MN121007
City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Action Agenda
Monday,December 10, 2007
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California
Commissioners Present
:Chairman: Kelly Buffa
Peter Agarwal, Gail Eastman,Stephen Faessel,
Joseph Karaki,Panky Romero,Pat Velasquez
Commissioners Absent
:None
Staff Present
:
CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerNatalie Meeks, Director of Public Works
Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyJohn Lower, Traffic/Transportation Manager
Linda Johnson,Principal PlannerJamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer
Susan Kim, Senior PlannerSandip Budhia, Associate Engineer
Ted White, Senior PlannerDavid Kennedy, Associate Engineer
Scott Koehm, Associate PlannerGrace Medina, Senior Secretary
WilliamHalligan,The Planning Center Donna Patino, Secretary
Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at2:00 p.m.
onWednesday,December 5, 2007, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council
Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk.
Published:Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper onThursday, November 15, 2007 and
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Call to Order
Preliminary Plan Review 1:30P.M.
•STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS
ANDISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION)
•PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THEDECEMBER 10, 2007 AGENDA
Recess to Public Hearing
Reconvene to Public Hearing 2:30 P.M.
Attendance: 23
Pledge of Allegiance:
Commissioner Velasquez
Public Comments
Consent Calendar
Public Hearing Items
Adjournment
H:\TOOLS|PCADMIN\PCATIONAGENDA\2007MINUTES\MN121007.DOC
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda -2:30 P.M.
Public Comments:
None
Consent Calendar:
Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION
CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Item1A as recommended by staff and to continue Item
1B. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Reports and Recommendations
1A.(a)CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 311Approved
(PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED)
(b)SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. 2007-00050
Agent: Consent Calendar
Walt Disney Imagineering
Approval
1401 Flower Street
Glendale, CA 91221
Location: The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Area
VOTE:
7-0
Requests Specific Plan Adjustment No. 7 to The Disneyland
Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 to transfer 25 hotel rooms from the
Hotel District to the Theme Park District.
Project Planner:
(dherrick@anaheim.net)
Specific Plan Adjustment No. PC2007-147
Minutes
1B.Continued to
Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning
January 7, 2008
Commission Meeting of November 26, 2007.(Motion)
12/10/07
Page 2of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
2a.CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 21Continued to
2b.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3277January 7, 2008
(TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05251)
Owner:
Barry Lee Konier
Motion:
P.O. Box 2158 Romero/Eastman
Orange, CA 92859
VOTE:
7-0
Agent:
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Location:950-970 Tustin Avenue:
Property is an irregularly-
shaped 2.82-acre property having frontages of 460 feet
on the east side of Tustin Avenue and 665 feet on the
south side of the Riverside Freeway (SR-91).
City request to initiate the revocation or modification of Conditional
Use Permit No. 3277 to permit office uses in an industrial building
with waiver of minimum distance between freestanding signs.
Continued from the October 15, 2007, Planning Commission
Meeting.
Project Planner:
(kwong2@anaheim.net)
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. _____________
Chairman Buffa continued this item untilJanuary 7, 2008.
Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to request for
continuance untilJanuary 7, 2008. Motioned passed with 7 aye votes.
OPPOSITION:
None
DISCUSSION TIME
:This item was not discussed.
12/10/07
Page 3of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
3a.CEQAENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 330Continued to
(PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED)January 7, 2008
3b.ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2006-00052
Agent:
Planning Department
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Motion:
Eastman/Agarwal
Location:Citywide
City-initiated request (Planning Department) to amend various
sections of Title 18 “Zoning” of the Anaheim Municipal Code to
correct various errors and omissions, and clarify text and provide
VOTE:
7-0
consistency with other Chapters of the Anaheim Municipal Code,
including but not limited to, provisions to add a new Section to the
code to clarify that any permit, license or evidence issued in conflict
with the provisions of Title 18 shall be null and void. Proposed
Single-Family Residential
amendments include the following:
Zones:
modify permitted encroachments for accessory
uses/structures to be consistent with the California Building Code;
add a new section requiring certain accessory structures to conform
to setback requirements for the primary residence; modify required
Multiple-Family Residential
rear yard setback in the RS-2 Zone;
Zones:
allow modification to setbacks between buildings for a
Commercial Zones:
planned unit development; amend permitting
requirements for Antennas-Telecommunications-Stealth Ground-
Mounted; modify Educational Institutions-Business and Educational
Institutions-General as uses subject to a conditional use permit; add
statement that Self-Storage Facilities be in compliance with Council
Policy No. 7.2; add Floor Area Ratio (FAR) General Plan consistency
reference; add Automotive-Car Sales, Retail or Wholesale (Office
Use Only) as a permitted primary use; add Automated Teller
Machines (ATM’s) Exterior, Wall-Mounted as a permitted primary
use; add Educational Institutions-Tutoring Services as a permitted
Industrial
use; modify Automotive-Car Sales& Rental provisions;
Zones:
modify provisions permitting Circuses and Carnivals; add
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) General Plan consistency reference; amend
permitting requirements for Antennas-Telecommunications-Stealth
Ground-Mounted; add statement that Self-Storage Facilities be in
compliance with Council Policy No. 7.2; add provisions for street
frontage/land subdivision; add Automated Teller Machines (ATM’s)
Exterior, Wall-Mounted as a permitted primary use; add Automotive-
Car Sales, Retail or Wholesale (Office Use Only) subject to
conditional use permit; add Educational Institutions-Tutoring Services
Public and Special Purpose
subject to conditional use permit;
Zones:
modify the Transition “T” zone provisions to require General
12/10/07
Page 4of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
South Anaheim
Plan consistency for conditionally permitted uses;
Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone:
amendment to allow
attached single-family dwellings by conditional use permit in
Mixed Use
conformance with multiple-family zone standards;
Overlay Zone:
modify requirements for Ground-Floor Commercial
Types of Uses:
Uses; modify Personal Services-General to include
permanent facial make-up; modify Medical & Dental Offices to
include colonoscopy and laser hair removal services; add Automated
Supplemental
Teller Machines (ATM’s), Exterior, Wall-Mounted;
Uses:
delete time limitation reference for wireless communication
facilities approved by conditional use permit; modify parking
requirements for home occupations; clarify process for waiving
setback and screening requirementsfor public utility equipment; add
Automotive-Car Sales, Retail or Wholesale, Office Use Only; modify
Mechanical and Utility Equipment –Roof Mounted for solar energy
panels; establish maximum size requirements for flags and banners;
Parking:
modify parking requirements for bowling alleys, second
units, and establish standards for automated parking facilities; add
parking requirements for Automotive Car Sales, Retail or Wholesale
(Office Use Only) and Educational Institutions –Tutoring Services;
Signs:
modify window sign definition; modify the provisions for
marquee or electronic readerboard signs; modify maximum height of
Landscape/Screening:
letters and logos for wall signs; modify
requirements pertaining to landscape and fence height and type
provisions; modify permitted types of landscape materials;
Recycling:
amend various Chapters to modify standards and
Nonconforming
procedures related to consumer recycling services;
Structures:
modify parking requirements in conjunction with the
expansion of non-conforming structures in the Anaheim Colony
Density Bonus:
Historic District and the 5 Points Neighborhood;
amend Chapter 18.52 (Density Bonuses) in its entirety to provide
consistent formatting with Title 18 (Zoning Code) to allow for
additional administrative approvals and various minor modifications
Affordable Housing:
and clarifications; delete Chapter 18.58
(Affordable Multiple-Family Housing Developments) in its entirety;
Procedures:
modify the appeal process for Zoning Administrator
and Planning Commission decisions; modify responsibilities related
Administrative Reviews:
to the Zoning Administrator; modify
Variances:
requirements for Administrative Reviews; modify Special
Definitions:
Findings for Variances; modify definition of “Lots”; add
definition for “General Plan Density”.
Project Planner:
(cflores@anaheim.net)
Zoning Code Amendment Resolution No. _____________
12/10/07
Page 5of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Agarwal to request for
continuance untilJanuary 7,2008. Motioned passed with 7 aye votes.
OPPOSITION:
None
DISCUSSION TIME
:This item was not discussed.
12/10/07
Page 6of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
4a.CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATIONContinuedto
(PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED)January 7, 2008
4b.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04952
(TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05254)
Owner:
William C. Taormina
128 West Sycamore Street
Anaheim, CA 92805
Motion:
Eastman/Karaki
Agent:
Steve Elkins
128 West Sycamore Street
Anaheim,CA 92805
VOTE:
7-0
Location:400, 401, 407, 408, 416 and 424 North Anaheim
Boulevard:
Parcel 1 -
Property is approximately 0.3-acre, located at the
northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Adele Street
with approximate frontages of 107 feet on the west side of
Anaheim Boulevard and 103 feet on the north side of Adele
Street (401 and 407 North Anaheim Boulevard).
Parcel 2 -
Property is approximately 1.5 acres located at the
northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Adele Street
with approximate frontages of 361 feet on the east side of
Anaheim Boulevard, 120 feet on the south side of Sycamore
Street, 221 feet on the west side of Claudina Street and 204
feet on the north side of Adele Street (400, 408, 416 and 424
North Anaheim Boulevard).
Request to reinstate a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit
for a public dance hall, banquet hall and a community and religious
assembly facility with on-premises sales and consumption of
alcoholic beverages and an off-site parking lot with waiver of
minimum landscape setback and to permit a cover charge and
amend conditions of approval to remove a time limitation.
Project Planner:
(kwong2@anaheim.net)
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. _____________
EdPerez, 176 S. Vista Grande,has workedwith Mr. Taormina on some of hisotherprojects and
felt he is a responsible developer. He participatedinmeetings with the community in which all
attendees showedtheir support. Hestated he supportedthis project.
CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated that staff changedthe recommendation to
continue until January 7, 2008. Staffwould re-notice the property owners of the project
accordingly.
