The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2004/03/08CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION AGEN®A MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2004 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California D ROMERO, .~ .~_ _ ad ~~_ ~.'yf' CALL TO ORDER ~;~_ ~ !3 ~,~, T ~; LION NIORP111VG SESS WN ACT, DUE PROCESS THE CITY ATTORNEY'S C ANAHEIM RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC. HEARING'~SESSION}s v: ~. ~ ~, "~ ~a RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1130 P:IVI. `''~.. For record keeping purpgses ~f you~wish toi am ~e"tatem< complete a speaker card~and~su6~lit`~t to thee secreta~~.t PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE R~'`~`'~ `~ r ~ ~'' -"' ~ . ~..d J` ~ j ~ g~ PUBLIC COMAAENTS *~'`==-°---_~~T_._- CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEflRS ADJOURNMENT "~--' r_ --'",-, ', .y. L •" -'"~ .~` on fhe agenda, please 03-08-04 Page 1 RECONVENE TO PUBLFC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSEidT CALENDAR: Items 1-A through 1-I 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 andlor removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A. (a) (b) B. (a) C. (a) (b) Michael C. Inada, 8 Corporate Park, Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92606-5196, requests review and approval of a final site plan for a producelfruit stand in conjunction with, and accessory to, an existing agricultural use. Property is located at 2010 South Harbor Boulevard (Fujishge Farms). Elsa Stipkovich, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 1003, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests determination of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed merger of six redevelopment project areas into one and amend the language of the Alpha Redevelopment Plan. RESOLUTION NO. (TRACKING NOS. RCL2004.00117, SPN2004-00023 AND SPN2004-00024) City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, .request the following: e Initiation of Reclassification proceedings for actions associated with the General Plan and Zoning Code Update Program. Initiation of specific plan amendment proceedings to expand the boundaries of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. o Initiation of specific plan amendment proceedings to amend the Northeast Area Specific Plan Development Area boundaries. RESOLUTION NO. Project Planner: Della Herrick (d h errick(c~ anahei m. net) sr8688dh.doc Q. S. 88 Project Planner: David See (dsee(o)anaheim. n et) sr2149ds.doc Project Planner: Ted White (twhite(1a anaheim.net) sr1151tw.doc 03-08-04 Page 2 D. (a) VARIANCE NO. 4300 (TRACKING NO. VAR2003.04586) Good Hope International, 1530 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92802, requests termination of Variance No. 4300 (to waive minimum structural and yard requirements to permit a 355 square foot addition to an existing gift shop in conjunction with an existing hotel complex). Project Planner: Property is located at 1530 South Harbor Boulevard - (Carousel Inn and Suites) Marie Newland , (mnewlandta7anaheim.net) . sr8705mn.doc TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. Q.S. 87 E. (a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 32 186 2149 AND 3054 (TRACKING NO. CUP2002.04606) (b) VARIANCE NOS. 1214 AND 3290 {TRACKING N0. VAR2002-04532) Geoff Sherman, Price Legacy Corporation, 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 300, San Diego, CA 92128. Conditional Use Permit Nos. 32, 286, 2149 and 3054 (Tracking No. CUP2002-04606) -Requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 32 (to construct a convention hall), Conditional Use Permit No. 186 (to construct atheater-convention hall including a restauranUcocktail lounge), Conditional Use Permit No. 2149 (to permit construction of recreation facilities in conjunction with an existing educational institution), and Conditional Use Permit No. 3054 (to permit a 40-patient birthing center, 200-person child daycare facility and a 100-person adult daycare facility). Site A: Properties are located between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street, and Disney Way and Katella Avenue with frontages of 330 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue, and 605 feet on Disney Way. Variance Nos. 1214 and 3290 (Tracking No. VAR2002-04532) - Requests termination of Variance No. 1214 (to construct and operate an apartment motel) and Variance No. 3290 (waiver of minimum Project Planner: number of parking spaces to expand an existing motel. Site B; Made Newland Property is located at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and (mnewland(a~anaheim.net) Clementine Street. sr8707mn.doc Q.S. 87 TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. F. (a) VARIANCE NO. 825 AND 3704 (TRACKING NO. VAR2004-04599) Shirish Patel, Sai Management Company, 631 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802, requests termination of Variance No. 625 (to construct a 23-unit motel, manager's residence and swimming pool) and Variance No. 3704 (waiver of minimum number of parking spaces . Project Planner: to construct a 4-story, 100-unit motel). Property is located at 631 West ' Katella Avenue Marie Newland (mnewland(alanaheim.net) . sr8706mn.doc TERMINATION RESOLUTION Np. Q.S. 76 03-08-04 Page 3 G. (a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3819 (TRACKING NO. CUP2002.04604) Resa Azarpour, P.O. Box 9800, Anaheim, CA 92812, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3819 (to permit a temporary sales office building). Property is located at 1733 South Anaheim Boulevard. TERMINATION RESOLUTION H. Receiving and approving supplemental detailed Minutes for Item No. 2, Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04793 from the Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2004, .scheduled to be heard as a public hearing item before City Council on Tuesday, March 30, 2004. (Motion) I. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meetings of February 9, 2004. (Motion) Project Planner: Made Newland (m n ew l a n d Ca) a n a h e i m: n e t) sr8695mn.doc Q.S. 87 03-08-04 Page 4 P LI HEA IN ITEM 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3796 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04824) OWNER: Orange County Buddhist Church, 909 South Dale ` Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 2823 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 0.56- acre, having a frontage of 107 feet on the north side of Ball Road, located 328 feet west of the centerline of Dale Avenue. Request to construct a new accessory parking lot at 2823 West Ball Road, contiguous to and for an existing Buddhist Temple with waivers of: (a) minimum setback for institutional uses abutting a residential zone, (b) minimum landscape setback adjacent an arterial highway and Project Planner: (c) maximum fence height. Scott Koehm (skoehm at7anahelm.net) Continued from the February 9, 2004, Planning Commission meeting. sr8711 gk.doc CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Q.S. 14 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2003-04811 OWNER: Larry Bedrosian, 710 East Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: B.J. Mueller, P.O. Box 18085, Anaheim, CA 92817 LOCATION: 2920 East Whitestar Avenue. Property is approximately 1-acre, having a frontage of 233 feet on the southwesterly side of White Star Avenue, located 725 feet southeast of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Request to permit and retain a church within an existing industrial building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Project Planner: John Ramirez i ti i C i 12 2004 Pl (ioramirezCc~anaheim.ne0 ss on mee ng. ann ng omm , , Continued from the January CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. sr5082jr.doc Q.S. 132 03-OS-04 Page 5 CERTIFICATIOfd OF POSTIPlG I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: lo: oaw,,,~. fie, y~ 200'-1 (TIME) (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCItL~DISPLAYKIOSK SIGNED: y ~-~~ mil- ~--r--~ If you challenge any one of these Ciry of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. RIGHTS OF APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits and Variances shall be considered final unless, within 22 days after Planning Commission action and within 10 days regarding Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps, an appeal is filed. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk. The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Cterk of said hearing. ANAHEIM CITY 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 46 hours prior to 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 Telephone System at 714-765-5139. 03-08-04 Page 7 SCI-dEIDLE 2004 MARCH 22 APRIL 5 APRIL 19 MAY 3 MAY 17 JUNE 2 (WED) JUNE 14 JUNE 28 JULY 12 JULY 26 AUGUST 9 AUGUST 23 SEPTEMBER 8 (WED) SEPTEMBER 20 OCTOBER 4 OCTOBER 18 NOVEMBERI NOVEMBER 15 NOVEMBER 29 DECEMBER 13 DECEMBER 27 03-OS-04 Page 8 ITEM N0. 1-A SP 92-2 RCL 66-67-61 (22) CUP 1101 SP 92-2 ' ~ °' VAR 2668 S DISNEYLAND RESORT VAR 2381 S PARKING LOT FSP 96-04 CLARION HOTEL ~ 500' r L .. r / '. O t,Y ~. r p ~" SP 92 2 ' . - J ,^ rH,.;-c ~ a„r.u.r ' ` RCL 66-67-61 (77) ~ "" ~ > s r " CUP 3666 ~ ,~ ,~- SP 92-2 rr r. ~z DAYS CUP 865 o ,~ ;+ r ;THE ANAHEIM RESORT, ~y ~ ;,, INN V-607 m m , -~'' SPECIFIC PLAN xr , c~ i VACANT ~ ~r~'v>' FSP 2004-OOD02 s r r'~. ,"; r ~ ~' VACANT ~ < ix ~ ~ x r rv r t.. L'3`'S SFr, six ~°M r Y f Yes s r r ~ xr '> "f ~:w v Q .:: ~ _ e r '~' ' .rrs a <r.. 's' SP 92-2 VAR 3003 SP 92-2 RM-1200 VACANT RCL 66-67-61 84 ( ) RCL 76-77-24 CUP 2814 66-67-61 VAR 3288 1 DU VAR 3234 BEST WESTERN RAFFLES INN 8 SUITES SP 92 2 SP 92-2 RCL 76-77-07 VACANT 66-67-61 RM-1200 CUP 3917 RCL 76-T7-03 I - Sp 9P_2 VAR 2831 66-67-61 I j ~'~ ~ RCL 66-67-81 (84) DOLPHIN'S COVE VAR 2825 ~ SP 92-2 -----~ `~- VAR 3234 VACATION RESORT PARKWOOD RCL 90-91-22 TRAVELODGE 136 DU VILLAGE RC189-90-25 ----_ ~- ~ INTERNATIONAL APARTMENTS 89-90-09 ~ ~ INN 200 DU ~~~ RCL 65.66.03 CUP 3217 Fez-z CUP 2943 RCL BO.81-71 VACANT RCL B&80.25 SP ez-2 RCL B7-60-08 RCL fib-6]-@h(10B) RCL 65-fi6-03 I I ~-~-4~ CUP 2001-0d%i CUP 3277 CUP 2308 VACANT VAR 3076 UENNY'S RESTAURANT -- -- ORANGEWOOD AVE NUE CL ~Tl Final Site PiaD No. 2004-000 02 ~ ;~ Subject Property Date: March 8, 2004 Scale: 1"= 200' Requested By: MICHAEL C. INADA Q:S. N o. 88 REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL SITE PLAN FOR APRODUCE/FR UIT STAND IN CONJUNCTION WITH, AN D ACCES SORY TO, AN EXISTING AGRICULTURAL USE. 2010 South Harbor Boulevard (Fujishige Farms) 11se(zoo4-z-z3) ITEM N0. 1-A ITEM N0. 1-B 1. West Anaheim Commercial Corridors 2. Anaheim Plaza 3. CommerciaUlndustrial (North Central Area) 4. Alpha (Downtown Area) 5. Commercialllndustrial (South Anaheim Blvd Area) 6. Anaheim Stadium 7. Alpha (Northeast Area) 8. River Valley General Plan Conformity No. 2004-00033 Requested By: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~~ Subject Properties k"" tsx~~ r.1c ~~ Date: March 08, 2004 Scale: Graphic Q.S. No. NA PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW PERTAINING TO THE CONSOLIDATION OF SIX EXISTING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS INTO ONE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA. Redevelopment Project Areas D 1232 ATTACHMENT - A MEMORANDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM "' Community Development Department DATE: February 24, 2004 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad L. Hobson, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS TO MERGE ALL ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS CONFORM TO THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (Agency) currently has six separate and distinct redevelopment project areas (Alpha, Plaza, River Valley, Stadium, Commercial/Industrial and West Anaheim) and now desires to amend each of their existing Redevelopment Plans to merge all of the project .areas into one project area. The merger will allow the Agency to combine tax increment revenues from the project areas and reallocate the revenues throughout the entire merged project area. The merger will facilitate the revitalization of blighted areas through increased economic vitality, increase and improve housing opportunities, and streamline administrative activities related to reporting requirements. In addition to amending each Redevelopment Plan to allow for the proposed merger, the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project Alpha (Alpha Redevelopment Plan) will be amended to include language similar to that found in the other redevelopment plans where the land uses in project area Alpha will conform with the City's General Plan, as the City's General Plan currently exists and as it is amended from time to time. No amendment is proposed to the fiscal or time limits in the existing redevelopment plans or the boundaries of the project areas. The proposed Amendments do not propose any changes to land use designations of properties within the redevelopment project areas. California Community Redevelopment Law Section 33346 requires that prior to a joint public hearing on the proposed .amendments to each Redevelopment Plan to merge the project areas and amend the Alpha Redevelopment Plan Page 2 February 24, 2004 Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation on Redevelopment Merger (Amendments), the Agency submit the proposed Amendments to the Planning Commission for its review, report and recommendation. In addition, the Planning Commission must find that all of the proposed Amendments conform to the . City's General Plan. Subsequent to their review, the Planning Commission may recommend the approval of the proposed Amendments by the Agency and City. By adopting the attached resolution, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the proposed Amendments are consistent with the City's General Plan and recommends approval of the proposed Amendments to the existing Redevelopment Plans by the Agency and the City Council. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please call me at 765-4319. c. Ramona Castaneda Attachments C:ID000ME-1ldseelLOCALS-1 \Temp\RCM4224A1.DOC ATTACHMENT - B RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS TO MERGE THE ALPHA, RIVER VALLEY, PLAZA, COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAL, WEST ANAHEIM COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS AND STADIUM REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS CONFORM TO THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency ("Agency') is a community redevelopment agency organized and existing under the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et. seq., ("CRL")and has been authorized to transact business and exercise the powers of a redevelopment agency pursuant to action of the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council"); and WHEREAS, on July 19, 1973, by Ordinance No. 3190, the City Council approved and adopted a redevelopment plan for the Alpha Redevelopment Project and subsequently amended the redevelopment plan seven times to delete territory from the project area, modify land uses, and establish time limits in compliance with Assembly Bill 1290 ("AB 1290"), Senate Bill 1045 ("SB 1045"), Senate Bill 211 ("SB 211") and other provisions of the CRL ("Alpha Project"); and WHEREAS, on November 29, 1983, by Ordinance No. 4463, the City Council adopted a redevelopment plan for the River Valley Redevelopment Project and subsequently amended the redevelopment plan five times to modify land uses and establish time limits in compliance with AB 1290, SB 1045, SB 211 and other provisions of the CRL ("River Valley Project"); and WHEREAS, on June 12, 1990, by Ordinance No. 5136, the City Council adopted a redevelopment plan for the Plaza .Redevelopment Project and subsequently amended the redevelopment plan twice to establish time limits in compliance with AB 1290, SB 1045 and other provisions of the CRL ("Plaza Project"); and WHEREAS, on December 7, 1993, by Ordinance No. 5412, the City Council adopted a redevelopment plan for the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Redevelopment Project and subsequently amended the redevelopment plan three times to add territory to the project area, including renaming the project area the West Anaheim Commercial Corridor Redevelopment Project, and establish time limits in compliance with AB 1290, SB 1045 and other provisions of the CRL ("West Anaheim Project"); and WHEREAS, on December 21, 1993, by Ordinance No. 5415, the City Council adopted a redevelopment plan for the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project and subsequently amended the redevelopment plan twice to establish time limits in compliance with AB 1290, SB 1045 and other provisions of the CRL ("Commercial/Industrial Project"); and WHEREAS, on August 9, 1994, by Ordinance No. 5442, the City Council adopted a redevelopment plan for the Stadium Redevelopment :Project ("Stadium Project'); and WHEREAS, the "Existing Plans" consist of the Redevelopment Plans, as amended, prepared for the Alpha Project, River Valley Project, Plaza Project, Commercial/Industrial Project, West Anaheim Project, and the Stadium Project and the territory included within the Existing Plans is referred to as the "Project Areas'; and PA0402014.ANA:CK:gbtl 10021.003.00 310211 9/0 4 and WHEREAS, the Agency is vested with the responsibility to carry out the Existing Plans; WHEREAS, the Agency desires to amend each of the Existing Plans ("Amendments') to merge the Project Areas in order to combine the tax increment revenues from the Project Areas and reallocate the revenues among the Project Areas that will best facilitate the elimination of ' blighting conditions and increase and improve housing opportunities; and WHEREAS, the Agency also desires to amend the land use provisions of the Redevelopment :Plan for the Alpha Project in order to be consistent with the City of Anaheim's General Plan, as the General Plan may be amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared and completed the proposed Amendments to the Existing Plans in draft form; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 33486, 33346, 33356, 33453 and 33457.1 of the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et seq.), prior to the joint public hearing on the proposed Amendments, the Agency shall submit the proposed Amendments to the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim ("Planning Commission") for its report and recommendation concerning the proposed Amendments and their conformity to the City's General Plan and pursuant to such review may recommend to the Agency and City Council for or against the approval of the proposed Amendments; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendments, excluding the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Alpha Project, propose no changes to land use designations of properties within the Project Areas, as designated herein, and land use designations contained in the Existing Plans are the same as, and will continue to track, those land use designations contained in the adopted land use map of the City's General Plan as it exists and as hereinafter amended; and WHEREAS, the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Alpha Project, attached hereto as Exhibit A, proposes to modify the land use designation provisions within the Redevelopment Plan to be consistent with the City's existing General Plan, as the General Plan is amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendments propose no changes to existing development standards for properties located within the Project Areas, and development standards applicable to the Project Areas, as enforced by the Existing Plans, are the same as, and will continue to track, the development standards contained in the City's General Plan as it exists and as hereinafter amended; and WHEREAS, the Agency has transmitted the proposed Amendments in draft form to the Planning Commission, which are attached as Exhibits A - F and incorporated herein by this reference, for their report and recommendation. Page 2 PA0402014.ANA:CK:gbtl 10021.003 003N2/19104 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed Amendments to the Existing Plans, attached hereto as Exhibits A - F, and hereby finds and determines that the proposed Amendments are consistent with the City's General Plan because the Amendments either include land use designation provisions that are consistent with the City's General Plan (Alpha Project only) or the Amendments do not make changes to land uses permitted in the Project Areas, or other general controls and limitations, and the land use designations, circulation systems, public facilities, proposed projects and programs, and development standards, and all other contents of the proposed Amendments are in conformity with the City's Genera Plan. Section 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the approval of the proposed Amendments to the Existing Plans by the Agency and the City Council. Section 3. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes and directs the officers, employees, staff, consultants and attorneys for the Planning Commission to take any action that may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of this resolution or which are appropriate or desirable in the circumstances. In the event that prior to the adoption of the proposed Amendments, the Agency or City Council desires to make any minor, or technical or clarifying changes to the proposed Amendments to the Existing Plans, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that any such minor, technical or clarifying changes need not be referred to it for further report and recommendations. Section 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that this resolution shall constitute the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission to the Agency and the City Council concerning the proposed Amendments. Section 5. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Planning Commission to transmit a copy of this resolution to the Agency and the City Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 81h day of March 2004, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Page 3 PA0402014.ANA:CK:gbC 10021.003.403I02/19I04 ATTEST: Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary 'Page 4 PA0402014.ANA:G%'gbtl 10021.003.003102/19/04 EXHIBIT A PROPOSED EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA BACKGROUND The Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the Redevelopment Project Alpha ("Project" or "Project Area") was adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council") on July 19, 1973 by Ordinance No. 3190. The Project Area is comprised of two (2) non-contiguous areas including 200-acre area in the Downtown and 2,169-acre area located in the City's primary industrial area three miles northeast df Downtown. The Redevelopment Plan has been amended seven times. The City Council adopted the first amendment to the Redevelopment Plan on July 20, 1976 by Ordinance No. 3567 to delete portions of the industrial area from the Project Area boundaries. The second amendment to the Redevelopment Plan was adopted on November 30, 1976 by Ordinance No. 3631, which modified land uses within the Downtown area. The third amendment to the Redevelopment Plan adopted on January 2, 1982 by Ordinance No. 4300, further modified specific land uses within the Downtown area. The fourth amendment adopted by the City Council on December 16, 1986 by Ordinance No. 4786 made modifications to the Redevelopment Plan as required by the Legislature which established certain fiscal and time limitations. The fifth amendment adopted by the City Council on December 13, 1994 by Ordinance No. 5468 established certain time limits incompliance with AB 1290. The sixth amendment adopted by the City Council on December 16, 2003 by Ordinance No. 5895 extended the time limit for Redevelopment Plan effectiveness, payment of incurred indebtedness, and receipt of tax increment by one (1) year in accordance with SB 1045. The seventh amendment adopted by the City Couhcil on January 27, 2004 by Ordinance No. 5899 deleted the time limit to incur debt in the Redevelopment Plan pursuant to SB 211. The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency ("Agency') is proposing an eighth amendment ("Eighth Amendment") to the Redevelopment Plan, the purposes of which are to: 1) merge the Project Area with the River Valley Redevelopment Project, Plaza Redevelopment Project, Commercial/ Industrial Redevelopment Project, West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment .Project, and the Stadium Redevelopment Project ("Merged Projects"); and 2) to add a provision to the Redevelopment Plan that states that the Redevelopment Plan land uses will be consistent with the City's General Plan as the General Plan as it currently exists and as it is amended from time to time. No amendment is proposed to the fiscal or time limits or the boundaries of the Project Area. The fiscal and time limits in effect and stated in the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, for the Project Area shall remain in force and effect. The Redevelopment Plan is hereby further amended to include a modified Section IV (A.- F., §400 through 408), Uses Permitted in the Project Area, and a new Part XI to the Redevelopment Plan to read as follows: Revised text: A. (§401) Permitted Land Uses Permitted land uses within the Project Area may include, but are not limited to, residential, commercial, industrial, open space, public, quasi-public, institutional, and-non=profit land uses as designated in and in conformity with the City of Anaheim General Plan. The City. will from. time to time update and revise the General Plan. It is the intention that the Redevelopment Plan land uses and overall street layout to be permitted within the Project Area shall be as provided within the City's General Plan, as it currently exists or as it may from time to time be amended, and as implemented and applied by City ordinances., resolutions and other laws. Uses other than those designated in the General Plan and its land use map may be authorized by the City from time to time by General Plan amendments as authorized by law. B. (§402) Limitation on Authority To the extent the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan authorize the Agency or the City to permit property within the Project Area to be developed for uses which do not conform to the Redevelopment Plan, or to establish design guidelines and restrictions, such provisions and the authority of the Agency or City granted thereby are limited by the provisions of the City's General Plan, as it exists and as it may be amended or revised from time to time. Nothing in the Redevelopment Plan shall be deemed to grant authority to either the Agency or the City to grant a variance from, or approve a development or use of property which does not conform with, or otherwise take any action not consistent with, the City's General Plan, as it exists and as it may be amended or revised from time to time. C. (§403) Reserved. D. (§404) Reserved. E. (§405) Reserved.. F. (§406 - 408) Reserved. XL {§1100) MERGER Upon the effective date of the ordinance adopting the Eighth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, and provided the ordinances become effective amending the Redevelopment Plans for the Merged Projects, the Alpha Redevelopment Project will hereby be merged with the River Valley Redevelopment Project, Plaza Redevelopment Project, Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project, West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project, and the Stadium Redevelopment Project, collectively referred to as the "Merged Redevelopment Projects". PA6462613.ANA:CK;gbtl 1gg21.6g3.601162/26Ig4 EXHIBIT B PROPOSED SIXTH ~.MENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PL,4N FOR THE RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BACKGROUND The Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the River Valley Redevelopment Project ("Project" or "Project Area") was approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council") on November 29, 1983 by Ordinance No. 4463. The .Project Area is comprised of 160 acres located near the Anaheim's eastern City limit. The'Redevelopment Plan has been amended five times. The City Council adopted the first amendment to the Redevelopment Plan on February 6, 1990 by Ordinance No. 5091 in order to modify designated land uses within the Project Area. The second amendment to the Redevelopment Plan was adopted on December 13, 1994 by Ordinance No. 5467, which established certain time limits in compliance with AB 1290. The third amendment, adopted by the City Council on December 19, 2000 by Ordinance No. 5751, modified land uses to be consistent with the City's General Plan. The fourth amendment adopted by the City Council on December 16, 2003 by Ordinance No. 5895 extended the time limit for Redevelopment Plan effectiveness, payment of incurred indebtedness, and receipt of tax increment by one (1) year in accordance with SB 1045. The fifth amendment adopted by the City Council on January 27, 2004 by Ordinance No. 5899 deleted the time limit to incur debt in the Redevelopment Plan pursuant to SB 211. The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") is proposing a sixth amendment ("Sixth Amendment") to the Redevelopment Plan, the sole purpose of which is to merge the Project Area with the Alpha Redevelopment Project, Plaza Redevelopment Project, Commercial! Industrial Redevelopment Project, West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project, and the Stadium Redevelopment Project ("Merged Projects"). No amendment is proposed to the fiscal or time limits or the boundaries of the Project Area. The fiscal and time limits in effect and stated in the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, for the Project Area