Loading...
Minutes-PC 2008/05/12 /O~ ~. ~ ~~ ~H E 111 P c,~~ l~ 0 2 o' ~~ Y~~ ~NDED~ Commissioners Present Commissioners Absent: City of Anaheim Planning Commission MINUTES Monday, May 12, 2008 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 Commissioner Joseph Karaki Staff Present: Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Linda Johnson, Principal Planner Diane Bathgate, Consultant Planner • Matthew Letteriello, Senior Code Enforcement Officer David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Michelle Irwin, Senior Police Services Representative Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer Kimberly Wong, Planner Donna Patino, Secretary Julie Hourani, Office Specialist II Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 8, 2008, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, May 1, 2008 • Call to Order • Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE MAY 12, 2008 AGENDA • Recess to Public Hearing • Reconvene to Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 42 • Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Eastman • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items Adjournment H:\TOOLS\Planning Commission Administration\PC Action Agendas -Minutes\2008 Minutes\2008 Minutes\AC051208.doc MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Consent Calendar: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Item 1A as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Reports and Recommendations: ITEM NO. 1A. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of April 28, 2008. • Consent Calendar Approval Motion: EastmanNelasquez VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Karaki absent NOTE: Meeting minutes have been provided to the Planning Commission and are available for review at the Planning Department. • 05/12/08 Page 2 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM N0.2 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 AND REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY PERMIT NO. 2008-00042 ~ Faessei Owner: Wal-Mart Stores East LP 2001 South East 10th Street Bentonville, AR 72716 Applicant: Ilene Dick Farella Braun + Martel LLP 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Location: 440 North Euclid Street: Property is approximately 12.45-acres, with a frontage of approximately 660 feet on the west side of • Loara Street north of the SR-91 Freeway. Requests for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit the sales of beer and wine within an existing retail store for off-premises consumption. Diane Bathgate, Consultant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Resolution No. PC2008-56 Approved CEQA and PCN, with modification to Condition No. 7 of the draft resolution. VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Karaki absent Project Planner: Diane Bathgate dbathgafe@ anaheim. net Ilene Dick, Farella Braun and Martel, LLP, 235 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, 94104, stated that she represents Wal-Mart. The applicant is asking for a Type 20, off sale beer and wine license involving less than one percent of the floor area and using no refrigeration. Wal-Mart has an aggressive sales training program for all of their associates, cashiers, and managers to ensure there are no sales to minors or to any intoxicated persons. The beer and wine will also be located away from any exits to prevent the possibility of theft. The applicant also committed to install security cameras. They have read the staff report and are generally in agreement with the conditions. However, she is requesting to make modifications to Conditions, which are No. 6 and No. 13. The Conditions deal with Wal-Mart's responsibility to control the physical premises outside the building area. She requested that the Conditions reflect those areas Wal-Mart has control over. In terms of Condition No. 12, the Police Department recommended that there be a limitation of the size of wine coolers or packaging they could sell; she wanted to add beer as well. This would ensure that nobody will walk out with single beer cans. She requested "and beer" be inserted to Condition No. 12. 05/12/08 Page 3 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '`Kith regards to Condition No. 7, they were concerned about the standard that is in the condition which is "lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernable appearance the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot." She understands the Police Department's intent, which is so they could actually see who a person is in an event there is criminal or nuisance activity, but the meaning of this condition is hard for her to understand. She was looking for something quantifiable like a building or fire code standard. There is an effort on behalf of the City Police department to work with Wal-Mart to indicate to them that if the lighting is not sufficiently intense they will approach Wal-Mart staff. The applicant would rather have something quantifiable, but will accept the standard in hopes they could work together in the interest of making sure this is a safe activity for the City and for Wal-Mart. She is available to answer any questions. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. .. Chairman Buffa wanted to review the changes to conditions that the applicant has requested. With regards to Condition No. 6, she asked if staff suggested a change to the language. She wanted to know if the condition should read; prohibited on or around the public areas of the premises. She asked staff to clarify how the condition should read. Michele Irwin, Senior Police Services Representative, stated that this is an ABC Condition. When an establishment obtains a license they are responsible for making sure people are not taking alcohol outside the parking lot and drinking on the property on or around the building area. This is an ABC ~ondition and is a State law. Commissioner Faessel commented that Ms. Dick concerns where pertaining to the areas that Wal- Mart has control over and not the whole shopping center because it would be difficult to control the whole shopping center. This would also pertain to the graffiti issue, which seems reasonable. Ms. Irwin, clarified that the Police Departments intent was for the property that Wal-Mart has control over. The exhibit is attached to the resolution. She did not think changed language would be necessary for this condition. There is a request to modify Condition No. 12, to add; wine and "beer" shall not be sold in bottles or containers smaller than 750 milliliters. This is the only text change that would be needed. Ms. Bathgate commented that the "beer" is specified in Condition No. 5. Chairman Buffa wanted to discuss Condition No. 7. She indicated that in the preliminary meeting the Police Department stated they are generally looking for a lighting level of 1 foot candle. She asked staff if they wanted to add this quantifiable requirement into the condition. Ms. Bathgate replied that a standard of 1 foot candle could be used for those conditions because it is recommended for most businesses. Chairman Buffa stated that the applicant requested a quantifiable standard and she thought there vas some benefit in identifying it in the language of the condition. Commissioner Romero thought the applicant understood they would be responsible for monitoring the parking lot of the whole shopping center. He asked if the condition only applied to their specific area. 05/12/08 Page 4 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES airman Buffa recommended that staff change the language to Condition No. 7 only. Ms. Bathgate indicated staff would insert "a minimum of 1 foot candle" instead of "sufficient power." Commissioner Faessel recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving the Class 1, Categorical Exemption and Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2008-00042. Julie Hourani, Office Specialist II, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Karaki was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (2:48 to 2:57) • 05/12/08 Page 5 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2008-05316) ve~asquez Owner David and Celfa Aronne and 2563 Woodland Drive Applicant: Anaheim, CA 92801 Location: 2563 West Woodland Drive: Property is approximately 0.31-acre, having a frontage of 45 feet on the north side of Woodland Drive