Loading...
Minutes-PC 2007/03/05~,~PH~"~ ~-~~ City of Anaheim ~ r ~4 ~ Pfanning Commission ~ ~ _ M i n utes u a ~~~ff °~' Monda~, March 5, 2007 . . _ ~ , - ~'Q~ ,$c~~ Council Chamber, City Hall tu p~ p 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRMAN`. GAIL EASTMAN ' Commissioners Present: KELLY BUFFA, STEPHEN FAESSEL, CECILIA FLORES, JOSEPH KARAKI, PANKY ROMERO ' Commissioners Absent: PAT VELASQUEZ Staff Present: Mark°Gordon, Assistant Cify Attorney James Ling, Principal Civil Engineer ' Greg McCafferty; Principal Planner Jamie Lai,'Principal Civil Engineer Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner ' Jessica Nixon, Assistant Planner Qella Herrick,: Associate Planner EIIy Morris, Senior Secretary Michele Irwin, Sr. Police Services Representative • Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m. , on Thursday, March 1, 2007, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Charnbers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, February 8, 2007 • 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 MARCH 5, 2007 AGENDA • Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 20 For record keepinq purposes if Vou wish to make a statement re,qardinq anv item on the • Pledge Of Allegiance: Commissioner Buffa • Public Commenfs • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment • You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address; planninacommiss~onC~anaheim:net ' -' H:\TOOLS\PCADMIN\PCACTIONAGENDA~2007MINUTES1AC030507.DOC ' MARCH 5, 2007 PLANNtNG COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items: : Consent'Calendar: The items'on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent , ' Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Flores abstained on Items 1-6 and 1-C; Commissioner Buffa abstained on ltem 1-C, Commissioner Velasquez absent); for approval of Consent Calendar,ltems 1-B and 1-C as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item 1-A was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED " Reaorts and Recommendations 1 A. (a) _ Approved • ~b~ Approved request for determination of substantial - conformance and review of Agent: Steve Behrens, Trendwest Resorts, 9805 Willows Road, fnal plans, with modifications ' Redmond; WA 98052 made at today's meeting. Location: 201 WestKatella Avenue: Property is approximately 2.24 acres located at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue i and Zeyn Street. I Request to determine substantial conformance with exhibits for elevation and roof line modifications for a previously-approved 14- story timeshare resort. Motion: Flores/Faessel VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Velasquez absent Project Planner.• (jdadant@anaheim. net) (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) • Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, stated that this item is a request to revise elevations from a previously approved timeshare resort. Ms. Dadant indicated that a representative for the owner, who is also the builder for the site, is in the audience and is available'for comments from the Commission. She also stated that she will continue to work with the architect to make the kinds of changes that the Commission is looking for through the Plan Check process. • Chairman Eastman asked Commissioner Karaki if he would like to add any comments. 03-05-07 Page 2 MARCH 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Karaki stated he would like to have the elevation facing Katella Avenue on the parking structure match the proposed building as far as the elevations. Also; he would like the parking structure disguised with some fake windows and the colors to match the lower levels of the proposed building. ,On the top of the building they proposed to put some fascia trim they could do the top portion of it as well so it looks as it is continued across: He suggested that Ms: Dadant inform him if staff needs additional assistance' on the issue: Ms. Dadant summarized the changes for the Commission by saying that they would like to incorporate the darker color along thebase of the building into the base of the parking structure to make it look more continuous. Also to look into adding either a fascia band or continue the cornice treatment'that is at the top of the building across the parking structure. Commissioner Karaki restated that he wanted, to'break-the horizontal lines with square window cutouts that do nof require glass. He reiterated he would be available via e-mail for continued elevation design direction. Ms. Dadant acknowledged Commissioner Karaki' s instructions. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (2:35-2:39) , ~ MARCH 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Min es 1B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved Meeting of January 8, 2007. (Motion) Continued from the January 22, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 5-0 _ Commissioner Flores abstained and Cqmmissioner Velasquez absent , 1C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved, with modifications Meeting of January 22, 2007. ' (Motion) - , Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 4.p Commissioners Buffa and Flores abstained, and Commissioner Velasquez absent • MARCH 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • P blic Hearina ltems: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION _ Continued to 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT March 19,2007 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05164` Motionc Romero/Faessel Owner: 508 North East Street, LLC, 508 North East Street, Anaheim, CA 92807 VOTE: 6-~ Agent: Greg Howe11, 20561 Suburbia Lane, Huntington Beach, CA Commissioner Velasquez absent ' ''92646 Location: 508 North East Street: Property is approximately 1.15 ` acres and is located at the northeast corner of Sycamore Street and East Street (La Reina Market). Request to permit the expansion' of an existing legal non-conforming market with sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and to ; establish land use conformity for an existing legally non-conforming commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the January 8, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. ' _ projectPlanner.• (kwong2@anaheim. net) ~ Conditional Use Permit Resolution Na MARCH 5, 2007 . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3(READVERTISED) Gontinued to • 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT March 19, 2007 3c. CONDITIONAL' USE PERMIT N0. 2005-05030 (TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05180) Motion: FaesseU$uffa Owner: _ Southern California Edison, Frank, `14799 Chestnut Street, Westminster, CA 92683' v0~'Es 6-0 Coxnmissioner Velasquez J p y" y dustry, CA A ent: Ste hanie Li, 14708 Vaile Boulevard, Cit of In absent 91746 Location: 1500 South State^Collepe Boulevard: Property is , approximately 2.1 acres and is located at the southeast' corner of State College Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue with frontages of 193 feef on the east side of State College Boulevard and 909 feet on the south side of Cerritos Avenue (Feng Run Gardens). Request to modify exhibits and conditions of approval for a previously-' approved plant nursery with accessory retail sales and to permit a modular unit with waivers of.(a),minimum landscape setback and (b) required improvement of right-of-way. Project F'lanner.• _ Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. ;(kwong2@ananeim.net) ~ OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 03-05-07 Page 6 MARCM,S, 2007 PLANNING COMMISS{ON MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED ' FaesseUBuffa Approved 4b. WAIVER OF CODE RQUIREMENT r FaesseUBuffa Approved 4c. -'CONDITIONAL-USE PERMIT N0. 