Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC 2012/04/09
City of Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Monday, April 9, 2012 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California • Chairman: Peter Agarwal • Chairman Pro-Tempore: Victoria Ramirez • Commissioners: Paul Bostwick, Stephen Faessel, Michelle Lieberman, Harry Persaud, John Seymour • Call To Order - 5:00 p.m. • Pledge Of Allegiance • Public Comments • Public Hearing Items • Commission Updates • Discussion • Adjournment For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary. A copy of the staff report may be obtained at the City of Anaheim Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff report is also available on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Thursday, April 5, 2012, after 5:00 p.m. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Department located at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, during regular business hours. You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: planningcommission@anaheim.net 04/09/12 Page 2 of 7 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 calendar days after Planning Commission action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk. The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing. If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M. Public Comments: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. 04/09/12 Page 3 of 7 Public Hearing Items ITEM NO. 2 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2007-00002 (DAG-2007-00002A) (DEV2012-00024) Location: 1015 and 1105 East Katella Avenue The applicant requests an amendment to Development Agreement No. 2007-00002, extending the term of the Agreement by five additional years, to expire in March 2018. Environmental Determination: CEQA Previously Approved Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339, together with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C. Staff Report New Correspondence Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05577 (DEV2011-00113) Location: 190 South Fairmont Boulevard The applicant proposes to construct a 47-foot high (previously advertised as 45-foot high), ground-mounted stealth telecommunications antenna designed as a cross at an existing church facility. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Staff Report New Correspondence Project Planner: David See dsee@anaheim.net 04/09/12 Page 4 of 7 ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05592 (DEV2012-00007) Location: 4540 East Riverdale Avenue The applicant requests to permit a private preschool and elementary school at a former public school campus. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Staff Report New Correspondence Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehm@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05585 (DEV2011-00136) Location: 630 South Brookhurst Street The applicant requests to permit a banquet facility in a commercial retail center. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Staff Report New Correspondence Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehm@anaheim.net 04/09/12 Page 5 of 7 ITEM NO. 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05573 VARIANCE NO. 2011-04870 (DEV2011-00092) Location: 1929 - 1937 South Manchester Avenue This is a City-initiated proposal to permit a parking lot with landscape setbacks, vehicular circulation, parking space dimensions, and parking lot landscaping that is less than required by Code. Upon transfer of ownership to the adjacent property owner, the parking lot would serve the adjacent Holiday Inn and Staybridge Suites as replacement parking for spaces lost due to construction of the Gene Autry overpass. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 3 (New Construction), Class 5 (Minor Alterations) and Class 11 (Accessory Structures). Continued from the November 7, 2011, December 19, 2011, January 18, 2012, March 12, 2012 and March 26, 2012 Planning Commission meetings. This item was also deferred from the February 27, 2012 Planning Commission meeting which was cancelled due to the lack of a quorum. Staff Report New Correspondence Project Planner: Ted White twhite@anaheim.net Adjourn to Monday, April 23, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. 04/09/12 Page 6 of 7 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 4:30 p.m. April 4, 2012_ (TIME) (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The City of Anaheim wishes to make all of its public meetings and hearings accessible to all members of the public. The City prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification, accommodation, aid or service by contacting the Planning Department either in person at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, or by telephone at (714) 765-5139, no later than 10:00 a.m. one business day preceding the scheduled meeting. La ciudad de Anaheim desea hacer todas sus reuniones y audiencias públicas accesibles a todos los miembros del público. La Ciudad prohíbe la discriminación por motivos de raza , color u origen nacional en cualquier programa o actividad que reciba asistencia financiera federal. Si se solicita, la agenda y los materiales de copia estarán disponible en formatos alternativos apropiados a las personas con una discapacidad, según lo requiere la Sección 202 del Acta de Americanos con Discapacidades de 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), las normas federales y reglamentos adoptados en aplicación del mismo. Cualquier persona que requiera una modificación relativa a la discapacidad, incluyendo medios auxiliares o servicios, con el fin de participar en la reunión pública podrá solicitar dicha modificación, ayuda o servicio poniéndose en contacto con la Oficina de Secretaria de la Ciudad ya sea en persona en el 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, o por teléfono al (714) 765-5139, antes de las 10:00 de la mañana un día habil antes de la reunión programada. 04/09/12 Page 7 of 7 S C H E D U L E 2012 April 23 May 7 May 21 June 4 June 18 July 2 July 16 July 30 August 13 August 27 September 10 September 24 October 8 October 22 November 5 November 19 December 3 December 17 December 31 I (PTMU)RESTAURANT IKatellaVACANT IKatellaMAGNOLIAPARK I (PTMU)INDUSTRIAL I (PTMU)KatellaVACANT I (PTMU)RETAIL IKatellaPARK VIRIDIANAPTS IKatellaVACANT I (PTMU)VACANT IKatellaVACANT I (PTMU)KatellaVIVERE CONDOS I (PTMU)IND. FIRMS I (PTMU)INDUSTRIAL I (PTMU)VACANT E KATELLA AVE S AUBURN WAYMARKET STS WESTSIDE DRE WRIGHT CIR E. KATELLA AVES. HARBOR BLVDE. CERRITOS AVE S. LEWIS STE. ORANGEWOOD AVES. STATE COLLEGE BLVDS. HASTER STS. ANAHEIM BLVDS. SUNKIST STS. DOUGLASS RDS. CLEMENTINE ST110 5 E as t K a tell a A v e nue D E V N o. 2 0 1 2 -0 00 2 4 Subject Property APN: 082-261-27082-261-28 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l P ho to:May 2 011 E KATELLA AVE S AUBURN WAYMARKET STS WESTSIDE DRE WRIGHT CIR E. KATELLA AVES. HARBOR BLVDE. CERRITOS AVE S. LEWIS STE. ORANGEWOOD AVES. STATE COLLEGE BLVDS. HASTER STS. ANAHEIM BLVDS. SUNKIST STS. DOUGLASS RDS. CLEMENTINE ST110 5 E as t K a tell a A v e nue D E V N o. 2 0 1 2 -0 00 2 4 Subject Property APN: 082-261-27082-261-28 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l P ho to:May 2 011 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2012-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 339 TOGETHER WITH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 106C SERVES AS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2007- 00002 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND RONALD W. MARSHALL AND DEBORAH L. MARSHALL TRUST, THE MARSHALL FAMILY TRUST, AND SEE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. (DEV2012-00024) WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim and Ronald W. Marshall and Deborah L. Marshall Trust, dated January 7, 1989, The Marshall Family Trust, dated February 14, 2000, and See Development Limited Partnership (“Owner”) entered into that certain Development Agreement No. 2007-00002 and recorded in the Official Records of the County of Orange, California on March 20, 2008, as Instrument No. 2008000129034 (the “Development Agreement”) with respect to that certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. A copy of the Development Agreement is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Anaheim; and WHEREAS, the Development Agreement provides for the development of a 327 unit mixed use residential condominium project with a 9,500 square foot full-service restaurant with outdoor dining area, as more particularly described in Final Site Plan No. 2007-00011 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05248; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18 of the Development Agreement and Chapter 18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Owner submitted a request to extend the Term of the Development Agreement, as described in subsection 2.1 of the Development Agreement, from a period of five (5) years to a period of ten (10) years (“Modification No. 1”); and WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Planning Commission”) did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on April 9, 2012, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said modification to Development Agreement and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of and based upon all of the evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine that said modification to Development Agreement meets all the requirements set forth in Resolution No. 82R-565 (the “Procedures Resolution”), which was adopted by the City Council on November 23, 1982: - 2 - PC2012-*** 1. The Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan in that it is in conformance with the General Plan Mixed Use land use designation and with the goals, policies and objectives as set forth in the General Plan. 2. The Project is compatible with the uses authorized in and the regulations prescribed for the applicable zoning district in that the Project is in compliance with the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay requirements. 3. The Project is compatible with the orderly development of property in the surrounding area in that it is in conformance with and implements the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone requirements. 4. The Project is not otherwise detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 5. The Development Agreement constitutes a lawful, present exercise of the City’s police power and authority under the Procedures Resolution. WHEREAS, that the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the previously approved Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 339, together with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 106C, is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for said modification to Development Agreement and satisfies all the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act; and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for said modification to Development Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the aforesaid findings and determinations, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve and adopt Modification No. 1, as described above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon compliance with each and all of the conditions set forth in the Development Agreement, as amended. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. - 3 - PC2012-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 2012. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Zoning Provisions - General” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on April 9, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 9th day of April 2012. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2012-*** EXHIBIT “A” (Legal Description of the Property) PARCEL 1: PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 111, PAGES 40 TO 42 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL 2: PARCEL 2, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 111, PAGES 40 TO 42 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. - 5 - PC2012-*** Exhibit “B” March 1, 2012 Planning Commission & City Council c/o: City Clerk P.O Box 3222 Anaheim, CA 92805 RE: Request for Amendment of Development Agreement No. 2007·00002 (aka: Platinum Vista) To Whom This May Concern: Please accept this letter as a formal request for an Amendment of DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2007- 00002 BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND RONALD W. MARSHALL AND DEBORAH L. MARSHALL, THE MARSHALL FAMILY TRUST, AND SEE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. More specifically, "OWNER" is requesting an extension of Section 2.1 TERM for an additional 5 years beyond the current Termination Date. The purpose of this request is to allow for the desired development of our property, which became unachievable in the latest economic downturn. An extension of the Development Agreement for 5 years would allow us to realize this goal and would protect the hard work done on this project to date. All other Terms and Conditions of the Development Agreement are to remain in full force and effect. Enclosed you will find two checks in the amount of $1,150 payable to The City of Anaheim as a deposit to be applied toward the Extension Fee. Request submitted herein by OWNER: "OWNER" RONALD W. MARSHALL AND THE MARSHALL FAMILY TRUST, SE VELOPM ENT DEBORAH L. MARSHALL TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 14, 2000 IMITED PARTN DATED JANUARY 7,1989 RONALD W. MARSHALL, CHARLES B. MARSHALL, Co-Trustee Co-Trustee President, Ewing Enterprises its General Partner DEBORAH L. MARSHALL, SUSAN B. MARSHALL, Co-Trustee Co-Trustee Cc: Ted White, Senior Planner ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 RECORDING AT THE REQUEST OF AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 Attn: City Clerk ______________________________________________________________________________ (SPACE ABOVE THE LINE IS FOR RECORDER’S USE) MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2007-00002 