MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
ITEM NO. 2
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 2021-00069
Location: The DisneylandForward Project (Project) is
located within an approximate 1,078-acre area of the City known as The Anaheim Resort®, generally located west
of the I- 5 freeway, south of Vermont Avenue, east of
Walnut Street, and north of Chapman Avenue, and also
includes areas identified in the General Plan as planned extensions of Gene Autry Way between Har bor
Boulevard and Haster Street and Clementine Street
between Katella Avenue and Orangewood Avenue,
portions of which are outside of The Anaheim Resort.
Request: The applicant requests approval of the Project to allow the transfer of uses permitted under The
Disneyland Resort Project to other areas of The
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan (DRSP) No. 92- 1 and
the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (ARSP) No. 92-2
owned or leased by Disney or other subsidiaries of The
Walt Disney Company and to allow future streamlined
review of Disney projects in these areas.
General Plan Amendment : The applicant requests to
amend the City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use and
Circulation Elements and the City’s Bicycle Master Plan, to revise maps, figures, text, and tables throughout the General Plan to conform to the following proposed
changes:
(A) Amend the Land Use Element, Table LU-4, “General
Plan Density Provisions for Specific Areas of the
City” to amend the descriptions of The Disneyland
Resort Specific Plan and the Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan to reflect the District names, new
Overlays and associated density proposed as part of
the DisneylandForward Project;
(B) Amend the Circulation Element to (1) remove the
planned future extensions of Clementine Street
between Katella Avenue and Orangewood Avenue
and Gene Autry Way between Harbor Boulevard and
Haster Street; and (2) reclassify Disney Way
between Anaheim Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard
from a six-lane Major Arterial to a four -lane Primary
Arterial (with no change to the width of the ultimate
public right-of-way);
Recommended City
Council approval of the
project and approved
Resolution Nos. PC2024-
004, PC2024-005,
PC2024-006, PC2024-
007, and PC2024-008.
Substitute motion made
by Commissioner Perez,
seconded by
Commissioner Tran-
Martin to continue item
to date certain March 25,
2024. Motion failed.
VOTE: 2-3-1
Commissioners Perez and
Tran-Martin voted yes.
Chairperson Kring and
Commissioners Castro
and Lieberman voted no.
Commission Walker
abstained. Vice
Chairperson Henninger
was absent.
MOTION:
(Lieberman/Kring)
VOTE: 5-1
Chairperson Kring and
Commissioners Castro,
Lieberman, Tran-Martin,
and Walker voted yes.
Commissioner Perez
voted no. Vice
Chairperson Henninger
was absent.
Project Planner:
Elaine Thienprasiddhi
[email protected]
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
(C) Amend the Circulation Element to reflect the
following intersection lane configurations: (1) at
Harbor Boulevard and Convention Way, provide two
left-turn lanes, one shared through/right -turn lane,
and one exclusive right -turn lane on the eastbound
approach and one left -turn lane, one shared
through/right-turn lane, and one exclusive right -turn
lane on the westbound approach (consistent with
existing configuration); and (2) at Haster Street and
Gene Autry Way: provide a single shared left -
turn/through/right-turn lane for the eastbound
approach and three left-turn lanes and two right-turn
lanes for the westbound approach. The northbound
approach would be equipped with a right -turn signal
overlapping with the westbound left -turn signal
phase;
(D) Amend the Circulation Element and the City’s Bicycle Master Plan to (1) remove the Class I Bike Path in
the Southern California Edison right-of-way between
Harbor Boulevard and Anaheim Boulevard and add
a Class I Bike Path on the north side of Disney Way
between Clementine Street and Anaheim Boulevard;
(2) add a Class I Bike Path on the west side of
Clementine Street between Alro Way and Disney
Way (limits subject to change based on
determination of proposed dedication); and (3)
modify the classificati on of the planned bike facility on Walnut Street between Katella Avenue and Ball
Road from Class II Bike Lanes to a Class I Bike Path
on the east side of Walnut Street.
Amendment No. 9 to the Disneyland Resort Specific
Plan (DRSP) No. 92-1: The applicant requests to amend
the Specific Plan document and the Zoning and
Development Standards (Chapter 18.114 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code), to comprehensively update text,
graphics, and imagery throughout the documents to
reflect the proposed DisneylandForward Project.
Amendment No. 17 to the Anaheim Resort Specific
Plan (ARSP) No. 92-2: The applicant requests to amend
the Specific Plan and the Zoning and Development
Standards (Chapter 18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code), to comprehensively update text, graphics, and
imagery throughout the documents to reflect the
proposed DisneylandForward Project, including approval
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
of the Theme Park East Overlay, the Theme Park West
Overlay and the Parking Overlay.
Zoning Code Amendment - Structural Height
Limitations – Anaheim Commercial Recreation Area:
The applicant requests to amend Chapter 18.40 (General
Development Standards) of Title 18 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code to amend the Anaheim Commercial
Recreation Area Maximum Permitted Structural Height
Map (Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.40.080
(Structural Height Limitations – Anaheim Commercial
Recreation Area) to provide for the DRSP to regulate
building heights within a larger portion of the DRSP
Theme Park District and the Southeast District and the
ARSP to regulate building heights within the ARSP
Theme Park East and Theme Park West Overlays. The
DRSP and ARSP would allow for taller heights in some
areas than are currently allowed; it would also reduce the allowed heights in other areas. These changes would not affect allowed heights on non-Disney properties.
Amendment No. 6 to The Anaheim Resort Public
Realm Landscape Program: The applicant requests to
amend The Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape
Program to allow for the use of improved technologies
and more low water plants. The Public Realm Landscape
Program would include new landscape concept exhibits,
updating and removing them from the DRSP and ARSP.
Additionally, photos and graphics would be updated with current images of landscaping in The Anaheim Resort.
Amendment No. 4 to The Anaheim Resort Identity
Program: The applicant requests to amend The
Anaheim Resort Identity Program to describe the general locations of pedestrian bridges in The Anaheim Resort,
consistent with the proposed amendments to the DRSP
and ARSP. Additionally, photos and graphics would be
updated with current images of identity elements in The Anaheim Resort.
First Amended and Restated Development
Agreement: The applicant requests to amend
Development Agreement No. 96- 01 between the Walt
Disney World Co. (renamed Walt Disney Parks and
Resorts U.S., Inc. in 2009) and the City of Anaheim to
provide continued certainty to Disney to facilitate growth MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
and investment in The Disneyland Resort and specified
benefits to the City.
Environmental Determination: The Planning
Commission will consider whether to recommend that
the City Council certify Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) No. 352, adopt Findings and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 387, and determine that FSEIR
No. 352 and MMP No. 387, together with other
previously approved environmental documents for the
DRSP and ARSP, is the appropriate environmental
documentation for the Project under CEQA.
Commissioner Lieberman disclosed she met with Disney representatives and received five or six phone calls from Anaheim residents who had comments.
Commissioner Walker disclosed he met with Disney back in October 2023 and once on March 1, 2024. He attended one of the community meetings to listen to the neighbors.
Commissioner Tran-Martin disclosed she met with the applicant twice and drove by the site.
