The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2004/05/17CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION AGEN®A MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim., California CALL TO ORDER ~` <:;~ PLANNING_.CC • rKtunniNpF~Y•PLAN~REVIEW'FOR.ITEINSC3N TEE tvTA i y _ RECESS TO AFTER~IObN PUBLIC HEAROOG SESSION ~ ~~`~, t t ~" iv z `- a ..A ~ ~~ RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARINC3 1 SO P.M. '~ -- Forrecord keepinPpurposes, if you wish to``make a `siafelrteni'Jegardingn complete a speaker card and suCflnrtdt to-tire"secretary: ~ . " PLEDGE OF ALLEGIA!`dCE ~~` < ~' ~ ~~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~"` PUBLIC COMMENTS ;° ~ t r ~~, ~° CONSENT CALENDAR ~ ~~; ,," ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ~ - ADJOURNMENT ROMERO, ON MORNING SESSION 11:QO,A ~MMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY .'~. ~ ~Y ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY .. :- I - i agenda, please ----------------------------------------------------------------------II g_la nn ingcom m ission(o~anaheim. net 05-17-04 Page 1 RECONVENE TO PUBLIC 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. CONSENT CALENDAR: Items 1-A through 1-E on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be rio separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. (a) CEQA EXEMPTIONSECTION 150611b)(3) GENERAL RULE (b) SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. 2 TO THE FESTIVAL SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-1 (TRACKING NO. SPN2004.00026) Donahue Schriber, Attn: Karen Finke, 8020 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA 92808, requests a specific plan adjustment tc amend the sign criteria contained in the Festival Specific Plan (SP90- 1) to allow additional wall signage for food court tenants on the entrance tower elements. Property is located at 8182 East Santa Ana Canyon Road (Anaheim Hills Festival Shopping Center). B. (a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 330 City Of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, request to receive and file Response to Comments document related to Environmental Impact Report No. 330, prepared in conjunction with the on-going General Plan2oning Code Update Program. Location: Citywide. C. Receiving and approving supplemental detailed Minutes for Item No. 6 from the Planning Commission Meeting of April 19, 2004, scheduled to be heard as a public hearing item before City Council on Tuesday, May 25, 2004. (Motion) ITEM NO. 6 • General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00419 • Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004-00029 • Reclassification No. 2004-00117 • Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (Tracking No. SPN2004-00023) • Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 to the Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1 (Tracking No. SPN2004-00024) Termination of Development Agreement No. 91-01 (Tracking No. DAG2004-00001) Project Planner: Amy Vazquez favazcuez(a~an aheim:net) sr8724av.doc Q. S. 207 Project Planner: Jonathan Borrego (i be rreao(o~a nahe im. net) sr1151jb.doc Citywide 05-17-04 Page 2 D. Receiving and approving supplemental detailed Minutes for Item No. 2 from the Planning Commission Meeting of April 5, 2004, scheduled to be heard as a public hearing item before City Council on Tuesday, May 25, 2004. (Motion) ITEM NO. 2 General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00417 o Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04831 o Reclassification No. 2004-00115 o Tentative Tract Map No. 16650 E. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of April 19, 2004. (Motion) OS-17-04 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS• 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2004-04837 OWNER: Paul Chiavatti, 1340 West Pearl Street, Suite A, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1310 West Pearl Street. Property is approximately 0.21-acre, having a frontage of 65 feet on the south side of Pearl Street, located 565 feet west of the centerline of Carleton Avenue. Request to permit a residential group care facility for up to twenty-four (24) residents recovering from chemical dependency. Continued from the April 5, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 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. Continued from the January 12, March 8 and April 19, 2004, Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO Project Planner: Elaine Yambao (evambac(o)anaheim netl sr3065(a)ey.doc Q.S. 62 Project Planner. John Ramirez lioramirez/c~anaheim netl sr5094jcdoc Q.S. 132 OS-17-04 Page 4 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004-00418 4c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2004-00116 4d. VARIANCE NO. 2004-04601 4e. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.2004-127 OWNER: Frank T. Minissale, 111 South Mohler Drive, Anaheim, CA 92808 AGENT: Duane Stout, 1316 Candlewood Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 111 Mohler Drive. Property is approximately 1.5 acres, located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Mohler Drive. General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00418 -Request to amend the Land Use Element Map of the General Pian redesignating the property from the Hillside Estate Density Residential designation to the .Hillside Low Density Residential designation. .Reclassification No. 2004-00116 -Request reclassification of the property from the RS-A-43,000 (SC) (Residential/Agricultural; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone to the RS-HS-22,000 (SC) (Residential, Single- Family -Hillside; Scenic Corridor Overlay) or a less intense zone. Variance No. 2004-04601 -Request waivers of: (a) minimum lot depth adjacent to a scenic expressway, and (b) minimum lot area to construct 3 detached single-family homes. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2004-127 -Request to establish a 3-lot, 3-unit detached single-family subdivision. Continued from the April 5 and April 19, 2004, Planning Commission Meetings. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. Project Planner: Chadty Wagner (cwag ner(olanahei m.n etl sr1150cw.doc Q.S. 202 05-17-04 Page 5 Sa. 5b. Sc. Essam Seif, 15 Tierra Vista, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 AGENT: Eric Hull, 701 North Parkcenter Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92705 LOCATION: 611 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 2.3 acres, located at the southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Orange Avenue Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04844 -Request to permit retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with a proposed pharmacy. Determination Of Public Convenience Or Necessity No. 2004-00015 - Request to determine public convenience or necessity for retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with a proposed pharmacy. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESITY RESOLUTION NO. 6a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 32 6b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18679 OWNER: Elisa Stipkovich, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: James Gillen, Huitt Zollars, 430 Exchange, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92805 LOCATION: 201 West Broadway. Property is approximately 0.93-acre, located at the nprthwest comer of Lemon Street and Broadway. Request to establish a 5-lot planned mixed-use residential/commercial development subdivision. Project Planner: John Ramirez (in ram rezCo)ana hei m. n et) sr5093jr.doc Q.S. 34 Project Planner: David See (dseena anaheim.net) s2154ds.doc Q:S. 83 05-17-04 Page 6 OWNERS: Spyridon Rados, 2401 Nicolas Drive, Fullerton, CA 92833 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. VARIANCE NO. 2004-04607 7c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16683 OWNER: Elisa Stipkovich, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Cheryl Stump, Brookfield Homes, 3090 Bristol Street, Suite 200, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: 3119 - 3165 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 2.5 acres, having a frontage of 753 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, located 285 feet east of the centerline of Western Avenue. VARIANCE N0.2004-04607 -Request to construct an "affordable", 1-lot, 28-unit, attached condominium complex with a density bonus with waivers of: (a) minimum front yard setback adjacent to an arterial highway, (b) minimum number, type, and design of off-street parking spaces, (c) maximum structural height within 150 feet of asingle-family residential zone, and (d) minimum distance between buildings. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16683 -Request to establish an "affordable" 1-lot, 28-unit, airspace attached residential condominium subdivision with a density bonus. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Sa. 8b. 8c. OCTA, Attn: Gina Gallagher, 550 South Main Street, P.O. Box 14184, Orange, CA 92683-1584 AGENT: Steve Morse, The Johnston Group, 26635 West Agoura Road #105, Calabasas, CA 91302 LOCATION: 888 S. Disneyland Drive. Property is approximately 3.13 acres, having a frontage of approximately 350 feet on the east side of Disneyland Drive, located approximately 780 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. Request to permit the modification of a legal non-conforming office building to add 4,335 square feet to the project site, expand and reconfigure the parking lot and provide for landscape improvements with waivers of: (a) layout and design of parking areas, (b) minimum interior landscaped setback, and (c) maximum number of wall signs. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Request for continuance to June 2, 2004 Project Planner: David See (dsee(alanah eim. net) sr2155ds.doc Q.S. 8 Project Planner: Della Herdck (dherdck a[7anaheim.net) sr8713dh.doc Q.S. 74 05-17-04 Page 7 OWNERS: Force: 888 Disneyland Drive, LCC, Attn: Phil Grat, 1545 Wilshire Boulevard #60Q Los Angeles, CA90017 9a. CECA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2004-04846 OWNER: Yu-Kuang Liang, 18275 Santa Joanna Circle, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 LOCATION: 1266 East Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.29-acre, having a frontage of 75 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, located 800 feet east of the centerline of East Street (Gutierrez Tire Shop). Request to permit and retain an existing fire sales and installation business. CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 11 10b. VARIANCE NO. 2004-04605 OWNER: William Warren Properties, 201 Wilshire Boulevard #102, Santa Monica, CA 92401 AGENT: Diana Mohler, 1540 Commerce Street, Suite G, Corona, CA 92880 LOCATION: 8180 East Old Canal Road. Property is approximately 2.1 acres, having a frontage of 376 feet on the south side of Old Canal Road, located south of the corner of Pullman Street and Old Canal Road. Request to permit two wall signs (for a total of three) on adjacent building elevations with waiver of maximum number of wall signs within the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. Project Planner: Amy Vazquez (avazguezCo anaheim.net) sr8731 av.doc Q.S. 93 Project Planner: Scott Koehm (skoeh m(alan ahe im. net) sr8730gk.doc Q.S. 212 05-17-04 Page 8 11a. CEQANEGATIVEDECLARATION 11 b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 11 c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04845 OWNER: Dang Tri Hinh, Vietnamese Evangelical Church, 2275 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Ansary Aboubakare, 2824 Surrey Way, Ontario, CA 91761 LOCATION: 220 East Palais Road. Property is approximately 1.5 acres, located at the southeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Palais Road. Request to establish a church within an existing industrial building with waiver of minimum number of parkjng spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Project Planner: Elaine Yambao (eva m bao(a)an ahe i m. net) sr3071ey.doc Q.S. 96 ADJOURN TO WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 2004 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. 05-17-04 Page 9 CERTIFICATIOM OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: y: o o a..,•. • 7YL~ I y 1 2 o a `-f (TIME) ( TE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: ~~-°X`-~ ~~^^~-~~ If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. 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 Clerk 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 48 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. OS-17-04 Page 10 SCFIEl1LE 2004 JUNE 2 (WED) JUNE 14 JUNE 28 JULY 12 JULY 26 AUGUST 9 AUGUST 23 SEPTEMBER 8 (WED) SEPTEMBER 20 OCTOBER 4 OCTOBER 18 NOVEMBER1 NOVEMBER 15 NOVEMBER 29 DECEMBER 13 DECEMBER 27 05-17-04 Page 11 ITEM N0. 1-A FREEWAY RIVERSIDE ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE (SC) (SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE Specific Plan Adjustment No. 2 (SP 90-1) ~ ~ Subject Property TRACKING NO. SPN2004-00026 Date: May 17, 2004 Scale: Graphic Requested By: KAREN FINKE Q.S. No. 207 :REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT TO AMEND THE SIGN CRITERIA CONTAINED IN THE FESTIVAL SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 90-01) TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNAGE FOR FOOD COURT TENANTS ON THE ENTRANCE TOWER ELEMENTS. 8182 East Santa Ana Canyon Road -Anaheim Hills Festival Shopping Center 1312(20045-11) ATTACHMENT - R&R 1-A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. 