Loading...
Minutes-PC 1996/08/19q ~ ~ d SUMMARY/ACTION AGENDA ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 1996 PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW: 10:00 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING (TES'T'IMONY): 1:30 P. M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, HENNWGER, MAYER, MESSE COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PERAZA STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Tom Wood Joel Firk Mary McCloskey Greg HasCwgs Jonathan Borrego Linda Johnson Greg McCafferty Bruce Freeman John Lower Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Edith L. Harris Margarita Solorio Elly Fernandes Assistant City Attorney Deputy City Manager Planning D'uector Deputy Planning D'uector Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Senior Planner Associate Planner Code Enforcement Supervisor Traffic and Transportation Manager Prinapal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer planning Commission Support Supervisor Senior Secretary Senior Word Processing Operator wp 08/19/96 Page 1 August 19, 1996 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim Cfty Planning Commission APPROVAL OF THE SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA FOR THE Continued to PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS OF JULY 8, JULY 22, AND Sept. 4, 1996 AUGUST 5, 1996 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. VARIANCE NO 4182 REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE Approved EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS_QF_ (To expire 5-18-97) APPR VAL: Town Square Investment, Inc., 24555 Los Alisos Boulevard, Laguna Hilis, CA 92653, requests aone-year retroactNe time extension to comply wfth conditions of approval for Variance No. 4182 (waiver of required lot frontage, minimum building site area, minimum building sfte width and required location and orientation of buildings) o ~ i~ on May 18, 1997. This petftion was originally app May 18, 1992, property is located at 2260 W. Orange Avenue. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated the request is for aone-year time extension for Variance No. 4182 which is a variance to facilitate the development of eight (8) single-family residences on Orange Avenue. The oroJect was originally approved in 1992 and has received several one-year extensions of time~H~e o ted that thy: V co struction of the units,rt erefore, staff is recommend ng approval of the time extensiony p Chess Frost, Town Square Investments, 26851 Mission Hills Drive, San Juan Capistrano. He o t~ a dt ready to property has been purchased and has closed escrow. He indicated that the tract map is app The rwi Ihbe meeting with City staff tomorrow forthe initia9meeting9o start their demolithonrand grading. rmft Y 08/19/96 Page 2 August 19, 1996 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission r•EOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved ~ Recommend adoptlon to CC 2b. rENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 340 Approved, in part 2c. ANTA ANA CANYON RD ACCESS POINT STUDY AMENDMENT Grmante~d 2d. RECLASSIFICATION N0.95.96_4 2e. VARIANCE N0. 4292 OWNER: CITY OF ANAHEIM, REAL PROPERTY DIVISON, Attn: Frank Hardc3stle, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 TRANSCORP C/F, Attn: William H. Stanly, 5212 Sierra Vista, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: SAM HANNA, 2664 Vista Valley, Orange, CA 92667 LOCATION: ,~A°' ~°°' Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property (s an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.1 acres located at the northwest comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Maude Lane. Petitioner requests an amendment to the ~~ om theeHiliskie Low General Plan (redesignating subject property Density Reskential designation -~ the Commercial Professional designation). M Petitioner requests reclassification of the subject property ftom the RS- A~3,000 SC (Residential/Agricultural) (Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the CO (SC) (Commercial Office and Professional) (Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. Petitioner requr~~~a ~•aiver of maximum structural height, minimum landscape settx. ;~ adjacent to a residential zone boundary, minimum setback adjacent :o a scenic highway, minimum setback adjacent to a local street and required parking lot landscaping to construct a 2-story, approximately 3,800 square foot office buUding. P`oope~ el 1n1 acres Irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of app Y located at the northwest comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Maude Lane, having approximate ftontages of 230 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road aril 120 feet on the west skfe of Maude Lane and further c!escribed as 5481 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of July 22, 1996. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION N0. PC96.75 AMENDMENT TO SANTA ANA CYN RD ACCESS POINT RESOLUTION N0. P 7 RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC96.77 08/19/96 Page 3 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 i FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke and 2 letters were received in opposition. IN rAVOR: 3 letters were received in favor APPLICANTS COMMENTS: Sam Hanna, 2664 Vista Valley, Oranga, CA 92667. He explained the changes they made to the sfte plan as indicated below: 1. Realigned the exit driveway on Santa Ana Canyon Road. 2. Added a sign that reads 'right tum only'. 3. Added a trash enclosure and are currently working with Planning & Zoning Department for their approval. 4. Added one (1) unit to the air conditioning unit which consists of a very small unit for downstairs and the upstairs air conditioning unit will be in the attic. 5. Reduced the building height, slightly. 6. Initiated grading plans to show now the drainage issues will be taken care of, conceptual grading plans have already been submitted as part of the package. 7. Initiated landscape plans to be part of the submittal. 8. hanged the architectural plans to reflect the second story opaque glass. He then submitted to the Planning Commission a rendering of the subject project. "" OPPOSITION: Rosalyn Perell, 119 N. Maude Lane, Anaheim. She s~at~hat is ad acentdto her and that she feels she indicated she doesn't like the condition of the property j would be most affected by the 2-story building that would be built adjacent to her. She s~ibmitted photographs illustrating how her privacy wUl be ruined by a 2-story building. She felt anyone would be able to look directly into her back yard. She stated she understands that the petitioner is proposing opaque windows to protect her privacy, and asked what happens ff a window is broken and they replace ft with a regular window and asked if she could call Code Enforcement. She added people can see through opaque windows from the inskle and wondered how that would protect her privacy. She stated there are many office suites with their lights left on in th9 evening hours and if that's going to be the case, the lights would shine directly into her bedroom window. She referred to the 2-story building and asked that the subject project be developed as a 1-story building; thereby, there would be no need for a structural height waiver and her privacy would then be protected. She also addressed other concerns relative to the trash bin and the location of the overhead electrical lines, traffic and the need for a sidewalk for the entire length of the strip. She indicated h~is1e ss~u~k 9 that the soil testing will be done because there is a large dip between the level property wall. 08/19/96 Page 4 Plannin Commission August 19, 1996 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City 9 ? n. He stated he Yves at the property adjoining the subject project and has concerns based ~. that the property had an irrigation canal which was illegally John Madea on the flood contrd problems. He stated ket He stated he has removed, and he incurred approximately $15,000 damage out of his poc photographs showing the soil compaction that was made at that time and he stated ft has nen-er been repaired. He requested that the property be dug down approximately 6 to 8 feet to be conristb~nt with ro to the east and the west (being the post afflce and tw°, single-story the similar commercial p party roes. If the applicant does that commercial buildings). He then submitted photos of those two props ained ff it is excavated and puts in a proper drainage, that would resolve most of the Issues. He expl roximately 6 feet down like the post office to the east and 11ke the buildings are to the west which is app down, then ft is nearly level with his property Rachel Barren, 112 N. Lohrum Lane, Anaheim. She stated that at the last hea ~~ ~y ~ ~ i as relative to her being flooded more than oncsh ndtaied ~ he P~I~nt doesn't do anything about the $35,000 worth of damage to her property. nded to Chairman erosion and irrigation isaon tha nlort~h side and that her backyard faces thersubject property Masse that her house ro ~ will be Mr. Hanna spoke relative to the neighbors concerns and he stated that the subject p j approximately 40 - 50 feet from Mrs. Persil's rasidence and you ca he see ~ fl~ s~t alt on and areunot glass no matter what the quality is. He stated they are improving adding to the problem. They will compact the slope to the recommendation of a sop engineer. They are also proposing landscaping the slopes adjacent to their neighbors. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. - STAFF'S COMMENTS: Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer. She stated that staff has met with Mr. Hanna and they The previous property owner basically filled in the reviewed the site and met SiAVMcanal property on staffs information, the majT~t dnaumthordiz~ed om the unauthorized fill of thoer~ grading plan or permit from the City of Anaheim. channel without an app grading caused drainage problems and damage to adjacent properties. rt and that would She pointed out that Condition No. 5 in the staff report on page 10 requires a soils repo include analysis of the unauthorized fill, any uncompacted fill mostly likely would need to be removed rt and that and compacted according to engineering standards; Condition No. 4 requires a dra Wage re rties is not increased and that report shall dearly demonstrate that the drainage to the adjacent props in to pertains to the unauthorized fll f0or Kies are protectedeand Condition Non3triequires~landscaP tg or velocity so that the adjacent p pe provide surface erosion contrd, and she thought those three conditions would address the main grad ng and drainage issues. main to the Responding to Commi~ioner Henninger's questi~on~w~eetSb~A~ Y apNplY for'the ant a property whole length of the property, Mrs. Adams respo Commissioner Henninger stated ~ di n~ng o~ alb recflmpacting theentire lengtheof thatP ~~'fY where have a major grading operatio y 99 the f!II was done. Mrs. Adams responded that it is possible, but it will address the entire property and it will be addressing what areas are to be removed to provkfe the protection to the adjacent properties. 08/19/96 Page 5 August 19, 1996 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission ~..: Commissioner Henninger asked where the water flows or where it previously flowed? Mrs. Adams state,J that the canal went a long way and ended up in the area of Weir Canyon Road, h went from the top of Anaheim Hills all the tivay across Santa Ana Canyon Road down towards the SAVI property where the K-mart area Is. Chairman Masse relayed that there has been five pieces of communication relatNe to the application, 3 in favor, 1 opposed and 1 letter from the Anaheim Citizen's Coalition asking that the Commission conskler a single-story building alternative and that the landscaping waver be denied, with more extensive landscaping required. Also for the trash enclosure to be relocated so it's not visually intrusive. Commissioner Mayer stated she had reviewed the minutes from the July 22, 1996, meeting. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner. He indicated that since the last draft of the staff re~ rt, e~sented to revised the conditions of approval, adding additional conditions of approval. A copy P the applicant and some copies v:Ul be on the podium for the public's interest. He indicated that the changes to the condftions of approval begin en page 10 of the staff report, and additional conditions being Nos. 6 through 13 as follows: 6. lighting for the parking lot needs to be downward so as not to intrude on the privacy of the homes to the north 7, prohibfts roof mounted equipment roved g, requires that the variance is only effective as long as the rezoning is also app g, squires that final landscape, irrigation, sign plans and the plans showing the relocation of the trash enclosure be submitted to the Zoning Division for review by the Planning Commission as a Report and Recommendation item 10. ff any windows on the building are ever replaced, they do need to be replaced with opaque glass as originally approved 11. limit medical or dental offices toincludin flcn the,westemmost portion, needs to be 12. all landscaping on the property 9 permanently maintained and irrigated 13, prohibit any freestanding signs Mr. Borrego explained because this prcoerty is in the Sc lied fo~ asarpart of th si reque~ are prohibfted unless a waiver is approved and no waiver has been app Mr. Hanna asked for clarffication pertaining to theinigcenters and a e not al owedt for ndividual business fn the Scenic Corridor are only allowed for shopp g or individual office buildings. Chairman Masse stated that they would be entitled t~ a wall sign. Mr. Borrego responded `yes' t1H:t they could have wall signs on the building. Chairman Masse referred to the 'right out' only onto Santa Ana Canyon R ~dchnd he asked Mr. Yalda ff ho has any recommendations relat~'a to the Santa Ana Canyon Road app Mr. Yalda responded that the Traffic & Transportation Manager do ~ by the Commission the draivve:~aY the applicant proceeds with the project and a driveway was app would need to be designed that would be exit only and approved by the Traffic & Transportation Manager. 08/19/96 Page f August 19, 1996 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission Mr. Yalda pointed out that a couple of the conditions veers not printed and need to be induda! as fellows: 1) That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic & Transportation Manager for his review end approval in conformance wfth the current version of Engineering Standard No. 436, 601 and 602; hnd 2) That the drNeway on hlaude lane, and ff the drNeway on Santa Ana Canyon Road is approved, shall be constructed with 10 foot radius curb returns as required by the City Engineer in conformance with Engineering Standard No. 13'l. Commissioner Boydstun asked ff the skfewalk is going to be the complete length of the strip to meet up with the other sidewalk? Mr. Hanna stated they planned the sklewalk along the ftontaMe ~tt~b~d~ ~~Comt~mti~ YhaBe s~omen darffied that it will not go the entire length of the property. ama or retaining wall design and cons~tmction just to etain some o~ sidewalk. areas would require a 1 Commissioner Boydstun asked how it would work relatNe to the way Condition No. 1 is written? Mrs. Adams stated at this time the exact configuration of the sidewalk hss not been detem-lned, and there are some dNferential issues relatNe to the width of the sidewalk. At this time the Trash &ndicated Transportation DNislon is recommending sidewalks for the entire lengt ~ that the cost could be out of in previous discussions with the applicant relatNe'to the cost, it appea 'J proportion to his development. If that turns out to be the case, he can come back before the Commission and ask for a waiver of the requirements. Chairman Messe referred to the three feet of landscaping that is dose to the residential property and asked Mr. Hanna if anything was done to slant the parking a little, reducing the back-up area, thereby increasing the landscape area? Mr. Hanna stated he could not do it bECause there are power 11nes and a fixed distaonceofta ~i ~~ ~n9 power line to the curb and from the curb to the property line. He would be happy 9 Transportation & Engineering would allow then. to reduce the wkth of the drNeway ane foot, he could add it to the landscape area. Mr. Yalda stated he recommends that the actual drNeway could be modified where they don't have to remove the power line, and that staff will work with Mr. Hanna when he redesigns the plan. Mr. Hanna stated that they will work with Traffic & Transportation Department relative to the drNeway issue. Commissioner Bristd reforred to previous hearings when they had discussed b % to 2%eto glo from tt e and the problem with drainage. Mr. Hanna responded that they had sloped hedoesdnof t have auproblem wfth the helgM arxi it is des gned to look Iike~ttme houses in the areHae added Selma Mann explained the City Engineers authority regarding tht sdewalks under Section 18.04.080.020 is Iimfted to delaying the construction of the improvements and that delay is contingent upon either a 06/19/96 Page 7 Au 19, 1996 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission S~ cash bond or a performance bond being put into place and the only way K can be waived on the nexus basis is to have h corns bads to the Planning Commission for a waiver. Commissioner Bristd asked Mrs. Perell ff her concerns about the height ~ ~ E~Pn~ng era Property and the drainage are removed because it appears that the appl working out the problems regarding drainage to protect their homes and with the fact that they cannot see iMo her property. Mrs. Perell stated she though since the property is in the Scenic Corridor and it is adjacent to reskfential property, she wor ~'d stUl prefer to see a one-story structure conforming to the development that is on the other end of the tract ~nfiich is one story. buildin d and the drivewayton Maudeglane should be adequat foir ngress and egress to that sit mall 9 Commissioner Henninger responded he though adequate right o butt teS ~~ does ntotMsho~w one? He is certainly land here where a right out lane could be constructed, asked what Traffic Engineering would think ff there was a right out lane similar to the one that is on Santa Ana Canyon just east of imperial on the north side. Mr. Yalda stated they will work with the applicant to design it to be acceptable to the Clry Traffic and Transportation Manager. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration. Recommended adopt`.on of General Plan Amendment No. 340 to the City Council, (Exhibit A). Recommended that the amendment to Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study be approved by City Council, subject to submittal of a revised plan showing a realignment of the driveway, similar to the one on the north skis of Santa Ana Canyon Road, just east of Imperial Highway. Granted Redassf8cation No. 95-96-04 with the fdlowing added condition: 5. That completion of these reclassffication proceedings is contingent upon approval of General Plan Amendment No. 340 by the City Council. Granted Variance No. 4292 with the following changes to conditions: Modified Condtion No. 4 to read as fellows: That prior to grading plan approval, the developer shall submit a drainage report to the Public Works Department, Development Services DNision for review and tl atrdrainage to the adjacent privaterP oPerh' is W hinaacceptable standards.nsure Added the fdlowing conditions: That lighting ttrlu;es in any proposed parking area located adjacent to any residential property shall be down-lighted with a maximum he1gM of twelve (12) feet. 08/19/96 Page 8 August 19, 1996 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission ~ Said lighting tbdures shall be directed away from adjacent residental property lines to protect the residential integrity of the area and shall be so-specifled on the Plans submitted for building permits. 7. That no roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted. 8. That this Variance is granted subject to adoptbn of a zoning ordinar>ce in connection with RedassfBcation No. 95-98-04, rww- Pending. 9. That final landscape, irrigation and signage plans pnduding the recommended relocation of the trash enclosure) shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review by the Planning Commar~tsoshaU s owthe trees at~a d ~~ riecomme~~ Further, that the landscape pl by the Parks and Recreation DepartmerR. 10. That the opaque glass illustrated on the north facing second story windows shall be permanently maintained. 11. That there shall not be any medical or dental offices Permitted on the second floor of this building. 12. That all landscaping on the property (including the westernmost portion of the property) shall be permanently maintained and irrigated). 13. That no freestanding identification signs shall be permitted on subject property unless a variance to permit such a sign is granted by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. That the hours of operation shale be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. That pla fsms~ i ~~ ~~~ with the urrent vers~lon of Eng~eering Standard Nos. 438, and app 801 and 602. That, if approved, the driveway ~n Santa Ana Canyon Road shall be constructed with ten (10) foot radius curb reb:.ms as required by the City Engineer in conformance with Engineering Standard No. i37. M TI N: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Redassiflgtion No. 95-96-04 and Amendmen~ No2.~340 sand the Santa Ana Canyon Rd pAccess Point Study kAmend a flan VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Peraza absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 52 minutes Selma Mann noted the on the Variance andrRecla iification9 fore the City CouncA, and that there is a 22~Jay appea pe 0$/19/96 Page 9 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 3a. FINAL EIR NO 311 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFlEDI AND ADDENDUM APPPROVED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PP.O~R_oM N0.0067 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESOF7T SPECIFIC RECOMMENDED 3b. AMENDMENT NO 3 PLAN NO 821 (INCLUDIt~Y.i ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ADOPTION TO THE STANDARDS DESIGN PLAN AND GUIDELINES AND PUBLIC CITY COUNCIL FACILITIES PLANT 3c. THE ANAHEIM RESORT PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPE PROGRAM AMENDMENT 3d. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NQ. 96-01 APPLICATIONS INITIATED BY: THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, Attn: Douglas M. Morelarxl, Vice-President, Walt Disney Imagineering, 700 Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92803 and THE c:ITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COi!iV11SSI0N Per Planning Commission Resdution No. PC96.69 L ATI N: The proposed project area, which encompasses 490 acres, plus approximately 11 acres of right-of-way Improvements, is located within the Anaheim Resort area of the City o` Anaheim and is generally adjacent to and southwest of the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) between Ball Road and Kateila Avenue (with approximately 24.7 acres located south of Katella Avenuej and east of Walnut Street. The Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program Amendment pertains to public streets within and adjacent to The Disneyland Resort Specffic Plan area. Development Agreement No. 96-01 pertains to properties wfthin the Speciftc Plan area owned or controlled by The Waft Disney Company, its successors or assigns. 06/19/96 Page 10 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19,'.996 ~R P AL• fhe proposed project actions indude: A) Flnai Environmental Impact Report No 311 freviously ~~rtifledl and •m and Modified Mitigation MonRoring Program No. 006 Request for determination that the previously-certified Final EIR No. 311, with the Addendum and modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0067, are adequate to serve as the req~ir~ctions %~~ No. 311 was documentation for the proposed p j previously-certified and Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) No. 0067 was adopted by the Anaheim City Council on June 22, 19931n conjunction with the approval of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 and General Plan Amendment No. 331. The Final EIR No. 311 addresses the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the development of The Disneyland Resort. In connection with the certification of Flnai EIR No. 311, the City also adopted a Statement of Findings ar~d Facts and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project in compliance with the Cal e~ act onsr an Addend m has been connection with the proposed p j prepared to the Flnal EIR and modifications to the previously-adopted MMP No. 0067 are proposed. The Addendum analyzes the proposed Project actions and describes the minor modifications to the Final EIR arx+ MMP which are necessary to address fife proposed project actions. Staff review indicates that for all environmental Issues, the Addendum demonstrates !hat the project actions will not result in new significant impacts or substantial increases in signfficant Impacts above those covered in the previously-certffied Final EIR Nu. 311 and that no supplemental or .subsequent environmental review is required. Staff with the Addendum and mod'rfiedrMRiga on Mono ring Eogram Not 0067, are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed project actions; B) Amendment No 3 to the Disneylan~+ Roy^~ - pacific Plan No. 92-1 The proposed Amendment No. 3 to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 would encompass certain minor modifications to the Disneyland Resort Project inducting a Revised Phasing Plan, make modifications to the Specific Plan pnduding the Zoning and Development Standards, Design Plan and Guidelines, aril P~ 8~ minorl textual and graphical the Revised Phasing Plan and incorpo modifications to the document inducting, but not limited to, the fdlowing: 1) The Revised Phasing Plan would implement the SpecNc Plan land uses in three phases Instead of two; 08/19/96 Page 11 August 19, 1SU~ 6 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission _ ~~ Modifications to the Project/Specific Plan indude revisions to the parking layout and associated phasing, revisions to the drop-off area in the Theme Park DisMct along Harbor Boulevard, minor realignment of West Street/Disneyland Dfire between Cerritos Avenue and Katella Avenue to keep the alignment in Its current configuration (it was previously approved to be curved within a portion of this area) and to lower the elevation of the street to provide for a potential pedestrian overcrossing and Retail Entertainment Center straddling the street; provision of a new signal on Harbor Boulevard and on West Street/Disneyland Drive, retention of the existing MonoraU alignment; and, relocation of the Southern California Edison (SCE) electrical lines within the approved alignment, with the 220-kV circufts to remain aerial; and, 3) Other textual and graphical modifications include incorporation of various nomenclature and other minor modifications consistent with the adopted Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2; clarification of the relationship of the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan to the adopted 'Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program' and'fhe Anaheim Resort Identity Program'; addition of an updated description of the applicable General Plan provisions; modifications to the street cross-sections to reflect revised streetscape landscaping proposed as part of the Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program Amendment; and, typographical corrections; C) Th Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program Ame m nt The proposed amendment to the Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program would amend the landscape concept plans for public streets adjacent to and within The Disneyland Resort Specffic Plan area (Freedman Way, Harbor Boulevard, Walnut Street and West Street/Disneyland Drive); D) Devel na mart Agreement No. 9f~-01 The proposed Development Agreement No. 96-01 between the City of Anaheim and Walt Disney World Co. pertains to the vest(ng of project entitlements and would further address the implementation of The Disneyland Resort Project; E) Air rights vacation and/or encroachment permits; and, Fl Other related actions. ATI N: THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BY MOTION OR RESOLUTION AS INDICATED BELOW, WILL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY WILL HOLD ADDITDIONAL PUBLIC HEARINGSIAND MAKE THE FINAL CIL DECISIONS. 08/19/96 Page 12 August 19, 1996 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Cortimission `0~- 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.311 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) AND ADDENDUM AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM N0. 0067 RESOLUTION N0. PC98-79 AMENDMENT N0.3 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 92-1(iNCLUDING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, DESIGN PLAN AND GUIDELINES AND PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN) RESOLUTION N0. pC96-80 THE ANAHEIM RESORT PUBUC REALM LANDSCAPE PROGRAM AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-81 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT N0.96-01 RESOLUTION N0. PC96-82 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. These were approximately 125 people present. Approximately 11 people spoke in support of the project and 3 interested people asked questions or indicated concerns and two people indicated opposition. Joel Fick, Planning Director, presented the staff report and explained the proposed n and the~Anahehm Planning Commission today are amendments to the Disneyland Resort Spec The W t Disney Company, aniaddendummo t Definal E R No. Sri 1 send amodified Mit Baton Moniftoring Program. Copies of these documents, as well as two errata sheets and a staff report have been provided to the Commission and made available to tl~e public. The Commission is being asked to make a recommendation on each of the mattars to the C'dy Council and the City Council will then be holding their own public hearing to conskier each of these items. Mr. Fick made the following comments: - Since 1992 the City has been diligently working to create a comprehensive plan to secure the continued competitiveness of the Anaheim Resort area. The Disneyland Resort project is certainly a critical element in this overall revitalization program. Certainly this project together with the expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center will insure the Anaheim Resort's continued competitNeness. - Since the Planning Commission's original recommendation in June 1993, and the City Council's approval, essentially the scope of the project remains the same although there is a revised phasing program. Modifications to the Specific Plan to impiemeM the phasing program have been proposed, as well as Incorporation of the associated text and graphic exhibits to affect those changes. There are also proposed amendments to the landscaping program and those indude changes to the landscape concept plans fcr certain public streets adjacent to and within the Disneyland 08/19/96 Page 13 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 ~~ Resort Specific Plan area. They basically reflect different types of trees being proposed than those originally approved and those changes improve the street and are an enhancement to the overall streetscape program. - The Commission is being asked to review the Development Agreement today and the Commission's rde in the Development Agreements is to review the land use aspects and to make a recommendation to the City Councff. Specffically, the Commissbn wAl be examining whether the eligibAlry requirement;: have been met and whether the agreement is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan atx' : urounding developments in the overall areas. Fdlowing those determinations and recommendations, the City Council will be reviewing and conskiering the financial aspects of implementing the Development Agreement. - The Commission is also being asked to confirm staffs determination that the previously certified EiR #311, together wffh the Addendum and modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0067, are adequate to serve as the requited environmental documentation for approval of all these actions. He stated staff has received several letters regarding this project as follows: Juanita Matassa John Loper Mr. & Mrs. Ronconl Odetics 2 letters from Thomas Steinke (Seltzer, Caplan, Wilkins, McMahon) (A second letter withdrawing the original letter) Charles Wilkens, President of Westminster Chamber of Commerce ~- Costa Mesa Tourism & Promotion Council Anaheim City Scholl District Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Cynthia Wolcott, representing Palmieri, Tyler, illleiner, Wilhaim l;< Waldron Copies of these letters have been provkfed to the Commission and are on file in the Planning Department. Mr. Fick entered the staff repeat and the documents referred to and the letters Into the record of the public hearing. Paul Pressler, 1313 Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, President of Disneyland Resort, made the fdlowing comments: It is a honor and pleasure to be here this afternoon and although only a few Disney cast members are here today, together they represert 12,000 cast members and 41 years of history with Disneyland and the City of Anaheim. lin 1955 the City of Anaheim anti the Walt Disney Company took bold and exciting steps to Introduce the world to the first Disney theme park called Disneyland. These early community leaders saw beyond their Iffetime. Their decisions and acts established Anaheim as a host city of Southern Calffomia tourism, f;~a~eyland to be recognized as an international entertainment institution. Today they are asking for approval to continue this vision we11 Into the 21st century and to re- establish Anaheim and Disneyland as the canter of he Cal'rfomia Dream. 08/19/96 Page 14 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 ( ~~ The proposed expansion of the Disneyland Resort along with the Improvements to the Anaheim Cornentfon Center and the Anaheim Resort area will provide both an economic foundation for the City and a world days resort experience for visitors and residents alike. A quality vision cannot be measured just by Its physical appearance and it should also contribute to the people who INe in the community. Disneyland is particularly proud of its on-going relationship and partnership with the people of Anaheim. Throughout their 41 years of operation, their cast has strNed to be a actNe part of the cammun'tty while strengthening the community and it is a tradition they look forward to continuing for another 41 years and beyond. On any given day you will find a Disneyland cast member taking part within our local community. This could come in the form of a unique one-on-one kind of education program Tike the Disneyland Saturday Academy which helps prepare the at-risk youths in the Anaheim Union High Scholl District for the transition from school to career. The contribution could be financial like the Main Street Electrical Parade Children's Charity Benefit which will contribute both funds and needed publicity to many Anaheim non-profit organizations. Or it could be personal like the many Disneyland cast members who spend evening hours at the Anaheim Soup Kitchen or standing at the finish line to hug a special Olympic athlete in his or her moment of glory. There are more than 2000 Disneyland Resort volunteers who actNely participate in large and small community projects every year. Innovative community Involvement is not something new to Disneyland employees and in fact last year their Disneyland Community Service Awards Program which provides recognition and monetary rewards to Anaheim and Orange County non-profit '~ organizations celebrated its 40th anniversary. Disneyland cast members at every level of the organization proudly serve on numerous hospital, service organizations, youth groups and vdunteer associations that exist in Anaheim and throughout most of the communities in Orange County. Their involvement in the community support tends to reach all aspects of the Anaheim community. The Disneyland Resort expansion will provide greater resources and opportunities to further enhance our community partnership. What kind of people comprise the Disneyland cast. ,hey are a blend of young and old, the experienced and the inexperienced. Over the past 4 decades, Disneyland has provided tens of thousands of jobs. For many it is their Introduction to the work force and for others it is a career they have built their family around. The Disneyland Resort expansion will offer many benefits to the reskfents of Anaheim. The project will create the equNalent of 14,500 Jobs in Southern California, 8100 of those jobs would be right here in Anaheim and during the 4 to 5 year construction phase, another 29,000 jobs will also be created. The Disneyland Resort expansion will also generate $25 million per year in new revenues to the City which could be used to fund needed services and finally prepare the City of Anaheim and Disneyland far the competition and rewards of the change of the century. This is truly an exciting time for all of us at Disneyland. YJe are on the threshold of creating a new theme park unlike any other and we see Anaheim again transformed Into one of the world's leading entertainment destinations. We are partners with Anaheim as we move forward. 