Commissioner Perez disclosed he had multiple meetings with the applicant and multiple phone calls from the public.
Commissioner Castro disclosed she met with Disney representatives twice and also received a phone call and emails from residents.
Chairperson Kring disclosed she met with Disney representatives on February 29, 2024 and received a few phone calls from the public.
Chairperson Kring stated Item 2 is a recommendation to the City Council and there is no appeal available. She explained Magic Way is an abandonment item and the Planning Commission has no authority when it comes to abandonments. That item will go strictly to City Council and is not under the purview of the Planning Commission.
Chairperson Kring put a motion to limit the time the public has to speak to two minutes.
Commissioner Perez made a substitute motion to not limit the time for the public to speak, seconded by Commissioner Tran -Martin. The motion carried by a vote of 4 -1-1.
Commissioners Castro, Perez, Tran -Martin, and Walker voted yes. Chair person Kring voted no. Commissioner Lieberman abstained. Vice Chairperson Henninger was absent.
Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Principal Planner, provided a summary of the staff report. Item Number 2 is a request for various land use entitlements for the DisneylandForward Project to provide for continued long-term growth of Disneyland Resort. It would allow flexibility of uses across Disney's properties and streamlined review of their development projects. This request requires Planning Commission review and City Council approval of certain components of the MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
project. She provided a brief overview of the DisneylandForward project, discussion of the requested entitlements, review of key components of the environmental analysis, and staff’s recommendation to the Commission. This presentation is the culmination of the three prior workshops for the project, which included the CEQA workshop held in October; the Development Agreement-focused workshop to City Council in January; and the workshop held two weeks ago, which included the project components, details of proposed code standards, and the Development Agreement. The DisneylandForward Project builds on the previously adopted Specific Plans for The Disneyland Resort and The Anaheim Resort. Referred to as the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, or DRSP, and The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, or ARSP. Both were originally adopted in the 90s and although separate plans, they complement one another for the overall enhancement of The Anaheim Resort. The DisneylandForward Project continues to support the original purpose of both plans and facilitate investment for the continued, long-term growth of The Anaheim Resort area. Staff believes that the Project would continue to implement the vision of The Anaheim Resort as a nationally recognized tourist, convention and recreation center. Staff recommends that the Commission recommends to the City Council certification of the final SEIR No. 352 and adoption of F indings of F act and a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 387, approval of the proposed amendments to the General Plan, the Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program, and the Anaheim Resort Identity Program, and introduction and adoption of ordinances to amend the DRSP, the ARSP , the Zoning Code pertaining to the DRSP, the ARSP, and Height Map, and to amend the Development Agreement.
Commissioner Perez asked for clarification regarding the Hotel Circle Specific Plan that falls within the ARSP.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi clarified the project does not propose any changes to the specific plan and that the specific plan is currently built out with existing hotels.
Commissioner Perez asked what the difference is between Disney -owned and Disney - controlled properties.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi explained that Disney -controlled properties are properties that Disney has a long-term lease and they have the ability to use it for an extended time but does not own the property.
Commissioner Perez asked for an aerial or vicinity map to show the distinction between Disney-owned and Disney-controlled properties.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi stated she did not have the map. However she suggested the applicant can respond to the question.
Commissioner Perez agreed to hold the question for the applicant.
Commissioner Perez asked if there is an ability to add more property that is not currently included in any of the two specific plans. He asked about the methodology or the process.
Steve Mattas, Outside Legal Counsel, the Development Agreement does provide a process for Disney to add property that is acquired or a long-term lease. The process is done through an amendment and then that property would be included in the Development Agreement.
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Commissioner Perez asked how the amendment process is done.
Mr. Mattas answered that it is an administrative process under the development agreement.
Commissioner Perez asked if additional properties, leased or owned, would change the specific plan or the need for an amendment to the specific plan.
Mr. Mattas answered that i t should not. He stated that if it is beyond what is authorized in DisneylandForward it would come back to Planning Commission.
Commissioner Perez asked when the initial studies for the DRSP and the ARSP were done.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi stated approximately around 1992.
Commissioner Perez confirmed the DRSP has a 40 year expiration, until 2036. He asked if the ARSP has a similar expiration date.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi clarified the development agreement has the expiration date, the specific plans would continue.
Commissioner Perez asked if the development agreement would cover Disney properties in both the DRSP and ARSP.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi confirmed the development agreement would cover Disney properties in both the DRSP and ARSP.
Commissioner Perez asked to describe the streamlined process and if it would be a discretionary process or administrative review.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi stated the process is outlined in the draft zoning code, which identifies procedures and implementation of the specific plan for an administrative review, that would include staff confirming that proposed plans are in compliance with the specific plan, zoning code, conditions of approval, mitigation measures and the development agreement.
Commissioner Perez asked if the project is approved would the new entitlements be for the parking units on the Ball Road property.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi confirmed that would be the addition.
Commissioner Perez asked if there would be new square footage to the DRSP.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi stated no.
Commissioner Perez asked about the review process for the Disney Vacation Club (DVC).
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi stated the process would be the same process as any projects for DisneylandForward. She stated that where the hotels are permitted the rooms could be hotel rooms or timeshare units known as DVC.
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Commissioner Perez asked what the change would be from the current process to what would be approved.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi stated the current code allows up to 150 units by right and anything over 150 units requires a conditional use permit. She stated the last DVC project that was completed on the Disneyland Hotel property required Planning Commission approval for a conditional use permit.
Commissioner Perez asked if the project was approved as is, are there any conditions in which construction has to occur. Is there construction phasing or limited scope?
Mr. Mattas stated there is an obligation in the development agreement that Disney is required to make an investment of $1.9 billion in theme park improvements and new lodging over the next ten years. It is a valuation-based methodology.
Commissioner Perez clarified there was nothing in terms of timing or construction phase.
Mr. Mattas stated no to terms of timing or construction phase. He stated it was to be done within 10 years and there is not anything more specific.
Commissioner Perez asked if there is construction phasing or time schedules in the DRSP or ARSP.
Mr. Mattas stated there is not.
Deputy City Manager Ted White stated there were requirements as part of the opening day project and the obligations have been met and there are no further obligations.
Commissioner Perez asked for clarification on bond payments and subsidies.
Assistant City Attorney Leoni Mulvihill stated there have been recent court ruling on what is and what is not a subsidy. She stated if there was a subsidy to any development project other rules would apply. She stated the City Attorney’s office and outside counsel reviewed the development agreements to determine whether or not any of the city’s obligations in this project and its commitments under the restated and amended development agreement if they amount to a subsidy. In their opinion it did not amount to a subsidy. She asked if there was a specific instance Commissioner Perez was referring to she can answer.
Commissioner Perez stated he was asking for clarification on the parking structure. He asked regarding the east overlay parking district, the entitlements from 1996, and 100% utilization.
He clarified his question is in regards to parking.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi stated that a future parking structure was identified as part of a future phase and it has not been constructed yet.
Commissioner Perez asked if there was no timetables requiring it to be completed by the expiration of the deal, or five years, or 10 years.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi stated there were no timetables.
