Minutes-PC 1994/08/29
ACTION AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, AUGUST 29, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) AT 10:30 A.M.
Commissioners Present: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, PERAZA, TAIT
Commissioners Absent: MESSE
Staff Present: Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager
Joel Fick, Planning Director
Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director
Linda Johnson, Senior Planner
Lucy Yeager, Senior Planner
Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney
_~ahn Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager
Edith Harris, Planning Commission Secretary
PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. The Staff Report is part of the evidence deemed received by the
Commission in the hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to
the meeting.
2. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is
closed.
3. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in
its opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served.
4. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in
connection with the hearing, including photographs or other
acceptable visual representations or non-documentary evidence. Shall
be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be
available for public inspection.
829sumry.WP i
08/29/94
Page 1
~a ~
~~
~~
ta. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO.313
1b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.333
1c. SPECIFIC PLAN NO 92-2 (INCLUDING ZONING AND DeVELOPMENT
STANDARDS. A GESIGN PLAN AND GUIDELINES. AND A PUBLIC
FACILITIES PLAN)
1d. ANAHEIM RESORT IDI_NTITY PROGRAM
1e. ANAHEIM RESORT PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPE PROGRAM
1f. ANAHEIM RESORT NONCONFORMING SIGNAGE PROGRAM
ACTIONS
INITIATED BY:THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PLANNING COMMISSION
'ER PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC94-102
LOCATI N:
The 1,046-acre Anaheim Resort, including the 549.5•acre Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan area, is generally located adjacent to and southwest of Interstate
5 between Ball Road and Orangawood Avonue and is accessible from Harbor
Boulevard, Ball Road, Freedman Way, Katella Avenue, West Street,
Orangewood Avenue, Raster Street/Anaheim Boulevard and Walnut Street
(see attached map showing location of the Anaheim Resort and the Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan boundaries).
PROPOSAL:
I. Environmental Impact Report No. 313 -Request for certification of EIR
No. 313, including a Statement of Find(ngs and Facts and Statement of
Overriding Considerations. Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 313
has been prepared for the project and circulated for public/responsible
agency review in compliance with the California Environmental Oualiry
Act (CEOA) and the State and City of Anaheim CEQA Guidelines. As
indicated in the DEIR, significant effects on the environment anticipated
as a result of implementation of the Specific Plan include transportation
and circulation, air quality, land use•related plans and policies, land use
compatibility, visual resources and aesthetics, noise schools, solid waste
and construction Impacts. A Response to Comments document (EIR
t•!o. 313 Volume III) was made available far public review on Friday,
August 19, 1994. The document includes responses which address the
public/responsible agency comments on the Draft EIR, refinements to
the text of the EIR and a copy of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for
the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan.
2. general Plan Amendment No. 333 -Proposal to amend the Land Use,
Circulation and Environmental Resource and Management Elements of
the General Plan as follows:
Recommended City
Council Certification
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
08/29/94
~r Page 2
fss'`
A. Land Use Element
To add text to the General Plan Land Use Element recognizing
that the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan is an implementing zone of
the Commercial Recreation land use designation and that it
establishes the following development dens!ty designations for the
area (these designations are based upon hotel/motel
development but are transferable to other permitted and
conditionally permitted uses): "Low Density", which has a
maximum density of up to 50 rooms per gross acre or 75 rooms,
whichever is greater; "Low-Medium Density", up to 75 rooms per
gross acre or 75 rooms, whichever is greater; "Medium Density",
up to 100 rooms per gross acre or 75 rooms, whichever is
greater; and, "Convention Center (CC) Medium Density', up to
125 rooms per gross acre with trip generation characteristics
mitigated to the equivalent of 100 rooms per gross acre, or 75
whichever is greater. For those parcels that are developed with
hotel/motel rooms which exceed the maximum density
designation, the number of rooms existing on the date of
adoption of the
Anahelm Resort Specific Plan Ordinance may be rebuilt or
modified at their existing density. With regard to accessory uses,
up to 20% of each hotel/motel project square footage, excluding
parking facilities, may be developed with Integrated (i.e., included
within the main hotel/motel complex) accessory uses. These
uses will reduce the otherwise maximum permitted hotel/motel
density at the rate of one hotel/motel room per six hundred (600)
square feet of accessory uses.
2. To upgrade the Water System Maps and amend the Storm Drain
and Sewer Maps to reflect the Improvements described in the
Public Facilities Plan (Section 4.0 cf the Anahelm Resort Specific
Plan document as further detailed in DEIR No. 313 and Iditigation
Monitoring Program No. 0085).
B. Circulation Element
1. To redesignate Clementine Street between Katella Avenue and
Orangewood Avenue from a Secondary Arterial Highway (4 lanes,
90-foot right-of•way) to a Modified Secondary Arterial Highway (4
lands, 87-foot right-of-way) designation.
2. To redesignate Convention Waal between liarbor Boulovard and
approximately 1,450 feet west of Harbor Boulevard from a Primary
Arterial Highway (6 lanes, 106-foot right-of-way) to a Modified
Primary Arterial Highway (6 lanes, 110-foot right-of-way)
designation.
3. To redesignate Pacifico Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and
Hester Street from a Major Arterial Highway (6 lanes, 120-foot
right-of-way) to a Modified Primary Arterial Highway (6 lanes, 110-
foot right-of-way) designation.
;~
08/29/94
Page 3
4. To redesignate the portion of Manchester Avenue paralleling the I-
5 east of Harbor Boulevard to north of Alro Way from a
('O Secondary Arterial Highway (4 lanes, 90-foot right-of-way) to a
Modified Secondary Arterial Hlghway (4 lanes, 67-foot right-of-
way) designation.
5. To redesignate Manchester Avenue south of the portion
parallelin.; the I-5 (Alro Way) to the Intersection of FreEdman Way
from a Secondary Arterial Highway (4 lanes, 90-foot right-of-way)
to a Modified Secondary Arterial Highway (4 lanes, 87-foot right-
of-way) designation.
6. Critical Intersection Clarification -Text is proposed to be added to
the Circulation Element clarifying that the Critical Intersection
design for Convention Way/Harbor Boulevard, Harbor
Boulevard/Katella Avenue, Haster Street-Anaheim
Boulevard; Katella Avenue and Pacifico Avenue/Haster Street also
includes the Anaheim Resort requlred street parkways/sidewalks
as well as the required through-travel lanes, raised medians, left-
turn lanes, and right-turn-only lane that may also serve as bus
turnouts. The Anaheim Resort street parkway/sidewalk designs
are identiited in the Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape
Program.
C. Environmental Resource and Management Elemant: The General
Plan Environmental Resource and Management Element
designates approximately 58 acres southeast of Katella Avenue
and Harbor Boulevard as an Agricultural Preserve (the actual
acreage is 56.48). Currently, this acreage is subject to a California
land Conservation Act (Williamscn Act) contract. A notice of non-
renewal has been filed and the contract will expire on March 1,
2000. Since one of the purposes of the General Plan !s to set forth
long range plans for the City, the proposed amendment would
remove the Agricultural Preserve designation for this acreage from
the General Plan in recognition of the upcoming contract
expiration.
The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 -Proposal to establish a
comprehensive identity and land use plan Intended to maximize the
area's potential, guide future development and ensure a balance
between growth and infrastructure. The Plan, which includes specific
zoning and development standards, a design plan and gu(dellnes and a
public facilities plan and establishes density designations, permits the
development of hotels, convention, retail and other visitor-serving uses
as well as the Infrastructure improvements which will be needed to
support future development. The Specific Plan area is currently zoned
C-R (Commercial Recreation), RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural), and
PR (Public Recreational). A few of the parcels also have the MHP
(Mobilehome Park) Overlay designation. Adoption of the Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan would replace the current zoning designations with
the Specific Plan C-R District, PR District and MHP Overlay zoning
designations. It would also replace and supersede the CR Zone
.on,dramwnts in Chanter 18.48 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
08/29/94
~„r, Page 4
- W - - 4.~...~..-.-++~.......-....._.._.
3. Th Anaheim Resort Identit Pro ram -Request for adoption of an
Identity Program which sets forth identity elements for the Anaheim
Resort including gateway elements, signage, street furnishings and
pageantry elements which are Intended to create a consistent visual
theme and unify the Anaheim Resort.
4. The Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscaae Program -Request for
adoption of a landscape program which describes how the Anaheim
Resort will be transformed Into a garden environment through installation
of extensive landscape Improvements.
5. The Anaheim Resort Nonconforming Signaae Program -Request for
approval of a program to encourage signage to conform with the new
standards proposed in connection with the Specific Plan and the
Anaheim Resort Identity Program.
ACTION:
THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BY MOTION OR RESOLUTION AS INDICATED BELOW, WILL
MAKE RECOMA4ENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL WILL HOLD ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MAKE THE FINAL
DECISIONS.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 313 MOTION Rec. Certification
Vote: 5-1 (Caldwell voting no)
,~, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 333 RESOLUTION NO. PC 94113 Approved
' Vote: 60
SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 92-2 (INCLUDING ZONING
AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, A DESIGN
PLAN AND GUIDELINES, AND A PUBLIC
FACILITIES PLAN) RESOLUTION N0. PC 94114 Approved
Vote 6.0
ANAHEIM RESORT IDENTITY PROGRAM RESOLUTION N0. PC 94115 Approved
Vote 60
ANAHEIM RESORT PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPE
PROGRAM RESOLUTION N0. PC 94116 Approved
Vote 6.0
ANAHEIM RESORT NONCONFORMING SIGNAGE
PROGRAM RESOLUTION N0. PC 94117 Approved
Vote s-g
0
~ 08/29/94
Page 5
~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 29, 1994, PUBLIC HEARING:
OPPOSITION: Approximately 10 people present
Six (fi) people spoke in opposition.
FAVOR: 3 people spoke in favor.
2 interested people spoke in favor but had concerns.
Joel Fick, Planning Director, submitted the staff report and all associated documentation Into the public
record, including letters received to date and several exhibits that were distributed to the Planning
Commission today which were referenced in the staff report, but Inadvertently not included (as listed
below) and a memorandum distributed by the City Attorney's Office concerning schools.
Section II, following page 25 (Gateway Location Plan); Attachment B (Special Landscape Design
for Critical Intersections, General Plan Amendment Exhibits); Attachment F, Specific Plan Draft
Resolution (Page referencing Mitigation Monitoring Program); Attachment F, Anaheim Resort
Nonconforming Signage Program Draft Resolution (Exhibit showing boundaries of the Anaheim
Resort).
He explained the items Included in today's deliberations Include new Zoning and Development
Standards, the Design Plan and Guidelines and a Public Facilities Plan; three implementation programs,
the Anaheim Resort Identity Program, the Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program and the
Anaheim Resort Nonconforming Signage Program; and accompanying the plan is Environmental Impact
Report No. 313 and General Plan Amendment No. 333.
Bob Jacob, The SWA Group, presented the following 17 Specific Plan slides:
'~ 1. The purpose of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan is to provide along-range comprehensive plan
for future development and establishes a land use plan which will maximize the area's potential
and guide future development while ensuring a balance between growth and Infrastructure.
2. Components Include a land use plan which will permit the development of hotels, convention,
retail and other visitor-serving uses, zoning and development standards, design guidelines, a
streetscape program and a public facilities plan which describes how the plan's goals and
objectives will be met.
3. The Development Plan establishes the framework for land use and development standards which
will govern development in the Area. The Plan defines the permitted uses, development intensity,
building setbacks, and design standards that will be complied with by property owners and
developers when building new or renovating existing projects.
4. Two land use districts have been created in the Anaheim Resort. The Commercial Recreation or
C-R District, which encompasses the majority of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area and the
Public Recreation or PR District which encompasses the Anaheim Convention Centor and the
adjacent Anaheim Hilton hotel.
5. Permitted land uses in the C-R District include hotels, motels, convention and conference facilities
as well as restaurants, retail shops and entertainment uses.
6. Establishes four density categories in the C-R district including Low Density, Low-Medium Density,
Medium Density and Convention Center Medium Density. These density designations are based
upon hotel/motel development but will also apply to other permitted and conditionally permitted
uses as detailed in the Specific Plan and the staff report.
7. The Plan contains provisions which permit existing hotels/motels to renovate or rebuild at the
density existing on the date of adoption of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, even if the density
exceeds the maximum permitted by the density category in which the property is located.
06/29/94
~..~ Page 6
8. There are also two properties In the southern portion and one in the northern portion which
f'a'` currently have, and will continue to have, a Mobilehome Park Ovarlay Zone designation.
9. The PR District includes the Anaheim Convention Center and the Anaheim Hilton Hotel property ~
which are currently zoned Public Recreation. This zone is intended to regulate the use of Ciry-
owned property anc! adjacent private property. This designation will continue under the Specific
Plan.
10. Establishes a Central Core, Including parcels with frontage on Harbor Boulevard south of Interstate
5 to Orangewood Avenue and on Katella Avenue from Walnut Street to Hasler Street. Specialized
standards create a stronger visual impression as well as encoetrage more people to leave their
cars and walk, thereby improving traffic flow.
11. Central Core standards include:
No parking will be allowed between the public right-of-way and the building, making the
Central Core more visually interesting since the parked vehicles will be behind the buildings;
Special provisions will allow greater areas of hardscape to peamit outdoor d(ning in the front
setback area along Harbor Boulevard; ;
Buildings will be required to occupy a minimum of 60% of the frontage adjacent to the right- i
of-way (or provide a solid mass of landscape to achieve the sama effect) in order to create a i
well defined "edge" for the street; and,
Special Landscaped Intersections will also be required.
12. Contains the detailed Zoning the Development Standards which will regulate development in the
Specific Plan area. These regulations are intended to Implement both the Development Pian as
well as the Design Plan. It is the intent of the Specific Plan to replace and supersede the existing
C-R Zoning regulations. The zoning regulations streamline review since hotels and motels are
permitted up to the specific density without having to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. This
eliminates the need for a public hearing to develop more than seventy-five (75) hotel rooms. In ,
addition, the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan consolidates the zoning and design guideline reviews
Into one Final Site Plan review process to ensure compliance with the Specific Plan standards and
guidelines. All Final Site Plans will be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a Report and
Recommendation Item.
13. Contains descriptions of the basic concepts that will help achieve the Specific Plan's fundamental
goal of creating a unified resort identity.
14. The Design Plan is intended to supplement the Specific Plan Zoning and Development Standards
in the following ways. First, it will assist in the interpretation in situations where several options
may be consistent with the regulations. Also, it contains design guidelines which would be
considered too general to be standards or regulations, but convey useful information about the
character and quality of development anticipated within the Specific Plan area. Finally, the Design
Plan contains sketches and cross-sections that show what the physical appearance of importar+.t
conditions in the Specific Plan area should be if the standards, regulations and guidelines are
implemented. I
15. Specifies three distinct levels of design hierarchy called the Public Realm, the Setback Realm, and
the Private Realm. Areas within the ultimate public right-of-way will be called the Public Realm.
This visually prominent area is the most precisely defined and designed cf the three Realms. The
details of the Public Realm will be discussed later as part of the Anaheim Resort Identity Program
and Public Realm Landscape Program. The Setback Realm includes the private property between
the ultimate right-of-way and the required minimum building setback. Since these areas are not
quite as significant to the overall character of the Specific Plan area as the Public Realm, the plan
provides for more flexibility in their design. The Private Realm, which includes areas behind
building setbacks adjacent to public streets, will be guided by design criteria that are the most
flexible of the three realms, but still contain Important design guidelines Intended to enhance the
overall identity of the Specific Plan Area.
t(i. Establishes guidelines for site planning, service areas, parking facilities, bu(Iding appearance, signs
and private landscape. i
08/29/94
~~, Page 7 i
17. A later presentation will focus on the design plan for the Public Realm and how the landscape will
~'`~ look.
