Loading...
Minutes-PC 1996/05/30~, CONTINUED MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, MAY 30, 1996 .trv :~- 2:30 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARING BEGINS (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) COMMISSIONERS PRESENi: BOS`iWICK BOYDSTUPI. BWSTOI, H MESSE COMMISSIONERS ABSB~Yi: MAYER, PERAZA STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Joel Flck Mary McCloskey Annika Santalahti Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty John Lower Allred Yalda Edith Harris Margarita Solorio Elly Fernandes ACTION AGENDA ~coR~ECT®s~~ Deputy City Attorney Planning Director Deputy Planning Director Zoning Administrator Zoning Division Manager Associate Planner Transportation Manager Principal Transportation Planner Planning Commission Support Supervisor Senior Secretary Senior Word Processing Operator PFiIOCEDURE TO D~EDfiE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS t. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have Trve mirnrtes to present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request if, in the opinion of the Commission, such additional time will pro!buce evidence important to the Commission's consideration. 2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present their case unless additional time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. The Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a partidpant speaks, but rather by what is said. 3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting. 4. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is dosed. 5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from tha foregoing H, in its opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. 6. All documents presented to the Planning Commission for review in connection with any hearing, induding photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non~ocumentary evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be available for public inspections. 7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of Interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda items. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. mi9fi0530.wp 05/30/96 Page 1 (CORRECTED o6/27/96) 2a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.320 I Certified 2b. AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 120 Approved INITIATED BY: M~~~ ~ 200 SMA alheim Boulevard, AnaheimNCA r~ 92805 LOCATION: The subject proposal is located oThe property is genera Y acre Anaheim Stadium property. bounded by Katella Avenue on the north, SR-57 (Orange Freeway) and Santa Ana River on the East, Orangewood Avenue on the south, and State College Boulevard on the' west. Proposal to establish land use and development densities on the Anaheim Stadium property. EIR RESOLUTION N0. PC96-49 AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN RESOLUTION NO. PC9fi-50 FOLLOWING IS A DETAILED SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. Commissioner Messe. It's 2:30 p.m., I'll call the recessed meeting back to order, yesterday we recessed in order to give the attorneys for two schod districts an opportunity to take another 24 hours to respond to the EIR Response to Comments. We've just been handed another hand del'nrery from Best Best & Krieger, LLP, and I would like to call on Dean Derleth. Mr. Derleth do you have anything in addition to these items? Dean Derleth. We're going to keep it real short in addition to these terns. Would you like me to began my presentation now or would you like to take a few moments? Commissioner Messe. I would like to hear what you have to say in addition to this and then I may recess for about 10 minutes so that we can all sit here and read this. I'll like to hear the entirety of your presentation so that we only have to do it once. Dean Derleth. I'll like to thank you for graciously giving us the extra time in which to submit our comments. We understand that it's not an easy Thing for everyone to be here. I will keep this short, you'll be able to see our specific comments. We've tried to focus upon the major issues which we believe needed Gasification as oppose to issues where we might have disputes amongst the experts, so to speak. You'll have a chance in the letter to get a clear understanding of where we're coming from on some of the more significant data issues. After I speak for a few minutes, Michael Perez from the Anaheim City Scholl District would like to take a few minutes to say a few things as well. 05/30/96 Page 2 (CORRECTED O6/27/96) The principle thing I would like to do is draw your attention to paragraph 7, ft's on page four of the letter. It's really an issue that the districts are concerned about and are becoming ever more concerned about and that's what appears to be a new trend to adopt Statement of Overriding Consklerations for impacts on the schod district from large development projects and industrial or commercial projects that the City of Anaheim is approving. On a project by project basis you take a look at these things and you think, in this instance by your numbers there is just a few hundred thousand dollars of unmitigated impacts. We would say ft's a little bft more, but, in any respects there's undoubtedly unmftigated impacts here. One project is O.K., and then a few months down the line there is going to be another project wfth those same unmtigated impacts. At some point, we think ft is up to the elected officials of the Cfty to look at the big picture and to understand where the school districts are coming from and understand the long range concerns that the schod districts have in provkling farilfties and educational support for the children of your Cfty. I don't want to go on too long about that, I think you can see what both districts are concerned about. I think from Mr. Perez's presentation/brief comments that you'll get an understanding of the desire for both school districts to create a better relationship with the City. More communication so that we don't end up here with 24hour delays so that we could get comments in and have our concerns adn forte The schod districts would have Uked this to happen months ago and something has to happe line of communication to open. Both schod districts have new superintendents, perhaps this is a good time to go ahead and create better communication. It is the best interest of you and the school districts. Michael Perez Thank you for giving us this opportunity again, for coming back on your time and meeting wfth us. As Dean mentioned, this is oasically my second week on the job. I think we all have the same goal, help the kids, help our future, help Anaheim build a beaut'rful project like this and the whole area. I look forward to working wfth the staff members and meeting with you again on other issues. I do hope we could set something up to help show you where we're at. We even have State legislatures who don't know the impacts that are occurring at the local level and I'm sure that trickias down. We do want to get you some information packages and show you what is happening in other districts. What happens in cfties that tend to look the other way, I think the Wall Street Journal had an article about a City in Arizona that forgot about schools and now they have major problems. Commissioner Messe. I would encourage you to get on our agenda at a workshop session. We've done this before wfth the school districts and I really think ft has been valuable to both the City and to the school district. I know the Mayor is on a committee which incorporates a!I the schod districts wfthin Anaheim and they meet on a regular basis. Michael Perez I think last week the C'dy has put me on their mailing list, so that is positive and we look forward to ft. I hope we can come to a win, win on this. Dean Der(eth. We have officials from both schod districts here, Mr. Perez, and officials from the high havesome questions, ~theredshould be omebod~ are that coulduanswer any questidon9hat you might have. Commissioner Messe. We will probably take 10 minutes or so, read this and then come back and ask questions. Let us recess for about 10 minutes. 