shall remain in force and effect. The Redevelopment Plan is hereby further amended to include a new Part XI to the Redevelopment Plan to read as follows: XI. (§1100) MERGER Upon the effective date of the ordinance adopting the Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, and provided the ordinances become effective amending the Redevelopment Plans for the Merged Projects, the River Valley Redevelopment Project will hereby be merged with the Alpha Redevelopment Project, Plaza Redevelopment Project, Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project, West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project, and the Stadium Redevelopment Project, collectively referred to as the "Merged Redevelopment Projects'. PAg401013.ANA:CK:gbtl 16g21:6g3.Op11 W 86104 EXHIBIT C PROPOSED THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BACKGROUND The Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project ("Project" or "Project Area")was approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council") on December 21, 1993 by Ordinance No. 5415. The Project Area consists of 882 acres and is comprised of two (2) non-contiguous areas, the North Central Industrial Area (405 acres) and the South Anaheim Boulevard Commercial/industrial Corridor (477 acres). Land uses designated within the Project Area include residential, general commercial, commercial professional, general industrial, and business office/servicelindustrial. Subsequent to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the City Council adopted the first amendment to the Redevelopment Plan on December 13, 1994 by Ordinance No. 5464, which established certain time limits in compliance with AB 1290. The second amendment adopted by the City Council on December 16, 2003 by Ordinance No. 5895 extended the time limit for Redevelopment Plan effectiveness, payment of incurred indebtedness, and receipt of tax increment by one (1) year in accordance with SB 1045. The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") is proposing a third amendment ("Third Amendment") to the Redevelopment Plan, the sole purpose of which is to merge the Project Area with the Alpha Redevelopment Project, River Valley Redevelopment Project, Plaza Redevelopment Project, West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project, and the Stadium Redevelopment Project ("Merged Projects"). No amendment is proposed to the fiscal or time limits or the boundaries of the Project Area. The fiscal and time limits in effect and stated in the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, for the Project Area shall remain in force and effect. The Redevelopment Plan is hereby further amended to include a new Part X to the Redevelopment Plan to read as follows: X. (§1000) MERGER Upon the effective date of the ordinance adopting the Third Amendment to this Redevelopment Plan, and provided the ordinances become effective amending the 'Redevelopment Plans for the Merged Projects, the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project is hereby merged with the Alpha Redevelopment Project, River Valley Redevelopment Project, Plaza Redevelopment Project, West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project, and the Stadium Redevelopment Project, collectively referred to as the "Merged Redevelopment Projects'. PA0402013.ANA:CK:gptl ID 021.003.00110226104 EXFIIBIT D PROPOSED THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BACKGROUND The Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the Plaza Redevelopment Project ("Project" or "Project Area") was approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council") on June 12, 1990 by Ordinance No. 5136. The Project Area is comprised of 350 acres located near the central portion of the City and is bisected by Interstate 5. Primary uses in the area include commercial, retail, office, and industrial land uses. Subsequent to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the City Council adopted the first amendment to the Redevelopment Plan on December 13, 1994 by Ordinance No. 5465, which established certain time limits in compliance with AB 1290. The second amendment adopted by the City Council on December 16, 2003 by Ordinance No. 5895 extended the time Limit for Redevelopment Plan effectiveness, payment of incurred indebtedness, and receipt of tax increment by one (1) year in accordance with SB 1045. The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") is proposing a third amendment ("Third Amendment") to the Redevelopment Plan, the sole purpose of which is to merge the Project Area with the Alpha Redevelopment Project, River Valley Redevelopment Project, Commercial/ Industrial Redevelopment Project, West Anaheim Commercial Corridors :Redevelopment Project, and the Stadium Redevelopment Project ("Merged Projects"). No amendment is proposed to the fiscal or time limits or the boundaries of the Project Area. The fiscal and time limits in effect and stated in the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, for the Project Area shall remain in force and effect. The Redevelopment Plan is hereby further amended to include a new Part X to the Redevelopment Plan to read as follows: X. (§1000) MERGER Upon the effective date of the ordinance adopting the Third Amendment to this Redevelopment.Plan, and provided the ordinances become effective amending the Redevelopment Plans for the Merged Projects, the Plaza Redevelopment Project will hereby be merged with the Alpha Redevelopment Project, River Valley Redevelopment Project, Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment.Project, West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project, and the Stadium Redevelopment Project, collectively referred to as the "Merged Redevelopment Projects". PAO<02013.ANA:CK:gbtl t 0021.003:0 01 /0 22 610 4 EXHIBIT E PROPOSED FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WEST ANAHEIM COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WEST ANAHEIM COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BACKGROUND The Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the West Anaheim Commercial Cbrridors Redevelopment Project ("Project"; formerly known as the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Redevelopment Project) was adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council") on December 7, 1993 by Ordinance No. 5412 and consisted of 318 acres ("Original Project Area"). Following adoption, the Redevelopment Plan was subsequently amended three times by the City Council on December 13, 1994 by Ordinance No. 5466 to establish certain time limits in compliance with AB 1290; on June 23, 1998, by Ordinance No. 5637, to add territory (731 acres) to the Original Project Area (collectively the "Project Area"); and on December 16, 2003 by Ordinance No. 5895 to extend the time limit for Redevelopment Plan effectiveness, payment of incurred indebtedness, and receipt of tax increment by one (1) year in accordance with SB 1045. The existing Project Area now consists of approximately 1,049 acres located primarily along Brookhurst Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Land uses designated within the Project Area include residential, general commercial, general industrial, and public. The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") is proposing a fourth amendment ("Fourth Amendment") to the Redevelopment Plan, the sole purpose of which is to merge the Project Area with the Alpha Redevelopment Project, Plaza Redevelopment Project, Commercial/ Industrial Redevelopment Project, River Valley Redevelopment Project, and the Stadium Redevelopment Project ("Merged Projects"). No amendment is proposed to the fiscal or time limits or the boundaries of the Project Area. The fiscal and time limits in effect and stated in the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, for the Project Area shall remain in force and effect. The Redevelopment Plan is hereby further amended to include a new section F. in Part VI to the Redevelopment Plan to read as follows: (§650) MERGER Upon the effective date of the ordinance adopting the Fourth Amendment to this Redevelopment Plan, and provided ordinances become effective amending the Redevelapment Plans for the Merged Projects, the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project will hereby be merged with the Alpha Redevelopment Project, Plaza Redevelopment Project, Commercial/ Industrial Redevelopment Project, River Valley Redevelopment Project, and the Stadium Redevelopment Project, collectively referred to as the "Merged Redevelopment Projects". PA0402013.ANA:CK:gbd 10021003.00110$126104 EXHIBIT F PROPOSED FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE STADIUM REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE STADIUM REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BACKGROUND The Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the Stadium Redevelopment Project ("Project" or "Project Area") was adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council") on August 9, 1994 by Ordinance No. 5442. The Project Area is comprised of 150 acres and includes the Edison Field stadium facility and surrounding parking areas, which are owned by the City of Anaheim. This Project Area was adopted as part of a disaster recovery legislation outlined in the Community Redevelopment Law since the stadium facility sustained structural damage as a result of the Northridge earthquake in 1994. The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") is proposing the first amendment ("First Amendment") to the Redevelopment Plan, the sole purpose of which is to merge the Project Area with the Alpha Redevelopment Project, River Valley Redevelopment Project, Commercial/ Industrial Redevelopment Project, West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project, and the Plaza Redevelopment Project ("Merged Projects"). No amendment is proposed to the fiscal or time limits or the boundaries of the Project Area. The fiscal and time limits in effect and stated in the Redevelopment Plan, as amended, for the Project Area shall remain in force and effect. The Redevelopment Plan is hereby further amended to include a new Part XI to the Redevelopment Plan to read as follows: XI. [§1100] MERGER Upon the effective date of the ordinance adopting the First Amendment to this Redevelopment Plan, and provided ordinances become effective amending the Redevelopment Plans for the Merged Projects, the Stadium Redevelopment Project will hereby be merged with the Alpha Redevelopment Project, River Valley Redevelopment Project, Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project, West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project, and the Plaza Redevelopment Project, collectively referred to as the "Merged Redevelopment Projects". PA04 p2013.ANA',CK:gbd 10021.003.0 01/0 2/2 610 4 ITEM N0, 1-C E m E oL' .E ~ _ ~, e, C -m - - ~~ v 0 Ei 2 m a¢ W vl f9 m Y m ~ is/1 F Q -, r~i1 2 I ®s®.°®°~ __. .•® ..~.: ~ s ,® (~ ~ ,~ ~- ~ ., ~ 1 ~ 1 Avenue ',~ Q ~° '®•~m. i y: \ ~ \ ~~ i \~ t ~° \~ i \\ ~ ® sail , a ~ _g„~ Road ' ~ ~`, ~' ° ~u+{~.o-- WR4 ,. CeMtos ~~'c u rs ,'~ Avenue AVA_-~-~\ VAVA ~ ~ .. ,~ I ~ ~ °3® 'CY 5:i~;u~rE".5.,s.~, ~x Kelelle ~~~ ~ Avenue 0. ~, ~.as ~~.~i~?::'r. Orangewood ~ z,y~~ Avenue ' P 1~ p,• 4°O° ~ Chapman 4• ®~ °® Avenue ~' ~°~.® ~ m 2 N y ~_ N m U m 3N Sm S(9 N m ~~~ ~r~ Subject Property Reclassification No. 2004-00117 (TRACKING NO. RCL2004-00117) Date: March O8, 2004 Amendment No. 5 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (SP92-2) (TRACKING N0. 2004-00023) Scale: Graphic Q.S. No. NA Amendment No. 2 to the Northeast Area Specific Plan (SP94-1) (TRACKING NO. 2004-00024) Requested By: CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATION OF APPLICATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN PROPERTIES AND AMEND THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN (SP92-2) AND THE NORTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (SP94-1) TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND'USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS PROPOSED AS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CODE UPDATE. 1238 Attachment No.1 Attachment No.2 Attachment No. 3 Reclassify properties from the ML Zone to the RM-4 and RM-2 Zones ,~WPY \ \ \ \ ~, B ~~~ ~F SER SS pt Legend ~~~ ~ Subject Property ~- , ~ ~+ 0 150 300 600 Feel 1225 Attachment No. 4 Reclassify properties from the Cypress Canyon Specific Plan (SP90-3) to the Open Space (OS) Zone _. __ CITY OF VO RBA LINDA SANTA ANA {tNER ~' ... ~ .. ~ ` I i/ COUNTY ~ B I a~ ®"'~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY I ~ ~ 1 1 0 0.25 0.5 Miles e ®o s 0 ~ ~ a 0 ORANGE COUNTY `SAN BERNARDINO 9 12276 Attachment No. 5 `- Amend the boundaries of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to reclassify properties from the i CG, CH, CL, PLD-M, and RS-A-43,000 Zones to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (SP92-2) ~~ 1 ~~ ~~i Legend ~~~ ~i Anaheim City Limits l_.._e ,~, Existing Anaheim Resort ~.-.rt Specific Plan Area Proposed Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Expansion Area J' I # ~u I l~ I 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet 1223 Attachment No. 6 IMPERIAL HWY ~~T/ ~ ~ v ~ ^ W~ a ¢ 1O I ~ ..~,__ ®~@ ~ -~ rn v ~r ~~~ ai ~ ~ ~ moo. N_~ w ~o W t ¢ ® z° ~ ~ to ~ a ~ ~~ ,~ ¢ cn ® ~ e QI (~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ a~aE F ~ ~ ~ m a Od, °~ w E ~ 5~ y ~ ; r °y, ~ d r O ~) L ~,®: ~n ~ ~ y0y ~ ® 0 N J ~~~~ ch ~ N ~ o °' a n. Z (A ~~ l ~~ F Q~ L' > L Q ~ kr ~` C U h ~ S- N !~_ s ~~ E ~ ~ ~=, ~ a~ rFF , ' F ~ o~y, ® ~}P 'T4 .~` cvG W ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ( M'~ /.%+ 3 K T' -<% ~." < ~ f/1 f6 r s' ,Fe . ~ F ! ii 7 Z r w `r" J~ ~~ a~ ~e ~ ~ r ,` c a ~ V , a. ,y --' ;ter r M 1.0 x r ~ `~ :: ~ r .~ ~x ~ m t iz~' h s,., a~~ o W x ' >~' :u1' ~ " f "L' e `"" Q 7~ ~F, -~„~ mb .n W ~ ~ ~ ~'cr F a K Q I ~ t X b qq3 p,ZC :~ 4 ~k~ ® O Y ~ ,.. ~ ij. r ,~ c"' 3 KBE ~; ;. ~~ ~ ~ i ~ O __-_ ..~]~ ®~~sa ITEM N0. 1-D ~~ 2 ---MANCHESTER AVENUE ~' '9 SP 92.2 R 9A .._.:... _. - CL 66-67-61 (41) CUP 2001-04346. cuP2oo1-o44os SP92-2 9 ~ cuPZZ1o RCL66.67-61 (4) VAR 2001.04448 PARKING CUP 3332 MIMI'S CAFE (~, Up 2001-~44~6 ~ sP e2-z VAR 2001-04446 ~ RCL 66.67-61 (4) ANAHEIM RESORT %i CUP 2001-04346 CUP 2001-04405 TRANSPORTATION ~ cuP 3332 CENTER - ~ 44as ~ SP 92-2 Q RCLfi6-67-61 (73) SP 92-2 W ~ RCL 66-67-fit (104) CUP ~24 J o CUP 2776 5P 92 2 VAR 2917 S SP92 i ~ - VAR 4352 7HE ANAHEIM RESORT V-3566 VILLAGE INN DISNEYLAND RESO RT O MILLIE'S FAIRFIELD INN RCL 66-67-61 (109) 66.67-61 {106) m COUNTRY RCL fi6.67.61 (9) 66-67-61 (14) KITCHEN T-cup 2003-aa795 CUP 3121 5 ~ CUP 2002-04657 CUP 966 O A.P.D. cUP 491 T-VAR zoa3-04596 ' ' SP 92-2 V-1424 V-393 m ~ gp g2_2 POLICE TRAILER RCL 66-67-61 (104) VAR 4300 RCLS6-67-61 (108) U 4 U.V. 1971 Q (Temporary) CUP 2598 VAR 3299 C 38 P CUP 124 1250 V U McDONALD'S VAR 611 . . DISNEYLAND = RESTAURANT cAROUSELINN VAR 2270 VACANT OFFICE AND SUITES BLDG. SP 92-2 VAR 3819 RCL 66-67-61 (108) PARK INN CUP 3594 INTERNATIONAL t 7 ~ ~ m N _.