Mr. Jacob presented one GPA Slide: three Elements of the City's General Plan are proposed to be
amended as part of today's actions. Tfl~ Amendment to the land Use Element will add a description of
the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan land uses and proposed density designations. It will also reFlect the
planned infrastructure for the area including water, sewer and storm drair, improvements. The
Circulation Element Amendment reflects minor adjustments to street right-of•ways, primarily decreasing
the width. Finally, the Environmental Resource and Management Element Amendment removes the
agricultural preserve designation from a 56-acre parcel south of Katella Avenue and cast of Harbor
Boulevard in recognition of the upcoming Williamson Act contract expiration.
Joan Kelly, Michael Brandman Associates, EIR Project Manager, explained she has worked with City
staff to prepare the EIR for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and the associated actions. Th(s EIR
reports the environmental Implications of the proposed project and the measures to be imposed on the
project to minimize potentially adverse impacts. It's an essential part of the decision making process.
The EIR has been prepared to inform the Commission and facilitate public comment on the project.
The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR was prepared as both a Master EIR, a relatively new process
under the California Environmental fluality Act or CEOA, as well as a project specific EIR. The intent of
the Master EIR legislation is to eliminate the need for later redundant environmental review of
subsequent discretionary activities or projects that follow the expected course of the action previously
approved. The Master EIR approach is appropriate for this project because it allows a comprehensive
consideration of the antic!pated project development. This EIR wUl serve as the base document for any
future environmental review deemed necessary for development within the Anaheim Resort Specfic Plan
boundaries.
As a project specific EIR, this document is intended to environmentally clear three things: the adoption
of tl~~e proposed Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and associated actions, implementation of the Public
Facilities Plan and project mitigation measures and development within the specific plan area which
conforms to the parameters and assumptions addressed in the EIR, as substantiated by a conformance
check list which will be similar to an Initial Study.
Developments proposed within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan boundaries that era founc~lo be within
the scope of the Specific Plan and addressed in this EIR and which require no further discretionary
actions will not require any additional environmental clearance.
In order for this EIR :u be .used as a Master EIR for more than five (5) years, the City of Anaheim must
do one of the following live years after certification; review the EIR and make a finding that there are no
substantial changes or new information that's become available; or prepare and certify a subsequent or
supplemental EIR that is incorporated Into and updates this Master EIR.
This EIR examines project impacts at two stages of development. The first stage, year 2000, represents
an early stage of development or approximately 1,000 hotel and motel rooms have been assumed to be
developed and in operation. The second stage, Year 2010, is analyzed for full bu(Id out with 76,300
hotel; motel rooms, in addition to existing conditions.
Mitigation measures have been incorporated Into the project to ensure that at full build out, the
significant impacts to infrastructure will be avoided to the extent it is feasible. It is recognized, however,
that development will occur incrementally. The mitigation monitoring program provides for assessments
to be prepared for each development in relation to its specific impact to traffic, surface water runoff,
water, wastewater, and storm drains. This gives the City the ability to require appropriate levels of
participation to Insure improvements are in place in order to accommodate grpwth as it occurs.
08/29/94
t,,,i Page 8
The EIR addressed 14 different environmental Issues: Land Use Related Plans and Policies; Land Use
~'` Compatibility; Transportation and Circulation; Air Quality; Noise; Earth Resources; Groundwater and
Surface Hydrology; Employment, Population and Housing; Public Services and Utilities; Hazardous
Materials Compliance; Visual Resources and Aesthetics; Cultural Resources; Energy and Construction.
She summarized each environmental issue area.
- Land Use Related Plans and Policies. Significant Impacts will result if the 56 acres located south
of Katella Avenue and east of Har!^~r Boulevard designated as prime agricultural farmland are
developed. There are no mitigation measures available to lessen this Impact.
- Land Use Compatibility -the juxtaposition and proximity of commercial and residential land uses
are the significant impacts to land use compatibility. Development standards have been
incorpcrated Into the proposed Specific Plan to minimize the land use compatilbility Issues to the
extent possible, but not to a level less than significant.
- Transportation and Circulation. The major mitigation measures which have been Incorporated into
the project to minimize traffic impacts Include the following:
- Developments creating 100 or more peak hour trips will be modeled to determine if the
Intersection Level of Service or LOS will decrease to E or worse. If so, traffic improvements
will be required prior to final inspection for the development. Participation will be required in
all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which are established, or other financial
mechanisms as determined by the City.
- Traffic signal assessment fees and traffic Impact and improvement foes will be Imposed.
- Dedication of right-of-way by developers far area required for infrastructure Improvements
upon development.
- Participation in clean fuel shuttle program, if established, and participation in the Anaheim
Transportation Netvaork/1'ransportation Management Association.
- Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Program.
- Construction-related mitigation measures to accommodate traffic flow in areas where
construction is taking place.
- The following unavoidable adverse transportation and circulation impacts are projected to occur in
Year 2010 1f the proposed development is constructed to full build out.
- Unacceptable level of services anticipated at Harbor Boulevard and Ball Road; Hester Street
and Orangewood Avenue; Anaheim Boulevard/Raster Street and Katella Avenue; and Lewis
Street and Katella Avenue.
- Mitigation measures have been incorporated Into the project to balance growth with
Infrastructure capacity; however, some traffic improvements, such as the I.5 widening and
the Katella Smart Street are beyond the control of the City of Anaheim. If the IdentHied
background transportation and circulation improvements are not completed as anticipated
commensurate with project development, additional unavoidable significant impacts on
levels of service at study area Intersections may result.
- Air Quality. Malor mitigation measures for air quality include: the schedule ofi goods movements
far off-peak hours to reduce emissions; use of low-emission paints and coatings; approval of
demolition and Import/export plans. if deemed necessary by the City; compliance with all
SCAQMD offset regulations and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and Retrofft technology
for new or modified stationary sources; standard construction mitigation measures have been I
Incorporated to limit dust emissions from construction equipment. ~
i
i
08/29/94
~ Page 9
a
i
~,..~ Peak day construction and vehicle emissions on both aproject-speeifle and cumulative busts are
expected to exceed SCP.QMD thresholds for ROG (reactive organic gases), NOx (nitrous oxide),
CO (carbon dioxide) and PM10s.
- Noise. Major mitigation measures for noise include noise studies prepared by an acoustical
engineer to identify whether noise attenuation is required; mechanical ventilation units which
comply with Sound Pressure Level Ordinance; engine noise from sweeping equipment will be
muffled; parking structure adjacent to residences will reduce noise with sound attenuation devices,
textured deck surfaces and tiering of Far;:ing levels; construction related mitigation measures have
been incorporated, but do not mitigate Impacts to a level less than significant. Construction noise
is anticipated to be a significant impact in the immediate vicinity of development.
- Earth Resources -Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. Major mitigation measures fur earth resources
are as fnllow~•: a soi:.s and grading report, a detailed foundation design plan, a foundation
excavation report, an earthquake loading plan and an earthquake emergency response plan will L-e
prepared for each proposed development; standard construction-related mitigation measures have
been Incorporated Into the project. tJo unavoidable adverse Impacts are identified or anticipated.
Groundwater and Surface Hydrology. Majo; mitigation measures for groundwater and surface
hydrology are as follows: a master drainage and runoff management plan, and a water quality
management plan will be prepared for each development; developments will comply with NPDES
regulations; and irrigation systems will be installed in compliance with approved plans. No
unavoidable adverse Impacts ere anticipated.
- Employment, Population and Housing. The project will Indirectly induce employment, and,
therefore, population and housing as well; however, no unavoidable adverse impacts are
_ anticipated.
- Public Services and Utilities. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to
ensure that them are no unavoidable adverse Impacts anticipated related t~ fire and police
services, parks, water and wastewater service, storm drains, electricity, natural gas and television
service and reception.
Unavoidable adverse Impacts are projected to result to schools as the school assessment fee is
not projected to adequately cover all of the costs associated with the additional residents in the
area.
Unavoidable adverse impacts are projected to result from solid waste disposal due to ttie limited
landfill capacity in the area, even with mitigation measures implemented to Iimlt waste.
- Hazardous Materials Compliance. Mitigation measures have been Incorporated Into the project to
protect the health and quality of the environment in the case that an unexpected or unknown
hazardous or toxic waste is uncovered during construction of any development within the specific
plan area. No unavoidable adverse Impacts are anticipated.
- Visual Resources and Aesthetics. Mitigation measures have been Incorporated as follows:
submission of landscape and irrigation plans, shade and shadow analysis, and lighting plans for
parking areas, as necessary for the development; participation. in an assessment district for
landscape installation and maintenance, if one is established. Unavoidable adverse visual Impacts
and passible shade and shadow impacts could occur to property owners and residents adjacent
to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area.
08/29/94
~ Page 10
Cultural Resources. While no unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated, mitigations have been
~ Incorporated in the event that an unexpected archaeological or paleontological artifact is
~ discovered during construction. No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated.
- Energy. While no unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated, mitigation measures have been
Incorporated to minimize energy use throughout the project.
Construction. Construction related impacts are associated with Land Use Compatibility,
and Vf uatl Resources uMltigatioin measures have been loco posted U torthe EIR t Sessen thee
impacts from construction, but not to a level that is considered less than significant.
In summary, the EIR lists potential unavoidable adverse impacts for seven of the environmental areas.
They include: Land Uso Related Plans and Policies; Lano Use Compatibility; Transportation and
Circulation; Air duality; Solid Waste; Schools; Visual Resources and Aesthetics, and, Construction.
The Cumulative Impacts include those same environmental Issue areas as those of the project, with the
exception of the addition of Noise.
thleeopportunityhforCatdoid ngaorelessening elnvironment I impacts~v Eight alter et~es we eJadd esseduine
the EIR as follows:
+ The No-Protect Continuing Development Alternative assumes that implementation of the Ana e m
and regu atiofns would ~emain as they pertaint o the area todaysa9 with minoeVadjustmentsaand as
stated in the Commercial Recreatior. designation of the General Plan.
+ implemoenfted as approvedtebuttthat the 6.8 acretfiotel Circle SpecificlPlan deveiopmenti isPno. is
~ approved and, therefore, is included In the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area, increasing the
project to 556 acres. When the EIR was released for public comment, the Hotel Circle Specific
Plan was pending review, but has recently been approved.
+ AlternativerA, Yeart 2000 assu es thattthe f strstagerof the Anaheim Resort Specif cnPlansis
developed, resulting in a net Increase of approximately 1000 hotel/motel rooms within the Specific
Plan area by the Year 2006. The Lower-Intensity Land Use Alternative B, Year 2008 has been
bgg3~. This site nativelyassumesafullddevelopmient and opei at on of the Disneyland Resort by the in
year 2008, and corresponding induced growth of approximately 5,000 hotel rooms within the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plen area also by the year 2008. As well as the development of
approximately 1 t,300 fewer hotel rooms as compared to that of the proposed project.
+ The High Density Alternative assumes an Increase in the maximum level of proposed hotel/motel
rooms in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan project. This alternative anticipates development of
an InDcre selan development intensity applied only to the Anaheifm Resort Specifio Plan apes with
+ The EIR in' ^rporates by reference three Disneyland Resort EIR land use alternatives for the 56-
acre agricultural parcel located in the southeast portion of the Anaheim Assort Specific Plan which
were originally proposed to bo included within the boundaries of The Disneyland Resort Specific
Plan. The three land use alternatives analyzed for this parcel Include proposed development of a
park, all a sca ei arger than the! hl d theme park analyzed as part of The Disneyland Resort,theme
08/29/94
Page 11
+ The Lower-Intensity Land Use Alternative B, Year 2008 was found to be the environmentally
('~ superior alternative. It would have similar impacts to those anticipated with the proposed protect,
~ but would result in reduced impacts to traffic, air quality, noise, public services and utilities,
employment, population and housing and energy, although not necessarily proportionate to the
reduced scale of the alternative. However, this alternative is not capable of reducing any of the
significant effects expected from project development. The fewer number of hotel rooms would
generate less tax base and associated revenues from which to fund public services, utilities, and
other public Infrastructure Improvements. This alternative would not achieve the economic
objective of the project and would also generate fewer jobs.
There were 26 comment letters received on the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan EIR: 10 from agencies; 2
on behalf of school districts; one from a utility; 8 from private organizations and 5 from individuals. The
comments on the document ranged from concern for traffic, impacts to housing and schools, Impact
from the project on adjacent uses, inquiry on how the project will affect existing business, and letters of
support for the project. No new Issues were raised in the comment letters and no new information had
to be provided. The Response to Comments document provides responses to all of the comments
made. It also includes refinements and clarifications to tho EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for the project and
were included for Commission's review.
Bob Jacob presented the following slides:
1. Public Realm Landscape Program w(II transform the Anaheim Resort Into agarden-like
setting. In order to create this resort identity, a high quality, visually appealing, pedestrian-
oriented environment that visually ties together the many different uses within the area must
be implemented.
2. Public Realm Landscape Program is Intended to transform and unify the area with
landscape. This Area currently lacks an Identity due in part to the abundance of signs,
presence of overhead utilities and lack of consistent landscaping.
3. Primary component of this transformation will be the streetscape, which Includes trees and
shrubs, as well as man-made elements such as light fixtures, benches, entry gateways, signs
and pageantry.
4, A District with a Civic Scale will be created to complement the size and Importance of the
area as a world-class destination resort. Large-scale landscape plantings will be provided
along the major streets.
5.& 6. most victors to the arelacwill expe iencemhetarea'srtstreets at somehtime during their visits
either in vehicles or on foot. Streets and their edges furnish the primary space in which
landscape can be placed to transform the Identity of the Anaheim Resort.
7. & 8. Visitors to the area often come from great distances and lack familiarity with the Anaheim
Resort. These visitors need well-defined visual cues that orient them to their location within
the area. The Public Realm Landscape Program differentiates the major streets within the
Anaheim Resort by establishing landscape treatments that will help create a unique
character for each.
9 feasible with public and private mprovementss sucheas the ulndergrounding oftutilfties.~The
intent is to Install public streetr,~ape Improvements as soon as possible, while minimizing the
need to disrupt these improvements once they've been Installed.
10. & 11. Anaheim Resort and Disneyla~id Resort Specific Plans specify three distinct levels of design
hierarchy called the Public Realm, the Setback Realm, and the Private Realm. Areas within
the ultimate public right-of•way, or the Public Realm are planned as part of this program.
12. & t3. differences between plaoesf eThis will be achieved by establishingi a planting designisystem
~ 08/29/94
~ Page 12
in which basic elements are repeated in an orderly, regular way, while the elements vary to
6~
& 75
~ 14 respond to particular situations.
It is important that the scale of landscape plantings reflect the scale of the place they are
.
. intended to enhance. For example, major streets and entries that will be viewed primarily
from automobiles will require a landscape treatment that is grander in scale and texture than
When there are overlapping needs, that is, when both
edestrians
for
olel
d
d
I
t
.
p
y
en
e
s
n
areas
pedestrian and vehicular scales must be accommodated, the planting design will address
16. both needs.
Throughout the Anaheim Resort, landscape elements including trees and shrubs, as well as
will be arranged in regular patterns that establish order a;uJ a
ht fixt
res
Il
,
u
g
elerc~ents such as
recognizable geometry. The patterns will vary to create different effects, and will help
differentiate one location from another. Generally, street tree plantings will feature reguiarfy-
spaced trees, and the same tree will be used consistently for considerable lengths of the
17. & 18. same street.
Another way the program will creata a unified identity is by identifying the plant materials
that will be used in the Anaheim Resort. The plant palette emphasizes plants which will have
& 20
t9 a positive visual impact and are well adapted to the area.
Colorful plant materials will be used throughout the Anaheim Resort to help create a festive,
.
. cheerful atmosphere. Where appropriate, flowering trees may be used as well as flowering
These colorful shrubs and ground covers will often be planted in
shrubs and ground covers.
large masses of the same plant material in order to create a more dramatic impression.
2t A second design objective is to create a high quality pedestrian environment that reinforces
. the urban character of the area. This will help support an active stree[ environment for
22 shopping, dining and lodging within walking distance from area attractions.
