Loading...
MIN 03 20 2017_Item 5_Christine_emMARCH 20, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES PC: 03-20-2017 Page 1 of 7 ITEM NO. 5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2017-00513 MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2017-00651 (DEV2017-00007) Location: Citywide Request: The 2017 Bicycle Master Plan Project is a City-initiated update to the City of Anaheim’s 2004 Bicycle Master Plan. The project includes amendments to the General Plan to provide consistency between the proposed 2017 Bicycle Master Plan and the General Plan. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider if an Addendum to the previously-certified Program Environmental Impact Report No. 330 (PEIR 330) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report N. 346 (SEIR 346) is the appropriate environmental document for this project and that none of the conditions set forth in sections 15162 or 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report or a Supplement to PEIR 330 or SEIR 346 have occurred. Approved a motion for continuance of the item to April 17, 2017. A second motion was made by Commissioner Seymour, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick to continue the item to April 17, 2017, in order to allow staff to draft policy language related to safety and enforcement measures for the proposed bike trails. VOTE: 7-0 Chairperson Caldwell and Commissioners Bostwick, Carbajal, Dalati, Henninger, Lieberman and Seymour voted yes. --------------------------------------- The motion to approve the item failed to carry. A first motion was made by Commissioner Dalati, seconded by Commissioner Henninger to approve the item per staff’s recommendations in the staff report. VOTE: 2-5 Commissioners Dalati and Henninger voted yes. Chairperson Caldwell and Commissioners Bostwick, Carbajal, Lieberman and Seymour voted no. Project Planner: Christine Saunders csaunders@anaheim.net Christine Saunders, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 20, 2017, along with a visual presentation. She indicated before they discuss the highlights of the plan that she would like to briefly review the types of bicycle facilities that the bicycle network includes, and stated:  Class 1, bike paths - provide completely separated right-of-way from on road vehicle traffic that is designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians.  Class 2, bike lanes - provide a space on the road for bicyclist adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes, and flow in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic and are designated with pavement markings and signage. MARCH 20, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES PC: 03-20-2017 Page 2 of 7  Class 3, bike routes – provide on street right-of-way designated by signs or permitted markings that are shared with pedestrians and motorist.  Class 4, cycle tracks – provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway which are vertically separated from vehicular traffic. She stated that the 2017 Plan sets the vision for the city’s bikeways network to be funded as part of park and roadway projects, and through competitive grants. The 2017 Plan was prepared to meet the requirements of Section 891.2 of the California’s Streets and Highways code which is detailed in Appendix A of the Plan. The Plan describes bicycle safety and education programs, and enforcement by Anaheim police and fire departments, the public involvement developing the plan, its coordination with other local and regional plans, the prioritization listing, and past and future expenditures to implement the Plan. She referred to the bikeways network overview presentation slide, and stated that the plan will guide the tripling of the 60 miles of existing bikeways to 180 miles, which will connect neighborhoods, employment centers, and transportation hubs. The implementation of the network will help improve quality of life by lowering emissions, reducing congestion and promoting active transportation for the range of bicyclists and types of trips. She indicated that due to potential right-of-way impacts and input from City Council to not replace vehicle lanes with bicycle lanes, the city is not proposing Class IV cycle tracks as part of the subject Plan. However, cycle tracks are not precluded and may be considered on a case-by-case basis. She referred to a slide presentation, illustrating the bicycle network on the west side of the city in Districts 1 through 5, with the solid lines representing existing bike ways and the dash lines representing proposed bikeways. She stated that staff received comments regarding apparent gaps in the network, such as State College Boulevard where east/west connections do not line up. She explained that direct east/west connections are limited in some areas because of the street layout of the city and may require access across private property. One key connection would be the Class 1, bike path, across Boysen Park, which would connect Vermont Street and Wagner Street across State College Boulevard, and provide direct access to Anaheim Coves and the Santa Ana River Trail to the east. Additionally, while bicycles are allowed to use all city streets – the Plan reflects the preference to focus bicycle facilities on lower volume routes that are parallel to major arterials. She indicated that access to flood control channels was an area of concern, related to Class 1 bike paths. The city is coordinating with the Orange County Flood Control District to allow the city to access maintenance roads for district facilities, for utilization as Class I bike paths. The city will conduct additional outreach to the local communities neighboring these facilities prior to implementing each propose bike ID in order to address any safety or access concerns the local residents, or potential bicycle facility users. MARCH 20, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES PC: 03-20-2017 Page 3 of 7 She referred to a slide presentation, illustrating the existing and proposed facilities on the east end of District 6, and stated that staff applied prioritization criteria to the network to identify priority rankings for implementation. Prioritization is based on demand, utility, connectivity and project readiness. The prioritization scores for the network are detailed in Appendix F of the Plan. Federal highway administration cost estimates were used to determine anticipated costs to implement the proposed bikeway network, and she explained that each proposed bikeway in the network will undergo more detailed cost analysis prior to proceeding with the project. She stated that cost can range widely as most Class II or Class III bike lanes may be implemented as part of a larger road rehabilitation project, and the complex Class I projects can be extremely costly. Furthermore, she indicated that the city would continue to seek grant funding in addition to incorporating bikeways installations into larger roadway projects. The 2017 Plan was compared to the existing General Plan, and the following modifications to the General Plan are recommended in order to provide consistency between the two documents:  To replace the 2004 Plan which is included as Appendix B of the General Plan, with the 2017 Plan.  