05/30/96 Page 3 (('ARRECTED O6/27/96~ RECESSED Commissioner Messe. I think we've all had an opportunirj to read, I don't know if we've been able to digest but we've been able to read the presentation by Best & Best. I think both the Commission and staff have had an opportunity to read it and look ft over, I would like to ask you for your comments. Joel Fick, Planning Director. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. For some brief lead and commentary, yesterday the Planning Commission did receive a comprehensive presentation on both the Area Development Plan and the Environmental Impact Report. Yesterday a written correspondence was received and I want to mention and address first of all a couple of items that came up yesterday, just to reiterate and clarify. But you did receive a written Correspondence from the school district questioning the adequacy of the 10-day notice that was available for the Response to Comments documents and while we may not agree with the district's assessment in that regard the Commission dkf continue the hearing until today so that there could be no potential discrepancy in that regard. Briefly, I would like to comment for the record that the subject property was posted at six (6) locations including the major Intersections adjacent to the property on May 17, 1996. Public agencies and other interested parties who had received the draft EIR were also mailed a notice of the public hearing and availabil'dy of the Response to Comments documents on May 17th and property owners within 300 feet of the project were also notified of the same. A notice indicating that the Response to Comments document was available for public review aril ft was published in the Orange County Register on May 18th and although not required the document which incorporates all comments and responses not just the district's but all of them that the City receives was hand delivered to the schod districts on May 20th. Also, one final item that came up yesterday with regard to the letter that was received by the Bush Firm that represented the business at 2100 E. Orangewood. I would like to reiterate the following, I think we addressed all of these items yesterday, but again Just to refterate. With regard to land use the project will not require rezoning or additional restrictions, that question dkl come up aril specifically the business located at 2100 E. Orangewood Avenue will not require land use related actions to implement this Area Development Plan that you have before you today. With regard to perceived traffic impacts the EIR indicates that no significant impacts on transportation circulation will result from the operation of the project and specifically the EIR under taking analysis of 30 intersections within the project area using both Iocai and regional traffic models. In this analysis examining existing levels of service and levels of service with and without the project for the years 2000 and 2010 and the findings indicated that the year 2000 levels of service are the same under the project and no project conditions and the same holds true for the year 2010 and the project data traffic does not sign~cantiy contribute to the deterioration of that level of service. With regard to construction related traffic impacts the mftigation measures have been incorporated to ensure that those temporary Impacts are mitigated and construction by the way of course generally occurs during off-peak hours in any case. Project mftigation inch 9 tpahe r guirement to prepare a trip reduction plan for construction of crew vehicles as well as klent' in rkin loca~'.ions for employees and construction equipment. Regarding the item that you've been looking at today and staff did review and read the document and discuss it in detail. I would start with some comments and then turn it over to Joan Kelly to address some of the specifics. I would say that the impacts of the districts are primarily pFiysieal fl r othhehave been pointed out to you and CEGlA does not require the analysis of pgy6teal scat pa extent that cumulatively the project when considered together with other development projects in the district result in new school construction, analysts of impacts associated with that construction is the 05/30/96 Page 4 (CORRECTED O6/27/96) responsibility of the district as the lead agency. Further H th3 C'dy chose to vduntarily undertake an analysis who would be too speculative to try to predict the ernironmental effects of new permanent ~; schod construction. The City has included the mitigation measure to ensure that the schod districts receive the schod impact fees consistent with state law. Because the project does not include housing there will be no direct impacts on schods. The only potential for impact would come ftom the cumulative aspects of induced household growth and on the report indicates approximately 215 househods ftom employment opportunities associated with the project and other related projects within the service boundaries of the districts. The project's portion of this induce, growth could result in approximately 44 high school and 84 elementary schod students. These relatively small increases in school populations could be accommodated without construction of new facilities. Further some of these employees would likely occupy existing housing and thus would already be assumed in district projections. Anew housing unit if one where were to be induced and constnacted would be subject to statutory schod fees regardless of wh~!her that unit generated a new student or not. If the districts chose to build new school facilities to satisfy cumulative demand, statutory schod fees and Proposition No. 203 funds and other state resources are available. Mitigation of ernironmental hnpacts associated with the construction of new schod facilities Iles within the jurisdiction of the school districts and the state. With that, I'll like to tum it over to Joan Kelly who would like to comment on some specifics of the letter that you received today. starting with ~1, employment Joan Kelly. Good afternoon, I'll like to start the responses on page 2, projections. The employees that were projected to be associated with the project are based on figures that were acquired through SCAG and discussed with them regarding the appropriateness of their use. Commissioner Messe. You're saying the figures in the EIR? Joan Kelly. That's correct, I'm song. The C'dy feels as was explained in the Response to Comments that this is dear, we have no reason to feel that there needs to be a change at this point. Going into the socond paragraph there's a point made that it is inappropriate to use the retail category of employment generation for entertainment retail uses saying that only half of the uses will be for proposed use flAeetiag m nin retail. But, actually entertainment retail is all considered retail, it is a commercial retail use and the retail trade number is .