~ ~ aE l ll 610' SP 92-2 SP 92-2 RCL 66-67-61 (108) RCL 66-67-61 (20) 66-67-14 VAR 30566 55-56-24 V-611 (56.57-92) TROPICANA INN EIR 313 ODETICS SP 92-2 INDUSTRIES RCL 66-67-61 (30) VAR 1929 S V-1333 PARK PLACE INN SP 92-2 SP 92-2 61 1691 V-1488 RCI fifi4i] . Variance No. 4300 '; ,~,~ Subject Property TRACKING NO. VAR2003-04586 Date: March 8, 2004 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: GOOD HOPE INTERNATIONAL Q.S. No. 87 REQUEST TO TERMINATE: VARIANCE NO. 4300: TO WA IVE MINIMUM STRUCTURAL AND YARD REQUIREMENTS TO PERMIT A 355 S.F. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING GIFT SHOP IN CONJ UNCTION WITH AN EXI STING HOTEL COMPLEX. 1530 South Harbor Boulevard -Carousel Inn and Suites 1237 CAR F U S E L INN & S L 'TES ATTACHI~NT - R&R 1-D October 14, 2003 City of Anaheim G. Scott Koehm Planning Department 200 South Anaheim Boulevard PO Box 3222 Anaheim, CA 92803 R)E: Resolution No. PC2003-29 Deaz Mr. Koehm: Pursuant to your letter dated September 12, 2003 and condition number 15 in the above mentioned resolution, please accept this letter as our formal request for Variance No 4300 to be terminated. This condition is now part of CUP No 2002-04657 which supercedes the original Variance granted back in 1997. I appreciate your consideration of this request and await your approval. If there aze any questions I can be reached at 714-758-0444. Sincerely, ~~,~~U Mazshall Weinstein General Manager \/~s is r6 nia,~ ~ ~ OCT 2003 ' RECEIVED PLANNING DEPARTMENT ;' i ~: Phone: (714) 758-0=144 Fax: (714) 772-9960 f 530 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92802 ITEM N0. 1-E NP ]08 VAR 20M 4]]5 VAP 20]/ 5 SP 821 EIP l1] PCL 665T-01 pR PCL 6406112 5P0?I PCL]]dBSB DISNEYLAND RCL (I Wf sP B2S NP]66 PC VAg65J io1091 -085S ~ NP6T/ PARKING LUP] 3 NP2]]0 V4]i0W B65 RMAINGAIE 5 5 VAP ZOi15 1r1. Wp. FIPM SP Btd A[L 6681-61(21) NPlo9/ UWBSCAPEO SP 92-1 SP 92-1 SP BbI •. .. •. ~.. vAq 221] s FASEMENi LUP x210 RCL 6631-fil (108) LANDSCAPED RCLfi6W-fit (108) RCl Np10091 EASEMENT DISNEY WAY - 605'----y.) CUP ]OJ] - ~ VAR 2115 ~ CUP ZlBO G r..n~ " n r SP 921 flCL 6fi-6]-61 (108) > SP 93-1 RCL 6667.61 P]I RCL fi66]-61 p6) ,? l ~ T-CUP 300b460b LUP 4Ui0 ( ] SP 9b1 CVP /O7B '~ (565]-93) CUP J054 ~ RCL fi6fi]-fit (65) CUP 186 ` VV R J 7 (CUP1169) ~ POINTE PNAHEIM Y~ Y - 102t PNAHEIM PLAZA (CUP 1129) ~ ~ ~ HOTEL 6 SUITES (CUP BB01 (CUP 6fi1 T) SP 02.2 GPA J9] RC L 666]-fi DAG 99 O1 CuP 300 CVP 3]: POINTE ANAHEIM 5P 92-1 ,> FIRE STATION E NG ] ~Bax P[L Bag)-01 OU CuP tb] NP]] y ~ y. . cUP 2881 VAR ]]I Y LUP ]]b 1 MAPIOTT PES®ENCE MMIOTf PE501ENCE ! I 1 WN Sl11TES WN SUITES ~ ` Slle A 1 6e 6i SP 9o-z RLL866]-61 (J ~ 9 $P 92-1 RcL e i tlL'B) S ) PDJ 11 ~ l ]ECL 66fi]61 (5 ~', RCLfi6W-61 (iBB) ~ W. T,]1 SATELLRE L N " 56-57-]1 N { T-CUP 300L04]Sfi GIHWEPB 65URES ,. SP 921 CUP 4810 W SP 811 qCL 8681"W (188) ftCLfi66]-61 (1081 s (56.57.93) 2 ~'flCL 663]-61110J) :- GPA]90 ~ BP 911 qLL fib-fi]-81 (108) RCL8861.81 (1W) F SP 92-3 //f~"L' T-CUP 3003/606 ,~ Z sP 0D3 flCL 6661-b1145) y~ CUP 9018 565]-]1 E%TENOEO STAVANEHILA yx RCLfiF6].611100) VAR 32165 ,~ - CUP 2149 $ W V028 P-J 0824 k ~ 2` E sP 9za CUP 1711 T sp elf 2 w ) w0T SUPER B MOTEL ( ~ (CUPS]]) 0.cL 8681.01(108) W LLAGE WN MOTE RCL 6681.61 (I W) ry N L IV-2269) 565] T J LUP10)e (J ss.n ]t HRV4p10RN IV 1165 ~ 1585]021 V 1 71 WITES LTp SP BL2 6P 923 SP 922 PLL060]-81 (t5) PLL~AgB'~(1])P LVAq 219>( I SP 82.2 ( ] a N1369 TI ~ - ~ p DAG 9901 ] $Il2B ~I18]I _ RC1666]61(ID6) GPA J9] sP0 1 u NP18E8 VAfl 18]p5 VM S11i 80.6661.61 R5 WOT rvW~m~ VA ANT -'RCL 86q]01 (108) VACANT FRrz E ~ uWe 1115 V.ItOl WO] VFW A,UMFJM YA E = 4 555/]1 utS~~>d ~ LUP48T8 . +UR. ~ ] az P 5p0. ONPHE LENI£q NOUBAY FAMASY RMLVIA I2NASMBES ~ V M > 2 ~-T VPA 2002015]2: L / ° ] R4 1 i ~livq KB u TEL £IPP E55 ~ i _ VARRW N . " - $,- V121/ ;- ~ pasi 871 £' ~ (~ ,~ ~ n1 I-~--370 255' ~-208' KATELL A AVENUE x sp ez.2 eo `=W z .' RLL e6eT-of ls22 fiP 92Q s sP41.x NP nee RCL 6667.61 (1fi R ~ i~e 1 ' f t= s~ - AVS m9 66 1 ] cuP iu 1 IRamaimpe NP090 vM~nv ~ NP1/TB fiP 9b1 I L r v-nle VAR 3]]05 VALPNT VAR 1091 e2 Eq ]p KPNCER ' _ e. RLL 8687-61(911 CUP IBw I = '. CUP TS] 5^82-1 I SP 92 ~ SP 924 ,yW° -1 o 3A6Y $MOTGq v~rt LODGE Np2El BLBG . n~ s i VAR ]BOB [UP 160! LUP xfi04 LUP 1604 Aqn u - pISNETLPNG EMpLpYEE PAq KI [ PARRWL I + u NG PARKING muK N > SP 92-2 p I ~ u HANSA HOUSE RESTAURANT SP B2-7 I ~ RLL 66-6]-61 (IDB) 1 I RCL 84-03.26 m Pv~ I I GI IP Jd61 Conditional Use Permit Nos. 32, 186, 2149, 3054 x ~ Subject Property TRACKING NO CUP2002-04606 . Date: March 8 2004 Variance Nos. 1214 and 3290 , TRACKING NO. VAR2002-04532 Scale: Graphic Requested By: GEOFF SHERMAN Q.S. No. 87 REQUEST TO TERMINATE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 32: TO CONSTRUCT A CONVENTION HALL. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 186 : TO CONSTRUCT ARESTAURANT/COCKTAIL LOUNGE IN ATHEATER-CONVENTION HALL. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 214 9: TO PERMIT RECREATION FACILITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING EDUCATIONAL FACILITY . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 305 4: TO PERMIT A 40-PATIENT BIRTHING CENTE R, 200-PERSON CHILD DAYCARE FACILITY AND A 100-PERSON ADULT DAYCARE FACILITY. VARIANCE NO. 1214: TO ESTABLISH A MOTEL VARIANCE NO. 3290: WAIVER OF MI NIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO EXPAND AN EXISTING MOTEL 1234 ATTACHMENT - R&R 1-E Price Legacy corporntion May 1, 2002 Ms. Della Herrick CITY OF ANAHEIM/ PLANNING DEPARTMENT 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 Subject: Existing Variance and Conditional Use Permit Termination Letter for the Anaheim GardenWalk Improvement project Dear Della: The purpose of this letter is to document compliance with Condition of Approval No. 74 requesting termination of all existing variances and conditional use permits associated with the above-mentioned project. Price Legacy Corporation requests the termination of the existing variances and CUP's for the properties as noted: Melodyland Excel Pointe Anaheim ("EPA") Parcel A Request termination of Conditional Use Permit I~TOS. 32, 186, 2149 and 3054 12ist EPA Parcel B Request termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2149 Zaby EPA Parcel E Request termination of Variance No. 1214 and Variance No. 3290 If you have any questions or require any additional information, please call me at (858) 675-9400. Sincerely, _~ . eoffj herman, ctor of Construction pc: Lames Ling, RBF I i lill Dcrnartlo Ccntcr Dr. Stritc =3th) San Dii nu, CA 921?N l'1 Fiti.67~.9iQ~ ITEM N0. 1-F RCL 8667-61 (105) CUP BB1 DISNEYLAND SP 92-1 DISNEYLAND K RCL 66-67-61(10E RCL 54-55-5 T-VAR 20040459 VAR 2002-04465 VAR 3704 FSP 2001-00033 (VAR 3316) (VAR 950 T) (VAR 685 T) (CUP 1876) (CUP 767) DESERT PALM INN 8 SUTES SP 92-1 RCL 66b7b1 (6 VAR 1934 ALPINE ~K ~'~ MOTEL "~9 i'~ CONVENTION CENTER PARKING Variance No. 825 Variance No. 3704 TRACKING NO. VAR2004-04599 Requested By: SHIRISH PATEL SP 92-1 RCL 66-fi7-81 (106) VAR 2220 SS SP 92-1 ~ RC166-67~1(10B). Q RCL 54-555 T-VAR 200404599. W SP 92-1 VAR 2002-04485 J RCL 66-67-61 (66) VAR 625 ~ VAR 4348 FSP 2001-00033 CANDY CANE INN .DESERT PALM m INN 8 SUffES ® r ,~3 ~i" .; rv ~` c~~af ltoel~ 'r-~ ~7 ~ ~3 O m ~ , "~ a ~ "~ ~ ~~~ ~ Q rr o SP 92-1 ~` ~ ~L +~'~' ~ m RCL 66.67-61 ~'"' ~ 107 _ - _ ) ( ) ^~ a~ :~` ~ i~ ?-~~~'' t' MARKET ~® 365' ®~'® 200'-~ KATELLA AVENUE r---. JOLLY ROGER I SP 92-2 I RC168-fi7-61 (4B) INN REST. CUP 359 VAR 2320 S CH SRON SP 92-2 RCL 66-67-61 (64) JOLLY ROGER INN SP 92-2 RCL 66f7-61 ADJ 14 CASTLE INI 8 SUITES SP 92-2 RCL fib-67-61 V-926 V-007 VILLAGE INN M1 RAMADA P HOTEI SP 92-2 RCL 66.67-61 CUP 890 VAR 1894 ZABY'S MOi LODGE SP 92-2 HANSA HOUSE REST/ ~- SP 92-2 RCL86-67-61 (i( CUP 856 VAR 1944 S FSP 2003-00001 Subject Property Date: March 8, 2004 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 76 REQUEST TO TERMINATE: VARIANCE NO. 825 : TO CONSTRUCT A 23-UNIT MOTEL, MANAGER'S RESIDENCE AND SWIMMING POOL VARIANCE N0. 3704: WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO CONSTRUCT A 4-STORY, 100-UNIT HOTEL. 631 W KATELLA 1233 ATTACHMENT - R&R I-F SAI MP,I~(AGEMEI~1'f' .............: C O M P A N Y i-ioshitality iu3~nagement, Develapmeni. & tnvestment - July 24, 2002 City of Anaheim Planning Department 200 South Anaheim Blvd. P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim. CA 92803 Re: Desert Palm Suites (631 W. Katella Ave.) -Termination of Variance No. 825 & 3704 Dear Sir or Madam: This letter shall serve as a request for the termination of Variance No. 825 & 3704. Sincerely, Shirish H. Patel President Sai Management Co., Inc. 631 WEST KATELLA AVE., ANAHEIM, CA 92802 714-776-8604 714-776-7538 FAX ITEM NU. 1-G O~S~FY \ ~qY 2 -61 (76) 384 35 =SIDENCE IITES I (106) TE RS ;(108) ;(106) RN TD. a o ti :.. N Q ~~~i ~NN~ b~F U W B: i SP 82-2 RCL 66-67-61 (60) CUP 2884 CUP 2724 CUP 1679 CUP 735 VAR 3342 RED ROOF INN MARIOTT RESIDENCE INN SUITES SP 93-1 RCL 88-67-81 (108) SP93-1 RCL 66-67-61 (106) EXTENDED STAYAMERICA SP 93-1 RCL fib-67-61 (108) VACANT 400' 0 4 SP 92-2 ~ RCL 66-67-61 (108) N AMERICAN Z LINEN SUPPLY } N RCL 66-67-61 f106) 6fi-67-61(109) 56-57- PEACOCK SUITES RCL 66-P67~1 (106) CUP 2927 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY SP 92-2 CLIP 1]02nmvan RCL 66-67-61 (106) SP 92-2 CUP 2507 RCL 6fi-67-61 (1 CUP 2196 RCL 6fi-87-61 VACANT BLDG. CUP 656 I VAR 2805 J 7-11 MARKET RCL 66E7E1 (91) m AVIS HOTEL CIRCLE SPECIFIC PLAN 93-1 66-67E7(106) 66~7fi1(32) T-CUP2002-04604 CUP 3819 VAR 2002-04543 VAR 2002-(M506 (56-57-92) (CUP 1236) (CUP 1122) (V-555 T) CANDLEWOOD SUITES HC J~ S •- ~ ~ ~ 1 ~9 J 2P ~ SP s2-2 ~F s ~ D] Bs-6 g~ ( RCL Cl1P 2564108) F'p CUP 1610 9` C U P 1 4 56 ~ = aa 17 p C l1 CUP 283 ° Z V~ 81 m 1 ~ ~ Q GPA 333 fIR 313 I THE BOOGIE SP 92-2 SP 92-2 DEL TACO RCL 73= R ESTAURANT REST. CI" - Cl ---- --- KATELLA AVENUE ^SP92-2- z ons ao=-ine ~~i Conditional Use Permit No. 3819 ~~},~ Subject Property TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04604 Date: March 8, 2004 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: REZA AZARPOUR Q.S. No. 87 REQUEST TO TERMINATE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3819: TO PERMIT A TEMPORARY SALES OFFICE BUILDING. 1733 S. Anaheim Boulevard - Candlewood Suites 1236 ATTACHMENT - R&R 1-G July 15, 2002 To: Mr. Scott Kcehm City ofAnaheim-Planning Department 200 S. Anaheim Blvd, Anaheim, CA 92805 From: Bann-Shiang Liza Yu Property owner at 1733 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 Re: Request for termination of exisfing C.U.P. #3819 This is to request City ofAnaheim-Planning Department to terminaze the existing Conditional Use Permit #3819 granted to the Peacocks Suites for a temporary sales trailer at 1733 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805. Thank you for your assistance. If you have any question, I can be reached at 714-981-9888. yours, Bann-Shiang Liza Yu (~ Property owner at 1733 South Anahean Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 H ,•~` nrr~~ L~e6 `3` RECEIVED r! PLANNING DEPARTMENT,~~~. -O. Zaoz_ o~so(, ON 3~N`d12~~'A ITEM N0. 2 ~. DEV OY DR T ~ RS-7200 i 1 DU EA ~ RS-7200 ® 1 DU EA. tYNROSE DR - o ¢0 =n RS-7200 RS-7200 p ^~ 1 DU EA. ® 1 DU EA. a '-~ RS-A-43,000 DALE JUNIOR ~ R ~ HIGH SCHOOL n ~ _ ~_ RS-7200 CUP 2067 3 A c 1 DU EA. ~ CUP 380 O °7 CHURCH ELMLAWN DR W RS-A-43,000 ~ RS-7200 T-CUP2003-04624 Z ~ 1 DU EA. CUP 2002-04601 W RM-1200 Q 87-88-12 VACANT - '~l RCL 06-87-20 „ ~ 3627 J VA ' ` '~• R , CL RrMlzaa RM 12ao ~ RM-1200 RM-1200 'RCL 60.614 RCL 5960.65 Q c APTS. 106 DU ~ VACANT RCL 74-7$-39 RCL 60-61-x2 VAR 1600 vAR 4091 N RCL 74-7$-06 LL Nry APARTMENTS APARTMENTS APrs. APrs r CUP 2419 ~ U 12ou lzou RCL 78-77.12 ~~°O o a' _ 19 DU 12 D CUP 20$$ ~ LUP 1957 ~~ ' -~ - SHOPPING CENTER cuP 195 ~o REST. ~ ii'' ~ 107 ~ 32e'~ BALL ROAD CL RCL 60`61.66 RCL 60.61-66 CUP 3157 CL RCL 6C4L6S02 RCL 64.61116 CUP 2003.04777 CUP 3033 CUP 200.}04913 RCL 64-fi$~02 yqR 24166 CUP 2457 RM-1200 CUP 960 LUP 268 VAR 171/5 CUP 2265 RM-1200 RCL 66-66-82 CUP 420 VAR 69fi6 (VAR 2019) VAR 1700 RCL 6$-66.82 RCL fit-63-126 cUP 360 PCN 89.02 5.5.8MINbMART VACANT sHOPs REST CUP 316 CUP 80$ CUP 80$ ~ ; cL , 101 DU CUP 433 CUP 202 RCL60.61-6B CENTER VAR 3460 COMM RCLO~eS1ID . BO DU acLe4-fis6z RM-12pp CUP 3n4 RCL77-7627 CUP 0600 RS-7200 WR1]Op RCL 64.66.118 1 DU EACH ppV°fl~STOflE RCL 64.660' VAR 1700 ~ RM-1200 APARTMENTS ^ Aod olla RCL 77-78-27 .J VAR 4299 VAR 11$0 APARTMENTS rn Conditional Use Permit No. 3796 (READVERTISED) ~ .r Subject Property TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04824 Date: March 8, 2004 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: ORANGE COUNTY BUDDHIST CHURCH Q.S. No. 14 REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW ACCESSORY PARKING LOT AT 2823 WE ST BALL ROAD, CONTIGUOUS TO AND FOR AN EXISTING BUDDHIST TEMPLE WITH WAIVERS OF: (A) MINIMUM SETBACK FOR INSTITUTIONAL USES ABUTTING A RESIDENTIAL ZONE (B) MINIMUM LANDSCAPE SETBACK ADJACENT TO AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY (C) MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT 2823 West Ball Road __ . ITEM N0. ~ Staff Report to the Planning Commission Marcfi 8, 2004 Item Na. 2 2a. CEQA NEGATIVEbECLARATION (READVERTISEDI j (Motion); 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ! (Motion) 2c. CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT NO: 3796 (Resolution) (TRACKING NO: CUP2003-04824) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This rectangularly-shaped, 0.56-acre property has a frontage of 107 feet on the north side of Ball Road, a maximum depth of 227 feet: and is located 322 feet west of the centerline of Dale Avenue (2823 West Ball Road). REQUEST: (2) Petitioner requests approval of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3796, under authority of Code Section No. 18,21.050.11p, to construct a new accessory parktnglot at 2823 West Ball Road, contiguous to and for use byan existing l3uddhist temple with waiver of the following; (a) SECTION 18.04.042.020 Minimum setback for institutional'uses abuttino a residentialzone'(15 feet required; 5 feet proposed) (b) SECTION N0. 