Minutes-PC 1992/01/27p.l~~: F'F ~ off !1 ?i~ ..
i- .x
~z
,r.,„ .,. ..,,ma~cc
{k~s' "
~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM rIJY PLANNING COMMISSION
r:
Date: JANUARY 27, 1992
The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order at 10:00 e.m.,
January 27, 1992, by the Chairwoman in the Councq Chamber, a quorum being present and the
Commission reviewed plans of the Rems on today's agenda.
RECESS: 11:50 a.m.
RECONVENE: 1:30 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Hellyer
Bouas, Br(std, Hellyer, Messe, Peraza, Zemel
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Henninger
ALSG PRESENT: Joel Fick Planning Director
Greg Hastings Zoning Di\rision Manager
Mary Mcgoskey Deputy Planning Director
Malcdm Slaughter Deputy City Attorney
Jonathan Borrego Senior Planner
lJnda Johnson Senior Planner
Greg McCafferty Assistant Planner
Dk:k Mayer Park Planner
Natalie Lockman Associate Civil Engineer
Melanie Adams Associate Civil Engineer
Alfred Yakfa Associate 7rafflc Engineer
E~Rh Harris Planning Commission Assistant
Janet L Jensen Senior Secretary
Margarita Sdorio Word Processing Operator
AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 8:30 a.m.,
January 24, 1992, lnskfe the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the
outside display kiosk.
Published: Anaheim Bulletin -January 17, 1992
FUBLLC INPUT: Chairman Hellyer explained at the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the
publk wpl be allowed to speak on Rems of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning
Commissbn and/or agenda Rems.
CM 2149eh.w~p
1/27/92
1/27/92
F r
9l 1 iii _ ..
. °K i : ,.
1 ~' <... ~ ...
.u;
ras
~ ~ '-
~~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 27, 1952 PAGE N0. 2
r;T„
~.t~:'~'
' ~6! "'^ + ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 298 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 317
~~`'-:` (PORTIONS 1 AND 2) SPECIFIC PLAN N0.90~ (INCLUDING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT
'v ~_-~^~'" s'raNp RDS AND A PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN
,~t,~"
r ~'n PUBLIC "rIEA~RING. OWNER: JAMES O'MALLEY, Coal Canyon Company, 25200 La Paz Road, Ste.
210, fsguna Higs, CA 92653 PROPERTY LOCATION: Subject property, which (s described as the
1,546.5-acre Coal Canyon property, Is .+~'ncorporated land located within the County of Orange in the
City of Anaheim's sphere-o#-IMluonce, and generally bordered on the north by the Riverside Freeway
(SR-91) and the Coal Canyon Road Interchange, on the west by the Gypsum Canyon property
(Mourdaln Park development) recently aFpro~ad by the Local Agency Fom~atlon Commission (LAFCO)
for annexation to the City of Anaheim, on the south by unincorporated property within the County of
Grange in the City of Orange's sphere-of-Influence, and on the east by unincorporated property within
"~"`~~ the Cthy of Anaheim's sphere-0f-influence and by the Cleveland Natkxral Forest.
' REQUEST: General Plan Amendment No. 317 (Portions 1 and 2) Is a request for an amendment to
the Land Use, Ernrironmental Resource and Management and Circulation Elements of the City of
Anaheim General Plan. Portion 1 (northerly 663 acres) is a property-a~,+mer InRiated request and
Portion 2 (southerly 883.5 acres) is an Anaheim Planning Commission initiated request. Also requested
by the property owner is adoption of the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan for the northerly 663 acres
(Portion 1 of GPA 317) to serve as preannexatlon zoning and subsequently regulate the development
of the site. A Fiscal Impact Report has also been submitted as part of the project application.
A Draft Ernironmental Impact Report (EIR No. 298) has been prepared for the project and circulated
for public/responsible agency review in compliance with the Calffomfa Ernironmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the State and City of Anaheim CEQA Guldellnes. A Response to Comments document
has been prepared to address the pudic/responsible agency comments on the Draft EIR. On January
24, 1992, Planning Commission recommended certffication of LiR No. 298 lnduding a statement of
overiding considerations and a statement of Findings and Facts.
