Loading...
Minutes-PC 2010/10/11City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday,October 11, 2010 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present :Chairman: StephenFaessel Peter Agarwal, Todd Ament, Victoria Ramirez,John Seymour Commissioners Absent :Joseph KarakiandHarry Persaud Staff Present : Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning DirectorMichele Irwin, Senior Police Services Representative CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerAbelAvalos, Redevelopment Manager Jonathan Borrego,Principal PlannerLuis Torrico, Project Manager Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyMarkVukojevic, City Engineer David See, Senior PlannerRaul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer Susan Kim, Senior PlannerDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Della Herrick, Associate PlannerGrace Medina, Senior Secretary Bill Halligan, The Planning Center Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at4:30 p.m. onWednesday,October 6, 2010, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published:Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper onThursday, September 30,2010 Call to Order–5:00 p.m. Audience Attendance: 41 Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissioner Seymour Public Comments Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items Adjournment OCTOBER 11, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda –5:00 P.M. Public Comments: None Minutes ITEM NO. 1AMotionto approve minutes (Seymour/Ament) Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of August 30,2010. VOTE: 3-0 CommissionersAment, Ramirez and Seymourvoted yes. Chairman Faessel and Commissioner Agarwal abstained. Commissioners Karaki and Persaud were absent. 10/11/10 Page 2of 17 OCTOBER 11, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Hearing Items: ITEMNO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05447A Resolution No. 2010-103 (DEV2009-00009) (Agarwal) Owner/ Applicant:Approved Majid Nazari Sunkist Unocal 1200 NorthEast Street VOTE: 5-0 Anaheim, CA 92805 Chairman Faessel and Location:1200 North East Street Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. The applicant proposes to delete a condition of approval Commissioners Karaki and pertaining to the sale of single-serving containers of beer Persaud were absent. and wine within an existing service station convenience market. Environmental Determination: The proposed action Project Planner: David See is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to dsee@anaheim.net prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines -Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Dave See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated October 11, 2010,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Ramirez asked staff what is the purpose of deleting the condition of approval and why it is no longer needed. Michele Irwin,Senior Police Services Representative, responded the condition wasplaced on all conditional use permits since 1995; and recently they have reviewing this type of request on a case- by-case basis. She stated the subject location has had four calls for service in the past year,and the crime rate is 3% below average. Commissioner Ramirez asked if problems start occurring how it would be resolved. Ms. Irwin responded they would try to work with the owner first, but if necessary action could be taken against their Alcoholic Beverage Control license and/or theirconditional use permit. Commissioner Agarwal referred to Police Department records for crime statistics and asked how long records are kept. 10/11/10 Page 3of 17 OCTOBER 11, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ms. Irwin responded they regularly check one year back, but they have all past statistics available if needed. Commissioner Agarwal asked what would prompt staff to review past records further than one year. Ms. Irwin responded it would be done for problem locations. Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing. Majid Nazari,applicant, stated he had reviewed the conditions of approval andwas in agreementwith the staff report. Commissioner Agarwal asked what change in business sales is anticipated for selling singles. Mr. Nazari responded it is hard to say, but he is losing business daily to other businesses in the area. Chairman Faessel asked if anyone was present to speakon the item, seeing no other persons indicating to speak, he closed the public hearing. CommissionerAgarwaloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the October 11, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving anamendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05447 (DEV2009-00009). Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith fiveyes votes.Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Commissioners Karaki and Persaud were absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 21, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :11minutes (5:01to 5:12) 10/11/10 Page 4of 17 OCTOBER 11, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 3 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04826*Resolution No. 2010-104 (DEV2010-00116) (Seymour) Owner: Joseph Peduzzi, FrontPorch Approved Walnut Village 891 South Walnut Street Anaheim, CA 92802 VOTE: 5-0 Applicant: Brian RomanoChairman Faessel and Motivational Systems IncCommissioners Agarwal, Ament, 2200 Cleveland AvenueRamirez and Seymour voted yes. National City, CA 91950Commissioners Karaki and Persaud were absent. Location:891 South Walnut Street The applicant proposes a monument sign with a larger size Project Planner: Della Herrick and height than permitted by code for an existing senior dherrick@anaheim.net housing and care facility (Walnut Village). Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines -Class 11 (Accessory Structures). *Case number was advertised as Variance No. 2010-04828. Della Herrick, AssociatePlanner, provided a summary of the staff report dated October 11, 2010, along with a visual presentation. Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing. Andrew Cabrera,2200 Cleveland Avenue, National City, CA,applicant, statedhehad reviewed the conditions of approval andwas in agreementwith the staff report. Chairman Faessel asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other persons indicating to speak, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Seymour offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the October 11, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 11Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Variance No. 2010-04826(DEV2010-00116). 10/11/10 Page 5of 17 OCTOBER 11, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith five yes votes.Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Commissioners Karaki and Persaud were absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 21, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :4minutes (5:12to 5:16) 10/11/10 Page 6of 17 OCTOBER 11, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 4* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2008-00339Resolution No. 2010-105 MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2008-00284 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-00471Resolution No. 2010-106 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2008-00074Motion RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2008-00222Resolution No. 2010-107 MISCELLANEOUS CASENO. 2008-00283 Resolution No. 2010-108 (DEV2010-00045) (Agarwal) Applicant: City of Anaheim Location:The approximate 820-acre Platinum Triangle Approved, recommended City is located generally east of the Interstate 5 Council review Freeway, west of the Santa Ana River channel and State Route 57, south of the Southern California Edison easement and VOTE: 4-1 north of the Anaheim City limit. Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament The City of Anaheim (the “applicant”) requests to expand and Seymour voted yes. the boundaries of the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Commissioner Ramirez voted no. Overlay Zone and increase the permitted amount of Commissioners Karaki and development within said overlay zone to up to 18,909 Persaud were absent. residential units; 4,909,682 square feet of commercial development; 14,340,522 square feet of office development; and, 1,500,000 square feet of institutional development. The proposal includes associated amendments to the General Plan, and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, includingthe Platinum Triangle Standardized DevelopmentAgreement,to reflect the proposed changes to the PTMU Overlay Zone and upgrades to existing infrastructure to serve the increased intensity of land uses. Environmental Determination: Environmental Impact Project Planner: Susan Kim Report No. 2008-00339 has been prepared to evaluate and skim@anaheim.net disclose potential environmental impacts of the proposed project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). *Case numbers were advertised as:EIR2008-00339, GPA2007-00454, MIS2007-00188, ZCA2007-00056, RCL2007-00196, MIS2007-00203, and MIS2007-00218 10/11/10 Page 7of 17 OCTOBER 11, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Before the presentation for this item was given, Chairman Faessel asked Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney to clearly define what the Planning Commission’s role is on this project andthe effect on the project. Mr. Gordon responded that the Commission has before it tonight the recommendation concerning the certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Platinum Triangle Expansion project as well as related discretionary actions consisting of General Plan Amendment (GPA), Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA), and Reclassification. This is part of the public hearing process to allow public participation. At the conclusion of this hearing, if the Commission is inclined to make a favorable recommendation to the City Council, recommending certification of the EIR, then the City Council will conduct a public hearing concerning the EIR, scheduled for October 26, 2010. Susan Kim, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated October 11, 2010along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Ramirez asked when the public review period ended and when the response will be made. The public review period ended on September 28, 2010. Staff is preparing a Response to Comments document per CEQA requirements. Commissioner Seymour asked what effort has been done to mitigate the issue of potential flood, flood control, etc. since this is adjacent to the Santa Ana River. Bill Halligan, The Planning Center, responded that the previous EIR No. 334 addressed hydrology and water quality. There are a number of mitigation measures that