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Commissioner Perez asked for clarification whether the Surplus Land Act does or does not apply for abandonments and enclosures of streets and public right-of-ways.
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that the roadways that are contemplated for abandonment, the city does not own in fee. These are easements that have been provided or dedicated to the city for the purposes of right-of-way.
Commissioner Perez asked to explain what fee ownership or in fee purchase means.
Assistant City Attorney stated a fee is all of the rights, all of the bundles of sticks. The Surplus Land Act was meant to open up land that is appropriate for housing, to be available for more housing. This land is a former right-of-way and may only be used by the city for right-of-way.
Commissioner Perez asked with the future abandonments and closures , can they loop that into the property in terms of the land use entitlements.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi clarified that if Magic Way is abandoned theme park uses could be built on portions of the street to some extent. She noted that there would still be easements required for pedestrian access to connect to Walnut Avenue. She also stated there would be easements needed for the underground utilities and emergency vehicle access.
Commissioner Perez stated theoretically Disney has the ability to fold in property to the DRSP and the ARSP and spread the entitlements.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi stated that the street is currently within the DRSP today.
Commissioner Perez asked for City Staff to concur with increase in entitlements, potentially new square footage, streamline process, no public subsidy. He also asked for a summary of the community benefits.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi stated yes for the new parking spaces.
Commissioner Perez asked about potentially new square footage.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi stated there is not an increase to square footage.
Commissioner Perez asked for City Staff to concur with the following four statements: activate land, new entitlements, streamline process, no public subsidies.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi agreed with Commissioner Perez’s statement.
Commissioner Perez asked for a summary of community benefits.
Mr. Mattas stated the community benefits include $1.9 billion investment in new theme park and lodging, $30 million in affordable housing, $8 million for parks outside of the Disneyland Resort area, $40 million for street and transportation improvements, $10 million for sewer improvements along Katella, and continuing workforce programs under the current development agreement. There would be two new public safety agreements; a fire operations agreements and a police operations agreement. There is also a provision regarding reimbursement of staff cost for increased staff and enhanced services associated with MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
expedited processing of Disney developments. The transit occupancy tax (TOT) neutral master agreements would include any new DVC units pay equivalent TOT.
Commissioner Perez asked for clarification regarding the $1.9 billion investment not being completed within ten years.
Mr. Mattas stated the minimum requirement is $1.9 billion. If Disney achieves $2.5 billion in the first 10 years there is an additional $5 million which they would not have to pay. Spending $2.5 billion in investment negates the $5 million additional payment. The investment is specific to theme park attractions and lodgings. Parking structures do not count towards theme park and lodgings.
Commissioner Perez asked for the specific types of uses that would count towards the $1.9 billion and $2.5 billion.
Mr. Mattas stated it is theme park attractions and lodging unit s. He stated the DVC unit are included.
Commissioner Perez asked questions regarding the $30 million for affordable housing within five years and if the City receives $15 million within a timeframe.
Mr. Mattas stated the first $15 million is due within one year of the effective date of the agreement and the second $15 million is due within five years of the effective date.
Commissioner Perez asked if there was a metric to confirm second $15 million is worth $15 million when received.
Mr. Mattas stated no, it is a set amount of $15 million front -loaded into the agreement in the first five years.
Commissioner Perez asked if the $8 million for parks is within the first year.
Mr. Mattas confirmed the $8 million is within the first year.
Commissioner Perez asked for clarification on what $40 million for street and transportation improvements mean.
Mr. Mattas stated the $40 million is covering two different type of street abandonments. Magic Way, Hotel Way, and Clementine are existing streets and vacations would be made. Mapped street segments include Gene Autry and the unimproved portions of Clementine.
Commissioner Perez asked about the size and value of the each of the street closures.
Mr. Mattas stated there is not a specific identified valued, each street is appraised separately.
Deputy City Manager White states Magic Way is 1150 linear feet and the other two streets are negligible.
Commissioner Perez asked for the appraisal value of each street.
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Mr. Mattas stated that is within the purview of the City Council and they have not been finalized.
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that is what $40 million is reflecting.
Commissioner Walker thanked staff for their work on this project. He asked what the air quality mitigation measures compared in the current EIR 352 to prior EIR 340 and what mitigation measures are being added or are new.
Tim Cremin, Outside Legal Counsel, stated the air quality mitigation measures are largely from prior EIRs 311 and 340 which was done specific to the ARSP. There is a new mitigation measure requiring Tier 4 for equipment for construction, which is a low-emissions vehicle. He confirmed it is a requirement that uses new technology.
Commissioner Walker asked about greenhouse gases.
Mr. Cremin clarified that EIR 311 , for the DRSP did not have a greenhouse analysis. He clarified the prior mitigation measures are from ARSP EIR 340. And also, that over time, there were other types of mitigation measures for other impacts such as air quality that have a secondary impact of reducing greenhouse emissions. EIR 352 included all the mitigation measures that would result in greenhouse gas reduction, including things like TDM program, which is a vehicle reduction program, which reduces mobile emissions. EIR 352 includes a list of mitigation measures, but they address different sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
Commissioner Walker asked about noise mitigation and comparing EIR 340 to EIR 352.
Mr. Cremin stated both EIR 311 and EIR 352 had mitigation measures for construction noise.
Commissioner Walker asked about cultural resources and historic properties in Disneyland and a house outside of Disneyland.
Mr. Cremin confirmed the original Disneyland is a historic district and three individual properties.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi clarified that Disneyland is a potential historic district.
Commissioner Walker asked if DisneylandForward could impact the potential district and not allow Disney to make changes.
Mr. Cremin stated 50 years is considered a timeframe parameter for identifying historic resources. The recent supplemental EIR includes the identification analysis and resources.
The properties might be impacted under the approvals. He confirmed that with a significant and unavoidable impact, the EIR imposes feasible mitigation measures.
Commissioner Walker asked if there is a significant difference in potential impact between EIR 340 and EIR 352.
Mr. Cremin stated the new, unavoidable impact in noise is due to short-term construction. He clarified greenhouse gas was not analyzed in EIR 311 and cultural resources is new.
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Commissioner Walker asked for clarification that in order to approve the EIRs, must find that the benefits outweigh the impacts.
Mr. Cremin confirmed for each unavoidable and significant impact a finding needs to be made.
It is a single finding that applies to all the significant unavoidable impacts.
Commissioner Walker asked for clarification if the project is not approved can the EIRs be approved.
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that if the environmental analysis is approved that does not mean you have to approve the project.
Commissioner Lieberman asked if the $1.9 billion investment over 10 years is not done whether that is when a $5 million penalty would be imposed.
Mr. Mattas stated the $5 million is an obligation and it goes away if they get to $2.5 billion in investment.
Commissioner Lieberman asked if Disney does not make it to $1.9 billion if that is when they pay the city $5 million.
Mr. Mattas confirmed that is correct.
Commissioner Lieberman asked what happens if they do not meet the $1.9 billion in the ten years.
