Loading...
Minutes-PC 2004/08/09~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES MONDAY, August 9, 2004 (Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004-00032, Item No. 5) Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California • • CHAIRPERSON: GAIL EASTMAN COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: KELLY BUFFA, CECILIA FLORES, JERRY O'CONNELL, DAVID ROMERO, JAMES VANDERBILT-LINARES, PAT VELASQUEZ COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director Greg Hastings, Planning Services Manager Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner Linda Johnson, Principal Planner Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner Susan Kim, Associate Planner James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer Elly Morris, Senior Secretary Danielle Masciel, Word Processing Operator H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MI NUTES\SUPPLEMENTALMI NUTES080904.DOC AUGUST 9, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ 5a. PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED FEIR NO. 330 Recommended City Councii Approvai 5b. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2004-00032 Recommended Ciry Councii Approvai 5c. RESCISSION OF THE SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT Recommended City Council to OVERLAY ZONE (MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2004-00082) rescind the resolution of intent 5d. RESCISSION OF THE ANAHEIM STADIUM AREA MASTER Recommended City Counci~ to LAND USE PLAN (MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2004-00083) rescind Resolution No. 99R-39 5e. THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MASTER LAND USE PLAN Recommended City Council (MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2004-OOQ84) Approval 5f. FORM OF THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE STANDARD Recommended Ciry Councii DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Approval (MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2004-00085) 5g. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2004-00127 Approved 5h. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2004-00128 Approved ended City Council o 5i. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2004-00'I29 va App 5j. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2004-00130 Approved 5k. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEM NOS. 5q, Recommended city Counci~ 5h and 5i Review • Location: The Platinum Trianqle. Those certain properties encompassing approximately 820 acres generally bounded by the Santa Ana River on the east, the Anaheim City Limits on the south, the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5) on the west and the Southern California Edison Company right-of-way on the north, and also known as "The Platinum Triangle". City initiated request for Planning Commission to consider and make a recommendation to City Council, regarding the fo(lowing actions to implement the General Plan's vision for The Platinum Triangle: ~ Determine Previously-Certified EIR No. 330 (associated with the General Plan and Zoning Update Program) and the updated and modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 for The Platinum Triangle, as being adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the actions listed below. • Amend the Zoning Code to replace the SE (Sports Entertainment) Overlay Zone with the PTMU (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use) Overlay Zone. ~ Rescind the resolution of intent to the SE (Sports Entertainment) Overlay Zone (Resolution No. PC2000-14). • Replace the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan with The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (including rescinding Resolution No. 99R-39, which approved the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan) • Adopt The Platinum Triangle Standard Development Agreement as to • form. • Reclassify properties within The Platinum Triangle designated by the 08-09-04 Page 2 of 16 AUGUST 9, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ General Plan as "Office High" to the O-H (High Intensity Office) Zone (Resolution of Intent only - finalization required by property owners to develop under the O-H Zone) (Reclassification No. 2004-00127) • Reclassify properties within The Platinum Triangle designated by the General Plan as "Office Low" to the O-L (Low Intensity Office) Zone (Resolution of Intent only - finalization required by property owners to develop under O-L Zone) (Reclassification No. 2004-00128) ~ Reclassify properties within The Platinum Triangle designated as "Mixed- Use" by the General Plan to the PTMU (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use) Overlay Zone (finalize zoning - property owners may develop utilizing the underlying zone or the PTMU Overlay Zone) • Reclassify properties finalized to SE (Sports Entertainment) Overlay Zone to the: ^ I(PTMU) (Industrial - Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay) Zone (finalize zoning) - Rectangular-shaped 3.7-acre property having a frontage of 292 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard, having a maximum depth of 556 feet and located 335 feet north of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue (2045 South State College Boulevard). • I(SE) (Industrial - Sports Entertainment Overlay) Zone to O-L (Low Intensity Office) Zone (finalize zoning) - Irregularly-shaped 24.5-acre property having a frontage of 1,120 feet on the east side of Douglass Road, a maximum depth of 1,130 feet and located 1,081 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue (1460 South Douglass Road). • • O-L (SE) (Office Low - Sports Entertainment Overlay) Zone to O-L (Low Intensity Office) Zone (finalize zoning) - Irregularly-shaped 7.25-acre property having a frontage of 1,560 feet on the west side of Douglass Road, having a maximum depth of 513 feet and located 690 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue (1501 - 1551 South Douglass Road). Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004-00032 Resolution No. PC2004-79 Rescind Sports Entertainment (SE) Overlay Resolution No. PC2004-80 (Miscellaneous Case No. 2004-00082) Rescind Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan Resolution No. PC2004-81 (Miscellaneous Case No. 2004-00083) The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan Resolution No. PC2004-82 (Misceilaneous Case No. 2004-00084) Reclassification No. 2004-00127 Resolution No. PC2004-83 Reclassification No. 2004-0012$ Resolution No. PC2004-84 Reclassification No. 2004-00129 Resolution No. PC2004-85 Reclassification No. 2004-00130 Resolution No. PC2004-86 ~ sr8764sk.doc 08-09-04 Page 3 of 16 AUGUST 9, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ Chairperson Eastman opened the public hearing. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 5. Applicant's Testimony: Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, stated that The Platinum Triangle is the first follow-up action to be taken after the Council approved the General Plan update last May, 2004. Staff has done a lot of work in a short amount of time to try to pull this off and has had a lot of support from the consulting firm of EDAW, Inc., and many other City departments. Additionally, staff has also enjoyed a lot of feedback from property owners, developers and others interested in The Platinum Triangle, and therefore feel that the standards reviewed today are viable. Staff is excited to present this Master Land Use Plan to you as well as the Overlay Zone and the Implementing Development Agreement and believes that it is going to set the stage for some very exciting high density urban development in The Platinum Triangle. Susan Kim, Associate Planner, presented The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and associated implementation actions as follows: On May 25, 2005, City Council approved an update to the General Plan that identified The Platinum Triangle as a key planning area within the City. The General Plan's vision for The Platinum Triangle is to create a dynamic mix of uses and upscale, high-density urban housing - integrated by a carefully planned network of pedestrian walkways, streetscape improvements and recreational spaces that will create an urban environme~t of a scale never before seen in Orange County. To provide the framework for this urban environment, the General Plan designated a variety of land uses for The Platinum Triangle including industrial, office, institutional and mixed-use. • The mixed-use designation is new to this area in that it allows up to 9,175 dwelling units. Prior to this designation, residential uses were not permitted in The Platinum Triangle. Before you today are the implementation tools to make the General Plan's vision a reality. These tools include: • The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, which is intended to supersede the existing Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan, the planning document currently in place for properties within The Platinum Triangle. • The Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Overlay Zone, which will replace the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone, Chapter 20, of Title 18. • The Platinum Triangle Standard Development Agreement • A number of zoning reclassifications that are intended to provide property owners with the option of continuing to operate, expand or develop under the existing zoning for their property or develop under the zoning which implements the new General Plan land use designations. • The previously-certified Final Environmental Impact Report associated with the General Plan Update, which is proposed to serve as the environmental documentation for these actions. The General Plan includes a number of policies in both the land use and community design elements, which have been incorporated into The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan including: • Encouraging mixed-use projects integrating retail, office and higher density residential land uses • Maximizing and capitalizing upon the view corridors from the Santa Ana and Orange Freeways • Providing a mix of quality, high density urban housing that is integrated into the area through carefully maintained pedestrian streets, transit connections, and arterial access. • Developing a strong pedestrian orientation, including wide sidewalks, pedestrian paths, gathering ~ places, ground-floor retail, and street level landscaping • Encouraging extensive office development • Developing criteria for comprehensive property management, and • Identifying opportunities for open space 08-09-04 Page 4 of 16 AUGUST 9, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ To build upon these policies EDAW, the consulting firm with whom the City contracted with to develop the Master Land Use Plan and a mixed-use overlay zone, held a design charette with City staff. Out of this workshop, a vision for the area was developed. This vision would include planning principles to: ^ Balance and integrate uses ^ Stimulate market-driven development ^ Create a unique, integrated, walkable, urban environment ^ Develop an overall urban design framework to: • Maintain and enhance connectivity; • Create great neighborhoods; • Reinforce Transit Oriented Development opportunities; and, • Provide for installation and maintenance of public improvements. Based on the planning principles, an urban design plan was created that identified key urban design elements and attributes for The Platinum Triangle. This urban design plan was reviewed by City staff and was also distributed to several property owners and members of the development community for input and analysis. Their feedback was used to further shape this plan. A key element of the plan is the introduction of a street network to provide access to the interior of the existing industrial parcels so that a mix of moderately scaled blocks can be achieved. These streets are called connector streets. The location of these streets is conceptual and the actual placement of the streets will be based on access and alignment and traffic studies on a project specific basis. The Connector Street is intended to be a two lane street with bike lanes on most segments, medium canopy trees in the parkway and optional parking on both sides. If this optional parking is provided, it may be considered towards meeting parking requirements for the use that it serves. • The Connector Street is intended to be a two lane street with bike lanes on most segments, medium canopy trees in the parkway and optional parking on both sides. If this optional parking is provided, it may be considered towards meeting parking requirements for the use that it serves. The development community has encouraged narrower streets and one option that would provide for such streets would be to eliminate the required bike lanes. If bike lanes are eliminated, the required vehicle lane would need to be increased to 13 feet and the minimum street width would be 26 feet, 6 feet narrower than the connector street with bike lanes. The Planning Commission may choose to adopt the Master Land Use Plan with Alternative A or with the cross-section that is within the proposed plan. Another key element of the plan is to provide a centerpiece walking and shopping district. Ground floor commercial uses are proposed to be required on Market Street, a conceptual pedestrian-oriented street that links Katella Avenue and Gene Autry Way. This requir~ment also extends east of Market Street, along Gene Autry Way to the entrance of Angel Stadium of Anaheim on State College Boulevard. The types of uses considered for this requirement are lisfed in the mixed use overlay zone and include both retail and non-retail uses. Market Street is intended to be a two lane street with diagonal parking on the west side and parallel parking on the east side, similar to the pictures on the previous slide, and bike lanes on either side. Medium canopy trees in tree grates and planter areas between the diagonal parking would provide for pedestrian movement while adequately shading the walkway and setback. As mentioned previously, the development community has expressed a desire