deal with water quality and potential impacts to the Santa Ana River. As part of this update to the previous EIR No. 334, the mitigation measures have been revised to reflect some of the changes to the recent revision of the storm water regulations. Each development will have to prepare a water quality management plan to ensure that water quality is protected. Commissioner Agarwal asked if staff had received any other letters in opposition besides what was included in his packet. Ms. Kim responded no. Chairman Faessel asked how many comments staff has received regarding this project. Ms. Kim responded that sixteen different agencies and interested organizations submitted comments. The letters from the agencieswere either content neutral or requested clarification or correction of information related to their agency. For instance, the City of Orange requested corrections to the traffic section and related traffic study specifically related to impacts in funding for improvements within its jurisdiction. The majority of the comments from interested parties were focused on jobs/housing balance based on income level, requests to require affordable housing, population generation rate, and traffic impacts. In addition, two of the residents raised the issues of ground water recharge, wheelchair accessibility, bike lanes/parking, freeway capacity, air quality, noise, 10/11/10 Page 8of 17 OCTOBER 11, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES fireworks, liquefaction, solar blockage, water resources, heat island effect, and economic impacts. The responses to these comments will be released ten days before the October 26, 2010 City Council meeting. Chairman Faessel stated, for the benefit of the audience, that the Commission doesnot have the City’s response to these comments. Ms. Kim said that the Commission has received the letters and that staff can answer questions they might have regarding the comment letters and that she had draft responses to those letters. Chairman Faessel said the public in attendance would have their opportunity to speak and staff would have the opportunity to respond. Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing. The following persons spoke and raised the issues listed: Mitchell Caldwell, 902 West Broadway, Anaheim, representing Anaheim Neighborhood Association Phyllis Mueller, 410 South Ohio, Anaheim Amin David, 1585 West Broadway, Anaheim, representing Los Amigos of Orange County Anne Broussard, representing Child Care Connections, 2686 Santa Ana Avenue #R, Costa Mesa Robert Nothoff, Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (OCCRD), 13252 Garden Grove Boulevard, #204, Garden Grove Ezequiel Gutierrez, Public Law Center, 601 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana Jewel Hodges, 424 North Janss Street, Anaheim Ken Chen, 900 East Cypress Street, Anaheim Gail Anderson, 923 West Broadway, Anaheim David Diaz, VP for Central Anaheim Neighborhood District Brian Chuchua, 290 South Mohler Drive, Anaheim Barbara Gonzales the lack of affordablehousing in the Platinum Triangle, has placed an unfair burden on the citizens and schools in the areas west of the 57 Freeway, and creates segregation if a low income housing mandate must be met, let the entire City meet that obligation the projected population of 28,364 was challenged as being too low all units are scheduled to be market-rate suggested the Commission recommend that 10-20% of the new housing units be required to be affordable and that the DSEIR reflect that policy if the City has to meet affordable housing numbers, a planned development such as the Platinum Triangle, is the perfect opportunity to a mix of housing in the preferred method when building affordable housing the DSEIR does not provide a range of employment opportunities for all income levels, the subject was basically ignored in the first EIR the Affordable Strategic Housing Plan concludes that the City is well on its way to meeting its goal by 2014 the expansion proposes 18,909 housing units, yet there is no school planned for the area there is no analysis of commuter traffic in the EIR 10/11/10 Page 9of 17 OCTOBER 11, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES there was no additional outreach to community members who were interested in participating in the process in 2009, the Community Benefits Coalition submitted an alternative plan for the Platinum Triangle, almost 700 people participated; they were never contacted, nor was their letter acknowledged the information submitted for the need for childcare was not included in the EIR there will be 14,000,000 new square feet of office space and no accommodations for childcare transportation can pay for the build out of childcare space amend the EIR to consider early education and the needs of the families who will be working and/or living in the Platinum Triangle 1.5 persons per dwelling ratio with 19,000 newhousing units is unrealistic increased ratio results in an increase in population which is a large factor in environmental mitigations and will increase air pollution, noise, and traffic there will be a large amount of low wage jobs created by this development, the employees should be able to live where they work disagreed that a large number of the impacts cannot be mitigated integrating affordable housing into the Platinum Triangle would mitigate some of the impacts without using City funds if the City were to adopt