The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2006/03/20 (2)• Call To Order Preliminary Plan Review 12:00 P.M. • Staff update to Commission on various City developments and issues (As requested by Planning Commission) • Preliminary Plan Review for items on the March 20, 2006 agenda • Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. 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. • Pledge Of Allegiance • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment H :ldocslcl eri callagen das1032006. d oc Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Monday, March 20, 2OO6 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California • Chairman: Gail Eastman • Chairman Pro - Tempore: Cecilia Flores • Commissioners: Kelly Buffa, Joseph Karaki, Ed Perez, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e -mail address: planninacommissionOanaheim.net (03/20/06) Page 1 Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. Consent Calendar: The items on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and /or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Reports and Recommendations 1A.(a) CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY - APPROVED (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -04975 (TRACKING NO. CUP2006- 05074) Minutes Agent: Reky Hiramoto, Beazer Homes, 1800 East Imperial Highway, Suite 200, Brea, CA 92821 Location: 1818 South State College Boulevard: Property is approximately 3.4 acres located south and east of the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue with frontages of 327 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and 105 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue (Platinum Centre Condominiums). Request to determine substantial conformance for modifications to previously- approved exhibits for an attached 265 -unit condominium project within the Platinum Triangle. Continued from the March 6, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. 1B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of March 6, 2006. (Motion) Request for Continuance to April 3, 2006 Project Planner: (a vazquez ©ana heim. ne t) H:\docs\clericakagendas\032006.doc (03/20/06) Page 2 Public Hearing Items: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-05060 2d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2005 -00024 Owner: Pietro T. Trozzi, 9471 Gateshead Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Agent: Rick Solberg, Solberg & Associates, 201 East Center Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 3242 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 1.5 acres, located east and south of the southeast corner of Westchester Drive and Lincoln Avenue, having frontages of 136 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and 187 feet on the east side of Westchester Drive (Maria's Pizzeria and Billiards). Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -05060 — Request to permit a restaurant and billiard facility with the on- premises sale and consumption of beer and wine with waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. Determination of Public Convenience and Necessity No. 2005 -00024 — Request to permit sales of beer and wine for on- premises consumption within a restaurant and billiard facility. Continued from the February 6, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. Public Convenience or Necessity Resolution No. 3a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. VARIANCE NO. 2005 -04655 3c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005 -157 Owner: Gary Calkins Trust, 6263 East Trail Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807 Agent: Steve Ellis, 4742 Yorba Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 Location: 6263 East Trail Drive: Property is approximately 3.2 acres having a frontage of 47 feet at the terminus of Trail Drive and is located 145 feet west of the centerline of Whitestone Drive. Variance No. 2005 -04655 — Request waivers of (a) maximum structural height, (b) maximum retaining wall height and (c) lot frontage on a public or private street to construct a single - family residence. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -157 — To establish a 2 -lot, 2 -unit detached single - family residential subdivision. Continued from the January 9, 23, and February 6, and 22, 2006, Planning Commission meetings. Variance Resolution No. H :\docs\cle ricallagendas1032006. doc Request for Continuance to April 17, 2006 Project Planner: (kwong2 (5J a nah eim. net) Q.S. Project Planner: (a vazguez(.anaheim.net) (03/20/06) Page 3 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. VARIANCE NO. 2005 -04675 Owner: Therese Hotvedt, The Shops at Stadium Towers, 1100 Newport Center Drive, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Agent: Peter Louis /John Hill, 3195 -B Airport Loop Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Location: 2410 - 2420 East Katella Avenue: Property is approximately 2.4 acres, having a frontage of 600 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and is located 37 feet east of the centerline of Howell Avenue (Stadium Towers Plaza). Request waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) permitted number of tenants on a monument sign, (c) maximum number of monument signs, (d) maximum height of monument sign, (e) permitted number of wall signs, (f) permitted location of wall signs, and (g) maximum height of letters /logos on wall signs to waive minimum number of parking spaces and permitted signs for a previously- approved commercial center. Continued from the January 23, and February 6, and 22, and March 6, 2006, Planning Commission meetings. Variance Resolution No. 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05066 5c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17016 Owner: Brian Dror, 5967 West 3 Street, Suite 102, Los Angeles, CA 90036 Agent: Rey Berona, Condo Conversions.com, 7439 La Palma Avenue, Unit 309, Buena Park, CA 90620 Location: 729 South Knott Avenue: Property is approximately 1.47 acres, having a frontage of 150 on the west side of Knott Avenue and is located 193 feet north of the centerline of Rome Avenue. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 -05066 — Request to convert a 54 -unit apartment complex into a 54 -unit residential condominium complex. Tentative Tract Map No. 17016 — To establish a 1 -lot, 54 -unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. H :ldocslcle ricallagendas1032006. doc Project Planner: (a vazquezt&) anaheim. net) Request for Continuance to April 3, 2006 Project Planner: (Ora mirez @anaheim. net) Q.S. 2 (03/20/06) Page 4 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006 -00174 6c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -05064 6e. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005 -156 Owner: Saint John the Baptist Greek Orthodox Church, 405 North Dale Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 Agent: Karen Otis, Otis Architecture, 16871 Seawitch Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Location: 321, 405, 425, 431, 509 and 511 North Dale Avenue: Property is approximately 4.9 acres having a frontage of 767 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue and is located 668 feet south of the centerline of Crescent Avenue. Portion A: This irregularly- shaped 2.8 acre property has a frontage of 332 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue and is located 483 feet north of the centerline of Yale Avenue (1405 North Dale Avenue). Portion B: This irregularly - shaped .93 -acre property has a frontage of 173 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue and is located 111 feet south of the centerline of Baylor Avenue (509 and 511 North Dale Avenue). Reclassification No. 2006 - 00174 — Request reclassification of Portion A and B from the T (Transition) zone to the RS -2 (Residential, Single - Family) zone, or a less intense zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 - 05064 — Request to expand an existing Greek Orthodox Church to permit a new administration building, multi - purpose hall and religious school with waivers of (a) maximum structural height and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -156 — To combine six lots into one lot. Reclassification Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -05069 Owner: Public Storage Euro Partnership, 701 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201 Agent: Dean Grobbelaar, Pacific Planning Group, INC., 23412 Moulton Parkway, Suite 140, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Location: 4880 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately 3.5 acres, having a frontage of 340 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and is located 115 feet west of the centerline of Manassero Street. Request to construct a five -story self storage building with building heights exceeding 60 feet with waivers of (a) maximum floor area ratio and (b) maximum fence height. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. Project Planner: (dherrick@ anaheim. ne t) Q.S. 12 Request for Continuance to April 17, 2006 Project Planner: Qnixon@ anaheim. ne t) Q.S. H:\docs\clericakagendas\032006.doc (03/20/06) Page 5 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 8b. VARIANCE NO. 2006 -04679 Owner: Tim Dolan, Wescom Credit Union, 123 South Marengo Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101 Agent: AKC Services, 31681 Riverside Drive, Suite B, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Location: 5601 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately 3.25 acres, having a frontage of 489 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and is located 591 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway. Request to permit five wall signs and a monument sign for an existing office building with waivers of (a) maximum number of monument signs and (b) maximum letter height for wall signs. Variance Resolution No. *Advertised as industrial 9a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 331 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) AND SUPPLEMENTAL EIR NO. 1278 AND EIR NO. 1716 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) 9b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -00441 Owner: Irvine Land Company, LLC., 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Agent: City of Anaheim, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: This General Plan Amendment applies to an approximately 1.45 -mile planned segment of Jamboree Road, west of and parallel to the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR -241) between Weir Canyon Road and the southern City limits. City- initiated (Planning Department) request to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan to remove a planned Hillside Secondary Arterial roadway (identified as Jamboree Road). General Plan Amendment Resolution No. Project Planner: Qnixon@ anaheim. ne t) Q.S. 184 Project Planner: (skoehm@ ana heim. ne t) Q.S. 233, 234 H: \docs \clerical \agendas \032006. doc (03/20/06) Page 6 10a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 331 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 137 AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 137a 10b. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE MOUNTAIN PARK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-4 (TRACKING NO. SPN2006- 00033) 10c. MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT NO. 2006 -00134 10d. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2006 -00004 10e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16665 10f. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2006 -00001 Owner: Irvine Land Company, LLC., 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Agent: Bryan Austin, Irvine Community Development, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: The Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 area encompasses 3,001 acres located generally in Gypsum Canyon, south of the Riverside (SR -91) Freeway, in Orange County, California. The majority of the project site is in the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim; however, open space areas in the southern- and eastern -most portions of the project site are in unincorporated County of Orange jurisdiction in the City of Anaheim's sphere -of- influence. SR -91 is immediately north of the project site, and the SR -241 bisects the site into eastern and western segments. Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan area consist of approximately 343 acres located at the southern terminus of Weir Canyon Road, generally bordered on the west by The Summit of Anaheim Hills development and on the east by the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR -241). Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 (SPN2006- 00033) — Request to amend the Mountain Park Specific Plan conditions of approval and zoning and development standards to add refinements and clarifications including, but not limited to, fiscal conditions and sign regulations. Miscellaneous Permit No. 2006 -00134 — Requests review and approval of a Development Area Plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Final Site Plan No. 2006 -00004 — Requests review and approval of a final site plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Tentative Tract Map No. 16665 - To establish a 150 numbered and 37 lettered lot (advertised as 33 lettered lot) residential subdivision encompassing 145 single - family residential lots, an elementary school site, a public park site, open space lots, public and private streets and a water reservoir site within Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006 -00001 — To remove 149 specimen trees within Mountain Park Development Areas 3 and 7 and replace with 2,980 trees. Amendment No. 2 To The Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 Resolution No. Project Planner: (sk oeh m@ a na heim. ne t) Q.S. 227, 228, 233, 234 H: \docs \clerical \agendas \032006. doc (03/20/06) Page 7 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING 1 hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 4:00 p.m. March 17, 2006 (TIME) (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND CO~UN~}CI~L~D/I~SPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: ~ L'L(J~ i'/Y /~(~,I (I.P.I~_~ 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 Ccuncil at, or prior to, the public hearing. RIGHTS OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits and Variances will be final 22 days after Planning Commission action and any action regarding Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 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 khe 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. ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department, (714) 765-5139. Notification no later than 10:OD a:m. on the Friday before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Recorded decision information is available 24 hours a day by calling the Planning Department's Automated Tele hone S stem at 714-765-5139. H:\dotslclerical\agendas\032006.doc (03/20/06) Page 8 SCHEDULE 2006 April 3 April 17 May 1 May 15 May 31 (Wed) June 12 June 26 July 10 July 24 August 7 August 21 September 6 (Wed) September 18 October 2 October 16 October 30 November 13 November 27 December 11 December 27 (Wed) H:\docs\clericaRagendas\032006.doc (03/20/06) Page 9 J) 0 -15 to SE) 6 -19 5 -42 F15 o SE) 14 .19 -42 '7 1 (PTMU) RCL 99 -00 -15 Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 66 -67 -14 RCL 56 -57 -93 CUP 1652 CUP 447 S VAR 2618 MOTEL I (PTMU) TTM 16618 RCL 99 -00 -15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 66 -67 -14 RCL 55 -56 -19 RCL 54 -55 -42 T -CUP 200 4-04 939 CUP 2 00 4-0 4906 CUP 2862 CUP 1427 DAG 2005 -00010 DAG 20 04-00 002 STADIUM LOFTS MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM I (PTMU) RCL 99-00 -15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 56-57-93 CUP 447S IND. FIRM I (PTMU) RCL 99 -00 -15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 56 -57 -93 CUP447 S IND. FIRM KATELLA AVENUE I (PTMU) RCL 99 -00 -15 (Res. of Int. to SE) or'i gc g7 C 5 I (PTMU) RCL 99 -00 -15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RC! RR -87 -14 I (PTMU) RCL 99 -00 -15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 66 -67 -14 RCL 56 -57 -93 CUP 3836 CUP 1370 S.S. CUP447 S CUP 1319 CUP447 S MOTEL CUP 3386 VAR 4129 I (PTMU) RCL 99 -00 -15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 66 -67 -14 RCL 56 -57 -93 CUP 1371 CUP 447 S VAR 2561 • —' RETAIL TILE = I (PTMU) RCL 99-00 -15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 66-67-14 RCL 56 -57 -93 CUP 2003 -04721 CUP 447S SMALL IND. FIRMS — N TOWN PLACE SUITES BANK O -L (PTMU) RCL 90 -91 -17 RCL 66-67-14 RCL 56 -57 -93 T -CUP 2000 -04260 CUP 4141 CUP 3957 CUP 3406 CUP 690 TPM NO. 97-155 REST. 1 (P1 MU1 CUP 2226 CUP 1745 VACANT (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 90 -91 -17 RCL 66 -67 -14 60-61-113 RCL 56 -57 -93 CUP 3957 CUP 3406 CUP 690 VAR 2765 O -L (P TMU) J 1 PTMU ) P CUP 2644 McD 2841 CUP 2588 VAR 2408 DRIVE - THRU CUP 2426 VAR 1822 REST. CUP 1814 VAR 2448 O -L (PTMU) TTM 16825 RCL 99 -00 -15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 86 -87 -22 RCL 66 -67 -14 RCL 56 -57 -93 CUP 2006 -05074 T -CUP 2005 -05001 CUP 2005 -04975 CUP 2883 CUP 1111 FSP 2005 -00005 DAG 2005 -00005 VACANT PR (PTMU) RCL 99 -00 -15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 56 -57 -9 CUP 2400 CUP 750 O -L (PTMU) REST. (CUP 3356 T) 105' .... ........ I A PARKING O (PTMU) O -L (PTMU) RCL 2004 -00129 RCL 99-00-15 BALLY m.ces. of Int. to SE) RCL 90-91-17 RCL 66 -67 -14 RCL 56 -57 -93 CUP 4141 CUP 3957 s\ CUP 3406 I (PTMU) RCL 99 -00 -15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 66 -67 -14 RCL 59 -60 -61 Res of Intent to MH) RCL 56 -57 -93 VAR 2466 O -L (PTMU) FOOD I COURT i 2 r z CUP 2005 -04967 DAG 2005-00004 FSP 2005 -00004 KAYCO P L,4� GPA 2005-00435 OFFICE BLD MIS 2005-00113 ZCA 2005 -00044 I (PTMU) RCL 99 -00 -15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 59 -60 -61 (Res of Intent to MH) RCL 56 -57 -93 VAR 2466 ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE. O -L (P R C�I U ? p 0( CUP OFFICE ANGEL STADIUM OF ANAHEIM Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -04975 TRACKING NO. CUP2006 -05074 Requested By: REKY HIRAMOTO 1818 South State College Boulevard Subject Property Date: March 20, 2006 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 118 Item No. 1A 10009 1 -A. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: REQUEST: BACKGROUND: (3) RECOMMENDATION: (5) SR -CU P2006- 05074(cont.3- 20- 06)akv Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 1 -A a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY- APPROVED) b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 - 04975— DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE (Motion for continuance) (TRACKING NO. CUP 2006 - 05074) (1) This irregularly- shaped, 3.4 acre property is located south and east of the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue with frontages of 327 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and 105 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue (1818 South State College Boulevard - Platinum Centre Condominiums). (2) The petitioner requests a determination of substantial conformance for modifications to previously- approved exhibits for an attached 265 -unit condominium project within the Platinum Triangle under authority of Code Section No. 18.60.190.020. This property is currently vacant and is zoned I (PTMU) and O -L (PTMU) (Industrial; Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay and Low Intensity Office; Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay). The Anaheim General Plan designates this property as well as properties to the north (across Katella Avenue), east, south and west (across State College Boulevard) for Mixed Use land uses. The PTMLUP further indicates the property is located in the Katella District of the PTMU Overlay. (4) This item was continued from the March 6, 2006, Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit revised plans based on the Commission's concerns with the revised elevations. The applicant, Karen Sully, has submitted the attached e -mail, dated March 15, 2006, requesting a further continuance to the April 3, 2006, Commission meeting in order to further refine and work on the architectural details of the building elevations. That the Commission, by motion, continue this item to the April 3, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. Page 1 Hi Amy, Thank you in advance for you consideration in this regard. Sincerely, Karen S. Sully Project Manager, Land Use Sheldon Group 901 Dove Street, Suite 140 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 777 -9400 Phone (949) 355 -2011 Mobile (949) 777 -9410 Fax karen(a7sheldongrp.com E -mail www.sheldonqrp.com Website Attachment — R&R 1 -A This e -mail serves as a formal request for a continuance of the Substantial Conformance determination for the Platinum Centre Condos (CUP No. 2205 -04975 and CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration (previously approved)) that is set to go before the Planning Commission on Monday, March 20, 2006. We respectfully request a two -week continuance to be heard at the April 3, 2006 Planning Commission meeting in order to further refine and work on the architectural details of the building elevations. Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -05060 Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2005 -00024 Requested By: PIETRO T. TROZZI CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -05060 - REQUEST TO PERMIT A RESTAURANT AND BILLIARD FACILITY WITH ON- PREMISES SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF BEER AND WINE WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES. 3242 West Lincoln Avenue - Maria's Pizzeria and Billiards Item No. 2 RS-A-43,000) T -CUP 2001 -04459 T -CUP 2001 -04437 RCL 82 -83 -28 CUP 4181 CUP 527 MOBILE HOME PARK T RCL 86 -87 -35 (Res dint to RM -3000) 1 DU T -CUP 2001 -04459 T -CUP 2001 -04437 T -VAR 2001 -04454 VAR 3666 VAR 2365 CUP 4181 C -G RCL 63 -64 -46 CUP 4164 RESTAURANT RM -4 RCL 59 -60-60 VAR 1380 0 U SMALL SHOP RCL 62 -63 -1 RCL 56 -57 -7 T -CUP RM -2 - 2001-04370 RCL 79 -80 -04 CUP 4140 CUP 1691 g- VAR 3117 - C-G VAR 3102 MEDICAL I ANAHEIM WES and TOWNHOMES 1 PROFESS -' 14 DU 10NAL 1 1 1 1 1 West Anaheim Commercial Corridors , (Y C -G I p RCL 61 -62 -1 CA 414 RCL 8 88 55 I VACANT LAND VAR 3800 R M -4 RCL 78 -79 -15 VAR 3051 APARTMENTS 194 DU RCL 60 -61 -20 --�_ VAR 1380 m Mt= MI aim pL pNTF DR • ELEMENTARY SCHOOL T CUP 3440 CUP 2405 SENIOR CITIZEN APARTMENTS 135 DU LINCOLN AVE 1.0-136. CUP 414 VAR 1726 S CUP 404 APARTMENTS 19 DU EACH RM -4 RM -4 RCL 84 -85 -16 VAR 3451 60 DU APTS. s — West Anaheim Commercial Corridors RM -4 RCL 63 -64 -19 VAR 1596 31 DU C -G RCL 66 -67 -47 RCL 63 -64 -37 CUP 912 VETERI- NARIAN C -G RCL 63- 64 -13C CUP 2580 VAR 2692 ECONO- LUBE 6 1 C -G PCN 98 -07 RCL 61 -62 -16 )RCL 60- 61 -20) CUP 2005 -05060 )CUP 2963) CUP4050 (CUP2838) CUP 2138 (CUP 2479) PCN 2005 -00024 (CUP 1054) (VAR 2309 S) SHOPPING. CENTER • RM -4 RCL 73 -74 -33 APARTMENTS 1 1 1 C -G CUP 2747 CUP 1900 CUP 822 CUP 3534 VAR 2437 Mc DONAL D'S REST. C -G RCL 63 -64 -131 CUP 3534 CUP 1783 1 I GG CUP 1026 RCL P 2168 VAR 2752 CUP 2168 VAR 1771 ' CUP 1622 CARWASH/REST. CUP 1458 mi J RBI -4 RCL 62 -63 -96 VAR 1562 4 DUIEACH RM -4 RCL 62 -63 -19 RM -4 RCL 62 -63 -96 VAR 1562 4 DU EACH CABOT DR RCL 7 RM -4 VAR 2690 -73- 1 Subject Property Date: March 20, 2006 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 5 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2005 -00024 -TO PERMIT SALES OF BEER AND WINE FOR ON- PREMISES CONSUMPTION WITHIN A RESTAURANT AND BILLIARD FACILITY. 2150 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion) 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (Motion) 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -05060 (Resolution) 2d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2005 -00024 (Withdrawn) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This irregularly- shaped, 1.5 -acre property is located east and south of the southeast corner of Westchester Drive and Lincoln Avenue, with a frontage of 136 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a frontage of 187 feet on the east side of Westchester Drive (3242 West Lincoln Avenue — Maria's Pizzeria and Billiards). REQUEST: (2) The applicant requests approval of the following: (a) Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -05060 to permit a billiard facility and on- premises sale and consumption of beer and wine in conjunction with a full - service restaurant under authority of Code Section No. 18.08.030.040 with waiver of: BACKGROUND: (3) (5) SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 (b) Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2005 -00024 to permit the retail sales of beer and wine for on- premises consumption in conjunction with a full - service restaurant. (This item has been withdrawn since this determination is made by ABC in conjunction with a Type 41 (restaurant) license) This property is developed with a 13 -unit commercial retail shopping center and is zoned C -G (General Commercial). The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Low - Medium Density Residential land uses. The Anaheim General Plan further designates properties in all directions for Medium Density Residential land uses. This property is located within the Merged Redevelopment Area. (4) This item was continued from the February 6, 2006, Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to redesign the floor plan. The agent, Rick Solberg, has submitted the attached letter dated, March 9, 2006, requesting a further continuance to the April 17, 2006, Commission meeting since the business owner is unable to attend the meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Srcup2005- 05060kIwcont32006.doc Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 2 Minimum number of parking spaces (114 required 102 existing and recommended by staff) That the Commission, by motion, continue this item to the April 17, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. Page 1 3/9/06 Kim Wong Project Planner City of Anaheim RE: 3242 Lincoln Ave. Kim, we request that our CUP 2005 -05060 submittal be continued from the March 20 meeting and be placed on the agenda for the April 17 meeting . The applicant, Maria Trozzi will be out of town for the 3/20 hearing and we feel it's important that she be able to attend Thank you for facilitating this request. Sincerely, Rick Solberg Attachment - Item No. 2 RS-2 RCL 72 -73 -48 (2) RCL 72 -73 -47 1 DU EACH 1 • ■ • • i RH -2 ` RCL 72 -73 -51 1 RCL 72 -73 -47 ` � 1 1 DU 0 i! • • • 1 RCL 72 -73 -51 R rl 77_71_A7 z RH-2 1 0 < RCL 72 -73 -51 RCL 72 -73 -47 RH -2 RCL 72 -73 -51 VAR 4321 R H -2 RCL 72 -73 -51 RCL 72 -73 -47 737, R H -2 RCL 72 -73 -51 (17) VAR 3699 RCL 72 -73 -47 RH-2 ec w 0 c R H -2 RCL 72 -73 -47 R H -2 RCL 72 -73 -51 RCL 72 -73 -47 VAR 4366 R H -2 TPM 2005 -157 TPM 97 -212 VAR 2005 -04655 RCL 72 -73 -51 RCL 72 -73 -47 (VAR 4330) VACANT 1 d RH-2 RCL 72 -73 -51 (17) VAR 3699 RCL 72-73-47 1 1 1 R H -2 1 DU EACH ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE (SC) (SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE R H• RCL 72 -7 VAR RCL 7� T -VA ADJ VAI Variance No. 2005 -04655 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -157 Requested By: GARY CALKINS TRUST REQUESTS WAIVERS OF: (A) MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT (B) MAXIMUM RETAINING WALL HEIGHT (C) LOT FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE. Subject Property Date: March 20, 2006 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 197 TO ESTABLISH A 2 -LOT, 2 -UNIT DETACHED SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. 6263 East Trail Drive Item No. 2 2114 Item No. 1A Variance No. 2005 -04655 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -157 Requested By: GARY CALKINS TRUST REQUESTS WAIVERS OF: (A) MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT (B) MAXIMUM RETAINING WALL HEIGHT (C) LOT FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE. Subject Property Date: March 20, 2006 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 197 TO ESTABLISH A 2 -LOT, 2 -UNIT DETACHED SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. 6263 East Trail Drive 2114 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 3 3a: CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION i (Motion) 3b. VARIANCE NO. 2005-04655 (Resolution) 3c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP. NO: 2005-157 (Motion) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) .This irregularly-shaped, 3.2-acre property has a frontage of 47 feet at the terminus of Trail Drive, a maximum depth of 737 feet and is located 14S feet west of the centerline of Whitestone Drive (6263 East Trail Drive). REQUEST: (2) The applicant requests approval of the following: Variance No. 2005-04655 -Request to construct asingle-family residence with waivers of the following:. (a) SECTION NO. 18.18.060.010 Maximum structural height; (25 feet permitted; 34 feet;proposed), (b) SECTION N0. 18.46.110:130 Maximum retaining wall height; 3-feet high permitted; 10-feet: high proposed) {c) SECTION NQ 18.92.150 i Lot frontage on a public or private street; {Frontage on a public ororivate street:: required; Frontage on private drive proposed) Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-157 - To establish a 2-lot, 2-unit detached single-family residentiaP subdivisions BACKGROUND: (3) This item was continued from the January 9, January 23, 2006, February 6, and February 22, 2006, Commission meetings in order to comply with the review period requirements for. the Mitigated Negative Declaration associated with this request and to revise plans associated with site grading and retaining walls. (4) This property is developed with asingle-family residence and is zoned RH-2 (SC) (Single- Family, Hillside Residential; Scenic Corridor Overlay):: The property is designated for Estate Density Residential land uses in3he Anaheim General Plan. The General Plan designates properties'abutting the site to the north, east and south for Estate Density .Residential land uses and the properties to the west for Low Density. Residential land uses; (5) Variance No. 4330 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-212 (to establish a 4-lot, single-famtly residential subdivision with waiver of minimum Idt frontage) was denied'by tfie Planning Commission on March 30, 1998: sr-vaf2005-04655(3-20-06).doc Page l Staff Report to the Planning Commission. March 20, 2006 Item No. 3 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (6) The applicant proposes to subdivide this property into two (2) parcels in order to construct a Y new single-family residence.: ' (7) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) end parcel map indicate the two (2) single-family homes would have the following characteristics: ~~ ' 'PtoposeG/Requirett Proposed/Require~~ Pmposed/Requlfecf 'proppsed/t~equtfed ~K ~ ~ .~, r .. -r 1 2.2 ecresL5 acre 330 feet / 25 feet 20 feet / 15 feet 65 feet / 25 feet existin Page t Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 3 $' ,` Existing fire access ~"" ~;; road and proposed ' vtclrrlrYMaP: ,~ ~~w~' private drive '*' r ~~ l `r ~~ I ,.' ~"~ 1, f ~- ewsra ~ )s~oericE North ' +~ ~ r/"~ ~ ~'' ,: 000""" t ` ,`s `Ta~ tL! 2-6 foot existing keystone wall to be extended `' 3-6 foot high ~~~ ' J retaining wall , ~^ P ~ ~ ~ {({F,Ij g y ~ ~~ n L ELI Y "~'1 '\ ~~1 t~f~~t i. iCyrri..; g~ ~ ~ ':~-~; retaining walls 10 foot retaining wall r2 ~. , -~ ~~~. ~ I' 4 Q ~ ~ ~~~ ; \t ~ F~r _~ F'`~ ~ r.. ) ,~ p. y~LL a,~. ) ,,, W ~ ~J F ~i it P SED t~y$s r~1~ ~~ s ~I. ~ etD l7w ~~}r. e ~ :r / _ .v.a.~ c.->. 2Tbtt! 114BS2L-V'E ~ +~ (6) The site plan indicates access to the site will be provided via a 15-foot wide private access way that will be constructed as an extehsion of the existing 12-foot-wide fire access road. from East Trail Drive. The existing 12-foot wide portion of the fire access road will be widened to 15-feet. Two parallel, 6-foot-high keystone retaining walls are designed near the northwestern portion of the property, divided by a minimum 3-foot wide bench of 2:1 slopes; The outermost wall extends to the approximate northern and western perimeters of the lot. The exlsting 2-6-foot high keystone wall along the fire access road at the southern portion of the site is designed to be extended to the southeastern corner of the house; A 10-foot-high retaining wall would also be installed in the eastern portion of the site, approximately parallel. to the eastern boundary of the site: The majority of this wall would be screened by the proposed residence. A short (approximately 50 feet), 3-6-foot high retaining wall will be installed between the extended exlsting keystone wall and the eastern (10-foot high) retaining wall. The slope between the proposed house and the eastern retaining wall will be graded to a 2 to 1 slope. Graded slopes would be replanted with landscaping: In addition, Page 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 3 staff is recommending a cpndition of approval that the applicant construct plantable retaining walls instead of keystone walls: Plahtable retaining walls would be constructed , with materials such. as the "Verdura®" or "LoffelsteinT"'" products. These types bf walls are segmented where every block can be planted to oreate a7etaining wal(tfiatis completely covered with vegetation. The following are examples of plantable retaining walls. Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006. item No. 3 (11) The sectional plans (Exhibit Nos: 6 and 7) depict two (2) sections of the proposed development which display how the home and retaining walls would be configured on.the situ: A 10-foot high retaining wall would be located approximatelySS feet up slope from the proposed. residence: The,plans also indicate that two (2) 6-foot high retaining walls would be located approximately 100 feet from the front of the home creating' a flat pad for outdoor recreation:. The following is'a section' plane depicting. the line-of-sight from the'rear yard of an adjacent single-family home at 291 Riverwood Circle to the west of the site. 447 --- -- ------ --'-----------=------ --- -----e- - 4aa .. - _ -w ws+my wm 417 -- -- - ,,, 406' --- --_.< --- --- - --- ---- --- ---- 380'------------- ~- ----vf.~n---- ~ ---------- 380' -- -- ---- ---- ---- ----`-------- 9 B P6'adep Wa( 3sa --- --- --- - -------- e --- - --- 347.. <-ex~+o°am -- -- -- --- -- ---- - ---------- 337 - - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (12) A Notice oflntent (NOI) to adopt a Mitigated Negative beclaration (MND) was circulated to public agencies and interested parties on December 23, 2005, fora 30-day comment period. The N01, Initial Study and MMP No. 139 analyzed environmental issues associated with the project, including: AestfteticsA/isual, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology end Soils,. Hydrologyand Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, T~ansportationfTraffic, Utilities/Service Systems, and Cumulative Impacts: Based on e review of these issue areas, the Initial. StudylMND concluded that thtough project design features antl/or mitigation measures, all impacts could be mitigated. (13) The biological section of the MND assesses any potential impacts to biological resources on or in the vicinity of the. proposed project site. The proposed project site is located within the Central Subarea of the Centratand Coastal Subregion of the NCCP. The projecf site is not located adjacent to reserve areas, non-reserve areas; or special linkage/special management areas. No federal or listed. plant or wildlife species were determined to be present on the project site, therefore project implementation would not result in impacts to :listed species. Three NCCP Identified species were observed bn site, including Cactus Wren, Cooper's Hawk and coyote. Short-term impacts may occur as a result of construction activities. Therefore, these impacts have been mitigated by the recommended NCCP construction-related minimization measures listed in MMP. No. 139. (14) The aesthetics section of the MND analyzes potential` impacts to aesthetic resources that might occur. if the proposed project were implemented. Since the project was originally submitted; staff has worketl closely with the applicant to ensure that the viewsfieds from the surrounding properties would not be impacted by the construction of the new residence. View of the site from residences to the west and northwest would consist of views of the second story and roofline of the proposed house. Installation of the retaining walls would Page 5 Staff Report to the ' Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 3 introduce new structural elements to aportion of the:undeveloped hillside. f9owever, the use of 6-foot higk; plantable walls would reduce the visual effects of the retaining walls: Upon initial installation, the surrounding residents would have temporary views of the 6-foot high retaining walls. Once the vegetation matures; views would be replaced with those of a vegetated and landscaped hillside. Impacts tobisual resources would be considered less thartsignjficantahd nomitigationmeasures; other than project desigh would be necessary. (15) Based on the analysis contained in the Initial Study for the proposed project, a copy of which has been provided to the Planning Commission and is available for review in the Planning Department, and staff finds that with the incorporation of mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 139 and the projecfdesign features, no significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed project and, therefore; recommends that a Mitigated :Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning Commission that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and that it has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding do the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. EVALUATION: (16) The Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element designates this property for Estatebensity Residential land uses, with a density range of up to 1.5dwelling units per acre:-The applicanf proposes td subdivide a 3.2 acre property to establish two (2)Jots. The proposed subdivision would create a density of Oi6 dwelling units per acre in compliance with the maximum density allowed by the General Plan andthe RH-2 zone. (17) Waiver (a) pertains to maximum structural height. Code allows a maximum height of 25 feet within the Scenjc Corridor Overlay and the applicant is requesting a heighPof up to 34 feet for the front portion of the new residence. The proposed height would not restrict the views of the surrounding properties since the home would be substantially lowerthan neighboring properties to the east and south, and the properties to the north and west are lower than the proposed homer Several similar height waivers'have been granted on Ramsgate Drive and Whitestone Dnve, which are directly adjacent to the project site, , therefore, strict application of the zoning code would deprive the propertyof privileges enjoyed by other properties with identical zoning in the vicinity:' (18) 'Waiver (b) pertains to the maximum retaining wall height. Code allows for a maximum height of 3 feet for retaining walls that are visible to any pubic'or private right ot'way. The proposed 10-foot high wall behind the proposed residence and the 6-foot high walls near the southwest property line would be visible from Arboretum Road and Riverwood Ctrcle. Staff has wprked closely with the applicant over the past several months to mitigate any aesthetic'impacts the proposed?etaining walls would create that would be visitile from public streets and the neighboring properties. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that the applicant construct plantable retaining walls jnstead of keystone walls. Plantable7etaining walls would be constructed with materials such as the "VerduraC~T or "LpffelsteinTM'" products. These types of walls are segmented where every block can be planted to create a7etaining wall that is completely covered with vegetation: In addition, the proposed7etainingwaIls would be constructed at an'angle thereby allowing itto look more. like a natural slope when the vegetation oovers the entire watl:' Staff is supportive of the Yequested waiverbased on site constraints suchas the steep topography and irregular shape. In addition, there are several retaining walls in the immediate Vicinity (visible to public or private streets) that'exceed the height limitation prescritiedby Code.' Page 6 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006: Item No. 3 (19) Waiver (c) pertains to lot frontage which is required on a public or private street. The proposed parcel would have frontage: on the. private drive: This access design is very common within the hill and canyon areas.. Thebonstruction ofen access way that would meet the private street standards would require substantial grading and higher retaining walls to achieve a width of 28-feet:: Staff is supportive bf this waiver due to the site constraints such as the steep topography and irregular shape and the fact that many homes are developed with frontage on narrow private drives within the immediate area. The proposed. private drive would meet the access requirements of the Fire'Department and for trash service. (20) This proposal does not include the removal of any specimen trees. Concerns have been raised by a neighboring property owner regarding the stand of eucalyptus trees located west of the existing fire. access road that would be re-graded and paved as access to the new residence: The neighbor has submitted an arborist's report (attached) concluding that any: driveway should be located at least 20 feet from the stand of trees: The applicant has also hired two (2) independent arborists to survey the projecEsite. Both reports (attached) indicate that the construction of the driveway would not compromise the health of the trees. and recommends methods to protect the frees during grading and constriction. Staff is recommending that abertified arborist be brnsite during grading and construction activities of the private access way to ensure that the existing gees are not damaged. Further, in the event that specimen trees are inadvertently destroyed, staff has included'a condition of approval pertaining toYeplacement of specimen trees; as requjred by Cbde. (21) Staff believes the proposed project is compatible with existing and surrounding land uses and that the project is designed to maintain the privacy and livability for residents within and around the project. The proposed grading and retaining wall design has undergone several revisions with the intended goal of minimizing aesthetic impacts to surroundingproperties. Staff believes that the final design together with the recommended mitigation measures achieves this objective. FINDINGS: (22) When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from strict enforcement of the Zoning Code, a modification may be grantetl for the!purpose of assuring that nb property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, shall be deprivedbf privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and'zone. The"sblepurpbse of any variance is to prevent discrimination and none shalibe apprdved which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not sharedby other similar properties.. Therefore, before any variance is grantatl by the Commission, iY shall be shown: (a) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property such assize, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties intne vicinity; and (b) That strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by tither properties inidenticaf zoning classificatibn in the vicinity: (23) The State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, Section 66473.5) makes it mandatory to include in ell mbtions approving; br recbmmending approval of a tract map, a specific " finding that the proposed Subdivision together with its designand improvement is consistent with the City's General Plan. Further, tha law requires that the Commission make any of the following findings when denying br recommending denial of a tractmap: Page l Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No: 3 L That the proposed map is notcohsistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with: applicable General and Specific Plans. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development:. 5. That the design of thesubdivisibh b~ the proposed imprdvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat:: 6. That the design of the subdivisioh or the type of improvements is likelyto cause serious public health problems.' 7. That the design of the subdivision'or the type of improvements will conflicfwith easements; acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the'proposed subdivision:" RECOMMENDATION: (24) Staff recommends that, unless additional br contrary information is received during the meeting,`ahd based upon the eviderce submitted td the Planning Commission, including the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral'and written evidence presehted at the public hearing, the Planning Commission take the following actions: (a) By motion, approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 138 for the project. (b) $y resolution, approve Variance No. 2005-04655 for waivers of (a) maximum structural height, (b) maximum retaining wall height and (c) lot frontage on a public or private street by adopting the attached resdlution including the findings and conditions contained therein. (c) By motioh, approve Tentative Parcel MapNo. 2005-157 to establish a 2-lot, 2-unit detached single-family residential subdivision based upon the attached conditions of approval and the following findings: (i) The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the General Plan including the density permitted for the property. (ii) The site is physically suited for the type and density of development proposed ih a manner that is oohsisteht with the surrounding community. (iii) The design of the subdivision minimizes impacts to the environment and mitigates impacts to a evel of insignificance as indicated in the mitigated negative declaration prepared for this project;. (iv) That the design of the subdivision will not cause serious public health problems or conflict with. easements through the property. Page 8 (a) SECTION NO. 18.18.060.010 (b) SECTION NO. 18.46.110.130 (c) SECTION NO. 18.92.150 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2006 - * ** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2005 -04655 BE GRANTED (6263 EAST TRAIL DRIVE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Variance for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as: PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 65 PAGE 33 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on January 9, at 2:30 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 variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and that said public hearing was continued to the January 23, 2006, February 6, and February 22, 2006 and March 20, 2006 Planning Commission meetings; 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: That the petitioner proposes waivers of the following to construct a single - family residence: Maximum structural height (25 feet permitted; 34 feet proposed) Maximum retaining wall height (3 -feet high permitted 10 -feet high proposed) Lot frontage on a public or private street Frontage on a public or private street required; frontage on private drive proposed) 2. That the above - mentioned waivers are hereby approved as the site is uniquely constrained by its irregular shape and steep topography and these are special circumstances applicable to the property which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity. The sloping terrain of the imposes constraints on creating a developable pad without the use of retaining walls. 