2006-05137 ' Faessel Granted Owner: . Tom S. Hiramatsu Trust, 3030 E. Coronado Street, Modified Condition No.19 Anaheim, CA 92806 2602 voTE: 6-0 Commissioner Velasqpez -,Agent: Phillip Schwartze, PRS Group, 31682 Camino Real, absent San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 ' Location: 3040_East Coronado Street: Property is approximately 0.87-acre; haVing a frontage of 129 feet on the south'sitle of Coronada Street and is Iocated approximately209 feet -west of the centerline of KraemerPlace. Request to permit an outdoor storage yard in conjunction with a drilling contractor including accessory repair with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces and (b) required fencing abutting a residential use.' Continued from the October 16, and November 27, and December 11, , 2006, Planning Commission meeting. Project Planner.. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-15 (dherrick~anaheim.net) ~ Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, introduced this item by stating that the item is to permit a drilling contractor with outdoor storage and accessory repair. A visual presentation of the site plan was displayed to further define the item. The existing non-conforming single family residence will be' demolished for the construction of a new repair house and office facility. She explained the need for two waivers associated with the project regarding the number of parking spaces and required fencing abutting a residential use. She noted that staff recommends approval of this item. ApplicanYs Statement: Phillip Schwartze, applicant, spoke in favor of the item and further explained the need for the two requested waivers. He indicated that it is his intent to purchase the property directly adjacent #o this project. Therefore the need for continued fencing at the location in question would notbe needed. THE PUBUC MEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Flores thanked the applicant for his presentation and said that this project would be an improvement to the neighborhood. She inquired the parking requirements needed for 30 to 40 employees and if they would be arriving and leaving at the same time. ' Mr. Schwartze responded by referring to a visual slide depicting the site. He noted that in the back of the site there will be a lot qf heavy equipment parked. The standard routine would be for one employee to drive a piece of heavy equipment to the boring job site. Then the additional employees would meet for work using their own vehicles to get to the job site. Me stated that this designated large amount of space will be primarily used for the heavy equipment. But it could accommodate 30 to 40 employee cars if there : ~ was a need. ,' Commissioner Flores stated thaf the parking'issue was her only concern. 03-05-07 PageJ MARCH 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 FaesseUFlores Approved ~,READVERTISED) 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05181 Faessel Denied 5c. . DETERMINAT{ON OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE Faessel Denied OR NECESSITY NO."2007-00032 , VOTE: 4-2 Owner: Tokiko Nakamura Trust, 8430 Pebble Beach Ct, Commissioners Flores and Buena Park, CA 90621-1054 ' Karaki voted no, and Commissioner Velasquez absent ` Agent: Divyesh H. Patel, 98+ Discount Store, 8169 Atlantic Way, Buena Park, CA 90621 Jeannie T. Luong, 34 Brookstone, Irvine; CA 92604 Location: 2629 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 0.87-acre; having a:frontage of 243 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and is Iocated 400 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue. - Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05181 - Request to permit the sales of - alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within a liquor store. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2007-00032 - Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit sales of ' ~ alcoholic beverages for off premises consumption within a liquor store. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-16 Project P/anner. : (%nixon@anaheim.net) Public Convenience or Necessity Resolution No. PC2007-17 Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Jessica Nixon, Assistant Planner, introduced this item and provided an aerial presentation for this item: She stated that the applicant is requesting an upgrade of an existing beer and wine license for a hard liquor license for a previously approved convenience market. She noted that this convenience market is in a high crime area that has a rate of 100% above average. Additionally, there is an over concentration in the number of licenses based upon the population in the censustract. Four licenses are permitted and there are five active licenses. Therefore, a determination of public convenience or necessity is required. Because this request is to upgrade an existing license, it will not affect or worsen the existing over concenfration of licenses. An interior view of the convenience market was presented for further clarification. The sale of alcohol is estimated at 55% of the retail stores gross sales. The applicant also requests an extension of hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.' Monday through Sunday. The existing Conditional Use Permit indicates that the business closes at 10:00 p.m. daily. Code permits the sale of alcoholic beverages for off premises consumption for a liquor store by Conditional Use Permit. The Anaheim Police Department recommends denial of this request due to the high crime rate and over concentration in the number of licenses. Another concern is the proximity of this store to the Valencia lnn across the street which hosts a high concentration of transient population. The Anaheim Police Department also recommends limiting the hours of operation to 10:00 p.m. due to closeness ofresidents ~ to the north. Ms. Nixon noted the existing convenience market has had one call for service from the - police department in the-past year. There have been no Community Preservation complaints. The store is currently open with the :extended hours with no complaints.`, _ 03-05-07 : Page 9 MARCH 5, 2007 PLANN{NG COMMISS{ON MINUTES . This permit would provide an opportunity to add standard conditions of approval to ensure that the operators managing the business are able to prevent problems at the site. Ms. Nixon stated that staff supports the request because the existing store has been operating with no complaints. The additional hard liquor sales would be limited to the existing area of alcohol display. There would be conditions of approval prohibiting advertisement of the availability of alcohol. All other standard conditions of approval that are required for other facilities would be'added to the permit. Ms. Nixon stated that staff is available for any questions. Commissioner Buffa wanted to verify that within the staff report, the current hours of operatiorr are from 8:00 a.m: to 10:00 p.m. and part of the applicant's request is to askfor 8:00 a.m.'to 11:00 p.m. The staff report states that their hours are already 8:00 a:m. to'11:00 p.m. But this is not identified as part of what the applicant is requesting: Does the applicant want to change the condition to add the additional one hour of operation? _ Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, stated that the request for the additional hour of operation is part of the applicanYs request. The applicant's current operation they are not in strict compliance with their conditions of approval from the original permit. Therefore as a part of this request; in conjunction with the request for the sale of full liquor, comes the request for the additional hours. Chairman Eastman asked if she understood correctly that #he applicant is not in compliance with their current conditions of approvaL Ms. Dadant responded correct. ApplicanYs Statement: • Divyesh H. Patel, applicant, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak on behalf of this item. He stated that he is applying for an upgraded license for his store. He said that there have never been any problems with his stores. Chairman Eastman asked Mr. Patel if he was aware that he is not in compliance by being open later than ' what was originally approved. Mr. Patel said no, that he was not aware