Loading...
Minutes-PC 2004/04/19CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004-00419) ~~ " ~ ~ ~~ , C ~ COMMISSIONE ~~~ COMMISSIO ER ~ ~ STAFF PRF~' ~1~~ Joel Fick, D ` uty ( Selma Man ,~ ssu Sheri Handn , ~~ Greg ast ~ ,, Annika Sant Jahti, Greg McCa `y, F Linda Johns~C~~Ac ~ ~ HAI -P~RSON: JAMES NDE~~ ~~F~; BUFFA, GAIL EASTMA ;~ E`(:1~ Nt J,' RY O'CONNELL, DAVID RONt AUL BOSTWICK ~ ~ ~~ 4 - ~~ . er ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H:\DOCSICLERfCALiMiNUTES\SUPPLEMENTALMINUTES O41904.DOC planninqcommission(c~anaheim.net ~ APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • 6a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 330 Approved a Motion recommending 6b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004-00419 that the City Council find EIR No. 330, including the corrections and 6C. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2004-00029 omissions addressed in,4ttachment 13 to the staff report, adequate to 6d. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2004-00117 serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed actions 6e. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2 Recommended City Council adoption of General Plan Amendment including (TRACKING NO. SPN2004-00023) the corrections in Attachment 2 to the staff report and redesignating certain 6f. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE NORTHEAST parcels in The Platinum Triangle from Office-Low land uses to Office-High AREA SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 94-1 ~and uses (TRACKING NO. SPN2004-00024) Recommended City Council adoption of Zoning Code Amendment including 6g. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION the corrections in Attachment s to tne 6h. TERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 91-0~ staff report (TRACKING NO. DAG2004-00001) Recommended City Council approval of Reclassification 6i. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 6d and 6q Recommended City Councii adoption of Amendment No. 5 to SP92-2 • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 330 The City has prepared Draft Environmental Report No. 330 (DEIR) in Recommended City Council adoption compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and of Amendment No. 2 to SP94-1 the state and City of Anaheim CEQA Guidelines. The DEIR has been Approved CEQA Negative Declaration circulated for public/responsible agency review for a 45-day public • review and comment period beginning March 19, 2004 and ending Recommended City Council to May 3, 2004. It is anticipated that the City Council will be considering introduce and adopt an Ordinance terminating by canceling Development the DEIR at its dul noted Ma 25, 2004 meetin Y Y g• Agreement No. 91-01 • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004-00419 Recommended City Council review of LOCATION: Citvwide. The City of Anaheim and its sphere-of- item Nos. sd and s9 influence are located in northeastern Orange County, approximately 35 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and 7 miles north of Santa Ana. The City of Anaheim is surrounded by the Cities of Fullerton, Placentia, and Yorba Linda to the north; Riverside County to the east; the Cities of Orange, Garden Grove, Stanton, and unincorporated Orange County to the south; and, the Cities of Cypress and Buena Park to the west. The City encompasses over 32,243 acres of land, including approximately 2,460 acres of unincorporated land within its sphere-of- influence. REQUEST: City-initiated request to comprehensively update the City of Anaheim General Plan, including revisions to the existing Land Use Element (including new and re-named land use designations); Redevelopment Element (now incorporated into the Economic Development Element); Circulation Element (which would now contain the existing Scenic Highways Element); Open Space and Conservation Elements (incorporated into the Green Element); Growth Management Element; Parks, Recreation and Community Services Element (incorporated into the Green Element); Noise Element; and, Safety and Seismic Safety E{ement (combined into one Safety Element); and ~ further, in addition to the topics addressed in the existing General Plan Elements, to create new goals, policies and programs to address community design, economic development, and public services and facilities in the form of new elements for each topic. Sr2153jb.doc 04-19-04 Page 2 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • • ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2004-00029 LOCATION: Citvwide. See above description. REQUEST: City-initiated request to comprehensively amend the City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Code), incfuding, but not limited to, the update of all residential, commercial and industrial zone classifications, permitted uses, and development standards; deletion of obsolete zoning classifications; and introduction of new zoning classifications, including but not limited to, Mixed Use, to implement the updated General Plan. • RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2004-00017 LOCATION: The subject property is an approximately 663-acre area known as the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan No. 90-3 Area, generally bounded by the Cleveland National Forest to the east, the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway to the north, unincorporated open space within the City's Sphere-of-Influence to the south, and the Mountain Park Specific Plan Area to the west (the western boundary of the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan area is approximately 5,712 feet east of the Gypsum Canyon Road/Santa Ana Canyon Road intersection). REQUEST; City-initiated request to reclassify subject properties from the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan (SP90-3) to the OS (Open Space) Zone to be consistent with the Open Space land use designation proposed as part of the General Plan Update. One • approximately 15-acre parcel will retain its existing Low-Medium Density Residential designation with up to 140 dwelling units in the proposed RM-3 Zone. • AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2 (TRACKING NO. SPN2004-00023) LOCATION: Proqertv addresses include 2101-2207 South Harbor Boulevard, 2100- 2340 South Harbor Boulevard 500-510 and 614 West Oran ewood 450 460 and 620 West Wilken Wav, and 421, 503, and 531 West Chapman Avenue. The Anaheim Resort Specific. Plan encompasses approximately 555 acres generally located adjacent to and southwest of Interstate 5 between Ball Road and Orangewood Avenue within The Anaheim Resort. The proposed amendment area is located immediately south of the existing Specific Plan boundaries and encompasses approximately 26 acres along the east and west sides of Harbor Boulevard between Orangewood Avenue and the southern City limits including properties fronting along the following streets (all frontage numbers are approximate): 1,363 feet adjacent to the west side and 2,641 feet adjacent to the east side of Harbor Boulevard; 626 feet adjacent to the south side of Orangewood Avenue, east and west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard; 371 feet adjacent to the north and south sides of Wilken Way, west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard; 190 feet adjacent to the north side and 608 feet adjacent to the south side of Wilken Way, east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard; and, 850 feet adjacent to the north side of Chapman Avenue, east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard. REQUEST: City-initiated request to amend the boundaries of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to incorporate subject properties, and reclassify these properties from the CG (Commercial, General), CH (Commercial, Heavy), CL (Commercial, Limited), PLD-M ~ (Parking/Landscape District-Manufacturing), and RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) Zone to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (SP92-2) Zone (including establishing zoning and development standards for the expanded area) to be consistent with the Commercial 04-19-04 Page 3 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • Recreation land use designation proposed as part of the General Plan Update. • AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE NORTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 94-1 (TRACKING NO. SPN2004-00024) LOCATION: The Northeast Area Specific Plan consists of approximately 2,645 acres generally located in the Santa Ana Canyon, bounded by the City of Placentia to the north, the Orange (SR-57) Freeway to the west, the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway and Santa Ana River to the south, and Imperial Highway to the east. The proposed amendment would encompass approximately 60 acres located within the Northeast Area Specific Plan Area as follows (all acreage and frontage numbers are approximate): (A) 1000-1010.1040, 1021, 1050-1086, and 1041 North Kraemer Place; 2671, 3025-3035 East La Mesa Avenue; 2929-2931 East White Star Avenue; 1015, 1020, 1030-1045, and 1050 North Armando Street. Thirteen (13) properties situated on 23.77 acres with frontages on White Star Avenue, Armando Street, La Mesa Street, and Kraemer Place. (B) 3210 East La Palma Avenue. One (1), 3.91-acre property located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Shepard Street, having frontages of 283 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and 585 feet on the east side of Shepard Street (request for deletion). • (C) 3362. 3364, and 3366-3370 East La Palma Avenue. Three (3) properties situated on 16.99 acres located 1,698 feet east of the centerline of Shepard Street, having a frontage of 461 feet on the south side of La Pafma Avenue and a maximum depth of 1,180 feet. (D) 4506. 4510, 4520. 4527, 4530, 4531, 4545. 4600, 4601 and 4616-4618 East La Palma Avenue. Eleven {11) properties situated on 4.42 acres located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, east of Lakeview Avenue, and at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Lakeview Avenue, including four (4) properties located 276 feet east of the centerline of Lakeview Avenue and having a frontage of 331 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, and seven (7) properties located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Lakeview Avenue, having a frontage of 689 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, and 197 feet on the east side of Lakeview Avenue. (E) 5500. 5510. and 5620 East La Palma Avenue. Three (3) properties situated on 15 acres located 578 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway, having a frontage of 561 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue. REQUEST: City-initiated request to amend the Northeast Area Specific Pfan (SP94-1) and its associated Development Area boundaries to be consistent with the revised General Plan land use designations proposed as part of the General Plan Update, as follows: (A) from DA 5(Commercial) to DA 2(Expanded Industrial); (B) from DA 5{Commercial) to DA 2(Expanded Industrial) (request for deletion); (C) from DA 3(La Palma Core) to DA 5 (Commercial); (D) from DA 5(Commercial) to DA 2(Expanded Industrial); and, (E) from ~ DA 5(Commercial) to DA 2(Expanded Industrial). 04-19-04 Page 4 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • • CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 91-01 (TRACKING NO. 2004-00001 LOCATION: Property encompasses approximately 3,179 acres (the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 area), including 2,339 acres which have been annexed to the City of Anaheim and 840 acres of unincorporated land located within the County of Orange in the City of Anaheim's sphere-of-influence (approximately 172 acres of the Mountain Park site have been developed with the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR-241) which bisects the western portion of the site). The subject site is generally located in Gypsum Canyon, bordered on the north by the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway and the Gypsum Canyon Road interchange, on the west by The Summit of Anaheim Hills and Sycamore Canyon developments, on the south by unincorporated property within the County of Orange in the City of Orange's sphere-of-influence, and on the east by the 697-acre Cypress Canyon Specific Plan area. REQUEST: Request to terminate Development Agreement No. 91-01 between the City of Anaheim and The Irvine Company relating to the development and implementation of the Mountain Park Specific Plan (SP90-4). GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2004-45 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2004-46 RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2004-47 • SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5 RESOLUTION NO. PC2004-48 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. PC2004-49 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC20Q4-50 (This Item was heard after a 10-minute break following Item No. 9; 4:06-4:16) Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares opened the public hearing. Joel Fick, Deputy City Manager, introduced Item No. 6 and stated all of you are a part of making history today because on your agenda is a planning program that literally is the most comprehensive planning project that has ever been undertaken by the City. Great care and thought has been given to each of the recommendations, and they have all been formulated following countless hours of ineetings and reviews with residents and business groups throughout the City. We are very grateful for The General Plan Advisory Committee, for their volunteer participation and acting as a sounding board for the reviews and recommendations over the last couple of years. We are also appreciative of the briefing sessions and workshops that we gave to the City Council and, of course, the Planning Commissioners. All have been instrumental in providing guidance throughout the process and providing an imprint on the policies and programs that are going to shape Anaheim's future for the next 20 years and beyond. He personally thanked the Commissioners for their diligent work as all the background analysis and studies unfolded; the citizens who participated in the process; the consultant team headed by Dick Ramella and Brian Judd, for proving to be the best consultants found for doing a General Plan as such; and last but not least, all of the staff members and Sheri Vander Dussen, as the Planning Director, and Mr. Borrego, the Project ~ Manager, and all other interdepartmental staff working on the project. Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, stated as you all know I was a latecomer to this process. { get to walk in at the end and take all the glory, but I did want to share some observations with you about the 04-19-04 Page 5 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • process. When I came here I was really impressed with what was already happening with the General Plan program. First of all we had a really extensive public outreach program that I think was very effective and really engaged the community. Secondiy, as Joel indicated, we do have a consultant team that is very committed to this project. They have been very enthusiastic and they have provided some really great ideas that have shaped a lot of the provisions of the General Plan. There has also been a lot of really good staff work on this project. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, has worked very diligently and maintained good humor throughout in trying to get the project through its final twists and turns and he was supported by many members of our planning stafF, including Linda Johnson, Principaf Planner; Susan Kim, Associate Planner; Justin Powers, Associate Planner; Tracy Sato, Senior Planner; Ted White, Associate Planner; and Joel Fick, Deputy City Manager, who didn't take any credit but was the Planning Director when this effort started about 3 years ago, and deserves credit for his leadership as well. We also have a Zoning Code update that is being presented today and Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, and Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, have been team leaders on that aspect. We have also had great coUaboration from other departments. From the Public Works Department, John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager; Russ Maguire, Deputy City Engineer; and Keith Linker, Principal Civil Engineer, were very helpful in resolving a lot of issues. We worked extensively with Richard Mayer, Park Planner from the Community Services Department, on green issues. The Community Development Department, Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development; Brad Hobson, Deputy Directory of Community Development; and Mark Asturias, Redevelopment Manager, were very helpful and especially involved in the zoning provisions. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, is always very helpful and gives us good advice. David Allen, Civil Engineer from the Water Engineering Section of the Public Utilities Department, was instrumental as we dealt with a lot of water quality and other issues. Wayne Alonzo, Officer from the Police Department; and Bob Logue, Fire Division Chief from the Fire Department, were also instrumental in framing some of our policies and resolving issues. The General Plan includes a lot of significant and relevant policies and goals that are going to serve us well for many years to come. • Mr. Borrego stated it is a pleasure being here this afternoon. Obviously we are very excited to be at this point in the process and just wanted to quickly open up by giving a quick recap in terms of the order of the presentations that you wilf be receiving this afternoon and then you will be hearing more from me as we talk a little bit about some of the questions that have been raised by the Planning Commission relative to some specific issues related to both the General Plan and the Zoning Code. ln terms of this afternoon's presentation, we are going to open up with a presentation by the Planning Center, Brian Judd, Project Manager, who will be making a presentation relative to some of the key points of the General Plan. His presentation will be followed by a presentation by Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, who will be discussing some of the key provisions of the Zoning Code. Following those presentations we will be turning the microphone over to Steve Faessel, a member of the General Plan Advisory Committee, who is going to be saying some words relative to the General Plan Advisory Committee or GPACs review of the documents and their involvement in the process from the beginning. Following Steve's presentation, I will give a recap and answer some of the questions that have been raised by the Commission and following that I would offer to go ahead and have the Commission open it up to public comments as well. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares stated the outline will continue as presented. Brian Judd, the Planning Center Project Manager, thanked the residents of Anaheim for their involvement and their participation throughout the planning program; the General Plan Advisory Committee for their commitment and also City staff and stated it was a great pleasure to have worked with them over the course of the last three years; particularly, working side by side with Mr. Borrego, his counterpart on City staff. Next he thanked the sub-consultants, who were available for questions; Judy Douglas from Parsons Brinkerhoff, to help answer traffic and transportation questions; also Mike Swan, from Psomas, who was involved with all of the infractstructure analysis as a part of the General Plan and EIR. Briefly, he walked through a review of the planning process highlighting some of the major milestones that were accomplished, describing some of the major features and objectives of the plan and finally a review of • some of the scope and content of the General Planning elements. 04-19-04 Page6of31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • Mr. Judd stated back in October of 2000 the City issued a request for proposals to update the City's General Plan and Zoning Code Update. In March of 2001, the City decided to hire The Planning Center team. Anxious to get started, we began our getting smart phase - that is we met with the City Council members, many of you, way back in 2001, to begin to understand your perspective and the City Council's perspective of the City. As it turned out during the outreach process, yours and the City Council's understanding and vision for the City seemed to match that of the residents. We also used this time to develop our understanding of existing conditions. Not just by reviewing plans and other documents, but also by getting out in the field and seeing what was there. On May 13, we had our first Genera{ P{an Advisory Committee Meeting. The General Plan Advisory Committee (the GPAC) was comprised of various City Commission members and included At Large Committee members as well. The GPAC was instrumental to the development and review of the various General Plan products and they provided the update team, a sounding board for various ideas and policy objectives. They are a dedicated group and should be commended. Later that spring and into the summer we conducted the first round of public outreach with the community visioning workshops in different areas of the City. This is where we were trying to find out what the residents likes and dislikes and their visions for the future were. Throughout the summer and into the fall we continued our examination of existing conditions, opportunities and constraints, more importantly we began to draft the Anaheim vision. After compiling and analyzing all of the public input from the community workshops and community surveys, as well as the input from the decision makers, we were able to take a cut at the first draft of the vision. Several drafts later we were ready to take it to the GPAC, Planning Commission and the City Council, and on January 15, 2002, the City Council confirmed that vision. This was a monumental step in that it set forth a direction for the rest of the planning process. All the plans, goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan would be developed with that vision in mind. During the spring of 2002, we were heavily involved in the preparation of key planning objectives that • were an outgrowth of the vision and would set forth a preliminary development of land use alternatives. We brought the planning objectives back to the public at the planning rally at Angel Stadium and the Cinco De Mayo Festival and West Anaheim barbeque as well, that were conducted by City staff, to get their feedback on the objectives that would lay the foundation for the land use alternatives. After reviewing the results of the rally with GPAC, the Planning Commission and City Council, we began developing the three land use alternatives. After extensive staff review and the analysis of the alternatives we ran traffic infrastructure and fiscal impact models for each. We developed recommended land use alternatives and brought it forth to the public, GPAC, the Planning Commission and City Council. On February 11, 2003, the City Council confirmed the Recommended Land Use Alternative. As with any General Plan update, this is one of the most critical milestones for the project. With a selection of the recommended alternative, we were able to begin the environmental process and the preparation of the General Plan elements and their goals and policies. For the next nine months we were developing those elements, conducting technical analysis of the plan and meeting with dozens of agencies involved in the ultimate review of the plan and the EIR. After periodic check in with the GPAC, Planning Commission, and City Council to update you on our work, we handed over the preliminary draft of the General Plan, Zoning Code and EIR to City staff for their review which they devoted the first couple of months of this year into doing. Finally, on March 19, 2004, the documents were made available for the officia( 45-day public review period. In addition to the outreach described previously, several other meetings were also held to obtain public input on the plan in the planning process. Most of these were conducted on City staff's efforts alone. This was above and beyond what we were scoped to do at the beginning of the pro~ect. Today, we begin the final public hearing process for the update of the General Plan and Zoning Code and the certification of the EIR. As part of this process it is important to note that City staff is recommending the approval of several ancillary actions that relate to this planning program. The first is to reclassify the ~ majority of the 663 acre property from the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan {SP90-3) to the OS (Open Space) zone to be consistent with the Open Space land use designation proposed as part of the General 04-19-04 Page 7 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ Plan Update. One approximately 15-acre parcel will allow up to 140 dwelling units in the Low-Medium Density Residential designation in the new RM-3 Zone. The second is to amend the boundaries of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to incorporate properties within the City along Harbor Boulevard and south of Orangewood Avenue, and reclassify these properties from the CG (Commercial, General), CH (Commercial, Heavy), CL (Commercial, Limited), PLD-M (Parking/Landscape District - Manufacturing), and RS-A-43,Q00 (Residential, Agricultural) zones to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (SP92-2) zone (including establishing zoning and development standards for the expanded area) to be consistent with the Commercial Recreation land use designation praposed as part of the General Plan Update. The third is to amend the Northeast Area Specific Plan (SP94-1) and its associated Development Area (DA) boundaries to be consistent with the revised General Plan land use designations proposed as part of the General Plan Update, as follows: (i) from DA 5(Commercial) to DA 2(Expanded Industrial); (ii) from DA 5(Commercial) to DA 2(Expanded Industrial) Note: Following the advertisement of this request, staff determined that subject property is currently located in DA 3(La Palma Core) and, as result, is recommending that this portion of the request be deleted); (iii) from DA 3(La Palma Core) to DA 5 (Commercial); (iv) from DA 5(Commercial) to DA 2(Expanded Industrial); and, (v) from DA 5 (Commercial) to DA 2 (Expanded Industrial). The fourth is to terminate Development Agreement No. 91-01 between the City of Anaheim and The Irvine Company to permit the Planning Commission and City Council to consider modifications to the Mountain Park property as part of the General Plan Update and the anticipated amendment to the Mountain Park Specific Plan later this year. In other words, the existing Development Agreement will need to be canceled in order to implement the land use changes identified in the Land Use Element that were initiated by The Irvine Company and that wilf subsequently be included in the Mountain Park • Specific Plan. In short, the new land uses that have been identified for this specific plan will include up to 2,500 dwelling units, a fire station, a park and substantially more open space. Before we discuss the individual elements of the General Plan, I would just like to highlight some of the major features or objectives of the General Plan. First, it is vision based. As I discussed previously, there was significant and public input throughout the course of the project. From this input we developed a comprehensive vision that served as a foundation for the General Plan goals and policies. Second, the plan strives to create and enhance recognizable places. The land use, community design, and green elements contain plans, goals and policies that are intended to strengthen the City's image and enhance the character of Anaheim's many communities. Some of the strategies to create these places include new land use designations such as the corridor residential and mix use designations, guidelines to ensure quality development and to protect the City's historic resources and landscaping and streetscaping policies aimed at beautifying the arterial corridors that frame many of Anaheim's neighborhoods. Next, the General Plan also addresses the objective of creating a greener Anaheim. The plan contains extensive policy direction for the protection and enhancement of Anaheim's natural recreational and open-space resources, including hillside and ridgelines; addresses the conservation of water and biological energy resources; addresses urban run-off and waste management; and provides for parks and trails and also for landscaping and street trees. One of the fundamental needs for the City and its residents, businesses and visitors, is the provision of an efficient and effective circulation system. Anaheim's transportation infrastructure affects the quality of life of everyone in the City, everyday and in a myriad of ways. Some of the major strategies addressed in the new General Plan include helping to facilitate the design and operation of efficient arterial streets, exploring the use of mass transit with multiple options, encouraging traffic calming strategies that ~ enhance pedestrian safety and increase the livability of neighborhoods, and identifying linkages of bicycle and pedestrian paths in proximity to commercial, civic, educational, recreational and institutional uses. As Anaheim continues to grow, providing additional job and housing