Loading...
Minutes-PC 2011/02/28City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday,February 28, 2011 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present :Chairman: Stephen Faessel Todd Ament, Joseph Karaki, Victoria Ramirez, John Seymour Commissioners Absent :Peter Agarwal and Harry Persaud Staff Present : CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerRaul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneySara Mathis, Principal Civil Engineer David See,Senior PlannerDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Della Herrick, Associate PlannerDavid Gottlieb, Redevelopment Manager Scott Koehm, Associate PlannerGrace Medina, Senior Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at4:30 p.m. onWednesday,February 23, 2011, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published:Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper onThursday, February 3,2011 Call to Order–5:00 p.m. Audience Attendance: 25 Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissioner Seymour Public Comments Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items Adjournment FEBRUARY 28, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda –5:00 P.M. Public Comments: None Reports and Recommendations ITEM NO. 1A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05308BMotion (DEV2010-00160A) (Ament/Karaki) Owner/Approved City of Anaheim Applicant: Redevelopment Agency VOTE: 5-0 Location:200-300 North Beach Boulevard Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Ament, Karaki, The applicant requests review and approval of final site, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. colored elevation, and sign program plans for Westgate CommissionersAgarwal and shopping center (Phase 2 –Food Court Pad Buildings).Persaud wereabsent. Environmental Determination: A previously-certified Final Project Planner: David See Environmental Impact Report is the appropriate dsee@anaheim.net environmental documentation for the proposed action. David See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated February 28, 2011along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Ramirez requested more details regarding the courtyard between Buildings F1 and F2. She asked if it was an open area thatpeople could access from Beach Boulevard. David Gottlieb, Redevelopment Manager, stated that area would have outside seating for patrons of the shopping center. It would be open to Beach Boulevard. He referred to the visual presentation and indicated the seating area. The developer will also install a security gate that will be closed at approximately 11:00 p.m. to prevent pedestrian access from Beach Boulevard into the center. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the developer has identified the retail businesses and restaurants. Mr. Gottlieb said there is a significant interest from the restaurant community; however, leases have not yet been signed. They are in the final stages of lease negotiation. It is his understanding, in speaking with the developer, that once the major tenant, such as the WinCo Foods store signs a lease, then lease negotiations commence with other prospective tenants in the center. He pointed out that the Agency has instructed the developer to provide architectural embellishments on all four 02/28/11 Page 2of 18 FEBRUARY 28, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES sides of the buildings. For example, the view from the west will be identical to the east; the only difference will be that there will be no store entrance door on the west side facing Beach Boulevard. Commissioner Ament offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki,that the Planning Commission determiningthat apreviously-certified Final Environmental Impact Reportis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approve the final site, colored elevation, and sign program plans for the Westgate shopping center in conjunction withConditional Use PermitNo. 2008-05308B. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the motionpassedwith five yesvotes. Chairman Faesseland Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Ramirez and Seymourvoted yes.Commissioners Agarwal and Persaud were absent. OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: One person spokein favor of the subject request. DISCUSSION TIME :3 minutes (5:05to 5:08) 02/28/11 Page 3of 18 FEBRUARY 28, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05537 Continued to March 28, 2011 VARIANCE NO. 2011-04843 (Karaki/Seymour) PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2010-00074 (DEV2010-00177) Approved Owner: Paul Roper D & P, LLC 987 Enterprise Street VOTE: 5-0 Orange, CA 92867 Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Applicant: Juan Reynoso Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Reymart, Inc. Commissioners Agarwal and 2107 North Broadway, Suite 106 Persaud were absent. Santa Ana, CA 92706 Agent: Mike Ayaz Rick Blake, Attorney at Law 2107 North Broadway, Suite 106 Santa Ana, CA 92706 Location:1168 South State College Boulevard The applicant proposes to establish a nightclub in an existing Project Planner: David See commercial building, to include a Type 48 (Public Premise) dsee@anaheim.net ABC license, sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, public dancing, cover charge, and live entertainment with less parking than required byCode. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines -Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Continued from the January 19 and January 31, 2011 Planning Commission meetings. DISCUSSION TIME :This item was not discussed. 