3. That the above - mentioned waivers are hereby granted on the basis that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity because there are several similar height waivers that have been granted on Ramsgate Drive and Whitestone Drive which are in directly adjacent to the project, retaining walls in the vicinity that are higher than the requested walls that are visible to the public right -of -way and lots created in the area that have narrow access drives. Therefore, there are multiple properties in the vicinity already developed with the benefits requested by these waivers, and strict application of the zoning code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. 4. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question. CR \PC2006 -0 -1- PC2006- 5. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because the project has been designed to mitigate the impact of the waivers. Because of the topography of the area and the design of the home, the surrounding properties would not experience any view obstruction because of the additional height, and by using plantable retaining walls, and placing the highest retaining wall behind the home, the visual impact of the higher retaining walls is mostly shielded from the surrounding homes. 6. That*** indicated their presence at the public meeting in opposition to the proposal; and that no correspondence was received in opposition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to waive of (a) maximum structural height, (b) maximum retaining wall height and (c) lot frontage on a public or private street to construct a single - family residence; and does hereby approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the associated Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 138 upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study, including the analysis of potential aesthetic and biological resource impacts and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: That plantable retaining walls shall be constructed with materials such as the "VerduraV or "Loffelstein products in a manner in which the walls are segmented, where every block can be planted to create a retaining wall that is completely covered with vegetation. Such information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for grading permits. 2. That a certified arborist shall be present during grading and construction activities of the private access way to ensure the safety and preservation of the stand of eucalyptus trees on the adjacent property along the west property line. In the event any of the specimen trees are destroyed due to site grading, replacement trees shall be planted by the applicant in accordance with Section No. 18.18.040.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 3. That roll -up garage doors shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. Said doors shall be installed and maintained as shown on submitted plans. 4. That all air - conditioning facilities and other ground- mounted equipment shall be properly shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent residential properties. Such information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 5. That all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be fully screened by architectural devices and /or appropriate building materials. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 6. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense. 7. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street. Installation of any gates shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 609 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. -2- PC2006- 8. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval of wall and fence locations to determine conformance with Engineering Standard No. 115. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 9. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department Development Services Division for review and approval a Water Quality Management Plan that: • Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas. • Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan. 10. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: • Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. • Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non - structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP. • Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available onsite. • Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural BMPs. 11. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonment of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. 12. 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 is 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. 13. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 7, as conditioned herein. 14. That the developer shall be responsible for compliance with all mitigation measures within the assigned time frames and any direct costs associated with the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 138 as established by the City of Anaheim and as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code to ensure implementation of those identified mitigation measures. 15. That the City of Anaheim sewer connection fee shall be paid 16. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 15, above - mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. -3- PC2006- 17. That prior to issuance of a grading permit, Condition Nos. 1, 9 and 11, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. 18. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 10, and 13, above - mentioned, shall be complied with. 19. 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 Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicants 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 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 March 20, 2006. 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. ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on March 20, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of , 2006. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -4- PC2006- City of Anaheim ~~ANN~NG ~1E',PA)<2'g'19~EI~I'p' wwwanaheim.net March 20, 2006 Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of March 20, 2006. Gary Galkins Trust 6263 East Trail Drive Anaheim, CA 92807 3a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. VARIANCE N0.2005-04655 3c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-157 Owner:.. Gary Calkins Trust, 6263 East Trail Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807 Agent: Steve Ellis, 4742 Yorba Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 Location`. 6263 East Trail Drive: Property is approximately 3.2 acres having a frontage of 47 feet at the terminus of Trail Drive and is located 145 feet west of the centerline of Whitestone Drive. Variance No. 2005-04655 -Request waivers of (a) maximum structural height, (b) maximum retaining wall height and (c) lot frontage on a public or private street to construct asingle-family residence. Tentative Parcel Mao No. 2005-157 - To establish a 2-lot, 2-unit detached single- family residential subdivision. ACTION: Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a 2-lot, 2-unit detached single-family residential subdivision and does hereby approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the associated Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 138 upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study, including the analysis of potential aesthetic and biological resource impacts and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner mCX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby determine that based on the finding that (i) the proposed subdivision is in compliance with the General Plan including the density permitted for the property; (ii) the site is physically suited for the type and density of development proposed in a manner that is consistent with the surrounding community; (iii) the design of the subdivision minimizes impacts to the environment and mitigates impacts to a level of insignificance as indicated in the mitigated negative declaration prepared for this project and (iv) that the design of the subdivision will not cause serious public health problems or conflict with easements through the property; and does therefore approve 200 South Anaheim Boolevartl P.O. Bax 3222 Anaheim, California 92003 TEL (714) 765-5139 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -157, to establish a 2 -lot, 2 -unit detached single - family residential subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. That the final map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and the Orange County Surveyor and then shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder (Subdivision Map Act, Section 66499.40). 2. That a maintenance covenant, shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section and approved by the City Attorneys office. The covenant shall include provisions for maintenance of private facilities, including compliance with approved Water Quality Management Plan, and a maintenance exhibit. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. 3. That the access drives, sanitary sewer and storm drain within the development shall be privately maintained. Improvement plans for the sanitary sewer, and private drainage system shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division concurrently with the final map. 4. That approval of this parcel map is granted subject to the approval of Variance No. 2005 - 04655, now pending. 5. That prior to final map approval, all building units shall be assigned addresses by the Planning Department. 6. That the legal property owner shall reserve an easement on the final map for vehicular access, sewer, water and electrical services over Lot 1 in favor of Lot 2. 7. That prior to final parcel map approval, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, above - mentioned, shall be complied with. 8. 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. Sincerely, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission cc: Steve Ellis, 4742 Yorba Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 VAR 2005- 04655_Ex ce r pt MAR-07-2006 1703 From:RFLG8 march I , 2006 Mr. Neil Siegel 6221 Trail Drive Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 Re: Driveway Construction Adjoining Eucalyptus Dear Mr, Siegel: 7147316138 C REC A PP LE C AT CarosuLTtNr. AtIllORIST To 7149985318 Attachment - Item No. 3 Thank you for asking me to examine the grading for the maintenance access road adjoining your blue gums, Eucalyptus globulu$, As we discussed, this letter is to update the report that 1 wrote for you in 'NI:arch of 1998. You asked that 1 describe the impact of the maintenance access road construction and tho future impact or a permanent and paved driveway. The current condition of the trees appears to be about the same as it was when 1 was last at your home, However, the impact of the maintenance access road construction may not be observable for years. The recent pruning also temporarily reduces the demand for water and obscures the impact on the root system. As 1 discussed in my previous report, these trees are subject to borer attack if they become stressed. When the full normal canopy grows out again the and the demand. for water increases, the borers, which are more active in warm weather, can successfully attack trees. that kir e. drought stn.:Ascii. Th tr will experience drought stress if roots are cut, coveitd, or if the soil is compacted, even though the soli remains moist. If borers infe,q these trees this summer, it ca ri take a couple years before the trees die. •1 ilk° described in my last report that to protect an adequate amount of roots at least one foot radius per inch of trunk caliper of protective clearance must be provided. This is the standard -published on page 74 or the International Society of Arboriculture publication "Trees and Development" by Matheny and Chia,. The maintenance access grading has already impacted roots IAA the very base or these trees, To grade the current maintenance road soil was laid over the trees root zone in fill areas of grading and other roots were damaged in cut areas of grading,. Along side the road, using a horticultural penetrometer, found loose soil bid over the root. zone between one and two feet deep. Tree roots need air as well as water to live and function. Both cutting and filling ills roots by either cutting them or by suffocation when soil is laid over them. The roots not only provide water and nutrients to the tree, but also provide NtippOrt. Cut, dead or dying roots do not support trees well. Cut or damaged roots can also decay back LocINDA WAv TuNTIN, CA 92780. Ap.t%ortisr6 rp.: 714,731.624o. CELL: 714.292.7184, FAK; 714.731.6138 MAR-07-2006 17:03 From:APLGe into die, base of the tree. The sulfur conk fungus, Laeriporus sulfureus is commonly involved with toppling blue gums and can start when roots are injured too close to the trunk. :Established trees usually years to die and decay usually take a few years to just get started, 1iowever ir time you will have a serious risk from these trees toppling onto your driveway, home or pool area The risk of toppling and he risk of borers was increased by the maintenance access road grading and will be increased even wore if the neighbor, Mr. Calkins, builds a permanent paved driveway. Th maintenance access road may have been built with minimal compaction, but any type of permanent driveway would require compaction up to 90 or 95 percent Proctor density, and probably over-excavation. 1 have not seen the current construction drawings for driveway construction. However, driveway construction so close to these trees as shown in the "Sectional Plan", dated 2-7-06, will kill and/or destabilize these trees. As 1 aid in rny last report, roots hold primarily in tension and this is the tension side or the tree' root zone. There is little chance of surviving the construction, but if these trees survive, and a. couple smaller on might, they are more likely to into your propc.Ity. I recommend that the City not allow the construction of the proposed driveway closer than 20 feet from these trees . lilc.:spectfully submitted, Greg A . leg .Le, ASCA, AST,A Rq,istered Consulting Arbocist #365 Certi fled Arbori st WC-0180 'Enclosures 7147316130 To:7149985310 3 E.:(1 A 44; C REG APPLEGATE, ASCA CONSULTING A RISOitiNT 1131 LLicINDA Ww 1uiu cA 9)O, AkKorip,16a(vx.NFI. PH 711 7;31 21O. CELL: 714,29;i.7184, 1 714.7::.1.6138 Greg Applegate, ASCk ASLA As of January 26, 2006 Credentials American Society of Consulting Arborists - Registered Consulting Arborist #3 65 International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist #WC -0180 Experience Education ional Affiliations Community Affiliations Mr. Applegate is an independent consulting arborist. He has been in the horticulture industry since 1963, providing professional arboricultural consulting since 1984 within both private and public sectors. His expertise includes appraisal, tree preservation, diagnosis of tree and palm growth problems, construction impact mitigation, environmental assessment, expert witness testimony, hazard evaluation, pruning programs, species selection and tree health monitoring. Mr. Applegate consults for insurance companies, major developers, universities, theme parks, universities, homeowners' associations, landscape architects, landscape contractors, property managers, attorneys and governmental bodies. Notable projects on which he has consulted are: Disneyland, Disneyland Hotel, DisneySeas-Tokyo, Disney's Wild Animal Kingdom, New Tomorrowland, Disney's California Adventure, Disney Hong Kong project, Knott's Berry Farm, Tustin Ranch, Newport Coast, Crystal Court, South Coast Plaza, Newport Fashion Island, Loyola - Marymount campus, Bixby Ranch Company, Playa Vista, Laguna Canyon Road and Myford Road for The Irvine Company, Paseo Westpark Palms, Westpark- Irvine Community Parks, The Irvine Concourse, USC, UCI, UCLA, Universal City Station/MTA tree inventory, MWD- California Lakes, and the State of California review of the Landscape Architecture License exam (plant materials portion) Bachelor of Science in Landscape Architecture, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 1973 Arboricultural Consulting Academy (by ASCA) Arbor -Day Farm, Kansas City 1995 Continuing Education Courses in Arboriculture required to maintain Certified Arborist status and for ASCA membership American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA), Full Member American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), Full Member International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), Regular Member International Palm Society (IPS), Member California Tree Failure Report Program, UC . Davis, Participant Street Tree Seminar (STS), Member Horticulture Advisory Committee, Saddleback College (1988 1998) Landscape Arch. License Exam prep, Instructor, Cal Poly Pomona (1986 -90) American Institute of Landscape Architects Board of Directors . (1980 -82) California Landscape Architect Student Scholarship Fund- Chairman (1985) International Society of Arboriculture- Examiner -tree worker certification (1990) The Tree Society of Orange County (1990 until present) Guest lecturer at Cal Poly, Saddleback College, & Palomar Junior College The Tree People, member GREG APPLEGATE, ASCA C O N S L J L T I N G A R B O R I S T 1131 LUCINDA WAY, TUSTIN, CA 92780, ARBORIST6©COX.NET, PH.: 714.731.6240, CELL: 714.292.7184, FAX: 714.731.6138 Consulting Arborist's Report Eucalyptus - Construction Impact Report For Siegel Residence Prepared for: Mr. Neil Siegel 6221 Trail Drive Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 Prepared by Greg Applegate 1131 Lucinda Way Tustin, CA 92780 7141 731-6240 Date: March 20, 1998 Table of Contents Summary Background Analysis ,....,.. Eucalyptus - Construction Impact Report 1 1 Introduction 2 Assignment ,.....,.. ... .... ...._.......2 Background 2 Report Observations ....., ... .3 3 Analysis ., 4 Conclusion 5 Recommendations • 5 Appendix 6 Resume ,.... .....7 Photographs 8 Glossary .....,....:., ........ ............,,. ...,............12 Site Map 14 Species Fact Sheet 15 Greg Applegate 3 -21 -98 Table of Contents Summary Analysis Background Fifteen blue gum eucalyptus. Eucalyptus globulus, are growing along the edge of Mr. Neil Siegel's property at 6221 Trail Drive, in Anaheim Hills. Another eleven blue gums are growing along the edge of his neighbor's property, all part of the same windrow. The trees have good vigor and there have been no recent deaths or toppling in this row. They range in size from about fourteen inches in caliper to over six feet in caliper. Development of the adjoining property is proposed and a Tentative Parcel Map #97-212 has been submitted to the City of Anaheim for approval. The adjoining property is steeply sloped and covered with prickly-pear cactus and shrubbery. The developer proposes to build an access road about three feet from the above row of blue gums. Based on the Schematic Grading Plan, dated 2/5/98, the construction of the access road will require extensive fill and the construction of a large retaining wall on top of at least half the root system of the subject blue gums. The standards of care for tree preservation are greatly exceeded by the proximity of the construction. Death of the trees or toppling can be expected. California courts have ruled that neighbors are required to act reasonably when cutting encroaching roots and branches, see Booska v. Patel (1994) 24 Cal. App. 4 1786; 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 241. Construction of the access road and retaining - walls will, without a doubt, cause the death or toppling of Mr. Siegel's blue gums. Eucalyptus - Construction Impact Report Greg Applegate 3-21-98 Summary • 1 Introduction Eucalyptus - Construction Impact Report Assignment Mr. Neil Siegel contacted this consultant on March 16, 1998 and set up an appointment to meet on site and discuss the situation and view the subject trees. We met and 1 inspected the trees on March 19, 1998. 1 was asked to prepare a report that addressed the risks to the subject blue gums from the proposed construction and grading. Background Fifteen blue gum eucalyptus, Eucalyptus globulus, are growing along the edge of Mr. Neal Siegel's property at 6221 Trail Drive, Anaheim Hills, County of Orange, California. Another eleven blue gums are growing along the edge of his neighbor's property, all part of the same windrow. Development of the adjoining two parcels (lot 3 & 4 on the "Schematic Grading Plan") is proposed and a Tentative Parcel Map #97-212 has been submitted to the City of Anaheim for approval. The adjoining property is steeply sloped, especially lot 4, and covered with prickly-pear cactus and shrubbery. The developer proposes to build an access road about three feet from the above row of blue gums. Greg Applegate 3-21-98 Introduction • 2 Report Observations Fifteen blue gums, Eucalyptus globulus and one paperbark tree, Melaleuca quinquenervia, are growing along the edge of Mr. Siegel's property. Mr. Siegel's property is relatively level and in a low density residential neighborhood. Another eleven trees continue in the same row along his neighbor's property line. The blue gums are set outside the main more manicured part of the landscaping. The ground underneath the trees is densely covered with annual grasses. (See photograph #4) The trees have good vigor and there have been no recent deaths or toppling in this row. There is no evidence of die-back or yellowing. The trees along Mr. Siegel's property have been recently pruned and the upper canopy has a large amount of new epicormic shoots. There are a couple indications of minor decay in several trees, the depth or extent of which was not explored. The subject blue gums range in size from about fourteen inches in caliper to over six feet in caliper. Roots were noted at the soil surface and that the hill on lot 4 is nearly solid rock. This will mean that the roots will be even more shallow and sensitive to compaction than is typical. The trees frame the view of the home and screen the view of the cactus covered slope on parcel four. As a mature eucalyptus windrow, they suggest the agricultural history of the area. They provide some shade and wind reduction. They also function to absorb some runoff water from the slopes of lots 3 and 4. Several stakes had been set marking the edge of the proposed access road. The "Schematic Grading Plan" seems to indicate that the access road is on the edge of the property line. Photograph #4 in the Appendix shows the line of the staking. The plan is not clear on which of tWo types of walls , "Type A" or "Type B" will Eucalyptus - Construction Impact Report Greg Applegate 3-21-98 Report • Analysis be used next to the trees. For the purpose of this report, the "Type B" wall is assumed, since it would cause the least damage. The first tree, which is about 6 foot, 5 inches in diameter, is near the beginning of Mr. Siegel's driveway and the beginning of the proposed access road. The beginning of the access road is not marked and may or may not affect this tree. The next tree in line is a moderate sized paperbark melaleuca, about 10 inches in caliper. The first stake in line is placed within three feet of its trunk. The remainder of the trees are blue gums varying from about 41 inches to 14 inches in diameter. The line projected from one stake to the next is within three feet of the trunks of the remaining blue gums. Blue gum eucalyptus is a large species with a correspondingly large root system. Ninety percent of that root system is typically within the top two feet of soil and most of that in the top foot of soil. The roots that do the bulk of absorbing water and nutrients is in that top foot of soil. Typically there are no deep anchoring or tap roots. In recent years a new pest of blue gums has been introduced, the eucalyptus long horn beetle, Phoracantha semipunctata. This pest attacks and kills trees that are in drought or other stress. When Mr. Siegel's lot was developed a low retaining wall was constructed between his home and the trees. It should be expected that a large number of roots on his side of the trees were cut. Enough time has passed that most of these roots have put out new roots from near the cut ends. The health and condition of the trees indicates that this has taken place. However, there is not enough root space to provide much anchoring. Further it would take about fifteen years to recover all the root volume originally lost. So the root system has been compromised to some degree already and to invade the root.zone a second time. severing roots all along the other side of these trees could not be tolerated. The proposed construction of retaining walls and access road would cut and suffocate 95 percent of roots on the south side of the trees. Roots support trees by holding in tension much more than by buttressing the trunks. The result of cutting roots for the wall footing would be that there would not be enough roots holding the trees from that side. Toppling of many of these trees could be expected to follow rapidly. Typical standards for set back from trees to be preserved vary from staying outside the dripline to staying back one foot from the trunk for every inch of caliper. All arboricultural text books and professionals would agree that this amount of fill and compaction is sufficient to kill the trees even if roots were not cut. Roots breath. They take in oxygen and give off carbon dioxide. Roots need oxygen as much as water and they need to get rid of the CO2. Soil compaction reduces pore space used for oxygen and water. The fill will reduce necessary Eucalyptus - Construction Impact Report Greg Applegate 3-21-98 Report • di gaseous exchange, exclude oxygen, and suffocate the roots. If the severance of roots and compaction did not directly kill the trees, the long horn beetles would attack and kill the stressed trees. It is clear from the details shown on the "Schematic Grading Plan" that the proposed wall requires a compacted leveling pad, typically about 6 inches deep. The first block or two also needs to be "embedded" below grade compared to the grade near the blue gum's. This will sever most, if not all, the roots on the south side. In many cities, the developer is required to show existing trees and to take measures to preserve them. The "Schematic Grading Plan" makes no note of the adjoining eucalyptus trees. Even though these trees do not belong to the developer, there should be evidence on the plan that he is taking measures to protect them. However, it does not seem that he is even aware of their presence. Conclusion In my professional experience and opinion, the trees will die as a result of the proposed construction and proximity of the access road over and within the root zone. Retaining wall "Type A" •or "Type B" will both have the same effect. California courts have ruled that neighbors are required to act reasonably when cutting encroaching roots and branches, see Booska v. Patel (1994) 24 Cal. App. 4 1786; 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 241. The present plans are inconsiderate of Mr. Siegel's property and may end up causing considerable damage beyond the death of the trees. There is no way of estimating the amount of damage that could be caused by one of the larger trees falling on Mr. Siegel's home. Further, he would be living there with the unsettling knowledge that these nearby trees are so unstable htat they will fall without warning in wet or breezy conditions. Recommendations There does not appear to be any other place the access road could be built, other than immediately along the edge of the property line. However, doing so will kill the trees. The only way to protect and preserve the trees is to access the site from some other direction or to not develop these lots. Eucalyptus - Construction Impact Report Greg Applegate 3-21-98 Report • 5 Appendix A. Resume B. Photographs C. Glossary D. Site Map E. Species Fact Sheet Eucalyptus - Construction Impact Report Greg Applegate 3-21-98 Appendix • -6-- PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS: American Society of Consulting Arborists #365 International Society of Arboriculture, Certified Arborist # WC-180 EXPERIENCE: EDUCATION: PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: COMMUNITY AFFILIATIONS: Horticulture Advisory Committee, Saddleback College (1988 until present) Landscape Architecture License Exam, Reviewer, Cal Poly Pomona (1986-90) American Institute of Landscape Architects (L.A.) Board of Directors (1980-82) California Landscape Architect Student Scholarship Fund - Chairman (1985) International Society of Arboriculture - Examiner-tree worker certification (1990) The Tree Society of Orange County (1990 until present) Guest lecturer at Cal Poly, Saddleback College, & Palomar Junior College Eucalyptus - Construction Impact Report RESUME: GREGORY W. APPLEGATE, ASCA, ASLA Consulting Certified Arborist Mr. Applegate is an independent consulting arborist. He has been in the horticulture field since 1963, providing professional arboricultural consulting since 1984 withiq both private and public sectors. His expertise includes appraisal, tree preservatiori, diagnosis of tree growth problems, construction impact mitigation, environmental assessment, expert witness testimony, hazard evaluation, pruning programs, species selection and tree health monitoring. Mr. Applegate has consulted for insurance companies, major developers, , theme parks, homeowners, homeowners' associations, landscape architects, landscape contractors, property managers, attorneys and governmental bodies. Notable projects on which he has consulted are: Disneyland, California Adventure, Disneyland Hotel, Disney's Wild Animal Kingdom, Disney Seas-Tokyo, Knott's Berry Farm, Newport Coast, Crystal Court, Newport Fashion Island, The Bonadventure Hotel and Volt Headquarters-interior planting, Big Canyon Golf Course, Oakcreek Golf Course, Tustin Ranch windrows, Laguna Canyon Road and Myford Road for The Irvine Company, Hillcrest Park-Fullerton, VVestpark- Irvine community parks, Barlow Hospital, Bullocks-Palm Desert, Loyola Marymount University, UC1 Inland Empire Shopping Center, Universal City Station/MTA tree inventory and the State of California review of the Landscape Architecture License exam (plant materials portion) Bachelor of Science in Landscape Architecture, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 1973 Tree Management Seminars in Arboriculture University of California, Riverside 1984 to 1993 Arboricultural Consulting Academy (by ASCA) Arbor-Day Farm, Kansas City 1995 Continuing Education Courses in Arboriculture required to maintain Certified Arborist status and for ASCA membership American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), Full Member American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA), Full Member International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), Regular Member International Palm Society (IPS), Member California Tree Failure Report Program, UC Davis, Participant Street Tree Seminar (STS), Member Greg Applegate 3-21-98 Appendix • Jim Borer, Certified Arborist #496 Specimen tree preservation, conservation, and analysis March 7, 2006 Mr. Gary Calkins Calkins Construction Telefax: This page plus 3 Re: On site tree inspection report 6263 East Trail Drive Anaheim, Ca. Dear Mr. Calkins, Attachment - Item No. 3 I am writing at this time as a follow up to our recent February 22, 2006 on site tree inspection of the mature specimen Eucalyptus globulous trees that are growing on the property immediately adjacent to your above referenced property in the Anaheim Hills. The purpose for the inspection was to assess the existing condition of the six mature specimens that are growing immediately adjacent to your un- improved access road that is proposed for improvement as a driveway and fire access lane to the home site that you are developing on the northwest portion of your property. Furthermore we considered and discussed the affect of the development of your drive and fire access lane upon the six mature Eucalyptus trees. I have attached representative photographs of the trees in question in order to make the references to the trees referred herein as clear as possible. The six trees are mature specimen Eucalyptus globulous (blue gum). The trees have been non - selectively reduced (topped) which is never considered to be beneficial to any trees long -term welfare, and especially so with Eucalyptus which are notoriously weak wooded. The result of the topped condition of the trees is that their branch structures, and therefore their long -term viability, have been compromised. Based upon the principles of compartmentalization of decay in trees these trees have been irreparably damaged. The result of the compromised condition is that the trees are susceptible to the deleterious affects of decay and resultant branch shear. As the decay migrates within the main trunk and branch columns the chances for branch shear and catastrophic collapse will increase. I do not anticipate that the implementation of your driveway and fire access road improvement project will cause the trees to suffer systemic shock and die as a result. There could be a limited amount of root loss that could occur as a result of your utility trench development within the right of way of the drive. I recommend that the utility trench be placed as far from the trees as possible in order to minimize the amount of root loss. Hand trenching or using an `Air - spade' could help you to limit the amount of root loss that occurs in the course of the trench construction. In either scenario the roots could be left in place and cantilevered while the utilities are installed underneath them. Any PO Box 1803, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729 -1803 Phone 909/ 997 -7020 Fax 909/ 948 -8882 Jim Borer, Certified Arborist #496 Specimen tree preservation, conservation, and analysis roots that are encountered that cannot be left in place should be cut cleanly with sharp pruning implements. Roots that are cut cleanly are far more responsive to developing callous at the point where they are cut than roots that are either ripped or tom. You should be careful in improving the drive and access road not to bury the root crowns of the existing adjacent Eucalyptus trees. The roots crowns are those locations on the respective trees where the trunks buttress or flair out into woody roots at the soil level. The burying of these critical locations within the trees structures can cause them to rot and can cause the development of pathogenic disease organisms. In general these Eucalyptus trees are extremely mature with their woody branch structures having been compromised as a result of the ill advised pruning methodologies that have been affected heretofore. There are no cultural practices that can ever eliminate the damaged caused to date as a result of the topping incidents. I am much more concerned about the affects of the compromised structures and their potential to fail as a result than I am about the impact of the drive and access road improvements that you are proposing as defined during our site visit. Please call me if you have any questions after reviewing this report if you have any questions or if I may provide additional assistance. Yours truly, Jim Borer Certified Arborist #496 Enclosure: Photographs of the conditions at the time of the inspection PO Box 1803, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729 -1803 2 Phone 909/ 997 -7020 Fax 909/ 948 -8882 Photographs Photograph #1 - Dead or dying eucalyptus on the adjoinin property. Eucalyptus - Construction Impact Report Greg Applegate 32198 Appendix • —8 Photograph #2 - Mr. Sie e s blue ou Eucalyptus - Construction Impact Report Greg Applegate -21-98 s are on the left. The access road will start at this point_ Appendix o 9 Photograph #3 - Entry to Mr. Siegel's property, showin the property. ere blue a Eucalyptus - Construction Impact Report Greg Applegate 3-2198 s begin to wrap around Appendix 10 Photograph #4 - Stake in foreground is about three feet from the line of the trees. The white arrow points to the next stake. Eucalyptus - Construction mpact Report Greg Applegate -21-98 Appendix 11 Glossary ANSI-A300 American National Standards Institute performance standards for the care and maintenance of trees, shrubs and other woody plants. ARBORICULTURE The cultivation and care of trees and shrubs. CALIPER Diameter of a tree trunk. Larger trees are usually measured at 4Y2 feet (see DBH) Trees with calipers 4 inches and below are measured at 6 inches above grade(ANSI 1990) Trees above 4 inches, but still transplantable are measured at 12 inches above grade. CHLOROTIC Lacking in chlorophyll, typically yellow or yellowish in color. CROWN Parts of the tree above the trunk, including leaves, branches and scaffold limbs. DBH Diameter of the trunk, measured at breast height or 54 inches above the average grade. Syn. = caliper. DRIP LINE The width of the crown. as measured by the lateral extent of the foliage. EPICORMIC SHOOTS or BRANCHES Branches that develop from dormant buds along the cambium or branches that form anew along the cambium. H A The combination of a likely failure of a tree or tree part with the presence of a likely target. HEADING Pruning techniques where the cut is made to a bud, weak lateral branch or stub. ROOT CROWN Area at the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge (synonym - root collar) STRESS RDOUS CONDITION Eucalyptus - Construction Impact Report Greg Applegate 3-21-98 Appendix • 12 "Stress is a potentially injurious, reversible condition, caused by energy drain, disruption, or blockage, or by life processes operating near the limits for which they were genetically programmed." Alex Shigo TARGET People or property potentially affected by tree or limb failure. TOPPING Pruning technique to reduce height - heading of large branches. VIGOR Overall health - capacity to grow and resist stress. Eucalyptus - Construction Impact Report Greg Applegate 3-21-98 Appendix • -3 • • I + . a. it • •+ . :__ • N 000 7 94.52' col 1 ./ ifg;• r" • ...... .• Eucalyptus - o, ctio Impact Repo 0 • \\' t 3.750 feREiS- 1 : . t- 41`. • 4* \ I . . . 8-1.). - -,- • .-.. • : it Q) R RCC -- ac a) 6996. 13 AT "PAta'E CL o - . D- R P.M. - -65333 T lam-_ 32'30 .W 3 • • e r r. • ZQ INGREE / EGRES$ MEN TH'E IENEFIT OF t 3; . Fes" , • t • 0 . T • • ; `,_ � - r/ � V 1 CD L MONUMENT NOTES p ° gateo - 4 T GOFOUNDN AS NOTED A ELECTRIC EA BOOK 1449 A •• : Pi 15' 5 BOOK BIER UNE EA MEr BOOK 12829 - PAG FOUND PROP •PER P.M. 6 \A - i OTE�: ' / 1) THE BOUNDARY AS OWN CM 1 IS DERIVED FROSA PARCEL MAP I FOR RECORD IN • • 65 AT PA ORANGE COUNTY RE•• AND LOCATED ON THE GR D THRC I RECOVERY OF THE • GINAL CORNERS AS INDICATED HEREON 2)THIS MAP WAS PREPA DIRECT SUPERVISION •' PLS 4948. EXPIRES 6- TY CC -33 UNOE MARTY -01. NT FM_ INGRESS / f OVE;A!� PARCEL 1. F0F PARCELS 2, do 4, FROM, "TRAIL DRIVE" AND "HIM LANE TO BE CREATED BY THE OF PARCEL MAP NO. 97 - 212 Eucalyptus Tree Garden Encyclopedia ■.■ Type of Plant: Flower Color: Blooming Season: Foliage: Height: Width: Sunlight: Zones: Thrives in: Special Attributes: © 1996 Books That Work Tree Yellow, White Mid-Winter to Mid-Spring Evergreen 150 ft. to 200 ft. 45 ft. Rill Sun 9 to 11 Dry Climates, Hot Climates Drought-Tolerant, Low Maintenance, Show Flowers Heavy masses of fragrant blue-green foliage and 1 in., blue-gray flower capsules characterize this tall, stately tree. Needs room. The leaves and the white to tan, yellow or gray bark shed. Several subspecies exist, including a dense, compact cultivar called ‘Compacta.' Does poorly in deserts. Eucalyptus Gum Tree A familiar sight in California and Arizona, rapid-growing, long-lived eucalyptuses are a varied lot. Also called gum trees, they range from shrubby, vinelike plants to huge trees, with different leaf and flower shapes on each. In general, though, leaves are crisp, leathery and usually aromatic. The flowers are fluffy, and the flat-topped seed capsules are woody. Some varieties have white or pink flowers that are a source of honey. Some tolerate extreme heat and cold, others are fairly drought-tolerant. Buy the smallest plant you can find so that it won't be root bound. Chlorosis affects some species in alkaline soil. In California, the eucalyptus longhorn beetle is a deadly pest. Certification I, Gregory W. Applegate, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief: That the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. That the report analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited only the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal unbiased professional analysis, opinions and conclusions. That I have no present or prospective interest in the vegetation that is the subject of this report, and 1 have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. That my compensation is not contingent upon a that favors the cause of the client, the attainment of stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the standards of arboricultural practice. That 1 have made a personal inspection of the plants that are the subject of this report. No one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this report. Gregory W. Applegate Date 3- -7A-cig Eucalyptus - Construction Impact Report Greg Applegate 3-21-98 Certification • 16 Jim Borer, Certified Arborist #496 Specimen tree preservation, conservation, and analysis �..: ��.cF.c• : .;'.'A. .: .. ... .......,..r: ... �.. is Gr._.:.... /...:..:,. .. ...... H � -,.: .sr6 `L ...:. -•'Qk .:.:iSO �.. :..:.� .. . -<.... . �..:. Y�..... , s,�:�A.. �'��...:... Sa.'�..... ...Yr:�3 The existing Eucalyptus are growing on a slope adjacent to the drive and access road that is proposed for improvement. The topping cuts can be seen clearly in this photo where the branches originate just to the side of the woody branch that ends in the stub. These branches are susceptible to decaying as a result of the branches inability to compartmentalize the decay that is sure to develop where the branches were cut cross sectionaly. Furthermore the branches that emanate above the topping cuts are susceptible to shearing as a result of their weak attachments. PO Box 1803, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729 -1803 3 Phone 909/ 997 -7020 Fax 909/ 948 -8882 Jim Borer, Certified Arborist #496 Specimen tree preservation, conservation, and analysis See references above in previous photo regarding topping cuts. PO Box 1803, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729 -1803 4 Phone 909/ 997 -7020 Fax 909/ 948 -8882 03/08/2006 19:31 FAX 760 942 4508 DUDEK March 8, 2006 S29 WEST 13LUERIDGE AVENUE ORANGE. CALIFORNIA 92865 T 714.998.8330 F 714.9983027 Mr. Gary Calkins Calkins Construction 6263 E., Trail Drive Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 Re: On Site Tree Inspection Summary Report Dear Gary, DUDEK & ASSOC. This letter report summarizes my March 8, 2006, site evaluation of several mature Eucalyptus globulus trees growing on the property immediately adjacent to the proposed project site at 6263 E. Trail Drive in Anaheim Hills. The purpose of this site evaluation was to assess any impacts to the mature Eucalyptus globulus trees that may occur with the proposed improvement :of an existing unimproved access road. The proposed improvement of a driveway access road would run immediately adjacent to the Eucalyptus trees. Upon arrival to the property, 1 conducted a site survey and observed the location of the proposed improved driveway access road. The client and 1 discussed the proposed work limits, property line, and construction that would occur immediately adjacent to the Eucalyptus trees. A brief visual inspection of the Eucalyptus trees and surrounding area was conducted. Water runoff and drainage was discussed and will be contained to the client's property. After this discussion and site review, 1 conclude that the access road as planned can be constructed with no si Eucalyptus globulus trees. 1 recommend that any digging or t - a ching occur aa far away as possible from the Eucalyptus trees. Any roots that may be affected by these activities should remain intact whenever possible. If any roots are severed, they should be cut cleanly with a sharp pruning implement to promote a quicker healing process. All soil or fill dirt should remain away from the existing Eucalyptus trees. At no time should the tree's root crown, the area of the tree trunk that flares out just above the soil level, be buried. Burying the root crown may cause this area of the tree to rot, allowing pathogens and/or disease to infect the tree, which ultimately may cause the tree to fail. WWW.DUDEK.COM rovement of the driveway cant impacts to the mature Q002/003 4 1/04/2006 19:31 FAX 760 942 4508 DUDEK 529 WEST BLUERJDGE AVENUE ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92865 T 714.998.8330 F 714.998.9027 Please fell free to call me if you have any questions mg recommendations. Sincerely, Dudek Tom A. Larson Registered Consulting Arborist #389 ISA Certified Arborist #602 WWW_DUDEICCOM DUDEK & ASSOC. • $ 1 g my observations or Z003/003 CEQA Action: Mitigated Negative Declaration Terms and Definitions: 2. Property Owner /Developer — Gary Calkins, 6263 East Trail Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM No. 139 FOR 6263 EAST TRAIL DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Attachment - Item No. 3 1. Project Description —6263 East Trail Drive and associated actions. The project applicant proposes to develop a 7,000 square foot, two - story, single - family home on a 1 -acre lot. The first floor will include a large garage with 20 covered parking spaces, proposed primarily for a personal automobile collection. Access will be via an extension of an existing 12 -foot wide fire access road from East Trail Drive. Approximately 940 feet of retaining walls will be installed. Graded slopes will be replanted with landscaping. The project will be conditioned to use plantable retaining walls. Project development activities will include site grading, and building and improvements construction. In order to implement the proposed project, the applicant is requesting approval of a variance to waive the requirement for a lot to front on a public or private street, maximum structural height and maximum retaining wall height, and a tentative parcel map for the division of the lots, as described in the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. 3. Environmental EquivalentlTiming — Any Mitigation Measure and timing thereof, subject to the approval of the City, which will have the same or superior result and will have the same or superior effect on the environment. The Planning Department, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or City departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed "environmental equivalent /timing" and, if determined necessary, may refer said determination to the Planning Commission. Any costs associated with information required in order to make a determination of environmental equivalency /timing shall be borne by the property owner/developer. Staff time for reviews will be charged on a time and materials basis at the rate in the City's adopted fee schedule. 4. Timing — This is the point where a mitigation measure must be monitored for compliance. In the case where multiple action items are indicated, it is the first point where compliance associated with the mitigation measure must be monitored. Once the initial action item has been complied with, no additional monitoring pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring Program will occur because routine City practices and procedures will ensure that the intent of the measure has been complied with. For example, if the timing is "to be shown on approved building plans" subsequent to issuance of the building permit consistent with the approved plans will be final building and zoning inspections pursuant to the building permit to ensure compliance. 5. Responsibility for Monitoring — Shall mean that compliance with the subject mitigation measure(s) shall be reviewed and determined adequate by all departments listed for each mitigation measure. 