Mr. Mattas stated that if the obligation of $1.9 billion in ten years is not met, Disney would be addressing that with the city as part of the annual review. He reminded the commissioner that the development agreement for the Opening Day Project had a tighter timeline and Disney was able to meet that obligation. He stated any year aft er the ten years the commission and City Council would need to consider if Disney is in compliance with the development agreement during the annual review.
Commissioner Lieberman asked for clarification regarding the adopted and proposed intersection changes on Gene Autry Way and Haster Street.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi clarified that the adopted does not reflect current conditions.
Adopted is what is planned for the future if Gene Autry Way is built out. Proposed assumes Gene Autry Way is not built out. She confirmed there is one lane because that is the driveway from the existing apartment complex. If there is no Gene Autry Way extension, there will be no street going through.
Commissioner Lieberman asked questions about section 3.1.7 regarding dispute resolution with fire and the next section for police. She noted it is a three-step process with City Staff and Disney representative. She was concerned there was no third- party involvement and asked the reason.
Mr. Mattas confirmed there has been past regular communication between Disney’s public safety team and the City’s public safety representative. The development agreement requires MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
that there is an operations agreement for each of the public safety groups. He stated that if the sides could not agree on something the existing agreement continues to be in force.
Commissioner Tran-Martin asked if Ball Road can currently handle traffic that might occur because of re-routing or a parking structure.
City Traffic Engineer Rafael Cobian stated Ball Road is congested today because of all resort traffic going to the west parking structures. He stated that there will be a parking structure in the East Parking Area that will absorb traffic coming from the northbound 5 freeway the same way the parking structure on the west handles traffic coming from the southbound 5 freeway.
He clarified that Ball Road is currently congested, however once the new parking structure is built, Ball Road will not have as many vehicles.
Commissioner Perez asked how the four properties were identified as historic.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi stated that prior to DisneylandForward the three sites were already identified as historic.
Mr. Cremin stated that the technical reports related to the EIRs where the historic assessment was done by an expert using approved methodology and factors. The properties under CEQA can be under the national register, the California register, or local CEQA-developed standards.
Commissioner Perez stated the Site 2, Pirate of the Caribbean was not part of the original Disneyland. He stated that the monorail should be included as historic.
Deputy Director Heather Allen stated the three properties, the Railroad Depot, Pirates, and Hungry Bear are state cultural resources, which came about through the implementation of the Federal Telecommunications Act. As part of the installation of new telecommunications facilities, t he three sites were designated as state resources without the involvement or knowledge of the City or applicant. The sites are on the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) and are treated as any other state resource.
Commissioner Perez asked why other properties or sites were not included.
Deputy Director Allen stated rather than identify additional individual sites, the identification of the potential historic district is emblematic of what the Disney property encompasses. The redline is the boundary of the potential historic district.
Commissioner Perez asked about the development standards for historic districts.
Deputy Director Allen stated that the mitigation measures require photo documentation for historic structures. There is nothing specific to the district because it is potential.
Commissioner Perez asked about the Pope House that is not in the potential historic district.
Deputy Director Allen stated she would get the information.
Mr. Cremin stated the cultural and historic resource evaluations are in Appendix D1 and D2.
Commissioner Perez asked for a summary of the information.
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill clarified if he wanted the legal standard or a more detailed description from the consultants.
Commissioner Perez stated he would like to hear from the consultants. He stated that parts of the monorail are located within the potential district but a majority is not within the potential district. He is asking in terms of historical preservation need or limitation.
Mr. Cremin stated the CEQA evaluations looks at changes to historic resources and that is what the mitigation measures address.
Jennifer Marks, Psomas, stated there are specific mitigation measures that require photo documentation. Anything that could be impacted within the potential historic district would go through the HABS photography and documentation process to verify everything is properly addressed before they are impacted.
Commissioner Perez asked where the documentation is reported.
Deputy Director Allen stated the documentation is submitted to Anaheim Planning and Building Department for storage with Heritage Services and housed in the Walt Disney Company Archives.
Commissioner Perez asked about the mitigation measures for the Pope House because it is not in the proposed historic district.
Ms. Marks confirmed it is the same mitigation measures as the other properties.
Commissioner Perez asked if the Pope House was changed or moved Disney would need to document it.
Ms. Marks confirmed it would need to be documented.
Commissioner Castro asked when the additional police and fire stations would be built.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi stated the satellite offices would be built when there is significant development. The threshold for significant is 10,000 square feet within the T heme Park District or the ARSP T heme Park Overlay. When Disney develops a certain amount of new uses on the parking lots they would be required to build the facilities. It is not based on time, it is based on development.
Commissioner Perez asked about the utilization of the original entitlements.
Deputy City Manager White stated the original entitlement of the DRSP was 5,600 hotel rooms and 3,258 rooms remain to be constructed, 2,342 rooms have been constructed. The original entitlement for theme park uses was 6.85 million square feet and there over 3.6 million square feet left to be constructed.
Commissioner Perez asked if the F uture Expansion District means the East Overlay Parking District.
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi referred to a slide from the presentation. The left side shows the existing districts and the blue represents the Future Expansion District; the right side shows what is being proposed, it is being renamed to Southeast District. Parking is currently allowed in this area. It could potentially be used for construction of hotel rooms but that would require additional environmental analysis. In the proposed plan, Disney would be allowed to transfer a portion of hotel from the hotel district and a portion of theme park square footage from the Theme Park District.
Commissioner Perez asked for an explanation of the changes with the overlay districts , what an overlay is, and what the purpose of it is.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi explained that an overlay allows for an underlying zone or district. She stated that in the ARSP there are two districts, one that pertains to the Anaheim Convention Center and everything else is with the Commercial Recreat ion (CR) district. The overlay gives the owner or developer the option to do something else in addition to what they are allowed under the district zoning.
Commissioner Perez asked for the additional usages available in the theme park west overlay, the parking overlay, and southeast future expansion.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi clarified that the Southeast is in the DRSP and it is a district, not an overlay. She noted that the T heme Park West Overlay is currently developed with the Pixar Place Hotel. A portion of the theme park square footage that is currently in the Theme Park District would transfer to that property. The Theme Park East Overlay is the south portion of the Toy Story Parking Lot and a portion of the theme park square footage from the Theme Park District could transfer to the Theme Park East Overlay. She pointed out that the parking in the Parking District is allowed the spread over the two properties. The Parking Overlay to the north is currently a surface lot for employee parking and could be developed for more employee parking.
Commissioner Perez requested a breakdown of percentages for the remaining entitlements.
Deputy City Manager White stated there is approximately 55% of the development entitlement remaining.
Commissioner Perez asked for a breakdown by usage. He allowed time for staff to get the information. He asked for staff from Economic Development to answer what is the cost of construction for the remaining entitlements.
Deputy City Manager White stated that Economic Development would not be able to provide for future construction costs.
Commissioner Perez requested to hear that from Economic Development staff.
Commissioner Tran -Martin asked if Harbor would be able to manage traffic flow with the potential parking structure.
Traffic Engineer Cobian stated that with the construction of the East Parking Structure, Harbor would be able to manage traffic through the resort area better.
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Commissioner Tran-Martin asked if the same standard applied in the development agreement for Disney-owned and Disney-controlled property outside of the specific plans.