approximately 417 feet east of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue. Request to retain an existing small fitness center that includes physical therapy and chiropractic evaluation with fewer parking spaces than required by code. Diane Bathgate, Consultant Planner, presented the staff report. ~hairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Resolution No. PC2008-55 Approved CEQA and CUP VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Karaki absent Project Planner: Diane Bathgate dbathgate@ anaheim. net Andy Quach, applicant, 15123 Brookhurst St, Suite 169, Westminster, stated that this facility is a unique physical therapy center, which practices intense physical therapy to children who are injured. Current clientele extends from all over the world to have treatment at this center. The patients at the center for physical therapy are there for a minimal period of 1.5 hours to 4 hours a day and the capacity limits a maximum of 4 clients per session. The applicant understands there are 18 parking spaces required by Code at a maximum of no more than 7 vehicles that are allowed to occupy the parking lot at any given time and agrees with all of the conditions. He is available to answer any questions. Norma Aronne, property owner, 31802 Via De Linda, San Juan Capistrano, 92675, stated that she was in support of this facility and she asked the Planning Commission to allow the applicant to continue with their work. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Chairman Buffa commented that the work being done at this facility in Anaheim is very valuable and they are glad it is available to children. Commissioner Velasquez recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approve a Class 1, Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05316. Julie Hourani, Office Specialist II, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Karaki was absent. 05/12/08 Page 6 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (2:38 to 2:47) • 05/12/08 Page 7 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NO. 4 • CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2008-05297 i=aesse~ Owner: Mari-Ann Lewis Trust GELB Enterprises P.O. Box 8370 Van Nuys, CA 91409 Applicant: Jian Yi 841 Fairview Avenue #J Arcadia, CA 91007 Location: 2424 West Ball Road: Property is approximately 2.5 acres, having a frontage of 440 feet on the south side of Ball Road approximately 205 feet west of the centerline of Gilbert Street. Request to permit and retain a massage business. Resolution No. PC2008-57 Denied CEQA and CUP VOTE: 2-4 Chairman Buffa and Eastman voted no to deny. Commissioner Karaki absent Project Planner. Kimberly Wong Kwong2@anaheim.net Kim Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. She indicated that staff received a letter in opposition to the request. Commissioner Faessel asked staff if there are currently the same or similar massage businesses adjacent to schools. Ms. Wong stated that there is not a legally permitted massage business found within the vicinity adjacent to a school. Chairman Buffa asked if there is anything within the Code related to land use adjacencies that states, for example, that massage parlors should not be located within the proximity of certain uses, such as schools or churches. Ms. Wong stated that the Code does not limit location requirements for this type of use as long they obtain a conditional use permit and other requirements. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Jian Yi, applicant, 841 Fairview Avenue, Suite J, Arcadia, 91007, stated that he is the owner of the business, The Best Massage, which is located at 2424 W. Ball Rd, Suite J. The proposal for this ~usiness is to provide therapy massage for the public. The therapy massage will reduce and help people who suffer from tension, emotional stress, and with pain management to increase joint mobility. The techniques that would be performed include Eastern, Thai, and Swedish massage, and will help to improve the well-being for people who receive services. The previous owner had illegal 05/12/08 Page 8 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Faction which has nothing to do with this application. He applied for a new business at this location as the new owner and is familiar with City Codes and regulations. He has a medical education background and apost-secondary education for a certificate to be an instructor for therapy massage. His personal background is affixed to his business and that is the reason he is applying for permits. Commissioner Agarwal asked the applicant what his relationship to the previous owner was. Mr. Yi replied that the previous owner was one of his students. She is trying to restore her business by offering it to him. He looked at this as an opportunity to take over the business. Commissioner Agarwal asked if he purchased this business. Mr. Yi stated that he has an oral agreement to take over the business only if he is able to obtain the required permits and business license. If he could not get approval he would quit. Commissioner Agarwal asked if he has negotiated a price for the business. Mr. Yi replied no. Commissioner Agarwal asked the applicant if this business is approved would he plan to take over the lease. •,llr. Yi replied yes. Commissioner Agarwal wanted to know about his background and verified that he has a certificate in massage therapy. Mr. Yi stated that he has a certificate from the State Board of California for post-secondary education for an instructor of massage therapy. He currently holds a massage permit in the City of Orange. Commissioner Agarwal asked for verification that the applicant had no relationship to the previous owner or was an acquaintance before he decided to purchase this business. He asked if this was correct. Mr. Yi replied yes. Chairman Buffa asked the applicant if he currently operates a massage business in Orange. Mr. Yi replied yes. Chairman Buffa asked if he had any trouble with the police in Orange. Mr. Yi remarked that the business is doing fine. The supervisor of the City of Orange Police Department called him several times to let him his business is running well and that they have not ~ound any illegal operation at this business. Ester Wallace, Chairman of WAND, 604 Scott Lane, Anaheim, submitted a letter in opposition to the Commission. As a member of the Magnolia School Board, Board of Trustees, she is shocked that an 05/12/08 Page 9 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~Ilegal massage and prostitution business can operate within a few hundred feet of a high school and a half a block from an elementary school for nine months and not be shut down. The operators were arrested twice and given probation in the fall. The business should have been shut down in February with the numerous citations it had. The operator of the business had nine months to earn extra money illegally. She wanted to know what the obligation of the owner or business manager was. She understood that the owner of the property should have had a business license or a CUP filed before the business opened. This business had no permit for a massage parlor. The property owner has the authority and obligation to shut down an illegal business. He shows no consideration or respect for the surrounding community when he allows this activity to continue. The owner should have closed the business after the second arrest. She asked what could be done to prevent another massage business to come into the neighborhood and operate illegally, knowing that they could stay open until enough evidence is gathered to satisfy a judge for closure. The continuation of this business shows the school children that it does not matter and they could still continue to operate this illegal business. She asked the Planning Commission to deny the CUP for the massage business 4 they have shown to the neighborhood that they do not want to be good neighbors and have no respect for the neighborhood's children. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Velasquez understood that there is intent to purchase the business but the staff report indicates that both the unit's lease and the utility records will remain under the business owner's ~ame. She wanted to know if the business owner was the one who was convicted. She wanted to know what the relationship was between the existing business owner and the applicant. She was not sure if the applicant would be a true new owner and was concerned. If the Commission were to approve this item, she would ask that there be quarterly visits to this location. Chairman Buffa understood from the applicant that the former operator, who is now shut down and has a bad track record, was his student atone time. The previous owner asked the applicant to take over the business and that is the nature of their relationship. He is not buying the business unless he can obtain approvals from the City. His take-over would be contingent upon getting the necessary approvals. Commissioner Eastman understood the same point of view. She asked the applicant if he ever worked or operated personally at this facility. Mr. Yi replied no. Chairman Buffa asked the applicant if he were to take over this facility would the former operator be involved in any way. Mr. Yi stated that if the permits were issued and the business was approved, the business would be under his name as operator of the facility. The previous owner would be excluded from this business. ~hairman Buffa re-iterated that the previous owner would be excluded and Mr. Yi would take over the business and operate it. Mr. Yi replied yes. 05/12/08 Page 10 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES commissioner Agarwal asked if he would have any formal or informal agreement if he were to take over the business. Mr. Yi replied he has an oral agreement with the previous owner. If this business is approved then he would take this business over. Commissioner Agarwal wanted to make sure the previous owner would not have anything to do with this business. He asked if the previous owner not would profit from the on-going operation of the business. Mr. Yi replied that the previous owner would be excluded once the new business was established. Chairman Buffa stated that she is comfortable knowing that a new operator was coming in to operate the business. She realized this is a land use decision and not an operational decision. She would like to hear from the Police Department to get their opinion even though they have sent a letter not recommending that the Planning Commission approve this item. Michele Irwin, Senior Police Services representative, realized and is clear that this is a land use issue. The Police Department's concerns are that the previous owner and previous applicant would still remain involved. Ms. Bian, the original applicant, came forward to fill out the application for a conditional use permit with Mr. Yi. When she was told it would most likely be denied because of her ~ast history it was offered that Mr. Yi take over the application process. If Ms. Bian planned on being involved with his business, she would either be denied or approved for her position a massage technician or responsible employee or an operator. The police can go into those massage businesses at any time and these inspection would definitely be occurring. Commissioner Eastman asked Ms. Irwin if she could give her police perspective on the appropriateness of a massage business being located close to schools. Michele Irwin stated that they have not had a massage business next to a school. If a massage business was be a legitimate business it would not be a problem. The problem is that this business has not offered itself as a legitimate business and has been caught not being a legitimate business. The Police Department is concerned what this business might become. Commissioner Faessel asked Mr. Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, to clarify the permitting and licensing of a massage business so that the Commission could take it into perspective in their determination. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, the operation of massage establishments is regulated under Chapter 4.29 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The Anaheim Municipal Code requires the operator to obtain a permit for the massage establishment. The operator is defined as the person signing the operator's permit and responsible for the day to day operation of the massage establishment. The rovisions of the Municipal Code further require any change of the operators permit requires the City ~o be notified immediately in the event of a change of an operator's permit. In addition, the Chapter requires any massage technician to also obtain a permit. The massage technicians would be anyone administering services to the customers directly. There are requirements for both the operator and the massage technician permit that are defined by the Municipal Code. Testing 05/12/08 Page 11 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~Fequirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code require compliance with City code and State and federal law. The applicant, either as an operator or massage technician, could be disqualified from participating in the operation were the administration of services, if they have been convicted of certain criminal activity, which may or may not preclude the prior operator from involving themselves in this particular business. There are provisions for the suspension or revocation of the permit if there is a violation of any of the provisions contained in the Ordinance. Violation of the provisions carries criminal consequences. This is how the City governs massage establishments through the implementation of Chapter 4.29. As previously indicated, the CUP is a land use decision primarily focused on the use, not the user. However, there is still the determination on whether or not the use, as approved and is conditioned, would have a detrimental effect upon the surrounding community, whether it would create a nuisance or enforcement problems. Those are issues that are related to the use it self and not specifically through the operator which would be governed by the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code as enforced by the Police Department. Chairman Buffa asked how a license would be revoked, if a license is issued to an operator that is found to have violations. Mr. Gordon replied through the administrative process. The operator would be notified of the City's tent to revoke the permit. The operator would have an opportunity based upon the decision to have a hearing to provide due process. There is an appeal process as well. Chairman Buffa gave an example that if the land use is approved but there are operational problems, there is a process in place to deal with those operational problems. Mr. Gordon replied most definitely. Those would be separate and independent from the use permit. There are layers of regulations which would apply. The day to day business would be regulated through the operation of the Municipal Code provisions that apply directly to massage establishments. Commissioner Eastman clarified that the Commission's decision for the CUP runs with the land and verified that if an operator received violations, the property owner could still seek a legitimate owner to run the business on the property. Mr. Gordon said yes. Commissioner Faessel re-iterated the testimony of the Police Department stating that they did not see any difficulties for a business of this type had it been a legitimate business and its adjacency to a school. However, he was not comfortable with the relationship between the current applicant and the prior operator since the prior operator was the one who took out the application for the CUP. That is evidence that there is some kind of relationship between the two. In addition, there has been no business transaction consummated to sell the business, but he is uncomfortable with the previous ~wner and the applicant's relationship. Chairman Buffa stated that what she understood from the applicant's testimony was that he is contemplating taking over the operation of the business but he would not do so until the City grants 05/12/08 Page 12 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES the proper approvals. It was clear to her that in order to get an operator's license under the Municipal Code, the former operator might not qualify based upon the outcome of her trial and she might not be able to get a license in the City of Anaheim. The applicant has testified the previous owner would be excluded and if he were inclined to bring her back into the business she may not qualify for a license. Commissioner