Loading...
Minutes-PC 2007/01/22www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY IuERzSIMW111A TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SUBJECT: CORRECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES by motion, the Planning Commission approve corrections to the minutes of the ing Commission meeting of January 22, 2007, to accurately memorialize and t the actions taken by the Commission at such meeting. In response to requests and comments by members of the Planning Commission at its most recent meeting on March 5, 2007, concerning apparent errors and omissions in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 2007, as originally drafted and presented to the Commission, the Planning Department staff and the City Attorney's Office has reviewed the audio recordings of the January 22 meeting and has prepared a revised set of corrected minutes for Commission review and approval. A -opy of the proposed minutes, as corrected, is submitted herewith for Commission revised minutes include numerous corrections to the original draft version. A irate "highlighted" version of the revised minutes is also attached to readily show substantive corrections to the original version. long the revisions is a correction to the motion made and action taken by the nning Commission with regard to Agenda Item No. 5 at the January 22 meeting sting to the CEQA Review of the (Previously -Certified) Mitigated Negative -laration and Addendum, General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448, and lendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SPN2006-00044). you are aware, the actions concerning this item are currently the subject of litigation d by the Walt Disney World Company and, therefore, it is essential that the minutes urately reflect the actions taken by the Planning Commission. 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard Suite 356 Anaheim, California 92805 TEL (714) 765-5169 FAX (714) 765-5123 Memo to Planning Commission Re: PC Minutes Page 2 With regard to this agenda item, a review of the audio recording of the January 22 meeting reveals that the motion concerning the CEQA Review was made by Commissioner Faessel shortly following a recess in the meeting and, unfortunately, without benefit of the microphone being turned on during the first portion of the motion. Consequently, the first 25 or so words of the motion cannot be heard on the audio recording. It is apparent, however, that the language of the motion was exactly tracking the language of the Planning Department recommendation on such item which was to recommend that the City Council: (1) find and determine that the Previously -Certified Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00442 and Amendment No. 7 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan along with the Addendum prepared for General Plan Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (Attachment A) reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis, that the change from visitor -serving uses to residential uses will not create an additional impact in and of itself, and that the project, as mitigated, will not have a significant effect on the environment; (2) approve the environmental documentation prepared for the project actions (Attachment A); and (3) determine that Attachment A is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed actions and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA. The above motion, as recommended by the Planning Department and as adopted by the Planning Commission, was framed as a recommendation to the City Council rather than an approval or final action by the Commission because the underlying project under review involved a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and adoption of an Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay Zone, all of which actions could only be legally approved by the City Council. Following adoption of the motion relating to CEQA Review, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions denying the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment and Residential Overlay (the "legislative actions"). In contrast to the legal requirements for approval of such legislative actions which could only be accomplished by approved by the City Council, the denial of such legislative actions could be and were in fact made by the Planning Commission. No further consideration or action was necessary by the Planning Commission with regard to the CEQA review in conjunction with such denials. Respectfully submitted, JACK L. WHITE, CITY ATTORNEY By: ' V� A " C �C°� �7 I1,A, Mark Gordon Assistant City Attorney • • P~P~E,M ~~~ Cit of Anaheim ~ f.~ y . . . ~ ~ Pfanning Comm~ssion ~ ~' M in utes U Y . ~`~°~' . Mondav, January 22, 2007 . ''~'p~` l$c~`~ Council Chamber, City Half N D E D 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRMAN: GAIL EASTMAN Commissioners Present: KELLY BUFFA, STEPHEN fAESSEL, JOSEPH KARAKI; PANKY ROMERO, PAT VELASQUEZ Commissioners Absent: FLORES Staff Present: Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Susan Kim, Senior Planner Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner John Ramirez, Associate Planner Jonathan Borrego, Principaf Planner Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer Judy Dadant, Senior Planner Elly Morris, Senior Secretary Dave See,<Senior Planner Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, January 19, 2007, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, December 28, 2006 • Call3o Order Preliminary P{an Review 1:00 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE JANUARY 22, 2007 AGENDA • Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 53 For record keepinq purposes if vou wish to make a statement recrardinp anv item on the aqenda please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretarv. • Pledge Of Allegiance: Commissioner Karaki • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items " • Adjournment You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address pfannins~commissionCa)anaheim.net H:\TOOLS\PCADMW\PCMINIAC'T~2007MI NUTES~AC012207.DOC JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ( Anaheim Planning Gommission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. Consent Calendar: The items'on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call yote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. : Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED : (Commissioner Flores absent), to continue Consent Calendar ltem 1-A as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Reaorts and Recommendations • Min e 1A. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Pfanning Commission I Continued to Meeting of January 8, 2007. (Motion) February 5, 2007 : Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Flores absent JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Hearina Items. 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Baffa/Faessel 2b. RECLASSIFICA710N N0. 2006-00191 Buffa ' Owner: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, P.O. Box 3222, Anaheim, CA 92803-3222 Agent: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201, Suite 1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 1275-1287 East Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 4.3 acres having a frontage of 425 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and is located 515 feet east of the centerline of East Street. City-initiate request for reclassification from the GG (General Commercial) zone to the RM-4 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone or a less tntense zone for a multiple-family project. Reclassification Resolution No. PC2007-11 • • Approved Granted, unconditionally VOTE: 6-0 Comrnissioner Flores absent Project Planner. (dsee@anaheim.net) Dave See, Senior Planner, introduced this item and gave a brief description of the project. Staff recommends approval of the request. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, p~esented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 13, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (2:35-2:38) 01-22-07 Page 3 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA ENVfRONMENTAL 1MPACT REPORT NO. 328 Velasquez/Buffa Approved AND MITIGATION MONITORING P~AN NO. 126 - (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) 3b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17141 velasquez/Buffa Approved ' Owner: RPG Orange LLC, 9200 East Panorama Circle, Englewood, C0 80112 Agent: Cynthia Eppeldauer, Archstone Communities, One ' Spectrum Pointe Drive, # 225, Lake Forest, CA 92630 Location: 2150 South State Colleqe Boulevard: Property is approximately 20.81 acres located within the cities of Anaheim and Orange, south of the southeast corner of State Coilege Bouievard and Orangewood Avenue. ?his request pertains specifically to the northerly 8.44-acre portion of the project site located within the City of Anaheim, within the boundaries of The Platinum Triangle, Gateway District, haVing a frontage of approximately 625 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, and located 770 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard (Archstone Gateway Residential). • Request to estab{ish a 1-lot, 352-unit single family attached residentiaf condominium subdivision within a larger proposed 3-lot, 884-unit single- family, residentiat subdivision for a previously-approved multiple-family project. Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. VOTE: 6-0 ' ' Commissioner Flores absent Project Plannec (jpramirez@anaheim. net) John Ramirez, Associate Planner, introduced this item and gave a brief description of the item. Staff recommends approval of the project due to the fact that the project is consistent with the mixed use overlay and Gateway District. ApplicanYs Statement: Cynthia Eppeldauer, applicant, is in agreement with the conditions and able to answer questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on ~ Thursday, February 1, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (2:39-2:42) 01-22-07 , page 4 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • _ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION RomeroBuffa 4b. WANER OF CODE REQUIREMENT RomerolBuffa 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05165 ' Romero ' 4d. TENTATNE PARCEL MAP NO. 2006-222 Romero/Buffa 4e. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT N0. 2006-00006 RomeroBuffa Owner: Silver Oak Anaheim Hills, LLC, 8175 East Kaiser Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92808 Agent: Silver 0ak Development, Warren Williams, Jr., 8175 East Kaiser Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92808 Location: 150 North Riverview Drive: Property is approximately 4.3 acres located on the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Riverview Drive. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05165 - Request to construct a 52- foot high office building with roof-mounted equipment and building height in excess of code in the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay with waivers of (a) minimumJandscape and structural setback adjacent to freeway, (b) minimum landscape setback adjacent to a local street, (c) minimum number of required parking spaces and (d) maximum number of wall • signs. I Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-222 - To establish a 1-lot, 35-unit I commercial airspace subdivision. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006-00006 - To remove up to 16 ' specimen trees. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-12 Approved Approved Granted Approved : Approved CUP Modified Condition No. 29 Added a condition of approval VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Flores absent Project P~anner. (kwong2@anaheim.net) Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. John Ramirez, Associate Planner, introduced this item and gave a brief physical description of the project, discussed tree removal and retaining wall. Staff is supportive of proposal. Brief discussion on prior easements on the property when it was divided into four lots, however it is one lot now and easements are no longer needed. Applicant's Statement: Warren Williams, applicant, stated he agrees with conditions of approval and modifications as stated. Easements that are there are private housekeeping easements that the maintenance association for the complex has in place. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. , Commissioner Romero asked if they were considering telecom sites on top of the building in the future because this would be a good time to review it. 01-22-07 Page 5 JANUARY 22, 2007 ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • , Mr. Wiliiams stated no, they are not interested in doing that. OPPOSITIONc None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Parcei Map ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 1, 2007; and presented the 22-day appeal rights for the Conditional Use Permit and Specimen Tree Removal Permit ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 13, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (2:43-2:55) ~ • 01-22-07 Page 6 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . ~ 5a. : CEQA (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIEDI MITIGATED FaesseWelasquez NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM 5b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-00448 Faessel 5c. AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT ' Faessel SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2 (SPN2006-00044) Agent: ' City of Anaheim {City Council), 200 South Anaheim, ' Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: Property is approximately 26.7 acres located south of Katella Avenue and east of Haster Street. City-initiated (City Council) request to amend the General Plan (Case Na GPA2006-00448) and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (Case No. SPN2006-00044) to provide the opportunity to develop wholly- " residential projects that include rentat housing that is affordable to very-low and low-income families on designated properties within The Anaheim Resort. . GPA2006-00448 - Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to modify "Note Na 2" of `Table LU-4: General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the City' pertaining to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and to amend the Commercial Recreation land use designation description. SPN2006-00044 - Request to amend the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Na 92-2 Zoning and Development Standards (Chapter 18.116 of the ' Anaheim Municipal Code). General Plan Amendment Resolution No. PC2007-13 Specific Plan Amendment Resolution No. PC2007-14 Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Recommended City Council Approval Denied Denied VOTE: 5-0 Commissioner Buffa abstained and Commissioner Flores absent Project Planner.• (skim@anaheim.net) Commissioner Buffa: I do business with the reat party in interest on the next item and so I will excuse myself at this point. Chairman Eastman: She gets to go home early. And before we begin with the public hearing on this particular item because we do seem to have so many peopte in attendance, I want to just emphasize again it would help us to, to take things in an orderly manner if those of you who do intend to speak would submit a speaker card, and I really got a little bit of a order to follow here, so hopefully we can keep things flowing and get everybody out of here and make a good decision and get people out in a timely manner. So with that, I think our staff is in position. Susan Kim: Good afternoon, Chairman Eastman and members of the Planning Commission. I am Susan Kim, the case planner for this project. The request before you today includes various actions that will • provide the framework to allow the development of wholly residential uses on designated properties within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. PII begin with some background on the proposed amendment then I will describe the subject property and the proposed amendments: , 01-22-07 : Page 7, JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNlNG COMMISSION MINUTES i In the summer of 2006, Planning Commission and the City Council reviewed amendments to the GeneralPlan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to allow residential uses in conjunction with hotels on the property shown'in orange within the within theAnaheim Resort. Prior to the adoption of the' amendments, residential developmentwas notpermitted anywhere within the Anaheim Resort. These amendments created the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay which provides for residential development within these two areas. C ~ ~ Some of the requirements of the approved overlay include that: residential units must be physically integrated with the development of a minimum 300 room hotel, the number of residential units within a development cannot exceed the number of hotel rooms, and infrastructure impacts can be no greater than the impacts of the hotel density permitted by the underlying Specific Plan density designation. The proposed amendments were approved by the City Council on August 22, 2006. Prior to and at the August 22"d City Council meeting, SunCal Companies submitted correspondence and testimony requesting that the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay also allow for wholly-residential development on the property shown in yellow. ln response to SunCal Companies' request, City Council directed staff to prepare additional