6. On -going Mitigation Measures — The mitigation measures that are designated to occur on an on -going basis as part of this mitigation monitoring program will be monitored in the form of an annual letter from the property owner/developer in January of each year stating how compliance with the subject measures(s) has been achieved. When compliance with a measure has been demonstrated for a period of one year, monitoring of the measure will be deemed to be satisfied and no further monitoring will occur. For measures that are to be monitored "On -going During Construction," the annual letter will review those measures only while construction is occurring. Monitoring will be discontinued after construction is completed. 3/19/04 — Rev. 05/19/05 MMP for 6263 East Trail Drive Residential Project 7. Building Permit — For purposes of this mitigation monitoring program, a building permit shall be defined as any permit issued for construction of a new building or structural expansion or modification of any existing building but shall not include any permits required for interior tenant improvements or minor additions to an existing structure or building. MMP for 6263 East Trail Drive Residential Project Measure No. Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES B -1 On -going during grading and construction NCCP Construction - Related Minimization Measures per NCCP /HCP FEIS /REIR No. 553, Section 7.5.4: To the maximum extent practicable, no grading of CSS habitat that is occupied by nesting gnatcatchers will occur during the breeding season (February 15 through July 15). It is expressly understood that this provision and the remaining provisions of these "construction- related minimization measures," are subject to public health and safety considerations. These considerations include unexpected slope stabilization, erosion control measures, and emergency facility repairs. In the event of such public health and safety circumstances, landowners or public agencies /utilities will provide USFWS /CDFG with the maximum practicable notice (or such notice as is specified in the NCCP /HCP) to allow for capture of gnatcatchers, cactus wrens and any other CSS Identified Species that are not otherwise flushed and will carry out the following measures only to the extent as practicable in the context of the public health and safety considerations. Planning Department, Planning Division B -2 Prior to grading and construction Prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving significant soil disturbance, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided under the provisions of the NCCP /HCP, shall be identified with temporary fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel. Additionally, prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving disturbance of CSS, a survey will be conducted to locate gnatcatchers and cactus wrens within 100 feet of the outer extent of projected soil disturbance activities and the locations of any such species shall be clearly marked and identified on the construction /grading plans. Planning Department, Planning Division B -3 On -going during grading and construction A monitoring biologist, acceptable to USFWS /CDFG will be on site during any clearing of CSS. The landowner or relevant public agency /utility will advise USFWS /CDFG at least seven calendar days (and preferably 14 calendar days) prior to the clearing of any habitat occupied by Identified Species to allow USFWS /CDFG to work with the monitoring biologist in connection with bird flushing /capture activities. The monitoring biologist will flush Identified Species (avian or other mobile Identified Species) from occupied habitat areas immediately prior to brush - clearing and earth- moving activities. If birds cannot be flushed, they will be captured in mist nets, if feasible, and relocated to areas of the site to be protected or to the NCCP /HCP Reserve System. It will be the responsibility of the monitoring biologist to assure that Identified bird species will not be directly impacted by brush - clearing and earth - moving equipment in a manner that also allows for construction activities on a timely basis. Planning Department, Planning Division MMP for 6263 East Trail Drive Residential Project Measure No. Timing Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion B -4 On -going during grading and construction Following the completion of initial grading and earth movement activities, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel will be marked with temporary fencing or other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment or materials will be permitted within such marked areas. Planning Department, Planning Division B -5 On -going during grading and construction In areas bordering the NCCP reserve system or Special Linkage /Special Management areas containing significant CSS identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection, vehicle transportation routes between cut - and -fill locations will be restricted to a minimum number during construction consistent with project construction requirements. Waste dirt or rubble will not be deposited on adjacent CSS identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection. Pre - construction meetings involving the monitoring biologist, construction supervisors and equipment operators will be conducted and documented to ensure maximum practicable adherence to these measures. Planning Department, Planning Division B -6 On -going during grading and construction CSS identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection and located within the likely dust drift radius of construction areas shall be periodically sprayed with water to reduce accumulated dust on the leaves as recommended by the monitoring biologist. Planning Department, Planning Division B -7 Prior to grading and construction. The project shall be required to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Migratory bird impacts shall be avoided, if possible, by scheduling construction, including tree removal, demolition, and grading outside of the breeding season, which extends from February 15 to August 31. If construction is scheduled to occur during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall be retained and shall conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior to the commencement of construction activities to determine the presence of migratory birds and their nests. If an active nest is detected, a minimum buffer of 150 feet between the nest and the limit of construction will be flagged. No construction activities are permitted within this buffer zone until it is determined by the biologist that the nest is no longer occupied. Planning Department, Planning Division MMP for 6263 East Trail Drive Residential Project Attachment - Item No. 3 • • SECTION 4 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE /CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: (A separate statement is required for each Code waiver) PERTAINING TO: Sections 18.74.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires that before any variance or Code waiver may be granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shall be shown: 1. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and 2. That, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. In order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to arrive at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regarding the property for which a variance is sought, fully and as completely as possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages. I. Are there special circumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? X Yes _ No. If your answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstancesTtfC EKi s7/z/4 5 /41Pc of 7>' Pa St t7y i 7 PO MAZES 7/1E //r76tf7 �LCE7/Lii7iA/ cW /e oNA 3(F Trtr PRO 'A MOO Wcrc 1& 1O1 f /rrra 'THE SLO.ot - to cS UCE T7C /MpgcT5. f4C4J = a- LYE Tttt= " t7Q4.013rtiLC" site Ttir OUO2.6 tterc It 'Priv-;i` NC 34. 2. Are the special circumstances that apply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the same zone as your property? X Yes _ No If your answer is "yes," describe how the p operty is different: PEYL7 /ES 'JN - ME 4 '1/47// 771E E W4cre .tilt, i i f� Oa 8 }y,✓E A LATTraf" tLQ,4 b LOT SOB 3. Do the special circumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the same zone ?X Yes No If your answer if "yes," describe the special circumstances: 'DUE "CU Tttt= aAO °7Dot, 73 Lb Lo/NS 4- tiOUSe Gr /,N 7YJs ffE /6Ff7 Us./7 /s /K+PI.4ciiaK -. Vi'12+E E5O.RD /Jt 0)00L01:3e. r J,2eO C4Jrtrcrf Sots fiCAr..57 '1r/r Co»f rn/re�f, r1ZO/Pse Dismal/ N M INjw�t,�r -F""S ezeitir.aE �' fitte PA_AOBrt-7, S rPtZ ,&W3E /Nro - f7ft 1'i✓IROnrs,N e.rt 4. Were the special circumstances created by.causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? S.Yes : No EXPLAIN Ti ignature of Property Owner or Authorized Agent 025 0-A.JI �"�� 7Z r7l F)ues7 + fh95 A Pa-We S iwc-a+,y/ 2t7+2-_ r'3!nono4 OUPtt -rry t4O144l3 The sole purpose of any variance or Code waiver shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance or Code waiver shall be approved which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone which is not . herwise e . es auk ed by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances are not permitted. t 5/445 Date CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE NO. VAR NO. 2005 - 046 55 • • PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE /CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: PERTAINING TO: (A separate statement is required for each Code waiver) SECTION 4 Sections 18.03.040.030 and 18.12.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code require that before any variance or Code waiver may be granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shall be shown: 1. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and 2. That, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. In order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to arrive at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regarding the property for which a variance is sought, fully and as completely as possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages. 1. Are there special circumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? K Yes _ No. If your answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstances: 'TTS PYa STI N Li 54F-APGr 0 T14 - 'PR-0PEI2 -'>y D toP06)6>wH1 MA-Y-BS i"ttc !v' turi-cc ttst4 H7 [Alma `Fao Psm2tc riUE To Dt evtrU) ° 'T1tr Pt9PE>2 r4. /n/ 'TILE /n/rNN of 'SJI2 LQUND 04 Pao PET -7I-ES . I 2. Are the special circumstances that apply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the same zone as your property? K Yes _ No If our answer is "yes," describe how the property is different: FY R-Tt ES I N Tttc V( GI kI IT y Ao 1. TO THE S: t • ON ' . E 6:E5 ti's. T1tiS is A UM 00 pg.oRa cn Agflz.Or^rnenlZ CA!'/TAtt GY✓ Tits S 4 l 7715 /n/7e'n/7 'r fl*E CmaC 3. Do the special circumstances applicable tot the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the same zone? Yes No If your answer if "yes," describe the special circumstances: Pao Pe(tr tts 1 'THE Yt c.t D fl Do Diaz SrMt¢E TrtS tv fb6,r2r t+y (tI4 # PS 77M7 7 A296F 7y Dq s -rite-7(2_ Tz a.11 is NsY t ¶i"re(JP 4. Were the special circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? pc., Yes _ No l EXPLAIN f18 I P E I tit G Red t s r 9*/CASS (7'Op9�a /tyd , E NA- O"'t2Nal. biz Llt/D II u LA, ✓ use- • ' j . 9 - MSC tUO.0 Lb 1. --Ila To D51. 771e Plaieati 'TV r7 .t icoLC-UST ftr 1-f*s A- PP -Strok) (e-- P - c¢/GD 0 I F3Ut 1.DleAy &Ujt .(Ty rtCu285. The sole purpose of any variance or Code waiver shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance or Code waiver shall be approved which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone which is t otherw ex ress a thorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances are not permitted. c-- 445 /C S Signature of Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date DECEMBER 12, 2000 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE NO. VAR NQ 2005 - 0 4 6 5 5 1 Gordon & Marilyn Capel 284 Quintana Anaheim Hills, ca. 92807 714-282-0328 City of Anaheim Planning & Zoning Dept. Anaheim City Hall 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite 162 Anaheim, Ca. 92805 Dear Greg, We have heard that there has been opposition to Gary Calkins wanting to build a large custom home on his property at 6263 East Trail Drive. It seems that certain neighbors have banded together to be an irritant to his project. Our home is most impacted by Gary's project because our property is directly below and connects to the proposed site of construction. We gave Gary our verbal APPROVAL awhile ago when he explained his plans to us. Gary completely remodeled our home last year. We know that he does quality work and has very high building standards and whatever he builds will be of superior quality, as well as beautiful. It could only increase our property values. Sincerely, Gordon & Marilyn Capel 9/23/05 Item No. 3 Gary & Kathy Bruce 100 S. Bayberry Ct. Anaheim, Ca. 92807 9/22/05 Dear City of Anaheim, 1 am Ting to express our support for our neighbors, Gary and Bonnie 0-11-1-3, In their desire to build a home on their property. We know Gary and Bonnie to be people of integrity and character. In building and improving on their property they have demonstrated respect and consideration to their surrounding neighbors, including ourselves. Last summer Gary helped us with a kitchen remodel and built a patio trellis area. We are confident that the home he intends to build will be a positive addition to our community. We hope that the City of Anaheim will approve their request to build again and look forward to seeing their new home in our neighborhood. rudential September 20, 2005 Amy Vazquez Planning & Zoning Department Anaheim City Hall 200 So. Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, Ca. 92805 Dear Ms. Vazquez: We have heard that there has been opposition to Gary Calkins wanting to build a large custom home on his property at 6263 East Trail Drive. It seems that certain neighbors have banded together to be an irritant to his project. Our home is most impacted by Gary's project because our property is located directly above and connects to the proposed site of construction. We have given Gary our verbal approval a long while ago when he explained his plans to us. As the owner of a home that Gary has built, we have utmost confidence in the quality of his work and his complete compliance and care of building standards. Whatever he builds will be of superior quality as well as beautiful — it could only increase our property values. Chris McKeen & Kent Koepsell Homeowners 6271 E. Trail Drive, Anaheim, CA. 92807 714-282-0694 Prudential California Realty 160 S Old Springs Road, Suite 200, Anaheim Hills CA 92808 Bus 714 998-7250 Fax 714 998-0425 1 .) An independently owned and operated member of The Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. RCL 9d -00-15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 70 -71 -28 RCL 70 -71 -27 STADIUM PLAZA BUSINESS PARK SMALL IND. FIRMS C -G (PTMU) RCL 99 -00 -15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 87 -88 -26 RCL 83 -84 -24 RCL 59 -60 -23 CUP 2005 -04966 CUP 3369 CUP 3165 CUP 2651 VAR 2005 -04675 VAR 4206 PARKING T -CUP 2003 -04774 STADIUM TOWER PL OFFICE BLDG. (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 66 -67 -14 RCL 59 -60-23 T -CUP 2002 -04578 T -CUP 2001 -04446 CUP 2001 -04441 CUP 1424 CUP 1301 VAR 3791 V -1779 S AUTO REPAIR & RENTAL PR (PTMU) RCL 99-00-15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 56 -57 -93 CUP 2400 CUP 750 RCL 66 -67 -14 ANGEL STADIUM RCL 99 -00 -15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 70-71-28 RCL 70 -71 -27 SMALL IND. FIRMS SINCLAIR ST O-H RCL 2004 -00127 RCL 99 -00-15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 83 -84-19 RCL 70 -71 -28 RCL 70 -71 -27 VAR 3390 VAR 2152 METROPLEX I rl, OFFICE BLDG. RCL 99-00-15 O -L PTMU RCL 99-00-15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 90 -91 -11 RCL 82 -83-33 RCL 59-60-23 CUP 3369 CUP 2433 CUP 2257 STADIUM TOWER PLAZA OFFICE BLDG. IND. FIRMS /1. kt O -L (PTMU) RCL 99 -00 -15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 90 -91 -11 RCL 83 -84 -24 RCL 59 -60 -23 CUP 3369 CUP 3326 CUP 3165 CUP 2651 VAR 3608 PARKING VACANT ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE PTMU (PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY) ZONE Variance No. 2005 -04675 Requested By: THE SHOPS AT STADIUM TOWERS REQUEST WAIVERS OF: (A) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES (B) PERMITTED NUMBER OF TENANTS ON A MONUMENT SIGN (C) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MONUMENT SIGNS (D) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF MONUMENT SIGN (E) PERMITTED NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS (F) PERMITTED LOCATION OF WALL SIGNS (G) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF LETTERS /LOGOS ON WALL SIGNS TO WAIVE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND PERMITTED SIGNS. 2410 -2420 East Katella Avenue — Stadium Towers Plaza Subject Property Date: March 20, 2006 Scale: Graphic Q.S. No. 117 Item No. 2 2135 • NIPNH+fIIIII i Ii iII ;10111 ftil1 It .1 �HBNHH11)1IVIINN♦IINRNi Ey I,Par ! NHS igi 4441 +$F:, ? wa': i d a Variance No. 2005 -04675 Requested By: THE SHOPS AT STADIUM TOWERS REQUEST WAIVERS OF: TO WAIVE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND PERMITTED SIGNS. 2410 -2420 East Katella Avenue — Stadium Towers Plaza Subject Property Date. March 20, 2006 Scale: Graphic Q.S. No. 117 (A) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES (BJ PMID NU MR OF TENAN C MAXI TTE N BE OF MONUMNTS ENT O SIGNS A MONUMENT SIGN D MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF MONUMENT SIGN ] [ E PERITTED NUMBER F WA SIGNS F PERMMITTED LOCATION O OF WALLL L SIGNS G) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF LETTERS /LOGOS ON WALL SIGNS 2135 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. VARIANCE NO. 2005 -04675 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: REQUEST: (3) (a) SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 (b) SECTION NO. 18.44.080.060 (c) SECTION NO. 18.44.090.010 (d) SECTION NO. 18.44.090.020 (e) SECTION NO. 18.44.110.010.0102 Permitted number of wall signs (DELETED) (f) (g) SECTION NO. 18.44.110.0103 BACKGROUND: sr- var2005- 04675akv. doc Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 4 (Motion) (Resolution) (1) This irregularly- shaped, 2.4 -acre property has a frontage of 600 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, a maximum depth of 480 feet and is located 37 feet east of the centerline of Howell Avenue (2410 -2420 East Katella Avenue - Stadium Towers Plaza). (2) The applicant requests waivers of the following pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces and permitted signs for a previously - approved commercial center. Minimum number of parking spaces (271 spaces required; 179 proposed and recommended by the City's Independent Parking and Traffic Consultant) Permitted number of tenants on a monument sign (DELETED) Maximum number of monument signs (DELETED) Maximum height of monument sign (DELETED) SECTION NO. 18.44.110.010.0102 Permitted location of wall signs (Signs required to be located on frontage of tenant space; clustered signs proposed) Maximum height of letters /logos of wall signs (24 inches maximum permitted; 48 inches proposed) This item was continued from the January 23, February 6, February 22 and March 6. 2006, Commission meetings in order for the applicant to complete the parking study and revise the sign program to reduce the number of advertised waivers. (4) This property is currently developed with an office building and a freestanding restaurant with a commercial center under construction, and is zoned C -G (General Commercial). The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Mixed Use land uses. Surrounding properties to the east, west and south are also designated for Mixed Use land uses, and to the north (across Katella Avenue) for Office High land uses. Page 1 USE SQUARE FEET PARKING RATIO (per 1,000 sq. ft.) PARKING REQUIRED Retail 7,227 5.5 39.7 Fast Food Restaurant 8,134 16 130.1 Full- Service Restaurant (Hooters) 7,785 8 62.3 Outdoor Dining 2,400 16 38.4 TOTAL 271 PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS: (5) DISCUSSION: (7) The following zoning actions pertain to this property: Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 4 (a) Conditional Use Permit No. 2257 (to permit a commercial office building) was approved by the Planning Commission on September 9, 1981. (b) Conditional Use Permit No. 2433 (to permit a 4 -story office building with waiver of minimum structural setback) was approved by the Planning Commission on April 18, 1983. (c) Conditional Use Permit No. 2651 (to permit an 11 -story hotel with on -sale of alcoholic beverages and accessory uses and a 12 and 15 -story high office complex) was approved by the Planning Commission on January 7, 1985. (d) Conditional Use Permit No. 3165 (to permit a commercial retail center and two (2) freestanding restaurants with the on -sale of alcoholic beverages and waiver of required site screening) was approved by the Planning Commission on June 5, 1989. (e) Conditional Use Permit No. 3369 (to permit two (2) freestanding monument signs) was approved by the Planning Commission on December 3, 1990. (f) Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -04966 (to permit a commercial retail center) was approved by the Planning Commission on May 2, 2005. This retail center is under construction and this variance pertains to this proiect. (6) On May 2, 2005, the Commission approved a two building, eight (8) unit, 15,361 square foot commercial retail center. When the project was originally before the Commission, the businesses that would lease the new tenant spaces had not yet been determined, therefore it was assumed that the entire center would be for retail tenants. Since the original approval, the developer has decided to lease to more restaurant and fast food uses than originally anticipated and implement an outdoor dining area, which would increase the parking demand for the retail center. Waiver (a) pertains to minimum number of parking spaces. Code requires 271 spaces based on the following chart: Page 2 ( Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 4 (8) The site plan indicates a total of 179 spaces available on -site. The applicant has submitted a parking study, prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, dated February 22, 2006, to substantiate the requested waiver. The City's Independent Parking and Traffic Consultant has reviewed the study and has determined that there would be sufficient parking for the proposed, restaurant, fast -food and outdoor dining uses within the retail center. Based on the City's Independent Parking and Traffic Consultant's analysis, the parking study demonstrates the following findings to substantiate the requested waiver of minimum number of parking spaces: (a) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off - street 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 of such use. "Finding supported. Using code parking ratios for the retail and Hooters site components, plus a "design ratio" determined through extensive field study of an existing QSR site, the peak parking demand requirement for The Shops site (to include Hooters) totals 179 spaces. Parking supply will equal that requirement with a 121 -space lot on -site and 58 spaces within an immediately adjoining easement area of Stadium Towers. Based on a code calculation and shared parking projection for the office building as well as actual field study of Stadium Towers parking lots and garage, that site has a parking surplus well in excess of the 58 spaces being offered in the easement (code excess of over 200 spaces, and field study surplus of approximately 400 spaces)." (b) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. "Finding supported. The parking needs of the site will be entirely supported by on -site and easement spaces. No on- street parking demand will be generated." (c) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. "Finding supported. The parking plan includes 121 spaces on -site, and 58 spaces in an easement at Stadium Towers (from which the shops site was originally created). Between those two parking components totaling 179 spaces, the project parking needs will be fully satisfied." (d) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the off - street parking areas or lots provided for such use. "Finding supported. The site plan creates a Shops on -site parking area that is logical, served by two driveways along the Stadium Towers circulation "spine ", and is internally looped (no "dead -end" aisles). The easement area Page 3 Sign Type Location Maximum Height Proposed Maximum Height Permitted Sign Type A — wall North and south elevation of Building A (parallel to Katella Avenue) 36 -inch logo, 24- inch letters 24- inches both logo and letter height Sign Type B- wall East elevation of Building B (perpendicular to Katella Avenue) 36 -inch logo, 24- inch letter 24- inches both logo and letter height Sign Type C —wall Clustered on the west elevation (facing driveway into development) of Building B 32 -inch logo, 21- inch letter height 24- inches both logo and letter height Sign Type D — wall East and West elevation of Building A and north elevation of Building B 48 -inch logo, maximum 16 s.f. 24- inches logo height Monument Sign Along Katella Avenue frontage 8 feet high 8 feet high Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 4 already exists in the Stadium Towers East Lot, is in close proximity to The Shops, and is served by the same circulation "spine "." (e) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. "Finding supported. Access to the combined Stadium Towers -The Shops site, and adjoining Colton site [office building to the west], is via a signalized intersection on Katella Avenue opposite Howell Avenue. Based on the Figure 1 (attached) site plan, and on -site circulation improvements depicted therein, that access is throated (no driveway connection) for more than 250 feet south of Katella Avenue, where a Shops driveway access will align opposite a Stadium Towers internal circulation road in an intersection with the "spine" road. That "spine" represents a minor realignment of existing Stadium Towers circulation roadways to create a continuous, single, internal roadway alignment between Katella and the East Lot, and beyond to the parking structure." (10) Sign plans (Exhibit Nos.1 through 10) proposed the following identification signs: *BOLD indicates waiver required. (11) Waivers (b), (c), (d) and (e) have been deleted. The applicant has revised the original sign program in order to minimize the number of waivers requested. (12) Waiver (f) pertains to the permitted location of wall signs. Code requires that wall signs be located on the building walls of the tenant space. The sign program presented for the building oriented perpendicular to Katella Avenue in this retail center includes a clustering of wall signs at the northwest corner of the building on the rear elevation (west elevation Page 4 facing the drivel ay leading into the center) in order to provide visibility to Katella Avenue and to the entrance of the center as illustrated belov.t. Clustered signs vtould be only for the retail tenants within that particular building. Staff is supportive ofthis vtaiver since the irregular shape of the propertyvtould make it difficult to identify tenants if the signs vtere located directly over each tenant space. The southerly end ofthe building and the tenant signs forthe southemmost units vtould be located too far from Katella Avenue to be visible. Saa "ago J Building " West Elevation West elevation of Building B facing main entrance driveway with clustered wall signs Buildina'B" West Elevation Scab IM' =1'D' 5 , Tyoo C - Soo Doc Ms Pogo Clustered wall signs (Waiver (f)) Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 4 (13) Waiver (g) pertains to the maximum letterlogo height of wall signs. Code allows for a maximum letter.logo height of 24 inches and the applicant is proposing signs Hith 36 -inch logos on the north (facing Katella Avenue) and south elevation (facing parking lot) of the building parallel to Katella Avenue, and the east elevation (facing parking lot) for the building perpendicular to Katella Avenue. One (1) intemal wall sign for each tenant (facing the parking lot) is proposed. In addition, one 4$ -inch logo is proposed at the east and west elevation of Building A and on the north elevation of Building B and 32 -inch logos are proposed for the clustered sign on the west elevation of Building B. Staff is supportive of this request and believes that the size of the proposed vtall signs is proportionate to the building elevations. Additionally, the 32 -inch, 36 -inch and 43 -inch logos would increase the visibility from Katella Avenue. Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 4 (14) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore, recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning Commission that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS: (15) Section 18.42.110 of the parking ordinance sets forth the following findings, which are required to be made before a parking waiver is approved by the Planning Commission. (a) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off - street 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 reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use; and (b) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use; and (c) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, 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 18.42.050.030 of this Code); and (d) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the off - street parking areas or lots provided for such use; and (e) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. Unless conditions to the contrary are expressly imposed upon the granting of any waiver pursuant to this Section by the Planning Commission, the granting of any such waiver shall be deemed contingent upon operation of such use in conformance with the assumptions relating to the operation and intensity of the use as contained in the parking demand study that formed the basis for approval of said waiver. Exceeding, violating, intensifying or otherwise deviating from any of said assumptions as contained in the parking demand study shall be deemed a violation of the express conditions imposed upon said waiver which shall subject said waiver to termination or modification pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of this Code. (16) When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from strict enforcement of the Zoning Code, a modification may be granted for the purpose of assuring that no property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, shall be deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The sole purpose of Page 6 any waiver is to prevent discrimination and none shall be approved which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other similar properties. Therefore, before any waiver is granted by the Commission, it shall be shown: (a) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and (b) That strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. RECOM MENDATION: (17) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission take the following actions: (a) By motion approve a Negative Declaration for the project. (b) By resolution approve, in part, Variance No. 2005 -04675 pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces and permitted signs for a previously- approved commercial center by adopting the attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained therein and taking the following actions: (i) Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 4 Approve waiver (a) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces (271 spaces required 179 proposed) based on the findings outlined in the parking study approved by the City's Independent Traffic Consultant. (ii) Deny waivers (b), (c), (d) and (e) since they have been deleted. (iii) Approve waivers (f) and (g) pertaining to permitted location of wall signs and maximum letter height. Page 7 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2006 - * ** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2005 -04675 BE GRANTED, IN PART WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Variance for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as: PARCEL A: PARCELS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP 90 -232, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN DEED BOOK 278, PAGES 7, 8, AND 9 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL B: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT NO. 139 RECORDED NOVEMBER 1, 1985 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 85- 423458 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 3, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 196, PAGES 8 AND 9 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 34° 23' 42" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3 AND ITS SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION, 309.49 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3; THENCE SOUTH 00° 00' 11" EAST 106.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 59' 49" WEST 67.60 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 51 FEET EASTERLY FROM THE LINE COMMON TO PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF SAID PARCEL MAP HAVING A BEARING AND DISTANCE OF NORTH 00° 00' 11" WEST 371.55 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00° 00' 11" WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE 89.68 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY 32.50 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE LINE COMMON TO SAID PARCELS 1 AND 2 HAVING A BEARING AND DISTANCE OF NORTH 34° 23' 42" WEST 147.57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 34° 23' 42" WEST, ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE 284.77 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF KATELLA AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP, SAID POINT BEING IN THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 940.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 65.01 FEET ALONG THE AREA OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3° 57' 46" TO THE POINT OF BEGINNINGS, AS CREATED BY THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT FOR MUTUAL INGRESS AND EGRESS EXECUTED BY L.C. SMULL RECORDED OCTOBER 7, 1985 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 85- 382822, OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL C: NON - EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES AS DEFINED AND OVER THOSE AREAS AS DESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 2 OF THE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED JULY 2, 1986 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 86284304, OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL D: NON - EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS, PARKING UTILITIES AND CONSTRUCTION PURPOSE AS DEFINED AND OVER THOSE AREAS AS DESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 2 OF THE DECLARATION ESTABLISHING EASEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS (STADIUM TOWERS PLAZA) RECORDED DECEMBER 19, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 94- 0722696, OFFICIAL RECORDS. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on March 20, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as CR \PC2006 -0 -1- PC2006- 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 variance 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. That the petitioner proposes waivers of the following pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces and permitted signs for a previously - approved commercial center. (a) SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces (271 spaces required; 179 proposed and recommended by the City's Independent Parking and Traffic Consultant) (b) SECTION NO. 18.44.080.060 (c) SECTION NO. 18.44.090.010 (d) SECTION NO. 18.44.090.020 (g) SECTION NO. 18.44.110.0103 Permitted number of tenants on a monument sign (DELETED) Maximum number of monument signs (DELETED) Maximum height of monument sign (DELETED) (e) SECTION NO. 18.44.110.010.0102 Permitted number of wall signs (DELETED) (f) SECTION NO. 18.44.110.010.0102 Permitted location of wall signs (Signs required to be located on frontage of tenant space; clustered signs proposed) Maximum height of letters /logos of wall signs (24 inches maximum permitted; 36 to 48 inches proposed) 2. That the above mentioned waivers (b), (c), (d) and (e) are hereby denied since they have been deleted. 3. That the above - mentioned waivers (f) and (g) are hereby approved as the site is uniquely constrained by its irregular shape. The proposed buildings are aligned uniquely due to the shape of the property thereby limiting proper tenant identification to those tenants that are directly visible to the right -of- way. Additionally, the wall signs would not be visible to Katella Avenue without larger logo height and clustering of the signs at the ends of each retail building. Strict application of the zoning code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by properties that do not have these site constrains. 4. That the above - mentioned waiver (a) is hereby approved based upon the submitted parking analysis prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, dated February 22, 2006. The City's independent Traffic Consultant has reviewed the parking analysis and has determined that the proposed parking area referenced in the study would be sufficient for the proposed uses on the property. 5. That the parking waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off - street parking spaces to be provided. Using code parking ratios for the retail and Hooters site components, plus a "design ratio" determined through extensive field study of an existing retail site, the peak parking demand requirement for The Shops site (to include Hooters) totals 179 spaces. Parking supply will equal that -2- PC2006- requirement with a 121 -space lot on -site and 58 spaces within an immediately adjoining easement area of Stadium Towers. Based on a code calculation and shared parking projection for the office building as well as actual field study of Stadium Towers parking lots and garage, that site has a parking surplus well in excess of the 58 spaces being offered in the easement (code excess of over 200 spaces, and field study surplus of approximately 400 spaces). 6. That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the parking needs of the site will be entirely supported on -site and through easement spaces. 7. That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. The parking plan includes 121 spaces on -site, and 58 spaces in an easement at Stadium Towers (from which the shops site was originally created). Between those two parking components totaling 179 spaces, the project parking needs will be fully satisfied. 8. That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase traffic congestion within the off - street parking areas or lots provided for such use since the site plan creates a Shops on -site parking area that is logical, served by two driveways along the Stadium Towers circulation "spine ", and is internally looped (no "dead -end" aisles). The easement area already exists in the Stadium Towers East Lot, is in close proximity to The Shops, and is served by the same circulation "spine". 9. That "'indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to waive (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (f) permitted location of wall signs, and (g) maximum height of letters /logos on wall signs for a previously- approved commercial center; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: 1. That the signage for subject retail center shall be limited to that shown on the exhibits submitted by the petitioner. The cluster wall signs (Sign Type C) shall be permitted only for the tenants located within that building. 2. That the granting of the parking waiver is contingent upon operation of the use in conformance with the assumptions and /or conclusions relating to the operation and intensity of use as contained in the parking demand study that formed the basis for approval of said waiver. Exceeding, violating, intensifying or otherwise deviating from any of said assumptions and /or conclusions, as contained in the parking demand study, shall be deemed a violation of the expressed conditions imposed upon said waiver which shall subject this variance to termination or modification. 3. That an unsubordinated restricted covenant providing reciprocal access and parking (for 58 spaces), in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney's Office, shall be recorded with the Office of the County Recorder and submitted to the Planning Services Division. -3- PC2006- 4. That the subject property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with the sign plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 -10, and as conditioned herein. 5. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim 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 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 March 20, 2006. 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. ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on March 20, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2006. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -4- PC2006- robinson hill architecture, inc. January 16, 2006 Ms. Amy Vazquez City of Anaheim Planning Department 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Ste 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Re: Shops at Stadium Towers Parking and Sign Variance VAR2005- X46 i 5 Ms. Vazquez, JAN 20 PLANNING DEPARIM T Attachment - Item No. 4 Per your conversation with Bryon Ward last Friday, January 12, we are writing to emphasize the importance of the end -cap signage for the tenants in suites Al and B 1. We have provided herein a written explanation of the importance of the end -cap signs for both of these tenants as they relate to the overall retail center design. The Shops at Stadium Towers Retail Center not only serves as a gateway of the Platinum Triangle Planning District, but also as a support amenity to the Class "A" Stadium Office Towers adjacent to our subject property. As such, our project is intended to serve as a high quality food and shops court that attracts a variety of professional patrons. To this end, we have targeted our marketing effort to the national and name brand tenants. Exposure is a primary concern to any quality national tenant and especially important to our proposed end -cap tenants for suites Al (west end -cap) and B1 (north end -cap). As is the case with most retail projects, the visibility of the signage from the street is most effective when the sign is perpendicular to the street as opposed to parallel, thus the proposed building signage on the backside of Building "A" is most visible to vehicles traveling a e 11 a Ave. !�y'.�Fce fhP:TTP1��•�•A'la�r are passing the :- r center ,�,1' past 1♦ c 11- ce the ►iJi C.v /"Z lin x: n J�.lgt V i. }11.¢% A e.;.. nr h.- `' hi i/les Vl. V.: • !:%asi ing (.Y3 -' c"V ':I �.'./1. rk just �. pas �. i ry ►J ince Lt.he signs are parallel to the street. The visibility of these signs is most effective to vehicles while traveling in the Westbound direction coming from the freeway, and less effective to vehicles while they are approaching the center from the East. This lack of advanced visibility from the Eastbound lanes is accentuated due to the uphill grade along Katella Ave. as a result of the railroad overpass just west of our project site. Coming down the Eastbound lanes, the Building "A" signs will not be visible to patrons until the entrance to the project has been passed or are until they are right next to the center and it becomes too late to enter. The end -cap sign for Building "A" is meant as a solution to help overcome this issue, as vehicles will have more of an advanced warning of the tenant exposure. The same could be said of the Building "B" tenants. A California Corporation 3195 B Airport Loop Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 www.rhainc.net Telephone: 714. 825.8888 • Facsimile: 714. 