5 years from now, we can al stand together and look back with pride to this day and recognize that we have taken the first slap towards something truly visionary, something I think those early community leaders would be extremely 08/19/96 Page 15 August 19, 1996 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission Rross from D(sneyland and B ary Bravem~an and Doug Moreland ftom Walt Disney Imaglneering ill Doug Moreland, 1313 Harbor Boulevard, Vice Presklent of Development, Waft Disney Imaglneering, made the following comments: I have worked on the Disneyland Resort for more than four years and I am very excEted to be here today. For all of us at the Walt Disney Company, this is a very exciting project. The project's goals are still those that they identified in June 1993 when the City certified the Disneyland Resort EIR and adopted the Specific Plan. Their underlying goal was and still is io transform the world renowned theme park Into a world Bass destination resort provkling a catalyst for economic growth and the enhancement of the area's physical appearance. In order to do that, they need an anchor - a reason for people to come here more often and stay longer. The Disneyland Resort expansion project will provkle that anchor and will be the final piece of the Anaheim Resort planning efforts. (Slide -Disney's California Adventure Rendering). In 1993, a vision for a comprehensNe master plan for the Disneyland Resort was developed in coordination with the City of Anaheim and it was subject to very rigorous public review and appravai process, and included an extensive set of mitigation measures. The approved EIR analyzed the project's impacts on 15 different areas, including air quality, transportation, public services, employment, population, housing, earth resources and gedogy. (Slides -Public Hearing and EIR documents.) The new expansion plan remains consistent with the approved plan, but features a completely new creative vision for the Resort and a new phasing plan, including some minor modifications to the Specific Plan, as illustrated in tho slide. (Slide -Resort Master Plan Illustrative). The Disneyland Resort expansion is planned to take place in three phases Instead of two as its associated parkingSfacilityPThis first phaselwas completediearllerhisAyearistration Building and (Slide -Phase II) Phase II to be completed in 2001 is the focus of the next resort development. It includes a second theme park, a retail entertainment center, additional hotel development and new parking facilities. phase III to be completed sometime after 2010 will include additional theme park, hotel and parking development up to the permitted limits as noted in the adopted Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and the proposed Development Agreement. (Slide- Master Plan Illustrative.) The major project components include the existing Disneyland theme park and the Disneyland hotel. (Slide -Disneyland and Disneyland Hotel). (Slkle -Disney's California Adventure.) it has a smaller footprint than WESTCOT (about 55 acres, roughly two•thirds the size of Disneyland). (Slide -the SCE Corridor.) The existing SCE transmission lines will be relocated within the previously approved alignment to accommodate the second theme park, with the 66kV Tines undergrounded and the 220 kV Imes to remain aerial on new steel poles. 08/19/96 Page 16 August 19, 1996 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission (Slide -Disneyland Center.) The Disneyland Center and Plaza (retaU entertainment cattier) wUl straddle West Street, which is no longer proposed to be curved, but instead lowered to provide a pedestrian grade-separated crossing which links the Hotel District to the Theme Park District. (slides - renderings of the center.) The center will offer a unique assortment of shops, entertainment, and theme restaurants along an elegant pedestrian esplanade. (Slide -hotels.) New hotel opportunities include up to an additional 1000 rooms in the first resort hotel ever to be built inskfe a Disney theme park, as well as an additional 800 rooms in the Hotel District, adjacent to the existing Disneyland Hotel. (Slides -renderings of the new hotel inside the theme park called The Grand Calffomian.) Thls deluxe four-star hotel is designed in the Calffomia Craftsman archftectural style. (Slkfe -parking facilties). The planned parking facilties include retention of some of the existing Disneyland surface parking lot, a new surface facility off of West Street near Katella, and the previously proposed West Parking Facility, north of Cerritos Avenue. There Is no need for an East Parking Facility in Phase II, as previously proposed Fn WESTCOT. (Slide -External Circulation Plan). Am essential element of the Resort Plan is the Circulation and Transportation Plan. An innovative circulation plan ham been designed which reduces guest traffic two new Interchanges will be created that will on local streets. When the I-5 widening is complete, serve the Resort area. These new access racilities will redirect Disneyland's guests off of Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue, resulting in improved traffic flow ~n these two key streets which serve the Anaheim Convention Center. nolrth of Ball Road p Wet Street wilitbe realigned andraenew reversiblegBall iRoad ova crossing wtill et provide a direct link to the new public parking facilities. (Slide - Southern Approach). A second new interchange will serve guests from the south, via new on and off ramps at Katella/Freedman Way. Freedman Way will be widened arx! provide direct access to and from the parking facilities next to the new theme park. (Slide -Internal Circulation Plan). Once within file Disneyland Resort, an extensive guest •ransportation system and pedestrian network will enable visitors to explore the resort without the need of their cars. (Slides -'tram Routes). Anew system of tram routes will link the public parking facilities to the central ticketing plaza and the Anaheim Convention Center. (Slide -Tram). New high-capacity trams will be built to provide convenient guest transportation. (Slide-Monorail). The existing monorail will link the Hotel District to the Theme Park District, with stops planned at the Disneyland Center and Disneyland. (Slide-Hotel Drop-off Area). Area hotel shuttles and buses will be able to drop off and pick up guests in a new facility near the Central Ticketing Plaza, adjacent to Harbor Boulevard. (Slide-Disneyland Center Rendering). They focused a lot of attention on making the Resort pedestrian friendly. Anew pedestrian esplanade wUl stretch through the heart of the Disneyland Resort, from Harbor Boulevard all the way to West Street. 08/19/96 Page 17 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 L.. (SikJe-EIR Addendum). In developing their plans, they have been careful to stay within the framework of the approved and certified EIR and adopted Specific Plan. The size reduction of the Phase II Resort expansion, compared to the approved buildout, will result in reduced Im~ cts to an those identffied for WESTCOT. The EIR Addendum carefully addressed the proposed p 9 PI and modffications with addftion<~l analysis of key EIR categories. (Slide - Flndings). The analysis concluded that the revised plan will not result in any new signfficant impacts o. substantial increases in the severity of previously k!entffied signfficant impacts. They will be implementing all of the traffic Improvements up front a~ part of Phase II. City staff, upon extensive review of the EIR addendum and technicst sts,dies, has determined that the certified Final EIR with the Addendum and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Progmm are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation. Barry Braverman, 1401 Flower Street, Glendale, CA, presented slides of the new proposed Disney theme park in Anaheim called Disney's Calffomia Adventure.. He made thefdlowing comments: It's goal is to celebrate the special magic of the Calffomia dream. They want to immerse guests in compelling stories, provocative places and fantastic adventures that will bring the Calffomia dream to I'rfe. Part of the rr'agic of Calffomia Iles In its magnificent climate anda~e to thisl as~tu of theme Calffomia design team is working on a number of different Ideas to pay ~ dream. In the Caiffomia Soar and Ride, guests will gain a new appreciation fcr the title 'scenic overlook' as they thrill to a hang glider's perspective on our state's spectacular natural wonders suspended precariously from a diuening height. Guests will feel wind in their faces as they soar over Yosemite Valley, San Francisco Bay and uther picturesque locales. Y For those who prefer to experience California's great outdoors on the water, we are planning a thrilling white water rafting ride through Eureka Adventures. As our raft riders navigate rapids, whirlpools, waterfalls, they will wind their way through 4 acres of California wilderness Just wafting for adventurous hikers, climbers, and back roads explorers. Nearby fn the Caiffomia Village, guests will have an opportunity to see how many of our own state's most famous crops and products are grown and manufactured, including Anaheim's own contribution to Calffomia agriculture, the boysenberry. One of the defining ingredients of the Calffomia Dream is symbolized by Hollywood and the magic of movies and television. For Disney's California Adventure, we are planning a very special studio district that will transport guests to the Hollywood of their imaginations. In the ABC Studio Tour, guests will enjoy a `behind the scenes' look at the process of television production. In this one-of-a- kind t.v. studio, the guests will become both the stars ar•d the audience. The featured place in our studio district has been reserved for the Walt Disney Company's most treasured art form, "Animation'. Here guests will enjoy an Inside look at how Disney animation magic is created from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs to the Hunchback of Notre Dame and beyond. Among the shows and exhibfts being developed for this unique venue will be a'sneak preview' theater screening pencil tests of upcoming featurPS. The stage where artists chat with guests about their work and an animation playground where guests can make their own cartoon magic. 08/19/96 Page 18 August 19, 1996 ACTI(?N/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Plar..iing Commission The fun moves ftom animation to a whimsical ride called 'Superstar Umo". This outrageously "hip' experience pokes fun at people's obsessive fascination with movie stars and the glitz and glamour of Hdlywood. The guests are cast in the rde of newly discovered stars being treated to an insider's remote tour of tinseftown. Across the park ftom the studio is a District that conjures up images of palm lined boardwalks and sun.~ets over the Pacific, a surfer siding down the wave and beach foont skaters performing daredevU maneuvers on a boardwalk promenade a!Ne with street artists, musicians and bodybuPrfers and the romantic nostalgia of Pacffic ocean Park and The Pike. This is Disney's Calffomia Boardwalk, a gleaming beach foont entertair'meM district that until now has existed only in our imagination, with a thrUling surfing demonstration, the drive-in theater with a movie and the coolest cdlection of beach ftoM shops, food stands, games ar~d activities imaginable. 'Phis boardwalk will fu1811 every guest's fantasy of a perfect day at the beach. Along with those many exciting rides and attractions, Disney's Calffomia Adventure will also feature new dramatic versions of the parades, theater shows, characters, unique shops and restaurants and festive atmosphere which Disney has made famous. Every element of the park will be designed and built to the highest standards of Disney quality and imagination. Each attraction will express a different aspect of the Calffomia Dream. Guests who visit Disney's Calffomia Adventure will take an unforgettable journey from the rugged beaurty of Yosemite to the excitement of a Hollywood Studio. They'll brave the rapids on a northern Calffomia rafting adventure and experience the cod fun of a beach front boardwalk. The final destination of this Journey will not be a place. It will be a'state of mind'. The gdden state of mind that is California. Bruce l.aclcow, Senior Vice President of the Environmental Consulting firm of PCR, 233 Wilshire Ba~devard, Santa Monica, made the following comments: PCR has provkiad technical assistance and Input to staff in the preparation to the addendum of the final Eli for the Disneyland Resort. The purpose of the addendum is to address the potential environmental effects of Amendment No. 3 to the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 as well as the approval of Development Agreement No. 96-01 and associated actions. At buildout the total amount of development would be the same be modifled,nThe addendum evaluate these proposed changes and the~timing and orderof would development. Since Phase 1 of the project has been completed and Phase III, buildout of the project, will remain the same as previously analyzed in the final EIR, the addendum focuses on Phase II. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164 establishes the legal basis for the preparation of an addendum. The CEQA Guidelines enable the City, as the lead agency, to prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR ff some changes or additions are necessary, but there are no major revisions to a previously certffied EIR. An addendum is the correct CEQA document when, as in this case, the analysis was that the project modifications do not cause new significant impacts or substantial Increases in the severity of Impacts and there have been no substantial changes or significant new Information which requires new 08/19/63 Page 19 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 conduslons. As was the case with the final EIR certified by the City in 1993, the ernironmental analysis presented wthin the addendum are comprehensive in nature. The addendum fellows the same analysis, uses the same th~reshdds of significance and addresses each and every enrvironmental issue analyzed in the final EIR. The addendum is supported by a total of 10 technical appendices, each prepared by experts in their repective fields. The addendum concludes first and foremost that the development of the project under the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in any additional slgniflcani Impacts on the ernironment, nor will it increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts, beyond what was set forth in the final EIR. In terms of individual ernironms~al issues, nearly ail analysis concluded that the ernironmental Impacts attributable to the proposed Spe~cffic Plan Amendment are no greater than those reported in the final EIR and do not require additforial or modified project design features or mtigation measures. Individual issues include land use, both in terms of adop+~d plans and pdicies as well as land use compatibility, transportation and circulation, earth resources, including geology and soils and seismicity, ground water and surface hydrology, project construction, employment, population and housing, police services, solid waste disposal, parks, schools, natural Las, telephone and television service, visual resources and aesthetics, cultural resources and energ•~~. Of the remaining environmental issues addressed in the addendum, analysis of certain Issues yielded conclusions of ernironmental impacts that are no greater than those reported in the ftnal EIR and these conclusions are supported by minor modifications to previously identified project dasign features. These minor modifications are principally language dariNfications to what was set forth in the project's approval and do not pertain to any substantial change in conditions to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. Environmental issues ialllr~g under this heading include air quality, fire protection, water and waste wa~:er service, storm drains, electricity and hazardous waste. In conjunction with establishing the southwest parking area under Phase 2, one new project design feature has been IdentNfed and incorporated into the project's modified mitigation monitsring~c Plan program. This is the only new project design feature kientifled as part of the proposed pec Amendment. No new mftigation measures are required. With the inclusion of the this new projrct design feature, the analysis of the issues of noise, visual resources and aesthetics ylelcl conduslons of environmental impacts that are no greater than those reported in the final EIR. The new project design feature was developed to insure that there would be no signffic~ant noise impacts from the southwest parking area to the residences located along Walnut Street, north of Katella Avenue and passersby. Project Design Feature 3.5~ calls for the construction of a wall to a height of between 9 and 14 feet. The determination of the height of this wall within this range