Loading...
Minutes-PC 2001/01/29~ ~PHE~M~q`'~ CITY OF ANAHEIM t' O ~,p, F 2 ° ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~~NOED ~8~1 DATE: MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 2001 MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Koos called the Morning Session to order 11:00 a.m. in the Council Chamber. 11:00 A.M. • Staff update to Commission of various City developments and issues (as requested by Planning Commission) • Preliminary Plan Review ~ PUBLiC HEARING: Chairperson Koos called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber and welcomed those in attendance. 1:30 P.M. • Public Hearing Testimony PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Bristol. CHAIRPERSON JOHN KOOS COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, KOOS, NAPOLES COMISSIONERS ABSENT: VANDERBILT STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Assistant City Attorney Greg Hastings Zoning Division Manager Greg McCafferty Senior Planner John Poole Code Enforcement Manager Don Yourstone Senior Code Enforcement Officer Alfred Yalda Principal Transportation Planner Peter Gambino Associate Engineer Jerry Austin Fire Marshall Jeff Lutz Deputy Fire Marshall Lt. Kahle Switzer Police Department Ossie Edmundson PC Support Supervisor Elly Fernandes Senior Word Processing Operator AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, January 25, 2001, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, January 4, 2001. • H:\DOCS\CLERICALWII NUTESWC012901. DOC planninqcommissionCa~anaheim.net 01-29-01 Page 1 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Continued to December 4, 2000. , (Motion) February 12, 2001. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Continued to December 18, 2000. (Motion) February 12, 2001. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Continued to January 3, 2001. (Motion) February 12, 2001. Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Continued to January 17, 2001. (Motion) February 12, 2001. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Approved Request City Attorney's office prepare an ordinance and recommending that Council adopt said ordinance ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRfED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed Adjustment No. 6 to the Northeast Area Specific Plan falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15061(b)(3), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby request the City Attorney's office to prepare an ordinance to amend Code Section 18.110.110 to permit asphalt and concrete processing facilities subject to the approval of a conditional use permit within Development Area 6 of the Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1; and that the Planning Commission does also recommend to the City Council adoption of said ordinance. (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) SR7896KP.DOC A. a) CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - SECTION 15061(b)(3) b) SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. SPN 2001-00002: Dan Copp Crushing, Attn: Karen Ayres, 1300 North Hancock Street, Unit B, Anaheim, CA 92807. Adjustment No. 6 to the Northeast Area Specific Plan to amend Section 18.110.110 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to permit asphalt and concrete processing facilities in Development Area 6 of the Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1 subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is Item 1-A Specific Plan Adjustment 2001- • 00002 in Development Area 6 in the Northeast Area of the Specific Plan to permit asphalt and concrete processing facilities subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. 01-29-01 Page 2 JANUARY 29, 2001 ClTY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ B. a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 321 (PREV. CER7IFIED) Approved b) FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 99-04 (FSP TRACKING NO. 2000- Approved 00024) REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME: retroactive Doug Anderson, Four Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 675, Santa Ana, CA extension of time 92707, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Final Site Plan Review No. 99-04 (to (To expire 11-8-2001) construct a 4-story office building and parking structure within the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone). Property is located at 2045 and (Vote: 6-0, 2099 South State College Boulevard. Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified CEQA Environmental Impact Report No. 321 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval to expire on November 8, 2001, based on the following: • (i) That the proposed plan remains in conformance with the current Zoning Code and General Plan land use designation, and that there have been no code amendments that would cause the original approval to be inconsistent with the Zoning Code. (ii) That the property is adequately maintained, with no Code violations, and further that there are no additional information or circumstances that would contradict the findings made at the time of the original approval. (iii) That this is the first extension of time for this permit. SR1087TW.DOC ~ Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 1-B, a request for a retroactive extension of time for Final Sife Pfan 99-04 for property located at 2099 S. State College Boulevard. Commissioner Bostwick moved for a CEQA Environmental Impact Report No. 321 as previously certified. Seconded by Commissioner Boydstun. Also offered a motion for a retroactive extension of time, seconded by Commissioner Napoles, 01-29-01 Page 3 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMlSS10N MINUTES • C. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4054 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001- Concurred with staff Approved final landscape plans 04328) - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS: Micheal R. A. Bagguley, 701 Concord Street, Glendale, CA 91202, requests review and approval of final landscape plans. Property is located 3000-3020 West Lincoln Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Pfanning Commission does hereby approve final landscape plans as they comply with code requirements and satisfy conditions of approval nos. 12 and 18 of Resolution No. PC98-130. SR1001 GK.DOC ~ L~ Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for review and approval of landscape plans for property located at 3000-3020 West Lincoln Avenue. 01-29-01 Page 4 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • D. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 (b)(3) Item was b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 2000-04244 AND 3924 withdrawn. (TRACKING NO. 2001-04331) - REQUEST FOR NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION: City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests a Nunc Pro Tunc resolution to correct Condition No. 27 contained in Resolution No. PC2000-101 adopted in connection with the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-4244 and correct Resolution No. PC2001-1 adopted to terminate Conditional Use Permit Nos. 3924 and 3675. Property is located at 2220-2240 West Sequoia Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept staff s request for withdrawal of the request for Nunc Pro Tunc resolutions to correct Condition No. 27 contained in Resolution No. PC2000-101 in connection with the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 4244 and correct Resolution No. PC2001-1 adopted to terminate Conditional Use Permit Nos. 3924 and 3675. SR1161JD.DOC ~ • There was no discussion related to this item. 01-29-01 Page 5 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • E. REQUEST PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATION OF GENERAL Concurred w/ staff PLAN AMENDMENT PROCEEDINGS: City-initiated (Planning Initiated proceedings Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, for General Plan request for Planning Commission initiation of an amendment to the Amendment Housing Element of the General Plan in compliance with State law. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Commissioner Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission Vanderbilt absent) does hereby initiate General Plan Amendment proceedings for the purpose of considering an amendment to the Housing Element of the Anaheim General Plan in compliance with State law. SR7904JB.DOC ~ u Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for Planning Commission initiation of General Plan amendment proceedings for the Housing Element of the General Plan. 01-29-01 Page 6 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • OWNER: Asmail and Mahin Rastegari, Attn: Mahin Sophia Rastegari, P. O. Box 3465, Fullerton, CA 92834 LOCATION: 1108 North Acacia Street. Property is 0.34 acre located on the east side of Acacia Street, 525 feet south of the centerline of Romneya Drive (Montessori Child Care Center). To permit an expansion and increase in enrollment of an existing preschool facility with waiver of (a) institutional setback adjacent to a residential zone, (b) minimum number of parking spaces and (c) permitted encroachments into required yards. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2910 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04280) Continued to February 12, 2001 Continued from the Commission meeting of January 17, 2001. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Commissioner Arnold offered a motion for a continuance to February 12, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, vote taken and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None AC710N: Continued subject request to February 12, 2001 in order to allow the applicant additional time to work with Planning and Building Division staff on Code violation issues. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. SR2058DS. DOC i 01-29-01 Page 7 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2231 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04312) Approved reinstatement for 5 years OWNER: American SK Trading Company, 831 South Beach (To expire January 29, Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804 2006) AGENT: Tom and Wen Yi Zhang, 831 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 831 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 0.65 acre located on the west side of Beach Boulevard, 830 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road (Rainbow !nn). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (reinstated on January 11, 2000, to expire on January 11, 2001) to retain an existing 41-unit, 2- story motel. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-15 SR2056DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this a request for reinstatement of Conditional tJse Permit No. 2231 for property located at 839 S. Beach Boulevard (The Rainbow Inn Motel). ~ John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager, stated that the item before Commission is a motel that has been identified as being one of the 6 problem motels in the West Anaheim area. This motel has made substantial improvements within the last year. Mr. Poole directed Code Enforcement staff to provide Commission with information of the motel's operation. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, represented Code Enforcement, stated that since the Planning Commission's action on April 24, 2000, he has observed substantial improvements at subject property located at 831 S. Beach Boulevard. The rooms were repainted, new carpet was installed, and smoke alarms were hard wired as required by a condition in their CUP. All occupied rooms are cleaned on a daily basis. The exterior of the property including the building have been repaired and repainted and the landscaping has been refurbished. The trash is removed on a daily basis. There are no inoperable vehicles on the property. In December 2000 and January 2001 Code Enforcement conducted inspections at this motel and found no code violations and no evidence of any hot plates, electric skillets or microwaves in any of the rooms, which would indicate any long-term residents. Based on the improvements of the operation and the property staff would recommend fhe time extension for this conditional use permit be granted. Lt. Switzer with Anaheim Police Department, gave a brief synopsis of the police involvement with the Rainbow Inn over the last 3 years. Going back to 1998 the number of Part one crimes involved at the motel was a total number of 14. For 1999 that number dropped down to 9 and for the year 2000 there was a total of 8 part one crimes reported at this motel. Part 2 crimes, which are a lesser type of category of crimes for 1998 there was 24 reported. In 1999 there were 9 reports and for the year 2000 there were 21 reports. For non-criminal incidences involving the police at the motel in 1998 there were a total of 24. In 1999 there was a total of 21 and for the year 2000 there was a total of 20. Then a tally for proactive involvement from the police officers and this would be self-initiated activity done by the police officers themselves. For 1998 there was 70 incidences of proactive policing. For 1999 there was 63 and for the year 2000 there was 104. The arrest totals for the three years are as stated. In 1998 there were 49 arrest made at the motel. In 1999 there were 26 arrest. As for the year 2000 there was a total of 35. I broke those down further into narcotic related ~ arrest. In 1998 there were 37 narcotic arrest made at the motel. In 1999 there was a total of 18. In the year 01-29-01 Page 8 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 2000 there was a total of 17. He thought that gave a comparison over the course of three years as to what the criminal activity has been like as well as the proactive police involvement. Commissioner Boydstun asked about Condition No. 6 regarding the hours of security on the premises. Lt. Switzer speaking as West District Commander, certainly with the levels of problems that they have had in the past with most of the motels along Beach Boulevard he would be in favor of seeing security on premise 24 hours a day. Chairperson Koos stated that there was no other comments from staff at this time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Ca(vin Yap, attorney, 16148 Sand Canyon, lrvine representing Tom Zhang the applicant. I just wanted to provide the Commission with some background facts and the intentions of the owner. At the morning session there seemed to be some confusion whether or not there was a change in ownership. He explained there was a change in ownership June or July, where Mr. Zhang purchased 100% of the Rainbow Inn. Mr. Zhang came to his office at that time and showed me the conditional use permit that had one year left. It was a surprise to him. Mr. Yap informed Mr. Zhang that if he shows his good faith and intentions to the City of Anaheim then hopefully the City would work with him and encourage him to turn this property around. Mr. Zhang is in it for the long term not for a short profit. He is a hands-on owner so he knows what is going on. But with regard to the criminal activity Mr. Yap just heard about that. He had an opportunity to speak with the Lt. Switzer and the impression was that this street has been a tough • street for a long time. Those motels have been a problem for a while and iYs something that can't be turned around over night. Mr. Zhang is not soft on crime; he will be as tough as he can but the general trend has shown signs of improvement. They accept staff's recommendation with the exception to Condition No. 17. On Condition No. 17 they are concerned about the 30-day and 90-day restrictions placed there. It effects two things. Number 1- even though the property at present is not run as an apartment building with any long-term stays. They do have customers from time to time working in the City that stay for two weeks intervals. They have to turn those people away based on those restrictions. If somebody wanted to work two weeks in January, two weeks in February, two weeks in March it would be a violation to Condition No. 17. In addition this condition in the event that Mr. Zhang does not have the financial standings to continue investing in this property and improving it, and if he ends up selling it this would be a detriment and a prejudicial to a sale of the property. It is to the City and Mr. Zhang's benefit to get as high of a value as possible for the property. The bottom line is whether or not the property is financially viable. Based on what the present owner has done in the past year in comparison to what was done with the property in the previous 5 to 6 years he felt the City and the Planning Commission should work with the applicant and encourage him. They support staff's recommendation with the exception of Condition No. 17. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. John Poole stated there haven't been any long-term occupants at the motel as there had been in the past. Commissioner Arnold asked how long has evidence shown that there haven't been any long-term occupants. ~ Don Yourstone explained that records indicate there have been no incidences since last April. 01-29-01 Page 9 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick followed up with comments made by the City Attorney about the change in the ordinance dealing with motels and hotels. Could that be reiterated? Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the City Attorney's office has prepared an ordinance that will be considered by the City Council that modifies the definition of what a motel or hotel is. It clarifies that it is for transient use and not intended for somebody's primary residence. It works with the types of periodic use that was being described at the podium. Also the City Attorney's office is also working on an ordinance for conversion of motels to long-term occupancy that would include some of the minimum standards that the City would consider in terms of having somebody remain for extended periods of time. These are the two efforts taking place in the City Attorney's office. In the interim, as before, the City will continue to address any issues at motels, nearly all of which have a conditional use permit, through the conditional use permit process tailoring conditions narrowly to reflect the issues that are seen at a particular facility. Commissioner Bostwick stated that what the owner has done to this particular property is great. This is a 100% improvement in what we really wanted to see and I commend them for their efforts and their work. Not that I want to penalize them but it is our job to protect the citizens of Anaheim and those that visit the City. That is what we are about is to make sure that this property stays in good shape and good condition and will be a benefit to the City, not a detriment as in the past. Relative to Condition No. 1, he would consider a 3- year conditional use permit rather than a 5-year. Therefore, allowing the Commission to review it sooner. He then referred to Condition fVo. 2 and stated that we need to modify some of the wording. John Poole stated he spoke with the applicant's attorney and their concern is to be certain that the problem doesn't slip back into noncompliance. They would agree to have quarterly inspections, paid for by the applicant, rather than six inspections over the 5-year period. That would give staff a better opportunity to stay informed on the subject property. Commissioner Bostwick stated that staff had prepared a change to the condition. He asked Mr. Poole if he ~ had seen the proposed change that staff made to the condition? John Poole stated that he had not seen the change yet. He had just spoke to the attorney and they were agreeable to the quarterly inspections. As for staff's perspective that would make sense because there have been six "hard core" problem properties and this is one of them. We don't want this property to regress and this will give us an opportunity, at no cost to the taxpayers, to be certain it doesn't regress. Greg McCafferty stated that the applicant was given a copy of the revised condition. !t reflects the discussion that they had this morning. If during those six inspections it seems there needs more than they have the flexibility to do that. Commissioner Boydstun stated she concurs with the quarterly inspections. She would agree with a 5-year period if there were quarterly inspections. Also, the other change she would like to address is relative to Condition No. 6, that the hours of security be 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. She indicated the evening, night and early morning hours are when problems seem to occur. Mr. Yap replied they could work with that. Commissioner Arnold also concurred with the quarterly inspection requirements and suggests keeping the 5-year period. He indicated his first preference would be to remove the "30-day within a 90-day period limitation" or to provide for it to phase out after a year. Commissioner Boydstun stated that she would be willing to omit Condition No. 17 if the quarterly inspections were required. Also, for it to state strongly in the condition that if the Police Department feels more security is needed that it be added at their discretion. Commissioner Bristof concurred with Commissioner Boydstun regarding security and also concurred with • Commissioner Bostwick that the applicant has done a great job. However, he is still concerned with the calls for service as there hasn't been much of a change between 1998 and presently. 