Velasquez agreed with Commissioner Faessel and was uncomfortable with the applicant's relationship with the previous owner based upon police testimony. She is inclined to go with the police recommendation because of the facts explained in their letter submitted to the Commission. Commissioner Agarwal indicated that as a business person he would agree on a price first and then apply for a license. It makes him uncomfortable to know that there is no purchase price agreement and the applicant is ready to buy a business for an undisclosed price. He is aware the Commission needs to consider the land use, but Mr. Gordon did provide the Commission with guidance as to if the use would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and if the business becomes a nuisance are things the Commission must consider. He is not suggesting that the new business would become a nuisance, but the process has failed once because the previous owner did not get a license which makes him uncomfortable with the request. Commissioner Eastman stated that she was strictly looking at this as a land use and she has not heard anything that would indicate that a legitimate massage business would not fit within this articular center. A legitimate business could be conducted and could be a benefit to the community. ~rom a land use stand point she could not find a reason to say no to this permit. She does not like some of the things she has heard, but it is operational. The Planning Commission's job is to look at the appropriateness of the land use verses the operation and trust the operational regulations to the City staff as it is not in the Planning Commission's control. Commissioner Faessel addressed Ms. Wallace and asked if it could be proven to be a legitimate business that may be a positive addition to the neighborhood, would she still have the same concerns if this future operator did run a legitimate business. Ms. Wallace stated that this is a very sensitive question because there are so many massage parlors that have been illegal with prostitution around the neighborhood. It took along time to get these kinds of businesses out of the area. She would still have doubts about this establishment because no transaction has been made to purchase the business and it does not belong near a school. The West Anaheim community is very concerned with massage parlors. Commissioner Romero stated that the City Attorney specified that it is a land use issue, but they stit{ were not sure if it was going to have detrimental effect on the community. Based upon the testimony of the Police Department, Ms. Wallace, and the history of this location he thinks there is no proof that this establishment would be any different. He feels strongly that this item should not be approved. Chairman Buffa indicated, in making a land use decision, the police have testified that a legitimate massage business could be operated at that location and could not be a detriment to the community. ~'he applicant has testified that the previous operator with the troublesome history would not be associated with this business. He operates another massage business in another City with no problem. It does not mean a new business operator could not start a new venture just because there have been massage parlors in West Anaheim that did not operate the way they were supposed to, 05/12/08 Page 13 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES every business has to be judged individually. She is not concerned that the applicant has not made purchase agreements, because there may not be a business to purchase. It may be that he is going to take over the lease and utility payments and collect the revenues that come in to the business on an on-going basis. From a land use perspective she could not find any reason why there could not be a legitimate massage therapy facility at this location, as long as it is maintained well and there is no prostitution. Commissioner Eastman recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution to approve C1ass1, Categorical Exemption, and Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05297. Motion failed with 4 no votes and 2 yes votes. Commissioner Velasquez, Commissioner Faessel, Commissioner Agarwal and Commissioner Romero voted no. Commissioner Eastman and Chairman Buffa voted yes. Commissioner Karaki was absent. Chairman Buffa asked if there was an alternate recommendation to deny the CUP. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to recommend that the Planning Commission deny the CUP based upon the fact that the operation of the proposed business would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. Motion passed with 4 yes votes. Commissioner Romero, Commissioner Agarwal, Commissioner Velasquez and Commissioner Faessel voted yes. Commissioner Eastman and Chairman Buffa voted no. Commissioner Karaka was absent. OPPOSITION: A person spoke in opposition to the request and indicated she submitted a letter in opposition. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 39 minutes (2:58 to 3:37) • 05/12/08 Page 14 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES BEM NO. 5 CEQA EIR NO. 334 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED), DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT N0.2008-00002 AND Resolution No. PC2008-58 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2008-05304 Romero Resolution No. PC2008-59 Owner: K/L Anaheim Properties I LLC and Approved CEQA and CUP. K/L Anaheim Properties II LLC 300 South Grand Avenue, 37 Floor Recommended Cit Council y Los Angeles, CA 97001 approval of DAG with a modification to add a Applicant: The PRS Group condition of approval pertaining tofencing/ 31872 San Juan Creek Road screening. San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Recommended City Council Location: 905-917 East Katella Avenue: Property is review of CUP. approximately 8.7 acres, located at the northeast corner of Lewis Street and Katella Avenue having a frontage of 616 feet on the VOTE: 6-0 east side of Lewis Street and 615 feet on the Commissioner Karaki absent south side of Katella Avenue. • Requests to construct a 12-story office building, 130 guest room hotel and 320-unit residential complex. This project requires approval of the following requested actions: Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05304 - to modify setback requirements and to permit a building height that exceeds 100 feet. Development Agreement No. 2008-00002 -request to adopt a Development Agreement between the City of Project Planner. Anaheim and K/L Anaheim I LLC and K/L Anaheim I I LLC. Kimberly Wong kwong2@anaheim.net Kim Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Jonathan Brandler, property owner, 905-917 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, stated that he is the manager of the LLC and one of the owners. He stated that his grandfather and some of his friends ave him part of this property and it was built to suit the Whirl Pool Corporation for their Southern California warehouse. They moved out in 1985 and various tenants have occupied the building. Although it is industrial property, it is really a warehouse. They have tenants in place and they are asking for an extension for the term of the agreement. They already have the design and would like the entitlements to have the three types of buildings permitted. They have worked with staff to see 05/12/08 Page 15 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES What the City would like to see on this property. This property is the gateway into the Platinum Triangle. Phil Schwartze, project planner, 31872 San Juan Creek Circle, San Juan Capistrano, 92675, stated that when he started on this project with Mr. Brandler and his family, he was fortunate to have a clean slate for the land uses on the property. The property has the General Plan land use designation and the expansion of The Platinum Triangle and they came up with a good set of complimentary land uses. It was clear from the start that this property was in fact the Gateway to the Platinum Triangle, hence the name Platinum Gateway. They are here before the Planning Commission to request approvals of various things. The first is a Conditional Use Permit for the office. The Code requires a Conditional Use Permit and certain office buildings require the CUP. When they originally started the property