By and Between THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, and RONALD W. MARSHALL AND DEBORAH L. MARSHALL TRUST, DATED JANUARY 7, 1989, THE MARSHALL FAMILY TRUST, DATED FEBRUARY 14, 2000, AND SEE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ATTACHMENT NO. 5 -2- MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2007-00002 This MODIFICATION NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2007-00002 (this “Modification No. 1”), dated for purposes of identification only as of May 1, 2012, is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF ANAHEIM, a Municipal Corporation and Charter City, (the “City”) and RONALD W. MARSHALL AND DEBORAH L. MARSHALL TRUST, DATED JANUARY 7, 1989, THE MARSHALL FAMILY TRUST, DATED FEBRUARY 14, 2000, AND SEE DEVELOPMENT LIMYED PARTNERSHIP, (“Owner”). RECITALS A. The City and Owner entered into that certain Development Agreement No. 2007- 00002 and recorded in the Official Records of the County of Orange, California on March 20, 2008, as Instrument No. 2008000129034 (the “Development Agreement”) with respect to that certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. B. The Development Agreement provides for the development of a 327 unit mixed use residential condominium project with a 9,500 square foot full-service restaurant with outdoor dining area, as more particularly described in Final Site Plan No. 2007-00011 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05248. C. Pursuant to Section 18 of the Development Agreement and Chapter 18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Owner submitted a request to extend the Term of the Development Agreement, as described in subsection 2.1 of the Development Agreement. D. The City and Owner intend, in this Modification No. 1, to amend subsection 2.1 of the Development Agreement to extend the Term of the Development Agreement from a period of five (5) years to a period of ten (10) years. NOW, THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES, COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That subsection 2.1 of the Development Agreement be, and the same is hereby, amended and restated to read as follows: “2.1 The term (hereinafter called “Term”) of this Development Agreement shall be that period of time during which this Development Agreement shall be in effect and bind the parties hereto. The Term shall commence on the Development Agreement Date and shall extend for a period of ten (10) years thereafter, terminating at the end of the day on the tenth anniversary of the Development Agreement Date, subject to the periodic review and modification or termination provisions defined in Section 25 and Section 27, respectively, of this Development Agreement, and further subject to a reasonable extension for completion of the Project in -3- accordance with the Timing of Development schedule set forth in Section 15 of this Development Agreement.” SECTION 2. INTEGRATION. Except as expressly provided to the contrary herein, all provisions of the Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The Development Agreement and this Modification No. 1 shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the “Agreement”. The Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions of agreement between the Parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Modification No. 1 shall take effect upon the date the ordinance approving this Modification No. 1 takes effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS MODIFICATION NO. 1 AS OF THE RESPECTIVE DATES SET FORTH BELOW. “CITY” DATE OF EXECUTION: CITY OF ANAHEIM, a municipal corporation ____________________ By: ____________________________ Mayor of the City of Anaheim ATTEST: LINDA N. ANDAL, CITY CLERK By: ___________________________ Linda N. Andal, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CRISTINA L TALLEY, CITY ATTORNEY By: ________________________________ Mark S. Gordon Assistant City Attorney (SIGNATURE OF OWNER(S) APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE) -4- “OWNER” RONALD W. MARSHALL AND DEBORAH L. MARSHALL TRUST, DATED JANUARY 7, 1989 By: ___________________________________ Ronald W. Marshall Co-Trustee By: ___________________________________ Deborah L. Marshall Co-Trustee THE MARSHALL FAMILY TRUST, DATED FEBRUARY 14, 2000 By: ___________________________________ Charles B. Marshall Co-Trustee By: ___________________________________ Susan B. Marshall Co-Trustee SEE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By: ___________________________________ Thomas Ewing President, Ewing Enterprises (SIGNATURE OF OWNER(S) MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A NOTARY PUBLIC) 88767.v1 -5- EXHIBIT “A” (Legal Description of Property) PARCEL 1: PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 111, PAGES 40 TO 42 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL 2: PARCEL 2, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 111, PAGES 40 TO 42 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. O-L (SC)PRESCHOOLC-G (SC)RETAIL T (SC)EL RANCHO CHARTER SCHOOL RH-3 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RH-2 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE C-G (SC)RETAIL RH-3 (SC)SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE S FAIR M O NT BLV DE SANTA ANA CANYON RDN FAIR M ONT BLVD E RIO GRANDE DRS DONNA CTS H EATH TER S WI L L OWCREEK L NE. SANTA ANA CANYON RDE . C A N Y O N RIM RD E . LA P A LMA AVES. FAIRMONT BLVD E. NOHL RANCH RD190 S o u t h F a i r m o n t B o u l e va r d D E V N o . 2 0 1 1 -0 0 1 1 3 Subject Property APN: 356-431-18 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o:Ma y 2 01 1 S FAIR M O NT BLV DE SANTA ANA CANYON RDN FAIR M ONT BLVD E RIO GRANDE DRS DONNA CTS H EATH TER S WI L L OWCREEK L NE. SANTA ANA CANYON RDE . C A N Y O N RIM RD E . LA P A LMA AVES. FAIRMONT BLVD E. NOHL RANCH RD190 S o u t h F a i r m o n t B o u l e va r d D E V N o . 2 0 1 1 -0 0 1 1 3 Subject Property APN: 356-431-18 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o:Ma y 2 01 1 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2012-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 3 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05577 (DEV2011-00113) (190 SOUTH FAIRMONT BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05577 to construct a 47-foot high stealth telecommunications facility designed as a cross on an existing church property for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, this property is developed with a church located in the O-L (SC) (Low Intensity Office; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for Institutional land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on April 9, 2012, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The request to construct a 47-foot high stealth telecommunications facility on an existing church property is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section Nos. 18.06.030.040.0402 (Primary Uses, Commercial Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 2. The proposed stealth telecommunications facility will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is located because it will be located within a landscaped yard area of the church property and will be screened by an existing row of mature trees along Fairmont Boulevard. 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety of the citizens of Anaheim because this telecommunications facility will not impact the development of the area. 4. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because no traffic will be generated by this unmanned telecommunications facility. - 2 - PC2012-*** 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the existing land use will continue to be compatible with the surrounding area and the proposed telecommunications facility is not a health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 6. An alternative analysis was provided and staff has determined that the application as approved would have a lesser impact on the aesthetics and welfare of the surrounding community as compared to other alternatives and that a lower tower height would not meet the coverage objectives of this site. 7. Based on the evidence presented, the additional height above the maximum building height for the applicable zone is reasonably necessary for colocation of facilities or for the efficient operation of the proposed facility. 8. No negative impacts have been identified and this telecommunications facility will be a stealth design which is compatible with the character of the church property and the surrounding neighborhood. 9. This telecommunications structure and equipment enclosure has been sited as as to minimize any potential noise and aesthetic impacts on surrounding properties. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05577 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition (s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Conditional Use Permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. - 3 - PC2012-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 2012. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2012-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on April 9, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 9th day of April 2012. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2012-*** - 6 - PC2012-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05577 (DEV2011-00113) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 1 The proposed telecommunications antenna shall be limited to a maximum of forty seven (47) feet in height. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Planning 2 The cellular antennas and equipment cabling shall not be visible to public view. All equipment cabling shall be routed inside of the structure and shall be screened from view. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Planning GENERAL 3 Illumination of the freestanding antenna structure shall not be permitted. Planning 4 The subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1- 17, and as conditioned herein. Planning ©2011 Google Maps Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Location Existing Looking southeast from parking lotProposed View 1 proposed monocross 190 South Fairmont Boulevard Anaheim CA 92808 Woodrose ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ©2011 Google Maps Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Location Existing Looking northeast from Fairmont BoulevardProposed View 2 proposed monocross 190 South Fairmont Boulevard Anaheim CA 92808 Woodrose ©2011 Google Maps Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Location Existing Looking southeast across Fairmont BoulevardProposed View 3 proposed monocross 190 South Fairmont Boulevard Anaheim CA 92808 Woodrose ©2011 Google Maps Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Location Existing Looking southeast from Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont BoulevardProposed View 4 proposed monocross 190 South Fairmont Boulevard Anaheim CA 92808 Woodrose ©2011 Google Maps Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Location Existing Looking southeast from adjacent parking lotProposed View 5 proposed monocross 190 South Fairmont Boulevard Anaheim CA 92808 Woodrose ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Site Photos for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facility at 190 South Fairmont Blvd, Anaheim, CA 92808 PROPOSED SITE LOCATION ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ADJACENT PROPERTY (EAST OF SITE) PROPERTY ACROSS FAIRMONT BLVD. (WEST OF SITE) ADJACENT PROPERTY (SOUTH OF SITE) ADJACENT PROPERTY (NORTH OF SITE) ATTACHMENT NO. 6 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. T (S C )R IV E R D A LE E LE M E N TA R Y S C H O O L (S C )S IN G LE F A M IL Y R E S ID E N C E (S C )O .C .F .C .D .R S -2 (S C ) S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E (S C )S IN G LE FA M ILY R E S ID E N C E R S -2 (S C )S IN G LE FA M ILY R E S ID E N C E R S -2 (S C )S IN G LE FA M ILY R E S ID E N C E R S -2 (S C )S IN G L E F A M IL Y R E S ID E N C E E R I V E R D A L E A V E N D E E R F I E L D S T N S T A R F I R E S T N S WE E T WA T E R S T N S T A R L I NG WA Y E BEAUTY DRE ADDINGTON DRE B A IN B R ID G E C IR E C U L D E SA C A V EE. LA PALMA AVE N . T US T I N AVEE . R IV E R DALE AVEE. SA N TA A N A C A N Y O N RD E. NOHL R A N C H R DN. L AKEVI EW A V E 4 5 4 0 E a s t R iv e r d a le A ve n u e D E V N o . 2 0 1 2 -0 0 0 0 7 Subject Property APN: 359-011-83 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o:Ma y 2 01 1 E R I V E R D A L E A V E N D E E R F I E L D S T N S T A R F I R E S T N S WE E T WA T E R S T N S T A R L I NG WA Y E BEAUTY DRE ADDINGTON DRE B A IN B R ID G E C IR E C U L D E SA C A V EE. LA PALMA AVE N . T US T I N AVEE . R IV E R DALE AVEE. SA N TA A N A C A N Y O N RD E. NOHL R A N C H R DN. L AKEVI EW A V E 4 5 4 0 E a s t R iv e r d a le A ve n u e D E V N o . 2 0 1 2 -0 0 0 0 7 Subject Property APN: 359-011-83 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o:Ma y 2 01 1 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2012-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05592 (DEV2012-00007) (4540 EAST RIVERDALE AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-05592, as described below; and WHEREAS, the applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to permit a private preschool and elementary school at a former public school campus; and WHEREAS, the subject property is developed with an elementary school campus and is located in the T (Transition) Zone, and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for School land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on April 9, 2012, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed amendment to conditional use permit and variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The proposed request to permit a private preschool and elementary school at a former public school campus is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.14.030.040.0402 (Educational Uses - General). 