The Program addresses the needs of pedestrians by establishing the size and location of
. pedestrian walks; and, defining the type of landscape necessary to create a pedestrian
23. scale.
Harbor Boulevard is the main north-south street within the Anaheim Resort. Between
fife proposed treatment consists of regularfy-
ewood Avenue
and Oran
A
,
g
venue
Manchester
spaced spreading canopy trees and vertical trees. The canopy trees will provide shade for
pedestrians and the vertical trees are intended to provide a skyline identity for the street.
The median will be planted with the same canopy trees that will be planted in the
landscaped parkways. The Intent is that the trees eventually close over the street to create
a green canopy. Shrubs will be planted to form a barrier to prevent pedestrian crossings at
24 mid-block.
Katella Avenue is the main east•west street within the Anaheim Resort. In the spirit of
. differentiating the major streets from each other, the landscape on Katella Avenue will feature
The intent is to create a dramatic Impression
l
ms.
formal colonnades of regularly-spaced pa
with the multiple rows of closelyspaced palms; maximize the effectiveness of the area
le layers to create an increased sense of depth of
multi
th
i
p
e
ng
available far landscape by us
the landscape along the street; and use the palm's ultimate height to help create a feeling of
enclosure, thereby reducing the apparent scale of the street.
Pedestrian walks on both sides of the street will be separated from the vehicular traffic by a
25 landscaped parkway.
West Street/Disneyland Drive has two typical conditions. North of Ball Road, tt is the
, northern arrival street into the Anaheim Resort. The landscape treatment will be an
which is currently proposed to
nt of the I-5 Interchange
t
t
,
me
rea
extension of the landscape
feature evergraen vertical trees and other plants. South of Ball Road, the landscape is
Intended to help tie together the different uses on either side of the street with a planting of
Katella Avenue to the north end of the planned public
f
rom
canopy trees and vertical trees
parking facility. Pedestrian walks will be separated from vehicular traffic by a landscaped
parkway along the entire length of the street. South of 1Catella Avenue, on West Street, the
existing Magnolia trees in a landscaped parkway are proposed to remain.
~ 08/29/94
^~ Page 13
26. Freedman Way, Clementine Street, Anaheim Boulevard and Manchester Avenue are
Important vehicular access roads to the Anaheim Resort. The proposed landscape for the
t public right-of-way of the west portion is similar, with regularly spaced, alternating canopy ~
trees and vertical trees in a landscaped parkway and in a landscaped median where ~
possible. This slide also shows the monorail planned in The Disneyland Resort Specffic Plan i
for Freedman Way and Clementine Street.
27. Walnut Street forms the western edge of the Anaheim Resort. The proposed landscape
within the public right-of-way will Include canopy trees planted in a continuous parkway on
the east side of the street and in a new median which will be installed between Ball Road
and Katella Avenuo. Trees of a similar size and type will be installed on the west side of the
street.
28. The recently reconstructed Convention Way will remain as is wh(le Pacifico Avenue will
ultimately feature a formal colonnade of regularly-spaced palms with a subtropical plant
palette to provide a backdrop to the palms.
29. There's a number of local streets within the Specific Plan area including Alro Way, Casa 1
Vista Street, Ox Road, Vermont Avenue, West Place and Zeyn Street. Public Realm
Improvements Include a landscaped parkway where possiblo with street trees and a
pedestrian sidewalk.
30. In summary, this presentation was a general overview of the different landscape treatments
that will help create a unifying resort identity.
Margaret Sewell presented the following slides:
t & 2 To set this area apart as a premier urban destination resort, they have created a dlstinctlve
Identity through the consistent use of a visual theme in streetscape elements and signing.
3, 4,& 5 Showed this visual theme Incorporates 7 design goals:
_ 1. Reinforce the garden environment created by the extensive landscaping ~
2. Be consistent in design and placement with the symmetry of the landscape planting.
3. Emulate traditional garden elements such as trellises, arbors and garden benches.
4. Use an open metal trellis-work design vocabulary when appropriate.
5. Use a 1lmited number of colors in the color palette incorporating colors found in
traditional garden furnishings.
6. Convey a warmth and friendliness that will make visitors feel welcome.
7. Design a special logo far the Anaheim Resort that is a symbol of welcome.
- The logo that has been developed is a floral bouquet of California poppies and orange
blossoms.
- Not only can this logo be used on stationery, brochures, and other collateral material,
you will see it used throughout the Anaheim Resort as a full-color ceramic tile.
8. The Identity Program elements appear in the Public Realm and the Setback Realm.
7, The Public Realm - placing both streetscape elements and signs. The streetscape
elements include gateways, light fixtures with pageantry, and street furniture (bus
shelters, benches, and trash receptacles). In addition, elements of public art will also be
Incorporated Into the Public Realm to the extent feasible and will be encouraged in the
Private Realm.
g. Gateways define the entries to the Anaheim Resort. Four locations are planned
including two on Katella Avenue -one east of Walnut Street and one west of Haster
Street; and,lwo on Harbor Boulevard -one south of Manchester Avenue and one north
of Orangewood Avenue. Gateways announce to visitors that they are entering a special
place with a resort or recreation character.
~ 08/29/94
~ Page 14
9. With a length of 34 feet, gateways are Intended to have the feeling of an event that has
~' duration as well as location. Made up of a symmetrical arrangement of columns,
t. curving open trellis, flower planters and colorful flags.
10. They are both monumental and festive in design. The columns set on a base of colored
concrete and are capped with internally illuminated lanterns and incorporate mirror
polish stainless steel for sparkle and brilliance.
11. Special warm and cool night lighting effects create a prominent portal at night as well as
during the day.
12. The standard street light used in the City of Anaheim will be replaced by a fixture that
fits with the traditional garden trellis design vocabulary.
13. The armature for pageantry banners has been designed to be removable and will be
attached to the tapered, fluted pob. Banners will be brightly colored and festive. They
will be changed regularly to ensure proper maintenance and quality of appearance.
14. All street furniture in the Anaheim Resort will be compatible with and will enhance the
landscaped garden environment.
15 & 16. Bus shelters will Incorporate the diamond trellis pattern in the roof. Benches will be a
standard design with special trellis arms.
17. Trash receptacles will also Incorporate the trelliswork design.
18. The streetscape elements announce to visitors that they are entering the Anaheim
Resort, signs get them to their destination. Five sign types make up the sign system
~ providing vehicular information, direction and regulation; street identification; and,
~ pedestrian direction and information.
19. We want visitors to feel comfortable and welcome in the Anaheim Resort. One of the
best ways to do this is to help keep them from getting lost. This is accomplished
through a consistent and uniform presentation of information (n the right place at the
right time.
20. A unique graphic look has been designed that Incorporates a legible typeface, the ~
I
diamond trellis design pattern, as a subtle pattern on the background of the signs and a
special sign color palette that complements the landscape.
21. The cantilever sign is the primary vehicular directional sign and displays information over
the street. This is especially Important for vehicles traveling at higher speeds on Harbor
and Katella. These signs may Incorporate both fixed and changeable messages as
needed.
22. Median and Parkway signs function as primary vehicular informational signs. They are ,
symmetrical in design and may Incorporate some changeable messages.
23, Standard Department of Transportation regulatory signs are mounted on poles
designed to be similar to the street light fixtures. Street identification signs Incorporate
the special graphic standards of the Anaheim Resort and may be internally illuminated.
~ 08/29/94
~ Page 15
24, 25 & 26 The Anaheim Resort will be a pedestrian environment. Cast bronze maps with an
anticipated life expectancy of 20 years will be Imbedded in the sidewalk at major
intersections on Harbor and Katella . They w(II also provide directional Information to
primary destinations. They are Intended to decorate and animate the intersection In a
unique and memorable way. This family of signs has been designed to give the
Anaheim Resort a unique Identity and provide optimum legibility in the environment.
27. Freestanding Monument sign -these signs are located in the Setback Realm and are
Intended to identify particular businesses, uses or properties. Since these signs are
designe2 to reinforce the identity of the Anaheim Resort, a similar trellis design is used.
The trellis pattern is molded into the precast colored concrete base. The column mold
also accommodates a recess for the Anaheim Resort logo tile. A uniform Internally
illuminated sign face displays the street number at the top of the sign.
26. Sign size will be determined by the amount of street frontage. The length of the sign
face varies from approximately 10 feet to 14 feet. Flexibility in how the business identfty
is displayed has been provided (in examples, through typeface, logos, color).
29. Also before the Commission today is the Anaheim Resort Nonconforming Signage
Program which is applicable to all properties within the Anaholm Resort which have legal
nonconforming freestanding pole signs. This program, which will be available for three
years, has been developed to provide a financial incentive to encourage the replacement
of pole signs in the Anaheim Resort, with primary focus on Harbor Boulevard and Katella
Avenue. It is hoped that the program will expedite the replacement of the pole signs,
helping to transfor;~.:he area Into a resort environment.
30 & 31 The Identity Program helps create the unique character that will draw visitors to the area
and enhance the high quality of their stay in Anaheim, It will help create a truly
enjoyable experience.
Deputy City Manager Tom Wood explained that the Anaheim Resort represents a significant revenue
source to the Clty for Investment in City-wide activities. However, without continued growth, renewal,
and Investment in transportation and public Infrastructure, the area's attractions may ver; well be
bypassed in favor of other visitor destinations, resulting in negative economic and fiscal consequences
to Anaheim and all of Orange County.
The area's Impact on the City's budget is significant, currently contributing in the range of a net $7 to
$10 million annually. W(th continued growth and enhancement, this net annual contribution to the City's
budget has the potential to increase substantially before paying for Infrastructure Improvements.
Cognizant of the area's direct impact on the citizens of Anaheim, the Ciry is stepping forward with this
comprehensive revitalization and f(nancing program that is understanding of the needs of existing, as
well-as future developments, is supportive and complementary of expansion plans envisioned by Disney,
and sets the foundation for our future.
To realize this financial growth, the City's continuing challenge is to encourage fiscally beneficial
economic development within the area as part of a long-range strategy to maintain and improve the
economic vigor and competitive vitality of this significant tax generator. These fiscal benefits will support
municipal services and facilities for residents and visitors alike. But economic prosperity will not occur
without continued reinvestment and growth, both in private development and matching public
infrastructure.
i 06/29/94
~,,, Page 16
~ The condition of the streets and public Infrastructure serving both the Convention Center and Disneyland
is languishing. This is being addressed through the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and associated
programs. These programs bear the potential of creating, with the continued viability of the Convention
Center and Disneyland, a truly world class destination resort.
The public infrastructure costs for area-wide improvements have been estimated at a gross of $172.5
million.
Comprehensive analysis suggests a number of potential sources for such Infrastructure and
improvement funding, none of which requires an Increase in resident tax rates. The City and the
hotel/motel industry have explored the feasibility of an Increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax. These
additional funds, coupled with TOT revenues presently being placed in reserve, would be earmarked for
reinvestment in improvements in the Anaheim Resort and Convention Center. In addition, the City will
utilize current federal, state and regional infrastructure funding that has been designated for this area.
For example, the City plans to upgrade ICatella Avenue concurrent with improvements planned under
Measure M. Finally, there is the opportunity to utilize savings from anticipated debt repayment on
Convention Center bonds that will be occurring in the near future.
Each of these funding approaches will require policy discussion and ultimate approval by the City
Council. Staff will be reiining its recommendations for City Council action in the near term.
This is an exciting program that is within the City's financial ability to accomplish. It will ensure that
Anaheim remains the premier convention and family destination choice in Southern California.
Chairwoman Boydstun stated the Commission is going to take a 45-minute lunch break so the public
testimony can all be heard together.
,_ RECESS: 11:40 A.M.
RECONVENED: 12:55 P.M.
Robert Ball, 7532 Laster Avenue, Anaheim,stated he had submitted a letter regarding the draft Anahelm
Resort Specific EIR Plan and voiced concern that the EIR d(d not Include any specifics on the low
Income housing area called "Jeffrey Lynne", an aging, highly blighted one by three-block area, consisting
of over 700 apartments, in about 70 buildings, most of which are owned by absentee owners and (s
located directly across Walnut Street from the Disneyland Hotel and the Anaheim Resort boundary.
Residents of this area are a principal source of low-income employees for the service Industry in the
resort area. Hls principal concern with the EIR is that it does not specifically cover Jeffrey Lynne,
especially considering its proximity to Disney and the resort boundary.
He strongly disagreed with one of the EIR responses which states that "Environmental impacts
attributable to the in-migration are not expected to be significant," adding he thought It seems highly
likely that there would be a significant Impact on this area.
Mr. Ball stated Jeffrey Lynne continues to be a maJor issue for the City in crime and by Its almost third
world appearance and this is totally inconsistent with the resort atmosphere Imagined by either Disney or
the City of Anaheim.
The area continues to be a ma(or cause of neighborhood decay in the residential area, west of Walnut
Street. And the City's response to his letter was less than a consoling list of 41 government and private
social programs designed to assure that there were no significant Impacts associated with the Jeffrey
Lynne neighborhood. In spite of the good intentions of these programs, the physical deterioration of this
ghetto area, or at least it is anear-ghetto, continues and he understood that it has the No. 2 crime rate
(n the City.
08/29/94
:.,.i Page 17
He added it is also his opinion that no amount of social programs by themselves will ever meld Jeffrey
Lynne Into the environment or the atmosphere that is projected by either Disney or the City.
He stated today he has heard the following wards from staff describing the proposed project: "world
class destination resort"; "cheerful atmosphere"; "high quality pedestrian experience"; "Walnut Street will
be canopied"; "a garden environment"; 'warm and friendliness to make visitors welcome"; "feel like you
are entering a special place;" "flowers, trees and warm colors;" "make visitors feel comfortable and
welcome;" "transfer the area into a truly enjoyable experience." He asked how many Commissioners
have ever driven through the Jeffrey Lynne area, and if they have, did these words Just spoken come to
mind?"
He stated he is disappointed with what he considered to be a glossing over of the Jeffrey Lynne area.
He concluded by making the following recommendations:
Consider placing Jeffrey Lynne under Redevelopment and provide incentives for the private
sector to develop a housing project, ending up with a more controllable one•ownership
situation. He did not believe that area w(II ever be cleaned up, otherwise; that it's almost an
impossible task for the good City employees who are working very hard to clean it up to
handle 60, 65, 70 owners.
He would 11ke specific plans included for Jeffrey Lynne in Anaheim's 20D to 300 million dollar
resort upgrade plans.
Cover the Jeffrey Lynne Issue as a point of focus in the next Anaheim Regional Needs
Progress Report which is due in 1996, but only if it can't be done before.
Juantia Matassa, 100 North Ross, Santa Ana, stated the City of Anaheim is to be congratulated for
recognizing that currently the Anaheim Resort Area is a disgraceful eyesore and that something needs to
be done. As a lifelong resident of Southern California, she added she recognizes the Importance of
tourism as an Industry and is glad that Anaheim recognizes this and is trying to do something to
upgrade the area. She added as she looked at the drawings and pictures on the screens, she saw that
the garden, victorian atmosphere is something which will evoke a human empathy response which
means people will be {n it and will like it. She thought the maps in the sidewalks are an excellent Idea
but thought terrazzo would be better than the bronze for various reasons. She also thought the poppy
and orange blossom logo is appropriate and it is a bright cheerful way of tying the whole area together.
She added so far the City staff and Planning Commission are on the right track and doing well.
Jerry O'Connell, 970 South Harvard Circle, Anaheim, 92807, President of Pacific Coast Sightseeing
Tours, Grayline of Anaheim, stated he is here to discuss comments on the environmental impact report
as it pertains to bus transportation and these comments were in response to the City's response to his
letter dated July 13th addressed to Joel Fick.