18.21.063.010 Minimum landscape setback adjacent to an'arterial hidhwav 20 feetfequired; 10 feet proposed) (c) SECTION NOS. 18.21.064 Maximum fence heioht (3-foot high AND 18.04.043;101 fence permitted; 6-foot.high wrought iron fence proposed 12 feetfrom Balf Road) BACKGROUND: (3) This item was continued from February 9, 2004, Planning Commission meeting to advertise an additional code waiver resulting from a redesign`of the parking lot, (4) This property is vacant and is zoned RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural). The City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element Map designates this: property for Medium Density Residentialland uses and is locatetl within the West Anaheim Commercial `Corridors Redevelopment Project Area. (5) Surrounding General Plan land use designations are as follows Rlrectlop~- ~~: ~Gonerat Plan€Desi nation ~. North Low Densi .Residential ': ;East t General Commercial '.South (across Ball Road) Geheral Commercial and Medium Density Residential .West Medium.Densi Residential sr8711gk.. - Page 1 i Staff Report to the; Planning Commission March'Sj 2004 Item No: 2 PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS: (6) The following zoning actions Have occurred for thisproperty: (a) Conditional Use Permit IJo. 2067 (td expand an existing church) was approved by the - Planning Commission ort April 7,.1980. (b) Conditional Use Permit No. 3796 (to construct a 2,752 square foot chapel and 634 square foot family waiting room in cdnjunction with an existing church with waiver of minimum setback of institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone and minimum number of parking spaces) was approved by the Commission on November 27, 1995. (c) Reclassification No. 2002-00067 (td reclassify the property from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the RM-1200 zone) was denied by the City Council on May 7, 2002, following approval by the Commission. (d) Variance No.`2002-04480 (to waive maximum structuraCheight [i story permitted; 2-3 stories proposed]) wasdenied by he City Council on May 7, 2002; foilowing'approval, in part, by the Commissidn. (e) Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04601 (to permit a 26=unit seniorcitizen's apartment complex with'a density tionus with waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit; minimum`building setback, maximum structural height adjacent to asingle-family residential zone and maximum density bonus) was approved in part by the Commission on October7, 2002. This permit was never exercised and should be terminated. bEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: (7) -This request is to expand a parking lot for patrons of the adjacent church (Buddhist Temple)'located cdrttiguous to the northeast corner of the property af909 South Dale Avenue.[ The site plan (Exhibit No. 1, Revision 1)' ihdicates the 59-space parking lot would be constructed on'a vacant lot and would be accessed from the adjacent church property and from Ball Roadi The site: plan shows the placement of two, 12-foot high light tandards i in conformance with Code located at the north and south ends of the parking lot along the center rows of parking. (8) The landscape plan (Exhibit No. 2, Revision 1}indicates 16 new trees would be planted. Plans show the proposed trees would consist of 6' crape myrtle trees (24-inch box'size) and 6 fem pine trees (15 gallon);ih the front landscaped setback along BaIlRoad and within the proposed 5-foot interior setback along the west property Iineand withinthe required 15-foot interiorsetback along the north propertyline. The'plan also shows 1 crape myrtle tree (24- inch box size) and B fern pine trees (15'gallon) in he interiorparking lot landscape areas. Groundcdver would consist of vinca minor, flowering shrubs;,bamboo, hedges and perennials. Plans also show clinging vines adjacent to the interior side of the existing and new masonry walls to discourage graffiti.: (9) Plans show a new 6-foot high block wal(along the west and north property lines, a new 6- `foot high wrought iron fence setback 12 feet from Ball Road and theYetention of an existing block wall along the east property line.'Code allows a maximum 3-foot high fence within the frohf yard setback (The southerly 25 feet of the property):, Page 2' Staff Report to the PlanningCommissiorr March 8 2004 Item No. 2 r' (10) Access to the accessory parking lot would tie from the existing adjacent church parking lot which is accessed from Dale Avenue. Plans indicate one relocated driveway on BaltRoad for the new parking loL The applicant has stated that the driveway on Balf Road would'be used for egress only. !During times other than normal'church operations the proposed gate would be closed prohibiting access to the parking lot from this driveway. i (11) The petitioner's letter of operatiort indicates that the adjacent church for which the parking lotis to be constructed'currentlyholds one Sunday religious service at 10 aim. with approximately 200 congregants. The petitioner further tates that the weekday (Monday, Wednesday,;and Friday) usage is primarily limited to evenings for small groups (ranging in size from 30 to 60 persons). Other activities include youth basketball on Saturdays' and Sundays antl weddings and funerals on an as-neededbasis. ENVI RONMENTALIMPACT ANALYSISi (12) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review in'the Planning Department) antl finds no significant environmental impactand, therefore, recommends that a Negative Declaration tie'approved upon a finding by the Planning.:: Commissiort that the.Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and hat it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public reviewprocess and furtherfinding oh he basisof the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS::: (13) The proposed project has been reviewed by,affected City departments to determine ` whether it conforms with the City's Growth Management Element adopted by the City "; Council on March 17, 1992. Based on City staff review of the proposed project, it has been determined that this project does not fit within the scope necessary to require a Growth Management ElemenYanaiysis, therefore, no analysis((has been'performedi HOUSING' ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (14) Effective January 1, 2003, Government Code Section 65863 restricts a city's ability to reduce the maximum allowable density on property in areas already designated or zoned for residential uses to a level below the density used by the State'of California Housing and Communitybevelopment Department (HCD) when determining v/hether a city's Housing Element complied with state law. It is immaterial under the statute whether the reduction is initiated by a'city or by a member of the public. A city may neither require nor permit the reducticn ofdensity orany such residentially-designated parcel, unless the following firstlings are made: (a) .That the proposed reduction indensity is' consistentwith the General Plah, including the Housing: Element. (b) That the remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing needs. If a'city cannot make the second finding, it may still make the reduction in density if it '` itlehtifies sufficient "atlditional, adequate, and'available sites" with an equator greater residential capacity in the jurisdiction so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity. In some instances, it may be necessary for the city to''up-zone" some other area of the city `:Page 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 8 2004 Item No: 2 in order to legally accomplish a downzoning (Govemment Code Section 65863), This statute provides attorneys fees o a successful plaintiff challenging a city'under the: statute. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed Section 65863 and advised that Government Code Section 65803 states'that the sections in Chapter 4,'of which 65863 is apart, do not apply to - oharter cities except as otherwise provided. Since Section 65863 does not specifically indicate applicability to charteCCities, it is believed that such provision does not apply to Anaheim,'a charter city. However, as a practical matter the reclassification andlor 'development of property needs o be consistent with: the General Plan, including the Housing Element. Anaheim has a Housing Element, approved. by HCD, based upon the ,City's provision of certain identified Housing Opportunity Sites.': To ensure that zoning 'actions remain consistent withthe General Plan, it is recommended that the findings in ;Section 65863 be utilized as a model, and be analyzed by the City when'property js7ezoned 'and/or developed to a density below thaYconsidered?in the approved Housing Element as a method of determining continuing conformance with the assumptions contained therein. (15) .The City's regional housing need share during the planning period 1998 to 2005, is 11,508 'units. Overall, the Housing Element identified 154 housing opportunity sites throughout the ;City with density ranges to accommodate 16,048 to'20,841 housing units: In a conservative analysis, a; reductionin residential density which results in a loss of fewerthan 4,500 units :will not impact the City's ability,to accommodate its share of the regional housing need and would remain consistent with the Housing' Element of the General Plan. The City, however, may reduce the density on these sites beyond 4,500 units, provided it remains in conformance with the approved Housing'Element, which maybe accomplished by rdentifyingsufficient additional,'adequate,'and avallabie sites with an equal or greater ~esldential`density so`that there' is no net loss of residential unit capacity. (16) In order to ensure that zoning actions which grant a reduction of density on residentially 'zoned properties are'consistenf with the City's General Plan, including the Housing: Element as approved by HCD, it is recommended that the Planning Commission utilize the methodology set forth in Govemment Cdtle Section 65863. Although it isibelieved'that said section is`not applicable to Anaheim as a charter city, it is recommended that the proposed .`action be considered and evaluated to determine that if the reduction of density results in a density level below that used by HCD when determining whether the Housing Opportunity iSites identified in the; City's Housing Element complied with state law, that the following `findings, without waiver of the: City's charter city authority, be made: (a) That the proposed reduction in density is consistent with the General Plan, including the Housing Element; and (b) That the remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to accommodate the City's share of the regionafnousing need pursuanfto Govemment Code Sectiort 65584. (17) (.The project site contains one (1) of the two (2) parcels identified as Site No. 49 of the West Anaheim'Area in the Housing; Element with a density range of 6 to 18 units per acre. The site is Oi56 acre in size and could accommodate from 3 to 10 units. The proposedr :'development of the"accessory'parking lot would result in a total maximum loss of 10 units '.from themaximum'numberofpotential units identified in the Housing Element. (18) ' As noted above, reductions in residential'densitywhlch resulf in a loss of fewer than 4,500 ``units will not impacfthe City's ability to accommodate its share of the regional housing need and"would remain consistent withthe Housing Element of the General Plan. Page 4 Staff Report to the Planning. Commission March 8; 2004 Item No. 2 (19) The Planning Commission previously recommended downzoning of the Five Points area (southwest of Lincoin'Avenue and West Street). Thedownzoning affected a maximum 15-unit reduction of parcels identified in the Hpusing Element. The Commission also! recommended a general plan amendment and reclassification of the Caliber Motors site in the East Anaheim Area, resulting in a maximum 30-unit reduction. On January 12, 2004, - the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to constructs 4-unit commercial'. retail center, resulting in a maximum loss of 9 units`from the potential units 'identified in the Housing Element. The prior actions and the proposed institutional use of the subjectproperty will result in`a total combined reduction of aroaximum of 64 units: The remaining sites identified in the Housing Element provide residential unit capacity in excess of the proposed 64-unit reduction in density identified`to date, (20) Based on the foregoing, the Commission should note that this reduction of housing density inconsistent with the Housing Element and, further, that the remaining housing opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element are: adequate to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need. EVALUATION: (21) Churches, including accessory parking, are'conditionally permitted uses in the RS-A- 43,000 Zone. This request is td'provide additional accessory parking on an adjacent;. resldential lot for the exclusive use of the church. No new structures are proposed on the existing or expanded property. The parking for the existing church was previously approved as Code conforming under Conditional Use Permit Nos. 380,'2067 and 3796. The proposed expansion would add 59 additional spaces bringing the total Number of spaces om tioth properties to 190. Currently, Code would require approximately 138 spaces for. this church facility. (22) Waiver (a) pertains to the minimum setback for institutional uses abutting a residential zone. Code requires a minimum`15-foot wide landscaped setback and 5 feet is proposed. The intentof the Code7equirementlor setbacks of institutional uses abutting residential properties is to protect and preserve the existing setbacks and open space'enjoyed by the residential properties. `The residential structure to the'west is separated from the subject property by a 10-foofwide drive'aisle, in addition to the proposed 5-foot landscaped setback and 6-foot high block wall, providing a minimum 15-foot buffer between the structures; therefore,: staff supports this waiver. (23) Waiver (b) pertains to the minimum setback adjacent to an arterial highway. Code requires a minimum'+25-foot wide front yard landscaped setback adjacent o Ball Road and'10 feet is proposed. The church at 2885 West BaIlRoad (west of the subject property) was granted a setback waiver in conjunction with Conditional Use :Permit No;1012 approved on March 25, 1968. Further, the intent of the RS-A-43,000 zone is for the development of single- family homes, agricultural uses ahd to actas a `holding zone" until such time as the property is developed consistent with the General Plan. In this case, applying the standards of the underlying zoning would not be appropriate for the development of the accessory parking lot. In addition, the lot is'constrained by residential uses on two sides requiring landscaped setbackstnat limit the use of theiot; andtherefore, staff supports the waiver. Page 5 Staff Report to the Planning Commjssion Mardi 8; 2004 Item No 2 (24) :.Waiver (c) pertains to maximum fence height. Code restricts the maximum heighfbf any fence, wall, hedge or berm to thirty-six (36) inches within any;required front yard settiack area. Plans indicate a 6-foot high wrought iron fence approximately 12 feet from the south property ine (Ball Road). Similar to the reasons identified for waiver (b);above, including - applying the RS-A-43,000 zone standards to development of the accessory parking lot and wetback constraints posed by;the adjacent residential uses, staff recommends approval of 4he waiver. (25) ;The church has been operating at this location since the early1960's. The proposed ;parking lot would help alleviate any possible spillover parking'?on adjacent properties and :'streets and if approved as recommended by staff, would result in a larger landscaped setback tfian currently exists. FINDINGS: (26) When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from strict ertforcement of the Zoning Code, a modification may be granted for the purpose of assuring hat no property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, shall be deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in he same vicinity and zone. The sole purpose of any code waiver is,to prevenNdiscrimination and none shall be approved which would have the effect of granting a specialprivilege not shared'by other similar properties. Therefore, before any ::code waiver is granted by the Planning Commission; it shailbe shown: ' '(a) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography,,location orrsurroundtngs, which: do not apply to other identically zoned properties ih the vicinity; and I (b) That strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the: property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. (27) _Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding `of fact that the evidence presented shows that all ofthe following conditions exist: ' (a) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional usepermit is authorized by the Zoning Code, or,that said'use is notilisted therein as being a permitted use; (b) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land'uses and the growth and'development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; y` (c) That the size'and shape of the site for the proposed use is adequate to allow the full developmenYof the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health', safety, and general welfare; (d) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose ara undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved o carry he traffic in the area; and (e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposetl, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health; safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City ofphaheim. Page 6 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Marcfi 8; 2004 Item No`. 