amendments to#he General Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan in keeping with the SunCal Companies' proposal. Their proposal included that the residential development would allow, would incfude deve~opment of renfal housing, affordable to very low, and low income families. Staff has prepared the amendments for the Council direction with input from SunCal Companies and these are the amendments that are before you today. The properties proposed to be designated for wholly residential development are currently developed for a retail center along Katella Avenue, two single family homes, and two mobile home parks which are pretty easy to recognize on the slide. There are 262 mobile homes within the mobile home parks, 63 of these mobile homes are in the process of being acquired by the City in canjunction with the Gene Autry Way Freeway Overcrossing Project. Surrounding the land uses include restaurants located to the north, hotels and the I-5 freeway to the northeast and east, multi-family residential uses and a mobile home park community to the south, and hotel commercial uses, residential development and a Disney employee parking lot to the west. This is the parking lot here, here's the hotel, this is a vacant site, this is 7-11 up here, Flakey Jakes, Del Taco and the apartment communities to the side. The subject properties are located within the Commercial Recreation District of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan with a low-medium density development designation. As previously mentioned, the property is also within the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay which was approved tast August. In addition, the two mobile home parks are located within the Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone. The proposed amendments will provide a land use option in addition to the uses currently permitted to the existing specific plan overlay. In other words, the subject property owners may choose to develop hotels and other visitor-serving uses according to the zoning provisions currently in place or they may develop their property according to the proposed amendment. The proposed amendments include the following requirements to the development of wholly residential uses: fifteen percent (15%) of the units within the development must be affordable rental units to very-iow and 1ow-income families. The projects must be processed according to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan's requirements for a master planned development and infrastructure impacts can be no greater than those associated with the subject properties permitted hotel/motel density. Development would be subject to the following affordability requirements: fifteen percent (15%) percent of the units must be affordable multi-family rental units for very-low and low-income families. Twenty percent (20%) of these units must be affordable to very low income families whose incomes are fifty percent (50%) or less of the area's median income, and eighty percent (80%) of the affordable units must be affordable to low income families whose incomes are at sixty percent (60%) or less of the area median income. These affordabitity requirements must be met regardless of the availability of any City' subsidy. 01-22-07 Page 8 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • The requirements for a master plan development include approval of the new Specific Pian to be consistent with the goals of the General Plan and the intent of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and conform with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan requirements related to heights, landscaping and setbacks and special standards intended to create a high quality pedestrian environment along Katella Avenue. Finally, infrastructure impacts of wholly residential development cannot be greater than those associated with subject property's hotel/motel density. This same requirement currently applies to properties that are developed with residential uses in conjunction with a hoteL The developer will be required #o submit detailed studies demonstrating that the proposed development is able to achieve environmental equivalency with the impacts of development allowed by the property's underlying density designation, This means, when necessary, measures will be taken to ensure that impacts due to the proposed residential development are no greater than the developmenf of the permitted hotel density. The hotel density permitted for the subject property is 75 rooms per acre, or 75 rooms per parcel, whichever is greater. While no formal application has yet been received from SunCal, fhey've indicated a desire to develop 1,500 residential units on the subject properties. _ Their proposal would require processing of a new8pecific Plan, a tract map, final site plans and affordability agreement and removal of the previously mentioned Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone. Removal of the Overlay Zone for anychange in land use requires the preparation of Conversion Impact Report. The report must analyze current park tenancies, and address the need for any relocation assistance for current park residents. Staff has prepared the amendments before you today pursuant to the direction of City Council. On Friday, staff received a letter from Latham and Watkins representing Walf Disney World Company • stating several concerns regarding the appropriateness of the environmental documentation prepared for ' the proposed amendments: Despite the issues raised in the letter, staff feels that the proposed documentation is the appropriate course of action. Staff recommends that thePlanning Commission, based on the evidence contained in the staff report and the findings in the attached resolutions, recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed amendment and'associated environmental documentation: Staff is available to answer any questions you may have and in addition to this presentation, I also have a presentation that, an old presentation that we had on file, but in the study session the Planning Commission requested a presentation that showed you howthe Anaheim Resort came about. If you would like , I can do that presentation at this time as well or we could wait till later. Chairman Eastman, I think there is a consensus that we would like to have that. Susan Kim: O.K. And as I mentioned, this is a little bit older presentation but it should be pretty good for what, for the information that you requested. In this presentation, I'll begin by briefly describing the elements that make up the Anaheim Resort followed by the explanation of the approach we use to make our vision a reality, and conclude with a little glimpse of whaYs going on right now in the Resort. ' The Anaheim Resort is approximately 1,100 acre area. In the map that you see before you, is the map that we had before the Anaheim Resort was expanded down Harbor Boulevard, south of Orangewood Avenue, which shows Disneyland Park in the middle of Downtown Disney, and Disney's California Adventure I just mentioned, that area has been expanded from Orangewood to Chapman along Harbor Boulevard. The Anaheim Resort is home to Disneyland, the world's original theme park, Disney's California Adventure Theme Park, Downtown Disney and several hotels including the renovated Disneyland and ~ Paradise Pier Hotel, and Disney's new Grand California Hotel. The Anaheim Convention Center is also located in the Anaheim Resort, following its expansion, it's the largest convention facility on the west coast with 1.6 million square feet of state-of-the-art meeting space. Surrounding both of these visitor 01-22-07 _ Page 9 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , designations, is the iargest concentration of hotefs, motels and restaurants. in Orange County with over 18,000 hotel roams. Overall, the Anaheim Resort generates in excess of twenty million visitors annually. Now, PII discuss what we did to make this vision a reality; The transformation ofthe Anaheim Resort did not happen overnight. As you can see, this is what the area looked like back in the 1990's. At risk, the area's seriously decline and at risk, were the revenues the'City has historically received from the area which were critical to the funding of the central municipai services for all Anaheim residents, such as police, fire, libraries and parks. 7he City recognized that we needed a vision for the area and a comprehensive strategy to achieve it. tn 1988, the Cify Council and Planning Commission met to discuss issues and opportunities for #his area including building heights, tand uses,landscaping and setbacks, signage and utility Jines. In the spirit of public and private cooperation, the City also shared its vision and received input and support from the community. In 1991, we launched an ambitious revitalization effort, we faced many challenges which played an important role in guiding our planning efforts. We needed to develop a plan for an existing urban environment thaf would safeguard the residential neighborhoods surrounding the Anaheim Resort, create an identity so that when visitors arrived, they would, they would know that they've come to the special place and enhance the infrastructure that was approaching capacity. We'decided that the Specific Plan process woufd be the most effective tool to use to accomplish these objectives. U~timate{y, three specific plans were adopted, the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, and the Hotel Circle Specific Plan. Each of the specific plans is a comprehensive planning documenY identifying permitted land uses, zoning and site development standards, design guidelines, public facilities and developmenf densities. Comprehensive environmental documentation was also prepared for each of those specific plans in order to monitor and mitigate the environmental impact associated with the+r implementation. ~ Disneyland Resort Speci~c Plan which was given award recognitionfrom the'American Planning Association was adopted in 1993. It encompasses 490 acres which include primarily Disney controlled properties. The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan serves as a guide for the development of the California Adventure Theme Park, Downtown Disney, a 300,000 square foot retail, dining and entertainment center, and a 750 room Grand California Hotel. The plan further provides for an addition 4,600 hotel rooms, administrative o~ces, parking and transportation facilities, and on going modifications to the Disneyland theme parks. And this view just shows the relationship between the Disneylas~d uses that are there, in more detaiL The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan also included standards that were designed to protect the surrounding neighborhoods. For instance, the 10,000 space parking structure was designed and landscaped to virtually disappear behind lush parkways shown in this picture. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan was carefully coordinated with the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan in order to provide a complimentary resort atmosphere in the commercial areas surrounding the Disneyla~d Resort. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan created a central core area along Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue. Specialized standards for this area include encouraging outdoor dining and special landscape treatments at the key street intersections in the Resort and these standards create a stronger visual impression as well as encourage more people to leave their car, walk and enjoy the outdoor pieces. In addition to the requirements of the Specific Plans, we created the Anaheim Resort Landscape Program and the Anaheim Resort Identity Program to ensure that when visitors enter the Anaheim Resort, they knew that they had entered a special and distinct part of the City. The Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscaping Program was developed to transform and unify the Resort through landscaping. We wanted to create a garden atmosphere where visitors could stroU feisurely along lushly landscaped walkways to reach their destination. Over 15,000 new tree, shrubs, flowers covering more • than 60,000 square feet were planted within the Anaheim Resort. We also created the Anaheim Resort Identity Program to`create a consistent theme for the Resortwhich compliments, reinforces the garden 01-22-07 Page 10 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • atmosphere. Special benches, bus stops, newspaper racks, signs, streetlight banners and gateway elements were designed to reflect the festive garden atmosphere in the Resort area. In addition, we also made alot of the improvements in the signs of the area, as you can see in this picture, this is all the different types of the'signs we have in the area. And then we replaced those with a family of signs that would make the area more visually consistent, and we designed, this coordinated family signs to reinforce the landscape character of the Anaheim Resort and make it easier for visitors to find their destination. And then we went through a whole signage program replacing the signs that were out there. And, the slide that I showed you in the very beginning, shows in the upper left , hand corner and then it shows the difference that iYmade in the area just through the signage alone. While all of this was going on, we had a very aggressive public awareness campaign so people knew what was going on in their area when they were driving through it. Representatives from Disney coordinated with the City to work out the nuts and bolts of their expansion projects while reducing the impact of the construction on Disneyland and the surrounding businesses and residences. This project was especially challenging as it was built on the former parking lot and so they had to closely coordinate the way construction was done on the site. So, here we went through a series of grand openings from 2000 - 2001 of the Disney Hotel, Downtown Disney, the California Adventure as well as the Convention Center. In addition, the surrounding area, a lot of construction also commenced. As you can see in some of the pictures that are shown here, I believe it shows two of the hotefs that are jusf east of the subject site, which would be the Holiday Inn here and Staybridge Inn & Suites here. Then in order to maintain the high quality atmosphere in the Anaheim Resort, funds were assessed to the Anaheim Resort Maintenance District that were used to maintain the landscaping, clean the bus stops, sidewalks, remove graffiti, and to change ouf banners and other pageantry in the area. And the transformation of the Anaheim Resort into a world class destination has just been a continuing journey for the City, and that is pretty much the history of how everything was ~ determined. Chairman Eastman: Thank you, I appreciate that very much. At this point, we're going to begin with the interested party is representing the major land owner, in this action, and that would be Frank Elfend. IYs just uh, in an interested disclosure, PII disclose that I did meet with him Mr. Elfend last week to hear his, get his input on this. Mr. Frank Elfend: Thank you, I, of course, wasn't sure whether you remembered my last name or last, so I put it in the public record. Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, 18101 Von Karman, Suite 1280, Irvine, CA. Before I get started, let me just introduce some of the other people who are here today that will answer some questions if you like. And that is Ryan Easter from the law firm of Palmieri Tyler; Michael Zischke is here from Cox Castle; Carmen Mordinello from the Law Offices of Carmen Mordinello and Lou Feldman from Goodwin, Proctor. Mr. Feldman is responsible is for the affordable housing element. Before I do make my comments, t woutd like to be able to overview what those comments, the topics those comments will cover, and they cover primarily four areas. The first area is simply the process that leads us to our hearing today, the nature of the city's requested action, affordable housing, and the study that led us to this process as well which is the Anaheim Resort Focus Site Plan Analysis prepared for the City of Anaheim by EPS. Let me first thank staff for the cooperative efforts in presenting today's request, indicate that we have reviewed staff's report and concur with the findings. Let me first clarify as stated earlier that we are not the applicant for this item. This is a City initiated amendment to the General Plan and Resort Area Specific Plan. This action will not result in the approval of any specific project, there is a subsequent process which was delineated just a few moments ago which includes the submittal of various plans, documents, maps, as well as environmental documentation. ~ Today's public hearing is actually a by-product of the process that was started last year and you may recall that on June 12`h of last year, I appeared before this Planning Commission and provided comments on the City's proposed Residential Overlay Zone. My comments at the hearing were that we 01-22-07 Page 11 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • were not opposed to what the City was proposing, we requested more time to be abfe to comment on the proposal, we indicated we would be submitting comments #o the Gity Council regarding an affordable housing and all residential component. The reason why we had made that comment back then is that we didn'f have sufficient time to review the request and the comment period actually occurred after the Planning Commission meeting. And we did not ask the matter be continued or delayed because we did not want to slow the process down. Subsequently, the City Council heard the matter on August22"d and directed staff to prepare an additional amendment to the General Plan and Specific Plan. The staff included as an attachment toyour staff report the minutes setting forth the dialogue that tookplace on that day. Prior to and during the public hearing on August 22"d, we expressed our support of the Residentiaf Overlay Zone and also mentioned our proposal to provide a wholly residential devefopment, provided such development was currently or formerly used as a mobile home park. Such wholly residential development included an affordable housing component of at least ~fteenpercent (15%). As noted earlier, the City Council approved the cequest and directed the staff to prepare an amendment as set forth above. I would however like to clarify certain matters relating to that hearing, particularly as it relates to today's public discussion as welL The first clarification pertains to the type of residential development that was considered by both this Planning Commission and the City CounciL An applicant for the property within the Residential Overlay Zone, the one that you had approved, provided an explanation of the type of residential use that was expected. These comments by. the way can be found on page nine of the City Council minutes. And in response to the question of what kind of residential housing were you proposing in this integrations, 4he answer was the intention is that the condominium residents will be living there year round, that this will be their full time residence and we will do everything in our power to avoid leasing those properties out and running effectively a small time share orsome kind of, you know, defacto hotel element. The point here and the reason why I make that disclosure today, is that when the Residenfial Overlay Zone was approved in August of last year, it was not simp{y approved as a financing ~ mechanism as suggested in some correspondence you may have received, but it was the introduction of residential housing in the Anaheim Resort Area. I would also like to add and ciarify some of the comments made af that August 22"d hearing by Mr. Chris Lowe of the Disney Corporation: Mr. Lowe was present, made his comments to the Council and were considered appropriately. Mr. Lowe's commen4s can be found on page 17 of the attached City Council minutes. I mention this fact to clarify a comment by the Disney Corporation in their correspondence suggesting that today's request was not disclosed when the Residential Overlay Zone was approved by the City in August of last year. Based on the attached City Council minutes and comments by Mr. Lowe on behalf of the Disney Corporation, it is perfectly clear that today's amendment was contemplated in August of 2006. As such, the Disney Corporation has been aware of todays amendment for the last five months. I would now like to talk a little bit about affordable housing and this project since that is a major component of our proposaL As summarized in staff's report, the amendment includes a fifteen percent (15%) affordable housing provision in accordance with the City's affordable housing strategic plan. I would like to clarify certain aspects of this proposal as one. First, as indicated in the aerial, the amendment area is currently a mobite home park, the zoning of the property is residential, and the residential land uses are located directly south and west of the site. In terms of affordable housing, and the Resort Area, I just had the ability to watch the presentation that was provided by staff of the Resort Area, I would like to add that was also a vision in the Anaheim Resort Area for affordable housing as welL I would like to note several comments about the affordable housing and the Westcott proposal advanced by the Disney Corporation in the early 1990's. I can speak from experience in this instance because I was actually was involved in that process in th~ early 1990's. When the Disney Corporation explored the development of a second theme park in southern California, during those deliberations for Westcott, Disney Corporation was engaged in conversations with the City of Anaheim regarding a number of issues including the project's impact on the City's suppty of affordable housing. The City's concern with Westcott's effect on affordable housing was discussed in correspondence to Alan Epstein with the Disney Corporation dated January 7, 1991, in which the City indicated that the essential doubling of intensity of ~ commercial recreational activity within the CR area would have been profound consequence for the surrounding neighborhoods. Among the most critical are the impacts to housing needs, rents, over crowding and their intended consequences for housing assistance. When'the City approved the Westcott 01-22-07 : Page 12 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSfON MiNU7ES • project, it includetl a requirement to provide affordable housing, the final conditions of approval that were inciuded in Mitigation Monitoring Program Number 0067 provided for condition number 61 which required the Disney Corporation toprovide funds in conjunction with other public service, public and private sources to preserve or create five hundred (500) affordable housing units. The condition to build five hundred (500) affordabte housing units was subsequently modifiedby the Disney Corporation in association with their Disney California Adventure project. In 1996, the City criteria for the development agreement with the Disney Corporation had become more specific than they had been five years earlier. However, with regards to affordable housing, the criteria was at odds with condition number 61 thatJ just mentioned. In a document entitled Proposed Developmenf Agreement Terms Disneyland Resort Expansion, the affordable housing requirement was changed to a five (5) million dollar payment. The City redeemed this payment as satisfaction of the affordable housing condition of approvaL The five (5) million dollar buy out was formalized in fhe Development Agreement number 9601 section 3.1 of the 96-01 development agreement specifically provided that the City wou/d receive $5 million to be used by the City for neighborhood improvements, housing in the vicinity, in the immediate vicinity of the Anaheim Resort Area. Payment of such amount shall be deemed safisfaction of condition number 61. Evidence of the Disney Corporation's met this requirement was satisfied in the 1997 annual review of the Development Agreement 9601 between the City of Anaheim and the Walt Disney WorldResort project. As noted in the 96-01 Development Agreement annual review, the five (5) million dollacs was then transferred through the issuance of financing bonds,'meaning that five hundred units was changed to five :- (5) million dollars and if was included in the bond issuance to be paid by the bond holders. My point here is that the Disney Corporation in the early 1990's acknowledged the importance of affordable housing in the Resort Area. As noted earlier, this amendment is located in the periphery of the resort area on a mobile home park with residential zoning and residential development both south and west of fhe site. This amendment would'thus seem consistent with Disney's vision of affordable housing when the Westcott project and subsequent projects were approved. ~ My final comments pertain to a study that was prepared for the City of Anaheim in June or July of last year known as the Anaheim Resort Focus Site Plan Analysis. The relevance of this study as noted in staff's report is that it addressed several fiscal and future development impacts related to this amendment. The study was prepared by the City to evaluate market conditions in Anaheim to assess land Use options for three (3) sites located in Anaheim Resort. The study was prepared and made available to this Planning Commission and the City Council during the prior approval in June and August of last year. The findings of this report as it related to the subject property included that the amendment area is r-ot currently appropriate for hotel development due to market conditions and will not be abfe to absorb hotel units for at1east finrenty five to fifty five years. Besides, the site's freeway visibility and access could help commercial uses fronting Katella Avenue, however, its relative isolation from Disneyland and other commercial uses and the existing revenue generated mobile home park are limiting factors for development of visitor server uses. The document further evaluated the conversion of the site in terms of the Lease Payment Requirement Revenues (LPMR) which are the basis for the payment of debt services for the improvement area and found not to be significant. The hotel development on this site may also not occur for a number of years, the conclusion was based on the low average occupancy rates and ADR, which is average daily rates of the hotel in the area, slow growth in rates over recent years because of the weaker local in proximity to the freeway which generates noise due to traffic, and the supply of land better suited for hotel development. ln regard to the transient occupancy tax, the focus site analysis indicated that the conversion of site three from hotel to residential uses, if it occurred, would forego TOT revenues which could total approximately $4.6 million annually. However, these revenues may not occur for a minimum of 10-15 years, the losses may not be experienced until the supply of available land for new hotel rooms is nearly exhausted which could another 24-55 years from now, dependant upon the future growth of the hotel demand. Without a hotel site, other existing hotels or hotel sites will accommodate the demand that otheruvise would have been accommodated on this amendment area. The focus site analysis further supports in its desirability of this land conversion by citing evidence that multiple apartment projects are located adjacent to the site, the sites relative isolation from Disneyland and other commercial uses limiting factors for a development of a hotel on this particular • property. There is one other factor there, and that is during this twenty five to fifty five year time period that this project as a viable residential land use would generate income to the City as opposed to having it lay vacant for that time period. Those comments represent my initial thoughts, I would like the , 01-22-07 Page 13 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMM1SS10N MINUTES • opportunity to be able to provide additional responses to comments that are made in this hearing as deemed appropriate by this Commission. Thank you. Chairman Eastman: Thank you. Jonathan Borrego: Chairman, I wantetl to also mention to this Commission that we did actualty receive three letters today in response to the current application, and one of the letters was received 6y Cox, Castle, Nichofson, on behalf of representatives of SunCal. There was also'a letter which was received by an organization caifed Unite Here which was also actually in support of today's application. We received a letter from the Kennedy Commission as well, and we also received a letter from from the ACCORD Group, which again, was in support of this application. I believe the Commission has copies of all that correspondence, or is receiving it. Chairman Eastman: I don't think I've seen the I think iYs coming, the Kennedy Commission, Chairman Eastman: We also got one from a Judith Serafini, and I have a card from her alsa ,You'll all have to bear with us as we've got a lot of information handed to us at the last minute to go with the reams of it that we've had beforehand. Thank you Mr. Elfend, and we'll reserve the right for you to come back and rebut any future testimony. I tried to divide the cards by those in favor of this item and Pll just go down through the stack as they were handed to me, the first one I have is Larry Slagle. Larry Slagle: Thank you Chairman Eastman and Commission. My name is Larry Sfagle and Pm the president of the Yellow Cab Company of Greater Orange County, we're located at 1619 East Lincoln, in ' Anaheim. I'm also chairman of the Visitor and Convention Bureau this year and representing the tourist industry position. We are opposed to the inclusion of any housing or non compatible use in this Resort Specific District such as the uses proposed today. The industry is on record as opposing housing in the ~ Resort District already, on September 28, 2006, the Hotel and Lodging Association wrote a letter to the City Council stating our position, the bureau, the Convention Bureau will take a position, hopefully on Thursday with that same position. The City and the industry, the stakeholders in this area have worked long and hard to develop this resort concept, we worked together with the City to increase the TOT, we did not oppose that, tightened standards, appearance issues, building restrictions, the landscaping and maintenance district that you talked about in the presentation, are supported by the industry. Millions of dollars are spent through these upgrade processes as well as the Maintenance District as well as through sales and promotion programs to encourage people to come to Anaheim and enjoy the fine resort district that we have created. Extra costs we are paying support the Resortbistrict, they improve the appearance of the Resort District in the area, they comply with the updated requirements and conditions, they increase the TOT revenue and sales tax revenue to the City. The City of Anaheim is known for its resort, we need affordable housing, we need housing in general, there have been other projects that have come to the City, and we still need them, but they may not be appropriate in the area that they're proposed. We have a chance to build it right, I'm talking about the Resort District, but without any compromises that's brought about by incompetent compatible uses. Housing next to hotefs and restaurants, night clubs, attractions, iYs not a good mix. 7his project is on a major street frontage, a freeway on ramp frontage, again iYs not conducive to raising families, kids, pedestrian traffic, taxi traffic. IYs tempting to change uses but at a cost to Anaheim that is higher than you think. It woutd costs us in our image, our resort image, cost us in our TOT earnings, and it would cost us in use comparability. It is a project, if a project comes with overwhelming attributes, maybe we should consider it on its own merits. But don't change the zoning to encourage any degradation or conflict within the Resort District that we have worked so hard to create. t urge you not to jeopardize Anaheim's future, the Resort quality, the size or iYs job making revenue producing capabilities. I urge you to resist any inclusion of residential into that resort specific area. Thank you. Chairman Eastman: I must apologize for not clarifying up front that you are in opposition to this rather than in favor, I misunderstood the card and so, that was a little bit out of order, as far as general order • that we take things, we'll attempt now to take the people that are in favor of this. S~, I have one more that I'm not sure of, iYs a representative from the City School District, Tom Riuuti, were you speaking in favor of or opposition. . ` 01-22-07 Page 14 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANN{NG COMM{SSION MINUTES • -- Tom Riuuti: Not really either, just wanted to bring some school impacts into light. Chairman Eastman: OK, I think I'm going to take you then after all those people who are in favor and then we'11 start with you before we go into the rest that are opposed. So getting us back on track, I have a card for Eric Altman with the Orange County Community Organized for a Responsible Development and I believe thafis the organization we did get a letter from today, so we do have your letter sir. Eric Altman: Thanks, good afternoon Chair Eastman, Commissioners. I'm EricAltman with Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development, OCCORD and we are here to speak in favor of the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay. Our organization works in coalition with community and neighborhood groups, they and clergy, I'm'sorry, faith based groups, and clergy, unions, small businesses, public policies advocates and individual community leaders and our mission is to help working families to have a voice in public policy decisions around economic development that affect their lives. ) just want to draw attention to the fact that right now in Orange County the hourly wage required to afford a two bedroom apartment is $28.56 an hour, and that is higher here in Orange County than any where else in the State except' San Francisco and Marin County. And that is simply just out of reach for most of the working families, many of the working families that work in the Resort Area. Of the top ten > occupations that are expected to have the most job openings over the next several years, six of those top ten job occupations pay less than ten dollars an hour. So, that a person, a mother and a father working in those jobs full time still can't afford decent housing for their families: This is a' real crisis, and we want to commend the City for the leadership of pushing this zoning all the way forward, we think this provides just the kind of flexibility that we're going to need as a community to deal with this crisis: We`are concerned about the loss of existing low cost housing on the site, but we are even more concerned that without the zoning overlay, theloss is not going to be off set by new production of affordable housing. And just in ' closing, this is just an issue that affects our entire community, and we al{ need to take leadership to ~ address it, there is certainly is as I just heard from the gentlemen with the visitor's convention bureau opposition from business leaders, some business leaders, to this proposal, but l think that for the greater good, we need to look at what we can do together to solve this problem, and I think for those who are going to stand in opposition to this, what is their plan, what kind of affocdable housing plan are they : proposing instead, I want again, thank the Planning Commission and the City for their leadership on this issue and we are in suppo~t of this zoning overlay. Chairman Eastman: Thank you, and the next person would be Russell Maitland with Unite Here Local 681, Russell. Please feel free to correct me if I don't have you in the right category as you come up to the podium. Russell Maitland: Thank you Chairman Eastman, once again, my name is Russell Maitland, I am currently employed as a bell man at the Disneyland Hotel and also employed as an organizer for the Unite Here Local 681. I'm accompanied today by a small group of workers from the Anaheim Resort Area in the crowd right now, and I have a letter that I would like to read and submit on behalf of our president, Ada Bricena Dear Chair Eastman and Commissioners: We are writing in support of the Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay on the agenda for today's Planning Commission meeting, and we applaud the City's efforts to address our community's severe shortage of affordable housing. Our union represents 5,000 housekeepers, dishwashers, bell men and other hospitality workers, the vast majority of them in the Anaheim Resort, the Honda Center and the Angel Stadium areas. Many of our members work fu{I time and cannot afford to live in Anaheim. They have no choice but to live in an overcrowded housing conditions just to make ends meet. The housing needs of people like our members who work in the Resort District must be addressed and the zoning overlay that you consider today will be an important tool for meeting these needs. Although some business leaders oppose building affordable housing in the Resort District, we think such opposition is shortsighted. For ~ the good of our entire community, we urge you to approve the Anaheim Residential Overlay and this is has been submitted by our president, Ada Briceno Pd like to submit this for the record. 