He stated with regard to the first response that the intermodal transportation center is being sought by
OCTA that is not a part of this Specif(c Plan, and he would not address it at this time. He added,
however, he saw some incredible problems in servicing the traveling public if visitors are required to be
filtered through a transportation center.,
He referred to Response 2, where (t is stated, "large bus compan(es should take a look at operating
smaller coaches for picking up at hotels not accessible by larger coaches." He stated these coaches,
whether large or small, are not cheap and Pacific Coast recently spent 5675,000 on two new deluxe
highway coaches to better service their passengers. He stated if they are required to spend 560,000 to
5150,000 on a smaller coach, then it would take many mare such vehicles to perform the service and
then they would only utilize those vehicles for one to two hours a day, and it Just doesn't make too
much business, f(nancial, or very good business sense, or operational sense. He stated the plan calls
for reducing traffic; however, this will be Increasing traffic in the area while increasing safety problems
06/29/94
~~-' Page 18
also. He added basically, to cut the bus In half, means twice as many vehicles will be needed to service
the public.
He stated another area of concern would be consolidating bus passengers at hotels and motels that can
accommodate large buses; that the plan calls for taking people from the smaller properties to some of
the bigger properties, and he thought the hotel owners will not be too happy .:lien 200 to 300
passengers converge on their property looking for tour buses or airport buses. and it would be pure
chaos, as well as a safety nightmare. He added we need to keep things simple and efficient for the
visitor.
He stated he is encouraged that northbound Harbor Boulevard is being considered for designation as a
"bus only" lane during peak bus traffic hours. He agreed that bus stops in key areas could accompl(sh
what everyone is after, a safe and efficient transportation service to accommodate all the traveling
public. He stated passenger accessibility, as well as bus accessibillty, is critical to the enjoyment and
satisfaction of the visitors who stay here in Anaheim and a high percentage of visitors use bus service,
whether it be a sightseeing tour, airport transfer, shopping shuttle, or convention shuttle. He added he
felt a lot of planning must go into how to better serve our guests. He urged the Commission to take a
close look at this operationally.
He staP;d as a tour bus operator, with operational experience, he will be happy to work with the Ciry to
help designate safe bus stops that will not deteriorate traffic service. He explained a few years back, he
served on a task force to designate tour bus stops throughout the area and will be happy to serve on a
similar task force.
Ron Dominguez, Executive Vice President of Disneyland, 1313 Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, stated ft is a
pleasur^ to be here to address the Commission on what he believed is one of the most Important
docume.its to be considered in the City of Anaheim. He stated the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan is a
blueprint fnr the future of our city; that it represents an exciting opportunity for city leaders, civic leaders
and business and property owners to plan the future of our Commercial Recreation Area and the future
health of our community.
He stated during the past 39 years he has been with Disneyland, he has seen Anaheim grow from a
sleepy agricultural farmland to an economic engine for tourism in Anaheim, Orange County and
Southern California. He stated for a number of years now, the Commercial Recreation area has had
some difficulties accommodating growth without the benefit of an overall vision and master plan for the
area.
He added City leaders and property owners struggled to determine how growth should be
accommodated and have let the pursuit of business growth take precedence over building a unffled,
beautiful and economically viable commercial recreation area.
He stated with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, the central visitors serving area will continue to grow
and prosper under a unified resort Image. Parkways will be added, uniform signs will mark the main
entries Into the Anaheim Resort Area and sidewalks will be widened with trees and shrubs, improving the
walkways, not only for small merchants, but for large merchants al(ke, and it will benefit large businesses
and small businesses from improved foot traffic. Now is the tine to make changes to set the City's
Course for the next century.
As with a very amb(tious program, there are bound to be a few challenges that will happen along the
way. The ways and means of financing these plans need to be satisfactorily addressed. Infrastructure
priorities need to be set and agreed upon. The tim(ng of these Installations also needs to be addressed '~
and he trusted the City staff and the Planning Commission and the City Council will work with the
business community to resolve these Issues. i
' 08/29/94
~ Page 19 y
,~.\ Mr. Dominguez stated these are his last couple days with Disneyland and thanked the Planning staff and
the Planning Commission for taking the time and tenacity to care about Anaheim. He added it has been
a great pleasure working with all of them over the years and Indeed appropriate that his final comments
here today be addressed for the future of this city.
The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan is very Important and he was proud to have played an Important role
in the tourism industry and worked so closely with so many individuals. He thanked staff and
Commission for their determination to make this City a great one. With all of these exciting changes, he
knew that Anaheim will be a place to live, to work for many years and for the many visitors who visit this
area.
B. J. Fair, Disney Development Company, 1313 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, stated on behalf of
Disney Development Company, he wanted to take this opportunity to salute the City planning staff; that
for the last four years, they have worked tirelessly to create tills end document, 'The Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan" which brings a promise of solid urban renewal to the Commercial Recreation Area.
He stated when Disney began to consider a second gate expansion in Anaheim, they were concerned
about the aesthetic appearance of the CR area and knew there were numerous opportunities to create a
high quality resort environment. He stated in their Initial discussions with the City leaders, many
acknowledged the fiscal importance of this CR area to the City and they shared the belief that the CR
area needed a strong overall vision and an updated master planning document that would guide and
encourage future growth. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan documents this ambitious vision and
provides property owners and city planners with an overall outline of future growth and development.
Mr. Fair continued that when Disney was working on its specific plan for the Disneyland Resort, they
worked very closely with the City Planning staff in devising development programs and architectural
standards that could be adopted throughout the entire Anaheim Resort. Private and public planning
realms were defined allowing City Planners to concentrate on Public Realm Programs that would
Improve conditions throughout the entire Anaheim Resort Area. The Public Realm Plan calls for
attractive streetscapes with large median parkways, sign controls, lush landscaping and larger sidewalks
to encourage pedestrian activity. Extensive public Infrastructure Improvements such as undergrounding
unsightly util(ry 11nes and the installation of up-sized water lines and sewer mains are equally critical in
encouraging future growth.
Mr. Fair stated while they certainly appreciate and support the City's effort to Improve the CR area, there
are two main issues where they would 11ke further clarification. He stated they are concerned over the
identification and calculation of the fair share improvements. Fair share cost sharing is critical to the
success of the Specific Plan and is the only way to ensure a level playing field for all property owners.
He stated they would like a clear definition and timeframe and the pr(orities and phasing of the public
infrastructure improvements. Especially the timing and financing source of the background or non-
committed improvements.
He stated overall they vaould like to encourage adoption of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan; that by
laying the Infrastructure necessary to ma(ntain current businesses, while supporting future growth, this
city is wisely securing its financial future and only with this revitalized resort Image, can Anaheim retain
Ks market advantage as tfie {eading fami{y and meeting destination in Southern California
Jeff Kirsch, 2tifil West Palais Road, Anaheim, stated he has several concerns about this project which
remain unaddressed through the EIR, even back from the scoping hearing, and he hoped that those
concerns will be considered before this project goes forward. He continued that the fundamental
concept seems a little bit uncertain and follows the philosophy, "If you build it, they will come", which
may make a great movie but doesn't always work out in real life.
08/29/94
1~.,-./
Page 20
He stated in the scoping hearing the question was raised, with the water colors a~~d ~,!ca lush greenery,
if the consumers, the tourist, the ultimate people who will fund this economic engine were surveyed or
consulted for their perception and reception of the effect this will have on their stay. He added he is
particularly concerned about the ease of movement they will have around this resort.
He stated he noticed comparing the before and after pictures in the back of the study, the homogenized
monumant signs may look good on a drafting table, but he felt tourists will have difficulty picking out
their destinations with the profuseness of the lush landscaping, the low latitude of the signs relative to
other vehicles and even pedestrians, all of which the concept assumes will be in abundance.
He referred to a similar situation in downtown Fullerton where a sleek sidewalk facade looked great on a
drawing board, but ultimately hurt the businesses it was proposed to help and it had to then be torn
down at further taxpayer expense.
He added as far as other considerations of the economics, he also has unanswered questions; that the
project seems to upgrade and make overnight stays, hotel and motel rooms more expensive, yet
assumes people will then extend their stay. He thought those economics will force either reduced stays
or leakage to other cities. He asked if it is any wonder that we have seen recently in the media that the
City of Garden Grove which had objections to this project, now looks at it more favorably and added he
believed they are going to increase their more economical overnight stays and have more revenue at
our expense because we will be paying for the Improvements that make this site attractive. He stated
there is no corresponding revenue graph in this study showing the Impact of the revanue loss during
construction due to demolition and other effects.
He stated as to specific objections as to the infrastructure, the project shares a similarity which is hard
to define sometimes with the Westcot program and Its analysis of offects and the numbers, but again
there are questions about the areas of solid waste, water usage, congestion, noise, sewers and drainage
and he would like to Incorporate his concerns about that project also and about this one by reference.
He stated the Fire section specifies that a new well is proposed that is going to pump 4,000 gallons per
minute, yet there is no effect in the calculations of this load on the aquifer for the ground water section.
He stated the answer given to that in the report is that MWD water is available and added every rate
payer in Anaheim will pay for that MWD water, which demand is being created by this single project.
Similarly the situation with solid waste.
He stated the biggest problem that stood out in the report, is the total lack of addressing the aspect of
public accessible parks and recreational public facilities. He stated despite the fact that ma,ry city
studies have shown that West Anaheim has a lack of public recreational facilities and despite the fac:
that there are two nearby Rede~~elopment projects in the area, Brookhurst and the commercial/ industrial
projects, both have addressed this problem, by Identifying the needs, including those of the nonresident
employees for lunch time and after work use, by proposing mitigation measures fnr development and
acquisition of now facilities. He added to him it is inconceivable that this project which is in close
proximity to Jeffrey Lynne, an area with social and economical difficulties, might benefit from access to
public recreation; that the project which is, in all likelihood, publicly funded which has within it acres of
vacant land available for public access recreational development which portrays Itself as a recreation
oriented endeavor would make no mention whatever despite superficisl repoated references to
promoting recreational park-like settings, and inducing opportunities within the landscaped parkways and
medians. He added even after this issue was raised by a comment letter from the Orange County
Environmental Management Agency with a similar response, he would ask when the Commission's
children want to play somewhere, will they tell them, "Let's go down and play in the parkways and
medians of the Commercial Recreation Area, or let's have a picnic there", or are you going to take h(m
to a real park. He added this seems to be a policy of locals, only in reverse, it is tourists only.
08/29/94
~--~' Page 21
He stated another objection in the same line is that biking and hiking trails are portrayed as circulation
~"'' and not recreational use and, therefore, specifically mentioned as excluded in the report.
He stated although he is only Iimfted by his time to analyze the report, he has a problem with the
incompatibility of the attractive labor force with the Housing Element, and as in the Ciry of Garden
Grove's comment letter.
He added he supports the improvement in this area, but thought these problems have to be addressed
in order to get a quality project that will not just push these problems Into the future where they will be
harder to solve.
Lois Jeffrey, Deputy G?ty Attorney for the Ciry of Garden Grove, business address Rourk, Woodruff and
Spravlen, 7^t Siiuth Parker Street, Suite 7000, Orange, California. She stated the City of Garden Grove
continues to support the viability of the Convention Center and Disneyland and wish the Ciry success in
that endeavor. However, they feel that there are some serious problems with the EIR and with the
proposed project and she is here to urge the Commission not to take action today, not to certHy the EIR
and not to recommend approval of the project, but instead to cure the Inadequacies of the EIR, fix the
inadequacies of the Specific Plan and in fact, come back and approve a better project.
She stated she has submitted for the record today a letter dated August 29, 1994, which details their
reaction to the responses to comments that were made by the City of Garden Grove. She stated in
summary, they feel that the responses were totally Inadequate and they did not address the major
environmental deficiencies which they saw in the EIR and first, it failed to examine traffic Impacts outside
the City of Anaheim.
Ms. Jeffrey stated they learned today for the first time, and in fact, it was quite a shock that this is not a
program EIR, but rather it is a Master EIR and a project EIR and that means this is their only chance to
have an Input on rPnional traffic Issues. She added regional traffic Impacts are simply not addressed
.~ and, in fact, the data from which they would be able to determine whether or not they were even studied
is not included in the EIR. Instead the EIR has done something that is very unusual for an EIR, and
that's only to put in traffic data that shows the intersections where there is a significant Impact. The
other data on other Intersections that were studied is simply not available.
She stated the other thing that is unusual about the traffic analysis in this EIR is the choice of an artKiclal
number of 3% as determining significant Impact. Usually significant Impact at an Intersection is judged
to be at t%. 3% may be a number that's used in the CMP program, but that's not an environmental
program; that's a planning program that deals with Prop 111 funds, so that's not an adequate measure
and certainly not what is typically used as a measure of a signifcant traffic impart.
We've also pointed out that the drainage impacts haven't been studied in a drainage area in Garden
Grove (Raster Stroet Basin). There was no response to that particular comment.
She stated finally, they do echo and support the comments that have been made earlier In the
presentation today. The EIR simply does not address the Impacts on the fiscal environment in terms of
11ght, overcrowding and decay that are going to be caused by this development.
This development will engender Jobs and mast of them will be low paying jobs. The Ciry of Anaheim's
Housing Element already recognizes that the city itself is not able to meet its demands for low End
moderate income housing. Those needs are fall(ng short by 40 to 50% at the current time. This project
provides no housing. It doesn't provide ar•~ housing on site; it doesn't provide any house offsite. It
provides nothing to help rehabilitate the neighboring area of Jeffrey Lynne. It provides nothing to deal
with the spillover effects of employees trying to find housing in the Ciry of Garden Grove and
unfortunately, they have the same problems and are not adequately meeting their low and moderate
Income housing demands and they are going to now have to deal with the spillover effects from
Anaheim without any mitigation.
~ 08/29/94 1I
!"""' Page 22
S
i
She continued that finally, She project is not consistent with Anaheim's General Plan; that Anaheim has 4
tea, two policy goals in the General Plan that tries to deal with fife recognition that you are not meeting your
housing needs. Those policies are not met by the Specific Plan.
One policy is that you Intend to provide a balanced land use to help meet Anaheim's projected housing
needs. The other policy is to promote mixed use projects. None of those policies are reflected In this
specific plan. And finally, the failure of the traffic Impact analysis to adequately examine regional
impacts outside the Ciry of Anaheim is going to make it impossible for the City of Anaheim to comply
with its Measure M requirements and that is that you impose mitigation measures on those development
projects that will Impact the regional transportation system. Not Just arterials within the City of Anaheim,
but throughout the region.
So in conclusion, she stated they support the project, but think this is not the time to approve it. The
EIR needs to be corrected. The Specific Plan needs to be corrected and then they would like to come
back and support the project once that is done.
Steve White, 856 North Clement(ne, Anaheim 92805, explained he is also the Vice President of Anaheim
H.O.M,E and there are four additional speakers. He stated his concern !s the air quality Issue and
referred to the staff response, Section 4.4.1, which correctly Identifies it, even with all feasible mitigation
measures, emissions from motor vehicle travel are expected to exceed SCAOMD thresholds for ROG,
NOx, CO and PM10 emissions both on a project specific and accumulative basis.
He stated these are Impacts on regional air quality and the EIR Indicates no significant localized air
quality Impacts will occur. The Disney EIR and the agricultural monitoring station have identified
particularly for NOx, nitrogen oxide emissions, levels that were twice the federal standard and 3 times
the state standard. He added he just wanted to put that on record and that is at current levels and with
the additional travel this project anticipates, doubling the amount of traffic coming into the park, it Is
obviously going to exacerbate the very significant problem.
Mr White stated both federal and state Air Ouality Acts require that when air quality is diminished below
the thresholds that are specified, the amount of traffic is supposed to be reduced and it becomes
incumbent upon governmental agencies to develop a plan to do that. He thought this plan is doing
exactly the opposite in that it is increasing the amount of traffic into the area and, therefore, it is
exacerbating the problem.
Betty Ronconi, 1241 South Walnut Street, Anaheim, stated the Commission is going to approve the EIR,
but they have to hear what the residents have to say and it's Important because it seemed to her that
the EIR process lets people decide what they want and then they decide how to get it and the mitigation
is not effective.
