Loading...
Minutes-PC 2005/07/27~ Wednesdav, Juiv 27, 2045 EI Rancho Middie School ~ Staff Present: Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney Aifred Yatda, Principal Transportation Pianner - Sheri Vander Dussen, Pianning Director Richard Mayer, Sr. Community Services Project Pianner Greg Hastings, Pianning Services Manager Jeff Lutz, Fire MarshaU Linda Johnson, Principal Planner David Ailen, Civil Engineer-Water Ted White, Senior Pianner Dick Wilson, Environmental Services Manager Selma Mann, PIT Assist. City Attorney Civil Ossie Edmundson, PC Support Supervisor Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer Pat Chandier, Senior Secretary Agenda Posting: A compiete capy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 5:15 p.m. on Friday, July 22, 2005, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and aiso in the outside display kiosk. Published: Los Angetes Times on Friday, July 8, 2005 and Orange County Register on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 • Cail To Order • Pubiic Hearing 6:00 P.M. For recoraf keepina purposes if vou wJsh to make a statement reaardina anv item on fhe acrenda. please complete a speaker card in advance and submrf it to fhe secrefarv. • Pledge ~f Allegiance: Commissioner Fiores • Pubiic Hearing item • Adjournment You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the foliowing e-maii address: piannins~commission(a~anaheim.net H:ITOOLSIPCADMIMPCMINlACT12005MINUTESWC0T2705.DOC 07127/05 Page 1 JULY 2T, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 6:OO.P.M. • ~ubiic Hearin tem• 1a. CEQA Environmentai Impact Report No. 331 And Mitistation Monitorins~ Prot~ram No. 137 ' Recommended CC Approval, with the addition of Measure 6-9, pertaining to grading plans for : : Development Area 4 1 b. Generai Pian Amendment No. 2005-00436 Recommended CC Approval 1c. Specific Pian Amendment No. SPN2005-00031 (Mountain Park SpecificPian No. 90-4. Amendment No.1) ~ Recommended CC Approval Owner: The Irvine Company, 554 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92658 Agent: Bryan Austin, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92658 Location: Gypsum Canyon, south of the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, in Orange County, Catifornia CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 331 AND MITIGATION VOTE: 6-0 MONITORING PROGRAM N0.137 - Request that the City Council certify Commissioner Karaki Environmentai Impact Report No. 331(°EIR No. 331") including adoption of a abstained • Statement of Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137. EIR No. 331 has been prepared to serve as the environmental document for General Plan Amendment No. 2005- 00436 and the Mountain Park Specific Pian, implementation is intended to include, but not be I~mited to, the approvai of development area pians, subdivision maps, grading permits, street improvement pians, finai site pians, and ather related actions. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005-00436 - Request to amend the City of Anaheim Generai Plan, Safety Element, Figure S-5 (Fire Protection Areas), to remove the Mountain Park 3pecific Pian development areas from the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. SPN2005-00031 (MOUNTAIN PARK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-4. AMENDMENT N0.1) - Request to amend the Mountain Park Specific Pian to implement the adopted City of Anaheim General Plan by reducing the number of residential unifs from a maximum of 7,966 to a maximum of 2,504; amend the City of Anaheim Zoning Code (Chapter 18.112) to replace and supersede current Zoning and Development Standa~ds; and, provide for the following uses: a City fire station; a school site and adjacent pubiic community park; public and private recreationai facilities, inciuding riding and hiking traiis and a trail staging area; an interpretive center and store concession; and roadways and utilities necessary to serve the proposed development. Environmentai Impact Report Resolution No. PC2005-113 • Generai Pian Amendment Resolution No. PC2005-114 Specific Plan Amendment Resolution No. PC2005-175 Project Planner. (finrhite@anaheim.net) 07l27/05 Page 2 JULY 2T, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing and announced that the commission would first hear testimonies fram persons wishing to testify in favor of the project and following they would hear testimonies • from persons in oppasition of the project. Ted White, Senior Pianner, introduced the item. . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Testimony: ' Dan Miller, representing The Irvine Company, stated the Mountain Park project wouid finalize remaining allowabie residentiai development in the community. The project wouid have parks and trails; be 94% open space and wouid be a very thoughtful, beautifu! community and a very great addition to the Anaheim HiUs area. Roger McEriane, Senior Vice President of The irvine Company, Planning and Design Group, presented slides depicting the plan. Mr. Miller stated in July 2004,:after theproject was filed, negotiations with the Orange Unified Schooi District began immediately to discuss ways they could mitigate any impacts'that the new students would create in the , community. Workshops were jointly heid by the School District, and The Irvine Company`in each school to listerr to issues and concems of the community and subsequentty, The Irvine Company entered into a mitigation agreement with the School District. Public Testimony: ~ ~ The public speakers in favor of the project and stating concern are as follows: Patrick Pepper, 269 S. Hiilcrest Street, Chair-nan of the Anaheim Hilis Citizens Coalition, Anaheim Hiiis, CA; Steve Kabel, 7582 E. Bridgewood, Drive, Anaheim HiAs, CA; Dita Darrah (neutral speaker), 1177 S. Country Glen, Anaheim Hills, CA; Emily DeCew, 2504 Westport, Anaheim, CA; Jim Smith, Public Works Directorfor the City of Yorba Linda, CA, 4845 Casa Loma, Yorba Linda, CA; Todd Ament, 201 E. Center Street, Anaheim, CA; David Kalb, a representative of the Equestrian Commission of Orange County, 7695 E. Silver Dollar Lane, Anaheim Hills, CA; Jim Adams, Council Representatives for theLos Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, 436 S. Camellia Street, Anaheim, CA; and Cesar Covarrubias, representative of the Affordable Housing Kennedy Commission, 2Q81 Business Center Drive, Irvine, CA. Overall, they believe the Mountain Park Development will be a good addition to the community with the development of a new fire station; a new elementary school and funds provided ta improve all area schools; generation of tax dollars; the attraction of additional workforce in the area; and a new community park for use byall area residents and sporfs teams. They stated concern with heavy traffic and traffic congestion on the 91 Freeway; the removal af the left tum onto Weir Canyon from Blue Sky Way; vectar control; project impacts; out of state contractors and workers being utilized versus the contractors and workers of the Anaheim area; ' communities being called villages; and the lack of affordable housing. The public speakers in opposition of the project and stating concern are as follows Phil JouJon-Roche, President of the Santa Ana Canyon Property Owner's Association (SACPOA), 450 Via Vista, Anaheim, CA; Paul Darrah, 1177 S. Country Glen Way, Anaheim Hills, CA; Keith Nagayama, Attorney with the Public Law Center, 601 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA; Gary Murray, 8149 Kennedy Road, Anaheim Hills, CA; Robert Lutes, 1230 Night Star Way, Anaheim, Hills, CA; Steven Marsh, 8840 Crestview Lane, Anaheim Hilts, CA; Eric Neilson, 245 Kirkwood, Anaheim, CA; and Cary Sontag, 1200 S. Country Glen Way, Anaheim Hills, CA. They stated concern with the lack of affordable housing; the need for more retail services within the development; causing congestion on the 91 Freeway and impeding daily activities; project not being self- sufficient; monies donated t0 the School District not ear marketed for any specific school or community projecfi living with dust and noise during construction; traffic traveling a steep angle with school located at the bottom; lack of quick ingress and egress in event of a fire; and gating off the Moun4ain Park commUtllty. 07/27/05 Page 3 JULY 27, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AppiicanYs Rebuttal: ~ Mr. Milier responded they have to abide by the City's conditions of approval regarding vector control; the communities wili be named at the end of the project based on the identity of the area; under the agreement with the Schoot District, other students may come from other areas to fili up vacant slots; and regarding fire, the Dep~rtment of Forestry reviewed their plan and gave them a very strong letter of commendation. ' Brian Austin, with The Irvine Company, stated the emergency fire access is an existing ranch road that is aiso the equestrian trail which comes out through the back of the project up to the Windy Ridge area. Mr. Miller stated they worked extensivety with the homeowners who wouid face