825.8889 While traveling Westbound down Katelia Ave., the view to the Building "B" tenant signage is hindered to vehicles because the building storefronts are partially blocked by Building "A ". The building signage is only visible to those vehicles traveling Eastbound on Katelia and this view would only be of the cluster sign at the backside of the building. An end -cap sign on Building "B" will provide added identity to the end -cap tenant for similar reasons as Building "A ". This sign will also give advanced visibility for vehicles crossing into the intersection or coming straight towards the center from Howell Ave. This request is of such importance to the retail center that the owner has authorized the withdrawal of the following previously requested waivers in trade for the mutual cooperation from the city on the two end -cap signs described above: robinson hill architecture, inc. 1. Monument sign: . a. Withdraw waiver requesting height increase above the 8'-0" height requirement. b. Withdraw waiver requesting increase of tenant panels from (3) panels per side to (6) panels per side. (In short, we are proposing to proceed with a Monument Sign at the 8' -0" maximum height and with a limit of (3) tenant signs per side which both meet city code.) 2. End -Cap signs a. Withdraw waiver requesting a permit for an end -cap sign at the East end - cap of Building "A" and South end -cap of Building "B ". Sincerely, RHA, Inc. (In short, we are only requesting a waiver for the West end -cap on Building "A" and North end -cap on Building "B ".) This exposure will not only ensure the tenants individual success, but also promote branding for our center which is important for its long term success as part of the Platinum Triangle Planning District. We look forward to answering any questions you may have. Peter Louis Project Manager Cc: Mr. Bryon Ward (G &E) Mr. John Hill (RHA) February 22, 2006 / Updated March 9, 2006 Ms. Therese Hotvedt, President BURNHAM USA EQUITIES, INC. 1100 Newport Center Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Revised Parking Study Report The Shops at Stadium Towers Anaheim, California Dear Ms. Hotvedt: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Item No. 4 LLG Reference: 2.05.2714.1 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this revised Parking Study for the proposed development of The Shops at Stadium Towers. The project includes an expected mix of retail (including financial) and food service uses on a parcel adjoining the existing Stadium Towers office building and Hooters restaurant in the City of Anaheim. This letter presents our findings in that regard, and expands our earlier submittal of January 4 to address comments from the City's consultant, Rafiq & Associates, dated January 9, 2006. Among those added elements are a complete inventory of existing parking provisions, attributes and demand levels at Stadium Towers, a further discussion of signage and parking allocation adjustments anticipated for the site, and clarification of the analysis techniques and findings in our Shops parking investigation. In addition, the February 22 submittal updated the parking calculations for the site to reflect recent minor refinements in the project floor area, tenancy mix, and parking easement space utilization. This update of March 9 adds a section confirming satisfaction of five findings required before a parking waiver is approved by the Planning Commission. The Shops project site lies immediately south of Katella Avenue, and west of SR -57 in the City of Anaheim. A project site plan, that also locates the existing Stadium Towers office building as well as existing Hooters restaurant, is presented in the attached Figure 1, Table 1, also attached, presents a square footage summary and expected tenancy breakdown as of this update. While exact tenants could vary, the square footage in both the "retail" and "restaurant" categories is expected to remain fixed. As illustrated by Figure 1 and Table 1, The Shops project includes a total of 15,361 SF to be constructed in two buildings on a single parcel adjoining the existing Stadium Towers office building. The Shops floor area total includes 7,227 SF of retail use, with the remaining 8,134 SF allocated to restaurant uses. The restaurant N:\ 2700\2052714'\Revised Parking Study 3-9-2006- The Shops at Stadium Towet:.DOC LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers Engineers & Planners Traffic Transportation Parking Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 1580 Corporate Drive Suite 122 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.641.1587 r 714.641.0139 F www.11gengineers.com Pasadena Costa Mesa San Diego Las Vegas Philip M. Linscott, PE 11924 -2000) Jack M. Greenspan, PE (Ret.) William A. Law, PE (Ret.) Paul W. Wilkinson, PE John P. Keating, PE David S. Shender, PE John A. Boarman, PE Clare M. Look - Jaeger, PE Richard E. Barretto, PE An LG2WB Company Founded 1966 Ms. Therese Hotvedt February 22, 2006 / Updated March 9, 2006 Page 2 floor area components reflect an emerging tenant type known as "Quick Service Restaurant" (QSR) that is located specifically in mixed -use settings and intended to serve those settings in largely a "walk -in" characteristic. These restaurant types include counter service with self - seating. Given the combination of significant walk - in patronage together with a higher guest turnover rate than at other restaurant types, actual parking ratios for QSR tend to be less to much less than typical city code requirements. This aspect will be addressed in a subsequent section of this report. The project will also include a patio seating area. Given the nature and basis of the QSR field studies, the quantity of patio seating supported by site parking provisions will be addressed in this study, The Building A/ B project parcel of Figure 1 includes an updated total of 121 parking spaces These include 107 spaces to be constructed in a surface lot on the Shops site, plus 14 spaces (including 2 handicap) that now exist at the north end of the Stadium Towers site and along the Hooters pad frontage. For convenience, we've referred to these 14 spaces as the "overlap spaces" since they now exist (and are now in use) on the Stadium Towers site, but they are also counted in the 121 -space supply of the Shops site plan. At peak times, otherwise unused and designated spaces at the Stadium Towers offices (in what LLG calls the "East Lot" in this study) will also provide parking support to The Shops (via an easement agreement). Existing Hooters patrons are now served in this way, Figure 2 excerpts Exhibit "I" of the draft revised CC &R's and Grant of Easements for the Shops at Stadium Towers that will be recorded in connection with the proposed project. Figure 2 (Exhibit "I ") presents the project site plan in the context of the various easements and other development components that surround it. The cross- hatched area immediately south of Hooters depicts a new shared parking easement located on office tower property, where, by agreement 58 parking spaces will also support Hooters and The Shops. When taken together with 121 spaces on The Shops site itself (including the 14 "overlap spaces" identified above), these easement spaces bring the total Hooters / The Shops parking supply to 179 spaces (121 + 58). It should be noted that The Shops ownership has the option to secure additional spaces in the easement should future adjustments to the tenant mix warrant. The Hooters restaurant floor area input to this analysis totals 7,785 SF and includes 6,800 SF of building area plus 985 SF of patio area. In order to present a conservative analysis, our parking study uses the total square footage of both components. The existing Stadium Towers office building includes a total of 253,012 SF. Exclusive of the 121 spaces to be provided on The Shops parcel, a recent field inventory of the Stadium Towers site indicates that the Stadium Towers parcel alone provides a total of 1,094 parking spaces. Of this total, 807 spaces are in the parking structure, with another 287 spaces in surface parking. More specifically, and exclusive of the 14 I Source: Robinson Hill Architecture, February 21, 2006 e -mail. N:' Revised Parking Study 3 -9- 2006- The Shops at Stadium Towets.DOC LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers Ms. Therese Hotvedt February 22, 2006 / Updated March 9, 2006 Page 3 "overlap spaces ", the "East Lot" provides 209 spaces, designated for either Hooters parking or Stadium Towers short term visitor parking. The "West Lot" (refer to Figure 1) provides 78 spaces for office building tenants, visitors, and delivery / service vehicles. It should be noted that the site access system that serves Stadium Towers, Hooters and The Shops site also serves another existing office building ( "Colton ") with its own site parking area. The parking needs for this building are met by its own parking lot, and neither its need for spaces, nor the possible sharing of unused spaces on that site is considered /presumed in this analysis. EXISTING STADIUM TOWERS PARKING PROVISIONS AND PARKING DEMAND Figures 1 and 2, presented previously, identified the general arrangement of parking that surrounds the existing Stadium Towers and Hooters development. As shown, these include surface lots that flank the office tower to the east and west, what LLG has referred to as the "East Lot" and "West Lot ", respectively, as well as a parking garage immediately to the south. In conjunction with site preparation for construction on the actual Shops parcel, pavement markings and signage were recently updated to further clarify the allocation of parking for specific existing site parkers. The allocation areas were further delineated in a Construction Site Plan that has been distributed to site tenants and visitors, and has been incorporated to this letter analysis as Figure 3. The Figure 3 plan is now in place ( "on the ground ") at the site. Within Figure 3, The Shops site is shown in pink and labeled as the "Fenced Construction Zone ". The parking spaces shown in the construction zone are former surface spaces that have now been removed to prepare the site for construction. These spaces are not included in any space counts reported for the Stadium Towers site in this analysis. Further review of Figure 3 indicates a "Hooters Parking Only" area shown in orange in the eastern portion of the East Lot. Field inventory has determined that the Hooters (orange) area totals 100 spaces, to include the 14 "overlap spaces ", plus 86 other spaces. It is worth noting that the 58 spaces to be provided in the future easement area (from Figure 2) are wholly within the footprint defined by these other 86 spaces. Field delineation of all 100 Hooters spaces is provided by signage ( "Hooters Parking ") throughout the Hooters parking area, plus pavement markings at the foot of every space (one space reads "Hooters ", while the adjoining space reads "Parking ", with that pattern repeating through all of the 100 spaces). 700 %20.52714'\ \Revised Parking Study 3-9-2006- The Shops at Stadium Towers DOC LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers Ms. Therese Hotvedt February 22, 2006 / Updated March 9, 2006 Page 4 The balance of the East Lot is labeled as "EOP Guest Parking" in Figure 3 This area totals 123 spaces, and is signed for bank parking (8 spaces), 2 -hour parking (90 spaces), or 3 -hour parking (25 spaces). There are no long term or otherwise unrestricted spaces in this portion of the East Lot. Parking signage is extensive, and typically is placed on all light poles in the EOP area, plus in every end (landscaped) island. The surface lot west of the office building referred to in this study as the "West Lot ", totals 78 spaces and includes a mix of handicap, bank -only, 30- minute, 2 -hour, and unrestricted spaces, as well as a loading zone with footprint equivalent to 11 spaces. As noted previously, the parking garage includes a total of 807 spaces. All spaces are numbered with a pavement marking at the foot of the space, starting at the lowest level of the garage, and continuing to the last space on the roof. The garage has a total of five levels (grade plus four), situated in two parking bays for each level, along an east -west axis. The north bays (nearest the office building) are level, with ramps between levels located in the south parking bays. The ramps rise from near the west end of the garage, and "top out" near the east end. An elevator core is provided in the garage at about mid -way along its north face, between the two indentions along the north facade depicted in Figure 1 The foot of the elevator core aligns to a crosswalk of the driveway extending between the garage and the office pad. At the north end of that crossing, a walkway (hardscape area) continues to the office building lobby doors about midway along the northeast and southwest faces of the office building. Scaling from available plans, the walking distance from the garage elevator core to either office building lobby entry totals about 275 feet. Pedestrian movements between the garage and the office building are made entirely at grade; there is no upper level (bridge) connection from the garage to the office building. Stadium Towers parking is free to both tenants and visitors. Building management advises that reserved spaces (within the garage only) are available. Reserved parking in the garage is indicated by a hanging placard at the head of each space, and totals 94 spaces. The monthly rent for a reserved space is $65. Existing Stadium Towers parking has been extensively inventoried as part of this study, and using those inventories, counted for actual parking demand on Tuesday, January 17, 2006. Surface lots (both East and West) were counted by sub -area at 11.00 AM, 12:00 noon, 12.30 PM, 1.00 PM, 1.30 PM, and 2:00 PM. These survey times were intended to capture the potential parking demand variation from before, through, and after the typical lunch hour, The parking garage, which is used by site tenants and long -term site visitors, was counted in its entirety at 11:00 AM, 12;30 PM, and 2:00 PM with the same intent. From prior experience, office building parking demand tends to peak in the 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM period, and again in the early afternoon, at about 2 :00 PM. Table 2 presents the results of the Stadium Towers field study. N; \2700 \2052714'\ Revised Parking Study 3 -9- 2006- The Shops at Stadium To 1:3 DOC LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers Ms. Therese Hotvedt February 22, 2006 / Updated March 9, 2006 Page 5 The left portion of Table 2 identifies the parking sub areas of the existing Stadium Towers site and the inventoried parking space count within each. The East Lot is presented near the top of the table, with the West Lot in the middle section, and the parking garage in the lower portion. Counts of existing parking supply within the two surface lots are broken down by component area. Parking supply values for the garage are broken down by floor as LLG inventoried them in the field based on the space numbering system now in place in the garage. The space totals reported in each area match those previously presented in this letter analysis. Looking to the upper portion of the table, the East Lot information is further stratified to Hooters and other EOP parking sub areas as identified in Figure 3 and discussed previously. Within the Hooters area, the first line ( "Adjoining Hooters Pad ") coincides with the 14 "overlap spaces ", and the next line ( "Other ") refers to those 86 spaces that make up the balance of the existing Hooters parking area. "Office Building" parking makes up the remainder of the East Lot to the total of its 223 -space supply. West Lot information is presented in similar detail. While it is more distant from the Shops site, and Shops parkers will be restricted from using this lot, it is presented to provide a total picture of the site, as is information for the parking garage. The center section of Table 2 presents the results of multiple survey rounds to determine actual parking demand, by parking area or sub area, on January 17, 2006. The right portion of the table identifies the observed absolute peak parking demand in every sub area, and compares it to the inventoried supply in that sub area, reporting the resulting minimum surplus. Focusing to the Hooters area, that maximum demand totaled 12 spaces in the "overlap" area, and another 44 spaces in the remaining Hooters parking area, for a total peak demand of 56 spaces (occurring at 12:30 PM). That demand leaves a surplus of 44 spaces in the Hooters area. Further, it is worth noting that the 44 -space demand in the "Other" portion of the Hooters parking area is well short of its 86 space supply, and the total 56 -space Hooters peak is about equal to but slightly less than the 58 -space project allocation within this parking area per the pending easement agreement. Table 2 also reveals that office building parking sub areas in the East Lot have a significant parking surplus throughout the six survey rounds. The maximum demand for office spaces in this area (a combination of bank, 2 -hour and 3 -hour visitor parking) totaled 80 spaces, and occurred at 12:00 noon, for a surplus of 43 spaces against the 123 -space office supply. Summing the individual peak demand values for all the sub areas of the East Lot, after recognizing that these peaks did not all occur at the same time, indicates a 136 -space additive peak demand (61% of total supply) for all of the East Lot, resulting in a minimum surplus of 87 spaces (39% of total supply). N:\2700\2052714\ Revised Parking Study 3-9-2006- The Shops at Stadium Tower;.DOC LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers Ms. Therese Hotvedt February 22, 2006 / Updated March 9, 2006 Page 6 Further review of Table 2 indicates similar relative surpluses in the West Lot, and also in the parking garage. The parking demand values shown in Table 2 for the garage are inflated over the actual field observation by counting each reserved space as being occupied, even if it was not. The number of reserved but vacant spaces counted in this way appears within brackets in the table, with the bracketed values included in the reported demand value they adjoin. For example, a total parking demand of 126 spaces is reported for the ground floor of the garage at 12 :30 PM. The actual demand was 99 spaces, with 27 reserved- yet -empty spaces noted in the survey round (99 +27 =126). Those spaces are available to only one specific parker, and other parkers who might otherwise use that reserved space must continue on to a space that is not reserved. This "worst case" approach to counting reserved spaces as being occupied during the field survey leads to a more realistic reporting of peak parking conditions within the garage. The minimum surplus in the West lot calculates to 16 spaces (21%), and that for all surface parking (East Lot plus West Lot) is 107 spaces (36 %). In the garage, the minimum parking surplus was 334 spaces (41 %). On a site -wide basis, the peak demand (determined as the sum of individual peaks in each sub area, even if some of those peaks are off set in time when compared to other sub areas) yields a total site - wide peak parking demand of 671 spaces (61%), versus an existing supply of 1108 spaces, for a minimum surplus of 437 spaces (39 %). In reviewing the bottom line values of Table 2, it is important to remember the 14 "overlap spaces ", and the peak 12 -space demand within those "overlap spaces ", when discussing the future parking provisions of Stadium Towers outside the 121 -space supply on the explicit Shops site. From the field inventory and actual parking demand analysis of Stadium Towers as presented in Table 2, together with other qualitative observations made in conjunction with the survey rounds, the following key points emerge: • The existing site -wide parking characteristics for Stadium Towers include a large parking surplus (calculated at 39 %). Building management has advised that the office building is fully leased, meaning that the demand potential of the building is probably fully realized. • The existing parking supply is broken down to a number of parking space types for various parkers at the site, including bank, other short term (visitor), loading and specific Hooters spaces. Review of the details of Table 2 suggests that those provisions are well balanced in that surpluses in each user group are common, and surpluses in the East Lot, West Lot and garage range from 2l %oto41 %. • The delineation of those sub areas is well defined with both extensive signage and pavement markings. Conversations with site security indicate those specific areas are monitored for violation, with a first offense prompting a written warning and license plate recording to a data base, and a second offense resulting in the towing of the vehicle. It appears that parkers respect N:'2700'\2052714 \Revised Parking Study 3-9-2006- The Shops to Stadium Toweo .DOC LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers Ms. Therese Hotvedt February 22, 2006 / Updated March 9, 2006 Page 7 those designations and regulations, and significant "poaching" by one parker in the designated area of another was not evident from the field study • Given the orientation of the parking garage and its elevator with respect to the office building, and a 275 -foot walking distance between the two, site parkers appear to find garage parking convenient. While the 20 "no limit" spaces in the West lot remain full throughout the day, long -term parkers (that should use the garage) do not appear to "poach" short-term spaces in surface lots. • Actual operation of the existing Hooters lot provides insight into the relative "fit" of the proposed 58 -space easement area. Total Hooters peak mid -day demand was observed to be 56 spaces, for an existing surplus of 44 spaces. Even with the reconfiguring of the Hooters lot to encompass 58 spaces as will be provided by the easement agreement, a functional balance with small surplus at mid -day is indicated (future 58 -space supply less 56 -space peak Hooters demand yields an operational surplus of 2 spaces). CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS Based on Title 18. Zoning of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the parking requirements for "Retail Sales- General" as well as "Business and Financial Services" equal 5.5 spaces per 1,000 SF of floor area. This ratio is directly applicable to the 7,227 SF retail and bank components of The Shops plan. Code requirements for restaurants vary by restaurant type as follows: 1. "General "; 16 spaces per 1,000 SF for drive -in, drive - through, fast food; 5.5 spaces per 1,000 SF for take -out where seating for patrons does not exceed 10 seats; 2. "Full Service ": 15 spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA if not integrated to a planned development complex; 8 spaces per 1,000 SF if integrated into a planned development complex; 3. "Take- Out ": 5.5 spaces per 1,000 SF 4. "Walk -up 16 spaces per 1,000 SF The existing Hooters at the site clearly falls into the "Full Service" category where integrated to a planned development complex. On that basis, its parking requirement is 8 spaces per 1,000 SF. The 8,134 SF of QSR is not well represented in the code. While the QSR will be an integrated component of the overall Stadium Towers setting, it is not full service and thus would not be eligible for the 8 spaces per 1,000 SF code ratio. Conversely, the 16 spaces per 1,000 SF requirement of both the "General" and "Walk -Up" categories does not recognize the project setting and the walk -in potential of QSR at this location. LLG has determined in prior studies that this characteristic results in a significant reduction in parking needs when compared to code. Thus, we have field N: \2700'\205271.41Revised Parking Study 9 -2006- The Shops at Stadium Towers.DOC LI NSCOTT LAW & GREENS PAN engineers Ms. Therese Hotvedt February 22, 2006 / Updated March 9, 2006 Page 8 studied an actual QSR project in a similar setting. The results of that field study are detailed in the following section. At the suggestion of Rafiq & Associates, this submittal adds a theoretical code parking analysis for the entire Stadium Towers site to include the existing office building and Hooters, and further add The Shops floor area. Using the applicable parking ratios presented above, and further recognizing the City's code ratio of 3.0 spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA for office buildings of more than 3 stories, Table 3 presents this calculation. As shown, the three components would, in combination, require 991 spaces, versus an existing / planned supply of 1215 spaces, for a surplus of 224 spaces if the project components were treated as a single site. It should be noted from footnote 2 that the code calculations of Table 3 follow the conventions of the code with respect to the rounding of fractional spaces. Pulling from Table 3, the offices and Hooters alone would require 821 spaces (62 + 759), versus the Table 2 field observation peak of 671 spaces. Thus, even if the existing Stadium Towers plus Hooters were parked at only code, actual existing demand would result in a 150 -space (calculated as 821 -671) functional surplus (18 % of the code requirement). QUICK SERVICE RESTAURANT (QSR) FIELD STUDIES In order to better understand the real peak parking needs of QSR, LLG undertook a field study of a similar project at Hutton Center in Santa Ana. LLG was involved in the original planning and approval of this specific QSR project that sits within a mixed -use setting of office buildings, south of MacArthur Blvd, and immediately west of SR -55, Site 2 at Hutton Center totals 13,552 SF of floor area that is virtually all QSR. Tenants include Starbucks, Juice It Up, Miamu Sushi, Togo's (sandwiches), Sbarro (pizza by the slice and other Italian) and Daphne's (Greek food). Incidental non -food uses include a small florist and small beauty supply, All food uses have inside dining, and are served in common by an extensive patio area with approximately 50 tables, or at 4 seats per table, 200 outside dining seats. Based on the 13,552 SF floor area, this translates to a patio seating ratio of 15 patio dining seats for each 1,000 SF of enclosed building area. Given that each development parcel at Hutton Center is self - contained as to parking, Site 2 has is own parking supply divided to two adjoining lots with a combined total of 125 spaces. Walk -in traffic to Site 2 is known from prior observations and experience to be substantial. And given the office nature of the surrounding area, peak activity at Site 2 is clearly at mid -day on a weekday. For that reason, recent field observations were N: \2700 \2052714\Revised Parking Study 3-9-2006- The Shops at Stadium Towcrs.DOC LINSCOTT LAW & GREENS PAN engineers Ms. Therese Hotvedt February 22, 2006 / Updated March 9, 2006 Page 9 made at Site 2 of Hutton Center, to consist of counts of actual parked vehicles in both Site 2 lots from 10 AM through 2 PM. Such a study period reveals the build up of the mid -day QSR parking demand to a peak at about 12:30 PM, and the wind down of QSR demand thereafter, The field study at Hutton Center began with spot counts at 10:00 AM, 11 AM, Noon and 2:00 PM on Tuesday November 11 in order to get a feel for actual mid -day demand. Review of that data caused additional spot counts on Wednesday November 12 to repeat the noon hour survey and add 12:30 PM, 1:00 PM and 1:30 PM data. The combination of both data sets yielded a weekday parking demand profile at mid- day, as presented in our prior letter analysis of November 14. Based on City review comments, the QSR at Hutton Center was resurveyed on Tuesday, December 20. While close to the Christmas holiday, the added survey results demonstrated a reasonable repeatability of the November results, suggesting it to be a valid survey date. Table 4 as attached to this letter report identifies the actual parking counts for each indicated timeframe on all survey days, and further converts that actual demand to a parking ratio (based on the Site 2 floor area) for that time. Based on the field study data, a peak demand "design" ratio of 9.5 spaces per 1,000 SF of enclosed building area is indicated at 12:30 PM. This "design" ratio reflects actual peak demand plus a contingency factor of about 5 percent. It is worth noting from Table 4 that the noon survey data as well as 12:30 PM survey data among all survey days were extremely similar for their respective time frames. The far right column of Table 2 presents a profile of the "design ratio" demand throughout the survey period, with the demand at any time expressed as a percentage of the 12:30 PM peak. Review of this profile confirms that the profile is very spiked and focused to the mid -day lunch trade. The ratios of the adjoining column indicate that the QSR parking needs meaningfully exceed the City of Anaheim basic retail ratio of 5.5 spaces per 1,000 SF only from noon through 1:30 PM, and nearly equal it at 2:00 PM (5.24 and 5.46 survey, 5,7 "design ", versus 5.5 code). Before about 11 30 AM, and after 2 :00 PM, it can be concluded that the QSR parks like retail (5.5 spaces per 1,000 SF or less). Based on the above findings, we recommend that the QSR component of The Shops be evaluated in a code -like parking calculation for the site with a peak demand "design" ratio of 9.5 spaces per 1,000 SF. Given the manner in which this "design" ratio was derived including addition of a 5 percent contingency factor to the greatest field study volume, applying the ratio to the QSR floor area of a site accounts for the parking needs of those patrons actually within that floor area as well as those seated in the overall patio area that serves the project. As calculated previously in this section, this design ratio not only accounts for parking needs of the enclosed building N;'2700%2032714`•.Revised Parking Study 3- 9- 2004- The Shops at Stadiur Tow rs.DOC" LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers Ms. Therese Hotvedt February 22, 2006 / Updated March 9, 2006 Page 10 area, but also explicitly provides for patio seating at the ratio of 15 patio seats for each 1,000 SF of QSR interior floor area. PARKING ANALYSIS Given the above findings for QSR, and using city code ratios for retail, financial and the Hooters use at the site, the attached Table 5 presents a refined code -like parking calculation for The Shops that treats the project as its own site but with a 58 -space easement on the Stadium Towers site to service peak mid -day, weekday parking demand. The results of the calculations are shown as their exact decimal value in brackets, with rounding of those results to match the conventions of the code as summarized in footnote 2. As shown, the retail /financial uses require 40 spaces, and the QSR uses require 77 spaces, for a combined demand total for new development of 117 spaces. This number is in balance with the 121 spaces to be provided on the project site, and results in a 4 -space surplus. Adding Hooters at its city code ratio increases the demand for The Shops plus Hooters to 179 spaces. Based on the 121 spaces to be provided as part of the site plan and without the planned easement, a theoretical shortfall of 58 spaces would exist on The Shops site. But The Shops et al adjoin the much larger office site where the proposed project will have a parking easement agreement (providing an additional 58 spaces) with the Stadium Towers office building ownership. The bottom portion of Table 3 considers this relationship, and indicates a calculated exact balance between supply and demand. As previously presented in Table 3, the 253,012 SF of the existing Stadium Towers office building requires 759 code spaces (253.012 x 1000 SF multiplied by 3.0 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA as required by city code for buildings of more that 3 stories). This requirement is focused to the peak office needs, typically around 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM, and again at about 2:00 PM. The Shared Parking Methodology established by The Urban Land Institute (ULI) identifies a noon and 1 PM demand factor of 90 percent for offices, indicating that 10 percent of the office spaces required by code become available at mid -day to support other uses. Using that methodology, 76 of the 759 code office spaces would be available for mid -day support to Hooters and The Shops as proposed. Fifty -eight of those spaces are actually being provided by the easement Taking those 58 easement spaces into account, near the bottom of Table 3, indicates a Hooters plus The Shops plan in exact parking balance ("zero" space surplus) with planned supply. Comparing and contrasting the parking projections of Table 5 with the field study results in Tables 2 and 4 suggests that actual operational surpluses for The Shops, Hooters and the office building at mid -day are likely, as follows: N:`.2700'\2052714'\,Revised Parking Study 3-9-2006- The Shops al. Stadiu Tower DOC LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers Ms. Therese Hotvedt February 22, 2006 / Updated March 9, 2006 Page 11 • Code ratios, like those for the planned retail, existing Hooters, and existing office have contingencies built into the ratios. They are intended to be applied directly, require no further "buffer ", and are satisfied when supply exactly equals theoretical demand as calculated from the ratios. • The 9.5 spaces per 1,000 SF ratio used to project a QSR demand of 77 spaces includes a 5 percent contingency This equates to about a 4 -space "buffer" within the QSR calculation. • Hooters was carried in the Table 5 projection at code, for a demand projection of 62 spaces. From Table 2, Hooters parking was determined to peak at 56 spaces during the mid -day period. This peak was at 12;30 PM. Hooters demand at both noon and 1:00 PM was at least 10 percent less (with demand values of 49 spaces and 50 spaces, respectively). • Code requires 759 spaces for the office building. From Table 2, actual peak office demand was 594 spaces at 11:00 AM (121 -space non - Hooters demand in surface lots, plus 473 spaces in the structure). Actual demand fell 165 spaces short of the code requirement. • The ULI methodology projects a 10% vacancy of office spaces around noon, translating to a 76 -space theoretical vacancy at mid -day, with those spaces available to other parkers. This theoretical vacancy is the starting point to permit 58 spaces to be included in the easement area. Starting from the 759 - space code requirement, less 10% (76 spaces) at mid -day, yields a theoretical office demand (requirement) of 683 spaces at 12:30 PM. From Table 2, actual mid -day office (non- Hooters) demand was counted at 559 spaces (114 spaces in surface lots, plus 445 spaces in the garage). As a practical matter, existing site signage reserves Hooters spaces at all times for their exclusive use. Thus while the ULI methodology may presume this mid -day shift in supply, a continuation of existing site practices would make this shift throughout the day From the space inventories for the office building, even with a "full time shift" of these 58 spaces, existing surplus spaces (greater than code) on the office site permit this operational approach. PATIO SEATING IMPLICATIONS As noted previously, the Hutton Center QSR field studies yielded a QSR- specific "design" parking ratio of 9.5 spaces per 1,000 SF of building floor area. Given the nature by which this design ratio was derived, it explicitly provides for outside patio dining at the ratio of 15 seats for every 1,000 SF of building area devoted to QSR. Patio seating is expected at The Shops, although the quantity of such outside area has not been formally defined. N:',2700 \2052714 \Revised Parking Study 3 -9 -2006- The Shops at Stadium Toweis.D(.)C LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers Ms. Therese Hotvedt February 22, 2006 / Updated March 9, 2006 Page 12 However, a maximum permitted patio dining area, consistent with the Parking Analysis and findings of this study can be calculated as follows: QSR floor area: 8,134 SF Patio seating ratio 15 seats per 1,000 SF of QSR building area Permitted loading: 15 SF per person Maximum patio seating for parking balance = 8,134 x 15 x 15 =1,830 SF, or 122 seats On that basis, a patio seating area of 122 seats, or 1,830 SF, is explicitly accounted for within our QSR parking calculations for 8,134 SF of that use. PARKING EASEMENT SPACE ADJUSTMENTS The preceding analysis identifies a 58 -space allocation within the easement area since that space total exactly balances the parking needs of the tenancy mix of Table 1 It is our understanding that The Shops could contract for additional spaces in the easement area should they desire. This option provides flexibility should the QSR versus retail mix of Table 1 be refined further. Should the ultimate QSR area have the potential to exceed 8,134 SF, the calculations of Table 5 will require update to assure a continuing parking balance. ADJUSTMENTS TO SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS FOR SITE PARKING The Shops plan will make use of a 58 -space easement within the East Lot to supplement its own 121 on -site spaces. From the preceding analysis, this approach will result in a balanced parking plan based on the Table 1 tenancy characteristics. The current preparation for construction on The Shops site resulted in extensive signage and pavement marking additions to the East Lot. Those refinements supplement other signage and pavement markings on the site, typically in the West Lot. Field observations indicate the current program to be very workable in designating and achieving compliance for specific visitor groups on the site. The 58 -space easement area represents an adjustment to the existing 86 -space Hooters lot (exclusive of the "overlap spaces "). Pavement markings and signage will be removed from 28 spaces. For those spaces that remain in the easement, it is recommended that the pavement markings and signage be adjusted to explicitly permit both Hooters and Shops parking. Further, the 121 spaces on the emerging Shops site should be marked in a similar format. 4:12700''•.2052714'\ \Revised Parking Study 3 -9 -2006- The Shops at Stadium Towut .DOC LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers Ms. Therese Hotvedt February 22, 2006 / Updated March 9, 2006 Page 13 CONCLUSIONS 1, The existing Stadium Towers site includes a mixture of surface and structured parking to a total of 1108 spaces (301 spaces in surface lots, and 807 spaces in the garage). This total includes 14 spaces in an "overlap" area that will be absorbed within the 121 spaces of The Shops site. 2. The surface lots are extensively signed and have pavement markings designating space groupings for specific user types. The West Lot includes 78 spaces entirely for the support of the office building. The East Lot includes a total of 223 spaces, 100 of which are currently allocated for Hooters use (including the 14 "overlap spaces "), with the remaining 123 spaces allocated for office building visitors (bank, 2 -hour, and 3 -hour spaces). 3 Existing parking demand levels in these lots and the garage were extensively studied in recent field observations. Table 2 summarizes the results and indicates significant parking surpluses for all space groupings. Peak demand in the Hooters lot at mid -day was observed to be 56 spaces, versus a 100 - space supply (including the 14 "overlap spaces "). Parking surpluses (supply minus observed demand) totaled 39% in the East Lot, 21% in the West Lot, and 41 % in the garage, even after counting reserved but unoccupied spaces in the garage as being occupied by a vehicle. 4 If evaluated with the City's parking code as a single site, the combined code requirement for the offices, Hooters, and Shops totals 991 spaces. With 1215 existing and future spaces provided, this translates to a surplus of 224 spaces. 5 Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) is not well represented within the city's parking code. Actual field study of existing QSR uses at Hutton Center in Santa Ana identified a "design" peak - parking ratio for QSR of 9.5 spaces per 1,000 SF. This "design" ratio includes a contingency of 5 percent in excess of the absolute maximum demand observed at Hutton Center, and explicitly provides for patio dining at the site at the ratio of 15 patio seats for every 1,000 SF of QSR floor area. This "design ratio" addresses the noon through 110 PM peak period usage. 6. Outside its mid -day peak (before 1110 AM and after 2:00 PM), QSR parks more like conventional retail at 5.5 spaces per 1,000 SF, or less. 7, Using the QSR peak ratio as described above, and the city code ratios for other site components, results in a code -like requirement for The Shops of 117 spaces. Adding Hooters (at code) increases this demand value to 179 spaces. 8. Based on ULI parking profiles, 76 spaces (10 %) of the code - required office parking will be vacant and available at mid -day to support the peak demand needs of Hooters plus The Shops with tenancies as proposed. Fifty -eight of these spaces are being offered by the easement. When added to the 121 spaces to be provided on The Shops site, the mid -day supply for parking support to these retail / financial and food service uses will total 179 spaces (58 +121). This resultant supply equals our refined code -like demand calculations of 179 spaces. Based on actual field study of the site, combined N:\270(1»2052714'.Revisud Parking Study 3-9-2006- The Shops at Stadium Towets.DOC LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers Ms. Therese Hotvedt February 22, 2006 / Updated March 9, 2006 Page 14 with the 5% contingency integrated with the QSR "design" parking ratio, actual operational surpluses are expected to occur. 9. In that the Table 5 demand forecast and supply analysis identifies the peak use of 58 vacant office parking spaces at mid -day to balance the combined demand for Stadium Towers plus The Shops (to include Hooters), an easement for at -least 58 spaces at mid -day should be recorded between the Stadium Towers and The Shops ownership entities. 10. It is our understanding that The Shops could contract for additional easement spaces to rebalance the parking plan should further adjustments in the QSR floor area result in a potential total of more than 8,143 SF of that use. Rebalancing, as long as the easement space totals are adjusted accordingly, would be appropriate and consistent with the intent of this analysis. 11, The Shops will provide patio seating for which a final area calculation has not been made. Based on the Hutton Center QSR studies however, we conclude that The Shops patio seating of 1,830 SF (122 seats), or less, for the 8,134 SF of QSR input to this analysis is provided for within our QSR "design" parking ratio. 12. The proposed 58 -space easement area represents an adjustment to the existing 86 -space Hooters lot (exclusive of the "overlap spaces "). Pavement markings and signage will be removed from 28 spaces. For those spaces that remain in the easement, it is recommended that the pavement markings and signage be adjusted to explicitly permit both Hooters and Shops parking Further, the 121 spaces on the emerging Shops site should be marked in a similar format. CITY OF ANAHEIM PARKING FINDINGS Section 18.42.110 of the City's parking ordinance sets forth five findings which are required to be made before a parking waiver is approved by the Planning Commission. Each of the required findings is presented below in italics, followed by a discussion as to how that finding is supported by the preceding technical analysis. (a) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off - street 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 reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use; and Finding supported. Using code parking ratios for the retail and Hooters site components, plus a "design ratio" determined through extensive field study of an existing QSR site, the peak parking demand requirement for The Shops site (to include Hooters) totals 179 spaces. Parking supply will equal that requirement with a 121 -space lot on -site and 58 spaces within an immediately adjoining easement area of Stadium Towers. Based on a code calculation and shared parking projection for the office building as well as actual field study of Stadium Towers parking lots and garage, that site has a parking surplus well in excess of the 58 spaces being offered in N:\2700`20.52714 \Revised Parking Study 3-9-2006- The Shops at Stadium Towers.DOC LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers Ms. Therese Hotvedt February 22, 2006 / Updated March 9, 2006 Page 15 the easement (code excess of over 200 spaces, and field study surplus of approximately 400 spaces). (b) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use, and Finding supported. The parking needs of the site will be entirely supported by on -site and easement spaces. No on- street parking demand will be generated. (c) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, 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 18.42.050.030 of this Code); and Finding supported. The parking plan includes 121 spaces on -site, and 58 spaces in an easement at Stadium Towers (from which the shops site was originally created). Between those two parking components totaling 179 spaces, the project parking needs will be fully satisfied. (d) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the off - street parking areas or lots provided for such use, and Finding supported. The site plan creates a Shops on -site parking area that is logical, served by two driveways along the Stadium Towers circulation "spine ", and is internally looped (no "dead -end" aisles). The easement area already exists in the Stadium Towers East Lot, is in close proximity to The Shops, and is served by the same circulation "spine ". (e) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. Finding supported. Access to the combined Stadium Towers -The Shops site, and adjoining Colton site, is via a signalized intersection on Katelia Avenue opposite Howell Avenue. Based on the Figure 1 (attached) site plan, and on -site circulation improvements depicted therein, that access is throated (no driveway connection) for more than 250 feet south of Katelia Avenue, where a Shops driveway access will align opposite a Stadium Towers internal circulation road in an intersection with the "spine" road. That "spine" represents a minor realignment of existing Stadium Towers circulation roadways to create a continuous, single, internal roadway alignment between Katelia and the East Lot, and beyond to the parking structure. N:\2700\20527141\Revised Packing Study 3 -9 -2006- The Shops at Stadium Towets.DOC LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers Ms. Therese Hotvedt February 22, 2006 / Updated March 9, 2006 Page 16 We appreciate the opportunity to provide this parking investigation. Please call us if you have any questions. Sincerely, LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS Paul W. Wilkin, P.E. Principal California Registration: TR 1118 Attachments N:\2700\2052714kRevised Narl ing Study 3 -9- 2006 - The Shops at Stadium Towcrs.DOC LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers Floor Area by Component (SF) Total II OOL`L ZZZ`£ 17L9`1 00e I 1709`1 I99'L £tt`Z 6175'1 Z8L L88`Z II 19£`51 Restaurant 1708`Z 00Z` I 1709` i 0££`S £trb`Z L88`Z t£i`8 Hula11 968`7 ZZZ` £ 17L9` 1 I at 61S` I Z8L ' LZZ`L 1. Description (Expected Tenancies) Building A A - Starbucks A -2 Quiznos A -3 Unknown - presumed non- food service A -7 Comerica Bank Subtotal: A Building B B -1 CPK - ASAP B -3 Unknown - presumed non -food service B -4 Scottrade B -6 Rubio's Subtotal: B Grand Total a O U act v) 4 L.) C W v,d A °' Ey E-4 U g O g a 2-052714-1 Proje,ct Description and Summary-Table 1 II ,flddnS sit pueutaa xuad Minimum Surplus II (supply -peak demand) O n 00 O b II (%b£) £07 N ti M M 437 (39 %) - II Peak Observed Demand 41 h M '-'I b b ti n .r N N N ( %99) 961 N 7 V h n Parking Demand by Time of Day I( 2:00 PM II N NI M N dr' 'I b a N VD .4 � NI h I 661 u b N N u N M M •D O . M O N 109 f 1:30 PM N NI M M er 1 b a CA N ,-∎ NI h M V1 N ', 6171 I 1:00 PM . MI 'i'1 NI- O .n . b ^ M , O M ,.17 O NI h L91 I 12:30 PM . R b I n O b O rI N ti .-. O a t` O NI OL I l� b O ^ ti N b O h 519 uooN 00:Z1 N MI N 3 9 b h d' N O Z NI U1 9Z I Y'lV 00:11 9t7 o '. In o a 1Z9 I Parking Supply 109 en — ° I 9011 II Description (1) Hooters Adjoining Hooters Pad ( "overlap spaces ") Other Subtotal: Hooters Only Office Building Loading Zone (2) Handicap Bank Only 30- Minute 2 -Hour Limit No Limit Subtotal: West Lot s,07 gam + gag :moignSII Level 3 Sp #281 -452 I I Site - Wide Totals 2-052714-1 Parlcing Field Study Results-Table 2 Parking Provided (Spaces) 121 Surface 287 Surface 807 Structure 17ZZ SIZI Required Parking II Spaces (2) [39.75] 40 [130.14] 130 [62.28] 62 6SL [0'65L] 166 Code Parking Ratio 5.5 sp / 1,000 SF 16.0 sp / 1,000 SF 8.0 sp / 1,000 SF 3.0 sp / 1,000 SF Size (SF) % N Description Retail / Financial Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) Hooters Restaurant Office Total Surplus (Provided - Required) 2-052714-1 CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT-Table 3 Percentage of Peak Demand Parking Ratio (2) Design (3) L'S 6' 8'8 S'6 t'8 6'£ 0'£ Tuesday, 12 -20 -05 vO O "V M N M k.0 M (� O ON VD N 71' N M 00 00 N N to Wednesday, 11 -9 -05 � le Z Z Z Tuesday, 11 -8 -05 0 N Q N N M l Z Z Z Parking Demand on Survey Dates Tuesday, 12 -20 -05 N M _ _ 8- 9 C. N Wednesday, 11 -9 -05 * Q Q O N H O zzt-4 , -I '-' ^' z Tuesday, 11 -8 -05 " ' Ln °zzz � auras, 0 o Zo oM O Q p O r 0 O- --i NN-� ,-. r+ N - 2-052714-1 Parking Field Surveys-Table 4 Santa Ana, California Hutton Center rftialaux Supply- Demand (Spaces) co n o Sub -Area Supply (Spaces) c-4 cl r (06L I Required Parking Spaces co cl le/NI 6LI sing Code @ 5.5 sp / 1,000 SF Field Study @ 9.5 sp / 1,000 SF Code @ 3.0 sp / 1,000 SF with mid -day utilization factor of 90% for offices (per ULI), leaving 10% of office parking available for joint use Shared use of unused office s 'aces for weekda mid -da Size (SF) N Description ) I Retail / Financial Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) Subtotal � Office : . . Stadium Towers office "code excess" plus The Shops and Hooters 2-052714-1 Parking Demand Forcast-Table 5 minbo 900Z -61 -10 40°LS :4L dal UP' l- 14LLZ\ \4LLZSOZ\OOLZ\ :u ii se 6• 66 66 •. •0 • • 0 • • e•• se 0066 6646.• .060 !' ..... 66 46 0. • e. .e. 6666 e. welerrem 6066.• • .M61, 00011066•00 ,...s........•.•.•• 00660660 ..6.010.00 6666•. 600... :•• •••••• • ••.•• 0..6.04060000 • 66000 66. 000000000000 0000..0. ••••• .••.• ••••••••••• 066.6.0660 60066 . •. ••.006 • � 00.0 ••ea•••• •• +') ee•• 00•66 06 6066 0660 ..• ... S. • ? ?he 06 0 0000 00 •.. .. 6 666•..•6 ...... .�••• •666. 6 ..6 ANAHEIM STADIUM PARKING LOT TABULATION .ee. NOT PART OF COVERED PROPERTY r ...