~mmonly used when there is a broad spectrum of uses tx.cause it is an average number of a combination of uses pulled together. Commissioner l.~esse. So, that was used for hotels as well as restaurants? Joan Kelly. No, there is a specific number used for hotels, but for other entertainment venues which may be on the site, which could be at a much less dense employee ratio. Regarding No. 2, I actually can't verify that or deny h 'rf R was the error in the EIR in addition there is an to ver~fy,~however a sumtis not of a i g'nificant amount to thow~the ntent of t~hefnumbers off atthisible point. Starting with No. 3, there was a statement made that the schod district did not conskler only households wfth children in calculating the student genaration factor and the point the City was making is they were including househods with employes and although there is a balance that the units • it is not consistent to look at just employees will be induced to, yes will likely have employees however one segment when yw're a'rralYzing the while picture. This is likely to be transitioned and other issues going on i the general schod district population. To say that every time there's an employment venue a new employer in the City or in the schod district that ghat automat'~cally increasses tisemisleading hou~ehdds with employees and therefore using the highest student generation rate, in that there could also be a downsize somewhere Else. If you want to look tit strictly those numbers, I 05/30/96 Page 5 (CORRECTED 06/27/96) think I would like to put lt In the category of this would be the impact of that, however, the City also fourvf fault with using the student generation factor of point fQyr six (~ .4~, it was done with a survey of approximately 365 househdds. Although there has been request of the school district to supply the methodology used in that survey, that has not been supplied and we have no Nay of valklating the numbers given. The number that was used in the EIR has been substantiated with a traditional methodoogy and lt is felt that that is a much more sound number and based on something we understand in the production of that data. In terms of the comment that it's much more likely that the people being induced, the children and househdds being induced will attend public ~chods that's acknowledged and the numbers calculated within the EIR were based on that assumption, that these children would all be attending public schods, although there certainly is the possibility that they wouldn't be. Number 4, referring to classroom seating capacity, the point that the loading factors that these have to be within three (3) that is acknowledged. The further point that the portable structures are not adequate school housing, we understand that's the district's poicy or point of view, however, that is not the state's policy. When talking to Elie Eddie Hernandez as mentioned in this paragraph, lt was not this person's point of view but rather given as a policy of the state, it's a change in state policy but we were told that they are considered adequate by the state. Regarding No. 5, ;he indirect impacts the school district has reduced their estimate of the cost to build schools based on a revised costs per acre and go on to say that the purchase of a schod site relative to a purchase of a residential home is without reason, we were not r latin lt to the purchase of a home but to the purchase of land and most schools are locau ~~ within residential districts and therefore lt seems appropriate that land available for development within a resdential area would be comparable to the price of land for development of a schod. Page No. 4, first paragraph, we have stated that the average home size in the City is 1,364 square feet that is based on the building permit records. It is acknowledged that that takes into account areas tha are not within the school district, however, the number within the schod district for buildings is not available but lt seems that the number the school district has used at 961 is on the very low end and if that's been in relation to development fee records they must be recent records as oppose, to the average overall. Commissioner Messe. Your numbers include single-family residences as well as apartment dwelling? Joan Kelly. Yes that's correct. In the following paragraph, again, there is a reference to the numbers the City utilized for new employees, the numbers living within the City, their student generation rate, these were the comments made in their original letter to the City. We feel we have adequately responded to those and why we did not use the numbers that were provided by the schod districts is because we were relying on SCAG data for the employment generation factors and the .46 student generation factor is not adequately documented to the point that there is comfort using that. Related to the following paragraph and the cost per student, we have no way to determine whether that is an actual cost or not, we used a factor significantly higher than what the state's average is and felt that that was an appropriate number, however, as I stated lt is not possible for me to determine what the actual cost ~s. I think the point is that the letter states that the schod district is entitled to additional money and the point is that the schod district is entitled to what is allowed by law and that is what will be paid based on the development. There is an increase regularly by the state in terms of the amount that is to be paid, my understanding is that lt is going up in June or July. Whenever that fee is required to be paid lt will be at the present rate not on the rate that the schod district is at this moment. 05/30/96 Page 6 (C(,riHECTED OB/?7/96) In addftion Proposition No. 203 was passed and that allows for matching funds to shhod districts for provisions in addition to construction of new schods, also to relocatable classrooms and wanting to z point out that there is additional funds that are potentially available to the shhod district. Commissioner Messe. Proposition No. 203 was the recent bonds that the general public passed for the State, is that correct? Joan Kelly. That's correct and that issue was addressed in the Response to Comments as I'm sure you're aware. Number 6 states that the shhod district believes that there will be several significant physical impacts on the environment. I feel very strongly that these have been responded to in both the EIR document, particularly in section 5 which is the impacts of the project as well as in the Response to Comments where this point was brought up by the schod district and as this paragraph does not bring up any specific additional point, I believe we have stated what can be stated at that point without any additional information. Number 7 states chat there is a continuing trend of additional employment inducement into the City, again the impact