for narrower streets than those proposed in the Master Land Use Plan. The slide shows presented showed how, Alternative A, • which would remove bike lanes, would impact Market Street, reducing the required right-of-way width by 6 feet. 08-09-04 Page 5 of 16 AUGUST 9, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ This alternative would be similar to the right of way width on Main Street in Huntington Beach; however a 10-foot setback area is required in The Platinum Triangle to provide space for outdoor dining and improved pedestrian circulation. In order to further narrow Market Street, Alternative B provides the option of no bike lanes and parallel parking on both sides of the street instead of diagonal parking on the west side. This alternative would reduce the street width by 16 feet and create a curb to curb street width of 42 feet. This is similar to Denman Street, a high density mixed-use area in Vancouver, Canada. Another concern has been cut-through traffic from Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue on Market and the Connector Streets, south of Gene Autry Way. Alternative C is proposed to reduce this cut-through traffic by eliminating the connector street south of the proposed mini-park, south of Gene Autry Way. Alternatively, reducing traffic speeds through traffic calming measures, which are encouraged by the Master Land Use Plan, could also reduce the propensity for cut-through traffic. To create an active street and ground floor zone that is attractive, safe and engaging, ground floor architectural treatments, consistent setbacks and landscape specific to the use and location are required The pedestrian zone will be further activated on connector streets with entrances to individual units and on arterial streets with communal lobbies or courtyards. On key intersections in The Platinum Triangle, special architecture will be required such as tower elements and enhanced pedestrian entryways. A key element of the Urban Design Plan is to provide variation in housing type. Projects over 400 units and five acres are required to provide more than one housing type within their proposed development. Building types include: ^ Tuck-under buildings, which have parking garages located under the living unit and are • accessed by surface driveways, ^ Wrapped deck buildings, which are buildings that surround, or wrap around, a free standing, no subterranean structure, • Podium buildings, which are buildings with dwelling units located above a subterranean parking structure, and t ^ Mid-rise towers, which is a building with a height between 5 and 20 stories. Development on parcels larger than 8 acres will be required to provide a mini park based on the number of dwelling units developed on the parcel. This park land dedication would be credited against park in lieu fees. This park will be maintained by the property owner or developer unless another financial mechanism is approved by the City. In addition, every development will be required to provide 200 square feet of recreational-leisure area for each dwelling unit in private and/or common areas. A larger neighborhood park is conceptually located in the vicinity of the southwestern portion of The Platinum Triangle to meet organized field sport needs. Several distinct mixed-use districts have been identified within the portion of The Platinum Triangle designated for mixed-use by the General Plan. Each districYs unique characteristics and associated development principles are described in the Master Land Use Plan. The maximum development intensities designated for each of these districts are based on planning and infrastructure considerations analyzed by the final environmental impact report associated with the General Plan Update Program, including traffic capacity, access and availability of infrastructure and proximity to destination areas. ~ 08-09-04 Page 6 of 16 AUGUST 9, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • The public realm landscape and identity program combines streetscape elements, including gateways, public art, light fixtures, street furniture and signs, with a landscape concept plan to establish and reflect The Platinum Triangle's distinctive image. The proposed street furniture for The Platinum Triangle is a combination of continuing themes established in The Anaheim Resort, in order to provide connectivity between the two destination centers, and standards that are used Citywide. Gateways, public art and special signage will determine The Platinum Triangle's unique character along with the landscape concept plan. To help beautify and unify the streets within The Platinum Triangle, a Landscape Concept Plan has been developed to create a memorable and civic-scaled public landscape for The Platinum Triangle. To achieve this, extensive landscape improvements are proposed within the area's public right-of-way and landscape areas. Cross-sections setting forth the public right-of-way design for each of the streets are included in The Platinum Triangle. For instance, on Katella Avenue, the grove-style planting of date palms is intended to provide a grand entrance into The Platinum Triangle from the east and connect the area with The Anaheim Resort to the west. In addition, the cross-sections illustrate the required setback areas and allowable commercial and residential encroachments including outdoor restaurant dining areas and residential patios. The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone provides the regulatory tools to implement private mixed- use development. Permitted uses, structural height, maximum site coverage, minimum project size, etc are included in the Overlay Zone. This Zone is proposed to replace the Sports Entertainment Zone, the implementing zone for The Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan, in Title 18. • This overlay zone will only apply to those properties designated mixed-use by the General Plan. Properties encompassed by the overlay zone could be operated, developed, or expanded under their existing underlying zoning, such as industrial, or if the property owner chooses, the property could be developed under the overlay zone standards. Property owners who choose to develop their property utilizing the overlay zone would submit a Final Site Plan application showing how their proposal conforms to the Code. They could also process a conditional use permit or a variance application at the same time. These plans would become an exhibit to a standard development agreement which would be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings. The Standard Development Agreement also includes other provisions that address maintenance and fee requirements. In conjunction with the Development Agreement, an environmental determination for the proposed project would be required. At this time, individual projects would require independent environmental review and documentation; however, the City has entered into a contract with a consultant to prepare a subsequent EIR for The Platinum Triangle which is proposed to provide project-level environmental analysis for projects in this