90045
AGENT: BRIAN HUGHES/CB COMMERCIAL, 2400 E. Katella
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 3818 E. Miraloma Avenue. Property is approximately
0.82 acre located on the south side of Miraloma Avenue
and located approximately 212 feet east of the centedine
of Jefferson Street.
To permit an auto body repair facility.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC94-92
---------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: None
PETITIONER'S COMMENTS:
Brian Hughes, Agent for Joseph Barteloni , 2400 E. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, explained Mr. Barteloni has
been in business for about 8 years in Anaheim on Ball Road. He has outgrown that facility and wants to
purchase the building at 3818 E. Miraloma Avenue. There would probably be no more than ten to twelve
cars in the facility during the week. All the work will be done Inside the building; the yard area is
completely screened with a 7-foot high concrete block wall, plus a grape stake sliding gate fence, so
anything in the yard area cannot be seen from the street. He intends to upgrade the property painting
the building, re-surfacing the parking area, restriping it, and there are 30 parking spaces there which
meets Code.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Peraza asked if Mr.. Hughes had read all the conditions and if there were any questions on any
of them
Mr. Hughes said he was aware of the conditions and had no questions.
Commissioner Caldwell offered a motion to approve the CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion was
seconded and passed.
Commissioner Caldwell offered Resolution No. PC94-92 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3694
subject to the conditions of approval on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report.
VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Boydstun, Henninger and Messe absent)
I
07/11/94
Page 40
9.REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3389 -REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Approved
OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Elfend (to expire 7-16-95
and Associates, 610 Newport Center Drive, Ste. 1290, Newport Beach,
CA 92660, requests an extension of time to comply with conditions of
approval for Conditional Use Permk No. 3389 (to permit a 750-seat
theme type dinner theater with on-premise sale and consumption of
alcoholic beverages) to expire on July 16, 1995. Property is located at
1859 S. Manchester Avenue.
ACTION: Commissioner Tait offered a Motion, seconded by
Commissioner Caldwell and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioners Boydstun and Messe absent) that the
Anaheim Ciry Planning Commission does hereby approve a
time extension (to expire on July 16, 1995) subject to the
following:
(a) That the property owners shall maintain their properties
or demolish the buildings to eliminate the problems with
the property (trash, graffiti and landscaping not being
maintained). If subject property is not demolished, it
shall be Inspected monthly by Code Enforcement at the
petitioner's expense to ensure that the property is being
maintained.
~,.~
(b) That prior to final occupancy, if the Anaheim Rasort
Specific Plan is in effect, a layered landscaping along
Manchester Avenue shall be provided as outlined in
said Specific Plan.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3143 -REQUEST FOR Terminated
TERMINATION: Carl Kayl, Plant Manager, Sioux Honey Association, 511
E. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests termination of
Condtional Use Parmit No. 3143 (to permit a bus terminal). Property is
located at 511 E. Katella Ave.
TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC94-93
07/11/94
Page 41
C. VARIANCE NO. 4188 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Redondo Terminated
Investment Company, C/0 Property Service Group, 3591 Long Beach
Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90807 requests termination of Variance No. 4188
(waiver of permitted shopping center identification signs, minimum sign
area, and permitted location of freestanding signs to construct a 24-sq.
ft, freestanding shopping center identification sign). Property is located
at 6330.6396 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road.
TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC94-94
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3667 -APPROVAL OF Approved, In part
CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND A SUBMITTED SIGN PROGRAM
FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FULL AND SELF-SERVE CARWASH
AND AN AUTOMOBILE LURE/OIL-CHANGE FACILITY: Tim Bundy,
20331 Irvine Avenue, Suite 7, Santa Ana, CA 92707, requests approval of
construction phasing and a submitted sign program in conjunction with
Conditional Use Permit No. 3667 (to permit a full•service carwash with
related retail sales area and a self-serve automated carwash with an
automobile tube/oil change facility). Property is located at 125 N.
Brookhurst Street and 2217 W. Lincoln Avenue.
ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a Motion seconded by
Commissioner Caldwell and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissioner Tait declared a conflict of interest and
Commissioners Boydstun and Messe were absent), that the
Anaheim City Plsn:ning Commission does hereby approve
the two phases et construction and, further approves the
sign plan subject to the following:
(a) That the two directional signs located west of the east
driveway from Lincoln Avenue shall be combined Into
one (1) sign not to exceed 16-square feet in area and 4-
feet in height.
(b) That the proposed banners under the detail canopy are
hereby denied unless the petitioner can demonstrate
that the banners would nor be visible from Lincoln
Avenue.
(c) That the raquired landscaping along Lincoln Avenue
shall be installed within eighteen (18) months from the
date of this excerpt.
~ti~
07/11/94
Page 42
E. SPECIFIC PLAN NO 88-2 (THE SUMMIT OF ANAHEIM HILLSI. Approved, as
DEVELOPMENT AREA 101 - REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL conditioned
CONFORMANCE DETERMINATION FOR TRACT 13512
LANDSCAPING & IRRIGATICLN AND PHASING FOR REMAINDER OF
DEVELOPMENT AREA.
ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a Motion, seconded by
Commissioner Tait and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners
Boydstun and Messe absent) that the Anaheim Ciry Planning
Commission does hereby approve the supplemental planting
plan for Tract 13512 and that all slope landscaping and
irrigation within Tract 13512, 13266 and a portion of future
Tract 13515 (adjacent to Tract 13514, 13512 and 13266) be
installed and certified by October 1, 1994 subject to the
following:
That the owner shall not be issued any certificates of
occupancy for the models until all slope landscaping and
irrigation is certified. Continuing, thereafter, the property
owner shall maintain it until it is accepted by the
Homeowner's Association.
Please Note: Commissioner Peraza requested that the election of Chairman and
Chairman Pro-tempore be agendized for the August e, 1994 Planning
Commission meeting.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:25 P.M. TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MORNING SESSION OF
JULY 25, 1994 AT 11:00 A.M.
Respectfully submitted,
~~ ~° ~~~
Edith L Harris
Planning Commission Support Supervisor
i
`~ 07/11/94 ~
Page 43