will be made in the final de3lgn for this component when the final phasing plan occurs. It is concluded that the placement of this wall at the prescribed height would mftigate noise impacts attributable to the southwest parking area to levels which would be in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. Thus, Impacts under Phase 2 would be less than significant. To address the visual Impacts of the sound wall, Project De54;~ri zeature 3.53 also requires that the sourrJ wall be landscaped so as to prelude any adverse visual aril aesthetic effects attributable to 08/19/96 °age 20 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 7` the placement of the sound wall at this location. It is important to also noto that under the previously approved project, hotel and hotel parking structures proposed for the southwest parking area and that permitted heights in this area exceed the proposed height of the wall, as the preceding indicates, development under the proposed Specffic Plan Amendment would result in err~ironmental condftions which are very similar to those set forth in the final EIR. He outlined two issues of gemeral eta ~? ~iimental concern, traffic and visual resources. The traffc analysis presented within Ute addendum evaluated all of the 21 intersections analyzed in r~kinfl~an EIR. In addition, two new intersections were evaluated to accommodate the proposed pa g pl and designed the hotel shuttle bus drop-off area proposod under the revised phasing plan. The traffic analysis focused on how changes under Phase 2 of the revised phasing plan would affect traffic traveling on area roadways. This traffi. analysis concluded that project impacts on area roadways would be no greater than those set forth in the final EIR. W(th the installation of traffic signals at 4hese two new intersections, specifically on West Street and Disneyand Drive, north of Katella and on Harbor Boulevard north of Freedman Way, traffic operations at these two new intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service. In regard to the analysis of visual resources and aesthetics, the principle Issue pertains to the relocation of the electrical transmission lines specifically maintaining the 220 kV circuits abo~:e ground. Under the revised phasing plan, the 220 kV circuit would be relocated above ground on a single set of poles while the 66 kV lines will still be undergrounded which is a change from the final EIR. This relocation will occur within the previously approved alignment which generally follows Freedman Way, Harbor Boulevard, Katella Avenue and a short segment of Walnut Avenue. Existing views in this area are dominated by a streetscape of commercial signage and overhead utility lines including the electrical lines under discussion, as well as numerous other power and distribution lines along Katella Avenue and Walnut Street. The piles and the associate wires for the 220kV circuits will be visible but the resulting visual effects are not significant because of the proposed landscaped screen along the affected roadway segments and adjoining areas. All other power lines along Katells Avenue and Walnut Street would be undergrounded and the extent of change in comparison to existing condftions would be limited since the overhead electrical lines exist on site today. The addendum also addressed potential changes in the project's cumulatNe Impacts. This analysis concluded that development of the project Impacts are no greater than those identified in the final EIR. Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager, explained the Planning Commission's rile In the Development Agreement approval process is to focus on the land use aspects of the Agreement. The City CouncU will subsequently Insure that the financial aspects of the Agreement make sense for the City. Disney has requested that the City enter Into a Development Agreement to vest their project's entitlements and further address the implementation of the project. The City's Development Agreement Procedures Resolution requires that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether Disney has demonstrated eligibility to enter Into the Agreement and whether the Agreement meets certain criteria for General Plan and Specffic Plan consistency and land use compatibUity. Staffs analysis dkf find that these Important requirements have been met and are recommending Commission's concurrence. He stated major provisions of the Agreement include a 40-year vesting far ad~~tional theme park parking and related non-hotel development permitted under the Specific Plan as described in the EIR. A 20-year 08/19/96 Page 21 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 'Y vesting for up to 1800 new hotel rooms all within the EIR guidelines. The vesting would apply to certain properties owned or leased by Disney within the Specific Plan area. Provision is also made to extend vesting rights to other property within the Specific Plan area ff and when Disney acquires or leases such property. An expedited permit processing/dispute resolution process, at Disney's expense, has been provided and except as to vesting for the existing Disneyland Theme Park and Disneyland Hotel, the Agreement is contingent upon the City and Disney subsequently reaching an agreement on and implementing a joint financing progo m.uT~hci i pis ~~urel requirements and (mprov meats to the Anahe mdCorn ntion~ Issues to pay p Center. This Agreement is the product of extensive negotiations between City staff and Disney. This Development Agreement was drafted wRh one primary goal in mind - to ensure that The Disneyland Resort Opening Day Program would move forward (n a timely manner in order to soiklify the benefits to the City of Anaheim. We not only look to protect and secure Disney's investment in the Ciry, but also wanted to make sure the specific benefits to Anaheim like jobs and revenues were protected in the future. The Agreement will ensure that Disney completes the significant portion of the permitted theme park, hotel and associated uses provkled for in the Specific Plan. This would create jobs, including the Anaheim Jobs Program designed to encourage the hiring of Anaheim residents, expand the City's tax base and further enhance Anaheim's position as a national and international tourist destination. This is a very important project to the (.icy :.. Anaheim. The Disneyland Resort expansion provkfes the solution to the Anaheim Resort's future competitNeness. Joel Fick summarized that the actions of the Planning Commission today are specifically AmendPreo9m#~ to The Disneyland Resort Spactfic Plan No. 92-1, the Anaheim Resort Public Realm landscape Amendment, Development Agreement #96-1, and the associated environmental documents including the Addendum an Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program. City staff believes that the proposed project hqs been r:omprehensNely planned and thoroughly analyzed and is recommending approval of all est19 and actions referred to today and specific recommendations are included in the staff report on peg 20. In 1993 The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan was approved throu~~h the CEQA process and we were the first City in the state to complete the exhaustive master ernironmental Impact program as prescribed in state law. The project was subject to many hours of public hearings, both at the Planning Commission and City CouneU, and intensNe public review that resulted in numerous changes and improve ova sthe the Pian to address community cxmcems that were raised at that time and before its final app pnej omprehen~sN efforts completed in the past tneiefforts leading up to today wereequ e focused of One of the primary determinations the Commission will be making today is whether the modifications are noaddit onal envio nmental Impacts sincehit EI stUl with nt the framework of tthe approveda ndacert'rfiad EIR and adopteul Specific Plan. Jack Dutton, 1400 S. Sunkist Street, Anaheim, - 08/19/96 Page 22 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 ~ Stated he is present to enthusiastically support Disney's California Adventure project; asked those present in favor of the project to stand, and approximately 125 people stood; those wearing red stickers were Ar+ahelm reskleMs; he was home in this City Ap,a 5, 1910, population was 2628; first elected to City Council for one day in 1928 (Youth in Government Day); then elected in 1962tio was and 1970, and was Mayor for the last 4 years; Disneyland was opened July 17, 1955, pop 30,081 ar-d in 1960 it was 90,000. He urged the Commission to approve this project. Dick Clark, Ernironmental Compliance Manager, Rockwell, 3320 Mira Loma, Anaheim- The plans that have been presented today and previously will present less noise than the ordinance allows; the traffic will be mitigated because of parking flowing directly off the fteeway Into the garages since most of the traffic comes ftom visitors coming to the park ftom the fteeway; thereby reducing traffic on the local streets. Traffic noise a roves th~lutlo ect.ould be mitigated. He added he would professionally advise the Commission to app P 1 Andrea Manes, 1475 W. Wedgewood Drive, Anaheim - Supports the project and is happy Disney is continuing to invest in Anaheim and she particularly iike.~; their educational programs and the things they do for the community; and that she likes the klea that her children would be able to work at Disneyland as she dkf. Charles Ahlers, PreskJent of Anaheim/Orange County Visftors Cornention Bureau, 800 W. Katella, Anaheim - Urged the Commission to approve the project because it will bring a whole new dimension to Anaheim, with more things for people to do and it will bring more money to the City by virtue of tax revenue and occupancy tax, and it will revitalize the community making ft look nicer and certainly a safer place for visitors to come and enjoy southern California. Chairman Messe read a letter of support from Floyd Farano on behalf of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. The letter is on file in the Planning Department files. Bob Ball, 1532 Lasater Avenue, (in the shadow of Disneyland) - I live within 1/2 mile of Disneyland and have two daughters who worked at Disneyland during college. I still enjoy the fireworks with my grandchildren and my children, etc. The noise issue some people speak of does not bother me. He would like to see the significant revenues that would be generated be used to bring the neighborhoods on the periphery of The Disneyland Resort up to a standard that would meet the world class environment within the boundaries. Stan Pawlowski, 1433 W. Janine, Anaheim I am a resident for over 42 years and am an enthusiastic supporter of the Disneyland expansion. Disney needs our C'dy to flnan~e $1 /2 million in public Improvements surrounding Disneyland Resort and then expand our Cornentlon Center at $150 miNion in order to remain competitive in the convention business. Without Disney's guams for flare and pdice services, I braes, street~~ for the public improvements and that is what pay Improvements, etc. Disneyland's California Adventure, as part of an unprecedented $3.2 bAllon boom that wAl reverberate through Southern California for the next fNe years, is an economic renewal that will take hotel and wUl fund the bu sof the $110 mUli$on in ~IthenAnahefm Stad ummedes gn. ~~ a~ a luxury 08/19/96 Page 23 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Co~~~~nlssion August 19, 1996 dr z ~ Anaheim will fund $546 million in improvements to the Conv®rstion Center for roads, parking areas and other Infrastruch:re. State and local transportation agencies wul be funding $1.1 billion for widening of the freeway (I-5). The development wql create an estimated 10,400 new Jobs in Orange County, 1,000 more outside the County, and it will the completed over the next five years. Most of the jobs would be in the service industry. There would also bean etimated 10,000 temporary construction jobs at the peak of the five-year theme park construction project When finished in 2001, the City will be exper9enoing $1.5 to 2 miilk~n a year in additkx~al revenue ftom new property, construction, sales and local taxes, resulting ftom this expansion. The City will have enough cash flow and revenue to finance the $400 million ta~c exempt 40-year bond and still provkte a sizeable surplus that would directly go into the ~ gen6raf fund. It is the right plan, it is the right time to move forward with the Disneyland Resort and the public improvements. Looking at the number of visitors who came to grange County last year, there were 37 million, 17 million staying in hotels and motels overnight, spending over $5 billion, length of stay was 3.3 days, with an average dally expenditure of $150 per travel family. Of the $5 billion, 27% was for entertainment, 24% lodging, 29% meals and beverages, 18% shopping, and 2% transportation and those revolving dollars pass through and stay with the banks and the local economy and finds it way Into the hands of the consumer through jobs, payroll and purchases. Economists expected the new theme park several years ago to do this, to continue growth over the years in much the same way that Disneyland has 6nvigorated the local economy. They opened their doors in 1955 wfth 18 major attractions, and there are more than 60 major attractions now. When Disneyland opened In Anaheim, they had 34 restaurants, 7 hotels and 87 rooms. Today Anaheim has more than 450, 150 hotels/motels with almost 18,000 rooms. If the present economic conditions remain status quo, communities and companies like Disney aril Anaheim will have to come up with ways to improve the streets, remodel facilities, parks, infrastructure, etc. and then 'rf not done, the conditions will continue to deteriorate and the activity ftom the Convention Center and Tourist and Visitors Industry will soon disappear and we will feel it in our revenue and also in our back pocket. We are in a struggle that will determine the future course of our state as we enter the 21st century and the new millennium. There is never a more challenging or more invigorating or exhilarating time in our history to help our city and state future. Jack Lindquist 95 Lido Island, Newport Beach- My heart is back ir. Anaheim where it has been for the last 41 years. I started wfth the park when it opened on July 17, 1955, as Advertising Manager and retired about 3 years ago as the first president of Disneyland. Everyone knows the story and has the facts and this is the opportunity of taking one of the most important positions to ever come before the City of Anaheim. 8 Minute Recess Joel Fick acknowledged that staff received a letter just before the break from Michael Perez, Anaheim Scholl District, indicating their support of the project 08/19/96 Page 24 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim Cfty Planning Commission August 15,, 1996 q-, ,.~~ Reed Royalty, Orange County Taxpayers Association - Ours is a countywide organization which is headquartered in San Juan Capistrano, called OC Tax, and they are very skeptical about taxes and municipal financing, but they do sup~oet municipal projects that create value for taxpayers. They recognize that the arnironment and adherence to play and landscaping are the principal concerns of the Planning Commission, but they also believe that the Commission does not consider those concerns in a vacuum, but also look at the benefits of the projects to the community. OC Tax believes that the proposed improvements to tfie Anaheirt Recreation Area are a good deal for Anaheim taxpayers and Orange County Taxpayers. They believe this strongly enough that they have actually supported the ftem that will be on the ballot in November that would preserve the 2% transient occupancy tax. It meets their criteria - ft is fair and ft is favorable to the business climate. It is fair because ft is paid principally by visitors from outsfde the county who come here vdurrtiarily to stay in the Anaheim Recreation Distrlcl:. We view that as a user fee for the circulation and landscaping improvements that will make the recreation area a nice place to visit. It (s sound and the public understands what the tax will pay for. It Is efficient and ft is a tax that is a key element for the financing and ft is supported by the hoteliers and moteliers most affected by ft and ft is certainly favorable to the business climate. OC Tax urges that the Planning Commission approve the EIRm the SpecHic Plan, the Landscape Plan Amendment and the Development Agreement. Ken Moore, 60619th Street, Huntington Beach, CA- Representing the Orange County Business Council. They are a countywkle organization dedicated to actively leading in the planning and promoting the economic vitality of Orange County. A key element is to maintain arxi attract job opportunities for Orange County resklents. To achieve their goals, they work wfth cfties throughout Orenge County, as well as the local Chambers of Commerce. Their emphasis is on Jobs of the future which includes tourism for Orange County. Orange County may have taken tourism as an industry for granted, but today we must be concerned as a county and as a state of the increased competition for tourist dollars from other cities and other states for the highly sought after prize. One only needs to look as far as las Vegas to understand how aggressive the competition for those tourist dollars is becoming. Tourt thegexne nsiono ro a sed by revenues to the state, county and Orange County cfties. They suppo Pa P Po Disney officials. It will fuel economic growth for Orange County and Southern California. This is the type of project that most every other city and state would aggressively pursue for their area and he thought we are very fortunate that Disney sees that the place for their project is right here In Anaheim, Calffomia. Today we have an oppoRunfty to secure our posftlon as one of America's top destinations. William Fitzgerald, 856 Turqoise- to the Has lived here for over 25 years and stated he believed the Planning Commission will comply previously established priority list by the Cfty Council which is on record at this Cfty Hall and wfth the Anaheim Utilfties Department. This last was used during the electrical power shortage on August 10th to allocate electricfty power throughout the city. On the top of the priority list is Disneyland, fdlawed in ordRr by other Disney interests, Anaheim Stadium and AnaheP ws eto Disney's cash m of the priorty are the reskfsnts of Anaheim. On that hot August day, pow registers, while elderly Anaheim residerrts suffered without power and air condftioning. The members of this Planning Commission were put on this Commission by the members of the City Council, not by the reskferrts of Anaheim and you can be removed by the City Council. A Disney councilman is running for re-elQCtion this November and is very much in need of Disney-related mor-ey for re- Off/t9/96 Page 25 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 election. This Commission wUi ignore the Interest of the residents of Anaheim and wql vote to support Disney's profits. Mary B. Jones, 810 W. Wnhelmina Street- She stated she worked for Disneyland from 1962 to 1986 and knows what an outstanding company the Walt Disney Company's and what it means to Anaheim. She is here today as a longtime Anaheim resklent, and has watched this city grow ftom 13,00 people to what it is today. She is anticipating what the future will bring with the expansion of the Dlsneylarxi Resort and heartily endorses its approval by the Planning Commission. Hal Rice, 1919 W. Cornett, Anaheim, made the following commerrts: 'I want to approach this questbn of the Disney Corporation and its rile in Anaheim in a somewhat different way. There was a time when it could be saki that Disney was a "frierKA of the people' In my view, that is no longer true. At the turn of the last century, play writer and poet, Henry Epson, wrote a play he called; Enemy of the People.' Epson's five was intended as Irony because his real character, the person attacked by the people as their enemy was in. trr~ttt the best friend the people had. That is not the case v~ith the Disney empire today. Today's Disney Corporation 15, in my view, an enemy of the people in the most straight-forvvard sense. An enemy far real. No irony, no metaphor, simply a first class holy sinister, literally an enemy of the people. In a declining and degenerating Roman empire, the people 'were bought oft" by decadent empires wN!