2. The proposed conditional use permit, as conditioned herein, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the school will continue to operate in a manner consistent with the previous operation which is not detrimental to the adjacent properties. 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed project in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety because the property was originally designed as an elementary school. 4. The traffic generated by the proposed project will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the private school will generate fewer traffic trips than the previous elementary school. - 2 - PC2012-*** 5. The granting of the conditional use permit and the variance under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area through conditions of approval for the use and is not a health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove specified does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-05592 to permit a private preschool and elementary school at a former public school campus. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 2012. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 3 - PC2012-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on April 9, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 9th day of April, 2012. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2012-*** - 5 - PC2012-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05592 (DEV2012-00007) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 1 The property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim an easement 45 feet in width from the centerline of the street along Riverdale Avenue for street widening, public utilities and other public purposes. Public Works, Development Services Division 2 The business shall be equipped with an alarm system (silent or audible). Police Department 3 Address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily readable from the street. Numbers should be visible during hours of darkness. Police Department 4 Complete a Burglary/Robbery Alarm Permit application, Form APD 516, and return it to the Police Department prior to initial alarm activation. This form is available at the Police Department front counter, or it can be downloaded from the City’s web site: http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=678 Police Department 5 Buildings shall have clearly marked doors with numbers corresponding to the alarm zones, if any. The alarm zone should indicate building and room number if applicable. Police Department 6 “No Trespassing 602(k) P.C.” posted at the entrances of parking lots/structures and located in other appropriate places. Signs must be at least 2’ x 1’ in overall size, with white background and black 2” lettering. Police Department 7 All entrances to parking areas shall be posted with appropriate signs per 22658(a) C.V.C., to assist in removal of vehicles at the property owners/managers request. Police Department 8 All exterior doors to have adequate security hardware, e.g. deadbolt locks. Police Department 9 Adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure Police Department - 6 - PC2012-*** environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on-site. 10 If the project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation meter shall be installed. Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division 11 That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Services Standards Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued use if necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line. Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division 12 That a water improvement plan shall be submitted to the Water Engineering Division for approval and a performance bond in the amount approved by the City Engineer and form approved by City Attorney shall be posted with the City of Anaheim. Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division ONGOING DURING PROJECT OPERATIONS 13 The school operator shall provide to the Planning Department a plan that identifies parking and pick-up and drop-off operations. This plan shall include the school hours for all activities and provide for parking lot attendants to manage designated parking and queuing areas. This plan shall also include details for effectively managing evening events such as “Back to School Night” so that the demand for parking spaces does not exceed the available parking. This plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department, Planning Services Division. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 14 There shall be no school plays, productions or similar type activities permitted on the school campus when such events are attended by parents or other visitors. Planning Department, Planning Services Division 15 That on-going during project operation, no required parking areas shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. Code Enforcement 16 The approval of this applicant 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. Planning Department, Planning Services Division - 7 - PC2012-*** 17 This property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans, technical studies and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and as conditioned herein, which include the Site Plan and Floor Plans (Exhibit Nos. 1-2). Said plans and studies are on file in the Planning Department. Planning Department, Planning Services Division Page 1 of 4 Rock Christian Academy Statement of Operational Use Updated March 2012 We, The Rock, propose to utilize a portion of the Riverdale Elementary School (RES) campus as a private elementary school. RES was established as a neighborhood school in 1965 and operated as such until 2010, when the school was closed. It has since sat vacant. We will operate inline with the facilities intended use. We will not be doing any building improvements. The Rock plans to operate an elementary school (pre-k thru 6thgrade), Monday through Friday (6am-6pm). Our use will be consistent with the property’s original intended use, which will include normal office hours, before and after school programs, early education programs as well as periodic “Back to School” nights and parent teacher meetings. In the case of a special performance, seasonal play, etc., the event will be held in the auditorium on our church campus located on E. Orangethorpe Ave. in Anaheim. Currently, our enrollment is at forty-eight students. Our long-term goal is to increase enrollment to one hundred and fifty students. We intend to initially occupy three buildings, which will consist of administrative offices and educational classrooms. As enrollment increases, we will use additional classrooms. Current Status Long Term Projected Growth Students 48 150 Teachers 4 10 Admin. 3 6 Facilities - 2 The parking lot contains sixty-one parking spaces. It is designed with easy drop off and pick up of students in mind. There is also plenty of room on the campus lot for queuing of vehicles, keeping them off the street while waiting for children. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 Page 2 of 4 Rock Christian Academy Justification for Conditional Use Permit January 2012 The Rock church Proposes to operate an elementary school on the Riverdale Elementary School campus at 4540 E. Riverdale Ave in Anaheim. Our intended use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area. The property was originally developed and has operated as an elementary school for approximately 45 years, and our use will be consistent with its intended function. The site provides ample room for our current enrollment and anticipated growth. There are twenty-two classrooms on site. Since we currently have forty-eight students, we will initially only occupy six classrooms and will utilize others as our growth demands. The campus sits on 11.77 acres, which provides space for outdoor activities. The property was originally designed as an elementary school. No undue burden upon the roads will be caused because they were designed and constructed to handle traffic generated by an elementary school at this location. As an elementary school, operating consistently with this locations intended and historical use, the approval of this Conditional Use Permit will not harm the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Page 3 of 4 Trip Generation, Drop off/ Pick-up Procedures This project proposes to operate a private elementary school on the former Riverdale Elementary School campus. Trip Generation for the proposed project was developed using trip rates provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7th Edition, for Elementary School (ITE Land Use Code: 520) and K-8 Private Schools (ITE Land Use Code: 534). RCA has a long- term goal of 150 students, whereas Riverdale Elementary was built for a capacity of 400 students. Total trips are based on these numbers, 150 and 400 respectively. A summary of the trip generation rates and the resulting vehicle trips for the proposed project with a comparison to the previous elementary school is presented in Table A. According to this table, the proposed project would generate 135 a.m. trips, while the public elementary school would generate180 a.m. trips. Furthermore, this proposed project’s operational characteristics provide for staggered school hours, so that the total trips generated are spread out, helping to not create an undo burden on the roads. A summary of the Operational Characteristics is presented in Table B. Table B Drop off Pick Up Before School Care 7-8am 7-8am Kindergarten 12:30-1 Kindergarten 8-8:30 1st-6th 3:30-4 1st - 6th 8-8:30 After school Care 4-6pm Additionally, Rock Christian Academy will provide two parking lot attendants during key drop-off/pick-up times to assist with onsite circulation to direct vehicles to the designated parking or queuing areas, as well as with pedestrian traffic on the parking lot. Directional signage will also be posted on the parking lot to aid with traffic flow. Figure 1 illustrates the Parking Circulation with Drop off and parking areas indicated. Description/ITE Code ITE Vehicle Trip Generation Rates Units AM Trips Private School (K-8) Students 150 .90 135 Elementary School Students 400 .45 180 Page 4 of 4 Figure 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. C-G (BCC)RETAIL RM-4EL CORTEZAPARTMENTS65 DU C-G (BCC)BANK C-G (BCC)VACANT RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE C-G (BCC)MEDICAL OFFICE RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCEC-G (BCC)POLYNESIANMOTEL C-G (BCC)RETAIL RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCEC-G (BCC)OFFICES TRELIGIOUS USE C-G (BCC)OFFICES C-G (BCC)RETAIL C-G (BCC)BROOKHURSTMOTEL C-G (BCC)BROOKHURSTPLAZA INN C-G (BCC)RETAIL C-G (BCC)RETAIL C-G (BCC)RESTAURANT T (BCC) RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES BROOKHURST STS VALLEY STW OR AN G E AV E W N IOB E AVES ARCHER STW C RO NE AV EW STON YBR OOK DR S ARCHER STW. BALL RD W. BROADWAY S. EUCLID STS. MAGNOLIA AVES. BROOKHURST STW. LINCOLN AVE S. GILBERT STW. LINCOLN AVE 6 3 0 S o u t h B r o o kh u r st St r e e t D E V N o . 2 0 1 1 -0 0 1 3 6 Subject Property APN: 128-181-19 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o:Ma y 2 01 1 S BROOKHURST STS VALLEY STW OR AN G E AV E W N IOB E AVES ARCHER STW C RO NE AV EW STON YBR OOK DR S ARCHER STW. BALL RD W. BROADWAY S. EUCLID STS. MAGNOLIA AVES. BROOKHURST STW. LINCOLN AVE S. GILBERT STW. LINCOLN AVE 6 3 0 S o u t h B r o o kh u r st St r e e t D E V N o . 2 0 1 1 -0 0 1 3 6 Subject Property APN: 128-181-19 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Ph ot o:Ma y 2 01 1 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2012-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05585 (DEV2011-00136) (630 SOUTH BROOKHURST STREET) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Planning Commission") did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2011- 05585 to permit a banquet facility, for that certain real property located at 630 South Brookhurst Street, in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as more particularly shown in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, this property is currently developed with a commercial retail building, located in the C-G (BCC) (General Commercial; Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Overlay) Zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Corridor Residential land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on April 9, 2012 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing with respect to the request for a conditional use permit to permit a banquet facility, does find and determine the following facts. 1. The proposed request to establish a banquet facility the C-G (BCC) (General Commercial; Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Overlay) Zone is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.08.030.010 (Community and Religious Assembly). 2. The proposed the conditional use permit to permit a banquet facility in an existing commercial building would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the proposed banquet facility would continue to impact the adjacent residential uses with noise disturbances and create a demand for parking that would negatively impact the operations of other commercial uses in the vicinity. 3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is not adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety because the proposed use is located adjacent to residential uses that are currently negatively impacted by the business and the number of parking spaces is not adequate to meet the needs of area businesses without negatively impacting their operations. - 2 - PC2012-*** 4. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim due to the anticipated noise and parking impacts associated with the banquet facility. 6. The Planning Department has received correspondence from residents residing east of the subject property, and from the Stater Bros. grocery store, indicating that the banquet facility has been operating in a detrimental manner and multiple complaints have been filed regarding excess noise and parking constraints. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated, does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05585. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 2012. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 3 - PC2012-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on April 9, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 9th day of April, 2012. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2012-*** ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05585 NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 Within 30 days of this approval, a security plan to include security measures shall be provided and reviewed to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, to promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. This security plan shall include an adequate number of security personnel as deemed necessary by the Police Department. Police Department 2 Any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code. (Section 4.16.070 Anaheim Municipal Code) Police Department 3 Within 30 days of this approval, address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily readable from the street. Numbers should be visible during hours of darkness. Police Department 4 Within 30 days of this approval, rear entrance doors shall be numbered in the same address numbers or suite number of the business. Minimum height of 4” recommended. The rear doors of the premises shall be equipped on the inside with an automatic locking device and shall be closed at all times, and shall not be used as a means of access by patrons to and from the licensed premises. Temporary use of these doors for delivery of supplies does not constitute a violation. Police Department 5 Adequate lighting of parking lots, and grounds contiguous to building shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all person, property and vehicles on-site. Police Department 6 All exterior doors shall be their own light source, which shall adequately illuminate door areas at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any permission on or about the premises and private adequate illumination for persons exiting the building. Police Department 7 Within 30 days of this approval, “No Trespassing 602(k) P.C.” Police Department ATTACHMENT NO. 6 NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY signs shall be posted at the entrance of parking lots/structures and located in other appropriate places. Signs must be at least 2’ X 1’ in overall size, with white background and black 2” lettering. 8 The business shall not employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. (Section 24200.5 Alcoholic Beverage Control Act) Police Department 9 Entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the licensee. Police Department 10 The petitioner(s) shall provide security personnel in the parking lot and shall maintain order therein and prevent any activity which would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their property by the nearby residents. Police Department 11 Trash pickup at the premises will be made no earlier than 7 a.m. and no later than 10 p.m. Police Department 12 Within 30 days of this approval, a fire alarm system shall be designed, installed and maintained as required by the Fire Department. Fire Department 13 That the required number of trash enclosures shall be provided as required by AMC Section 18.08.110. Streets and Sanitation Division 14 Petitioner(s) shall not require an admission charge or a cover charge, nor shall there be a requirement to purchase a minimum number of drinks. Police Department 15 The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. Police Department 16 The number of persons attending the event shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department or 300 guests, whichever is lower. Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted in a conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit from the room. (Section 25.114(a) Uniform Fire Code) Police Department 17 The doors shall remain closed at all times that entertainment is permitted, except during times of entry or exit, emergencies and deliveries. (Section 4.18.110 Anaheim Municipal Code) Police Department NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY 18 All patrons must use the front doors for entry and exit only. The rear doors must remain closed at all times when the banquet facility is in use so as not to disturb the adjacent residential area. Police Department 19 All employees shall be clothed in such a way as to not expose “specified anatomical areas” as described in Section 7.16.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Police Department 20 The business shall not employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. (Section 24200.5 Alcoholic Beverage Control Act) Police Department 21 Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons about the premises. Police Department 22 Petitioner shall not share any profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person, based upon monies collected as a door charge, cover charge, or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders, or the sale of drinks. Police Department 23 There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Police Department 24 That all events shall conclude no later than 12:00 a.m. and security personnel shall be stationed in a manner to ensure that patrons leaving the facility do not disturb adjacent residents. Planning Department, Planning Services 25 Trash from the banquet facility shall not be emptied into the outside trash containers between the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., daily. Police Department Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division 26 There shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside the building. Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division 27 Adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the Police Department NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on-site. Said lighting shall be decorative and complementary to the architecture of the building. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division approval. 28 There shall be no amusement machines, video game devices, or pool tables maintained upon the premises without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division 29 There shall be no amplified music permitted outside of the building. Police 30 The use of all pyrotechnical material, special effects and fireworks shall be permitted only if, and to the extent, approved by the Anaheim Fire Department prior to their use. Fire Department 31 No outdoor activities involving gathering of persons shall be permitted on-site. Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division 32 No alcohol shall be allowed on the premises except as provided by a caterer with an approved alcohol sales license issued by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Planning Department, Planning Services Division, Police Department 33 The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the area adjacent to the premises over which they have control, in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular maintenance and removal of trash or debris. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24-hours of being applied. Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division 34 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 (Site Plan) and 2 (Floor Plan), and as conditioned herein. Planning Department, Planning Services Division ATTACHMENT NO. 7 STATER BROTHERS - BROOKHURST CENTER ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 0 R r::9A./ N G E A V E N IN-N-OUT I 9 U BURGER E ~ STATER BROTHERS SUPERMARKET BROOKHURST STREET TO: EXHIBIT "A" 614- 618 1622 162~1 630 - 634- 638 l642 DI646 11=16501711652-654~a117 ~656 658 Total Parking Stalls: 25&1/4"Scale8ft: FROM:Stater Brothers - Brookhurst Center Ralph R.Neilson 2020 E.Orangethorpe Ave.,Suite 210 Fullerton, CA 92831-5327 P: (714)680-3812 F: (714) 680-3340 rneilsonlebaron@yahoo.com ATTACHMENT NO. 8 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. RM-4FOURPLEX RM-4FOURPLEX RM-4FOURPLEX RM-4APTS20 DU RM-4APTS24 DU I (PTMU)INDUSTRIAL RM-4FOURPLEX SP 92-2DA1HOLIDAY INNANAHEIM RESORT I (PTMU)VACANT SP 92-2 (MHP)DA1PLANTATIONMOBILE ESTATES RM-4APTS20 DU SP 92-2DA1STAYBRIDGESUITESANAHEIM C-GRETAILRM-4FOURPLEX RM-4APTS8 DU RM-4APTS12 DU T (MHP)DEL RAYMOBILE ESTATES SP 92-2DA1VACANT RM-4APTS8 DU SP 92-2DA1 FUTURE GENE AUTRYWAY OVERPASS S A N T A A N A F R E E W A Y S A N T A A N A F R E E W A Y S M ANCHESTER AVE S AN AHEIM W AY E LEATRICE LN E RIVERA LNVIA KONAE LEATRICE LN E WAKEFI EL D AV E E TANGERINE LN VIA TAHITI E TANGERINE LN VIA HILO DRVIA KONAE. KATELLA AVE S. HASTER STE. ORANGEWOOD AVES. LEWIS STS. STATE COLLEGE BLVDW. KATELLA AVE W. DISNEY WAY 1 9 2 9 So uth Manches ter Avenue D E V N o. 2011-00092 Subject Property APN: 137-321-33137-321-34 ATTA CHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:May 20 10 FUTURE GENE AUTRYWAY OVERPASS S M ANCHESTER AVE S AN AHEIM W AY E LEATRICE LN CITRU S DR E RIVERA LNVIA KONAE E LEATRICE LN E WAKEFI EL D AV E E TANGERINE LN VIA TAHITI E TANGERINE LN VIA HILO DRVIA KONAE. KATELLA AVE S. HASTER STE. ORANGEWOOD AVES. LEWIS STS. STATE COLLEGE BLVDW. KATELLA AVE W. DISNEY WAY 1 9 2 9 So uth Manches ter Avenue D E V N o. 2011-00092 Subject Property APN: 137-321-33137-321-34 ATTA CHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aeria l Pho to:May 20 10 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2012-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2012-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT CLASS 3, 5 AND 11 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05573 AND VARIANCE NO. 2011-04870 (DEV2011-00092) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did receive a City-initiated request to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05573 and Variance No. 2011-04870 to permit and retain a parking lot with landscape setbacks, parking space design, and parking lot landscaping that is less than required by code; and WHEREAS, this 0.62-acre property is a remnant of two parcels that were purchased by the City to accommodate the construction of the Gene Autry Way overpass project. The property is partially developed with a surface parking lot. The property is located in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, Development Area 1 (Commercial Recreation) and the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for Commercial Recreational land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did initiate, by motion, this request on October 10, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on November 7, 2011, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by motion, continued the public hearing for the conditional use permit and variance to December 19, 2011, and to January 18, 2012, at the request of the property owners of the Staybridge Suites and Holiday Inn property, and subsequently to February 27, 2012 and March 12, 2012 at the request of staff; and WHEREAS, due to the length of time that had transpired since the project’s initial hearing date, staff distributed another set of public notices for the March 12, 2012 hearing, and Planning Commission, by motion, continued the public hearing for the conditional use permit and variance to March 26, 2012; and WHEREAS, said Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and on its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing with respect to the request to permit and retain a parking lot with landscape setbacks, parking space design, and parking lot landscaping that is less than required by code should be approved for the following reasons: - 2 - PC2012-*** 1. The proposed request to permit and retain a parking lot in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, Development Area 1 (C-R District) is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.116.070.040 – Table 116C (Automotive – Parking Lots or Parking Structures/Garages). 2. The proposed conditional use permit to permit a parking lot, as conditioned herein, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the parking lot serves to replace parking spaces that were removed to accommodate the Gene Autry Way Overcrossing project and the proposed surface parking lot does not preclude future development of the property. 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed parking lot in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety because the parking lot is designed to take advantage of access from an existing driveway on Manchester Avenue and is designed in a manner that will allow safe and efficient vehicular circulation and is compatible with the design of the adjacent parking spaces serving the Holiday Inn and Staybridge Suites property. 4. The parking lot will not generate additional traffic that could cause an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the parking lot is intended to replace parking spaces that previously served the adjacent Holiday Inn and Staybridge Suites and will not generate any additional traffic trips. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit and the variance under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the proposed parking lot will be compatible with the surrounding area because the use is integrated with hotels and existing parking areas and is not a health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for a variance to permit landscape setbacks, parking space design, and parking lot landscaping that is less than required by code should be approved for the following reasons: SECTION NO. 18.116.090.020 Minimum landscape setbacks adjacent to Manchester Avenue and Gene Autry Way. (20 feet required; 2 to 20 feet proposed). SECTION NO. 18.116.090.040 Minimum landscape setback adjacent to interior property line. (10 feet required; 0 feet proposed). SECTION NO. 18.116.140.110 Minimum parking space design. (No overhang permitted; 2 foot overhang proposed). SECTION NO. 18.116.140.020 Minimum parking lot landscaping. AND 18.116.140.090 (9 trees in planters required; 6 trees proposed). - 3 - PC2012-*** 1. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, location and surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity that result in limited and inefficient use of the property if it were developed in conformance with development standards. The property is a small, triangularly- shaped property immediately adjacent to the Gene Autry Way Overcrossing. The size and shape of the property limit the efficiency of independent design for the parcel, rendering it appropriate for joint use with existing surface parking improvements on adjacent properties, and the location of the parking lot adjacent to Gene Autry Way overpass presents a unique situation where a landscape setback is unnecessary due to the grade difference between the parking lot and Gene Autry Way. 2. That, because of these special circumstances, strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. Numerous properties within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan along Manchester Avenue have landscape setbacks that are less than required by code due to the widening of the I-5 freeway and realignment of Manchester Avenue. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction), Section 15305 (Class 5 - Minor Alterations) and Section 15311 (Class 11 - Accessory Structures) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05573 and Variance No. 2011-04870 and subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the hours of operation or the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. - 4 - PC2012-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code, except as approved by this action, and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 2012. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on April 9, 2012, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 9th day of April, 2012. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2012-*** - 6 - PC2012-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2011-05573 AND VARIANCE NO. 2011-04870 (DEV2011-00092) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL CONDITIONS 1 The parking lot will be constructed and retained substantially in accordance with Exhibit No. 1 (Site/Landscape Plan) and which plan is on file with the Planning Department. Public Works SWVSCALE 1"= 20’PLANTING INSTALLATION NOTES:12 3VINES ARE SHOWN OUTSIDE THE PLANTER FORGRAPHICAL CLARITY.PLANTING HOLES SHALL BE TWO TIMES THESIZE OF ROOT BALL.ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL RECEIVE 3" THICKOF MULCH.I-5 FREEWAY SBMANCHESTER AVENUEHOLIDAY INN PARKING LOT PLANT LEGENDAGAPANTHUS AFRICANUSPHILODENDRON SELLOUMALBIZIA JULIBRISSINCUPANIOPSIS ANACARDIOIDESPARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATASYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMELILY-OF-THE-NILEBOSTON IVYCARROTWOODMIMOSATREESVINES AND GROUNDCOVERGENE AUTRY WAYORANGE DAYLILLYHEMEROCALLIS HYBRIDSTULBAGHIA VIOLACEASOCIETY GARLICLACY TREE PHILODENDRONPITTOSPORUM TOBIRA ’WHEELERI’WHEELER’S DWARF PITTOSPORUMHOLIDAY INN879APN 137-321-231APN 137-321-34TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDESSTAR JASMINETRACHELOSPERMUM ASIATICUMASIATIC JASMINEMETROSIDEROS EXCELSUSNEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREENOTE: UNDERLINED PORTION OF BOTANICAL NAME INDICATE ABBREVIATIONS USED ON PLANTING PLAN.SIZE1 GAL1 GAL5 GAL1 GAL1 GAL24" BOX24" BOX24" BOX1 GALFLATSFLATSPROPERTYLINEPLANNING COMMISSIONCUP/VARIANCE EXHIBIT24’16’18’18’24’18’24’16’16’16’8.5’8.5’8.5’8.5’8.5’8.5’8. 5 ’ATTACHMENT NO. 3 17852 E Seventeenth Sc Suite 102 Tustin CA 92780 2142 7145730317 fax 7143739534 koaoc@katzokitsucom wwwkatzokitsucom Los Angeles 3232604703 fax 3232604705 Oakland 5108346700 fax 5108346702 Palm Springs 7604162577 fax 76032345 Sincerely Rock E Miller PE Principal 199525 F I cities L4NAHEMparkingStudiesANHotell Staybrdg25VlSED899 wpd 89 Q EG 999 IV EO rn F a LJSanDiegoS 6196832933 PSh2 Z11l fax 6196837982 DBE MBE CCKatz Okitsu Associates Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners Mr Robert Olson FD Olson Development 2955 Main St Suite 300 Irvine CA 92614 Subject Parking Study for Two Hotels in the City of Anaheim Dear Mr Olson Katz Okitsu Associates is pleased to submit the attached report addressing parking needsforaproposedtwohotelsiteintheCityofAnaheimThe report was prepared to meet therequirementsoftheCityofAnaheimfor evaluating the parking needs for the proposedpermit request It has been a pleasure to provide this study to RD Olson Development and to the City ofAnaheimPleasecontactmeifyourequireanyadditionalinformationorhaveanyquestionsaboutthesubjectstudy 12CCLtlviz By I PPROVAL A1 COMMENTS 324 December 1 1999 a 1i71J N E 93000 FO OF CA CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO9S3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PARKING STUDY FOR TWO HOTELS IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM Prepared for RD Olson Development 2955 Main St Suite 300 Irvine CA 92614 949 222 3726 Prepared by Katz Okitsu Associates 17852 Seventeenth Street Suite 102 Tustin CA 92780 2142 714 573 0317 December 1999 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNpS 6 7 8 DEC 1999 flCA o RLcEIVEO s 2QNING0M12E m 9S 2221 Introduction RD Olson Development is proposing to construct two hotels on an undeveloped site within the Anaheim Resort Area The site is located on Manchester Avenue just south of the Katella Avenue and Interstate 5 interchange in the City of Anaheim The project may require an exception from the required number of parking spaces indicated by the Anaheim Municipal Code The project development will include two hotels a Staybridge Inn providing 143 guest rooms and a Holiday Inn providing 264 rooms The Holiday Inn is a conventional hotel property including restaurants banquet facilities and small conference facilities The Staybridge Inn is an extended stay hotel It includes larger suites and small kitchens allowing in room meal preparation Staybridge is a relatively new hotel line that is being developed by Holiday Inns However it is considered to be similar to Marriotts Residence Inns in terms of length of stay and purpose for visit This type of property typically provides rooms for a longer number of days than conventional hotel Facilities such as the proposed Holiday Inn The project site plan shows 355 parking stalls including 300 surface stalls and 55 stalls in a below grade parking structure which include 8 handicapped parking stalls This parking is intended to meet the needs of the two hotels when Gene Autry Way is constructed The arhitect has also prepared an interim site plan which shows 378 surface parking stalls which is intended to meet the needs of the hotels prior to and during the construction of Gene Autry Way Since the interim plan is for temporary use only and contains more parking stalls than the final plan we will be looking at the final site plan for the purposes of this study Figure 1 depicts a vicinity map of the project area Figure 2 shows the final project site plan as proposed after construction of Gene Autry Way The purpose oE this parking study is to determine if the proposed parking supply on the site will be adequate for the needs oE all proposed uses Parking supply and demand are normally measured or calculated on the basis of developed building area expressed in square feet per parking space or in parking spaces per 1000 square feet sE Parking requirements for hotel and lodging uses are normally expressed in parking spaces per room The City oE Anaheim Municipal Code AMC indicates a parking requirement for hotel use is as follows Prepared for RD Olson Development Parking Study for two Hotels in the City ofAnaheim December 1 1999 CONDITIONAL USE PERMI NO DEC 9999 Katz Okitsu Associates 1 o1v1S cam may North No Score Katelia Ave Katz Okitsu Associates Traffic Engineers and Transportation Planners Vicinity Map 50789 DEC 199 FIGURE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N OS3 trcorn 1rN REGEPJ SD c ONING DIVISION y tslE22Zti 1 1 1 I 1 1 MTH1 NN 4 4 i 1 2 1 ry 2 N Fr Ni CIA Katz Okitsu Associates Erniin Engineers and Transportation Manners N 9 et i21424 ci N s N 0cz fp NJ O 0 Site Plan AJingo 1 tft I FIGURE 0 1 14 I1 en1 01 3 cit r 4 LmuN9a it CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FP RzncvEP r r zo4 0 NO f DIVISION 4 NiciS3 4 1 sldeLS 4 0241 Hotel Motel Facilities The following minimum parking spaces shall be provided Fourfifths 08 of a space per guest room without kitchenettes one and three fifths 16 spaces per guest room with kitchenettes plus fourteen 14 spaces per 1000 square feet of GFA of eatingdrinking areas plus ten 10 spaces per 1000 square feet of banquet meeting room area plus the following employee spaces One quarter 025 space per each employee working in guest room areas four and three fifths 46 employee spaces per 1000 square feet of eatingdrinking areas one 1 employee space per 1000 square feet of GFA for retail areas two and one half 25 employee spaces per 1000 square feet of GFA for banquet meeting rooms 1189 The Staybridge Inn property will include kitchenettes so the higher rate per room indicated by the Anaheim Municipal Code would apply The higher rate in the Code is intended to insure that adequate parking is provided for overnight accommodations that may be rented for very long periods of time such as months or longer The occupants of this type of accommodation may occasionally park more than one automobile on the site thus experiencing parking demands that are comparable to apartments and other residential developments that are intended as permanent residences The Staybridge property is not intended Eor use by occupants who may keep more than one vehicle on the site It is located within the Anaheim Resort Area so the property will be desirable for visitors who wish to stay for longer than one or two days however the primary purpose of the visit is expected to be tourism or conferences This type of visitor would not normally have more than one automobile on the site and a significant portion of visitors may have no vehicles depending on buses and shuttles for their transportation needs The parking demand for the Staybridge property is not expected to have per room parking demands that are significantly higher than other hotels without kitchenettes Furthermore the Anaheim Municipal Code states that this type of hotel property be required to have a daily maid service and that the occupancy per room would not extend for 30 days or more This greatly reduces the potential for patrons to have more than one vehicle on the premises Katz Okitsu Associates calculated the code requirement for the project in Table 1 Prepared far RD Olson Development Parking Study for two Hotels in the City of Anaheim December I 1999 Katz Okitsu Associates 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Land Use Staybridge Guest Rooms Guest Rm Employees Holiday Inn Guest Rooms Dining Areas Dining Employees Meeting Rooms Training Rooms Retail Employee Guest Rm Employees The site will require 575 stalls according to the Anaheim Municipal Code Methodology Quantity Parking supply and parking demand are normally measured or calculated on the basis of developed building area expressed in square feet per parking space or in parking spaces per 1000 square feet The parking requirement for the proposed hotel facility can be determined by surveying similar uses A comparison between the proposed parking supply and the forecasted demand will determine whether the center will have adequate parking in the future Katz Okitsu Associates surveyed two existing extended stay hotel sites in the vicinity to measure typical weekday and typical Saturday parking demands The parking demand for these centers with consideration for hotel rooms the proposed composition of uses and other relevant factors would indicate the probable future parking experience for the proposed hotels If the Prepared for RD Olson Development Parking Study for two Hotels in the City ofAnaheim December 1 1999 Table 1 Parlcing Tabulation for Anaheim Resort Anaheim Municipal Code Requirement 143 16 stalls rm 8 025 stallsemployee Subtotal Stalls 264 08 stallsrm 5256 sf 14 stalls1000 sf 5256 sf 46 stalls 1000 sf 1583 sf 125 stalls 1000 sf 886 sf 125 stalls1000 sf 121 sf 1 stall1000 sf 13 025 stalls employee Subtotal Stalls Total Stalls Number of Stalls Required 2288 20 2308 2112 736 242 198 111 01 33 3433 5741 Katz Okitsu Associates 5 CONDI USE PERMIT NO S s3 t currently available parking supply is adequate for the demands of the existing uses plus likely tenants there would be no parking problems evident from the proposed permit Parking Demand Two existing hotels were located within the general area of the proposed location These sites are the Residence Inn in the City of Orange and Residence Inn in the City of Anaheim The two Residence Inns were selected because they are very similar to the proposed Staybridge Inn regarding room amenities and on site services The parking demand for these properties is considered to be representative of the Staybridge Inn The sites surveyed are shown in Figure 3 and are sites are summarized as follows The Residence Inn in Orange is a stand alone hotel that is located adjacent to the Interstate 5 freeway at northeast corner of the intersection of State College Boulevard and Rampart Avenue near Chapman Avenue in the City of Orange The hotel provides one main parking area of 99 parking stalls and has 104 rooms The Residence Inn in Anaheim is a hotel is located on the southeast corner of the intersection Clementine Street and Freedman Way in the City of Anaheim Although it shares a common back driveway with the adjacent Motel 6 the main driveway is located off of Clementine Street The facility supplies 205 parking spaces in its main parking and has 200 rooms The nearby presence of the Anaheim Resort Area attractions causes many hotel facilities in the study area to experience unique parking conditions There is a very high incidence of hotel guests without private automobile transportation These guests arrive primarily by bus airport shuttles or hotel shuttle In addition guests with private transportation frequently leave