2 (28) .Before the Planning Commission grants a zoning action which would result in a reduction in residential density identified in the City's Housing Element, the following findings, without waiver of the City's Charter City'authoriry; shall be made: (a) That the proposed reduction in density is consistent with the General Plan, including - the Housing Element; and (b) That the remaining sites identified inahe Housing Element are adequate to accommodate the City'sshare of tFie regionalfiousing need pursuant to Government Code Section 65584. RECOMMENDATION: (29) Staff recommends that unless additional or contrary information is received during the meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Planning Commission, including the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented'at the public hewing that Planning Commission take the following actions: (a) By motion, approve a CEQA Negative Declaration. (b) By motion approve waivers pertaining to (a) minimum setback for institutionai'uses abutting a residential zone, (b) minimum landscape setback adjacent to an arterial highway and (c) maximum fence Height basedon the following: (i) That there are special circumstances which pertain to this property because development of his property in accortlance witfi`the current zoning is not practical given the intent of the RS-A-43,000 zorte as either a "holding zone" or for the development ofsingle-family residences and agricultural production. Since there are no existing single-family residences adjacent to the front of this property, staff feels that applying'such standards would not be appropriate. (ii) That strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other; properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity including he churchat 2885 West Ball Road that is itlentically zoned with a'conditional use permit to establish a church with a'setback waiver. (c) By resolution, approve amendmenf to Conditional Use Permit No.$796 (Tracking No. CUP20p3-04824) (to construct a new accessory parking lot at 2823 West Ball Road, contiguous to and for use by an existing Buddhist temple based on the following: (i) 1 That this use (the accessory parking lot) is properly one for which a conditional use'permit is authorized. (ii) ' That as conditioned and recommended by staff'and in conformance with all Code requirements, the size and shape of thissite is adequate to'allow the full'development of the expanded parking lot in a manner not detrimental to thisarea nar to the peace, health, safety and general welfare, nor the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Page 7 Staff Report to the Planning Commission ` March 8; 2004 Item Na 2 (iii} Thafas conditioned herein, including limiting access to the parking'1ot from BaILRoad, the traffic generated by the proposed parking lot use will not impose an undue burden upon the`streets and. highways'designed and improved to carry traffic in the area.' (iv) Thates designed and conditioned herein, the proposed accessory parking lot would nofadversely affect adjoining land uses. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONSARE SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS ACTING AS AN INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE AND ARE RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE EVENT THAT THEAMENDMENT TO THIS PERMIT ISAPPROVED. 1. That the existing driveways on Dale Avenue thaNserve the primary church facility shall remain open during flours of operation; and that the driveway along Ball Road shadbnly be used for egress and emergency access. 2. That the City Traffic and Transportation Managershall have the authority to reduce the height of the proposed 6-foot walls to protect visual lines-of-sight where pedestrian'and/or vehicular circulation intersect. Clinging vines to eliminate graffiti opportunities shall be planted on maximum 5-foot centers, irrigated: and maintained, adjacent to said walls. Said information shall'be specifically shown'on plans submitted to the City..:: 3. ': That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager forhis review`and approval showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard'Plan Nos:`436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 4. > That appropriate reflective material shall be installed on the gate across the driveway on Ball Road. Saidiinformation'shall be specifically"shown on plans submitted for review and approval of the Traffic end Transportation Manager. 5. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in'a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/oddead. 6. ' That the property shall be permanently,maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of gash oYdebfis, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time'of occurrence. 7. That the landscape planters shall be permanently maintained with live end healthy plant materials. 8. That any proposed water backflow equipment sfiall be above ground; outside of the street setback area in a mannedfuliy screened from all public streets. Any other large water system equipment shall tie installed to the satisfaction of3he Water Engineering Divisioh in either undergrountl vaults or outside of the street Setback area irf a manner fully screened from'all public streets. Said information shalt tie specifically shown on plans submitted to the Cityend approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Inspector. 9. That all: requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations or abandonments of existing water services and fire lines sfiall be coordinated through the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities pepartment. Page 8 Staff Report to the Planning Commission' March 8;:2004 Item No. 2'i 10. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Services Standards ;.Specifications. Anywater service and o[ fire line that does nobmeet current standards shall be upgradedijf continued use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no Iohger needed. 1 L 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 to the City.:. Plans shall also identify the specific screening treatments of each 'device (i.e landscape screening, color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points; etc.) and shall be subject to the review and approval of the appropriate City departments. 12. That all parking lot lighting fixtures shall be decorative and shall be down-lighted with a maximum height of twelve (12) feet. SaidJighting fixtures shall be directed away from adjacent residential :'property lines to protect the residential integrity of the area and shall be so-specifietl on plans ''submitted o the City. 13. -That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall beat the developer's expense. 14. 'That the legal property owner shall provide the City of Anaheim with a public utility easement to be i'determined as electrical design. is completed, Said easemenfshall be submitted to the City of Anaheim Electrical Engineering Division of the Public Utilities:Department. 15. That since: this project has landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation 'meter shall be installed and comply with city Ordinance No, 5349 and Chapter 10.19 of Anaheim MunicipatCode. Said information shall tie specifically shown on plans submitted to the City. i 16. That the legal property owner shall submit an application and a $756 plan checking; deposit for a Subdivision Map Act Certificate of Compliance to the Public Works Department, Development :Service Division. ACertificate'of Compliance or Conditional Certificate of Compliance shall tie ;.approved. by the City`Engineer,and recorded in the Office of the Orange,County Recorder. 17: That prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the post construction best management practices that will be 'used on-site to control predictable pollutants from storm water runoff. The WOMP'shall be `submittedao the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval. 18. That the property owner shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. `; j 2002-04601 (to permit a 26-unit senior citizen's apartment complex with a densitybonus with waiver of minimum building site area per: dwelling unit, minimum building'setback, maximum 1 "structural height adjacent to a!single-family residential zone and maximum density`bonus) to the !Zoning Division. 19. 'That priorto final building and zoning inspection, the applicant shall: a. Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WOMP have been constructed and Installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications: b. Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implemenEall non-structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP. c. Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WOMP are available onsitei i d. Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural BMPs Page 9 Staff Report to the:` Planning: Commission March 8{2004 Item Noi 2 20 That as required by the Police Department, Community Services Division, a "No :Trespassing 602 (j) P.C;" sign shall be posted at the entrances of he parking lot and located in other appropriate places Signs sfiall be at least 2' x 1' in overall size, with white background andblack 2" lettering. Said ihformation shall be specifically shown on plans submitted to the City. 21: That ali entrances to parking areas shall be posted with appropriate signs per 22658(a) C.V.C., to assist in removal of vehicles at the property owners/managers request. Said informationshall be specifically shown on plans'[submitted to the City:: 22 That an Emergency Listing Gard; Form APD-2811 shall be filed with the Police Department, available at the Police Department front counter;,' 23 That subject property shall 6e 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 Planring Department marked Exhibit`Nos. 1 and 2, Revision No. 1 and as conditioned herein. 24: That the accessory parkinglot activity`shall not be used between the flours of 10fp.m. and 8 a.m. 25: That no outdoor special event activities shall occur within this accessory parking7ot. 26: That prior to issuance of a building permit, or prior to commencementof the activity authorized by this resolution, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos, 2, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12,;14, 15, 16,::17, 18, 20 21, and 22, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said' conditions' maybe granted in accordance with Section 18:03.090 ofahe Anaheim Municipal Code. 27. That prior to final building and zoning inspections or prior to'commencement of the activity authorized by this resolutiortwhichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 10 19, 23 and 24, above-mentioned; shall be complied with. 28! That approval of this application constitutes approval of theproposed 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 actionor findings'as to compliance or`approval ' of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or;requirement. Page 10 ATTACHMENT - ITEM N0. 2 PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED ~F/OR PARKING WAIVER) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: I ~ • d y' Oy Z, OzU t (A sepa ate~'s~tppte~~m~~ent is required for each Code waiver) PERTAINING TO: lS LA~I ~ $q}GfG ~ y~f ~s(piGi 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 ?. 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 Administratoror Planning Commission to arrive at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regarding the property for which a variance is soueht, fully and as completely as possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages. v 1. Are there special circumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? Yes _ No. If our answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstances: '~U~10.Y6' V~nfT ~ ~~ N -f'D ~1S'rl{U~t 4kf-V¢~N- .c,¢~~ t.af' etd o~t"FI-G~-(~ 2. Are the special circumstances tlyat apply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the same zone as your property? _ Yes _ No If our answer is " es," describe how the roe ~ f~t~t~ ~~ y~~ p p rty is different: ~ 3. Do the special circumstances applicable to tl~ property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the same zone? _Yes _No If your answer if "yes," describe the s~ppecial circumstances: bl>:Gr~ ~fi~ MA~Xt M IZE Yom! ~ti D N S ~ TO ~17v U-~ t~ L a%1b ~d~ 4. Were the special circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? JC Yes _ No EXPLAIN: ~t`~E hTdl -'~ii17GN'rj,q{~ L~ , ~N.~ LOG(~~7 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 oche ise expressly authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances are not permitted. ~,/~°- ley' Sim lure of Property caner or Authorized Agent Date 2762SDECEMBER 1?, ?000 CONDITIONAL USE PEILVfIT 3~~ lus~ification Waiver. dot ATTACHMENT ~- ITEM N0. 