01=22-07 Pa e 15 9. JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNfNG COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairman Eastman: We have next person in favor of this, who would like to speak is from the Kennedy Commission, Cesar, Pm not going to try to your last name either because always flub it up. Cesar Covarrubias: Thank you Chairman Eastman, my name is Cesar Covarrubias, l'm with the Kennedy Commission, our organization is at 17701 Cowan Avenue, Suite 200, Irvine, CA. The organization advocates for affordable housing development for low income families, those making less than ten dollars an hour. As was stated by a previous speaker, a lot of these jobs that are created in the Resort area fall into that category, folks making fifteen dollars an hour or less or making ten dollars an hour or less, and with the housing crisis at`this moment, with a hourly wage that is needed afi $28.56, to be able to afford a two bedroom apartment in Orange County; that's hard for these working families, and iYs a difficult situation. I just want to go back and touch in a few issues that I think are important to this conversation. One is that there is a recommendation by the City Council that there is a need for a strategic plan to be able to make a dent in this crisis, and the Council committed to a 1,200 units in the next four years. If you go back just a bit in terms of mandates that comefrom the State in terms of housing needs, welook at the need forJow and very low in the City of Anaheim and that number that comes from the City is about 4,000 units. We recognize that there is a large discrepancythere but we do apply the Council for taking that brave step forward in saying there's an issue that needs to be dealt in this community and this is our ' proposaL And we applaud the Council and staff who are working hard to at trying #o accomplish that goal, thaYs more than any other city in Orange County is actually doing towards remedying the need for affordable housing. And it takes innovative, new programs such as #he proposed overlay,'such as the proposals recent amendments that you also dealt with through density bonus law, so to actually be able to make a dent in that affordable housing crisis. So, the issue before you todayJ think is something that we would support from the perspective that it is providing extra opportunities to be able to encourage ' affordable housing development. And you step back and say 1,200 units and at thispoint, the City, where are they at and in terms of ineeting those goals, well the City is making great strides on that, they are proposing projects, pipeline development in the line to the tune of 200 units or so that during this past ~ year that are making a dent towards that. Now we have to look at the remaining number, a thousand units in the next three years, the City can't do it alone, we need partners, and business community needs to be a partner, needs to be part of the discussion at this point, how do we get this resolve, and there is examples of that in the Santa Clara Valley where the Silicon Valley where Hewlett Packard and a lot of the dot com and also just tech companies have partnered up with cities, local jurisdictions to address this issue, they've actually set a goal of five thousand units in ~ve years, and from the last indication that I have, they have actually have met that goal, and it's five thousand units across the board for housing for everybody. Now in this City we're producing units to the tune of 12,000 units in the next five-ten years for Platinum Triangle and areas throughout the downtown, again, a 1,200 units isn't realfy a lot to ask and I fhink we need to ask the business community to be a large part of that focus. And, also considering the amount of displacement that is going on as a result of new development throughout the city, we do encourage this pretty good proposal to be part of the mitigating factor to mitigate some of those losses. In addition to that, the other issue that we believe need to be raised is that when the housing affordability's is out of reach, we also need to be innovated and think about what other jurisdictions are doing, other jurisdictions are doing just what this proposal is proposing, they're looking at corridor housing, close proximately to major job centers, this makes a lot of sense, we have 91 freeway at capacity at this point, it would be nice to have folks who work in the Resort Area live in the Resort Area or close by it instead of clogging up the 91 freeway. Thank you for your time on that. Chairman Eastman: Thank you. At this time, I'd like to call Tom from the Anaheim City School District. Tom Rizzuti: Good aftemoon Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Tom Rizzuti and I am here today on behalf of the Anaheim City School District, 1001 South East Street. On behalf of the District, I'd like to thank the Planning Commission for the opportunity to address this item. The district is not opposed to zoning change before the Commission today, however, this proposed project underscores an issue for which the District has had concerns since the 2004 adoption of the revised General Plan which authorized residential development in the Platinum Triangle area The • property under consideration for the zoning change today is closest to Paul Revere School which is straight up Anaheim Boulevard. This school also happens to be the school that has been currently identified bythe District to absorb any students thafwould be generated from the Platinum Triangle. As 01-22-07 Page 16 JANUARY 22, 2007 ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ you might imagine, the potentiaf cumulative effects of these developments could be staggering. Even ' with a modest amount, a modest number of students coming from the Piatinum Triangle, the District would be placed in a situation where a schooi such as Paul Revere, which currently has about 900 students enrollment, would be looking for space for students from an additional 10,000 residential units. While a proposed construction of Ponderosa School will create some relief in this general area, that school is expected to only serve the immediate area around the PonderosaSchool site itself which is going to be on the corner of Orangewood and Haster. The District wishes to once again take this opportunity to ask the City to work with us in coming up with a creative way to identify a potentia{ school site in or near the Platinum Triangle, and subseque~tly this area, which would allow the districf the flexibility to construct a school in the event that enrollment from these areas exceeds what the current expectations are. Once again, I'd like to thank the Commission for the opportunity to speak and Pd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Chairman Eastman: Thank you. And now we're moving into people who have indicated that they're in opposition to this item. Reed Royalty, l'm not sure I pronounced that one right, but, with the Orange County Taxpayers Association. Reed, are you there? OK, so we'll move on, and if he shows up, we can go out of line Edd Karlan, from, representing the Hilton Hotel in Anaheim. Edd Karlan: Good afternoon, my name is Edd Karlan, Pm the Director of Sales and Marketing of the Hilton Anaheim' Hotel, on 777 Convention Way. I've held that position there #or the past seven years. Our posifion will support the decision to maintain the Resort Area intact and not approve the residential p1an. The Resort District was founded on just that, the resort and tourism area dedicated to hosting the convention guests and leisure travefers alone. We'need more tourists not residents in the Resort District. Albeit we do respect the need for affordable housing but just not within the confines of the Resort District. Thank you. ~ Chairman Eastman: Thank you: Now, I have two people from, that have identified, themselves from the Walt Disney Company that are in opposition so I just want to ask the two of you, do you need to speak in tandem or does one want to come before the other, because you're out of order in my, and this one is Brian Elliott. George Mihlsten: George Mihlsten, Latham & Watkins ~epresenting Walt Disney World Co., PII speak first and Brian can speak at a later date. George Mihlsten, Latham & Watkins, 633 West 5th Street, Los Angeles, California, on behalf of the Walt Disney World Co. We have submitted comprehensive letter outlining our concerns regarding the potential amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and the complete failure of the addendum to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. While we support the concept of increasing affordable housing in the City, the proposed amendment that you're being asked by the developer to approve today,is in conflict with the City's General Plan, and with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. This amendment is a fundamental shift in the land use pattern of the Resort Area and would have significant economic and environmental impacts on the City and the ' Anaheim Resort area. Moreover, the proposed amendment is in clear violation of the California Environmental Quality Act. I will not try to go through all the issues raised in our letter and the tech reports of Chris A. Joseph & Associates and Fehr & Peers, Transportation Consulting Firm. These firms are experts in assessing environmental impacts and routinely prepare environmental documents for governmental agencies. 8oth of these firms have extensive experience and knowledge of Anaheim in the Anaheim Resort Area. Soth firms have concluded that the proposed amendment and the proposed project wifl have significant impacts on the environment, among the impact areas the proposed project wi11 have impacts in the areas of traffic, air quality, land use, schools, parks, police and fire. In fact, it will have impacts in over a dozen impact areas. This proposed amendment that is here before you today will have significant impacts in the environment and the evidence submitted in the record today shows clearly these will be significant. I'd like to make a couple points about the addendum. First, is it's complete failure to adequately disclose what the pro}ect is. It is clear that this amendment is being done for a specific property at the request of a specific developer for a specific project. Despite this fact that the ~ addendum completely fails to disclose any real infocmation concerning thiS pfojeCt. It is clear this amendment is being done at the request of SunCal as was represented in the staffpresentation and as indicated by Mr: Elfend. This proposed amendment is the first step ir- approving a large; massiveproject. : 01-22-07 Page 17 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Based on the underlying density hotel rooms, this project may involve up to 2,000 residential units, two and ha{f mi4{ion square feef of building and parking and almost 9,000 residents. Now just down the street from this project in the same Anaheim Resort Specific Plan is another project requesting to amend the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and to add four hundred residential units into the area. The City has required that project do an EIR, thaYs the Park Anaheim Project. The City's environmental checklist confirms that the four hundred unit Park Anaheim Project as well as this project before will have a number of very significant, potentially significant environmental impacts. In fact, the City has concluded that the four hundred unit Park Anaheim project will have potential impacts in fou~teen impacts areas. And the cumulative impacts to the Resort Area from the proposed inclusion of residential in the Resort Area needs to be analyzed. The potential cumulative environmental impacts are significant. ' Moreover, potential impacts in the overall economics of the Resort Areas are significant. How is that an EIR is required for a four hundred unit residential project but an addendum is OK for 2,000 or even a fifteen hundred unit residential project? It isn`t. Calling it an overlay zone versus a zone change or a de-annexation doesn't change the environmental impacts, they are still significant. The proposed amendments fails in every material way to comply with the CEQA. There is a failure to adequately describe the project, you can't even tell when you read the amendment how many units are being talked about, you have to go and calculate ihat based on the underlying density' of the property. There is a failure to analyze any of the potential impacts from the project, it doesn't tell you how big this project is, that it could be two million; two and half million, three million square feet. There is a deferral of analysis in almost every impact category, you cannot defer analysis under CEQA. You can't merely say iYs going to be consistent with whatever the underlying infrastructure is, we don't know what that means, we don't know what that really is, is it school infrastructure, is it the police infrastructure, is it the fire infrastructure, are the streets, is it #he storm drains, how does anybody rationally know what the size of this project really will be? It is completely unclear whether the mitigation measures will mitigate any of the impacts. We can't tell because we can't figure ouf what the description is of the project or what the impacts are. 7his amendment and this project is a poster child for project splitting. Again, this amendment fails whether iYs an action on a plan ~ amendment or an action on a zone change or an action on an overlay zone, it just does not comply with the law. The legal standard is clear under CEQA, under section 15.164 which sets for the standards for addendums, clearly this does not meet the standard for an addendum. This is not a"minor technical change, this is a fundamental shift in the land use policies of the Resort Area and the potential impacts are significant. And as the technical reports of Chris A. Joseph & Associates show, as a technical report of Fehr & Peers shows, there are significant impacts on the environment. Those reports detail the projected impacts in traffic, air quality, schools, water quality, all those are detailed with quantitative as well as qualitative information, that information is missing from the addendum. This project is also in conflict with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and the Specific, and General Plan. We respectfully request this project be denied, that this addendum be rejected and Commission direct staff to prepare an EIR in accordance with GEQA for a project with a real project description. 