is associated with the housing being in place and not by the development of the commercial and industrial uses. If there is not housing within the City to accommodate those employees then there is no impact to the district by those new employers coming into the City, therefore it is not a direct correlation. In addition, this project is a reduction as has been stated previously of a project that was sign'rficantiy greater for that site. That project was approved many years ago and had the potential to move fonNard at any time, those numbers were available to the shhod district And we believed the shhod district has had the opportunity, if has not already, included those figures in their student projection. Therefore, this should be a reduction in their student projections as opposed to an increase. The final point being that the City acknowledges that there is an amount of fee that is not being mitigated through this project through the inducement or an indirect impact of the project. There is a acknowledgement in the EIR that there is a significant Impact due to indirect growth through the project. However, this is not a direct impact and this does not relate to any physical effects to the environment. That concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Messe. Thank you. Joel, as a matter of procedure when we entitle a piece of property do we automatically relate that to the school districts involved? Joel Fick, Planning Director. Mr. Chairman, whenever a project is proposed it comes before you, we have a number of districts, but wherever that project is located the district does receive notice even of the pending project. Commissioner 1;lesse. We will open it up for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Bristol. I would like to ask Mr. FNele# Derleth a question. Sir, in reviewing all of this informatics that has been provided by the DEIR there seems to be a glaring thing that the City just touched on and I guess they had a little diffi; ulty with it. Your numbers for cost per student is substantially different than the City's, ft appears yours is about,~24,000 per student. Dean Derleth. It varies a little bit ftom district to district, but that's about accurate. Commissioner Bristol. Could you tell me how you come up with those figures? 05/30/96 Page 7 (CORRECTED O6/27/96j Dean Derleth. It would probably be a better task for Brenda Curtis who is the consultant for the Anaheim City Scholl District. Brenda Curtis, Director of Scholl Planning Services, 23651 Mill Creek Dfire, Laguna Hills. I remember meeting with you a couple of years ago we went over demographic need assessments that our company had provided for the district. Your question was how we arrived at the cost per student, the driving force of this particular cost is certainly the cost of land. Nom~al real estate practice tells you that ff ysaF you're trying to establish a land cost you look for comparable land ftom which to d he e fscost That's precisely what we did, we didn't guess what residential land would east-t#~ere cost• essentially no residential land that is appropriate for schod site development within Anaheim City School District. There may be some scattered sites but typically even the DEAR makes that point. So we went to Santa Ana Unified and asked them to send us their det..'lpd cost for their last, I believe they~e e K for five (5) projects because they've been engaged as cv :.} s~e PmbablY aware in a very agg a mdillion aril a half d II larstan aces, that is based on reamnumbers, thatus notabased on speculation.wffh At a million and a half dollars an acre that puts $20,000 into the cost per student, assuming 750 kids on a site and a 10 acre site, so that gives you a sense of the proportion. that 101acres waseeally an old fashion type oif size for atschod ar-d that l0 acres is aenounrea~listic ~~ modem schod site. Brenda Curtis. It may be unrealistic and that it is vary dffficult to get in an impacted city environment such as the one that we have in Anaheim, but it ~ certainly still the standard and in the event that you want a schod site that is less than 10 acres you have to receive authorization from the state, they have to make a concession for that. I have many districts that are building elementary schools on 12 acre sites, they usually don't go much beyond that but 10 acres is not of faced with the Issue ofen Y~ you're looking at a Anaheim or Santa Ana, unfortunately you' e " condemnation ftequently and so to avoid that when they can, districts will compromise and use a smaller to t e real is of the slituation and not what,i~ t e optimum ures and so forth. They are really reacting ffY Commissioner Masse. But as a matter of fact the Santa Ana Scholl District did on one of their sites or two of their sites build on less than 10 acres. Brenda Curtis. I had that information that was used in calculation for this. Commissioner Bristol. Mrs. Curtis is that for the straight acquisition of the land, has nothing to do wfth demolition or ff it's an ia~ie!d in=fill site, is it just a straight purchase of the property. Brenda Curtis. It included the appraisals and included the escrow cost and so forth and that was represented to me by the fenior facilities director that that did not include demolition and so forth. I believe in our last analysis we actually dti put in some money for demolition and we are trying to demons.mte some good faith here by revisiting our numbers and seeing where we were weak and we were able to lowar that number substantially from the number that we useQ before and we're comfort.,ble. At least at current conditions we're not taking into account any increase in land value aril yet ff you look at the history of land, although you'll have to go back a little farther than the last five (5) Y e'rs sing n tubers from tn990 is 1995er It may not appear this we y but we are r ll~n9 t~ ° ~ conservative. 05/30/96 Page S (CORRECTED 06/27/96) Commissioner Henninger. Let me ask you a question, you bring up an interesting point, you say that the Santa Ana Scholl District has sort of a building boom going on, building schods. How are they paying for that? Brenda Curtis. They have been able to meet the state requirements and they've gotten state money for some of their progns~~-s. I believe and I'm not going to represent this as the actual truth, but they had a pretty interesting redevelopment plan, I don't know how that actually fumed out ,but 1 understand that through the grapevine that they may not be getting state money on a couple of schools that they thought they were In line for. The Proposition No. 203 money that you hear a lot about, a lot of that has already been allocated, the rest of it is apparently being withheld by the legislators who are going to set new conditions for obtaining 1< which may include conditions such as having bonded capacity assessed to halt of your bonding capacity and the district. So that money Isn't just sitting there waiting for the next person to come to the deeF-t#-ere door. There is over a six (6) billion ddlar back log, right now. Commissioner Messe. Let me ask this because i think I read In the newspaper some place where the schod districts were allocated for~or et anfr funds ftomkProposit2on No. 2 3? A~heim Elementary Scholl District receive or apply 9 Y Brenda Curtis. My understanding