2 Tp THE ANAHEIM HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-1, AMENDING ORDINANCE N0.5109, AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED, AND AMENDING SUBSECTION .080 OF SECTION 18.74.080 OF 18.74 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.93 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Anaheim adopted Ordinance No. 5110 amending the zoning map to reclassify certain real property described therein into the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan No. 90-1 Zone subject to certain conditions as specified therein, and Ordinance No. 5109 relating to establishment of zoning and development standazds for the Specific Plan 90-1 by the addition of Chapter 18.78 to said Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.93 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Anaheim adopted its Resolution No. 90R-86 approving the Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan No. 90-1 and Resolution No. 90R-87 approving Zoning and Development Standards with conditions of approval for Specific Plan No. 90-1; and WHEREAS, in connection with adoption of Specific Plan No. 90-1 (Anaheim Hills Festival), the City Council certified Supplemental EIR No. 300 and adopted the corresponding Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment C of Resolution No. 90R-86; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 1992 the City Council amended Specific Plan No. 90-I by approving Resolution No. 92R-160 (amending Resolution Nos. 90R-86 and Resolution No. 90R-87) and adopting Ordinance No. 5324 (amending Ordinance No 5110) amending conditions of approval of the Specific Plan and the Zoning and Development Standazds relating thereto ("Amendment No. 1 "); and WHEREAS, on July 22, 1997 the City Council amended Specific Plan No. 90-1 by approving Resolution No. 97R-41 (amending Resolution Nos. 90R-86 and Resolution No. 90R-87) and adopting Ordinance No. 5603 (amending Ordinance No. 5110) amending conditions of approval of the Specific Plan and the Zoning and Development Standazds relating thereto ("Amendment No. 2"); and WHEREAS, on August 18, 1998, the City Council amended Specific Plan No. 90-1 by approving Resolution No. 98R-164 (amending Resolution Nos.. 90R-86 and Resolution No. 90R-87 and adopting Ordinance No. 5645 (amending Ordinance No. 5109) to permit senior citizen apartments in Development Area 4 and amending the Zoning and Development Standards relating thereto ("Amendment No. 3"); and WHEREAS, on August 24, 1999, the City Council amended Specific Plan No. 90-1 by and adopting Ordinance No. 5697 (amending Ordinance No. 5109) amending conditions of approval of the Specific Plan and the Zoning and Development Standazds relating thereto -- ("Adjustment No. 1 "); and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2002, the City Council amended Specific Plan No. 90-1 by approving Resolution No. 2002R-39 (amending Resolution Nos.. 90R-86 and Resolution No. 90R-87 and adopting Ordinance No. 5806 (amending Ordinance No. 5109) amending conditions of approval of the Specific Plan and the Zoning and Development Standards relating thereto ("Amendment No. 4"); and WHEREAS, the proposed adjustment requests the addition of tower element signage for identification within the regional shopping center to assist patrons in locating food uses, which signage is not visible to the public right of way ("Adjustment No. 2"); and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2004, the Anaheim City Planning Commission considered and approved the proposed Adjustment No. 2 and recommended to the City Council that it adopt an ordinance incorporating said proposed adjustment; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City Council has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the CEQA under CEQA guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3), which provides that where it can be seen in certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES ORDAIN that Ordinance No. 5109, as previously amended, be, .and the same is hereby, amended to revise the zoning and development standards in Chapter 18.74 of the Anaheim Municipal Code as set forth in Section 1 as follows: SECTION 1 . That subsection .080 of Section 18.74.040 of Chapter 18.74 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: ".080 Sign Regulations. The Standazds of the City of Anaheim's Municipal Code Chapter ] 8/05 shall be replaced in total by the following sections: (a) Purpose and Intent. The intent of The Festival sign regulations is to provide the Standazds necessary to achieve a visually coordinated, balanced and attractive sign environment for The Festival. The specifications within this section are intended to help achieve visual identification and unity for the uses. 2 Each sign shall be designated, constructed and installed in accordance with these regulations, prior to tenant opening for business in the center. Compliance with these sign regulations shall be strictly enforced by the landlord. Any nonconforming pr illegally installed signs shall be removed by the tenant or his/her sign contractor at their expense. (b) Definitions. Animated Signs: Signs designated to attract attention through movement or the semblance of movement of the whole or any part including, but not limited to, signs. 2. Banner Signs: Any sign made of fabric, paper or other lightweight material, whether or not it is enclosed by a rigid frame, attached to any exterior wall or portion of a building or other structure. Building Frontage: The lineaz length of a building directly facing a public street, alley, pazking azea or pedestrian walkway, which contains a public entrance, not including bay windows or other ornamental trim. Canopy or Cantilever Signs: Any sign placed on, or supported entirely by, a rigid shelter or other structure projecting out from any exterior wall or portion of a building or other structure. 5. Directional Signs: Signs which contain any of the following words: "entrance," "enter," "out," "one-way," or words which contain non-flashing arrows or other characters indicating traffic direction. and which do not contain advertising matter. 6. Monument Signs: Any freestanding sign connected to the ground with a base designed to be architecturally compatible with The Festival and advertising The Festival and/or retailer located in The Festival. Projecting Signs: Signs other than Wall Signs (as defined below in 18.74.040.080(b)15.)tyhich aze suspended from, or supported by, a building or wall and which project. 8. Roof Signs: Signs erected, constructed and maintained upon, or connected to, the roof of any building.. 9. Shopping Center Identification Signs: Freestanding signs which advise or direct attention to The Festival or to an area having three (3) or more .separate businesses located on a single parcel or lot. 10. Sign Area: That azea encompassing the sign lettering. 1 I. Sign Height: Maximum vertical dimension of a sign or sign structure measured from the grade directly below that point. 12. Sign Width: Maximum horizontal dimension of a sign or sign structure. 13. Temporary Signs: Signs erected for a temporary purpose, (such as announcing a proposed use or indicating "for sale" or "for lease"), and not to exceed a period of six (6) months, including pennants, valances, or advertising displays constructed of wood, metal, fiberglass or plastic. 14. Under-Canopy Signs: Unlighted or luminous signs attached to the underside of a projecting canopy perpendiculaz to the Building Frontage. 15. Wall Signs: Signs which are in any manner affixed to any exterior wall of a building or structure, the exposed face of which is in a plane parallel to the plane of the wall and which projects not more than twelve (12) inches from the building or structure wall. 16. Window Signs: Signs painted, attached, glued or otherwise affixed to the interior of a window or otherwise easily visible from the exterior of the building. Such .signs may be temporary or permanent (painted). (c) Prohibited Signs. 1. Animated Signs, flashing, audible and intermittent signs. 2. Projecting Signs which project into the public right-of--way. 3. Portable signs. 4. Mechanical movement. 5. Projecting Signs that project above a pazapet or the highest point of a roof. 6. Vehicle-mounted signs. 7. Painted Wall Signs -other than building addresses. 8. Roof Signs. 4 9. Exposed lamps. 10. Signs that by color, wording, design, location, or illumination resemble or conflict with any traffic control device or impede safe and efficient flow of traffic - 11. Signs that create a safety hazazd by obstructing the clear view of pedestrian and/or vehiculaz traffic. 12. Balloons and seazchlights. (d) Permitted Signs: Shopping Center Identification Sign. Sign locations aze shown on Exhibit No. 16, Monumentation and Signage Plan, to the Specific Plan. This Exhibit shows primary Signage only. Additional signs as specified by this section will also be permitted. Three Shopping Center Monument Identification Signs shall be permitted for The Festival. The maximum Sign Height and Sign Area shall be six (6) feet from grade and one hundred twenty (120) square feet, respectively, for a sign designed into a wallscape. The maximum Sign Width shall be twenty (20) feet. Such signs shall be located in compliance with the City of Anaheim line of sight requirements. 2. Major Tenant Identification Signs. (a) Two Monument Signs shall be permitted on Santa Ana Canyon Road. The maximum Sign Height of the Monument Signs shall be twenty (20) feet with a maximum Sign Width often (10) feet. Up to five tenant names maybe located on each sign and the maximum Sign Area shall be one hundred fifty (150) squaze feet. The sign letters shall have a maximum letter height of twenty-four (24) inches. (b) One low Monument Sign shall be permitted. The maximum Sign Height and Sign Area of the low Monument Sign shall be six (6) feet and one hundred twenty (120) squaze feet, respectively. The low Monument Sign shall be designed into a wall scape. The maximum Sign Width shall be twenty feet. Up to four tenant names maybe located on the low Monument Sign (which is to be located at the intersection of Roosevelt Road and Festival Drive). Major Retailer Identification. Permitted signs and requirements: (a) A primary Wall Sign is permitted on store fascia and/or rear elevations (only for the upper level retailers in excess of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in Development Area 2) for each major retailer (a tenant who leases in excess of fifteen thousand (15,000) squaze feet) provided; however, that there shall be a maximum of two primary Wall Signs per retailer. The Sign Area of the primary Wall Sign shall be a maximum of one hundred sixty (160) square feet, and it shall have a maximum Sign Height of six (6) feet and a maximum Sign Width of forty (40) feet. The sign letters shall have a maximum letter height of seventy-two (72) inches and total thirty (30) feet in length. (b) One secondary Wal] Sign shall be permitted on any wall facing The Festival or a street. The sign Area shall not exceed one-half (%) the size of the primary sign. The sign letters shall be a maximum letter height of thirty-six (36) inches and total thirty (30) feet in length. 4. In-Line Shop Buildings. (a) One primary Wall Sign per store shall be permitted with the maximum letter height of thirty (30) inches. If two rows of letters are required, the maximum letter height shall be twelve (12) inches per row with the total height not to exceed thirty (30) inches. In no case shall the primary Sign Width be greater than thirty (30) feet nor the total Sign Area exceed twenty percent (20%) of the storefront footage. In addition to the foregoing, a maximum of three (3) in-line tenant secondary wall signs per building shall be permitted for buildings rearing onto Santa Ana Canyon Road, subject to the foregoing maximum letter height requirements, and subject to the following additional requirements: (1) In no case shall the secondary Wall Sign be greater than fifteen (15) squaze feet. (2) Each sign shall be limited to the same sign language and logo as displayed on the primary sign. Logos shall be included in calculating the total sign azea. (3) Signs shall be in conformance with Attachment Nos. 1 through 3 to the Zoning and Development Standards set forth in the Specific Plan. (4) The location of the secondary Wall Sign shall be limited to the area above the azchitectural archways as shown in Attachment No. 3 to the Zoning and Development Standards (excluding the tower elements). Both the primary and secondary signs shall be channel letters, flush mounted with no exposed raceways and consistent in design, color, illumination and text. (b) For retail stores located on a corner, one secondary Wall Sign shall be permitted on the side of each store. The Sign Area shall not exceed one-half (%) the size of the primary sign. (c) One Under-Canopy Sign per tenant not to exceed eighteen (18) squaze feet in Sign Area shall also be permitted per store. (d) Each of the two (2) tower elements within the food court may contain a maximum of two (2) secondary wall signs advertising food court tenants. The Sign Area shall not exceed one-half (1/2) the size of the tenant's primary sign. 5. Theater Mazquee. Permitted signs and requirements. (a) Two vertical wall signs. One sign shall be located over the theater's main entrance and total no more than one hundred sixty (160) squaze feet in Sign Area. The Sign Width shall not exceed forty (40) feet and the Sign Height shall not exceed six (6) feet. The second sign shall be located at the northwest comer of the western building elevation and shall not exceed ninety (90) squaze feet. The Sign Width shall not exceed five (5) feet. In addition, three (3) minimum twenty-four-inch (24) box Eucalyptus trees shall be planted along the westem property line to screen this sign from the adjacent residential properties. (b) One theater marquee sign. The sign shall be located at the intersection of Festival Drive and Santa Ana Canyon Road and total no more than one hundred sixty (160) square feet in Sign Area. The Sign Height shall not exceed (20) feet and the Sien Width shall not exceed ten (10) feet. y (c) Eight (8) poster boxes shall be permitted on the front of the theater not to exceed four {4) feet by six (6) feet. 6. Freestanding Pad Buildings. The following aze permitted signs and requirements for a pad with one tenant or multi-tenant (for example a freestanding restaurant or bank on a pad): (a) Each single tenant building shall be permitted one primary Wall Sign of a maximum letter height of thirty-six (36) inches. In the event that two rows of letters aze required, the maximum letter height shall be eighteen (18) inches per row. For multi-tenant buildings, one primary sign on the building face and one primary sign on any corner elevation visible from the pazking azea or adjacent roadways shall be permitted. In no case shall the Sign Width be greater than thirty (30) feet or the Sign Area exceed twenty percent (20%) of the storefront squaze footage. {b) One secondary Wall Sign shall be permitted on one elevation not containing the primary sign and one Monument Sign shall also be permitted. The secondary Wall Sign shall be one-half the size of the primary sign and not be located on the elevation fronting the Monument Sign location. If the business owner so desires, he/she may have two secondary Wall Signs in lieu of the Monument Sign. The Sign Height of the Monument Sign shall be a maximum of six (6) feet, the Sign Width shall be a maximum of eight (8) feet and the Sign Area shall be a maximum of forty-eight (48) square feet. 7. Banner Signs. Each tenant shall be permitted one Banner Sign issued under the City's special events permit requirements. The Banner Sign's Sign Area shall be a maximum of fifty (50) squaze feet. 8. Window Signs. The Sign Area of each Window Sign shall not exceed more than twenty percent (20%) of that window in which it is placed. All temporary Window Signs may remain for a period no longer than thirty (30) days within a one (1) yeaz period. 9. Temporary Signs. Temporary Signs shall not exceed a Sign Height of twelve (12) feet, a Sign Width often (] 0) feet, nor a Sign Area of one hundred (100) square feet. 10. Sign Lighting. On-premise advertising signs and center identification signs shall be illuminated only between the hours of 630 a.m. to midnight, except that the sign containing the supermarket logo may be illuminated during the operating hours of the supermarket; and illumination of on-premise tenant advertising shall be limited to business hours, plus one hour before opening time and one hour after closing time for each use. 11. Directional Sign. Directional Signs shall be permitted as needed to direct traffic to storefronts, entrances and service and loading areas. The Sign Area of each Directional Sign shall not exceed six (6) squaze feet and the Sign Height shall not exceed six (6) feet." SECTION 2. That except as expressly amended herein, Ordinance No. 5109, as previously amended, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should any section, pazagraph, sentence of word of this ordinance of the Code, hereby adopted, be declazed for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the Council that it would have passed all other portions of this ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom of any such portion as may be declared invalid. SECTION 4. SAVINGS CLAUSE Neither adoption of this ordinance nor the repeal of any other ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations and ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any license or penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. The provisions of this ordinance, insofaz as they aze substantially the same as ordinance provisions previously adopted by the City relating to the same subject matter, shall be construed as restatement and continuations, and not as new enactments. - SECTION 5. PENALTY It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this ordinance. Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this ordinance or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollazs ($1,000) or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person, firm or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each day during any portion of which any violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance is committed, and shall be punishable therefore as provided for in this ordinance. 9 THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Anaheim held on the day of , 2004, and thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of ;- 2004, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY OF ANAHEIM By MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM 53868.Ilsmann 10 ITEM N0. 2 ~ ~ ~ m m Rs-1 D,D6D RS-10,000 ~ 1y 1716 VP O 1 DU EACH 00 1 DU EACH ~ ' Lyl RS-~ 0 ,.. l1 RS-10,000 ~ ~ VAR 3848 ~ iDU ~ RS-10;000 VAR 2003-04662 Rs-1B,DBB /L RDU EASH O ~ t DU VAR 1766 ~ 1 DU RS-10,000 aIRCHMONT DRIVE VAR 1766 RM-2400 ~ m= i DU RCL 68-fi9-87 RS-10 ,000 RS-10,000 V ¢0 1 DU EACH I DU EACH i DU EACH D. RM-2400 w RM-2400 ^ 0 0 0 o I >> w z W 2 D RM-1200 RM-1200 1 DU > 1 DU ~ 1 DU o o ~`+ ~ ~ $ w ~ RM-2 RCL 69-70-01 TTM 10669 p ' Du ~ m 2 RCL 63-64-30 - 4 0 < ... VAR 2662 S CUP 2004-04837 0 PEARL STREET CUP 470 C 15 DU ,~ s5 ~® sss' VAR 3082 (RCL 59-60-59) ~ ~ ~ I i (CUP 367) - q ^ 1 DU EACH ^ 1 DU EACH RC APARTMENTS Q ry ~ I i ~ pU ~o I ~ ¢fO ~ RM-2400 Q RM-1200 O 1 DU RM-1200 RCL s3-64-30 RM-1200 ~ RGL 74-76-32 j CUP 470 I I I VAR 2700 -~ VAR 3082 1 DU EACH o APTS. APTS. ~ 1 DU NTS APA 9 DU 14 DU I /. 77 DU W 40 DU v U G / ~S,S a DIAMOND ST / ~ ~ CL q/~ RCL 63-64-30 ~ RM-1260 0 ~ r RM ~ti ww I (r~ S CUP 470 VAR 3636 APARTMENTS APTS. ~ eDU < k ~ ^ q ~T VAR 3062 o v c 1BDU <m '9 VAR 1747 5 '9jL VACANT c o cw x a .9 ~.Cl - ` o laaa2l ¢ a ~ SMALL SHOPS V ~~g op9 S F ~ ~ I I 1 1 1 vnc.l I I I I ~'L,9~ RcL 97-Bas CUP 3969 LINCO LN AVENUE -te r Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04837 ~'t ~ Subject Property Date: April 5, 2004 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: PAUL CHIAVATTI Q.S. No. 62 REQUEST TO PERMIT A RESIDENTIAL GROUP CARE FACILITY FOR UP TO 24 RESIDENTS RECOVERING FROM CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY. 131D West Pearl Street lzso Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17;2004 Item No, 2 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 (Motion) 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0: 2004"04837 (Resolution) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This rectangularly-shaped 0.21-acre property has a frontage of 65 feet on the south side of Pearl Street, a maximum depth of 145 feet'and is located 565 feet west of the centerline of Carleton Avenue (137Q West Pearl Street -Expedition House). REQUEST: (2) The petitioner requests approval of a conditional use permit to permit a residential group care facility for up to twenty-four'(24) residents recovering from ohemical dependency under authority of Code Section'18.04.160'030. ::BACKGROUND: (3) This item was continued from the April 5 2004, Commission: meeting so that the petitloner and staff could meettwith residents to address crime and safety concerns expressed at the public hearing and to obtain crime statistics for this neighborhood from the Police Department. (4) This property is currently developed with afour-unit apartment building and is currently operated legally as a sober living home. The properiy,is zoned RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) and the GeneralPlan Land!Use Element Map designates this property, and all surrounding properties, for Low-Medium: Density Residential land uses. PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS: ' (5) The following zoning actions pertain to this property: (a} Variance`No. 3082and Tentative Tract Map No. 10669 (waiver of minimum lot width to '' constructs 10-lot, 40-unit, RM-1200 apartment subdivision and a 3-IotCL subdivision on 3.9 acres) was approved by the Planning Commission in 1979. (b)' Variance' No. 470 (To erect buildings formarriage, family and: general counseling, meditation chapel and weddings on 4 acres) was approved by the Planning Commission in 1955. A letter from the property owner, requesting the termination of his unused entitlement, was submitted tdsthe Zoning: Division oh March'24, 2004. PROPOSAL: (6) The applicant requests approval to permit a residential care facility with on-site counseling services. A residential or group care facility is defined in the Zoning Codeas a building or portion thereof designed or used far the purpose of providing 24-hour perday residential living accommodations in exchange for the paymentbf money or other consideration; where the duration of tenancy is determined, in whole or in part,: by the individual resident's 'participation in grougor individual activities such as counseling, recoveryplanning, or medical ortherapeutic assistance. A residential care: facility for`seven or:more residents is a permitted use in all residential'zones subject to the approvaiof a conditional use permit. Sr3065(a)ey.doc Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17, 2004 Item No. 2 landscaped etback is'well maintained with;groundcover, mature evergreen and palm trees and shrubs_ (10) The letter of operation states that the facility would provide 24-hour care for up to 24 men ~ecovering,from alcohol/chemical dependency. The letter states hat counseling services would be available only to tenants residingat the facility and that nc visitors would be' permitted or the premises. The facility would be staffed with anon-site manager with a maximum of three counselors on-site at any one time: Residents would not be permitted to `dr'ive or leave the premises unless escorted by facility, staff and would be subject to regular 'drug testing: Lastly, the Commission should note that this facility would tie licensed by the CaliforniaDepartmentofAlcohol and Drug'Programs! ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (11) The Planning Director's authorized representative has determined thatthe`proposed project .falls within'the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing: Facilities),!as defined: in the State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt fromthe requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (12) The proposed project has been reviewed by affected City departments to determine whether iYconforms with the City's Growtft Management Element adoptediby the City £ouncil on'March 17,.:1992. Based on City?staff review of the proposed project, it has been determined hat this project does not fit within the scope necessary to require a Growth Management Elementanalysis therefore, no analysis: has been performed. EVALUATION: (13) Residential or group care facilities with seven or more residentstare permitted in all residential zones sutiject to the'approval of'a conditional use permit. (14) This property is currently operated as a sober living facility and is certified by a voluntary program administered. by the County. The'Anaheim Municipal' Code does'not require a conditional use permit for a sober living facility and licensing is voluntary, p sober living facility is defined by the Orange County Sheriff's Department as A facility offering am' `alcohol and drug free: residence. for unrelated adults wfio are recovering from alcohol or drug addictions, these.. facilities may also 6e known as transitional living environments where no drug or alcohol treatment services are provided on site. The Department of Alcohol Drug Programs does not license such a facility to offer residential treatment for 'drug or alcohol abuse oraddiction. The request to provide on-site counseling services alters the use of the property from a residential apartment use (sober living facility) to a residential group care facilrty. Residential group care facilities (defined above in paragraph no. 6) with'sevem or more residents are permitted in all residential zones subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Residential Alcohol and Drug Treatment Facilities also `require a State license from therDepartmert of Alcohol and Drug Programs. j (15) The applicant requests to provide on-site counseling for persons residing at the facility. `According to the applicant, all residents are screened' and referred by a California State or :Orange County Agency. The majority of participants would be adult men with alcohol. :Page 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17, 2004 Item No. 2 '; problems and would be screened by the appropriate State and/or County agencies. The facility would be non-medical and would provide both group: and individual counseling from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, with a maximum of hree counselors. In'general, treatment would be completed within thirty days; however, tenants may reside at the home for a shorter period of time, move to a separate sober living environment pr move in with family members. £ounseling would only be for participants residing atthe facility] further, residents would be subject to regular drug testing'and would not be permitted to'tlrive. It should also be noted that the existing apartment building would not be',expanded' or modified as part of this request and would not be'recognizable as a residential care facility. (16j Based on direction from the Commission, staff coordinated a meeting between the applicant and concerned residents to address issues expressed during the public hearing. This meeting was held in City Hall on RAay 4,,2004, and was attended by Zoning'. Division staff, Police Department- Vice Detail staff, the petitioner (with two i staff members) and four neighborhood residents. Specific concerns that were identified by residents at the public hearing included parking problems, criminal + activity, residents loitering n front of the building, and the concentration of similar facilities in the neighborhood. The foflowing'items were addressed: • Staff clarifiedthat sober living facilities, such as that which currently exists on the property,'are permitted withou4 any formal regulation based on the fact that no treatment`s provided and that the residents are simply living together as a "family." Once treatment is provided to a facility with seven or more residents, a conditional use permit'and a license through the State of California Drug and Alcohol Programs are required. i ' + The: petitioner described the changes in operation that would occur if the Conditional Use Permit were approved. As described in paragraph no. 15, the patitioner explained that residents would not be permitted to drive, maintain vehicles at the facility or leave the premises unattended. The number of residents would be reduced from 32 40 24and a manager would be on duty at all times. The petitioner further explained that while a resident may attend off-site training courses, transportation would be'provided'by the facility. • Residents questioned the frequency and type of drug testing in the sober living ' hpme, as well as the testing procedures for the proposed treatment facility. As a sober living facility, records of drug testing are not maintained. As a treatment ' ~ facility, the results of scheduledand random drug testing, would be documented:. • Residents expressed concerns with tenants loitering in front of the sober living home. The applicant requested that he immediately be contacted directly with any'concerns o that he may, in-the future, remedy the problem. He stated that ? he was unaware of issues that residents may have had with his existing facility and's very willing to work in cooperation with the community: It was'suggested that`interested neighborhood residents should meet with the managers of his facilities on a'quarterly basis in an effort to be proactive in addressing community concerns. + Residents were concerned withthe concentration of facilities'in their neighborhood. Typically, minimum distance requirements between group homes i Page 4 Staff Report to the Planning Commission .May 17, 2004 item No. 2 would be established and regulated by the associated State agencies. For;.; example, care facilities forthe mentally disabled must maintain a minimum distance of 300 feet between facilities and large family day care facilities must ' maintain a minimum distance of 600 feet between facilities. The California' Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs does not have separation requirements for Residential Alcohol and Drug Treatment Facilities. (17) The Policebepartment - Vicebetail, has submitted the attached memorandum detailing the calls for service to the subject property within"the past year. Drug- related calls for service and the addresses at which they originated are also detailed. One drug/alcohol-related call was identified at 1300 West Pearl StreeYon December 16, 2003. (18) Due to citizen concern with the concentration of drug treatment facilities in the area, Staff contacted the State of Galifornia Alcohol and Drug Programs to'obtain a list of licensed Residential Drug and Alcohol TreatmentFacilities'in the City of Anaheim. Information provided to staff did not include sober living facilities as'they are riot licensed or tracked by the State or any local agency. The following map shows the locations and addresses of four (4) licensed facilities in 4he immediate area. fir, r ~'a,,~ ~ ~ r ~~ ~ ~~ , .' ~ ~~ 1 s c ~ ~~^`~`G„Y ~` ~P yv ~ >gu ` ~~ H. ~ s£ z¢~s, ~ ,. ~a~ .af-s :: ~~ h ~ ,~,.~, ~, ~-~ ~, ~ v ~' ~` `~. .PEARL 5T~ ~y ~ ° ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ s~~~ ~~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ w a3 ~" ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~' . } N +;j~ i 1 rte` ~~r, ~ ~ M ~"^ +~"~ "!4z,",~ ~ ~, °~ ~ ~ 5 n~ r a ~` ~ 4 r,, ,r;:: ~ r ~%~~va}~s.~~~,~.~ci `,i 01AMOND~ST'~{ ~~ ': s S ~« "` ~ ~`~~-r~~ 9„ ~e ~`~ ~, ~ -ate, i ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~- t ~ ~° ~ ~ x~ ~ ~ ,~ `~^~ - ~ WILSHIRE'AVE ~~ ~ ~ h,~. ~ x r .,~ r, ~~~~,~" >.~, 1. 1310 West Pearl -Subject Property= Unit A was recentlylicensed for up to 6 residents. 2. 1330 West Pearl -Licensed Facility for up to 6 residents (does not require a Conditional Use Permit);`: Page 5 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17 2004 Item No. 2 3. 1300 West Pearl -Licensed Facility for up to 24 residents (as approved by CUP2003- 04789) 4. 