• 4666. pi EXISTING INGRESS EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE COLTON COMPANY'S PROPERTY dead PER 1986 DECLARATION BIM EXISTING EGRESS EASEMENT LOCATED ON OFFICE TOWER PROPERTY PER 1986 DECLARATION 1a E NEW SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT LOCATED ON RETAIL DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY iggi NEW SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT LOCATED ON OFFICE TOWER PROPERTY NEW SHARED PARKING EASEMENT LOCATED ON OFFICE TOWER PROPERTY AS DEFINED IN THE CUM'S. E e---- a AmE A EXISTING EQUITY OFFICE PARKING GARAGE NA. LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers SOURCE: DRAFT OF THE REVISED C C & R'S GRANT OF EASEMENTS FOR THE SHOPS AT STADIUM TOWERS EXHIBIT "I" DATED 1/11/06 FIGURE 2 PARKING EASEMENT PLAN THE SHOPS AT STADIUM TOWERS, ANAHEIM JoIln6o 9002 -61-1O 9£:L5 :4L dal 6 MP'£— WI.LZ\ , op 11iMON I poua �aY( duog Isuo3fiuuna∎fluerobrR�_ RO"re RM-4 RCL 87 -88 -33 VAR 3739 VAR 1611 APARTMENTS RM-4 RCL 70 -71 -11 VAR 2199 EL MIRADOR APARTMENTS 29 DU R M -4 4 DU EACH 2 ATE M -88 -2 m RM -3 ~ 33 - 64 - RCL 79 -80-02 1 DU EACH CH I 3727 RCL 77 -78-57 101 - (Res. of Intent RM-4 to RS-7200) 3097 VAR 3 RCL 83 -84 -23 Z APARTMENTS VAR 3384 VACANT ',CL < B DU + 64 - 60 < / 2 RM -3 ") — RCL 63 -64-60 y ` 1 DU EA — RM -2 — RCL 80 -81 -04 — VAR 3163 - CON DOS_ 10 DU RM-4 TTM 17016 RCL 85-86 -30 CUP 2006-05066 VAR 3555 SPRING LAKE APARTMENTS 54 DU RM -4 RCL 85-86 -24 SAVANNA VILLA APARTMENTS 28 DU SAVANNA ST 2 0 u6 — J w Q pce rOccw - C)c o = JWW OO a a . J W C7 VAR 1197 VAR 1197 RS -2 1 DU EACH ROME AVE J a w RS -2 1 DU EACH RM-2 RCL 2001 -00059 T -CUP 2001 -04492 CUP 2001 -04453 18 DU T r, IP14Aa I RM -2 RCL 2001 -00059 T -CUP 2001 -04492 CUP 2001 -04453 VAR 1946 R M -4 RCL 62 -63 -78 CUP 375 VAR 2990 CONDO 88 DU RM-4 RCL 73 -74 -12 VAR 2544 APARTMENTS 125 DU R M -4 RCL 62 -63 -104 CUP 407 RS -2 1DU�ACH RS-2 1 DU EACH AR 18 Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 -05066 Tentative Tract No. 17016 Requested By: BRIAN DROR 729 South Knott Avenue Item No. 5 Subject Property Date: March 20, 2006 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 2 10003 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -05066 5c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17016 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This irregularly- shaped, 1.47 -acre property has a frontage of 150 on the west side of Knott Avenue, a maximum depth of 374 feet, and is located 193 feet north of the centerline of Rome Avenue (729 South Knott Avenue). REQUEST: (2) The petitioner requests approval of the following: BACKGROUND: (3) PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS: (5) RECOMMENDATION: CUP05066 PCO32006 SRJR Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 5 (Motion for Continuance) (a) Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 -05066 - to convert a 54 -unit apartment complex into a 54 -unit residential condominium complex under authority of Code Section Nos. 18.06.030.090 and 18.38.100.020. (b) Tentative Tract Map No. 17016 —to establish a 1 -lot 54 -unit attached residential condominium subdivision. This property is developed with an apartment complex and is within the RM -4 (Residential, Multiple Family) Zone. The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Medium Density Residential land uses. The Anaheim General Plan designates properties to the south for Medium Density Residential land uses, properties to the east (across Knott Avenue) for Low Density Residential land uses, properties to the west for Low - Medium Density Residential land uses, and properties to the north for Water Uses. (4) The applicant, Rey Berona, has submitted the attached letter dated March 13, 2006, requesting a continuance to the April 3, 2006, Commission meeting in order to complete renderings of the plans for the public hearing. Variance No. 3555 to construct a 54 -unit apartment complex (with waiver of maximum structural height within 150 feet of a single family residential zone (one story permitted, two stories proposed within 11 feet of a single family residential zone) was approved by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1986. (6) That the Commission, by motion, continue this item to the April 3, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. Page 1 file: / / /HI/ CASES / Conditional %20Use %20Permit /CUP2006- 05066 /ATT %20032006 /ATT %201 %20 "% 20Continuance %20Request%20- %20032006.txt From: Rey Berona [rberona @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 11:06 AM To: John Ramirez Subject: 729 Knott Hearing Hi John, Attachment - Item No. 5 Per our conversation, this is to request an extension of the scheduled hearing for the 729 Knott condo conversion project from March 20, 2006 to April 3, 2006. Thanks in advance. Rey Berona, Condo Conversion Consultant Cell: (714)595 -9809 Fax: (714)459 -7360 Website: http: / /rberona.com file: / / /HI/ CASES / Conditional %20Use %20Permit /CUP2006 -0... /ATT %201 %20 " " %20Continuance %20Request%20 " %20032006.txt3/13/20067:40:36 AM Item No. 6 DRACAENA DR ▪ • u I L I CRESCENT AVENUE KENDOR CIR T T -CUP 2001 -04385 CUP 1376 BRAILLE CUP 2521 INSTITUTE T • T -CUP 2001 -04385 CUP 2521 BRAILLE U CUP 1177 E INSTITUTE gs s T z E T RCL 64 -65 -24 (Res. of RS-7200) CUP 1469 CUP 941 CUP 786 (CUP 619) (CUP 117) CHURCH RS-2 — RCL 58- 59 -43— RCL 2006 -00174 CUP 2006-05064 — TPM 2005 -156 376' T T -CUP 2001 -04385 CUP 2521 CUP 2035 VAR 709 T VAR 3032 T 1 DU EACH T T PORTION B T (CUP 2930) RS-2 T PORTION A RS -2 co co T CUP 194 CHURCH T CUP 194 RS -2 1 DU EACH ' I — RM -4 RCL 2000 - RCL 63 -6 CUP 64 CUP 50 VAR 17 x N Q thw cm 0 N t LfJ a BAYLOR AVE RS-2 1 DU EACH I RS -2 1 1 DU EACH I CORNELL PL RS -2 1 DU EACH STANLEY PL RS-2 1 DU EACH 1 RUSSELL PL RS-2 1 DU EACH I J I I - - - -- - - - I00< -5Q 5 3 0 N Q LLl CC D N Reclassification No. 2006 -00174 Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 -05064 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -156 Requested By: SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH 321, 405, 425, 431, 509 and 511 North Dale Avenue Subject Property Date: March 20, 2006 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 12 10004 Reclassification No. 2006 -00174 Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 -05064 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -156 Requested By: SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH 321, 405, 425, 431, 509 AND 511 North Dale Subject Property Date: March 20, 2006 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 12 10004 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 6 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion) 6b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006 -00174 (Resolution) 6c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (Motion) 6d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -05064 (Resolution) 6e. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005 -156 (Motion) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This irregularly- shaped 4.9 -acre property has a frontage of 767 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue, a maximum depth of 376 feet, and is located 668 feet south of the centerline of Crescent Avenue (321, 405, 425, 431, 509 and 511 North Dale Avenue). REQUEST: (2) The applicant requests approval of the following: (3) Portion A This irregularly- shaped 2.8 -acre property has a frontage of 332 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue, a maximum depth of 376 feet, and is located 483 feet north of the centerline of Yale Avenue (405 North Dale Avenue). Portion B This irregularly- shaped 0.93 -acre property has a frontage of 173 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue a maximum depth of 234 feet, and is located 111 feet south of the centerline of Baylor Avenue (509 and 511 North Dale Avenue). Reclassification No. 2006 -00174 — to reclassify Portions A and B of the property from the T (Transition) zone to the RS -2 (Single - Family Residential) zone, or a less intense zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 -05064 - to expand an existing Church to permit a new administration building, multi - purpose hall and religious school under authority of Code Section No. 18.04.030.040 with waivers of the following: BACKGROUND: Srcup2006 -05064 (a) SECTION NO. 18.04.070.010 Maximum structural height (35 feet permitted 39 feet 4- inches proposed) (b) SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces (492 required; 195 proposed and recommended by the City's Independent Traffic Consultant) Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -156- to combine six lots into one lot. The property at 405 North Dale Avenue is currently developed with an existing church and is zoned T (Transition). The adjoining five additional properties (four existing houses and one empty lot at 321, 425, 431, 509 and 511 North Dale Avenue) located north and south of the existing church property are zoned RS -2 (Residential Single - Family (321, 425 and 431 North Dale Avenue) and T (Transition) (509 and 511 North Dale) and are not currently used by the church. The five additional lots are proposed to be demolished to provide room for the expanded facility. The Anaheim General Plan designates this property and all surrounding properties for Low Density Residential land uses. Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 6 (5) View of existing church and existing multi - purpose hall PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS: (4) The following zoning actions have occurred on 405 North Dale Avenue, there are no prior zoning actions on the other properties: (a) Conditional Use Permit No.1469 (to permit the construction of a church and fellowship hall and permit the continued use of existing classroom facilities with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces 486 required; 137 proposed and waiver of maximum building height adjacent to a residential use 35 to 49 feet permitted; 50 to 54 feet proposed) was approved by the Planning Commission on May 29, 1974, deleting the waiver of minimum number of parking spaces as it was determined to be unnecessary since the minimum number of parking spaces is based upon the number of seats in the sanctuary only. (b) Conditional Use Permit No. 941 (to temporarily permit church offices, a language school and limited church services in an existing residential structure, and the eventual construction of permanent church facilities on a portion of subject property) was approved by the Planning Commission on May 8, 1967. The applicant submitted revised plans to enlarge and enclose an existing patio structure for use as a temporary place of worship for the duration of the conditional use permit until the final church was built. On September 25, 1967, Planning Commission approved those plans as being substantially in conformance with the plans originally submitted. One extension of time has been granted, and expired on May 8, 1973. This entitlement is no longer needed and a condition has been added for its termination. (c) Conditional Use Permit No. 786 (to establish a church edifice and educational unit on an L- shaped portion of the site) was approved by the Planning Commission on November 22, 1965. This entitlement is no longer needed and a condition has been added for its termination. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to reclassify Portions A (405 North Dale Avenue) and B (509 and 511 North Dale Avenue) of the property from the T (Transition) zone to the RS -2 (Single- Page 2 Family Residential) zone as identified below. The remaining properties for the proposed expansion are currently zoned RS -2 (Residential Single Family). Portion A 1111 405 N Dale it Existing Church ;� 0% Portion `A9 & 511 N. dale Portion B 509 & 511 N. Dale • Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 6 (6) The applicant is request ng approval of a tentative parcel map to combine six parcels into one parcel and a conditional use permit to demolish an existing 10,000 square foot multi- purpose and administrative office building, retain the existing 7,528 square foot sanctuary and construct one two -story, 53,870 square foot building and a 2,224 square foot detached storage building for a total of 56,094 square feet of new construction. The tentative parcel map is a technical requirement to combine the six (6) existing legal lots into one legal lot. Typically this type of action is addressed through a lot line adjustment and included as a condition of approval. Because the number of lots to be combined is greater than what can be accommodated through the lot line adjustment process (a maximum of four lots), a tentative parcel map is necessary. Page 3 Direction Code Required /Proposed Building Setback Code Required /Proposed Landscape Setback North (adjacent to single- family residence) 15 feet /65 feet 15 feetl15 feet South (adjacent to single- family residence) 15 feet /225 to 305 feet 15 feet/15 feet for detached storage building 15 feet/15 feet 15 feetl15 feet West (adjacent to single- family residence) 25 feet /120 to 180 feet 15 feetl15 feet East (adjacent to Dale Avenue) 25 feetf25 to 35 feet 25 feet /25 to 35 feet The following is an aerial of the subject site as .zlsting i _. Pfipose . bu�J g jo it exists today. Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 6 (7) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates the following proposed setbacks for the new mufti- purpose building: Page 4 Use Square Feet (s.f.) Code Parking Requirement (per 1,000 s.f.) Parking Required Existing Sanctuary (assembly) 600 seats 7,528 s.f. 29 spaces per 1,000 square feet of assembly area or 0.333 space per fixed seat whichever is greater 218 (based on the existing square footage) Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 6 (8) The floor plans (Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3) indicate an existing 7,528 square foot 600 -seat church building and a new two story 53,870 square foot building consisting of, a gymnasium, vestibule, storage area, kitchen, restrooms, meeting rooms, gift shop /book store, classrooms, and nursery rooms on the first floor and classrooms, meeting rooms, storage area, mechanical equipment rooms, multi - purpose room and the priest living area on the second floor. The 2,224 square foot storage building would consist of one open room. (8) The elevation plans (Exhibit Nos. 4, 5 and 6) indicate a two story, 35 -foot high building with a maximum height of 39 feet 4- inches for an architectural projection (dome) and two roof peaks between 37 to 38 feet in height. Elevation plans further indicate that the building would consist of white stucco, precast stone columns, clay tile roofing and a gold dome matching the existing dome on the church building. A covered walkway patio with the same clay tile roof would be provided in the courtyard area south of the proposed multi- purpose building connecting the new building to the existing church. Plans further indicate a one -story, 21 foot high storage building (with the same architectural treatment as the main structure) located 15 feet from the south property line. ( The site plan and landscape plan (Exhibit Nos. 1 and 6) indicate a 25 to 35 foot wide landscaped setback along Dale Avenue and a 15 -foot wide landscaped setback adjacent to north, south and west property lines adjacent to single - family residences in conformance with code. Plans further indicate that a new 6 -foot high block wall planted with Boston Ivy clinging vines will be provided along the expanded property areas adjacent to the north and south property lines. The setback area along Dale Avenue would contain (41) various trees including Crape Myrtle, Coast Live Oak, Strawberry Tree, Date Palms, Afghan Pines, Olive Trees and Italian Cypress trees, with shrubs consisting of New Zealand Flax, Sweet Bay, Giant Bird of Paradise, Purple Hopseed Bush and Indian Hawthorn. The proposed ground cover would consist of Star Jasmine, Lily of the Nile and French Lavender. Code requires one tree for every 20 lineal feet of street frontage (38 trees along Dale Avenue). The 15- foot wide landscape areas along the north, south and west property lines would consist of existing Cupressus and Robina, trees, new Afghan Pine, Purple Orchid, Italian Cypress and Date Palm trees with shrubs consisting of Purple Hopseed Bush, Sweet Bay and ground cover consisting of Lily of the Nile and False Heather. Plans further indicate that in compliance with Code requirements, trees have been provided in planter areas at the ratio of one (1) tree per 3,000 square feet of parking area with an average of forty -eight (48) square feet of planter area provided per required tree and a minimum planter dimension of five (5) feet. The landscape plans also indicate landscaping, a fountain and decorative paving in the courtyard area between the church building and the multi - purpose building and landscaping in the playground area adjacent to the school portion of the building. The applicant has also submitted a photometric plan (Exhibit No. 9) which indicates that none of the parking lot lights would be located within the 15 foot landscaped setback adjacent to the single family residential properties and that the lighting would be contained on -site. (10) Vehicular access to the site is provided via three (3) 25 -foot wide driveways; one existing driveway, one proposed drop off /pick up circular driveway and one new driveway from Dale Avenue. Plans indicate a total of 195 proposed on -site parking spaces for this property. Code requires 492 spaces based on the following: Page 5 Kitchen 1,631 s.f. 433 max. capacity Two- hundredths (.02) space per person for the maximum capacity figure of the assembly area determined by the Fire Department 9 Storage 4,827 s.f. 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet 7 Detached Storage Building 2,224 s.f 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet 3 Office ( which includes church and school) 11,187 s.f. 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet 45 Multi- Purpose room/gymnasium 7,172 square feet 29 spaces per 1,000 square feet of assembly area 208 Classrooms* 14 classrooms 3 nursery rooms (14,894 s.f.) N/A N/A 2- Bedroom Living Area for Priest 2- bedrooms (1,779 s.f.) 2 spaces per 2- bedroom units 2 Restrooms, lobbies, hallways, mechanical rooms, stairs, elevators , stage platform and electrical rooms 12,380 s.f. N/A N/A 56,094 square feet of new construction, 63,622 total square footage Total spaces required 492 Code does not require any parking for the accessory Sunday school classrooms, restrooms, lobbies or hallways. (11) The applicant has submitted the attached letter of operation and project description that indicates the existing church has services on Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Sunday school classes from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. In addition, there are also additional services during church holy days (Christmas and Easter). The letter further indicates that there are approximately 600 families that are church members. The applicant has indicated that various activities occur on -site including Greek classes, folk dance groups, basketball practice and other activities which meet Monday through Thursday 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with approximately 15 to 30 members attending. The administrative offices operate 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. On Saturday the multi - purpose hall is occasionally used for receptions /dinners and dances held throughout the year. The applicant has indicated that for certain special events (i.e., Greek Festival) that an off -site parking lot with shuttle service would be provided. (12) No signage plans were submitted with this application. A site inspection of the property indicated that there is an existing wood monument sign located in the setback area along Dale Avenue. Building permits are not required for this type of sign and the code allows a twenty square foot identification sign. It appears that the sign complies with code, therefore a condition of approval has been added requiring the applicant to submit sign plans for Planning Services Division review and approval within thirty (30) days. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 6 (13) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore, recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Commission that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Page 6 EVALUATION: Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 6 (14) The purpose of the T (Transition) zone is to provide for a zone to include land that is used for agricultural uses, in a transitory or interim use, restricted to limited uses because of special conditions, or not zoned to one of the zoning districts in Title 18. In order to provide consistency with surrounding properties, it is appropriate to reclassify properties that are in the T zone to the most appropriate zoning designation based on surrounding zoning, the General Plan designation and existing or proposed land uses on the property. Since these properties will be developed with one project, it is appropriate to provide consistent zoning across all affected parcels. The General Plan designation for these properties is Low Density Residential; therefore the most appropriate zoning for the site is RS -2. The proposed church facility is a conditionally permitted use in the RS -2 zone, therefore staff is recommending approval of the reclassification of Portions A and B from the T zone to the RS -2 zone. (15) Waiver (a) pertains to maximum structural height. Plans indicate that the proposed 2 -story administration portion of the building would be 35 feet in height with two roof peaks at 37 to 38 feet in height and a proposed dome which would be at a height of 39 feet, 4 inches. The school and multi - purpose portions of the building has two roof peaks at 37 to 38 feet high. The existing church building has two towers at 50 feet in height and an existing dome at the height of 54 feet which were approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 1469. As indicated in the attached Statement of Justification for Waiver form submitted by the applicant, a higher height for the dome and the roof peaks is necessary for the architectural features to be in proportion to the scale of the existing church building. The roof peaks are less than 10 percent of the roof area, and are needed to provide architectural relief to the long roof line. The dome is 45 feet to the closest residential property line to the west. Further, the dome portion of the roof is setback 45 feet and the roof peaks are setback 27 to 66 feet from the property line abutting the residential zone boundary. This building is a part of the existing church complex and staff feels that exceeding the structural height in the limited area of the dome and the roof peaks would be compatible with the existing church building and would not negatively impact the surrounding properties. This request would result in an additional structure that is lower than the existing dome and tower structures approved by waiver for the existing church. (16) Waiver (b) pertains to the minimum number of parking spaces. Code requires a minimum of 492 spaces for the church use and the proposed multi - purpose building and plans indicate 195 spaces proposed. The City's independent Traffic Consultant has reviewed the parking analysis prepared by Traffic Safety Engineers Inc. and has determined that based on the analysis provided in the parking study, adequate parking would be provided. Based upon the analysis provided by the applicant and upon the recommendation of the City's independent Traffic Consultant recommending approval of the parking study, staff recommends approval of this waiver based on the following findings: (a) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off - street 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 of such use. The parking study indicates that the peak parking demand for off - street parking spaces is lower than the quantity provided for the project site [76 space demand; 195 spaces provided]. Page 7 FINDINGS: Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 6 (b) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. The proposed church expansion project will not increase or compete for on- street parking because the project parking lots will have adequate parking to accommodate the project's peak parking demand. (c) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. There is not reason to encroach other facilities because the project site will provide adequate parking as indicated in the parking analysis. (d) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase traffic congestion within the off - street parking areas or lots provided for such use. Traffic and parking congestion will not occur because the supply of project site parking spaces is adequate to accommodate the anticipated project peak parking demand, (e) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. The proposed project site is physically separated from the adjacent private properties. Therefore, there will be no impeding of traffic access into or out of adjacent parking lots. (17) Section 18.42.110 of the parking code sets forth the following findings which are required to be made before a parking waiver is approved by the Planning Commission: (a) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off - street 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 of such use. (b) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. (c) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. (d) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase traffic congestion within the off- street parking areas or lots provided for such use. (e) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. Page 8 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 6 Unless conditions to the contrary are expressly imposed upon the granting of any waiver pursuant to this section, the granting of the waiver shall be deemed contingent upon operation of the proposed use in conformance with the assumptions relating to the operation and intensity of the use as contained in the Parking Demand Study that formed the basis for approval of the waiver. Exceeding, violating, intensifying or otherwise deviating from any of the assumptions as contained in the Parking Demand Study shall be deemed a violation of the express conditions imposed upon the waiver, which shall subject the waiver to revocation or modification pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.60.200 (City- Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits). (18) When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from strict enforcement of the Zoning Code, a modification may be granted for the purpose of assuring that no property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, shall be deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The sole purpose of any variance is to prevent discrimination and none shall be approved which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other similar properties. Therefore, before any variance is granted by the Commission, it shall be shown: (a) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and (b) That strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. (19) Before the Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: (a) That the use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code, or is an unlisted use as defined in Subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority); (b) That the use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; (c) That 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; (d) That the traffic generated by the use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and (e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. (20) The State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, Section 66473.5) makes it mandatory to include in all motions approving, or recommending approval of a tract map, a specific finding that the proposed Subdivision together with its design and improvement is consistent with the City's General Plan. Further, the law requires that the Commission /Council make any of the following findings when denying or recommending denial of a tract map: (a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. Page 9 (f) Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 6 (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: (21) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing, that the Planning Commission approve the applicant's request by taking the following actions: (a) By motion approve a CEQA Negative Declaration for the project. (b) By resolution approve Reclassification No. RCL2006 -00174 to reclassify Portions A and B from the T (Transition) zone to the RS -2 (Residential Single - Family) zone. (c) By motion, approve waiver (a) for maximum height based upon the findings in the staff report and attached draft resolution. (d) By motion, approve the waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (492 required•195 proposed) based on the findings contained in the parking study prepared by Traffic Safety Engineers and the independent analysis is performed by the City's Traffic Consultant and summarized in paragraph (16) of this report. (e) By resolution approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 -05064 to expand an existing Greek Orthodox Church to permit a new administration building, multi- purpose hall and religious school by adopting the attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained herein. By motion approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -156 based on the findings that (i) the design and improvements of the map are consistent with the General Plan as proposed with the reclassification request; (ii) the request is to consolidate six parcels into one would not create any environmental impacts, or conflicts with easements or access through the property from the request; and (iii) that the site is suitable for the type and density of development proposed for the site. Page 10 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2006 - * ** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT APPLICATION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006 -00174 BE GRANTED (321, 405, 425, 431, 509 and 511 NORTH DALE AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified application for Reclassification for real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows: PORTION A THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 11 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER1 DISTANT NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST 491.27 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 173.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 49' 30" WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION, A DISTANCE OF 264.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 11' 30" EAST 173.33 FEET TO A LINE PASSING THROUGH THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE NORTH 89° 40' 30" EAST 264.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THEREFROM THE SOUTH 86.665 FEET. THE NORTH 20.00 FEET OF THE EAST 264.00 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12 AND THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 11 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST 316.27 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 40' 30" WEST, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 396.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 11' 30" EAST PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 316.27 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE NORTH 89° 40' 30" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 396.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE SOUTH 105 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 11 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, DISTANT Cr \PC2006- -1- PC2006- NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST 316.27 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST, 175.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE; THENCE SOUTH 89° 40' 30" WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 264.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 11' 30 EAST PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 175.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 40' 30" EAST 264.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PORTION B THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE II OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, DISTANT NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST 316.27 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST, 175.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE; THENCE SOUTH 89° 40' 30" WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 264.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 11' 30 EAST PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 175.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 40' 30" EAST 264.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THEREFROM THE SOUTH 105 FEET THEREOF WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on March 20, 2006, at 2:30 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 reclassification 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. That the petitioner proposes reclassification of Portions A and B of the subject properties from the "T" (Transition) zone to the "RS -2" (Residential Single Family) zone. 2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community provides consistency in the zoning for the entire project site and is the proper implementation zone for the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential. 3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the community. 4. That * ** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the "T" (Transition) zone to the "RS- 2" (Single - family Residential) zone, or less intense zone; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. -2- PC2006- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve the subject Application for Reclassification to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map of the Anaheim Municipal Code to exclude the above - described property from the "T" (Transition) zone and to incorporate said described property into the "RS -2" (Single- family Residential) zone, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of subject property in order to preserve the health and safety of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: 1. That prior to introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, a preliminary title report shall be furnished to the Planning Services Division showing the legal vesting of title, a legal description and containing a map of the property. 2. That prior to placement of an ordinance rezoning subject property on an agenda for City Council consideration, Condition No. 1, above - mentioned, shall be completed. The City Council may approve or disapprove a zoning ordinance at its discretion. If the ordinance is disapproved, the procedure set forth in Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.60.140 shall apply. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with within one (1) year from the date of this resolution, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 3. That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2006- 05064, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -156. 4. 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 RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicants compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such conditions, 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 this resolution shall not constitute a rezoning of, or a commitment by the City to rezone, the subject property; any such rezoning shall require an ordinance of the City Council, which shall be a legislative act, which may be approved or denied by the City Council at its sole discretion. 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 March 20, 2006. 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. ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -3- PC2006- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on March 20, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 2006. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -4- PC2006- EXCEPT THE EAST 40.00 FEET THEREOF. [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2006 - * ** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -05064 BE GRANTED (321, 405, 425, 431, 509 and 511 NORTH DALE AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as: LOT 40 OF TRACT NO. 3099, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 95, PAGES 33 AND 34 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 11 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12, SOUTH 95.00 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12; THENCE WEST 145.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 18.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE; THENCE EAST 40.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH LINE; THENCE SOUTH 9.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE; THENCE EAST 105.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH LINE TO SAID EAST LINE; THENCE SOUTH 9.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 11 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER1 DISTANT NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST 491.27 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 173.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 49' 30" WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION, A DISTANCE OF 264.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 11' 30" EAST 173.33 FEET TO A LINE PASSING THROUGH THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE NORTH 89° 40' 30" EAST 264.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THEREFROM THE SOUTH 86.665 FEET. THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS Cr \PC2006- -1- PC2006- PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 11 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, DISTANT NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST 491.27 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST, 86.665 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE; THENCE SOUTH 89° 40' 30" WEST, 264.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 0° 11' 30" EAST 86.665 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 40' 30" EAST 264.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE II OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, DISTANT NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST 316.27 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST, 175.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE; THENCE SOUTH 89° 40' 30" WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 264.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 11' 30 EAST PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 175.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 40' 30" EAST 264.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THEREFROM THE SOUTH 105 FEET THEREOF. THE SOUTH 105 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 11 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, DISTANT NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST 316.27 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST, 175.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE; THENCE SOUTH 89° 40' 30" WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 264.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 11' 30 EAST PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 175.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 40' 30" EAST 264.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE NORTH 20.00 FEET OF THE EAST 264.00 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12 AND THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 11 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST 316.27 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 40' 30" WEST, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 396.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 11' 30" EAST PARALLEL WITH -2- PC2006- THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 316.27 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE NORTH 89° 40' 30" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 396.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on March 20, 2006, at 2:30 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. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.04.030.040 with the following waivers: (a) SECTION NO. 18.04.070.010 Maximum structural height (35 feet permitted 39 feet 4- inches proposed) (b) SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces (492 required 195 proposed and recommended by the City's Independent Traffic Consultant) 2. That the above mentioned waiver (a) is hereby approved based on the finding that the additional height is necessary for proper proportion of the building and that there are existing waivers granted on the property for similar features at a greater height than what is requested for this expansion. The additional height areas are architectural elements that are a part of the identity of the church, would be compatible with the existing church building and would not negatively impact the surrounding properties. 3. That the parking waiver (b) is hereby approved based upon a parking analysis prepared by Traffic Safety Engineers Inc. and reviewed by the City's Independent Traffic Engineer providing evidence that adequate parking exists on the property for the expanded church facility on the site. 4. That the parking waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off - street parking spaces to be provided for the church and accessory operations than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonable foreseeable conditions of operation of the church and accessory operations because the parking study indicates that the peak parking demand for off - street parking spaces is lower than the quantity provided for the project site (76 spaces needed and 195 spaces proposed). 5. That the parking waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion and will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the use because the church expansion will have adequate parking to accommodate the project's peak parking demands. 6. That the parking waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because as indicated in the parking study, adequate parking to accommodate the anticipated project peak parking demand will be provided on -site. 7. That the parking waiver, under the conditions imposed if any, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the project site is physically separated from adjacent private properties. Furthermore, it has been determined by the parking study that adequate on -site parking spaces are being provided. -3- PC2006- 8. That the use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located as the parking study has demonstrated that the site can accommodate the combined uses on site; 9. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 10. That ** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to expand and existing Greek Orthodox Church to permit a new administration building with waiver of maximum structural height and minimum number of parking spaces; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the heath and safety of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: That this religious institution with a multi - purpose building, school and administration offices shall operate consistent with assumptions contained in the approved parking study. If at any such time the operational characteristics of the church change, a detailed description of the operational changes shall be submitted for review by the City's Traffic and Parking Consultant to determine if the changes would cause fewer off - street parking spaces to be provided than the number of spaces provided on site. If it is determined the expected demand is greater than the spaces provided on site, an application for modification of the conditional use permit shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for approval by the Planning Commission. 2. That this facility shall not be used as a private daycare, nursery, elementary, junior and /or senior high school. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 3. That all church activity, including the use of the parking lot, shall cease by 10:00 p.m., daily. 4. That no portable signs shall be utilized to advertise the church. 5. Any additional signs shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval. Any decision by staff regarding signs may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a 'Report and Recommendation' item. 6. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provisions of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 7. That prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval a Water Quality Management Plan that: -4- PC2006- • Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas. • Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan. • Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in DAMP. Describes the long -term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs. Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long -term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs, and describes the mechanism for funding the long -term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. 8. That prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: • Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. • Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non - structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP. • Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Projects WQMP are available onsite. • Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural BMPs. 9. That prior to demolition of any existing buildings a demolition permit shall be obtained from the Building Division. 10. That the developer shall submit street improvement plans to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division and a bond shall be posted to guarantee that Dale Avenue is improved per Public Works Standard Detail 160 -A prior to issuance of a building permit. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspections. 11. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval in conformance with the Engineering Standard No. 115 pertaining to sight distance visibility for any sign or wall/fence location. 12. That the locations for future above - ground utility devices including, but not limited to, electrical transformers, water backflow devices, gas, communications and cable devices, etc., shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. Plans shall also identify the specific screening treatments of each device (i.e. landscape screening, color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points, etc.). 13. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonment's of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department 14. That since this project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet; a separate irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with Chapter 10.19 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 15. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Service Standards Specifications. Any water service and /or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded for continued use if necessary or abandoned if the existing water service is no longer needed. The owner /developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service of fire line. -5- PC2006- 16. That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground and outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault shall be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by the Water Engineering Department. 17. That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (Water Engineering Division) an easement twenty (20) in width for waters service mains and or an easement for large meter and other public facilities. 18. That plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 470 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 19. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum one - gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum three -foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 20. That the legal owner of subject property shall provide the City of Anaheim with a public utilities easement (dimensions will vary with electrical design) along /across high voltage lines, low voltage lines crossing private property and around all pad mounted transformers, switches capacitors, etc. Said easement shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim prior to connection of electrical service. 21. That at no time shall there be any outdoor storage on the site for the church. 22. That prior to the issuance of a building permit Park in Lieu fees of $5,388.14 shall be paid for the residential unit. 23. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense. 24. That all air - conditioning facilities and other ground- mounted equipment shall be properly shielded from view and sound buffered from adjacent residential properties. Such information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 25. That all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the buildings shall be fully screened by architectural devices and /or appropriate building materials. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits 26. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to approval of Reclassification No. 2006 -00174 and the approval and recordation of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -156 now pending. 27. That each individual building shall be clearly marked with its appropriate building number and address. Marking shall be positioned so they are easily viewed from vehicular and pedestrian accessways throughout the complex. Main building numbers shall be a minimum height of 12" and illuminated during hours of darkness. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 28. That prior to application for water meter, fire line or submitting the water improvement plans for approval, the developer /owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Water Engineering an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This -6- PC2006- information will be sued to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off -site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 29. That an Emergency Listing Card, Form ADP -281 shall be completed and submitted in a completed form to the Anaheim Police Department. 30. That four (4) foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof of the building in contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible to adjacent and nearby streets or properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted to the Police Department, Community Services Division, for review and approval. 31. That No Trespassing 602(k) P.C. signs shall be posted at the entrance to the parking lot and located in other appropriate places. 32. That all entrances to the parking area shall be posted with appropriate signs per 22658(a) C.V.0 to assist in removal of vehicles at the property owner's request. 33. That the property owner shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 941 (to temporarily permit church offices, a language school and limited church services in an existing residential structure, and the eventual construction of permanent church facilities on a portion of subject property) and Conditional Use Permit No. 786 (to establish a church edifice and educational unit on an L- shaped portion of the site) to the Planning Services Division. 34. That within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution, a sign plan shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval of the existing freestanding wood sign. 35. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department Exhibit Nos. 1 through 10 and as conditioned herein. 36. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 30, above - mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 37. That prior to issuance of a grading permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition No. 7, above - mentioned shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 38. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 8, 10, 26, 28, 29 and 30, above - mentioned, shall be complied with. 39. 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 Anaheim 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. -7- PC2006- 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 commencement of the activity or 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 March 20, 2006. 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 and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on March 20, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2006. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -8- PC2006- Cjty of Anaheim 1f~~,A1~II~id19iG ~E~A~'~'ME1~iT March 20, 2006 Saint John the Baptist Greek Orthodox Church 405 North Dale Street Ariatieim, CA 92801 Following is an excerpt frdm the minutes df the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of March 20, 2006. 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00174 6c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05064 6e. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-156 Owner: Saint Jahn the Baptist Greek Orthodox Church, 405 North Dale Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 Agent: Karen Otis, Otis Architecture, 16871 Seawitch Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Location: 321 405 425 431 509 and 511 North Dale Avenue: Property is approximately 4.9 acres having a frontage of 767 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue and is located 668 feet south of the centerline of Crescent Avenue. Reclassification No. 2006-00174 -Request reclassification of Portion A and B from the T (Transition) zone to the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a less intense zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05064 -Request to expand an existing Greek Orthodox Church to permit a new administration building, multi-purpose hall and religious school with waivers of (a) maximum structural height and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-156 -To combine six tots into one lot. www.anaheim.net ACTION: Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-156 based on the finding that (i) the design and improvements of the map are consistent with the General Plan as proposed with the reclassification request; (ii) the request is to consolidate six parcels into one would not create any environmental impacts, or conflicts with easements or access through the property from the request; and (iii) the site 200 South Anaheim Boulevard P.0. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 TEL (714) 765-5139 is suitable for the type and density of development proposed for the site, subject to the following conditions of approval: Sincerely, That the final parcel map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and the Orange County Surveyor and then shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder (Subdivision Map Act, Section 66499.40). That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (Water Engineering Division) an easement twenty (20) feet in width for water service mains and or an easement for large meter and other public facilities. That this parcel map is subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2006- 05064 and Reclassification No. 2006 -00174 now pending. That prior to final parcel map approval, Condition Nos. 1 and 2 above - mentioned, shall be complied with. Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission cc: Karen Otis, Otis Architecture, 16871 Seawitch Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE PERTAINING TO: 40 Sections 18.03.040.030 and 18.12.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code require that before any variance or Code waiver may be granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shall be shown: That there are special circumllances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not aOply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; a.nd That because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. In order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to arrive at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regarding the property for which a variance is sought, fully and as completely as possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages. I . Are there special circumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? / Yes No. If your answer is "Yes," descri e the special circumstances: Ike -cx(sn 11 dii rfi- 2. EXPLAIN: Z'd 3 25LECEMBER 12, 2000 Justification Waive. dot .5 L I 2. Are the special circumstances th t apply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the same zone as your property? ' Yes No lf your answer is "ye ," desc be how the property is different: )--- 3. Do the special circumstance applicable to the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within th same zone? Yes , /"No If your answer if "yes," describe the special circumstances: 4. Were the special circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? Yes The sole purpose of any variance or approved whic uld have the eff which not 9t1e ' se expressly aut ature of Pop- Owner ot Aut PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF Attachment - Item No. 6 JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER) SECTION: (A separate state • ent is required for each Code waiver D - Jo 14 ode waiver shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance or Code waiver shall be t of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone orized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances are not permitted. LI-9Z orized Agent (9- gi.oce Date CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE NO. • SRO Ue-re>i ci9z:t0 90 clad February 25, 2006 (Revision No. 2) February 15, 2006 (Revision No. 1) September 17, 2004 Ms. Karen Otis Otis Architecture 16871 Sea Witch Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Dear Ms. Otis: Attachment - Item No. 6 This report summarizes our second revised traffic parking study for the proposed school building addition and a new multi - purpose room/gymnasium building for the St. John The Baptist Greek Orthodox Church located at 405 N. Dale Avenue in Anaheim. This revised study was prepared in response to the City of Anaheim's review comment memo dated February 23, 2006. We trust that the findings of this parking study will be of assistance to the City of Anaheim in formulating their decision pertaining to the proposed church facility and school expansion project. 1. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The existing church facility consists of a sanctuary room with a seating capacity of 600 seats, and an adjacent building attached to the sanctuary building. This multi - purpose building consists of the following facilities: - An Administration Office - Priest Offices - Nine Classrooms A large meeting/conference room A gymnasium with kitchen facility Existing Site Use Proposed Site Use Existing 600 -Seat Sanctuary No Change Existing 10,000 square -foot multi - purpose and administrative office building, immediately adjacent to the church sanctuary building, will be demolished to partially provide space for a new 2 -story multi - purpose building including a gymnasium. A new 22,554 square -foot multi - purpose room/gymnasium building, a 11,187 square -foot administration building consists of church and priest offices, a board room, and meeting rooms, and a 22,122 square -foot school building consists of 14 classrooms, 3 nursery rooms, meeting room and offices. Page 2 A worship service along with religious study classes are held from 9:00 A.M. to Noon on Sundays. During weekdays, the following social and religious education activities are held: Monday, from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Folk Dance classes Tuesday, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., Bible study Tuesday, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Greek School Tuesday, from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Basketball Wednesday, from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Basketball Wednesday, from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Orthodox Faith classes Thursday, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Greek school Thursday, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Bible study Thursday, to be announced, Bible study Friday, to be announced, Bible study Saturday, to be announced, Bible study The church proposes to build a new two - story, 55,862 square -foot building consisting of 14 classrooms, 3 nursery rooms, church administration and priest offices, meeting rooms, board rooms, libraries, and a multi - purpose /gymnasium with kitchen facility. The proposed classrooms will be used for bible study, Greek School, Orthodox Faith and other religious education. These classrooms are not used for regular pre - school or elementary school instructions. The proposed multi - purpose building/gymnasium facility will be used for folk dance classes, choir practice, basketball practice, and other recreational/social events during weekdays. On Sundays, this multi - purpose building is used for coffee /donut fellowship get- together immediately following the worship services. The existing 10,000 square -foot one -story multi - purpose and administrative building, immediately adjacent to the church sanctuary building, will be demolished to partially provide space for the new 2 -story multi - purpose building. A total of four lots (three existing houses and one empty lot) on both sides of the existing church property were purchased and be demolished to provide room for not only the new building but also for an additional parking lot. Detailed breakdown of the existing sanctuary and the proposed church, classrooms, administration and multi - purpose /gymnasium facilities are outlined in Table "A" below: TABLE A A total of 127 parking spaces were physically counted on the existing parking lot. The 105 Site use Intensity City Parking Code Requirements Parking Spaces Required by Code Existing Sanctuary 600 seats or 7,528 sq. ft. 0.333 space per seat or 29 spaces for TSF whichever is greater 198 or 218 New School Facility 14 Classrooms and 3 Nursery Rooms Plus 600 sq. ft. of Offices 1 space per class room, plus 1 space per non - office employee plus 4 spaces per TSF for office use ( *) Total 218 Page 3 spaces stated in the original parking study were taken directly from the proposed project site plan. With the additional 68 spaces to be provided as part of the proposed church expansion project, the total parking spaces available for the church site would be 127 + 68 = 195 parking spaces.. 2. CITY PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS Based on the City's Parking Code Requirements, a total of 218 parking spaces will be required for the proposed project (existing sanctuary plus proposed new buildings) on Sunday and 264 parking spaces will be required on weekdays. However, based on total project building floor areas, a total of 492 parking spaces will be required regardless of Sunday or weekday usage. Detailed calculations of these parking requirements are shown below: A. SUNDAY CHURCH SERVICE ( *) Some of these classrooms are used for Sunday school classes. No additional parking spaces are required because children and parents are transported in the same vehicles. Children are being dropped off at the classrooms while the parents attending the worship service. Site use Intensity City Parking Code Requirements Parking Spaces Required by Code New School Facility 14 Classrooms and 3 nursery rooms plus 600 sq. ft. of offices 1 space per class room, plus 1 space per non - office employee plus 4 spaces per TSF for office use 17(Classrooms) + 1(Janitor) + 3(offices) Church Administrative and Priest Offices 11,187 sq. ft. 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 45 Multi- Purpose room/gymnasium 6,500 sq. ft. of gymnasium (433 persons *) 1,631 sq. ft. of kitchen 29 spaces per TSF of assembly area plus 0.02 space per person for maximum occupancy 189 + 9 Total 264 Page 4 B. WEEKDAYS * Based on City of Anaheim's Fire Department occupancy rate of one person per 15 sq. ft. of floor area or 6,500 sq. ft. divided by 15 sq. ft. = 433 persons Use Square Feet Code Parking Requirement (per 1,000 s.f.) Parking Required Sanctuary (assembly) 600 seats 29 spaces per 1,000 square feet of assembly area or 0.333 space per fixed seat whichever is greater 218 Kitchen 1,631 Two - hundredths (.02) space per person for the maximum capacity figure of the assembly area determined by the Fire Department 9 Storage 4,827 1.55 space per 1,000 square feet Detached Storage Building 2,224 1.55 space per 1,000 square feet 3 Office (which includes church and school) 11,187 square feet 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet 45 Multi- Purpose room /gymnasium 7,172 square feet 29 spaces per 1,000 square feet of assembly area 208 Classrooms* 14 classrooms 3 nursery rooms (14,894 square feet) N/A N/A 2- Bedroom Living Area for Priest 2- bedrooms (1,779 square feet) 2 spaces per 2- bedroom units 2 Restrooms, lobbies, hallways, mechanical rooms, stairs, elevators , stage platform and electrical rooms * 12,380 square feet N/A NA 56,094 square feet total Total spaces required 492 Page 5 C. CITY PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS BASED ON BUILDING FLOOR AREAS Detailed narking calculations based on total nroiect building floor areas are shown below: * *Note: Code does not require any parking for the accessory Sunday school classrooms, restrooms, lobbies or hallways. Day of Week Time of Day Number of Parking Spaces Occupied Sunday (9- 12 -04) 11:00 a.m. 13' 76( *) Monday (9- 13 -04) 5:30 p.m. 33 Tuesday (9- 14 -04) 6:30 p.m. 36 Thursday (9- 16 -04) 6:30 p.m. 31 Page 6 3. PARKING DEMAND SURVEYS Parking surveys were conducted at the existing church parking lot on Sunday, September 12, 2004 and weekdays (9 -13- 2004, 9 -14 -2004 and 9 -16- 2004)). Results of the highest peak parking surveys are tabulated below: ( *) The 136 parked vehicles previously stated in this parking study were erroneously typed. 4. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS On Sunday morning, our parking demand surveys at the church parking lot indicated a peak parking demand of 76 spaces during the Sunday church worship service. No overflow of parking onto the adjacent streets were observed because the peak parking demands of 76 vehicles were substantially less than the 127 parking spaces provided by the existing parking lot. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the 195 spaces to be provided by the proposed parking lot are more than adequate to accommodate the Sunday peak parking demands. During weekdays, our parking demand surveys at the church parking lot indicated a peak parking demand of 12 spaces per classroom (36 parking spaces divided by existing 3 Greek School classrooms). Based on this peak parking demand rate of 12 spaces per classroom, a total of 168 parking spaces will be needed when the number of classrooms expand to 14 classrooms with the proposed church expansion project. These anticipated 168 parking spaces, assuming that all the 14 classrooms are fully occupied, are substantially less than the 195 spaces to be provided by the proposed parking lot. Page 7 Section 18.06.080 of the Anaheim Parking Ordinance 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: A. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off - street 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 of such use. Response: The parking study indicates that the peak parking demand for off - street parking spaces is lower than the quantity provided for the project site. B. 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 of the proposed use. Response: The proposed church expansion project will not increase or compete for on- street parking because the project parking lots will have adequate parking to accommodate the project's peak parking demands C. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, 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 18.06.010.020 of the Code) Response: There is no reason to encroach other parking facilities because the project site will provide adequate parking as indicated in the parking analysis. Page 8 D. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the off - street parking areas or lots provided for such uses. Response: Traffic and parking congestion will not occur because the supply of project site parking spaces is adequate to accommodate the anticipated project peak parking demand. E. 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 immediate vicinity of the proposed use. Response: The proposed project site is physically separated from the adjacent private properties. Therefore, there will be no impeding of traffic access into or out of adjacent parking lots. Should you need additional information or clarification of this parking study, please feel free to call us at any time. Very truly yours, C. Hui Lai, P.E. Traffic Engineer SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH Facility use and hours of operation Attachment - Item No. 6 WORSHIP As a worshiping community the Church comes together on Sunday mornings from 9 to 12 in corporate worship. In addition there are about another 75 days in the year when we have either weekday morning services (usually 9 to 10:30) or evening services 6 to 7:30. On Easter the church has an extended period of services during the entire week beginning on Palm Sunday evening and continuing every night and almost every morning until Easter Sunday. For Christmas we have services on Christmas eve 6 to 8 p.m. and on Christmas day from 9- 11.During Holy Week we have three services on Great Wednesday on Holy Thursday there are two services and on Great (Good Friday) there are three services. The largest crowd of the year in worship services is the Good Friday and Easter services. With about 700 to 900 attending. There are about 60 to 70 other services during the year such as Baptisms, Weddings, and Funerals. Average attendance on Sundays (Mid- September to May) is approximately 225 -250 adults and about 75 to 100 children. During the Summer we have no Sunday School or Greek Afternoon Classes and attendance at worship is between 150 and 210 total. EDUCATION CLASSES AFTERNOON GREEK SCHOOL This school meets on Tuesdays with a hour and half per class.(4 TO 7 P.M) We have a total of seven classes. Six meet on Tuesday and one on Thursday. We also have two adult evening classes which meet on Thursday evenings for two hours. There are 60 children and 10 adults attending. The School does not meet during the Christmas and Easter Week nor during the summer. In the fall, classes commence about the middle of September and end last week in May. CHRISTIAN EDUCATION (Sunday. School) We have approximately 180 enrolled with about 75 to 110 attending any given Sunday. School is in session for approximate 30 Sundays per year and the hours of operation are 10:00 to 12:00 noon. DAY BY DAY DESCRIPTION OF USE OF FACILITIES SUNDAYS Church Worship Services, 9 to 12 noon. During Summer months Services are from 9 -11. (See above for a description of other services during the year) Multi- Purpose Hall and Small Hall The hall is used on Sunday mornings from 12 -2 for Coffee Fellowship and occasional lunches. Sometimes its used also by the Sunday School for classes. During the year it is also used for baptismal and wedding receptions Classroom Wing Used for Sunday School from 9:30 -12 noon. Attendance 70 -110 . MONDAYS Office/Board Room The office is open from 9 -5 p.m. Monday thru Friday. The staff consists of a full time Secretary/Bookeeper,(40 hours) a part-time Assistant (two to three days a week 10 -12 hours as needed) and a part time Word Processor who works about 15 -17 hours per week. The priest (and the assistant priest) also have offices and are usually at the office five days a week Multi - purpose Hall and Small Hall Used by our Folk Dance groups from 4 to 10 p.m. Attendance approximately 70 TUESDAYS Office/Board Room In addition to normal use, the Parish Council meets there the first and third Tuesday of the month from 7:00 -10:00 p.m. Attendance 15 -17 Also every Tuesday from 11:30 to 1p.m. 10 -12 members of our Bible Class meets. Multi- Purpose Hall Used for Youth Basketball practice from 6 to 10 p.m every Tuesday..(December - March) Number participating 20. Classroom Wing Greek afternoon school from 4 -7 p.m. Approximately 50 attending Small Hall Meeting by Adult group 17 -25 from 4 -9 p.m.(Once a month) WEDNESDAYS Office/Board Room The Board Room is used for meetings /classes every Wednesday from 7 - 9 p.m. by about 12- 15(except during the summer) Multi- Purpose Hall Used for Youth Basketball practice from 6 to 10 p.m. every Wednesday (December - March) with 20 -25 participating. Small Hall Used by our Ladies Philoptochos Society, on the first Wednesday of each month from 7 -9 p.m. (Does not meet July, August and September) Attendance 20 -30. THURSDAYS Office/Board Room After business hours from 7 - 8:30 p.m. the Board Room is used for a Bible Study class. Attendance 6 - 10. Classroom Wing Used by our Greek School for three classes. 4 -8:30 p.m. Attendance fluctuates by usually 15 -25 Multi- Purpose Hall Used for weekly Basketball by adults every Thursday evening from 7 -10 p.m. (Almost year round) FRIDAYS No programs- Facilities not in use, EXCEPT Office SATURDAYS OFFICE IS CLOSED Multi- Purpose Hall Used occasionally by our Societies for lunch etc. There are some receptions /dinners,dances held in the evenings during the year. Nothing during most of the summer months. The largest affair is the Annual Church Dance with 275 -300 attending. The hall is also used during our Annual Greek Festival which is held on the second weekend after Mothers Day. PLEASE NOTE The only time that we have an overlap with Church and School facilities is on Sunday morning. The parents do use the existing parking lot and also off street parking on Dale Street. We don't now nor do we plan on dropping off the children on Dale Street in the future expansion. * * * * ** We don't have any Daycare Center at present and we do not propose to have one. * * * * ** Our maintenance staff consists of a full -time Custodian who lives on the premises. Other part - time help is hired as needed during the year. Our paid membership is approximately 600 families T SP 94 -1 (SC) RCL 65 -66 -24 (29) RCL 65 -66 -13 CUP 3325 CUP 2922 VAR 3838 VAR 2878 ADJ 0143 SMALL INDUSTRIAL FIRM SP 94 - 1 (SC) RCL 66-67-64 (Res. of Intent to ML) RCL 66 -67 -63 AJAX CEMENT COMPANY RCL 70 -71 -47 (Res of Intent to ML) RCL 70 -71 -46 SP 94 -1 (SC) DA 2 RCL 65 -66 -24 (29) RCL 65 -66 -13 CUP 2922 CUP 3752 VAR 3838 VAR 2878 CATELLUS CORPORATE CENTER SMALL INDUSTRIAL FIRMS LA PALMA AVENUE Hi — 340 —01 115' 9 v SP 94 -1 (SC) DA 2 RCL 66 -67 -64 (10) CUP 2006 -05069 CUP 3918 VAR 3287 PS PUBLIC STORAGE RFp SP 94 -1 (SC) DA 2 RCL 66 -67 -64 (10) MTI LING SP 94 -1 (SC) DA 2 RCL 65 -66 -24 (29) CUP 2004 -04945 CUP 3010 VAR 4133 VAR 2878 (CUP 2003 - 04793) CHURCH 4 I ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE. SP 94 -1 (SC) DA 2 RCL 66 -67 -64 (10) I VAR 2323 SMALL IND FIR 4■4 Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 -05069 Requested By: PUBLIC STORAGE EURO PARTNERSHIP 4880 East La Palma Avenue Item No. 7 Subject Property Date: March 20, 2006 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 166 10005 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -05069 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This rectangularly- shaped 3.5 -acre property has a frontage of 340 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, a maximum depth of 453 feet, and is located 115 feet west of the centerline of Manassero Street (4880 East La Palma Avenue- Public Storage). REQUEST: (2) The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit under authority of Code Section Nos. 18.120.070.050.0537 and 18.120.070.080.0801 to construct a five -story self storage building with building heights exceeding 60 feet with waiver of the following: (b) SECTION NO. 18.120.070.100.1001 Maximum fence height (3 feet permitted; 6 feet proposed) (a) SECTION NO. 18.120.080.0803 Maximum floor area ratio (FAR) (0_5 permitted; 1_1 proposed) BACKGROUND: (3) The property is developed with an existing self storage facility and is zoned SP94- 1(DA2) (SC) (Northeast Industrial Area, Development Area 2 (Expanded Industrial Area), Scenic Corridor Overlay). The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Office -Low land uses. Surrounding properties to the north (across La Palma Avenue) are designated for Industrial land uses, to the east and west for Office -Low land uses and to the south for Open Space -Water uses. (4) The applicant, Dean Grobbelaar, has submitted the attached letter dated, March 9, 2006, requesting a continuance to the April 17, 2006, Commission meeting in order to complete revisions to the proposed addition to the existing self storage facility. RECOM MENDATION: (5) That the Commission, by motion, continue this item to the April 17, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. SR Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 7 (Motion for continuance) Page 1 file: / / /HI/ CASES / Conditional% 20Use% 20Permit/ CUP2006- 05069/LTR- CUP2006- 05069jn.htm From: Dean [dean @pacificplanninggroup.com] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 3:50 PM Attachment -Item No. 7 To: Jessica Nixon; Judy Dadant Cc: karen @pacificplanninggroup.com; jfitzpatrick @publicstorage.com; nhattenburg @publicstorage. com; jimgoodman @jgaia.com Subject: Public Storage, 4880 E La Palma Ave Jessica, The applicant does not wish the project to be placed on the 03/20/06 Planning Commission agenda. This email serves to confirm that the applicant requests a 4 week continuance. Dean Grobbelaar. file: / / /HI/ CASES / Conditional %20Use %20Permit /CUP2006- 05069/ LTR- CUP2006- 05069jn.htm3/13/2006 8:41:54 AM SP 94 -1 RCL 70 -71 -15 (1) RCL 70 -71 -14 CUP 2167 VAR 4271 OFFICE BLDG. DA 2 RCL 70 -71 -15 (1) RCL 70 -71 -14 CUP 2167 VAR 4271 OFFICE BLDG. SP 94 -1 CEROMET INC. CENTER R DA 2 SP 94 -1 RCL 70 -71 -15 (1) RCL 70 -71 -14 FAMILY TREE PRODUCE at SP 94 -1 RCL 70 -71 -15 (1) RCL 70 -71 -14 CUP 2167 VAR 4271 OFFICE BLDG. D.A. 2 SP 94 -1 RCL 70 -71 -15 (1) RCL 70 -71 -14 CUP 2001 -04318 CUP 2167 VAR 4271 OFFICE BLDG. D.A. 2 SP 94 -1 RCL 70 -71 -15 (1) RCL 70 -71 -14 CUP 2167 VAR 2006 -04679 VAR 4271 OFFICE BLDG. D.A. 2 SP 94 -1 RCL 70 -71 -15 (1) RCL 70 -71 -14 T -CUP 2003 -04765 T -CUP 2001 -04375 CUP 4094 CUP 3860 CUP 2708 CUP 2022 CUP 1983 CUP 1747 INDUSTRIAL PARK SMALL INDUSTRIAL FIRMS D.A. 5 489' LA PALMA AVENUE •yc rvUE SP 94 -1 NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL AREA RCL 89 -90 -48 RCL 87 -88 -08 RCL 86 -87 -29 RCL 65 -66 -25 (2) RCL 65 -66 -17 CUP 2005 -05049 T -CUP 2004 -04889 CUP 2003 -04822 CUP 3881 CUP 3414 CUP 3240 CUP 2905 VAR 3892 (CUP 3314) (CUP 1585) CINEMA CITY THEATRES D.A. 5 SP 94 -1 RCL 89 -90 - RCL 88 -89 -: RCL 84 -85 -( RCL 65 -66-: (Res of Intent tc RCL 65 -66 -1 CUP 2003 -04 CUP 3881 CUP 3253 CUP 3514 VAR 4198 VAR 4192 VAR 4156 SHOPPING CI' D.A. 5 SP 94-1 RCL 65-66 - (Res of Intent t RCL 77-78 - RCL 65-66 - VAR 428: VAR 3145 V -3145 S BANK A. 5 591' to centerline N '" of Imperial Highway SP 94 -1 RCL 65 -66 -17 T -CUP 2005 -04973 T -CUP 2 00 3 -0481 0 r CUP 2002 -04644 CUP 3985 DA. 5 IN -N -OUT REST. SP 94 -1 RCL 76 -77 -16 RCL 65 -66 -25 CUP 3234 (Res of Intent to ML) CUP 3233 T -CUP 2005 -04973 CUP 1722 T -CUP 2003-04810 CUP 1721 CUP 2002 -04644 VAR 4267 T -CUP 2002 -04609 VAR 4252 CUP 2001 -04465 VAR 3863 T -CUP 2000 -04219 CUP 4115 SP 94 -1 RCL 84 -85 -07 RCL 65 -66 -25 (1 CUP 3711 PCN 96-04 S.S./MINI MKT. & CAR WASH D.A. 5 N ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE AND ALPHA (NORTHEAST) REDEVELOPMENT AREA. Variance No. 2006 -04679 Requested By: WESCOM CREDIT UNION 5601 East La Palma Avenue Item No. 8 Subject Property Date: March 20, 2006 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 184 10006 ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE AND ALPHA (NORTHEAST) REDEVELOPMENT AREA. el ri .=.17 PALMA AVENUE p j r 1• ® :i! . .� :i••�j'1: : 'ie , i Y l' =ro 1. 1'••. 1, ;:a 31. ;1�la�if •1 i I M R n`s • I. • 1 _iii .S•t.a a • c,VVE • 11 I .• • 11 41E1; ii; dA Photo: July 2005 Variance No. 2006 -04679 Requested By: WESCOM CREDIT UNION 5601 East La Palma Avenue Subject Property Date: March 20, 2006 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 184 10006 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION — CLASS 11 8b. VARIANCE NO. 2006 -04679 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: REQUEST: (b) SECTION NO 18.44.110.010.0103 BACKGROUND: (3) PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS: (5) PROPOSAL: Srvar2006- 04679jn Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 8 (Motion) (Resolution) (1) This irregularly- shaped, 3.25 -acre property has a frontage of 489 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue a maximum depth of 409 feet, and is located 591 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway (5601 East La Palma Avenue- WESCOM Credit Union). (2) The petitioner requests waivers of the following to permit five wall signs and a monument sign for an existing office building: (a) SECTION NO.18.44.090.010 Maximum number of monument signs (1 permitted; 1 proposed and 2 existing) Maximum height of letters for wall signs (36 inches permitted; 48 and 60 inches proposed) The existing office center is zoned SP94 -1 (DA2) (SC) (Northeast Area Specific Plan, Expanded Industrial Area, Scenic Corridor). The Anaheim General Plan designates this property and properties to the north, west, and south for Office -Low land uses and properties to the east for General Commercial land uses. (4) Conditional Use Permit No. 2167 (to permit an industrial office complex in the 94 -1 DA2 (SC) Zone) was approved by the Planning Commission on January 12, 1981. Variance No. 4271 (to request a waiver of required lot frontage for three (3) parcels) was approved by the Zoning Administrator on April 27, 1995. (6) The applicant, WESCOM Credit Union, proposes to construct five (5) wall signs and one (1) monument sign for a total of three (3) monument signs for an existing single tenant four (4) story office building. The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates the proposed monument sign would be located along the easterly portion of the property frontage and would be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the curb face. The site plan further indicates two (2) existing monument signs and one directional sign visible from La Palma Avenue located on the property identifying the office park and other tenants on site. The proposed monument sign is located 96 feet west of the adjacent parcel to the east. Code allows one monument sign for properties with street frontages of less than six hundred (600) feet, and further requires a minimum separation of 300 feet between monument signs for properties with more than 600 feet of frontage. This property has a frontage of 489 feet, which would allow one monument sign. The proposed monument sign is located 300 feet from the existing monument sign identifying the office park (Canyon Corporate Center) at the entrance drive, and approximately 340 feet from the monument sign located on the property line within a Page 1 Wall Sign Number Wall Sign Location Proposed letter height (in inches) Proposed Sign Area No. Signs Permitted/No. Proposed Percentage of Building Elevation (max. 10 %) 1 North 60 167 s. 3 permitted/1 proposed 1.03% 2 South 60 167 s. 3 permitted/1 proposed 1.03% 3 East 60 167 s. 3 permitted/1 proposed 1.79% 4 West 60 167 s.f. 3 permitted/2 proposed 2.58% 5 West (above entrance) 48 74 s.f. (7) The proposed monument sign is 5 feet 3 inches in height and 8 feet 8 inches in width with the words "WESCOM Credit Union ", is located within a landscape planter and provides a base and address numbers in compliance with code. The sign would be a double -faced internally illuminated sign with a gray face, blue letters, blue and white logo, and a concrete base with a red stripe across the top to match the other freestanding signs on the property. I Existing monument signs Srvar2006- 04679jn median planter at the entrance drive. This monument sign identifies the name of the office park and several tenants within the park. View across La Palma Avenue Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 8 Proposed location of monument skin (8) The elevation plans (Exhibit No. 2, 3, and 4) indicate wall signs with the following characteristics: The code allows 3 wall s gns on each elevation based on the building frontage and a maximum letter height of 36 inches for a 4 to 5 story building. The code further provides that the aggregate area of wall signs not exceed 10% of the face of the building to which Page 2 Sr ar2006 -046' 911 i such signs are attached or 200 square feet, whichever is less. The proposed wall signs comply with all aspects of the code except for letter and logo height. Proposed west elevation No. 4 wall sign I 1____� � �= 1_ - •••_•_ IMIIMaMI•U• MEM! 1••____ r IMlr7 IMM I______ me r,:1 II•t�� —.ill Mill MIN 1MI•61 JL MIMI 1! —' 1:KG MINI � A � 411 ■iii Erl ,./��liS3A11111 t . II nom:: -- .miei umil StW effllA�iff'I i la i IIFF,C. iAZti mow: :NU ' • ' Cr.'V i � ' , }c 7. fir: I x, View across La Palma Avenue I Proposed west elevation No. 5 wall sign I Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 8 Proposed south elevation No. 2 wall sign Simulation of proposed wall signs for the east and north elevations Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: ( EVALUATION: (10) Waiver (a) pertains to the permitted number of freestanding or monument signs. Code permits one monument sign for properties with frontage of less than 600 feet and the property has a street frontage of 489 feet; therefore, only one monument sign is permitted. The applicant has indicated in the attached Justification of Waiver Form that given the height of the building (64.5 feet), the wall signs would not be visible to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Therefore, a ground- mounted sign at eye level is needed to assist customers to easily identify the location of the subject business. The applicant further explains that the two existing monument signs identifying the entire commercial center and the individual businesses are not adequate for customers to locate their business. Staff feels that given the close proximity of the building to the public right -of -way, and the high visibility of the building due to its height, the proposed wall signage will provide adequate identification for the tenant. The two existing monument signs on the property are legal nonconforming and exceed code requirements as to number of signs permitted for the property. Therefore, the request for a third monument sign would further deviate from Code. Therefore, staff has determined that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property that justify the third monument sign and therefore recommends denial of this request. (11) Waiver (b) pertains to maximum letter height. The code allows up to 3 wall signs for building frontages over 81 feet. The code also states that the maximum letter height for 4- to 5 -story buildings is 36 inches. Plans propose letter heights of 48 to 60 inches as described in paragraph (7). The applicant has submitted the attached Justification of Waiver Form indicating that the building is unique because it is taller and longer than surrounding buildings and are generally occupied by multiple tenants, whereas this tenant occupies the entire building. In addition, the applicant indicates that compliance with code requirements would result in signs that are not proportional to the four -story building. Photo simulations of the proposed signs verify that the size proposed is in scale with the building as requested by the applicant. The intent of the letter height limitation in the code is to ensure that proposed signs are properly proportioned to the building elevation. Information submitted by the applicant indicates that the intent of the code is still maintained with the requested waiver. Given the height of the structure and scale of the proposed signs with the building, staff recommends approval of this waiver. FINDINGS: Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 8 Staff has determined that the proposed wall signs and monument sign falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15311, Class 11 (Accessory Structures), as defined in the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines and is, therefore categorically exempt from the preparation of further environmental documentation. (12) When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from strict enforcement of the Zoning Code, a modification may be granted for the purpose of assuring that no property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, shall be deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The sole purpose of any variance is to prevent discrimination and none shall be approved which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other similar properties. Therefore, before any variance is granted by the Commission, it shall be shown: Srvar2006- 04679jn Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 8 (13) Staff recommends that unless additional or contrary information is received during the meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Srvar2006- 04679jn (a) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and (b) That strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. (a) By motion, determine that the project is Categorically Exempt, under Section 15311, Class 11 (Accessory Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. (b) By resolution approve, in part, Variance No. 2006 -04679 to waive the maximum letter height for five new wall signs by adopting the attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained therein and take the following actions: (i) Deny waiver (a) pertaining to maximum number of monument signs. (ii) Approve waiver (b) pertaining to maximum letter height of wall signs. Page 5 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2006 - * ** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2006 -04679 BE GRANTED, IN PART (5601 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Variance for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as: PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 95 -118, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 287, PAGES 17 THROUGH 20 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1 ON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 352, RECORDED JANUARY 24, 1996 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 96- 35111, OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF PARCELS 1 AND 5 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 95- 118, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 287, PAGES 17 THROUGH 20 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 2 ON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 352, RECORDED JANUARY 24, 1996 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 96- 35111, OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL C: NON - EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR ACCESS, INGRESS, EGRESS, DRAINAGE, MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, AS SAID EASEMENTS ARE SET FORTH IN SECTION 5.04 OF THAT CERTAIN DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS OF CANYON CORPORATE RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NO. 95- 288660, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on March 20, 2006, at 2:30 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 variance 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. That the petitioner proposes waivers of the following to permit 5 wall signs and a monument sign for an existing office building: (a)SECTION NO.18.44.090.010 Maximum number of monument signs, (1 permitted; 1 proposed and 2 existing) (b)SECTION NO 18.44.110.010.0103 Maximum height of letters for wall signs (36 inches permitted; 48 and 60 inches proposed) CR \PC2006 -0 -1- PC2006- 2. That waiver (a) pertaining to maximum number of monument signs is hereby denied based on the finding that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property relating to the proposed monument sign and the property would not be deprived of a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the same zoning. In addition, the close proximity of the building to the public right -of -way, and the high visibility of the building due to its height provide the site with adequate identification opportunities to the public. An additional monument sign would exacerbate an existing non - conforming situation since there are already two existing monument signs on the property. 3. That the above - mentioned waiver (b) pertaining to the maximum letter height of wall signs is hereby granted on basis that that the building is unique because it is taller and longer than surrounding buildings and other buildings are generally occupied by multiple tenants, whereas this tenant occupies the entire building. In addition, compliance with code requirements would result in signs that are not proportional to the four -story building. The intent of the letter height limitation in the code is to ensure that proposed signs are properly proportioned to the building elevation. Submitted plans demonstrate that the intent of the code is still maintained with the requested waiver. 4. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. 5. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question. 6. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 7. That * * ** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Director or her authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, 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 Planning Commission does hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: 1. That the proposed monument sign be located two (2) feet from the ultimate right of way. 2. That the wall signs shall be maintained in good condition. 3. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the sign plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, through 4, and as conditioned herein. 4. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 3, above - mentioned, shall be complied with. 5. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal -2- PC2006- 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. Should the Commission approve waiver (a) the following additional conditions shall apply: 1. That the proposed monument sign be located two (2) feet from the ultimate right of way. 2. That the background of the monument sign shall be opaque with only the letters and logo routed out and illuminated. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim 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 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 March 20, 2006. 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. ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on March 20, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2006. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -3- PC2006- REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: PERTAINING TO: W 1 1 s i gl c APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE /CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER) 18.44.110 (A separate statement is required for each Code waiver) Sections I8.74.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires that before any variance or Code waiver may be granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shall be shown: 1. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, Iocation or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and 2. That, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. In order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to arrive at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regarding the property for which a variance is sought, fully and as completely as possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages. 1. Are there special circumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? X Yes _ No. If your answer is " Yes," describe the special circumstances: Our . building i s 2 51 ' long and has a large glass elevation on all four sides. By keeping the sign letters at code, 36 ", the sign appears out of scale to the overall building proportions. 2. Are the special circumstances that apply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the same zone as your property? . Yes _ No If your answer is " yes," describe how the property is different: This building is taller and longer than surrounding buildings. Other buildings are multi— tenant and Wescom is a single tenant building. 3. Do the special circumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the same zone? X Yes No If your answer if "yes," describe the special circumstances: Neighboring buildings are half the height and have shorter frontages, yet are allowed signage that is proportial to thier building's scale Larger signs are required to maintain proper scale and visibility. 