opportunities will remain a priority in 04-19-04 Page 8 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • order to maintain a balanced and healthy economy. Many of these opportunities are mapped on the new land use plan by the various residential and employment-generating land uses. Furthermore, the General Plan contains a variety of goals and policies aimed at improving the City's jobs and housing balance. The City is currently a job rich city. We have identified strategies to include new housing opportunities in some of your economic centers to improve that balance by retaining existing businesses and attracting new ones; promoting job training and career education; and providing a diversity of housing types and affordability. Finally, the plan seeks to incorporate one of the City's most important goals that is the provision of quality efficient public services. The comprehensive nature of the General Plan, public services and facilities element reflects the extent of the amount of services provided by or within the City of Anaheim and lays out a series of goals and policies to ensure that the City's infrastructure and services keep pace with future development and maintain their current high levels of service. To briefly summarize some of the key components and strategies of each of the elements, he stated, perhaps the most important of the General Plan elements, the Land Use Element lays out the distribution and general location of land uses such as residential, commercial, office, industrial, open space, recreation and public uses. The Land Use Element also addresses the permitted density and intensity of the various land use designations as reflected on the General Plan land use map. As you will recall, when we brought the Recommended Land Use Alternative to you last year, land use changes were not widespread throughout the City, rather they were focused in key areas such as key entry ways into Anaheim, and the City's economic centers and areas adjacent to and visible from transportation routes, and then the City's only remaining undeveloped residential specific plan area, Mountain Park. We also looked closely at the City's arterial corridors in the western half of the City, particularly in West Anaheim where efforts were already underway to concentrate commercial uses in strategic locations, at key intersections and introduce new residential opportunities in mid-block areas. This is not to say we do not anticipate change or improvements in other areas of Anaheim, the policies in • this and other elements and changes to the Zoning Code will also have positive impacts across the board. The goals and policies section of the Land Use Element are organized at two levels; citywide and community specific goals and policies. The citywide level of goals and policies apply across the City or at least in several different communities. It includes policies to preserve and enhance neighborhood character; provide additional housing opportunities; pursue land uses along corridors and enhance the City's image and take advantage of transportation routes; promote land uses that integrate with and minimize impacts to surrounding land uses; and pursue strategic infill development and revitalization of existing development and policies to strengthen the jobs housing relationship by developing housing near job centers and transportation routes. To answer a question from the morning session about some of the projections we have in the General Plan about why there are more dwelling units identified in the new General Plan versus the current General Plan and why the new General Plan would have less population than the current one. As it was explained in the morning session, what that is attributed to is the fact that the net change in dwelling units, most of which the increase in residential development was from the mixed use areas, and those mixed use developments are dealing with typically lower persons per household factors than you would have in a single-family or a more traditional multi-family residential development. That is the reason you would have less population with more dwelling units. Several goals and policies were also developed for individual communities or unique areas. Together with other elements of the General Plan, the Zoning Code and ongoing neighborhood, and capital improvement programs, these goals and policies will help create, preserve and enhance these community policy areas. The circulation element addresses the identification, location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation facilities and bicycle and pedestrian routes. The element includes various goals and policies aimed at facilitating the design and operation of arterial streets; exploring the use of mass transit with multiple modes of travel; encouraging traffic calming strategies that enhance pedestrian safety and increase the livability of neighborhoods; identifying linkages of bicycle and pedestrian paths in ~ proximity to residential, commercial, civic, educational, recreational, and institutional uses; and providing for the efficient mobility of people and goods. In conjunction with the proposed Circulation Element, staff 04-19-04 Page 9 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLA~INING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES t is in the process of pursuing changes to the City's current plan roadways network and the Orange County's Transportation Authority's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Four items relating to circulation were also raised in the morning session: Q. Whether or not the inter-modal center for The Platinum Triangle was addressed in this General Plan. A. That is addressed and is in fact encouraged in both the Circulation and Land Use Elements. Q. Whether traffic and schools were analyzed adequately for The Platinum Triangle. A. Yes they were; and also there are some questions about the student generation rates that we were using for The Platinum Triangle. Since the residential development is of a very urban nature, we had to do some research on what woufd be an appropriate student generation rate. We looked at the City of San Diego and the numbers they were using for powntown, but ultimately we ended up using the factors that the City of Orange uses for a similar type residential development; very urban types of residential development. Q. Regarding OCTA station links. A. They are identified in the text of the Element but they are not mapped and thaYs something we will include in the final General Plan. Q. Finally, in table 5.2-6 on page 531 of the EIR, listing a duplication of some of the intersections. A. That was attributable to the a.m. versus p.m. peak hours. For the intersections where it looks like they were duplicated, that's because they were clocking them at the a.m, and p.m. level. The Green Element combines Anaheim's Conservation, Open Space, Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Elements into a single comprehensive plan to add more green areas throughout the City and • protect and enhance its natural, scenic and recreational resources. By combining these elements into one, the City recognizes that open space, conservation and recreation and landscaping are part of an integrated network of green resources. The Green Element contains a variety of policies aimed at conserving Anaheim's many natural resources including scenic, open-space, water, air-quality, and biological and energy resources. Although state law does not require a Parks and Recreation Element, Anaheim recognizes the importance of its recreational resources to its citizens, and incorporates the discussion of parks and recreation into the Green Element. The Element includes goals and policies to provide an adequate supply of parks, and a broad range of recreationaf opportunities to meet current and future needs to maintain and upgrade recreational facilities to better serve the needs of Anaheim's residents and workers, and to conduct future outreach efforts to help determine those needs. Finally, the Green Element provides goals and policies aimed at connecting and completing Anaheim's trail system and for beautifying the City through a well designed program, corridor landscaping and street trees. There was a question in the morning session as to whether we could be more definitive regarding tree policies that go beyond the current aesthetic emphasis; and the simple answer is yes. As mentioned before, the General Plan addresses a wide range of public services and facilities. It addresses fire protection and emergency services, police services, the City's electrical system - water system, sewer system, storm drain system, and waste management. We have an extensive infrastructure analysis for the City's storm drain system and water system, and also some services not provided by the City, like private utilities. It also addresses the municipal fiber-optics infrastructure, power lines, facility citing, school facilities, public libraries, community centers and cultural facilities, and neighborhood improvement services. The purpose of the Growth Management Development is to ensure that growth is based on the City's ability to provide adequate levels of traffic management and other public facilities and services pursuant ~ to measure `M', the revised traffic improvement and growth management ordinance passed by a countywide initiative in 1990. Compliance with Measure `M' is necessary for the City to continue receiving Measure 'M' funding. The Growth Management Element sets forth goals and policies related to growth management and provides a var+ety of implementation and monitoring provisions. The primary purpose 04-19-04 Page 10 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • of the Safety Element is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. It addresses a range of natural and manmade hazards, which are documented graphically in a number of GIS maps. Hazards identified in the Safety Element include geologic and seismic safety considerations in dealing with earthquake related hazards such as liquefaction, urban and wildland fire hazards, flood and dam inundation hazards, hazardous materials and waste, and disaster preparedness, response and recovery. The purpose of the Noise Element is to minimize the impacts of noise generating sources, including stationery and nonstationery sources. The Noise Element provides policies related to land use compatibility issues, transportation related sources such as freeways, air traffic, railways and nontransportation sources such as industrial uses. There was a question raised about whether the Noise Element is adequately addressing helicopter noise in the City. Referring to the Noise Element on page 14, the text states that the siting of future heliports must be carefully reviewed for potential noise impacts. Staff is currently looking at the potential for relocating the existing downtown heliport facility. The Economic Development Element is not a state mandated element, but the City has long recognized the importance that economic development plays in helping ensure the overall quality of life within Anaheim. It includes policies aimed at business retention growth and attraction, redevelopment, revitalization, infill development, job promotion training and career education; discusses the importance of maintaining public facilities and community services to ensure economic development, housing diversity and affordability; and it also provides some areas of specific goals and policies that address economic development. As mentioned earlier, creating and enhancing identifiable places in Anaheim is a major component of the General Plan. Like the Land Use Element, the Community Development Element is separated into a citywide level and community specific policies. Some of the citywide level design features of the Element include ensuring community design identity; addressing enhanced arterial corridors and improving the • image of those since they frame your neighborhoods; addressing single-family and multi-family quality development; have design strategies for mid-block corridor residential development and retail activity centers, neighborhood retail centers, and mixed use development in industrial areas; and also have policies for signage, architectural diversity and context and public art. The last section of the Community Design Element addresses, similar to the Land Use Element, various communities throughout the City and provides unique policies for each of those. As a separate side to the General Plan we developed a series of guidelines for the Colony and downtown area, and those have already been used to help shape some of the development downtown. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated the City's Zoning Code was first drafted in 1929 with updates over the years. Staff presented a status report to the Commission in October 2003, outlining the changes that are now seen in the draft Code. This presentation is intended to high-light some of the more significant features of the Zoning Code update. One of the main organizational changes to the Code is the use of land use categories instead of listing specific uses. Each of the land use categories is identified and detailed in a new chapter titled "Types of Uses." Graphics are used to illustrate certain code requirements and definitions. Where practical, tables display information in a clear and concise manner. To make it easier for users, the more commonly used chapters are located at the front of the Code and all like-zones are grouped in single chapters. For example, the single-family residential zones are in one chapter versus seven individual chapters for each zone as found in the existing Code. Ms. Santalahti stated that the new Zoning Code would include graphics and she referred to some examples in a PowerPoint presentation. Many of the existing zoning classifications have been re-named and modified. To implement new General Plan land use designations, several new zones have been created, as follows: , ^ The new C-R (Regional Commercial) zone implements the Regional Commercial land use designation and will serve a larger area than typical neighborhood centers would. Typical uses include big box retail and theaters. 