of this. Chairman Eastman asked the applicant how long he has owned the subject store. Mr. Patel stated that he has owned the store for one year. Public Testimony: Esther Wallace, 604 South Scott Lane, Anaheim, CA, spoke on this issue as the chairman of the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND.) She stated that WAND has concerns regarding granting an alcohol license at this address. She said that the applicant notes a necessity for the license upgrade, when in fact there are two additional stores down the street to this address that sefl liquor. Ms. Wallace stated that immediately across the street from this property that crime is 131 % above average which WAND considers quite high for the area. She indicated that the establishment already has an average sale of 55% for alcohol and introducing hard alcohol for sale would increase a problem in the area. She noted that the previous Conditional Use Permit only approved a total of 35°lo for gross alcoholic sales and that this business is currently at 55%. WAND is also against extending the hours of operation from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Ms. Wallace stated that the 98¢ Store did not get an alcohol license, they actually obtained a convenience store license but because they are selling such a Jarge • amount of alcohol, they are now identifying the store as an alcohol store. The 99¢ Store at Lincoln and Knott Avenue does not have an alcohol license, it has a beer and wine license. However, it was found that the store was selling alcohol which was discontinued upon discovery of#hisfact. Since four out of : 03-05-07 Page 10 MARCH 5,' 2007 ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES fivestores in this area are already allowed to sell alcohol and for the additional reasons that have been •` stated, WAND is not in favor of allowing an alcohol license at this site. Chairman Eastman asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak on this issue. Seeing none, she invited the applicant to rebut the previous testimony. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Patel presented a census tract map to the Commission for clarification purposes. This map indicated that some of the stores referenced are not zoned for his area. Chairman Eastman stated that there are five stores already and there are only four licenses allowed for the existing population. Therefore, the limit is over by one and is considered an over concentration of iicenses: . Ms: Dadant concurred with the statement made by Chairman Eastman as to the number of licenses. Chairman Eastman recognized the presence of Michele Irwin, SeniorPolice Services Representative from the Anaheim Police Department and asked Mer if she had any statements she wanted to make. Ms. Irwin indicated that Ms. Walface did a"great job" of stating the views of the Anaheim Police Department with reference to this item. She disseminated picfures of some conditions that the':applicant ' has on his site. She then identified a location that is 670 feet from the applicant's:site that provides for the purchase of full alcoholic beverages. She went on to'reiterate that four out of the five sites that have : been mentioned, have licenses to sell full alcohol beverages. Therefore the Anaheim Police Department , . does not agree with the previously stated necessity for an additional full alcohol point of sale location. The Police DepartmenYs most vigorous objection to the item is that the site is located directly across the ' streef from the Vatencia lnn, which is a concern to the department. In the Police DepartmenYs opinion; the upgrading of the requested liquor will lead to further decay of the neighborhood. Ms. lrwin also stated that in 2006 there were 138 calls for service at the Valencia lnn. In 2005 there were 189 calls for service at the same location. Combining the sum total of calls to the Vafencia lnn in 2003 and 2004 there were ' 479 service calls. She made note that her statistics were not categorized as alcohol service calls; but that alcohol was a contributing factor in the calls and crime related issues. She stated that she was confused by the statement when she interviewed the wife of the applicant saying that "they are out of there by 9:00 p.m.", when they are now requesting to remain open until 11:00 p.m. She would like the closing time to remain at the previously approved 10:00 p.m. Ms. Irwin made additional reference to pictures of the site that were taken during a recent inspection. She noted the large amount of trash, a recreation vehicle in which someone may be living in most of the time and the modification to the trash enclosure to'be "basically a place for the homeless." , Chairman Eastman said that she was unaware of any outstanding code violations and asked if this was because none of the neighbors have filed a comptaint against the business. Ms. Dadant stated that Community Preservation records indicate thatthere have not been any calls for service within the last year since this case was opened. At the time that staff went out to do their field inspection with Ms. Irwin the Planning Department asked a representative from the Community ' Preservation Department to go out to the site and update their findings. The Community Preservation Department representative spoke with the business operator and was told that an employee of the store was indeed living in the parked recreational vehicle. This has since been addressed as well as other infractions to the code. Ms Dadant stated that staff will be continually working on getting these items _ resolved independent of this request. • Chairman Eastman acknowledged that Commissioner Karaki would like to speak on this issue. ' ' 03-05-07 Page 11 MARCH 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Karaki asked staff to verify if therecommendation for approval came out before or after the Police Department's observation of the site in question. Ms. Dadant stated #hat staff's planning recommendation wasformulated after they had already`done the site inspections. The department basically looks at the information #hat it has from a statisticai standpoint in terms of whether or not:there had been any problems reported on the site. This' would include any complaints made #o CommunityPreservation or any calls specifically relating to alcohol. Because there were no records of obVious calls relating to alcohol or beer and wine being sold on those premises to ' date, therefore recommends approVal for the upgraded license. Commissioner Karaki asked the representatives from the Anaheim Police Department if any of the other ' nearby related establishments have had any calls for problems pertaining to alcohol. Ms Irwin stated that she did not run these locations' crime statistics. : Commissioner Karaki asked.for verification if it is unknown if these same types of businesses might or might not have any prob{ems requiring service calls from the Police Department. He was curious to know if these' other establishments have had any troubles. Ms. lrwin'stated that she is sure that the other establishments must have similar problems;just by#he nature of the businesses: But she does not have actual statistics to' presenf at this time. Chairman Eastman recognized Commissioner Romero as the next speaker.