was approximately 9 acres and the project design was slightly different. Through an iterative process, every time they returned back to City staff with an w alternative plan the property began to shrink. New information came out on traffic and the new EIR for The Platinum Triangle, the property continued to shrink to the point were they lost over 20% of it to dedications. They went through the process looking at the impacts that would occur and they came up with another plan that is presented today before the Planning Commission. Pat Blote, architect, RRM Design Group, referred to the presentation slides. He explained the background information on the site plan development, the architecture, and the building design. ~-le indicated they had placed an office building at the corner of Katella Avenue and Lewis Street since that it is the most visible from Katella and the freeway, creating good views for the office users. It created great opportunities for the public plaza and outdoor dining on the street level. The office building has a distinctive building profile and they are trying to take advantage of the gateway idea for The Platinum Triangle. The primary building materials are tinted glass, pre-cast concrete panels, and pre-finish metal panels which are contemporary materials for office buildings. In addition, there are bright colors on the street level side and facades for store fronts or restaurants with bright colored canopies to add interest to the street level. There is a location for hotel. This site location made a lot of sense for a hotel user because they would want to be as visible as possible from Katella where it is expected guest would arrive from. Other features for the site plan include a lobby entry that faces the office entry and valet parking shared with the office building. The site area is minimal; a hotel user would probably choose to put their pool deck on the third or fourth floor. Hotels can be a challenging design and there repetitive with regards to the guest rooms, so they took the approach of grouping and clustering the guest rooms with unique geometry. The parking structure serves both the office and hotel. The primary vehicle entrance would be from Lewis Street and the secondary exit would be on the street labeled Connector West. The concept of this is to separate pedestrians from vehicles. There is a mezzanine level bridge system so that people could use this level down to the office through the mezzanine and into the hotel. ~he architecture for the parking structure was a challenge when working with City staff. They understood the challenge was to make this look like a building and not a parking structure. The solution they came up with was utilizing unique building materials. They propose metal fabric to help to screen the parking bays and they left room for dense landscape screening. 05!12108 Page 16 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~lVlth regards to the residential building, the C shape creates interesting opportunities for internal recreation space. There is a common pool and recreation area with two other areas that could be turned into courtyards and outdoor relaxation areas for the residents. With regards to the architecture for the residential, they did a lot of research because there is a lot going on with in The Platinum Triangle and they wanted to be consistent but offer something more unique. There are added features to the roof line to create interesting building profiles. Each unit will have its own outdoor patio and the units are all treated differently, trying to give it unique quality to what's being built in the area. He looks forward to hearing comments and questions. Chairman Buffa indicated that there was building at the Platinum Triangle where the setback encroachment was the roof over hang. She asked staff with regards to the setbacks, if the measured setbacks for this property were the ground plane setbacks or the most outward projecting part of the building. Ms. Wong stated that the Platinum Triangle Code allows for some permitted encroachments. For example, balconies or ground floor patios or entrances can encroach without obtaining a CUP. The actual building plane does encroach within the required setback and that is what the applicant is asking approval for. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. commissioner Romero wanted to know if there would be any retail in residential building of the project. Mr. Schwartze stated they would not have any retail. Commissioner Romero wanted to disclose that he did meet with a representative and developer. Mr. Schwartze wanted to add that the applicant read and understood all the conditions of approval to put forth today including the revised condition No. 2, which dealt with the demolition screening around the project. Commissioner Faessel was hopeful, as the building design becomes more mature, that the applicant would have more opportunities to work with Anaheim Public Utilities to see if they could incorporate as many "Green" components into the building as possible. Commissioner Agarwal commented to the architect that it is a very unique design and hoped they could see more projects like this in The Platinum Triangle. Chairman Buffa wanted to discuss the proposed condition of approval in the development agreement related to fencing and screening. -The issue was raised during the preliminary meeting as to whether or not properties should be screened from public view. This issue has come up in the past when there were projects that start and stop and are on hold for a period of time. The Commission has ~sked that those properties be screened at the public right-of-way line or at the ground plane level. This issue came up in the meeting today. 05/12/08 Page 17 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~T'he condition that staff brought to the Planning Commission is a condition that addresses construction fencing and not screening. It is her opinion that a standard condition about construction fencing is not necessary because every builder fences their site because they are protecting themselves from liability, theft and a variety of issues. She is reluctant to impose a condition on a project that compels them to spend a fair amount of money to put up a screening treatment along the street. It is not as though this project has started and stopped. The Planning Commission has nothing to suggest that they are going to start before the time that they think they will be able to finish. She was not sure if the Planning Commission would have to add a condition about screening. Her inclination would be not to add a condition. Commissioner Velasquez stated that the Planning Commission has discussed this several times. She thought because this project is in The Platinum Triangle, there will be other developments that will already be up. There are other cities that do require fencing and it does look nice. She believed they should require screening prior to construction because some of the properties may be vacant for some time. Commissioner Romero agreed with Chairman Buffa. He did not think the Planning Commission needed to place any additional restrictions or have the applicant incur additional cost. The developers are responsible and they would do this anyway to protect their site. He did not feel the need to impose any additional restrictions. commissioner Velasquez her concern was about the image of The Platinum Triangle. They are not the only city who would require screening. Commissioner Faessel stated that some developments in the City and around the state not only have the standard construction fence but also a tarp to hold down dust. In terms of the screening, he agrees with Commissioner Velasquez. He was not suggesting an expensive screening fence be constructed but at least a dust fence or blind to cover the fencing so that the view is blocked. Since this is The Platinum Triangle and there are a number of developments that have been put on hold, there is no guarantee that this may not be put on hold as well, regardless of the best efforts of the applicant. Chairman Buffa stated that this is an occupied property and it is not as if this building is going away. It is her understanding that the existing tenant may stay there for a while. The developer is in negotiation with the existing tenant about how long they are going to