12/10/07
Page 7of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Commissioner Eastman offereda motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to request for
continuance untilJanuary 7, 2008. Motioned passed with 7 aye votes.
OPPOSITION:
None
DISCUSSION TIME
:This item was not discussed.
12/10/07
Page 8of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
5a.CEQANEGATIVE DECLARATIONContinued to
5b.RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00213January 7, 2008
5c.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05268
5d.TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17164
5e.MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT NO. 2007-00226
Owner:
Heitman Living Trust
Motion:
3083 West Ball Road Agarwal/Eastman
Anaheim, CA 92804
Agent:
Mahendra J. Desai
Desai Construction and DevelopmentInc.
VOTE:
7-0
2040 South Santa Cruz Street, Suite 115
Anaheim, CA 92805
Location:3083 and 3087 West Ball Road:
Property is
approximately 1.4 acres, having a frontage of 231 feet on
the north side of Ball Road and located approximately
132 feet west of the centerline of Halliday Street.
Request to permit a 20-unit single-family attached condominium
complex. This project requires approval of the following actions:
Reclassification No. 2007-00213 -
Request reclassification of the
subject property from the T (Transition) zone to the RM-1 (Multiple-
Family Residential) zone or less intense zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05268 -
Request to construct a
20-unit single-family attached condominium complex.
Tentative Tract Map No. 17164 -
Request to establish a 1-lot, 20-
unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision.
Miscellaneous Permit No. 2007-00226
-Request for Planning
Commission determination of conformance with the Density Bonus
Ordinance to construct a 20-unit single-family condominium
development with 2 affordable units, a Density Bonus and incentives.
Reclassification Resolution No. _____________
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. _____________
Project Planner:
Tentative Tract Map Resolution No. _____________
(kwong2@anaheim.net)
Miscellaneous Resolution No. _____________
12/10/07
Page 9of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Commissioner Agarwal offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastmanto request for
continuance to January 7, 2008. Motioned passed with 7 aye votes.
OPPOSITION:
None
DISCUSSION TIME
:This item was not discussed.
12/10/07
Page 10of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
6a.CEQANEGATIVE DECLARATIONApproved
Velasquez/Faessel
(PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED)
6b.WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
6c.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04263Approved
Velasquez
(TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05266)
Owner:
Living Stream Ministry
2431 West La Palma Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92801
VOTE:
7-0
Agent:
John Pester
Living Stream Ministry
2431 West La Palma Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92801
Location:2441 West La Palma Avenue(Living Stream
Ministry):
Property is approximately 27.9 acres, located
at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert
Street and having approximate frontages of 780 feet on
the north side of La Palma Avenue and 830 feet on the
west side of Gilbert Street.
Request to reinstate a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit
to retain a teleconferencing center and private conference/training
center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces and to
amend conditions of approval to remove a time limitation.
Project Planner:
(skoehm@anaheim.net)
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-148
Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing.
John Pester, property owner of Living Stream Ministry, 2441 W. La Palma, stated he read the
staff report. He was in full agreement andwanted to update the Planning Commission on
several items. The firstitem isthat heobtained the building permit for the building at 1212
North Hubbell Way, work on that building could now continue. In regards to construction on
that project, he was in process of sending out and receiving bids on the equipment neededto
put into the building. He estimated an 18 to 24 month building time frame during which time
approximately fifty to sixty workers would work on the project. He had no problem with the
removal of the temporary use on 2441 West La Palma Avenue,Temporary Training Center.
When the building at 1212 North Hubbell Waywas completed that buildingwouldthenbe
turned over to the public. It would be leasedas commercial use.
Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing.
12/10/07
Page 11of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to
determine that thepreviously-approved CEQA Negative Declaration serves as the
appropriate environmental documentation. Motion passed with 7 aye votes.
Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve an amendment to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2000-04263 and modified a Condition of Approval pertaining to a time limitation.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary,announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes
.
OPPOSITION:
None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, January2, 2008.
DISCUSSION TIME
:4minutes (2:41to 2:45)
12/10/07
Page 12of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
7a.SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTCertified EIR
Romero
NO. 334AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
NO. 106BINCLUDING THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE
WATERASSESSMENT STUDY (MISCELLANEOUS
CASE NO. 2007-00218)
7b.GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00454Recommended City
Romero
Council Approval
7c.MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2007-00188Recommended City
Romero
(AMENDMENTS TOTHE PLATINUMTRIANGLECouncil Approval
MASTER LAND USE PLAN)
7d.ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00056Recommended City
Romero
(AMENDMENTS TO THE PLATINUM TRIANGLECouncil Approval
MIXEDUSE OVERLAY ZONE)
7e.ZONING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00196Approved
Romero
7f.MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2007-00203Recommended City
Romero/Faessel
(AMENDMENTTO THEPLATINUM TRIANGLECouncil Approval
STANDARDIZEDDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FORM)
7g.REQUEST FOR CITYCOUNCIL REVIEW OFApproved
Romero/Agarwal
ITEMNOS. 7a, 7d AND 7e
Location:
The approximate 820-acre Platinum Triangle is located in
the City of Anaheim in Orange County, California,
generally east of the Interstate 5 Freeway, west of the
Santa Ana River channel and SR-57 Freeway, south of
the Southern California Edison easement and north of
VOTE:
6-0
the Anaheim City limit.
Commissioner Velasquez
Abstained
This is a City-initiated request by the Planning Department to
increase the permitted amount of residential, commercial, office and
institutional development in the Platinum Triangle as follows:
Residential units –increase from 10,266 to up to 18,363
Commercial square feet -increase from 2,264,400 to up to
5,657,847
Office square feet –increase from 5,055,550 to up to 16,819,015
Institutional square feet –designate up to 1,500,000 square feet for
ARTIC.
12/10/07
Page 13of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
General Plan Amendment (GPA2007-00454)
–To amend the City
of Anaheim General Plan to increase the permitted development
intensities in the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use, Office High and Office
Low land use designations; redesignate approximately 67 acres from
the Office High land use designation to the Mixed Use designation;
redesignate approximately 126 acres from the Office High and Office
Low land use designations to the Mixed Use designation;
redesignateapproximately 17 acres from the Institutional land use
designation to the Mixed Use designation; add the Platinum Triangle
Mixed Use Overlay Zone, Office District as an implementation zone
for the Platinum Triangle Office High and Office Low land use
designations; remove the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) requirement for
Mixed Uses and Office Uses in the Platinum Triangle since the
maximum intensities for these uses are identified in the General Plan
and the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan; allow conversion
between land use types provided that the conversion is within the
parameters of EIR No. 334; amend the Circulation Element (Figure
C-1) to modify the designations of streets within the Platinum
Triangle (Katella Avenue between Manchester Avenue and Anaheim
Way; Douglass Road between Katella Avenue and the SR-57
undercrossing; Rampart Street between Orangewood Avenue and
the South City Limits adjacent to the City of Orange; West Dupont
Drive between Orangewood Avenue and South Dupont Drive; South
Dupont Drive between West Dupont Drive and West Towne Centre
Place; South Towne Centre Place between West Towne Centre
Place and Rampart Street) and extend the Class II Bikeway on
Orangewood Avenue from east of State College Boulevard to West
Dupont Drive and add the Class II Bikeway to West Dupont Drive,
South Dupont Drive and West Towne Centre Place to Rampart
Street; and, amend the General Plan for internal consistency to
reflect the amendments to the Platinum Triangle.
Amendment to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan
(MIS2007-00188)
–To reflect changes identified in GPA2007-00454;
adjust the boundaries of the PTMU Overlay Zone to create the
Orangewood, ARTIC (including the proposed Anaheim Regional
Transportation Intermodal Center) and Office Districts and expand
the Katella District; and, reflect technical refinements and
clarifications including, but not limited to, refinements to street cross-
sections, density descriptions and exhibits.
Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA2007-00056)
–To amend the
Zoning Code (Chapter 18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay)
of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) to reflect changes
identified in GPA2007-00454 and the amendment to The Platinum
Triangle Master Land Use Plan; establish and create zoning
standards for three new PTMU Overlay Districts (the Orangewood,
ARTIC and Office Districts); modify zoning standards including, but
12/10/07
Page 14of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
not limited to, setbacks and parking structure requirements; and,
include a requirement that owners of property in the PTMU Overlay
Zone, Office District enter into a standard form of a Development
Agreement with the City of Anaheim to implement permitted and
conditionally permitted uses.
Zoning Reclassification (RCL2007-00196)
–To reclassify
approximately 210 acres to the Platinum Triangle MixedUse (PTMU)
Overlay Zone. In 2004, the Anaheim City Council approved
resolutions of intent per City Council Resolution No. 2004-180 to
change the zoning designations of approximately 193 acres in The
Platinum Triangle designated for Office High and OfficeLow land
uses on the General Plan to the corresponding O-H (Office High) and
O-L (Office Low) Zones with an overall limit of 1,735,000 square feet
of office uses. This reclassification is proposed to rescind those
previously-approved resolutions of intent and rezone those
properties to the PTMU Overlay Zone. The underlying zoning
designations of those properties (i.e., Industrial, Transition, General
Commercial and Office High Zones) would remain the same. This
reclassification is also proposed to change the zoning on an
approximate 17 acre property located at 1750 and 1790 South
Douglass Road from T (Transition) and I (Industrial) to T (Transition)
PTMU Overlay Zone. Properties proposed to be reclassified to the
PTMU Overlay Zone as part of this request are identified in the
attached Platinum Triangle location map.
Amendment to The Platinum Triangle Development Agreement
Form
–To amend the form of the standardized Development
Agreement for the PTMU Overlay, Mixed Use Districts to include the
Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106B,
editorial refinements and updated fees and to create a standardized
Development Agreement form for the PTMU Overlay Office District.