` CommissionerRomero asked Ms. Irwin what the percentage of the previously stated number of service calls were directly related to alcohoL ~ Ms.lrwin said that she did not have a percentage number. Her goal in mentioning this to the Commission was to make them aware of the'general involvement of alcohol in the number of service calls made by the police department. Commissioner Romero stated that on the west side of the building there was a metal gate.' He wanted to know how access was accomplishetl with regards to this portion of the site. Ms. Irwin stated that she and her colleague were only able to obtain access to this area via the bacKdoor of the establishment. This door allowed her to view the trash enclosure and the stationery recreational vehicle. Other than trash days, the metal gate is locked for security reasons. Chairman Eastman acknowledged Commissioner Flores' desire to speak. - Commissioner Flores said that in her opinion, being able to sell alcohol would be better because now patrons are allowed to purchase beer and wine in singles. It is her understanding that if #he applicant was allowed to sell hard liquor alcohol, this would change. She stated that this would be a positive instead of _ a negative. One of the reasons she would allow the sale of hard liquor was only because the beer and wine could be purchased as singles. Therefore possiblythe 55% sale would go down. Ms. Irwin stated the difference in the percentage of alcohol content from beer, wine and hard liquor. Hard liquor has a significantly larger amount of alcohol by voiume. Commissioner Flores wanted to confirm, that with the increase of safe of hard alcohol, if the percentage , of alcoholic sales would go down from 55%. ' Ms. Irwin stated that in her opinion that the applicant is trying to increase the percentage of alcohol sales, not diminish it. She noted that the tocation is only authorized to sell 35°lo alcohof not 55%. ~ ~ Ms. Dadant clarified that the condition as it currently,reads is to limit#he appficant at 55% so thaf th~ percentage of alcohol sales does not increase. The recommended condition also requires the applicant 03-05-07 Page 12 MARCH 8, 2007 , PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES to keep the same amount of area for display foralcohol, beer and wine. Thetotal amount of area for the ~ combined sale of all alcoholic beverages would remain the same as it has been for the sale of beer and wine only. Ms. lrwin stated, that the figure of 55°lo sale of alcohol was provided by the applicant himseff to her at the : time of her inspection and nof by any other means of inquiry. She reiterated that he is only supposed to sell 35%. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, noted for the Commission that the Planning staff also had difficulty with this item in terms of the area. But what staff looked at is if there was any way to tie the problems for calls for service from the motel to this particufar establishment. Staff'concluded that there were not enough facts to make that recommendation. This is an explanatiorr as to why the Commission will see the additional conditions, which are an improvement, to the resolution. Approval of the item will firm up the operation. The conditions wil{ be maintained so that the establishment is not a detriment to the surrounding land uses. This is the reasoning behind the recommendation structure. Commissioner Flores asked the appficant if he is aware that he is selling alcohol beyond the approved 35% limit. . Mr. Pate{ stated that he was unaware that there was a limit as #o how much alcohol he could sell. The 55% figure represented the previous week's alcohol sales for a specific time, which included holidays. Commissioner Flores asked Mr. Patel if his main reason for wanting to sel( hard liquor was #or the : convenience of his customers. Mr. Patel responded yes. This would be a"one stop" shopping experience for the convenience of his customers. _ ~ Chairman Eastman asked Mr. Patel to verify that he was unaware that his current Conditional Use Permit stated that his sale of alcohol was not to be over 35%. He said that he did not know about this. Chairman Eastman stated that Mr. Patel was not aware of the limit of alcoholic sales to 35% and the limitation of hours of operation. She wanted fo know how the Commission has any way of knowing this, other than when something like this comes forward. Ms. Dadant said that typically there is no standard practice of going outthat she is aware of unless the police department does an audit for facilities that have alcohol licenses. She said that it would depend on the number of calls to Community Preservation or the Police Department where it would trigger the Planning Department to go out and verify the businesses gross receipts. This would confirm whether they were in compliance with their conditions of approvaL There was a general discussion between the Commission and staff, that in order to ensure appropriate adherence to the conditions of approval, that there be annual or some other increment of time inspections by Community Preservation. Mr. McCafferty noted that this would be.staff's preference and that the business be monitored. He stated that if the Commission cannot make the findings now, then approval : should not be given at this time. If the Commission can make the findings now and let the business operate with the conditions of approval, then there should be arrangement's made to have the sales monitored by Community Preservation. This is what staff's preference is. Ms. Dadant clarified that the prior conditional use permit granted for this facility did not have as a condition of approval the 35% limitation of gross alcoholic sales. This amount is what staff typically sees for convenience markets. It was not an actual condition of approvaL She also clarified that the 35°!0 limit ~ is typical for a condition of approval for beer and wine sales or full liquor sales. This would be in conjunction with a convenience markef or some other type of store where the alcohol sales is an accessory to the land use: This request for a liquor store, by definition of the code; is that the liquor sales 03-05-07 Page 13 , MARCH 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •, are the primary sales for the facility. The limitation of 55% is not unusual for the land use that is being requested. Commissioner Faessel stated that the Commission established a poficy to determine the issue of convenience and necessity just for such cases like this. The policy comprises nine factors'and in tallying up issues that he is uncomfortable with, he came up with six. He therefore said that he cannot support the item based upon the nine factors that he has to judge. Commissioner Buffa wanted to confirm that the applicant has put in an application saying that the establishment is in actuality a liquor store. The site is a convenience store but it really functions as a liquor store. If this is the case, why would the Commission limit the amount of liquor sales at all?. ` Ms. Dadantresponded by saying that the reason that staff recommended the condition was because` there were' concerns with the' Anaheim Police Department. Also, in' limiting the percentage of the sales given whaf staff has been told in terms of the applicants floor plan is laid out and how much of his' actual ` establishment is focused on non-liquor items, that it seemed appropriate to keep the limit at 55% so that operation would truly noYbecome a typical liquor store. It is by definition a liquor store. But because of the way that the store is set up and what the primary focus of the sales are at the facility, staff thought that it would be appropriate to allow the'sale of full alcohol giVen the1imitation in the display area and the percentage of sales. Commissioner Buffa saitl that Ms. Dadant answered her question, but that she does not necessarily agree with staff along those lines'. If the Commission approves the sale of )iquor it does not translate into the reduction of the sale of fewer beers and fewer single servings of wine coolers. The applicant would start selling bottles of hard liquor, which are more expensive. She stated that she believes that the percentage of the gross receipts for the sale of alcohol will go up. This is because patrons will be purchasing more expensive liquor items. They might buyless beer, but they might buy vodka and ~ whiskey which is more expensive. With that being said, she`asked why is the Commission micra' managing the applicants business? If it'is appropriate for the applicant to have a liquor license, the applicant has fhe right to run his business as he would like. But if it is not appropriate for the applicant to have aJiquor license, then the item must not be approved. Commissioner Romero said that one of the issues that he struggles with is the fact that the applicant is running a business and it appears friendly to different age groups of patrons. But in actuality it is a liquor store. Because he is not aware that his sales should be capped at 35% and what his hours of operation should be, all these things add up to whether the Commission should be allowing him to sell liquor. The establishment seems to be "inching" its way to becoming a full liquor store. If this is the case, then the entire store should be changed to that nature. He said that he is very uncomfortable granting this because he does not think it fits into the category of a public convenience or necessity. Commissioner Karaki stated that he agrees with the comments made by Commissioner Buffa. The applicant is applying for a license that is for a liquor store and the Commission should not micro-manage his business. Except that he is uncomfortable with what is going on behind the store with regards to the "junk" behind the building. The applicant is conducting himself as a liquor store.