Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1191 ,6 . . . ~ .-' . ~, . . RESOLUTION NO, 1191 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PER~IT SI-15 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF nvo FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS, A SEVEN-STORY HOTEL AND A RESTAURANT, AT 130 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE WHEREAS, an application was filed on November 23, 1981, by John Kirkpatrick on behalf of TOWA Corporation requesting a con- ditional use permit to construct a seven-story, 150 room hotel, two four-story office buildings containing approximately 61,000 square feet each and located within 100 feet of residentially zoned property and an 8,000 square foot restaurant to be located in one of the office buildings, Planning Department Case No. C.U.P, 81-15, on the property commonly known as 130 West Huntington Drive, more particularly described in attached Exhibit "A", WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 23, 1982, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS.FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the factual data submitted by. the Planning Department in the attached staff report is true and correct. Section 2. This Commission finds that; 1. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit as herein- after provided will not be detrimental to the public health or ,welfare or injurious to the property or improvement in such zone or vicinity. 2. The use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized,- 3, The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, including all yards, parking, loading, landscaping and other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. -1- 1191 6 . . ,j . . 4. The site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of tr~ffic genetated by the proposed use. 5, The granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely aff~ct the.General Plan. 6. The use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the enviTonment, 7. That the Planning Commission has reviewed and con- sidered the Environmental Impact Report and the "Alternatives to the Proposed Action" and concluded that the proposed .project is an appropriate development of this site. 8. That the design, heating/cooling/lighting system, water and solid waste suggestions set forth on pages 30 and 31 of the Environmental Impact Report shall be considered in the design and development of the project. However, because the design and construction of an energy efficient project involves the considera- tion not only of individual energy saving components, but of their interaction with one another and because the State has developed comprehensive energy conservation regulations which must be com- plied with, not all of the suggestions may be ultimately appropriate to be incorporated into the project. Incorporation of all of these suggestions would not necessarily be ,cost effective or energy efficient. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the most cost effective and energy efficient project will be secured by ,requiring compliance with the State's Energy Conservation regula- tions. That securing a balance of both cost effectiveness and energy efficiency are of an overriding consideration from requiring the project to be designed and developed incorporating all of the suggestions set forth in the Environmental Impact Report. Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons, subject to the approval of the City Council, this Commission grants a Condi- tional Use Permit to construct a seven-story hotel, two four-story office buildings and an 8,000 square foot restaurant, upon the following conditions: -2- 1191 . . . " . . 1. The property shall be improved and maintained in accordance with the plans on file in the subject case C.U.P. 81-15 and applicable regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code'. 2. Submit grading and dr~inage plan for, approval of the Director of Public WorKs. 3. Construct full parkway width sidewalk and plant parKway trees in a~cordance with plans to be approved by the Director of Public Works. 4. Construct P.C.C. gutter, per City Standards, where none exists on Huntington Drive. 5. Close existing driveway opening not to be used. 6. Fire Safety shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. 7. That parking shall comply with code; a maximum of 20% of the parking spaces may be small car spaces with minimum dimensions of 8' x 16'; and that a revised parking plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. All parking stalls shall be designed to provide adequate maneuvering space for backing up and exiting. 9. Provide appropriate signing to discourage incorrect exiting from the driveways. 