and correct me if I'm wrong, they are in line but their priority was not high enough. my neighbo seintoevoting fortis and Howl I'm find ng out that my own city schod distri tistnot rheceivnl9~ any benefit ftom it. Brenda CuRis. Interestingly enough in the past three (3) bonds that have passe:,' the majority of the and I think the majority of money has gone to the counties of Riverside or a lot of the money ~'~- ~'~" Riverside and San Bemadino counties. This is the first time those counties ever passed the schod bond, so it is based on a system of priorities that was developed by the state and the state allocation board. ~k-eiF Thev,re given this money from the bond issue and then they deckle what the requirements are and how you qualify for that, at least the current program which is changing as we speak, they're in9hmately involvedhwith)that and I just ahbout elxtended the limit of my knowledge in giving you thaty Information. Commissioner Messe. Any other questions of Mrs. Curtis? Commissioner Bristol. Yes, while you are up there just one quick question. You probably have read this, I'm sure, on this very last thing that we were just handed regarding Anaheim Union High School District, where h has the totals. Are you familiar wfth the last page? Brenda Curtis. If R is a high schod district, I haven't read any of their work, I'm not their consultant. Commissioner Bristol. Maybe the gentlemen behind you can answer that, Just a real simple question. Am I right in assuming, sir, that these are the enrollment for the high schod. Dean Derleth. Yes, this is the total 'C' beds figure for the high schod. Commissioner Bristol. Arai this is exact? peen Derleth. That is exact as when the 'C beds are taken which is a snap shot twice a year. 05/30/96 Page 9 `" (CORRECTED 06/27/96) Commissioner Bristol. So a thousand increase over to 1995-96 in the previous years, am I correct, a little more than that? ~- Dean Derleth. That would be true, yes, 2,405 out of 25,134. Commissioner Bristol. And the previous year to that we had, what 61? Dean Derleth. It looked like a slight dip, from 1993 to 1994. Commissioner Bristol. So ft went down: Dean Derleth. Slightly, yes. Commissioner Boydstun. And 1994-95 went down. Commissioner Bristol. So ft went up a 1,000 in two years? Dean Derleth. For a couple of years, yes. Commissioner Bristol. Has ft been your experience, sir, that perhaps the private schoos have made an impact and maybe you've thrown some of your projections off a Ifttle bft in the last two, three or four years. Has ft put some of the burden off of the public schod? Because ft was mentioned in the report and ft was mentioned by the City, I was just curious. Dean Derleth. I don't have specific knowledge about that, Brenda might be more close to that. Brenda Curtis. lane of the things that we do for many of our clients are, I will say wfth no false modesty, fairly sophisticated enrdlment projections and throughout the State of Calffomia there has been consistently about 1a% of the student enrollment has been in privats schools and we find that that -'" varies to as high as 20% noel in higher economic areas. We've done work in Tustin and so forth and certain areas t#~err where they have 20%, but the net impact on our projections are done that is built in as an assumed part of our projections. Our projections are based on what is actually happening in public schools and in related r le ation to population growth projections, live birthdate and that type of thing. So, essentially ft hasn't had very much impact. You see they have wafting lists and so forth and a lot of them are doing qufte well but they don't have vacant facilities for the most part either, you know to absorb the public school enrollment. They have waiting lists so in fact the opposite in essence is happening. It's not likely that they're going to be able to accommodate expansion with any greater ease than our public schools. Commissioner Henninger. Can I ask a question about the enrollment figures, are you the right person to answer those? Brenda Curtis. Not at the high school, I wish someone would ask about employment. Commissioner Henninger. in the elementary school how has the enrollment been growing in the last few years? Brenda Curtis. The elementary schod has consistently had enrollment growth, in fact we're revisfting, we're going to be updating the enrollment projections as soon as the county completes fts live birth count for 1993. Commissioner Henninger. Over the last three years, what is your enrdiment increase been. 05/30/96 Page 10 (CORRECTED O6/27/96j Brenda Curtis. I don't have that information at hand, but around approximately 800, one year ft has been f,000~ you know years vary. But I believe the average is going to be 800 to 1,000 range. The projections which we dki have proven unfortunately to be accurate. Commissioner Henninger. I'll like to ask our errvironmental consultant a few questions. Does the EIR condude that there is an insignificant impact on the shhod districts? Is that what ft condudes or does ft condude that there is a significant impact and we're doing overriding conskierations? ikeada-6u~tis n Keli .We're doing an overriding conskieration for the indirect impact due to the difference between the funding provided by this project and the funding that the shhod districts need to compensate for the cost of each new student. Commissioner Henninger. And wfth regard to the elementary shhod, how much of a short fail does the EIR suggest there is? greada-Gu~tis~oan Ke11v. On page t-12, in the Response to Comments, it is actually for both districts. It is stated a shortfall of $300,000. Commissioner Messe. Total for both districts? grew-Gur3is oan Kell .Yes, that's correct. Commissioner Henninger. O.K, $300,000 and of course the letter of the shhod district shows a short fall of $9,500,000 for the plus four (4). So $15,500,000 that is a wkle difference. grew-Canis n Kell . As I saki the numbers that we're using for the cost per student was approximately a 20% increase over what the state averagb cost per student is. Commissioner Henninger. I'm going to take these in tum, because I want to sort of get a feel for how ~~~ we vary and I'm not sure I have that yet. So to start with and I think their letter lays these out well. So I'll go down their letter and just ask you a few questions. With regard to the employment protection, basically they think ft is 3763 and we think ft is 2474. The basic explanation for that is that their thev,re using these different employment generator factors off this table that they given us. I guess they're using the genera! commercial instead of the retail trade which is a much higher multiplier. Maybe I should ask them. his Joan Kelly. Yes, because that is not stated in this letter. Dean Derteth. Actually ft is the City that's using the higher number because what that indicates is the number of square feet per employee. So the higher the number you would have the less employees. Commissioner Henninger. It is backwards, O.K., I understand. Oean Derleth. I think that staff indicated that they had used an average number, but ff you look at that list, you'll see that ft is actually the highest number in that retail category. Commissioner Henninger. Dki we use 564 for employee. Joan Kelly. That's correct. 