CEQA DSEIR No. 334 and Updated and Modified Mitigation
Monitoring Program (MMP) No. 106B
–To certify SEIR No. 334
including adoption of a Statement of Findings of Fact, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations and Updated and Modified MMP No.
106B. DSEIR No. 334 has been prepared to serve as the primary
environmental document for the proposed project actions and
subsequent actions implementing the General Plan, The Platinum
Triangle Master Land Use Plan, the PTMU Overlay Zone and the
Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreements. The
DSEIR also includes a Water Supply Assessment for The Platinum
Triangle which is requested to be approved as required by Section
19010 of the California Water Code.
12/10/07
Page 15of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Environmental Impact Report Resolution No. PC2007-149
General Plan Amendment Resolution No. PC2007-150
Zoning Code Amendment Resolution No. PC2007-151
Amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan
Resolution No. PC2007-152
Project Planner:
(skim@anaheim.net)
Reclassification No. PC2007-153
Susan Kim, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing.
Tom Rizzuti, Anaheim City School District, 1001 S. East Street, stated that Anaheim City School
District neither supported nor opposed this action. He remindedthe Commission that the
increasedresidential density considered could serve to increase the potential number of school
age children generatedby the Platinum Triangle and the challenges the District would face in
providing adequate facilities for those students.
An estimated four students per one hundred units for that area wouldresult in an increase of700
students. If the District was forced to bus students to one or more schools across the District,it
would create a financialburden. The District stands ready to work with the City and developers
to come up with a creative and workable solution that would benefit all parties involved.
Commissioner Eastman asked Mr. Rizzuti to elaborate onthe developer fees. She knew that
the developers paid the school fees for development in the area. She asked if projected
developer fees couldaccommodatebuilding the schools to servethatmany students.
Tom Rizzuti stated that the developer fees could help, but developer fees typically do not fund
the entire costof a facility. In this case costs would be compounded bythe cost of land in the
Platinum Triangle and the areas around it. The other issue the Districtdeals withis the
developer fees.TheDistrict collects the feesat the time the building permits areobtained. This
precludesthem from being proactive and laying out capitol up front to purchase property.
Developer fees would help the District, but the District still faced challenges as they try to find an
appropriate school site to serve the children.
Commissioner Eastman stated she thought the School District should have a plan in place as
the money is received. She asked if the District spent the money on other facilities.
Tom Rizzuti stated that as money is receivedthe District would set it aside,but the money is
received only as the building permits are obtained. At the time the funds are received it would
present a planning challenge for them to acquire the property once the District had funding in
place.
Commissioner Velasquez commented that the Commission shared their frustrations. There was
considerablediscussion during the preliminary hearing but there was nothing Commission could
do about the issue. Commission was informed oftheir legallimitation requirementand
Commission could not vote in favor or against a projectbased on construction of school facilities
provided required fees are paid. This was state mandated and not city mandated. The
Commissioners wished they could do something about it, but it was not within their authority.
12/10/07
Page 16of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Commissioner Romero asked a hypothetical question. He asked if their solution would be not to
build.
Tom Rizzutistated that the District would seekhelpto allow them to build. The District tries
everything in their power to fulfill their obligation to the students andto make sure the District
hasfacilities in place.
Commissioner Agarwal asked if theSchoolDistrict were to bus students how farwould they be
bussed. He askedif the schools and surrounding areas had the capacity to absorb those extra
700 students.
Tom Rizzuti responded that the School District does not have a single school that could absorb
that many students. The District would bus them to multiple schools.
Commissioner Agarwal commented that it would be a burden on the School District to
accommodate those additional 700 students.
Tom Rizzuti repliedit certainly would be a financial burden to provideadditional busses and
operatingcost.
Eric Altman, Executive Director of Orange County Community Organized for Responsible
Development (OCCORD),13252 Garden Grove Boulevard, Suite 200. He stated that OCCORD
submitted comments to the EIR. He wanted to discussthe responses to those comments and
theStatement of Overriding Considerations that Commission had to adopt as part of this action if
Commission decides to go forward.
He stated that OCCORD submitted a lengthy comment letter. An example of one of those
comments would be that the EIR it did not discusscumulativeimpacts of air qualityfrom
construction projects. There would be a lot of construction projects happening at one time.
He stated that the response to the comment was that the South Coast Air Quality Management
District did not submit comments and therefore their comments didn’t matter. He wanted to
know if that was a substantive issue because OCCORD thought it was.
The second comment made was based on the traffic impact. He pointed out a segment of the
EIR that talked about“Under all scenarios some arterial segments performdeficiently under
daily conditions”. TheEIR had done an analysis of peak traffic and it said, “because there
wasn’t deficiency at peak times under daily conditions the impact was not significant”. The
question that was asked in the study session was what about supermarkets. People would not
only drive during peak hours. If there was anissue that arterial segments operated deficiently
under daily conditions whywas that notaddressed. The response was the EIRfollowed the
traffic models that the Cityhad.
He expected that the submitted comments wouldengage dialog aboutwhat the impact of the
projectwould be. He understood in order to move forwardtheCommission would have to adopt
a Statement of Override Considerations that said the benefits ofthis project out weighthe
significant unavoidable adverse impacts, of which there were thirteen or fourteen.
12/10/07
Page 17of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
One of the benefits of this project was the provision of needed housing, which the Commission
had to approve. The EIR talked about how, at buildout, the Platinum Triangle would have a job
housing ratio of two to one. The density increase itself would havea job housing balance of four
toone.There would be housing that would be provided, but that means there would be a lot
more jobs that wouldalso be created. The project created more demand for housing by creating
more jobs than housing. He thought that it was not possible to say that the benefits of this
project provideneeded housing because it created a demand for housing and would worsenthe
housing shortage.
In regards to transportation benefits, the EIR discussedhow the development of ARTIC would
createopportunities for workers who couldnot afford to live in thePlatinum Triangle but could
use public transportation. There wasn’t a study of what kind of jobswouldbe createdand where
the people who take those jobswould live in relation to public transportation lines. Another one
of the benefits that was outlined in the Statement of Overriding Considerations was that the
project would “match” housing to job opportunity. What it specifically said was that “The housing
types that would be created in the Platinum Triangle would be responsive to the types of workers
who would be employed there and in the Resort and other parts of thecity and county. The EIR
said, “It matches the amount and type of housing, with the amount and type of employment
available within the jurisdiction.”
The housing created for this project was 100% at moderate and above moderate income rates.
That suggested there were no low, very low, or extremely low income workers that would be
employed within the project area, which would not betrue. The EIR stated that the development
encouraged residents of Anaheim to work and shop in close proximity to their homes. It was not
clear if there would be a super market in the project area. He was not sure if theobjective would
be met. Another objective was on-site open space and recreation amenities within thePlatinum
Triangle. The EIR noted that the only parks to be created were pocket parks. The EIR does not
address the demand created for community and neighborhood parks as a result of this project.
The EIR stated that existing users of existingparks and recreational facilities areturned away
from joining sports groups or making picnic reservations due to thelack of available recreational
facilities.He wondered if this project met the objective of having open space and recreation
amenities when the EIR said that it doesn’t meet the park demand. He stated that this high
profile project would be Orange County’s new downtown. If the Commission wanted to have this
project be the best that Anaheim could offer, the planningprocess should be the best possible.
Ron Marshall, owner of Mr. Stox, 1105 E. Katella Avenue, stated thathe owned Mr. Stox
Restaurant andhas operated it for thirty years. His property was within the boundary of the
proposed amendment before the Commission. He requested that they approve the amendment.
Ezequiel Gutierrez, attorney with the Public Law Center, 601 Civic center Drive West, Santa
Ana,stated that written comments were submitted in response to an invitation to submit
comments by Ms. Kim in a memorandum dated November 30, 2007. He was representing
people who either worked or lived in the City of Anaheim. He pointed out that the Platinum
Triangle Project was completely devoid of affordable housing. The only housing declared as a
housing product in the Environmental Impact Report was an upscale and high density housing
product. The response by Ms. Kim stated that there was density sufficient for affordable housing
and density sufficient for certification by HCD. HCD would find this acceptable for the purpose of
12/10/07
Page 18of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
complying with the Housing Element. He read through the EIRto see if there was mention of
other type of housing. There was some medium price housing but it said there would not be
affordable housing for lowand very low income groups in the Platinum Triangle. The project
linked housing and mixed uses with transportation as a way to achieve the regional
transportation policies of SCAG, which in turn, implemented federal transportation policies. This
included the principal of environmental justice. Environmental justicerequiredthatfederal
programs and federaldollars be spent in equitable manner so that no communities orincome
groups be adversely impacted by those programs and those activities. Everyone should benefit
by that money and by that activity. SCAG must self certify to the Federal Governmentthat the
money was being spent appropriately.
He stated there was a law that was not mentioned anywherein the EIR. Senate Bill 12 was
signed bythe Governor and was affectiveupon signing. ThisBilllinked housing for low and very
low income households with transportation plans. He does not consider this smart growth.
Legal authorities and Planning authoritiesstatetheir tenprincipals of smart growth including
housing affordable to all economic segments of the community. He stated that according to
legislative analysis for SB 12 the objective of SB 12 was to achieve smart growth planning in its
linkage to transportation. He submitted this was not occurring with the project and it was
inconsistent with SCAG policy and federal policy. As the EIR pointedout those were significant
effects that had no mitigation that had been spelled out and because of that he thought the EIR
was deficient. He thought staff and the consultant should go back to the drawing board on that.
The EIR talked about transit oriented development. As stated in his letter, it does not comply
with that practice either. Whether or not that was a legal requirement it does not comply with
Transit Oriented development for the very same reason.