02/28/11 Page 4of 18 FEBRUARY 28, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2010-152Continued to March 14, 2011 (DEV2010-00188) (Seymour/Ament) Owner/Approved City of Anaheim Applicant: Redevelopment Agency VOTE: 5-0 Location:200–300 North Beach Boulevard Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Ament, Karaki, The applicant proposes to establish an 11-lot commercial Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. subdivision to permit the construction of a future shopping Commissioners Agarwal and center.Persaud were absent. Environmental Determination: A previously-certified Final Project Planner: David See Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the West Anaheim dsee@anaheim.net Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project Area, including an Addendum and its technical appendices, will serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed project actions. DISCUSSION TIME :This item was not discussed. 02/28/11 Page 5of 18 FEBRUARY 28, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05526 Resolution No. 2011-010 (DEV2010-00151) (Seymour) Owner:Approved S. Batcheller La Palma/Miller JV, LLC VOTE: 4-1 34 Telsa, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Ament, Ramirez Applicant: Phillip Schwartzeand Seymour voted yes. PRS GroupCommissioner Karaki voted no. 21103 Rancho View Road, #2260Commissioners Agarwal and San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675Persaud were absent. Location:3330-3370 East Miraloma Avenue Anaheim The proposed project consists of site modifications and Project Planner: Della Herrick improvements to two existing office buildings formerly used dherrick@anaheim.net by The Boeing Company as follows: An existing 2-story office building would be converted into an approximately 3,000-seat religious assembly facility (church) and ancillary uses within approximately 170,400 square feet of building area. An existing 6-story office building would be converted into medical and dental offices, general offices, college lecture hall, 300-seat chapel, employee fitness center, accessory retail, and restaurant uses within approximately 196,820 square feet of building area. Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated February 28, 2011 along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Ramirez asked about the traffic impacts and associated mitigation measures. David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner, stated that the primary impacts identified in the analysis were for two locations. One was at the southeast corner of Autonetics Way and Miller Street and the other at Tustin Avenue and the SR91 westbound ramps. The traffic analysis for Autonetics Way and Miller Street indicated that on Sundays there is a potential for impacts. To address this, the applicant was asked to pay a fair share cost towards the future installation of a traffic signal. In the interim, they have worked with the applicant to re-route traffic through their parking management plan in order to minimize the amount of left turns onto Miller Street. That intersection has been added to the capital improvement program to install traffic signals when the traffic signal norms aremet during the weekdays. At the intersection of Tustin Avenue and SR91 westbound ramps, there was a significantimpact; however, the project fair share was fairly insignificant. They were asked to 02/28/11 Page 6of 18 FEBRUARY 28, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES contribute their fair share to implement a mitigation measure to restripe the off ramp. The City currently has a project, as part of the Kaiser Hospital mitigation plan, to widen Tustin Avenue, improving the intersections at La Palma Avenue and SR91 westbound ramps. Commissioner Ramirez asked when the improvements for both the traffic signal and the Tustin Avenue and SR91 ramps will take place and how they will fit into their development schedule. Mr. Kennedy responded that as long as the project maintains the traffic management plan that has been agreed to, the traffic signal at that location is not necessary at this time. However, they want to put it on their improvement program so when the signal is needed, there will be funding available to install that signal. It will also allow the church more operational freedom. When the other side of Miller Street develops, there could be other considerations, but the site is being analyzed as it exists today. Commissioner Ramirez asked if it would be monitored. Mr. Kennedy stated that staff will be monitoring the operations plan provided by the applicant to ensure that the parking plan is working. If it changes over timeand the plan is no longer effective, they will work with the church to modify that plan and ensure there are no impacts on the streets. For the Tustin Avenue & SR91 westbound ramps, they are expecting to start construction in the summer of 2011 with the completion of all Tustin Avenue improvements in the fall of 2011. Commissioner Seymour asked how the entrance and exist scheme will be adequate to handle the amount of traffic. Mr. Kennedy responded that on weekendsthere is almost no trafficin the area,even with all land uses occupied. The church would generate the vast majority of the traffic at those times. The entry and the exit of traffic are separated so that there will not be any conflicts at any of the driveways for traffic coming in versus traffic going out. That type of arrangement works for other large churches in the area, for example, The Rock Church on Orangethorpe Avenue and Lemon Street. Commissioner Karaki asked what happened to the Anaheim Corridor Net (AC Net) project which was proposed for this area/site. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager,responded that the project was a joint effort between the City and Cal State Fullerton. The project was intended to create incentives for certain types of new technology. However, there were no requirements that any one specific property have any of these uses. Commissioner Ament interjected that a portion of the project will be a church and the other, a mixed use that would have anywhere from 125,000 to 130,000 square feet of office space in that building for both a school setting as well as a medical offices. Chairman Faessel asked Commissioner Ament if the applicant had contacted him to discuss this site. Commissioner Ament said he had not discussed this exact use with the applicant. Chairman Faessel asked staff for a brief summary or history of the northeast Specific Plan. 02/28/11 Page 7of 18 FEBRUARY 28, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ms. Herrick said the Specific Plan was approved in 1994. Planning Commissions in the past had allowed churches in the northeast industrial area, by approving conditional use permits. The caveat was that they could not start operating before 6:00 p.m. This church does not start until 7:00 p.m. and it meets all the standards. Chairman Faessel asked Ms. Herrick to indicate where the church building and office building property boundaries were on the visual presentation. He asked if it was fair to say that the church was the owner of a significant portion of what was the Boeing site. Ms. Herrick responded yes. Chairman Faessel said he believed that the Canyon Area falls under some authority of the Redevelopment Agency and asked Ms. Herrick to speak to that. Ms. Herrick discussed the fact that the site is in a redevelopment area known as Project Alpha and provided a visual presentation. Commissioner Ramirez said this project is in the Specific Plan and noted that the applicant would be converting 20 acres of property from light industrial use. Ms. Herrick stated that, in 1990, the Planning Commission approved the Vineyard Church which is also a large-scale church located in the same Specific Plan. That facility has a large church and school. There are other large churches on East La Palma Avenue. Churches prefer the industrial zone because of parking availability and because the land is less expensive. Phillip Schwartze, representing the Eastside Church, stated he reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement with the staff report. Mr. Schwartze commended staff for doing a phenomenal job in pulling this large and complicated project together. He commented on Condition No. 21, pertaining to outdoor uses. Mr. Schwartze indicated there would be outdoor uses from time to time. Ms. Herrick stated she had discussed this matter with Mr. Schwartze. Outdoor events will be permitted; however, the parking lot area should not be blocked off. Mr. Schwartze stated that this site is different from the Vineyard Church in that it has a church and the other portions of the building will be converted into medical and dental offices, a college lecture hall andother businesses which are normally 8:00 to 5:00, Monday through Friday. Although this is not a 24/7 operation, it is a 7 day a week operation and the traffic will be controlled. The Eastside Church has a present facility in Fullerton which is very functional. They are familiar with how to set up a parking management plan and make sure the congregation knows where to park. The parking management plan is set up to allow for growth and will be modified appropriately to ensure that traffic flows as smoothly as possible. Gene Appel, Senior Pastor, Eastside Church, gave a description of the church operations, its ministries, activities, and community involvement. He said there are approximately 300 Anaheim families that are members. Commissioner Ramirez asked if they were planning on renting out space in the six story building to other organizations, or if it would solely be for used by the church. 02/28/11 Page 8of 18 FEBRUARY 28, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Schwartze stated they would be leasing out spaces. Chairman Faessel said, as of yesterday, there is not a signalized pedestrian crossing that would allow congregants to safely cross from 1230 Miller Street where they have a parking agreement. Terry Jacobson, architect, said the existing circulation allows for tram or shuttle service between the two properties. The church plans on providing a shuttle service. Chairman Faessel asked if the parcel would be divided. Mr. Schwartze said he was uncertain and was not certain if the owner has plans to subdivide. Chairman Faessel said he was concerned that the use of this property might it be seen as a detriment to industrial use of any of their adjoining properties. Jim McFadden, Grubb & Ellis Company broker, he helped the Eastside Church select this site. He said he could not specifically speak for the property owner but they own 61 acres and this is approximately 20 acres. The balance of the site will probably be office, industrial, or flex space. Shortly after the close of escrow and the completion of construction, they’ll go out with a marketing campaign to attract new companies and tenants for this six story building. Commissioner Ament asked what number of jobs would be created. Mr. Schwartze guessed 4 per 1,000 square feet. Chairman Faessel opened the public hearing. Seeing no other persons indicating to speak, he then closed the public hearing. Commissioner Seymouroffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the