At the limo Draft EIR No. 296 was circulated for pudic review, the original Cypress Canyon project
acr~ge inducted the entire 1,546.5-acre Coal Canyon property. The southerly 883.5 acres has
subsequently been acquired by the Nature Conservancy (a non-profit organization acting on behalf of
the State Department of Fish and Game and the State Wgdlffe Conservation Board) for the preservation
of a Tecate cypress tree hadtat area. As a result of said sale, the applicant's proposed General Plan
Amendment (GPA 317 Portion 1) and the Cypress Canyon Spc3cffic Plan project area have been
reduced to 663 acres. The Planning Commission has Initiated GPA 317 Portion 2 for the southerly
883.5 acres in order for the Generel Plan to reflect the preservation of pom>ane~•H open space for said
area
The General Plan Amendment request inductee, but is not Qmited to, proposals which would amend the
existing Land Use Mai for Portoor+. 1 to estadish revised boundaries end acreages for Hglside Low and
HNiskie Low-Medium Density Residential, school, park and open space land use designations, delete
the HUlside Estate Density Residential land use designation, add the. Medium Density Residential
designation, increase resklentlal dar~sities to allow for a maximum of 1,550 dwelling units, decrease
General Commercial acreage from 10 to B acres, delete the Commercial Recreation designation, modify
1/27/92
~? " ::.;
4 ~~, ~; ~7
k S'
L~:, - ~ ~~
aN:~~.
S/~4.~,
~V:1r
,~~ `MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 27, 1992 PAGE N0. 3
~,r
^-
~~ S 'the location of the fire station sfle and establish a site for an electr(cal substation and for Portion 2 to
ifelete the Hillside Estate Density Resklerttial, sdwd and park designations and redesignate saki areas
~~„~r ~ for open space uses; amend the exsting Circutatlon Map for Portbn 1 to establish revised alignments
~ ~ and road dassiflt~tions for Coal Canyon Road, Oak Canyon Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road and
U, i?' ~ add new collector roadways, and for Portion 2 to delete the Coal Canyon Road designation; and,
3~ amend the existing Environmental Resource and Management Map for Portion 1 to establish revised
~, locedlons and boundaries for the neighbofiood park, open space, and bikeway riding and hiking trails
? and for Portion 2 to delete a neighborhood park designation and establish revised boundaries for open
ti
-space and locations for traps.
?;;,~;;:
The proposed Cypress canyon Specific Plan No. SP90,3 Qnduding Zoning and Development
~ ,. Starxiards and a Public FacCities Plan) would provide for the development of up to 1,550 res(dential
r, dwelling units, 13 acres of oommerdal uses, one elementary schod, open space, and governmental
~~ uses and publk: Improvements including, but not Iimfted to, streets, sewers, public utilities, a fire station
efts, an electrk~l substation site and one neighborhood park.
Related actions will include the Local Agency Formation Commission's (LAFCO) conskderation of an
appl~ation to annex the project area to the City of Anaheim, requests to the County of Orange for
consideration of amending the Master Plan of Arterial Highways component of the County of Orange's
General Pian Transportation Element, request for a Development Agreement between the City of
Anaheim and Coal Canyon Company (tire project applicant), infrastructure financing programs,
subdivision plans, grading pertn(ts, and other actions related to the proposed development of the
Cypress Canyon Specific Plan community.
Subject petitbns were continued from the Planning Commission meetings of December 9, 1991, and
January 21, 1992.
Mike Mohler, Coal Canyon Company, stated they have read the most recent handouts from staff and
the staff report and concur with what they have read and that they are present to answer any
questions.
iJrxfa Johnson, Senkx Planner, stated she has provided the Planning Commission with a memorandum
updating the mitigator measures and conditions which the applicant and staff have discussed and
agreed to change. She stated there are three attachments:
1. Attachment A - Staff s comments on changes to mitigation measures and conditions
that were requested by the applicant as part of the last staff report, and there was a
letter from the applicant irxluded as an attachment to that staff report.
2. Attachment B - An amended motion which staff is recommending the Commission
adopt relative to the recommendation for certification of the EIR. She explained in the
discussions with the applk~nt, there were some requested changes to mttigatkm
measures and staff has reviewed those and concurs with the requested changes, aril
is asking the Planning Commission to amend the previous motion recommending
certifleation of the EIR which was made on dar_~ary 21st.