their vehicles parked on the site throughout the day utilizing courtesy hotel transportation to Disneyland park These factors result in lower parking utilization at night compared to other facilities They also result in a higher ratio of daytime to nighttime parking use Prepared for RD Olson Development Parking Study for two Hotels in the City ofAnaheim December 1 1999 Katz Oldtsu Associa 6 CONDITIONAL U PERMIT NO 1i443 North No scale Anaheim Residence Inn Katello Ave Chapman Ave t5 Eta Katz Okttsu Associate Traffic Engineers and Tmnspartatian flannen Sites Surveyed FIGURE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT L494 Parking demands for the site were measured at periodic intervals on January 23 27 and 30 1999 The results of the surveys are shown on Table 2 Date January 23 1999 January 27 1999 Residence Residence Residence Residence Residence Residence Inn Inn Inn Inn Inn Inn Time Anaheim Orange Anaheim Orange Anaheim Orange 900 AM 114 42 87 62 11 00 AM 74 33 67 33 100 PM 84 31 50 29 300 PM 78 39 88 42 700 PM 74 47 112 57 12 Midnight 132 49 142 86 Peak Parking Demand Demand per Occupied Room The peak parking demand occurred near midnight The measured demand was 142 vehicles at the Anaheim facility and 86 vehicles at the Orange facility This demand would be primarily related to occupied rooms We have observed a downward trend in parking utilization after midnight for other lodging facilities because the number of visitors who leave the site after midnight is normally greater than the number of hotel guests who arrive after midnight For this reason the measured demand at midnight is accepted as the peak demand per occupied room overnight Prepared for RD Olson Development Parking Study for two Hotels in the City of Anaheim December 1 19q9 Table 2 Parking Demand Parked Vehicles Parked Vehicles 142 86 071 090 5o DEC 1999 ritocivamZclaiNO DIVISION January 30 1999 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0 Katz Okitsu Associates 8 PARKING DEMAND AND ROOM OCCUPANCY The highest peak parking demand for all three sites surveyed was at the Residence Inn Anaheim Katz Okitsu Associates personnel covertly asked how many rooms were available on January 23 and found out that only one room was vacant The highest occupancy rate for the Orange site was noted on January 27 Staff at the property indicated that it was 92 occupied at the time 96 rooms The overnight parking requirement per occupied room is based upon the midnight parking demand 86 stalls and the total room occupancy 96 rooms The parking demand per room is calculated at 090 stalls per occupied room This amount is 56 of the requirement indicated in the Anaheim Municipal Code 16 spaces per guest room with kitchenettes but more consistent with the hotel room without kitchenette 08 spaces per room Parking for hotel room usage varies throughout the day as indicated by the information on Table 2 The parking per occupied room during mid morning and mid afternoons are shown in Table 3 below Time Prepared for RD Olson Development Parking Study for two Hotels in the City ofAnaheim Dezember r 1999 Table 3 Parking Demand per Occupied Room Occupied Parking Percent of Parking Demand Anaheim Orange Anaheim Orange 1100 AM 74 stalls 33 stalls 52 38 300 PM 88 stalls 42 stalls 62 49 700 PM 112 stalls 57 stalls 79 66 1200 Midnight 142 stalls 86 stalls 100 100 Note Anaheim site used 99 occupancy and Orange site used 92 occupancy rate during surveys The parking demand rate in the afternoon is approximately 62 or less than the overnight rate The parking rate in the evening is 79 or less than the overnight rate t c DEO 1999 RECEIVED ZONING DIVISION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO Katz Okitsu Associates 9 I FORECASTED PARKING DEMAND FOR THE STAYBRIDGE INN PROPERTY The data collected for this study clearly indicates that the parking demand for Residence Inn is much lower than the Anaheim Municipal Code The Anaheim property experiences parking demand 071 stalls per room that compares well to the City code requirement for hotel rooms without kitchen facilities 08 stalls per room The Orange property experiences higher parking demand 090 stalls per room than the Anaheim property however the demand is still much lower than the City Code requirement The parking rate maybe higher because it is further from the Anaheim Resort area or because the property is smaller Katz Okitsu Associates suggests that the measured rate at the Anaheim site is more applicable to the Staybridge site than the measured rate at the Orange site We would thus recommend a rate of 08 stalls per room for this type of hotel property as the code requires for hotel rooms without kitchenettes Also this rate would include parking for hotel staff since their vehicles would be included in the parking surveys The expected peak parking demand for the Staybridge Inn is thus 115 stalls Eor the 143 room hotel In addition the parking requirement for the Staybridge would be 80 or less than this amount at all times except after 9 pm Thus the recommended parking supply for rooms at the Staybridge 115 stalls will result in approximately 23 empty stalls except after 9 pm FORECASTED PARKING DEMAND FOR THE HOLIDAY INN PROPERTY The total parking requirement for the Holiday Inn property was forecast at 211 stalls for rooms plus 112 stalls for dining areas meeting rooms and employees These stalls are based upon typical peak parking demand rates for use of this type of area however these additional requirements do not consider that hotel guests may represent a substantial portion of dining area and meeting room occupants Each of these ancillary uses should be analyzed to determine whether they will actually generate additional parking demand and if the additional parking demand will occur when demand for room parking is high The dining area is intended primarily for use by hotel guests It will thus not increase demand for parking beyond the demand generated by the hotel rooms Additional parking demand by diners should not be added to the parking demand requirement The employee parking requirements will generate additional parking demand however the peak demand for employees will occur before 9 pm Approximately four stalls would be required for dining area employees later at night when the lot fills with cars due to occupancy of hotel rooms Prepared for RD Olson Development Parking Study for nvo Hotels in the City of Anaheim December 1 1999 A DEO 1999 V1 3 c vla ii Katz Okitsu Associates 10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 5493 Parking demand for meeting rooms can be variable Some meeting functions may consist of attendees who are nearly all staying in hotel rooms thus generating no additional parking demand Some events may attract persons to the hotel property who are not staying in rooms Finally many groups occupy more than one room consecutively dining in one room and meeting in an adjacent room Under this use not all dining areas will experience simultaneous usage While it is possible for meeting rooms to all be occupied simultaneously by persons who are not staying in hotel rooms this scenario is extremely rare particularly in conjunction with full occupancy of all rooms Katz Okitsu Associates suggests that the peak parking demand for meeting rooms and employees can be discounted by 50 to account for hotel guests using meeting facilities and rare simultaneous use of all rooms The demand can be reduced by another 10 since it will not occur late at night when rooms are occupied TOTAL PARKING DEMAND FOR BOTH HOTELS Table 5 shows the anticipated parking according to the above assumptions Table 5 Parking Tabulation for Anaheim Resort Hotels Land Use Staybridge Guest Rooms Guest Rm Employees Holiday Inn Guest Rooms Dining Areas Dining Employees Meeting Rooms Training Rooms Retail Employee Guest Rm Employees Quantity Prepared for RD Olson Development Parting Study for two Hotels in the City of Anaheim December 1 1999 Anaheim Requirement or Katz Okitsu estimate 143 08 stalls rm 8 025 stallsemployee Subtotal Stalls 264 08 stallsrm 5256 sf Included in room rate 5256 sf 46 stalls 1000 sf 1583 sf 5 stalls1000 sf 886 sf 625 stalls1000 sf 121 sf 1 stall1000 sf 13 025 stallsemployee Subtotal Stalls Total Stalls Number of Stalls Required 1144 20 1164 2112 00 242 79 55 01 33 2522 3686 Katz Okitsu Associates 11 CONDITIONAL USE PERM N0 17S3 I The site will require 369 stalls without any shared parking agreements according to Katz Okitsu Associates calculations SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS Peak parking demand for the hotels will occur late at night The actual demand will approach this rate only during periods of near full occupancy when all meeting rooms are used simultaneously and a large percentage of those in meeting rooms are not staying at the hotel It also presumes that full occupancy is not due to the presence of large numbers of guests who arrive by tour bus In our experience analyzing numerous hotels in the Anaheim resort area this combination of conditions rarely happens The parking lot will thus have a demand a substantially less than 369 stalls most of the time The demand will approach 369 only under rare occasions The hotels will experience reduced parking demand for rooms prior to 9 pm The Urban Land Institute surveyed many hotel facilities and determined that the parking requirement prior to the evening meal hour is 75 or less than the peak parking requirement for rooms Prior to 7 pm room parking for the Holiday Inn and the Staybridge together will result in at least 78 unused stalls This parking surplus is greater than the Municipal Code requirement for employees and banquet room related parking demands Since parking demand for rooms is even lower earlier in the day the actual amount of room parking available to non room use will be considerably larger than this figure except from the evening meal hour to the early am Again this presumes that all rooms banquet facilities and meeting areas are simultaneously used as described above Table 6 shows the expected parking demand for various hours of the day based upon the results of this study the ULI Shared Parking Study or the Municipal Code as appropriate The table indicates that the peak demand will occur during the late evening and will be 326 stalls Prepared for RD Olson Development Pawling Study for two Hotels in the City of Anaheim December 1 1999 DEC 1959 DIViswu f Katz Okitsu Associates 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO x33 Time Peak Holiday Inn Staybridge Demand Use 211 Stalls 115 Stalls 700 AM 1100 AM 100 PM 300 PM 700 PM 900 PM 179 Stalls 85 74 stalls 35 63 Stalls 30 74 stalls 35 158 stalls 75 200 Stalls 95 Prepared for RD Olson Development Parking Study for two Hotels in the City of Anaheim December 1 1999 Table 6 Parking Demand by Time of Day Entire Project Hotel Rooms 92 Stalls 80 60 stalls 52 72 Stalls 62 72 stalls 62 91 stalls 79 104 Stalls 90 Employees Mtg Rms etc Both Hotels 45 Stalls 20 Stalls 45 Stalls 45 Stalls 45 Stalls 45 Stalls 18 Stalls 1200 Midnight 211 stalls 100 115 stalls 100 0 Stalls Note Parking demand for Holiday Inn based upon ULI Shared Parking Study Parking demand upon this study Parking demand for employees etc based upon City Code 45 stalls diningmeetingtrainingretail areas or this study for evening periods 18 stalls TOTAL PARKING DEMAND AND PROPOSED PARKING SUPPLY NO All Uses All Uses 369 Stalls 291 Stalls 179 Stalls 180 Stalls 191 stalls 294 Stalls 322 Stalls 326 Stalls for Staybridge based for employees and The peak parking demand for the Staybridge Inn is estimated at 115 stalls and will occur in the late evening The parking demand for the Holiday Inn is forecast at 211 stalls and will occur in the late evening These demands could occur simultaneously iE both properties are at 100 percent occupancy under the utilization conditions described for the Holiday Inn The potential peak demand for the project is thus 326 stalls and will occur in the late evening The parking demand will be lower at other times The current site plan is tentative however an interim plan shows 378 parking stalls and the final proposed site plan shows 355 parking stalls Katz Okitsu Associates would find that any parking supply in excess of 326 will be adequate to meet the needs of the project The combined site will provide 407 rooms so the net recommended parking supply for the entire project in aggregate is 08 stalls per room or 326 stalls Katz Okitsu Associates 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Findings The Anaheim Municipal Code requires certain findings to be made before parking waivers can be granted by the Planning Commission On the basis of this report five findings must be made The findings and specific responses are provided as follows 1 The variance under the conditions imposed if any will not cause fewer offstreet parking spaces to be provided for such use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonable foreseeable conditions of operation o fsuch use The parking study indicates that the parking demand for off street parking spaces will be approximately equal to the parking provided at full occupancy of the hotel the restaurant and the banquet room There will be a surplus of available parking at all other times 2 That the variance under the conditions imposed if any will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity o f the proposed use The proposed project will not cause any significant demand for on street parking spaces since on site parking will be more convenient and there is no significant supply of legal on street parking spaces in the project vicinity 3 That the variance under the conditions unposed if any will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use which property is not expressly provided as parking for such use under an agreement in compliance with Section 1806010020 of the code The proposed project will not cause any demand for parking on private property in the vicinity of the proposed use An adequate supply of parking is provided on the site and all site related parking is expected to occur on the proposed site 4 That the variance under the conditions imposed if any