-~ bred-in circuses. Today some of the bred-in circuses are across the street. Over the years my family and I have enjoyed them all. That is the bat and using that bat, they beat the new centurions corporate Disney has established here in Anaheim and the United States of America and here on global earth, nothing less than a shadow government. We the people think we have a civil government, but this is hardly the truth of the matter. The civil government which once was ours has been intradicted, infiltrated, infested, ff you will, by the money, the smarts, the smooth talk, the sultry beguiling and intimklating power of a foreign influence. That today is what the Disney Corporation is. It is a foreign influence whose allegiance is to a global corporate structure which knows no master, which neither breathes nor pumps blood and whose measuro for what is right or wrong can be clipped and distributed precisely in ddlars and cents. The Disney Corporation is a shadow government which stands aiongskie the civil government and ft rules 'we the people' just as surely as any civil government ever would. Disney is not alone. In revdutionary days, Tom Paine saki that the American cause is the cause of all mart:~d. Today's America has been taken over by a corporate mentality. Not only here in Anaheim but everywhere. There is an unbridgeable and incontrovertible gulf between the cause Tom Paine hard in mind and the American cause as envisioned in corporate board rooms. Today's new cause is nn,: the cause of America and America fteedom, but is instead the cause of corporate America and of corporate fteedom. This new cause, this new decadent and corrupted cause comes to us by the way of a while array of communications options, by these same corporate managers under their contrd. +Ne are living with brain washing on a massive scale. In a movie line by Henry Fonda who was playing the part of an intelligence Officer in the American Army, he was asked by his Commanding Officer, 'tivhat the attacking Germans have done wrong? They must have made a mistake somewhere. What is it'?' 'Well; says Fonda, 'they got me mad at them.' Now that is where the weakness of the foreign corporate army is to be found. They are 06/19/96 Pag~s 26 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 e mad at them. Sophisticated as they are, they do worry about getting more artd more good peopi lL All you have to do is look around here and at the last preserttatlon and you wonder why all this is necessary, aside ftom the legal aspects. Because they know that at some point, "we the people', everywhere may either overthrow their foreign influence and take our communities back, We may take back the right and the means to govern ourselves.' Betty Ronconi, 1241 S. Walnut Street- She stated her family has been here since 1890 and that she was home in Anaheim. She thought her former employer, Walter Knott, would roil over in his grave ff he knew that Anaheim was the developer of the boysenberry instead of Knott's Berry Fame in Buena Park. She stated they have a lot of paper to go through for these meetings and the staff report is not avaiaabie until 4:55 on Friday and ft is really difficult and asked if something could be done to change that procedure. She stated they Join the people who want to see this get on the road because they are Wing in their area with an unknown quartitlr. No one wants to look at their houses and nobody is interested in moving Into the area. People in that area are really suffering ftom this not being deckled one way or another and, hopefully, when K is derided, it will be as good as possible. They have no doubt that it is going to go ahead. There is a lot of improvement on this new plan ft~m the original plan. However, as stated in their letter, they still have concerns for their area and their biggest concern is going to be noise. She referred to the 7600-vehicle parking structure across the street, plus the people in +,.~e condominiums are probably not too concerned that there is a surface parking Ict there, but she was concerned for them and the people further south. They are all concerned because the height of the wall is not specifically designated and she thought they are all in agreement that the maximum height allowable should be included in the agreement. She asked ff that could be added. She stated Disney staff and City staff has met with them but wfth a corporation, it has to be in black or whfte because when it is under construction, changes can occur. She added the parking structure is their personal concern and the concern of their immediate neighbors; that ft has lowered walls at this point and two stories and setbacks for the rest of the structure and they are told those walls are solid to the bolding height and stye wanted to make sure that is true because she could not find anything in writing. Ms. Ronconi stated she was of the opinion that the wall which they would hope would be sixteen feet high extended in ftont of the parking structure, but did not believe that It does ftom 3b~le ing at the plans. She would Ilke to have that clarffied and added she thought it would be pons She referred to the overpass at Bail Road and the proposed 4-foot high wall and she was aware that they are building higher sound walls on the fteeways. She asked if that wall could be a little higher for a buffer to the homes in that area because an elevated vehicle toad like that really grried a tot of sound. neighbotrhoodsin the futuret and for allth people f os illgoong to t~ INingthere~she wanitedito the make K as good as possible. 08/19/96 Page 27 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais Road, Anaheim- He stated the time allowed for the review of the material deftnitely would put a reasonable person to the test. He dki some research on the original project and that review period was 20 days and it got oxtended to 69 days. He dki not think the dffflculry of going through this material can be dismissed ff the Commission wants to do an adequate job since it has to be compared to the original project. He did not know ff it would be possible for the Commission to extend the period for public input for a week or two in order to give adequate opportunity for people who have had reasonable thoughtful analysis of the many complex and far-reaching details of this project to make perhaps substantive comm3nts. The second area of concem is the draft Development Agreement between the City and their Corporation which is presented for approval here and some of that data seems to be implicit and some of the things he is referring to is the absence of another document, the Flnance Agreement, which he understood is stUl under negotiation. He referred to a Statement of Overriding Considerations which he has seen occurring in dffferent EIRs in the past and added the judgmental body, the City CouncU, looks at the environmental problems that can be solved and those that cannot be solved and then looks at the ber~fits~oHe communfty. They make a ftnding that one overrides the other and, therefore, they app questioned without the benefit of that Finance Agreement, how can an adequate comparison be made? He stated earlier speakers had mentioned some numbers but he thought for a reasonable comparison, he would need a net figure which is the revenues to the City, and deducting the financial costs because there are going to be a large amount of bonds Issued for this project and '" deducting the mitigation monitoring and other costs and none of the numbers include that and there is no consistency in different numbers. One major continuing concem was in the area of solkl waste disposal. Ha thought the revised figures lower the tonnage per day to around 39 tons per day generated by ti:a project, but at the time the original EIR was approved, we did not have the Anaheim Resort Program EIR which is an addftional 85.5 inns per day and we certainly did not have the Sportstown project which is another 4.1 tons per day. In the earlier EIR they saki that the closure date of the Brea Olinda landftll, where all of Anaheim's trash is dumped, was extended from the year 2000 to the year 2013. That is still a problem because opening day for this project is Juna 30, 2001, which means that 12 years into the project, we run out of landftll space for at least 40 tons or more per day. He reaUzod this project cannot solve those problems. Along with its recommendation, he would hope that the Planning Commission would include a serious recommendation to the City CouncU to start now looking for alternative means of facing those problem because it is going to be serious. This is a 20-40 year project and asked ff it (s adequate to have only a total of 12 years of solid waste disposal. He added the EIR ckl not conskler ft particularly signfficant but the area of groundwater recharge is a concem. He added there is a new well being proposed to handle some of the loading and there is provision for dual plumbing for recycled water ff it is made available. He dki not know ff there has been any developments beriveen 1993 and now to bring that possibility of recycled water any closer to reality. He asked ff h would maka ft an economically infeasible alternative ff any local on-site methods could be used for recycling drainage water which he thought would be Increased in vk3w of the larger use of land parking as opposad to the east parking structure, possibly some dry wells under the parking lot. He added one thing that occurred to him when he heard the mentbn of 1800 new hotel rooms, even at 6096 occupancy, would be a lot of towels and linens that are washed 08/19/96 Page 28 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 eve day using a lot of water. That grey water is a known quantity to deal with as opposed to ry treated sewage and asked ff it might be more cost effective to treat that locally because maybe t e i~ountain Valley Authority will not decide to pursuo water recyding. Mr. Hirsch asked if an agreement has been reached or is it still belrg negotiated for ball park lighting did Wort find theocurrent status) of that agretementen theiliteratu a or when it would be reached. he He stated he dkl not think anybody could argue that the area does not need revitalization because ft does. This project wilt be an important contribution to the financial dynamics of Anaheim. and the region and, hopefully, will be the vehicle for solving many other problems. He felt the financial and other skle issues should be completely looked at now beforo construction, before approving the project. He added In looking at different problem areas in Anaheim, I.e., along IJncdn Avenue where there are high concentrations of businesses, or a railroad track through a reskfential area and everybody asks how that happened and the answer is usually, 'Well, you know t need 9 ye added we ahe theld not have the foresight to attend to this and these problems just happe guys back then right now and thought with extra effort to avoid this, going beyond the minimur;. requirements of the CEt1A, etc., that ft will be a `win/win' situation for everyone. Mr. Hirsch stated he would hope that they will get the financial details and that some consideration will be given to the points he has made. Irv Pickier, 2377 Mull Avenue, Anaheim- "" A resident for 41 years and a Ciry Councilmember f~~ 12-1 /2 years, stated he was listening to the naysayers and also to the people saying today w~~y this should go forward. That four of his five children worked at Disneyland and it was a posftive thing. He referred to the two gentlemen today who indicated that Disneyland was not a friend of the people. We are coming into the 21st century and if we stick our heads in the sand, we are not going to get anywhere. He thought the majority of the people are positNe; although some people are trying to put ttds ena~th~ won s neAnaheimkand does not belong there. This is something that is good for the peopl 9 is something that Disneyland and the City of Anaheim have worked together to make sure that we all great waHe Heosuht ested tlheCommiss oncmake aipositNe deCcisionn and go ahead nto tthe 21~ in a 9 Y• 99 century. Curtis Stricker, 1117 Wakefield Place- He stated he would like to see the City Attorney give the Planning Commission Instructions as to what they should review in the EIR. If you take into consideration jobs and Income to the City, thJn they have to have the financial commitment and the Development Agreement and have to deckle all of those and if you do not have that responsibility, then you have to throw it all out and those people who came forward and saki how wonderful h is should have their testimony thrown out because it is irrelevant. He wanted the Commission to unde-stand that this is a City program, this is not the Planning Commission's program, that this belongs to the City and he, as a resident~~ are to be stepped on very hard by this program unies:.~ all the mitigations that are already app again looked at very seriously and are reduced or Eliminated. He added they talked aboutoP ~ He construction and they do not have a plan for Phase 3 and asked iF that is going to be app added the Planning Commission needs to look at this as an EIR, not an irnestment on return of Disney's money. 08/19/96 Page 29 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 He continued they do not have any problems with Disney and get along better with Disney than with the City. It is the City that makes the mistakes and gives away the Stadium and turns K over to other people. If the Commission considers any Financial or Developmt~rt Agreement as part of this decision, then they have to go back to the driwing table because that should not be a part of this decision. If it is, then the Financial Agreement has to come forward. They know where the money is coming ftom, but the public cannot see the report until they t.3ve the Flnancial Agreement. They going tongo fforward wRh tthis expa lion antd sugg sled the Agreement sh u d bey reachedsbeforevthe EIR is even approved. Doug Moreland referred to Betty Ronconi's concern whether the west parking structure will have sound attenuation lowers and stated the upper level will have sound walls. They would be agreeable to add languay~ because ft is their intention that those sound walls do go ftom the floor to the height of the ceiling on the upper levels as the structure steps back. That darification could be added to the Specffic Plan. Chairman Messe darifled that there would be solid walls after the second story. He stated that verbiage could be added. Mr. Moreland stated staff has some recommendations that would clarify the Issue with the other wall adjacent to the surface parking anywhere along Walnut. It is the Intent to have a noise wall adjacent to the surface parking. Chairman Muse asked about the lighting of the baseball parks. ~~ Joel Fick stated specifically there are a couple of areas which the EIR consultant should address, the noise and the lighting. Regarding the ballpark issue, those mitigation measures have not changed which were previously incorporated into the report. Bruce Lechtow, EIR consultant, stated regardi:~g noise, the question was whether there was a maximum height for the sound wall along the southwest parking area. He statuJ he understands there is a project design feature which says the maximum height of the wall adjacent to the southwest parking area is 16 feet and that would be the entire length along Walnut in the area adjacent to the southwest parking area. Chairman Meese asked about the West Street overpass at Ball Road. Gordon Bricken, Technical Noise Consultant, 1621 E. 17th Street, Suite K Santa Ana, stated he understood the question was that Mrs. Ronconi wanted the height set at 16 feet. He added the decision as to whether it should be 16 feat is res!ly a design question and ftom the analysis point ~ view, in the Amendment, a says that the height is to comply with the City's 60 dba Ordinance which can be anywhere ftom 9 to 14 feet depending on certain aspects of that sou'Jmest parking lot deign which are not specific yet such