Ed Perez, 176 S. Vista Grande, Anaheim,asked that the Commissionbe responsible in their
decision as more detailed information would come withregards to the development of the
Platinum Triangle. He read the briefings and expressed his concerns regarding this project. He
appreciated responsible growth and development as he lives, works, and resides in Anaheim.
Hewould appreciateif Commission took time to deal with the facts and look at the information
before the Commission.He encouraged Commission to be responsible and reminded them it
could also mean not pursuing a vote.
The EIR talked about a live, work, and play environment. He was involved to some degrees in
the development and thought it was important that they consider the impact that would face the
City. He would like to see comments addressed concerning the EIR. The EIR should address
the need for housing, schools, and the ability to provide parks and recreation.He thought it was
a wonderful concept and idea. He believed the points to be addressed for this Commission and
theCouncil was to take into serious consideration that this was their community and the city they
live in. Responsible growth and development had to be progressive. With that progression the
city staff had to pay close attention to the items that were before them. He read about school
bondsand how to provide education and schoolsfrom elementary to high school.
Roseann Andrus, Project Manager for Child Care Connections,18012Mitchell Avenue South.
She represented a county wide collaborativeeffort ofearly care and educations specialist.She
aimed to streamline the child care facilities development process throughout Orange County.
Anaheim, Huntington Beach, San Clemente and Santa Ana happened to be their project target
areas that they would work for the next three years. She wanted to educate Commission on the
12/10/07
Page 19of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
number of children that needed space for child care facilities. She stated there were37,114
childreninthe City of Anaheim that do not have a space in child care facilities. On average,
when United Way conducted theirEconomic Impact Report throughout Orange County licensed
child care industry, this generated and contributed 6.7 billion dollars toward the local economy.
This was done by providing jobs enabling parents to enter the work force, improving productivity
providing local jobsand increasing thepurchasing goods and services.She had discussions
with the Planning Departmentstaffand wanted to continue the effort in allowing child care
facilities, by right, providing a by right use, especially in commercial zones.
Chairman Buffa thought Ms. Andrus spoke on behalf of Item # 3 on the agenda, the
Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. She reminded herthat the item was continued until
January 7, 2008. She toldMs. Andrus that she could continueto speak on Item # 3 or if she
th
preferred she could come back on January the 7when Commission would be scheduled to
take action on that Item. She stated they would not act on the Zoning Code Amendment as it
was continued. She asked Ms. Andrus if she would like to complete her comments after they
heard Item # 7.
th
Ms. Andrus stated that she would complete her comments on January 7.
Cesar Couarcubias, with the Kennedy Commission, 17701 Cowan Avenue # 200. He
represented an organization that does advocacy for Affordable Housing Development in Orange
County. The Kennedy Commission felt this project would be a great opportunity, if this project
was done right. He felt the potential expansion of the Platinum Triangle could address issues
that were not mitigated in the first expansion of the Platinum Triangle and issues that were not
mitigated as of now. The Platinum Triangle had entitled over nine thousand units in its current
capacity. The units were not affordable and there were no policies that would require
affordability. The expansion that was contemplated had no policies that would address
affordability. The responses to comments in the EIR explained that the capacity would be there,
and by nature of the marker, it would happen.
The Platinum Triangle comments acknowledged the Platinum Triangle would play a great role in
the production of affordable housing to meet the city’s RHNAneeds. He did not see the
connection between thoseRHNAneeds and those policies that needed to be putin place. The
issues were not addressed in the past planning period. 11,000 units needed to be produced in
the city, the majority would be produced in the Platinum Triangle, and nonewould be affordable.
He felt the issue was not about affordable housing alone, it was about crucial planning. He
wondered if they had enough sites for development. That was a question that was not answered
by comments and responses in the EIR. There was a new government code 65008 which
prohibits discrimination against affordable housing development, developers or potential
residents by local agencies.He thought the issues were not properly mitigated along with other
issues. He submitted a letter for the Commissions reference.
Steve Sheldon, Trammel Crow Residential,901Dove Street Suite 140. He represented
Trammel Crow Residential (TRC) property owner.TRC processed 688 units that area part of
the amendment.TRC worked on this for eighteen months. TRC worked with the city’s
professional staff and believed thatthe developers could bring an excellent project to the city.
TRC looked forward to this opportunity.Commission needed tovote for this amendment in
orderfor the developers to bring this project forward. They spent approximately 2.1 million
12/10/07
Page 20of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
dollars inpursuit of this project and hoped to bring it before Commission in the first quarter of
2008.
Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing.
William Halligan, the Planning Center. He stated that the written comments on the EIR provided
detailed responses to the comments that had been brought up. With regards to Mr. Altman’s
comments, he mentioned Cumulative Air Quality and construction impacts. There was a
complete air quality analysis in the EIR. They did look at cumulative as well as project related
construction emissions. That analysis was reviewed by AQMDand they had no comments. The
analysis was prepared in accordance with AQMD Methodology.
In regards to traffic, the traffic analysis was prepared in accordance with the city’sown
Methodologyfor traffic studies and the County Methodology. All of the traffic impacts could be
mitigated throughimprovements to Caltrans facilities and facilities in other cities. The city could
not ensure that those were implemented. The Planning Center found this to be a potentially
significant impact.
In regards to jobs and housing balance, the EIR noted that if the project were built out, it would
slightly worsen jobs and housing balance within the city. Those were overridden by the various
benefits. TheEIR mentioned the ARTIC facility. It provided an opportunity for additional
housing opportunities at very high densities which allowed a wide range of housing opportunities
which was consistent with SCAG regional policies. The project provided opportunities for
additional open space and recreation.The project included increased fees for park land.
Neighborhood parks were proposed in the larger planned areas, such as, the Gene Autry
Experience and A-Town. The project does not require development of very low and low income
housing units. It provides the density necessary to develop a wide range of housing at all
income levels. Mr. Gutierrez felt that this did not represent smart growth it met the definition of
smart growth. The project provided additional housing opportunities near jobs, transit, and mass
transit. It provided development located near transit. The Planning Center felt the Statement of
Overriding Considerations was justified.
Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, stated that relative to the comment on child care facilitiesthat
it was appropriate to look at it on a city wide level.
Chairman Buffa stated thatthe Commission discussed a variety of things. Many of those issues
were discussed during testimony. This project was a huge andit would take a long time to build
out. In light of market conditions none of them could predict the phasing of development. That
would leave them with interim conditions for a very long time. Those would be edge conditions
around projects that were partially constructed and put on hold. She asked staff how they
alleviate concerns about edge conditions.
Ms. Johnson replied that most of the projects approved to date had a five year development
agreement which meant that the developers had to build within the five year time frame. There
were three projects that had longer phasing programs from fifteen to twenty years. Staff had
entered into discussions with the developer of the A-Town Metro Projecton how to better screen
partially developed sites.
12/10/07
Page 21of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Jaime Lai, Principal Civil Engineer, she stated that staff had an implementation plan which would
go to Council for Resolution of Intention for the Community Facilities District. This was a funding
mechanism that would fund the public infrastructure that would go in the Platinum Triangle. In
regards to the phasing of the projectCFD had funding for resurfacingstreets at build out.At the
end of the project there would beno more need to putinfrastructure within the streets. At the
completion of the build outthe city had money set aside so that they could go in and re-surface
all the streets so it would be an as new condition.
Chairman Buffa asked if the Cityhad the discretion to re-surface the street before total
completion.
Jaime Lai, Public Works Department, stated that they had phasing plans in place so they could
look tosee what had to be done and use funding to address the concerns about street
conditions.
Chairman Buffa stated that Ms. Lai mentioned that they talked with the developer of A-Town
Metro Project about better screening. She asked if they met with favorable reaction from the
developer.
Ms. Johnson stated that they had favorable reaction and were in close contact with Lennar.
Staff would bring the proposal back to Commission so they would be aware of their plan for that
property.
Chairman Buffa stated that shethought that was a condition they would want to look at, in the
future. It brought up another issue that was raised, fugitive dust. There had been issues of dust
on other properties that were graded but not developed. She could see how they could have
that same condition in the Platinum Triangle. She asked if the City had the ability to monitor,
wind blown dust. She asked if the City had the ability to implement the Air Quality Districts
regulations.
Ms. Lai stated that part of the grading plan had erosion control measures that indicated sites
would be watered so that thedust would not blowout. The builderwould cover up any piles of
dust. The City does monitor that during the times the developers havegrading permits.
Chairman Buffa stated that the problemwas not when they had an activegrading operation.
The problem was when they grade, stop work, and shut the job down for a period of time. The
Platinum Triangle would have sites that sit vacant and openfor a while. They had no active
grading permit but a lot of dirt that could blow around. She asked if the City had the ability to
compel the property owner to take care of that.
Mr. Halligan responded to thatand said there was a mitigation measure in the EIR. Under Item
A in the EIR construction contractor shall re-establish ground cover on the construction site
through seeding and watering as quickly as possible. If a site would sit for an extended period of
time it should be seeded to re-establish ground cover that would keep the dust down.
Commissioner Karaki stated that he viewed this issue in a different manner. He thought the
developers should complete the off-site improvements. This way they could close the subject
12/10/07
Page 22of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
site ifthey could not develop it, andthey could restart construction without re-opening the street.
He felt that the off-site work was the issue and not the issue of building and grading. He asked if
the City could ask the developers to finish the off-site work.
Chairman Buffa replied that she would never ask a developer to complete the off-site
improvements. If the developer believed the market was not ready to introduce their project she
would not ask them to make an investment in public infrastructure years in advance.She
thought there was no nexus to require that. She thought they should not have to do that.
Commissioner Karaki disagreed. He stated that the project would be a multi-million dollar
project. The infrastructure in front of the project would not cost much compared to the
redevelopment. If the developers wanted to connect sewer and water to the street, they would
have to finish the street work, hardscape,and landscape in front of the project. He felt this was
not much to do in front of their project. He stated that most of the money would go on-site and
not off-site.