10. That the sewer defi~iency identified in the EIR shall be resolved prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued by the Building Division for any part of the proposed development. 11. That this conditional use permit shall be null and void unless a zone change is approved to add an "H" overlay to the property. 12. That the Final EIR is certified by the City Council. 13. The Commission may approve minor alterations to the plans without the necessity of additional public hearings. 14. That Conditional Use Permit 81-15 shall not take effect until the applicant and owner have executed a form avail- able in the Planning Department indicating awareness of the conditions of approval. - 3 - 1191 . . . , . . . 15. That the ARA shall approve landscape plans for the proposed project. by the ARA, C.U.P. 81-is shall become null 16. That said plans shall comply Conservation regulations. the architectural and I~ ~aid plans are denied and void. with. ~he.State's Energy Section 4. The Secretary of this resolution and shall cause a City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of March, 1982 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Fee, Hedlund, Hegg, Jahnke, Kuyper, Soldate Commissioner Sargis shall certify to the copy to be forwarded adoption to the NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: None None Cb~::1 In. qJdda-tz ATTEST: Iu~~~ Secretary - 4 - 1191 " . . . " . . EXHrBIT A That portion 'of Lot 50f Tract No. 949 in the city of Arcadia, county of Los Angeles, state of California, as per map recorded in Book 17, Page 13 of Maps in the office of the county recorder of said county, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the southeasterly line of said Lot 5, distant thereon south 38033' west 163.93 feet from the most easterly corner of said lot; thence alone the southeasterly lioPe of said lot south 38033' west 671.58 feet; thence north 51 27' west 307.71 feet, more or less, to the most southerly corner of the land described in the deed to Herbert S, Kamin recorded on July 3, 1936, as Instrument No. 435 in Book 14205, Page 282 of Official Records of said county; thence parallel wi th the southeasterly line of said Lot 5, North 380 33' east 60 feet to the most easterly corner of said land of Kamin thence along the northeasterly line of said land of Kamin north 51027' west 193.80 feet more or less, to the southeasterly line of Huntington Drive, as described in the deed to the city of Arcadia, recorded in Book 9396, Paqe 145 of Official records of said - 0 county; thence northeasterly and south bears north 51 27' west and passes through the point ~f beginning; thence along said last mentioned line, south 51 27' east 125.49 feet to the point of beginning. " . . . ~ ,~ ~ ~ ,-.'.J .DECEMBER 7~ 1982 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA SUBJECT: SANTA ANITA PLAZA HOTEL AND OFFICE COMPLEX 130 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE GENTLE~1EN : The City Council at its November 16 meeting appealed the Planning Com- mission's approval of Modification M-82-110 and the parking and circu- lation plan for the Santa Anita Plaza Hotel and Office complex at 130 West Huntington Drive. On April 6, 1982, the City Council ratified Planning Ccmmission Reso- lution 1191 granting conditional use permit 81~15 for a seven-story hotel and two four-story office buildings and restaurant on the subject site. Condition 7 of this Resolution required that a revised ~arkin5 and circulation plan be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. On September 30, the applicant submitted modification application M-82-110 and a revised parking and circulation plan for the Planning Commission's consideration. The revised plan resulted in changes to the building configurations, setbacks and parking layout. A sum~ary of these changes are set forth in Exhibit "A". The following modif- ications were requested to construct the seven ~tory hotel, the two four-story office buildings and the parking structure: 1. (9276.2.5) 20' setback for the first floor of the hotel along the eastbound Huntington Drive property line in lieu of 30' required. 2. (9269.7.a.) to use angle parking that differs from the table in the code but which provides equivalent ingress and egress to the parking spaces. 