Loading...
MIN 08 24 15_Item 5AUGUST 24, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES Page 1 of 7 ITEM NO. 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 348 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2014-00492 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2014-00065 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2014-00115 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2014-00262 (DEV2011-00125) Location: Anaheim Canyon encompasses approximately 2,600 acres in the northern portion of the City of Anaheim, roughly bounded on the north by Orangethorpe Avenue, on the south by the Santa Ana River, on the east by Imperial Highway (SR-90), and on the west by the Orange Freeway (SR-57). Request: City-initiated request for the Planning Commission to recommend City Council approval of the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan (ACSP) Project. The ACSP has been prepared to provide the framework for current and future development in Anaheim Canyon. The ACSP would replace the development requirements of the existing zoning on the properties in this area with the requirements of the ACSP. The ACSP is intended to remove regulatory obstacles to the reuse of existing structures and promote infill development of currently vacant or underutilized properties. The goal of the ACSP is to encourage sustainable development and create a business environment attractive to a wide variety of industries. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will determine whether to recommend City Council certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 348 and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 312, and the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment. Approved a motion for continuance of the item to October 5, 2015. (Caldwell / Seymour) VOTE: 7-0 Chairman Lieberman and Commissioners Bostwick, Caldwell, Dalati, Henninger, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Project Planner: Susan Kim skim@anaheim.net Susan Kim, Principal Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated August 24, 2015, along with a visual presentation. She further stated that the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan as proposed and its related actions will preserve and protect the area as a major employment center for Anaheim and the region; the streamline development regulations and processes included in the plan will achieve the goal of ensuring that Anaheim Canyon remains a competitive business and employment center that greatly strengthens the local economy. In concluding, she stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of the subject request. Commissioner Ramirez asked if residential development would only be allowed in Development Area 3. AUGUST 24, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES Page 2 of 7 Ms. Kim responded yes, and stated that it could be either a horizontally mixed use development which means residential next to other commercial uses such as the office and commercial uses that already exist in the area or it could be a residential project with ground floor commercial uses similar to the Crossings’ Development that has been built which has some 312 units in it. Furthermore, she clarified that an individual residential building does not have to include ground floor commercial uses, but it would then require a conditional use permit. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the proposed bike lanes are based on feedback from employees in the area. Ms. Kim responded that the proposed bike lanes are based on staff’s observations during field work in the community, as well as, the area’s flat topography. She further stated that the City is in the process of updating the citywide bicycle master plan. John Lower, Traffic Consultant, stated that as part of the research that was conducted for the bicycle master plan update, staff reviewed U.S. Census Data. This information includes the number of workers who live in census tract who bicycle to and from work. The residential area located west of Anaheim Canyon was Anaheim’s highest census tract for bicycling with over five percent of the people who live there commuting to work via bicycles. Commissioner Ramirez referred to the environmental impact report which stated that one of the unavoidable impacts is greenhouse gas increases, and she asked what measures are included in the current specific plan in order to try to mitigate the impacts. Ms. Kim responded that it is a significant impact because there are no clear thresholds for this type of specific plan; the thresholds are reflective of development projects. Mitigation measures include bicycle lanes, transportation demand management, encouraging transit use, and water efficiency and energy efficiency requirements. Bill Halligan, Environmental Consultant, stated it was determined that it was significant because although there are 2050 GHG emission targets as part of AB32, currently they do not have the technology to meet the 2050 GHG targets which is why they concluded that for the year 2050 it is unknown if they could meet the AB32 reduction targets. Commissioner Henninger asked for clarification relating to automobile service stations and he asked if they were removed from the conditionally permitted use. Ms. Kim responded yes, they are no longer permitted in the transit oriented development area. Commissioner Seymour disclosed that he met with the PRS Group regarding their requested amendment, and he also stated that the PRS Groups’ recommendations seem to meet the important objectives, and he asked staff why they were not in support of their recommendations. Jonathan Borrego, Planning Services Manager, stated staff has had discussions with representatives from the PRS Group for a number of months in order to try to understand PRS Group perspective in terms of the best use for the subject area. He stated that the primary goal of the specific plan is to attract and retain the industry, and allow it to expand in the subject area. He referred to Development AUGUST 24, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES Page 3 of 7 Area 5 and he expressed that staff felt very strongly that the locations of the properties having freeway visibility, being large in size, having great freeway access really lent themselves to meeting those primary objectives of the specific plan, and in order to maximize the area’s freeway visibility in the hopes of attracting commercial or industrial development in that area. He further stated in looking at the primary objectives of the specific plan, none of the objectives involve attracting additional residential development to the area. In terms of where residential is programmed in the specific plan, they tried to be very strategic in order to keep it