a 10-20% affordable housing requirement for this development, that would serve as sound planning and mitigation of the traffic impact generated by employees commuting into and around this area this is not a “walkable” zone the Transit Village Planning Act, which was enacted by the legislature a few years ago, states that tax increment funds can be reallocated for low to moderate income housing the shopping needs in the lower income neighborhoods is being ignored this project is not intended forall of Orange County, if that were true, there would be some provision for affordable housing and transportation amenities for lower income persons there is no diversity in this project, it is geared toward wealthy people and wealthy businesses this should be a mixed development with affordable housing there is nothing from FEMA in the reports there should be three schools in this area, not just one Chairman Faessel asked staff to respond to the issues raised by the public. In response to school-related comments, Ms. Kim stated that schools are outside of the City’s jurisdiction and the City cannot decide where schools will be placed. Staff has been working with the Anaheim City School District to determine a location for their school. It is in their purview to collect development fees from the developers that come into this area and use those fees to develop schools. A few sites have been identified; however, until the property is purchased and designated as a school, it cannot be shown on the land usemaps. Chairman Faessel asked if the City can demand that schools be built in this area. Ms. Kim responded that per state law, that the mitigation for schools in a CEQA document is covered through the payment of school impact fees per SB50. In our CEQA document, staff has added additional mitigation as good faith effort that the City will continue to work cooperatively with the school district to identify opportunities for school sites. 10/11/10 Page 10of 17 OCTOBER 11, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Ramirez stated that the proposed project is going to have a negative impact on the school district since it will create at least 12,000 new students which cannot be accommodated. Ms. Kim responded that all the City can do is to require the payment of development fees to the school district as mitigation. A letter from the school district was received which stated that from the 1,800 units that have been developed within the Platinum Triangle, there are only 23 students that are enrolled in the district’s schools. So far they do not have the population generation rate to warrant a new school in the area. Commissioner Agarwal referred to the school district letter and asked if the 23 students mentioned in the letter are calculated from what has been generated from 1,800 units and if the projected 18,000 unitswould generate 208 students. Bill Halligan, The Planning Center stated that the school district’s response indicated that the total students generated from the Platinum Triangle would be 208. Although the school district does not have a school proposed in this area, they are constructing the Ponderosa School site which is just outside the area, on Orangewood Avenue. Commissioner Agarwal said he could not understand how 18,000 units will generate 208 students. Commissioner Ramirez interjected that the figure is a minimum and that the study itself indicated there would be at least 12,000 students. Mr. Halligan said that figure was based on the school district’s typical generation rates which are based on a total mix of units; single and multiple family. The types of units that are proposed for this area typically result in a much lower generation rate than the typical rate described in the EIR. Chairman Faessel asked what the fee was per residential unit. Ms. Kim responded $2.97 per residential square foot and 47 cents per industrial/commercial square foot. The payment of those fees is what mitigates school impacts in the EIR. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the Ponderosa Elementary School is being built to meet the current need within the district and asked when the last time a school was built. Ms. Kim said that was a question that would be better answered by the school district; however, there was not a representative present. The enrollment boundaries set for Ponderosa are meeting the needs in the Haster/Orangewood neighborhood. Commissioner Ramirez said that would not necessarily meet the needs of the proposed project. Ms. Kim stated that the school district does not set their boundaries until they know where the students are residing. Commissioner Ament said it is important to remember that we are discussing five to twenty years of development. The school districts experiences a large amount of shifts in population based on 10/11/10 Page 11of 17 OCTOBER 11, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES different trends, events, etc. He also advised the audience that the Commissioners have had briefings with staff to discuss the issues which have been raised tonight. Chairman Faessel said the letter from the school district indicates that the developmental fees will take care of their future construction. With respect to population generation rates, Mr. Halligan stated the EIR uses a generation factor of 1.5 persons per unit which was derived from similar developments in Irvine and San Diego when Anaheim was updating