- There are not prior limitations on the previous Conditional Use Permit as far as how much liquor he can selL Because there have not been any record of problems associated with the business he is in favor of granting approval for the item. The Commission can put some limitations and come back in one year to see how the business is doing. If the applicant is doing well, he can keep it the way that it is. If the applicant does not do well, if there is an increase in the reporting of crimes, then restrictions can be applied at that time. Commissioner Flores stated that she agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Karaki. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Chairman Eastman stated that she was struggling with many of the same issues that Commissioner Faessel voiced concern over:` She was concerned if the Commission can make the finding for convenience and necessity. She said that she recalled that any one of the issues that have been brought ' 03-05-07 . Page 14 MARCH 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ up can be enough to deny the request. She asked Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, if that was correct. She wanted to know if all of the items on the list are lacking, or if all of the points in the yes or no ~ category canlead to making a finding, or not lead to making afinding;'what would his findings be on this matter. Mr. Gordon replied that there is no precise formula. There are only considerations. Chairman Eastman said that she was struggling with seven of the nine items as mentioned previously by Commissioner FaesseL'Therefore, combining this;with the police departmenYs recommendation against the item and the neighborhood's concern on the negative side, she stated that she cannot support the request. Commissioner Buffa said that she also was unable to'make the required findings for approval of the item. She stated that#here are plenty of opportunities to purchase hard liquor on the street. And although the Commission prefers limiting the sale of any alcoholic beverage, there does not seem to be a policing problem with"the existing ;single sale conditions. There does not appear to be a need for the purchase of' hard liquor at this business when it is readily available down the block. , OPPOSITION: Aperson representing West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND) spoke in opposition to the subject request. A letter was received, prior to the meeting, in opposition to the subject request ~ Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 27, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 44 minutes (2:51-3:35) MARCH 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Karaki/Romero Approved 6b. VARIANCE N0. 2007-04717 Karaki Granted Owner: ` Mario Munoz, 115 S. Leola.Way, Anaheim, CA 92807-3514 VUTE: 6-0 Commissioner Velasquez : Location: 115 South Leola Wav: Property is approximately 1.28 absenc acres, having a frontage of 215 feet on the west side of Leola Way and is located 445 feet north of the centerline of ' Cerro Vista Drive. ' Request waiver of maximum fence height to retain an existing six foot high block wall within the front setback of a single-family home. Project Plannec (jnixon@anaheim. net) Variance Resolution No. PC2007-18 , -~~ Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. JessicaNixon, Assistant Planner, introduced this item and provided a visual presentation of the site which included variousviews of the fence in question and"surrounding fences. Ms. Nixon detailed the reason : for the waiver of maximum fence height;!which in part, is because'the wall isJocated at the end of a cul- de-sac with no through traffic. The wall is used to enclose the rear of the applicant's yard and only a small portion iswithin the front setback. The applicant explains that a hardship would exist since other neighbors have fences at or near the sameheight asthe#ence in question: Ms. Nixon stated that there .. are two findings required to justify the requested wall height: There is nothing unique about the shape or topography which limits the ability to comply with the existing code requirement. Other parcels that have` been approved with waivers are significantly smaller than the applicanYs site and are further constrained by shape. Although the wall is well maintained and there are other homes wifh walls at a similar height within the fronf setback; #he property has adequatelot area and depth to provide the required setback. , Therefore, staff recommends denial of the proposed waiver. Applicant's Statement: Ross Romero, 8371 Foxhills Avenue, Buena Park, CA, spoke in favor of the item on behalf of the applicant and property owner; Mario Mu~oz. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to submit the waiver. He stated that he is aware of two criteria for modifications. First, the subject property is located in the Peralta Hills area of Anaheim Hills: The area has alarge amount of custom built homes : and estate size lots. This lot in particular is designated as an estate lot by code by the City of Anaheim. He noted thatthe property owner,:Mr. Munoz, has been working with staff for the past year in order to resolve the issue. He detailed the incumbent differences for an estateJot as compared to a standard lot. He pointed out that the majority of the wall is setback 20 feet due to the configuration of the'cul-de-sac. He stated that two-thirds of the wall is in conformance with existing codes. He noted that Mr. Munoz also . owns the street in front of the property. He does not understand why a waiver #or the existing wall should not be granted even though the wall does impede by a few feet. Commissioner Buffa inquired when the wall was constructed. Mr. Munoz stated that it was constructed 1%2 years aga : THE PUSLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • Commissioner Romero stated, as a point of clarification, that Mr. Munoz owns the street in front of his property. He wanted to know how this affects the other two neighbors who Use the street. 