1/27/92
x '~ ~ :Irv f ~='i
~-
~ ~ ~~~
Si`!
• p•.
=MINUTES, ANAN~iM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 27, 1992 PAGE NO. 4
,,, ,,,
3. Attachment C - A list of some mitigation measures which were lnadvertendy left out of
:r r ,
' ~sr the conditions of approval that were part of today's staff report.
~.
She stated four letters have been receNed since the last meeting. (A laf!~r ftom the Irvine Company, a
letter from an ad)acent property owner, Mr. Saba, a fetter from Scott Johnson, and a letter from the
Friends of the Tecate Cypress).
'~'~~`~```- She stated also there are a few corrections which need to be made to the Specific Plan document:
~:~~u.
Pape 182 -Delete business, trade schods or training centers which is Item No. 7.
,~ t Page 184 -Delete Item No. 35 pertaining to bingo establishments.
~~{Y ,;
,, Page 186 -Change Paragraphs 3 and 4, leaving the first seMOnce in Paragraph 3 and that
''" pertains to animal hospMals and kennels; and ~mrwe the balance of that paragraph to
Paragraph 4; and In Paragrepfr 5, change child nurseries to more than six (6) children; and
Page 45 - Clarffy that the reference to affordable housing means market rate housing.
Mr. Mohler stated they agreed with the changes mentioned.
Gordon Ruser, 1221 South Sycamore Street, Santa Ana, stated he hoped the Commission received the
letter ftom the Friends of the Tecate Cypress and Chaimran f;ellyer noted that letter has been received
and Is a part of the record. Mr. Ruser stated he fs speaking on behalf of the Sierra qub Angeles
Chapter which has members in Orange County and Los Angeles Counties in Southern Calffomia.
Mr Ruser stated in Specific Plan 90.3, the alternatives for a wAdlffe corridor along the ridgy that divides
Coal from Gypsum Canyon have been very poorly addressed and h doesn't appear that there would
be any wUdlffe corridor remaining ff the Specffic Plan goes forwarci, acxording to the Specific Plan and
the documents that support K.
He stated they also wanted to paint out some prevkws observations to the Planning Commission; that
of particular Interest is that there have been some errata changes in the Specific Plan within the last
week, and they want to point out again that the proposed Cypress Canyon development is a dear
defeat of the Anaheim Planning Commfsskm and Cfry CouncB plan to preserve prominent ridgellnes in
undeveloped areas within their )urisciiction; that a study of the Cypress Canyon preliminary grading
plan reveals substantial cuts Into the maJor and highly viside ridgeilne that divkes Coal from Gypsum
Canyon. He c~rrtinued, 'beginning at a high point nearest the new State of Calffomia Tecate Cypress
Reserve, there is a ridgeline roadway cut 116 feet deep and further down the ridge, a 120-foot road cut
is planned; that 2/3 of a mile down the rkigefine that divides Coal ftam Gypsum Canyon, a 152-foot
cut is planned; that finally, Hearty one mile down ridge from the reserve and next to the planned
Mountain Park development boundary, a 153-foot ridgeline roadway cut is planned; that on the east
skis of the Cypress Canyon project along the prominent and highly visible ridgeifne that divkles the
east skis of Coal Canyon ftom Santa Ana Canyon to the north, additional road and building pad cuts
are planned; rldgeline road cuts to a 160-foot depth and bugding pad grading extends 2/3 of a mile
1/27/92
~~ -
~,>
'i~b
~ ~fV11NUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 27, 1992 PAGE N0. 5
4 ~ ._ _ ..:
'!Y ~1
~, upward toward Slerra Peak; that the Specific Plan, page 57, C-1, Grading Concept, erroneously states
,~=` that a 150-foot cut is the ma~dmum cut on that east rldgeline.
Fie stated additbrral comments were made in the Specific Plan, Grading Plan, to transport 4.388 million
cubs yams of additional fNl material from ttie east skle of the project to the west skis of the project.
~;,.
f .~..