occupy the premises. If there is any kind of screening treatment it would not be installed until the building is demolished. She cannot imagine if they are not ready to develop that they would demolish an existing revenue generating building. She did not think they would do that. Commissioner Agarwal stated that it was his opinion as long as the construction is on schedule he did not see a reason to put additional fencing. However, if the construction stopped for a certain amount of time, he did not want to see a bunch of chain link fences. If the construction is on schedule he did not see a need for this but if it is suspended he would recommend that the developer have fencing ~nrhere no one could look into the project. Commissioner Eastman agreed with Commissioner Agarwal. She stated that the best example that served the purpose that the Planning Commission is looking for was the fence that was put up around 05/12/08 Page 18 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~Ehe Gardenwalk property. Gardenwalk did an excellent job of providing a screening treatment that used color and design at a minimal cost. She was unsure if the Commission should impose this and that's where she is uncertain whether or not they really need to impose this screening on developers. It seems to her that the screening was in the best interest of the Gardenwalk people to put a nice face out there while there was nothing to look at. She did not like to put extra regulations on developers if they did not have to. Commissioner Velasquez agreed but at the same time it would be to the developers benefit as well. If a developer's project went up on time and the project next to them did not, their property would be dust making it an eyesore. Chairman Buffa stated that the Planning Commission has dealt with issues of street frontage on Public Works issues where they were asking people to put in sidewalks if they happened to own a corner property and they have a huge amount of street frontage. It seems disproportionate to ask them to improve all their edges. She wanted to know what the Commissioners thought if they were to suggest that they add screen along the Katella frontage and not along Lewis Street. Commissioner Agarwal and Commissioner Velasquez supported that idea. Commissioner Eastman replied that Lewis is a big street but not the major street. The major streets in The Platinum Triangle are State College, Katella Avenue and Orangewood Avenue. This is where there is the most traffic and she thought it would be a good public image for developers to have there ~ame advertised as people drive by. Chairman Buffa stated that in the past the Planning Commission discussed a period of time were there is no activity on the site, but she did not remember what the actual period of time was. Commissioner Agarwal believed the Planning Commission discussed that it would be if the project was suspended for nine months. That is a long time but they have to give the developer the flexibility to start and stop if they have to within nine months. If they have not done anything within nine months, he believes it would be time for them to place a fence around the site. Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, recalled the prior discussion and it was anywhere between nine months to a year. In the Anaheim Resort it is required for a property that has been vacant for a year to put up screening. This is the only area that she could recall that has a time frame after which screening needs to be provided. Commissioner Agarwal thought the Platinum Triangle area should be consistent with the Anaheim Resort. Chairman Buffa stated if there is going to be a requirement for screening fencing is should be consistent with the Anaheim Resort requirements. Any property in the Platinum Triangle that is vacant for a year should be screened. This would be a new condition to the development agreement .conditions of approval. Commissioner Romero recommended that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution to determine that the Previously Certified Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 334 serve as the appropriate environmental document for the project and to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 05/12/0$ Page 19 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '2008-05304 and recommend that the City Council approve the Development Agreement No. 2008- 00002 and also to offer a motion to recommend that the City Council review the Commission's decision of the Conditional Use Permit. Julie Hourani, Office Specialist II, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Karaki was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 37 minutes (3:38 to 4:15) • 05/12/08 Page 20 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CEQA EIR NO. 334 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIEDI, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05284, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17241, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT N0.2007-00006 AND MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2008-00246 Romero Owner: Trammel Crow Residential 949 South Coast Drive 40 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Location: 2100 East Orangewood Avenue: Property is approximately 6.98 acres, having a frontage of 497 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue and located 308 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard. Requests to construct a 689-unit residential development in five buildings, each ranging in height from 4 to 5 stories. This project requires approval of the following requested • actions: Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05284 - to modify setback requirements. Tentative Tract Map No. 17241 - to establish a 4-lot (1- lettered and 3-numbered), 689-unit airspace residential condominium subdivision. Development Agreement No. 2007-00006 -request to adopt a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and TCRSC Development Limited Partnership, Robert Wells Family Partnership Limited Partnership and Twedt Family Partnership Limited Partnership. Miscellaneous Case No. 2008-00246 - to request an extension for the execution of the development agreement between the City of Anaheim and Robert Wells Family Partnership, Twedt Family Partnership, and TCRSC Development Limited Partnership. ~im Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Resolution No. PC2008-60 Resolution No. PC2008-61 Resolution No. PC2008-62 Approved CEQA, CUP and TTM. Recommended City Council approval of DAG with a modification to add a condition of approval pertaining to fencing/ screening. Recommended City Council approval of the MISC case and City Council review of CUP and TTM. VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Karaki absent Project Planner: Kimberly Wong Kwong2(a~anaheim.net 05/12/08 Page 21 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .Greg McCafferty, The Sheldon Group, 901 Dove Street, Suite #140, Newport Beach, stated that he is pleased to be before the Planning Commission to present this exciting project. This project has been collaborated with staff for several months. He introduced the project team. They have read the staff report and are in agreement with all of the conditions of approval. At the conclusion of the presentation they are available to answer any questions. Michael Genthe, Trammell Crow Residential, 949 South Coast Drive, Costa Mesa, 92626, stated that he is a partner with Trammell Crow Residential and he is excited to present this project for consideration. "Alexan" is their brand name for their luxury rental housing projects used throughout the nation. Trammell Crow has 23 offices nationwide since 1978. They have built over 200,000 housing units and all of these units are attached housing. Approximately 95°to of these units are rentals which is their specialty. Trammel Crow Residential is experienced in multi-family apartments as well as for-sale types. A unique part of their company is that they are privately owned. Each of the partners is responsible for each of the projects. If things do not work out, they are responsible as a group. This makes the company unique because there is personal investment in everything they do. The Southern California Division of the company has a proven record of success which was re- opened in 1998. They