03-05-07 Page 16 MARCH 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Romero stated that the City has an existing easement, but the street lies on Mr. Munoz's property. ' Commissioner Karaki stated that this matter did not necessarily need3o come before the Planning Commission. Because the location of the fence is at the end of a cul-de-sac and Mr. Munoz owns the road, allowing for an easement for individuals to use, it should not be a hardship to keep'the wall the way it is. He is in favor of leaving the wall the way it is. Commissioner Faessel asked staff to indicate on an aerial picture wfiich part of the wall is in compliance with code'and what part of the wall is not in compliance. Ms. Nixon indicated the two pertinent portions of the wall using a pointer and an aerial view of the property as requested by Commissioner FaesseL ' CommissionerFaessel asked Ms. Nixon if the easterly portion of the wall is the part that is not in conformance. Ms. Nixon replied that is correct. Commissioner Buffa mentioned a previous instance in which' a wall height waiver was denied to a woman even though some of her neighbors had walls that were built prior to the current code that was being applied to her property. She said that in good conscience she cannot approve the waiver because the otherlady was held to the code. She cannot justify not applying the rules equitably to everyone. Granted, the applicanYs wall is not "hurting" anybody.' There is no harm in where the wall `is located and the wall is connected to the angle point of the neighbor's fence correctly. But she cannot justify a reason to authorize a variance for fhe wall in question. Chairman Eastman said according to the map that the Commission has, it appears thaf the owners ~ property does go out and takes up half of the cul-de-sac. If you can count that then it seems like he probably has his sefback because the whole street in front ofhis, all the way over to the neighbor's waU belongs to him essentially, but he gave the City the variance to treat it as`a right of way. ' Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, indicated that Leola Way is a private street and because of that Mr. Munoz ~ does own a large portion of the street. Usually setbacks are measured by code from the edge of the roadway easement and that is why this request is before you. If this is taken into consideration and per the map'that is included in the Commission's staff report, the property does have a Jong length of frontage compared to the other two properties that are located on the cul-de-sac. Therefore, the applicant does have a lot more front setback area than the other two parcels would, because this site does take up more of the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Buffa thanked Ms. Dadant for providing a justifiable reason for granting the waiver. Commissioner Romero stated that he is no relation to Mr. Romero who spoke before the Commission, and he indicated that he personally viewed the property. He noted that if the Commission were to force the applicant to adhere to the existing fence code, it would not "flow aestheticall~' as it does currently. Chairman Eastman made reference to the prior item as noted by Commissioner Buffa. She said that the Commission was not dealing with a private street in that other case as they are for this item. This: is the major difference that she sees that justifies allowing the applicant the requested waiver. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on . Tuesday, March 27, 200Z DISCUSSION TIME: 17 minutes (3:36-3:53) 03-05-07 page 17 MARCH 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Karaki/Ftores Approved ~ 7b. VARIANCE N0. 2007-04718 Karaki Granted 7c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.'2006-163 Karaki/Buffa Approved _' _ 7d. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT N0. 2007-00001 _ Karaki/Buffa Approved Owner: D&D Autry, LLC,' Modified Condition No. 22 17772 Irvine Boulevard; #102, Tustin, CA 92870 voTE: 6-0 Commissioner Velasquez , Agent: Rudy Emami, 6435 Shady Valley, absent : Anaheim, CA 92807 Location: 7730 East Autrv Drive: Property is approximately 3.02 acres, having frontages of 35 feet at the terminus of Autry , Drive, a frontage of 204 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and is located 255" feet east of the centerline ` of Eucalyptus Drive. Variance Na 2007-04718- Request waiver of minimum lot depth adjacent to a Scenic Expressway to construct four single-family detached homes. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-163- 7o establish a 4-lot, 4-unit detached single family subdivision. Specimen Tree Removal No. 2007-00001- To remove 10 specimen • trees. _ . * Advertised as 198 feet. Projecf Planner.• Variance Resolution No. PC2007-19 (dherrick@anaheim.net) Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, introduced this item by stating that this is a request to sub-divide four parcels of land in order to construct four new single-family residences. The item calls for a new private street accessed from Autry Drive, with driveway's leading to each individual residence. Ms. Herrick detailed the proposed waivers, code requirements, landscape issues and provided an aerial presentation of the site. Ms. Herrick stated that staff feels that all of the lots comply with all code requirements. Staff - also believes that the project is consistent with the surrounding land uses. The project is designed to provide adequate setbacks to protect residents as stated in the General Plan. Staff recommends approval of this item. Ms. Herrick noted that staff was contacted by the applicant and were notified of one change to Condition No. 22. The change would be that instead of "said information shall be specifically shown on grading plans" to read "should a survey, conducted by a biologist determine that there are no nests on the site, that grading woufd be able to proceed in between that period of time'' ApplicanYs Statement: Peter Gambino, 1400 E. Las Palmas Drive #3, La Habra, CA, one of the design professionals working on this project, provided a brief history of the item. He stated that he wanted to come up with the best plan ~ that would suit the property. The resulting decision was for the proposed four Iot sub-division which is not as intrusive as some other potential sub-divisions. This project meets all Code requirements, minimizes retaining wall heights and actually puts on site circulation rather than from 3anta Ana Canyon Road. All 03-05-07 Page 18 MARCH 5, 2007 PLANNINGCOMMISSION MINUTES conditions of approval as set forth by staff have' been met with the one exception of Condition Na 22. ~ This Condition protects any migratory birds and/or species on the site. The'condition as currently structured limits the applicant's ability to grade and perform other work on the site between the months of February 15th, and August 31 st. The applicant would suggest#o restructure Condition No. 22, such that the applicant would be agreeable to have an on-site biologistto ensure thatthere are no migratory birds or protected species that would be impacted. lf there are not, the applicant would like to have permission to grade during the above referenced time frame. Mr. Gambino thanked staff for their cooperation regarding this item. Commissioner Faessel wanted to know, because a lot of grading would be required, approximately how - many yards of earth would be moved for this project. - Mr. Gambino replied that grading would be minimized and yet still be in compliance with wall standards and wall heights. Originally efforts were made to get the site to balance, but this turned out not to be feasible due to #he requirements of wall heights: Mr. Gambino offered a description'of the different sizes and reasons for walls connected with this project, as well as existing walls in the area. The approximate amount of grading woufd'come to 16,000 yards of cut and 9,000 yards of fill with 7,000 yards of export. A significant amount of this is'related to minimizing wall heights and making sure that the'driveways comply with code. Commissioner Faessel asked if Mr. Gambino was going to supply the pads'all as on cut. Mr. Gambino replied that there would be a combination of cut and fills and explained the reasoning behind this decision. Commissioner Faessel asked if he was concerned with any seismic activity in the area for the cut and fill issue: ~ Mr. Gambino said he is not and stated that he has a geotechnical report that says everything was, favorable for this procedure. He went on to say that when actual grading is being performed that a geotechnical engineer needs to be present. He may find that there are changes that may need to be _ made for several reasons. Commissioner Faessel expressed concern regarding the amount of cut and fill involved and the general history of the hill and canyon area. There have been some notabie slippages