T~ ~ Mr. Buser stated they also want to pofr~ out and further note that the errata sheet says to delete this
,~-.,
.~ sentence, on Page 6, cross sections of the grading plan as seen from three locatbns, sae exhibits 12
~- . and 13, Grading Cross sections, show the results of the landtorm grading in simplified form and the
~ finished grade compared wfth the natural topography; that the errata sheet says to retain this sentence,
.'due to the small scale of the exhibfts, which depict grading concepts, precise landform grading
?~~„ techniques are not shown,' and their comment is that cress sections lines A and C on Exhibit 12 may
~~~' ~ not show the total, complete visual Impact of ridgeline grading ar-d the Coal/Gypsum rkigeline is a
very peomanent rklgeline aril ft would appear that H this ridgeline, acx;ording to the Specifb Plan, is
~ graded as planned, the exhfbRs shown to the Spec!fic Plan may not show the true impact in a proper
manner and h would also seem that the Planning Commission woUd want to look Into that rrsatter
more carefully, if they do have any intentbn, efther by their own action or by a recommendation to the
City CouncB, to preserve that particular ridgeline that divides Coal from Gypsum and there is a very
substantial visual and physical Impact to that ridgellne if the project goes ahead as planned.
He stated they also want to point out that tl is used as a wAdlife corridor and ft attracts the mountain
Ions and mountain ions are known to use that ridgeilne as they approach the narrow part of the
wgdifie corridor at the mouth of Coal Canyon through the Santa Ana River area and into Chino Hgls
State Park to the north.
He stated on Page 64, under D -Open Space -Paragraph 2, 'Open space within the project boundary
consists of approximately 370 acres throughout the she; that this area contains a number of sensitive
errvironmental and hfstaic resources; a portion of the stand of Tecate Cypress, and specimen trees.
These areas wpl be retained as permanent open space. He added that is a misleading statemenE that
these areas wNl be retained as open space because ff we continue to refer to all the Tecate Cypress
as outskle of the boundaries of the Preserve, there are eight to 20 acres In one part of the reserve that
is heavgy impacted by remedial grading, by roadways and by home sfte pads, and noted that is in
Development Area 18, and stated the remaining portion of Tecate Cypress just north of the boundary
of the Tecate Cypress Reserve would be impacted, so not all the Tecate Cypress is dsdeted from
graded, and in fact, most of what is there in the project area is a 'tivipeout', so they think the
statement is misleading.
He stated they have grave concems about the future of open space areas such as those contained In
the description of small internal manufactured slopes, large or revegetated manufactured slopes and
natural open space; and noted that Is also on Page 64 of the Specific Plan. He continued reading,
'developed areas wql be maintained by owner/developer or other financial mechanisms acceptable to
the City, i. e.,homeowner's associatkxu.' He stated they have very little confidence in the ability or
interest of homeowner's associatons to maintain naWe plant populatbn additions to their property in
perpetuity, so they are very concerned and think there wql be a degradation of open space areas
which are left to the attentbn of homeowner's associations in the future.
1/27/92
~v 3~k~ti~ ~ 1 ~,
Rr f .. ~. ~:. ~ l
~'- Y-.
<~~L
~}~{f 5
t7,4S ~
jrS~"'
y.-_ ,.
_ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PUINNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 27, 1992 PAGE N0. 6
~~~~d
L-'~
~~~~~ Mr Ruler stated they are also c~ncemed about Page 65 statements, first sentence at the tcp, 'Open
?~~` ' '"space within the project areas and the Tecate Cypress Reserve is broken into the fdlowing
4~R compotrents.' He stated there Is a breakdown of those components and R says in essence that the
,r Tecate Cypress area is the Reserve area nctiv owned by the State of Calffomla, and it is continuing to
°{~1'' ba Considered as a mitigation for the project kself, and responded to Commisskx~er Masse that K
doesn't say that specifically, but h does include that the Tecate Cypress Reserve is being conskfered
as Open Space within the area and ff is conskiered to be part of the development mitigations, and
stated without the Tek~te Cypress area being included, there Is only about 1596 of the open space in
Portion No. 1, where the actual development is planned to occur and is owned by the Hon
Development and Coal Canyon Company and k kdentffled as Open Space and that is subject to
;~ addltlonal fuel management by the City Flre Department and K also may be Impacted because h Is
t~ ~ ; ":. generally under the control of homeowner organizations and the habitat and plant cover could easily
' be Impacted by homeowner's organ[zatlons, so there is no separate entity that would specifically
~.,
~`°~"' ~ ` preserve these open space areas.