will not increase traffic congestion within the offstreet parking areas or lots provided for such uses The amount of parking demand forecast for the site is equal to or less than the supply provided on site Traffic and parking congestion will not occur because the overall demand for parking at the site is lower than the amount of parking provided and a surplus of parking spaces is expected to exist on the site at all times Prepared for RD Olson Development Parking Study for two Hovels in the City ofAnabeim December 1 1999 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO Vs3 Katz Okitsu Associates 14 5 That the variance under the conditions imposed if any will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the itntnediate vicinity of the proposed use The proposed project will not impede vehicular ingress or egress because the project is not expected to result in demand for on street parking in the vicinity of any driveways or other locations in the project vicinity Sight lines and turning area for existing driveways at public streets will be unaffected by parking for the proposed project Conclusion Recommendations RD Olson Development proposes to build two hotels with 407 guest rooms including 264 rooms without kitchenettes and 143 rooms with kitchenettes The current site plans are tentative however a final parking supply of 355 stalls is proposed Katz Okitsu Associates found that any parking supply in excess of 326 will be adequate to meet the needs of the project We would recommend a rate of 08 stalls per room for this hotel properties with kitchenettes This rate would include parking for hotel staff since their vehicles would be included in the parking surveys Prepared for RD Olson Development Parking Study for two Hovels in she City ofAnaheim December 1 1999 3 DEC 9999 en CONDITIONAL USE PERMegalDI4ISICV 9S1H1f22210 NO Z Katz Okitsu Associates 15 RESOLUTIONNOPC99226ARESOLUTIONOFTHEANAHEIMCITYPLANNINGCOMMISSIONTHATPETITIONFORCONDITIONALUSEPERMITN04153BEGRANTEDWHEREAStheAnaheimCityPlanningCommissiondidreceiveaverifiedPetitionforConditionalUsePermitforcertainrealpropertysituatedintheCityofAnaheimCountyofOrangeStateofCaliforniadescribedasPARCELATHATPORTIONOFTHENORTHEASTQUARTEROFTHENORTHWESTQUARTEROFSECTION26TOWNSHIP4SOUTHRANGE10WESTINTHERANCHOSANJUANCAJONDESANTAANINTHECITYOFANAHEIMCOUNTYOFORANGESTATEOFCALIFORNIAASSHOWNONAMAPRECORDEDINBOOK51PAGE10OFMISCELLANEOUSMAPSRECORDSOFORANGECOUNTYCALIFORNIATOGETHERWITHPARCEL1INTHECITYOFANAHEIMCOUNTYOFORANGESTATEOFCALIFORNIAASSHOWNMISCELLANEOUSMAPSRECORDSOFORANGECOUNTYCALIFORNIATOGETHERWITHONAMAPRECORDEDINBOOK56PAGE11OFPARCELMAPSINTHEOFFICEOFTHECOUNTYRECORDEROFSAIDCOUNTYDESCRIBEDASFOLLOWSPARCEL1ASSHOWNANDDESCRIBEDBYLOTLINEADJUSTMENTPLATN0261RECORDEDOCTOBER111991ASINSTRUMENTN091556204OFOFFICIALRECORDSEXCEPTINGTHEREFROMTHATPORTIONDESCRIBEDINTHEDEEDTOTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIARECORDEDFEBRUARY91998ASINSTRUMENTNO19980071396OFOFFICIALRECORDSOFSAIDORANGECOUNTYPARCELBPARCELS2AND3INTHECITYOFANAHEIMCOUNTYOFORANGESTATEOFCALIFORNIAASSHOWNONAMAPRECORDEDINBOOK56PAGE11OFPARCELMAPSINTHEOFFICEOFTHECOUNTYRECORDEROFSAIDCOUNTYPARCELCTHATPORTIONOFTHENORTHEASTQUARTEROFTHENORTHWESTQUARTEROFSECTION26INTOWNSHIP4SOUTHRANGE10WESTINTHERANCHOSANJUANCAJONDESANTAANAINTHECITYOFANAHEIMCOUNTYOFORANGESTATEOFCALIFORNIAASSHOWNONAMAPRECORDEDINBOOK51PAGE10MISCELLANEOUSMAPSRECORDSOFORANGECOUNTYCALIFORNIADESCRIBEDASFOLLOWSBEGINNINGATAPOINTINTHESOUTHWESTERLYLINEOFTHELANDCONVEYEDTOTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIABYINSTRUMENTN025258FILEDAPRIL91952INTHEOFFICEOFTHEREGISTRAROFTITLESOFSAIDORANGECOUNTYDISTANTTHEREONNORTH400915WESTALONGSAIDSOUTHWESTERLYLINE12000FEETTHENCESOUTH490945WEST45795FEETTOTHESOUTHERLYLINEOFTHENORTHEASTQUARTEROFSAIDNORTHWESTQUARTERTHENCENORTH895125EASTALONGSAIDSOUTHERLYLINE18404FEETTOAPOINTINALINEWHICHBEARSSOUTH490945WESTFROMCR3848PKDOC1PC99226 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 PTHEPOINTOFBEGINNINGTHENCENORTH490945EAST31829FEETTOTHEPOINTOFBEGINNINGWHEREAStheCityPlanningCommissiondidholdapublichearingattheCivicCenterintheCityofAnaheimonDecember201999at130pmnoticeofsaidpublichearinghavingbeendulygivenasrequiredbylawandinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheAnaheimMunicipalCodeChapter1803tohearandconsiderevidenceforandagainstsaidproposedconditionalusepermitandtoinvestigateandmakefindingsandrecommendationsinconnectiontherewithandWHEREASsaidCommissionafterdueinspectioninvestigationandstudymadebyitselfandinitsbehalfandafterdueconsiderationofallevidenceandreportsofferedatsaidhearingdoesfindanddeterminethefollowingfacts1ThattheproposedusesareproperlyonesforwhichaconditionalusepermitisauthorizedbyAnaheimMunicipaCodeSections1848070050051218480700500513and18480700500525topermitinroomkitchenkitchenettesataproposedextendedstayhotelinteriorbuildingsetbackswhicharelessthantwotimestheheightofthebuildingwherelocatedwithin150feetofpropertyzonedMobilehomeParkMHPOverlayandbuildingheightswhichexceedonehalfthedistancebetweenthebuildingandanMHPOverlayZoneboundaryinconnectionwithaproposed407roomhotelcomplexconsistingofa9story97to113foothigh264roomfullservicehotelanda7story75to81foothigh143roomextendedstayhotelandwiththefollowingwaiversaSection18480700900901Minimumstructuralsetbackandyardrequirementsabuttingpublicrightsofway30footwidefullylandscapedsetbackmeasuredfromtheGeneAutryWayultimaterightofwayrequired36to49footwidebuildingsetbackwitha10footwidelandscapedareaproposedbSections18480700900903Minimuminteriorstructuralsetbackandvardrequirements18480701001002permittedencroachmentsintoreauiredvardandsetbackand18480701101102areasandminimumscreeningabuttingMHPOverlavzonedrpogertvminimum20footwidefullylandscapedinteriorsetbackrequiredadjacenttopropertyzonedMHPOverlay20footwideinteriorsetbackareaadjacenttotheMHPOverlayZoningwith10feetoflandscapingand10feetofparkingproposedcSections1848110120Minimumnumberofparkingspacesand18060500200241394spacesrequired378spacesproposeduntilGeneAutryWayisconstructedtoitsultimatewidthand355spacesproposedafterthestreetisconstructedtoitsultimatewidth2ThatthesubjectpropertyislocatedinDevelopmentArea1CommercialRecreationCRDistrictoftheAnaheimResortSpecificPlanNoSP9223ThatwaiversapertainingtominimumstructuralsetbackandyardrequirementsabuttingpublicrightsofwayandbpertainingtominimuminteriorstructuralsetbackandyardrequirementspermittedencroachmentsintorequiredyardandsetbackareasandminimumscreeningabuttingMHPOverlayzonedpropertyareherebyapprovedonthebasisthattheplansandsupportingdocumentationsubmittedbytheapplicantsupportthefindingsthatspecialcircumstanceshavebeenidentifiedduetothesizeshapeandlocationofthepropertythatdonotapplytootheridenticallyzonedpropertiesinthevicinitybecausethepropertyisirregularlyshapedandthepropertyisimpactedbythefutureconstructionofGeneAutryWayincludingthatwhensaidstreetimprovementsarecompletedthe2PC99226 propertywillbelocatedadjacenttobutwillnothaveanydrivewayaccesstoGeneAutryWayduetothestreetbeingelevatedthatthepropertyadjoinstvuopropertieszonedMHPOverlayalongboththewestandsouthpropertylinesandthatthestrictapplicationoftheZoningCodedeprivesthepropertyofprivilegesenjoyedbyotherpropertiesintheAnaheimResortSpecificPlan4ThatwaivercminimumnumberofparkingpacesisherebyapprovedbasedoninformationcontainedintheapprovedrevisedParkingStudypreparedbyKatzOkitsuandAssociatesanddatedDecember11999andthafgrantingoftheparkingwaiveriscontingentuponoperationoftheuseinconformancewiththeassumptionsrelatingtoaheoperationandintensityoftheuseascontainedintheparkingStudythatformedthebasisforapprovalofthiswaiver5ThattheParkingStudydeterminedthataminimumof326onsiteparkingspaceswillaccommodatetheparkingdemandassociatedwiththeproposedhotelandaccessoryusesandthereforethewaiverwillnotcausefeweroffstreetparkingspacestobeprovidedforsubjecthotelcomplexthanthenumberofsuchspacesnecessarytoaccommodateallvehiclesattributabletotheprojectunderthenormalandreasonableforeseeableconditionsofoperationoftheuse6ThattheproposedonsiteparkingwillaccommodatetheparkingdemandassociatedwithallonsiteusesandwillnotincreasethedemandorcompetitionforonstreetparkingintheimmediatevicinityoftheproposeduseandthattherewillnotbeanyonstreetparkingalongthetwopublicstreetsadjacenttothepropertyManchesterAvenueandthefutureGeneAutryWay7Thattrafficcongestionwillnotoccurwithintheonsiteoffstreetparkingareasbecausetheoveralldemandforparkingatthesiteislowerthantheamountofparkingproposedandasurplusofonsiteparkingspacesisexpected8ThattheparkingareahasbeendesignedsothatitwillnotimpedevehicularingresstooregressfromadjacentpropertiesthattheparkingareahasbeendesignedtoprovidesufficientonsitestackingforvehiclesexitingandturningrightontoManchesterAvenuewhichwillbeaonewaystreetandthatnovehicleaccessisproposedtothefutureGeneAutryWay9Thattheproposedusewillnotadverselyaffecttheadjoininglandusesandthegrowthanddevelopmentoftheareainwhichitisproposedtobelocated10Thatthesizeandshapeofthesitefortheproposeduseisadequatetoallowfulldevelopmentoftheproposalinamannernotdetrimentaltotheparticularareanortothepeacehealthsafetyandgeneralwelfare11ThatthetrafficgeneratedbytheproposedusewillnotimposeanundueburdenuponthestreetsandhighwaysdesignedandimprovedtocarrythetrafficintheareaasdemonstratedintherevisedParkingStudy12ThatgrantingofthisconditionalusepermitundertheconditionsimposedwillnotbedetrimentaltothepeacehealthsafetyandgeneralwelfareofthecitizensoftheCityofAnaheim13ThatnooneindicatedtheirpresenceatthepublichearinginoppositiontotheproposalandthatnocorrespondencewasreceivedinoppositionCALIFORNIAENVIRONMENTALQUALITYACTFINDINGThattheAnaheimCityPlanningCommissionhasreviewedtheproposalfora407roomhotelcomplexconsistingofa9story97to113foothigh264roomfullservicehotelanda7story75to81foothigh143roomextendedstayhotelwithinroomkitchenkitchenetteswithinteriorbuildingsetbackswhicharelessthantwotimestheheightofthebuildingwherelocatedwithin150feetofpropertyzonedMobilehomeParkMHPOverlayandwithbuildingheightswhichexceedonehalfthedistancebetweenthebuildingandanMHPOverlayZoneboundaryandwithwaiversofaminimumstructuralsetbackandyardrequirementsabuttingpublicrightsofwaybminimuminteriorstructuralsetbackandyardrequirementspermitted3PC99226 JiencroachmentsintorequiredyardandsetbackareasandminimumscreeningabuttingMHPOverlayzonedpropertyandcminimumnumberofparkingspacesona601acreirregularlyshapedpropertyhavingafrontageofapproximately677feetonthesouthwestsideofManchesterAvenueamaximumdepthofapproximately560feetbeinglocatedapproximately800feetsouthofthecenterlineofKatellaAvenueandfurtherdescribedas18551925SouthManchesterAvenueanddoesherebydeterminethatthepreviouslycertifiedEnvironmentalmpactReportNo313inadequatetoserveasherequiredenvironmentaldocumentationNOWTHEREFOREBEITRESOLVEDthattheAnaheimCityPlanningCommissiondoesherebygrantsubjectPetitionforConditionalUsePermituponthefollowingconditionswhichareherebyfoundtobeanecessaryprerequisitetotheproposeduseofthesubjectpropertyinordertopreservethesafetyandgeneralwelfareoftheCitizensoftheCityofAnaheim1ThatthepropertyownerdevelopershallberesponsibleforcompliancewithallthemitigationmeasuressetforthinMitigationMonitoringPlanNo027specificallycreatedforthisprojectandforcomplyingwiththemonitoringandreportingrequirementsestablishedbytheCityofAnaheimincompliancewithSection210816ofthePublicResourcesCodeFurthermorethepropertyownerdevelopershallberesponsibleforanydirectcostsassociatedwiththemonitoringandreportingrequirementstoensureimplementationofthosemitigationmeasuresidentifiedinMitigationMonitoringPlanNo027whichismadeapartoftheseconditionsofapprovalbyreference2ThatthepropertyownerdevelopershallcomplywithConditionNos1267891011113141516171819202123242526272829303132333435363738394041and44assetforthinOrdinanceNo5454adoptedbytheCityCouncilonSeptember271994inconnectionwiththeadoptionoftheAnaheimResortSpecificPlanNo922saidconditionsbeingincorporatedhereinbyreferenceasifsetforthintheirentirety3ThatgrantingoftheparkingwaiveriscontingentuporroperationoftheuseinconformancewiththeassumptionsandorconclusionsrelatingtotheoperationandintensityofuseascontainedintherevisedParkingStudypreparedbyKatzOkitsuandAssociatesanddatedDecember11999thatformedthebasisforapprovalofsaidwaiverExceedingviolatingintensifyingorotherwisedeviatingfromanyofsaidassumptionsandorconclusionsascontainedintherevisedParkingStudyshallbedeemedaviolationoftheexpressedconditionsimposeduponsaidwaiverwhichshallsubjectthisConditionalUsePermittoterminationormodificationpursuanttotheprovisionsofSections1803091and1803092oftheAnaheimMunicipalCode4Thatpriortotheissuanceofagradingpermitorthefirstbuildingpermitincludingfoundationonlypermitswhicheveroccursfirstalotlineadjustmentconsolidatingalloftheparcelswhichcomprisethesubjectpropertyintoone1parcelshallbesubmittedtothePublicWorksDepartmentforreviewandapprovalbytheCityEngineerandthatsaidlotlineadjustmentshallthenberecordedintheOrangeCountyRecordersOffice5AspartoftheFinalSitePlanapplicationplansshallbesubmittedtothePlanningDepartmentshowingadenselayeredlandscapescreenconsistingoftreesplantedatnogreaterseparationsthanten10feetoncentershrubsclingingvinesandgroundcovertobeinstalledintheten10footwidelandscapesetbackareasalongandadjacenttothenorthwestandsouthpropertylinesThetreedensityshallbeinaccordancewiththeVeryDenseTreeDensityFactorsetforthintheDesignPlanoftheAnaheimResortSpecificPlanatapointfactorof08orgreaterandshallbeequivalenttothetreedensitythatwouldbeotherwiseassociatedwithatwenty20footwideinteriorsetbackareaalongsaidpropertylinesPriortofinalbuildingandzoninginspectionsthepropertyownerdevelopershallsubmitalettertothePlanningDepartmentfromalicensedlandscapearchitectcertifyingthatthelandscapeinstallationandirrigationsystemshavebeeninstalledincompliancewiththeapprovedlandscapeplanreflectiveofthiscondition4PC99226 