4. Were the special circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? n Yes _ No EXPLAIN The building is four stories tall and was used as a multi — tenant office space. The sole purpose of any variance or Code waiver shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance or Code waiver shall be approved which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone which is not otherwise express a authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances are not permitted. r _ Signature of Pro'certy Owner or Authorized Agent Date CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE NO. t Attachment - Item No. 8 SECTION 4 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE /CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: 18.4 4 . 0 9 0 . 010 PERTAINING TO: Monument Sign Sections 18.74.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires that before any variance or Code waiver may be granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shall be shown: 1. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and 2. That, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. In order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to arrive at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regarding the property for which a variance is sought, fully and as completely as possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages. 1. Are there special circumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? X Yes _ No. If your answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstances: the wall signs will not be visible to loca ve icu ar an. p Therefore, a ground sign at eye level is required. If your answer is "yes," describe how the property is different: signage is on our parcel we cannot place ou in the same center have. Signature of P rty Owner or Authorized Agent Attachment - Item No. 8 (A separate statement is required for each Code waiver) t Given the height of the SECTION 4 building 2. Are the special circumstances that apply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the same zone as your property? X Yes No Because the "commercial center" - 3. Do the special circumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the same zone? X Yes No If your answer if "yes," describe the special circumstances: Neighboring buildings, which have hair utilizing semi ar signage .ecause e om located on thier parcel. 13mae and less CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE NO. frontage, are 4. Were the special circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? X Yes _ No EXPLAIN previnv ly the hnl,ddina was used as a multi— tenant office building --that did rot rRdnira ifs pwn ground signage. Wescom is now the sole occupant and owner of thn building and regnires thier own sicrnacre. The sole purpose of arty variance or Code waiver shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance or Code waiver shall be approved which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone which is not otherwise expressly authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances are not permitted. Date ants SP 88 -2 THE SUMMIT AT ANAHEIM HILLS / SP 87 -1 HIGHLANDS AT \ANAHEIM HILLS General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -00441 Requested By: CITY OF ANAHEIM Mountain Park Item No. 9 Subject Property Date: March 20, 2006 Scale: Graphic Q.S. No. 227,228,233 „234 10008 :at SP, 87 -1 HIGHLANDS AT ANAHEIM HILLS 8 - 2- ^ x, - . Y _ `THE SUMM IT AT a ANAHEIM HILLS General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -00441 Requested By: CITY OF ANAHEIM Mountain Park Subject Property Date: March 20, 2006 Scale: Graphic Q.S. No. 227,228,233,234 10008 9a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 331 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) AND SUPPLEMENTAL EIR NO. 1278/EIR NO. 1716 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) 9b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -00441 LOCATION DESCRIPTION: Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 9 (Motion) (Recommendation Resolution) (1) This General Plan Amendment applies to an approximately 1.45 -mile planned segment of Jamboree Road, west of and parallel to the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR -241) between Weir Canyon Road and the southern City limits. REQUEST: (2) Request for approval of a City- initiated amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to remove a planned Hillside Secondary Arterial roadway (identified as Jamboree Road) from the Planned Roadway Network Map. DISCUSSION: (3) (5) On September 10, 1991, the City Council approved the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 to provide for the development of up to 7,966 residential dwelling units, 179 acres of commercial uses, schools, parks, public facilities and open space in Gypsum Canyon. The approved Specific Plan incorporated the planned extension of Jamboree Road (designated as a Hillside Secondary Arterial roadway) from Weir Canyon Road to the southern City limits. (4) In November 2001, The Irvine Company dedicated approximately 11,000 acres of The Irvine Ranch as permanent open space, primarily in unincorporated Orange County within the City of Orange Sphere -Of- Influence (East Orange) and Gypsum Canyon (Mountain Park Specific Plan) areas. On May 25, 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive update to the City of Anaheim General Plan (General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419). As part of this update, at the request of The Irvine Company, the City Council approved a reduction in density in the Mountain Park Specific Plan area from 7,966 dwelling units to 2,500 dwelling units. The amended Circulation Element continued to designate the future extension of Jamboree Road as a Hillside Secondary Arterial (see Figure 2 to this staff report). (6) On August 22, 2005, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) approved an amendment to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) to remove or modify several roadways in the East Orange and Anaheim areas, including the deletion of the planned extension of Jamboree Road between Santiago Canyon Road in the City of Orange and Weir Canyon Road in the City of Anaheim (within the Mountain Park area). This amendment was in response to a request by the City of Orange, with the concurrence of the City of Anaheim and other participating agencies, to evaluate whether several roadways were still necessary in light of reductions in planned density that were under consideration in the Cities of Anaheim and Orange. The City of Orange took the lead in preparing the required traffic analysis and environmental documentation (Supplemental EIR No. 1278/EIR No. 1716) to evaluate the request. The traffic analysis concluded that reductions in density in both cities would result in lower projected traffic volumes and the removal of Jamboree Road from the MPAH (along with deletions and modifications to other requested roads) would not adversely impact the integrity of the MPAH. Subsequent to OCTA's action, the City of Orange City Council approved an amendment H:'EPORTS'Plarutivg ComrttisaonA2006 PC Meetings V03 -20 -06 pc meeting'PC BooMOan No 9AGPA2006 -00441 SR PCO3202006. tloc Page 1 (7) Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 9 to their General Plan to modify roadways in their City and sphere -of- influence consistent with the amended MPAH. On August 23, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2005 -175 and 2005 -177 approving Amendment No. 1 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 and certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 331 to provide for the development of a residential community with up to 2,500 residential units, a fire station, public trails, a trail staging area, a concession store /interpretive center, a school site, a public community park and open space consistent with the updated General Plan. Both the Mountain Park Specific Plan document and EIR No. 331, prepared to evaluate the Mountain Park project, include a discussion of the proposal to remove the extension of Jamboree Road from the MPAH. Both documents further indicate that if OCTA were to approve the MPAH amendment, an amendment to the City of Anaheim General Plan would be processed to maintain consistency between the General Plan and the MPAH. The Specific Plan conditions of approval require the dedication of Jamboree Road only if the roadway is not eliminated from both the MPAH and Anaheim General Plan prior to approval of the first final subdivision map for Mountain Park Specific Plan Development Area 7. (8) As a separate item on the Planning Commission's March 20, 2006 agenda (Item No. 10), The Irvine Company is requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 16665, which encompasses Mountain Park Specific Plan Development Areas 3 and 7. TTM No. 16665 has been prepared consistent with this proposed General Plan Amendment and does not show the Jamboree Road alignment. A condition of approval has been added to said map stating that approval of TTM No. 16665 is contingent upon approval of this General Plan Amendment. (9) The proposed amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element involves the removal of Jamboree Road, in its entirety, from the Planned Roadway Network Map (Figure C -1, Page C -7 of the General Plan) as indicated in Figure 3 of this staff report. (10) Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment as it would be consistent with the amended MPAH. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (11) On August 23, 2005, the Anaheim City Council certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 331 ( "FEIR No. 331 ") under Resolution No. 2005 -175, and determined that said FEIR fully complies with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") and is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the Mountain Park Specific Plan, Amendment No. 1 and associated actions to implement the plan. EIR No. 331 included an analysis of the impact on the City of Anaheim of the potential deletion of Jamboree Road from the MPAH and City of Anaheim General Plan and determined that with the incorporation of mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137, there would be no significant impact associated with this action. (12) On November 8, 2005, the City of Orange City Council certified Supplemental EIR No. 1278/EIR No. 1716 (SCH #1988110905) under Resolution No. 10018 and determined that said documentation fully complies with CEQA and is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Santiago Hills II and East Orange Planned Communities Project, including the MPAH amendments, and adopted a Statement of Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. H:'EPORTS'Plarutivg ComrttisaonA2006 PC Meetings V03 -20 -06 pc meeting'PC BooMOan No 9AGPA2006 -00441 SR PCO3202006. tloc Page 2 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 9 (13) Staff has determined that Supplemental EIR No. 1278/EIR No. 1716, previously certified by the Orange City Council, and EIR No. 331, previously certified by the Anaheim City Council, are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed General Plan Amendment and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the proposed action. A copy of the certified Supplemental EIR No. 1278/EIR No. 1716 has been provided to the Planning Commission and is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Staff previously provided the Commission with a copy of EIR No. 331 in connection with the processing of Amendment No. 1 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan. RECOMMENDATION: (14) Staff recommends that unless additional or contrary information is received during the meeting, and based on the information presented to the Planning Commission, including the information presented in this staff report and the attachments hereto, that the Commission take the following actions: (a) By motion, recommend that the City Council, based on its independent review of Supplemental EIR No. 1278/EIR No. 1716 prepared in connection with the Santiago Hills II and East Orange Development Project in the City of Orange and EIR No. 331 and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 prepared in connection with the Mountain Park Specific Plan, Amendment No. 1, and unless additional or contrary information is received during the public meeting, find and determine, based upon said EIRs and any evidence received at the public meeting, that no additional significant effect will result from the proposed modifications, no new mitigation measures or alternatives will be required, and that the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -00441 is within the scope of Supplemental EIR No. 1278/EIR No. 1716 and EIR No. 331, and that the previously- certified Supplemental EIR No. 1278/EIR No. 1716 and EIR No. 331, are in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") and the State and City CEQA Guidelines and are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed General Plan Amendment and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA; and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the proposed General Plan Amendment. (b) By resolution and its findings (Attachment 1), recommend that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. 2006 - 00441, amending the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan to remove a planned Hillside Secondary Arterial roadway (identified as Jamboree Road). H:MEPORTSWlarutivg ComrttisaonA2006 PC Meetings V03 -20 -06 pc meeting'PC BooMOan No 9AGPA2006 -00441 SR PCO3202006. tloc Page 3 a lIOA ~' z N 9 J Z' ~ ~ T m O N d T ~ L U a °_~ E ~ _ m m- ~ L 9- N ~ _. ~ Q = Q Y e u °e ®J N N v 7 O O dtlOa NDANtl~ ai~n UJ o a N ~ ~ c E c m m o ,- E ui '~ ~ C U j Ul ~ J m E m 3~ ~ U C t9 - U a~"> m m c v f~ SP 88 -2 THE SUMMIT AT ANAHEIM HILLS / SP 87 -1 HIGHLANDS AT \ANAHEIM HILLS General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -00441 Requested By: CITY OF ANAHEIM Mountain Park Item No. 9 Subject Property Date: March 20, 2006 Scale: Graphic Q.S. No. 227,228,233 „234 10008 Remove Jamboree Road from Planned Roadway Network f General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -00441 Requested By: CITY OF ANAHEIM Mountain Park Subject Property Date: March 20, 2006 Scale: Graphic Q.S. No. 227,228,233,234 2209 Existing ®esignation of Subject Hillside Secondary Arterial Highway -~NOHL~- as ¢3 w~ fi 0 p ~a° _ U¢ ~Uyp F it aZa oao , ~Z UU¢ ic° i'" ~- ~ Rive . o / ~s de p~ee i~ o 1... _.-~ ' We D /SR,9j RoA / ` ' ~- / ~ J O ' 2 o .. i - / I ~~ I '~% ;_`~__ -~ ~ 4 OAK LANY N h ~ ``C'~J pR ~lF, ~ ' ~\i \ P>'~ ~ ?PC~ e J •'. ~' o2 o ~- 2 ~l C e~ 'GNY a Ory Ri y c \ , RANCH M Rpq , ~ L m ~y , o , Rggo / _l. / ~ / ~ ' ~ E C ~' ~ ° ~' Jamboree Road ~,y ~,.y _ " (Hillside SecondaryARenal) w1'. ~ e~ l / rL _ ~Y 04' ,, ~/ ~~l o _ - 0 w m K w ~P vwi6 General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00441 Circulation Element Existing Figure 2 2205 it Proposed Removal of Ssabject lilllside Secondary Arterial Fligh~noay 0 ~ao uc ' ~~a az¢ ¢ ~ ~2 U J /MAF O rc° /- -~-' R/~e~ y0 YQO 9< d ~' Fie O i ~ ; .. I ~ t 4 OAK CANY N N ~, • -~ ` `,~[.•J ~ ~ '~ SANTA ~02 p o U ~ ~ ~NYOn/RIM ' ~ ^• NOH4 RAN CH q~AO y ~ ~ C o I, ~ 4 Rp4p / 5.:' ~ t - - • - ~ j~B ~~. c _ _.~ L. <Ya :' ~ .•i Jamboree Road ~ ® m W ~? i ~~ ~••:' (Delete) ~ I j /: _~ o zw ~ ¢z NQ General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00441 Circulation Element Exhibit A Figure 3 22t)B RESOLUTION NO. PC2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTING AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -00441 PERTAINING TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Council did adopt the Anaheim General Plan by Resolution No. 69R -644, showing the general description and extent of possible future development within the City; and WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council, by its Resolution No. 2004 -95, adopted a comprehensive update to the General Plan for the City of Anaheim; and WHEREAS, as part of the comprehensive update to the Anaheim General Plan, the density in the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 area, at the request of the property owner, was reduced from 7,966 residential dwelling units to 2,500 residential dwelling units and the land uses were amended to provide for a fire station, a park site, a school site, trails and open space; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2005, the City Council, by Ordinance Nos. 5993 and 5994 did approve Amendment No. 1 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4, providing for the Specific Plan land uses and density to be consistent with the updated General Plan designations; and WHEREAS, on August 22, 2005, the Orange County Transportation Authority, Board of Directors approved the City of Orange's request to amend the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) to remove and /or modify several roadway designations on the MPAH and as part of said approval, the planned extension of Jamboree Road from its current terminus in the City of Orange at Santiago Road to the planned extension of Weir Canyon Road in the City of Anaheim in the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 area was removed from the MPAH; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -00441 is a city- initiated amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, Figure C -1, Planned Roadway Network to remove a planned Hillside Secondary Arterial roadway (identified as Jamboree Road) from the Planned Roadway Network; and WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Anaheim Civic Center, Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, on March 20, 2006, at 2:30 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, to hear and consider evidence for and against said General Plan Amendment and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due consideration, inspection, investigation and study made by itself, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, DOES HEREBY FIND: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan for the Hill and Canyon Area. 2. That the Mountain Park Specific Plan area was previously- identified on the Anaheim General Plan for development of up to 7,966 residential dwelling units, 179 acres of commercial uses, schools, parks, public facilities, hiking and riding trails and open space areas, and, that as part of the comprehensive General Plan Update approved by the City Council in May, 2004, the Mountain Park Specific Plan area was redesignated for a maximum of up to 2,500 residential dwelling units, a fire station, a park site, a school site, trails and open space. -1- PC2006- 3. That the City Council adopted Amendment No. 1 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 in August, 2005 to provide for land uses and density consistent with the updated General Plan. 4. That the Orange County Transportation Authority approved an amendment to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways removing Jamboree Road from its current terminus in the City of Orange at Santiago Road to the planned extension of Weir Canyon Road in the City of Anaheim. 5. That the proposed amendment maintains the internal consistency of the General Plan and would be consistent with the amended MPAH. 6. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The proposed amendment would maintain the balance of land uses within the City. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan, Figure C -1, Planned Roadway Network to remove a planned Hillside Secondary Arterial roadway (identified as Jamboree Road) from the Planned Roadway Network Map; and did recommend, by motion, that the City Council based on its independent review of the Initial Study prepared in connection with the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -00441 and unless additional or contrary information is received during the public hearing, find and determine, based upon said Initial Study and any evidence received at the public meeting, that no additional significant effect will result from the proposed modifications, no new mitigation measures or alternative will be required and that the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -00441 is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 331 and Supplemental EIR No. 1278/EIR No. 1716, and that the previously - certified Environmental Impact Report No. 331 and Supplemental EIR No. 1278/EIR No. 1716 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") and the State and City CEQA Guidelines and is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed Amendment and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA; and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the proposed General Plan Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to the above findings, the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby adopt and recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 2006 -00441 pertaining to the Circulation Element as set forth in Exhibit "A" to this Resolution. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of March 20, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Procedures" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures. ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -2- PC2006- I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on March 20, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 2006. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -3- PC2006- Item No. 10 SP 90-4 SPN 2006 -00033 FSP 2006 -00004 TTM 16665 SPT 2006 -00001 MIS 2006 -00134 VACANT Mountain Park Specific Plan SP 90-4 4■4 Specific Plan Amendment No. 2006 -00033 Final Site Plan No. 2006 -00004 Tentative Tract Map No. 16665 Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006 -00001 Miscellaneous No. 2006 -00134 Requested By: IRVINE LAND COMPANY, LLC Mountain Park Specific Plan Subject Property Date: March 20, 2006 Scale: Graphic Q.S. No. 227, 228, 233, 234 10007 SP 90 -4 SPN 2006 -00033 FSP 2006 -00004 TTM 16665 SPT 2006 -00001 MIS 2006 -00134 VACANT 'Mountain Park Specific Pia, SP 90 -4 Date of Aerial Photo: July 2005 Specific Plan Amendment No. 2006 -00033 Final Site Plan No. 2006 -00004 Tentative Tract Map No. 16665 Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006 -00001 Miscellaneous No. 2006 -00134 Requested By: IRVINE LAND COMPANY, LLC Mountain Park Specific Plan Subject Property Date: March 20, 2006 Scale: Graphic Q.S. No. 227, 228, 233, 234 10007 10a. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 331 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED), MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 137 AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 137A (Motion) 10b. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE MOUNTAIN PARK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90 -4 (SPN2006- 00033) (Recommendation Resolution) 10c. MISCELLANEOUS NO. 2006 -00134 (DEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT AREAS 3 AND 7) (Motion) 10d. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2006 -00004 (Motion) 10e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16665 (Motion) 10f. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2006 -00001 (Motion) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: REQUEST: (1) The Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 area encompasses 3,001 acres located generally in Gypsum Canyon, south of the Riverside (SR -91) Freeway, in Orange County, California. The majority of the project site is in the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim; however, open space areas in the southern- and eastern -most portions of the project site are in unincorporated County of Orange jurisdiction in the City of Anaheim's sphere -of- influence. SR -91 is immediately north of the project site, and the SR -241 bisects the site into eastern and western segments. Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan area consist of approximately 343 acres located at the southern terminus of Weir Canyon Road, generally bordered on the west by The Summit of Anaheim Hills development and on the east by the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR -241). (2) The applicant requests approval of the following: Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 10 (a) Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 (SPN2006- 00033) — Request to amend the Mountain Park Specific Plan conditions of approval and zoning and development standards to add refinements and clarifications including, but not limited to, fiscal conditions and sign regulations (subsequent to the advertisement of this request, the amendment to the sign regulations was withdrawn). (b) Development Area Plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 (Miscellaneous No. 2006- 00134) — Request for review and approval of a Development Area Plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. (c) Final Site Plan No. 2006 -00004 — Request for review and approval of a final site plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. (d) Tentative Tract Map No. 16665 — Request to establish a 150 numbered and 37 lettered lot (advertised as 33 lettered lot) residential subdivision encompassing 145 single - family detached residential lots, an elementary school site, a public park site, open space lots, public and private streets and a water reservoir site within Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. (e) Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006 -00001 — Request to remove 149 specimen trees within Mountain Park Development Areas 3 and 7 and replace with 2,980 trees. 1 Development Area SP90 -4 Units Approved Units to be Transferred Total 3 50 +2 52 7 91 -2 93 BACKGROUND: (3) (5) Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 10 The project site is zoned SP90 -4 (Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4) and is currently undeveloped with the exception of an approximately 300 -acre sand and gravel mining operation (closed in January 2004 — currently under reclamation) located south of the SR- 91 Freeway, east of the Gypsum Canyon Road interchange. (4) On August 23, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2005 -175 and 2005 -177 approving Amendment No. 1 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 and certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 331 to provide for the development of a residential community with up to 2,500 residential units, a fire station, public trails, a trail staging area, a concession store /interpretive center, a school site, a public community park and open space. The City Council subsequently adopted Ordinance Nos. 5993 and 5994 to amend the Specific Plan Zone and establish revised zoning and development standards as part of Chapter 18.112 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. On August 22, 2005, the Orange County Transportation Agency (OCTA) approved a request by the City of Orange to amend the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) to incorporate several changes to the planned roadway system associated with reductions in planned development levels in the East Orange and Anaheim (Mountain Park) areas. Since the majority of the changes were within the City of Orange's sphere -of- influence, the City of Orange (with the concurrence of the City of Anaheim and other agencies) took the lead in preparing environmental documentation and making the request to OCTA. One of the approved amendments to the MPAH was the deletion of the proposed extension of Jamboree Road between Santiago Canyon Road in the City of Orange and the extension of Weir Canyon Road in the City of Anaheim (within the Mountain Park area). As a separate item on the March 20, 2006 agenda, the Planning Commission will be considering a staff - initiated request (General Plan Amendment No. 2006 - 00441) to amend the General Plan Circulation Element to remove the extension of Jamboree Road (between the extension of Weir Canyon Road to the southern City limits) from the Planned Roadway Network Map consistent with the amended MPAH. (6) On March 15, 2006, the Planning Director approved a Density Transfer Request No. 06 -01 to transfer two dwelling units from Development Area 7 to Development Area 3 as follows: Said approval (see Attachment 2 to this report , which was processed in accordance with density transfer procedures established as part of the Specific Plan, will become final (following a twenty -two day appeal period) on April 6, 2006, unless appealed to the City Council. 2 DISCUSSION: Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 (SPN2006- 00033) (7) ( Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 10 The applicant is proposing to amend the Specific Plan to modify the timing of two conditions of approval related to the preparation and establishment of fiscal agreements /mechanisms. An amendment to clarify certain sign regulations has been withdrawn and will be submitted to the Planning Commission at a later date as a Specific Plan Adjustment. (8) Condition Nos. 77 and 78 of Ordinance No. 5993 require the applicant to establish a mechanism to provide the City with annual reports concerning the fiscal impact of the Mountain Park project and to form a community facilities district or other appropriate public financing mechanism acceptable to the City to assure the project generates continuing revenues to meet the annual assigned cost of City services. These conditions are required to be completed prior to the approval of the first tentative tract map. The applicant is currently working with City staff on the satisfaction of these conditions; however, additional time is needed to establish the required mechanisms. Staff has reviewed this request and has determined that modifying the timing to require that these mechanisms be in place prior to the issuance of the first building permit would ensure that required fiscal mechanisms are in place prior to the first homes being sold. Therefore, staff supports the requested modifications. The revised conditions would read as follows: 77. That prior to builder tentative tract or parcel map, whichever occurs first issuance of the first building permit, the property owner /developer shall establish a mechanism, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, to provide on -going monitoring and transmittal to the City of Anaheim of information concerning fiscal impact of all developments within Mountain Park; provided, however, that the subsequent on -going fiscal monitoring may consist of a letter, subject to the city's approval, if there are no changes proposed by the developer or governmental entity other than the City of Anaheim to the assumptions in the fiscal impact report or development plan, but if there are changes, detailed documentation addressing those fiscal impacts affected shall be required. 78. That prior to builder tentative tract r parcel map, whichever ccure first issuance of the first building permit, the property owner /developer shall form a community facilities district or other appropriate public financing mechanism acceptable to the City to assure the project generates continuing revenues to meet the assigned cost of City services, per the fiscal impact report dated August 8, 2005, on a year by year basis recognizing cumulative surpluses and /or deficits and to provide monitoring and flexibility to fund any additional future shortfall should assumptions in the fiscal impact report prove incorrect. The cost to establish the mechanism shall be borne by the property owner /developer. Development Area Plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 (Miscellaneous No. 2006 - 00134) The Mountain Park Specific Plan, Exhibit 3, "Development Plan" (Attachment 1 to the report), depicts the conceptual boundaries of each of the Development Areas, the general location of the school and park sites and the corresponding land use designations and 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 10 implementation zones. Prior to approval of the first tentative subdivision map for each Development Area, the applicant is required to submit detailed Development Area Plans identifying the subdivision map boundaries, the size and location of the public school and park sites and the configuration and acreage of each zoning district with a statistical summary identifying the number of detached and /or attached dwelling units in each district. The Code requires the Planning Commission to review the Development Area Plan at a noticed public hearing and make a determination whether the Plan is in conformance with the Specific Plan. (10) The applicant has submitted a Development Area Plan (DAP Exhibit No. 1) for Areas 3 and 7 which indicates the following: (a) Development Area 3 is located west of SR -241, north of the extension of Weir Canyon Road. This Area is designated for Low - Medium Hillside Residential land uses (permitting up to 6 dwelling units per acre) and will be implemented by the RMP -4 Zone which permits single - family detached dwelling units on a minimum lot and pad size of 3,375 square feet. A total of 52 single - family detached dwelling units are proposed on lots ranging from a minimum of 3,825 up to 8,694 square feet in area (over half of the lot pad sizes would be over 5,000 square feet in area). Access to residential uses within the Development Area will be provided from Weir Canyon Road via Mountain Park Drive, a new roadway within the project site. A 15 -acre public community park site and 10 -acre school site are also located in this Area. (b) Development Area 7 is located south of the Weir Canyon Road extension, west of SR -241. This area is designated for Low - Medium Hillside Residential land uses and will also be implemented by the RMP -4 Zone. A total of 93 single - family detached dwelling units are proposed on lots ranging from a minimum of 3,828 to up to 11,799 square feet in area (approximately 1/3 of the lot pad sizes would be over 5,000 square feet in area). Access to the residential units and a new water reservoir site will be provided from the extension of Weir Canyon Road. (11) Staff has reviewed the submitted plans and determined that they have been prepared in compliance with the Specific Plan, including Chapter 18.112 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and the approved Density Transfer Request No. 06 -01 as discussed in paragraph (6) of this report. Tentative Tract Map No. 16665 and Final Site Plan No. 2006 -00004 (12) The applicant has submitted a tentative tract map (TTM Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2) to develop a total of 145 single - family detached residential units. The lot and pad sizes are in conformance with the R MP-4 Zone requirements as described in the Development Area Plan discussion in paragraph (10) of this report. The lot widths range from 41 to 120 feet in conformance with Code requirements (a minimum 40 -foot lot width is required as measured at the building setback line). (13) The tentative tract map also includes the creation of eleven (11) landscape lots (Lots 0 through Y) adjacent to eleven homes in Tract Nos. 15128, 15142, and 15143 of The Summit of Anaheim Hills development which will provide an additional buffer between these homes and the Mountain Park development. 4 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 10 (14) In accordance with the Specific Plan conditions of approval (Condition No. 6 of Ordinance No. 5993), the applicant has submitted the following information and plans for review and approval in conjunction with the tentative tract map: (a) Topographic map (shown on tentative tract map — TTM Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2) — These exhibits, which identify the proposed elevations of the lots and depict the slope areas to be graded, have been prepared in accordance with the grading plans and slope exhibits evaluated in EIR No. 331 and the slope exhibits in the Specific Plan document. (b) Landscape plans (TTM Exhibit Nos. 3 though 6) — These exhibits indicate the extent and type of proposed landscaping, including existing vegetation that will be retained. The applicant has also submitted sections showing how the manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas and streetscape will be landscaped in compliance with the Landscape Concept Plan and associated exhibits in the Specific Plan. (c) Vehicular circulation plans (shown on the tentative tract map — TTM Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2) — These exhibits indicate the type and location of planned roadways, including public roads (the extension of Weir Canyon Road and the new Mountain Park Drive (Street "A ") between Weir Canyon and the entry drive to the school site (Lot GG)) and private roads (all streets within the residential neighborhoods and Mountain Park Drive (Streets "B" and "C ") northeast of the entry drive to the school site (Lot GG)). The gated entry on Mountain Park Drive will serve private streets "C ", "D" and "E" and the future development areas east of SR -241. The private streets will be owned and maintained by the future homeowners association. With regard to the Weir Canyon Road extension, the applicant is requesting the City Engineer's approval of a modification to the roadway design speed (a 55 mile per hour (mph) design speed is typically required for a Primary Arterial Highway, a 50 mph design speed is requested and reflected in the design of the tentative tract map). The posted speed limit is typically 10 miles under the design speed. Staff has recommended a condition of approval (Condition No. 2 of the tentative tract map) requiring the final design speed to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the approval of the final map. If the 55 mph design speed is required, the final map will need to reflect a lower grade elevation for Weir Canyon Road and the slopes adjacent to the road will be adjusted to reflect the revised grade. With regard to Jamboree Road, as indicated in paragraph (5) of this report, city staff has initiated a request to amend the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element to remove the proposed extension of Jamboree Road from the Planned Roadway Network Map (General Plan Amendment No. 2006 - 00441). The tentative tract map has been prepared consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment and does not show the alignment of Jamboree Road within the tract map boundaries. Staff has recommended a condition of approval (Condition No. 10 of the tentative tract map) stating that approval of this tentative tract map is contingent upon the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2006 - 00441. An amendment to the Specific Plan is not required as the Specific Plan acknowledges the processing of the MPAH amendment and the subsequent City of Anaheim General Plan Amendment and only requires the dedication of Jamboree Road if 5 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 10 the roadway is not eliminated from both the MPAH and Anaheim General Plan prior to approval of the final map for Development Area 7. (d) Fence and wall plans (TTM Exhibit No. 7) —The fence and wall plans include the design and placement of community walls, internal privacy walls and combination walls (including sections). (i) Community Wall with vines: Plans indicate a 6 -foot high, earth tone split face or slump stone block wall, planted with clinging vines to eliminate graffiti opportunities. These walls face the public /private streets and open space areas. (ii) Internal Privacy Wall: Plans indicate a 6 -foot high, earth tone split face or slump stone block wall, to be constructed on property lines between individual residential lots. (iii) Combination Wall: Plans indicate 6 -foot high, tubular steel view fence atop a split face or slump stone block low wall, intended to provide a wall /fence with a view, along the rear property line of lots that rear upon private open space lots. Plans indicate that combination walls are located at the edge of the proposed landscape lots (Lots 0 through Y) adjacent to Tract Nos. 15128, 15142, and 15143 of The Summit of Anaheim Hills development (see discussion of these lots in paragraph (13) of this report). The applicant has reviewed the location of these walls with the adjacent property owners. (e) Sign plans — The Specific Plan requires sign plans to be submitted in conjunction with the tentative tract map, Site Plan or Development Plan or pursuant to a separate Conditional Use Permit. The applicant has indicated that they will submit proposed sign plans at a later date pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit. (15) The applicant has also submitted a Street "F" — Parking Exhibit (TTM Exhibit No. 8) for purposes of depicting guest parking opportunities on Street "F" and the adjacent cul -de -sac (Street "G "). This exhibit has been submitted to support the applicant's request for a modification to the "Typical Hillside Interior Street — Private" standard set forth in the Specific Plan. Street "F" is proposed to have a street width of 31 feet with no parking or sidewalk on the south side of the street; the "Typical Hillside Interior Street — Private" standard requires a street width of 36 feet with parking and sidewalks on both sides of the street. A condition of approval (Condition No. 5 of the tentative tract map) has been included requiring, prior to final map approval, the review and approval of street improvement plans showing the final layout of the guest parking opportunities for Streets "F" and "G" by the City Engineer and the Fire Chief. (16) The applicant is also required to submit a Final Site Plan (FSP Exhibit No. 1) prepared in conformance with the Specific Plan for Planning Commission's review and approval prior to or concurrent with the processing of the tentative tract map. For single - family detached residential zones, the Code permits the Final Site Plan to depict the "typical" building footprint for each proposed unit. The Final Site Plan submitted by the applicant indicates a typical "conceptual" footprint which conforms to the required building setbacks. The applicant indicates that the building design has not been finalized. Therefore, staff has included a condition of approval on the Final Site Plan (Condition No. 1) requiring the 6 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 10 submittal of final building footprints, floor plans, roof plans, elevations and color renderings for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a report and recommendation item. (17) Staff has reviewed the Tentative Tract Map and Final Site Plan and has determined that with the incorporation of the recommended conditions of approval, the map is consistent with the General Plan (as proposed for amendment pursuant to General Plan Amendment No. 2006 - 00441), the Specific Plan as proposed for amendment pursuant to Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan and Density Transfer Request No. 06 -01, and further, that the Final Site Plan is consistent with the Specific Plan zoning and development standards. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006 -00001 (18) The applicant is requesting approval to remove 149 California Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) specimen trees located in Development Areas 3 and 7 and replace the trees with 2,980 trees from the City's Replacement Tree List (4 to 1 ratio) and from the Mountain Park Specific Plan Tree List (16 to 1 ratio), resulting in an overall replacement ratio of 20 to 1 (see the Impacted Specimen Tree Plan and Conceptual Tree Replacement Plan, SPT Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2). All replacement trees will be planted at a minimum size of 15 gallons as specified in the Mountain Park Tree List and will be shown on Final Landscape Plans to be submitted with building permits consistent with the Specimen Tree Removal Permit. (19) The Specific Plan requires the replacement of removed specimen trees at an overall ratio of 20 to 1. The Specific Plan further requires a Specimen Tree Removal Permit to be processed prior to approval of each mass grading plan in the Specific Plan area. If the specimen trees to be removed are located within graded areas identified in the Specific Plan Conceptual Grading Plan (Appendix C of the Specific Plan) and if the removed trees are replaced in accordance with the Specific Plan requirements (Section 18.112.070.040 of the Anaheim Municipal Code), the Code states that the removal permit shall be approved. (20) Staff has reviewed the submitted plans and has determined that the trees proposed for removal are located in the grading areas identified in the Specific Plan document and that the proposed tree replacement is in conformance with the Code requirements. Further, FEIR No. 331 addressed the environmental impacts of the removal of specimen trees throughout the project site, including within Development Areas 3 and 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (21) On August 23, 2005, in conjunction with the approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan, the City Council certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 331 (FEIR No. 331), adopted a Statement of Findings and Facts and Overriding Considerations and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) No. 137 (City Council Resolution No. 2005 -175). The City Council further determined that FEIR No. 331 was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for Amendment No. 1 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan and related actions to implement the plan. The Initial Study indicates that no additional impacts above those covered in FEIR No. 331 would result from the proposed project actions; therefore, staff has determined that FEIR No. 331 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed project actions and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the proposed actions. Applicable mitigation measures from MMP No. 7 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 10 137 which pertain to Development Areas 3 and 7 have been incorporated into Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a (on file in the Planning Department). FINDINGS: (22) Before the Commission grants any specific plan amendment, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: (a) That the property proposed for the specific plan has unique site characteristics such as topography, location or surroundings that are enhanced by special land use and development standards; (b) That the specific plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and with the purposes, standards and land use guidelines therein; (c) That the specific plan results in development of desirable character that will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood; and, (d) That the specific plan respects environmental, aesthetic and historic resources consistent with economic realities. (23) The State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, Section 66473.5) makes it mandatory to include in all motions approving, or recommending approval of a tract map, a specific finding that the proposed Subdivision together with its design and improvement is consistent with the City's General Plan. Further, the law requires that the Commission /Council make any of the following findings when denying or recommending denial of a tract map: (a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. (f) (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 8 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 10 (24) Zoning Code Section 18.18.040.050 states that as a prerequisite to granting any permit to destroy any specimen tree, the Planning Commission or City Council may impose conditions and shall make one (1) or more of the following findings: (a) That principles of good forest management will best be served by the proposed destruction; (b) That a reasonable and practical development of the property on which the tree is located requires destruction of the tree or trees; (c) That the character of the immediate neighborhood in respect to treescape will not be materially affected by the proposed destruction; (d) That the topography of the building site renders destruction reasonably necessary; or (e) That regard for the safety of persons or property requires the destruction. The Mountain Park Specific Plan (Section 18.112.070) further states that the purpose of the Specimen Tree Removal Permit for the Mountain Park area is to document the number of existing trees to be removed and the number of new trees to be planted. If the specimen trees are located within graded areas as identified in Appendix C, Conceptual Grading Plan, and if the removed trees are replaced in accordance with Section 18.112.070.040 requiring a 20 to 1 replacement ratio from specified tree lists, said Section states that the tree removal permit shall be approved. RECOMMENDATION: (25) Staff recommends that unless additional or contrary information is received during the public hearing and, based upon its review and consideration of Final EIR No. 331, Mitigation Monitoring Program 137 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a and the evidence submitted to the Planning Commission, including the evidence presented in this Staff Report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission take the following actions: (a) By motion, determine and recommend that the City Council, unless additional or contrary information is received during the public hearing determine that based upon its independent review and consideration of the previously- certified FEIR No. 331 together with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 (for the Specific Plan Amendment) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a (for the remaining actions) and the evidence received at the public hearing, that the previously certified EIR No. 331, Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a are in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines and are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Project Actions and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the Project Actions. Applicable mitigation measures from MMP No. 137 which pertain to Development Areas 3 and 7 have been incorporated into Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a (on file in the Planning Department). (b) By resolution (Attachment No. 3) recommend that the City Council approve Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 (SPN2006- 00033) to add refinements and clarifications to fiscal conditions, by adopting the attached resolution including the findings contained therein. 