04-19-04 Page 11 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • ^ The C-NC (Neighborhood Center Commercial) zone implements the new Neighborhood Center designation and will permit retail centers providing services such as grocery stores, hair salons, dry cleaners and restaurants to the surrounding community. ^ The O-H zone implements the Office-High designation and provides for 4-story or higher, more intense office development in concentrated urban areas such as The North Orange County Community College area and The Platinum Triangle. ^ The RS-4 zone implements the Low-Medium and Low-Medium Hillside Density Residential land use designations. This zone will provide development flexibility for small lot single-family projects having a density up to 11 dwellings per acre. ^ The RM-1 zone implements the Corridor Residential land use designation and provides for attached single-family housing along the City's arterial highway corridors with vehicular access at the rear of the sites. ^ The SP zone implements the Water, School and Institutional land use designations, and provides for uses that support civic, governmental, cultural, educational and recreational uses. ^ The (MU) (Mixed Use Overlay) is new. It will implement the Mixed Use designation of the General Plan and will provide opportunities for high density Mixed Use development at sites throughout the City that are identified on the General Plan, excluding The Platinum Triangle. The proposed standards include a minimum residential density of 36 units/acre with a maximum of 60 units/acre, and a minimum FAR of 0.1 for non-residential uses, or as otherwise determined by ~ Conditional Use Permit. The new zone classifications are not replacements for any existing zone and, therefore, all the zones aforementioned will not apply to any property in connection with the adoption of the new Zoning Code. Instead, they will function as opportunity zones until property owners or the City initiate reclassifications for specific properties. Based on a careful evaluation of the City's existing zone classifications, ten zones are deleted in connection with the new Zoning Code because they are no longer needed or another zone will better serve the same purpose. Most of the existing overlay zones are retained. Staff is currently working towards a replacement for the existing Sports Entertainment Overlay (SE) zone and anticipates bringing it back for Commission consideration later this year. There is a new Mixed Use Overlay zone, as identified earlier, and minor clarifications including renumbering have been made to other Overlay zones (Brookhurst Commercial Corridor, South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor, Downtown Mixed Use, Mobilehome Park and Floodplain). In the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone, standards have been modified to bring the criteria for permitted freestanding and wall signs closer to the rest of the City. And staff has worked closely with the Urban Forestry Division to update Anaheim's specimen tree removal standards to reflect past decisions by the Planning Commission relating to size and number of replacement trees. The building trend towards higher ceilings in houses has prompted a number of height waivers in the Scenic Corridor. Staff analysis of the approved waivers indicates that it would be appropriate to increase the maximum permitted height by 5 feet. Setbacks for commercial zones have been slightly reduced to allow buildings closer to streets, while the landscaping setbacks have been increased. All of the specific plans have been renumbered to match the new Code and have been moved to the end of the document, and some have been slightly modified to provide clarification to existing language. In order to implement the General Plan, the Northeast Area Specific Plan has been modified to allow Mixed Use development in the Transit Core ~ Area northwest of the Riverside Freeway and Tustin Avenue interchange. 04-19-04 Page 12 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • Certain development standards have been modified for a majority of the zones in varying degrees. One of the criteria used to determine whether a change to a development standard might be appropriate was the number of waivers that have been granted. The multiple-family chapter has incurred the most change with emphasis on building setbacks adjacent to residential zones and interior setbacks between buildings. Street setbacks and setbacks abutting single-family zones have also been modified for most of the non- residential zones. These changes were based on an analysis of the massing of commercial and industrial buildings, the appearance of existing development, and waivers that have been approved in the past. Staff has found that over time additional guidance is necessary, relating to the permitted location of accessory structures for single-family homes. More specific standards and criteria have been added to the single-family residential chapter to provide direction regarding where structures such as basketball courts, free-standing satellite dishes, gazebos and play equipment over 6-feet high can be placed. During the transition time between the existing Zoning Code and the effective date of the new Code, projects will be subject to the existing Code if: 1. Building permits have been issued, or 2. The project is in plan check, or 3. The project has received discretionary approval from the City Council, Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator, or 4. An application has been submitted to the Planning Department and is deemed complete for an upcoming public hearing. In addition, staff has been informing customers that a new code is pending and could be in effect as early • as July 8 of this year. As a follow-up to the adoption of the new Zoning Code, staff proposes an implementation plan to complete the planning effort for certain properties with zone classifications that have been eliminated or are significantly changed. A reclassification will be processed to remove the Oil Overlay zone from properties so-zoned, leaving the base zones intact. The Oi! Overlay is being replaced by oil well and production regulations in the Supplemental Use Regulations section of the new Code, and by existing Chapter 17.12 (Oil Drilling and Production Regulations) of Title 17 (Land Development and resources) of the Municipal Code. To illustrate the properties currently zoned Oil Overlay, Planning Commission received a map titled Oil Production Overlay Zone with the staff report. Commission also received maps illustrating the many properties throughout the City that are currently zoned PD-C (Parking District-Commercial) and RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural). An in-depth study will be conducted on all of these properties to identify the most appropriate new zone for each property, taking into account the existing land use, the new General Plan land use designation, and the surrounding zoning and land uses. Until the appropriate reclassifications are processed, these properties will be in the new "T" (Transition) zone. Since the initial release of the draft-Zoning Code on March 19, 2004, staff has continued to review the document and has prepared a list of refinements and clarifications, which are included with the staff report dated April 19, 2004, as Attachment 6. The list includes omitted text, typographical errors, and text refinements. In addition, some of the new graphics have been modified to clarify the intent. Staff anticipates that additional corrections or clarifications may be discovered during the remainder of the public review period and will present them at future public hearings. • Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, stated the following responses referred to questions and comments, relating to the zoning code, from the Commission during the morning session: 04-19-04 Page 13 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • ^ Regarding the naming of certain zones in relation to the zoning designation. For example, the C-R designation stands for the Regional Commerciaf zone, whereas the SP designation stands for the Semi-Public Zone. It was suggested that keeping the classification and name closely linked would be easier to follow. In order to provide consistency for the zoning designations and because all commercial zones are contained in the same chapter, all of the commercial zones begin with the letter C. Staff tried to avoid the use of comas in the name of the zoning classification for ease of relating zoning information to customers; therefore the name does not track directly with the zoning designation in all cases. ^ Regarding the increase in setbacks for the new RS-3 zone (the existing RS-5000 zone). The front and rear setbacks have been increased. Although the permitted lot coverage has been increased, the additional square footage in land area required for more than three (3) bedrooms has been eliminated. Based on the waivers that have been approved in the past, this modification allows more opportunities for additions to existing single-family residences while maintaining the character ot existing development. Typically, the setbacks are not the limiting factor for additions in this zone. ^ Regarding the development of strip commercial centers in the new C-NC (Neighborhood Center Commercial) zone. Specifically, Commissioners wanted to know how strip commercial would be discouraged. ~ Language is included in the General Plan Community Design Element to encourage the type of commercial development envisioned. In addition, this new C-NC zone can only be implemented on sites designated as Neighborhood Center under the new General Plan. These sites are mainly located at key intersections and include existing commercial retail centers rather than mid- block commercial areas. The intent of the C-NC Zone also clearly states that the zone is not intended for strip commercial centers. ^ And lastly, a question was brought up regarding the addition of distance requirements for alcohol sales in close proximity to sensitive land uses such as schools and religious institutions. The proposed code continues to require a conditional use permit or determination of public convenience or necessity for certain alcohol sales, thereby allowing continued review of alcohol requests when proposed in close proximity to sensitive land uses on a case by case basis. In addition, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control also has criteria relating to the distance of proposed alcohol sales to sensitive land uses. Planning staff will be meeting with the Police Chief later this month to discuss alcohol sales in the City and can continue to look at this issue. Steve Faessel, a member of the General Plan Advisory Committee, stated the GPAC was formed soon after the project commenced in 2001; 3 years ago. The composition of the GPAC was very diverse and well balanced across the committee. It included two representatives from each of the following boards and commissions: ~ ^ The Planning Commission ^ Public Utilities Board ^ Parks and Recreation Commission 04-19-04 Page 14 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ ^ Housing and Redevelopment ^ Senior Citizens ^ At Large representatives ^ Student representatives from both Anaheim High School and Canyon High School. The role of GPAC, which has already been mentioned, was to review and provide comment on the key documents related to the General Plan. Some of these documents included the vision input report, which summarized all of the results of the City's public outreach efforts. In addition, there was the Anaheim Vision Statement as well as the potential planning objectives for the specific areas of the City and of course the land use alternatives, and finally the draft General Plan itself. GPAC met a total of eight times over the past three years, but many participated individually in a number of additional public outreach meetings as well. After getting to understand the major issues, and to know one another, the group became a very invaluable part of the team. We had a number of very open and thoughtful discussions - often very animated, relative to different parts of the plan. Very early in the process there was much discussion regarding the unprecedented amount of community outreach that was involved in establishing the vision of what our residents want our City to be a generation from now. Was there enough; were all the communities touched; were the samples and comments reasonable? We found positive answers to all of these questions. It was probably more discussion about the proposed Community Design Element than any other component of the General Plan. As you might expect, this issue was brought up time and again. The quality of our public areas and neighborhoods was ce~tainly of major importance to not only the GPAC group but the consultant as well. A great concern to GPAC was the application of the proposed design element on Anaheim's new downtown development. As you well know, our community has waited for over a generation for the completion of our downtown area. We all wanted assurances that the development would be consistent with the quality standards presented in the design element. It will be for this group to ensure that long • wait has not been in vain. Additional meetings were held with a number of stakeholder groups in the City to clearly understand their needs and to allow them opportunities to voice their concerns. It is to the credit of the update team, including the consultants, that all these points were refined and later incorporated into the Community Design Element. Our last GPAC meeting was hefd on April 7, 2004, where we considered the General Plan draft itself. After a brief presentation by the consultants, we discussed various detai{s of the plan and provided some additional input to the team that is summarized in Attachment 3 of the staff report (April 19, 2004). I might add that although I am an Anaheim native, and felt pretty knowledgeable about our community, the consultant and staff has produced such a comprehensive document complete in respects that I am still discovering. At that meeting we commended the overall quality of the document and its ability to serve our community a generation from now. Will it still work? Will Anaheim's future elected officials, community leaders, residents and developers find a document that is still relevant to them well after our names and accomplishments have long been forgotten? I sincerely believe they will. The GPAC group feels that this new General Plan will be a comprehensive tool that the City and its stakeholders can use to guide Anaheim towards a very prosperous future. As for my personal invo{vement, I have been honored to have been a participant in such an important community project. I come away impressed with the professionalism of the City staff involved in this long process and their commitment to our City. I am very pleased that Mr. Ramella, in The Planning Center, was chosen for this project. This was much more than just another contract for him. Mr. Borrego stated that he would touch upon some of the discussion points that were raised at the morning work session and address some of those comments for the benefit of the audience who may not have been able to listen in on the morning work session: ^ First in terms of when the public comment period ends, etc., and where do we proceed from this ~ point forward. 