1 want to be very clear, we support the concepts of the City looking at and providing for additional affordable housing in the City, clearly it's an issue that needs to be addressed. We are prepared to be a part of that long term solution and that long term process. But including this in the Anaheim Resort Area is not appropriate. Thank you very much and we're happy to answer any questions you might have. Chairman Eastman: Pm sorry. Reed Royalty: Good afternoon Madam Chair and members, my name is Reed Royalty, I'm president of the Orange County Taxpayers Association. I apologize for not being in the room when you called my name previously, I was responding to a minor family emergency and stepped out, just as I stepped out you called my name. The Orange County Taxpayer's Association has worked with this Planning Commission and with the City Council over the past decade at least, and maybe twelve or fifteen years. For exampte, and these are just items that I jotted down that I could remember we've done, out of a dozen or so times we've been before you, I wrote, I personally wrote and signed the ballot initiative which resulted in the extension of the two percent portion of the transient occupancy tax that provides for the improvements in the Resort Area. I testi~ed on behalf of the City in the, in the business between Disney • Corporation and the stadium, and the Angels. I was the founding co-chair of what was then called the Disneyland 2000, which we now know of course as the refer to as the Second Gate, the California Adventure. l testified in the support of maintaining the good site lines and the visual appearance of the 01-22-07 Page 18 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Resort Area when it was threatened a several years ago by some other type of project and I have testified on behalf of the Taxpayers Association in favor of the Specific Plans. Now why'did we do this? The Taxpayers Association felt that we were doing that to preserve and improve and enhance the character of the Resort Area which was to the benefit of the taxpayers and Anaheim, and all of Orange County. And from what I've seen of this project, just having seen this presentat'ion,'it would seem to me that this threatens the very qualities, the very attributes of the Resort Area which the City has worked so hard on and which the Taxpayers Association has attempted to help you with over the years. Thank you very much. Chairman Eastman: Thankyou sir, and now will Brian Elliott, please. Brian Elliott: Good afternoon Madam Chair and Planning Commission. I'd first fike to start with, there has been quite of bit of discussion before me about the affordable housing piece of this and I want tobe on ' the record #hat Disney Company is very much in favor of affordable housing. We realize the issue but we really don't believe that this development is about affordable housing. I want to thank you all for your strong interest in consideration of this issue before,you today, and the Disney Company values our relationship and knows we all are here today because of an unmatched partnership and a commitment in guiding the future of the Anaheim Resort Area. The transformation of #he Anaheim'Resort bistrict that - began twelve years ago was made possible through commitments between the City, Disney and the Resort Distriat businesses, to de~ne and adopt a master plan and a vision for the resort. After several `' ' years of master planning, the City worked to define a rigorous process with detailed design standards and established boundaries to preserve land use compatibility in commercial recreational zoning. The protection of the tourism based area within the Anaheim Resort is critical for us to achieve our goal in making the Anaheim Resort a world class destination. The Anaheim Resort Area hasbeen incredibly successful and we want to continue to build upon that successfuf partnership. To put this into financial prospective, in only five percent (5%) of the City land area which is about 2.2 square miles, the Anaheim ~ Resort District produces over fifty percent of revenues for the City. The investment in the ARA, Anaheim Resort Area, is unprecedented. Billions of dallars were invested collaboratively between the City, the State and private businesses, and hundreds of millions more have been invested or reinvested since the Resort expansion opened in 2001. The success of the Resort District has been a huge economic boost to the City and the area businesses and we want to grow on that success and keep things moving. Any change or uncertainty about the future of the Resort District could compromise future investment. Continued growth is directly tied to maintaining the commitments we made to the success of this area. Plans and concepts have been and continue to be developed based on the preservation of the existing zoning and detail design standards that were iaid out. A hundred percent residential development will ' compromise existing reso~t operations and brings uncertainty to the future, which in turn slows down growth. The Resort District is a long standing agreement that has produced significant resources and any change to that agreement could compromise future opportunities for collaboration. One approval of a non-compfiant use sets a precedent that cannot be taken back, it puts the entire Resort Master Plan at risk, allowing other residential devetopers to use precedent to circumvent the planning process and justify change. Residential development, whole residential development is not a compatible use for the Resort District. The needs for tourists much different than residents. The Resort District is a twenty four/seven operation with activity throughout the night, bus, taxi and vehicle traffic is not conducive for children walking to school. Conventions bring in large numbers of visitors with aggressive schedules and creates a new constituency that will likely have issues and complaints based on standard noise and activity from the Resort Area. So in closing we are asking that you take into account thelikely consequences of this incompatible use and weigh that against the benefits and at a minimum, make this devefopment follow the appropriate process by presenting a project whose impact can be studied for its environmental impacts and fiscal impacts to this area. It is only fair that you hold this developer #o the same standards you hold every other developer who does business in your City. Thank you for letting me speak today. Chairman Eastman: Thank you, next I have Paul Bostwick. • Paul Bostwick: Good afternoon Chairman Eastman,members of the Planning Commission. There have been somevery sloquentpoints brought up, and I, and I'H'make mine very briefly. 8asically, I think you need to only look at a couple of the items you've already approved today,'193 apartmenfs onLincoln, 352 01-22-07 . Page 19 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES , apartments on the Orange Drive-in site, plus if you take into the 884 possibilities there from the Orange side, that's 1,429 units. With the property on Ball Road, the Park property, with properties throughout the City that are being developed, another one that I detest which is the one out on LaPalma and the railroad tracks, thaYs another subject,l think we're building a lot of apartments, we're building a lot of housing in this City, and I haven't even talked about the Platinum Triangle, as far as the number of units there. Orange County and Anaheim is the largest provider of low income housing in the City, in Orange County, we have the most apartments in Orange County, we're not short on housing. You'd like more housing, but we have a lot of housing in the City of Anaheim. We have spent probably that fifty million that Mr. Elfend talked about on rebuilding Jeffery Lynne, how about the Leatrice Wakefield neighborhood just south of this, it needs to. be rebuilt. This corner is a central gateway as you saw in the presentation, there is a gateway standard or monument right directly cattycorr-er on Katella Avenue, this is one of the main transit corridors and transportation areas. This is not an area that needs housing, it needs the continuation of the Anaheim Resort what it was designed for, what we promise the peopte we would do with the area, what we gave approvals for. The two hotels, the Staybridge and Holiday Inn, they bought in to this plan that they were in the Anaheim Resort Area and now you wanYto saddle them with housing next to them, you're going from 262 mobile homes, small residential, to 1500 apartments, 1500. ThaYs what I call overcrowding and too much density. It needs to remain in the Anaheim Resort with no overlay and keep the, keep it as a hotel area. Thank you. Chairman Eastman: Thank you PauL Next I have Charles Ahler and Charles represents the Anaheim . Visitor and Convention Bureau. Charles Ahlers: f do, Madam Chair, Commissioners. Good afternoon, Pm Charles Ahlers, Pm presidenf of the Anaheim Orange County Visitor and Convention Bureau and I have been so for the pastfourteen years. The Anaheim Orange County Visitor and Convention Bureau represents about 800 tourism related businesses in Anaheim and throughout Orange County. Pm here today to express my concern regarding • any fundamental changes such as housing in the Anaheim Resort District. Twelve years ago a vision was crafted to extend the stay of Anaheim's visitors that would result more revenue for what local government and businesses alike. A number of us worked diligently to create a brand and to create a compact area known as the Anaheim Resort District, a place where visitors can stay, where hotels, restaurants and attractions and other visitor infrastructure would flourish. The District accommodates the majority of Anaheim's visitors and infrastructure today and serves as a catalyst for future visitor and infrastructure development. Since the inception, the Anaheim Resort, new hotels and eateries and attractions have come on the scene and business, visitor related businesses have been robust. Today the City enjoys transient tax occupancy tax collections in excess of $70 million annually. Before the Anaheim Resort in 1994, the TOT collections were less than half of that, about $32 million per year, and by the way, our hotels are doing very, very well. They lead the nation in average rate increase, average occupancy increase, and occupied rooms for an area, and in RevPAR, we're very, very proud of that, we've got a great product and it's doing very well. In 2006, Anaheim hosted 21 million visitors who spent about $4.7 billion during the course of their stay here. By diluting the Anaheim Resort with projects other than visitor infrastructure, we place our success as a visitor destination, a visitor destination at risk, we must be able to grow and evolve with the needs of our visitors in order to remain competitive. The Anaheim Resort is only 2.2 miles or about five percent (5%) of the City's lantl mass. It would seem to me that there are several other areas that non-visitor related projects could be developed. Please consider leaving the Anaheim Resort as it was intended, as an economic engine for the City and its visitor related businesses. lt's proven to be successful over the past dozen years and why jeopardize the future. Thank you very much. Chairman Eastman: Thank you Charles. Next we have Bill O'Connell, and Bill is with Best Western Stovall Hotels. Bill O'Connell: Good afternoon Chairman Eastman and Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. Speaking after several other people have talked in opposition to this, I don't want to • be repetitive but as you can see by the pictures that this young lady presented earlier, you can see what terrible shape the Resort was in before the Resort was created, and it just goes to show you that do we need a plan and when all the businesses in that area work with the City and Disney and so forth, to create , 01-22-07 Page 20 JANUARY 22, 2007 . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ the Resort, I never dreamt that things coufd be changed later. We all voted to tax ourselves to heip pay for all those improvements, to maintain them, and, nobody, for those who came to speak in favor in this, none of us are here speaking against affordable housing, thaYs not the issue. Affordable housing's an issue that, it's a critical issue for the County, the State, the entire area, iYs not }ust in the Anaheim issue, and we all know iYs needed and we all have to work together to create them, but the revenue to the City of Anaheim which all citizens including low income people, benefit from the TOT tax revenue that accounts for over fifty percent (50%) of the revenue to the City. We don't want to jeopardize the Resort Area, which is a revenue generator for the City, thaYs all this issue is about. And, we all need to work together for housing, but the gentlemen brought up that iYs going to be twenty or thirty years before that land is going to be developed for hotels. We're not saying iYs going to be used for hotels but iYs going to be used for something that caters to the tourists who come to the Resort, it doesn't have to be necessarily hotel development. So, anyway, without being repetitive, there is, you know the people who, iYs like : when the dairies came to Cypress, the dairies are there and then all of the sudden the housing comes and then the dairies, the people who move into the area complain about the dairies being there, so the dairies have to leave. So, thaYs a crazy analogy, but we don't, you know the people who live in the Resort Area are not going to be happy with all the tourists in the area either. So any way, a lot of people said what I want to say but I'll cut it short, and quit with that. Thank you very much. Chairman Eastman: We'll note that you agreed with former speakers and we appreciate you keeping it ' brief, that is something that l didn't remind everybody about but we do appreciate it when speakers don't get terribly repetitive which they say they agree with previous ones, and bring up some new point. The last card that I have is for Judith Serafini, I hope that I pronounced that right Judith,' and she is another one that we have a letter from, that we got today. So. Judith Serafini: Thank you Chairman Eastman, and Planning Commissioners. My name is Judith Serafini, I am a resident owner at Plantation Mobile Home Estates, one of the two parks that are on the parcel of ~ land under discussion today. Pd also like to bring forth the fact since 1994 I've been a community organizer and activist in the City of Anaheim and I know what it means to plan and to have the vision, and have years, I was involved in the Ross Park Development, thaf started with a dirt field and a run down : school. A vision and a dream of gang members and their parents, and today, it serves low income families, residents and it still under development. So, Pm familiar with how long it takes. The reuse of this land is really not a new issue. The owners of the park under the business name Frank Family Partnership have cfearly indicated that at some point the land will be sold, the homes demofished, the residents relocated. The land that the mobile home park overlay, and Pd like you to realize that's, that is iYs own designation, it doesn't, it isn't a spin off of residential. Mobile home park overlay is iYs own physical designation, in the ordinances, and it sits upon design, as part of the Anaheim Resort Plan Area years ago. There was an expectation that that site would become home to some type of resort hotel in the future. !Ys taken thirteen years for the City of Anaheim to take care of the permits, the environmental impacts, the studies and all that went with to just put a bull dozer in the ground for Gene Autry Way, and that is undergoing development right now over 60 coaches have been purchased, there are people who have been relocated. We're on the back side, just so everyone understands, we know that we are on hotel ring, on the back side of the hotel ring as far as Plantation, Satellites sits more adjacent to, from iYs door, it can see the new Garden Walk, and so iYs a more forward facing piece of property. And believe me, we have tourists that walk through our property, ask questions, go to the store, walk to Disneyland, they have no problems getting from the hotels on either side of us walking through or getting to the Anaheim Resort Transit hub and taking themselves around the area and throughout Orange County and even L.A. So, urban planning does takes time, it takes a vision, it takes research, it takes gaining partners to sign on, participate, implement it, and just because the Anaheim Resort Plan was conceived over ten years ago and some pieces are just now being implemented, it doesn't make it obsolete and it doesn't give us a cause to change. And granted, that Frank Family Partnership wants its money today, and it does own land and has the right to profit from its sale and reuse, and there's no dispute with land owner rights, iYs a fundamental right across America, but where the dispute lies, is that there is also some fundamental facts that drive the Anaheim Resort Plan. ln the Anaheim Bulletin on August 31 St, it was ~ reported that Anaheim is the number one resort among the travel markets. City officials reported that the 45.2 million people are expected to visit this designation they visit, they spent a record $8.25 billion in Anaheim and Orange County. Near to the destination, they must have enough rooms and beds to keep 01-22-07 _ Page 21 JAN UARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • them in the City of Anaheim Resort District so we can gain bed tax, sales tax, use of the attractions, and, put in for the purpose of doing just that, making us the num6er one tourist'attraction, attracting tourists to a ResorYArea. Frank Family Partnership and SunCal propose indicates that 1,500 residential units plus fifteen percent (15°!0) affordable components, 200 units, would enhance the Anaheim Resort Plan within the Anaheim Resort District. 