immediately centered adjacent to the Metrolink station. As they wanted to ensure that if there were residential development in proximity to the train station that they wanted it to be close enough where the residents would be able to walk to the Metrolink station versus utilizing vehicles. Also, another reason was that they wanted to be sensitive in introducing residential in areas adjacent to existing businesses, in order to ensure that they are not introducing incompatible uses adjacent to existing businesses which was a concern indicated very early on in the process from the area’s business community. In addition, he provided further details relating to the Kaiser Hospital and conversations that took place with the hospital representatives relating to their interest of permitting and/or expanding additional housing, and it was clear that they didn’t see a need to expand the residential beyond where it currently existed. He noted that they did express concern in introducing additional residential as it could result in noise and traffic complaints. He also pointed out that discussion took place with the representatives of the PRS Group relating to if land owners were to come in with a master plan for the area that would achieve the specific plan’s primary goals and were to include a small residential component as a support use; then it could be something for them to review because they would be able to ensure that the residential was compatible with the surrounding areas, and that it’s an ancillary use to the area. He stated if the Planning Commission was interested in pursuing a residential alternative that an additional level of environmental review because they have not modeled residential development in the area. He informed that the traffic model would need to be completed along with any other technical studies relating to the traffic analysis. Furthermore, he provided details related to the processes that would need to be taken if the Planning Commission approves the specific plan today per staff’s recommendation. He indicated that if at a later time a developer submitted a master plan for the area, then they could look at it comprehensively. The level of the environmental process would most likely be streamlined because they could tier off the certified EIR and then they would have to do the analysis for the delta between what would be approved under the specific plan and any additional impacts they would be creating. Commissioner Bostwick asked staff to provide further clarification relating to the following: • Public Realm Improvements • Mid-block Crosswalks • Freeway Landscaping Improvements • Retention Bases for Recreation and Trail Access AUGUST 24, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES Page 4 of 7 Ms. Kim provided additional details related to Commissioner Bostwick’s comments. Commissioner Bostwick expressed his opposition to having residential in the industrial areas. Further discussion took place amongst the Planning Commission and Ms. Kim related to grant funding for improvements, an additional commuter rail train station, and the existing and proposed zoning for the property that the PRS Group represents. Commissioner Caldwell stated he supports the primary objective of providing employment in the area, and he indicated that there is already a lot of residential. Chairman Lieberman opened the public hearing. Phillip Schwartze, president of The PRS Group, stated they have reviewed the specific plan and the environmental documents. He referred to the letter that he submitted to the Planning Commission dated August 24, 2015, relating to their requested amendments to the specific plan, and he indicated he is present to answer any questions. Commissioner Ramirez asked Mr. Schwartze for clarification on why he is supporting residential development for Development Area 5. Mr. Schwartze relayed reasons for supporting residential development in Development Area 5, and he indicated that the property is the right size where you can have a decent size building complex with in-house management. James Potter, 5300 Paseo Panorama, Yorba Linda, he expressed concerns related to the proposed zoning and he asked staff to address how grandfathering takes place. He then referred to the Tustin property which is located east of Tustin Avenue, and he asked staff to address how the proposed zoning would affect a site’s façade improvements. Chairman Lieberman closed the public hearing. Ms. Kim responded that uses that were permitted in the previous zoning would remain to be permitted. However, conditionally permitted uses would no longer be allowed to be permitted; the proposed plan would only allow uses that are permitted by right to remain in the area. She also stated that façade improvements would be permitted. Mr. Borrego stated that it isn’t that they are not allowing uses such as churches and cross-fit facilities in the subject area, but that they are being more strategic in terms of where those types of uses would be allowed by a conditional use permit in the future. And, trying to keep them clear of the solely industrial areas, and instead focusing more in the areas where a mix of industrial or commercial uses are allowed. Commissioner Seymour referred to Development Area 3 where residential is permitted, and he asked staff for further details on the property. AUGUST 24, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES Page 5 of 7 Ms. Kim stated that along Grove Street, where residential is currently permitted and where there is an existing apartment community, there have been a number of discussions with developers who want to come in and assemble the properties along Grove Street in the interest of a second residential development. Commissioner Dalati asked if a study was conducted relating to the need for hotels in the area. Ms. Kim responded yes, and stated during the existing opportunities analysis there was a study done on the market potential for hotels, and it was determined that they could use more rooms for the extended stay hotels, and that there was a market demand for an additional hotel. Commissioner Henninger referred to the following: • Specific Plan Market Conditions: He referred to the specific plan and discussion on the economics and market conditions, and stated they do not address the long history of the area, being the initial development - the 1960s through the 1980s; and its decline since the mid-80s. And, it does not discuss who their competition is for the subject property. • Roadway Widths: He stated that the roadway widths are too wide, and it doesn’t help the local businesses and/or economy. • Development Standards: He stated he met with Mr. Schwartze who indicated there needs to be some incentives for a developer to tear down an old building and build