F,r
}ear.
He stated they are also k~ncemed about the habitat enhancement area In the bottom of the canyon;
that according to the Specffk; Plan, that after the developer is finished in the area, that area would
eventually be left to the care of homeowner's organizations and they do not have any reason to
believe that homeowner's organizations woukJ properly care for the proposed habitat enhancement
area In the bottom off the canyon.
He stated also regarding the Specific Plan, there Is concern about the possible danger of mountain
Aons end other wqd animals that may be using a wpdiffe corridor area in the future as they have fn the
past; that ff the wNdlffe corridor is eventually blocked off, which they oppose and think it should be left
open in Its eMfrety and the wgdiffe corridor left completely open; that the presence of mountain lions in
the area may be regarded as a possida danger. He stated there is a plan to put an elementary
shhud In the boticNrl Of the canyon.
Chalmran Heilyer stated all these concerns were heard during the EIR hearing and asked Mr. Ruser to
finish his commerrts because there are others who would like to be heard.
Mr. Ruler stated they question the plak~ment of an elementary shhod in tfs bottom of the canyon
whk;h has been used up until this time as a wAdiffe k~rridor ff there fs a danger.
He stated they were also looking at the k~nditions of approval and at the last meeting, he thought
Commisskxrer Meese has indicated that smooth Arizona Cypress, Monterey Cypress and Leland(
Hybrid Cypress woukf be added to the Ilst of plants that woukJ not be used In the Cypress Canyon
development, but that those have not been added to the Ilst of prohibfted plants in the Conditions of
Approval.
Mr. Ruler stated once again on behalf of the Sierra Club, they think this is a marginal project in lama
of fiscal returns to the Clty and request that the project be denied and that the property not be
annexed to the City of Anaheim.
1/27/92
9~C
Ott +`:
`,- _ _
i+•~
'MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 27, 1992 PAGE N0. 7
'4r
,( '
.~>'.
~y
~' ' Connie Sponger, 1318 E. Glenwood, Fullerton, President of the Friends of the Tecate Cypress, stated in
$~ ~°'' addfflon to the letter they submi6ed earlier, they have the fdiowing comments to add: that regarding
~.- "' the Calffomia grratcatd~er, they do not think the surveys were adequate and ff there are gnatcatchers
~.~~ in the area, whether they are dispersal or not shook! be determined, whether they are nesting or not
is r , ;~ ShoUld be determined, and ff they are dispersing, where are they dispersing from.
~ ~- ~~
t ~ ,
,~ ~ Regarding the Response to Comments, she stated often when they state that mitigations are
t~`;'~~~ = Inadequate for some of the rare species such as the Tecate Cypress and brown miikvetch, they get the
~'~ response that the sale to the state was beneficial, aril they agree that h was beneficial to the
;`~' applkant; aril that the northern 663 acres should be the new project area. She stated the Mindeman
ranch is not appropriate mtigation for the Coal Canyon Wfidlffe Corridor; that an appropriate corridor
~~~ miGgatkM and habRat mitigation should be determined in consultation wfth the wildlife experts who
have commented here. Concerning overriding considerations, she stated to say that the Coal Canyon
~~,~ ; ,;', Protect is needed to solve Anaheim's housing problems, is not quRe accurate; that persons doubling
.~ ,; :: - up on housing In central Anaheim cannot afford the proposed housing in Coal Canyon and the EIR
states that ff the houses are not buin in Coal Canyon, they can be bunk elsewhere in the regbn.
She stated they dkl meet with the developer regarding the aftemathres, but ft is Incumbent upon the
City to provide aitematives than are environmentally superkx and that their signatures there do not
mean that they endorse arty development in the protect area. She stated, however, they do think they
agree with all persons who say that the City should try to think of a way to make an environmentally
superior aftemaUve feasible with commercial or Mello-Roos, etc.
Ms. Sponger stated contributkx>s to the fees for the Eastern Transportation Corridor for Coal Canyon
are not appropriate mitigatkxr because the Eastern Transportation Corridor has not been approved yet.
She stated they do have more comments as soon as they get a chance to finish reviewing the
Response to Comments li.
THE h'UBUC HEARING WAS CLOSEp.