1n fact, surrounding the Anaheim Resort District are both rental and sales product, originally it was to be all market rate rental but the market asked for condo product to purchase, a portion of the rental units were turned into condos and families are moving in daily, and I think there was a report in the Anaheim Bulletin just last week about that. In less than four blocks west to the property, we have an all new rental complex called Renaissance, with studios to three bedrooms ranging from $1,200 up to $4,000 per month, that's in walking distance to Anaheim Stadium, UCI Hospital, banks and restaurants. Within six to eightblocks to thenorth is the collection of new rental units for an urban life style located in downtown Anaheim across from City NaIL Again, these are market rate units in the same price range. And just down the street to the west on Katella, is #he all new Platinum Triangle where the market rate condos and rental product are projected to be 1,500 to 1,900 units. All this market rate product must be supported by a infrastructure that can physically handle the traffic, the water, the electricity, the gas, the telephone, the computer usage that is neededbyfamilies of any size. In fact, building had to slow down so that the infrastructure improvements could be completed. This doesn't take into account the fact that the schools must be able to accommodate the children from new families and we all know how the school development is going these days, and we've heard from the gentlemen, iYs not a fast track. And, t, uh it was my understanding thaf even the Ponderosa Schoo{ expansion has been slowed down, though you can correct me on that one. It also appears that another 1,500 market rate units would take its toll on the area let alone interfere with #he`planned committed and bulldozetl land already in the works according to the Platinum Triangle Plan. So let's get to the200 affordable units which everybody seems to keep hanging their little hat on that carrot. ~or those low, low, low and moderate families that are Frank Family Partnership and SunCal proposal. And Pm'going to call your attention to the report in the Register in mid-August, 2006, officials say Affordable Housing on schedule. ~ City staff report that 1,284 homes should be completed within a four year window, but the argument is that we need more, we need new subsidized housing in the Anaheim Resort Plan as an extension of the Platinum Triangle down the street on Katella and State College. City of Anaheim had pointed out, putting under Planning Director Sherry Vander Dussen, the land and high rise construction costs the City would have to spend three times as much as the Platinum Triangle to subsidize a low income, low cost unit Mayor Pringle thinks it's a waste of tax payer money to use those dollars in an area that's so expensive. l want to make the public investment where we can maximize the benefit to thefamilies. So the fact is that the City of Anaheim will achieve its goal set by the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan adopted by the City Council in August, 2005, to produce rental units for low, low and moderate income families. Two of those eight projects receive tax credits subsidiaries in 2006. Some of the projects include project based Section 8 housing vouchers and some of these products such as Off Broadway adjacent to the downtown area are already well underway. And I sat in every one of the Housing Commission meetings when these projects were being voted on, so please do not be fooled, they are in the pipeline, dirt is being turned right now, many of them you can drive by and see, we are on track. As Planning Commissioners, you are duty bound to examine the fiscal impact and feasibility as well as the ethical impact of any decision that impacts the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Fiscally, the proposal cost the City of Anaheim millions of dollars in lost revenue from the Resort District, a plan that was set in place years ago with the full knowledge of all property owners in the Anaheim Resort District. You will be renewing, voting to renew low low, and low income seniors, and the disabled, single parents and children of working families from the most affordable properties in Anaheim that range from $900 to $1200 per month in some cases. We have people living there that make $8-10, not the $15-16 and $28 you're hearing. The fact is, that you're going to take homes away from homeowners. And you're not replacing it with anything that they could financial afford to rent. Even with an affordable unit promised, there are no subsidies large enough to keep that promise. To the very east of the Reso~t District on West Street, north of Katella and south of Cerritos sits Hermosa Village. Thanks to the City of Anaheim RedevelopmenUCommunity Development Housing Department, many, many resort workers and their families were taken out of the hands of slum lords, protected from a daily barrage of drug dealing, dead bodies and gunfire from gang members and • lived through the lengthy relocation and rehabing that produced new affordable rental properties. The property houses families in two to three bedroom units and is supported by a community center and preschool, and many of these families were relocated back' in to affordable housing, and they sit. It costs 01-22-07 Page 22 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • the City, Hermosa Village costs the city approximately $54 million but it provided that much needed work force housing in a safer, cieaner neighborhood across the street from the 6ack door of Disneyland's property. It aiso reduced the calis for service for both the Anaheim police and fire department: Today there are still property owners there surrounding #hat area that aren't adhering to any standards, they're still ober crowded, and they're still available for sale and rehabing, and they can serve the work force housing that we're so concerned about, that live and work in the district. So the point is the City of Anaheim is not without options to continue to provide additional affordable housing that is adjacent to the Resort District. On the twenty four hour bus line and within walking distance to both jobs and existing schools. Frank Family Partnership and BunCal have every landowner's right to reuse the property and to benefit financially from that reuse, thaYs not in dispute, the deveVopment of this property in accordance with the existing Resort Plan will do thatwithout negatively impacting both the City and Anaheim taxpayers and current homeowners and renters ofboth mobile home parks. As long as it's within that _ plan, they:could do anything they want and no one should object to that, but not change the entire plan ' that is still going to heavily impact everyone. And I repeat urban planning takes time, you start with a vision, you research, you gain partners to sign on and participate and then you implement it, and just because the Anaheim Resort Plan was conceived over ten years ago, and iYs being'implemented in pieces'and parts, and we're here today, doesn'f inean it needs to change. And I really think you for considering my point my view. Chairman Eastman: Now I'm left with, is there anyone else, I don't have anymore cards for people that in opposition to this, is there anyone else who wants to speak and didn't'turn in a card? If not, then we're ' going to go'to Frank and Michael and Pm going to let you, the card says Michael wants to'be the at the end but Frank said he wanted to rebut. So, PII let you gentlemen decide who goes first. Michael Zischke: Thank you Madam Chair and Planning Commissioners, my name is Michael Zischke, with Cox, Castle and Nicholson, and I am here to offer rebuttal comments in response to the remarks ~ from the Latham & Watkins, and we have submitted a letter which responds to their letter. In responding, ' I want to set a little context for how this project, how this proposed change to the Residential Overlay is being considered under the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council on August 22"a adopted a mitigated negative declaration that evaluated the addition of residential units, on two sites, including the sites in question tonight. They evaluated that residential overlay based on two prior environmenta{ impact reports that covered the area, the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR and the City's Plan General Plan Update EIR. And they evaluated whether residential uses on these sites in conjunction with a hotel, that was the proposal, would present new or substantially more severe impacts, one of the things that was key to that analysis was the requirement in that residential overlay of impact equivalency, the condition was, and it's the same in the proposed changes before you today. The impacts have to be equivalent or less than what a hotel unit would be. City Council concluded on August 22"a that there weren't any new or substantially more severe impacts, they adopted that mitigated negative declaration referring to and tearing back to those two prior EIR's. That action has been taken, that evidentiary record has been set and no one has challenged that. So all that analysis about whaf it means to bring residential uses to these two areas in that mitigated negative declaration; that is part of the evidence that is before the Commission tonight, no challenges have been filed to that and no challenge can be filed to that. The time to challenge that under either the California Environmental Quality Act or the Planning and Zoning law has run. The reason thaYs important with respect to answering the CEQA claims that have been made is that means the provisions of the CEQA guidelines 15162 through 15164 apply, and those are set forth in the addendum thaYs set forth before you. Basically, guidelines 15162 says when you've adopted a mitigated negative declaration as was done here, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared unless there is a new or substantially more severe impact. At what you Iook at is the change that you're making, we're not looking at bringing residential uses to the sites, we are looking at a change to the overlay on one site to allow residential units on their own without being associated with the hotel use, with the affordability requirement thaYs been discussed. WhaYs important about that in considering both the letter from Latham & Watkins and the two consultant letters that are prepared, they don't reference, they don't acknowledge the fact that approval already occurred, , they don't, they don't cite the legal standards that apply here from guidelines 15162 through guidelines 15164.' Mr. Mihlsten in his comments did cite guideline 151624 but he cited part of it and 1'd like to read the entire guideline, this is the guideline subsection B that refers to an addendum to an adopted negative 01-22-07 Page 23 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • declaration, and that is an addendum to an adopted mitigated negative declaration, excuse me, to an adopted negative deciaration, may be prepared if only minor technical changes oc additions a~e necessary. ThaYs the part that he read. Or none of the conditions described in section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. In other words, you can either have minor technical changes or you can have more than minor technical changes, but if they don't rise to the level of the new or substantialty more severe significant impact, iYs appropriate to prepare an addendum. And that second part was left out of thepresentation. The difference between this project and the Parc Anaheim project is precisely that fact. We are changing here a prior approval, the same as was done for the other property owners in the areas, and just like them, when a~d if there is a specific proposal to be submitted to the City, that will have to go through its own environmental review. And we're adding the possibility of residential only should the Commission and the Council decide to make this change, but that still preserves all the other development options on this site as theywere preserVed on the other site thaYs subject to the Residential Overlay. When you Iook at the consultant letter and the claim for example that the air quality impact hasn't been evaluated, all ofi those claims suffer from that same fatal ffaw, they're looking at the impact of bringing residential uses to the area, but that was'already evaluated. In fact, that can`t be challenged. All we're talking about now is having residential without being part of a hotel. So, it is in fact not as nearly as broad of change in scope as has been set forth and as I said, we're subject to the same standards impacY equivalency, wiU ensure and it's written into the approval, that you can't have greater infrastructure impacts thanthe hotel units woutd, precisely the same limiting condition that was the basis for the City Council's determination before, that were no'new or significant impact. One of the things thaYs kind of nice about this, when you have'aprior approval under CEQA, that hasn't been challenged, you're in one of the more secure parts of the CEQA process, and here, where the analysis and the evidence that is being relied on is the same type of analysis, the same limiting condition as was adopted by the City Council and is protected by the fact that no one challenged it, you're likewise in a very secure position. So, there is some fiurther . comments in the letter, Pd be happy to respond to questions but, in our view, this fully complies with CEQA and you'~e actually in one of the more protected spots in the CEQA process if I can refer#o it that way. Thank you. Frank Elfend: Thank you, just let me make a few comments here and what I was doing while Mr. Zischke was speaking was trying to organize my response, not having to go through every single comment, but there are a few people who got up today, Larry Slagle, Edd Karlan, Charles Ahlers, and Bill O'Connell, and they all kind of had a fundamental comment, and that was they didn't want to see any change in the Resort Area, and they didn't want to see any residential. I would like to make it clear today for the public record that the process here today, approaching this evening by theway, is a by product of the City requesting of a consultant that they hired a study to look at this area. It was a deductive process whereby the City recognized that there were some parcels, some properties that were going to come into this City for development at some future date. They retained a consultant, the City retained a consultant, that consultant prepared a report, they evaluated three sites and whether or not we always may agree or disagree on the exact wording or the numbers or so forth, that part of it clearly true. And what this study recommended of those three sites evaluated only one of them, and I don't want to view this as a precedent setting request we're making because we don't believe it is, we don't believe this amendment is precedent setting, although one site was viewed favorable for conversion into residential land use, and that was this property. Why? Because it evaluated the fiscal impacts, it looked at the TOT, it looked at the least payment revenue measurements, and after evaluating all of those technical issues and determining that the fact this fact would not develop for some twenty five to fifty five years in the future, and I've worked on project in this city where I'd be able to tell you that this City has been faced with decisions like this in the past, and in those cases, in some cases, maybe not most cases, the vision of the Council and the Commission has been to recognize'that fact. Sometimes change is good. And so this was the only site that was found not to have any impacts in those areas that I mentioned. Secondarily, as I also mentioned in my presentation, this Commission and the City Council ~ approved a Residential Overfay Zone that permits full time, year-round residential development on this site. And so iYs not'as if sort of a flood gates have not been open if that's the concern of some of those who have spoken, because residential development is permitted whether or not for argument purposes, , 01-22-07 Page 24 JANl1ARY 22, 2007 PLANNINGCOMMISSION MINUTES • iYs in a condo, hotel, if it's in some sort of integrated use, those are going to be full time residents, we're going to generate the same sort of concerns thaf we expressed today that were evaluated by this Commission and by the Council and found to be acceptable. And back then, the City made a determination of environmental equivalency on all of those impacts, to determine that if it didn't pass, if it passed the threshold, there would have to be further environmental documentation. Thirdly, in response to those conversations of those individuals involved, 1 again, want to point out that this is a mobile home park, it is a residential land use, it is not producing any TOT, it is not producing any commercial use, and it does provide a residential zoning, and it is surrounded, if you've been out to that site, Commissioners, and you have walked around the area, there is residential housing right next door to it. It is truly a portion of the City that by no means is an essential core of the Anaheim Resort Area. Some of the other comments I won't spend too much time either, I very much appreciate your comments earlier but I would point out that is another project in that area that actually we had worked on, and that was a project called Hotel Circle. You all should. know, have a completely different set of development standards then does the Anaheim Resort Area, and if you were to go out today