Loading...
Minutes-PC 2007/12/10• ~O~ ~~ U ~ ~HE,M P~ c~ - lr.c, 0 ~ 2 _ ~ Mondav, December ~10, 2007 o' ~'~ y~~ \ DED ~~ Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California Chairman: Kelly Buffa Peter Agarwal, Gail Eastman, Stephen Faessel, Joseph Karaki, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez None Staff Present: CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Linda Johnson, Principal Planner Susan Kim, Senior Planner Ted White, Senior Planner • Scott Koehm, Associate Planner William Halligan, The Planning Center Natalie Meeks, Director of Public Works John Lower, Traffic/Transportation Manager Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer Sandip Budhia, Associate Engineer David Kennedy, Associate Engineer Grace Medina, Senior Secretary Donna Patino, Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, 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 on Thursday, November 15, 2007 and Thursday, November 29, 2007 • Call to Order • Preliminary Plan Review 1:30 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE DECEMBER 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\PCATIONAGEN DA~2007MINUTES\MN 121007.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 Item 1A as recommended by staff and to continue Item 1 B. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Renorts and Recommendations 1A. (a) CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 311 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) (b) SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. 2007-00050 Agent: Walt Disney Imagineering 1401 Flower Street Glendale, CA 91221 • Minutes Location: The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Area 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. Specific Plan Adjustment No. PC2007-147 1 B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of November 26, 2007. (Motion) ~ Approved Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner. (dherrick@anaheim. net) Continued to January 7, 2008 12/10/07 Page 2 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA . 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 21 Continued to 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3277 January 7, 2008 (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05251) Owner: Barry Lee Konier P.O. Box 2158 Orange, CA 92859 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 befinreen freestanding signs. . Continued from the October 15, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. Chairman Buffa continued this item until January 7, 2008. Motion: Romero/Eastman VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner.• (kwong2@ anaheim. net) Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to request for continuance until January 7, 2008. Motioned passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 12/10/07 Page 3 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA i 3a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 330 Continued 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: Citvwide 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 amendments include the following: Single-Family Residential 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 rear yard setback in the RS-2 Zone; Multiple-Family Residential Zones: allow modification to setbacks between buildings for a planned unit development; Commercial Zones: 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 use; modify Automotive-Car Sales & Rental provisions; Industrial 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 subject to conditional use permit; Public and Special Purpose Zones: modify the Transition "T" zone provisions to require General 12/10/07 Page 4 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA • Plan consistency for conditionally permitted uses; South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone: amendment to allow attached single-family dwellings by conditional use permit in conformance with multiple-family zone standards; Mixed Use Overlay Zone: modify requirements for Ground-Floor Commercial Uses; Types of 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 Teller Machines (ATM's), Exterior, Wall-Mounted; Supplemental 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 requirements for 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 ~ letters and logos for wall signs; Landscape/Screening: 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 procedures related to consumer recycling services; Nonconforming Structures: modify parking requirements in conjunction with the expansion of non-conforming structures in the Anaheim Colony Historic District and the 5 Points Neighborhood; Density Bonus: 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 and clarifications; Affordable Housing: 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 to the Zoning Administrator; Administrative Reviews: modify requirements for Administrative Reviews; Variances: modify Special Findings for Variances; Definitions: modify definition of "Lots"; add definition for "General Plan Density". Zoning Code Amendment Resolution No. Project Planner: (cflores@anaheim. net) 12/10/07 Page 5 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA • Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Agarwal to request for continuance until January 7, 2008. Motioned passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • • 12/10/07 Page 6 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA . 4a. 4b. • CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04952 (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05254) Owner: William C. Taormina 128 West Sycamore Street Anaheim, CA 92805 Agent: Steve Elkins 128 West Sycamore Street Anaheim, CA 92805 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. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. Continued to January 7, 2008 Motion: Eastman/Karaki VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: (kwong2@anaheim. net) Ed Perez, 176 S. Vista Grande, has worked with Mr. Taormina on some of his other projects and felt he is a responsible developer. He participated in meetings with the community in which all attendees had shown their support. He stated he supported this project. • CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated that staff changed the recommendation to continue until January 7, 2008. Staff would re-notice the property owners of the project accordingly. 12/10/07 Page 7 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA • Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to request for continuance until January 7, 2008. Motioned passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ C~ 12/10/07 Page 8 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA • 5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e. ~ CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00213 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05268 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17164 MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT NO. 2007-00226 Owner: Heitman Living Trust 3083 West Ball Road Anaheim, CA 92804 Agent: Mahendra J. Desai Desai Construction and Development Inc. 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. Tentative Tract Map Resolution No. Miscellaneous Resolution No. Continued to January 7, 2008 Motion: Agarwal/Eastman VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner.~ (kwong2@anaheim. net) 12/10/07 Page 9 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA • Commissioner Agarwal offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to 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 10 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Velasquez/Faessel I Approv~d (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04263 (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05266) Owner: Living Stream Ministry 2431 West La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 Agent: John Pester Living Stream Ministry 2431 West La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 VOTE: 7-0 ~J • Velasquez Location: 2441 West La Palma Avenue (Livinq Stream Minist : 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. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-148 Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Approved Project Planner: (skoehm@ anaheim. net) John Pester, property owner of Living Stream Ministry, 2441 W. La Palma, stated he read the staff report. He was in full agreement and wanted to update the Planning Commission on several items. The first item is that he obtained 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 needed to 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. When the building at 1212 North Hubbell Way is completed the building at 2441 La Palma would be leased as commercial use. Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. 12/10/07 Page 11 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA • Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to determine that the previously-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, January 2, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (2:41 to 2:45) ~ ~ 12/ 10/07 Page 12 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA • 7a. SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Romero Certified EIR NO. 334 AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 106B INCLUDING THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE WATER ASSESSMENT STUDY (MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2007-002181 7b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00454 7c. MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2007-00188 (AMENDMENTS TO THE PLATINUMTRIANGLE MASTER LAND USE PLAN) 7d. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00056 (AMENDMENTS TO THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE) 7e. ZONING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00196 Romero Romero Romero Romero MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2007-00203 Romero/Faessel (AMENDMENT TO THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE STANDARDIZED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FORM) 7g. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF Romero/Agarwal ITEM NOS. 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 the Anaheim City limit. 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. Recommended City Council Approval Recommended City Council Approval Recommended City Council Approval Approved Recommended City Council Approval Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Velasquez Abstained 12/10/07 Page 13 of 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; redesignate approximately 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 befinreen 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 14 of 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 Mixed Use (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 Office Low 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 15 of 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 Reclassification No. PC2007-153 Susan Kim, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Project Planner. (skim@anaheim.net) Tom Rizzuti, Anaheim City School District, 1001 S. East Street, stated that Anaheim City School District neither supported nor opposed this action. He reminded the Commission that the increased residential density being considered could senre to increase the potential number of school age children generated in 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 would result in an increase of 700 students. If the District was forced to bus students to one or more schools across the District, it would create a financial burden. 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 on the developer fees. She knew that the developers paid the school fees for development in the area. She asked if projected developer fees could accommodate building the schools to serve that many students. Tom Rizzuti stated that the developer fees could help, but developer fees typically do not fund the entire cost of a facility. In this case costs would be compounded by the cost of land in the Platinum Triangle and the areas around it. The other issue the District deals with is the developer fees. The District collects the fees at the time the building permits are obtained. This precludes them 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 received the 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 considerable discussion during the preliminary hearing but there was nothing Commission could . do about the issue. Commission was informed of their legal limitation and Commission could not vote in favor or against a project based 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 16 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA S Commissioner Romero asked a hypothetical question. He asked if their solution would be not to build. Tom Rizzuti stated that the District would seek help to allow them to build. The District tries everything in their power to fulfill their obligation to the students and to make sure the District has facilities in place. Commissioner Agarwal asked if the School District were to bus students how far would they be bussed. He asked if 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 replied it certainly would be a financial burden to provide additional busses and operating cost. 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 discuss the responses to those comments and the Statement 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 is that the EIR did not discuss cumulative impacts to air quality from 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 section of the EIR that stated "Under all scenarios some arterial segments perform deficiently under daily conditions". The EIR 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 significanY'. The question that was asked in the study session was about supermarkets. People would not only drive during peak hours. If there was an issue that arterial segments operated deficiently under daily conditions why was that not addressed. The response was the EIR followed the traffic models that the City had. He expected that the submitted comments would engage dialog about what the impact of the project would be. He understood in order to move forward the Commission would have to adopt ~ a Statement of Overriding Considerations that said the benefits of this project oufinreigh the significant unavoidable adverse impacts, of which there were thirteen or fourteen. 