05/30/96 Page i t (CORRECTED O6/27/96) Commissioner Henninger. O.K, and the school district's suggestion is that some of it ought to be at some of these other numbers? ~~ ~ Joan Kelly. Yes, I believe that's the point. Some of this is expected to be not a traditional retail orientation, it will be entertainment uses. The ~nen~ he aoth~t ~ry co~nvdention trade, some kind of sports facility, maybe an arcade. I'm just spea g P Commissioner Meese. Virtual reality arcade, or something. Commissioner Henninger. O.K, I think I understand that. So basiMally we're using an average number which is this 564 number for retail trade. Joan Kelly. Yes, to incorporate the other entertainment uses. Commissioner Henninger. O.K, what dkJ we do about restaurants which have a lot of employees per square foot. Joan Kelly. What we dkl is we used this number because some of the other uses are actually a much lower generation rate such as theater. You can have an enormous theater and have ten (10) employees in a building and rather than come up with an average because the amount of square feet is not yet known per use. This was an accepted number for retail and we felt that that was an appropriate number as it was in between the high and the low. Commissioner Henninger. And you said you discussed this with SCAG personnel and they concurred. Joan Kelly. Yes. Commissioner Henninger. Now, let's go to the student generation factor. I believe, If I read this correctly, that tha assumption the school district is making is that one employee equals one househdd. If you go to page 4 of the second paragraph where they're identifying the impact, they take the total number of the employees that they imagine there will be and they multiply the number of employees by their per house generation factor. Joan Kelly. Yes. Commissioner Henninger. So, the assumption t#~eif thev're making is that each employee equals a house. Joan Kelly. Well, they state that it is 2496 of those will live within the Ciry. Commissioner Fenninger. Yes, they live within the City, I understand that. Commissioner Meese. But each employee is a house that is the arithmetic they did. Commissioner Henninger. You have which I didn't hear you address that they apparently would like a response on. You've made some assumptions that many of these employees maw be teenagers, Young adults... Joan Kelly. That's correct. 05/30/96 Page 12 (CORRECTED 06/27/96) Commissioner Henninger. Who are still living at home. I don't know whether you made the assumation but it seems to me that many of these will be low paid workers who will have two (2) earners per family. Joan Kelly. That's correct. Commissioner Henninger. Or maybe three (3) earners per family with a mother and father and children. Or maybe if the number of students is correct for the district maybe four (4) wage earners per family. So, I'll like you to address that. Joan Kelly. There is that potential, we did not want to make assumptions on the side that there were a number of people in these households that are relocating will work on site, we thought it was conservative to use a one (1) employee, one (1) household. I think there is a likelihood that there be more than one (1) employee in a household but we didn't want to cant' those assumptions too far. We used the relocation numbers based on a previous study that was done for the Disneyland Resort and also used for the Anaheim Resort with different uses, having different percentages relocated. The schod district used 24%, on page 1-1 in footnotes E & F, there are different factors that were used in the EIR. For hotel and retail there was an expectation of 13.3% that would relocate to the City and for Stadium workers and office workers the percent was higher, 25% because it felt there is substantiation that these posftions will be a higher wage and therefore will enable someone to move or relocate for that position. They can justify moving due to the wage they will be earning. Commissioner Henninger. When I go to a movie theater, ft seems to me that most of the employees must be students. Joan Kelly. Yes, certainly. It is very true that students do not dictate where the househod will live if they are living at home and ff someone is a student chances are they are not going to relocate for their __ job they are going to find a job in the area where they're Wing because they're probably close to their school. Commissioner Henninger. So to use a one (1) new 9mployee equals one (1) new househdd standard seems on the conservative side. Joan Kelly. Yes, it is. Commissioner Henninger. Maybe extremely conservative. Joan Kelly. Yes. Commissioner Henninger. Maybe by a factor of two (2) or something like that. Joan Kelly. If I may state in a comment letter to the City of Orange on the C'dy Center, the statement was made on behalf of the Anaheim Union High Scholl District that I believe it was 1.51 employees per household ftom the project. So there is a difference in terms of the comments on this project versus that one. Commissioner Henninger. Do you have any idea what Caltrans has being paying for right-of-way, they have being buying a lot of right-of-way? Joan Kelly. I don't. 05/30/96 Page 13 (CORftECiEO O6/27/96) Co.nmissioner Henninger. Joel, do you have any idea? ~ Joel Fick, Planning Director. Commissioner Henninger it definitely fs varied by location. One of the things that I appreciate the opportunity to comment on in this regard in relationship to the site cost and several of the comments by you and other Commissioners have touched on this today. Is there's a tremendous variation on land cost even residential land cost certainly in our city and let alone between our City and a city that's several miles away. But variables (ndude how the site was acquired, you point out was it acquired by eminent domain, what are the terms of the purchase there may be, is the site located on a freeway or an arterial highway. In terms of the overall site area is there dual uses potential tied into a park site that means that 10 acres may or may not be required because there's Joint use of a facility. Is it an iA•#ield in=fill s".e that has building on it versus a vacant site. In terms of geography is it near the Civic Center or transportation facility. There is just a whole host of variables that could exist in terms of comparing an individual site acquisition on a schod site in another city versus what it may be here. Commissioner Henninger. In answer to the original question, you really don't have a `.eel for what Caltrans has been paying? Joel Fick No, I don't and again it depends upon ff n is commercial land or ... Commissioner Henninger. I'm sure it has, I'm sure they have all sorts of different situations. Joel, have you been (nvolved at all in the discussion with the Rams leaving and the Angels, the possibility of the Angels leaving? Joel Fick. I've been involved in some of those discussions. Commissioner Henninger. is it your sense that these type of users are fairly foot loose and sensitive to the economics that the C'dy is willing to come to them regarding the use of the stadium? Joel Fick. I think we're seeing certainly a tremendous sensitivity increase on all land uses in our City in terms of economics of the project and people approaching our Economic Development Department, our Redevelopment Department and others concerning all aspects a project costs. With regard to sporting facilities in particular or sport teams, I guess the best example or proof is the Rams leaving our City presumably for economic reasons. Commissioner Henninger. So, a $10,000,000 ae~+li;rs, to the cost of a project like this is a significant addition? Joel Fick. Giving GNen the hours of discussion that took place in numerous meetings on how the contributions would be funded on the remodeling of Q the downsizing of an existing facility let alone building any new facilities, I would definitely concur with that. Commissioner Henninger. Let me juct follow that a little further, I know in the past we had a discussion wfth the elementary schod district where they were asking quite a bit of money in mitigation for each new unit and I think the number was somewhere between $15,000 and $20,000. Commissioner Messe. I think we had two numbers a unit, started about 18 and went up to twenty something. 