you would notice that there are three hotelspresent, and there's another one under construction. I betieve probably the one area of the City where there has been further hotel development in an area which is not a part of the Disney Resort Specific Plan. , An area by the way, which Mr. Reed Royalty who spoke earlier, did not support. Finally and lastly, I will speak to the comments of our last speaker, and I had an opportunity today to read the Orange County Register by Sara Tully who's behind me, and I read a quote of this individuaf, Judith Serafini, is that, hopefully I pronounced that correctly, and I didn't quite understand the comments. Here is someone who iives in a mobile home park, who is not opposed to development, but is someone that believes that, a that a resort hotel on this site will be better than replacing it with residentiaf but has an affordable housing component. That to me is a very unique situation. ' Sol can't, I can't respond to ~ that because iYs so very different. Besides from those comments, I have nothing further to say unless you have any questions of myself or any of the other individuals who are present and thank you very much for the time. ~~ Chairman Eastman: Thank you, I believe at this time, if there is no one else who has anything to say on this, we will close the public hearing portion, and then we can open it up to questions from Commissioners staff, questions or comments? Commissioner Velasquez? Commissioner Faessel, OK. Commissioner Faessel: OK, thank you all very much. I'd like to ask staff if I may, what the overriding principles were when there was the creation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, what were we trying, what were we trying to achieve. Susan Kim, Senior Planner: I think the best way to answer to the question is to read from the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan in Section 2.1 which is called Purpose of the Specific Plan. The Anaheim Resort containing theme parks, convention facilities, visitor serving uses such as hotels, in an unique type of land use concentration that requires special consideration and attention that ensures the various elements come together to create an exciting, attractive environment. The unique synergy, a destination resort must have is not easily address by traditional zoning. Because of this, it is necessary to establish a basic framework which provides planning policies and standards which assure that visitor serving facilities and theme park uses will come together as an integrated whole. The Specific Plan is intended to establish this framework thereby ensuring an attractive destination resort environment. In addition to overall planning policy, the Specific Plan establishes comprehensive zoning regulations and design guidelines which recognize the distinctive nature of tourist and convention oriented uses and effectively implements the policies of the Specific Plan. It also identifies the public facilities and services that will be needed to support the development and describes how the project and its related improvements will be phased. And then it goes in section 2.2 to say Speci~c Plan policies and it talks about the goals that in section 1.4 of the documents, and those are included in paragraph 14 of your staff report. Commissioner FaesseL• Would you mind reading those into the record. 01-22-07 Page 25 ; JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Susan Kim Senior Planner: And I'll read those into the record. And those are to maintain and encourage the Anaheim's position as a nationally recognized tourist, convention and recreation center, to increase sales tax yield and to further enhance the economic face of the community, thereby lessening the tax burden on real property, to encourage the devefopment of quality facility which compliment convention, family entertainment and recreation within an appropriate areas of the community and to maintain the integrity of the Anaheim Resorf by permitting only compatible land uses within this designated area. Commissioner Faessel: Thank you very much. Madam Chair, Pd like a follow up question. Chairman Eastman: Yes. Commissioner FaesseL• And again, this is to staff, there is the understanding, and it's on page eight of our staff report, .15b, that goes into some of the financial impacts of the property in question, site A, stating that there is the possibility of $4.6 annually but frankly that probably is not going to be the case. And Mr. Elfend has spoken, it couldbe 24-55 years from now, according to this report that has been cited a number of times. Is there anything today, 2007, that would give us any possible changes in what we think that time table to be. Jonathan Borrega Commissioner Faessel, I can answer that question. Pm Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner. Based on the information that was looked at back in 2005, when the EPS'studieswere prepared and in comparison to conditions which exist today in 2007,' I would say that there really hasn't been any fundamental shift orany fundamental change in conditions that would impact, impact that time frame. As a matter of fact, i did talk to our folks from the Finance Department this morning and they confirmed that the findings that were in the EPS study in 2005 they believe were still valid. Commissioner Faessel: OK, and I have one more follow up question. The EPS study that Mr. Elfend has ~ cited and the one that you're citing also, goes into talk about what future land use issues might pertain to three specific parcels, if I'm not mistaken, one of which we're discussing here. That was a, obviously and there's no question about it, a report, a study that was requested by the City, paid for by the City, which Mr. Elfend has reminded us a number of times, are we mandated and bound to use that as a, as a criteria to set land use issues in these parcels? Jonathan Borrego: I would say the short answer is no. That study was actually prepared as a part of the larger resort strategy study efforts that the City kicked off I believe back in, probably, about 2004, and through that study, what we were looking at, was the part of the larger resort strategy effort was whether or not there was any merit to changing the boundaries of the resort at that time, and as a part of that, what we decided to do was is take a look at three different areas that were on the periphery of the Resort, and really the focus of, or at least the intent of that study, as far as staff's position is concerned, it was to really help us take a look at the historic and projected hotel room absorption rate for the area and to kind of start to look at the some of the implications of amending the boundaries. At that point in time, because there were different development projects moving forward on their own, such as the Parc Anaheim Project which has been referenced under the results of the Hotel Residence project which has also been referenced today, because those projects were kind of progressing on their own, staff took a look at the study and essentially just decided to weigh each project as it came in on its own, and look at the merits of each project as it came in on its own, and not really to hold them to any sort of findings or criteria that were contained in the study. Commission Faessel: Did we actually use the results of that study and make any appreciable changes in any land use issues. ~ Jonathan Borrego: No we did not. Commissioner Faessel: Thank you. Thank you madam Chair. Chairman Eastman: Commissioner Romero. 01-22-07 Page 26 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ Commissioner Romero: Yes, I was going to ask when, back when the Resort District was actually created, how were the boundaries defined or how, or what was the, you know, how was the boundaries identified and created, and did all the land owners in there agree #o be part of the Resort District Jonathan Borrego: The actual, I guess, the genesis of the Resort and the boundaries of the Resort really : go back a number of years, and even predate the Resort, the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan itself, and it was several years ago, and Pm not actually sure of the year, but iYs decades ago the City established a commercial recreation zone which predated the Specific Plans out there, that was somewhat consistent with the boundaries of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan today,l'm not really, I wasn't involved in the creation of the boundaries of the current Specific Plan, but I do know they were largely reflective of the commercial xecreation area that was established way back when, and obviously the properties in terms of how they're positioned with respect to Disneyland, their size, kind of the outlying areas, so forth, were all factors that were, I know were taken into consideration when the original boundaries were formed. Commissioner Romera Well, iYs goodto mention that the folks that were in there, had agreed to be taxed so that they, special tax for the special assessment, so all those people were in agreement as to what the vision wasof what that area was suppose to be, correct? Jonathan Borrego: That is correct, when the assessment district was set up, there was a vote taken by land owners in the area and the majority of what was required to get the, to gef that maintenance district established for the threshhold was met, and the Maintenance District was established. ' So in a sense, the property owners or the majority interested in the are did vote to tax themselves for those improvements and the ongoing maintenance. Commissioner Romero: At that time, there was no, I mean there was hotels, recreational type facilities, not specifically residentiaL Jonathan Borrego: Well, the people who pay into the Resort Maintenance District are actually only those, the only properties that are assessed are those which are tourist oriented in nature, obviously there's right now as of today, still kind of a mix and there are still some non-tourist oriented uses in the area and those folks do not pay toward maintenance in the District. Commissioner Faessel: Madam Chair Chairman Eastman: Yes, Commissioner Faessel has a question. Commissioner Faessel: Jonathan, I'It direct this to you because you've been doing such a good job up to this point. Can we go back to an earlier slide, 1'd like a little tighter view, aerial, of parcel A. OK, thank you very much. The area of, where the signs or the name Manchester Avenue, what is that immediately to the right in between the freeway of the parcel that we're discussing, the triangular parcel. No, down, down, down, Susan Kim, Senior Planner: Down right, where it says Manchester. Jonathan Borrego: Susan answered it, the Holiday Inn and Staybridge Suite hotels. Commissioner Faessel: OK, so there is indeed hotels at the very edge of the Resort District currently and that abuts the freeway. Jonathan Borrego: That is correct. ~ Commissioner Faessel: OK, now, can you point out with your pointer where the Disney parking Iot is. OK now, currently thaYs a parking lot; now, there are'representatives from Disney here, and I'll suspect they'll go ahead and te0 us for the time being thaYs going to remain a parking lot, but I think it goes without 01-22-07 Page 27 : JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • saying that at somepoint that may no longer be a parking lot and should that become something else or Third Gate as it's often discussed, that would have; that would right across the street from this parcel, I would think that#here would be a higher interest of hotel usages at some point in the future rather than residentiaL Just an observation. Thank you. Chairman Eastman° Do 1 have any other questions or comments?' Mr. Karaki? Commissioner Velasquez, did you have? Yeah. Commissioner Velazquez: Pve been to presentations on about the Anaheim Resort and how it came about, the changes that have been made, the Planning that went behind it have been very helpful to me. I did meet with what representatives both from SunCal and the Walt Disney Corporation, and after having heard all the testimony here today, I do have to say that I'm proud that the City of Anaheim has taken the lead in housing and more specificaify, affordable housing, but having said that, Pm not sure that affordable housing or housing is appropriate within the Anaheim Resort area. Especially along Katella, 1'm not sure, because we don't have a project, a specific project before us, makes it even more difficult #o even give it the benefit of the doubt not knowing how is it going to be laid out, what specifically are they going to do, or the exact number of units that would go from that parcel. I think it is in the best interest of the City and the residents to protect Anaheim Resort Area: During the time Pve been on the Planning Commission, we have approved several affordable housing projects and l know the City has been very proactive about pursuing others and Pd fike to continue seeing that. But, l guess just like in everything in life,'there is a time and a place for things and absent of a specific project, I would not be in favor of approving this before tonight. Maybe a, if it went back, there may be some compromise, maybe a project may be brought forward 4hat may be specific about the use along Katella, maybe something along Haster, I don't know, butbecause we don't have a specific project at this point, I would be opposed to it. But, I would like to add something. I know the representative from the Walter Disney Gorporation and Hilton • Hotels have said that they are for affordable housing. As big employers for people for the mostpart who do not make a heck of a{ot of money, l would love to see those companies really take a leadership role in helping, partnering with the City and other employers in trying to solve the affordable housing situation despite, even though Anaheim is being proactive, I think we need all the help from corporations, to help us in that. Specifically, there were representatives here from the union, from Jocal 681, that represent a great deal of employees that you currently employ, and also from the Kennedy Commission that with whom the City has worked in the past successfully, and I think I would really urge you to please work with them in coming up with some good plan of action in trying to help those employees. I understand that they don't have to be within the Resort Area, the affordable housing, I really do think that we need to protect that area to be compatible with the uses that are currently there, but I do think that it would be great to see those corporations take a step forward in helping out the situation for their own employees: Chairman Eastman: Commissioner Karaki first and then Commissioner Faessel. Commissioner Karaki: I have a question for staff, for the City two questions actually. When the City initiated this, was that initiated because of, to address the affordable housing? This is one. Two, when we do studies, and I read all the studies everywhere, left and right, up and down, none of the studies address the schooling issue other than tonight, and this is really disturbing that we have overcrowded schools, and that a gentlemen walked in tonight and addressed this issue, unless I missed it somewhere, that we have overcrowded school north of the site, I can't remember the name of the schoot that is probably a couple miles away from it, and we have 9,500 units coming in on the Platinum Triangle adding to this whatever we have coming surrounding this regardless of this one in here, and none of them had addressed the issue of future sites for schools. Jonathan Borrego: Commissioner Karaki, to answer your questions, if I understand your, understood your first question regarding the provision of affordable housing, when the City Council initiated this amendment at the August 22"~ City Council meeting, certainly the SunCal Companies' willingness to • Anahe m Raffordable housing component as a part of this request, or a part of their request, to modify the esort Residential Overlay Zone, certainly, and I#hink iYs demonstrated by the minutes which were p~esented in the staff report' that was presented to the Planning Commission, certainly the fact that , 01-22-07 Page 28 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ! they were willing to provide those affordable units weighed strongly on the decision for the City Council and the majority of the City Council members to initiate this action. Does that answer your question? Commissioner Karaki: Kind of. Jonathan Borrego: OK, is there anything else I can Commissioner Karaki: About the studies that City had commissioned to a group to do the initial studies to so for recommendation, that study did not address any of the issues that address our school district that surrounded the area. Jonathan Borrego: Right, that's part two of my answer, and with regard to that question, when we did the, when we prepared the mitigated negative dec, or the mitigated negative declaration for the first Residential Overlay which the Planning Commission and Council approved last year, the issue of impacts upon the schools were addressed as part of that environmental document and as was included in that environmental document, there's acfually, there are some mitigation measures in the mitigation monitoring program that was approyed as well relafed to schools and having to do with being such as the paymenf of school in lieu fees which by state law is all that a developer is obligated to provide, as a matter of fact, I believe state law also school says that we can't find that impacts upon schools are a