offered and built over 2 billion dollars worth of primarily rental housing throughout the counties of Southern California which include Los Angeles, Orange, Inland Empire, and San Diego, since their re-opening. The firm is responsible for their construction and act as the general contractor for the sites using their own construction company. He stated that Trammell Crow Residential is national in presence, but they focus on a local presence and that is why their team is comprised of local people that live and breathe the business with them each day. They have developed both podium product types and wrap products. Their completed project in the City of Orange is a wrap product where the housing units were wrapped around an on-grade parking structure. They have also developed townhomes and walk-up units throughout the southland. He pointed out a similar project that was also designed by the architects of the Alexan Orangewood project, called Alexan Savoy. He also showed another completed project that was similar to the architectural style that Trammell Crow was conveying in their Building One and Two of the Alexan Orangewood project. He stated that the Alexan Orangewood project represents a 200 million dollar investment in Anaheim by their team. It will create approximately 1,100 construction jobs. These will be jobs that will last over 3 to 3'/2 years construction horizon. The project will also have provide 18 full-time jobs and many of these employees will live on-site. This project will involve all aspects of operating a modern luxury apartment community. They will pay their fair share of municipal fees which is approximately 9 million dollars. This fee is in addition to their participation in the CFD. Lastly, they are excited to bring a vibrant, active and well-maintained residential community to Anaheim. Alison Mori, project manager, 949 South Coast Drive, suite 400, Costa Mesa, 92626 stated that the project is located with their property fronting on Orangewood Avenue across from the stadium. There address is 2020 and 2100 East Orangewood Avenue and are 6.93 acres in The Platinum Triangle ~ateway District and the current land use is industrial. The adjacent land use includes, to the north a vacant parcel where residential is planned, to the south a residential community which is under construction, to the east an industrial site and to the west commercial uses which include a Del Taco and an office building. The proposed land use for the project is to be mufti-family residential. In total 05/12/08 Page 22 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 'they will have 689 residential units in five buildings. Two of these buildings will be 5 story buildings and three will be 6 story buildings. Trammell Crow will offer two different architectural styles. Buildings 1 and 2 will be a Mediterranean style. Buildings 3, 4, and 5 will be art deco inspired. The architectural design was done to create a village environment within the community. In addition, it allows separate and unique identities for their buildings that are complimentary, but also it will give them the opportunity to phase and operate the development separately. There is a wide array of unit types. The complex has townhomes, traditional apartment flats, and non-traditional flexible open floor plan lofts. The units are designed and will be constructed to "Build It Green" standards. The community has been designed as apartments from its inception. They have a tract map for condominium purposes and are dedicated to providing the highest quality amenity space as well as having a very well-maintained community because they understand they need to sell their community year after year to their residents. in total, the project wi11 provide approximately 3.2 acres of recreational and leisure space which comes in the forms of private balconies and patios. Each unit will have one or the other. The project will have an urban plaza, court yards and a dog run. To give an overview of the site plan, Building 1, 2 and 4 are six stories. They have one level of subterranean parking and two levels of at-grade parking. The parking structures will not be seen because townhomes will be wrapped around them. Those townhomes have patios with access from the sidewalk so they give an active building edge and also provide ownership on the street frontage. Buildings 3 and 5 are their open floor plans. Those units are one level of subterranean parking and one level of at-grade parking with stacked flats above. The rear buildings share one subterranean lot hat connects through all them. The project has three interior courtyards and an urban plaza between the buildings. The courtyards will have landscaped areas, pools, spas and water features. They will have multiple bbq's and food preparation areas that include a sink. They are offering outdoor fireplaces and fire pits for residents to gather. They also provide lounge area for tables and seating. The urban plazas are at the ground level. These areas will have grassy areas with unique paving patterns and paving treatment to create the feel of a European plaza. They will also have water features, a dog run in the back, planters and landscaping. They are offering units that range in size from 550 to 1,470 square feet. There are a lot of internal amenities. There will be a clubhouse with entertainment room, afull-service kitchen that residents will be able to rent out for events and a fitness center. They also have programmed community areas which offer theatre screens, game rooms and lounges. The business users will have a business center where people could fax and use computers. They have a conference room that can be reserved and added storage facilities. The units wi11 have condo-grade finishes including granite counter tops, wood cabinetry, top-grade appliances, wine racks, the and carpet. Mr. McCafferty stated that his project team is available to answer any questions. Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. commissioner Eastman disclosed that she met with the applicant. She was concerned with the circulation of the project due to the median on Orangewood Avenue. She assumed a traffic study was approved for the project and ingress and egress of the project would not create an undue burden in the street. 05/12/08 Page 23 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner, stated that a traffic study was completed and an analysis was conducted to evaluate whether alert-turn pocket was a requirement. The conclusion was that alert-turn pocket could reduce delays at the adjacent intersection of State College Boulevard at Orangewood Avenue, but based on the traffic lines on the street it is not needed for access to and from the project site. Chairman Buffa asked if the median on Orangewood Avenue was going to be removed as part of the future improvements because there is an existing median which creates the pocket. Mr. Kennedy stated that the median will be extended east and the first median break will be at Dupont Drive, adjacent to the future Platinum Tower project. There will be a left-turn lane facing the light so that vehicles could make a u-turn if they wish to proceed west, leaving the project site. Chairman Buffa stated that there are 700 units creating a lot of trips for vehicles coming in and out of this driveway. She stated she was not a traffic engineer but that is a lot of traffic in and out of one driveway. People would have to turn right to go to Dupont Drive, and a reasonable assumption is that some percentage of the vehicles would have to make a u-turn. Commissioner Eastman agreed. ~r. Kennedy stated that according to the traffic study, approximately 143 vehicles would be leaving the site during the peak hour during the a.m. and approximately 50 of those vehicles will be making a u-turn at Dupont. The left-turn pocket at Dupont Drive will be of sufficient length to handle these u- turns as well as service both the A-Town Stadium and the Orangewood Condominium projects. Mr. McCafferty stated that in the morning he would expect a lot of people leaving the site would travel east on Orangewood to get to the 57 Freeway and either go north or south to the 5 or 22 Freeways. Chairman Buffa asked what the volume would be in the p.m. hours. Mr. Kennedy stated that the highest volume in the peak hour would be 117 vehicles entering the site with the vast majority