2 PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WANER) REQUEST FOR WANER OF CODE SECTION: ~ ~' y) ` ~ l0 3. D ~ n I A separate statement is PERTAINING TO: '1S I~N>~ ~'~ ~rLrr,~. 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: That there aze 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 amve 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. Are there special circumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? _ Yes _ No. answer is "Yes," describe the 2. 3. 4. O.PI Are the special circumstances that apply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which aze in the same zone as your property? /Yes _ No If your answer is "yes," describe how the property is different: 101"t `+ Do the special circumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the same zone? _I~'es _No If your answer if "yes; 'describe the special circumstances: _ .. Were the special circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? /Yes _ No . 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 shazed by other property in the same vicinity and zone wh' his not oth rwise expressly authorized by zone regulations governin ~ubj ~ t ~ perry. Use variances are not permitted. I~ to b Signature f Property weer or Authorized Agent Date DECEMBER 12,?000 CONDITIONAL USE PE[LMITNARIANCE NO. SUP N0. -3796--° ATTACHIfENT -ITEM N0. 2 PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF ]USTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: ~ $' ~ (. b ba- ~ I `b , D4-, r7~ ~ ~ (A separate statement is required for each Code waiver) PERTAINING TO: MA74MUM .Ftrntr.~ i.,.~- 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 clazsification 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 az completely as possible. If you need additionat space, you may attach additional pages. 2. Are the special circumstances th t apply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the same zone az your property? Yes _ No answer is "yes," describe how the property is different: 3. Do the special circumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the same zone? Yes No answer 4. ~LTU>%l-TN Ma~~ '~ l Were the spe ial circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? Yes _ No EXPLAIN: ~q~6NGt LeI ~ ~tiYC.- , r 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 whi h is not oth rwise expressly authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances are not permitted. ~?~1~~ t7 3 Si, ture of Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date 3762SDECEMBER L, 2000 Justi0wtion Waiver. dot CONDITIONAL USE PER1~fITNARIANCE NO. ... _ --- ---- „ . ~ g 3 CUB id0. -3 7 9 6 ,p~ Are there special c,J'rcumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? _ Yes _ No. ~~1 ,. ~~ I ~w^~n PEEN 11391 '~i~~'``v`n PPP i~ ~ i ~ / SP 99.3"11151 C\-9658.69- ~ C`gg-6 68,36 FGl R3g5'i F RCL6 2091 CUP 163 CuP 1831 V PR ~~E ~y~TF t eU~~\NG / SP 94-1 IND. BLDG. SP 94-1 IND. BLDG. SP 94-1 RCL 70-71-47 (39) RCL 70-71-46 CUP 4090 CUP 3453 ADJ 0170 INDUSTRIALLY RELATED BUSINESS OFFICES INDUSTRIAL PARK RIVERSIDE Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04811 Requested By: LARRY BEDROSIAN CUP 1131 ' ~ VAR 9667 Q- SMALL IND ~~` FIRMS ~` Q ~~ RCL 70-71-46 `~ CUP 4090 O~ ~~ RC CUP 3453(39) OLFRO~` ADJ 0170 R// __~U ~ ADP NO. 106 w~' pT~ON~ '1'F ADP 106 ~ Subject Property Date: January 12, 2004 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 132 REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A CHURCH WITHIN AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH WAIVER OF MINI'M'UM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. 2920 East White Star Avenue D 112a ITEM N0. 3 SPM SO g49A6 (11 RCl UP 1831 V PR 35\NESS KO\.~ENTEF RCL R RC KOI TPM N0.99-169 SP 94-1 RCL 70-71-07 (21) RCL fie-69.92 RCL 70.71-06 (1) TPM NO. 99-159 957 A SP 94-1 V R 9 RCL 70-71-07(21) SMALL IND. RCL 68-69-92 FIRMS ' RC 1 (1) 1 CUP 1 83 VAR 3167 1 SMALL INO. PM NO. 99-169 RC FIRMS 6p gq-1 ~ F RCL 70-71-47(21) ~ RC ~ RCL 66-69-92 (i) RC O ~_ CUP2 O6 Q `V ~ SP 94-1 ' '. CUP 2003-04811 SP 94-1 RCL 67-66-07 (Res of Infant to ML) RCL 70-71-46 69-70-56(2) 69-50-57 V-0236 IND. FIRM FREEWAY Staff Report to the Planning Commissidn March 8, 2004 ::Item No: 3 3a. r CEQANEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion) 3b. 'WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT !:(Motion) ,;; 3c. 'CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2003-04811 ' (Resolution) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This irregularly-shaped one-acre property has: a frontage of 233 feet on the southwesterly side of White Star Avenue, amaximum'depth of 233 feet, antl is located 725 feet southeast of the centerline of La Palma Avenue (2920 East White Star Avenue). REQUEST: (2) The;petitioner requests approval of'a Conditional Use Permit under authority of Code Section 18.110.050':050.0512 td'permit and retain abhurchwitnin an existing building with waiver of the following: ; SECTIONS 18.06.050.0266 and Minimum number of darking spaces 18Y10.050:110 166 required; 36 existing and proposed) BACKGROUND: ' (3) Subsequent to discussion with staff and the petitioner regarding off-street parking rela4ed to the church, the Planning Commission continued this requesffrom the< January 12, 2004, meeting for eight (8) weeks to allow the petitioner time to seek off- site'parking space agreements between the church"and adjacent property owners. ` (4) This property is developed as part of an industrial complex and is zoned SP94-1; DA 1 (Northeast Area SpecifiaPlan -Industrial Area). The Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element Map designates the site for General Industrialland uses and properties to the earth and east for General Commercial land uses and properties to the south and west for General Industrial land uses. PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS: (5) Tentative Parcel Map 99=123 (to establish an 8-numbered lot, 1-lettered lot industrial subdivision) was approved by the Planning Commission on June 21, 1999. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: (6) This. request is the resulf of a Code Enforcement investigation based on a request for service thatirevealed that the church was operating at the location without a conditional use permit. (7) Thepetitioner is requesting approval of a conditional use permit topermit and retain a`19,426 square foot church in an existing building within an industrial complex. (8) The floor plans (Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3) indicate a 5,376 square foot sanctuary/auditorium area, chapel, lobbyarea, children's ministry room,: classrooms, and storage areas: A 2,500. square footmevanine office space is usetl for administrative purposes for the church. (9) Vehicular access is provided via one driveway on Whita Star Avenue. Plans indicate a total of 36 existing on=site parking spaces for this property. Code requires 166 spaces based the following: Sr5082jr Page 1 Staff Report to the` Planning Commission March 8; 2004 Item No 3 tJse Square Code Parking Requirement Parking Feet " Re wired Sanctuary 5,376 29 spaces per t,000 square feefof assemblyarea or 0:333 156 (assembly) space per fixed seatwhichever is greater Office Area 2,500 s.f. `4 s aces er1,00p s ware feet 10' Accessory 1,1',550 s,f. N/A N/A 'Church Uses (multi-purpose rooms, classrooms .TOTAL ,.19,426 166= s 'aces Note: Code does notrequtre any parking for Uteaccesspry Sunday school classrooms'Accessorywses (e.g:) multi-purpose : room) do not requ(re additlonal parking provided such areas are not used concurrently with the sanctuaryC> (10) Photographs and staff inspections indicate the existing building is of concrete tilt-up 'construction, painted'white, with windows on the northwest and northeasfelevations: No exterior modifications' o the building or landscaping are proposed as part of this application. Staff observed five (5) buses/vans stored in a loading dock located at the site, as well as miscellaneous items (palettes basketball hoop). (11) The sign plans (Exhibit No. 4) and staff inspections indicate one existing 72 square-foot cut foam wall ign on the northwest elevation: No religious icons (crosses) are proposed to be placed on the building. No other signs areproposed'jn connection with this requesL'The Code allows wall signs to be a maximum of 10% of the building,face area;(18 feet x:120 feet = 2,160 (10%) = 216 square feet allowed by code). (12) The petitioner has submitted the attached letter of operation dated November 12, 2003, that indlcates one Sundayservice from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., and amid-week bible'study held on Wednesdays from 7:30 p.m. - 9:00 p,m. Additionally, the administrative offices operate Wednesday through Friday, from 9:30 a.m! to 4:00 pm., with a maximum'of two (2)'full time and two (2)' part-time'volunteer'staff. The congregation has approximately 150 members and `that withttte exception of accessory Suntlay schootactivities and bible study, no scfiool or `.daycare uses are proposed. Staff observetl five (5) tiuses/vans toyed in'a loading'dock located of the site. The petitioner has indicated these vehicles are used for teen/youth transportation for their Wednesday evening bible study. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (13) .Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available forYeview in i the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore, recommentls that a Negative Declaration tie approved upon a finding by the Planning 'Commission that the' Negativeil)eclaratiort reflects the independent judgment of the lead ;agency; and that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration togetherwith`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 asignificant effect on the environment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (14) The proposed project: has been reviewed by affected,City departments to determine`whether iti conforms with the City's Growth;Management Element adopted by the City Councifon March 17, 1992:' Based on City staff review of the proposed project, it has been determined that this: ''project does not fit within the scope necessary to require a Growth Management Element c'analysis; therefore; no analysis has beenpelfiormed. Page 2 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 8 2004 Item Na. 3 ` EVALUATION: (15) Churches are permitted within Development Area No. 1 of the Northeast Area Specific Plan subject to the approval'of a conditional usepermit. (16) The waiver pertains to minimum number of parking spaces. Code requires a minimum of 166 parking spaces for the church as described in paragraph no. (9) of this report: The petitioner has submitted!a parking analysis prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc.; dated August 27, 2003, to substantiate the requested parking waiver. The City Traffic and Transportation Manager has reviewed the parking'analysis and has determined that the proposed parking areas referenced in the parking study are not ufficienf for the church and existing industrial uses in the area. Basedon the parking study; the parking supplyprovided on site is 21:6% of the'code-required parking for the proposed! church. The parking: study also includes290 off- site!and 35 on-street parking spaces on adjacent properties and streets toward fulfilling the Code-required: parking for the church operation. Code does not permit on-street parking to be counted toward fulfilling Code-required parking for a given projecf;`and further, this parking is located within the public right-of-way and may be eliminated at any time as deemed necessary by the Traffic Engineering Division {No on-street parking is currently allowed along the west side of White Star Avenue). Additionally, parking areas located on' adjacenfproperties serve the'property and uses on which they are located. These businesses Iocated'on adjacent and surrounding properties can, by right, operate 24 hours per day, seven (7) days a week.r'At any time, depending on the level of business activity, a company maychange their hours of': operation or the numberof workers'they employ to meet their company's needs. Because these parking'areas on adjacent properties may not always be available, staff is not supportive of using these areas towards fulfilling Code-.required parking for the church. In order to utilize parking on nearby properties, each property would heed to be encumbered by a parking variance, Including parking study analysis of each on-site use. Such variances would limit the' usage on each of the properties to a point that may negatively affect the on-site business operations. The City Traffic and Transportation Manager. has reviewed this study andhas determined that the actualsupply of36 spaces'on the property is not adequate for the proposed church due to the number of adult congregants. Staff is concerned that available parking is not adequate to meet both the short-term and ong-term growth of the church. Therefore, staff recommends denial`of this waiver. (17) The Commission may wish to note hat this building is located within a recently constructed industrial subdivision (constructedin 2001),'in which all he buildings in the area were parked for industrial uses (1.55 spaces/1000 gfa), with the exception of the Anaheim. HockeyClub, which was parked for skating/rollerYinks (2.4; spaces/1000 gfa). The Commission may also wish to note that the traffic study conducted es part of the establishment of the industrial subdivision and the hockey club calculated the potentfal'trafficdernand based on industrial uses. Therefore, based on the recommendation of the: Traffic Engineering: Division,'staff recommends denial of this conditional use permit. (18) Although the Traffic and Transportation Manager does not support the parking waiver, the parking study does include the following findings in support of the waiver: "(a) ; That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for such use thanthe number of suchspaces 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 project would contain a sufficient upply of parking spaces to accommodate the churchby utilizing ort-site parking (36 spaces) and: agreed upon off-site parking (290 spaces). ' Page 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March t3 2004 Item No. 3 (b) Thatthe 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 theproposed use. The parking survey and the analysis for the project and atljoining buildings indicate that: sufficient off-street parking (shared parking agreements) is provided so that the adjacent public street parking would not be necessary. (c) Thafthe 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 study has determined that the tenants of the'adjacent private properties expressly provide agreement for the Way ofiife Church to utilize their parking spaces. Shared parking on the adjacent properties is'accommodated due to the fact that adjacent properties and the Way ofiife