area. Zoning reclassifications are proposed to reflect new General Plan designations that were adopted for the The Platinum Triangle as part of the General Plan Update Program. • Properties designated for Mixed-Use are proposed to be reclassified to have the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone in addition to their current zone, for instance a property that is zoned Industrial would have the mixed-use overlay zone in addition to iYs industrial zone. This would allow properties to continue to be operated or developed under their current zone or if the property owners choose, they could develop under the overlay zone. • Properties designated Office-High and Office-Low are proposed to have a resolution of intent to the High Intensity and Low Intensity Zones processed for their properties. This is the first step in ~ the reclassification process. Property owners who wish to develop under these zones would finalize to the zone, otherwise the existing zoning for their property would remain in place. This 08-09-04 Page 7 of 16 AUGUST 9, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ strategy would mean that none of the uses or buildings that are currently in conformance with the existing zoning would become illegal or non-conforming by the proposed actions. • Properties which have been reclassified to the SE Overlay Zone are proposed to be reclassified to a zone that reflects their General Plan designation. Staff has met with affected property owners and has discussed the proposed reclassifications and they concur with the proposed reclassifications. Today you are asked to provide a recommendation to City Council regarding the approval of : using the final environmental impact report for the General Plan Update as the required documentation for today's actions; The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, including rescinding the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan; The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overiay Zone, including rescinding the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone; The Platinum Triangle Standard Development Agreement; and, Zoning reclassifications associated with the new General Plan designations and the Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use Overlay Zone. Your actions today will serve as an important step in fulfilling the City's vision to transform The Platinum Triangle into a dynamic urban environment at a vibrant intensity never before experienced in Orange County. Public Testimony: Tom Riuuti, Facilities Planner, Anaheim City School District, 1001 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, stated that he was present not to oppose or offer any opinion on The Platinum Triangle but just to state the districts minor concerns about the fact that they are in an ongoing process of trying to provide adequate facilities for their existing, as well as their future students. And pursuant to their comments to the environmental impact report, they still looked forward to the opportunity to work with the City on possibilities of how they could work on the impact that would be created in terms of students that would be generated by the subject project and where they would be housed. He offered the district's willingness • to talk to City staff to make sure that planning process went forward as the planning process continued to gain momentum and move ahead. Tim Paone, 695 Town Center Drive, 14~h Floor, Costa Mesa, CA, representing A&B Property Corporation, stated that A&B owned approximately 18 acres bordered by Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard; the property in which the Catch is located. He stated that it is a terrific plan and obviously very exciting for the City and that A&B was very supportive of the plan. He complimented staff for their fine work and also for incorporating a number of their comments in the changes. However, he had two areas of concern: ~ (1) Exhibit D, the second bullet point under Uses stated, "Ground Floor Commercial Uses are required along Market Street and along Gene Autry Way, east of Market Street, and are permitted in all other locations". His concern is the area along Gene Autry Way, which would primarily affect their project. He is concerned that by forcing commercial, instead of giving it an option in that particular location might not be the wisest planning approach and that in terms of commercial long term liability, it simply might not work. A&B support the concept that they are mixed use developments and that commercial would be required within the development, but looked at the fact that generally there would be a lot of residential in the area and the commercial in the area would support the residential; and he looked at a location which would be highly impacted on game day with a lot of traffic not necessarily conducive to some of the commercial activities that might otherwise function well on the vast majority of the days which were not game days. He stated that it seemed that it might be more appropriate to allow the property owners along Gene Autry Way to come in and show how they would best approach the commercial uses to serve the area. They understand the vision and agree that it is great to have the idea to promote something along Gene Autry Way, but ask if it is tr.uly viable; would it generate a lot of commercial activity whether restaurants or office, etc., along that strip and what would happen on the days ~ and nights of activities. Also, they wished to point out that Market Street is conceptual in nature and in theory, could be moved. Regarding the required commercial on Gene Autry Way, the provision stated that it is east of Market Street. So were Market Street to move west, then all of a 08-09-04 Page 8 of 16 AUGUST 9, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • sudden the commercial area would become much longer. They feel that obviously would be addressed if the property owners were allowed to state how they would approach the mixed use concept within the project. He reiterated that they were not trying to avoid commercial; not trying to avoid mixed use, but that it was about how the decision was ultimately made. (2) Regarding structural height, he stated that within 300 feet north or south of Gene Autry right-of- way, the maximum height is 55 feet; and within 300-600 feet it is 75 feet; and only then would it go to the higher limit, presumably 100 feet at that point. Initially when they read the draft it stated it was to preserve the views from the I-5 Freeway, but there really were no views from the freeway because there is an overpass and there would be a bridge, over the freeway. Staff informed them that another focus on this is the view from the Convention Center to the stadium so that if you were on the upper floors of the Convention Center you could see the upper part of the stadium. He stated that when you look at other areas, including the stadium district which itself has an unlimited height potential, they did not know exactly what that would look like, but it had unlimited height within it. He feels