Ms. Ronconi stated the focus of this is the CR area which does need upgrading, but so does the whole
majority of the West Anaheim area which is suffering now. Plus, Downtown Anaheim is suffering. The
residential area right around the CR area is suffering. She stated we have a lack of focus on the
residential areas in this city.
She referred to the EIR and added they still have nol provided adequate noise buffers from the area and
rrom the traffic that is going to be brought in.
She added they have an existing problem which is going to be extremely worsened when West Street is
closed; that local traffic will not be using West Street like it is now, but will go to Walnut Street, which is
a residential area. It is the division line between the CR and the residential areas and there is absolutely
no noise buffering whatsoever for that residential area.
~ 08/29/94
Page 23
Ms. Ronconi referred to air quality and stated they have a problem with the buses now and breathing
~'~'\ their fumes and that when they are in their own backyard, they can smell diesel fumes which is not
good. She explained it comes from the hotel across the street.
She stated the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance is very Inadequate; that she knows from personal
experience, it is very ineffective in controlling any disturbing noise, no matter what time of the day. She
stated they can't sleep through noises they get at times from the CR area. She stated if Disneyland did
not have good will towards the neighbors, or if any other entity does not have good will, there is noway
to effectively stop any noise. She added the City's noise ordinance does not even address Impulse
noises, which means any pyrotechnics, any fireworks, etc., and they have no control over it whatsoever.
She stated they have 24-hour construction on this project and that 60 dba's at the property line is a
tremendous amount when you live across the street and they can't sleep from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. through
60 dba's at night.
She stated everyone knows that in Anaheim, all public services have been cut and that the tourism in
Anaheim is not benefiting this city in the way that it should. She stated although EIRs don't dwell on
financial aspects, that is something that has to be dealt with, and if we don't deal with it, Anaheim is
going to get worse and worse. She added it has gotten so much worse in the past several years; and
that other Industries are gone and tourism is our Industry and we du not get enough return from our
tourism.
She stated we need to not only locus on the CR area but also on the rest of the city and how this will
affect it.
Richard Anthony, Anaheim HOME, mailing address: P. 0. Box 9036, Anaheim, 92812, street address is
1205 South Walnut. He stated he would Ilke to address the visual effects of this proposed plan and
referred to the West Street flyaway; that is an unsightly blight which will have an enormous visual and
~- financial Impact on all residents and commercial and business establishments in the immediate area. He
stated he certainly would not want to be a resident and live in this area; and that the view people used
to enjoy would be obstructed by concrete.
He stated their eyes and lungs would water and sting from the increased fumes that would be
generated, and his property values will plunge and they are plunging already because this Is the plan
that is in place. He did not know anyone who is going to be buying homes in this area and asked who
would possibly want to live there now.
He stated local businesses will be impacted by the obstructed views and diverted traffic plans. He
asked why there was no considerations given to undergrounding this flyaway. He asked why this
unsightly visual obstruction is gong to be created when hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent
undergrounding visual obstruction of large utility lines. He added on these plans alone, the plan must
be rejected.
He stated he also would like to address the visual effects on Katella and iiarbor Boulevards. At present,
driving down Harbor Boulevard offers an unobstructed view of restaurants and hotels and he is happy
with that because he can drive down Harbor, see a restaurant where he would like to eat and pull in,
have a nice meal, etc.
He stated he is really unhappy about the heavy taxpayers mantes to tear down all the signs and asked
why they can not Just be replaced with uniform signs. Then they are going to plant large trees to block
the view, and put up banners and flags all over the street. He added he would be so totally distracted,
that he would never stop at any restaurant or commercial establishment, so the net effect of this is lower
visualization, blocked views and a loss of business revenue due to reduced visibility.
4„ ~„, 08/29/94
Page 24
He added on Katella, the same situation applies with one major exception. The Planning Commissioners
'"~ approved the largest and ugliest electronic s(gn that he had ever seen which is big round polished
tubular steel, 20-ft. high and it blurts out a blinking message every fifteen seconds, distracting motorists
who are whisking along Katella Boulevard at 50 miles an hour. He stated the sign's sole purpose is to
direct traffic to Disneyland; and tha! he thought over 95% of all the traffic was coming off freeways,
directed byfly-always right Into parking structures.
In conclusion, Mr. Anthony stated he was concerned about the expenditure of hundreds of millions of
dollars of taxpayer money without the firm commitment from Disney to build. This again Just revisits the
philosophy of, "We will build it, they will come." He referred to the ice rink and stated in order to even
get permission to build it, the Rams were released from their lease obligation, and the Ciry went ahead
and built it anyway, but no one would come, so then being on the hook for over a hundred million
dollars to Ogden, they looked for a way out and Disney rescued them. He asked if this is a $300 million
expenditure of taxpayer money, a Disney payoff for rescuing us.
Curtis Stricker, 1117 Wakefield Place, Anaheim, 92802, which is the area he felt is being encroaching
upon by not having a plan that is sufficient. He stated generally there are some things he would Ilke to
talk about and did not know if they are going to have any influence and added the last time the
Commission made a decision on an EIR, the City had five lawsuits. He stated they didn't listen to
anybody then and he supposed it will be the same way this time.
He stated he would like to talk about agricultural land; that he read an article in the paper indicating that
agricultural ground is being seriously jeopardized by expansion and encroachment by Ciry expansion.
He stated the large garage will take out a lot of strawberry patches and the other one already has plans
for development in the year 2000. He stated that is something this Ciry should be always thinking about
and asked how we are going to feed ourselves. He suggested not building concrete on top of ground
that is productive.
He recommended that the Commission receive all this Input from this public hearing, and then digest it.
He added they should really come back to the N~ople, and ask what they think about this.
He stated personally he thought they are still having a fraud perpetrated on them and pointed out ono of
the pictures which shows two lanes and asked how they are going to make that Into a superstreet? He
added he understood there are some specifications in the EIR regarding street widths (110 feet wide, 90
feet wide) but basically all the widths of the streets are being reduced to provide for the trees, and palm
trees don't take very much root space.
He stated Tom Wood discussed the subject of how it was going to be paid for and he listed, or
suggested Measure M was going to take care of Katella superstreet and we still don't know how much
this whole project is going to cost. He asked if this Is marching orders to determine just the particulars
of the EIR, or does financial support, getting it done and how to pay for it have any influence on the
EIR? He added ff it does, then we have to talk about it, and if It doesn't, Tom Wood's remarks have to
be crossed from the record. Does it or doesn't (t? That is something that has to be decided. How do
you pay for it has been their issue for a long t(me.
Mr. Stricker stated along with that, he remembered that Anaheim H.O.M.E was the second group who
saw the program, three or four years ago, and Kerry Hunewetl, with Disney, asked what he thought of it
and he responded to him that he thought it was kind of meager and it doesn't even begin to do what
Disney and what our Planning could do. He explained he thought we have now expanded ourself from
the Disney curb line over to the west curb line of Walnut or the south curb line of Katella and he really
wanted to Impress upon Commission and staff that thev, have to start thinking clear down Katella, and
clear down Harbor.
08/29/94
Page 25
,., He stated the representative for Garden Grove made a goad point, and we are not doing that and
suggested getting it out to the freeway. He asked if the Commissioners had driven down Katella or past
Katella at Walnut and all these places, adding the palm trees and what is designed here is not going to
fit. He suggested staff should go back and study the numbers.
Mr. Stricker stated the reason he asked Commission to consider this and take it back and mull upon it,
is that there is another very Important thing that is going to happen to this city in November. There are
going to be three changes in the council seats and the point is that this is a major financial undertaking
far this city if three Council members change chairs, all the Planning Commissioners could be replaced.
He suggested really thinking City, really thinking citywide, towards the flatlands, over on the other side of
the freeway at Anaheim Boulevard, etc. He stated he flies all over the country, and when he comes back
to this town, is always amazed that we can never find what business we are in; that we are not in the
entertainment business, and if the Commission and Council are going to go ahead and do this, it should
be done right. He suggested maybe the next time there will be more time. He added we've got plenty
of time and they are not going to build for another year and this is going to take 15 years anyway. He
suggested coming to the people and talking to us.
Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, 610 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach. He explained for the
record that they are representing Melodyland Christian Center, Tarsadia and Rank Leisure and thought it
would be best to just make all the comments at once which would provide him with more time than
allocated for one speaker.
He stated they are not opposed to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and, in fact, complimented staff for
the excellent Job they have done in terms of revitalization of the area and that he thought the
presentation was very well put together.
Mr. Elfend stated, however, their questions today primarily are in three different areas, but their overall
question is that they believe there is Insufficient Information and analysis to Judge the adequacy of the
milfgatlon measures in the environmental document regarding the fair share requirements and they
would like to know how the fair share of costs will be alle^ated, especially given the nature of their
representations and other businesses in the CR area.
He explained upon the completion of his presentation, there is a series of letters and staff reports they
would like to submit into the public record. He stated they sent a letter to the City of Anaheim on July
29 which was included in the Commission package. He stated in the Response to Comments on the EIR
and this particular letter which was regard!ng Melodyland Christian Center, they asked the Cfty to
provide them with the methodologies and analyses which have been pertormed to determine the fair
share payment requirements in conjunction with the exactions proposed by the project.
He stated, additionally, they asked to be provided with a break down of the benefits versus fair share
payment requirements for the project and also in relationship to the Disney Resort Specific Plan. He
stated staff responded to this in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Response to Comments document,
page 3-171- Response MCC 1 and he read the response Into the record; "Economic Impacts of the
project are beyond the scope of CE~A, except to the extent they may indirectly lead to adverse physical
effects on the environment. The dollar impact of the mitigation requirements on individual development
projects within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan have not been determined " He added in more
layman's language, that means that the City feels that it should not be evaluated fn the E1R; that
economic costs of these mitigation measures are not relevant, and even if they were, that they haven't
determined what they are. He added that again, is something that came to them from staff.
He stated they felt that Issue deserved some evaluation and submitted a letter that has been prepared
by B(II Ross of Ross and Scott which indicates that the City must consider economic factors in the
;~""'~- 06/29/94
Page 26
n imposition of such mitigation measures pursuant to CEQA. He read two unique paragraphs in this letter:
"to conclude that there is no requirement for factoring an economic financial consideration Into
mitigation measures, is clearly contrary to the plain meaning of Sections 21002, 21003, F3 and 21061 of
the Public Resource Code." Additionally, there is another requirement which requires the City of
Anaheim to provide this level of information in conjunction with the preparation of this document. He
explained that was provided by a recent US Supreme Court decision, known as Dolan versus the City of
Tyguard and in that decision, it is required that the exacting agency must justify its quantitative action
and it is impossible to conceive how this determination can be made without an analysis of financ!al and
economic considerations. He continued the reason that is important is because in order to determine
whether or not an exaction is excessive on an informational level, one has to have the Information to be
able to make that determination and they don't have that information. He stated they don't know
whether that is or is not a reasonable exaction and for that reason did ask for that information.
Mr. Elfend stated the question really is, why is this so Important to us and referred the Planning
Commission public hearing they had about a month ago on the Hotel Circle project and there was
considerable discussion about this "fair share" requirement. He added, in fact, Commissioner Henninger
questioned him on this particular Issue, and they indicated they had some concern in terms of what the
costs would be to be able to build this project, should it be approved.
He stated they submitted a letter to the City of Anaheim dated July 29th, 1994, for the Hotel Circle
project by Itself. The City determined that the maximum potential costs for that project was $25 million
which is $57,000 per hotel room and that was based upon a study done by acity-retained consultant by
the name of CRSS. He noted he also had a copy of their report ~vhich indicates In their analysis that
they, in making that recommendation of $25 million or $57,000 per hotel room, included the Hotel Circle
Specific Plan, the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan.
Mr. Elfend stated, of course, they obviously in reviewing that report, indicated to the City that there isn't
any project they are aware of, let alone a hotel project that could be built if it costs $57,000 just to pay a
fair share cost in accordance with the Conditions of Approval which you have before you in the form of
mitigation measures. He stated at that time, they had a letter also submitted by Bill Ross which raised
the exact same issues, indicating the Clty failed to establish a sufficient degree of connection between
the proposed exactions and the project.
He stated they have several clients right now who have asked ff this resort area plan gets approved,
what is that mitigation measure going to cost them, and whether it is reasonable, and has the City gone
through the procedure of making a nexus between the exaction and the Improvement? He stated, of
course, he could not answer that question because the last time he spoke to the Ciry about it, and that
he spoke very brieFly to Mr. Wood, and he had the Impression that that is what the Ciry's exaction is,
unless there is some other alternative financing mechanism.
Mr. Elfend stated, therefore, they would request that Commission continue this matter until that analysis
is completed so every business entity, especially the ones he represents, know what it is going to cost.
He stated they want to make sure that project is implemented and it won't be implemented if no one in
that area is going to redevelop their property in the context of what was suggested today.
He stated above and beyond those comments, they have some other comments as well relating to those
particular representations and that as yet, he hasn't read the staff report in total, and wasn't able to go
through and find the answers to these questions.
Mr. Elfend stated one question has to do with their client, Rank Leisure, and their proposal to construct
the King Henry's Feast project. He stated they asked the question regarding exactly how their existing
CUP would be handled in the context of this proposal. He indicated that he did not quite understand
~`"- 08/29/94
Page 27
~, staff's response because it was something like, "well, we are going to grandfather a part of it, but there
are these other new standards that are going to apply.' He explained he felt either a CUP is
grandfathered or not and if it is conditionally grandfathered, then that is something they need to look
Into further and would reserve their rights to review that addendum and other information provided for a
subsequent Planning Commission meeting or City Council meeting on this matter.
He stated a second question is that during the presentation made and this is also a comment that deals
on behalf of other representation, it appeared to them that upon approval of the Anaheim Resort Specific
Plan, at least it was inferred, that one could still apply for a Conditional Use Permit because under
current CR standards, if you desire to build beyond the density that is permitted, you still are allowed the
provision to be able to request to Increase the density through a Conditional Use Permit process. In
the past if the Clty Council and Planning Commission determined that the request was reasonable,
they've granted it. He stated, in fact, many of the CUPS that are granted are in excess of the undedying
density. He stated they are not sure whether one can still apply for a CUP or not and assured the
Commission that if one has to request an amendment to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, that will be a
very tedious process. He added they would like to be assured that some CUP process is preserved.
Mr. Elfend stated his last comments really refer to a response to the Walt Disney Company, vis a via,
their consultant, Latham and Watkins, a letter from Latham and Watkins dated July 29th, 1994, and the
staff response is on page 3-192, Response Disney D2 and in this particular comment, they speak about
the citywide transportation Improvements which I believe, if my memory serves me right, at least for
Tarsadia alone was $8 million. He continued that staff responds by Indicating that the funding for these
traffic improvements may include a citywide transportation improvement fee, a benefit assessment
district and the general funds of the Ciry of Anaheim and the Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA). Usually in staff's report, there is a section that deals with the Impact on the General Fund and,
in fact, if the City does propose to Increase the TOT, then they think it should be identified and should
go concurrently with this proposal. He added that Mr. Wood now has Indicated to h(m personally that
this matter is upcoming and is around the corner and they would Ike to know when it is going to be
submitted so everyone can know how the funding is going to take place to make these improvements
which are indicated in the mitigation measures.
He stated he also would refer to one other comment and that is on page 3194, again responding to
Latham and Watkins' letter regarding Disney, and that (s where the comment was made that they wanted
to make sure that everybody pays their fair share, if one establishes what that fair share is. He
continued that in this case, it refers to a participation in the Landscape Assessment District. He stated
here again, one of the concerns stated previously is that when you walk Into a bank and they ask you
for a performs, or if you want to sell your property and the buyer asks you for a performs, you have to
put down what the costs are and he thought same of the members of the Commission who were familiar
with the development industry know that to be the case. He stated by the way, Tarsadia's project was
conditionally approved and will come back to the City Council within 120 days if there is no resolution
on this fair share issue.