Chairman Buffa asked Commissioner Karaki what would happen if they had no money.
Commissioner Karaki asked why the developer would start a project if they had no money.
Chairman Buffa stated that a lot of people had come forward to get entitlements over the past
years. The market made a significant shift and they thought the market would be ready for their
projects, and now it was not. As an example, Lennar had a huge amount of street frontage
associated with A-Town. They had significant frontage on State College and Gene Autry Way,
millions of dollars of off-site infrastructure required, she would not ask them to make that
investment now. Last week they took forty cents on the dollar on eleven thousand lots around
the country. They do not have the money to invest here.
She does not know why they would ask them to come up with that money. What she meantwas
thatthe developers needed to establish a screen along their edgebefore they were ready to
develop. That was what she meant when she said edge conditions. This would button up the
site to sit there for a few years.
Commissioner Karaki stated that he was not convinced about this issue. He stated that if they
do not have the money to start construction, they should not demolish what they have.
Chairman Buffa stated thatthere may be people caught in a less than perfect situation and now
they had to look at bare dirt.
Commissioner Karaki stated in fairness to the developers whose projects were under
construction, for instance KB Homes, would like projectsthat haven’t been developedto be
more appealing. He thought if beautification or the landscape on the off-site of those streets
were to be appealing it would make it desirable for those developers to be able to lease, rent or
sell.
Ms. Johnson stated that if theCFDwas approved the plan would be that the Citywouldbe the
project manager for the improvements along the streets. They would take each street segment
and put all of the improvements within the public right-of-way. This included finishing the
12/10/07
Page 23of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
landscape on each side of the street. That would keep pace with the level of development
because as projects were builtfunds would become available for the CFD.As far as the actual
screened wall and interim treatment of the frontage of properties, the Garden Walk Project, was
nicely done. There were wood chips in the setback area and ithas beenmaintained in a very
clean condition.Staff could add Conditions of Approval for the screening of a site during those
Interim Conditions.
Chairman Buffa stated that Commission looked forward to seeing something back from staff in
regards to a condition that would be an inexpensive, long-term, temporary condition.
Commissioner Velasquez addressed Public Works. She asked if the feesdevelopers pay
toward the improvements or resurfacing the streets would be adjusted with time
Natalie Meeks, Director of Public Works, stated that the Community Facilities District (CFD)
incorporated into that an escalation in cost because those improvements would not be done for
a number of years.
Commissioner Velasquez wondered if that made it fair to all developers, regardless of what point
they would come in for that improvement.
Ms. Meeks stated that the CFD eliminated the fee that would be paidon a construction project.
Normally the developerwould pay a traffic improvement fee at the time they pulled building
permit. With the CFD it would be paidover time as a special tax on the property.
Commissioner Velasquez was concerned with the issue in regards to traffic concerns during
peak hours. She wanted to know if there had been a study of the type of people thatwould live
in the PlatinumTriangle. She wanted to know how many people per unit and if those people
would use ARTIC. She felt she needed background to understand what facts were used to
come to those conclusions.
John Lower, Traffic/Transportation Manager. He stated that theirtraffic study used average
daily traffic, consistent with County Wide Methodology
Commissioner Velasquez asked how they would determine how many cars would come out of
the Platinum Triangle.
Mr. Lower stated that the City was consistent with the Orange County Traffic Analysis Model.
The City had gone to Orange County Transportation Authority to get their certification on the
Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model.
Commissioner Velasquez asked how many cars per unit.
Mr. Lower stated that the model does not work that way but on average 10 vehicles trips per day
would be generated from a residential unit.
Commissioner Velasquez stated that under this model there would be 180,000 car trips a day.
She asked what adjustments were made to minimize that number.She wanted to know the
12/10/07
Page 24of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
lower number because some of those people would stay within the studyarea either working,
living, or playing.
Mr. Lower stated that there was not a direct answer to that question because the Platinum
Triangle was divided into various areas. Each area had different components. How much
residential verses how much adjacent office, to adjacent retail, and how close would they be to
the regional transit center. There were discounts that applied. He thought it was 11 to 19
percent average for a captured trip.
Commissioner Velasquez stated that the units were not walking distance to the other unitsshe
was concerned.
Mr. Lower assured her that the analysiswas based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer
Methodology for internal trip capture. He could not give one direct answer but he could provide
a range.
Chairman Buffa confirmed that he said it ranged from 11 %for some districts and 19 %for other
districts.
Mr. Lower stated that was correct.
Chairman Buffa stated that there was a range assuming that those people would potentially live
and work in the Platinum Triangle. She understood what he tried to say. She thought there was
not a perfect set of numbers out there that made internal capture assumptions. Until the project
was built they would not be able to count traffic.
Mr. Lower discussed ARTIC and when that might be needed. He thought it was important they
noted parts of ARTIC that exist today. There was an existing Amtrak, Metro-link station on the
west side of the 57 freeway, which would be moved to the east side of the 57 freeway. The City
has Amtrak that would provide intercity service. They had Metro-link that provided the
commuter rail. They committed that by 2009 that would have a train arriveat their station from
both directions, every 30 minutes 18 hours a day. They further enabled the transit option as an
option to a private vehicle.
Commissioner Velasquez addressed Mr. Halligan. She stated that there was testimony that the
housing was responsive to the housing need. She wanted him to address that again because
the word matchwas usedin the EIR and she was unsure if she understood that.
Mr. Halligan stated that the EIR showed the opportunity for increased density that allowed
development of a wide range of housing types. There were studios that were lower in price, two
and three bedroom units. By allowing a wide range of housing types they could match the
types of jobs created in the City of Anaheim. Instead of providing single family housing the
projectprovided a wide range of housing types for a variety of income levels.
Commissioner Velasquez replied that was not the case withthe current Platinum Triangle.
Mr. Halligan stated that at the moment there were units just below $300,000.00 on up to
$700,000.00.
12/10/07
Page 25of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Commissioner Velasquez stated that she thought that was not originally their model. She
thought they had to make drastic changes and their original intent was never to have units under
$300,000.00. She thought the market forced them to lower their prices.
Chairman Buffa stated that was the beauty of a free market. As the market softens, prices come
down, and that was how that worked.
Commissioner Velasquez stated there could be vacant property that may not be demolished and
there could be boarded up buildings. She wanted to know if there was a policy for that. She
was concerned that developers would buy the land and not demolish the buildings. She stated
that there could be boarded up buildings. She wanted to know if they addressed that issue.
Ms. Johnson stated that the treatment of that type of condition would be the same as they would
approach anywhere in the City. The property owner would be responsible for maintaining the
property and staff could have code enforcement communicate with the property owner if they did
not maintain the property.
Commissioner Velasquez asked if there were vacant property would that need to be boarded up
and would that need to be screened. She asked if the code currently requiredthat.
Ms. Johnson replied that currently under their code it does not require screening of all vacant
lots. She believed that was something staff looked at in their code update.Shestated that
currently in The Anaheim Resort they only require screening for vacant lots and not for vacant
housing.
Commissioner Velasquez stated that she referred to the Platinum Triangle.
Commissioner Faessel stated that he read staff would change or modify the interim Library
service fee as proposed to increase from $149.73 to $486.77. He wanted to know if Council
would be taking action on that tomorrow.
Ms. Johnson stated that the fee was listed as an interim fee in the Standard Form of the
Development Agreement. When Council took action on the Standard Form of the Development
Agreement they would take action on that component. This was proposed as an interim fee so it
would only apply to projects that enter into an agreement.
Commissioner Faessel stated that as far as the CFD was concerned, he read the EIR, and
looked for additional police and fire facilities not to mention a sub-station and other public
improvements.
Ms. Meeks replied that there was one fire station included in the CFD. The first fire station
would be constructed but there would befire and police fees that generatefunds for additional
police and fire facilities.
Commissioner Agarwal commented that the Commission givestheir time on this to see that
Anaheim becomes thecity that they envisioned. He saw a great vision but in the near future
they could end up with properties boarded up. This would not be the last down turn in
12/10/07
Page 26of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
development. There would be cycles that developers would want to develop beautiful
properties. The market would turn and they would end up with the same scenario ten years from
now.
The Commission will havethe opportunity to attach conditions and could start thinking about
those things now. He asked what could happen if a developer were to go out of business. The
developers would not develop for three to five years and the City would end up with a baron
land. The developersowedit to the residents of Anaheim to leave the property in a condition
that would not become an eye sore.
Commissioner Romero thought they needed to look at the big picture. He thought Anaheim was
a wonderful city and there was room for everyone that would want to live there.They had great
neighborhoods through out the City, from west Anaheim, the new downtown area,the Colony
District to East Anaheimandup to Anaheim Hills. He thought the Platinum Trianglewould add a
whole new element to this city and it defined this city as progressive and a place where people
would want to continue to come to live, work, and visit.
He believedthe Commission was entrusted with making land decisions that would be a benefit
to everyone. He felt that sometimes they had to make tough decisions that would benefit The
Cityof Anaheim.He thought the Platinum Triangle would be in that category. Two of his
favorite cities, besides Anaheim, were Downtown San Diego and New York City.He found that
peoplego to thosecities because they have vibrant energy to them; that made people feel good
and glad to be alive. He had not heard people complaining of the cost of living or traffic
problems as it was an accepted way of life. He believed that Platinum Triangle would add that
type of urban atmosphere to this city. He supported the revised Platinum Triangle Plan. There
would be challenges in the buildout period but he believed staff would address those issues.
Commissioner Karaki stated thathelived in the City of Anaheimfor years and was proud to be
part of this process. He agreed that the low income housing shortage needed to be addressed.
They needed environmental justice and smart planning.The City of Anaheimhasgreat visions
and they area leader in the State of California. He supported the re-zoning. He advised the
City Planning to add acondition and one condition only;thatthe off-site improvements to be
constructed regardless ofwhether a project is completed or not.