the City would be placing a very heavy burden on the individual property owners who have a 600 foot setback compared to other owners, to preserve a view that is for the few people who are going to take advantage of the view from standing in a certain location on the second or third floor of the Convention Center. He stated that the thought is wondertul, but the reality of it is an awfully large burden to place on the land owners on either side of Gene Autry Way when it is tough to show that there is a view. They ask that the City give some thought to the very significant cost and burden that the project would place on a few land owners to preserve something that really may be of minimal benefit. Jim Adams, 436 S. Camellia Street, Anaheim, CA, a council representative for the Los Angeles, Orange County Building and Construction Great Council, stated that their council represents affiliated construction unions with memberships in excess of 130,000 union craft workers. Many of the craft workers and their families live in Anaheim and are electricians, operating engineers, iron workers, laborers, cement • masons, etc. The Platinum Triangle project advertised in the public notice envisioned the project as urban environmental in a scale never seen before in Orange County. He wanted it understood that they were not speaking in favor of the proposal nor at this time were they speaking against it, but had their concerns. They had concerns about local jobs for local workers; residents and contractors; contractors that the City jointly administered apprenticeship programs; and training programs that are based locally in the City. They feel if these zoning amendments are approved, it promises to be over 800 acres of development and with this development would come construction jobs; construction jobs that should be provided by local residents. He stated that the craft unions are tired of seeing developers and contractors from out of state; out of area; and sometimes out of the country, taking their jobs. The out of area contractors and their workers who not only destroy their area standard wages and benefits but who would take whatever they made back to their respective city's and not spend any of it in the State of California, and who did not even bother to register their out of state vehicles; so it was no wonder that the State of California was broke. Whereas the Affiliated Local Union and District Councils wanted to partner with the City of Anaheim to see that the much needed jobs were going to workers that lived, worked and paid taxes in Anaheim and surrounding communities; jobs that provided for area standard wages and benefits. He asked that they see language in the Development Agreement between the City and the developer that encouraged the referral of utilization to the extent permitted by law of qualified residents, journeymen and apprentices. Sharon McCracken stated that there were always two sides to an issue and people needed to work together in a fair and just manner up to and including, documents involving the project being given freely if available at the time and point requested. Otherwise, all parties involved would hinder the project. Fred Miller, 1551 Gene Autry Way, Anaheim, CA, stated that he owns the building at Gene Autry Way and Chris Lane, and in that business they manufacture high-tech machinery. 38 years ago he bootstrapped the business by creating jobs for 60 families. They export half of their product; and have no gases or chemicals. He thought bringing that type of business to a city was what the American Dream was all ~ about. The public notice arrived in the mail stating it had already been decided that they were going to change the building. In attending today's meeting he understands that they are going to really change the building to the extent that they cannot continue to manufacture machinery there. They would have to turn 08-09-04 Page 9 of 16 AUGUST 9, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ it into a walk - a market. He asked Commission to think of what they are doing to people who have done Judith Dijon, President of Orangewood Stadium Business Park Association, stated that they represent approximately 20 different entrepreneurs. They own property on Dupont Drive (shaped iike a U) at the circle just south of Orangewood Avenue, and they too are concerned about their buildings and property values and how it is going to impact the traffic pattern that they are already subjected to by Anaheim Stadium. They are entrepreneurs, represented by 20 different buildings, and property owners, and they pay taxes in the City of Anaheim and contribute to the tax base. Chairperson Eastman stated that the project would not take away their rights to remain there and their present activities but would give them or the property owner an option. a good job for the City. Ms. Dijon stated that the public notice stated that it would be done in a series and they were wondering what time line they had in order to implement whatever the series would be. Linda Johnson, Principa! Planner, responded that it was a request to basically take the first step in rezoning the property in conformance with the General Plan designation. If approved, the reclassification would be a resolution of intent to change the zoning to Office High but it would not actually change the zoning. In order to complete the second step to change the zoning, the property owner would need to submit a letter to the City and ask that the ordinance be adopted to finalize the zoning. The City would not be doing that, it would be up to the property owner at whatever time the property owner wanted to do it or if the property owner did not want to ask for a finalizing to the office zone then it would not change. Commissioner O'Connell asked Mr. Miller if his concern was the same as Ms. Dijon's; that things were going to change and he would either have to conform or move. ~ Ms. Johnson stated that if he was in one of the areas that the reclass would be to the Office High. It Mr. Miller stated that he would like to request a written copy of her statement because he could not understand the recitation at the tone and speed given. Commissioner O'Connell explained that he would not have to change his use unless he wanted to; He could continue his use and if he chose to change it, then he would be required to build it as specified. Mr. Miller asked how it would look if there were an entire street of palm trees and one business did not have them. would not actually change his zoning unless he himself wanted to do that. If his property was located in the Mixed Use Overlay, the zoning would change; however, the overlay allowed the property to continue to be developed or operate per the underlying zone or if the property owners choose to they could request to develop a project in conformance with the Overlay. It would give the property owners an opportunity but would not take away any existing rights. Chairperson Eastman responded that the palm trees seen in the plan were strictly along the street. Mr. Miller wished to clarify if a greater width and