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that the additional properties are still subject to the applicable rules to the DRSP or ARSP. There are certain rules that apply should there be amendments to those specific plan changes.
Ken Potrock, President of Disneyland Resort, presented the applicant presentation. He called this a legacy project that will set the stage for the future for both the resort and the City of Anaheim. He state d that Disney is committed to a minimum investment of $1.9 billion in revenue-producing assets. He discussed that previous Disney expansions were studied by Cal State Fullerton and that they resulted in an economic impact of nearly $30 million annually to the City of Anaheim. This will bring new revenue to the city's general fund to pay for vital services, like police and fire, parks and libraries and roads. With more Disney investments in the Disneyland Resort, we can attract new visitors who will stay in Anaheim hotels, dine in Anaheim restaurants, and support local small businesses, continuing our vision for the Disneyland Resort as a multi -day and multi-night destination. DisneylandForward will create new competitive paying jobs at the Disneyland Resort. Disney is committed to making meaningful differences in the lives of our cast members with benefits like fully paid college tuition, affordable healthcare, and childcare for those eligible, along with opportunities for mentorship and training. This will also bring new union jobs through a project labor agreement with building trades for the proposed eastern parking structure, the associated transportation center, and pedestrian bridge across Harbor Boulevard, ensuring the largest infrastructure projects will be built with 100 percent union labor with a focus on hiring Anaheim residents and veterans. He shared a video to illustrate the potential of DisneylandForward.
Rachel Alde, Senior Vice President of Global Development for Disney Enterprises stated that when DisneylandForward was announced three years ago with two key goals: To build upon and strengthen the successful blueprint we have used for decades to guide growth and provide exceptional benefits to the city and the community; and, second, be transparent and involve the community in shaping the project. These goals have been accomplished. A thorough environmental analysis was conducted. We included detailed design, development guidelines, restrictions, regulations, and mitigation measures to reduce impacts on the community.
Included were increased setbacks for development, stairstep height, landscaping pallets, buffer, and screening measure detailed for every edge of property adjacent to our neighbors.
Numerous meetings with neighbors and local business owners were held. No additional theme park square footage or hotel rooms are requested, and we are not requesting any public funding. She stated they are proud of the three years of transparent outreach to the community including numerous sessions with neighbors and local business owners, to hundreds of one- on-one meetings with Anaheim residents, to community town halls and webinars and three public workshops. The goal was to make sure everyone was factually informed on the project, to answer questions and concerns and most importantly, address these concerns.
Mr. Potrock thanked City Staff for their guidance and support. He asked the Planning Commission to support C ity Staff's recommendation to move DisneylandForward to the City Council for final approval.
Deputy City Manager White stated staff from Economic Development was available to answer questions.
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Commissioner Perez asked about the economic value of the remaining construction that has not been completed.
Stephen Stoewer, Property Development Manager, stated an analysis has not been conducted.
Commissioner Perez asked a series of questions regarding the economic figures for the remaining construction relating to the theme park, hotels, administrative buildings, and parking spaces.
Property Development Manager Stoewer stated there was a methodology for determining these figures but without specific information it would be impossible to speculate.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi responded to Commissioner Perez’s question about percentages still remaining on the current entitlements. There is 58% of allowed hotel rooms to be developed, 53% for theme park uses, and 46% for theme park guest parking.
Commissioner Perez requested percentages for the hotels, commercial, and anything else that would apply administratively.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi stated she would provide the information.
Commissioner Perez asked the applicant for a summary of the community outreach.
Joe Haupt, CEO of Spectrum Development, Agent for the Project, stated a monthly community meeting report was submitted to City staff beginning with the first meeting March 25, 2021 through February 2024. He stated meetings are continuing still through March 2024.
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that information is identified as Attachment 15 of the staff report.
Commissioner Perez asked when the community benefits were made public.
Mr. Haupt stated at the City Council workshop held on January 23, 2024.
Commissioner Perez asked what was discussed when community benefits came up at community meetings, government meetings, or individual meetings.
Mr. Haupt stated that was not the focus of those meetings. T he focus of those meetings had been about what would be seen and heard by the residents. He stated that community benefits are important, but he believed that people are most concerned with things that impact their daily lives.
Commissioner Perez questioned if the community understood the full scope of the project.
Mr. Haupt responded that he believed the community understood the full scope of the project.
Commissioner Perez asked the number of guests that attend the park or resort area annually.
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Mr. Haupt responded that Disney does not disclose attendance numbers, that that is proprietary information.
Commissioner Perez asked how many guests come to the resort area.
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that to the extent it's included in the EIR. We do not consider attendance to be public information. It is proprietary, and that is understandable. EIR 311 includes trips and capacity information, which is quite different than attendance. For the purposes of environmental impacts, we are looking at capacity, how many people might be on the road, how many people might be visiting.
Commissioner Perez asked if we have figures about the capacities of the project like how many people could be in Downtown Disney, how many people could be in Disneyland, or how many people could be in California Adventure.
Mr. Haupt deferred to staff on this question.
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that EIR 311 estimated a total of 24 million, but that is different than attendance.
Commissioner Perez asked the applicant to share examples of admission types to the Disneyland Resort.
Ms. Alde shared Disneyland Resort provides one-day access, multi-day access, park hopper, evening tickets, evening hard ticket events. Disney also has partnerships with youth groups and other organizations. The Magic Key has different tiers with access to certain dates.
Commissioner Perez asked if the project is conceptual in nature.
Ms. Alde responded no. Disney knows very clearly what they would like to build and where.
It's a combination of theme park and mixed- use development in several different areas that they have outlined.
Chairperson Kring asked Ms. Mulvihill if they getting off topic here. If so she is going to stop this conversation.
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill responded that she was going to give some deference to the Commissioner, as h e's asking questions about the project. She deferred to the rest of the Commission as to whether they would allow discussion to continue or perhaps the Commissioner would like to wait until after the public hearing to continue.
Chairperson Kring agreed.
Commissioner Perez agreed that we could proceed.
Chairperson Kring invited the public to make comments.
Brent Finlay provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward and compliments on Disney’s engagement with nonprofits for the Project.
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Beverly Griggs provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward and Disney’s public outreach efforts . Ms. Griggs also commented on the community benefits through the Development Agreement requirements for housing, parks, roads, and safety.
Frances Noteboom provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Ms. Noteboom noted that she is a neighbor to the Resort and supports the closure of Magic Way.
Sabrina Lockhart provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Ms. Lockhart is the Executive Director of California Attractions & Parks Association and stated that the proposed project would benefit Orange County and Southern California as a whole with the increase in tourism.
Mike Manter provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward, stating that he was a newer resident to the Resort and was excited to see the change from the project.
Nicholas Hockman provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Hockamn is the General Manager of Disney’s Grand Californian Hotel & Spa, the Chairman of Anaheim/Orange County Hotel & Lodgi ng Association, and Adjunct Professor of Hospitality and Tourism at Cal State Fullerton and provided additional comments on the potential increase in tax revenues and community benefits with the project investment.