6Thatongoingduringoperationofthehotelsthereshallbenotractortrailerparkingpermittedonsiteandthatthereshallbenooutdoorstorageofvehiclesorotheritemsintheparkinglotarea7Thatwithinaperiodofone1yearfromthedateofthisresolutionandpriortoissuanceofagradingpermitorthefirstbuildingpermitincludingfoundationonlypermitswhicheveroccursfirstthepropertyownerdevelopershallsubmitacompleteFinalSitePlanapplicationtothePlanningDepartmentforreviewandapprovalbythePlanningCommission8Thafiongoingduringoperationofthehotelsguestroomsshallnoteberentedorletforperiodsoflessthantwelve12consecutivehoursormorethanthirty30consecutivedays9Thatongoingduringoperationofthehotelseveryoccupiedguestroomshallbeprovidedwithdailymaidservice10ThatongoingduringoperationofthehotelsthehoteloperatormanagershallmaintainacompleteguestregistryorguestcardsystemwhichincludesthefullnameaddressdateofbirthandverifieddriverslicenseorlegalidentificationandvehicleregistrationnumberofallregisteredguestsdateofregistrationlengthofstayandroomratewhichshallbemadeavailableupondemandbyanypoliceofficercodeenforcementofFicerorlicenseinspectoroftheCityofAnaheim11ThatongoingduringoperationofthehotelsastatementshallbeprintedonthefaceoftheguestregistrationcardtobecompletedbytheguestwhenregisteringadvisingthattheregisterisopentoinspectionbyanypoliceofficercodeenforcementofficerorlicenseinspectoroftheCityofAnaheimoranyotherCityofAnaheimpersonnelforlawcodelicenseenforcementpurposes12ThatongoingduringoperationofthehotelsthepropertyowneroperatorofthehotelshallcomplywiththeprovisionsofSection212020oftheAnaheimMunicipalCodepertainingtotheoperatooscollectionoftransientoccupancytaxes13ThatongoingduringoperationofthehotelsallavailableroomratesshallbeprominentlydisplayedinaconspicuousplaceintheofficeorlobbyareaofeachhotelclearlyvisibletohotelguestsandthafithepropertyownerandorhoteloperatorshallcomplywiththeprovisionsofSection409010oftheAnaheimMunicipalCodepertainingtothepostingofroomrates14Thatnopayphonessha11bepermittedoutsidethebuildingsanywhereontheproperty15ThatpriortothefirstfinalbuildingandzoninginspectionthepropertyownerdevelopershallinstallsignsattheproposeddrivewayexitindicatingrightturnonlyR59andnoleftturnR17ThesignspecificationformaterialsandinstallationshallconformtotheCaliforniaDepartmentofTransportationTrafficManualandshallalsobesubjecttoreviewandapprovalbytheCitysTrafficandTransportationManager16ThatongoingduringoperationofthehotelsthehotelsshalloperateinconformancewiththelettersofOperationdatedDecember131999andJuly311999submittedbythepetitionerwhichlettersareprovidedasAttachmentAtotheDecember201999StaffReporttothePlanningCommissionandareincorporatedhereinbyreferenceasifsetforthintheirentiretyViolationoroperationcontrarytosaidlettersofoperationshallsubjectthisConditionalUsePermittoterminationormodificationpursuanttotheprovisionsofSections1803091and1803092oftheAnaheimMunicipalCode5PC99226 u1TThatpriortocommencementofactivitiesauthorizedbythisresolutionorpriortofinalbuildingandzoninginspectionswhicheveroccursfirstsubjectpropertyshallbedevelopedsubstantiallyinaccordancewiththebuildingJayoutandorientationonsiteparkingandcirculationstructuralsetbackandyardareasfloorareasandbuildingheightsshownontheplansandspecificationssubmittedtotheCityofAnaheimbythepetitionerandwhichplansareonfilewiththePlanningDepartmentmarkedExhibitNos4through10andtheapprovedFinalSitePlanpursuanttoConditionNo718ThatapprovalofthisapplicationconstitutesapprovaloftheproposedrequestonlytotheextentthatitcomplieswiththeAnaheimMunicipalZoningCodeandanyotherapplicableCityStateandFederalregulationsApprovaldoesnotincltadeanyactionorfindingsastocomplianceorapprovaloftherequestregardinganyotherapplicableordinanceregulationorrequirementBEITFURTHERRESOLVEDthattheAnaheimCityPlanningCommissiondoesherebyfindanddeterminethatadoptionofthisResolutionisexpresslypredicateduponapplicantscompliancewitheachandalloftheconditionshereinabovesetforthShouldanysuchconditionoranypartthereofbedeclaredinvalidorunenforceablebythefinaljudgmentofanycourtofcompetentjurisdictionthenthisResolutionandanyapprovalshereincontainedshallbedeemednullandvoidTHEFOREGOINGRESOLUTIONwasadoptedatthePlanningCommissionmeetingofDecember201999OriginalsignedbyPhyilisRBoydstuntCHAIRPERSONANAHEIMCITYPLANNINGCOMMISSIONATTESTOriginssignedbyiVlargaritaSoiorioSECRETARYANAHEIMCITYPLANNINGCOMMISSIONSTATEOFCALIFORNIACOUNTYOFORANGEssCITYOFANAHEIM1MargaritaSoiorioSecretaryoftheAnaheimCityPlanningCommissiondoherebycertifythattheforegoingresolutionwaspassedandadoptedatameetingoftheAnaheimCityPlanningCommissionheldonDecember201999bythefollowingvoteofthemembersthereofAYESCOMMISSIONERSBOSTWICKBOYDSTUNBRISTOLKOOSNAPOLESVANDERBILTNOESCOMMISSIONERSNONEABSENTCOMMISSIONERSARNOLDINWITNESSWHEREOFlhavehereuntosetmyhandthisdayof2000originalsignedbyirargaritaSoiriaSECRETARYANAHEIMCITYPLANNINGCOMMISSION6PC99226 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 1ItfiIVVUCKATELLAAVENUENL666714p565793G9iGCuP3345MLZ95CuP31016667t4oCjCUP2698555621ZivAtCUP3345sPART9vSTOREyo92qSR92CUP3029NLMOBILEHOMISP9226667145556213MOBILEHOMEPARKYACjpZSP922ACCESSDRLVECUP821QSP922MOBILE1DUHOME9SP922727331Sp922ti868728spyF458sPg226263015959CUP415360610591CUP47ACUP8CUP4153bo7t34SP922trAC565792k56575oTv2488T7o7t34828319MHPOVERLAYC2536wF56679256575otyACyniuEONZYyrtltT8779CP4U7YiM08ILEHOMENTvsACAPARKSP298268876o6t05P4iCU53CPU2648v28VAVCANT9Lt40737NACAFi626597GF6T05575VT1817TRACTN0353592SP922Z596055868728SP922MOBILEQ4DU8DU8DUSP922656612V904HOME828319cuP1464PWAKEFIELDAVENUEMHPOVERLAYZONEvt717v276CH727354CUP4ZCOPIERANDCUP1361ZW4DU8DU8DUMOBILEHOMEPARKFAXMACHINEHOIJROOMV2726BAUEROJAGUARSubjectProperty4153DateDecember20999ConditionalUsePermitNoScale1200RequestedByRDOLSONREALESTATEGROUPINCQSNo98TOPERMITA407ROOMHOTELCOMPLEXCONSISTINGOFAgSTORY264ROOMFULLSERVICEHOTELANDA7STORY143ROOMEXTENDEDSTAYHOTELWITHINROOMKITCHEPJKITCHENETTEFACILITIESANDBUILDINGHEIGHTSEXCEEDINGONEHALFTHEDISTANCEFROMPROPERTYENCOMPASSEDBYTHEMOBILEHOMEPARKMHPOVERLAYZONEJITHWAIVERS18551925SouthManchesterAvenue ATTACHMENT NO. 7 liwwxThisplatisforyouraidinlocatingyourlandwithreferencetostreetsandotherparcelsWhilethisplatIsbelievedtobecorrecttheCompanyAssumesnoliabilityforanylossoccurringbyreasonofreliancethereonCLTLawyersjitleCmpanyPARN12NMf4SEC26T4SR10M137X32rH15WPYASPRCPAREOf07LpARCfCawfrAssfssnaDErIPLwvosESaer1NEASSfSSL1QAGRfSNOCUARANIfAS70SACCLWACrgLrtASSCESANrLABLfY1fQPO7gfRUSESNOl70BfgEPRQDUCEDALRCN75RSfRrfOoCLwrRIWILOPAMGfCOLwrYASSESSLN1996ss23JKATELLAAVENUEnLr6KATELLArAVENGEIIErrIIyaTRAiCTIIICzJtACrUZoyiiis9zoosZD82wr0grO3PARff78saZQwennND498AmooQQ20yByeFaW48rw7ae84tSCaIrtoyJNWmKpv79321mssvxd6iliUoMSSN1121025Aro47Qb4sGrntiypxrYCAVKSLIEtLfNMr10jrl343343490ulLi9l44pAGlRCN1961TRACTNOf98ALMr92fNOTEASSESSORSBLOCKdASSESSORSAfAPPARCELIUAPPM48f056fl689PARCELNUMBERSBOOK137PACE32SNOIYNNCIRCLESCOUNTYOFORANGEa ATTACHMENT NO. 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 9 2499/012377-0108 3144848.2 a03/22/12 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Director FROM: David B. Cosgrove, Counsel for the City of Anaheim DATE: March 22, 2012 FILE NO.: 012377-0108 RE: Legal Analysis of Michael Leifer's Opposition to Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-05573 and Variance No. 2011-04870 On behalf of his clients – Hospitality Properties Trust and Intercontinental Hotels Group – attorney Michael H. Leifer submitted a letter to the Planning Commission dated January 17, 2012, opposing the City of Anaheim’s (“City”) application for Conditional Use Permit No. 2011- 05573 and Variance No. 2011-0428 (collectively, “CUP No. 2011-05573”). In the March 26, 2012 Planning Commission Report (the “March 26th Report”), City Staff provided a brief response to Mr. Leifer’s concerns. This memorandum supplements the March 26th Report with the legal authority supporting the City’s position. FN: For a summary of the events leading up to the City’s application for CUP No. 2011- 05573, please refer to the “Background” section of the March 26th Report. I. ORAL REPRESENTATIONS FROM CITY REPRESENTATIVES CANNOT CREATE AN ENFORCEABL E CONTRACT In his letter, Mr. Leifer appears to argue that, because his clients invested substantial resources in reliance on oral and informal written representations that the City might provide a parking structure in connection with the Gene Autry Way overpass project, the City entered an enforceable contract. This argument is legally and factually inaccurate. Informal representation(s) could not, as a matter of law, create an enforceable contract with the City. Section 518 of the City’s Charter explicitly provides: “The City shall not be bound by any contract, except as hereinafter provided, unless the same shall be made in writing, approved by the City Council and signed on behalf of the City by the Mayor and City Council or by such officer or officers as shall be designated by City Council.” Settled caselaw provides that, “where a charter requires approval by the city council and signature by the mayor or other authorized person, a contract that was not signed by the mayor cannot be enforced.” (S. Bay Senior Hous. Corp. v. City of Hawthorne (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1231, 1236, citing Frick v. City of Los Angeles (1896) 115 Cal. 512, 514-516; see also G. L. Mezzetta v. City of Am. Canyon (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1087, 1093, citing Gov. Code § 40602 [explaining that, like charter cities, general law cities are also bound by the “the requirement that contracts with the City be in writing, approved by the city council, approved as to form by the city attorney, and signed by either the mayor or the city manager”].) As a rule, “[a] contract entered into by a local ATTACHMENT NO. 10 Planning Director March 22, 2012 Page 2 2499/012377-0108 3144848.2 a03/22/12 government without legal authority is ‘wholly void,’ ultra vires, and unenforceable.” (G. L. Mezzetta v. City of Am. Canyon (2001) 78 Cal.App.4th 1087, 1092, quoting Midway Orchards v. County of Butte (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 765, 78.) This is true even if the other party expended substantial money and/or resources in reliance on the City’s representations. (See, e.g., Dynamic Ind. Co. v. City of Long Beach (1958) 159 Cal.App.2d 294, 298-299 [where a charter requires approval by the city council and signature by the city manager or other authorized person, there is no valid contract if it is not signed by an authorized person and “[t]he fact that [the other party] expended a substantial sum in reliance upon the [city council’s] resolution is immaterial in view of the charter limitation”]; McCann v. City of Los Angeles (1978) 79 Cal. App. 3d 112, 118-119 [“The deputy city attorney’s oral statement at the February meeting could not bind the city to a $ 32,000 contract in violation of city charter provisions requiring such contracts to be in writing and signed by authorized persons following bidding procedures. [Citing city charter.] Plaintiff’s alleged reliance thereon cannot create an estoppel where application of estoppel against a governmental entity would result in nullification of a strong rule of policy adopted for the benefit of the public.”].) Here, the City’s records do not indicate that the City made any representations that it would build a below ground parking structure. As discussed in the March 26th report, the underground parking structure was – at most – a “tentative” site plan. (See Parking Study, pp. 13, 15 [Attachment No. __ to March 26th Staff Report].) Accordingly, Mr. Leifer’s clients’ reliance on these 1999 land use entitlements is misplaced. II. A CUP IS NOT A “CONT RACT” Mr. Leifer appears to argue that the land use entitlements the City approved in 1999 – CUP No. 4153 – created contractual rights. This argument is meritless. A permit is not a contract. (County of Mendocino v. Williams Communs. (N.D. Cal. 2006) 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34198, at *12 [“California courts have also specifically held that permits are not contracts”]; see, e.g., County Sanitation Dist. v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 98, 108 [holding that a wastewater discharge permit was not a contract]; Scott-Free River Expeditions, Inc. v. County of El Dorado (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 896, 913 [holding that county permit authorizing use of a navigable river for commercial rafting was not a contract]; 16 Ops. Atty. Gen. 29, 30 (Opinion No. 50-113, July 28, 1950) [issuing an opinion stating that a licence or permit issued by the State in exercise of its police power, permitting conduct of activity otherwise unlawful, is not a contract and confers no vested right in the sense that the law under which it is passed cannot ever be amended or repealed]; California Bio-Mass v. City of San Bernardino (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Oct. 18, 2006) 2006 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 9728, *59-52, citing Gov. Code § 65901(a) [explaining that “a CUP is not a contract or agreement”; rather, “[a] CUP represents an exercise of a municipality’s police power, as embodied in its zoning ordinance, to provide for variances from that ordinance.”].) Moreover, as discussed above, the Parking Study submitted with CUP Planning Director March 22, 2012 Page 3 2499/012377-0108 3144848.2 a03/22/12 No. 4153 specified that the site plans were merely “tentative.” (See Parking Study, pp. 13, 15 [Attachment No. __ to March 26th Staff Report].) III. A CUP CANNOT ENTITLE PROPERTY THAT FALLS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF ITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION Like any other type of permit, a CUP cannot convey entitlements to property that is not included within the CUP’s legal description. (See, e.g., People v. Osborn (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 764, 772 [“A valid permit would not immunize a permittee who acted outside the scope of the permit”].) As discussed in the March 26th Report, the properties identified in CUP No. 4153 (1855 – 1925 South Manchester Avenue) are different from the properties identified in City-initiated application for CUP No. 2011-05573 (1929 – 1937 South Manchester Avenue). Moreover, to avoid any confusion, the Planning Commission Resolution recommending approval of CUP No. 4153 includes a legal description of the property the CUP affects. (See Resolution No. PC99-226 (Dec. 20, 1999).) This legal description does not include any of the properties that are the focus of the City-initiated application for CUP No. 2011-0553. Accordingly, CUP No. 4153 could not have created entitlements for these properties. * * * If you have any questions about the foregoing memorandum, please contact counsel for the City of Anaheim. ATTACHMENT NO. 11