01-29-01 Page 10 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty stated if Commission recommends to delete Condition No. 17 that staff would request that you leave in the wording "that guest rooms shall not be rented, let, or occupied by any individual for periods of less than twelve (12) consecutive hours". FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and is therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2231 (Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04312) for five (5) years to retain an existing 41-unit motel (to expire on January 29, 2006. Amended Resolution Nos. PC81-170, PC99-72, and PC99-196 in their entirety, and incorporate the conditions of approval contained in Resolution Nos. 99R-156 and 2000R-8 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval based on fhe finding that the modification is necessary to permit the reasonable operation of this motel: 1. That this Conditional Use Permit shall terminate five (5) years from the date of this resolution, on January 29, 2006. ~ 2. That the property owner shall pay the cost of quarterly Code Enforcement Division inspections during this five (5) year reinstatement period. If any such inspection(s) indicate that the property is not in compliance with any conditions of approval, the property owner shall also pay the costs of Code Enforcement inspection until the subject property is brought into compliance. (Revised staff recommendation on January 29, 2001.) 3. That appliances for the heating and preparation of food shall not be permitted in guest rooms. 4. That smoke alarms shall continue to be hard-wired (rather than battery operated) in the guest rooms, and shall be operable and maintained in good working order at all times. 5. That the trash storage areas shall be maintained to comply with approved plans on file with the Public Works Department, Street and Sanitation Division. 6. That a minimum of one (1) licensed uniformed security guard, approved by the Anaheim Police Department shall be provided upon the premises to specifically provide security, and to discourage vandalism, trespassing and/or loitering upon or adjacent to the subject property. Said licensed security guard shall be present on the premises at a minimum on Friday's, Saturday's and Sunday's from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. of the following morning. Additional security shall be provided if required by the Anaheim Police Department. 7. That the owner/manager shall maintain a complete guest registry or guest card system which includes the full name, address, verified driver's license or legal • identification and vehicle registration number of all registered guests, date of registration, length of stay, and room rates; and that said registry or guest card 01-29-01 Page 19 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • system shall be made available upon demand by any police officer, code enforcement officer, or license inspector of the City of Anaheim during reasonable business hours. 8. That every occupied guest room shall be provided with daily maid service. 9. That the owner and/or management shall not knowingly rent or let any guest room to a known prostitute for the purposes of pandering, soliciting or engaging in the act of prostitution, or any person for the purpose of selling, buying, or otherwise dealing, manufacturing or ingesting an illegal drug or controlled substance; or for the purpose of committing a criminal or immoral act. 10. That no guest room shall be rented or let to any person under eighteen (18) years of age, as verified by a valid driver's license or other legal identification. 11. That all available room rates shall be prominently displayed in a conspicuous place within the office area, and that the property owner and/or motel management shall comply with the provisions of Section 4.09.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the posting of room rates. 12. That the property owner and/or motel management shall comply with the provisions of Section 2.12.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the operator's collection duties of transient occupancy taxes. 13. That this property and these buildings and accessory structures shall be maintained in compliance with the statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations of the State of California, as adopted by the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Housing Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing ~ Code, National Electric Code, and Uniform Mechanical Code. 14. That on-site landscaping shall be refurbished as necessary and permanently irrigated and maintained, including regular removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 15. That a statement shall be printed on the face of the guest registration card to be completed by each guest when registering, advising that the register is open to inspection by the Anaheim Police Department or other City of Anaheim personnel for law enforcement purposes. 16. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 17. That guest rooms shall not be rented, let, or occupied by any individual for periods of less than twelve (12) consecutive hours. (Revised staff recommendation on January 29, 2001.) 18. That any new signage beyond that legally existing on the date of this resolution, shall be subject to review and approval by the Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 19. That subject property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4. CJ 01-29-01 Page 12 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 20. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Vanderbilt absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 21 minutes (1:39-2:00) ~ ~ 01-29-01 Page 13 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04407 4c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 1999-194 Approved Granted, in part Approved OWNER: Craig Painter, 6905 West Route 242, Ellicotteville, NY 14731 AGENT: Anacal Engineering Company, 1900 East La Palma Avenue #202, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 371 Timken Road. Property is 2.01 acres located at the terminus of Timken Road, 200 feet west of the centerline of Mohler Drive. Variance No. 2000-04407 - Waiver of (a) minimum lot area (deleted), (b) minimum lot width (deleted), and (c) maximum number of panhandle lots to establish a single-family subdivision. Tentative Parcel Map No. 1999-194 - To establish a 4-lot, RS-HS- 22,000(SC) single-family subdivision. Continued from the Commission meeting of November 6, 2000 and January 17, 2001. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-16 ~ • SR7901 KP.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is for Variance No. 2000-04407 & Tentative Parcel Map No. 1999-194 for property located at 371 Timken Road. This item was continued last from the January 17 Planning Commission meeting in order for the property owner to be present. Jerry Austin, Fire Marshall for the City Anaheim Fire Department, introduced Deputy Fire Marshall Jeff Lutz. He stated the subject property has been inspected and they met with the residents. A question arose relative to the fire engines having proper access getting up to Timken Road to the proposed site. A fire engine, unit 10, was arranged to come out to the site and drive from the bottom of Timken Road to the top and they didn't have any problems with the fire engine driving up the road. He indicated there is a question about whether there is a fire hazard to the area and stated there is a big fire hazard that we have known about since the road was built. The other concern is getting the residents out during an emergency evacuation because of the size and width of the road. The Fire Department will have a difficult problem with protecting the homes in the area because of the way the homes are built and the amount of vegetation that covers the area. The biggest question we need to ask is if there is any greater risk in the area that doesn't already exist and he stated the answer would be no there is no greater risk. But, if we were to allow one, two or three more homes built that it would create a problem for us as a Fire Department protecting the area or even evacuating the tenants. There is not a requirement in the Fire Code that would require the owner to do anything different then what he has already done. There has been a tremendous amount of improvement in the area as the applicant has built 3 homes back in 1990. At the time, the Fire Department required him to put in a cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac does meet the requirements for turning around the fire engines. The fire engines can go up Timken into the cul-de-sac, turn around and be prepared to exit out. In addition, at the time we required the tenant to install a fire hydrant. The fire hydrant provides protection to the properties that exist as well as for future development. 