something new. And, the development standards in the specific plan build the same types of buildings that already exist. The parking requirements are the same as the citywide parking requirements, and the setbacks are basically the same. He suggested reducing the parking requirement in order to allow more space for productive uses. • Setbacks: He stated that the setbacks along the major arterials are too open with too much space; and he doesn’t believe that the setbacks support the rest of the plan and do not allow buildings to be built much differently than they are currently. It also does not encourage the redevelopment of properties. He suggested that all the setbacks be reduced. Commissioner Ramirez referred to Commissioner Henninger’s comments related to having discussion in the specific plan on their competitors and asked staff to address that issue, and also she indicated that there are references that the existing plan is cumbersome and inflexible. And, she asked staff to address how it is being made better. Dan Amsden, Planning Consultant, stated as part of the specific plan process their team prepared an existing conditions report that included a chapter on economic conditions. They did look at economic conditions and projections of the future, as well as the broader region of Orange County and Southern California; therefore, they did look at historic trends and trying to project future trends as part of the analysis. He provided details relating to the current zoning code for the Northeast Area Specific Plan and the Pacificenter. With updating the zoning code, they tried to consolidate the information and have more AUGUST 24, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES Page 6 of 7 of a table format, so it’s not only shorter but it’s also easier to understand. He stated that they were able to reduce the zoning text from about 190 pages to about 26 pages. Mr. Borrego also included that under the General Plan, there are very strict FAR limitations. They have run into several instances where the FAR limited the development potential of parcels because often times they are developments that would like to exceed the .5 FAR and there is not a mechanism in place to allow that, short of having an individual property owner request a general plan amendment, which as of to date, has not occurred. Under the specific plan they are allowing property owners to exceed the .5 FAR by conditional use permit, and as part of that process they would require the property owner to ensure that they are not creating any infrastructure impacts by increasing the FAR beyond what was analyzed in the environmental impact report for the project. This does give them some relief and an easier path to request a larger building. Further, he addressed Commissioner Henninger’s comments related to the building setbacks, and stated if the commission is interested in looking at a different development model that doesn’t require the 50 foot wide building setbacks that staff is open to completing any analysis as needed. Also, he noted that if a transformation is really needed that it would be important to not only reduce the minimum setback, but also to not allow businesses to revert back to the 50 foot wide building setback because according to the development pattern for that area there are a number of businesses who prefer to have their customer and employee parking in the front area and to have the truck loading and storage in the back area. He then referred to the absence of historical representations in the specific plan and he informed the commission that staff would be willing to include additional context beyond the Great Recession, in terms of how the area has evolved over the years. He also indicated that staff would be willing to work with the commission if they are interested in assisting in the process in order to provide a better representation before the plan is brought before the City Council. Chairman Lieberman asked for further clarification relating to discussion of reviewing the citywide parking requirements. Mr. Borrego responded that there have been discussions relating to completing a comprehensive analysis of the citywide parking regulations; they tried to secure supplemental funding through the budget process but as of yet have been unsuccessful. Therefore, staff’s primary goal is to move forward with an analysis of the industrial and retail requirements as those seem to be the most critical in the standards that they most frequently see waived with development applications. He further provided information relating to staff’s discussions with Commissioner Henninger on the parking standards. Commissioner Caldwell concurred with Commissioner Henninger’s comments related to the setbacks, and he expressed that he would like to see some flexibility. Mr. Borrego informed that if the commission was interested in directing staff to revisit the setback issue, and for staff to work on including context on the economic history of the area; that he would then recommend a continuance of the item. AUGUST 24, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES Page 7 of 7 Commissioner Seymour expressed that in the long term, the lack of flexibility may not be in the best interest of the city. He then asked staff to address the flexibility issue from a global standpoint. Mr. Borrego stated it would be helpful for the commission to provide information on why they may believe that the proposed specific plan is not flexible enough, and also to provide any direction to staff related to the residential development issues, if needed. Commissioner Caldwell referred to the flexibility of the plan and he expressed his support of having a developer being able to have the option of flexibility related to the setbacks. Commissioner Seymour expressed his support of flexibility in terms of installing sidewalks, mid-street pedestrian walkways, etc., and he questioned how specific the plan would be. Further discussion took place amongst the commission and staff related to the setbacks and the flexibility of the plan, and the proposed residential development. Commissioner Caldwell offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Seymour and the motion carried, to continue the item to the October 5, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, along with re- opening the public hearing in order to allow any further testimony. Eleanor Morris, Secretary announced that the motion to continue the item passed with seven yes votes. Chairman Lieberman and Commissioners Bostwick, Caldwell, Dalati, Henninger, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. OPPOSITION: None IN GENERAL: Two people spoke expressing concerns related to the subject request. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 40 minutes (5:26 to 7:06)