over the past decade in that area: Anything with this much excavation probably needs another "look see." He went on to say that even if Mr. Gambino feels confident about this issue, there is a possibility some years hence, thaf the City may have to declare this area an emergency zone or something. Mr. Gambino replied that he agrees with the comments made by Commissioner Faessel and is aware of past situations'in the area. He said that he feels that at the current time the technology is better in 2007 than what was possibly available at previous times. This updated technology allows the applicant to mitigate adverse geology planes. He stated that there is an ongoing process involving the City and other professionals to limit the degree of risk associated with the project. : Commissioner Faessel asked if he had found any underground springs or anything of that nature. Mr. Gambino replied no, not with the excavations that have been performed to date. He went on to further describe his findings and how he feels confident in the materials and how the project is proposed. Commissioner Karaki asked Mr. Gambino, because he is in construction, which driveway or route would he take to arrive at the site. Will this traffic affect the neighbors? Mr. Gambino stated that the property enjoys three access points, including Santa Ana Canyon Road, ~ which in reality is not an option. There are two different access points where title is provided in order to enter the site. He offered a visual and verbal presentation to the Commission of where the access sites are: 03-05-07 Page 19 MARCH'5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISS{ON MINUTES ~ Commissioner Karaki asked about an existing access road and if it would be removed. Mr. Gambino repiied that #his specific access road is not part of the project and most likely may be gradetl for a horse trail as requested by Parks and Recreation.'` Commissioner Faessel wanted to verify that 6,000 yards of earth were scheduled to be removed. Mr. Gambino stated the amount would be 7,000 yards. Commissioner Faessel stated #hat that would equate to approximately 700 truckJoads. °He said that he is somewhat concerned about that much truck travel through the adjoining neighbOrhood. Would he be able to ensure that there is some type of mitigation for this neighborhood for that amount of truck travel , carrying soil? This would include dirt, noise, dust, fall off, etc. ' Mr. Gambino replied that he can prepare a"haul route" for review and approval by the City Engineer's Office which he would be pleased to da lf they wanted to restrict certain times, within reason, the applicant would be agreeable to this. Commissioner Faessel suggested that he meet with City staff and arrange some type ofagreement regarding the °haul route." He noted that because 700 truck loads of soil over the extended time of construction, he could foresee property owner's presenting themselves before City Council relating to this issue. He suggested that in order to protecf himself, that there is some type of mitigation put in place. Mr. Gambino agreed with the statements made by Commissioner Faessel and said he would comply with ' the request: He only asks that this portion of the project not be restricted to a three hour window per day which would make'grading impossibfe. ~ Commissioner Buffa wanted to know who is responsible for the long term maintenance of the private drive on Autry Drive. James Ling, Principa{ Civil Engineer, replied to previous guestions brought'forth by Commissioner Faessel regarding some of the mitigation measures that he was concerned about. The City actually has appropriate measures in place to mitigate dust control, noise and different things that are involved with the grading plan. In terms of the truck traffic, those are issues that could be addressed at#he Public Grading Hearing after the grading plans have been submitted: The neighbors that are within the 300 foot radius are automatically notified of the project and are invited to review the plans. Residents can also attend the Public Grading Hearing which would be held approximately three or four weeks after the grading plans have been submitted. All parties involved with this project will be required to follow all the standard construction mitigation measures as any other project does within the hills area. The City works with the residents as well. Me noted that there are established procedures which are followed very closely. : Commissioner Faessel asked if the Commission would see this item again with regards to the grading plan. Mr. Ling said na This is handled through the City Engineer and the Public Works staff so the item immediately before the Commission relates only to the land use. Commissioner Faessel wanted to be assured that there is a way of mitigating the issues of the soil hauling. He was assured by his associate Commissioners that this issue will be taken care of. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, wanted to say to Commissioner Faessel that he is concerned that some black and white condition at this stage would essentially or could handcuff the Public Works ~ Qepartment in making their decisions. Therefore, if the Commission were to impose a condition at this stage, that is inconsistent with the plans for the improvement at the site and #hat is in conflict with Public Works` desires; theywould be'putting the applicanf in the position of coming back to the Commission to 03-05-07 Page 20 MARCH 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • seek modification of that condition of approval before if could move forward through the grading stage. The Commission does not typical{y do this but defers to the Public Works Departments' discretion to consider those issues and impose appropriate conditions and to modify those conditions if circumstances dictate during th~ construction of theproject. Commissioner Faessel stated that based on the'last fewminutes of testimony, he withdraws Mis request that there be an additional condition added #o this item. Mr. Gordon went on to address Commissioner 8uffa's'question regarding the use of the private roadway. Typically when access is taken over a private roadway, as,is with Autry Drive, the homeowners that are taking access over the private roadway would have a shared responsibility to maintain the road by state law. The ideal situation would be for the property owners to have an agreemenf which is not always the ' case. However,'in this:situation due to an' absence oYan agreement, there is a state law that makes provisions for shared responsibility for the maintenance of the roadway. Ne also noted that getting the homeowners to take action regarding the maintenance is another issue. The homeowners have the right, under state law, to bring an action to enforce those provisions under state law. Commissioner Buffa added that the City could enforce the pr~3visions alsa ' Mr.'Gordon agreed with Commissioner Buffa's'statement. ' CommissionerRomero said that Mr. Gambino stated that he is in agreement with the intent of Condition No. 22. He wanted to verify that he and Ms. Herrick are in agreement as to what the condition should read. : Mr. Gambino stafed that he is in agreement with the intent of Condition No. 22. sut what he would like to do is that if it can be proved that there are no special species on the site, especially in certain areas • where they can start grading, that they be allowed to do sa He would like to break ground' in May to avoid an excessive carrying cost for three additional months. Chairman Eastman noted that this issue was discussed earlier during today's Preliminary Plan Review and that Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, would like to speak on this matter. Ms. Dadant offered a draft condition for approval which may apply to the Commission's concern. Ms. '' Dadant read into the record "that Condition No. 22 is modified to say that this project shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Migratory bird impacts may