its General Plan. Irvine has units which are very similar to those proposed in the Platinum Triangle, based on the 2000 Census, the population per unit was 1.3. In San Diego, it was 1.4 -1.5. The City could not determine a population generation rate specific to Anaheim because at that time, there was no similar product type within Anaheim; therefore the 1.5 rate was used based on similar product types in other cities. However, none of the environmental analyses uses the 1.5 generation rate to determine environmental impacts; which are based on per unit generation or consumption factors. Commissioner Ramirez asked how the numbers for traffic counts are calculated. David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Plannersaid the traffic model uses a multi-family dwelling unit approach; which takes the Orange County population projection average for the entire county and applies it per multi-family dwelling unit. The figure is applied across the board; it does not factor in population, income, or any other adjustment factors. Commissioner Ramirez asked what the factor was for the population increase projections. She asked if it was correct that 40,000 additional residents would be generated as a result of this project. Mr. Halligan said the 1.5 was used to project the population to compare it to Southern California Association of Governments(SCAG) population/employment projections. It relates to the consistency of SCAG’sregional projections, not to physical impacts on the environment. The Anaheim transportation model was used to derive the traffic generated bythe project. When the model assumes 2.2 units per household, it is in reference to all units in Orange County. That number decreases as the density increases. With respect to child day care, Ms. Kim stated the EIR acknowledges that the proposed projectwill increase the demand for daycare centers and childcare facilities in the project area; however, these facilities are considered non-residential classes of uses and are a permitted primary use in the Platinum Triangle Overlay Zone with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, family daycare centers are a permitted use. Chairman Faessel asked if there was a mandate to require childcare facilities. Ms. Kim responded no. Commissioner Ramirez said the EIR indicates that the expansion of the Platinum Triangle would necessitate additional public facilities. She asked when they will materialize. Ms. Kim responded that the construction of the fire stations is dependent upon the level of development completed within the project area. Currently, they have facilities that meet the demand 10/11/10 Page 12of 17 OCTOBER 11, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of the residents in this area. It is anticipated that the overall increase in property tax revenue from the proposed project would cover the additional staffing needs for both the Police and Fire Departments. The public safety impact fee which is collected at the time of the issuance of building permits would be used to provide for the construction of new facilities and all the necessary equipment. The capital improvements are paid through the public safety feeand the funding of staff is done through the property tax revenue. Parks within the Platinum Triangle are developed in two ways. On the larger development sides, the property owner is required to provide a park on site. On smaller sites, the property owner pays park in lieu fees that are used by the City to develop parks. In addition, the City has designated a park site immediately outside the Platinum Triangle to accommodate the larger sports field type uses. Per the fees in the Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form, the Library collects a facilities fee to provide for the capital costs associated with future library services in the area. Chairman Faessel asked for an explanation of what the Communities Facilities District (CFD) isand how it meets the construction needs of some of the infrastructure that is determined to be required by the project. Mark Vukojevic, City Engineerresponded that there is a CFD assessment which is levied on all developed properties. It was implemented in 2008. Recently, this summer, the City sold its first series of bonds. The full build out of the Platinum Triangle is anticipated to generate $220,000,000 worth of public improvements, including widening roadways, fire station improvements, improvements to the City’s public utilities, etc. As development continues, the City will be enabled to sell additional bonds to build the infrastructure improvement needed for the Platinum Triangle. Chairman Faessel asked if it was similar to the Resort Districtwhere for the most part, if not all, of the public improvements were handled similarly. He responded that it was similar. This is for up front, one time improvement cost as opposed to future maintenance. It is very similar to selling bonds up front to build the improvements necessary for the expansion. With respect to housing affordability, Ms. Kim referred to the visual presentation and indicated the areas within the Platinum Triangle that were analyzed for residential development as part of this project. She showed the areas which were developed and have residential units which are currently leasing. The majority of those units are leasing at an affordability rate that is affordable to moderate income households. The