February 28, 2011staff report, determining that a Mitigated Negative Declarationis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05526. Chairman Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith four yesvotes. Faesseland Commissioners Ament,Ramirez and Seymourvoted yes.Commissioner Karaki voted no. Commissioners Agarwal and Persaud were absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 10, 2011. DISCUSSION TIME :48 minutes (5:10 to 5:58) 02/28/11 Page 9of 18 FEBRUARY 28, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 5 TENTATIVE PARCELMAP NO. 2009-127Resolution No. 2011-011 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL NO. 2010-00004 (Seymour) (DEV2010-00085) TPM Owner:Approved, revised Condition No. Jay and Ami Mehta 6 pertaining to private street 12330 Greenstone Avenue standards,and revised SantaFe Springs, CA 90670 Condition No. 29 pertaining to Applicant:water engineering requirements. Terry Smith 18627Brookhurst Street,#349 SPT Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Approved Location:6115 East Henning View Terrace VOTE: 5-0 The applicant proposes to subdivide a property into four Chairman Faessel and parcels and remove 36 specimen trees to construct three Commissioners Ament, Karaki, single-family residences.Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal and Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Negative Persaud were absent. Declaration has been prepared per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehm@anaheim.net Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated February 28, 2011 along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Ramirez asked why there would be no parking and no street lights on the private streets created by this project. Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer, said the width of the street as proposed, is per standard for four units or less and there is not a parking requirement. The curb width is only 20 feet; if they need or want to provide parking, they would have to provide a wider street. Commissioner Ramirez asked where guests would park. Mr. Garcia said there is garage parking, two parking stalls off street, and additional parking available at the end of the street. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services interjected that in addition the garage, there is a full length driveway, and two more parking stalls available in front of each unit. Mr. Amstrupstated that because of the location, street lighting would not be appropriate, especially given the limited traffic. It preserves more of the aesthetic and the natural ambiance of the canyon area. 02/28/11 Page 10of 18 FEBRUARY 28, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Ramirez asked if there was a particular reason why the conditions of approval list that the units will exceed Title 24 by tenpercent and have energy efficient appliances. Mr. Koehm responded that those are mitigation measures that were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. They are related to the greenhouse gas element in the initial study and part of the new evaluation of greenhouse gas impacts and mitigation measures to help reduce those impacts. Commissioner Ramirez asked if they would be incorporated into future projects. Mr. Koehm said conditions similarto these, in relation to greenhouse gases, would be added to most Mitigated Negative Declarations, EIRs, etc. Commissioner Seymour asked for clarification regarding the issue surrounding the hiking trail. Mr. Koehm stated that there is currently a hiking trail easement; however, a trail has not been developed.The Community Services Department has notified the developer that they are welcome to develop the trail; although, it is not a requirement. Should the developer not want to construct the trail, they would have the option of paying fees to the Community Services Department in lieu of the construction of the trail. Commissioner Seymour stated that in the environmental document, there are fairly specific requirements listed in by the engineer relating to pools, drains and rain gutters. He asked how the City would ensure that theserequirements are met. Mr. Garcia said some of the items pertaining to water quality, and prior to the final occupancy inspection, would be reviewed by the inspector. Commissioner Seymour asked if these lots will be landscaped prior to occupancy. Mr. Garcia said they would typically be landscaped prior to the final occupancy inspection. Chairman Faessel asked what was the width of the road and if it was public or private. Mr. Koehm said it is a new private road which is 20 feetcurb to curb; two 10 foot lanes. Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing. Terry Smith, applicant, 18627 Brookhurst Street #349, Fountain Valley, stated he reviewed the conditions of approval and staff report. He said Condition No. 29had not been brought to his attention or discussed within the last year; however they will agree to do the loop if the City will give them the easements to do it. Mr. Koehm said it is optimal to have the two connections at this location. ChairmanFaessel said he was not at ease with removing the Public Utilities requirements; however, he would be supportive of including some verbiage that may ensure the applicant is able to make the dual connections with the access of the right-of-way. He asked that staff consider. 