be avoided by scheduling construction includinq~ tree removal, demolition and grading outside of the breeding season which extends from February 15t to August 31 s'. If construction is scheduled to occur during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall be retained and shaU conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior to the commencement of construction activity to determine the presence of migratory birds and their nests." So if no birds are found, then construction can commence. Mr. Gambino noted that he does not object to the modification that was read by Ms. Dadant. However if he does come across a situation where birds'are found at a different location fhan what is being presently worked on, he would like a biologist to make a recommendation with regards to what would be of impact to the birds and what wouldn't be. The applicant would like to be able to continue working in the areas that would not be of impact to any protected species. _ Ms. Dadant stated that there is a minimum buffer of 150 feet between the nest and the limit of construction which will be flagged. This is in connection with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act therefore whatever that responsible agency requires is part of the approval process. The City does not have any authority to allow something less stringent than the appropriate authority. Mr. Gambino said that he is in agreement with the statements provided'by Ms. Dadant. • Chairman Eastman welcomed Mr. Phillip Joujon-Roche to the podium. ' _ 03-05-07 Page 21 MARCH 5, 2007 PLANNING GOMMISSION MINUTES ~ Public Testimony: Phillip Joujon-Roche, 450 Via Vista, Anaheim, CA, spoke against the project as the President of the Santa Ana Canyon Property Owner's Association which represents residents in the Mohler Drive Loop, Eucalyptus Drive area. These residents have one thing in common and that is thatthey allJive in the same hilly area that has been zoned for one-half acre,-low density, estate dwelling. He described the general nature of the area for the Commission. He sta#ed that Me is in agreement with the' density, height requirements for the homes and the 83-foot setback for this project. Nis concerns are where the'drainage for the project would occur and the amount of grading. Jamie Lai, Principal'Civil Engineer, stated that she is familiar with the project and that drainage issues would be addressed at the Public Grading Mearing'once PUblic Works has a full review of the plans. She stated all applicable draining codes wifl appiy. Chairman Eastman assured Mr. Jou~on-Roche that all his concerns would be addressed by Mr. Gambina Chairman Eastman noted thatshe received a speaker card from Pat Stowers whom she invited to speak. Pat Stowers, 7707 East Autry Drive, Anaheim, CA, spoke in opposition to the project. She questioned the matter of access to the site and stated a brief logistical history,of theland bythe original owner Mrs. Autry. She strongly voiced concerns as #o the large number of loads'of dirt for the project. She cited existing problems associated with Autry Drive and the proposed deVelopment in general. She is also worried about the traffic coming down #rom the development, going in and out, exclusively on Autry Drive. When the street was developed it wasto have two ingresses and egress for both sides. Commissioner Karaki clarified that Ms. Stowers concerns'were the exporting of the dirt and driving through her driveway. ~ Chairman Eastman stated that the Commission clearly understands Ms. Stowers' viewpoints. Chairman Eastman stated that she had received another speaker card and invited the person to address the Commission. Marcela Clemente, 7710 East Autry Drive, Anaheim, CA, stated that her only concern with the project is - that when the owners of the new homes come down, there is not enough room on Autry Drive for two cars to pass each other at the same time. Another issue is the amount of traffic on the road when she is taking her children to and from schooL Commissioner Karaki asked Mr. Ling exactly how wide is Mohler Drive. Mr. Ling indicated that he did not have that measurement with him but he stated that the standard for the Mohler Hills area is for a 20-foot road that would allow two-way traffic. Mr. Joujon-Roche said that the road is actually 20 feet wide, but there are easements to 40 feet. He noted that Mohler Drive is a public road. He wanted to know what the easement is for Autry Drive even though it is a private road. Commissioner Karaki asked Mr. Gambino to verify that he is commissioned to fix the road to a width of 20 feet. Mr. Gambino said yes he is commissioned and agreeable to fix the road. Chairman Eastman invited Mr. Gambino to return and speak to some previous issues that were of some concern. : • : 03-05-07 Page 22 MARCH 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ApplicanYs RebuttaL• Mr. Gambino stated briefly that currently the site drains to the north, northwest onto Autry Drive. Some of the street drains back of the site to the rear towards a park area. He pointed out on a projected photo the route that the drainage would take via a drainage pipeline. There was a brief discussion between Commissioner Faessel, Mr. Gambino and Mr. Joujon-Roche if the applicanYs proposed drainage system was acceptable. Another topic during this discussion was the - possibility of a horse trail which would be created to adhere to Park and Recreation standards. Commissioner Faessel stated that he still has concerns, along with two of the previous speakers, regarding the issue of grading and the amount of 600 to 700 truck loads of dirt. He went on to say that' " per Mr. Gambino's testimony that Autry Drive would be the only egress for all the truck traffic. He agrees that the speakers have a valid point. Chairman Eastman stated the grading might take six months, but if there were restrictions, it could take Ionger.,, She wanted to know'whaf the estimated schedule of howlong the grading will take for the site and how many trucks might be going back and forth on Autry Drive and Eucalyptus Drive. Mr. Gambino said that it is'possible to export all the dirt within a two week time period. The rest would be the function of establishing the grading on site to create the pads He cautioned about "hamstringing" the grading contractor withJimitations. Commissioner Karaki stated from his experience that this portion of the grading could be done within two : weeks if it is handled properly. He suggested that with the proper measurement of controlling the dust, and having someone with a flag, this issue could be properly addressed with the City Engineer and Public W orks. ~ Mr. Gambino confirmed that this part of the construction could be completed within a two week time period. Commissioner Karaki stressed the importance of taking care of the residents in the area of the project and working with the different applicabte City departments. Commissioner Flores and Mr. Gambino discussed the details of work that might be accomplished on Dorothy Lane. , Commissioner Karaki made one more comment to make sure that the residents in the neighborhood are taken care of no matter what. They are entitled to have safety, and dust that is completely controlled. He stated he will IooK to the City to verify that these items are achieved. 7HE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to portions of the subject request. IN GENERAL: A person spoke with some concerns/questions pertaining to the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Parcel Map : ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 15, 2007; and presented the 22-day appeal rights for the Variance and Specimen Tree Removal Permit ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 27, 2007. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 56 minutes (3:54-4:50) Commissioner Karaki left the Council Chambers at 4: 51 p.m.) 03-05-07 Page23 Respectfuily submitted: ~~, , ~~~~ ~~ ~~ Marie Witkay Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~. 1 ~, 2007.