05/30/96 Page 14 (CORRECTED O6/27/98) Commissioner Henninger. Our sense at that t(me was that that was really to adopt a number like that would be to say that we weren't going to have any more units built in the central part of the City. I think ( ~ our though was at that time that if we did that, we wouldn't have any new units but the students would `-= ` still appear. I think we have had very few units in the central part of the City over the last three or four years. Yet the shhod district still seems to be growing at one (1) elemenitary schod a year. If they use 750 and we heard it's 500, 1,000, it is a serious problem. My worry would be that they would still see this growth if we were to agree with them and put $10,000,000 into this project, the project would disappear but they would still see the growth in students. They would be wersf worse off for it than they are now getting the money that they're going to get off these new buildings. Commissioner Messe. Any other comments or questions ftom the Commission, Paul? Staff have any further Input? Selma Mann, Deputy City Attomey. Mr. Chaimman I would like to make just a very brief statement. You've done a very thorough job of going over the information that has been presented. I would like to remind the Commission that the pbysisai fiscal impacts are not environmental impacts that to the extent that any signfficant environmental impacts have been identffied in the EIR they are the result of indirect cumulative Impacts. Of course as such to a great extent somewhat speculative, also I think that in hearing the discussion among the experts you can hear that the assumption for purposes of the EIR are made as a worst case basis there's a hesitation to cut back the figures and to possibly account some of the factors that might lower the figures whereas the City if it were imposing condftions even ff this were a legislative approval would have serious nexus constraints that would prevent us from using a worse case analysis and instead limft the City to whatever could actually be established and this is just setting aside all policy and other considerations. So, just those two that the #~iysisai fiscal is not . n environmental effect that we're looking at secondary indirect cumulative that are recognized. Commissioner Henninger. There is a wide variance here between the estimate of the Impact ftom $300,000 to $15,000,000 that is a big difference. Does ft make any sense in our findings to say that there, not to just find that there is just a $300,000 impact but to say that there might be a range of impacts and we're doing a statement of overriding consideration anyway. Does it make any sense to say that there might be a range of Impacts here? Selma Mann, Deputy City Attomey. I think that It is entirely up to the Commission as the fact finding body here to make its determination. You can either determine that one side or the other has more creditability that it is a situation that has a certain amount of speculation that's involved so that a range may be more appropriate as long as you are making that statement of overriding considerations, that you are :still finding, that you are able to make that statement of overriding considerations even considering that there is a greater range, so the answer is yes. You may find that there is a range rather than jusf: a set number and still make that statement of overriding considerations. Commissioner Henninger. Joel, would you answer the same question please? Joel Fick, Planning Director. I would just reiterate what Selma Mann said that there has been evidence presented on both sides of that issue and certainly the Commission can adopt a range, should you believe that's more relevant having heard the testimony today. Commissioner Henninger. I would Ilke to ask one final question of the environmental consultant. The shhod districts make a point that there's a cumulative impact here and I think you mentioned ft briefly, but I would like you to just address that spociflcally 05/30/96 Page t5 (CORRECTED O6/27/96) Joan Kelly. The cumulaWe impact refers to development of other projects (n the area and there ar. certai~~ly is the potential for cumulative impacts to the schod as other projects come on line as other residential developments are built and i think that is where the projections for the schod increases is coming ftom is understanding what planne developments or approved developments are in the City but ~.~ ~ at built The cumulative impacts are always an area within the EIR where you want to address it to .nA ::xtent you can without going so far to be speculative and assuming things will happen, but stat(ng That things can happen. Commissioner Henninger. So in the EIR what other projects were considered under the cumulative Impacts? Joan Kelly. I will point you to the page so you can see that, it's on page 4.3 of the EIR and was I believe amended in the Response to Comments with either one or two residential projects. Let me find that reference. Commissioner Boydstun. Is that the chart in the response at 3-35? Joan Kelly. It's probably what I was just looking for, is it page 3~5? O.K Commissioner Henninger. This includes all the major projects that are planned, like the Disney Resort is in here for instance. Joan Kelly. That's correct. Commissioner Messe. And it is still the Disney Resort at its full potential. Joan Kelly. That's correct because that has not been technically changed. l Commissioner Bristol. The school district has taken all of these into consideration, correct, in their projections? Joan Kelly. I would assume they have although I certainly can't speak to that. Commissioner Henninger. Their letter seems to be addressed just on this project, I think the student generation they have is based on the employment on this one project. Then their letter goes on to say we need to think about all these other projects that are going on. Commissioner Bristol. That's what I'm sa,~inp if these are already down, the scrod district would know about it even though it's not addressed in this particular letter, correct sir, O.iC Dean Derleth. I think the cumulative impact analysis required of CEQA does not necessary limit you to already approved projects but to the extent that the projects have already been approved the districts would obviously be implied with knowledge of those projects and anything listed in the EIR the districts obviously have knowledge of. Joan Kelly. Just to clarify that this does also include projects in process that are of a cumulative nature and the only one listed is the Hotel Circle project that is within that area that is cur. qtly in process. Commissioner Messe. Not completely built out just portions of it, right? Joan Kelly. That's correct I would also like ~o point out that in previous documents in the City such as the Anaheim Resort project that the Stadium master plan area was listed at its full Iotential. 