01-29-01 Page 14 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • He pointed out that there has been a reduction in the vegetation that existed for many years which is an improvement that they welcome as a fire department. As far as the Fire Department is concerned, the owner has met all the requirements. There aren't any more conditions to be imposed on him or anyone in the area. The other point that has been raised is a secondary access. A secondary access would be ideal for the residents and for the Fire Department. However, that would be something the owner/residents must be willing to do. !n conclusion, he stated they're satisfied with the conditions and recommended approval of the subject request. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Craig Painter, 6905 Rt. 242 Ellicottville, New York. He stated he is requesting that the Planning Commission move forward and approve the tentative parcel map as recommended by staff. Public Testimony: Mitzy Ozaki, 340 S. Timken Road, Anaheim. She referred to page 1 of the staff report, item 2c, as it indicates that the proposal is to have one panhandle lot and on page 2, item 8, the graph indicates two panhandled lots. Therefore, she asked for clarification. There were some comments made at our last meeting on November 6 that I woufd fike to address. One of them was that Melanie Adams suggested that we increase the paved area to 16 feet. We do have the • required 20 feet of easement, which looks wonderful on paper but in reality iYs just not there. The first 100 feet of entrance to the right you have a 30-foot drop into a ravine and to the left is Muller Drive, which is a major thoroughfare in the area. Therefore we couldn't impose in the area to the left. She noted further down about 100 feet there is a retaining wall blocking a driveway and a home. Widening the area would take down the retaining wall and compromise the driveway and home. Also, 200 feet further down, on the right, is a stand of Eucalyptus trees that is protected by an ordinance of the City of Anaheim. To the left of that is a slope which maintains both a driveway and home. She stated the remainder of Timken Road includes some fences, driveways and even homes that may necessitate particle or full tearing down to accommodate an additional 8 feet of pavement. Improvements on Timken Road would require a tremendous engineering feat. Furthermore, widening of the road does not address the issue of circulation. Should the entrance of Timken Road become impassible due to a fire, a huge tree, etc., then there would be no way to escape. Unfortunately decades of poor planning and tunnel vision have created this situation. She referred to Craig Painters statement at the last hearing "that we have never made an effort to share the cost of the maintenance of Timken Road". She stated they do in fact have a road maintenance agreement that is recorded with the County of Orange (dated January 6, 1977, document number 1112024M, pages 230-246). Mr. Painter has never shared the cost of paving the road that was completed in January, 1994. The bottom line is that the petitioner should have an obligation to give the buyers of these lots the safest and most expedient way out. She asked the Commission to take this opportunity to provide a full circulation and fire access route for approximately 20 homes in the Timken and Coyote area. Dan McNames, 320 Timken Rd. He spoke relative to the fire access and stated the Fire Department sent a fire engine out to drive through Timken Road. He stated the truck came through and got stuck on his ~ property, he had to use his own chain saw to help the fire engine out. While this was going on traffic was 01-29-01 Page 15 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PL4NNING COMMISSION MINUTES • blocked going in and exiting out. He indicated he spoke with Jerry Austin about the situation, as it is a good example that shows the lack of circulation and problems on the subject road. He also indicated a meeting was scheduled between the Fire Department, Marshall's office, and the residents of the area as requested by Planning Commission. They attended the meeting, and the Fire Chief Jeff Bowman was present. In the meeting he asked several questions relative to the minimum lot frontage and the minimum terminus for Timken Road what would be the legal perimeter. The response from staff was "they didn't know". He believes the person had never looked at the application or looked at the plot map because he didn't have any answers. As far as access is concerned a second matter came up regarding Timken Road. A leaky water line exists at Timken Road and Coyote Lane. The water line is going through his private property and is leaking in the middle of the street making the road fail by turning it to slush. He has contacted the Water Department and they determined where the leak is and would have to test it. Mr. McNames called the Water Department two weeks later and asked about the repairs. They responded by saying they would not drill the site to test the water line because it would require blocking the road and no one could get in or out. They would wait until it blew a hole in the ground then they would be required to fix it. Also, he asked for an engineer to come out to look at the water line by his property because iYs doing a landslide of 1-%z inches of vertical movement on a downward slump. He referred to a FAX transmittal from Kathie Pfost and indicated there are a couple of things that concern him relative to the square footage on the site and the equestrian trail and hiking trail on the south side. Also, on Page 6, Item No. 4 of the transmittal he is concerned about the preliminary grading plan that refers to the sewer easement roads and water runoff. The accesses are being placed on the terminus of Timken Road, which is a cul-de-sac provided by the applicant. He asked where is the direction for this runoff on the grading plan. The current development with the two houses that now exist have their runoff and is being directed to the cul-de-sac itself because there is no design for the drainage plan. The cul-de-sac heads • north and then stops in the middle of Timken Road and uses Timken Road as a defacto drainage channel which goes into his property. He explained the entire runoff pattern has been taken for the property and is now redirected on Timken Road and turned it into a surface runoff. It is on his property and is an illegal redirection. The lots that are shown which are directed to the terminus of Timken Road will have more runoff. Therefore, he asked where is the runoff going to go? He explained that the applicant claims a hardship relative to denying him usage of the property. By studying the code cases you would find that there is no exemption for the action of the applicant. He is not being denied use of his own property as he has already placed 3 lots onto the cul-de-sac and sold them. Relative to the minimum frontage waiver for a flag lot on the terminus, he believes if the applicant had adjusted his lot lines correctly, between the three lots, prior to sales that he would not be in the position he is in. Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Painter responded to the cost sharing of the road maintenance and stated if there is such an agreement in existence that nobody has ever approached him to participate in the cost sharing agreement. He would have been very happy to do so. He clarified that they are proposing on the parcel map an additional access for one lot as the division occurs off of Timken Road. Relative to the other lots, one is self-standing and the other one already has access off of Timken Road. It is important to keep it in mind that it is just one additional access off of Timken. Relative to the drainage issue, when the other lots were done it was an issue and was worked out with the Planning Department. They are not able to submit a grading plan to show where the water runoff is going to be located because the grading plan has not yet been developed until the Tentative Parcel map has been approved. So there is a sequential series of events that need to take place to be able to address that issue. • 01-29-01 Page 16 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Peter Gambino, Associate Engineer, Public Works. He stated the difference between a gross in that area is the gross minus an area established for access way. The area dedicated adjacent to Timken Road would be subtracted from the gross to establish the net. Chairperson Koos asked if trails were incorporated. Peter Gambino replied no trails are not incorporated, it is public access ways or easement ways for vehicular right-of-way. When a tentative is submitted to review there is a proposed grading plan that goes with it, it may differ a little when they go through the process of fine tuning it. It is possible that the final grading design will look different than what is shown on the tentative. They will be looking to make sure that existing drainage conditions as they are now are maintained on the plans. If necessary, if an on-site improvement system needs to be developed to maintain an identical drainage scenario, they will require the developer to construct those. Greg McCafferty stated with regard to the way lots are configured on the parcel map, only lot 4 is a true flag lot. The Peralta Hills Standard you can have a lot accessed by a 20 foot wide private access easement, they don't own that land, they just cross it to get to their lot and that is permitted by the site development standards. Commissioner Arnold pointed out that the chart on page 2 of the staff report under number 3 is not accurate. Greg McCafferty stated it is misleading and should say Peralta Hills Standard. With regard to grading, they have a condition of approval attached to the parcel map that requires that there be no more than a 1-foot deviation in the pad heights to make sure that what you see as a Commission is what they get. • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, advised it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to determine if something is a self-created hardship. If the applicant owned the properties at one time that would have allowed a remedy to an entire situation or to have compliance with the code. It may be that it's not the only factor that justifies a variance. Commissioner Arnold asked staff to further comment on self-created hardship. Fire Marshall Austin indicated that he would be happy to meet with Mr. McNames after the meeting if he wants to discuss the matter further. The Fire Department does annual hazard reduction inspections and that area becomes a prime area for that. If there are locations like that where brush is overhanging onto the roadway, it blocks their access and creates a situation that Mr. McNames discussed in his briefing. They ask residents to cut back brush so it does not happen. Also, a fire engine did drive Timken Road and passed on their concerns to Jeff Lutz who met with the residents that night to discuss the issue at hand. That area is a high hazard area and when an applicant brings plans to the Fire Department for approval, they let them know that it is a high hazard area and require them to comply with a few modifications for that area. Commissioner Boydstun asked if there is a method for whoever is developing the property to notify any perspective buyers of the fact. Fire Marshall Austin responded that there is no disclosure requirements that he knows of. Commissioner Boydstun asked if it was listed as one of the hazards that have to be disclosed if you are in an area with no fire protection. Maybe it should be in one of the conditions when they are dealing with properties like this for public safety. Commissioner Arnold stated he is concerned about Commission going into an area of real estate transaction disclosures. It is within an area that is within the province of the state legislature. If it is designated, that . information could be made available on City maps. It does not have a nexus to the land use issue that is within the City's jurisdiction. He thanked Fire Marshall Austin for the level of detail in the report. He stated 01-29-01 Page 17 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . that there are existing conditions that make it difficult and the addition of new homes in the area will not worsen the situation. It is an existing situation that all of the property owners have bought into in some way or another. Fire Marshall Austin advised that Commissioner Arnold is correct in his assessment. It won't make the risk any greater for the Fire Department to go and protect the homes and it won't make the risk any less for the residents trying to get out of that location. There is a problem, but the residents made the decision to live there and accepted that risk. As a Fire Department, they made the decision that if they have a fire, they are going to go in there and protect the homes. Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Painter if there was a reason why there could not be a connection between Timken and Corto Road, so that there is an in and out access on that property. Mr. Painter stated the specific reason why there was not is because it eliminates one of the lots. Commissioner Boydstun stated she was not comfortable having more homes built in that area without a two- way access and could not support it. Greg McCafferty responded to the question of the hardship being self-created and asked Mr. Painter if there was a lot line adjustment to create one additional lot along Timken Road. Mr. Painter stated there was. Greg McCafferty then stated he understands it is a contiguous lot and if you look at the map that is in the exhibit on the wall, it has the minimum requirement of 60 feet on the cul-de-sac. The one next to it, which is part of this proposal, has the 60 feet. With regard to Timken, the lot line adjustment did not self-create a hardship that affects the subdivision, because the panhandle lot that he is requesting the waiver for is ~ actually on Corto Road. Mr. Painter asked if it important to say that the pad heights cannot vary by one foot. They are trying to show that it can be split down into half acres. The actual grading plan and how that might look may vary as they look further into the process. Chairperson Koos asked him why he didn't bring this up in the public hearing. Mr. Painter advised he is new to this process and just realized it was in there. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol stated that his concern is the fire access and this area gets treated differently than other areas in Anaheim, this is rural. The people in Timken bought there well aware of the restrictions to the access, but it is a risk you take when you live in the hills. He is not against the project, they have answered all the questions. Commissioner Arnold agreed with Commissioner Bristol, it is very well stated and conditions that are being raised are existing conditions. The conditions that are being complained of are not going to be improved by denying this subdivision. Concerns raised are not going to be exacerbated by this subdivision being built. He is also persuaded by Greg's comments about the fact that there is no self-created hardship. Commissioner Bostwick agreed with both Commissioners, but it is a disaster looking to happen. Residents bought into this and expect the Fire Department to protect them. The residents could help by widening the road and take care of the trees. If residents don't try to help themselves, they don't deserve disaster relief from the City, if there is a disaster. They need to improve the street to allow two cars to go on the road. He asked residents to consider changing the street, the weight cannot be put on the applicant here today • because of one lot at the end of the street. 01-29-01 Page 18 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Chairperson Koos concurred with Commissioners and staff's analysis. . ~ 01-29-01 Page 19 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: 2 persons in opposition and 1 letter received in opposition at the meeting. There was also 1 letter received by Commission at the morning session. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Vote on Negative Declaration: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) Granted Variance No. 2000-04407, in part, subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report and as follows: Denied waivers (a) pertaining to minimum lot area, and (b) pertaining to minimum lot width on the basis that they were deleted following public notification. Approved waiver (c) pertaining to maximum number of panhandle lots to establish a single-family subdivision. Vote on Variance: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 1999-194, subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. C ~ • Vote on Tentative Parcel Map: 5-1 (Commissioner Boydstun voting no, and Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights for Variance No. 2000-04407, and the 10-day appeal rights for Tentative Parcel Map No. 1999-194. DISCUSSION TIME: 56 minutes (2:01-2:57) 01-29-0 9 Page 20 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04289 Continued to February 12, 2001 OWNER: Sanwa Bank, Attn: Stan Olson, 601 South Figueroa Street, W11-4, Los Angeles, CA 90017 AGENT: West Coast Islamic Society, Attn: Abdel-Jabbar Hawdan, 708 North Valley Street, #T, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1717 South Brookhurst Street. Property is 1.97 acres located at the southwest corner of Crestwood Lane and Brookhurst Street. To permit a religious and cultural education center with waiver of (a) required setback for institutional uses adjacent to residential zones, and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meeting of December 18, 2000. CONDITfONAL USE PERMIT RESOl.UTION NO. • u SR7900KB.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to permit a religious and cultural education center with waivers for property located at 1717 South Brookhurst Street. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Abdel Alomar consulting engineer, 1144 North Gilbert in Anaheim. They redesigned the site plan to increase parking to have 166 spaces, 156 are required. It was previously at 148 spaces. Highest members will be on Friday between 1 and 2 p.m. They hired a company that went to the shopping center to count the number of cars there. The maximum number of cars that come and go within a period of 5-10 minutes is 36. Public Testimony: Mr. Imreish, 2543 West Winston Road, Anaheim, indicated he was in support of the proposal. Mr. Alkhalili, 2543 West Winston Road, stated he was also in support of the proposal. Robert Linn, 507 Meadowbrook, stated the Conditional Use Permit was conditioned to have a wall on the east side completely landscaped, but the trees made a mess so they removed them and put hedges on their side of the wall. They also built a storage shed which is illegal. It appears there is no landscaping between the new parking lot and 6-foot block wall. Residents behind the facility are entitled to screening which has been the City's plan with churches. He hopes landscaping will be included because none is shown on the plan. Abdel Alomar stated that they have planted trees every other parking and can increase to every parking. 01-29-01 Page 21 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Greg McCafferty stated Condition No. 14 requires trees adjacent to residential. Commissioner Boydstun suggested they condition it so that it is posted for "customer parking only" in front of the merchants. The applicant did not have any objection with that. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated that it can only be stated that the applicant will not object because there may be provisions in a reciprocal parking agreement. Commissioner Bristol indicated that the roofing equipment and screening are in disrepair. There will be a condition to screen it. Greg McCafferty advised that before the public hearing the applicant indicated that he revised the plan and submitted it to the project planner, but he was not informed. If Commission wishes to see that plan, staff needs to check it to ensure it complies with Code, which would require a continuance, or they could proceed with minor parking variances being proposed now. If the applicant chooses to comply with code and not exercise the waiver, than he can do that after the approval. Commissioner Arnold stated that if there is a revised plan, they have to make sure there is nothing else on it. He was hesitant to approve something they have not seen. Commissioner Arnold offered a motion for a continuance to February 12, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Bristol, vote taken and motion carried. • Followin action of Item No. 6: 9 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, informed Commission that the applicant for Item No. 5 was requesting the Planning Commission to reconsider their motion for a continuance. Commissioner Arnold explained that a continuance was their action today due to a late submittal of a revision to the plan and advised that Commission has reached a final conclusion of a continuance on this issue today. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to February 12, 2001, in order to allow time for staff to review revised plans. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) DISCUSSION 71ME: 12 minutes (2:58-3:10) • 01-29-01 Page 22 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4086 Approved reinstatement (CUP TRACKING NO. 2001-04316) OWNER: Armando C. and Mirta L. Hernandez, 18751 Patrician, Villa Park, CA 92861 Carlos A. and Sylvia Scott, 3201 Boone Street, Fort Collins, CO 80526 AGENT: Marc Corradini, 707 North Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 710-714 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is 1.34 acres located on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard 134 feet north of the centerline of Wilhelmina Street (Hope House). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (originally approved on January 4, 1999, to expire on January 4, 2001) to retain an existing alcohol and drug rehabilitation center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-17 u • (Deleted condition of approval pertaining to time limitation) SR7882VN. DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain an existing alcohol and drug rehabilitation center. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Marc Corradini, 707 North Anaheim Boulevard the Hope House. Gave history of Hope House and they are requesting a modification or deletion of condition of approval pertaining to time limitation. They have planted next to the trash enclosure, but for some reason it keeps getting dug up. They will try to keep them up. They were going to landscape the back, but, due to amount of traffic they decided to concrete. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty stated that the conditions of approval have been amended so that it does not require irrigation against the trash enclosure, just planting of clinging vines. They are in conformance with all conditions of approval. This reinstatement only applies to the expansion, underlying permit for original Hope House is not part of this request. OPPOSITION: None 01-29-01 Page 23 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved the reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4086 (CUP Tracking No. 2001-04316) to retain the expansion of an existing alcohol and drug rehabilitation center. Amended Resolution No. PC99-03 in its entirety and replaced it with a new resolution with the following conditions of approval: That the owner of the subject property shall be responsible for the removal of any on-site graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours of its application. 2. That no signs shall be permitted for this property. 3. That the use shall of this property shall be accessory to the primary alcohol and drug rehabilitation facility located at 714 North Anaheim Boulevard, as stipulated to by the petitioner in the letter of operation attached to the staff report (Item 6) to the Planning Commission dated January 4, 1999, on file with the Planning Department. 4. That the trash enclosure shall be shall be replanted with clinging vines planted on three (3) foot centers or tall shrubbery to prevent graffiti opportunities and maintained in accordance with plans on file and approved by the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. 5. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. ~ 6. That the property shall maintain in conformance with Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. 7. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses; and that the parking stalls shall be marked "for tenant use only". 8. That all existing mature landscaping shall be maintained and immediately replaced in the event that it becomes diseased or dies. 9. That subject property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1, and as conditioned herein. 10. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. ~ VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun declared a conflict of interest, and Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent). Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (3:11-3:16) 01-29-01 Page 24 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 321 (PREV.-CERTIFIED) Continued to (EIR TRACKING NO. 2000-00325) February 12, 2001. 7b. VARIANCE NO. 2000-04417 OWNER: Tejas Partners, Attn: Mr. Michael Moore, 1748 West Katella Avenue #206, Orange, CA 92867 AGENT: Robert Jacques, Architect, 11757 San Vicente Boulevard #4, Brentwood, CA 90049 LOCATION: 1501-1551 South Douqlass Road. Property is 7.25 acres located on the west side of Douglass Road, 690 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. Waiver of minimum landscaped setback abutting a freeway, and approval of Final Site Plans to construct one (1) two-story and one (1) four-story office building. Continued from Commission meetings of December 18, 2000 and January 3, 2001. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. • • SR1086TW.DOC Commissioner Arnold offered a motion for a continuance to February 12, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun, vote taken and motion carried. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request from the December 18, 2000 and January 3, 2001, Commission meetings at the request of the petitioner to discuss issues pertaining to event parking. The petitioner requested a further continuance to the February 12, 2001, to be considered in conjunction with a request for a conditional use permit for an on-site commercial parking lot. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 01-29-01 Page 25 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C J 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04318 Granted, in part OWNER: Trinet Essential Facilities XXIII, Inc., c/o i Star Financial, Attn: Eric Stiger, Vice President, One Embarcadero Center, 33`d Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 AGENT: Phillip Schwartze, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 5605 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 2.8 acres with no frontage on public street and accessed by a 40 foot wide private access easement located 1,110 feet east of the centerline of Brasher Street. To permit a church with accessory school activities within an existing building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (de/eted). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-18 • ~ SR7897VN.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to permit a church in an existing building and the parking waiver that was advertised has since been deleted for property at 5605 East La Palma Avenue. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Applicant's Statement: Phillip Schwartz, representing Calvary Chapel, stated that he read and fully understood the staff report and conditions of approval and was in agreement. Regarding Condition No. 3 requiring no outdoor events, they have an event every Halloween for children and wanted to point it out. Commissioner Boydstun asked staff if Condition No. 3 would preclude them from coming in to request a special activity permit. Greg McCafferty replied it would. Chairperson Koos felt that Condition No. 3 should be deleted. Commissioner Arnold stated that in the past Commission has taken this language (referring to Condition No. 3) and added the wording, "except as an approval under a special activities permit." Chairperson Koos asked Mr. Schwartz if they submitted hours of operation. Mr. Schwartz stated they gave staff a set of operational conditions that they will operate under. Chairperson Koos stated it should read as a range rather than start times. He does not want to limit the applicant the ability for them to extend their services because they do not have any parking problems, etc. 01-29-01 Page 26 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick stated it has to be within reason. He did not have a problem if they are not conflicting with the ordinary use of the structure or other structures around it. Commissioner Arnold was concerned about outdoor events occurring outside of the hours as it would take up extra parking and cause an overflow such as San Antonio Church. Commissioner Boydstun stated there is no residential adjoining there and if they had to get a special permit, it will have to be an evening or Sunday event when other businesses are not open. Mr. Schwartz admitted that during the 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekday they are heavily parked, but after 5 p.m. and weekends they have plenty of parking spaces. Commissioner Arnold was concerned that there can be a conflict with traffic flow of people leaving businesses and would prefer to keep Condition No. 3 in place, but to reword it because problems can be resolved with a special event permit. Commissioner Boydstun agreed. Public Testimony: Bill Kemper with Micrometals next door on the north side, stated he was not for or against the church, but wanfs clarification. Micrometals is not an office building as stated in the report, it