He stated that same issue applies to a Landscape Maintenance District Assessment and the comment (s
that Disney has suggested and Disney and the City staff have agreed that this landscape maintenance
district should be applied whenever implemented. He stated here again, once this thing gets resolved
with Tarsadia and they can proceed with their project, they either want to build it, or they are going to
have someone else build It, and they have someone operate it, or they then sell it, whatever the case
may be, they are going to have to sell it with that condition of having to pay for some Landscape
Maintenance District whenever it is in place. He added that would be true of any of his clients, Including
Rank Leisure.
~'' 08/29/94
Page 28
~ He stated they find that to be an exaction which is unreasonable that someone would agree to
something whenever it is in place and It makes it very difflcult. He added there should be some point
when that determination is made and if it is not in place, he was not exactly sure what happens from
that point forward, but it is very restrictive to new development which it appears as though the Intent to
this whole process, as indicated by staff, is to encourage the redevelopment of this area because, far the
most part, with the exception of Disney and Fuyishigis, there are not that many other vacant parcels
available.
Mr. Elfend stated with those comments in mind, he would, hopefully, request that the Commission
consider the provision of assessing that fair share requirement, and to provide that Information currently.
Joel Fick, Planning Director, requested about a 15 or 20-minute recess in order for staff to organize their
thoughts and then present answers to the Commission in a quick and orderly fashion.
RECESS: 1:50 P.M.
RECONVENED: 2:15 PM.
Mr. Fick explained comments and input from the public indicated three areas of concern and that staff
would like to add a fourth since very late Friday, some commentary was received from the school
districts and that Selma Mann from the Attorney's Office would address some comments about schools,
in general.
He stated second, there were questions or comments about the Specific Plan, and while not
environmentally related, staff feels it is important that they are responded to for the Commission and for
the public, and that Bob Jacob will be commenting on the Specific Plan.
Third, environmental issues were raised and Joan Kelly, the City's environmental consultant, will be
addressing those, Including some of the traff(c Issues that were raised as well.
He explained Tom Wood would be responding to the fourth Issue of fair share Improvements and
phasing.
Selma Mann, City Attorney's Office, explained a letter was received late Friday afternoon from Anaheim
City School District and Anaheim Union High School District and the letters were submitted by Best,
Best and Krieger. They raise a number of Issues, primarily legal Issues, that deal with school facilities
fees. School facilities fees on new development are set by the California Legislature. The fact that, as
stated in the proposed findings, in some instances those fees may be Inadequate to fully offset the
facilities cost resulting directly or indirectly 6rom the new development Indicates a determination by the
legislature that higher fees or other mitigation is Infeasible in light of competing social and economic
Interests such as Job creation and economic productivity. The proposed findings of fact recommend
that the City of Anaheim also find that to impose additional fees and mitigation related to this project,
assuming it had the power to do so, would be infeasible because of Its Inhibitory effect on the Job
creation and economic revitalization antic(pated as a result of the project and this is in the proposed
findings, Section 4.7.3.
The Response to Comments states that the City has and will continue to assist the school districts in
their long range planning efforts to provide school facilities to meet the needs of the community in
conformance with the goals and policies of the City of Anaheim General Plan. The City's General Plan
does not require additional mitigation. I do not believe the courts have considered whether local
government acting in a legislative capacity can force developers to pay school Impact fees in excess of
the statutory amount. Some language in the Murietta decision suggests that a local entity may not
require fees in excess of the statutory amount. The Murietta decision suggests that it may be possible in
connection with legislative approval such as some of those that are before you today to Impose feasible
l.,.a 06/29/94
Page 29
land use and development mitigating measures in an EIR and in the General Plan Amendment to which
it relates. It states that these measures could Include a reduction of residential densities or imposing a
controlled phasing of single and multiple-family residential development within those attendance areas of
the district which have inadequate school facilities. These decisions, the decisions in Mira, in Hart, and
in Murietta all Involve residential projects. The letters from the school districts refer to the Ciry of
Anaheim proposed General Plan Amendment and it is not clear what the actual status of that General
Plan Amendment is at this time.
The City of Corona Ordinance relates to residential developments only. The County of Riverside, to the
best of our knowledge, as confirmed this morning, still has in place the resolution in which the County of
Riverside made the decision whereas Impacts due to commercial and Industrial development are less
significant than residential development and may be partially mitigated through developer fees
authorized by the State of California and further are partially offset by the contributions of commercial
and Industriai uses toward a strong tax base in the county to support public services, including schools.
Based upon that, Imposing the requirement of additional mitigation beyond the statutory fees on
residential development and the form additional mitigation takes is Mello Roos Districts, which, of
course, is not a feasible mitigation measure under these circumstances, since we don't have a sftuation
of a single or few property owners bringing in a new development, but rather multiple property owners in
an already developed area.
The City of Anaheim's General Plan is distinguishable from those in the Murietta, Mira and Hart cases,
and does not require mitigation of school impacts. At the time of the City's Amendment to the Growth
Management Element of the City's General Plan, Mr. Lopez on behalf of the Anaheim Ciry School District
Board of Trustees, requested that additional policies be inserted providing for denial of proposed
developments based on lack of adequate school facilities if the data shows that school facilities will be
Inadequate, even after the payment of any statutory required school fees. The Ciry Council declined to
adopt the changes proposed by the Uistrict.
Nonetheless, the City provides substantial assistance to schooi districts. A memorandum has been
provided to the Commission compiling some of these benefits. Copies of that memorandum are
available at the front of Council Chambers on the table for those members of the community who may
be Interested.
Ms. Mann stated it wasn't really feasible to accumulate the financial equivalent of a lot of these beneffts,
but thought a few may be interesting to review. These are direct and indirect benefits that are provided
by the City of Anaheim to schools. There are a number of benefits that are provided by the Community
Development Department, including some direct benefits that have to do with increment pass-thy ugh.
Also, the Agency has provided Anaheim City School District with $5 million and Anaheim Union High
School District with $2 million, from Project Alpha to provide additional facilities. These funds were an
advance against potential tax increments that the District may receive from the Plaza Redevelopment
project. There are a number of other benefits as well.
The Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department works extensively in conjunction with
schools. Among the benefits are maintenance, including turf irrigation, tree trimming and shrub
maintenance on school property at 10 schools, 53.3 acres and those are identified in the memorandum
as well.
The Police Department provides a number of direct and indirect benefits to the school district. Primarily
fn conjunction with the D.A.R.E, program and also the provision of school crossing guards which the
City is not statutorily mandated to provide. The estimate of the value of these services Is $910,000.
The Ut(lities Department provides a number of benefits as well and a rough estimate of the value of
those benefits is approximately $400,000.
~,.a 06/29/94
Page 30
Ms. Mann stated issues were also raised with regard to the feasibility of the mitigation measures and
~' with regard to the nexus between the particular mitigation measures Imposed and a development that
would come through. The first is an issue which really does relate to CEQA. CEQA requires
identification of impacts and imposition of feasible mitigation measures. The EIR does identify the cost
of the Infrastructure Improvements and what it does is provide alternatives as to how these may be
financed in conformance with CEQA.
She explained that Mr. Wood has indicated that it may be possible through a program that a goodly
portion of this fair share burden will not be Imposed upon the individual projects at all.
She stated the nexus issue is a separate matter and deals with the relation between the Impact of
individual projects and the exactions that are going to be imposed upon that project. That will be done
at the time that the individual project comes forward and that is precisely what the fair share program is
seeking to impose -- to make sure that a development pays, certainly no more than Its Impacts, but no
less as well.
Bob Jacob, The SWA Group, stated he would 11ke to respond to five of the questions and comments that
were made in the public hearing today. The first three relate primarily to the Design Plan and the last
two to the Specific Plan.
He stated first, in response to the question of whether the directory map at the corners should be made
from bronze or from terrazzo, in fact, they had already considered that maybe terrazzo would be a good
alternative to bronze and will be looking at that more closely during the development of the actual
design. He added the decision will be based on factors of durability and cost, and the ability to
Implement the design the way they envision (t.
He stated the second question regarded visibility of merchant's signs in the area after the installation of
landscaping and other street Improvements, and in fact, they believe that the existing condftlon is so
cluttered that it is, in fact, very difficult to locate any kind of information in the existing pattern of signs.
The area in which signs are displayed is all the way from the sky down to the ground, and this proposal
calls for narrowing that to a zone which is at eye level and then trying to make the information, such as
the address, always appear in a consistent location so that, in fact, drivers will quickly and easily
understand where they can find the information that they need. In addition, there will be maintenance
practices to make sure the trees are clipped high enough and that shrubs are clipped low enough to
maintain that eye level zone of someone either driving on the streets or walking through the area.
Mr. Jacob stated In addition to that, all property owners would be subject to the same regulations so
that no property owner would have an advanta3e over another in that situation.
He stated there was a question about the artist's renderings. He explained their intent was certainly not
to perpetrate any fraud on the Commission or members of the public with these drawings. All, In fact,
were drawn in the sense of the existing conditions. That is, curb lines, but Jing masses, and so forth
and all of those were drawn from photographs that were taken on site which could be provided to the
Commission if they are interested. Then the proposed landscaping, walkways, etc. were put on top of
that, so they believe there is a fairly high degree of accuracy in terms of the character of those sketches.
There are, of course, situations whera renderers take some license, and d(fferont people see things in
different ways.
The fourth point relates to the Specific Plan and there was a question whether or not existing CUPS
would be grandfathered. He explained there is, in fact, on pages 21 and 22 of the staff report, a
ecommendation that four existing CUPS be grandfathered in and, in addition, with the exception that
these projects, that new construction would be subject to the development standards which the
1.-', 08/29/94
Page 31
Commission is considering now, (i.e. setbacks, landscaping standards, etc.) -that those projects would
be subject to these new development requirements. He pointed out that section of the staff report
where, in addition, some new language would be incorporated Into the Specific Plan.
d:r~
Concerning the fifth point, a question whether or not there would be an opportunity for property owners
to apply for densities in excess of those recommended in the Specific Plan through the Conditional Use
Permit process, Mr. Jacob explained the simple answer to that question is "no, there will not be a
Conditional Use Permit process which would allow densities in excess of the Specific Plan."
Mr. Jacob stated the current CR Zone does not actually allow 75 units per acre. It allows 75 units
period, whether or not a property has t /2 acre or 50 acres and the Specific Plan, of course, applies a
standard which is, depending on the location, anywhere from 50 to 725 units per acre. Anything in
excess of those densities would require additional environmental clearance and study and, therefore, an
Amendment to the Specific Plan.
Joan Kelly stated she would like to address the Jeffrey Lynne housing issue; and that area is outside the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan boundaries. The area does have existing problems and that has been
acknowledged and the City has been spending lots of resources in trying to affect a resolution in that
area. However, it was not appropriate, given the definition of what this project is, to Incorporate that
area within the boundaries of this project, and without this project moving forvvard, the City will probably
be even more limited in what it can do to further resolve the problems in that area.
With regard to the comment that housing in the EIR is not consistent with the General Plan, there were
two points made that conflict with the policy that the City is attempting to meet the housing needs within
the City. And in the EIR under land Use Plans and Programs, there is a list of all of the housing
programs which are available both through rental and homeownership. However, this project did not
incorporate housing because it was not felt to be appropriate or compatible with the uses that are
proposed. It also responds to the second policy regarding supporting mixed use projects and this is a
mixed use project. It incorporates commercial, hotels and recreation. However, it was not felt to be
appropriate to incorporate residential.
Ms. Kelly stated there was a comment that the air quality was not addressed sufficiently and that there
would be impacts from lack of mitigation. She stated she thought it is Important to recognize that, yes
the project will have significant Impacts, but a lot of that is defined or largely based en the fact that
Anaheim is currently in anon-attainment area. When a project is in non-attainment area and will
continue to be in anon-attainment area, once the project is implemented, then there is considered to be
a regional impact. She referred to Tables 3.4.8, 7, 8, and 9 in the EIR, which demonstrates that the air
quality is Improved with this project, versus not having this project. So although the air Is significant in
terms of the emissions, the air quality is better by incorporating this project and including the mtigation
measures that have been proposed.
She stated there was a comment regarding Parks and Recreation and that this project is not addressing
that need. She noted there is an existing need in the city, but this project is not Impacting that need. It
is not increasing the need for parks and recreation and the City feels that this is contributing to a need
for recreational opportunities in the city. It is providing a variety of recreation types for residents and
visitors.
She stated there was a comment about concern for solid waste and it is acknowledged that there are
impacts to solid waste. There are very aggressive mitigation measures incorporated into the document,
but it was felt that because landfill space is so limited in Southern California, that any Impact to that
would be significant which is why it was determined to be significant in the EIR.
08/29/94
Page 32
u
i
Concerning the comment related to water use, Ms.Kelly stated the Ciry has Its own Water Company and
r^ Water Distribution feels certain and has made the determination that there will not be a problem in
meeting the needs of this project; and that there is adequate capacity and water rights within the city.
Concerning noise, she stated there were several comments. One related to the Sound Pressure Level
Ordinance being Inadequate and she felt that is a policy Issue beyond the scope of this EIR. Yes, the
EIR addressed the project within the bounds of that Ordinance, however, there was not found to be any
significant impacts at any of the area Intersections once the noisy was modeled, so setting the
Ordnance aside, there is no project significant Impact from noise.
She stated the last comment related to the agricultural land. There was a comment that agricultural land
should not be converted to development. This land has been on the General Plan for quite a while as
Commercial Recreation with the ultimate intent that it be developed. It is an isolated parcel and
surrounded by urban growth and although it is acknowledged that it is an Impact in losing prime
farmland, it is consistent with the goals of the General Plan.
Commissioner Henninger asked Ms. Kelly to respond to the comment regarding the Haster Street storm
basin.
Joan Kelly responded that was addressed in the Response to Comments and the response in the final
EIR stated that the problem can be solved by installing pumps and that it is in the overall plan to Install
those pumps.
Commissioner Henninger stated he thought their objection was that they seem to feel that that was a
conclusion without any supporting documentation to give them comfort that it would really solve the
problem.
Joan Kelly responded that is within the County Sanitation District's Plan and believed it is cited in the
response as such, and thought it was on Page 3-60 Garden Grove Response 5.
Commissioner Henninger stated he thought there was a question regarding the specific noise impacts
from this Specific Plan along Walnut Street.
Joan Kelly responded the Impacts from the project will be less than one decibel along Walnut Street and
people with excellent hearing can pick up a slight change at one decibel. Anything below one decibel is
beyond the distinguishment of hearing so it is not considered an impact in farms of that being modeled
and this was modeled at full build-out.
Commissioner Henninger asked if the West Street flyover is part of this project and Ms. Kelly responded
that it is not.
Commissioner Henninger stated he thought the Garden Grove comment was more general on the
subject of housing and their basic comment was that many of the Jobs that will be generated by these
hotels don't match, so we don't have housing that provides for that type of worker and asked how do
we respond to that?
Ms. Kelly answered that there is housing available throughout the distribution of affordability in the City
and this was checked relatively recently. The current vacancy rate is above 6% right now. She thought
it is assumed in saying that these employees will not be able to afford housing, that they are looking at a
single wage earner per household to come to that conclusion, and she did not know that that is very
common in any household these days. There is an enormous amount of rental housing in that area and
that in terms of the Anaheim area, the majority of the rental housing is within that portion of the Clty, so
the availability and the proximity seems to be appropriate.
~._e 06/29/94
Page 33
In Terms of responding to not addressing the housing in more detail, she stated it is an indirect impact.
~~ There is not a defined set of parameters used to determine who is going to I'rye where and when and
they feel that as the growth occurs in the area and there is demand, that the market will respond to that.
She stated she thought in the construction industry right now, they are looking for any market.