Jennifer Brooks provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Ms. Brooks stated that she is a resident of Anaheim and a cast member of Disney , and described benefits that Disney has provided for her and her special needs son through their community investments to local parks.
Jason Daniel Smith provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Smith stated that the project would bring additional opportunities to families in Anaheim and noted that the public improvements along Wal nut and Magic Way would reduce cut -through traffic and improve pedestrian access.
Laura Griggs provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Ms. Griggs stated that the project would benefit tourism, revenue, public safety, and quality of life. She also summarized certain opposition to the project and noted that proposed improvements to Magic Way and Walnut would make it safer for residents.
Robert Moutrie provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Moutrie represented the California Chamber of Commerce and spoke about the community benefits and additional jobs that DisneylandForward could provide.
Corey Collins provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Collins stated that the project would bring additional community benefits for police, fire, parks, road improvements and overall city services and supported the closure of Magic Way.
Emma Burrows provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Ms. Burrows represented the Anaheim Orange County Hotel & Lodging Association and provided support for additional entertainment, hospitality, and economic prosperity.
John O’Neil provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. O’Neil, a City Council Member from the City of Garden Grove, provided comments relating to the project MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
technical studies and increase in transient occupancy tax for the City of Garden Grove due to Disneyland.
Andrew Gonzales provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Gonzales represented OC Building Trades and provided support for the increase in construction jobs associated with the project.
Tony De Trinidad provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Trinidad represented the painters and allied trades, District Council 36, and provided comments relating to the increase in career opportunities that would come with the project.
Christopher Solario provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward and the increase in construction jobs for local residents.
John Noteboom provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Noteboom provided comments relating to public outreach and support for the Walnut and Magic Way improvements for pedestrian safety, as well as the community benefits.
Scott Martindale provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Martindale provided comments relating to the public outreach and support for the level of detail described in the new EIR relating to additional design requirements for theme park uses.
Tim Williams provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Williams provided comments relating to the public outreach that Disney has conducted and collaboration with neighbors and stated that the proposed project would bring additional quality jobs to Anaheim.
Haitham Awaineh provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Awaineh, an ironworker for Local 433, provided support for the additional jobs that the project would bring.
Laura Iwasaki provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Ms. Iwasaki, a Disney cast member, provided general comments relating to the volunteer programs that Disney offers.
Michael Morrison provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Morrison provided comments relating to the community benefits associated with the project including park improvements and increase in public safety funding.
Kevin Rafferty provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Rafferty provided general comments about Disneyland over the years , the community engagement, and noted that the proposed project would provide community benefits for roads, public safety, and parks.
Ross Bunch provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Bunch, a building trades member, provided comments relating to the increase in good- paying jobs with the approval of the project.
Robert Tai provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Tai, a cast member and Anaheim resident, provided comments relating to the community benefits of the project, community engagement, and collaboration with city staff.
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Doug Mangione provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Mangione represented International Brotherhood Electrical Workers in Orange County and provided comments relating to the skilled jobs that Disney provides for ride maintenance electricians and Disney construction projects.
Jeremy Rynders provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Rynders, a Disney cast member, provided comments relating to his job history at Disney and how the proposed project would provide for additional job opportunities for the next generation.
Ashley Narcisco provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Ms. Narcisco, a Disney cast member, provided general comments on the impacts that Disney has on the local economy and how the proposed project would allow for additional jobs and revenue growth for the community.
Chris Sheppard provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Sheppard provided general comments on the opportunities that he was given as a Disney cast member and is excited the future growth.
Lucas Fiamengo provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Fiamengo, a hotel manager for a property in the Resort, provided comments in support of the additional economic activity and improvements to City services.
Adam Wood provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Wood represented the Building Industry Association and provided comments in support of the contribution to housing production in connection with the project.
Jessie Bon-Ron provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Ben-Ron, Vice President of Business Initiatives at Orange County Business Council and Anaheim resident, provided comments in support of the additional jobs that will be created with the project and additional tax revenue for City services.
CJ Lewis provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Lewis provided comments relating to the thoughtful planning of the project and support for the community benefits through affordable housing commitment and job creation.
Chris Lowe provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Lowe represented the Katella Gateway Project and provided comments relating to the e conomic benefits of the project for the City and Resort area.
Gary Maggetti provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Maggetti, General Manager of Disney California Adventure, provided a summary of the benefits from the previous expansion of California Adventure and new benefits of DisneylandForward with affordable housing and new jobs.
Mark Richard Daniels provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Daniels provided additional comments relating to the project potentially being challenged in court and general concerns with campaign contributions to elected and appointed officials.
Matt Sutton provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Sutton represented the Orange County chapter of the California Restaurant Association and provided general MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
comments about the impact of restaurants on sales revenue and increase of entertainment and job creation through the project.
Michael Johnson provided public comment in support of DisneylandForward. Mr. Johnson, Chief Volunteer Officer at the Anaheim family YMCA, provided comments complimenting the public outreach and engagement with the YMCA throughout the planning process of the project.
Mike Robbins provided public comment in opposition to DisneylandForward. Mr. Robbins provided comments relating to the low wage hotel and maintenance jobs in the Resort and the high cost of housing. He also provided a summary of a lawsuit filed by hotel workers against Disney related to wages and additional comments relating to the affordable housing commitment associated with the Development Agreement.
Jeanine Robbins provided public comment in opposition to DisneylandForward. Ms. Robbins provided a summary of a proposed development project on her private property that will require certain requests from the City as a comparison to the DisneylandForward project. Ms. Robbins also provided comments relating to the low wages of Disney employees and the need for them to utilize public assistance.
G. Price provided public comment in opposition to DisneylandForward. Ms. Price provided comments relating to CEQA and concerns with the baseline levels that were analyzed in the EIR.
Bob Donelson provided public comment in opposition to DisneylandForward. Mr. Donelson stated that he has concerns that the project has no benchmarks and that Disney did not build the previously -approved number of hotel rooms. Mr. Donelson also provided comments opposing the closure of Magic Way and the potential future asks from Disney to close other public rights-of-way.
Margaret Patino provided public comment in opposition to DisneylandForward. Ms. Patino provided comments in opposition to the closure of public rights-of-way, particularly Magic Way, and has concerns that the traffic studies have not been shared with the public for adequat e review.
Randy Lewis provided public comment in opposition to DisneylandForward. Mr. Lewis stated that he was on the HOA of the Pepperwood Complex off Walnut and expressed concerns regarding the enforcement of mitigation measures relating to noise and construction dust. Mr.
Lewis also provided comments on the changes to Disney over the last 30 years, concerns over rushing project review, and concerns relating to the Gibson Traffic Study.
Stephanie Mercadante provided public comment in opposition to DisneylandForward. Ms.
Mercadante stated concerns that public notices were only sent out in English and translation services were not provided in the lobby of City Hall during the meetings. Ms. Mercadante also stated concerns relating to the closure of Magic Way and impacts on surrounding streets and requested that additional studies be conducted before any decision is made on the closure of Magic Way.