Church have different peak' hours of:parking demand. (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. The`project will not cause increased traffic congestion within off-street parking areas of the site because an efficient systembf accommodating'parking demand is used. The traffic director effectively: guides traffic to off-site parking spaces that sufficiently accommodatethe parking demand.i (e) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular ingress to orlegress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. The bff-street parking spaces provided do not.Impede vehicle ingress or egress from the'adjacentproperties or upon White Star Avenue adjacent to theyproject site." (19) As indicated in the attached memorandum from the Code Enforcement Division dated January 2,2004, this?application is the result of a citizen request. for service regarding a 'church operating without a cotditional use'permit within an existing industrial building. Although the request for service was received on April 21, 2003, the petitioner indicated to staff thatthe church has been atthis location for three (3) yearsi The Commission should `note thataithough a business license was jssued for the church on November 27, 2000, the Jicense does not authorize the bfiurch to operate without approval of a conditional use permit, `The church'was previously located at 5109 East La Palma Avenue (CUP 3595). (20) Since the January 12, 2004, Commission meeting,. staff has met with the petitioner and has provided property ownership information pertaining to'surrounding properties and an example of the proper form of agreement necessary to meet City r®quirements for off-site parking. Id he attached letter, dated February 18,2004, the petitioner indicates that they are in the process of securing the names and addresses for the owners of the surrounding properties. The petitioner has also indicated they are working with one of `their members to modify the subordination agreement for presentation and mailing to surrounding property owners: Commission should note that the petitioner has indicated'that approximately wenty (20) months (October, 2005) remain on their lease and as such, would'like to remain at this location' until the lease expires. :'Page 4 Staff Report to the Planning Commissioh March 8 2004 Item No: 3 FINDINGSc (21) Section 18.06.080 of the parking ordinance sets forth the following findings„which are required to be made before a parking waiver is approvetl by the: Commission: (a) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street parking: spaces to be provided for suchruse thah' he number' of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normali 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 upomadjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use; and (d); That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas orlots provided for suchuse; 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 or City Council, the granting ofany 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 study3hat formed the basis for approval of said waives Exceeding,; :violating, intensifying br otherwise deviating from any of said assumptions as contained in the parking demand study shall tie deemed. a violation of the express conditions imposed upon said waiver which shall subject said waiver to te~mination'or modfication pursuant to the provisions of Sections 18:03.091 and 18.03.092`of this Code. (22) Before the Commission grants any conditional use permit, it musfmake a finding of fact that the'evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: (a) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code, or that said use is hot listed thereirtas being a permitted use; (b) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining,land uses: and 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 proposed use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the;peace, health, safety, and general welfare;,; (d) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and Ftighways'designed and improved to carry he 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 peace, healtH; safety and genera( welfare8f the citizens of the City ofAnaheim. Page 5 Staff Report to thee: Planning Commission March 8 2004 Item No: 3 RECOMMENDATION: (23) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the hearing, antl based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented of the public hearing, 'the Commission take the following actions:.'. (a) By motion, aoorove the CEOA Negative Declaration. (b) By motion, deny he waiver pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based on the following: (1) That on-site parking would not be adequate to accommodate the number of members that may potentially attend Sunday services Yesulting in fewer off street parking spaces being"provided for such use than the'number ofspaces necessary tc accommodate all: vehicles attributable to such use under normal and foreseeable conditions of operation. (ii) That Code does not permit the counting of on-street parking towards fulfilling Code- required parking for a given project; moreover, this parking is located within the public right-of-way and. may be eliminated'at any time'as deemetl necessary by the Traffic Engineering Division (no'on-street parking is currently allowed along the west side of: W hite Star Avenue):; Additionally, parking areas located on adjacent properties serve the property and uses on which theyare located. These businesses'Jocated on'adjacenYand surrounding properties can, by right, operate 24 hours per day, seven (7) days: a week. At any time, depending on thejevel of business activity, a company may change their hours of operation or the number of workers they employ to meet their company's needs. Because hese parking areas on adjacent:;properties may not always be available, these areas should not be counted toward fulfilling Code-required parking for the church. Including these parking areas as part;of the Code-required`parking may create competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property. Further, some of the properties on 'the easterly;side of White Star Avenue are occupied by retail businesses that could operate on'Sundays. (iii) That the proposed timing of Sunday services may result in an overlap of church patron parking on and'around the property with adjacent businesses, thereby increasing the potential for traffic congestion on and around adjacent industrial/commercial properties'and streets. (c) By resolution, deny this request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04811 to permit and retain a church withinan existing building' based on the following: (i) That the potential parking impacts associated with the proposed church may 'adversely affect the adjoining industrial land uses within the area. (ii) That, based on the recommendation of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, off-street parking provided is not'adequate to supporfthe sizebf the church's congregation: (iii) That the granting of the conditional use permit underi the conditions imposed, would' be detrimental to the peace, health, safetyand general welfarebf the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Page 6 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March &, 2004 Item No. 3 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS ACTING AS AN INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE AND ARE RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE EVENT THAT THIS PERMIT IS APPROVED. 1. That the hours of operation for the church shall be limited to the following, as stipulated in the petitioner's letter. of operation`. Sunday,Services - 10:00 a.m. -12:06 p.m. Wednesday Service - 7:30 p.m. - 9:00. p.m. Office hours -Wednesday through Friday- 9:30 a`.m. to 4:00 p.m. 2 That the chapel shall not be utilized concurrently with the auditoriumlassembly area for church or other assembly services. 3. That the buses/vans utilized for church activities shall not be stored on-site. 4.' That there shall be no outdoor storage on site at any time. 5. That no portable signage shall be utilized to advertise the church. Further, that signage shall be limited to one (1) wall sign as hown on' Exhibit No. 3. Any additional signs shah be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Division. Anydecision bystaff maybe appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. 6. That no outdoor events shall be permitted. 7 That no;required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. 8. ' That the only accessory school activity shall be Sunday school and this facility shall not be used as a private daycare, nursery, elementary, junior and/or senior high school. 9. < That the granting of the parking waiver is contingent upon operation of the use in conformance with the assumptions and/orconclusions relating,to the operation and intensity of;use as contained in the parking demand study hat 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 to termination or modification pursuant to the provisions of Sections 18.03:091 and 18.03.092 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. j 10 That the property shall be permanentlymaintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time'ofoccurrence. 1 t: That a licensed architect and/or engineer shall analyze the existing building conditions and applicable codes for the proposed facility to ensure compliance with applicable Building and: Safety Code requirements (i:e, exitingYequirements, occupancy loatl) as required by the Building Division.: Permits for alterations shalt tie obtained from the Building Division. 12: That the property owner shad. be required to implement appropriate non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) (thesemay be found online at www:cabbmohantlbooks.com). The selected BMFs shall be implemented and maintained to minimize the introduction of pollutants to the stormwater tlrainage system. 13. That the on-site landscaping end irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. Page 7 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March; 2004 Item No 3 14. That 3-foot high`address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers sfiall not bebisible from the view. of the street or adjacent and nearby properties. 15. That the legal owner of subject property shall prepare an unsubordinated covenant provitling _ reciprocal parking for the properties in the immediate vicinity and as approved by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. `Consideration shalPonly be given to thosa'properties which satisfy their respective parking requirements for the use(s) on that particular property and which have a surplus of spaces to contribute towards the parking demand for the'church. Said covenant(s) snallbe reviewed and approved by the Traffic end Transportation Manager and Zoning Division and in a form satisfactory,to the City Attorney, hen recorded in the`Office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded covenant(s) shall be submitted to the Zoning Division.:' 16. Thatthe property owner shall file an`Emergency Listing Card; Form'APD-281;'with the Police Department, available et the Police Department front counter. 17. ThaYsubject property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and'which plans are on file with the Planning Departmenfmarked Exhibit Nos; 1, 2 and 3`and as conditioned herein. 18. That at all times when off-site parking is being utilized bythe church; parking attendants shall be employed to safely directbhurch patrons to available parking spaces. 19. That within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Fctensions for further time to complete said'conditions'may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Coded 20. That approval df this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent thatifcomplieswith the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Codeand 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, regulatipn or requirement. Page 8 ATTACHMENT - ITEM N0. 3 MIJMORANDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM Code Enforcement Division DATE: JANUARY 2, 2004 TO: JOHN RAMIREZ, ASSISTANT PLANNER FROM: MATTHEW D. LETTERIELLO, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ~ SUBJECT: NEW LIFE SOUND MIND MINISTRIES, INC. 2920 E. WHITE STAR AVE. ANAHEIM, CA CUP2003-04811 On Apri121, 2003, Code Enforcement staff received a citizen's request for service in regards to an industrial building occupied by a construction company and also being used for a church on Wednesday nights and weekends. There was also some electrical panel concerns. I was familiar with the location from prior contacts and was aware that Lewis & Sons Construction (roofing company) occupied the location. On April 28, 2003, I went to the location to inspect the property. I found the building locked. The interior was visible and was set-up as a lobby. A bookrack was visible and contained religious books. There were two large buses parked on the northwest side of the building that were identified at the roof line as," Way of Life Church." I reviewed Planning Department records and was uriable to locate a Conditional Use Permit for the church. There was a business license for a church. On May 2, 2003, I returned to the location to inspect the property and found there were three of the same type church buses on the northwest side of the building and several large roofing trucks were stored on the west side of the property. The building was locked and there was no response when I rang the bell. On May 9, 2003, a check of Business License records revealed the license for Lewis & Sons had expired. I sent a Notice of Violation to the Bedrosians, the property owners of record, Mr. Lewis, the construction business owner and Mr. Lagore, the church pastor. The notice advised them of the violations that existed on the property which included a need for a Conditional Use Permit, improper storage of the construction trucks and the expired business license for the construction company. The notice advised them to immediately correct them. On May 21, 2003, apre-file (pre-2003-00047) was submitted for the church and the comments were returned on June 19, 2003. A parking study was required. NEW LIFE SOUND MIND MINISTRIES, INC. 2920 E. WHITE STAR AVE. PAGE 2 OF 2 Between May 16 and August 5, 2003, I worked with Mr. Lewis in removing all of the construction trucks and equipment from the location. The construction activity ceased at this location. As of November 4, 2003, the application for the CUP had not been submitted. I sent a Final Notice of Violation to the Bedrosians and to Mr. Lagore and Bette Mueller (church representatives) that advised them of the violations existing on the property. On November I8, 2003, the application for CUP2003-04811 was submitted. If I can be of any further assistance or if you have any questions, please telephone me at extension 4446. h1DL ?9?0 a white smr ace memo