12/10/07 Page 17 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA S 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 build out, the Platinum Triangle would have a job housing ratio of two to one. The density increase itself would have a job housing balance of four to one. There would be housing that would be provided, but that means there would be a lot more jobs that would also 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 provide needed housing because it created a demand for housing and would worsen the housing shortage. In regards to transportation benefits, the EIR discussed how the development of ARTIC would create opportunities for workers who could not afford to live in the Platinum Triangle but could use public transportation. There wasn't a study of what kind of jobs would be created and where the people who take those jobs would 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 the city 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 be true. 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 the objective would be met. Another objective was on-site open space and recreation amenities within the Platinum 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 existing parks and recreational facilities are turned away from joining sports groups or making picnic reservations due to the lack 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 planning process should be the best possible. Ron Marshall, owner of Mr. Stox, 1105 E. Katella Avenue, stated that he owned Mr. Stox Restaurant and has 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 18 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA ~ complying with the Housing Element. He read through the EIR to see if there was mention of other types of housing. There was some medium price housing but it said there would not be affordable housing for low and 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 justice requires that federal programs and federal dollars be spent in an equitable manner so that no communities or income groups are 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 Government that the money was being spent appropriately. He stated there was a law that was not mentioned anywhere in the EIR. Senate Bill 12 was signed by the Governor and was affiective upon signing. This Bill linked housing for low and very low income households with transportation plans. He does not consider this proposal smart growth. Legal authorities and Planning authorities state their ten principals 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 pointed out 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 Commission be responsible in their decision as more detailed information would come with regards 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. He would appreciate it if 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 the Council 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 bonds and how to provide education and schools from elementary to high school. Roseann Andrus, Project Manager for Child Care Connections, 18012 Mitchell Avenue South. ~ She represented a county wide collaborative effort of early care and education 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 19 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA ~ number of children that needed space for child care facilities. She stated there were 37,114 children in the City of Anaheim that do not have a space in child care facilities. On average, when United Way conducted their Economic Impact Report for the Orange County licensed child care industry, this industry 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 jobs and increasing the purchasing of goods and services. She had discussions with the Planning Department staff and wanted to continue the effort in allowing child care facilities, by right, 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 her that the item was continued until January 7, 2008. She told Ms. Andrus that she could continue to speak on Item # 3 or if she preferred she could come back on January 7~' when 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. Ms. Andrus stated that she would complete her comments on January 7tn 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 market, 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 RHNA needs. He did not see the connection befinreen those RHNA needs and those policies that needed to be put in 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 none would 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 these issues were not properly mitigated. He submitted a letter for the Commissions reference. Steve Sheldon, Trammel Crow Residential, 901 Dove Street Suite 140. He represented Trammel Crow Residential property owner. They processed 688 units that are a part of the ~ amendment and worked on this for eighteen months. They worked with the City's professional staff and believed that the developers could bring an excellent project to the City. He felt that Commission needed to vote for this amendment in order for the developers to bring this project 12/10/07 Page 20 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA • forward. They spent approximately 2.1 million dollars in pursuit 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 AQMD and 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's own Methodology for traffic studies and the County Methodology. All of the traffic impacts could be mitigated through improvements 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 the jobs and housing balance within the city. Those were overridden by the various benefits. The EIR 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. The project provided additional housing opportunities near jobs and 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 facilities that it was appropriate to look at it on a City wide level. Chairman Buffa stated that the Commission discussed a variety of things. Many of those issues were discussed during testimony. This project was huge and it 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, such as 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 Project on how to better screen partially developed sites. 12/10/07 Page 21 of 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, the CFD had funding for resurfacing streets at build out. At the end of the project there would be no more need to put infrastructure within the streets. At the completion of the build out the 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 City had 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 to see 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 she thought 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 District's regulations. Ms. Lai stated that part of the grading plan had erosion control measures that indicated sites would be watered so that the dust would not blow out. The builder would cover up any piles of dust. The City does monitor that during the times the developers have grading permits. Chairman Buffa stated that the problem was not when they had an active grading 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 open for 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 that and said there was a mitigation measure in the EIR. Under Item A in the EIR the construction contractor is required to re-establish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering as quickly as possible. If a site sits 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 22 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA ~ site if they could not develop it, and they 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 