9 10 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 20, 2006 Item No. 10 (c) By motion, approve Miscellaneous No. 2006 - 00134, approving the Development Area Plan for Development Areas 3 and 7, by adopting the attached excerpt (Attachment 4) including the findings contained therein. (d) By motion approve Final Site Plan No. 2006 -00004 by adopting the attached excerpt (Attachment 5) including the findings contained therein. (e) By motion approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16665 by adopting the attached excerpt (Attachment 6) including the findings contained therein. (f) By motion approve Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006 -00001 by adopting the attached excerpt (Attachment 7) including the findings contained therein. Attachment 1 Mountain Park Specific Plan -Exhibit 3, "Development Plan" Legend DA 3 RMP -3 RMP-4 DA 1 RMP -1 RMP -2 DA 2 RMP -2 RMP -3 Santa Ma Canyon Rd. Oak Cony Low - Medium Hillside Residential (up to 6 du/ac) Low - Medium Residential (up to 16 du/ac) Open Space Institutional School Fire Station Public Community Park Private Neighborhood Park Private Recreation Center DA 5 Development Area RMp.q Implementation Zone DA 6 Foe A\ Development ent Ian Mountain Park Specific Plan (SP90 -4, Amendment No. 1) Not To Scale Exhibit 3 March 11, 2005 Attachment 2 Density Transfer Request City of Anaheim Planning Department DATE: March 15, 2006 TO: Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director FROM: Scott Koehm, Associate Planner RE: Mountain Park — Density Transfer Request No. 06 -01 for Development Areas 3 and 7 Bryan Austin, Irvine Community Development Company, has submitted a letter dated March 8, 2005, requesting the Planning Director's approval of a transfer of two single - family detached dwelling units between Development Areas 3 and 7 in the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 as follows: Development Area 7 3 SP90 -4 Units Approved 95 50 Units Proposed for Transfer -2 +2 Total 93 52 The proposed transfer would provide for the development of a total of 145 single - family detached lots as shown on the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 16665 currently in process and scheduled for Planning Commission's consideration on March 20, 2005. The Mountain Park Specific Plan permits the Planning Director to approve transfers of dwelling units between Development Areas provided that the transfers are consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan (Sections 18.112.030 and 18.112.050 of the Anaheim Municipal Code). Staff has reviewed the request and recommends that the Planning Director approve Density Transfer Request No. 06 -01 as being consistent with the General Plan and the Specific Plan based upon the following required findings: (A) The overall maximum of 2,500 dwelling units is not exceeded; (B) The proposed transfer does not result in a modification to the boundaries of Development Areas 3 and 7 as shown on the Mountain Park Specific Plan Development Area Plan; (C) The General Plan density for Development Areas 3 and 7 (Low- Medium Hillside Residential permitting up to 6 dwelling units per acre) is not exceeded; and, (D) This is the first density transfer request associated with the Specific Plan and the cumulative number of dwelling units transferred to date (2 units proposed) does not exceed 250 dwelling units (the maximum allowable units that could be transferred within the Specific Plan area). Mountain Park — Density Transfer Request No. 06 -01 for Development Areas 3 and 7 March 15, 2006 Page 2 Approved by: &Cnc-u Sheri Vander Dussen, AICP Planning Director Attachment: 1. Letter from Bryan Austin, The Irvine Company LiiS/00 Date The Planning Director's decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 22 days of the date of the signing of this decision. A copy of this decision has been mailed to the applicant and a copy has been delivered to the City Clerk. Date: S)/-5 Osbelia Edmundson Planning Commission Support Supervisor H: \STAFF DIRECTORIES \Special Projects and Forward Planning Team \Scott Koehm\Density Transfer doc3.doc March 8, 2006 Ms. Sheri Vander Dussen Planning Director City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 Re: Mountain Park Specific Plan Dwelling Unit Transfer Dear Ms. Vander Dussen; As provided in Mountain Park Specific Plan Section 18.112.050, we are requesting your approval of a dwelling unit transfer between Specific Plan Development Areas (DA) 3 and 7. Per the attached Development Area Plan, we are requesting to transfer two (2) single family detached residential units from DA 7 to DA 3. The revised unit counts are reflected on the attached revision to Table A of the specific plan document. The changes are consistent with our application for Tentative Tract 16665 for DA 3 and 7, which is scheduled for review by the Planning Commission on March 20. Please contact me at (949) 720 -2724 if you require additional information. Sin„ ely, Bry'A ti Vic- 'resident Attachments IRVINE COMMUNITY a ELOPMENT COMPANY An Affiliate of THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660 -7011 (949) 720 -2000 C)A-Q-6 Development Applicable Dwelling Area Land Use Zoning District Acres Units LEGEND 3 7 Residential Weir Canyon Road Development Area Boundary I TTM Boundary Statistical Summary Residential School Park Mountain Park Road RMP-4 57 52 10 15 5 Area 3 Total: 87 52 RMP -4 37 4.6 93 Notes: 1. Two dwelling units are transferred from DA7 to DA3 in accordance with Section 18.112.020.030 2. Acres have been adjusted to site surveys in accordance with Section 18.112.020.040 i / I I 1 /' I I I/ / / I / mi l / / C / t / Open Space / n I 1 \ 1 / / i t / L: GIStprojects- 2006\anaheimtalMlnPark dev- plan_areas3and7.ai January 30, 2006 rr IRVINE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY uI°NV CITHER �.Vamnrawr pn.• Mountain Park Development Area Plan Areas 3 and 7 500' 1.000' v • 0 o n V') O\ N — o O N Cr) N .--� N 00 l0 1 / 4 0 00 00 M m N M M N Cr) N DO d• 00 mil O in N 00 O 0 N N a) O 0 H 0 N N 00 0 rn . .71 - )n v) N �t M ---∎ n N ,-- N a) a) H H o 00 U) U? 0 aa) g , U O S:14 d 0 •� N U E.)" o 00 00 O\ a) a) 00 N 0 N a) O H N b 0 p4 > a) U U) 4 (J a CA 0 "C a) o 0 Pi b-0 0 a) U a) .0 a) N a) H 0 N N'. GO' H C H 0 0 U a) a) co U co 'O O U ro 0 • d• d O Y O If 0 e Nj O 00 cH o c o.0 • a) - U U o P. N 0 y 0 M i y _ H 2 0 U a FH 0 0 0 o 3 N A, 0 P. r 6- 0 as a) U L7 a) 0 0 N U • 0 0 C d ,. 3 a) ' o Q 4 t '0 ,�., bA , — 0 0 0 co N 0 a) N ;_, cd l0 ed 0, ro 0 0 +1 .d M ,,I, o N Attachment 3 Draft Resolution -Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 (SPN2006-00033) RESOLUTION NO. PC2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE MOUNTAIN PARK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90 -4 (SPN2006- 00033), AMENDING THE SPECIFIC PLAN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 77 AND 78 OF ORDINANCE NO. 5993. WHEREAS, on August 27, 1991, the City Council of the City of Anaheim adopted Resolution Nos. 91 R -263 and 91 R -264 approving the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 (including a Public Facilities Plan and Zoning and Development Standards) to provide for the development of an approximate 3,179 -acre site (the "Mountain Park area ") located within the County of Orange in the City of Anaheim's sphere -of- influence and generally bordered on the north by the Riverside Freeway (SR -91) and the Gypsum Canyon Road interchange, on the west by The Summit of Anaheim Hills and Sycamore Canyon developments in the City of Anaheim and as further described in Attachment A of City Council Resolution 91R-263. The Specific Plan includes zoning and development standards, design guidelines and a public facilities plan, and permits the development of up to 7,966 residential dwelling units, 179 acres of commercial uses, schools, parks and public facilities and provides for hiking and riding trails and open space areas; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5253 to reclassify the property to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 Zone and Ordinance No. 5254 to establish the zoning and development standards for the specific plan as part of Chapter 18.76 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 1992, 2,339 acres of the Mountain Park site were annexed to the City of Anaheim, with the remaining site acreage remaining as unincorporated land in the County of Orange; and WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council, by its Resolution No. 2004 -95, adopted a comprehensive update to the General Plan for the City of Anaheim and as part of said update and at the request of the property owner, the density in the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 area was reduced to 2,500 residential dwelling units and the land uses were amended to provide for a fire station, a park site, a school site, trails and open space. WHEREAS, on August 23, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2005 -175 and 2005- 177 approving Amendment No. 1 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 and certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 331 to provide for the development of a residential community with up to 2,500 residential units, a fire station, public trails, a trail staging area, a concession store /interpretive center, a school site, a public community park and open space consistent with the updated General Plan. The City Council subsequently adopted Ordinance Nos. 5993 and 5994 to amend the Specific Plan Zone and establish revised zoning and development standards as part of Chapter 18.112 of the Anaheim Municipal; and WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition from the legal property owner ( "The Irvine Company ") for Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 to amend the Mountain Park Specific Plan conditions of approval pertaining to provision of required fiscal mechanisms (Condition Nos. 77 and 78 of Ordinance No. 5993) and zoning and development standards to add refinements and clarifications to Section 18.112.110.040.0402 pertaining to Major Community Entry Sign regulations (subsequent to the advertisement of this request, the amendment to the sign regulations was withdrawn); and WHEREAS, the property owner has also submitted applications requesting approval of a development area plan for Mountain Park Development Areas 3 and 7; a final site plan for Development Areas 3 and 7; a tentative tract map to establish a 150 numbered and 37 lettered lot residential subdivision encompassing 145 single - family detached residential lots, an elementary school site, a public park site, open space lots, public and private streets and a water reservoir site within Development Areas 3 and 7; a specimen tree removal permit to remove 149 specimen trees within Development Areas 3 and 7 and replace with 2,980 trees, and that the applications submitted by The Irvine Land Company are hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Project Actions "; and -1- PC2006- WHEREAS, the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 area consists of approximately 3,001 acres including 2,161 acres which have been annexed to the City of Anaheim and 840 acres of unincorporated land located within the County of Orange in the City of Anaheim's sphere -of- influence (an additional approximately 172 acres which was also annexed to the City of Anaheim and which bisects the western portion of the Mountain Park site have been developed with the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR -241). The property description is set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Resolution and incorporated herein as if set forth in full; and, WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Anaheim Civic Center, Council Chambers, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, in the City of Anaheim on March 20, 2006, at 2:30 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 and 18.72, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed amendment and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission, after due consideration, inspection, investigation and study made by itself and on its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4, Amendment No. 1 has unique site characteristics such as topography, location or surroundings as described in the Specific Plan identified as Exhibit A on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department and in Volume II of FEIR No. 331 that are enhanced by special land use and development standards; and 2. That the proposed Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4, Amendment No. 2 is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Anaheim General Plan, including the standards and land use guidelines provided therein; and 3. That the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan would result in development of a desirable character by permitting land uses which are compatible with both the existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood; and, that future development of the property would be enhanced by the special land use and development standards set forth in the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4, as amended; and, 4. That the specific plan respects environmental, aesthetic and historic resources consistent with economic realities. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the Proposed Project Actions, including Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4, and did find and determine and recommend that the City Council find and determine, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), based upon its independent review and consideration of the previously - certified Final EIR No. 331 and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 (certified by the City Council pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2005 -175) and the evidence received at the public hearing, that the previously- certified FEIR No. 331 together with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 are in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines and are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this Amendment to the Mountain Park Specific Plan and satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for this Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to the above findings, the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Anaheim approve Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 as follows: Amend the Mountain Park Specific Plan conditions of approval pertaining to provision of required fiscal mechanisms (Condition Nos. 77 and 78 of Ordinance No. 5993) to read as follows: -2- PC2006- 77. That prior to tract or parcel map, whichever occurs first issuance of the first building permit, the property owner /developer shall establish a mechanism, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, to provide on- going monitoring and transmittal to the City of Anaheim of information concerning fiscal impact of all developments within Mountain Park; provided, however, that the subsequent on -going fiscal monitoring may consist of a letter, subject to the city's approval, if there are no changes proposed by the developer or governmental entity other than the City of Anaheim to the assumptions in the fiscal impact report or development plan, but if there are changes, detailed documentation addressing those fiscal impacts affected shall be required. 78. That prior to tract r parcel map, whichever ccure first issuance of the first building permit, the property owner /developer shall form a community facilities district or other appropriate public financing mechanism acceptable to the City to assure the project generates continuing revenues to meet the assigned cost of City services, per the fiscal impact report dated August 8, 2005, on a year by year basis recognizing cumulative surpluses and /or deficits and to provide monitoring and flexibility to fund any additional future shortfall should assumptions in the fiscal impact report prove incorrect. The cost to establish the mechanism shall be borne by the property owner /developer. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this resolution is expressly predicated upon compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should such any 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 approval 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 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 March 20, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 "Procedures" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures. ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -3- PC2006- I, Eleanor Morris, 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 March 20, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 2006. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -4- PC2006- Attachment 4 IDraft Excerpt -Miscellaneous No. 2006-00134 (IDevelopment Area Plan) March 20, 2006 Bryan Austin Irvine Community Development Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of March 20, 2006. 10a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 331 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED), MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 137 AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 137a 10b. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE MOUNTAIN PARK SPECIFIC PLAN (SPN2006 00033) 10c. MISCELLANEOUS NO. 2006 -00134 10d. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2006 -00004 10e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16665 10f. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2006 -00001 Location: Owner: Irvine Land Company, LLC., 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Agent: Bryan Austin, Irvine Community Development Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Multiple Properties: The Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 area encompasses 3,001 acres located generally in Gypsum Canyon, south of the Riverside (SR -91) Freeway, in Orange County, California. The majority of the project site is in the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim; however, open space areas in the southern- and eastern -most portions of the project site are in unincorporated County of Orange jurisdiction in the City of Anaheim's sphere -of- influence. SR -91 is immediately north of the project site, and the SR -241 bisects the site into eastern and western segments. Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan area consist of approximately 343 acres located at the southern terminus of Weir Canyon Road, generally bordered on the west by The Summit of Anaheim Hills development and on the east by the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR -241). Project Actions: Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 (SPN2006- 00033) — Request to amend the Mountain Park Specific Plan conditions of approval and zoning and development standards to add refinements and clarifications including, but not limited to, fiscal conditions and sign regulations. Miscellaneous No. 2006 -00134 — Request for review and approval of a Development Area Plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Final Site Plan No. 2006 -00004 — Request for review and approval of a final site plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Tentative Tract Map No. 16665 - To establish a 150 numbered and 37 lettered lot residential subdivision encompassing 145 single - family detached residential lots, an elementary school site, a public park site, open space lots, public and private streets and a water reservoir site within Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006 -00001 —To remove 149 specimen trees within Mountain Park Development Areas 3 and 7 and replace with 2,980 trees. ACTION: Commissioner offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the Project Actions, including Miscellaneous No. 2006 -00134 pertaining to the Development Area Plan for Development Areas 3 and 7, and does hereby determine that based upon its independent review and consideration of the previously - certified FEIR No. 331 together with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 (for the Specific Plan Amendment) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a (for the remaining actions) and the evidence received at the public hearing, that the previously certified EIR No. 331, Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a are in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines and are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Project Actions and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the Project Actions. Applicable mitigation measures from MMP No. 137 which pertain to Development Areas 3 and 7 have been incorporated into Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a (on file in the Planning Department). Commissioner offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve Miscellaneous No. 2006 -00134 pertaining to the Development Area Plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan based on the finding that the Development Area Plan is consistent with the Specific Plan, including Chapter 18.112 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and Density Transfer Request No. 06 -01 (approved by the Planning Director), and subject to the following condition of approval: That subject 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 DAP Exhibit No. 1 (Development Area Plan for Development Areas 3 and 7). Sincerely, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission cc: Bryan Austin, Irvine Community Development Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 MIS2006- 00134_Excerpt_ Attachment 5 Draft Excerpt -Final Site Plan No. 2006-00004 January 8, 2007 John Sherwood Irvine Community Development Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of January 8, 2007. 10a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 331 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED), MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 137 AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 137b 10b. AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE MOUNTAIN PARK SPECIFIC PLAN (SPN2006 00046) 10c. MISCELLANEOUS NO. 2006 -00171 10d. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2006 -00010 10e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17020 10f. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2006 -00003 Location: Owner: Irvine Land Company, LLC., 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Agent: John Sherwood, Irvine Community Development Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Multiple Properties: The Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 area encompasses 3,001 acres located generally in Gypsum Canyon, south of the Riverside (SR -91) Freeway, in Orange County, California. The majority of the project site is in the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim; however, open space areas in the southern- and eastern -most portions of the project site are in unincorporated County of Orange jurisdiction in the City of Anaheim's sphere -of- influence. SR -91 is immediately north of the project site, and the SR -241 bisects the site into eastern and western segments. Development Areas 4 and 6 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan area consist of an approximately 168 -acre portion of the Mountain Park Specific Plan located southwest of the southern terminus of Gypsum Canyon Road, generally bordered on the west by the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR -241) and on the north by the Riverside Freeway (SR -91). Development Area 5 consists of approximately 291 acres and is located in the northeast portion of the specific plan, south of SR -91 and east of Gypsum Canyon Road. Project Actions: Amendment No. 3 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 (SPN2006- 00046) — Request to amend the Mountain Park Specific Plan to replace a 4 -way roundabout intersection at Mountain Park Drive and Gypsum Canyon Road with a 3 -way stop. Development Area Plan for Development Areas 4 and 6 (Miscellaneous No. 2006 - 00171) — Request for review and approval of a Development Area Plan for Development Areas 4 and 6 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Final Site Plan No. 2006 -00010 — Request for review and approval of a final site plan for Development Areas 4 and 6 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Tentative Tract Mao No. 17020 — Request to establish a 153 numbered and 29 lettered lot residential subdivision encompassing 145 single - family detached residential lots, 3 Large -Lots to allow a maximum of 275 single - family detached residential units for financing or conveyance purposes only, a private recreation facility, private neighborhood park, private entry structure, a public fire station, a trail staging area with a convenience store, open space lots and public and private streets. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006 -00003 — Request for review and approval of a master specimen tree removal permit to remove up to 700 trees. These trees would be replaced at a 20:1 ratio in Development Areas 4, 5, and 6 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. ACTION: Commissioner offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the Project Actions, including Final Site Plan No. 2006 - 00010, and does hereby determine that based upon its independent review and consideration of the previously- certified FEIR No. 331 together with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 (for the Specific Plan Amendment) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137b (for the remaining actions) and the evidence received at the public hearing, that the previously certified EIR No. 331, Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137b are in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines and are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Project Actions and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the Project Actions. Applicable mitigation measures from MMP No. 137 which pertain to Development Areas 4 and 6 have been incorporated into Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137b (on file in the Planning Department). Commissioner offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve Final Site Plan No. 2006 -00010 for Development Areas 4 and 6 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan based on the finding that Final Site Plan No. 2006 -00010 is in conformance with the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4, subject to the following condition: 1. That prior to the approval of the final tract map for Development Areas 4 and 6, the developer submit for review and approval, a Trail Implementation Plan, to the City of Anaheim Planning Department, Planning Services Division, City of Anaheim Community Services, Parks Division and the County of Orange Resources and 2. That prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit final building footprints, floor plans, roof plans, elevations and color renderings to the Planning Department for the review and approval of the Planning Commission as a Report and Recommendation item. Plans shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and in compliance with the Mountain Park Specific Plan, Residential Design Guidelines and Residential Architecture Guidelines. 3. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Department of Public Works, Streets and Sanitations Division, indicating that each parcel shall have adequate storage space to accommodate curbside trash collection (minimum three (3) barrels per parcel), and further, that each parcel shall provide trash barrel access to and from the storage location to curbside. 4. That prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall provide plans to the Department of Public Works, Streets and Sanitation Division, indicating that the width of all pedestrian access gates on lots within the tract map shall be wide enough to accommodate trash barrels. 4. That subject 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 No. 4 (Site Plan) and as conditioned herein. Sincerely, Development Management Department, Harbors, Beaches and Parks Division. The Trail Implementation Plan shall include the alignment and final design for the Gypsum Canyon Creek Regional Riding and Hiking Trail, as reviewed and approved by the County of Orange Resources and Development Management Department, Harbors, Beaches and Parks Division. An offer of dedication of trail easements to the County of Orange shall occur concurrently with recordation of final tract or parcel maps. Trail improvement shall be completed prior to final building and zoning inspections for the first building within said tracts. Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission cc: John Sherwood, Irvine Community Development Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 FS P2006- 00010_Exce rpt_ Attachment 6 Draft Excerpt -Tentative Tract Map No. 16665 March 20, 2006 Bryan Austin Irvine Community Development Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of March 20, 2006. 10a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 331 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED), MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 137 AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 137a 10b. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE MOUNTAIN PARK SPECIFIC PLAN (SPN2006 00033) 10c. MISCELLANEOUS NO. 2006 -00134 10d. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2006 -00004 10e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16665 10f. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2006 -00001 Location: Project Actions: Owner: Irvine Land Company, LLC., 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Agent: Bryan Austin, Irvine Community Development Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Multiple Properties: The Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 area encompasses 3,001 acres located generally in Gypsum Canyon, south of the Riverside (SR -91) Freeway, in Orange County, California. The majority of the project site is in the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim; however, open space areas in the southern- and eastern -most portions of the project site are in unincorporated County of Orange jurisdiction in the City of Anaheim's sphere -of- influence. SR -91 is immediately north of the project site, and the SR -241 bisects the site into eastern and western segments. Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan area consist of approximately 343 acres located at the southern terminus of Weir Canyon Road, generally bordered on the west by The Summit of Anaheim Hills development and on the east by the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR -241). Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 (SPN2006- 00033) — Request to amend the Mountain Park Specific Plan conditions of approval and zoning and development standards to add refinements and clarifications including, but not limited to, fiscal conditions and sign regulations. Miscellaneous No. 2006 -00134 — Request for review and approval of a Development Area Plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Final Site Plan No. 2006 -00004 — Request for review and approval of a final site plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Tentative Tract Map No. 16665 - To establish a 150 numbered and 37 lettered lot residential subdivision encompassing 145 single - family detached residential lots, an elementary school site, a public park site, open space lots, public and private streets and a water reservoir site within Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006 -00001 —To remove 149 specimen trees within Mountain Park Development Areas 3 and 7 and replace with 2,980 trees. ACTION: Commissioner offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the Project Actions, including Tentative Tract Map No. 16665, and does hereby determine that based upon its independent review and consideration of the previously- certified FEIR No. 331 together with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 (for the Specific Plan Amendment) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a (for the remaining actions) and the evidence received at the public hearing, that the previously certified EIR No. 331, Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a are in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines and are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Project Actions and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the Project Actions. Applicable mitigation measures from MMP No. 137 which pertain to Development Areas 3 and 7 have been incorporated into Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a (on file in the Planning Department). Commissioner offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16665, to establish a 150 numbered and 37 lettered lot residential subdivision encompassing 145 single - family detached residential lots, an elementary school site, a public park site, open space lots, public and private streets and a water reservoir site within Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan based on the finding that pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 (a) the proposed tentative tract map including the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision, is consistent with the General Plan (as proposed for amendment pursuant to General Plan Amendment No. 2006 - 00441) and the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 (as proposed for amendment pursuant to Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4), and (b) the site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of development and therefore would not cause public health problems or environmental damage, subject to the following conditions: The Final Map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and the Orange County Surveyor and then shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. That prior to approval of the first final tract map or mass grading plan, whichever occurs first, the property owner /developer shall submit a vehicular design speed analysis for Weir Canyon Road to the Department of Public Works for review and approval by the City Engineer. The analysis shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works and shall address the proposed street width, alignment and grade, intersection signal requirements for the mid -block public park entrance from Weir Canyon Road, and the necessity for a pedestrian sidewalk along the west side of Weir Canyon Road between Mountain Park Drive and the mid -block public park vehicular entrance. Prior to approval of the final tract map or grading plan, the property owner shall submit a final tract map, grading plan and street improvement plan to the Department of Public Works, Development Services Division, designed in accordance with the approved vehicular design speed analysis. That prior to approval of the final tract map, the property owner /developer shall submit a design and maintenance plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval for the proposed water quality basin (or an equivalent City- approved treatment control BMP) (Lot JJ of Tentative Tract Map 16665) located adjacent to the proposed SR -241 (Eastern Transportation Corridor) on -ramp at the southern terminus of Weir Canyon Road. The design and maintenance plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works and shall address the ownership of the proposed water quality basin (or equivalent City- approved treatment control BMP), responsible parties for the on -going maintenance, and any proposed cost sharing mechanisms acceptable to the Department of Public Works between the property owner /developer and /or Homeowners Association and the City of Anaheim. In the event that multiple final maps are filed based on this tentative tract map, the property owner /developer shall dedicate Weir Canyon Road, Street A, the public park site, the public school site, and water reservoir site, as depicted on the tentative tract map, on the first final map. The property owner /developer shall submit street improvement plans for Street "F" and Street "G" prior to the approval of the first final tract map or mass grading plan, whichever occurs first, to the Department of Public Works and Fire Department for review and approval by the City Engineer and Fire Chief. The plan shall provide at least one on- street parking space, minimum 22 feet long, per lot. Street "F" is designed for parking only on the north side. The south side shall be posted No Parking ". The street improvement plan shall provide an adequate fire lane, as determined by the Fire Chief, in the event that cars are improperly parked on the south side of the private street. Sewer improvements associated with the proposed tentative tract map shall conform to West Basin — Offsite Sewer Alternative 3 "Gravity Main to The Summit of Anaheim Hills via Weir Canyon Road" as described in Final EIR No. 331. All improvements shown on Final EIR No. 331, Figure 7.5 and the Running Springs Road sewer identified in the Build Out condition in the Combined East Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers shall be constructed prior to the first final building and zoning inspection within the subdivision boundary. That the median island depicted on Street "F" shall be maintained by the property owner /developer and /or homeowners association. Sincerely, That approval of this tract map shall be contingent upon the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2006 - 00441, amending the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation Element to remove the Hillside Secondary Arterial Highway (identified as the future extension of Jamboree Road) from Weir Canyon Road to the southern city limits, Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan, and Density Transfer Request No. 06 -01. That prior to approval of the final tract map, all lots shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division. 10. That prior to approval of the final tract map, the property owner /developer shall demonstrate compliance with Conditions Nos. 4b, 10, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 35, 39, 45, 46, 53, 55, 62 and 63 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4, as set forth in Ordinance No. 5993. 11. That subject 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 TTM Exhibit Nos. 1 through 8 and as conditioned herein. 12. That the property owner /developer shall be held responsible for compliance with the mitigation measures and for implementation of the project design features and standard conditions identified in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a in compliance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Furthermore, the property owner /developer shall be responsible for any direct costs associated with the monitoring and reporting required to ensure implementation of those mitigation measures, project design features and standard conditions identified in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a. 13. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim 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. Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission cc: Bryan Austin, Irvine Community Development Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 TTM16665_Excerpt_ Attachment 7 Draft Excerpt -Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006-00001 March 20, 2006 Bryan Austin Irvine Community Development Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of March 20, 2006. 10a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 331 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED), MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 137 AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 137a 10b. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE MOUNTAIN PARK SPECIFIC PLAN (SPN2006 00033) 10c. MISCELLANEOUS NO. 2006 -00134 10d. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2006 -00004 10e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16665 10f. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2006 -00001 Location: Owner: Irvine Land Company, LLC., 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Agent: Bryan Austin, Irvine Community Development Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Multiple Properties: The Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 area encompasses 3,001 acres located generally in Gypsum Canyon, south of the Riverside (SR -91) Freeway, in Orange County, California. The majority of the project site is in the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim; however, open space areas in the southern- and eastern -most portions of the project site are in unincorporated County of Orange jurisdiction in the City of Anaheim's sphere -of- influence. SR -91 is immediately north of the project site, and the SR -241 bisects the site into eastern and western segments. Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan area consist of approximately 343 acres located at the southern terminus of Weir Canyon Road, generally bordered on the west by The Summit of Anaheim Hills development and on the east by the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR -241). Project Actions: Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4 (SPN2006- 00033) — Request to amend the Mountain Park Specific Plan conditions of approval and zoning and development standards to add refinements and clarifications including, but not limited to, fiscal conditions and sign regulations. Miscellaneous No. 2006 -00134 — Request for review and approval of a Development Area Plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Final Site Plan No. 2006 -00004 — Request for review and approval of a final site plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Tentative Tract Map No. 16665 - To establish a 150 numbered and 37 lettered lot residential subdivision encompassing 145 single - family detached residential lots, an elementary school site, a public park site, open space lots, public and private streets and a water reservoir site within Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006 -00001 — To remove 149 specimen trees within Mountain Park Development Areas 3 and 7 and replace with 2,980 trees. ACTION: Commissioner offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the Project Actions, including Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006 - 00001, and does hereby determine that based upon its independent review and consideration of the previously - certified FEIR No. 331 together with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 (for the Specific Plan Amendment) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a (for the remaining actions) and the evidence received at the public hearing, that the previously certified EIR No. 331, Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a are in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines and are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Project Actions and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the Project Actions. Applicable mitigation measures from M MP No. 137 which pertain to Development Areas 3 and 7 have been incorporated into Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a (on file in the Planning Department). Commissioner offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006 -00001 to remove 149 specimen trees within Mountain Park Development Areas 3 and 7 and replace with 2,980 trees based on the findings that (a) Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006 -00001 is in conformance with the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90 -4, (b) that a reasonable and practical development of the property on which the trees are located requires destruction of the trees, (c) that the trees to be removed are located within the boundaries of the graded areas identified in Appendix C, Conceptual Grading Plan, of the Mountain Park Specific Plan, and (d) that trees shall be replaced in accordance with Code Section 18.112.070.040, and subject to the following condition: Sincerely, That subject 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 SPT Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 (Impacted Specimen Tree Plan and Conceptual Tree Replacement). Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission cc: Bryan Austin, Irvine Community Development Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 SPT 2006- 00001_Excerpt_ San Joaquin Hills Corridor Agency Chairman: Bert Hack Laguna Woods March 13, 2006 C-06 ar Iastings Planning Services Manager. City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92803 ichael E. Endres, P.E: Corridor Manager . Design TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES RECEIVED AT THE COMMISSION MEETING OF �� —� O -06, IN CONNECTION WITH IT N0 ( Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary 3. It is not clear as to what is the disposition of the Caltrans Slope Easement. Thank you for providing these plans for review. Sincerely, Foothill /Eastern Corridor Agency Chairman: Ken Ryan Yorba Linda Subject: Tentative Tract Map No. 16665 Dear Mr. Hastings: The subject Tract Map has been reviewed by the Agency and we have the following comments.. 1. The grading at the proposed westerly bridge abutment should be modified to transition the 1.5:1 slope that is shown facing traffic. This grading should be coordinated with RBF Consulting to eliminate this potentially hazardous condition. 2. The location of the right of way protrusion for the future water quality facility is not at the same location shown on previous drawings in the Project Report and the GAD' s. We understand that this location may have changed based on recent meetings with Caltrans, but have no documentation thereto. William Woollett, Jr., Chief Executive Officer 125 PACIFICA, SUITE 100, IRVINE CA 92618 -3304 • P.O. BOX 53770, IRVINE CA 92619 -3770 • 949/754 -3400 FAX 949/754 -3467 www.thetollroads.com Members: Aliso Viejo • Anaheim • Costa Mesa • County of Orange • Dana Point • Irvine • Laguna Hills • Laguna Niguel • Laguna Woods • Lake Forest Mission Viejo • Newport Beach • Orange • Rancho Santa Margarita • Santa Ana • San Clemente • San Juan Capistrano • Tustin • Yorba Linda co