3. (Ordinance 1755) to allow an office building with window openings adjacent to R-l zoned property. The Planning' Comn,ission at its October 26 and November 9 meetings reviewed the requested modificatio~s an0 the parking and circulation plan. ' On November 9 the Commission voted 4-2 with one Commissioner abstaining to approve the following: 1. Modification M-82-110 with the findin& that the modifications would secure an appropriate improvement and that the loca- tion, configuraticD and composition of afore-described windows Page 1 '-- " " ~ , ~ " . DECEMBER 7, 1982 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA SUBJECT: SANTA ANITA PLAZA HOTEL AND OFFICE COMPLEX 130 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE GENTLE~1EN : The City Council at its November 16 meeting appealed the Planning Com- mission's approval of Modification M-82-110 and the parking and circu- lation plan for the Santa Anita Plaza Hotel and Office complex at 130 West Huntington Drive. On April 6, 1982, the City Council ratified Planning Ccmmission Reso- lution 1191 granting conditional use permit 81~15 for a seven-story hotel and two four-story office buildings and restaurant on the subject site. Condition 7 of this Resolution required that a revised ~arkin5 and circulation plan be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a ~uilding permit. . On September 30, the applicant submitted modification application M-82-110 and a revised parking and circulation plan for the Planning Commission's consideration. The revised plan resulted in changes to the building configurations, setbacks and parking layout. A sum~ary of these changes are set forth in Exhibit "A". The following modif- ications were requested to construct the seven "tory hotel, the two four-story office buildings and the parking structure: 1. (9276.2.5) 20' setback for the first floor of the hotel along the eastbound Huntington Drive property line in lieu of 30' required. 2. (9269.7.a.) to use angle parking that differs from the table in the cod~ but which provides equivalent ingress and egress to the parking spaces. 3. (Ordinance 1755) to allow an office building with window openings adjacent to R-l zoned property. The Planning Como,ission at its October 26 and November 9 meetings reviewed the requested modificatiocs and the parking and circulation plan. On November 9 the Commission voted 4-2 with one Commissiocer abstaining to a~prove the following: 1. Modification M-82-110 with the findin& that the modifications would secure an appropriate improvement and that the loca- tion, configuratic~ and composition of afore-described windows . Page 1 '" ~ '\ .... . Novcmber 23, 1982 EXHIBIT lIB" TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNI:\G cml~IISsION FRml: PLANN ING DEP A HTillE NT SUBJECT: EIH - SANTA ANITA PLAZA 130 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE PREPARED BY; DONNA L. BUTLER ASSOCIATE PLANNER .The Planning Commission at its November 9 meeting considered revised plans for the Santa Anita Plaza Hotel and Office Complex at 130 West Huntington Drive. During the Commission's review some of the Commissioncrs expressed con.cern that the EIR pre- pared for the original project might not be appropriate for the revised plans. In order to allow all the Commissioners timc to review the Final EIR, further discussion on this item was con- tinued to tonight's meeting. . In response to the Commission's concern regarding the EIR, staff delivered a copy of the revised plan to Donald A. Cotton Assoc- iates, the consultants who prepared the EIR and asked them to evaluate the revised plans to determine if a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR would be necessary. On November 15, a copy of the consultant's letter was delivered to you along with a copy of the Final EIR. In summary, the consultant's l~tter noted the following: "There are no environmental issues requiring analysis that wer.e not analyzed in the previous EIR.", In accord with CEQA Guidelines "it will not be necessary for the City to prepare either a Subsequent EIR or Supple- mental EIR"'and "There is no additional process or steps the City is required t~ take under CEQA as part of approval of the revised site pl.an. " Attachcd is a copy of the lettcr from Donald A. Cotton Associates. . . . . .' .~ -~. . '. . --, .., j Elri - SANTA ANITA PLAZA November 23, 1982 Page 2 In order to reaffirm that the original EIR is adequate, the COI1lr:lission should make a motion "finding that the revised plans will not have any significant effect on the environment other than as identified in the prior EIR." db Attachment ~._'~,. ~:.~~:'-_ --:"::::-':;;"-:..:.::::::'~7:..: :..:~:_~'::.=.:' _._:-:.~.~__~-_ '.,'.'~~~~~~~:'..;,.~.~:.-::~~~7'::?:~,~:~~=:'~.::-::::::::::.:::_.:i~.:.:~~:~" " .~ .;;:i') .