surrounding areas are currentlyundeveloped but under approved development agreements. Other areas are sections of the Platinum Triangle that have been analyzed for residential development; however, there is no development agreement in place. At the time the Housing Element was in thereview process with the State, staff tried to have some of the units in the Platinum Triangle allocated as affordable housing under their default density which allows for any property that is zoned at 30 dwelling units per acre or more to be considered asa site that could be developed with affordable housing. Ms. Kim identified the areas which could be developed with affordable housing and stated that any of the property owners who have an approved development agreement can develop their sites with affordable housing since the standardized Platinum Triangle development agreement does not set a required rent or sales price. In addition, the Stadium District is part of an existing redevelopment project area as are some of the properties along the I-5 Freeway. The housing set aside fundis raised through the 30% of the property tax increment within redevelopment areas and provide a primary source for most of the affordable housing related 10/11/10 Page 13of 17 OCTOBER 11, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES activities in the city. These properties will generate additional redevelopment funds which can be used to develop future affordable housing opportunities. One of the principals of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan is to stimulate market driven development and to require inclusionary housing is contradictive to amarket based development plan. Rather than have a requirement, all of the affordable housing incentives that are applied city-wide will also be applied within this area. Chairman Faessel asked if the Platinum Triangle always intended to be a market rateproject. Ms. Kim responded that it was always intended to be a market driven development. It is one of the planning policies included in the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan which is an adopted document by the City Council. This is a City Councilinitiated project. Commissioner Ramirez asked why it is indicated in several places that the Platinum Triangle will generate additional set asidemoney which can be used by the Redevelopment Agency to build affordable housing; however, it will occur outside the Platinum Triangle. She also asked if there is more than one redevelopment area within the Platinum Triangle. Abel Avalos, Redevelopment Manager responded that the Stadium District, as well as portions of the Commercial/Industrial Sub Project Areaof the Anaheim Merged Redevelopment Project Area, are within the Platinum Triangle. These project areas have a 30% housing set aside fund requirement that will go into the affordable housing fund. Redevelopment law does not require that the funds generated in a specific area be utilized for affordable housing within that geographic area. They can be used city-wide, wherever there is a need. If that money is used to produce units outside a redevelopment project area, they can only be counted toward the inclusionary obligation on a two for one basis. For example, for 100 units that are built outside the project area, they can only count 50 towards their production goals required by State law. Chairman Faessel asked if the Platinum Triangle was not within Redevelopment’s merged project area. Mr. Avalos confirmed that it was not within the merged area; however, revenues generated by the Stadium are not restricted to being used only in that area, they are just restricted to being used for the production ofaffordable housing. Chairman Faessel asked if a developer could choose to set aside any portion of their development for affordable housing; if there is no inclusion, demand, or requirement that it be set, in the draft EIR. Ms. Kim responded yes. Commissioner Ament referenced the map given to the Commission by the Colony residents. Areas have been identified by the City where, if developers choose to, meet RHNA numbers. Ms. Kim said that was correct. The RHNA allocation requires the City to designate sites that have attributes that would make them potential sites for future development of affordable housing; however, they are not required to be developed as such. 10/11/10 Page 14of 17 OCTOBER 11, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Ament said that several housing and community development reports indicate that when inclusionary is done, the development is slowed down; and that it would be less expensive to do it in other areas of the city. Ms. Kim said that was accurate and the Responses to Public Comments document will reference those reports. Commissioner Ament said that the City is required to create appropriate zoning that would allow a certain amount of affordable housing units to be built; however, we are not required to build them. Ms. Kim said that was correct. In addition, affordable housing can be developed in any area where residential housing is permitted. Commissioner Ament asked why the Platinum Triangle was not included in the map. Ms. Kim responded that, at the time that the Housing Element was submitted to the State, the approval of the proposed project had not been processed and the majority of the housing units that are permitted,according to the current development intensities within the Platinum