John Lower, City of Anaheim Traffic and Transportation Manager, stated staff identified flue general
comments on traffic and circulation. The f(rst one is West Street and it is correct that the West Street
Flyover is not a part of this project and referred to the EIR Table 3.3-2 for verification of file planned
realignment and intersection widening which would occur at grade.
Mr. Lower continued that the other Issues Included Mr. O'Connell's discussion of bus slaps in key areas.
He stated it is important to note that the private bus stops are not a part of the Specific Plan, however,
he is willing and desirous of meeting with them as a separate process outside of the Specific Plan to
resolve any Issues associated with the private carrier bus stops within the Anaheim Resort area.
He stated Betty Ronconi brought up an issue regarding construction of West Street Impacts on Walnut
Street and pointed out they have not yet received a construction detour plan, but as that (s developed,
just as all other construction detour plans within the City of Anaheim, a major emphasis is on minimizing
impacts to residential areas and that same philosophy will hold in this case as well.
Mr. Lower stated the last two issues were raised by the City of Garden Grove; one that regional traffic is
not addressed and then the ih~ee percent versus one percent threshold for traffic Impact.
He explained -agional traffic was addressed as part of the Anaheim traffic analysis modeling of this
project. The Anaheim Trafric Analysis Model is consistent with the Orange County Traffic Analysis Model
(OCTAM II) and it has for the entire region, population demographic Information Including that for the
City of Garden Grove as they submitted to the County for use in that Model. Then the City of Anaheim
has land use driven information for purposes of the traffic forecast, so thb bottom Ili~e is that regional
traffic is addressed in this analysis.
Regarding the issue of one percent versus three percent, Mr. Lower stated it is important to note that
yes, OCTAM and the County do use a one percent threshold. That's because their Model is rougher or
not as fine grained as the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model whose highway network is mere refined in
Biding consideration to the primary and secondary arterials, in addition to the major arterials and the
freeways which is what OCTAM is best at modeling because it is a rougher system.
Mr. ! ower stated they did look at five other Garden Grove intersections, outside of and not reported in
this document, because they did not meet the three percent threshold of Impact. Those intersections
during the peak hours were forecast to have project added traffic ranging between 50 and 200 vehicles.
That is less than one percent of most of the intersection capacities and less than three percent of each
of those flue Intersections.
Commissioner Peraza stated even though the West Street flyover is not part of this plan, it will be a Gui-
de-sac at West Street and asked if the traffic will be diverted down Walnut because they cannot make
left turns all the way to Katella. He asked what can be done about that?
John Lower responded there are a series of alternatives the City is committed to pursue which was an
outgrowth of the Disney Specific Plan and EIR and that is work with the community to identify
disincentives for through traffic.
Commissioner Henninger stated he thought the detail of the Garden Grove comment was that we had
not provided an overall analysis that basically showed the Impacts on Intersections whici~ they claim is a
typical background piece of Information that would be provided with an EIR analysis. He asked if that (s
true - is it typical to provide that with an EIR
`T~ 08/29/94
Page 34
~ Jo,rn Lower responded he did not believe that is typical.
Commissioner Henninger asked if we did provide that information.
John Lower answered that we did not provide that information, but we did provide them wish a copy of
the technical appendix which did include the traffic forecast at the two Garden Grove intersections which
were analyzed in this document and the entering and exiting traffic could be totaled from that. N'e did
not provide those calculations to the Ciry of Garden Grove.
Commissioner Henninger asked if the modeling that we did, allocate this traffic all over the system and
identify each intersection that would have added traffic? He explained that he fs asking how the model
works.
John Lower explained generally the model works by distributing the traffic through the study area and
our study area did go down to and include the Garden Grove Freeway, so we have the added traffic
forecast from the project through the intersections and we then looked at the three percent threshold.
Commissioner Henninger asked if the model focuses on intersection capacities and Mr. Lower
responded that it does.
Commissioner Henninger clarified that we do have a Model and we've used that to identify which
intersections are Impacted.
Kendal Elmer, Austin Faust Associates, the Traffic :,rgineering Consulting Firm that performed the traffic
analysis, explained the traffic model used does distribute the project traffic throughout the circulation
system that it is Intended to model and in this case, that included all of the city of Garden Grove down
to the garden Grove Freeway; so yes, the project traffic was able to be tracked through all of the
Garden Grove intersections tf:at would be Impacted.
r, Commissioner Henninger asked how many Intersections in Garden Grove did the model show would be
impacted and Mr. Elmer responded the level of impact for those two intersections identified which are
impacted significantly were included in the EIR.
Commissioner Henninger asked IF we have the initial traffic model background Information used to
identify those Intersections and Mr. Elmer responded that we do. He explained it is in various technical
farms and they would Just simply need to summarize it in a more understandable form.
Commissioner Henninger stated he felt perhaps that should be done and added to this record before
this matter goes to the City Counc(I.
Mr. Elmer responded that would be possible hetween themseh~es and City staff.
Chairvvoman Boydstun stated she knows private carriers were not a part of this but that they are also a
necessity and they do provide the transportation for people in the CR area. She asked if we are going
to close a lane for them for loading and unloading during peak times or provide some pullouts or
something else. She stated she thought that is faidy Important because most people, once they are
here, use that form of transpoC .Ion.
Mr. Lower responded that we are going to make the existing situation better. He added they have had ~~
series of discussions with the major tour bus operators and in those discussions, it has been indicated
that the number of stops could be reduced from basically having a stop in front of each of the motels
and hotels which cannot arcept the larva bus coaches on site and consolidating those into a fewer
number of bus stoNS on thv strut and serving multiple hotel/motels. He stated that is a process which
they w(II be moving forward with to Identify those minimum number of locations.
0,w/ 08/29/94
Page 35
,..~ Chairwoman Boydstun clarified that they won't be asking for group meetings at some of the bigger
hotels because she thought that is highly impractical.
John Lower responded that should not be ruled out entirely because while we wouldn't want to have
hundreds of the adjacent hotel patrons going to another hotel, as Mr. O'Connell indicated, it is
something that does hold some promise for perhaps adjacent hotels. It is something we are not
committed to, but he did not think it should be thrown out as a possibility.
Tom Wood stated he has sat in with John in meetings with the tour bus operators and tried to resolve
the Issues that confront us today; that he drives Harbor every morning and realizes the difficulty of that
one lane closest to the curb, and some of the problems that occur from buses parking for an extanded
period of time. In discussions with the tour bus operators, they found that all the stops they currently
are making are not necessarily necessary and that certain times of day work better than others. He felt
they can work with them to limit the amount of time that they stop at each individual location, and can
work with that Industry and deal with the traffic problems in a way that is a win/win situation for both
parties. He added the last meeting he was at was very succes ~~ :and he thought they were headed in
the right direction and it would be their commitment to continu, working with that industry to make sure
that it works for both parties.
Commissioner Caldwell, addressing Mr. Wood, stated he rnentioned earlier in the meeting a figure of $7
to $8 million dollars, and asked what that figure represented, was that a net to the general fund from the
TOT tax?
Tom Wood znswered that he will address the different financial questions at this time. He stated relative
to areawide Improvements and the fair share question, that we know what the mitlgation measures are
and they are identiiled in the EIR. He stated we know the cost to accomplish these particular measures
and we know the City has the ability to finance areawide improvements through resources within the
control of the City which the City Council has to put in place. We know that no project will pay more
than its fair share, and in many respects, may pay very little. He added if, hypothetically, all the
areawide Improvements are paid for from public sources, TOT for example, then the individual private
development fair share assessments would be very small. In any event, the specifics of the financing
program will be determined by the City Council as they consider the program which is before the
Commission today; that it will be a policy decision on their part as to what financing approach is
actually used to accomplish this program.
Commissioner Henninger asked if the Commission would be adopting a fair share methodology and
mitigation fee today.
Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director, responded yes, she thought we are adopting a mitigation
methodology. She stated for each topical area of sewers, storm drains, traffic, water, etc. there is a
mitigation measure that does set forth a procedure wherein that fair share participation will be provided.
She added she thought there is the methodology there to ensure that the mitigation measure, the
improvements, are made to the degree that the project Impacts.
fee and mitigatlon system che'thought that issreally a decis on of~lhe City Council and askedlfif they iwi~ll
be holding public hearings on setting such a tee, and setting the specific methodology.
Tom Wood responded it will be a policy discussion on the p,2rt of the :.ity Council as to how the
specifics of a program are financed and it would be our Intent, prior to development occurring, to have
that policy discussion before them for their consideration. ',
Commissioner Henninger clarified further then that they would adopt something, presumably by ~
resolution, in a public hearing format.
~~ 08/29/94
Page 36
^ Commissioner Tait asked if Mr. Wood is talking about is a formula type methodology to come up with
"what is fair share?"
Commissioner Henninger added from the testimony, he thought the Counc(I is adopting a policy that is
sort of a cap; and the way he hears it, we are not going to charge more than fair share, but we could
charge much less if the City finds in its heart to pay some of these Improvements through other means.
Tom Wood responded on the question relative to phasing of public improvements, it is the Intent to
move forward with specific improvements in conjunction with other region-wide projects. For example,
on Harbor Boulevard, there is the undergrounding of the utility lines on both the north and the south of
Katella. However, the undergrounding of the utility lines under the intersection of Harbor and Katella will
be done in conjunction with the Katella widening project. He stated it would be the Intent to move
forward with the landscaping of Katella in conjunction with the Measure M Program. Improvements
adjoining the freeway will be done in conjunction with the freeway. Much of the financing of this entire
program is dependent upon state, federal and Measure M dollars; therefore, it is critical that we not go
out in front of any of these region-wide programs. He added if someone were to ask "well, give me the
exact specific timetable as to whrn each one of these items would occur," he would not have an answer
at this time. He explained we are work(ng with both Measure M and the Caltrans people to put those
two programs together.
Mr. Wood stated there was another question, "won't there be a significant Impact during construction of
all these improvements?" That was considered as a part of the financial fiscal analysis that was included
in the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan by Economic and Planning Systems in their base case model. It
acknowledged the potential that there would be a down turn, if you will, in the economy or the number
of tourists coming here, and the spending patterns, during that construction period. He added that is
clearly a concern to us and to the industry, and it is collectively in both the City's and the Industry's best
Interest to try and minimize, to the extent that we can, the impact of construction during projects.
The question came up whether tourists were consulted about stays and the City staff is constantly
hearing from tourists relative to the condition of the Anaheim Resort area, as I am sure you are as you
drive through that particular area. He stated they have heard strong comments, however, from the
meeting planners organizations, and through the Visitors Convention Bureau relative to their concerns
about bringing conventions to Anaheim, based upon the condition of the particular area, as compared to
Las Vegas, San Francisco, San Diego, and other destination resorts. Clearly they have indicated that
unless a change occurs in the area where the Convention Center and Disneyland are located, they are
going to have serious second Thoughts about continuing to bring their business to this city. So we have
clearly taken that into heart in proposing a program that will maintain the marketability of this portion of
Orange County.
Mr. Wood stated a question came up about the leakage of funds through other areas. "Won't this
program be of benefit to surrounding jurisdictions?" He added he thought that is very true, not only is
tourism a major Industry in Anaheim, but It is a major, if not the significant economic Issue, in northern
Orange County. This project will have significant benefits, not only to the bottom line of this City, but to
every city that surrounds us, in that it will draw people to this community. He stated he was asked by a
Councilmember from another city in a presentation a few weeks ago, if it will directly benefit Knott's
Berry Farm, and that it will benefit event attractions, restaurants, shopping opportunities in the entire
area, and this project will not only benefit this city, but it should significantly benefit the other
surrounding cities. He asked if that is bad, or is that inappropriate; is leakage of such dollars to be
discouraged? Ffe stated he would clearly indicate not, to the extent that sufficient dollars are provided
to support these Improvements and to provide a net return for the balance of the city.
He stated a question came up on focus on the rest of the city for funds, rather than just in the
Commercial Recreation Area. The Anaheim Resort Area is a net revenue generator for the balance of
the city. It could well be considered an economic engine which spins off tax dollars that support Police,
il,~i 08/29/94
Page 37
Fire, Libraries, and other programs throughout the City of Anaheim. To date it generates somewhere
between $7 and $10 million net, after we pay for all of the debt service payments on the Convention
Center, the street sweeping, the police, the fire, the trash collection and the landscape maintenance on
the medians. To the extent that we do not continue the desirability of that area, it stands to be assumed
that the net profit, and profit isn't a term we very often use in the public sector, but the net profit from
that area will drop. That means there will be fewer dollars available to provide very much needed
programs throughout the City of Anaheim. To the extent we make wise business decisions, we work in
conjunction wfth the development community and built that area and create a true destination resort, it
will spin off dollars in excess of that which it generates today. And this is based upon the ana9ytical
work that was conducted by Economic and Planning Systems and it would be a net benefit to the rest of
the city.
fie stated a question came up about the expenditure of taxpayer funds for Improvements. fie stated he
thought It needs to be clearly stated that no residential tax Increase is proposed as part of this project;
that file dollars potentially available to fund improvements comes from those who benefit, namely the
tourists, and that will generate a net profit for the balance of the city residents.
Concerning when the financing program will go forward, he stated it will go forward before development
occurs.
Finally, the question relative to the Landscape Maintenance District, Mr. Wood responded that is clearly
subject to a Council policy decision. It is staff's belief, however, that they will be proposing such a
Maintenance District to the extent that our maintenance costs exceed those dollars that we currently
spend •~day. It seems appropriate to continue our base case, what we are spending currently, but to
the extent that the maintenance costs because they are far more elaborate and extensive, exceer. what
we would spend in other parts of the city, that additional cost would be supported by those individuals
that directly benefit, and it would be the Intent to move forward with an Assessment District for that
incremental cost to charge those who directly benefit from the project.
Commissioner Caldwell asked if that $7 to $10 million is based on gross.
Tom Wood responded he believed that area generates over 1 /3 of the gross general funds received by
the City. Then there are rather significant debt services payments we are paying on the Convention
Center; and he thought $7 to $10 million is about 22% of gross so wa make about a 20 to 22% return on
our Investment.
Commissioner Caldwell asked if we have forecasted the grosses and nets for the year 2000 and the year
2010.
Tom Wood responded they projected it for the year 2010, using different hotel construction scenarios
assuming no hotel growth, assuming 1400 hotel growth, assuming 2900 hotel growth.
Commissioner Caldwell clarified that is assuming that the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan being talked
about today comes to fruition, on the timetable you've set up through the year 2010.
Tom Wood stated he did not have that number but it gets larger. It goes from a $7 to $10 number, to
significantly mare and maybe by a factor of 60% by the year 2010 which is rile planning year picked. Ail
of the projections have also taken into account the Disney development and if they go forward, there is
another set of economics that factor into it and these are only the factors in the absence of the Disney
project. He added he thought it also needs to be stated that everything wa are doing, is setting the
foundation and setting the groundwork for what we hope is the Disney project that will be forthcoming in
the near term. We believe that is a key element, a very positive elernent in this project and we are
extremely supportive of it. And nothing we are proposing today would preclude that happening;
however, we take to heart the comment that was made by one of the Disney speakers, one of the big
l~.~ 06/29/94
Page 38
concerns Disney has had is the area around their project and how important it is to them to havs their
~^'~ project in an area that is more consistent with that look, that feel. We believe that is Important based
upon what the competition is doing.
Commissioner Caldwell agreed. Hs asked Joan Kelly to answer a couple of questions about the
housing and population and schools. He referred to the Statement of Findings and Facts in the staff
report and the information that approximately 18,113 new jobs are anticipated to be created in
connection with the hotel/motel development. Then a couple of paragraphs down, it says that
approximately 13.3% of the new hotel/motel workers would choose to relocate in the city, based on a
survey of hotel workers conducted for the Disneyland Resort Project. He asked if they assumed the
number of hotel/motel workers is going to include a small percentage of management and a large
percentage of people who cook and clean and make the beds, etc. and that would be the majority of
those 18,000 jobs.
Joan Kelly responded that is correct. She also responded that they did survey their salaries.