~ '''') - . on the office building and the openings CD the w~st end of the parking structure do not allow visual intrusion on the privacy of the abutting R-l zoned property. The revised parking and circulation plan with the condition that the parking structure be set back 7~ feet from the southerly property line. (No condition was imposed regarding what was to be done with this area.) Oce of the Commissioners had some concern regarding the location of the parking structure adjacent to the southerly property line arod based on this concern, the Commission recommended that the structure be set back the 7~ feet from the ~outherly property line. 2.. The Commissioners voting in favor of this project thought the reviSEd proposal was much better than the original plan. It was noted that although the buildings had been shifted, it was essentially the sa~e project that they had approved before. It was felt that there had beEn no change in the character of the project or Xhe general layout. The Coremissioners voting in opposition to these two requests made the following comments: . It was felt trat they werE approving conceptually a whole new plan with entirely different setbacks inconsistent with what was originally approved and that these setbacks would severely impcct the east side and south side of the property. It was felt trat the only setback which had been improved was the setback of the office building adjacent to the R-l property to the socth. 2. The shifting of the buildings closer to the eastbound Huntingtcn Drive property line would create a corridor of buildings along the east property linE. 1. 3. Concern was expressed ~ith the parking structure's solid wall adjacent to tre southerly property line. The fact that thE parking structure must be adequately lit throughout the night would cause light to be cast directly on the R-l property from the open west end of the parking structure. The location of the parking struc- ture would not enhance the Civic Center or the soccer field. It was felt that the noise factor from the soccer field &gainst the solid wall of the parking structure would be very objectionable. 4. Co~cern was expressed regarding thE conflict with Ordinance 1755 which does not allow window openings adjaCEnt to R-l zoned property It was noted that not only was the office building adjacent to the R-l property but also the west end cf the parking structure which was open was also adjacent to the R-l property. 5. Concern was expressed regarding the passenger drop-off area lccated on both sides of the drive"ay entry to the parking structure, . Appeal ~1-82-110 December 7, 1982 Page 2 .'" ~.V~ ..~.. ~ '~ ~ . which was approximately 30: in width. It was felt that this was not adequate for both 2 driveway and drop-off area. One of the Commissioners did not think that the vehicular ingress and egress problem tad been adequately addre:sed. He.was con- cerned with the traffic along ~estbound Huntln6ton Drive, and thE stacking of vehicles trying to enter the site, the palking con- figuration, and cars trying to make left hand turns onto Hunting- ton Drive. He was not convinced that the control gates would work to relieve the problem on westbound Huntington Drive. 6. 6. It was felt that redccing the number of parking spaces adjacent to the hotel facility which includes the banquet rooms and two rest- aerants would increase the parking problem in the immediate vicinity of the hotel, and that the remainder of th~ spEces in the parking structure ~ere a considerable distance away without any walkway access. 8. It was also felt that the accommodations for pedestrian traffic to the various buildings on the site was not satisfactory. They were worried about the basic flow of pedestrians away from the center of activity (the hotel), especially during the evening hours, to the parking structure located 200+ feet away. 9. The project was too intensivE a use of the property. . 10. The Commissioners questioned the validity of the ErR as it related to the new configuration of the revised plan. c Because the question was raised regarding the adequacy of the ErR prepare~ [or the original p,.oject, the'City Attorney advised that it would be approp,iate that the Commission make a finding that either (1) the changes were not a substantial alteration from the plans considered in the ErR to require that a subsequent or supplemental EIR be prepared or (2) that the revisions were a substantial chango aDd therefore a subsequent or supplemental EIR was necessary. Two of the Commissioners were not on the Commission at the ti~e the original EIR was considered for this project, therefore the Planning Commi ssion continued its consideration of this action to the NoverT.- ber 23 meeting. . In response to the Commission I s concern, staff submi ttce! the revised plans to Donald A. Cotton Associates, the consultants whe prepared the EIR and' requested that they review the revised plans to deterrTine if a Subsequent ErR or Supplemental ErR would be necess~~~, Attached is their letter responding to this request (Exhibit .'E"). In summary it notes that in accord with California's CEQA Guidelin~" it will not be nECEssary for the City to prepare either a Subsc~ccc: EIR or a Supptemental EIR and the City is not required to take anv additional steps or processes under CEQA nS part of the approval 0: the revised site plan. . I \' ~., "0 AppeCl ,.