05/30/96 Page 16 (CORRECTED O6/27/96J Commissioner Messe. Which was the general office buildings. Joan Kelly. That's correct the $2,000,000 square feet. Dean Derleth. If I might add to go back to a previous comment that I think Commissioner Bristd #3ad tpe had. The school district did juet focus its projected dollar impacts for this project alone. Planning Commissioners. We understood that. Commissioner Boydstun. I guess I'm still having problems, previous. plans were done for that property that was a lot more congested than this is and this is stri„^tly a concept plan that ipeif th r looking for dollars ftom. I've been in Anaheim a long time and 10 years or so ago this was planned what ws called a platinum triangle at the time. It was a concept that never happened and we don't know that this concE;~t will happen and yet we're counting all the square footage as it's going to supply students and I live in an rider, average, downtown neighborhood. There are twenty-eight (28) houses on rTiy block, two sides of the street and out of that twenty-eight (28) houses only nine (9) of them have any children at all. It just seems like the numbers are not right to what reality is, of what t#reiF t~y~ expecting and what we don'* know is going to happen. Commissioner Messe. 7.K, I think we've toad the input now from everybody and all the questions. ACTION TAKEN: Commissioner Henninger. I will offer a resolution certffying Environmental Impact Report No. 320 with the following changes: I would like to amend she dollar amount of the schod impact and make note that there is some sort of debate on the range of the impacts and recognize that there could have a dollar wise range of impacts. I am not convinced that the schod numbers are accurate, it seems to ma that they might be inflated by a factor of 2 or maybe even 4. So I would like to offer that. I would also like to, in the findings for the overriding considerations, make very clear that the users at a stadium and a football arena are really, in today's environment, very footloose and very sensftive to dollars. And, Indeed, around the country many communities are buying these teams and getting them to occupy their stadiums by giving them stadiums and going them other sorts of inducements. I think a major added expense would probably result in this project not coming together and that would be a bad thing for this City because this use will employ a lot of people and employment is an important issue for the citizens of Anaheim. Schooling is a very important issue for them also. But, both employment and schooling are Important. I think that by adding this cost to the project, the project would not happen and we would have neither the money for new schools or the employment for our citizens. Commissioner Messe. Are you asking to insert that in the Statement of Findings for the Overriding Considerations? Commissioner Henninger. Yes. Commissioner Messe. Are yuu also including Attachment A of the Staff Report to tir3 Planning Commission dated May 29, 199& and adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Program 092 (Attachment B) based upon the findings in the staff report in your resoution? 05/30/96 Page 17 (CORRECTED 06/27/96) ~:. f i ~.. _. Commissioner Henninger. Yes. Commissioner nAesse. This has been an offering for a resoution certiFying Environmental Impact Report No. 320, adopting a Statement of Flndings and Facts and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting Mitigation Manitoring Program No. 092, and that will be a rdl-call vote. Maggie Solorio. Resdution passed with 5 yes votes. Commissioner Messe. Before we have an offering for a resoution on Development Pian No. i20, could I ask staff to look at the resdution in the back of the staff report? On page 2 of that resolution, the second paragraph labeled 1, could we add a dause at the and of that sentence that says: 'created prior to the date of this resdution"? In other words, it would say, 'That development of subject property shall be in compliance with the 'Amended and Restated Lease Agreement by and between The California Angels LP. and City of Anaheim, Dated as of May 15th, 199E,' and any amendments thereto created prior to the date of this resolution.' Joel Fick. That is a very good idea Commissioner Henninger. I would offer a resoution approving Area Development Plan No. 120 based on the information contained in the staff report and the evidence presented at this public hearing with the findings within the staff report. Commissioner Messe. This is a button vote. Maggie Sotorio. Resolution passed with 5 yes votes. Commissioner Messe. I want to thank everybody for being here, for their input and everything. 1 look forward to a development that will be good for the City of Anaheim and good for the Scholl District too. Selma Mann. The Planning Commission has certified Environmental Impact Report No. 320, adopted the Statement of Findings and Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations which was sat forth in Attachment A to the Staff Report and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 092 that was set forth in Attachr:rent B to the Staff Report based upon the findings set forth in the staff report. Further, the Planning Commission has approved Area Development Plan No. 120. The approval of the Environmental Impact Report included the request of the Commission that the language on the findings be amended somewhat to -ecognize: 1. That there is a range of potential fiscal impacts; 2. That the schod figures may be inflated by factor of 2~; 3. That on the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the uses at the stadium are difficult to attract and retain in a city; 4. That a major expense may well prevent the project frog happening, resulting in what appears to have been a steady increase in tha schod population, regardless of whether a project goes fonHard or not, without tha benefit that would accrue to the school districts of having at least the schod fees if the project does go forward; and, 5. To emphasize that employment was a major issue with, regard to adoption of the project. The Planning Commission's action on this item will be considered final in 22 days unless an appeal to the City Council is filed within that time. 05/30/96 Page 18 (CORRECTED OF/27/96) Commissioner Masse. I would urge you, Mr. Perez, to please get together with our staff and P .tinge _ for a work shop session because I think we can both benefit ftom a good discourse. Thank you very ' much for being here. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Peraza and Mayer were absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 45 minutes Respectfully submittec: Elly Fernandes, Senior Word Processing Operator Planning Department Q5/30/96 Page 19 (CORRECTED O6/27/9G)