Commissioner Velasquez stated that she was very proud to live in Anaheim. She thought the
City had done an incredible job. She was in favor of growth and thought the City was headed in
theright direction. She thought the Platinum Triangle would be the next downtown for Orange
County. She abstained from her vote because she disagreed with some of the mitigation
measures that were presented in the EIR. She could not find a need to vote against it because
she is in favor of the expansion but not in agreementwithsome of the details. She thought more
discussion needed to take place on some of the issues that were raised.
Commissioner Eastman agreed that Anaheim was a wonderful City. She stated that one ofthe
reasons she wanted to be part of the planning process was to look at the past. She was a fan of
history andwhenthere had been a lack of planning in the City it showed. Some of the City’s
neighborhoods were well planned and some of them were not. What she thought was beneficial
to the City about the Platinum Triangle was that they took a large part of land and thought
through theentire planning process and set up frame work. Many issues brought up were
12/10/07
Page 27of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
related to land use but this was framework, a vision. This project allowed people to invest their
money and develop in a responsible way with guidelines based on the market place. She
believed that the market place does work. She supported the idea that those vacant properties
should be properly screened. She thought they should take some care on that and supported
the Commissioners who remarked on that.
Chairman Buffa stated that she was a fan and advocate for housing in the City of Anaheim. She
believed that the free market would regulate the price of housing and every single housing unit
they added to their housing stock would help provide balance in pricing. She took exception to
speakers who argued that this was not smart planning or transit oriented development because
they had not specifically provided affordable units. She did not agree with that and thought that
was a misinterpretation of those planning principals. She thought smart planning would let the
market decide what people want for their own lives.
As the developers added varietyoftypes of housing there would be a variety inthepricing of
housing. They had not precluded the opportunity for affordable developers to come in with
private or public financing and strike a deal with a land owner to develop low income housing.
They do not know if it will be feasible but they had not said it was impossible. What they were
doing was rare. The City of Anaheimhad an opportunity to embrace such a large vision. The
developers created opportunity for thousands of families in Anaheim. She thoughtthey could
not do better. They provided millions of square feet of commercial space. They provided many
jobs. It was not up to them to dictate what kinds of jobs or what kind of homes. It was up to
them to make it possible for the market to regulate itself.
She thoughtthat was the best way for the City of Anaheimto grow. She appreciated
Commissioner Romero’s comment, that what they created was a place that was vibrant and
lively. That it would be a place that people could be attracted to and a place where people want
to live and visit. She took exceptiontothe comments made by speakers, that the proposed
mitigation measures do not adequately address impacts.There are impacts that cannotbe
address. Largely those related to air quality. It had been many years since she worked on a
projectwhereevery single air quality impact that was mitigated.
We don’t live in a part of the country were that would be feasible now. Wewere dependant on
developing new technology to get them over that hurdle and they were not there yet. She was
comfortable issuing an Overriding Statement for Air Quality. The traffic impacts were mitigated
but the City of Anaheim could not control the implementation of mitigation measuresto be
constructed in other cities,she was delighted to support this project.
Commissioner Agarwal commented that he was a student of free market. He supported her
comment about letting the market decide where affordable and not so affordable housing would
go. The City and the Planning Department could providewide capacity to have affordable
housing put in and let the developer decide whereto put the housing. He believed this was a
great project and it was excellent for the City of Anaheimin terms of developing animage in
Orange County. He was concerned that it was unfair to the developerstosay they had to
provide improvements that were not part of the original contract.He supported the project
although he was not a part of the original approval of the Platinum Triangle.
12/10/07
Page 28of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Commissioner Romero offered a resolution to certify(approve)the Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report No. 2006-00334 including Adoption of a Statement of Finding , a fact of
Statement of Overriding Considerations Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106B, and the
Platinum Triangle Water Supply Assessment (Miscellaneous Case No. 2007-00218).
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes.
Commissioner Velasquez abstained.
Commissioner Romero offered a resolution to approve General Plan Amendment No. 2007-
00454.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary,announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes.
Commissioner Velasquez abstained.
Commissioner Romero offered a resolution and recommended that The City Council approve
Zoning Code Amendment No. 2007-00056.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary,announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes.
Commissioner Velasquez abstained.
Commissioner Romero offered a resolution to approve Zoning Reclassification No. 2007-00196.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary,announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes.
Commissioner Velasquez abstained.
Commissioner Romero offered a resolution to approve Miscellaneous Case No. 2007-00188. To
amend the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Program/Plan.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary,announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes.
Commissioner Velasquez abstained.
Commissioner Romero offered a motionseconded by Commissioner Faessel.That they
recommend that The City Council approve Miscellaneous Case No. 2007-00203 to amend the
Platinum Triangle Standardized Development Agreement Form.
Commissioner Velasquez wanted to know if this Agreement talked about screening.
Chairman Buffa stated that was not part of this action. She stated that in order to have done that
they would haveto amend the Development Agreement. She thought they weren’t prepared to
take that action. On a case by case basis they could add acondition of approvalthat would
require thatif not developed within a certain time frame the developer would have to put in a
screen.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary,announced that the resolution passed with 7aye votes.
Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Agarwal to request that
the City Council review the Commissions decision on Items A, C, and D. Motion passed with 7
aye votes.
12/10/07
Page 29of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney summarized the votes. He stated that the Planning
Commission by resolution had certified Subsequent Environmental Impact ReportNo. 2006-
00334 as recommended that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment. They
recommended that the City Council approve the Zoning Code Amendment and reclassification
and the Amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan as set out in the staff report.
By motion they had recommended that the City Council approve the Amendment to the Platinum
Triangle Standardized Development Agreement andtook action to request review of those items
that wouldn’t be reviewed as a matter of courseand again would be set for a hearing before the
City Council on December 11, 2007.
OPPOSITION:
3 persons spoke in opposition; 2 letters and 1 email were received in opposition.
IN GENERAL:
1 person representing the Anaheim City School District, spoke regarding challenges
they would encounter in providing adequate facilities for students generated by this
project.
1 person representing Childcare Connections spoke requesting the code be
amended toallow childcare facilities in the Platinum Triangle.
A letter was received from The Gas Company acknowledging the City’s response to
their comments on the Environmental Impact Report.
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, January 2,2008.
DISCUSSION TIME
: 1 hour and 51 minutes (2:45 to 4:36)
12/10/07
Page 30of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
8a.CEQASUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTALApproved
Faessel/Eastman
IMPACTREPORT NO. 334
VOTE:
6-0
Commissioner Velasquez
abstained
8b.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05248Approved
Faessel
8c.DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2007-00002Recommended City
Faessel
Council Approval
8d.TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17186Approved, noting that no
Faessel
wall is required to be
shown along the west
property line on the Final
Map
8e.REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OFApproved Motion
Eastman/Faessel
ITEM NOS. 8b AND 8dRequesting City Council
Review
Eastman/Faessel Approved Rescinding
Motion Requesting City
Council Review
Eastman/Faessel
Denied Motion Requesting
City Council Review
Owner:
Ronald W. Marshall and Deborah L. Marshall Trust
The Marshall Family Trust
1105 East Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92805
Ewing Enterprises
VOTE:
6-0
c/o See Development Limited Partnership
Thomas Ewing
4931 Birch Street
Newport Beach, CA 92614
Agent:
Integral Partners, LLC
John Stanek
160 Newport Center Drive, Suite 240
Newport Beach, CA 92660
12/10/07
Page 31of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Location:1005 –1105 East Katella Avenue:
Property is
approximately 4.6 acres, having an approximate
frontage of 306 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue
and located 658 feet east of the centerline of Lewis
Street.
This request is to permit the developmentof the Platinum Vista
project, a 327 unit residential condominium project with a 9,500
square foot full service restaurant with an outdoor dining area. This
project requires approval of the following actions:
Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05248*
–To permit the sale and
consumption of alcoholic beverages within a full-service restaurant.
Development Agreement No. 2007-00002
–To adopt a
Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Ronald
W. Marshall and Deborah L. Marshall Trust, The Marshall Family
Trust, and See Development Limited Partnership to provide for the
**
development of the Platinum Vista project.
Tentative Tract Map No. 17186
–To establish a 2-lot (1 lettered
and 1 numbered) residential subdivision.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-154
Development Agreement Resolution No. PC2007-155
Tentative Tract Map Resolution No. PC2007-156
*Advertised as Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05248
Project Planner:
**Advertised as a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and )
(twhite@anaheim.net
Ewing Enterprises.
Ted White, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing.
Greg Mc Cafferty, with the Sheldon Group, 901 Dove Street, Newport Beach,stated that he
represented the Sheldon Group. They worked with the City’s Peer Review Architectto make
sure that the project complied withthe City and the Platinum Triangle standards. They read the
staff report and agreed with all the Conditions of Approval.
The Sheldon Group was troubled by the fence requirement. They believed that it was a
substantial cost. This area was in transition andthought it would not be money well spent. They
thought that when the other property developedat the corner of Katella Avenue and Lewis
Street,the wall would have to come downso it would be a needless cost. They were open to
12/10/07
Page 32of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
discuss with staff a possible alternative that would include interim landscape screening around
the area or other type of fencing that wouldn’t be as cost prohibitiveas a block wall.
John Stanek, partner with Integral Communities, 160 Newport Center Drive Suite 240. As
Integral Partner’s they developed two different projects in the Platinum Triangle. Those were
now under construction. One project would be on the corner of State College which was the
Hanover Projectand the other is the K&B property. They worked with Mr. Marshall for several
years. He stated that despite the slow down of the general real estate market Integral Partner’s
were prepared to move forward. Mr. Marshall and theMr. Stox people agreed to maintain the
operation of the restaurant untilthe fall of next year. Mr. Stox would stay in operation until the
end of next year, at that time they would begin their demolition process.