-t__~-!l Decemt,cl- 7. lS.t:2 l'.:~ ;>_ 3 ~ ~ .'<.. " '."ie~ '~..i: :~: " .t.. .~t f.~'. > .~ .~:' !."' ..'fi. -'J:'..: .. tJi: . ~..:!: .~ .;~ '~ ?t~ '"",,:~-s .~~ -~; ,",$;'1 ~ -if~ IJm~, } ---a. . .\ ~. 4.~!.>; ~''''~.; .- ."'~ '5 :'!fi .. } -', . . 4. 5. 6. . . ,- ~,~". ji "-, .\ .., . On November 23, the FI~n~ing Com~ission vote~ 4-2 with one me~?er. . abstaining t~ find that the rev1sed pla~s w1~1.not.have any.s1gn1f\cant effect on the enviro~ment other than as 1dent1f1ed 1n the pr10r EIR: The members voting in favor noted that the causes and effects of the project had no~ changed and that there were no changes that had beer IT.cdE- in the revised plan that invalidated the findings, of the ErR. The members voting against commented as follo"s: 1, The EIR did not adequately address the parking because the devel- .oper pad not submitted a precise parking plan. 2. The relocation of the parking structure substantially impacts the surrounding properties, 3. The light, glare and aesthetics of tbe j::arking structure Ivere not addressed in the origirEl EIR and aesthetics have become a very primary factor ba~,ed on the large wall abutting directly to City Hall property. On November j9, the applicant submitted the attached letter appealir~ the Planning .Commission' s condition that the parking strllcture be set back 7~ feet from the southerly property line. As their letter indi- cates, the parking structure is permitted adjacent to the property line under the existing C-2 zoning regulations. It is'staff's opinion that the 7~ foot setback serves no useful purpose. There is a?proYima- tely 10' high shrubs located on the City property adjacent to the subject site, which presently serves as a minimum buffer to th~ existirg development. If the City Council wishes to approve the parking and cir- culation plan subject to the Planning Commission's recommendation for a 7~ foot setback, staff would recommend that this be subject to the condition that this area by landscaped. Attached for the Council's review and consideration are the following: 1. The letter from the applicant appealing the condition that the building be set back 7~'. . 2. Exhibit "A" a comparison table of the original and revised plans. 3. Exhibit "B", the Planning Commission's November 23 staff report and letter from Donald A. Cotton Associates regarding the ErR. (Please bring your copy ofcheEIR which was distributed to you on November 24.) Exhibit "C", 'the October 26 Planning Department staff report. Draft copy of the November 23 minutes relating to this project. Drpft copy of the November 9 minutes relating to this project. Appeal N-82-110 December 7, 1982 Page 4 ~~~~tii1...,-.z;,,,,-~- . '~) dJ. -, ,) -. . 7. 8. Copy of the October 26 minutes relating to this project. A pncket from the applicant which includes: A. Rendering of the development. B. "Additional Graphic Representation"and large scale site plan presented to the Planning Commission at its November 9 meeting. C. "Santa Anita Plaza Project Update" presented to the Planning Commission on October 26. If the Council determines that the requested modifications and the re- vised parking and circulation plan are appropriate and that the revised plans do not result in any substantial changes, ,the City Council should make the following motion and findings: 1. That the revised plan will not have any significant effect on the environment other than as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Approve N-82-110 with the finding that the approval would secure an appropriate improvement, or prevent an unreasonable hardship, or promote uniformity of development; and find that the "location, configuration and composition of afore-described windows on the office building and the openings on the west end of the parking structure do not allow visual intrusion on the privacy of the abutting R-l zoned property." 3. Approve the revised parking and circulation plan as submitted. . PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~.~?~&-~ DONNA L. BUTLER ASSOCIATE PLANNER Attachments . Appeal ~!-82-110 December 7, 1982 Page 5 i ~ NovembeJt 29, 1982 RECEiVED r'iQV 2 9 1982 CITY OF ARCADIA PLANNING DEFT. CUy 06 A.'LeacUa ,lilt.. W,{11Md - PWIlMllg VepaJLtment 240 We.ot Huntington Vr';'ve Alteadia, Ca. 91006 VeM ,lilt. W,illMd: RE: M~82-110 C.U.P. 81-15 We have Iteeeived the nouee 06 appltoval 06 the mOcUMea..ti.olU> ,1\-82-110, dated Novvnbe!! 15, 1982. I n We [.C'clLf.d ti/<e to blt.i.ng to YCU-'L attention the matte!! 