meant was that the developers needed to establish a screen along their edge before they were ready to develop. That was what she meant when she said edge conditions. This would button up the site if it were going 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 that there 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, he would like projects that haven't been developed to be more appealing. He thought if beautification or the landscape on the parkway 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 the CFD was approved the plan would be that the City would be 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 23 of 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 built funds 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 it has been maintained 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 fees developers 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 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 paid on a construction project. Normally the developer would pay a traffic improvement fee at the time they pulled building ~ permit. With the CFD it would be paid over time as a special tax on the property. Commissioner Velasquez was concerned with the issue regarding traffic concerns during peak hours. She wanted to know if there had been a study of the type of people that would live in the Platinum Triangle. 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 their traffic 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 24 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA • lower number because some of those people would stay within the study area 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 versus 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 units. She was concerned. Mr. Lower assured her that the analysis was 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 inter city service. They had Metro-link that provided the commuter rail. They committed that by 2009 that would have a train arrive at 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 "match" was used in 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 and, 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 project provided a wide range of housing types for a variety of income levels. ~ Commissioner Velasquez replied that was not the case with the 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 25 of 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 required that. 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. She stated 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 be fire and police fees that generate funds for additional police and fire facilities. • Commissioner Agarwal commented that the Commission gives their time on this to see that Anaheim becomes the city 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 26 of 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 have the 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 baron land. The developers owed it 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 Anaheim and up to Anaheim Hills. He thought the Platinum Triangle would 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 believed the 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 City of 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 people go to those cities because they have a 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 build out period but he believed staff would address those issues. Commissioner Karaki stated that he lived in the City of Anaheim for 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 Anaheim has great visions and they are a leader in the State of California. He supported the re-zoning. He advised staff to add a condition and one condition only; that the off-site improvements to be constructed regardless of whether 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 the right 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 she is not in agreement with some 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 of the reasons she wanted to be part of the planning process was to look at the past. She was a fan of ~ history and when there 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 about the Platinum Triangle was that they took a large part of land and thought through the entire planning process and set up frame work. Many issues brought up were related to land 12/10/07 Page 27 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA • 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 variety of types of housing there would be a variety in the pricing 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 Anaheim had an opportunity to embrace such a large vision. The developers created opportunity for thousands of families in Anaheim. She thought they 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 thought that was the best way for the City of Anaheim to 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 exception to the comments made by speakers, that the proposed mitigation measures do not adequately address impacts. There are impacts that cannot be addressed. Largely those related to air quality. It had been many years since she worked on a project where every single air quality impact was mitigated. We don't live in a part of the country where that would be feasible now. We were 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 measures to be constructed in other cities. She was delighted to support this project. Commissioner Agarwal commented that he was a student of the 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 provide wide capacity to have affordable housing put in and let the developer decide where to put the housing. He believed this was a great project and it was excellent for the City of Anaheim in terms of developing an image in Orange County. He was concerned that it was unfair to the developers to say 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 28 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA ~ Commissioner Romero offered a resolution to certify the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 2006-00334 including Adoption of a Statement of Finding, of fact a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 1066, 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 Plan. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Velasquez abstained. Commissioner Romero offered a motion seconded 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 have to amend the Development Agreement. She thought they weren't prepared to take that action. On a case by case basis they could add a condition of approval that would require that if a project were 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 7 aye 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 as listed in the staff report. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. 12/10/07 Page 29 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA ~J Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney summarized the votes. He stated that the Planning Commission by resolution had certified Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 2006- 00334 and 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 and took action to request review of those items that wouldn't be reviewed as a matter of course and those items were 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 to allow 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. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 51 minutes (2:45 to 4:36) • 12/10/07 Page 30 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA • 8a. CEQA SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 334 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05248 8c. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2007-00002 8d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17186 ~e. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEM NOS. 8b AND 8d Faessel/Eastman Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Velasquez abstained Faessel Approved Faessel Recommended City Council Approval Faessel Eastman/Faessel Eastman/Faessel Eastman/Faessel Owner: Ronald W. Marshall and Deborah L. Marshall Trust The Marshall Family Trust 1105 East Katella Avenue Anaheim, CA 92805 Ewing Enterprises 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 Approved, noting that no wall is required to be shown along the west property line on the Final Map Approved Motion Requesting City Council Review Approved Rescinding Motion Requesting City Council Review Denied Motion Requesting City Council Review VOTE: 6-0 12/10/07 Page 31 of 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 development of 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 ** Advertised as a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Ewing Enterprises. Ted White, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Project Planner.• (twhite@anaheim. net) Greg McCafferty, with the Sheldon Group, 901 Dove Street, Newport Beach, stated that he represented the Sheldon Group. They worked with the City's Peer Review Architect to make sure that the project complied with the 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 and thought it would not be money well spent. They thought that when the other property developed at the corner of Katella Avenue and Lewis Street, the wall would have to come down so it would be a needless cost. They were open to 12/10/07 Page 32 of 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 prohibitive as a block wall. John Stanek, partner with Integral Communities, 160 Newport Center Drive Suite 240. As Integral Partners 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 Project and 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 the Mr. Stox people agreed to maintain the operation of the restaurant until the 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. McCafferty and mentioned the screen wall on the west side of their property was shown on the Tentative Tract Map. She asked him if the map showed the wall. Mr. McCafferty stated that the map does show the wall. Chairman Buffa asked if they removed the wall, could they approve the map. Mr. McCafferty stated that they would have the engineer revise the map. • Chairman Buffa stated she thought that it would be an issue the Commission would discuss when the time comes. Commissioner Faessel stated that Mr. McCafferty proposed a 9,500 square foot full service restaurant that he hoped would maintain the Stox name. He asked Mr. McCafferty what the size of the current Mr. Stox Restaurant is. Mr. Marshall stated that the restaurant was slightly over 11,000 square feet. He looked at their design and thought there was 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 of room. He supported the project and worked with John Stanek and Integral for two years and he would like to see the Mr. Stox logo where it is. Commissioner Karaki wanted to know if he thought if Mr. Stox would come back. Mr. Marshall stated that he hoped it would. Commissioner Karaki addressed Mr. McCafferty. He stated that Mr. Stox had been a landmark in the City of Anaheim for years. He was disturbed by the transition between the restaurant on the bottom and the architecture on top. • He felt that the restaurant on the bottom and architecture on top would not give Mr. Stox Restaurant the distinguished landmark look it currently has. 12/10/07 Page 33 of 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 KTGY Group. He stated that their intention was not to make the restaurant 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 would glow from inside at 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 time view 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. Senden stated 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 a fountain there. • Mr. Senden confirmed 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 been for 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. He compared this to his visits to San Diego where there was a building that was a condo building and inside had several restaurants. Commissioner Agarwal stated that for the record he met with Mr. McCafferty and Mr. Olsen in his office. He was concerned that the stainless steel that was attached to the building might fall in an earthquake. Mr. McCafferty stated that he checked with the architectural firm and those panels were fixed in accordance with state building codes and any seismic requirements required for a building of 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 34 of 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 Avenue and Lewis. There was conversation about the wall. It seemed to him that it would be a waste to put that in even though it was not their money. There were many things that they did jointly together in the interface between those finro 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 mesh screen. 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 fence when the Commission understood what was around the corner. Commissioner Eastman stated that it didn't seem like an environmentally friendly thing to do, to put up a block wall and then demolish it. They tried to be environmentally friendly in the City of Anaheim and Commission should not mandate that developers do that. Commissioner Faessel agreed with his associates. Base upon testimony from Mr. McCafferty, it would be several hundred thousand dollars 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 to the 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 Approval to require an amended map. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manger, replied that they could stipulate deletion of the wall in the resolution approving the Tentative Tract Map. 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 into the Platinum Vista facilities. He asked them to partner with the Public Utilities Department to the greatest extent as possible. 12/10/07 Page 35 of 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 of a Condition of Approval for a wall. Staff gave draft language that prior to demolition permits the applicant had to submit plans that showed vacant lots and construction fencing, it would be enhanced wooden fencing. She stated that Commissioner Karaki also wanted to add that off-site improvements had to be constructed whether the project moved forward or not. She does not agree with that. She envisioned several 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 tore down the building in the front they 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 some reason the developers started and then stopped construction for a long period of time they should have a condition that protects the residents from looking at a 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 Resort would be similar to what happened at 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 public arterials and the City would install street scape, not the individual developer. The way the City would pay for that would be the developers paying 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 grading permit would be issued and the 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 36 of 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 Approval including landscape improvements. If they go before the CFD is formed, 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 going in 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 inappropriate 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 may be risk involved. They would be buying into a work-in-progress and that would be the risk each individual buyer takes. Commissioner Romero stated that the City had many projects approved but not built yet. It would be unfair to start doing this now. 