Commissioner Bouas asked Mr. Buser who he felt should maintain the open space ff he felt the open
space would not be maintained right by the homeowner's associations.
Mr. Buser stated M the riparian habitat area, h is his opinion and K Is obvious that the homeowner's
assodaUons may look upon arty habitat enhancement area away from their property as a 'wvhfte
elephanC which they got saddled with because they happened to buy property in that area. He stated
the conditkx>s of approval do not say ff all the property owners in the area wi;i be asked to malntaln a
habitat enhancement area, or wpl it be Just one of three, four, five or six dffferent homeowner
organizations who woukf be saddled with the costs and the ongdng liability of maintaining a habitat
enhancement area He added ff h Is only one organization, they w81 do everything thoy can to divest
themselves of that particular habitat enhancement area
Commissioner Bouas asked what they would have to do to maintain k. Mr. Buser responded they
would have to keep K dean of ail types of debris. He added another thing abaut the habftat
enhancement plan is that h is not at all dear how k would be done.
1/27/x2
M ..
.~ -,
?~
~" -+~ _
~'~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 27, 1992 PAGE N0. 8
k~ - .
~~
," ' Commtesbner Bouas asked who maintains k right now and Mr. Buser responded h is not maintained
~~' acid h does not exist as planned in the conditions of approval, and added the plans are rather skimpy
~~ `. a$ to how h would be done. He stated the Specific Plan says that there would be additional supplies
n ~. of water provided, In addition to what is not naturally available. He stated that would be an artificially
S ~,•.
{ ~ created habitat enhancement area on a plain or higher level, about 30 feet higher than the current
grades in the bottom of Coal Canyon. He stated h would be entirely artificially created, and added
who and how much woukf be requlreo 'o maintain that area in perpetuity is not addressed in the EIR,
the Specific Plan .or the Conditbns of Approval.
/f
~ ~
~m
if;,
~r~~
~t
~'~...
Chairman Hellyer stated who would pay for maintenance is up to the developer to amortize the costs
over the homeowners, but that is not known at this time.
Commissioner Bristd stated he thought that woukl be paramount on the minds of any one buying in
that area and they are coming into a nice environment and they are not going to let anybody,
e~apecially the developer, mess K up.
Mr. Buser stated there are some mechank;al things Involved such as pumps, water supply, etc. and h
is not spelled out In the Specific Plan at all.
Mr. Buser stated most of the comments of the prevlou~ hearing were about environmantal Impact
reports, but in terms of the Specific Plan, the Coordinated Resource Management Plan Is not
recognized and they think k shook! be.
Commissioner Messe stated there is an ftem requiring the applicant to underground the SCE pde on
Sarda Ana Canyon and that he thought staff should review that to see ff an undergrounding district
could be made there, thereby relieving the obligation of the developer and that maybe SCE would bury
fi. He suggested staff check with the Utilities Department.
Chairman Hellyer suggested a fair share agreement so that h fs not the responsibility of this developer.
Commissioner Messe stated he thought there was a fair share agreement and Unda Johnson stated
she would check with the Utilities Department.
ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION
CARRIED (Commissioner Henninger absent) that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, aRer
considering Drat! Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 298 and reviewing evidence presented, both
written and Drat, to supplement Draft EIR No. 298, the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
find that:
1. That Draft EIR No. 2981s In compliance with the Callfomfa Errvinmmental Quality Act
and State and City CEQA Guidelines;
2. That the pro)ect is consistent with the Intent of the City's General Plan for the sfte and
wAl be compatible with surrounding land uses;
1/27/92
4
~~4~,i~~~ ~¢
',~
4 1,''
~. ,'sE-.