setback were required. Chairperson Eastman clarified only if he were to choose to develop it. Mr. Miller wished to clarify that if he chose not to develop the property then the setback would not exist and there would not be a sidewalk. Ms. Johnson clarified that on page 7 of the staff report, under (12) (A) and (B), it indicated that the intent ~ was not to create nonconforming uses or situations and that property owners could continue to enjoy the rights of the existing underline zone, and the reclassification to an office zone was totally at the property owners discretion, even if the Mixed Use Overlay was applied to the properties they would still have the right to continue to operate under the existing zone. With respect to land use compatibility issues, there 08-09-04 Page 10 of 16 AUGUST 9, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ was a possibility that there could be land use compatibility issues between residential uses and non- residential uses in the area and that was one of the things that they would be looking at as they reviewed each project on a case by case basis. Chairperson Eastman stated that the staff report was available to anyone who wanted a copy. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Buffa stated that she concurred with Mr. Paone and would be reluctant to impose a height restriction if in fact no benefit derived from it. She asked staff to respond and clarify a concern raised by. him regarding the height limits and restrictions along Gene Autry Way, and being informed by staff that the reason there was a height limitation was to preserve a view opportunity from public property in the distance. Ms. Johnson responded the code section that Mr. Paone spoke of was a height limit along Gene Autry Way within 600 feet north or south of the right-of-way; basically limiting the height to 55 feet within 300 feet, raising it up to 75 feet within 600 feet, and allowing higher heights subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The background on that is that Gene Autry Way was actually going to continue over the freeway and at some point connecting The Anaheim Resort to this area. There also was an existing view from one City landmark, the Convention Center, to another City landmark, the Stadium area. Historically, that is something staff looked at and that really is more of a policy type question, "Do we want that view opportunity to be something that we would like to preserve". Again, it is a view that exists from the Convention Center over to the Mixed Use Overlay Zone as well as once Gene Autry Road goes over, there would be more traffic coming from that area over to the Mixed Use Overlay Zone and not necessarily just on game days. Commissioner Buffa stated that she had a question about the public art program that was recommended ~ in the development plan and would like to propose a minor change to the language. On page 26 of,the Master Land Use Plan a statement stated that "public art will be incorporated into the mini parks"; the gathering areas. Her concern is that it is really not the role of government to mandate participation and art. Instead she preferred the plans state, "public arts will be encouraged in the mini parks" so that staff, using all of their resources and all of their leverage could encourage builders but that Commission was not setting a policy. Commission had not required public arts anywhere else in the City and she would be reluctant to start now. Ms. Johnson stated that staff took a look at the General Plan Goal and that Policy 12.1, in the Community Design Efement, regarding public arts~stated, "encourage incorporation of public arts into large scale development" so a word change instead of "require" put "encourage" in the Master Land Use Plan woufd be consistent with that goal and the zoning code. Commissioner Flores stated one of the main things that the City was doing in the Triangle was bringing in businesses, etc., and she would think that you would not encourage but perhaps use funds for art when dealing with parks, etc. Ms. Johnson responded that the language was included with regards to the mini parks; to require public art to be incorporated in the design of the mini parks. Staff envisioned fountains and other amenities, etc., and that was the suggested wording in the Master Land Use Plan. Commissioner Buffa referred to staff and stated thaf in the staff report dated August 9, 2004, it stated that all residential units would provide 200 square feet of open space per unit. Additionally, she remembers a requirement that projects above a certain size that 44 square feet would be provided per unit for pocket parks. So she asked when a unit is in a large project and they are providing the 44 square feet towards a pocket park, is that a part of their 200 square foot requirement or if it is in addition to. • Ms. Johnson responded that the requirement would be an addition to the recreational leisure area requirement of 200 square feet per unit and the value of the dedication of that mini park land would be credited against the park fees that would otherwise be due for a project. 08-09-04 Page 11 of 16 AUGUST 9, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES , Commissioner Velasquez stated that in the staff report dated August 9, 2004, page 5, regarding parking, there were three alternatives and she wished to clarify if staff had a recommendation in regards to parking. Ms. Johnson responded that staff looked at the different alternatives proposed and would recommend that the design for Market Street be one type of design and not a varied design between angled parking or parallel parking. Commissioner Velasquez asked if the recommendation would fall under any of the categories. Ms. Johnson responded that each alternative recommended one design for the street or two alternatives recommending one design for Market Street, and another alternative relative to the location on one of the connector streets. Commissioner Vefasquez asked about the possibility of parallel parking on one side of the street and angled parking on the other side of the street. Ms. Johnson responded that is what was proposed in the Master Land Use Plan. Commissioner Buffa asked how long each block was along Market Street and how long the block of Gene Autry Way was between Market Street and State College Boulevard. Ms. Johnson responded that it was 1,200 linear feet. Commissioner Velasquez referred to staff and stated that there was an issue raised on Gene Autry Way about the commercial on the first floor, and she asked staff to expound on that. ~ Ms. Johnson responded that staff was recommending that the ground floor commercial continue on Gene Autry Way from Market Street to State Coflege for a couple of reasons; the first is that the vision for that area is more restaurants. For example, The Catch was located on the corner so additional restaurants could be located along the corridor. It would also be good visually to wrap around some commercial uses to Market Street. So there would be visibility from the street and continuation of that commercial use. Also Gene