is a manufacturing plant. It operates 24 hours a day, 5 days a week and every ofher Saturday emitting some odor and noise. They have concerns that the church will not be happy with the proposed location. He strongly suggests that the Church tour the facility before they locate the church next door. He feels that the report is deceptive because it gives the appearance that all office buildings will be closed during the church hours of operation, and felt that there is a very serious manufacturing concern next door. • Commissioner Boydstun asked if there was enough parking for his employees. Bill Kemper stated parking is not an issue because there are other adjacent buildings with a lot of parking. His concern is whether this is a good use permit, this is an industrial park. Commissioner Bostwick stated that this situation brings to mind the Korean Church next to a manufacturing operation. After they were approved, they returned to the Commission and said that the manufacturer was noisy and dirty. Mr. Kemper is informing the applicant up front that there is noise, dirt, and smells. Therefore, the applicant should not return and complain about these issues at a later date. Greg McCafferty stated that was factored into staff s recommendation, also that they not have any childcare or schools. Commissioner Bristol stated he was glad Mr. Kemper came forth because it does happen that people come back. Commissioner Bostwick reiterated to the applicant not to return and complain about the business next door. Mr. Schwartz advised they are well acquainted with the business and they run a fine operation. They fully understand that they are there. Commissioner Arnold wants to ensure that they do not have children in close proximity to industrial manufacturing activities. Mr. Schwartz stated activities would be in back in the patio area, not near the industrial buildings. ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 01-29-01 Page 27 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Koos indicated that he did not want to limit the hours of operation, the Commission then continued discussion on the matter. ~ • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: 1 person (neighbor) informed petitioner of possible noise and smells emitting from their manufacturing plant, Micrometals, due to their coating and processing operations. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Denied waiver pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces on the basis that it was deleted following public notification. Granted in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04318 with the following change to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition Nos. 1 and 3 to read as follows: 1. That with the exception of office hours, the hours of operation for the church shall be limited to the following and as stipulated in the petitioner's letter of operation: Sunday Services - 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Wednesday Service - 7:00 p.m. to 10 p.m. Office hours - Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. 3. That no outdoor events shall be permitted, except as approved pursuant to obtaining a special events permit from the City of Anaheim. • VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 16 minutes (3:19-3:35) • 01-29-01 Page 28 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04317 Continued to February 26, 2001 OWNER: Hani EI Haj, 4020 La Costa, La Habra, CA 90631 AGENT: Abdel Alomar, 1144 North Gilbert Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2265 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1 acre located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Monterey Street. To permit a convenience market with no sales of alcoholic beverages within an existing building. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO, • ~ SR7898KB.bOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to permit a convenience market with no sales of alcoholic beverages within an existing building. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: Abdel Alomar, 1144 North Gilbert Street, Anaheim, stated they are in agreement with the conditions of approval in the staff report. Commissioner Bostwick asked if the exterior light fixtures around the building in the parking lot are going to be refurbished. Abdel Alomar replied that the whole building will be refurbished and the parking lot would be redone. The sign is going to be removed and a new monument sign will be installed. Commissioner 8ristol asked if they would be having any Sunday deliveries. Abdel Alomar replied there would be no deliveries on Sunday. Public Testimony: Jeri Warner, 2264 West Polk Avenue, Anaheim, stated that she was submitting a letter of concern signed by concerned residents, representing 41 addresses. The letter addresses the traffic issue. They are concerned with the hours of operation and the proposed delivery hours. According to the proposal it was 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. for delivery and 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. for business hours. She checked with businesses nearby and found that they are operating 6 days a week or had condensed hours on Sunday. They would like to see business hours from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and delivery hours to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Landscaping is another concern. When subject property was purchased the neighbors lost their privacy with the removal of 5, 20-year old trees planted as a condition to operate the previous business. Under the proposal it is suggested that 24-inch boxed trees would be planted. She suggested that 48-inch boxed 01-29-01 Page 29 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • carrottwood trees be planted to soften the view. She also requested that tine cypress hedge be planted along the wall bordering the motel. The previous trees were helpful in obstructing the view. (Submitted photos.) Signage is also a concern. If the corner sign is proposed to be 8X10 feet then it is likely to obstruct the vision of motorist entering or leaving the area. She had a concern with the cart corral and suggested they be housed inside the store. Trash is a concern. The enclosed storage of trash would encompass the area the size of a parking space. This is proposed to be in the back corner of the store, nearest Monterey Street. She felt there needs to be a larger designated area for trash as well as an area that would not be as high profile. There is a residence that would have front door view of the proposed trash area. She suggested the trash enclosure be located at the corner nearest the motel and the size of at least three parking spaces instead of what is being proposed. Traffic is a major concern. The proposed market will draw more traffic to their area which is detrimental to the neighbors welfare. There is already a church on the other side of Monterey which generates traffic and parking. There is also an elementary school that entails buses, bookmobiles and heavy traffic several times a day. She pointed out the neighborhood only has one entrance and exit. Jessie Gonzales, 2225 West Woodley Avenue, stated she lives at the end of Monterey Street. The elementary in their area is Juliet Lowe Elementary School and many of the students live in the apartment complexes on the south side of Lincoln Avenue. In the morning, the children are picked up by the school bus, it makes a U-turn, comes into the neighborhood, going up half a block before making a left. The school bus operates that way daily as the school is on a year-round schedule. Some of the lower grades have two sessions. Students from Savanna High School and Brookhurst Junior High School also go through that corner. There was no traffic light installed when the Ram's park was rezoned and returned back to an • elementary school. She felt that there is a need to install a traffic light. Applicant's Rebuttal: Abdel Alomar addressed the following concerns: • They can install the extra trees as requested. • They can limit the hours of deliver from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • The shopping carts are going to be enclosed in an area designated for the carts and designed to have a good appearance. • Monument sign. They are proposing the size of the monument sign according to the maximum size allowed by Code. They can possibly move the sign around to ensure that the visibility of motorist is protected, but they do not want to change the size of the sign. They are giving up a large sign on the site and replacing it with a smaller one. Commissioner Bostwick pointed out that there is nothing on the plans that show the signage as being 8X10 feet. Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. Alomar if he would be willing to move the trash enclosure down to a location closer to his back door where he is going to do loading and unloading. Abdel Alomar did not see a problem doing that provided the requirements can be met such as the truck turnaround, etc. Chairperson Koos asked the applicant whether the shopping carts would be stored outside. Abdel Alomar confirmed that the shopping carts would be stored outside in a corral and chained overnight. • Commissioner Bristol asked staff why outside shopping carts are being allowed since they have worked so hard in the past to keep things such as vending machines, etc., inside the stores. 