1321 West Diamond -Licensed FaciOtyfor up to 6 residents (does not require a Conditional'Use Permit) (19) Staff has received numerous email messages from Michael and Diane Summers - detailing drug and theft occurrences`writhin their building. In addition to text, these messages included photos and video clips. They requested thafthe messages be forwarded to the Commission for consideration. The text portion of the messages are included in the Commissioners' packets. (20) Based on the outcome of the May 4u''meeting, staff feels'that the majority of the citizens' concerns could be addressed by theipetitioner. The neighborhood residents have a greater awareness'of the operational characteristics of the proposed treatment facility versus the existing'sober living home.' Therefore, staff i continues to recommend aoaroval of this request to use'an existing apartment building as a residential care facilityfor up to 24 residents. Staff has included conditions of approval to address resident concerns pertaining to"loitering and drug testing.' .FINDINGS: (21) Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make`s 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 not listed 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; (c) That the size and shape of the site far 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 ah undue burden ;upon the streets and. fiighways;designed and improved to carry the trafficin the area; and (e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be'detrimental o the peace, health,!safety antl general welfare of the citizens of the City of;Anaheim. Page 6 Staff Report to the Planning'Commission May 17,'2004 Item No 2 RECOMMENDATION: (22) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary ihformation is received during the meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission'approve the petitioner's request by adopting the attached resolutiorf, including: the findings and conditions therein: ' Page 7 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2004--` A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2004-04837 BE GRANTED (1310 WEST PEARL STREET) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as: LOT 2 OF TRACT 10669 IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 459, PAGES 46 AND 47 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on April 5, 2004, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and that said public hearing was continued to the May 17, 2004 Planning Commission meeting; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of ali evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.04.160.030 to permit a residential group care facility for up to twenty- four (24) residents recovering from chemical dependency. 2. That a residential or group care facility with 7 or more residents is a conditionally permitted use in the RM-1200 Zone. 3. That the proposed residential care facility would provide acost-effective, humane and non- institutional environment for persons recovering from drug and/or alcohol addiction and as conditioned herein, would not adversely affect adjoining land uses. 4. That the size and shape of the property is adequate to allow the proposed residential care facility without being detrimental to surrounding land uses; and that no expansion or physical changes to the property are proposed that would indicate the use of the apartment building as a recovery facility. 5. That the traffic generated by the residential care facility would not pose an undue burden upon streets and highways designed to carry the traffic in the area; and residents would not be permitted to drive or have visitors and therefore, no parking or traffic impacts would occur. 6. That granting this conditional use permit to allow a residential care facility, under the conditions imposed, would not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and That "°° indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal; CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL CtUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Director or her authorized representative'has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Cr\PC2004-0 -1- PC2004- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the ......:........ safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: 1. That all services, including counseling, shall be for the residents at this address (1310 West Pearl Street) only. 2. That the petitioner shall provide atwenty-four (24) hour per day, on-site manager who will be responsible for responding to any neighborhood concerns regarding the facility. That the name and telephone number of the on-site manager shall be submitted to the Code Enforcement Division of the Planning Department to be kept on file. 3. That plans shall be submitted to the Building Division showing that the project complies with ali requirements of an "R-6.2" occupancy. 4. That the trash storage areas shall be maintained in a manner satisfactory to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. 5. That the petitioner shall furnish to the Zoning Division a copy of the license, with any attached conditions, issued by the State of California Department of Alcohol .and Drug Programs., authorizing this use as a residential recovery facility. 6. That no signs shall be visible off-site identifying this use as a residential care facility; further, the use shall not be recognizable from off-site as a residential care facility. 7. That this facility shall be limited to 24 men recovering from alcohol/chemical dependency, screened for successful integration into a residential setting and as stipulated by the petitioner, no visitors shall be permitted nor shall residents be permitted to drive or maintain a personal vehicle on the premises. The facility shall be non-medical and shall be permitted to provide both group and individual counseling from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday with a maximum of three (3) counselors. Counseling shall be provided only for participants residing at the facility. 8. That prior to the operation of this business, a valid business license shall be obtained from the City of Anaheim, Business License Division of the Planning Department. 9. That no required parking areas shall be used for storage. 10. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscaped maintenance, removal of trash and debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24j hours from time of occurrence. 11. That subject property shall be maintained in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file in the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04837. 12. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or within one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8 and 11 above-mentioned shall be complied with. 13. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any otherapplicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. -2- PC2004- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of. May 17, 2004. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.03, "Zoning Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal Cade pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Ciry Planning Commission held on May 17, 2004, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN W ITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2004. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION _3_ PC2004- ATTACHMENT -ITEM N0. 2 }.~®~~~~ CITY OF ANAHEIM POLICE DEPARTMENT DATE: NIAY 11, 2004 TO: ELAINE YAMBAO PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: MICHELE IItWIN VICE DETAIL SUBJECT: 1310 PEARL STREET AND REPORTING DISTRICT 1623 CALLS FOR SERVICE RD 1623--49% below crime rate-Crime Stats for One Year Stats for 1300 Pearl 1 disturbance boyfriend/girlfriend 1 under the influence 12-16-03 1 keep the peace 12-21-03 1 check the wellbeing 12-21-03 1 disturbance 12-31-03 1 annoying phone ca1102-09-04 1 missing adult 3-27-04 Stats for 1310 Pearl 1 see the man 2-04-04 Stats for 220 Pearl 911 hang-up OS-18-03 Corporal punishment on wife 06-13-03 Unlmown trouble 08-02-03 Unlmown trouble 09-19-03 Suspicious person in a vehicle 01-23-04 Battery just occurred 04-04-04 Memorandum Elaine Yambao Peazl Street Page two Stats for 278 N Wilshire 5 911 Hang-ups 4 Stolen Vehicles 10 Disturbing the Peace 13 Burglary Calls 2 Vandalism 1 Fire 3 Check the Wellbeing 3 Attempt Warrant Seazch 5 Suspicious Circumstances 2 Unlrnown Trouble 2 Petty Theft 1 Battery 1 Corporal Punishment of Wife 1 Illegal Pazking 5 Tow Truck Needed 1 Overdose Addresses of Drub Related Calls 811 W Lincoln Smoking of Paraphernalia 06-02-03 811 W Lincoln Possession of Drugs 09-22-03 811 W Lincoln Poss. Of Marijuana 10-24-03 1300 W Pearl Under the Influence 12-16-03 811 W Lincoln Possession of Drugs 03-08-04 1225 W Diamond Poss. of marijuana 03-22-04 TTRM Nfl 4 i~~, ~~ ~ ''~ VEN NO 99 ._ ... _.. ~ V ``w X69 RCL T 1391 ' ~ i ~ P~Mj~, P ~ 'CPM `,?09 x,46 l11 RC ~ P P ac 163 ~ i s /' ` 54 6 37 X151 C1.C` 659-~65 ~ KOV BUSER 55 R RCLfi82pg16 P V P 1831 , CEN KOI GU Cep 1631 , TPM ND. 99-169 C 3857 SP 94-1 L, VOFF\CEG ~ RCL 70-71-47(21) ~' 7~ ~ gU1lDIN RCL 6&6492 T RCL 70.71-46 (1) X25, S~ ~ TPM NO. 99-169 VAR 6957 ~R^ ` RCL 70 71-47 (21) SMALL IND. "7 ~ ~ RCL 6&69-92 FIRMS Sp 94_1 ~ RCL 70.71-06 (1) IND. BLDG. ~~~` ~ VAR 3857 SMALL INO. PM NO. 99-169 RC FIRMS 8P 94-1 ~ F RC470-71-07(21) ~ R( `~` RCL 7071-06 (i) Q CUP 2006 Q IND. BLDG << 2~`7`~ CUP 1831 VAR 3657 Q- ry,',h ~v ' , ~ ` SMFIRMS D SP 941 CUP 2003-04811 UNIVER~SAI ALLO ``~` ~ SP 94-1 ~ RCL 70-71-47 (39) SP 94-1 ~ ~ RCL 70-71-46 RCL 70-71-46 ~ CUP 4090 CUP 4090 O/ ~ ~ ADJ 0170 (Res of 87 ntt ML) RCL~j 134-003(39) OI~F~/RO-~~ ~ RCL 70-71-06 ADP NO. 106 w~'2~ /O~~ INDUSTRIALLY RELATED 69-70-58(2) tiF BUSINESS OFFICES 69-60-67 INDUSTRIAL PARK IND. FIRM SP 94-1 -\ ADP 106 RIVERSIDE FREEWAY Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04811 ~ ~ Subject Property e: Date: January 12, 2004 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: LARRY BEDROSIAN Q.S. Np. 132 REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A CHURCH WITHIN AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. 2920 East White Star Avenue D 1128 Staff Report to the ' Planning: Commission :.May 17,2004 :Item No. 3 i 3a. ' CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion) 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (Motion) 3c. CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT. NO. 2003-04811 I (Resolution) 'SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This irregularly-shaped one-acre property has a frontage of 233 feet on the southwest side of White Star Avenue, a maximum depth of 233'feet, and is located 725 feet southeast of the certterline of La Palma Avenue'(2920 East White Star Avenue). REQUEST: (2) The petitioner requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit under authorityof Cade Section 18.110.050:050.0512 to`permit and retain a church within an existing building with waiver of the: following: SECTIONS 18.06.050:0266 and Minimum number of parking spaces 18':110.050:1`10 166 required; 36 existing and'proposed) ':BACKGROUND: 'r r (3) This Item has had several continuances beginning with the January 12 2004, meeting and most recently the'April 19,:2004, Commission meeting to allow the petitioner time to confirm agreements with neighboring property owners with regard to off-street parking. (4) The Permit Streamlining Act requires action be taken on this application by June 3, 2004 (within'six (6) months from the date the application was deemed complete Dec®mber 3,!2D03). The Act allows for one extension of ninety (90) days, provided both the City and the petitioner agree to the extension (Septembec1, 2004). At the last Commission meeting on April 19, 2004, the petitioner agreed to such an extension. (5) This property;is developed as partof an industrial complex and is zoned SP94-1; DA t (Northeast Area Specific Plan -Industrial Area). The Anaheim General Plan Land Use` Element Map'designates the site for General'Industriai land uses and properties to thehorth and east for:General Commercial'land uses and properties to the south and west for General Industrial lahd uses. PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS: (6) Tentative Parcel Map 99-123 (to establish an 8-numbered lot, 1-lettered lot industrial subdivision) was approved by thePlanning Commission on June 21, 1999. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: (7) This request is the result of a Code Enforcement investigation based on a request for service that revealed'that the church was operatjng at the location without a conditional use permit. (8) The petitioner is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to permit and retain a ,19,426 square foot church in an existing'buiidingwlthin an industrial complex. (9) The floor plans (ExhibitNos. 2 and 3) indicate a 5,376 square foot sanctuary/auditorium area, chapel, lobby'area, chiltlren's ministry room,`classrooms, and storage areas: A 2,500'square foot meaanine office space is used for administrative purposes for the church. Sr5()94jr Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17, 2004 Item No. 3 (10) :Vehicular access is provided via one driveway on White Star Avenue. Plans indicate a total of 36 existing on-site parking spaces for this; property. ;Code requires 166 spaces based the following::; •Use ~ ~_: r Square;-~.; Code Parking Re(gairement~ Parking ~' „ Fei3t ~ ~ ~ 5 ;SpaaeR _ , r ~ ; ,,, l ~ ~ ,~.,,, =R~ uu~sd ` Sanctuary (assembly) ~ 5,376 ~ 29 spaces per 1;000 square feet 156 of assembly area or 0.333 space erfized seat whichever is' seater Office Area 2 500 < 4 s aces erA;000 s uare feet `10 Accessory,Church Uses (multi- 11,550 d N/A N/A u ose rooms classrooms ::TOTAL 19,426 166 :Note: Code does not require any park(ng for the accessory Sunday echool Gassrooms:: Accessory usee(e.g., mulls- ' purpose room)do not require additional parking provided such areas are not used cencuirently with the sanctuary. (11) ..Photographs and staff inspections indicate the existing building is of concrete tilt-up 'construction, painted'white, with windowson the northwest end northeast elevations. No exterior modifications to the building or landscaping'are proposed as part of this application. '`Staff observed five: (5) buses/vans storedin a loading dock located at the site, as well as miscellaneous items,(palettes, basketbalihoop), (12) The sign plans (Exhibit No. 4) and staff inspections indicate one existing 72 square-foot cut :'foam wallsign on the northwest elevations No religious icons (crosses) are proposetl to be ;placed on he building. No other signs are proposed in connection with this requests The :Code allows wall signs to be a maximum of 10% of he building face area (18 feet x.120 feet 2,160 (10%) = 216 square feet allowed by code). (13) The petitioner has submitted the attachedletter of operation dated November 12, 2003, that indicates one Sunday service from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., and 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:OOp.m., with a maximum of two (2) full time , and two (2) part-time volunteer staff. The'congregatlon has approximately 150 members and with the exception of'accessory Sunday school activities and bible study,''no school or daycare uses are proposed. Staff observed five (5) buses/vans stored in a loading dock located at the '`site. The petitioner has indicated these vehicles are used for teen/youth`transportation for their Wednesday evening bible study. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (14) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study, (a copy of which is available for review iK 'the Planning Department) and fintls no significant environmental Impactand, therefore, 'recommends that a Negative Declaratioh be approved upon a finding by;the Planning Commiss(on that the'Negative beclaration 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 s `.will have a;significant effect on he environment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (15) The proposed project has been reviewed by affected City departments to determine whether it oonfotms with the City's Growth Management Element adopted by the City Council'on March 17, 1992. l3ased on City staff review of the proposed project,`it has been determined that this Page 2 Staff Report to the Planning Commission °May 17'2004 "Item No. 3 project does not fit within the scope necessary to require a Growth Management Element analysis, therefore, no:analysis has been performed. + EVALUATION: (16) Churches are permitted within Development Area No. 1 of the Northeast Area Specifid Plan subject to the: approval'of a conditional use permit. (17) The waiver pertains to minimum number of parking spaces. Code requires a minimum of 166 parking spaces for the church as describedn paragraph no. (10)"of this report. The petitioner has submitted a parking analysis prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc.; tlated August 27, '2003, to substantiate the requested parking waiver. The City Traffic and Transportation Manager hastreviewed,the parking analysis;and has determined thak the proposed parking areas referenced in theparking study are not sufficienYfor the church and existing industrial uses in the area. Based on the parking study, the parking supplyprovided on site is 21.6% of the Code-required parking for the proposed'church. The parking study also bounts 290 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 the'counting of on- streetparking towards fulfilling Code-required parking for a given«project; and further' the parking located within the public right-of-way maybe eliminated at any time'as deemetl necessary by the Traffic Engineering Division. (No on-street parking is currently allowed along the west side of White StarAvenue). Additionally, parking areas located on adjacent properties serve the property and uses on which they are located`- These businesses]ocated on adjacent and surrounding properties can,f by right, operate 24' hours per oay, seven: (7) days a week. At any time, depending on the level 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 these parking areas on adjacent properties may not always be available, staff is not supportive ofusing these areas towards fulfilling Code-required parking forthe church. In ordarto utilize parking on rtearby properties, each property would need to be encumbered by a parking variance, inclutling 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'Ciry Traffic and TransportationManagerhus reviewed this study and has determined that the actualisupply of 36 spaces on the property is not adequate for the proposed church due to the number of aduk congregants. Staff is concerned that available parking,s not adequate to meet both the short-term and long-term growth of the church. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this!waiver. (18) Tfie Commission may wish to note that this building is`located within a recently constructed intlustrial subdivision (constructed in 2001),: in which all the buildings in the area were parked for: industrial uses (1.55. spaces/1000 square feet of grass floor area [gfa]), with the exception of the Anaheim Hockey Club, which was parked for skating/roller rinks (2.4spaces/1000 square feet of gfa). The Commission may also wish to note that the traffic study conducted as part of the establishment of the industrial subdivision and the hockey club calculated the potential traffic demand. based on industrial uses. Therefore, based on the recommendation of he Traffic Engineering Division, staff recommends`denial of this conditional use permit. (19) Although the Traffic and Transportation Manager doesnot support the parking waiver; the parking study provided`by the petitioner 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 o be provided for such use than the number of such spaces `' necessary to accommodate all veh(cles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonable foreseeable conditions of operation' of such use. :Page 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 1J, 2004 Item tJo. 3 The parking study indicates that the project would contain a sufficient supply: of parking spaces to accommodate the church by utilizing on-siteiparking (36 spaces)'and agreed upon off-site parking (290 spaces), (b) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the. public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposeduse. The parking survey and the analysis for the project and: adjolning'buildings indicate that sufficient off-street!parking (shared parking agreements) is provided so that the adjacent public street parking would not be necessary.': (c) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand for parking spaces upon :adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. The parking study has determined hat the tenants of the adjacent private properties expressly provide agreement for. the Way of Life Church to utilize`their parking spaces: Shared parking on the; adjacent properties is accommodated due to the faof that adjacent properties and the Way of Life 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 forsuch use. The project will not cause increased traffic congestion within off-street parking areas of the site because an efficient system of accommodating: parking demand is used. The' traffic director effectively guides traffic to off-site parking spaces that sufficiently accommodate the parking demand. (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. The off-street parking spaces provided do not impede vehicle ingress or egress from the adjacent properties or upon White StarAvenue adjacent to the project site." (20) 'As indicated in the attached memorandum from the Code Enforcement Division dated I :January 2 2004, this application is the result of a citizen request for service regarding a 'church operating without a conditional use permit within an existing industrial building, ;Although,the request for service was received on April 21, 2003, the petitioner indicated to 'staff that the churchhas been at this location for three (3) years. The Commission: should Jnote that although a businesslicense was issued for the church on November 27,.;2000, the license does not authorize the church to operate without approval of a conditional use permit. The church was previously located at 5109 East La Palma Avenue (as authorized;by ?CUP N0, 3595). (21) '.Since the?January 72, 2004, Commission meeting, staff has met with the petitioner and; provided!propertyownershlp information pertaining to surrounding properties and an example;of the proper form of agreement necessary to meet City requirements for off- site parking. The petitioner'has mailed letters to five (5) owners of the surrounding properties (see attached). Of the five'(5) letters sent, two (2) of the owners have sold their property and one (1 j owner will not enter into an agreement with the church. No communication has been received from the other two (2) property owners, Commission should note that the petitioner has ndicated 4hat approximately! s' Page 4 Staff Report to the Planning Commission `May 17, 2004 Item No. 3: seventeen (17) months (October, 2005) remain on their lease and as such, the church would like to remain at this location untie he lease expires. At the April 19, 2004, Commission meeting,; he petitioner submitted an update of progress as reflected above. The!petitioner also submitted a "lease agreement" form as a proposal in lieu of a recorded agreement with the property owner (see'attached `sample). Staff indicated that there was opportunity for flexibility if;the agreement waswith a lessee whohad a substantial interest in`the property (i.e. long term ground lease). Since: the Apri1;19, 2004, Commission meeting, no progress`has been made in confirming'any agreements/covenants with neighboring property owners with regard to off-street parking. FINDINGSi' (22) Section 18.06,080 of the parking ordinance sets forth the following findings, which are required to be made before a parking waiver'is approved by the Commission: (a) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, ifany, will not cause fewer off-street parking: spaces to be provided for such use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such. use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use; and (b)' That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, ifany, will not increase'the demand and competition for parking spaces upon,the pubtiastteets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use; and (c):, That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, ifany, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use; and (d) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, ifany, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking: areas or lots provided for, such use; and (e)i That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, ifany, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent'properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use: lJnless 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 of any such waiver shall be deemed contingent upon operation of such use in conformance with the assumptions relating to the operation and intensity of the use as contained in thee. 'parking demand study that formed the basis for approval of said waives `F_xceeding,' 'violating, intensifying or otherwise deviating from anyof said assumptions'as contained in the parking'demand study shall be deemed a violatiort of the express conditions imposed upon said waiver which shall subject said waiver to terminatlorcor modification pursuant to 'the provisions of Sections 18.03:091 and 18.03.092 of this Code, (23) Before the Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: (a) That the proposed use is properly one: for which a conditional use permit is authorized by theZoning Code, or thaf said use is not listed therein asbeing a permitted use; (b) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and tlevelopment of the area in which it (s proposed to be located; Page 5 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17; 2004 6 Item Nd. 3 (c) Thatahe 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'tne particular area nor' to the peace, ftealth, safety, and general welfare; (d) Thatahe traffiCgenerated,bythe proposed use:will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and; highways designed snd improved to carry the traffic in the area; and (e) Thatthe granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to thepeace, health, safetyand general welfare"of the citizens of the!: City of Anaheim. RECOMMENDATION: (24) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the hearing;: and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the evidence presented ' in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission deny the'petitioner's request by adopting the attached resolution including the findings contained therein. (25) Should the Commission wish to approve this request, tall recommends that the item be continued for two weeks in order'to incorporate the following conditions together with the appropriate findings into a resolution for consideration by the Planning Commission. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS ACTING AS ' AN=INTERDEPARTMENTAL' COMMITTEE'AND'ARE RECOMMENDED` FOR ADOPTION BY THE > PLANNINGCOMMISSIONIN THE EVENTTHAT THIS PERMITIS'APPROVED. 1. Thaf 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. -12:00 p.m. Wednesday Service - 7:30 p.m. -..9:00 p.m. s' Office hours -Wednesday through Friday - 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 2. Thatahe chapel shall not be utilized'concurrentlytyith the auditorium/assembly area for church or other assembly services..' 3. Thatahe buses/vans utilized for church activities shall not be stored on-site. 4. That here 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 hall be limited to one (1) wall sign as shown on Exhibit No. 3. Any additional signs sftall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Division. Any decision by staff maybe appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item 6. Thaf no outdoor events sfiall be permitted. `7. Thaf no required parking area shall be fenced cr othervvise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. 8. Thaf the only accessory school activity shall be Sunday school and this facility shall not 6e used as a+;private daycare, nursery, elementary, junior and/or senior high'school. Page 6 Staff Reporf to the Planning Commissioh May 17, 2004 :Item No. 3 9. That the granting of the parking waiver is contingent upon operation of he use in'conformance with the assumptions and/or'conclusions 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/oc conclusions, as contained in the parking demand`study, shall be deemed a violation of the expressed conditions imposed upon said waiver which shall'subjecfthis to termination or modification pursuant to the provisions of Sections 18.03,091 and 18`.03.092 ofahe Anaheim Municipal Code. 10. That the property shall be permanently,maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti withifi twenty-four (24) hours`from time'of occurrence. 11'. That a licensed architect and/or engineer shall analyze the existing building conditions and applicable codes for the proposed facility to ensure compliance with applicableBuilding and SafetyCode requirements (i:e. exiting7equirements, occupancy load) es required by the Building Division. Permits for alterations shall tie obtained from the Buildingbivision. 12. That the property owner shall be required to implement appropriate non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) (these may be found online;at www.cabbmohanobooks.com). The selected BMPs shall be implemented and maintained to minimize he introduction of > pollutants to the stormwater drainage system. 13. That the on-site landscaping' and irrigation system shall be maintained'in compliance with City standards. 14. That 3-foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent and nearby properties. 15. That the legal owner of subject property shall prepare an unsubordinated covenant providing reciprocal parking: for the properties in the immediate vicinity and as approved by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. Consideratioh shall only be given o those 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) shall tie reviewed`end approved by the Traffic and Transportation Manager andZoning Division and lrc a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, then recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded covenant(s) shall be submitted to the Zoning Division. 16. That the propertypwner shall file an Emergency,Listing Card; Form APD-281, with the Police Department, available at the Police Departmenf front counter. 17. That subject property shall tie 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 Plahning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1; 2 and 3 and as conditioned herein. 1t3. That aYall times when off-site parking's being utilized by the church, parking attendants shall be employed to safely direct church 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:+ Extensions for further ime to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 1 t3.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, i Page 7 Staff Report to the Planhrtg Commission May 17, 2004 Item No. 3 20. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Cade and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the: request regarding any other applicable ordinance,'regulation or requirement. Page 8 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2004--** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04811 (2920 EAST W RITE STAR AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as: PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 99-126, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 311, PAGES 22 TO 25 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS., the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on January 12, 2004 at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and that said public hearing was continued to the March 8, April 19 and May 17, 2004 Planning Commission meeting; and WHEREAS, the Commission did on January 12, 2004, March 8, 2004, and April 19, 2004, continue this request and directed the petitioner to secure preliminary agreements for additional off-site parking to meet the parking demands of the church; and WHEREAS, the petitioner has been unable to secure such agreements, and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 2. That the use will adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located in because the on-site parking is not adequate to accommodate the number of members that may potentially attend Sunday services resulting in fewer off street parking spaces being provided for such use than the number of spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under normal and foreseeable conditions of operation. 3. That the size and shape of the site for the use is not 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 of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim as the 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 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 adjacent properties serve the property and uses on which they are located. These businesses located on adjacent and surrounding properties can, by right, operate 24 hours per day, seven (7) days a week. At any time, depending on the level of business activity, a business may change their hours of operation or the number of workers they employ to meet their needs. Because these 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. C R\PC2004-0 -1- PC2004- 4. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. ._. 5. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area as 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. 6. That "" indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit and retain a church within an existing :industrial building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, on the basis of the aforementioned findings. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of May 17, 2004. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.03, "Zoning Provisions - General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on May 17, 2004, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of .2004. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -2- PC2004- ATTACHMENT -ITEM N0. 3 MEMORANDUM 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 Aprii 21, 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 unable 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 18, 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. - MDL 2920 a white star ave memo ATTACHPfENT -ITEM N0. 3 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: AND WHEN RECORDED, MAn. TO: Bird Bill 2910 E White Star Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 RECIPROCAL PARKIlVG AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between Bird Bill (Owner "A"'), and Way of Life Church, anon-profit corporation (Owner "B"). WTTNESSETH: WHI:ItEAS, Owner A is the owner of certain real property in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, commonly known as 2910 E White Star Avenue, more particularly described on attached Exhibit "A" ("Parcel A"); and WHEREAS, Owner B is the owner of certain real property in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, commonly known as 2920 E White Star Aveuue, more particulazly described on attached Exhibit "B" ("Parcel B"); and WHEREAS, it is the intent and purpose of this agreement to provide mutual and reciprocal use of such pazking and driveways as may be provided and maintained on Parcel A and Parcel B. VOW. THEREFORE, i i' IS aGRECD AS FOLLOWS: 1. ror valuable consideration, O~urer P, hereby ~nants ~o Owner B a nonexclusive right to use for pazi:ing and ingress and egress the portions of"Parcel A provided and maintained for parking and driveway purposes, and Owner B hereby grants to Owner A a nonexclusive right to use for parking and ingress and egress the portions of Parcel B irom time to time provided and maintained by Owner B for parking and driveway purposes, as depicted on attached Exhibit "C." 2. The reciprocal rights of parking and ingress and egress are given to the parties, their successors apd assigns, for the mutual benefit of, and aze appurtenant to, Parcel A and Parcel B: 3. Each party will be responsible for maintenance, repair, and replacement of the pazking and driveways on such party's Parcel, except for repair of damage caused by act or omission of the other party, or such party's successor or assigns, which damages shall be repaired by the party whose acts or omissions caused the damage. 4. This agreement shall not be amended or terminated without the prior written approval of the City of Anaheim. -I- 5. The agreements herein are intended to and shall constitute covenants running with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 6. All exhibits attached to this agreement are incorporated into this agreement by reference. IN WITNESS THEREOF, this agreement is made and entered into as of the day of 19 ' (Title) By: (Title) Way of Life Church, non-profit carporation OW1~I~ v ..B., By: ' (Title) APPROVED AS TO FORM: JACK L. WHITE, CITY ATTORNEY By: Date: (ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A NOTARY) _2_ Bird Bill OWNER "A" By: (Title) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ON Before me, Personally appeazed Personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/aze subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Signature My Commission Expires: -3- ..RECORDING REQUESTED BY: AND WREN RECORDID, MAII. TO: Bird Bill __. 2910 E White Star Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT (NAME OF BENEFICIARY) , a (TYPE OF ENTTTY) as Beneficiary under that certain Deed of Trust dated 19 ,which was recorded as Instrument No. in the Official Records of the Orange County Recorder does hereby grant consent to the (TITLE OF DOCUMENT) recorded as Instrument No. in the OtFcial Records of the Orange County Recorder on and does agree that said Covenant shall be and remain at all times a lien or charge on the real property affected thereby and that said Covenant is prior and superior to the lien or charge imposed on said real property by the above described . Deed of Trust. (BENEFICIARY) Bv: By: APPROVED AS TO FORM: JACK L. WHITE, CITY ATTORNEY By: Date: (ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A NOTARY) ('fit~ef (Title) 1_ STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ON Before me, Personally appeared Personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Signature My Commission Expires: -2- ITEM N0. 4 RCL 72-73-07 VAR 2126 EL RANCHO MIDDLE SCHOOL ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE (SC) (SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE _~ _p General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00418 s ~. Subject Property Reclassification No. 2004-00116 Date: April 5, 2004 Variance No. 2004-04601 Tentative Parcel .Map No. 2004-127 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: FRANK T. MINISSALE Q.S. No. 202 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004-00418: REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATING THE PROPERTY FROM THE HILLSIDE ESTATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION TO THE HILLSIDE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2004-00116: REQUESTS RECLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE RS-A-43,000 (SC) (RESIDENTIAUAGRICULTURAL; SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE TO THE RS-HS-22,000 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY, HILLSIDE; SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE OR A LESS INTENSE ZONE. VARIANCE NO. 2004-04601: REQUESTS WAIVERS OF: (A) MINIMUM LOT DEPTH ADJACENT TO A SCENIC EXPRESSWAY (B) MINIMUM LOT AREA TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2004-127: REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A 3-LOT, 3-UNIT DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION. 111 Mohler Drive 1253(20043-26) ITEM N0. 4 .Staff Report to the 'Planning. Commission !May 17, 2004 tem No. 4` 4a. CEQANEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion) I4b. GENERAL PLAN'AMENDMENT N0: 2004-00416 (Request for withdrawal) 4c. RECLASSIFICATION NO: 2004-001.16 ' (Resolution) 4d. VARIANCE. NO 2004=04601 (Resolution) 4e. iTENTATIVE PARCEL MAP'NO. 2004-127 (Request for withdrawal) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This irregularly-shaped 1.5 acreproperty is located afthe southwest comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Mohler Drive with frontages of 406!feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 300 feet on the west side of Mohler Drive (1 i1 Mohler Drive). REQUEST: (2) The petitioner requests approvalrof the following: o General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00418 -staff recommends that this itembe withdrawn. o Reclassification No.+2004-00116 - to reclassify this,property from the RS-A-43,000 (SC) (Residential/Agricultural -Scenic Corridor Overlay)'zone to the RS-HS-22,000 (SC) (Residential, Single-Family- Hiilslde Scenic Corridor Overlay) or less intense zone. 'Variance No. 2004-04601 - to construct 3 detached single-family homes with waivers of: (a) SECTION N0.18:04.020.023 Minimum lot deothadiacent to a scenic expressway 150 feet required; 105 feet proposed: for Lot 2) (b) SECTION NO. 18.22.061.010 Minimum`lot area (Deleted) Tentative'Parcel Map No. 2004-127 -staff recommends that this item be withdrewn. BACKGROUND: (3) This item was continued from the April 5, 2004, Planning Commission meeting to allow the petitioner time to submit a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, for reviewand approval by the Public Works Department,' Development Services Division. At the April 19, 2004, the Commission continued this item to allow time for the applicant to revise the site plan and parcel map o reducethe width of the private street and increase the size of the lots. `Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting the petitioner has requested wlthdrawafof the General Plan Amendment and Tentative Parcel Map. (4) This property is developed with one single-family home and is zoned RS-A-43,000 (SC). The General Plan designates this property;and the property to he east (across Mohler Drive) forNillside Estate Density Residential land uses, and further designates the property to the north (across: Santa Ana Canyon Road) for Hillside Low bensity Residential land uses, and'to the south for a junior high school site (EI Rancho Middle School). (5) There have been several attempts to develop this property for non-residential land uses via ;public hewing entitlements; however, all entitlements were denied and/or have expired. Sr1150cw Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17,:2004 Item No. 4 Revised plans indicate the following project characteristics: j _ ~J ' .: ~ ~ ~ ~~ t ~. ~" f . . code StandeKr x RS-H5-22 000 Ysc] ~;~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' . . ~Progosed Pmiect ~ r + ~ ' r ~ , Cade Requirements ~~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ' ~ , ~, ai ~ ~ ~k ~ c ~ . dC. ;i -A-« .A~^. ¢.3. .r.=4}.~ .n:$Z.i, .T, rvP`- ...r^by. •,°~^ s.. M'.z i. .-:' S .•5h~, Maximum Density 2.97 units@ 1.98 DU's per acre 3 units@ 2 DU's per acre Maximum Lot Area 22,000 square feet Lot 1: 19,040 sq. ft. '.[19,000 square feet exclusive of :public or Lott: 19,100 sq. ft. private'road] Lot3: 21,300 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Depth 150 feet Lot 1:181 feet from' Santa Ana Lot 2:105 feet Lot 3: 235 feet Canyon Road Minimum Lot Width Average of 100 feet with no less than 85 Lot 1:85 feet feet.for Lot A and 80 feet for Lots B and C*' Let 2: 128 feet Lot 3; 87 feet Lots'wlth frontage on the circular or curvilinear portion of any cul-de-sac shall have a minimum lot width of not less than 60 feet. (8) Floor plans and elevations werenot submitted as part of this application. The applicant :intends to construct three 2-story single-family residences in compliance with the RS-HS- 22,000(SC) Zone startdards. Sfiould the Commission approve this request, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring final site, floor, elevation, landscape and fencing plans tc be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (9) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available forreview in the Planning Department) and finds no`significant environmental impact and, therefore, recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning Commission that the: Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the' lead agency; and that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with'any comments received during the public review process and further finding. on the basis of the .Initial Study and any comments'received that there is no substantial evidence that the project wiH have a significant effect on the' environment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (10) The proposed project has been reviewed by affected City departments to determine whether ifconforms 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 Page 3 Staff Report to the Planking Commission May 17, 2004 Item No. 4 determined that this project does not fitwithin the'scope necessary to require a Growth ' Management Element analysis, therefore, no analysis has been performed. " ~' EVALUATION:i (11) The petitioner requests rezoning of the;property from the RS-A-A3, 000.. (SC) Zone to the RS-HS-22,000 (SC) Zone. Tne requested rezoning and deksity would be compatible with _ `the existing General Plan designation of Hiilside:Estate Density Residential. Staff: recommends approval of the'rezoning because the zone would be compatible with General'. Plan lakd use designation of Hillside Estate Density Residential. (12) Waiver (a) pertains to minimum lot depth adjacent to a scenic expressway. Code requires a minimum lot depth"of 150 feet for the 3 proposed!lots, as they are adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon' Road. Lot depth is defined as the horizontal length'of a straight line connecting the j bisecting points of the front and the rear lot lines. !Plans indicate LoY2 has a depth of + 105 feet. This property consists of three parcels, two of which, due to their'size and shape, are not suitable for development. The applicant proposes o reconfigure the oddly-shaped property by'applying for a tot line adjustment to create three usable parcels. Staff recommends'aoproval of this waiver due to the irregular shape of the property and thaf other lots in the vicinity along Santa Ana Canyon Road have lot depths hat do not meet the minimum 150-foof depth requirement:: (13)` Waiver{b) pertains to minimum lot area. This waiver has been deleted. (14) At the April 19, 2D04, Planning Commission meeting, three peoplespoke in ' opposition with concerns regarding the appropriateness of the proposed General Plan Amendment, justification of the request to waive minimum tot area and overall dissatisfaction with the development proposafc As a result of the public testimony and review of the proposal, the Commission requested that the applicant revise the : site plan to minimize the proposetl private street in effort to decrease the potential of the street being used as a "drop-off area" for the existing middle school and to eliminate the waiver of minimum tot area. Staffhas met with 4he applicanfto discuss`: projectissues and alternatives. The project has been modified as follows: o The request to redesignate the property from Hillside Estate Density Residential to the Hillside Low Density:Residentia~ and