To amend figures in the Circulation and Green Elements, to reflect the existing and planned bicycle facilities in the 2017 Plan.  To make text changes to the Circulation Element, Green Element, Community Design Element, and Economic Development Element, as described in Appendix B of the 2017 Plan. The said modifications were prepared to provide internal consistency within the General Plan as it relates to bicycling, and that the modifications further emphasized the integration of bicycling into applicable goals and policies and the proposed build-out of the bikeways network. The 2017 Plan was analyzed to determine the environmental impacts associated with its implementation, and the analysis was completed through an addendum to the environmental impact reports that had been prepared for the General Plan. The analysis determined that the proposed plan would not create any greater, or new impacts than those analyzed for the 2004 plan. She stated in summary:  The 2017 Plan has been prepared pursuant to the State’s requirements for a bicycle transportation plan.  The 2017 Plan effectively analyzes and addresses the city’s bikeway network.  The policies contained within the document reflect the city’s continued commitment towards promoting the development of a bikeway network to meet the needs of all types MARCH 20, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES PC: 03-20-2017 Page 4 of 7 of bicyclists, and outlines the strategy for implementing bikeways as part of park & roadway projects, and through competitive grants. Furthermore, she stated that comments received today via email have been provided to the Planning Commission, and one of the commenters expressed appreciation for the Plan and additional resources in the resort area. The second comment was regarding on street parking in the area of Rio Vista Street, and she noted that the city’s transportation and traffic staff will be looking into the issue. And, that the last three comments are regarding the implementation of Class I bike paths, along Carbon Creek which would require additional outreach with the neighboring communities as was discussed by staff. In conclusion, she stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of the Addendum to the General Plan EIR No. 330 and EIR No. 346, the 2017 Plan, and associated General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Seymour referred to the Carbon Creek plan, and stated he has a concern with that Class I bike path; and he asked if the illustrated six to seven foot block fences are standard. Pamela Galera, Principal Project Planner, responded that there is a completed portion of the Carbon Creek Channel, located between the West Anaheim Youth Center and Schweitzer Park, and they do have high block walls to the residents and then just a rail between the bike path and the channel itself. She indicated that they would need to work with the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) on each individual project in order to define the criteria. Commissioner Seymour stated then it is not a guarantee for the new path that it would happen. Ms. Galera responded that is correct, they are not able to guarantee it because they would have to evaluate each individual location and work closely with the OCFCD, and would have to submit permits for design approval by the OCFCD. Commissioner Seymour asked what if OCFCD does not approve the design. Ms. Galera responded it is their property; therefore, they would not be able to build a bike path if they do not get permission from the property owner. Commissioner Seymour asked how is it determined where a bike path is best to be built, and ensuring its utilization and that it’s a good investment overall. Ms. Galera responded there are a number of criteria for evaluation, such as safe routes to schools, location of parks and libraries, etc., and they would ensure to have extensive community input. Further discussion amongst Commissioner Seymour and Ms. Galera took place regarding safety measures for the bike paths and for the adjacent neighbors along the bike paths. Commissioner Dalati expressed his appreciation of staff’s hard work on the subject plan, and he expressed his support of the request. MARCH 20, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES PC: 03-20-2017 Page 5 of 7 Commissioner Bostwick concurred with Commissioner Seymour regarding the issue of addressing safety measures for the bike paths, and he expressed concerns related to safety issues. Furthermore, he indicated he would not vote for approval of the request until the safety issues are addressed and language pertaining to safety measures are added to the Plan. Further discussion amongst the Commissioners took place expressing their opinions relative to the homeless issues along bike trails. Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing. Rebecca Cousins, representing the Alliance for a Healthy Orange County (AHOC), she expressed support of the subject plan, and stated the reasons for their support, are the following:  The emphasis on community outreach that was put into the make of the plan, AHOC believes that change will only happen in communities that is needed if everyone’s voice is being heard, and she indicated that staff did a very good job reflecting the desires and the needs of the community members in the plan. And, community demand is a heavy weight, and which projects are prioritized also are supported by AHOC.  The plan widely supports healthy lifestyles of the Anaheim residents, and a few of the policies in the plan were instrumental in getting the city of Anaheim promoted in the healthy eating-active living campaign from the fit level to the active level which is scheduled to being presented by City Council in the next few months.  