Loading...
MIN 08 11 14_Item 5Page 1 of 4 AUGUST 11, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES ITEM NO. 5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2014-00496 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-00269 (DEV2014-00045) Location: 1710 – 1730 South Anaheim Way Request: To amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Parks to Industrial for an industrial property previously proposed as a park site; remove the Park designation from figures in the General Plan Land Use, Circulation and Green Elements; and, rezone two of the four parcels from the Commercial (C-G) zone to Industrial (I) zone. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether a Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request under the California Environmental Quality Act. Resolution No. PC2014-067 Resolution No. PC2014-068 (Caldwell/Ramirez) Recommended City Council Approval of the General Plan Amendment and Reclassification. Recommended to City Council that the seven acres being taken out of the park inventory by this action be replaced with seven acres of parkland elsewhere in the City, excluding the park site being considered at the Ball Road basin. VOTE: 5-0 Chairman Seymour and Commissioners Caldwell, Dalati, Lieberman and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal and Bostwick were absent. Project Planner: Elaine Thienprasiddhi ethien@anaheim.net David See, Senior Planner provided a summary of the staff report dated August 11, 2014, along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Ramirez asked if other sites are being looked at since this one is no longer feasible for a park. Mr. See stated the original intention of this site was to provide parks for the Platinum Triangle as there are code requirements to provide park space within developments. Commissioner Lieberman said that we are losing seven acres of what was allocated as park land in the Platinum Triangle and we are not going to get it back. In the staff report, there is no final determination of the use of the revenues. It is anticipated they will be used for improvement of recreational facilities throughout the city. She asked who makes the final determination of the use of the revenues from sale of the properties. Commissioner Dalati said it seems a park is out of place in this area as it is far away from any residential areas. Page 2 of 4 Mr. See said there are multiple family apartments to the north, on Anaheim Boulevard, approximately a half mile away. Chairman Seymour opened the public hearing. Pamela Galera, Principal Project Planner, stated the Community Services Department has determined that this site is not appropriate for park land for a number of reasons. It is an odd shaped parcel on a one-way street and it would be very difficult to develop. They are very conscious of the need for park land in the city and are aggressively looking for additional land, specifically near the Platinum Triangle, to be used by the residents. Many of the developers in the Platinum Triangle are required to provide small parks; however, they are looking for a large parcel where a large sports complex can be developed. Sergio Ramirez, Senior Project Planner, indicated that the revenues generated by the sale of this property will be at the discretion of the City Manager and City Council. They will definitely be used for other park locations and locations that will help augment the park opportunities in the Platinum Triangle. Chairman Seymour asked if there was a requirement that the City Manager and City Council utilize the money for parks. Mr. Ramirez responded he did not believe so. The value of the property has now increased and the use for these funds has yet to be determined. Commissioner Lieberman asked how it was determined how much park space is needed. Mr. See said that within the Platinum Triangle, parcels eight acres or larger with residential development totaling more than 325 units, need to construct an on-site public park. The size of the park is based on the number of units. If the site is under eight acres, then a park in lieu fee is applied and that goes into a fund. Commissioner Lieberman asked if the developers are required to build the parks on their project sites. Ted White, Principal Planner, said that is correct. Projects over eight acres are required to build a park on-site, at their expense, and they provide a turnkey park to us. There are park in lieu fees of approximately $8,000 per unit that are required to be paid. The cost of the land, not the improvements on the park, is counted towards paying the fees. If the project is under eight acres, they are required to pay the fees, which go into the fund that is used to make improvements to the parks. Commissioner Lieberman asked if the City has made an effort to purchase land in the Platinum Triangle for more park space. Mr. Ramirez stated the City has made an effort to acquire property in the Platinum Triangle. This is just outside the Platinum Triangle. The price of land in the area was very expensive and it became prohibitive for the Community Services Department to compete with developers in the acquisition of land. When the opportunity presented itself to buy property in close proximity to the Platinum Triangle, it was purchased by the City. The determination was recently made to dispose of this property and reinvest the funds in better locations. Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Lieberman asked what type of parks are being constructed within the Platinum Triangle projects. Ms. Galera stated certain developments over eight acres are required to provide small pocket or passive type parks. The Community Services Department is looking for additional land and has made an offer on a large parcel near the Santa Ana River, which would provide for a very large sports complex. Commissioner Lieberman stated that the City should continue to pursue opportunities for more park space in the City. Mark Atkin, representing Friar Tux Shop, 1711 South Claudina Way, said if the property is rezoned, they are interested in purchasing a small piece of the corner lot to be used as storage, parking, etc. His concern with new development here is the heavy traffic, especially during rush hour. He is neither in favor nor opposed of the project. Commissioner Caldwell told Mr. Atkin the project is a long way off and is only being rezoned at this time. Chairman Seymour closed the public hearing. David Kennedy, Principal Traffic Engineer, said before this property was designated as a park in the General Plan, it was a commercial use. Anaheim Way was designed for this site to be a commercial development, not industrial, which generates less traffic. From the long term perspective, Anaheim Way will be able to accommodate the additional traffic. A development this size will require a traffic study regardless of the type of use. Mr. White said that future development plans would address the parking needs of the property on- site. It will not solve any existing parking issues on Claudina Way; however, we cannot encumber any future development on solving those issues. Chairman Seymour clarified that this action would not reconfigure the existing parcel lines. The parcels as outlined in the diagram would not be changed with this rezoning request. Commissioner Caldwell requested that Ms. Galera make sure the money received for this parcel would be earmarked for seven acres of park space somewhere else in the city. Commissioner Dalati agreed. Commissioner Ramirez asked if “they” have a role in approving parks is it a recommendation or requirement, or are there mitigation measures that would allow a park to be located within 500 feet of a freeway. Mr. See responded that based on research, the Air Resources board recently came up with a recommendation. The 500-foot spacing requirement is not a mandate, nor a law. Commissioner Ramirez asked if based on this recommendation, we are giving up seven acres of land that were originally allocated for parks. Page 4 of 4 Ms. Galera responded that there are many reasons this site would not be suitable for park space. It is a one-way street and oddly-shaped, making it difficult to build soccer or sports fields, nor is it close to residences. Commissioner Ramirez asked if they went through a design process before deeming that the site was inadequate. Ms. Galera stated they went through several design processes and it was apparent that it was a difficult site to work with. An indoor facility option was also explored. They felt it would be best to use the profits elsewhere. Commissioner Ramirez asked how many acres are allocated for parks in the Platinum Triangle, under the General Plan land use designation for parks. Ms. Galera responded that the standard is two acres per thousand residents. Jonathan Borrego, Planning Services Manager, clarified that the Platinum Triangle, in terms of a build out for residential, is approximately 18,000 units and we anticipate a population of approximately 1.5 persons per unit. He reminded the Commission what they are doing by taking action this afternoon, is making the recommendation to the City Council. If the Commission feels strongly that the proceeds of the sales should in fact go towards offsetting parks in the Platinum Triangle, they can pass that information on as part of their recommendation to the City Council, in order to memorialize that position. Commissioner Caldwell offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ramirez, and the motion carried, recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the August 11, 2014 staff report, determining that a Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2014-00496 and Reclassification No. 2014-00269 (DEV2014-00045) and that the seven acres that has been taken out of the inventory of parks, be replaced with seven acres somewhere else in the city, not including the parcel on Ball Road. Eleanor Morris, Secretary announced that the resolution passed with five yes votes. Chairman Seymour and Commissioners Caldwell, Dalati, Lieberman and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal and Bostwick were absent. OPPOSITION: None IN GENERAL: One person spoke in general about the subject request. DISCUSSION TIME: 30 minutes (5:29 to 5:59)