Carolina Mendez provided public comment in opposition to DisneylandForward. Ms. Mendez provided concerns over the affordable housing commitment proposed under the project and MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
provided additional studies and summaries of stories from Disney employees that struggle based on their low wages.
Penelope Lopez provided public comment in opposition to DisneylandForward. Ms. Lopez provided comments relating to public distrust after the FBI and independent investigations and the need for additional public engagement and transparency before any decisions are made on the closure of Magic Way.
Maria Esquivias provided public comment in opposition to DisneylandForward. Ms. Esquivias stated that she lives in a mobile home park of Haster and Katella and has concerns that they were going to get kicked out and would have nowhere to move without additional affordable housing.
Wes Jones provided general public comment for DisneylandForward. Mr. Jones provided general comments relating to recent lawsuits with hospitality workers and Disney and concerns with campaign contributions to elected and appointed officials.
Vern Jones provided general public comment for DisneylandForward. Mr. Jones provided general comments relating to the order of public comments and groupings of proponents and opponents. Mr. Jones also read comments provided to the Commission in a PDF relating to the closure of Magic Way and previous Development Agreement requirements , requesting additional time to discuss the closure. Mr. Jones also provided comments relating to pyrotechnic displays and impacts to geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and debris from fireworks.
Duane Roberts provided general public comment for DisneylandForward. Mr. Roberts provided comments relating to an affordable housing project at Disney World in Florida and the hope that additional commitments to affordable housing can occur with DisneylandForward.
Marc Herbert provided general public comment for DisneylandForward. Mr. Herbert provided concerns over the fact that the number of Disney visitors is not available to the public and that the environment analysis for thresholds could not be accurate. Mr. Herbert also provided comments relating to the housing projections for the City , that the Housing Element has not been approved by the State, and that the EIR could not be compliant with the General Plan.
Cynthia Ward provided general public comment for DisneylandForward. Ms. Ward provided comments indicating that Disney did not build their previously -approved developments and concerns over the length of the documents released and potential litigation. Ms. Ward also provided comments relating to environmental concerns in connection with fireworks.
Mr. Haupt referred to comments regarding the closure of Magic Way and putting in a ticketed gate. He stated Disney’s obligation to maintain free pedestrian access between Walnut and Harbor. This obligation appears in the specific plan and development agreement.
Commissioner Perez asked staff to provide the figures of the utilization.
Deputy City Manager White provided the percentages Commissioner Perez requested. The original entitlement for hotel rooms was 5,600 and the remaining entitlement is 58%. Hotel retail restaurant was 300,000 square feet and the remaining entitlement is 47%. Hotel meeting MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
space was 200,000 square feet and the remaining entitlement is 19%. Parking spaces was 99,130 spaces and 41% remain. Theme park district was 6.85 million, 53% is left.
Administration building is 475,000 square feet, 36% remaining. Administrative building parking 2,300 spaces, 33% remaining. East parking district 17,600 spaces, 88% remain. West parking district 16,700 spaces, 2% remaining.
Commissioner Perez asked a series of questions regarding the Bicycle Master Plan.
Traffic Engineer Cobian stated the proposed project is to install a Class 1 bike path on Walnut Avenue. The original plan for Walnut Avenue was to install a Class 2 bike lane. A Class 3 facility includes sharrows and it exists on Walnut, north of Ball Road into Downtown Anaheim.
Commissioner Perez asked about the improvements for Walnut and why it is only on the east side of Walnut and not on both.
Traffic Engineer Cobian responded that the Bicycle Master Plan had a Class 2 bike lane on both of these the street. California Vehicle Code only allows bicycles to be on the correct side of the roadway, so bicycle travel would be in both directions, requiring installation of bike lanes southbound and northbound. With a Class 1 bike facility accommodates two-way travel, both northbound and southbound. They are proposed on the west side since there are fewer vehicle conflicts. For bicycles it's much better when there are fewer driveways that conflict with them, which is why they are proposed on the east side.
Commissioner Perez asked of the east side biking lanes, would you be able to go north and south or only north if traveling up Walnut.
Traffic Engineer Cobian responded both north and south.
Commissioner Perez asked what is our complete build-out of the Bicycle Master Plan.
Traffic Engineer Cobian asked him to clarify about the build out.
Commissioner Perez asked what has been proposed and what has been constructed, and clarified within the specific plan first and then citywide.
Traffic Engineer Cobian said he would have to look to specifics. It is intentional that there are not a lot of bicycle facilities in the Anaheim Resort , similar to a college campus. When the Bicycle Master Plan was developed a couple of years ago, the intent was to get bicyclists close to the resort, then they would get off of their bikes and walk. This is the reason that a bicycle facility was planned along Disney Way, terminating at Harbor.
Commissioner Perez asked if there are going to be bike lanes into the multi -modal transportation center.
Traffic Engineer Cobian responded that the Bicycle Master Plan modification as proposed as part of this project would start at Haster, Anaheim Way, head westbound on Disney Way to Clementine, at which point it would continue northbound on Clementine and enter their facility there on the west end where there would be bicycle locker and bicycle facilities, and that would terminate there.
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Commissioner Perez asked if the bicycle facility would be in their multi -modal transportation operation center.
Traffic Engineer Cobian confirmed it would end there.
Commissioner Perez asked what has been completed by our citywide Bicycle Master Plan.
Traffic Engineer Cobian responded that currently the bicycle facilities on Walnut and Disney Way between Anaheim Boulevard and Harbor do not exist.
Commissioner Perez asked for a percentage.
Traffic Engineer Cobian responded that a ballpark number would be about 30 percent.
Commissioner Perez asked questions about the traffic studies on Magic Way. He asked that with any type of traffic study regarding the circulation of vehicles on Magic Way would we assume that they are going to the resort area?
Traffic Engineer Cobian responded that, anecdotally, in knowing the area, one could say that a vast majority of the vehicles on Magic Way are resort related, but could not make assumptions as to how many. Therefore, origin/destination data was collected in order to quantify how many trips are resort-related.
Commissioner Perez stated that he’s heard from people who live in the Pepperwood V illage and along Walnut and just even during public comment, of accidents and high rates of speed.
He asked if we thought about including speed bumps to discourage through traffic on Walnut.
Traffic Engineer Cobian responded that one of his first tasks with the City was to go out to the Walnut neighborhood because we received a traffic-calming petition. The city has considered it, but cannot do it. There are certain roadways where it's safe to install speed bumps , but Walnut is not one of those roads. There are other ways to potentially calm traffic on that roadway such as speed feedback signs. The City is still actively looking at that, not as part of DisneylandForward Project, but as part of the regular service provided to residents.
Commissioner Perez communicated something he read in the original 1993 EIR. He read from Section 3, transportation circulation, page 132, of that subchapte r relating to speed capacity restrictions on Walnut Street. He asked the Assistant City Attorney if there are any obligations for us to continue to have that be a right-of-way in terms of the EIR.
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated the City has an easement for the right-of-way on Magic Way. EIR 311 did not have any mitigation measures requiring Magic Way, a Project Design Feature was included as part of the project in order to discourage through traffic.