Chairman Buffa addressed Mr. Mc Cafferty and mentioned the screenwall on the west side of
their property was shown on the Tentative Tract Map. She asked him if the map showed the
wall.
Mr. Mc Cafferty stated that the map does show the wall.
Chairman Buffa asked if they wanted to remove the wall,how could theyapprove the map.
Mr. Mc Cafferty stated that they would have the engineer revise the map.
Chairman Buffa stated she thought thatit would be an issue theCommission woulddiscuss
when the time comes.
Commissioner Faessel stated that Mr. Mc Cafferty proposed a 9,500 square foot full service
restaurant that he hoped would maintain the Stox name. He asked Mr. Mc Cafferty what the
size of the current Mr. Stox Restaurantis.
Mr. Marshall stated that the restaurant was slightly over 11,000square feet. He looked at their
design and thought therewas plenty of room for a restaurant to have the same kind of
ambiance. The current restaurant was built in 1968 and they remodeled it extensively, they
never expanded it. There is a lot of wasted space in that restaurant and 9,500 square feet would
be plenty ofroom. He supported the project and worked with John Stanek and Integral for two
years and he would like to see the Mr. Stoxlogo where it is.
Commissioner Karaki wanted to know if he thoughtif Mr. Stox would come back.
Mr. Marshall stated that he hoped it would.
Commissioner Karaki addressed Mr. Mc Cafferty. He stated that Mr. Stox had been a landmark
in the City of Anaheim for years. He was disturbed by the transition between the restauranton
the bottom and the architecture on top.
He felt thatthe restaurant on the bottom and architecture on top would not give Mr. Stox
Restaurant the distinguished landmarklook it currently has.
12/10/07
Page 33of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Commissioner Eastman agreed with Commissioner Karaki, she was disappointed as well. She
only recognized the logo and felt it did not stand out as being iconic, as Mr. Stox had been in the
City. She wondered if the architect could help them understand what they were doing.
David Senden,architect with the KTGYGroup. He stated that their intention was not to make
therestaurant and the housing separate and distinct from each other, but to provide an icon as a
building.
The KTGY Group hoped that the idea of the corner element served as an anchor to that corner
of the property where the sign was mounted and the treatment of channel glass along the base
of the building wouldglow from insideat night. They hoped it would provide a distinction and
there would not be a base of a restaurant with a building plopped on top. He was not sure if it
showed in the night timeview but there was a series of canopies and awnings that would cover
the outdoor patio and umbrellas that would give a distinct feeling to that base.
Commissioner Velasquez stated that she liked the design of the building.
Mr. Sendenstated that the canopy was an entry plaza that leads into the front door of the
restaurant and to the main residential component and lobby. This would be a big canopy that
sticks out indicating the entrance,where the Mr. Stox sign would be mounted. He felt that it was
distinctive.
Chairman Buffa pointed out that there was also afountain there.
Mr. Sendenconfirmed that was correct.
Chairman Buffa thought that channel glass would be very dramatic. It would be a different kind
of statement than what Mr. Stox had beenfor all those decades. She thought every business
should reinvent itself. This would be a very dramatic statement especially at night, when the
light would come from the back side of the channel glass. The Commission would benefit from a
three dimensional model to see the intent.
Commissioner Romero stated that he liked the building because it gave a new modern urban
look to the area. Hecompared this tohis visits to San Diegowhere there was abuilding that
was a condo building and inside had several restaurants.
Commissioner Agarwal stated that for the record he met with Mr. Mc Caffertyand Mr. Olsen in
his office. He was concerned with the stainless steel that was attached to the buildingwould fall
in an earthquake.
Mr. Mc Cafferty stated that he checked with the architectural firm and those panels were fixed in
accordance withstatebuilding codes and any seismic requirements required for a building this
type.
Commissioner Agarwal stated that he liked the look and feel of the project.
Phillip Schwartze, representing a nearby property owner, 31872 San Juan Creek Circle, San
Juan Capistrano, he stated that Commission asked him if he worked on any exciting projects,
12/10/07
Page 34of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
and the answer was yes. He requested that staff show slides of projects he worked on. The
Platinum Gateway Project developers were to come before Commission on February’s meeting.
Their project contained a residential project which faced and complimented the Platinum Vista.
They had a six story hotel and an eleven story office building which would be located at the
corner of Katella Avenueand Lewis.
There was conversation about the wall.It seemed to him that it would be a waste to put that in
even thoughit was not theirmoney.There were many things that they did jointly together in the
interface between those two projects as it leads out to Lewis Street. They were not concerned
about the view from his warehouse over to the Platinum Vista. Commission should also note
that there were large trucks that moved around there. He couldn’t guarantee that those trucks
would not put a dent in that block wall, if they did put a block wall.
Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing.
Chairman Buffa stated that many issues needed to be addressed. The block wall on Platinum
Vista and whether or not it was an appropriate requirement was one issue. It was her personal
opinion that it wasn’t appropriate. Regardless of the timing of the Platinum Gateway site, she
thought it did not make sense to invest money in something that they know was a short term
improvement. She would be happy with a chain-link fence with a green screen mesh. She
questioned if they even needed it screened. She thought that should be up to the market place
to figure out.
Commissioner Velasquez agreed. She thought Commission shouldn’t require the developer to
build the block fencewhen the Commission understood what was around the corner.
Commissioner Eastman stated that it didn’t seem like an environmentallyfriendly thing to do, to
put up a block wall and then demolish it. They tried to be environmentally friendly in the City of
Anaheimand Commission should not mandate thatdevelopers do that.
Commissioner Faessel agreed with his associates. Base upon testimony from Mr. Mc Cafferty,
it would be severalhundred thousands to build the wall. The block fence could possibly be
demolished in a year or two and it seemed unfortunate. He liked the project design. The Mr.
Stox logo continued forward and was important tothe Platinum Triangle.
Chairman Buffa stated that the majority of the Commission felt they did not need a block wall or
any kind of screening. She considered what was shown on the Tentative Tract Map, and it
showed it would not need to be constructed. She asked if staff had to add a Condition of
Approvalto require an amended map.
CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manger, replied that they could stipulate deletion of the wall in
the resolution approving the TentativeTractMap. When the final Map came back they would
note the wall had been removed by Commission.
Commissioner Faessel asked if there would be a green component that could be built intothe
Platinum Vista facilities. He asked them to partner with thePublic Utilities Department to the
greatest extent as possible.
12/10/07
Page 35of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
David Kennedy,Associate Engineer, stated that they would do that.
Chairman Buffa stated that another issue talked about was the addition ofaCondition of
Approval. Staff gave draft language that prior to demolition permits the applicant had to submit
plans thatshowed vacant lots and construction fencing, it would be enhanced wooden fencing.
She stated that Commissioner Karaki also wanted to add, thatoff-site improvements had to be
constructed whether the projectmovedforward or not.
She does not agree with that. She envisionedseveral scenarios. Some reasons would be that
nothing would change in the property for a while, in which case, they do not need screening.
The front would stay the same, in which case, they would not need fencing. When the
developers toredown the building in the frontthey wouldn’t need construction fencing that
screened the view of the construction from Katella Avenue.They would have security fencing
when it was under construction. She was concerned that if for somereason the developers
started and then stopped construction for a long period of timethey should have a condition that
protects the residentshaving to look ata vacant site or a partially built site.
Commissioner Karaki disagreed. He stated that part of the development was to do the off-site,
street scape and minor landscape. What happened at the Anaheim Resortwould be similar to
what happenedat the Platinum Triangle. The Anaheim Resort was not developed. He asked
that future developers complete off-site improvements in developments that would be
constructed and suspended for six months or a year. He thought it would look better along
Katella Avenue.
Chairman Buffa stated that she does not agree with that because she thought that the developer
would not be the one to implement those things. Linda Johnson testified that through formation
of the CFD the City would take on the responsibility for making those improvements along those
large publicarterialsand the City would install street scape, not the individual developer. The
way the Citywould pay for that would be the developerspaying into the CFD.
Commissioner Karaki stated that if he was not mistaken, the City would collect the money for all
the environmental and traffic impact fees prior of issuing permits. He wondered if that was
correct.
Chairman Buffa stated that they might not have issued a building permit.
Sandip Budhia, Public Works. He stated that the traffic impact fees and transportation fees
would be paid at the time of the building permit not prior to the building permit.
Commissioner Karaki asked if that was grading or building.
Mr. Budhia confirmed that it was building. He stated that the gradingpermit would be issued
andthe only fee be paid prior to the building permit would be the sewer impact fees.
Commissioner Karaki asked who does the street scape, the City or the developer.
12/10/07
Page 36of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Mr. Budhia stated that the developer had to submit street improvement plans that would include
landscape and irrigation.
Jaime Lai, Public Works Department, stated that the developers would have to install
improvements as part of Conditions of Approvalincludinglandscape improvements. If they go
before the CFD isformed, they would build it according to City requirements, as if the City built
it. At the time the CFD was formed they would apply for re-imbursement and would be repaid
from the funds of the CFD.
Chairman Buffa stated that this information helped. She confirmed that in some cases the
developer would build and then get reimbursed and in some instances the City would build. She
still does not agree with Commissioner Karaki about the landscape goingin first because the
landscape would be ruined when the construction started.
Commissioner Karaki commented that they should look at The Anaheim Resort.
Chairman Buffa stated that those sites were developed. She stated they should look at what
they had done on Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue. In front of the Garden Walk they
revitalized the landscape because it was damaged. It was silly to ask people to spend money to
be on hold for two years.
Commissioner Karaki stated that he thought it was silly not to do the work. That would not be
fair to the other developers because they already put their landscape in.