02/28/11 Page 11of 18 FEBRUARY 28, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Ament asked for clarification of what that means. ChairmanFaessel said that,according to the staff report, 10,000 yards offill will need to be delivered. This would affect the tightly impacted neighborhood with only limited access. He said he was hopeful that the developer had already contacted the neighbors. Mr. Smith said they sent letters several weeks ago. They held a meeting at the site and five neighbors attended; all of their concerns were addressed. They are attempting schedulethe hauling during non-rush hours. It will slow down the project; but will make it easier on the neighbors.Mr. Smith said they have worked in the area for some time and know most of the neighbors. Sara Mathis, Principal Civil Engineer, said they have been working with Mr. Smith for over one year. While they can provide the required fire flows; they do want a loop system. There is currently one water main that goes down Henning View Terrace that serves five homes. The applicant proposed to continue it and move the dead end location. Because of the liability, they asked Mr. Smith to loop it from Via Sabia into the new road. This would require a 20 foot long easement through 6161 Via Sabia. The owner is amiable to granting the easement. That is why it was added as a condition of approval. Chairman Faessel asked Ms. Mathis if her testimony, based upon the length of the pipeline on East Henning, the addition of the three homes, and the interconnecting of the pipe on East Via Sabia, would be a significant improvement to the fire flows in that area. Ms. Mathis responded yes, it would be a significant improvement and almost double what Mr. Smith would be able to get; which is to dead end main. Mr. Smith referenced Condition No. 6. They have had a plan in place for some time. Last week they found out that Anaheim Disposalwas not happy with it. They tried to modify it and agreed to the 13 percent grade; however, his engineer is saying that it is a better road the way it was designed. Having some steeper sections, flattening it out,following the contour of the terrain and keeping some of the retaining walls where they are now. They already have approval from the Fire Department. He asked if they could continue to work with Anaheim Disposal to allow them to move the trash containers to the bottom of the hill. Mr. Garcia, said site is very challenging and the current design of the plans show some areas that incline upto 15 percent. One of the concerns is that when the trash cans are emptied by the collection truck, they may have the tendency to roll down the hill or fall over. He said the revised condition is the best compromise at this point. Eliminating the cans and installing a trash bin at the bottom of the hill is the best solution. Otherwise,two trash trucks will be required to service this area. The first, with the side arm, will service five houses. The second truck, with front forks will service the remaining three houses. This may be an operational challenge and charge additional fees.The best compromise is 13 percent incline. CommissionerKaraki said he agrees with Mr. Garcia’s recommendation, based on the conditions of the site and the steep driveway that is being proposed. Mr. Smith said the trash trucks would be the same;they would not have to be switched as indicated by Mr. Garcia. The original plan shows inclines of 8, 10, 12 and one more 15 percent, then drops 02/28/11 Page 12of 18 FEBRUARY 28, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES down to 5. The engineer said it would be a better design and work better with retaining walls and slopes. There isa time constraint because they just found out about the new condition this week. Chairman Faessel asked Mr. Garcia if the Public Works Department could cooperate to the greatest extent possible considering the water issue came up just prior to tonight’s meeting. Mr. Garcia said the 13 percent compromise presented today was the best they could do. Mr. Smith is correct in the sense that the originally, the road is a little flatter in some areas; however, Anaheim Disposal feels this is the elevation they can work with. Chairman Faessel asked Mr. Garcia if only one trash truck will be required ifthe incline is changed to 13 percent. Mr. Garcia responded yes. Chairman Faessel stated he agreed with the recommendation madeby the Public Works Department to keep Condition No. 6 as is. He referenced Condition No. 29 and agreed that the requirements must be met to arrange a proper right-of-way. Mr. Koehm said the best answer is to have both connections and the system looped. The City would be instrumental inachieving the easement. The condition could be modified to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department and Water Engineering Division to achieve the best water flow possible. Mr. Amstrup saidthatCondition No. 29 will remain intact but staff can add a provision requiringthe applicant to exhaust all possible remedies with adjacent property owners to acquire an easement. Adding a condition that requires permission from an adjacent property owner can be problematic. Chairman Faessel agreed that the inclusion of wording that would give the applicant every opportunity to achieve this, or provide an alternative. Ms. Mathis said that would be satisfactory and that the best connection point is Via Sabia. As an alternate, they could go up through the four corners pipeline right-of-way, which may be problematic. They can also go up near 480 Henning View Terrace, to the east, or upgrade the original main installed for the five homes on the south or north end of that street. Chairman Faessel asked Mr. Smith if he agreed with these alternatives. Mr. Smith responded yes. He asked if they could stub to their property line on Via Sabia and at a later date, the City would get its easement. Chairman Faessel responded that he would need to work with the Public Utilities Department to achieve what is necessary. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, reminded the Commission to keep in mind that generally, we should not impose conditions on the land owner or the developerthat would be outside the control of their property,so that a situation is not set upif they are unable to achieve or accomplish the condition which attaches to their project. The language could be modified to require the developer to make their best efforts to try to obtain connection in one of the three areas as outlined by Ms. Mathis. 02/28/11 Page 13of 18 FEBRUARY 28, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES He asked what would be acceptable to the City if the developer is not able to achieve the connection as desired by the Public Utilities Department. Ms. Mathis said if they upgraded the main all the way upto Quintana Drive if necessary. Chairman Faessel asked Mr. Gordon for guidance as to how Condition No. 29 could be modified to ensure the safety of the neighborhood in the event of a fire. Mr. Gordon said the alternative could be the other suggestion made by Ms. Mathis in terms of the improvements necessary. He advised Chairman Faessel to hear and discuss the issue with Mr. Smith to ensure that it is achievable and desirable to go forward with the project. City staff is concerned with the available water supply and he sufficiency of the flow. Virginia Withers, 361 South Henning Way, Anaheim, said her property is the only one that reaches the bottom of the canyon. Ms. Withers has a ten inch pipe that drains 4,000 square feet of hardscape, includingtheproperty above her. Because her property and that drain would be below the grade of the proposed street, she would like have that drain be connected underground; a Vditch will not work. Her property is on thewest facing slope. She wants to make sure that the stability of her hill is protected and that there will not be a problem with slippage in the future. Ms. Withers asked that the retaining walls not be decorative or interlocking, but that they actually serve as retaining walls. She is not in favor of the hiking trail because of the maintenance it will require and it will affect her privacy.Ms. Withers suggested that if lighting for this property is planned in the future, that it should be downward facing. She indicated that the neighborhood should have some input regarding the landscape site screening. Ryan Bushore, spoke on behalf of his parents, Gerald and Beverly Bushore who reside at 381 South Henning Way, Anaheim. Mr. Bushore read a letter written by his father and submitted it for the record. Ali Nowroozi, 385 and 387 South Henning, Anaheim, stated he supports the project. His only concern is thatitis completed in a timely manner and that all the issues are addressed.He is working with the applicant regarding the easement. Mr. Nowroozi said he is a non-practicing geotechnical engineer and he has no geotechnical concerns regarding this project. Newton Withers, 361 South Henning Way, Anaheim said he is concerned with the water drainage and fire situations. He said it might be advantageous to have additional on site, rather than on street parking. In the event of a fire, it will be impossible for a fire truck to get through the street if cars are parked there. Mr. Withers stated that if a trash collection truck ever had a brake issue while carrying a full load on Henning Way;it would certainly be a major problem for the residents down below because of the incline. Mr. Smith addressed the following issues: Geotechnical -It has taken one year to get to this point. They have had two soil studies. A geologist has mapped the entire siteand the City’s consultant has reviewed it. It has been a long process to show that all the hillsides are very stable. The slopes will not be as long because the bottoms will be slightly filled. They are improving the condition of the hillside by developing this project. 02/28/11 Page 14of 18 FEBRUARY 28, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Fire -They are removing the brush and trees which are fire hazards and replacing them with landscaping that is less prone to fire.All the houses will have sprinkler systems. Water Drainage -The water draining from the neighbor’s property has been taken into account. The water flow calculations included all the houses. Lighting -There will be no street lighting. The house lighting will be standard downlighting, per the Uniform Building Code. Parking -There will be adequate parking for each site.There will be two off-street parking spaces for each house, in addition to a driveway large enough for six vehicles, plus a three car garage. Screening and Landscape -They will workwith the neighbors and have them involved the placement of trees and screening material. Chairman Faessel encouraged Mr. Smith to continue meet and workwith the neighbors because the site is so impacted. David Carrel, with Anacal Engineering, stated hespoke with the neighbors regarding drainage issues. The majority of the hillside sheet flows down to the road. They have proposed a concrete channel to accept drainage off the hillside, as well as the structure allowing the ten inch drain to drain safely into their concrete structure. They did not feel it was necessary to have it completelyunderground. An above groundVditch is more easily maintained. This is one of the reasons why they wanted flexibility with the grade of the road; to better match the properties as the road is brought up through the long, thin channel.They prefer not to