":'.:MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 27, 1992 PAGE NO. 9
~~~
~~~` ~. 3. That Section 125091 of fire CEQA Guidelines requires that one or more findings be
,.,
~~' made for each significant environmertal effect identified. The Planning Commission
.:,r;:;~ hereby adopts the Fndings and Facts set forth in the updated Attachment D,
~' `~ ` Statement of Flndings and Facts, Cypress Carryon Spedflc Plan, provided to the
Planning Commissbn on December 9, 1991, staff report to the Planning Commissiort
~~,,
''~ r ; , and amended as pert of the Response to Comments Vdume II document to lndude
~' ~'' ~'~'"' reflrremertts to Miflgation measures 1-02, I-03, 3-19 and to add Mftigation Measures 11-
;~,~ r- 06 and 11-07 end amended at the January 21, 1992, Planning Commission meeting to
incude reF.n~TO_rts to Mitigittbn Measures 3-12 and 3-16) and amended to include
`, , _,,:~< .;: reflnemerrts to Mk(gatbn Measures 9-04, 7-05, 8-03 and 8-06 set forth in Attachment A
y, ~ to the January 27, 1992,. memo to the Planning Commission (ail of said refined
i ~ t :. mftigatbn measures area also to the included as Attachment B to the resdtttlon).
~~~~~~,,_~ Findings relaWe to the rejectbn of AftematNes are also Included In the Statement of
~'u~~; . ; Flndings and Facts.
,;~ ~,
4. That the Planning Commission further determines that the benefits of the project
outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, and, therefore, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines adopts a
Statement of Overriding Considerations. Flndings and Facts associated therewith are
set forth In Attachment D, Overriding Considerations.
5. That Section 21081.6 of the Publb Resources Code requires that when a publb agency
is making the findings required by Section 21081 (a) of the Public Resources Code, the
Agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project
which h has adopted or made a condftbn of project approval, in order to mitigate ar
avoki slgnfficartt effects on the anvironmerrt.
6. That the City hereby finds that the mftigatbn measures (listed in updated Attachment
. C, Summary of Impacts and Mitigatbn Measures provided to the Planning Commission
on January 21, 1992, (originally set forth in Attachment D of the December 9, 199i,
staff report to the Planning Commission and amended as part of the Respon~ to
Comments Vdume II doci.~rtrent to include refinements to Mitfgatlon Measures 1-02, 1-
03, 3.19 and to add Mitigatbn Measures 11-06 and 11-07 and amended at the January
21, 1992, Planning Commission meeting to irrdude refinements to Mitigatbn Measures
9-04, 7-05,8-03, and 8-06 set forth in Attachment A to the January 27, 1992, memo to
the Planning Commission have been incorporated Into a Mitigatbn Monitoring Program
that meets the requirements of Sectbn 21081.6 of the Pubik: Resources Code.
Therefore, the Planning Commisaion does hereby recommend cer*JAcatbn of EIR No. 298 and adoption
of the Statement of Overriding Consideratbns and Mit(gatbn Monitoring Program.
Commissioner Messe offered Resdutbn No. PC 9206 and moved for fts passage and adopton that
the Anaheim City Planning Commissbn does hereby recommend approval of General Plan Amendnrecrt
No. 317 (Portbn 1J on the fdlowing basis:
1/27/92
~F~a .
~'
Kit
,.ye~
_a
n
~~ i
~~
.:_,.:
r~~MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 27, 1592 PAGE N0. 10
a That the General Plan text anticipates a trend of densfty increases on major
~:,~-_ ~;
~.~,.~ ,
j
,,'p,,;
urxieveloped land hddings as long as a satisfactory balance is mainf .fined between
population and community factllUes, and recognizes that higher densities are feasible to
the extent that such growth is physk;ally, financially and ernironmentally appropriate;
b. That staff concurs wfth the Specific Plan text (Section III-D) which indudes a
discussion of the project's consistency with the applitxt4le City of Anaheim General
Plan goats, objectives and pd~les;
c. That the approval of GPA No. 317, Portion 1 does not guarantee the development of
1550 dwelling unts, but provkles for a range of 0 to 1550 dwe111ng unfts. The actual
number of units shall be determ}ned in connection with the c~nsideratlon of the
Specffic Plan and subdivlslon approvals;
d. That General Plan Amendmerd No. 317 Portion 1 wq! result in approximately 360.5
acres of off-sKe open space which represents approximately 5496 of the 663-acre
project area
e. That the General Plan currently designates the 1546.5-acre Coal Canyon area for a
total of 1170 residential unts wfth Portion 1 being designated for 76.5 unRs and Portion 2
being designated for 405 units. Adoption of GPP. Portion 1 for a maximum of 1550
units In connection with adoption of GPA Portion 2, which would eliminate all
residential units fn.~m Portion 2, would result in an overall 380-unft Increase for the Coal
Canyon area
f. That the publ~ facUfties planned as part of this General Plan Amendment wql
adequately serve the proposed number of dwelling units and commercial acreage.