Commissioner Caldwell stated Ms. Kelly discussed eadier the housing element in Anaheim and people
being able to afford that if both of them were working. He stated in reality it is to the contrary and it is
very difficult for two people with a family working in the hotel/motel industry to live a decent IHestyle.
That means the majority of those 18,000 people, and say that 13.3% of them, which is about 2400
families, would, therefore, be looking for housing in or around Anaheim. He asked if that housing
element exists at the level they need so they can afford to 11ve in it, or do we end up with more Jeffrey
Lynne areas.
Joan Kelly stated in answering this question, she wanted to answer another question that came up and
had just thought of it now and it was in the Garden Grove letter that was turned in today, that the
Disneyland report stated that their employees were mainly students and temporary employees and,
therefore, the survey was not applicable to that project. She explained the Disney survey that was taken
had both the park employees, as well as the hotel employees. They only looked at that portion of the
survey that dealt with the hotel workers and set aside the numbers from the people that worked at
Disneyland because they clearly were not comparable to what they were expecting in the hotels in the
resort area. She referred to page 3.8-18, Table 3.8-15, Estimated Employees Likely to Relocate by Job
Type, and it does include the various types of employees from management down to what is called
service occupations.
Commissioner Caidweil continued that on the Statement of Findings and Fact regarding the schools,
page 31, - "the need for additional school facil(ties because of new student generation to the Anaheim
City School District and Anaheim Union High School District from households relocating to the
jurisdiction of these districts because of employment opportunities created by development of the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan will be significant. Cumulative of school facilities Impacts could also be
significant" He stated then in the Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation - "Statutory school
facilities fees collected from any development within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area and from
new housing units indirectly Induced by the project will reduce the Impacts on ACSD and AUHSD, the
two school districts, but not to a level considered less than significant" He explained that being an
Anaheim resident, and trying to find what's in it for him, he would take Tom's comments about all the
money that is going to pour Into the general fund and look at what goes on now. We have the Disney
project and it does give us $7 or $8 million dollars and yet a family, any family that I know who lives in
the flatland area of Anaheim and has the means to do so, does not send their children to public school.
So in order to live here, buy a home here, you pay an additional fee that maybe you wouldn't pay if you
lived somewhere else and that is to send your children to school to get what may be the best education
possible. He added he is not hitting on our schools at all and that he believed they lack resources and
they are having a very difficult time providing the best possible education and so they are providing
something less. He stated if we are going to have this kind r° money generated by this project, and if
the money is going to pour back into the general fund and if schools are Important and if housing is
y-a 08/29/94
Page 39
Important, asked why we don't earmark some of it to solve some of these problems. He stated he
i"~4 knows that we do not have a legal obligation to do it, and the State of California tells how we provide
school fees, but from just an Issue of living in this town and the quality of life, we know what kind of
workers the hotel/motel industry provides and some of those workers live in Jeffrey Lynne and they are
forced to live in an environment that is less than decent by most standards that we live by and he
thought that is unfair. He stated we cannot make the hotel industry raise the wages, but what do we do
to provide an education for those who live in our community and work there to give their children
adequate education. He stated he thought we should solve some of those problems and that the
hotel/motel Industry should participate in making sure that their workers are provided with adequate
housing and decent schools.
Tom Wood responded he did not know who is the right person to respond, but he would state first that
this is not an Anahelm problem, but a statewide problem. It is a problem that is being experienced in
many different locales. He added in Anaheim, however, we have the potential opportunity of having the
resources to do something about it. He stated he would suggest putting in place a program that has
the potential of generating the revenues and provide the opportunity fcr future Ciry Councils to
determine how those monies are d(rected. But at a very minimum, put in place a program that sets the
stage so we have the potential to make more money than we are making today. He felt if we don't, the
consequences are that we are going to have less money from that area and will continue to be
confronted with fewer resources with some rather signHicant problems.
Commissioner Caldwell suggested a percentage? He stated we know the problem exists and we know
it is going to get worse if we don't do something about it, partially because of this Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan which he is incredibly in favor of, but the citizens of Anaheim are the ones who have been
left paying for the added crime, and the lack of a decent education. He stated he wants the hotel and
motel owners to benefit, but we carry the brunt of the negative impacts. The hotel/motel owners make
the profits and he did not think they should carry the entire burden, but they should share it.
Tom Wood responded he would hope this would create such an economic engine that it would spin
• sufficient dollars to do much of what you hope to accomplish. He would not recommend locking their
hands at this stage of the game when we don't know necessarily what the problems will be when those
dollars come down the road. He would like to put that opportunity in the hands of future Ciry Councils
to make those decisions. He added he thought the key thing we are doing today is setting the stage so
they w(II have those upportunities to decide where additional monies go.
Commissioner Caldwell responded it hasn't been his experience that the City Councils have found it be
a prio:~ry; that our priorities in this city have been somewhat different. He stated he would hope
someday that we would move some of our focus back into the neighborhoods, while still tak(ny care of
the engine, as you put it, but we haven't done that. He added the Impact and focus has been on the
recreation zone, whether it be Disneyland or the Arena, and now the Ramn, He stated it is not very
glamorous to do something about Jeffrey Lynne, !^r instance, or we do a little with CDBG funds and
build a community center and close off the end of the street for parking, but the problem persists greater
and greater each year.
He stated he knows what Mr. Wood is saying and didn't want to tie their hands and put another anchor
around the neck of the Anahelm Resort plan, but at the same time, he did not have any confidence that
if we miss this opportunity to lock something onto it, from experience he felt 20 years from now we will
look back and wish we had done something, because we stlll have thi> problem, only then Instead of
one Jeffrey Lynne, we'll have five.
Commissioner Henninger stated there is another point of view on this which he thought needed to be
discussed. He stated the schools get 5596 guarantee of the total state budget, and in the last few years,
money has been shifted from city and county revenues in order to Lund schools at the state level, and
each year we've gotten less. The primary things we pay for in this city are the basics of police and fire
l_~ 08/29/51
Page 40
,.~ protection and the reason the staff is concerned about this Commercial/ Recreaticn Area is because it is
~ a profit center for this city. It is a way we have of funding the extre police and fire protection that the
citizens of Anaheim need. And he was not sure with the state, on a routine basis, taking money out of
the pockets of the city and giving it to the school districts, that we should agree to do even more. He
thought right now certainly the needs of public protection seem paramount.
Commissioner Tait added he was not sure if we can do more legally for the schools and asked about ',
the Murietta decision and thought there is a statutory maximum. He stated he knows it's tough legally
to give a black and white answer, but asked N that is generally the situation.
Selma Mann answered she did not believe there is a black and white answer on that Issue. There is no
case at this time that has directly addressed that Issue. There is some language that suggests that ~I
what's available is land use policies such as phasing and, of course, we know that Mello Roos Districts ~
are expressly permitted. It could make Anaheim the test case because certainly there would be I
arguments to be made on both sides of the Issue.
Chairman Peraza stated Ite could understand Commissioner Caldwell's concern and sees from the
memo on direct and indirect City benefits provided to schools, that the City does a lot, but the schools
need space and land and that doesn't come from the state. He explained that Anaheim City Schools
volunteered to give the state a school to get money, but there is no money in bonds to provide space
for ch(Idren. He pointed out the City provides maintenance for school parks and of all the school parks
that Anaheim City Schocis get, they get four out of the 53 acres, only 4.5 acres a~a from one school.
Space is very important which they don't have the money to buy and build schools.
Chairmar. Peraza stated he knows through Redevelopment, the schools have gotten some money and
they are building one school but these jobs bring in a lot of kids and the kids are there and asked where
are they going to go to school? He added when he first came to Anaheim in 1956, they were In double
session and used to go from 8 to t2 and another session would take over in the afternoon. He thought
l` , eventually that is what is going to happen to Anaheim because there is no money to buy land or build
' schools. He stated a new school is being built at Olive and Vermont through Redevelopment funds and
that helps.
He stated he knows the City works with the schools quite a bit, but we need to find some way to do
more. He added when the Disney plan was approved, the first thing the school districts did was file
lawsuits and then they got together and they settled out of court, and that is a lot of money for
attorneys, for both the City and school districts. So he felt the schools and City Council need to find a
way to help schooi districts get land and build schools.
Chairman Peraza noted we pay approximately $2~t,000 to keep a kid in juvenile hall and we spend
$5,000 to educate a kid in our schools; that's hove our priorities are set.
He stated he thought the plan looks good and agreed that we need to Improve the character of our
recreation area. He added he knew the staff has put in a lot of time and he Just hoped that we do look
at housing and schools in the future.
Comndss!oner Caldwell stated we know that we heave a problem, and we know that this protect is going
to make the problem worse, and the report specifically sta':es that the fees are Inadequate to significantly
mitigate the problem. He stated there is a correlation between poverty, Inadequate sc~;~oling and crime
and no one would even argue with that if they watched all the arguments on the recent crime bill,
whether they were for it or against it. Ha stated we have at terrible problem now and ale he wants this
plan to do Is to take care of whatever increases or whatever problems it adds, and the report specifically
states that it won't do that; that it won't handle the school problem; nor will it handle the low income
housing problem.
~~ 08/29/94
Page 41
n He stated he sees as a resident, not as a Planning Commissioner, that the problem is put on his back
~ and that he and his neighbors are going to pay for it either by higher taxes, or they are going to pay for
it by Increased crime and are not going to send their children to the local schools, plus all the other
problems that are associated with low Income jobs and Inadequate schooling. He added here we are
going to make all this money and asked what are we going to use the money for?
Commissioner Mayer responded she thought we just have to have confidence in what we have in place,
such as community programs and different committees and public/private partnerships, and the Disney
is algready untderway,tand that we haive sufficient dialogue anld commlunity leaders who are going to that
address those Issues, and added that many already do, serving on a variety of different committees and
task forces addressing this problem.
She stated her children attended elementary public schools and graduated from Anaheim Union High
School District schools, as she d(d, the last one coming out four years ago, and they got an excellent
education and went directly Into 4-year colleges, so she did not think we should completely sell our
schools short. They do provide a good education to children who will work. But we all need to keep
ourselves that a lot of time the Distr ct has been slowutio respond when theyycould haveaesponded.now
Commissioner Caldwell asked if she felt the public school system in this city is providing an adequate
education. Comi~;i~sioner Mayer responded it is providing the education within the means that it can,
and there are a lot of good people volunteering and working at it.
Commissioner Mayer stated she can support the public safety, fire and police, coming out of these kind
of conditions, but would rather not tie it down.
Commissioner Caldwell stated he did not see how we can create a problem and not do something to
resolve it. It's just a moral Issue, the same as we do if we have a problem and we are going to need
increased police protection, increased fire protection and Increased water, gas, electricity, roads. We
are also going to create more students and more schools.
Commissioner Henninger referred to a memo which Mr. Elfend submitted that purports to summarize a
City analysis that Russell McGuire did for their Hotel Circle project and ft lists a range,
minimum/maximum, for these various areawide Improvement fees from $21,000+ a room, to almost
$57,000. He asked if that is accurate, and if that is the range they are dealing with today?
Tom Wood responded that's an absolute worst case scenario, assuming that there are no areawide
togethe pas ar'Vaorst case potie t al scenarioedth tiwould be necessarry fair sharexassessment of a put
particular project.
Commissioner Henninger stated they have heard a couple of comments today, both from Mr. Elfend and
the Disney people, both sort of urging the City to get its hands around these expenses and get to a
sold number because they feel like they can't really live under this range of uncertainty. And added Just
from his own business experience, he thought he could confirm that. That's a big range, and a hotel
deal like this might be feasible at $20,000 but imposs(ble at $60,000. He asked what the schedule is for
getting a more certain number so people can go forward.
Ike to deal with~this level of Ivaguenessehimi selfl. He explained they hlave to havelit weapped upolnd90 t
days because that was a condition of approval of the Hotel Circle plan. He stated they will be proposing
the overall program to Council within 90 days.
~ 08/29/94
Page 42
n Commissioner Henninger asked if staff really will come up with a fairly solid number in the neM 90 days.
Tom Wood responded he thought it is absolutely Important to have a program in place and either decide
if there is the will to fund it or not to fund it. One of the things to remember here is that there may not
be the political will to fund this type of a program. The results could be tragic, but that clearly is a
potential.
Commissioner Henninger stated he has the same comment to make that he made on the Disney
Statement of Overriding Concerns and that is that he does not agree with the Summary of the Impacts
for the "No Project Alternative". He thought it is far too bland and ff we don't do something in the CR
area, that it is basically going to become blighted area, and then we will see the $7 to $10 million net
revenue dissolve Into zero, and then start into heavy negaCrve numbers. He thought we will see a truly
blighted area, and a serious crime situation and he would like the Statement of Overriding
Considerations amended to reflect that.
Commissioner Tait concurred 100%
Commissioner Henninger continued he thought we are really at risk here and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations doesn't give that sense of risk.
Chairwoman Boydstun agreed that if nothing is done, that area will stagnate.
ACTION:
Commissioner Henninger moved that the Commission adopt EIR 313; that basically it Is in compliance
with CEQA and it is consistent with the General Plan and all the other various findings that have been
provided for us by staff.
Commissioner Tait seconded the motion.
Selma Mann added some clarification -that this would be Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 313
for the proposed Anaheim Resort Specific Plan project, General Plan Amendment No. 333, Anaheim
Resort Identity Program, Anaheim Resort Public Realm landscape Program, and Anaheim Resort
Nonconforming Sign Program, and after reviewing evidence presented, both written and orel, to
supplement Draft EIR No. 313; that would be the basis of the motion, and also that the recommendation
would be that City Council certify EIR No. 313 and adopt the Statement of Findings and Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program 0085, based on the findings
set forth on page 39 of the stall report. Sh~; added also if Commissioner Henninger is proposing that
the findings be amended, he should Include that as a part or the motion.
Commissioner Henninger stated there are two things; that the traffic consultant has said he will add
Information regarding the overall traffic analysis before this gets to City Council; and the amendment he
referred to regarding the Statement of Potential Impacts for the "No Project Alternative".
Chairwoman Boydstun called for the vote. There were five ayes and one no vote by Commissioner
Caldwell (regreffully), and Commissioner Messe was absent.
Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC 94-113 recommending to the City Ccu~~c0. that they
adopt General Plan Amendment No. 333.
The resolution passed with six yes votes (Commissioner Messe absent).
Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC 94-114 recommending that the City Council adopt
l~ 08/29/94
Page 43
~`•
t
;~
Anaheim Resort SpecHic Plan 92.2, as shown in Attachment F of the staff report, and the Zoning and
Development Standards, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in Section V of the staff report,
based upon the information provided in the Specific Plan and the hearing today and the findings set
forth in the resclution.
The resolution passed with six yes votes (Commissioner PAesse absent).
Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC 94-115 recommending that the City Council adopt
The Anaheim Resort Identity Program, based upon the submitted documents and other information
presenter' '~ the public hearing.
The resolution passed with six yes votes (Commissioner Masse absent).
Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC 94-116, recommending that the City Council adopt
Tha Pubiic Reaim IBndscape Program, based upon the submitted documents and other informatlon
provided as part of the public hearing, in order to provide a comprehensive landscape plan to enhance
the Anaheim Resort
The resolution passed with six yes votes (Commissioner Messe absent).
Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC 94-t 17 recommending that City Council adopt The
Anaheim Resort Nonconforming Signage Program based upon the evidence and documents submitted
in the public hearing, in order to provide an Incentive program to encourage the early replacement of
nonconforming signage with conforming signage; thereby improving the aesthetics of the Anaheim
Resort providing for more efficient signage contributing towards the transformation of the area Into a
resort environment.
Tho resolution passed with six yes votes (Commissioner Masse absent).
t~' Seima Mann explained the Planning Commission's recommendations and actions on this Item will be
placed before the City Council for consideration.
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 3:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted, /~
Edith L Harris
Planning Commission Support Supervisor
~~~ 08/29/94
Page 44