The Plan prioritizes the building of the projects, and at the same that other roadway maintenance is being done, AHOC supports that because it is a cost effective and relatively quick way to get such type projects build-out while they are still relevant. And, the goal that specifically speaks to such point is Goal 7.1.2 in the Plan. In concluding, she expressed her support of the subject plan. Charlene Arellano, 1022 N. Lomita Street, Anaheim, she referred to an email in opposition that she submitted to staff, and she expressed her opinions relative to the potential negative effects that would be created in her neighborhood if the Plan is approved. Joe Lasecki, 1028 N. Laguna Street, Anaheim, he referred to an email he submitted to staff expressing concerns, and continued to express concerns related to access issues, and safety and enforcement issues. He recommended that before any approval is considered that there needs to be more details outlined in the Plan in relations to those issues. Joe Arellano, 1022 N. Lomita, Anaheim, he concurred that enforcement is an issue and he expressed concerns related to safety and enforcement measures, and he included that bike trails attract homeless encampments which is a negative impact to adjacent neighborhoods. MARCH 20, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES PC: 03-20-2017 Page 6 of 7 Bill Richardson, 3061 N. Skywood Street, Orange, he expressed his support of bike trails as he regularly utilizes bike trails, and stated he rides on the streets quite a bit and appreciates where bike lanes have been installed as it means a lot to a bicyclist to know that it is at least marked for their benefit. Chairperson Caldwell closed the public hearing, and stated the proposed Plan, is currently just a Plan, and bike paths are not going to be built immediately. He indicated if Carbon Creek Channel is a problem, then they should condition their recommendation to the City Council. He expressed his support of the subject request. Commissioner Carbajal concurred with Chairperson Caldwell, and he expressed his support with moving forward to approve the subject Plan. Furthermore, he recommended that any specific concerns raised by the community should be appropriately addressed by staff and by the necessary public agency. Susan Kim, Principal Planner, stated the only area where they wouldn’t do that is through a restriping plan for a Class II or Class III facility, but definitely for the Class I facility, the off street paths are going to require a lot of community input and additional CEQA analysis, as well, because at this point they are talking about a programmatic level of approval that it is just “lines on a map” as a lot of the details will be worked out in the implementation process; which is specific to the Class I - off road facilities like on Carbon Creek – that it happens through the agreement process. However, staff is open to adding an additional condition of approval, directing staff to add more language to the Plan to talk about what some of those requirements for the Class I facilities might be, and they could add the new language into the Plan between Planning Commission and City Council. Commissioner Seymour stated that he concurs with conditioning it, in such a fashion that the language is very specific - where it can be clearly explained to the community by providing specific details to a certain criteria that is being established, versus, vaguely indicating that a certain criteria will be “worked out” as that would not be acceptable. Commissioner Henninger stated as specific implementing projects come forward, the Commission will then receive all the necessary specifics and it is at that point, where they need to be more thorough in the reviewing process. He indicated it is not appropriate to put those type of details in a general plan. He suggested to staff to try to connect the homeowners with OCFCD as it is their property and their fences; and to try to get the OCFCD to improve the fences in order to make the homeowners feel more secure. Furthermore, he stated on a long-term standpoint, he feels opening up Carbon Creek would actually be best as the activities would be more visible, which may possibly open up more awareness of the activities occurring there. Commissioner Lieberman expressed her support of adding a condition of approval to add language into the Plan relating to safety and enforcement measures. MARCH 20, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES PC: 03-20-2017 Page 7 of 7 Jonathan Borrego, Planning Services Manager, explained that the safety of the residents are first and foremost, and stated if the Commission wishes they can continue the item in order for staff to come back with some additional policy language that can be added to the document which may alleviate some of the concerns that have been raised at today’s public hearing. He further explained that because it is a policy document that they cannot add conditions to it perse, as it is a broader policy document. However, there is a process that staff needs to follow before they implement the bike trails in order to ensure that they are addressing safety concerns. He reiterated that staff could add policy language that would make it very clear of the steps that need to be followed in order to ensure that certain concerns are addressed before the bike trails along the flood control channels are implemented. In concluding, he stated it is the Commission’s decision on how they would like to direct staff on the matter. A first motion was made by Commissioner Dalati, seconded by Commissioner Henninger to approve the item per staff’s recommendations in the staff report. Eleanor Morris, Secretary announced that the motion to approve the item failed to carry with two yes votes. Chairperson Caldwell and Commissioners Bostwick, Carbajal, Lieberman and Seymour voted no, and Commissioners Dalati and Henninger voted yes. A second motion was made by Commissioner Seymour, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick to continue the item to the April 17, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Eleanor Morris, Secretary announced that the motion to continue the item passed with seven yes votes. Chairperson Caldwell and Commissioners Bostwick, Carbajal, Dalati, Henninger, Lieberman and Seymour voted yes. OPPOSITION: Four pieces of written correspondence were received expressing opposition and concerns relating to the request. And, three persons spoke expressing opposition and concerns relating to the proposed request. IN SUPPORT: A piece of written correspondence was received expressing support of the request. And, two persons spoke expressing support of the proposed request. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour (5:27 to 6:27 p.m.)