Commissioner Perez read more from the 1993 EIR, Page 3-127 Section 3.3.2.8 Neighborhood Preservation. He then asked a question about the structural height map and whether the map is going through an administrative streamlined process.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi stated the request before the Commission is to make a recommendation to City Council to modify the structural height map.
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Commissioner Perez asked if the proposed structural height map is approved how future changes would be processed.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi responded that any proposed change to the height map is done through an ordinance and amendment to the Zoning Code. The amendment would require a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council.
Commissioner Perez asked if there are any changes to the floor area ratio.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi clarified the metric used in the ARSP is hotel room density and there are different density categories that are based on infrastructure analyses conducted at the time that the ARSP was approved and amended. In the DRSP, the allowed density is based on the table that identifies the allowed number of hotel rooms and theme park area.
Commissioner Perez clarified that we do not use FAR but a different density metric and if it would be by administrative review to change it.
Principal Planner Thienprasiddhi responded that a change to density would require an amendment to the specific plan and would come to Planning Commission and City Council for review.
Commissioner Perez stated he had additional questions for the applicant.
Chairperson Kring suggested that we put a time limit on the questioning due to the time of the evening.
Commissioner Perez asked if there was a mechanism for limiting time for discussion.
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated that the chair does have the ability to maintain order and a sense of progression. She encouraged questions that would provide the commission with information needed to proceed with the recommendations before them.
Commissioner Perez asked the applicant for an estimate of construction costs for the remaining entitlements.
Mr. Haupt stated that commitment in the first 10 years is $1.9 billion in new lodging and theme park development. He stated he would not be able to determine the cost in 20 or 30 years.
Commissioner Perez asked if the majority of people who come to the parks or the resort live within 60 to 80 miles of the park.
Mr. Haupt responded that he’s not able to concur because he does not have that information.
Chairperson Kring stated that's way out of our agenda item.
Commissioner Perez commented that he enjoys attending the park and that Disney has done a great job. He speculated that 60 to 70 percent of the guests who attend the park currently live within 60 to 80 miles and that means they are not staying in our hotels. He asked Disney if they are amenable to a one percent self-assessment on ticket and pass sales . He began discussing the history of Disneyland building in Anaheim.
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Chairperson Kring addressed Commissioner Perez stating that going back in history for 70 years is not appropriate to this.
Commissioner Perez asked again if Disney was amenable to a one percent self-assessment on ticketing and pass sales meant to address the lack of future projections or data not included in the Project and the impact on soft and hard infrastructure as the Project gets to 100 percent utilization.
Mr. Haupt stated the environmental impact report identifies a number of mitigation measures covering every possible category. Those mitigation measures span from today to full build-out.
He also stated that when Disney invests in building in Anaheim, city revenues also go up.
Commissioner Perez asked if that was a yes or no.
Mr. Haupt stated that tonight we are talking about DisneylandForward and the significant additional investment in the city to continue to contribute to the economy.
Commissioner Perez asked for a direct yes or no.
Chairperson Kring stated no. It's not on the agenda.
Commissioner Perez asked again for the applicant to respond.
Chairperson Kring stated they have said no for a long time.
Commissioner Perez stated he hadn’t heard no or yes.
Mr. Haupt addressed Commissioner Perez stating that he will stay here as long as needed to talk about DisneylandForward answer questions that are within the scope of the project, but not the economic and policy debates.
Commissioner Perez and Chairperson Kring thanked Mr. Haupt.
Commissioner Perez stated again that he would very much appreciate a very direct answer, from somebody on the applicant's team.
Chairperson Kring stated that in response to the question from some as to what the rush is, Disney has been working on this project for three years.
Commissioner Lieberman stated that the 17,000 page EIR is 31 years old and that they are recommending approval of a subsequent EIR. Commissioner Lieberman stated she is offended at Commissioner Perez’ behavior tonight and that it is not under the Commission’s purview to discuss dollars or to discuss gate taxes.
Commissioner Perez stated he never said gate tax.
Commissioner Lieberman stated she is not a member of SOAR. She also stated that SOAR is not Disney and Disney is not SOAR.
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill stated she would like to make a few comments in response to some of the comments heard earlier on this sufficiency of the environmental analysis . Staff received written comments, including one from Ms. Ward on behalf of others, which City Staff reviewed. There were also verbal comments made and, in order to keep this process moving forward, she proposed grouping them into categories. They are: challenging the sufficiency of the SEIR; that there was addition of new information that was provided or nondisclosure of information which somehow precludes this Commission from making its recommendation tonight without violating the California Environmental Quality Act ; that the project description was inadequate; and, that there was an insufficient baseline used for the project. She asked that the C ity’s outside counsel address those issues to assure the Commission that the unavailability of an attendance number is not relevant to the sufficiency of the CEQA analysis.
She clarified for the Commission that traffic studies were completed and all relevant information needed was available for the preparation of the SEIR; the subsequent traffic counts were conducted to amplify those studies. She asked Mr. Cremin if he has anything else to add.
Mr. Cremin clarified that in regard to baseline, this is a supplemental EIR, under supplemental review standards, so the commenter’s reference to a law pertaining to baseline applies to the first time a project is studied. There is a presumption against re-review of approvals that have already been given. Regarding the adequacy of the project description, he mentioned a previous court case call the “Stop Millenium Project” a case in which they said the project description was not definite and stable; the issues in that case were that it was a mixed use project with residential and commercial that allowed any mix of uses anywhere on the property. In that case, the court ruled that there was insufficient information.
In contrast, the Project has concrete standards as to specific uses and densities in specific areas, so in his opinion is a different situation from the example court case and the subject project complies with the law. In regard to significant and new information, that is a term in CEQA that pertains to new information that changes conclusions in the environmental analysis. As identified in the Final SEIR, Section 3, all changes and corrections to the Draft SEIR were minor and limited in nature. Additional information later in the process, such as the supplemental traffic study, that confirms or amplifies the original analysis, is allowable under CEQA. Therefore it does not violate CEQA in terms of providing the information in a timely manner. The last topic was attendance, and speaking on behalf of the consultant that prepared the SEIR, and he reviewed each of the metrics that were used to analyze impacts, including air quality and transportation impacts, none were based on attendance, and the metrics used were appropriate to the topic.
Commissioner Lieberman commented how the entertainment industry has changed in the past thirty years. She moved to approve the project.
Chairperson Kring seconded the motion.
Commissioner Perez made a substitute motion to continue the item for two weeks, date certain of April 8, 2024.
Chairperson Kring questioned if everybody is going to understand the project if they have been talking about the project for three years.
Commissioner Tran-Martin seconded the subsidiary motion.
MARCH 11, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES
The motion failed by a vote of 2- 3-1. Commissioners Perez and Tran -Martin voted yes.
Chairperson Kring and Commissioners Castro and Lieberman voted no. Commissioner Walker abstained. Vice Chairperson Henninger was absent.
The original motion to recommend to the City Council to approve the project carried by a vote of 5-1. Chairperson Kring and Commissioners Castro, Lieberman, Tran -Martin, and Walker voted yes. Commissioner Perez voted no. Vice Chairperson Henninger was absent.