significant impact under the provisions of CEQA,1 think thaYs actually something that's a state law as well, that we can't make that finding because of the facf that all the developer is typically obligated to do is - to pay those impact fees and that in ofiitself is the appropriate mitigation per state law. Anyway, so in addition to the payment of school fees, there also is a mitigation measure in that in the mitigation monitoring program that also obligates the City to continue working with the school district as we have in the past, to identify school sites to hetp off set the demands created by these actions. So, ~ Commissioner Karaki: Up until now, there has nothing been addressed to address this issue. Jonathan Borrego: Correct, iYs in the mitigation measures that were included in the last mitigated negative dec that were approved back in August. And I believe, Pm not sure if the addendum thaYs before you tonight reiterated that but those mitigation measures are included in the part of this and they will be addressed. Commissioner Karaki: Thank you. Chairman Eastman: And that was a part of what we recommended to the City Council, previous to them approving it in August. Jonathan Borrego: ThaYs correct. Chairman Eastman: Commissioner Faessel, you had a question. Commissioner Faessel: Thank you Madam Chair, I certainly concur with my colleague on the right regarding Anaheim's direction in achieving its affordable income housing goal, again iYs been brought up a number of times as 1,200 enough and perhaps it may not be. But certainly we're well on the way to achieving that goal, it was brought up earlier, as a matter of fact I think one of our past Planning Commissioners who had an opportunity to spoke, brought up the Hermosa Village or what was then known as Jeffery Lynn, and although it was not mentioned by staff, t suspected some of those funds supplied by Disney went into that project. I know my time with the Public Utilities Board, we threw them a few bucks as well. I think we can be very, very proud of Anaheim's action on what was a, certainly a slum area, and if indeed, Disney's offsetting five million and then I heard it was fifty million, whether it was five or fifty, whatever their contribution was, was certainly valuable. But really the biggest issue that I have with this simply that this land use or proposed land use is simply incompatible with the Anaheim Resort ~ Specific Plan. And for that alone, I cannot support this. I spent almost two and a half years on the General Plan Advisory Committee that looked'at Anaheim General Plan in great, great detaiL And coming away from that one of the issues that I was very, very concerned of was moving forward 01-22-07 Page 29 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES S continually tinkering with the General Plan until the point we end up with a hodgepodge and we'd lose the direction#hat we wanted to move. With the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, we have a#remendous economic engine, please don't misunderstand mypoint here, that's an economic engine that serves all of our 360,000 residents, not just the people in the resort, but everybody in the community of all economic levels. I cannot, l simply cannot support this modification that would allow residential in this area, even though Mr. Elfend and others have made the argument that indeed there is residential there currently, it is simply going forward, not soon for that, iYs incompatible now, it will be incompatible in the future, and I believe the loss or potential loss even though it may be twenty years out, there's been no disputing that, twenty years out of potential TOT income from that parcel is something of significance to me, and I do not feel that we should not remove that possibility, from the income of this community will need in the future. Thank you. Chairman Eastman: Commissioner Romero, I sense that you have a comment or a question. Commissioner Romero: I actually have a comment. You know I carefully reviewed this staff report, and I did meet with representatives of both sides of the issue, and I did listen intently to the public testimony that was offered here today, and you know, I really believe that we in the City of Anaheim, live in a great city, and there has been some great forward vision and planning that has faken place in the past and you know, that plan was implemented, one of thoseplans was the Resort District that was created a few years ago, all you have to do is look at what, what, what the pictures look like just eVen a short ten years ago and what it looks like today, and so we talk about twenty five years, and twenty five years is really a short time if thaYs what iYs going to take to develop this and as somebody from the public said, this Katella Avenue is really a gateway into the Resort District, and you know, just the, overall success of the District has been great not only for the Resort District but iYs been great for the City of Anaheim, and I think with all those things said, I really cannot support the zoning and development standards you know, the changing those standards today, and so, I, I just feel strongly that adopting this change in here would ~ be a negative to, to this area here and of therefore, I cannot support it. Chairman Eastman: Commissioner Karaki. ' Commissioner Karaki. Excuse, iYs my tum no? I, for the records I met with the applicant and the opposing party, both, and I, itwas very hard for me to, it was very hard forme to choose issue very well, and I love what I see at the City of Anaheim being done for the last fifteen years, I'm taking pride of what the Anaheim Resort Area look like, and I take pride of what the future is going to look like based on future plans being evolved here at the City based on plans that we approve. The issue before us is not affordable housing. I would like to make it as an affordable housing, I am for affordable housing, but the issue is not affordable housing, it is more than that, and if it was affordable housing, I would vote yes on it. Yesterday and not tomorrow. We are, I, we are all for affordable housing, we're pushing hard to get affordable housing into the City of Anaheim. I can see that maybe there is a way to compromise in the future where we can dedicate some of the land facing Katella to be the gateway for Disney along the side by the freeway because I cannot see some residential units go up facing the freeways. People living there finrenty four hours, with the noise level thaYs been, iYs surrounded the area, I can see that this will be continuation of the hotels coming from Disney, to the convention center toward freeway, it will be a transitional area with the Platinum Triangle, the Platinum Triangle on the other side of the freeway. This will be the transitional area from an architect point of view, I can see that, this would be continuation between the Platinum Triangle and the Disney Resort, through that corridor which is Katella. I cannot see housing into that area with all respect. If there is a way to compromise in the future with a developer that might be some ways to achieve certain common ground between the developer and the opposing party where we can still can dedicate some areas of this existing land to condominiums for future living and finrenty four hour living. I can understand the economics of this issue with the Disney Resort and the Anaheim Resort Area, we're building hotels and Garden Walks and so on. Residents would not be supporting those tourist activities and tourists commercial businesses, we need foreign, we need visitors from outside the area to come and support those businesses, will not be 1,500 units will not be supporting ~ the businesses around. But, in all fairness, I would like to see some affordable housing, maybe in the corner, one of the corners there, maybe to keep maybe one, two, three, four, five, acres; ten acres at the Manchester corner to'that area. Really, if the developer wants to do, wants to affordable, maybe he can 01-22-07 _ Page 30 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ! dedicate certain areas, Pm not sure if he wants to do that. At the present pace, speaking of the twenty five year develop on the future, because that's very true, but I have 9,500 units being developed at the Platinum Triangle. I don't who, when they are going to occupied. and to add to that, another 1,500 units. What concerns me is the schools. We have, we didn't atldress the school' here, l mean, we pay fees as much as we want but where is the future site for any school that is coming around here, where are we going to send our kids towhat school? I cannot see that paying the fees is going to substitute for a site for building a better school, I cannot see that. So therefore, we have to address those issue prior of going further with this project. Last, as it is right now, maybe in the future, I will be supporting this if it was completely hundred percent affordable, at this point, l will not support this as it is presented to us. Chairman Eastman: Commissioner Romero, do you have something to Commissioner Romero: Madam Chairman, before you have the last word, I do want to go on record that I'm not against affordable housing because I do understand the need for affordable housing, and 1 think the City and, we're making great strides in accomplishing that goaL IYs just that at this area here, I don't think that this is the place for it. Chairman Eastman: Did anybody else have a point? I don't necessarily have to have the last word, but - everyone else has had a chance to express their opinions on this, Pm going to take this opportunity and try to be brief. But, I also met with both sides of this item on, l met with Mr. Elfend, and I met with the representatives from Disney and 1 heard both of their arguments for and against, and I appreciate the level of detail that we got from the staff. Tremendous amount of information to digest, and then today we had a tremendous more input, I appreciate very much every one of you who came out to express their support, and, for this project, and opposition. That's an important part of I believe what we're charged with doing, is hearing from the factors that might not be in these reports and that we might not hear from the major person who has an interest in the item. And, I take very seriously the input that we get from the ~ public. On this particular item, we have no, it was definitely weighted in favor of those people who are opposed and what I noted it was not just as represented a variety of business people, small and large, that have business interest in the area, that have a long history of being involved in our City, and the planning process to get the vision to begin with, and I think vision is probably the hardestthing to achieve for any of us, to come up with a vision that will literally change the future of an area and having lived in Anaheim throughout this process, I am still amazed at the vision that came forward that was a combination of the elected officials, the business people, and the planning people, that came up with the vision for the Resort District, and I respect that very much. And I, the thing that occurred to me over and over was that this really is just about the land use and making a change in that vision, and varying off course from the vision. And the hardest thing is to come up with a vision and the next hardest thing is to stick with the vision to the ultimate success of it, and I think we're part way there. As you heard from some of the people who are involved in the convention business, that we've set all kinds of records in the last couple of years, and we're seeing really good things happen but thaYs just the beginning of what the people who put the vision together envision, the Resort District would someday be, and to look at something and say because iYs gonna take something finrenty five years to achieve something, and maybe iYs my age this point, but twenty five ye~rs goes by in an awful short amount of time, it seems to me like, because I could hardly believe that's it been time that it has been since the Resort District is created. That time has passed very short time. So, I think that we would be remiss if we didn't, if we didn't give this the level of consideration that we have today to, to not change a, this, and in spite of the fact that our abled staff has recommended and in spite of the fact that our Council initiated this. From a land use perspective and based on testimony that we've heard, and everything that is in the record, I also don't feel that I can support a change in that Resort Specific Plan at this point. And I also want everyone to know I support affordable housing and I agree with everything my fellow commissioners have said about that, we do have to figure out unique and new ways to address that issue, and we came up with this decision for the Resort District,l'm sure we're atso capable of coming up with new vision of affordable housing area. So with that, someone ready to make a move or , Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney: Chairman Eastman, before we move and take action, could we take a quick break, just a moment, five minutes? 01-22-07 Page 31 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES `~ ' Chairman Eastman: I think thaYs appropriate, iYs been a long affernoon. So, we'll break for five minutes, so we'll reconvene at twenty, twenty five after. _ (break) Are we ready at this point to make a move? Commissioner Faessel: I movethat the Planning Commission recommend that the:City CounciC: (1) find and determine that the' Previously-Certified Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for General Plan Amendment No.2006-00442 and Amendment Na 7 to theAnaheim Resort Specific Plan'along with the Addendum prepared for General Plan Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Speci~c Plan (Attachment A) reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis, that the change from visitor-serving uses toresidentialuses will not create'an additional impact in and of itself, and that the project, as mitigated, will not'have a significant effect on the environment; (2) approve the environmental documentation prepared for the project actions (Attachment A); and (3) determine that Attachment A is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed actions`and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA. Chairman Eastman: This is a motion: ` Do I have a second? Commissioner Velasquez: Second. Chairman Eastman: OK, this is a motion so we are going to have a voice vote. All in favor? (Ayes from Commissioners Faessel, Karaki, Romero, Velasquez, and Chairman Eastman.) ' Chairman Eastman: Opposed? (None) • Chairman Eastman: The motion passes. Commissioner FaesseL• Madam Chair, I would like to offer a resolution to deny the General Plan Amendment 2006-0448 for the purposes that it does not maintain the internal consistency of the General Plan. Chairman Eastman: OK this is a button vote. Oh, yes, is no, no, we're denying, so you're voting yes to deny. _ Unknown voice: Yes, ' Elly Morris: The resolution for denial passed with five yes votes, Commissioner Buffa abstained. Commissioner Faessel: Madam Chair, I would like to offer resolution denying the Specific, excuse me, denying Number Eight to #he Anaheim Resort Specific Plan number 92-2, in regards that it is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and with the purposes standards in land use guidelines therein. Elly Morris: Chairman Eastman, if you could please do your vote again. Chairman Eastman: Sorry. Elly Morris: Thank you. The resolution for denial passed with five yes votes, Commissioner Buffa abstained. JANUARY 22, 2007' ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i Mark Gordon: Chairman Eastman, members of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commissions actions on this item will be considered final in twenty two days unless an appeal to the City Council is filed within that time or review is requested by two or more City Council members under the zoning code. The Planning Commission has determined by its motion that the previously certified negative mitigated , declaration could need an addendum prepared for thisproject, together with updated and modified mitigationmonitoring program number 0085B are adequate to serve as a required environmental documentation for the project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Furthermore, the Planning Commission by its resolutions has denied General Plan Amendment Number 2006-00448, and has denied Amendment Number Eight to the Anaheim Resort Special Plan Number 92-2 for the stated reasons. OPPOSITION: A letterwas received in opposition, and 9 people spoke in opposition to the request at the meeting. 7 letters were received prior to the meeting in opposition to the request. A letter was received following the meeting in opposition to the request. IN SUPPORT: 3'ietters were received in favor, and 3 peopfe spoke in favor of the request at the ~ meeting. A letter was received prior to the meeting in favor of the request. IN GENERAL: A person representing the Anaheim City School District spoke with concerns/suggestions pertaining to the request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 13, 2007. DISCUSSION TtME: 2 hours and 18 minutes (2:56-5:15 and 5:27-5:34) A 10-minute break was taken (5:96-5:26 p.m.) ~ ~ 01-22-07 Page 33 JANUARY 22, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Respectfuily submitted: ~ . /L . C7~tiK Simonne Fannin Senior Office Specialist ~ Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~ arc~ ~~ , 2007.