of them coming from Interstate 5 using State College. Chairman Buffa asked how many of these vehicles do they anticipate would get to the intersection of Orangewood and State College and need to make a u-turn. Mr. Kennedy replied 40. Commissioner Faessel asked if the applicant would be expected to pay for the improvement on Orangewood Avenue should alert-hand turn lane be deemed appropriate or is that issue handled by the City's traffic department in the normal course of the upgrades of Orangewood. ~hairman Buffa stated she would not know who would deem that appropriate if the traffic study does not recommend that it be made. 05/12/08 Page 24 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES commissioner Faessel remarked that currently there is no recommendation at this point to make any changes on Orangewood Avenue specific to this applicant. However, should after A-Town Stadium, Orangewood Condominiums and The Platinum Tower gets built and the traffic on Orangewood then demands new attention, does the City bear that cost of changing Orangewood on it's own. At that point we could not go back to the developers and ask them, although they will be paying into the CFD. Commissioner Romero thought that was part of the overall General Plan. Commissioner Faessel replied that this is one project that is adding a certain amount of traffic and all of the other buildings will be adding their additional traffic. He was not arguing with staff, but was wondering whether at some point in the future if the Traffic Department may have to come back to re- visit the traffic circulation on Orangewood Avenue. He was wondering when that happens who would pay for that. Chairman Buffa thought they needed to recall with the expansion of The Platinum Triangle staff did a new analysis of the circulation system, some roads were added, widened, and some intersection modifications were recommended as part of the expansion. All the units that were proposed around the area are contemplated as part of that. At this moment the City believes that the circulation system is adequate for the number of units proposed. If at some point in the future the situation has changed for some reason, and circulation improvements need to be made, she agrees that the City could not go back to the developer and it would become a Public Works improvement project that ~oes on the list along with anything else that needs to be done in town. The reminder is that the Platinum Triangle circulation plan was updated concurrently with the expansion to allow for more commercial, office and residential square footage. Commissioner Agarwal asked Public Works what are the times that were analyzed as the peak hour for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Mr. Kennedy replied typically it is the busiest hours between 7:00 and 9:00 during the a.m.; this analysis is between 7:30 to 8:30. The p.m. hours would be between 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. and for this project the hours are between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Agarwal asked if that meant between 7:30 and 8:30 there will be 147 cars leaving. He wanted to know what they anticipated the rest of the people would be doing. Mr. Kennedy stated that the a.m. peak period is typically spread out over a three hour period and that is when most of the vehicles would be leaving for a typical day job. These units being in the Platinum Triangle does have a higher percentage of transit riders expected in the long term with the proximity to ARTIC and the implementation of rapid transit on State College Boulevard which is in walking distance to help reduce the amount of vehicles that would typically come out of a site such as this one. If this was a typical stand alone apartment complex some where else in the City which withstands a transit service the peak hour numbers would be higher. commissioner Agarwal could not believe that 500 people coming out of those apartments would walk. Chairman Buffa commented that people who work in Los Angeles and left at 6:30 in the morning and the people who work in Irvine left at 7:00 and the ones who work in retail jobs don't leave until 9:30. 05/12!08 Page 25 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES the thought most people would be leaving between 7:30 and 8:30 and there projected to be 143 of them. Commissioner Velasquez was concerned they were planning on ARTIC. She is sure every effort will be made that ARTIC becomes a reality, but how could they make assumptions with a project that is not developed yet. She wanted to know how they could take ARTIC into consideration when it is not even developed. Mr. Kennedy stated that The Platinum Triangle EIR did take into account ARTIC. However, this traffic study did not because it is not a project in place at this point and time. It was part of the larger EIR to discuss the amount of volume that would be on Orangewood in the future, and projects how long the turn pockets would be to allow for u-turns. They want to know what the future volumes would be and designed for the future which would assume projects that need to be in place in the long term. Commissioner Faessel stated that this discussion does not affect the applicant's application and they should get back to the application rather than discuss the traffic study which no one seems to agree with. Linda Johnson, Senior Planner, added that if in the future there is any request to put a median break in there for alert-turn pocket, it would require an amendment to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, specifically the street exhibits for landscaping because this is the only median area that would be landscaped on this segment of Orangewood. If there was to be a median break that would ~ean there would be no landscaped median on this segment of Orangewood Avenue. This is another step that would need to be carefully addressed and analyzed. Commissioner Romero wanted to disclose that he met with the applicant for this project. Commissioner Faessel also wanted to disclose he met with the applicant. Commissioner Velasquez thought the applicant did an incredible job with the design of the buildings, and the quality they have used. She is in support of this project. Chairman Buffa liked the two architectural styles within the project. One of which is the primary facade along Orangewood Avenue but the other one will enhance the street scene, so she commends the developer for doing that. Commissioner Velasquez stated that this is what they were expecting of The Platinum Triangle. Commissioner Agarwal agreed. Commissioner Faessel was appreciative to Trammel Crow about incorporating "Build It Green" standards in this project. Commissioner Agarwal recommended that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution iietermining the Previously Certified Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 334 serve as the appropriate environmental document for the project and to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007- 05284 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17241 and recommend that the City Council approve Development Agreement No. 2007-00006 and recommend that the Commission by motion approve 05/12/08 Page 26 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 'Miscellaneous No. 2008-00246 and request City Council review of the Commissions decision on the Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map with the additional condition for the fencing. Mark Gordon asked whether the approval included a recommendation that the Council approve the extension agreement in connection with the recommendation for approval for the Development Agreement. Chairman Buffa stated that the recommendation was amended per Mr. Cordon's suggestion. Resolution passed with 6 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 22, 2008; and presented the 22-day appeal rights for the Conditional Use Permit and Development Agreement ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 33 minutes (4:15 to 4:48) • 05/12/08 Page 27 of 28 MAY 12, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:50 P.M. TO WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2008 AT 1:30 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: Julie Hourani, Office Specialist II n U Received and approved by the Planning Commission on May 28, 2008. • 05/12/08 Page 28 of 28