04-19-04 Page 15 of 31 APRIL 19, 20Q4 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • The EIR public comment period ends on May 3, 2004. One thing that staff intends to do however, as mentioned as part of the CEQA review process we are required to prepare a response to comment document in writing to those comments which we receive on the Environmental Impact Report prior to May 3, 2004. We plan on sharing that document with the Planning Commission on May 17, 2004, as a Reports & Recommendations (R&R) item so that Commission would have the benefit of reviewing, not only the comments that we have received up to May 3, 2004, but also our written response to those items. At that point, if there are any additional comments that you would like to pass on to the City Council for their consideration on May 25, 2004, which is when we anticipate reviewing this item, we can share this information with Council as well. ^ There was a petition and a letter that was submitted relative to the density provisions for a number of properties in proximity to the Deer Canyon area out in the Hill and Canyon area of the City and the questions or concerns that were raised in that petition were relative to making sure that any historic density rights of those properties were preserved through the General Plan update process. Through the General Plan update process we are intent on maintaining historic densities in that area and not reducing any permitted densities beyond or below what the current General Plan reveals. And also in terms of how permitted residential densities are calculated, we are not changing the way historically we have calculated densities out in the Hill and Canyon areas in terms of factoring out designated open space areas. ^ There was a comment received from the Planning Commission relative to any policy fanguage regarding child daycare centers. ~ After going back and taking a closer look at the General Plan, there is actually a policy in the Green Element which encourages the provision of daycare facilities in the City primarily as a means to reduce automobile trips by providing such facilities in proximity to where they are most needed by the community. ^ In regards to the Noise Element, there was a question that was raised as to whether or not the Disney and Stadium area fireworks were mentioned in the element. The Noise Element of the General Plan, as it is currently written, generally takes a fook and analyzes noise impacts as they relate to any `CNEL' measurements, which are measurements that take place over a 24-hour period, and as a result, if you take a look at the noise impacts that are analyzed in the Noise Element, it primarily deals with things that are related to road or rail traffic impacts, because those are extended events which actually trigger a certain level of noise impact because of the fact that they take place over a long period of time. ^ Other short term impacts, such as those related to fireworks, are not currently addressed in the Noise Element. Going back and doing some research on this matter, two things that are probably important to note is that there are actually two policies in the Noise Element, as it is currently written, that serve to address the impacts of noise which may be related to fireworks of those types of uses: ln 0.1.1 of the Noise Element there is a policy which requires that City's specific noise studies be conducted by an acoustical consultant for uses that have the potential to affect adjacent sensitive land uses, and that is a policy that does not occur on the existent Noise Element. ~ 2. ln addition, there is a 0.3.1 in the Noise Element which contains the policy that discourages new projects located in either commercial or entertainment 04-19-04 Page 16 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ! areas from exceeding stationery noise standards at the property line of adjacent sensitive residential land uses. ^ Also relative to the Disney related fireworks, one thing that is important to note is that the City and Disney entered into a Development Agreement in 1993, and it was amended again in 1996, which applies to Disneyland and also the California Adventure Theme Park and Downtown Disney which essentially locks in requirements that were in effect at that point and time. If the City were to subsequently modify any of its noise regulations, the fireworks that relate to those particufar uses would not necessarily be subject to those requirements unless both the City and Disney mutually agreed to change the Development Agreement in that regard. Also as mentioned, the City is actually exploring, at this point and time, relocating the helipad that is currently located in proximity to downtown, near the City's maintenance yard on Vermont Avenue, out of the area which will significantly reduce the types of noise impacts that we heard about during our public outreach process; particularly, in the meetings that we had in the Colony Area. ^ One of the other items mentioned in the morning session had to do with the way density figures were factored into table `LU2 and LU6' in the Land Use Element. Because those tables deal with probable densities, by not establishing minimum densities in those areas there was a question as to whether or not we might be compromising the vision that we were achieving for certain activity centers in the City. In going back and doing some further research, I would like to mention that as far as The Platinum Triangle area goes, we are actually looking at establishing a minimum density of 45 • units to the acre in that area through the Overlay Zone, which we anticipate moving forward with. That will effectively restrict anyone from coming in with the density that might be too low for that type activity or for what we are trying to achieve for that area. So there will be a minimum density in The Platinum Triangle area. ^ In terms of some of the other activity centers, there is a minimum density also that we are requiring in the future Mixed Use projects. That minimum density is 36-units to the acre. It is important when you talk about Mixed Use development that you establish certain minimum density in order to achieve the kind of community feel that you want from those areas, and we should be able to take care of that through the Zoning Code. ^ In terms of the resort area. Minimum densities for that area do not exist in terms of development intensities. However, it has not been an issue and it is my understanding that based on the mix of uses which are allowed in the resort area, whether it be hotel or restaurants, this specific list of uses that we have in that specific plan really effectively has been able to shape the feel for that area without the need of having to establish minimum intensities. In other words, the Specific Plan is doing the job as it is currently written so there is no need at this point to include minimum densities. ^ In relation to landscaping as it relates to the Green Element. The City has an approved master list of plant species that we pick and choose from, based largely on the amount of area that we have to work with within the parkways or the medians. There is an adopted list of landscaping that the City utilizes. It is the intent when we move ~ forward with those plans, if we are to for example, plant palm trees along some of the corridors, which the City has done, the intent is always to try and mix those up with canopy trees as well so that we receive a mix or a balance in terms of the effect that we get based on aesthetics. In 04-19-04 Page 17 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ addition to that in terms of the process, when we move forward with plans for landscaping on arterial highways, the process is that we do a staff level review by the City's arterial corridor beautification task support, which we have established here in the City, and take a look at various potential alternatives and then make a recommendation to the City Council for their consideration. It is the City Council who would ultimately decide on what landscape pallet we would be using for any particular arterial corridor, and if there is additional language that you think might be appropriate to include in the Green Element to achieve a desired look or feel, we would certainly be open to discussing that with you. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares stated that as the process started there were a lot of congratulatory statements made and his congratulatory remarks were because we are at a major milestone in the process, but he also wanted to make it clear that pubfic comments are still an integral and valuable portion of this process and since they had not yet been heard at the Planning Commission level, he did not want to suggest that their impact would be diluted in any way because there was still a lot more to be accomplished. Public Testimony: Surindra Vohra, 1639, 6th St., Manhattan Beach, CA, stated that she owns an undivided interest in Lot No. 3 of track 117, and wished to ask questions regarding the open space; particularly, how the open space calculations are done, because in the nearby plot the open space is 28%. She asked why on her block was it designated 46%; and how the density calculation was done? She stated that she understands it was done on dwelling unit divided by the net area and later might have changed to dwelling unit divided by gross area, but states she was not informed. Manny Dutt, 222 S. Eucalyptus Dr., Anaheim, CA, stated that he has lived in Anaheim since 1975 and ~ owns property there that he has been trying to get access to for the last 30 years. He pointed out that the grade on the right hand side of his property shows where the gnatcatchers might be but that anything to the left is not a gnatcatcher area. He stated that the City is taking open space to the west and the County is taking all of his property to the east. So in the end he would not have any property left at al{. He asked that the City move the open space to where the gnatcatcher area is so that he would have an overlap; which he feels is what the NCCP requires. He stated you can go to the Recorders Office and find out where the gross area is but you cannot find out what the net area is; the open space is not known. And also, the open space should not go up and down where there is a big one in his area and a narrow one in others. He has a problem with the access and the reduction issue; the change goes from 18 units. At least thaYs what was allowed to him in 1991. It is down to 11 or 10 but that depends on the move. So he asks to be able to keep the old General Plan and the same standards, and if there are any changes to let it be uniformly appfied to everybody and not go in the backdoor and amend the amendments again. Mark Von Esch, of Von Esch & Associates, 6103 East Morning View Drive, Anaheim, CA, stated that during the break (A 10-minute recess was taken at the end of Item No. 9(4:06-4:16); following the recess Item No. 6 was heard.) staff assured them that the General Plan, as proposed, would not actually change the amount of open space that would be required or the calculation of the amount of open space, and that was their primary objection; just to clarify that is in fact the case. Mr. 8orrego responded that it was mentioned to Mr. Dutt and others with him during the break that the intent of the proposed General Plan is not to reduce any density within any of the properties north of the Highlands area; the triangular wedge. The intent of the General Plan is not to reduce densities in that area from what has historically been allowed through prior General Plans, including the existing General Plan that is on the books today. Some of the issue has to do with the fact that our old General Plan is not GIS based so the lines have meandered through the years, which will not be the case with the new ~ General Plan. There have been different iterations of the Recommended Land Use Alternative over the past three years, which have shifted some of the open space lines that Mr. Dutt mentioned during his presentation. The reason those changes were made were in response to the letter which he referenced 04-19-04 Page 18 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ that he had submitted to us a year or so ago. fn wanting to respond to the concerns that he raised at that point, we wanted to shift the lines to essentially line up with, as best we could tell, where the open space area had fallen. Historically, and through the proposed General Plan, all residential densities are calculated based on gross acreage but what might be confusing things is when we talk about gross area. While we do take a look at the larger area, we have to factor out that portion of land which is designated for open space and pull that out of the equation. In other words, if someone has a 5-acre parcel of land, 1-acre of which is designated as open space in the General Plan, when we calculate density for that area it is only based on 4 acres. It is not based on 5 acres to include the 1-acre of open space designation. To my knowledge we have always factored out the 1-acre area that was being designated for open space. We cannot double-count land use designations in the General Plan. Also, when it comes to whether we calculate density based on gross or net acreage, and whether or not we are changing terminology between what might be on the land use map today, where it references gross acreage or where we are going in the future, it is important to note there are at least two areas in the proposed Land Use Element, which specifically state that land use acreage is based on gross land area. On page LU19, of the Land Use Element, when it talks about Estate Density Residential which goes up to 1.5 units to the acre, it states clearly the permitted density range is from 0 to 1.5 dwelling units per gross acre (it states that for ali the residential designations). He feels there should not be any confusion dawn the road when it comes to interpreting how many units someone could have on their given piece of property, as to whether it is based on gross or net acreage, because it is clearly based on gross acreage in the General Plan, as it has been calculated historically. He stated that Mr. Dutt also brought up some other issues relative to access to his property, and while he understands his concern, he does not know if the General Plan is the forum to address some of the • access issues which he mentioned but rather that the General Plan establishes the land use pattern and the land use intensity for that area, but it does not address local access to accommodate specific potential development projects. The Circulation Element addresses arterial highways and the arterial road network, but when it comes down to access issues of particular pieces of property, the General Plan is not necessarily the best tool to address that. And, in regards to some of the biological questions in terms of some of the species, etc., it is his understanding that much of what Mr. Dutt is discussing is based on policies set by either the federal or state government agencies; U. S. Fish and Wildlife or State Department of Parks and Recreation, which oversee those types of areas; and the designation and preservation of certain habitat areas. Historically areas of land designated as Open Space do not allow residential development on them, which is the point he was trying to make earlier in terms of how those areas are factored out in determining development proposals. And, it is very important to clarify that has always been the case, in terms of how the projects have been consistently viewed in the past. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares stated that at issue is that there are some landowners who have property in the Hills and the borders of those particular portions of land are somewhat unclear. Mr. Borrego stated essentially what it came down to is trying to get the Recommended Land Use Alternative to reflect the official General Plan map that exists in the City today, and trying to line up with those lines as best as possible to respect what the City has historically allowed through the General Plan. Earlier iterations of the map prepared as part of the alternative analysis may not have lined up perfectly, but it was the intent to do so. However, the lines have shifted over the last two years as we've tried to line up with the Land Use map located in the City Council Chambers. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares wished to clarify if the issue regarding changing the requirements of open space is only a factor, because it seemed he was saying that there is not really a change but it is by virtue ~ of these property line changes that it has increased the percentage. 04-19-04 Page 19 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ Mr. Borrego responded that over time different people have interpreted the lines to mean different things. A lot of it was based on the mapping techniques used in past years, but ciearly was not meant to try and increase open space on any given piece of property, thereby reducing what property owners might otherwise be allowed to build on their properties. They have tried to match up with what has been allowed historically without making any changes. However, different properties have different open space percentages by virtue of the size of the lots, but the boundaries on the open space meander somewhat and therefore, there would be differences between adjoining properties. But the intent of their efforts is not to change anything from what has historically been the case. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares wished to clarify that the action taken by Commission would not necessarily change development opportunities on the parcels. In other words, the Commission would not be taking rights away by stating there are now greater open space requirements and therefore property owner's development opportunities would be reduced by any action taken today. Mr. Borrego responded yes, that is not the objective of this plan. Mr. Dutt referred to Mr. Borrego and stated that in his scoping objective he mentioned that he was going to decrease the estate density from 1,329 acres down to 1,257 acres. However, percentage-wise it went down from 3.8% of total Anaheim land area to 3.6%. The decrease in the estate density area is going into open space plus some decrease from other areas but the City has not annexed another city. His property area is actually the same land area that he had in 1991, but when all of a sudden estate density area goes down and open space goes up acreage from other areas would be lost. He asked if it is a policy of the Planning Commission or the Council members to intentionally do that. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares responded that the Commission is simply taking testimony with regards to the public process which includes the Planning Commission review; it is a recommendation that the staff • is providing to Commission and in the process of hearing public input, they would essentially agree whether or not it is sufficient or appropriate and then recommend to the City Council that they accept it as is. Mr. Dutt stated that he is not clear whether or not he is affected on his property from going to 18 units to 11 units, but if it is being stated that there is no change then that's good enough for him. Mr. Borrego responded there are two things that he would like to mention: • In terms of the first comment relative to the reduction of the estate density designated land and the Hill and Canyon Area. There was actually a reduction in estate density land in the Hill and Canyon Area, and that was primarily due to the fact that the City was doing some cleanup in the High{ands Specific Plan Area as a part of this process; that is, taking some of what had been designated as estate density residential through that specific plan and redesignating that as open space to reflect some of the open space lots and county open space areas that were adjacent to that specific plan area. That was a notable reduction in the estate density residential, but totally outside of the area being discussed at this point. ^ To answer Mr. DutYs question: It is not staff's intent through this effort to reduce what he has been authorized to have through prior General Plans on his property. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares announced that there would be a 15-minute recess. ~ A 15-minute break was taken (6:00-6:15) 04-19-04 Page 20 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares announced that the Anaheim Planning Commission Meeting for Monday, April 19, 2004 would reconvene. Public Testimony continued: Ed Chuchla, 800 Ball Road, Anaheim, CA, Vice President of Pre-development for Walt Disney Imagineering, stated Walt Disney Imagineering is a Division of Walt Disney World Company, which operates The Disneyland Resort located in the 800 block of Ball Road in Anaheim. We believe the City's desire to extend the Anaheim Resort area south along Harbor Boulevard connecting the missing link between Orangewood Avenue and the Garden Grove Boundary is a terrific idea. This change will create further incentives to broaden the physical and financial transformation of the resort area and will link important tourist and serving assets. Furthermore, we applaud the City's desire to ensure that the parcels that are being added to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area will be subject to the same rigorous, physica4 planning and technical standards that produce the high-quality tourism serving zone that we all enjoy today. Supportive as we may be of this change, we and our experts have reviewed the environmental review documents and technical documents primarily to verify that The Disneyland Resort entitled fully built out plan has been incorporated in the baseline anafysis for this project. As you may know, through Disney's EIR and legal agreements with the city that vests these long term entitlements, we have reserved future development capacity and in some cases even constructed the measures needed to accommodate that future capacity, and want to ensure that this capacity is available when we move forward with future development plans. Secondarily, as an owner of a very large untitled and undeveloped parcel in the Anaheim Resort area, we want to be sure that all impacts are sufficiently identified and mitigated so that there are no surprises or inequities when the time comes for us to develop the parcel. And finally, we want to ensure that the conclusions of the planning and technical analysis are consistent with the way that we can and do operate The Disneyland Resort, both now and in the future. After careful review of the document and several meetings with City staff, we have come to the • conclusion that the Draft EIR and technical support documents do not contain enough information for us to validate that The Disneyland Resort entitled capacities or operational requirements have been adequately considered. Staff has reassured us that The Disneyland Resort is a critical component of the Anaheim Resort area, and that they have fully considered our current and future needs. We trust that this is true but many cases can find no hard evidence to support this assertion. For example, beginning with the sewer study, there is no technical study to support the conclusions of the sewer study. Sewage capacity has been a continuous and continues to be a continuous issue in the resort area. And as you may recall, sewage improvements ta support both The Disneyland and the Anaheim Resort area development activities were cost{y and disruptive. We were informed by staff that a sewer technical study was not included in the Draft EIR but that one is being prepared by Psomas' Engineering and wi11 be available today and ! understand it is available. Given how critical this issue is to the smooth resort operations, we are hoping that the related study would have been available through the entirety of the public review period. The next issue is storm drainage - there is no storm drainage to support the proposed expansion of the Anaheim Resort area. The area that has been added is largely developed and impervious; thaYs the good news. So the likelihood that additional storm drainage loads would be generated is low. In fact, new pervious green space could be added, which again is a positive thing. We also understand that the expansion area will drain to a separate drainage basin and as such should not impact other resort related drainage battens. That said, given the past legal battle with Garden Grove, CA, and the expense associated with the improvements that have already been installed, we believe it is critical that we have documented, technically sound assurances, that all the issues have been resolved and considered. The third issue is power. In this case we are commenting on an inconsistency. When Disney proposed to move forward with additional development in the Anaheim Resort area, we were told the capacity power was extremefy constrained, in fact, not available, and that we would have to accommodate a very large substation on our property to provide the services that we require. We realize that our demand of ~ power is more significant than most, but we are none the less surprised to find that the technical study on this issue in the new EIR indicates that there is adequate power to support the required expansionary 04-19-04 Page 21 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ needs even with nearly 2,800 new hotel rooms. Now, we are in the process of setting up a meeting with the City to discuss this issue and I am sure we will come to a resolution. The fourth issue is Traffic and Transportation. We met with the City staff a week and a haff ago to review our traffic and transportation issues and concerns, and as always staff has been very thoughtful and helpful. Again, we sought detailed documentation of trip generation, trip assignment, and design standards simply to validate that Disney's fully built out capacity had been incorporated into the study. We were told that the wrong traffic report had been included in the Draft EIR and that a new one would be issued shortly. In fact, that report has been issued; it was issued late last week. Again, well beyond the date in which the EIR was officially released. We were also told that the details we sought were not included in the study, but could be made available for our review. So again, I want to emphasize that every time we come to staff to ask a detailed question they are more than happy and more than cooperative providing the information that we require. We look forward to receiving that information, but again, given its critical nature we worry about the timeframe available to analyze this information and come up with the questions to make sure that our issues have been addressed. In addition to the gaps in the technical study, we discovered the City's traffic consultant made many new analytical assumptions about things like intersection configurations, including major changes to one intersection leading directly into Disneyland, and one leading out of Downtown Disney in levels of service that will have a negative impact on intersections or streets that feed arrivals and departures of The Disneyland Resort. In some cases, these assumptions raised additional questions about how and whether the new traffic flows caused by some of the City's development zones, including traffic traveling from west Anaheim past the resorts to The Platinum Triangle, are being channeled and mitigated if at alf. We have reviewed a!! these issues with staff and again are awaiting the response. Again, I want to say that staff has been more than cooperative and responsive. ~ Population, Housing and Public Service is the next issue. The conclusion of no impacts that was reached in the Population and Housing and Public Services section of the study runs counter to the findings that emerged during the environmental reviews to support our own development plans in the resort area. Employment associated with hotel development was highlighted at that time as a particular concern due to impacts to affordable housing and schools. Given the increase in hotel room development, again remember 2,800 new hotel rooms in the proposed expansion area, and the changes and residential zoning proposed for other areas in the City, we are surprised that there were no impacts in these sections. Next are cumulative impacts. We are concerned by the cursory nature of the Draft EIR's cumulative impact assessment. The general logic throughout this section seems to be no significant impact in this instance, therefore no significance in the cumulative condition. This logic causes us some concern. If one project falls just below the significant impact threshold and so do 30 others, at some point there is going to be a significant impact which of course is precisely what the CEQA mandated cumulative impacts analysis is meant to assess. We worry that the Draft EIR's rather perfunctory analysis will result in a situation where real impacts are caused by this planned development but could be left by other property owners to fix at some later date. We woufd also like to add that this concern is made all the more acute by the City's pending proposal to allow nonconforming buildings in the resort to convert to office uses. That proposal has not been incorporated or even considered in the Draft EIR. A CUP (cond'stional use permit) process is required for that change. Office uses generate different impacts than existing uses in those buildings. Those impacts on the resort area, considered together with the impacts caused by whaYs proposed by the draft E{R may be small or may be large. It is difficult to tell from what's being