as the grar"-~g. The same kind of answer applis to all parking lots up the street. If the Commission wants to set the height at '16 feet, that will certainly more than adequately meet the requirements of the City for 60 dbas and they could say anything over 14 feet is subject to a Heise study but ff It is set at 16 feet, that would cover all the possibilities of noise impacts. They have found that depending on the variables that will affect the result of final design, h could be anywhere ftom 9 to 14 feet. Chairman Messe asked about construction noise along Walnut Street when the Wine aind takinct~ni is built. The sound ordinance for the dead of night which says 60 dba at the property 9 08/19/96 Page 30 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 consideration that this is going to be probably built over a long period of time, he asked what 60 dba means to the property owners along Walnut Street at 3:00 a.m. Mr. Bracken stated assuming for purposes of this discussion that however it comes to pass, at the property line which is the east skfe of the street, it is 60 dba; across the street on the front yards of those properties, it will be 50 dba, and inside the house ff the windows are left open and they are exposed directly to the project across the street, ft will be 40 dba. He explained what the Commission is listening to right now is about 40 dba, and that as the noise from the air conditioning. Commissioner Bostwick referred to the sound walls along the projected overpass over Ball Road and stated his first thought is that it will create a tunnsl effect and there would probably be more problems with traffic than with noise. He added he did not know what the height would be and asked where the noise would go. Mr. Bracken stated they did an analysis of the overpass for Disney and indicated that a 4foot high wall would be adequate to comply with the regulations of the City and that was primarily only because of the motels that were adjacent to Ball Road in that vicinity. If you raise the height of that wall, the benefit derived would be for those motels. There would be no significant benefit further out on Walnut Street unless ft was 25 to 30 feet high and the bridge could not support anything that high. As a practical matter, you could expect no more than six feet without re-engineering the entire bridge because of the load. The four feet was there to insure compliance with the 60 dba number at the motels in the closest proximity to that overpass. Commissioner Bristd clarffied with a 4-foot high wall, it would make the noise level 60 dba and asked `~ what would happen ff the wall was 6 feet high. Mr. Bracken responded that it would gain about one db because, in part, you are trying to design for automobile traffic since there is not going to be any truck traffic on that overpass to speak of and ff you get 6 or 7 feet above the source of the noise, you start to reach the point of diminishing returns. At these motels they are making ft comply wfth the ordinance even though tho noise levels from Ball Road are higher than 60 dba, so it is'cind of a conservative approach to the design of this feature. Commissioner Bostwick referred to the surface parking south of the parking structure and asked ff they would have a sound wall up to sixteen feet high and Mr. Moreland responded that anything along Walnut Street where there is surface parking, the intention is to have a sound wall up to 16 feet high. Commissioner Bostwick asked about the wall in front of the parking structure. Mr. Moreland responded the intention is to have that sound wall adjacent only to the surface parking lots. The actual structure will have sound lowers which will buffer the noise from the structure and would act essentially :he same as a wa!I and that is the way it was originally approved. It will set back from the street rfgh; of sway at 30 feet, so there wi'I be 30 feet of landscaping in front of the structure before the parkway and then there would be a sidewalk and a parkway and the street, in addition to the 30 feet. Doug Moreland stated there was a question regarding slid waste and slated the original final EIR evaluated the solid waste Issue and concluded that the project's contribution at the project's level as well as the cumulative level was significant and that was principally as a function of the limited capacity with regard to the landfill and landfill resources and that there are programs ongoing to which the City 08/19/96 Page 31 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 has in ut to s*art to address the very long range impacts and provisions for landfill capacity within the tJ City's service area. Regarding the water well, he stated as one of the mitigation measures, the applicant will cause to construct site Improvements for the well in the vicinity of gementine and Freedman and the possible relocation area for Flre Station No. 3. Regarding recyded water, he stated there is a measure in place that wUl cause the applicant to install new plumbing so that ff at some point in the future recyded water becomes available within the greater Anaheim area, the applicant wpl have the Infrastructure to respond to that avaflabllity, therefore, curtailing its demands on the potable water supply. Commissioner Henninger stated they have a tittle over 15,000 parking spaces available today for the existing park. John Lower, Transportation and Traffic Manager, responded the actual theme/guests surface parking is 14,500 and another 3000 cast parking spaces is over and above thai figure. Chairman Messe stated the EIR on pages 11 and 12 show 15,200 spaces for the current development. Mr. Lower referred to page 12 of the Addendum. Chairman Messe stated he counts 14,200 without cast and 1000 under the hotel district for theme park/guest parking so that is 15,200. _ Doug Moreland stated currently in the main lot in front of Disneyland today, there are 14,200 spaces, of V that, over adjacent to Harbor Soulevard, there are approximately 2000 cast parking spaces, so there are about 12,200 spaces used by the theme park guests in that main lot. Then there is another lot adjacent to the Disneyland Hotel which is used for overflow parking and also for parking for the hotel. Commissioner Henninger asked how many times a year the overflow parking is used. Mr. Moreland answered there are about 4 or 5 days a year when the overflow parking lot is needed. He darffied there are about 12,200 spaces available for guests and 2000 spaces for cast. Commissioner Henninger asked how many parking spaces will be available during the construction period. Mr. Moreland responded those same numbers of parking spaces would be available. It will be in several locations and the cast parking will be moved down to the Riveria lot, and there will be 2600 spaces on that lot. There will be the remainder of the exiting parking lot adjacent to the new theme park available and that would be about 3200 spaces and then there will be the new lot at the southwest which would have about 4100 spaces, and then the lot north of the Disneyland Hotel which extends down to the Disneyland Hotel because during construction that will not be needed for parking for the retaG entertainment center because it will not be open at that time and there are about 6400 spaces In that location. Commissioner Henninger darifled that leaves room to build the parking structure. Mr. Moreland continued that during construction they have offset the existing parking demands for Disneyland. 08/1~J/96 Page 32 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 Mr. Moreland stated in 2001 there wUl be added a cast structure to the Riveria parking lot which will have approximately 1500 spaces and that wGl be for new cast working at the second theme park. They will still have the portion of the existing lot, the southwest lot and then the surface lot that is north of the Disneyland Hotel wAl be reduced because part of that parking wail go to the retail entertainment center and then there will be the 7500 new parking spaces in the new structure and that wUl accommodate the new theme park. If you use the ratios of approximately 1000 cars for 1 million attendance because the parking here is drh-en not by square footage like a regular retail center, lt is driven by the attendance in the theme park. They have years of operating experience now and that is how they developed these ratios wlth the City based on looking at peak days, etc. Disneyland attendance is around '12 million annually and the new theme park would be 7 milion annually and that means the requirements are about 19,000 guest parking spaces and they actually have some excess parking in this plan. Looking at the existing parking lot today, there are 14,200 spaces and approximately 2000 for cast, leaving 12,200 which matches the attendance of 12 million. Chairman Meese stated when he looked at guest parking per square foot of development, he came out with a signltlcantly larger number for the year 2001 than for the present year and asked if that is explained by the length of tay. Mr. Moreland stated the theme park parking is driven by the attendance and in the plan for the second gate, they are not sure of the make up of the attractions at this time; how much would be endosed versus how much will be open space. In order to look at the maximum ernironmental Impacts, they looked at what would potentially be the maximum amount of enclosed space and that is the difference. Disneyland has a much dffferent ratio of enclosed space to open area. Commissioner Henninger asked how they estimate ann~.ral visltors. Mr. Moreland stated lt is based on the figures of operating the theme park for the last 40 years. They actually have computer programs that tell them attendance projections for each day of the year and they use that model for projecting everything from how much food they need in the theme park; how many employees they need on that day and historically because of the seasonality of theme park, higher attendance during the summer and then people going back to schod causas attendance to go down, during peak vacation times and all of that is taken into cons(deratlon. Commissioner Henninger stated ultimately lt must be related to the physical size of the park, number of rides, number of square feet of the rides, etc. Mr. Moreland stated they actually have to add rides in order to maintain attendance because people come back because there is something new there. A lot of the reason Disneyland has grown in terms of number of attractions, is in order to maintain attendance. It is not necessarily to increase attendance. Every two or three years they add another attraction. Chairman Meese stated he had asked staff how the left out only access would work out of the parking area that is surface on the new Cerritos. He added he had never seen a left tum out only and dkJ not know how lt would work. He referred to the diagram displayed. Mr. Moreland stated lt would work because of the angle the car would be attempting out of that access and the tum would be very difficult to make. Chairman Meese asked if the Traffic Engineer was satisfied with the design. 08/19/96 Page 33 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August f9, 1996 John Lower stated this is a concept and the intent is to work through the final engineering design to determine what works best to preclude the out bound right turns, but the intent there is that the only way a right turn could be made is ff the drNer was so Intent to make that turn, the car would go up on the sidewalk which is jutting out. Chairman Masse stated a drNer could hug the left portion and just swing right We do want to keep traffic off Walnut as much as we can and he thought that was very important. He added the Specific Plam talks about the new Ceritos being curved possibly and asked ff it could read that it will be curved. Mr. Lower stated it depends on the design and what works best and it >s his feeling that we will see a curve there, but H something comes out in the design which works better without a curve, he wanted to maintain that flexibility. Chairman Masse stated we know that going out on Cerritos towards Walnut Street, there will be no left turns. Mr. Lower stated there will i,t+ a raised median on Walnut allowing right turns in and out only. Chairman Masse stated the fpecffic Plan doesn't seem to be very specific when ft comes to this intersection and obviously we do not have a design that is approvable at this time and asked ff that design will come back to ttie Planning Commission. Mr. Moreland explained actually there is a condition of approval from the previous hearings which themrandhwithtstaff and thenhstaff cannproceed with the design~Thaose residents arse Interested ins wfth " protecting their interests. Mr. Lower stated that requires the final approval of the City Engineer. Joel Fick stated revised Condition No. 74 requires that prior to approval of street Improvements, plans for the relocation of Ceritos shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval and shall show that the street has been designed to minimize through traffic to Walnut. Commissioner Mayer wanted to clarify that the two tools the City has as we go forwarcf with this project is that we are going to monitor and evaluate the traffic Issue with the Transportation Demand Management PAssociationhwhicvh (looks at the whole area and hose two tool will be uhpdated regularly. Mr. Lower stated we do have In place the Anaheim Transportation Network which is the Area Transportation Management Program and it grows as programs are ideMffied to be of most benefit to the area. It is the Intent to maximize the average vehicle ridership of both employees and guests to the area. Co Wmiss~i ~ookM9 atrt ose closely and continualdly mon~ that through these conditions we ~~ that Chaim~an Masse asked about the travelport or the airport bus terminal which presently Iles between Disneyland Hotel and the Pan Pacific Hotel. It is no where in the Specific Plan now and he noticed since this morning there are some new recommended conditions. 08/19/96 Page 34 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 19.96 John lower referred to a memo ftom Joel Flck to the Planning Commission containing addiuonai condRions of approval and referred to Condition No. 73; that prior to final site plan approval, the Disneyland Resort Hotels in the Hotet District will be designed to accommodate airport bus service to and ftom their hotels and plans showing these areas shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. Chairman Messe stated ff there will be accommodations for the airport buses which are currently being accommodated. Mr. Lower stated existing airport shuttle service shall be provided at the Disney hotels. Commissioner Mayer asked ff that would be for the residents' use and not Just for the hotel guests. Mr. Moreland replied ff somebody came over and wanted to get a ticket to use that bus, they would be able to do that. The bus service is not sure that they want to cerrtral(ze a faculty like they have today and are thinking that they just waM it available at each hotel. If they deckle they want a centralized facility, then there will be a centralized faculty and they are working wfth them and the City Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Boydstun stated ff they do not have a centralized location, what will they do about the local traffic that wants to use that service. She asked ff they will consider another location somewhere in the City. Mr. Moreland stated they are actually looking at other locations in the Anaheim Resort Area. ~-~ Mr. Lower stated there are a number of hotels in the Resort area which have off-street parking areas large enough to accommodate the large airport shuttle buses and that could be provided for use by the public as well. Chairman Messe stated we are saying that the airport shuttle bus terminal will not necessarily be located on this resort property. Mr. Moreland stated that is correct, but there will be service to each of the hotels and ff a local resident wanted to get dropped cff at the hotel and get on the airport shuttle bus at that hotel, they could. it would be same as today, except that ft would be incorporated as part of the hotel in their ports-cochere in ftont. to oumresidents abecauset ght nownthat is conve lent ands it isiacommunity amenity with easy a~ess and now ft sounds like K will be less desirable and less accessible. Disneyland Hotel and ff that gloss away,, Fhegstillnhas the option o f going to the Disneyland Hotel and catching the same airport shuttle. Commissioner Henninger stated the erWblenoti be aware of itsraccessibility. tilt~is a bus Hess deci is on of i it is converted Into just a stop, peopl the bus company and 'rf the market demands ft, n will be provided. 