Chairman Buffa stated she does not agree because it was a fair market deal. People who build
in the Platinum Triangle were pioneering and taking a risk. Everybody who built there
understands and everybody who buys a home understands that there maybe risk involved.
They wouldbe buying into a work in progress and that would be the risk each individual buyer
takes.
Commissioner Romero stated that the City had many projectsapproved but not built yet.It
would be unfair to start doing thisnow.Anaheim is growing and there are some inconveniences
that go with growth.
Commissioner Eastman stated that she agreed with the free market place. She thought they
should not do anything that would penalize adeveloper whocomesand investsin the land. She
agreed that they would needto have something in place and screening that would look decent.
The developer might not have the money to put in landscape that might die in drought
conditions. That seemed punitive to her. She didnot agree with Commissioner Karaki.
Commissioner Velasquez stated that there was a happy medium and this was a special place.
The developers got incredible density. Other places in the City did not have that benefit. They
guarded the condition of The Anaheim Resort they should treat this in the same manner.At the
same time they shouldn’t scare developers away.She thought the chain-linkfence was not
what they needed for the Platinum Triangle. They could do better and shouldapproach this as a
large single projectfullhardscape andlandscape. They should understand that this was a
massive project and not one project at a time. She wanted input from staff and their expertise of
12/10/07
Page 37of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
what they considered good screening as opposed to temporary screening. It was her opinion
that they should not settle forthat in the Platinum Triangle.
Chairman Buffa wondered if an enhanced wood fence was what Commissioner Velasquez
thought they should have.
Commissioner Velasquez stated that she saw that on MacArthur and Irvine and MacArthur and
Main Street off of the55 freeway in Santa Anawhere they had put uppictures. The developers
should make the City of Anaheim attractive so that people would want to come to this area.
They should make it what it is envisioned to be. She thought chain-link fencewas not
appropriate. She suggested they have the same type of screening she saw in Santa Ana.
Chairman Buffa stated she only talked about putting in this fencing if the work stopped for a
period of time. This wasn’t construction fencing. Then when the developers resumed work they
had to have some kind of screen there. At that point it would have to be a wood fence with
some enhancements.
Commissioner Velasquez stated that the idea was not to make it a burden on the developer nor
a burden for the area residents and property owners.
Chairman Buffa stated that perhapsstaff language worked, if construction stopped for a period
of time the applicant had to submit plans that showed enhanced wooden fencing, it could be
enhanced with mural or with decorative treatmentor something. Enhanced wooden fencing
wouldremain in place until construction resumed is where they were headed.
Commissioner Agarwal asked what the definition of “substantial time”was and what the
definition for “construction stopped”. He thought they would need to define those two points
carefully so that it was not open to interpretation later on.
Chairman Buffa thought Commissioner Agarwal made a good point.
Commissioner Agarwal stated that he was in favor of the wooden fences. The City of LasVegas
required a wooden fence with beautiful pictures on it. The wooden fences were about 9 to 10
feet high. He does not suggest that they require the same standards, but maybe they should
take that into consideration. As the economy turned and continued to turn for the next two to
three years they needed to be careful about what would happen within theCity of Anaheim.
They do not want to see the City of Anaheimor Katella Avenuelined with chain-linkfences. He
supported not penalizing the developerwith extra costs. They had to come to common ground
and have the developers buy into this. The Commission should hearfrom the developer
because they could have apossible solution to this. He invited comments from Mr. Mc Cafferty
on this.
Mr. Mc Cafferty stated that there were two types of fencing. There was the interim construction
fencing in the event that they ceased construction for a period of time and boundary fencing on
the west property line. Regardinginterim fencing, the applicant would prefer to have the wood
fencing along Katella Avenuewith decorative images. Regarding the west property line fencing,
they would prefer to have a chain-link fence with slates as an interim condition until such time as
the property to the west developed.
12/10/07
Page 38of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Chairman Buffa stated that Commission was inclined to say no fence at all.
Mr. Mc Cafferty thanked Chairman Buffa as this was their preference.
Chairman Buffa wanted to talk about the time length. She thought Commissioner Agarwal’s
comments were appropriate about how they would define “construction stopped”. She asked
what would be the appropriate length of time to consider construction“stopped work”on a
project. Commission did not talk about the lags in construction that the developers had between
site demolition and mobilization of grading equipment. She asked how they would define work
stopped on the project.
CommissionerFaessel stated that since the Building Division monitors the construction of the
buildings through their permit and inspection process, they should make that determination when
they considered that the building stopped moving forward.
Ms. Johnson was concerned about the Building Division having to make thatdecision because
they would be involved once the building permit was issued. In the case of Lennar’s A-Town
project, no building permits had been issued. At this point they graded and some street
improvement workhas beendone, therefore, it might be appropriate to tie that activity with the
most recent permit that would be issued for the project.
Chairman Buffa stated that she wasnot sure how they could tie this to the most recent permit.
Ms. Johnson replied that it could be the grading permit or building permit which ever occurred
later.
Commissioner Agarwal stated that he would like to turn it around to ask the developer. He
thought the developer should let them know when construction would be suspended.
Mr. Mc Cafferty stated thatunderAnaheim’s building permit processabuilding permit was valid
for one year. That wouldbe there recommendation to. If the activity ceasesfor a year or more
they would have to put in the fencing. The plan for them was immediately after digging the hole
andshoringthey would have plans intoplan-checkso it wouldbe seamless between one year
digging intothe ground and a year coming out. The developers would be ready for the building
permit and then the building permit would govern the duration because at that point it would be a
year that they would have to commence construction. That was there recommendation.
Chairman Buffa stated that she was not comfortable waiting a year. If they were not more active
than that,things would not happen. It leaves along time with the chain-link fence up. She
thought it should be 120 days. If for a few months they were not active on the site they needed
to make an investment in the Katella AvenueStreet scape.
Commissioner Karaki stated that he thought it should be between 90 to 120 days.At the bank
they considered the construction stoppedif there is no activity for 90 days.
Mr. Mc Cafferty stated that he would be okay with 120 days.
12/10/07
Page 39of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Chairman Buffa asked who would watch this and who they could burden with this responsibility.
She askedif it would be the Code Enforcement’sresponsibility.
Commissioner Karaki stated he wanted a wood fence from the beginning. Thatno one has to be
the monitor.
Chairman Buffa stated that would be easy but not fair. If worked stopped on the site for 120
days as determined by City staff, then the applicant would have to submit plans showing
enhanced screened fencing and how it would be installed on the site.
Commissioner Velasquez stated that they should consider it more. When they submit plans and
then the fencehad to start construction by a certaintime to close the loop.
Chairman Buffa stated that the plans showed that in 30 days the applicant would have a wood
fence up.
Commissioner Agarwal stated that he supported this project without a condition because they
needed to discuss this issue further. They would have to come up with the right language, and
right conditions.
CommissionerVelasquez stated that she agreed what Chairman Buffa suggestedand they
needed to start sometime.
Commissioner Karaki stated that inhis opinion a wood fence along a project does not cost
much. It would be a few thousand dollars for permanent fencing and a nice picture.
Mr. Mc Cafferty stated that the he thought the cost was not their issue. They wanted to make
sure that they complied with the conditions. They understood they would have to do the grading
and demolition but thenplans could be stuckin plan-checkfor three to four months andthat
could be a violation.
Chairman Buffa stated that they shouldnot impose a condition on this project as the language
was not clear enough.
Commissioner Eastman asked what Mr. Stox would do between next September and the time it
would re-open. She wondered if they would relocate temporarily or would they close up for a
while.
Mr. Marshall stated that they would like to operate as long as possible. That is why they worked
onan agreement to have a year to look into temporary quarters. If they would findsomething
withinatwo mile vicinity of the Platinum Triangle Area, that could be their permanent quarters.
There were several restaurants that failedorthat were going out of business. He thought there
would be plenty of available spacesfor them but they do not have anything specific at the
moment.
Commissioner Faessel wanted to let Mr. Marshall know that everyone supported his restaurant.
12/10/07
Page 40of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to determine and
recommend that the City Council determine that the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
No. 334 serve as the appropriate Environmental Documentation. Motion passed with 6 aye
votes. Commissioner Velasquez abstained.
Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05248.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes.
Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to recommend to the City Council the Development
Agreement No. 2007-00002 be approved and entered into between the City of Anaheim and
Ronald W. Marshall and Deborah L. Marshall Trust The Marshall Family Trust and the See
Development Limited Partnership.
Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes.
Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approve the Tentative Tract Map No. 17186 noting
the removal of the wall.
Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman that they
recommend to City Council to review the Conditional Permit Use No. 2007-05248 and Tentative
Tract Map No. 17186. Motion passed with 7 aye votes.
Ted Whiterecommended that staff withdraw the request of City Council review of Conditional
Permit Use No. 2007-05248 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17186.
Mr. Gordonstated that the re-consideration would be to rescind the motion requesting review of
those two items.
Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to re-consider
item E. Motion passed with 7 aye votes.
Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to rescind the
previous recommendation to the review the Condition Use Permit.
Mr. Gordon stated for the record that the Planning staff asked in a written format to request that
the Planning Commission by motion ask for review of those particular items by rescinding this
motion that would no longer be the request of the Planning Commission that the City Council
consider in connection with the other entitlements that they would be considering the review with
respect to those Conditional Use Permits and Tentative Tract Map.
Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing.
IN GENERAL:
1 person representing the developer of the proposed Platinum Gateway project to the
west of the subject property, spoke.
12/10/07
Page 41of 42
DECEMBER 10, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10 day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map
ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 20, 2007 and the 22-day appeal rights for the
Conditional Use Permit and the Development Agreement ending at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday,
January 2, 2008.
DISCUSSION TIME
:1 hour and 1minute (4:36to 5:37)
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:52 P.M.
TO MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 2008AT 1:30P.M.
FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
12/10/07
Page 42of 42