Autry Way was going to be going over the freeway at some point in the future which would connect the Anaheim Resort and the residents who lived around that area to the stadium area. It would not just be game day opportunities for coming over to the area. There could potentially be other Anaheim residents that would come over to the area as well and it would just be viewed as a highly visible street. Commissioner Romero stated that it is really exciting to be a part of an ambitious project, and feels it is going to be great. However, his concern was the need for public restrooms in the final site plan and the need to have language in the plan to assure there would be public restrooms. Ms. Johnson responded that staff had also taken a look at that and would recommend language be added to the code as follows: Subsection .0502 added to Section 18.20.030.050 which dealt with ground floor commercial uses would state that projects that included over 20,000 square feet of ground floor commercial uses should be required to provide restroom facilities open to the public, in addition to the restroom facilities otherwise required by Title 15, the Anaheim Building Code. For the ground floor commercial uses, staff would also recommend that a provision be added to the Development Agreement relative to the required maintenance of the restroom facilities. Staff was not envisioning many projects along Market Street, perhaps one public restroom facility would be appropriate. Commissioner Romero asked what would happen if there was not a project 20,000 square feet or more. • Ms. Johnson responded given that Market Street runs through some large parcels and commercial is required along that length of the street, staff believed that it was a viable amount of commercial square footage. 08-09-04 Page 12 of 16 AUGUST 9, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ Commercial Romero stated that his other concern was the need for a drop-off/ pick-up area; a loading and unloading zone, and also to deal with possible taxis. Ms. Johnson stated that she wished to make a clarification on the last point; the public restroom would only be required on Market Street since that was the area that would be encouraging the commercial. Regarding the drop-off and pick-up locations, staff would recommend that a Subsection .0105 for drop-off and pick-up locations be added to Section 18.20.120.010, Parking Demand Study, which would state that drop-off and pick-up locations should be incorporated into the design of parking areas and the demand for such areas should be included in the parking study. Commissioner Flores concurred with Jim Adams regarding the Trade Unions and also hoped that the City would take a look at jobs dealing with the building trade staying within Anaheim. Regarding the public arts, she was hesitant to agree with Commissioner Buffa and liked the idea of:some of the arts being added to the construction of the building. Commissioner O'Connell concurred with the idea of the angle parking on one side and parallel on the other. Regarding pick-up and drop-off and the public restrooms he concurred that they are all very important. He feels it is critical that the line of sight stays on Gene Autry Way because it is a focal point from the Convention Center to the Anaheim Stadium as well as from the Anaheim Stadium to Convention Center. He stated that it is really exciting to see what is happening and he looks forward to it; and that the goal is to create an entire area that is accessible and visible so that convention goers could go to Market Street and that residents could go to the Convention Center, Disneyland, etc. He feels it is critical that all are tied together and the open spaces and views are maintained as things move forward. Commissioner Buffa wished to clarify if one of the issues that staff was asking Commission to make a decision and recommendation on was whether the connector street south of Gene Autry Way should stay in the plan or be removed from the plan. • Ms. Johnson responded yes, the Master Land Use Plan Exhibit and the Urban Design Exhibit showed the connector street going south to Gene Autry and again in response to input from the property owners and developers in that area staff provided the Commission with an alternative which would show the removal of that street segment. And if it were to be removed, staff would encourage that any development in that corner have a connection to the interior connector street so that they could take advantage of the connection to the rest of the neighborhoods. Staff also would encourage, when viewing the final site plans, to see if there were any opportunities for pedestrians to pass through the area so there would be some connection with Orangewood. She stated that staff believed it was possible with some traffic calming methods, even if the connector were to remain, to slow down the traffic in that area. The intent was not to encourage cut through traffic but staff understands that it has been a concern that was raised. Commissioner Buffa concurred with staff and stated that it makes the most sense to have a vehicular connection there and traffic calming measures could be incorporated. Commissioner Flores stated that it would also help in the case of the stadium when they have their games, etc., from people parking in areas that they should not park in. Commissioner Velasquez asked what schools were near by and what was the status of the schools; were they impacted. Ms. Johnson stated there was a full analysis of school impacts when the EIR was prepared for the General Plan Update. At that time the General Plan was amended to incorporate all of the density that was programmed for The Platinum Triangle up to the 9,175 dwelling units and the commercial and office square footage. There was an analysis of impacts to the individual schools. There was a mitigation measure added to the General Plan Update EIR to encourage the City and the School District to work ~ together whenever possible to look at potential future school sites. Also acknowledged in the EIR is that in other communities that had similar types of high density development, there tended to be less school children initially associated with that type of development. 08-09-04 Page 13 of 16 AUGUST 9, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ Commissioner Velasquez asked for an explanation of what an EIR called for. Ms. Johnson responded that the EIR basically stated that as each development came in they were required to pay a certain amount of school fees, depending upon if it was commercial or if it was residential. It also included a mitigation measure to have the City continue to work with the school district to look at potential future sites. Commissioner Velasquez wished to clarify if that meant that in theory the City would have the money but would not know where the sites would be to build new schools if new schools were required or if there were no sites for schools to be built. Ms. Johnson clarified that there was no specific site and the money was actually paid to the school district. Chairperson Eastman thanked Mr. Riuuti, the representative from the school district, for taking the time to come to the meeting and indicating the school district's willingness to continue the communication between City staff and the district. She stated that it is an issue that they raised and they had heard some of the explanations and yet it still did not completely satisfy their concerns that maybe they were going to need some mitigation for the school down the road. She referred to staff and asked if it was possible to include language into the Development Agreement that would encourage the use of local contractors and businesses to be as involved as possible in the City's projects. Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, stated that staff had not had an opportunity to study the issue and was not prepared to provide advice at this time. However, if the Commission felt strongly about making such a recommendation to the City Council in connection with the Development Agreement, his suggestion would be to instruct staff to prepare a report for the City Council that addressed the issue. • Commissioner O'Connell concurred that it is an issue that the Council should address and not the Planning Commission. Mr. Gordon stated aside from the policy implications raised by such an issue there were legal questions as well. Chairperson Eastman stated that her only reason for bringing it forward was because they have had members of the public show up and express their concern in that area. She suggested that the members of the public go to a Council meeting and address the issue so that it would give Council a heads up that there were members of the community looking for answers in that arena. • • ~ ~- • • • • ~ ~ IN GENERAL/ CONCERNS: 5 people spoke with concerns/questions pertaining to the subject request. A person spoke unrelated to the subject request. ACTION: Recommended that the City Council, as lead agency for the Proposed Actions, find that the previously-certified Final EIR No. 330 and the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106 for The Platinum Triangle are in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines and are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed project actions based upon the findings set forth in paragraph 16(A) of the August 9, 2004 staff report to the Planning Commission. ~ Recommended that the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004- 00032 to amend Chapter 20 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to replace the 08-09-04 Page 14 of 16 AUGUST 9, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMEN7AL DETAILED MINUTES • Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone in its entirety with The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone, by the Resolution provided in Attachment F of the August 9, 2004 staff report, with the following changes to The Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone: Add subsection .0502 to Section 18.20.030.050 "Ground Floor Commercial Uses" which would state that "Projects that include over twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of ground floor commercial uses along Market Street shall be required to provide restroom facilities open to the public contained within the ground floor commercia! uses in addition to the restroom facilities otherwise required by Title 15 (the Anaheim Building Code)." 2. Add a subsection .0905 for Drop off and Pick-up Locations to Section 18.20.120.010 "Parking Demand Study" which would state that "Drop off and pick up locations shall be incorporated into the design of parking areas and the demand for such areas shall be included in the parking study." Recommended that the City Council rescind the resolution of intent to the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone (Miscellaneous Case No. 2004-00082) by the Resolution provided in Attachment G of the August 9, 2004 staff report. Recommended that the City Council rescind Reso(ution No. 99R-39 approving the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan (Miscellaneous Case No. 2004-00083) by the Resolution provided in Attachment H of the August 9, 2004 staff report. Recommended that the City Council approve The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (Miscellaneous Case No. 2004-00084) by the Resolution provided in Attachment I of the August 9, 2004 staff report, with the following changes to the Master • Land Use Plan: 1. Approve Alternative A provided as Attachment C to the August 9, 2004 staff report to remove bike lanes from Market Street and the Connector Streets as follows: Replace Figures 4(The Platinum Triangle Urban Design Plan), 32 (Market Street) and 33 (Connector Street) on pages 19, 58 and 60, respectively of the August 9, 2004 Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan with the Alternative A Figures 4 (The Pfafinum Triangfe Urban Design Plan), 32 (Conceptual Market Street) and 33 (Conceptual Connector Street). 2. The third sentence in Subsection 4.1.2, entitled "Public Art" shall be changed from "Public art will be incorporated in the mini parks and new gathering places that will be developed within The Platinum Triangle" to "Public art will be encouraged in the mini parks and new gathering places that will be developed within The Platinum Triangle." Recommended that the City Council approve The Platinum Triangle Standard Development Agreement as to form (Miscellaneous Case No. 2004-00085), with the following changes to the Standard Development Agreement: 1. Indicate that mini parks and public restrooms will be maintained by the property owner/developer unless another financial mechanism is established to the satisfaction of the City (this change will be made to Section 9.1 and Exhibit "E" of the Agreement). Granted Reclassification No. 2004-00127 by the Resolution provided in Attachment J ~ of the August 9, 2004 staff report. Granted Reclassification No. 2004-00128 by the Resolution provided in Attachment K of the August 9, 2004 staff report. 08-09-04 Page 15 of 16 AUGUST 9, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES ~ Recommended that the City Council approve Reclassification No. 2004-00129 by the Resolution provided in Attachment L of the August 9, 2004 staff report. Granted Reclassification No. 2004-00130 by the Resolution provided in Attachment M of the August 9, 2004 staff report. Recommended City Council consideration of Reclassification Nos. 2004-00127, 2004- 00128 and 2004-00130 (Action Nos. 5g, 5h and 5j). VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares absent) Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, stated upon motion of the Planning Commission, the actions would be scheduled for a noticed public hearing before the City Council on August 17, 2004. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 17 minutes (2:05-3:22) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:08 P.M. ~ ~ TO MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 2004AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~ _ Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2004. 08-09-04 Page 16 of 16