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 a developer who comes and invests in the land. She agreed that they would need to 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 did not 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-link fence was not • what they needed for the Platinum Triangle. They could do better and should approach this as a large single project for hardscape and landscape. They should understand that this was a massive project and not one project at a time. She wanted input from staff and their expertise 12/10/07 Page 37 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA • on what they considered good screening as opposed to temporary screening. It was her opinion that they should not settle for that 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 the 55 freeway in Santa Ana where they had put up pictures. 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 fence was 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 perhaps staff 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 a mural or with decorative treatment or something. Enhanced wooden fencing would remain 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" would be. 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 Las Vegas 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 finro to three years they needed to be careful about what would happen within the City of Anaheim. They do not want to see the City of Anaheim or Katella Avenue lined with chain-link fences. He supported not penalizing the developer with extra costs. They had to come to common ground and have the developers buy into this. The Commission should hear from the developer because they could have a possible solution to this. He invited comments from Mr. McCafferty on this. Mr. McCafferty 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. Regarding interim fencing, the applicant would prefer to have the wood fencing along Katella Avenue with decorative images. Regarding the west property line fencing, they would prefer to have a chain-link fence with slats as an interim condition until such time as the property to the west developed. 12/10/07 Page 38 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA . Chairman Buffa stated that Commission was inclined to say no fence at all. Mr. McCafferty 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. Commissioner Faessel 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 was no longer moving forward. Ms. Johnson was concerned about the Building Division having to make that decision 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 had graded and some street improvement work has been done, therefore, it might be appropriate to tie that activity with the most recent permit issued for the project. • Chairman Buffa stated that she was not 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. McCafferty stated that under Anaheim's building permit process a building permit was valid for one year. That would be there recommendation too. If the activity ceases for a year or more they would have to put in the fencing. The plan for them was immediately after digging the hole and shoring they would have plans into plan-check so it would be seamless between one year digging into the 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 a long 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 Avenue Street scape. Commissioner Karaki stated that he thought it should be between 90 to 120 days. At the bank • they considered the construction stopped if there is no activity for 90 days. Mr. McCafferty stated that he would be okay with 120 days. 12/10/07 Page 39 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA • Chairman Buffa asked who would watch this and who they could burden with this responsibility. She asked if it would be the Code Enforcement's responsibility. Commissioner Karaki stated he wanted a wood fence from the beginning, and then no 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 fence had to start construction by a certain time 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. Commissioner Velasquez stated that she agreed what Chairman Buffa suggested and they needed to start sometime. • Commissioner Karaki stated that in his 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. McCafferty 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 then plans could be stuck in plan-check for three to four months and that could be a violation. Chairman Buffa stated that they should not 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 on an agreement to have a year to look into temporary quarters. If they found something within a two mile vicinity of the Platinum Triangle Area, that could be their permanent quarters. There were several restaurants that failed or that were going out of business. He thought there would be plenty of available spaces for them but they do not have anything specific at the moment. • Commissioner Faessel wanted to let Mr. Marshall know that everyone supported his restaurant. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to determine and recommend that the City Council determine that the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 12/10/07 Page 40 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA • No. 334 serves 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 befinreen 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 White recommended that staff withdraw the request of City Council review of Conditional • Permit Use No. 2007-05248 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17186. Mr. Gordon stated 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 that the Planning Commission rescind the request that the City Council consider the 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. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10 day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map ~nding 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. 12/10/07 Page 41 of 42 DECEMBER 10, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA ~ISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 1 minute (4:36 to 5:37) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:52 P.M. TO MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 2008 AT 1:30 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Respectfully submitted: ~ ~" ' ~ C~'~t ~!!` ~'` Grace Medina, Planning Commission Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on January 23, 2008. • 12/ 10/07 Page 42 of 42