06 tile 7!, 600t oetbadl. Oil the ,~outhc/liy pltopVt.ty tine. It.u., OUlt. ~~h to appeal tlUJ., oe..tbaek, M a .0~ OUlt. 6eeLi.ng that tl~i.6 7;' 6ee..t will oeJtve no pU-'Lpooe to anyolle, but.i.1l 6aC-t Clteate an Mea wlueh eOllid pooo.i.b.e.y Clteate pltob.tvno 60,'L the potiee depa.lttment and OUlt. o.ta66 M well.. We bMe .t1u-~ appeal on the 6aC-t that eode all.owo lL6 to bu.U'.d cU'Lee.t1.tj on the pItOpC.!I,ttj tine, M well. M the 6aet that we have had tlUJ., apphoved by the eOll11)J,i.M.i.on P:Li.OIt to blti.ng.i.ng tlUJ., matteJt to .0~Mte, I We WOlLl'.d appltecia,te YOUlt. Op.i.MOM on tlUJ., matteJt M wete. lL~ tjOUlt. eoop"-''La..ti.oll .i.1l tltb., pltoeeed.i.llgo. (Ve wou.l'.d applteciate yoUlt. eormne~l-t~ on tlUJ., matteJt, alld thanll. tjou 60,'L tjOUlt. he1.p .i.n the pMt. P.e.ea,~ e p~oeeed wLth appe([Li.ng tlou, ,to the Catj COllncA1. ~4 / / ColtcLi.aUtj, tIt1 ~-e d!~'-< . 0' ~ ~fs:.J!g.y I' oh~1 wk ([,tlue/< SeClteJ;;iittj - Tow COltp. Santa A p.e.aza AMociate.o CC: Plt.i.ncipa.t~ ~ I I @ ~ " " a u ~ ~ . ~ SSH/.~b R.;~lt\D..i l:'\':-.J 130 \\'EST HU;....Tl:\GTO~; DRlt'E Ai\Cr\[):t\. C"UFO;;::\I,\ 'il(l(16 ['::11 ~.:h :;711 ...--- 'l f"' _, .... ....""'.......,~ I I D\".".. ".,'i" \ I . (l,,--,-j-.,;:/~ 'I p.............. . , 11\\ 11.,_ '." I~\ \ LJ.L.'> ';'.h..~'... l!. !..-:. . ~ '-........ .- :.p " ., . Noycmber 23. 1982 EXHIBIT "Bt! TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNI~G cmlmSSION FRml: PLANNING DEPAHnlENT SUBJECT: EIR - SANTA ANITA.PLAZA 130 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE PREPAHED BY: DONNA L. BUTLER ASSOCIATE PLANNER The Planning Commission at its November 9 meeting considered revised plans for the Santa Anita Plaza Hotel and Office Complex at 130 West Huntington Drive. During the Commission's review some of the Commissioners expressed con.cern that the EIR pre- pared for the original project might not be appropriate for the revised plans. In order to allow all the Commissioners time to review the Final EIR, further discussion on this item was con- tinued to tonight's meeting. . In response to the Commission's concern regarding the EIR, stafE delivered a copy of the revised plan to Donald A. Cotton Assoc- iates, the consultants who prepared the EIR and asked them to evaluate the revised plans to determine if a Subsequent EIR or ~upplemental EIR would be necessary. On November 15, a copy of the consultant's letter was delivered to you along with a copy of the Final EIR. In summary, the consultant's letter noted the following: , "There are no environmental issues requiring analysis that were not analyzed in the previous EIR.", In accord with CEQA Guidelines "it will not be necessary for the City to prepare either a Subsequent EIR or Supple- mental EIR" and "There is no additional process or steps the City is required to take ~nder CEQA as part of approval of the revised site plan. II Attached is a copy of the letter from Donald A. Cotton Associates. . . . . .t.I:1 " ~ ~ EIR - SANTA ANITA PLAZA . November 23, 1982 Paf';e 2 In order to reaffirm that the original EIR is adequate, the COnlr:lission should make 3. motion "finding that the revised plans will not have any sif';nific3.nt effect on the environment other t)]an as identified in the prior EIR." db Attachment "'"_".:0 .7.~~=::::-:::,,-,;";.:;:..~..;=,:~~, ~.: .~-~.:_:'~:':':"~::' _;:.:.":::~";7~.~7~~:;~;,':.~~,=:,~.:~~:~::;:::7.~??:!_~~':::.!: .~_~:~:=;..o:J".: ~;!:~..~. -~:~::.~;~~. . .,- I Ii II . . ,', , i! ._" .." .' EXHIBIT "A" ~' H-82-110 SANTA ANITA PLAZA Hotel Number of Rooms Building Height Total Floor Area Setback from north property line Setback from Eastbound Huntington Drive property line Setback from Westbound Huntington Drive property line Westerly Office Building Building Height Total Floor area Setback.from Eastbound Huntington Drive property line Setback from Southerly Property line (R-l zoned property) Easterly Office Building Building Height Total Floor area Setback from Hestbound Huntington Drive property line Setback from Southerly property line (Soccer field property) Total Parking Parking Structure Building Height Number of spaces in tIle structure Setback from Southerly property line (Soccer field property) Setback from Westerly property line (R-l zoned property) Setback from Eastbound Huntington Drive property line Original Revised 150 7 stories/85' 114,568 sq. ft. 185' 140 7 stories/77' 108,000 sq. ft. 85' 135 ' 20' 58' 133' 4 stories/57' 61,042 sq. ft. 4 stories/58' 62,000 sq. ft. 52' 58' 25' 140' 4 stories/57' 61,042 sq. ft. 4 stories/55' 62,000 sq. ft. 25' 119 ' 24 ' 131' 631 spaces 702 spaces 3 storics/4 levels 30- 35 ' 348 24' 3 storics/4 levels 35 ' 475 01-8" 28' 23' 160' 18' to 22'