have the road, a wall and then a Vditch. They would prefer the road meet grade at that location. They had the flexibility worked out with the Fire Department; but had issues with Anaheim Disposal. They are hoping to work something out to allow them the flexibility. They are helping the fire situation by developing the property. Old trees will probably be removed. Their geotechnical consultants have been working very hard to mitigate any possible issues. Commissioner Seymour asked why the soil study was not listed in the EIR. Mr. Smith responded that it was an attachment to the EIR; Appendix D. Chairman Faessel asked Mr. Garcia if he believed that based uponhis review of the applicant’s Public Works documents, that the geotechnical issues have been properly addressed. Mr. Garcia said that one item that came up was the deepboring thatoccurred is not referenced in the letter. The applicant’s consultant found a clay seamthat there was no prior knowledge of and that hadnot been analyzed.When this was found, they were able to better model the site and understand what they needed to do for construction measures. As of January 1, 2011, the grading review and permitting has been with the Building Division. Because of the prior history, Public Works will still be involved with the process. Mr. Nowroozi and Mr. Smith’s projects are close in proximity and they have been able to share information and work together. Ms. Withers added that Mr. Kenyon on Via Sabia had delivered a letter today. She said that she, along with Mr. Kenyon, have met with Mr. Smith. He has been very open with them and they appreciate that. She is sure the dialogue will continue. Chairman Faessel,seeing no other persons indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. 02/28/11 Page 15of 18 FEBRUARY 28, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Ament asked Mr. Garcia if the concerns raised were addressed and if he was confident that this project would work. Mr. Garcia responded yes. The case was reviewed for entitlement purposes, once they move forward for gradingreview, even more in depth geotechnical review will occur. The applicant has been willing and cooperative in allowing the review to continue. They are confident that the geotechnical aspect on this project and the one on Henning Way will benot becompleted in a substandard manner. It appears that the civil engineer is trying to account for the run off of the 10- inch pipe that was installed in 1959. He suggested that because of the pipe’s age, it would be best to connect in an open way as the civil engineer has proposed. Chairman Faessel asked staff regarding the alternative wording for Condition No. 29. Mr. Amstrup read a draft of the new condition. Ms. Mathis agreed with the wording. Commissioner Seymouroffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the February 28, 2011staff report, determining that a Mitigated Negative Declarationis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 2009-172, Speciman Tree Removal No. 2010-00004. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith five yesvotes. Chairman Faesseland Commissioners Ament, Karaki,Ramirez and Seymourvoted yes.Commissioners Agarwal and Persaud were absent. OPPOSITION: None IN GENERAL: Fourpersonsspoke pertaining to grading, water drainage, lighting, inadequate street parking, fireprevention, and trash collection concerns. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 10, 2011. DISCUSSION TIME :1 hour and 32minutes (5:58to 7:30) 02/28/11 Page 16of 18 FEBRUARY 28, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05538Resolution No. 2011-012 (DEV2010-00178) (Ament) Owner:Approved RIF II Orangethorpe, LLC 11620 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300 VOTE: 5-0 Los Angeles, CA90025 Chairman Faessel and Applicant: Howard SchwimmerCommissioners Ament, Karaki, 11620 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Los Angeles, CA 90025Commissioners Agarwal and Persaud were absent. Location:2350-2384 East Orangethorpe Avenue and 1631 North Placentia Avenue The applicant proposes to permit automobile repair uses Project Planner: Scott Koehm within two existing industrial buildings. skoehm@anaheim.net Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines -Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Continued from the January 31, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated February 28, 2011 along with a visual presentation. Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing. Bruce Herbkersman,Rexford Industrial, representing theproperty owner, stated hereviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement with the staff report. William Fancher, Lou’s Training Systems, 1342 Bell Avenue #3K, Tustin, representing the fitness facility, said he was available to answer questions. Chairman Faessel,seeing no other persons indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Amentoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the February 28, 2011staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05538. 02/28/11 Page 17of 18 FEBRUARY 28, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith five yesvotes. Chairman Faesseland Commissioners Ament, Karaki, Ramirez and Seymourvoted yes.Commissioners Agarwal and Persaud were absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 10, 2011. DISCUSSION TIME :9minutes (7:30to 7:39) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:43P.M. TO MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2011AT 5:00P.M. Respectfully submitted, Grace Medina Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on May 9, 2011. 02/28/11 Page 18of 18