Triangle,had been allocated to property owners though development agreements. The State was not willing to accept properties which had development agreements. The City disputed this; however, staff was able to finds sites outside the Platinum Triangle which met the State’s housing opportunity sites requirement. It was easier to pursue those sites and use them on the affordable housing opportunity sites map; rather than to continue to disagree with the State on whether the Platinum Triangle sites could be considered for affordable housing. With the proposed project, the City has sites within this area where development intensity is well over the 30 dwelling units per acre which is the State’s default density for potential affordable housing sites. During the next RHNA housing cycle, the City could again, determine if the State would consider locations within the Platinum Triangle as acceptable sites. Commissioner Ament asked how often the RHNA cycle is conducted. Ms. Kim responded it would be in 2014. Commissioner Ament asked if the Housing Element could be updated and resubmitted. Ms.Kim said we could consider those sites in the next analysis. However, once a Housing Element is certified you typically wait until the next cycle to update the document. Commissioner Agarwal asked if affordable housing was excluded from the Platinum Triangle or in any other portion of the city. Ms. Kim responded no and that the City does not mandate affordable housing. Commissioner Ramirez said this action is not doing anything to encourage affordable housing in the Platinum Triangle. She asked why affordable housing sites were not identified in this area. Ms. Kim said the Platinum Triangle was not identified for affordable housing sites in the Housing Element because at the time the Housing Element update was being processed, the proposed project 10/11/10 Page 15of 17 OCTOBER 11, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES hadnot been approved, and the State was not willing to accept the units that had been approved within the Platinum Triangle because they were entitled through development agreements, even though the development agreements do not state a set amount for rent or sales prices. Staff looked outside the Platinum Triangle, so that they could obtain a certified Housing Element. Commissioner Ramirez asked staff to comment on jobs and housing. Ms Kim said the Platinum Triangle is located in the southern portion of the 92805 and 92806 zip codes. The city’s affordable units are concentrated near OCTA bus stops and routes near major transportation facilities, including the I-5 Freeway; and near major employment centers, including the Platinum Triangle and the Anaheim Resort. A substantial number of the city’s affordable housing projects are located with the city’s downtown area which is only 2.5 miles from the Platinum Triangle and less than 1 mile from the Anaheim Resort. According to SCAG, the average commute lengthin southern California is 19.2 miles. Ms. Kim referenced the visual presentation and indicated the bus stops in close proximity to the area. Whether or not the affordable housing is within or outside the Platinum Triangle, it does not change the impact of traffic, air quality, noise and greenhouse gas impacts. In addition, the analysis used for those impacts does not base the number of trips on the affordability of the residences. Ms. Kim added that the document from the Community Benefits Coalition, mentioned by Mr. David, was received and forwarded to the City Council. Council did not ask staff to change any elements of the proposed project in response to that document. Commissioner Ament asked if the City Council could mandate that housing set aside funds generated from projects in the redevelopment site on the Stadium be used within the Stadium for affordable housing. Mr. Avalos said he was not certain and would need to research redevelopment law; however, there is nothing to preclude those funds to be used in the project area that generates them. Chairman Faessel,seeing no other persons indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Agarwaloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the October 11, 2010 staff report, determining that the Environmental Impact Report No. 2008-00339is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and recommending City Council review of Environmental Impact Report No. 2008-00339, Miscellaneous Case No. 2008- 00284, General Plan Amendment 2008-00471, Zoning Code Amendment No. 2008-00074, Reclassification No. 2008-00222, and Miscellaneous Case No. 2008-00283. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith four yes votes. Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament and Seymour voted yes. Commissioner Ramirez voted no. Commissioners Karaki and Persaud were absent. 10/11/10 Page 16of 17 OCTOBER 11, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: 12persons spoke in opposition to the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, indicated that this item would be scheduled for City Council consideration on October 26, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :128minutes (5:16to 7:24) (Break 6:55-7:00) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:26P.M. TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2010AT 5:00P.M. Respectfully submitted, Grace Medina Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2010. 10/11/10 Page 17of 17