01-29-01 Page 30 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Greg McCafferty replied that staff is not opposed to having the carts inside. The fact that the applicant is building shopping cart corral on the outside means that he will push his building out and it will be in the inside. It is not a policy or recommendation that staff puts on all the retail establishments. Staff felt that they took care of the problem by requiring the corral and requiring the condition that the applicant periodically collect the carts and put them back in the corral. If Commission desires to have the carts inside then it can be conditioned that way. Chairperson Koos felt that Commission has an opportunity with this request to do it correctly. Commissioner Arnold had the impression that the applicant and neighbors have not met to discuss their concerns. Commissioner Bristol stated that there is a very large and wide landscape area and wondered whether the proposed line of sight could work better diagonally and to ensure that the neighbors are comfortable with that. Commissioner Arnold gave the applicant and neighbors the following advise: He wanted the neighbors to be aware that all the way along Lincoln there are properties zoned commercial. While it could be problematic to have traffic impacts that commercial the zone permitted there, he asked that the neighbors consider what particular impacts of this project are most distressing to them. Obviously, some aspects of the traffic problem along Lincoln are not going to be solved at this particular time, but could continue to keep those concerns on the forefront of the City's attention. It is very important that the applicant listen to the primary concerns that the neighbors have and try to adapt the way this project looks, especially the visual impacts and impact to the surrounding neighborhood. • Chairperson Koos recapped the major issues that the applicant needs to consider: Commissioner Arnold offered a motion for a continuance to February 26, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Napoles, vote taken and motion carried. • Trash enclosure area • Shopping carts • Landscaping • Signage Jeri Warner pointed out that according to the proposal she thought there was something in the staff report that indicated there was no proper structure existing and some concern regarding the sign also. She thought if the applicant extends the building it would have more support which would possible enable the shopping carts to be put inside. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING: Robert Linn felt that there was a valid question raised regarding Item No. 9(Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04317) which he suggested Commission should meet with Redevelopment and create a master plan for Lincoln to address some of the concerns. He felt the testimony given on Item No. 9 was correct that Monterey Street is a very busy intersection and suggested perhaps there needs to be a moratorium on Lincoln Avenue until there is a master plan for the whole street. • • • • ~ • • ~ • 01-29-01 Page 31 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • OPPOSITION: 2 people with concerns and a petition with 63 signatures with concerns. ACTION: Continued subject request to February 26, 2001, in order to allow the applicant time to meet with concerned neighbors to address their concerns. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 21 minutes (3:36-3:57) ~ • 01-29-01 Page 32 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVE 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3875 (CUPTRACKING N0.2001-04311) Approved Approved modification for 5 years OWNER: County of Orange (Harbors, Beaches, Parks), Attn: (to expire on Robert Hamilton, 300 North Flower, 4t'' Ffoor, Santa October 14, 2006.) Ana, CA 92702 AGENT: LCC International Inc., Attn: James Lee, 27401 Los Altos, Suite 225, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 LOCATION: 7600 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 113 acres located at the southwest corner of Weir Canyon Road and La Palma Avenue (Yorba Regional Park). To allow two (2) additional antennas and accessory ground-mounted equipment on a previously-approved telecommunications monopole. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-19 • • SR7899KP.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item stating this is a request to allow two additional antennas and the accessory ground-mounted equipment on a previously-approved telecommunications monopole. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. ApplicanYs Statement: James Lee, 27401 Los Altos Street, Mission Viejo, stated that there is an existing monopole at the site and they want to install three pieces of equipment on or near it. One is a 70-inch omni antenna which is 2.25 inches in diameter and 70 inches long. They are also proposing a 26-inch diameter dish antennas which is like a direct TV antenna. They are also proposing a small equipment cabinet. They need to regenerate their digital signal for the satellite radio which will provide Los Angeles to New York simultaneous coverage to be able to listen to one radio station. It will also have CD quality. They are in agreement with the conditions of approval, but he pointed out the following corrections in the staff report: • Page 2, section 9, should read, "....an overall height ranging from 44-~e-58-#aet.43 feet and 6 inches to 51 feet. It should also read, "....the proposed omni antenna would have a varying diameter of ~a i~-s#~ies 2.25 inches. • Page 2, section 10, should read an overall height ranging from'^ +^'° ~^^h°° 27 to 28 feet 2 inches. They accept the conditions of approval except for Condition No. 2, where he requested that it read, "The omni antenna shall into exceed a height of a~ 51 feet and the satellite dish shall not exceed a height of 29 feet." THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg McCafferty advised that the changes were based on plans submitted today. 01-29-01 Page 33 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Koos asked about Condition No. 1, and questioned whether a time limitation is actually needed. Greg McCafferty advised that when technology changes then they are able to get to review it again and that is the reason for the expiration date on Condition No. 1. Chairperson Koos wondered why should the wireless companies return if nothing changes. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, advised that there is a big difference by having a conditional use permit expire, requiring an applicant to acquire another one. Than having a conditional use permit continue, putting a burden on the City to show the need that it no longer exists or that permit conditions need modification. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 3875 (CUP Tracking No. 2001- 04311) to allow two (2) additional antennas and accessory ground-mounted equipment on a previously-approved telecommunications monopole. The conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 96R-196 were incorporated into a new resolution with the following conditions of approval: • 1. That the telecommunication monopole and associated equipment are approved until October 14, 2006. 2. That three (3) antenna arrays with four (4) panel type antennas, one (1) non- operational floodlight panel, one (1) 5.8 foot long, maximum 2.25-inch diameter omni antenna and one (1) 26-inch diameter satellite dish antenna may be located on the monopole and that the overall structure shall not exceed a maximum height of fifty-nine (59) feet; further that no additional or replacement antennas shall be permitted without the approval of the Planning Commission. The omni antenna shall not exceed a height of 51 feet and the satellite dish shall not exceed a height of 28.2 feet. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. That no signs, flags, banners or any other form of advertising or identification shall be attached to the proposed monopole structure. 4. That the monopole, floodlight panel and antennas shall be painted/finished in a neutral silver/gray with a metal look finish to match the existing adjacent baseball diamond fieldlights; and further, that if the existing fieldlights are modified in color, that the monopole and antennas shall be repainted/refinished to match the fieldlights. 5. That the monopole base and existing masonry equipment enclosure shall remain painted to match the nearby existing buildings; and maintained with clinging vines, planted on maximum three (3) foot centers to screen the enclosure walts and to prevent graffiti opportunities. u 01-29-01 Page 34 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash and debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 7. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 1-a, 2, Revision No. 1 to Exhibit No. 3, and Exhibit No. 4, and as conditioned herein. 8. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition No. 2, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 9. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 7, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. 10. Thaf approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (3:58-4:08) ~ 01-29-01 Page 35 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES \J 11 a. CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3) 11b. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00002: Item was withdrawn. OWNER: Orange County Water District., P. O. Box 8300, Fountain Valley, CA 92728 (see R&R 1-A). AGENT: Dan Copp Crushing, Attn: Karen Ayres, 1300 North Hancock Street, Unit B, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 1120 North Richfield Road. Property is 5.73 acres located on the east side of Richfield Road, 1,270 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue (Dan Copp Crushing). A Specific Plan Amendment to amend Section 18.110.110 of the Northeast Area Specific Plan to permit asphalt and concrete processing facilities, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. SR7902KP. DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, explained that Item No. 11 is a Specific Plan Amendment, which is already on the agenda as Item No. 1-A and therefore does not need to be on the public hearing portion of the agenda. ~ OPPOSITION: None ~ ~~ ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept staffs request for withdrawal of Specific Plan Amendment No. 2001-00002. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 01-29-01 Page 36 JANUARY 29, 2001 CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ADJOURNED AT 4:10 P.M. TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2001 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ; ~~~ ~ ~,~GG~ Elly Fernandes Senior Word Processing Operator ~ Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~' ~`~~,/~,~ ~ 01-29-01 Page 37