circulated. Mitigation measures - We noted in several instances that the mitigation measures listed in the descriptive text of the Draft EIR are quite a bit more elusive than those actually charted out in the executive summary, which is generally consistent with what we already see being imposed in the Anaheim Resort ~ area. We had hoped for some clarification by the end of this process that the specific measures described in the chart will, in fact, govern. However, without the data that we have requested, we cannot adequately assess the impacts that this otherwise very positive zoning change may have on The 04-19-04 Page 22 of 31 APRiL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • Disneyland Resort. Given the {ate break in technical studies to support two crucial elements of the Draft EIR; sewer and transportation, we also worry about time required to review the new information before the close of comments in early May. It is always our preference to work through all of our issues prior to the end of the comment period and always will work diligently with staff to do so, and we will commit as much time and as much effort as required to do so to meet the deadfines that the City has set. If however, technical information is not available to address our concerns we will need to submit our list of comments. We are well aware that Planning Commission's role is recommending a path of action for Council regarding the approval of the General Plan Amendments documents that have come before you today. We are also aware and respectful of scheduled pressures tied to any project of this magnitude, but given the missing information that we and other tourism-serving stakeholders in the resort need to fully assess impacts, we have concerns about moving forward without the technical information that we require. Catherine Deyoung, 31545 Sea Shadows Way, Anaheim, CA, stated she and her husband own a couple of properties in The Platinum Triangle so they are very excited about the efforts made by the staff and the efforts that Commission has made tonight to amend the General Plan and make The Platinum Triangle the area that it would be; a vibrant addition to the City of Anaheim. They own property at 1860 S. Lewis Street, which is adjacent to Anaheim Way and the I-5 Freeway, and directly adjacent to their property on Lewis Street (two parcels). Directly to the north is zoned high density office or high office in the new plan. Directly to the west is designated high office, but their parcel is designated low office. They request that their parcel be designated high office because they have plans to build a large office building there. They are very excited that the other parcel that they have is going to be zoned Mixed Use. Leon Alexander, from the Law Offices of Briggs & Alexander, representing two parcel owners, stated that one of the property owners is his parents at 1130 Gene Audry Way, in The P{atinum Triangle and also Jim Shab, who owns 1985 S. Santa Cruz also located in The Platinum Triangle. Both parcels comprise of • approximately 3.5 acres and about 43,000 square feet of industrial space. He is in support of the Rich Robertson, of Robertson's Ready Mix, 200 S. Main St., Corona, CA, stated that they own a 15-acre parcel in the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan which states, "Low-Medium Density Residential designation up to 140 units in the RM-3 zone". He asked if that means just what it says, that within the 15 acres thaYs how many dwellings they can put in there or if it is per acre. proposed change of the General Plan Amendment but his clients request that he propose to Commission to allow for commercial and high office use in that area. Mr. Shab, who is along the freeway, has great exposure there, and to allow commercial and office use would be essential for that area. So they would like to seek an amendment to The Platinum Triangle area to go from low office to high office and also to allow for commercial use. Mr. Borrego responded that under that scenario the maximum number of units allowed would be 140 units. Cesar Corvarrubias, 23861 EI Toro Rd., Suite 401, Lake Forest, CA, of the Kennedy Commission, thanked staff for incorporating them into the project and incorporating some of their comments and suggestions to the code; specifically to section 18.58. He stated that in the interest of time they submitted a written letter which incorporated their comments, and he feels some of the comments that they had specific questions on have been resolved through conversations with staff. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares stated that in regards to the aircraft noise, he had a chance to speak to a Police Department representative and was informed that technology is moving forward and there are some attempts to improve the way helicopters are designed to reduce noise. He is not necessarily seeking that the General Plan spell out a specific game plan or even a solution, but he is more interested ~ in the fact that there would be some sort of discussion that the issue is at least being examined at some level, and that there is an intent on the part of the City to reduce it because it represents a portion of the General Plan. He was also informed from the Police representative that there was some attempt in 04-19-04 Page 23 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES . terms of the firework shows to include fireworks that had low sound or low noise propellant. He wished to clarify, if based on agreements that already existed with The Disneyland Resort area, if those issues were none negotiable. And that only if both the City and the resort tenant, Disneyland, agreed to talk further that there really would not be anything to discuss, and because of that it really would not be pertinent to put in the General Plan. Mr. Borrego responded no, the point he was trying to make is that any changes made to the City's current noise standards would not necessarily be applicable based on the Development Agreement to Disneyland, California Adventure and Downtown Disney. However, there is definitely language they could look at to include in the Noise Element to address future projects. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares stated with regard to landscape choices of the City, in particular, the over emphasis of pa(m trees along the medians and the main corridors, it was part of the City's intent to include the large trees with small trees with canopies to give the advantage of both. As a Planning Commissioner, over the years he has seen that the landscaping formula is actually being adopted in a lot of areas outside the main corridors, and since the palm trees are tall and impressive there is less emphasis on the canopy trees. For example, the Anaheim Plaza Development has a lot of palm trees integrated into the design and they are impressive by themselves, but everywhere else in the parking lot, based on grooming or pruning standards, the trees are approximately 4 or 5 feet tall with a canopy no larger than 3 or 4 feet across. The point being made is that the City takes the lead and installs impressive trees and everyone else follows suit, and therefore the emphasis is really not on the trees that have aspects of cooling the parking lot or buildings. Where it uses energy it does not necessarily invite more pedestrians, for instance at bus stops. Although it is a 20-year look into the future, he feels that to get any kind of significant growth or greenery, you have to make the considerations at this juncture. Commissioner Buffa referred to Table 5.2-6, page 531, Volume 1 of the EIR, and stated that it is an Air • Quality Table that lists intersections twice and that she understands the explanation that it is because it is an a.m. and p.m. exceedings of the threshold, but wished to clarify if all the other intersections were a.m. or p.m. exceedings of the threshold, and if Commission should designate it. Bill Halligan, Consultant with The Planning Center, responded that The Air Quality Table shows intersections that would have the potential to operate at unacceptable levels of service; Level Service E or F. In the analysis it explains that where there is a potential for carbon monoxide, called CO Hotspots, in arterials with high traffic volumes that also have an unacceptable level of service. That is why some of the intersections only appear once and some of them appear twice. However, in the final EIR they will designate if it is an a.m. peak or p.m. peak for all of the emission factors. Commissioner O'Connell asked if the plan was to approve or disapprove the project, contingent upon a couple of the issues being reviewed until the May 17, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting, since he did not feel a lot of the issues would be resolved today. Mr. Borrego responded as it relates specifically to the comments that were raised by Disney, they have been in constant contact with them to try and clarify issues which they feel need to be clarified in the EIR, including providing additional information. He feels that the analysis that has taken place to this point addresses the issues that were raised, although they may not be as clear as they would like them to be in the EIR. They intend to make clarifications to the EIR to reiterate some of the points that he felt were lacking in the document. So as it relates to the list of comments, he feels that they are in a good position to continue working with them and ensuring that the final EIR that the Council considers in late May 2004 effectively spel{s out and addresses the questions that they had. In answer to some of the questions that had to do with making redesignations in The Platinum Triangle area in particular, they have spent a lot of time in coming up with the concept that is before Commission today and would not necessarily be supportive, at a staff level, of making any changes to the Land Use ~ Plan. The applicant would have the opportunity between now and the time the City Council considers the site, to continue dialoguing with them and come to a point of compromise. They are interested in working with effected property owners to try and address any concerns that they may have. Ultimately, if they are 04-19-04 Page 24 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • not able to resolve any issues tonight that would then be carried over to the Counci! meetings, and there would be continued dialogue at that point. Commissioner Flores wished to clarify, regarding the issues of churches and missions in the City of Anaheim, if they were being addressed according to their use since they would not be entitfed as churches, etc. Ms. Santalahti responded they would be called Places of Assembly. Commissioner Flores asked if missions would also be listed under that title. Ms. Santalahti responded yes, many uses would fall under that title. Commissioner Flores referred to Mr. Chuchla and wished to clarify if he was stating that on his study, the way it is written by the City, that there would be no impact if the houses were removed. Mr. Chuchla responded no, that when they get their EIR's for The Disneyland Resort, the kinds of uses that they are proposing, primarily theme park and hotel and the employment associated with that, lead the City to farge concerns about affordable housing for the employees and the impact of the employees on public services; schools, libraries, parks and all the services that a city offers. There was extensive discussion and mitigation for affordable housing, based on the fact that employment for those uses tended to generate impacts. Given that they had 2,800 new hotel rooms, they were surprised that there were no such impacts in the report. Commissioner Flores wished to clarify if he was stating that they are going to be generating more businesses and the City is stating that there is no impact with bringing in more employees, churches, ~ schools, etc. Mr. Chuchla responded that they are stating that taking in an area that is currently not very developed and intensifying the density to 2,800 hotel rooms would bring a mass of employees, and of that mass of employees, some would live in Anaheim and some would not, but the ones that settled in the Anaheim area would create impacts on housing, schools, etc., across the spectrum. Commissioner Flores wished to clarify if he was stating that the City did not look into that. Mr. Chuchla responded that in this EIR they were surprised with the inconsistency in their studies. In the City's EIRs, they were asked to mitigate a large and a continuous issue. In this study with very similar uses, 2,800 hotel rooms, there is no impact. Commissioner Buffa asked how Commission would define church and into what category would churches or houses of worship fit and also, if they were allowed in every zone. Ms. Santalahti responded that community and religious assemblies were permitted by conditional use permit in most zones. The category was intended to be nondenominational and more the aspect of a group of people coming together. Commissioner Buffa stated that the question keeps coming up because they keep dealing with churches in industrial zones. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares concurred and stated that they have had workshops on the topic before and were looking forward to this process in order to address them once and for all so that they would have some guidance for future requests. • Commissioner Buffa asked staff to give her some reassurance that the correct traffic information was out there and circulating and that was what she read. 04-19-04 Page 25 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMiSSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • Mr. Sorrego responded that he would not necessarily characterize the information in the EIR as not being the correct information but would characterize it as supplemental information in addition to the report that was included in the EIR that provided clarification to some items. Commissioner Buffa asked if the storm drain analysis was available or if it was forthcoming. Mr. Borrego responded that he would defer to The Planning Center on that issue. The issue of the storm drains was analyzed by the Civil Engineer, Psomas, and the conclusion of that analysis was that because the existing expansion area is already covered with impervious services, there would not be any additional storm drain impacts. If anything, there would be an improvement based on additional fandscaping that might be planted in conjunction with any future resort type development in that area. Mike Swan, with Psomas, stated that they looked at the infrastructure issues; water, sewer, and storm drain and concur with Mr. Borrego. The south resort areas are all basically covered and impervious and they would not be increasing any impervious surtace areas. Therefore drainage impacts would pretty much be equal to what they are now. Commissioner Buffa asked staff to give her the reassurance that the mitigation monitoring program, contained in the Draft EIR, is exactly what is referenced through the rest of the document. Commissioner Flores wished to clarify if Mr. Dutt was asking that Commission reopen the idea of allowing the calculation of open space within housing. Mr. Borrego responded that he does not know if it is necessarily the case of reopening the issue, because they have been consistent in the way that have calculated open space and determining density over the years. He feels part of the confusion that he may have had was how they factor open space area into the • acreage, but they have been very consistent in terms of how they have factored the area out in determining the allowable density on the properties. Commissioner Flores asked if the City was reducing the size of open space in that area. Mr. Borrego responded yes, and again the point he was trying to make was that by virtue of the changes that they are bringing forward as part of the citywide General Plan Update program, the intent was not in anyway to reduce the permitted residential density in that area of the City, it was to reflect what had been allowed historically. He concurred that staff had a conversation with Mr. Dutt and some of his representatives during the break and suggested that perhaps the most effective way they could go about that at this point is to hire a Civil Engineer to take a look at the City's Recommended Land Use Alternative, and overlay it on their property boundaries and basically use that information as a starting point to discuss what allowable density might be on their property. At that time they would dialogue with the property owner and come to an understanding as to what the City's position is, in terms of what the densities are allowed. Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, stated that they suggested that the property owners have their engineer take the City's existing General Plan, which is basically the plan that is on the wall (in Council Chambers), and take those particular designations and overlay it on their property and submit documentation to staff on what the actual acreage is for open space and Hillside Estate and Density Residential. The City staff would then take that information and add it to the response to comments documents so that it is reflected on the public record, and it would then go before City Council. Then it would be very clear what the density is for their property based on the existing General Plan. Again, staff was not proposing any changes to that area. Commissioner Flores asked if the City already has an ordinance regarding banners and flags; how many ~ and how many times a year. Ms. Santalahti responded that currently banners and balloons are allowed in connection with special event permits. Typically they are prohibited from having giant inflated gorillas and bottles of beer, etc. 04-19-04 Page 26 of 31 AP RI L 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • Commissioner Flores wished to clarif the use of freestandin , sandwich-t e si ns t icall seen all over Y 9 YP 9 YP Y the City on the weekends and in the public right-of-way. Ms. Santalahti clarified they are allowed to have certain types of permanent-type for sale signs on the property in question, but anything in the public right-of-way, such as sandwich signs are strictly prohibited. Mr. Borrego wished to clarify the questions raised relative to the issue of population and housing. He stated it is his understanding that the EIR that was prepared for The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan did not identify housing and population as a significant impact and that there is not a formal mitigation measure in the specific plan related to the provision of affordable housing. There is a design feature as a part of that specific plan that the City Council decided to add during the hearing process to require certain measures be taken to address affordable housing. However, it is not a formal mitigation measure of their specific plan and it was not identified as a significant impact. Ms. Johnson stated that there was no mitigation measure relative to housing in the original adoption of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan or the Hotel Circle Specific Plan, and there was no mitigation measure relative to housing in the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and what is called the CR district or the Pointe Anaheim Overlay. The City staff is not proposing any mitigation measures relative to housing for the expanded Specific Plan area. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares stated that many of the questions raised by the public, in terms of the broad issues, have been received and he asked if specific parcels were worth looking at in terms of changing the zoning on them. Ms. Johnson responded to the questions regarding changing the land use designations in The Platinum • Triangle and stated that in the General Plan Land Use Element, staff has proposed an overall capped ~ Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares announced that the Anaheim Planning Commission Meeting for Monday, April 19, 2004 would reconvene. density of so many dwelling units, so much square footage for commercial, and so much square footage for office. To the extent that changing the land use designations would not change any of the caps, staff could look at potentially redesignating the parcels from office low to office high, but the infrastructure studies were based upon the caps and they would need to confirm that there were no impacts from changing those designations. Relative to commercial use, staff needed to find out more from the property owner what type of commercial use they were thinking about; accessory types of uses to the office or major commercial. They would need to understand that in order to make a recommendation. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares asked if there needed to be more discussion before they could determine whether it was worth modifying or not. Ms. Johnson responded as long as they maintained the caps they would be able to evaluate and probably move in that direction, but they would need to understand more of what the property owners were envisioning as far as commercial. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares asked the Commissioners if there was a certain degree of satisfaction with the response to questions thus far. Commissioner Buffa responded that she was waiting for an answer to her question; to be reassured that the mitigation monitoring program, contained in the Draft EIR, is exactly what is referenced through the rest of the document. Chairperson Vanderbilt-Linares announced that there would be a 10 minute recess. A 10-minute break was taken (7:10-7:20) 04-19-04 Page 27 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ Mr. Swan stated that he clarified the comment with Mr. Chuchla, and his comment was that the mitigation measures in the summary table were not consistent with the mitigation measures in the EIR text. Staff would research it further and if there were any discrepancies it would be revised in the final EIR to make sure that they are consistent. Commissioner Buffa stated that she wanted to be sure that when staff prepares the final mitigation monitoring program that the mitigation measures are translated exactly the way they were in the EIR. Mr. Borrego stated that they would make sure that happens. Ms. Johnson spoke regarding the requested change in zoning in The Platinum Triangle by stating staff has taken a look at the type of commercial use intended and would recommend redesignating the properties mentioned to Office High, provided that the overall cap is not exceeded or changed for office use in that area. Also she noted that some minor accessory commercial was allowed under the Office High zone; however, it did not allow a stand alone large commercial devefopment. And if the property owner wanted to develop such a type of use they would need to apply for a General Plan Amendment to have a commercial designation on their property and the appropriate corresponding zone. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: 3 people expressed concern relative to permitted residential densities for certain parcels located in proximity to the Deer Canyon area (a spokesperson on this issue represented 6 people who filled out speaker cards and he presented a PowerPoint • presentation relative to the subject). A petition pertaining to this subject (containing 89 signatures), along with a"hard cop~' of the PowerPoint Presentation, was received prior to the meeting. 1 person represented Walt Disney World Company/Disneyland Resort relative to environmenta{ impact concerns pertaining to the proposed Resort Expansion Area. 4 people spoke in favor of the subject request, including a person representing The Kennedy Commission. ACTION: Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick and Eastman absent), that the Anaheim City Pfanning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council independently review and analyze Final EIR No. 330 and the Mitigation Monitoring Programs associated with the project and determine that they are in compliance with CEQA and the state and City CEQA Guidelines and determine that it is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed actions, unless additional or contrary information is received during the public review period or at the City Council hearing. Approved the adoption of a draft resolution (Attachment 14 - A to the staff report dated April 19, 2004), recommending that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419 for the comprehensive General Plan Update based on the findings contained in the draft resolution and including the corrections and omissions addressed in Attachment 2 to the staff report, including the redesignation of four parcels within The Platinum Triangle Area from the Office-Low land use designation to the Office-High designation. ~ Approved the adoption of a draft resolution (Attachment 14 - B to the staff report dated April 19, 2004) recommending that the City Council adopt Code 04-19-04 Page 28 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • Amendment No. 2004-00029 for the comprehensive Zoning Code update based on the findings contained in the draft resolution, and including the corrections and omissions addressed in Attachment 6(Refinements and Clarifications) to the staff report. Approved the adoption of a draft resolution (Attachment 14 - C to the staff report dated April 19, 2004) recommending that the City Council approve Reclassification No. 2004-00117 to reclassify Parcel A to the RM-3 (Multiple- Family Residential) zone and Parcel B to the OS (Open Space) zone based upon the findings contained in the attached draft resolution. Approved the adoption of a draft resolution (Attachment 14 - D to the staff report dated April 19, 2004) recommending that the City Council adopt Amendment No. 5 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (SPN 2004-00023) to amend the boundaries of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to incorporate certain properties within the expansion area; to reflect the text, exhibit and zoning and development standard changes described in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Addendum also provided in Attachment 14 - D to the staff report; and, to reclassify those properties to the SP 92-2 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan) zone, C-R District, with a Low Density designation based upon the findings contained in the draft resolution, and including the corrections and omissions addressed in Attachment 6(Zoning Code Refinements and Clarifications) to the staff report. Approved the adoption of a draft resolution (Attachment 14 - E to the staff report dated April 19, 2004) recommending that the City Council adopt Amendment No. 2 to the Northeast Area Specific Plan (SPN 2004-00024) to amend certain • Development Area boundaries within the Northeast Area Specific Plan as described in Section V, Paragraph No. 4 of the staff report, based upon the findings contained in the draft resolution. Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick and Eastman absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the CEQA Negative Declaration and recommend that the City Council independently review and analyze the Negative Declaration, the Initial Study and related documentation and evidence and find that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City Council, and unless additional or contrary information is presented, determine that there is no substantial evidence that the project (cancellation of Development Agreement No. 91-02) wil{ have a significant effect on the environment, and that the Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the project. Approved the adoption of a draft resolution (Attachment 14 - F to the staff report dated April 19, 2004) recommending that the City Council introduce and adopt an Ordinance to terminate by cancellation Development Agreement No. 91-01 and approve and enter into the written Agreement with The Irvine Company substantially in the form provided in Exhibit 1 to the draft resolution to mutually agree to the cancellation of Development Agreement No. 91-01 based upon the findings contained in the draft resolution. Commissioner Vanderbilt offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner O'Connell and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick and Eastman absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council ~ consider the Reclassification No. 2004-00117 and the CEQA Negative Declaration prepared in conjunction with the Termination of Development Agreement No. 91-01 04-19-04 Page 29 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • concurrent with its consideration of the balance of the items associated with this request. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and Eastman absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated all items would be set for public hearing by City Council on Tuesday, May 25, 2004. ~ ~ 04-19-04 Page 30 of 31 APRIL 19, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • DISCUSSION TIME: 3 hours and 3 minutes ~ 1 hour and 43 minutes (4:17-6:00) 15-minute break ~ ~~ I 55 minutes (6:15-7:10) 10 minute break C 25 minutes (7:20-7:45) ' ..... _ _ _ _........_~..___ ~ .~ (The subject item was heard following Item No. 9.) Commissioner Eastman left the Councii Chambers (6:00 p.m.) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:46 P.M. ~ TO MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. (The meeting of May 3, 2004 was cancelled) ~ Respectfully submitted: ~ " Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Pfanning Commission on , 2004. 04-19-04 Page 31 of 31