Said facAfties indude one e{ementary schod, one neighborhood park, one fire station
site, and one electrk~i sut~tatlon sfte. In addftion, the applicant will contribute a
proportionate share of land acqulsftion and improvement costs to construct a City
maintenance facAity and a10,000-square foot City community center in the Mountain
Park project area to serve ail of the Hql and Canyon Area
g. That the project density wNl be compatible with the permitted density in the adjacent
Mountain Park development.
h. That the proposed amendments do not change the intent of the General Plan to
designate the property for residential and commerdal land uses.
I. That the Publ~ Works-Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed roadway
classifications and alignments and has determined that they are adequate to
accommodate the projected level of traffic and circulation patterns for the project
1/27/92
Z. .d u x ~ :en ~ ..: 1. '3..'~"
"6j: ~~~.
a.
h..:
x: '
MINUTES, i4NAHEIM CITY PLANNING CaMMISSI'ON, JANUARY 27, 1992 PAGE N0. 11
~',
_.' ; -'
~:~;. ' .
7~
~~~. ~ J. That the Publb Works-Engineering and Parks, Recreation and Community Servir~s
Departments t~:ve reviewed and are in agreement with the proposed bikeway, riding
~ ~ ~ and hiking traA ailynments.
n ~+`` -
~*. And, further that the Planning commlasion does hereby rewmmend approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 317, Portbn 2, on the basis that:
a. That sad amendment wfll d+.ange the General Plan to reflect the current open space
preservaton land use for saki 883.5 acres.
Y~~~
~ t~~i, :,
r'~.
b. That the revised alignment for the on-sfte tral is intended to reflect the existing
unimproved trap on the sfte.
c. That the deletbn of the current alignment for Coal Carryon Road w-I result In the
preservation of sensitive habitat areas.
On rdl call, the foregdng resdution was passed by the fdlowing vote:
AYES: BOUAS, BRISTOL, HELLYER, MESSE, PERAZA, ZEMEL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HENNINGER
Commissioner Meese offered Resd~~!bn No. P(; 92-7 and moved for its passage and adoption that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Specific Plan No. 90,3, induding the
Public Facpitis.; Plan be approved, as amended incorporating the applicant's refinements set forth in
Attachment A into Secpon VII, Zoning and Deva~opment Standards, of the Specific Plan Document and
the Incorporation Into the Specific Plan uocument of the Rems listed In the Errata Sheet (Attachment D)
be approve: on the fdlowing basis:
A. That the property proposed for the Specific Plan has unique sfte chare~9ristics such
as topography, locatbn or surroundings which are enhanced by spedal land use and
development starKiards.
3. That the Specific Plan !s consistent with the goals and pdicias of the General E lan as
propaged for amendment pursuant to GPA No. 317, Portion 1, and with the purposes,
standards and land use gukiellr+,es contained therein.
C. That the Specific Plan results in developmenrt of desirable character w~hk;h will be
compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood.
D. That the SpecMb Plan contributes to a balance of land uses.
E. That the Spedflc Plan respects emrironmental and aesthetic resources consistent with
economk: realities.
1/27/92
.~~;
1~
And further subJect to the recommended conditbns of approval.
~~ ~;
., •k:C
`*:~=''''`' -0n rdl call, the foregoing resdution was passed by the fdlowing vats:
r',=-
,~ _ , AYES: BOUAS, BRISTOL, HELLYER, MESSE, PERAZA, ZEMEL
~; ~;-+'~
€.. 7. rs:~.~; . NOES: NONE
"~ , ~' ~' ABSENT: HENNINGER
;, , ,.;
,`y, Commissioner Masse offer6d Resdutbn No. PC 92-8 and moved for Ks passage and adoption that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the Zoning
~~.=~' and Development Standards for Specffic Plan No. 90~ as revised and as shown In Attachment A.
~~,
~~ On rW! call, the foregoing resdution was passed by the fdlowing vote:
,~~~, .
+~-,
AYES: BOUAS, BRISTOL, HEl1YER, MESSE, PERAZA, ZEMEL
' NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HENNINGER
1J27/92