Mountain Park Road to ensure that the road and gate wouid sit well below the residents, and that 0ak Canyon Road would also be closed off. Regarding`transportation and the concerns brought up by the representative from the City of Yorba Linda, staff indicated they were working on the issues with the City. of Yorba Linda and would bring a potential M0U to the City Councii prior to or at the same time.the Mountain Park Project goes before City - CounciL Regarding the area along the 91 Freeway there wouid be a land exchange with Caitrans that would allow additional lanes on the 241 ToI1 Road and the 91 Freeway. ` - THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Buffa wished to foliow up on comments made by residents specifically, what the project provides and how it connects to the Santa Ana River regionat trail system; a voluntary commitment from the applicant to provide affordable housing under certain circumstances, if in the zoning ordinance terms are defined the same as they are defined in the City's zoning code, e.g., antennas, private transmitting - possibly cell towers; educationat institutions - a fancy way of saying schoot, etc. Additionally, she wished clarification - on the discussion regarding Weir Canyon and Savi Ranch through geometric improvements and if they were directly tied to the project. ~ Richard Mayer, Senior Community Services Project Planner, responded regarding the extension of the Santa Ana Trail from the Weir Canyon area. He stated the trail was identified on the General P(an before it was revised and was faken off the plan last year. Mr. White responded regarding the issue of affordable housing. He stated the City has an adopted Housing Element and units proposed in the Mountain Park Project area were never anticipated to be affordable units. The Irvine Company agreed to a condition of approval to work with Community Development on the first time homebuyers program. Additionally regarding definitions, any definitions that differ from the citywide zoning , code are provided in the Specific General Plan. Kendall Elmer, Austin/Foust Associates, responded regarding the issue conceming revising Weir Canyon and ~ Savi Ranch through geometric improvements. He stated the intent is to not only rehabilitate Weir Canyan Road between the 91 Freeway and La Palma Avenue but also to make it a more standard intersection. The project for the improvement along Weir Canyon Road is an OCTA project that is partially funded by OCTA Measure M funds and then matching local funds from the cities of Yorba Linda and Anaheim. However the ' final design and payment plan is still being refined. Commissioner Romero asked the proposed time line to start the widening process. Mr. Austin responded the plans have been designed but have not been placed on the State Transportation Improvement Program. Mr. Miller stated regarding the impact on the existing intersections the project would bring funds that would provide improvements on all the major intersections. Mr. Elmer wished to clarify that in the letter from Caltrans the first part of the comment read into the record ` mentioned the truck climbing lane capacity in •error and it should not have been applied in the analysis for the ~ section of the 241 corridors s0uth Of the 91 Freeway. The second part of the comment in error stated The Irvine Company assumed in the analysis the ultimate plan HOV (High OCCUpancy Vehicle Lanes) that are planned on the 241To11 Road, but they are actually part of the build out plans for the toll road by the Transportation Corridor Agencies. - 07/27/05 - Page 4 JULY 2T, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Perez stated he, as weD as the Kennedy Commission, supports the need for affordable housing. He asked thaf the issue on traffic mitigation regarding the Santa Ana Canyon ingress at Gypsum ~ ! Canyon be addressed. Tina Anderson, Bon Terra Consulting, stated there are a number of project design features which inciude circulation improvements, improvements in the area of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Gypsum Canyon Road where it wil! be realigned and modified as weli as the interchange with the 91 Freeway to improve the area. Commissioner Romero directed his question to General Plan Amendment No. 2005-436, having to do with fire prevention. Jefflutz, Fire Marshall for the Ciry of Anaheim Fire Department, responded a fire master plan is being ' developed that addresses concerns regarding removal from the high fire hazard severity zone; fire sprinklers , in aii of the homes; dual pane windows, and enhanced fuel modification zones, etc. Commissioner Velasquez wished clarifica4ion in regards to Mitigation Measure 7-1, and aiso asked if an agreement between the City of Anaheim and the City of Yorba Linda is in place. Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, responded there is a continued dialogue between the City of Anaheim, the City of Yorba Linda and the Orange County Transportation Authority addressing concerns regarding the regionai fransportation needs and the local impacts caused by the Mountain Park Development. Commissioner Velasquez wished to clarify if an agreement were reached how they would mitigate in the City. Aiso she wished ciarification on how the caiculations of the fair share payments would be made if the ` developer paid in one lump sum. Mr. Gordon responded the environmentat impact report add~esses the impacts of Mountain Park and The Irvine Company's involvement in mitigating the traffic impacts generated from the project. • Commissioner Flores asked if consideration would be made to instatl a gate in the existing community. Mr. Miller responded the community is private and The Irvine Company would not have any control or any influence on the community association and property owners. Chairman Eastman wished to clarify the issue regarding the intersection at Blue Sky Drive. Mr. Elmer, Austin/Foust Associates, responded Blue Sky Way currently terminates at the end of Weir Canyon Road next to the property border. The movement proposed to be eliminated is the eastbound left tum that can be made from Blue Sky to go north on Weir Canyon Road. Commissioner Velasquez wished to clarify further when the lump sum payment would be made and if it would allow for a time factor. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, responded the process is continuous with available existing City fees that are designated for citywide improvements. The project would pay its fair share of fees which would be collected and used in citywide fees for other projects. The citywide fees are adjusted annually based on the construction cost index. ~ Chairman Eastman asked Mr. Miller what consideration was given to the conclusion that the new community needed to be a gate guarded community. Mr. Miller responded the decision was due to an effort to work with the Cify in trying to avoid other opportunities for regional pass through traffic. Chairman Eastman asked if they had considered any other traffic calming measures to keep it from being a ~ closed off gated community. Mr. Miller responded theymade sure all of the public facilities were outside the gate; the park, school, trails, _ bikeways, and multi-purpose trails so fhat anybody could walk into the community or ride a horse or bike. 07/27/05 Page 5 JULY 2T,' 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Velasquez wished to ciarify when residents left the community how they would have access to • the 241 ToU Road to get onto the 91 Freewav. Mr. Millerxesponded if residents wanted to travel on the 91 Freeway eastbound there would be an on/off ramp so that they would be'able to get onto the 91 Freeway going east or west at Gypsum Canyon. The . existing residences to the west of the project could use the new interchange to get onto the 241To11 Road. Commissioner Flores asked if the School District discussed busing for the junior high and high school students. Mr. Miiler responded the School District wanted flexibility to move the students and the money associated with the students to either facility and depending on where the student population varied in existing Anaheim Hills they wouid try to match a pian so that fhey could put the students and money where it benefited most. • • . . • ~ . • • • • OPPOSITION: 8 people spoke in opposition. Correspondence received from Dan DeBusschere; Herm Rittner. IN FAVOR: 6 people spoke in favor. Correspondence received from Anaheim Chamber of - Commerce; Paui and Annette Zaleski, CONCERNS: 3 people spoke with concerns. Correspondence received from The Kennedy Commission; City of Yorba Linda; Caltrans District 12; Paul &Kathleen Beckman; Anaheim Hilis Citizens' Coalition; Karen Herlehy; James O. HeiL ~ Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeai rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 18, 2005. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 hours and 45 minutes (6:10 PM TO 9:55 PM) 07/27/05 Page 6 JULY 27, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Respectfully submitted: _ ~ _ at Chandler, Senior Secretary ~