08/19/96 Page 35 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 stated since we do not know how the business economics of the Tom Wood. Deputy City Manager, wo Id suggest modiflcatfoon of Condition Non73r adding the words acre able to the gce eras public • he Commissioner Bostwick suggested the drop-off area on Harbor Boulevard for those people who might have reservations at the hotels and motels across the street and they could use the walkway that is going to be provided. Chairman Messe stated he had assumed the bus service would continue because of the many visitors coming in from the airport and going out of other hotels. Commissioner Henninger referred to the parking and stated essentially we have based the parking requirement on past experience with the exss~in~mpera~ti WQ ~e u~er~matsd this and there Is a dffferent operation and asked what happe need for more parking. John Lower stated Phase 3 does provide for an additional number of parking spaces with that additional development and there have been extensive discussions wfth the Disney Development staff and that analysis based upon existing Disneyland statistics leads them to the conclusion that they are actually over-parked for Phase 2. If additional parking were to be required, there would be no problem submitting a study formalizing the discussions today on how they derived at the number of spaces. Commissioner Henninger stated recently the Planning Commission has added new language to the parking requirement condftions when people have used a traffic report to establish a parking level and __ we have been requiring basically basing it on the assumptions of the study with the implication that ff the a dffferetM opinloneof howtmuch park ng Isr needed. aThat provkfeska useful proteckt on for~the City. eve Mr. Moreland stated it is in their best economic Interest to provide parking because ff there is no parking, it means the guests cannot go to the theme park. They are basing their ratios on Disneyland today and extending the length of stay, more people will be staying at hotels and they will be parking at the hotels and coming to the theme park b~inotel tent~iall sinNhe future couldd go down beta use °f~e 111 be revftalized and beautiful. The actual pa g Po Y longer stay. They don't want to overbuild parking either. Commissioner Henninger stated we are adding a new feature similar to Cftywalk which Is sort of designed for evening use and that will be a while dffferent attraction. There are a lot of dffferent changes and he is content that they are probably right on the parking or maybe a little overpacked, but ff that for some reason toms out not to ~lnhe~caseu eeand ids ~ ~ilhooui~ b°i~ ae~ o~~ byt he City'. He asked who owns the multi-story pa 9 Mr. Moreland responded that wUl be a public parking structure owned by the City. Commissioner Henninger stated one thing that has been discussed by he and Commissioner Mayer, who is invdved in the operation of the Orange County Fair, Is that when thee starc~ge~hinag~ oPan ing problems, they bring people into the park for free so they can speed peopl option here because the City would own the structure and would not want to take the loss. He added there are a lot of IftUe nuances here that we should provkle for in the conditions. 08/19/96 Page 36 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, asked the Chairman to confirm that the public participation portion of the meeting was dosed and Chaimran Messe responded the public hearing was closed about an hour ago. Mr. Moreland stated they would like to have a review of the parking sftuation every five years and ff there is additional parking required, that it would be provided. Commissioner Mayer referred to earlier comments regarding the Orange tCou~ ision wasamade a their there were peak event sftuatfons where traffic backed up onto the street, facility and with local police input since the interest was to get the cars off the street quickly, to allow them to enter the parking lot flee. Mr. Moreland stated a question was asked earile~ regarding the stacking behind the tdl booths, and th(s was actually addressed at the original hearing in 1993 and at the parking structures, there is a queuing requirement for 500 cars and that is a condition of approval and currently at the Harbor gate, there are about 200 cars queuing, so 500 cars is signfficantly greater and that was agreed upon with Commission, staff and the applicant and it was felt that would be adequate. The Issue of cars backing up is handled through the number of tdl booths. These structures are designed to park a car a second. We know what the peak arrNal is and that has all been addressed in the traffic analysis. Commissioner Henninger stated now Freedman is likely to be the heavier carrier of traffic rather than Harbor Boulevard and the nature of that intersection is going to change and then we are going to have assumied the Ire ised traffic report ooked at thte north/south traffic onHarboeand West St sets. He Mr. Lower stated separate from the traffic study, we had an Independent traffic consultant take a look at traffic signal progression for those conditions on opening day wfth the added traffic signals aril determined that adequate progression will be provided. Chairman Messe asked ff that will be a f~~ily automated traffic signal across West Street. Mr. Lower responded that is correct but that it is a design detail but we have some new technologies available rather than loops embedded in the pavement because we will be having some reversible flows. Chairman Messe asked about the statement in the~lnveloo andnaddged the wordiCmay' is a of of concern Cornention Center may park on the southwest pa g for him. Mr. Wood stated the 'may' will he clarified in the Financial Agreement to a specffic agreement as to the days, times, revenues flows, etc. relatve to the Cornention Center use of those parking lots. Chaim>an Messe asked ff there will be an access point on Katelia Avenue for that parking lot and Mr. Lower responded that will be a right turn in only access for Convention Center traffic only. Chairman Messe referred to changes to conditions regarding the Development Agreement relative to a $5 million payment ftom Disneyland which would be going towards improving neighborhoods or building affordable housing. Tom Wood stated we have proposed that Section 3.1-.6 have language added to state that the funds will be used in the immediate proximity to the Anaheim Resort area. 08/19/96 Page 37 August 19, 1996 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission mmissioner Henninger asked about the changes on page 7~5 which talks about signing at the theme Co park and hotel districts to be internally oriented. The paragraph on page 12 of the staff report r y talks about ttie reason we don't regulate the signs inside the park because they are not visible ftom outside the park. He added it seems there is a substantial difference between something itrtemally oriented and not ~~isible outside the park and asked how many of these signs might be visible outside the park. Mr. Moreland stated it is their intent that around the perimeter of the theme park, per the Specific Plan, that there will be landscaped setbacks with substantial trees growing ail around the perimeter of the theme park and hotel districts. There will be Eucalyptus trec~,s that could grow up to 30 feet tall, and their intent is to buffer views from the external area Into the ctieme park and any signage that would be some signs whrtichtmighttbe seenaoutskle the park buttultimately ther intent is not to be seen. might be Joel Fick stated the hotels that would be constructed, with the exception of just minor entryway monumernatlon for that area would be subject to the same requirements as any hotels in the Anaheim Resort Area so those provisions are currently in the Specific Plan. Commissioner Henninger suggested adding language 'not visible ftom the exterior of the park when the landscaping is fully mature:' Mr. Moreland agreed to that addition. Chairman Messe asked about a statement made by Jeff Kirsch regarding the Statement of Overriding Consklerations, wherein the Planning Commission deals in land use issues only and does not consider the Financial Agreement. ~` Selma Mann stated there is no Statement of Overriding Considerations before the Planning Commission today. The EIR was approved by the City Cow~cil in 1993. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and at that time the City Council considered that there would be a Development Agreement in the future and that was one of the projected future actions chat would be taken. The Addendum that was before the Planning Commission analyzed what is different to determine 'rf there are any additional environmental documentation required and the recommendation of staff is that there is no additional documentation required. It has been stated by Tom Wood that the Planning Commission is to look at the land use aspects of the Development Agreement and to make a determination contingent upon the City Councii determining that the financial aspects of the agreement are such as to be in the best Interest of the citizens of the City and continue to justffy the statement that was previously made with regard to overriding considerations. Chairman Messe stated in each of these actions, the Specific Plan Amendment, the Landscape Fiagram Amendment and the Development Agreement, all have resdutions which are recommending to the City Council that they be approved. Commissioner Henninger stated he thought he added to the Statement of Overriding Considerations back in 1993 and thought there was some confusion and the Planning Commission's Statement of Overriding Considerations did not deal with the financial deal points between the City and Disney on how we are going to finance the construction of this project and the Planning Commission did not rely on that Information. The Planning Commission did have information that this was going to be a substantially revitalization to the CR area; that there were going to be Jobs created and a lot of spinoff what the Plan nng Commission~used afs the ovekiing con~erations and not any of the specifktpoints of financing and thought that still hdds true today. 08/19/96 Page 38 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 ~. Selma Mann stated the Planning Commission will be making findings and starting on page 19 of the staff report are the specffic recommended actions for the Commission to tales. The resolutions set forth the findings the Planning Commission is making. Also included in some instances, the attached proposed resoutions that are recommended to the City Council. Commissioner Bostwick offered resolutions and motions (seconded by Commissioner Henninger) as totlows: ACTION: (A) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 311 AND ADDENDUM AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM N0. 0067 Determined that the Final EIR along wRh the Addendum and Modffied Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0067, including the incorporation of the errata identified in a memorandum from staff to the Planning Commission dated August 19, 1996, are adequate to serve as the required envirormentai documentation for the proposed project actions. (B) AMENDMENT NO 3 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT S°ECIFIC PLAN N0.92.1 Recommended that the City Council adopt Amendment No. 3 to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (including the Zoning and Development Standards, Design Plan and Guidelines and Public Facilities Plan), subject to the recommended amended and restated conditions of approval kfentfffed in Attachment B of the August 19, 1996, Staff Report to the Planning Commission and incorporating the errata kfentified in two memorandums ftom staff to the Planning Commission dated "" August 19, 1996, with the following additional changes made at the meeiing: Page 5-166, Half-Street Cross-Section 21 -Revise to show that the wails on the western elevation of the parking structure extend from floor to ceiling height on each level. ACded the following conditions of approval: Condition No. 73 - Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the Disneyland Resort hotels In the Hotel District will be designed to accommodate airport bus service to and from their hotels and plans showing these areas, accessible to the general public, shall be submitted to ripe City Engineer for review and approval. Condition No. 75 - That every five years fdlowing the opening of the Second Theme Park, the applicant shall submit a parking evaluation to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval to assess the adequacy of parking for The Disneyland Resort project. The parking evaluation shall be paid for by the applicant and shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. If the evaluation indicates that parking is deficient, then additional parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the recommendations of the evaluation and in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. (C) ANAHEIM RESORT PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPE PROGRAM AMENDMENT 08/19/96 Page 39 ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 Recommended that the City Council adopt the requested amendments to the Ar+.ah~im Resort Public Realm Landscape Prog s fornFreedman Way Harbor modifications to the streetscape landscape ill Baulevan:, Walnut Street and West Street/Disneyland DrNe. (p) ~~,1'lELOPMENT AGREEMENT N0.96-01 geoommended to the City Council that the applicant has demonstrated eligibility to enter into this Agreement as set forth in paragraph 20 of the August 19, 1996 Staff Report to the Planning Commission; that the Agreement meets the criteria set forth in paragraph 21 of said Staff Report; that the errata identified in a memorandum from staff to the Planning Commission dated A f~u~1a~1996e ~ ii~ rbpo~edC;~ that Development Agreement No. 96-01 be aPP Anaheim with the Walt Disney World Co. VOTE: 6-0 (Conamissloner Peraza absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 3 hours Selma Mann stated this matter will be set for a public hearing before the City Council. The Chairman declared afive-minute recess. 08/19/96 Page 40 ~~ ACTION/SUMMARY MINUTES, Anaheim City Planning Commission August 19, 1996 4a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) Approved 4b. W ER F~ODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 4C. ^^NDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0- 3711 (READVERTISED) Approved, in part 4d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY Withdrawn NO. 96-04 OWNER: TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING, Attn: Doug Elston, P.O. Box 7812, Universal City, CA 9160&7812 AGENT: PATRICK 0. FIEDLER, 2322 West 3rd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90057 LOCATION: 5650 East La Palma Avenue Rexaco ervice ti n . Property is arectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.0 acres located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway. Pet~,tioner requests review and approval of revised plans fora 2,553- squ~are foot automobile service station with a 2-bay express lube facility (deleted), accessory automated car wash, stake-out fast-food restaurant (deleted) within a 2,141-square foot convenience market and sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption with waNers of (a) permitted wall signs, (b) minimum number of parking spaces (deleted) and (c) required improvement of setback areas (deleted). Petitioner further requests determination of public convenience or necessity for an Alcoholic Beverage Contrd license to permit the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption at subject facilfty. This item was continued from the Planning Commission meetings of July 8, 1996 and August 5, 1996 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC96-83 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None PetftionePs Comments: Jeff Chess, agent, explained the Planning Commission approved a plan for this s!te Incorporating a food mart with two quick service restaurants, a drive through anti a 6-dispenser canopy. Recently they 08/19/96 Page 41 applied for a modffication to that CUP and attended a hearing about 1-1/2 months ago. There were •" some concerns raised about traffic and parking issues associated with that plan. Thee~odb buildin induded a food mart with one quick service restaurant, a car wash and a 2-baN~ he are ro n a They have elected to revise the plan eliminating some of the uses proposed. Y P P~ g 52 x 52 food mart building with no quick service restaurants and a drNe-through automated car wash. This is basically a standard service station which was being constructed in the 80's and k is not one of the newer stations like they dkl at La Palma and Kraemer and does not indude fast food. The Planning staff asked them to change the architecture of the building and they have offered some early Californian style architecture on the foo:i mart building and matched some of the materials on the car wash and left the canopy the standard Texaco Image canopy. They did exceed the parking requirement on this plan and talked to Mr. Yalda and he said he did not believe a traffic study would be necessary. THE PUBUC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger stated staff had concerns about some of the signs on the site. Mr. Chess responded he understood that staff has requested logos on the canopy and that Texaco would like to have all of this signage and more. There is an existing pde si~~ which was allowed in the last approval and they are asking for a modffication to that pde sign to add the additional uses being requested. They do have one sign on the food mart building and there are two signs on the car wash building to try and get the traffic from each street. He dki not think Texaco would object to removing one of the signs. If the Commission feels the canopy is eversigned, he did not think they would have a strong objection to taking doom some of the canopy signs. Commissioner Boydstun darffied that food would not be prepared on the premises. Commissioner Henninger asked ff the waiver would still 5e necessary ff they removed the signs. Jonathan Borrego stated basically they are allowed one sign per use so the waiver would still be -- necessary. Commissioner Henninger darffied that the waver would be for just two logos and it was determined that there should be three logos on the canopy. ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved, in part, the Waiver of Code Requirement: Waver (a) was approved, in part: Approved one wall sign for the service station, one wall sign for the car wash facility, and three logo signs for the proposed canopy. WaNers (b) and (c) were denied on the basis that they were deleted with the submittal of revised plans. Approved, in part, revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 3711 with the fdlowing added conditions: That there shall be no seating area and no standing counter areas for the consumption of food. That there shall be no outdoor audio advertising of the sale of beer and wine. That separate mens' and womens' restrooms shall be maintained and opened at all 08/19/96 Page 42 times. That any public telephones outskle of the building shall be within fifteen (15) feot of the building entrance and placed on the wall of the building. That there shall be no advertising on the propane tank permitted other than that required by law. That the landscaping shall be properly and permanently maintained so as to provided effective visual screening for the open end of the canerash tunnel. M TI N' Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Peraza absertt) thai t~h~ tAnah~~~ hY Planning Commission does hereby accept the request ftom the appl Determination of Public Cornenience or Necessity No. 96-04. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Pemza absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes 06/19/96 Page 43 5a, C,EOA ATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 21 I ~ n~ued to 5b. VARIANCE N0. 1945-3 (READVERTISED) INITIATED BY: (LADE ENAFO~RCEMENT NVISION)P200 MENT Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1126 North Anaheim Boutevartl fEl Mural RestauraMl. Property is arectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.26 acres located at the northwest comer of Anaheim Boulevard and Parry Avenue. City-initiated request to consider the revocation or modification of Variance No. 1945-3 (to permit the operation of a restaurant). This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of July 22, 1996. VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: ~ linos discujo nsgbetween the protperry owner and staff rnegarding thei cu enttiusetof the subject property. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Peraza absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed 08/19/96 Page 44 ~~~~ ~e~rcrna~(`AL EXEMPTION - CLASSY Continued to ~. c~..+ .• 9-30-96 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS 104 A(R~1D ERTISED) REQUESTED 8Y: D~SION) 200 S~AnDaheim BoulCevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: ia52 West Uncoln Avenue (EI Oto de Aaual. Property is arectangularly-shaped Parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.3 acres, having a frontage of approximately 220 feet on the south side of LJncoln Avenue and located approximately 440 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street. Cfty Initiated request to consider the revocation or modification of Condftional Use Pennft No. 104 (to sell beer in conjunction with a pursuant o S Ion~18.On3~091 of the Anaheim Municipal Coder bar) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the September 30, 1996 Planning Commission mere~tif g so that the business owner can initiate staff recommendations to resolve Issues pe 9 to the operation of the subject business. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Peraza absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 08/19/96 Page 45 7a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 7b. 11IIAIVER OF DE REQUIREMENT Approved CONDITIONAL USE~ERMIT N0.3860 Granted lc. OWNER: SCENIC CORRIDOR INDUSTRIAL PARK, ACA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, 2900-A Bristd Street, #201, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 FROME ENTERPRISES, 5620 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: JM CONSULTING GROUP, Alin: Precious Lee-McDuffle, 3760 KUroy Airport Way, #440, Long Beach, CA 90806 LOCATION: 5620 East La Palma cel ~ land ~~lsting of irregularly-shaped pa approximately 8.78 acres, having a ftontage of approximately 520 feet onoth~ el ~ feet ~ ~ e Avenue and located app Y centerline of Imperial Highway. To permit a 55-foot high monopole communication antenna and accessory equipment with waiver of minimum required setback ftom interior property line. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC96-84 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None APPLICANTS COMMENT: Precious McDufty, agent, thanked staff and the Planning Commission for being extremely helpful and supportNe with their personal communication services projects. They were Informed by staff that this particular project was something that needed to be discussed with the Commission. They first approached staff in December 1995 regarding this project at this sfte and at that time staff informed them that they were in savor of co-location because there were three other monopdes on that site. JM Consulting warned to erect another monopoe and staff suggested a co-location. They met in January 1996 with staff and submitted a proposal for a co-location with Air Touch. The Air Touch pde was 65 feet and they were going to locate at 55 feet which was below and not increase the ~IgM at ail. After expending time and money on the plan, staff Informed them for aesthetic reasons, they were no long going to support them on the calocation. After that staff agreed to meet with them in the field to review this project to see ff they could come up wfth an alternative. Staff agreed that screening for this particular monopoe would stand out more than the monopoe alone, so they suggested additional sftes for their review. They reviewed those sites but for technical reasons, the sit9 did not work. In thlrt ahriea ttype of equipme~ tThe o9y feasible sfteawas theTRW building but theyihad Informed them that they were not interested. Working with staff, they decided to screen the monopoe and at a recent meeting wfth staff they decided 08/19/96 Page 46 again that a stand alone screened monopde would not be aesthetically pleasing and they dkf intend to attach lt to the building. They talked to the Project Engineer who was also at the meeting and because of the physical layout of the property, they were unable to attach lt to the building because ~ a fire lane. They have earnestly and diligently tried to work with staff. They are asking the Commission to conskfer that they have diligently tried to work with staff and fled another location and have tried to work with staff to improve this particular site. Also, they have approximately 17 sties in Anaheim and of those 17 sltec~ they have all roof tops and have avokfed monopdes, except for one other site on Miller Street. They dkf screen that site and attach lt to the building. However, wlth this slte, for reasons of physical hardship, they are not able to attach lt to the building. Marty 7ajic, Director of Public Affairs for Cox Calffomia PCS, stated Cox Calffomia PCS is one of the licensed providers to provkle personal communication services to the southwestern portion of the United States. Southern Calffomia is very mobile so this is important. They have worked dosely with JM Consulting Group and worked diligently with the Planning staff to try and locate and permit their wireless communication facglties in order to provkie this new evolutfor this area andln theiriefforts to be ~l~em Calffomia. This is the only monopole they have proposed aesthetically pleasing, they try to go for the roof tup or attach lt to the building. They are asking for approval of this monopde because they have explored every other alternative and have no other options. In order to maintain the integrity of the Personal Communication Services Network, they do need this height and in this area along the 91 freeway, as a gateway between the Inland Empire an Orange County, lt is very critical for communications along that route. Stan Frome, Managing Partner of Frome Enterprises, owner of the property, was present to answer any questions. Three other companies have located on this property and they went through the same process this applicant has gone through. ~' THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Messe asked why staff would not go along with the co-location concept? Jonathan Borrego stated in the earlier discussions staff dkf talk about the concept of co-location; however, upon viewing the computer generated renderings of what the pde was like, dki not feel that was the best option. At that time staff dkl request that they look at some other alternatives and ways of screening the antenna which we have had success with with other companies. This is a location where there are limlted buildings which would meet their requirements, but before being willing to support L~at co-location concept, wanted to make sure that all other alternatives were explored. Commissioner Henninger stated he personally does not have a problem wlth this site. It is pretty well screened by the river and then the freeway and he did not think one more pde in this location is going to hurt. Chairman Messe stated you ~~r~MObacklto consider~sharing th monopde.~ ff lt would ~ a problem ff the Commission sent the appl Ms. McDuffy responded that lt would be a problem due to the time frame. They have to get on line due to their federal communication license by October and they are not sure they would be able to meet their goals. In addltion, there are some technical, liability and legal Issues which have to be looked at which would create delays. Chairman Messe stated they must have done a technical feasibility study when they originally conskier co-location. 08/19/96 Page 47 Jeff Marr, JM Consulting, stated they dkl conskler the possibility of co-location on the Alr Touch pile ( and determined that h would be technically feasible with an antenna elevation 10 feet below their existing ~ artenna. The main problem would be construction. It is very difflcuft to put antennas on an existing pile while the other antennas are 'hot'. Air Touch was initially receptive until they figured out that there was a construction problem. At the time Air Touch and Cox felt that K was feasible ftom a technical standpoint and were proceeding with that and then they receNed staffs recommendation that they were not going to support a co-locaUon so they stopped at that time. Since then issues such as liability ,etc. came up. Those are solvable, but not quicMy. He responded to Commissioner Henninger that he was not aware of any co-location sites in this area. Jonathan Borrego stated the only co-location he was aware of, which is not realy a co.logtion, is on the roof top of a Holklay Inn. Mr. Marc stated there are some degradation of signal issues which they were not able to predict exactly. Chaim~an Messe asked why the dd Hughes building Is not aceptable (now TRW). Jonathan Borrego stated there are three monopoles on that site and the one which blends in the most and is seen the least is the one that is constructed of wood and added ff that ~ es intthe area thatd like for the Commission to take that Into consideration. With the overhead utility pd antenna Is hardly seen compared with the steel poles and he would ask that the Commission conskfer that as an alternative. Mr. Marr responded that is possible and there is no reason why they cannot do that. lent a Jace~ tHo then Santa eAna Rive~twhich isppe~manent open spa ee Commissioner Boydstun ~~ seconded the motion. that the aintenna be placed onr adwoode pole that b ends with the exfstingbutility piles nde area.kion ACTION: Approved NegatNe Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement on the basis that the interior lot line is adjacent to the Santa Ana RNer which is permanent open space. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3860 with the fdlowing added condition: That the proposed 55-foot high monopde communica@oi~ Srtn~ishall mounted on a wooden pole that blends in with the existing pow Pd VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Bostwick and Peraza absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 19 minutes Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights and explained the actions taken by the Planning Commission. 08/19/96 Page 48 ~, t „ ~^^°'^AL EXEMPTION -CLASS 11 I Approved r~NDITIONAL U$E PERMIT N0.3859 Grarned ~_.. 8b. OWNER: SHELL OIL COMPANY, 511 N. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92803 AGENT: SERVICE STATION SERA,^,CES, 3 Hutton Crntsr Dri\re, #711, Santa Ana, CA 92707 LOCATION: 8275 East Santa Ana Canvon Road (Shalt Servls~ tin Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.86 acres, having a ftontage of approximately 261 feet on the west skle of Weir Canyon Road and located approximately 236 feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road. To retain a fully screened, roof-mounted satellite dish in connection with an existing service station. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC96-85 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None The applicant was not present. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, explaining the request is for two dish antennas which exists at the Shell Service Station at the comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon. This is a result of Code Enforcement Notice of Violation and the owner was contacted and they are willing to bring the uses Into confom~ance. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Masse suggested a time limit and it was determined that 90 days would be appropriate. Jonathan Borrego stated they do have beer and wine sales and Commissioner Bristd asked that a condition be added prohibiting audio advertising of beer and wine outskle. Chairman Masse stated one of the satellite dishes brings (n audio signals which are broadcast lnskle the store and we do not want it to be broadcast outside the store. ACTION: ExempdoswClassffl astdefinedpEn the State~ElR and lsntherefore~icatego~cal yoexempt ftom the requiremerns to prepare an EIR. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3859 with the fdlowing added conditions: That complete screening and relocation of the satellite dishes shall occur within Winery (90) days ftom the date of this resolution. 08/19/96 Page 49 That no outside audio advertising of bear and wine products shall be permitted in conjunction with the operation of subject satellite dishes. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Peraza absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22~1ay appeal rights and explained the Commission's actions. 08/19/96 Page 50 9a. rEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) Approved nwroTlnr~le~ usE PERMIT N0. 3654 (READVERTISED) APP~~~ as 9c. G... readvertised OWNER: Ron Erickson, 3831 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: ,~31 East La Palma Av ~ land~o fisting of rectangularly-shaped pa approximately 0.68 acres, having a ftontage of approximately 140 feet on the north skle of La Palma Avenue and located approximately 470 feet east of the centerline of Tustin Avenue. To permit vehicle saxes in conjunction with an existing 12,958-square foot automotive repair facility with waiver of permitted encroachments into required yards (deleted). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC96-86 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Ron Erickson, agent, explained they basically repair Mercedes Benz and Lexus cars and have been in business for approximately 8 years. He explained one of their customers may want to purchase a car and may ask them to find a car for them. They will stock between 5 and 8 cars. M Commissioner Henninger asked ff they agree wfth the conditions of approval. Mr. Erickson responded he did. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick stated in the past they have had the cars out in front of the building displaying them for sale and that is prohibited. Mr. Erickson stated they dki that in the past but will no longer do that and will apply for a monument sign which will Indicate they have cars for sale. ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequti:.^ to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved Conditional Use Pemtft No. 3654, as readvertised, permitting vehide sales in conjundlon with an existing 12,958-square foot automotve repair facUiry. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Peraza absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights and explained the Planning Commission's actions. 08/19/96 Page 51 10a r~r~e NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) Approved ~_ 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 10c. ~,ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3262 (READVERTISED) ~pr~eed~as OWNER: BHARAT V. NARAN, 27020 Maiden Moor Lane, Yorba Unda, CA 92667 LOCATION: 8275 East Monte Vista Road. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.3 acres located at the northwest comer of Monte Vista Road and Weir Canyon Road. To construct a 32-square foot freestanding gasoline price sign in conjunction with apreviously-approved retail center and service station/car wash facility wfth waivers of permitted signs in the CL (HS) (SC) Zone, number of permitted commercial center signs, minimum distance between freestanding signs and permitted location of a freestanding sign. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC96-87 FOLLOWING IS A SU ~~;MARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None APPLICANT'S COMMENTS: •-~ Chuck Phillips, agent, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger asked about an additional price sign at the driveway. Jonathan Borrego responded that staff looked at the California Busine acts Praessio Eventhoughtthis identification sign needs to be located on the street which the property Y shopping center property is on an intersection, the service station property is not because of the way the property has been panelized. The only Identification required is on Weir Canyon Road. Commissioner Henninger stated perhaps it should be added that he did not think they would be approving another price sign in that location. Mr. Phillips stated the Code requires that you see the sign from both directions so that was the only alternative. ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative dedaratlon is adequate to serve as the required emrironmental documentation for subject request. Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 3262, as readvertised, with the fdlowing changes to conditions: Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows: 08/19/96 Page 52 1. That, prior to the removal of any trees necessary to construct subject sign, a plan detailing such removal shall be submitted to the Zoning DNision for review and ~,._.. approval. If any trees are removed, they shall be replaced elsewhere on the property on a 2 to 1 basis with minimum 24' box trees of a similar variety. Added the following condftion: That any pruning/trimming of all on-she trees shall be conducted by a licensed arborist. yOTE; 6.0 (Commissioner Peraza absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22~1ay appeal rights and explained the Commission's action. ADJOURNMENT: MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:25 P.M. TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MORNING WORK SESSION OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1996, AT 11:00 A.M. Res tfully submitt~ ~~-' ~~ E h L. Harris Planning Commission Secretary 06/19/96 Page 53