Tentative Parcel RAap ; No. 2004-127 have been withdrawn. The Subdivision Section of the:Public Works Departmentwill consider an application for a Lot Line Adjustment to modify the three existing parcels; therefore, a tentative parcel map is not required. The Subdivision Map Act excludes Lot Line Adjustments from complying with the'General Plan; therefore an amendment is not needed to 'process allot line adjustment. A lot line adjustment is an administrative :process. Staff has recommended a condition of approval that the lot line adjustment be recorded priorao the issuance of a building permit • Waiver of minimum' lot area has been deleted. The projecthas been 'redesigned to accommodate the minimum tot area of 19,000 square feet for each parcel. • The private access to the parcels has been redesigned from a private street with cul-de-sac to a 24-foot wide private driveway. The intent in minimizing : the street'is to deter school traffic from loading and unloading on the proposed`street. Staff has confirmed that the proposed driveway is sufficient for emergency vehicle and trash truck access. ' Page 4 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17, 2004 Item No. 4 ', (a) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape;'" ;opograpfiy, location or surroundings, which do nofapply to other identically zoned 'properties in the vicinity; and (b) That strict applicatioh'of the Zoning Code deprives the propertybf privilege's enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning'classification in the'vicinity. RECOMMENDATION: ' (17f Staff recommends'that unless additional or contrary information is received during the hearing,'and based upon the`evidence'submitted o the Planning Commission; including the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing that the Commission approve the petitioner's: request taking to following actions: (a) By motion,'accepting the petitioner's request for withdrawal of General Plan 'Amendment No. 2004-00418`and Tentative Parce(Map No. 2004-127. (b) Adopting the attached resolutiorts pertaining to the reclassification and variance including the findings'and conditions contained therein. Page 6 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0.2004-00116 BE GRANTED - (111 MOHLER DRIVE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified petition for Reclassfication for real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of Califomia,- described as follows: PARCEL 1: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 9 WEST, SAN BERNADINO MERIDIAN; IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE WEST TO A POINT, 195 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO WILBUR E. RASEY AND WIFE BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1944, IN BOOK 1230, PAGE 230 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 26° 01" WEST ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO MICHAEL C. BINIER AND WIFE BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 1, 1947, IN BOOK 1492, PAGE 86 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS TO POINT 64.83 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY FROM AN INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE 100 FOOT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED JUNE 4, 1934, IN BOOK 680, PAGE 165 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, SAID POINT BEING IN AN ARC OF A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 8454.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, FROM A TANGENT BEARING NORTH 46° 29' 11" EAST, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 1° 41' 55", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 250.63 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN 60 FOOT STRIP OF LAND pESCRIBED IN PARCEL 1 OF DEED TO HENRY F. DEL GIORGIO AND WIFE, RECORDED AUGUST 7, 1948, IN BOOK 1682, PAGE 364 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE .DEL GIORGIO, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 36 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 9 WEST, SAN BERNADINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE CALIFORNIA, ACQUIRED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 2079, PAGE 160 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, BOUNDED NORTHWESTERLY BY A LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION, SAIp POINT BEING DISTANT ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE EASTERLY, 29.10 FEET FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE DESCRIBED AS "NORTH 44° 07' 42" EAST, 686.96 FEET" IN PARCEL 1 OF A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 1731, PAGE 521 OF OFFICIAL RECORD IN SAID OFFICE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY IN A DIRECT LINE TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE AS "SOUTH 25° 55' 27" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 64.83 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH A CURVE AS "SOUTH 25° 55' 27" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 64.83 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH A CURVE IN A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 2285, PAGE 482 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN SAID OFFICE. PARCEL 3: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 9 WEST, SAN BERNADINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO FRANK MINISSALE AND WIFE RECORDED MARCH 13, 1970, IN BOOK 9238, PAGE 828 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE CR\PC2004-0 -1- PC2004- NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND TO MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED FEBRUARY 13, 1952, IN BOOK 2285, PAGE 482 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LAST MENTIONED LAND, BEING A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 8454.00 FEET, (A RADIAL .LIEN OF SAID CURVE PASSING THROUGH SAID MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER BEARS NORTH 433° 30' 49" WEST) AND ITS NORTHEASTERLY EXTENSION TO THE NORTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THE COURSE SHOWN ON HAVING A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET MORE OR LESS ON THE MAP ATTACHED TO EASEMENT DEED RECORDED MAY 9, 1977, IN BOOK 12185, PAGE 1245 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID COURSE NORTH 38° 07' 15" WEST 0.82 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 18.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 93° 48' 56" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 29.47 FEET TO A COMPOUND CURVE CONCAVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02° 43' 31" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 403.07 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 89° 54' 12" EAST TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Anaheim Civic Center, Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, on April 5, 2004, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required bylaw and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed reclassification and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and that said public hearing was continued from the April 19 and May 17, 2004, Planning Commission meetings; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the petitioner proposes reclassification of subject properly from the RS-A-43,000 (SC) (Residential/Agricultural; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone to the RS-HS-22,000 (SC) (Residential, Single-Family - Hillside; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone. 2. That the Anaheim General Plan designates subject property for Hillside Estate Density Residential land uses and said reclassification is an implementation zone for this land use designation. 3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary to .allow for the orderly and proper development of the community as proposed with three single-family residences. 4. That the proposed reclassification of subject properly does properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the community as surrounding properties are zoned RS-HS-22,000 (SC). 5. That indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify the property from the RS-A-43,000 (SC) zone to the RS- HS-22,000 (SC) zone on the 1.5-acre property; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. -2- PC2004- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the subject Petition for Reclassification to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Anaheim tc exclude the above-described property from the RS-A-43,000 (SC) zone and to incorporate said described property into the RS-HS-22,000 (SC) zone upon the following conditions which are hereby found..-. to be a necessary prerequisite to the reclassification of subject property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim: 1. That prior to introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, a preliminary title report shall be furnished to the Zoning Division showing the legal vesting of title, a legal description and containing a map of the property. 2. That prior to placement of an ordinance rezoning subject property on an agenda for City Council consideration, Condition tJos. iabove-mentioned, shall be completed. The City Council may approve or disapprove a zoning ordinance at its discretion. If the ordinance is disapproved, the procedure set forth in Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.085 shall apply. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are completed within one (1) year from the date of this resolution, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 3. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation ar requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such conditions, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall not constitute a rezoning of, or a commitment by the City to rezone, the subject property; any such rezoning shall require an ordinance of the City Council, which shall be a legislative act, which may be approved or denied by the City Council at its sole discretion. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of May 17, 2004. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.03, "Zoning Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) _3_ PC2004- I, Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on May 17, 2004, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN W ITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2004. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -4- PC2004- [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2004-04601 BE GRANTED, IN PART (111 MOHLER DRIVE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Variance for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as: PARCEL 1: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 9 WEST, S.B.B. & M; IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE WEST TO A POINT, 195 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO WILBUR E. RASEY AND WIFE BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1944, IN BOOK 1230, PAGE 230 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 26° 01" WEST ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO MICHAEL C. BINIER AND WIFE BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 1, 1947, IN BOOK 1492, PAGE 86 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS TO POINT 64.83 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY FROM AN INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE 100 FOOT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED JUNE 4, 1934, IN BOOK 680, PAGE 165 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, SAID POINT BEING IN AN ARC OF A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 8454.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, FROM A TANGENT BEARING NORTH 46° 29' 11" EAST, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 1° 41' 55", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 250.63 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN 60 FOOT STRIP OF LAND DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 1 OF DEED TO HENRY F. DEL GIORGIO AND WIFE, RECORDED AUGUST 7, 1948, IN BOOK 1682, PAGE 364 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE DEL GIORGIO, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAIp SECTION 36; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 36 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 9 WEST, SAN BERNADINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE CALIFORNIA, ACQUIRED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 2079, PAGE 160 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, BOUNDED NORTHWESTERLY BY A LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION, SAID POINT BEING DISTANT ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE EASTERLY, 29.10 FEET FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE DESCRIBED AS "NORTH 44° 07' 42" EAST, 686.96 FEET' IN PARCEL 1 OF A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 1731, PAGE 521 OF OFFIGIAL RECORD IN SAID OFFICE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY IN A DIRECT LINE TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE AS "SOUTH 25° 55' 27" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 64.83 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION THEREOF W ITH A CURVE AS "SOUTH 25° 55' 27" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 64:83 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH A CURVE IN A DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 2285, PAGE 482 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN SAID OFFICE. CR\PC2004-0 -1- PC2004- PARCEL 3: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 9 WEST, SAN BERNADINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO FRANK MINISSALE AND WIFE .RECORDED MARCH 13, 1970, IN BOOK 9238, PAGE 828 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND TO 'MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED FEBRUARY 13, 1952, IN BOOK 2285, PAGE 482 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LAST MENTIONED LAND, BEING A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 8454.00 FEET, (A RADIAL LIEN OF SAID CURVE PASSING THROUGH SAID MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER BEARS NORTH 433° 30' 49" WEST) AND ITS NORTHEASTERLY EXTENSION TO THE NORTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THE COURSE SHOWN ON HAVING A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET MORE OR LESS ON THE MAP ATTACHED TO EASEMENT DEED RECORDED MAY 9, 1977, IN BOOK 12185, PAGE 1245 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID COURSE NORTH 38° 07' 15" WEST 0.82 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 18.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 93° 48' S6" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 29.47 FEET TO A COMPOUND CURVE CONCAVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02° 43' 31" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 403.07 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 36; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 89° 54' 12" EAST TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Anaheim Civic Center, Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, on April 5, 2004, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03 to hear and consider evidence for and against said General Plan Amendment and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and that said public hearing was continued to the April 19 and May 17, 2004, Planning Commission meetings; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the petitioner proposes the construction of three detached single-family homes with the following waivers: (a) SECTION N0.18.04.020.023 Minimum lot deoth adjacent to a scenic exoresswav 150 feet required; 110 feet proposed for Lot B and 115 feet proposed for Lot C) (b) SECTION NO. 18.22.061.010 Minimum lot area. (DELETED) 2. That the above-mentioned waiver (a) minimum lot depth adjacent to a scenic expressway is hereby granted on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as it's irregular shape, which does not apply tc other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity since other lots in proximity to the property do not have the required lot depth of 150 feet. 3. That the above-mentioned waiver (b), minimum lot area, is hereby denied on the basis that the project has been redesigned whereby said waiver is no longer necessary. -2- PC2004- 4. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. 5. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located since the proposed lots would be compatible in size and configuration with surrounding properties. 6. That the above-mentioned waivers are necessary to reconfigure the three (3) existing Tots into lots suitable for development; and that such development will be compatible with other such previous development in the surrounding neighborhood. 7. That indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct 3 detached single-family homes with waivers of: (a) minimum lot depth adjacent to a scenic expressway, and (b) minimum lot area (deleted) on the 1.5 acre property and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: That a lot line adjustment shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Subdivision Section for review and approval by the City Engineer. The adjusted lots must conform to the City of Anaheim Zoning Code (Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code). The surveyor is advised to contact the. Planning Department to verify all applicable zoning standards. All applicable conditions of approval pertaining to the decisions and actions taken by the Planning Commission shall be satisfied. The lot line adjustment shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. That a reservation for a reciprocal access and maintenance agreement shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Subdivision Section and approved by the City Attorney's office. The agreement shall include provisions for maintenance of all private facilities (including, but not limited to the accessway, common landscaping and irrigation, sanitary sewer, storm drain, street lights, etc.), compliance with the approved Water Quality Management Plan, and a maintenance exhibit. The reservation agreement shall be approved and recorded prior to approval of the lot line adjustment. 3. That the surveyor shall prepare a Record of Survey to verify and establish the property lines and boundary control. The Record of Survey shall be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Surveyor and then recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder prior to approval of the lot line adjustment. 4. That security shall be posted in the form of a surety bond, letter of credit, or cash deposit to guarantee that the proposed private accessway shall be improved in accordance with Public Works Standard Detail 163 as approved by the City Engineer (private driveway section for the Mohler Drive area). The improvements shall be constructed prior to certificate of occupancy. _3. PC2004- 5. That final site, floor, elevation, landscape and fencing plans for the residential structures shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendation item. 6. That a plan for the design of the private accessway shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager far review and approval 7. That the owner/developer shall pay the Traffic Engineering Division for the required relocation of the stop sign, stop bar, striping and legend on Mohler Drive. 8. That roll-up garage doors shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. Said doors shall be installed and maintained as shown on submitted plans. 9. That the streets, sanitary sewers and storm drains within the development shall be privately maintained. 10. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonment of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Division. 11. That all existing water services shall conform to current Water Utility Standards. Any existing water service that is not approved by Public Utilities for continued use shall be upgraded to current standards, or abandoned by developer. If the existing services are no longer needed, they shall be abandoned by the developer. The developer shall be responsible for any costs associated with upgrading or abandoning any water service or fire line. 12. That the developer/owner shall provide a detailed water usage analysis and building plans for Public Utilities Water Engineering review and approval in determining the adequacy of the existing water system to meet the project's water requirements. Any system improvements shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the water utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations. 13. That the water backflow equipment shall be above ground, outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public and private streets. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division In either underground vaults or outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public and private streets. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Inspector before submittal for building permits. 14. That prior to rendering water service, the developer/owner shall submit a set of water improvement plans for Putilic Utilities Water Engineering review and approval in determining the conditions necessary for providing water service to the project. A performance bond in an amount approved by the City Engineer and in a form approved by the City Attorney shall be posted with the City of Anaheim. 15. That prior to the issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department Development Services Division for review and approval a Water Quality Management Plan that: • Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas. • Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan. • Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP. • Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs. -4- PC2004- Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment , . Control BMPs. 16. That prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall e Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. ® Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP m Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WOMP are available onsite. m Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural BMPs. 17. That all lots shall be assigned Mohler Drive street addresses by the Building Division. 18. That the City of Anaheim sewer assessment fee for the Mohler Drive Area shall be paid. The fee is currently $1,287/acre. 19. That the City of Anaheim sewer connection fee shall be paid. The fee is currently $350/ acre. 20. That prior to the recordation of the lot line adjustment, all existing structures shall be demolished. The legal property owner shall obtain a demolition permit from the Building Division before demolition. 21. The vehicular access rights to Santa Ana Canyon Road and Mohler Drive except at the street intersection shall be released and relinquished to the City of Anaheim. 22. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said department. Sold areas shall be specifically indicated on scaled plans (showing storage and collection areas) submitted for building permits. 23. That approval of this variance is contingent upon approval of Reclassification No. 2004-00116, now pending. 24. That prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the applicant shall construct an all weather sidewalk and trail to the City's satisfaction within the right-of-way along the project's frontage at Santa Ana Canyon Road. Such information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 25. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 1, Exhibit No. 1, and as conditioned herein. 26. That prior to the approval of a lot line adjustment, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 20 and 21 shall be complied with. 27. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 22 and 24 above mentioned, shall be complied with. 28. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 16, 24 and 25, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. _5_ PC2004- 29. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the. .._. request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of May 17, 2004. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.03, "Zoning Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on May 17, 2004, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2004. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -6- PC2004- ATTACIIMENT -ITEM N0. 4 SECTION 4 PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: PERTAINING TO: ~?r1? iS.O~•O~~CJZ3 (A 15 for each Code waiver) Sections 18.03.040.030 and 18.12.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code require that before any variance or Code waiver maybe granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shall be shown: That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and 2. That, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. In order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist [he Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to arrive at a decision, please answer each of [he 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 special circumstances: 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: 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 If your answer if "yes," describe the special circum//s~tances: I I ~ , ['J~~j 1 VV t 4. Were the special circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? Yes TNo EXPLAIN U d L - ~ ~ ~ ~ The sole purpose of any variance or Code waiver shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance or Code waiver shall be approved which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone which is not otherwise expressly authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances are not permitted. X •/.tip... .~~„~,~ ,~j L't-` ~1 T ignature of Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date DECEMBER 12, 24D0 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE NO. VAR X10.2004 - 0 4 6 01 ITEM N0. 5 'S-25 190 qq~~ `IFS \ h /~ 1 (2) CL (BCC) RCL 98-99-11 m RCL 6354.118 (5) ~o CUP 3513 ~ CUP 3044 U RESTAURANT ~ RS-A-03,000 CUP 3468 VAR 1807 5 CHURCH SCHOOL 0 NQ K' CLEARBROOK LN ORANGE AVENUE 337'-®1 ~~~ <:~,~ __~~'"~~ RCL B9-9&11 ~. 4 <i `~' " :i'~~ RCL BFBSd7 s ,:a~a /.J+,l'a CL (BCC) RCL 57 5320 ~ ' . CUP 2004-Od844~. F RCL 939&11 l I :~ RCL 9-6320 x CUP 3744 ` ` E '$ RM-1200 '-.CUP 2000.049ddx a CUP 2491 . £ '° PCN 2004-0001St; rn RCL 6758-73 CUP2 ~' W 7 d VAR 1970 CUP 1995 %",~=~7~~~v~•M~;; rn W 65 DU <PCN 2004-00015(: ?.~; CL (BCC) x>~ N SMALL :=t RCL B3B&11 ,y COMM f RCL 57 5320 SHOPS CUP2004-04944 ~''~. ~,y~<postzy„ ;~' PCN 2004-00015 br ' ,~ctx ~v~ ~~ y BANK OF ~, F ~~ CL (BCG) RCLL 6758-73 RCL 9B-9&11 ~ RCL 6455-08 RCL 64-05.48 RCL 99-B&11 = CUP 4077 RCL BF85-0B VAR 1970 CUP 109 CUP 709 Y 65 DU VAR 343 7 OFFICEANO RETAIL O 0 CL (BCC) W P 4077 L?' RCL 9&9411 VAR 3437 m RCL fi4-fi5-0B PROFESSIONAL WP2003-04814 OFFICE CL (BCC) RCL 9859-11 RCL 6455.48 VAR 852 IM CI7YLIM/T.4 VACANT CL (BCC) RCL 98.99.11 RCL 72.73.23 RCL 72-73-0fi CUP 1325 MOTEL CL (BCC) RCL 9859-11 TILE 8 RCL 5657-2 MARBLE VAR 1140 VAR 433 CL (BCC) RCL 98-99-11 _ RCL 5657-2~ °' CUP 2001-04419 CUP 4419 VAR 433 BROOKHURST PLAZA CL 1331 433 CL (BCC) RCL 9859-1 t RCL 6455.123 RCL6455-13 RcLSeSOao 6455-13 COMM. SHOPS CL RCL 98-99-11 RCL 6465-13 CUP 2251 CUP 1734 COMM. SHOPB Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04844 ~y<~~ ` Subject Property Date: May 17, 2004 Determination of Public Convenience Scale: 1" = 200' or Necessity 2004-00015 Requested By: SPYRIDON RADOS Q.S. No. 34 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04844 - REQUEST TO PERMIT RETAIL SALES OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR OFF-PREMISES CONSUMPTION IN CONJUNCTION WfTH A PROPOSED PHARMACY. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2004-00015 -REQUEST TO DETERMINE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR RETAIL SALES OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR OFF-PREMISES CONSUMPTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED PHARMACY. 611 South Brookhurst Street - Sav-On Drugs 1320(20045-10) ITEM N0. 5 Staff Report to the Planning .Commission 'May 17, 2004 Item No. 5' Sa. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion) 5b. `CONDITIONALUSEPERMITN0.2004-04844 (Resolution) 5c. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE !r OR NECESSITY NOi 2004-00015 (Resolution) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This rectangularly-shaped, 2.3-acre property is located at the southwest comer of "Brookhurst Street an$ Orange Avenue, having frontages of 337!feet on the south side of Orange Avenue and 299 feet onthe west side of Brookhurst Street (611 South Brookhurst Street). REQUEST: (2) The petitioner requests approval"of the following: (a) A conditional use permit to permit the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off- premises consumption in conjunction with a proposed pharmacy under authority of CodeSecticn No: 18.55.0442.060. (b) Determination of Public Convenience dr Necessity to permit retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction witfi a proposed pharmacy. ':BACKGROUND: (3) This property is developed with a commercial shopping center, restaurant,'and bank'and is zoned CL`(BCC) (Commercial-Limited, Brookhurst Commercial'Corridor Overlay) and is located within the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project Area (WACCRA): The Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element Map designates this property for General Commercial and Medium Density Residential land uses. The property isalso designated'as a Housing Opportunity site in the Housing Element of the Anaheim General Plan. (4) Surrounding General Pian Land Use designations are as follows: .~~~. _ rz'~i~eclio~l,~~ ., ~. ,°,,.. m~. . , a ±~`,.~ . ~ere~ai'Plert'besi nation ~:. North across Oran a Avenue General Commercial/ Low Dertsi Residential Easf across Brooktiurst Street =General Commercial` South General Commercial/ Medium Densi Residential , 'West MediumDensi Residential Sr5093jr Page 1 Staff Repprt to the Planning Commission May'17, 2004 Item No. 5 PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS: (5) The following zoning actions pertain to this property: (a) Zoning Code Amendment No. 2003-00027 (to include drug stores with off-premises sale of alcoholic beverages as'a use permitted by a conditional use permit in the BCC Overlay Zone and to reduce the minimum floor area requirement for obtaining a conditional use permit for'off-premises sales of alcoholic`beverages for markets, grocery: stores and drug stores from 30,OOO;square feet to 15,000 square feet) was approved by' the Council on January 27, 2004, and becama effective February 27, 2004. (b) Conditional Use Permit No. 1896 (to permit a pawnshopf Was approved by the. Commission on October 9, 1978. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring termination of this permitas this structure is proposed to be demolished, (c) Conditional Use Permit No. 2073 (to permit on-sale beerand wine in an existing restaurant in the CL Zone) was approved by the Commission on May 5, 1980Staff has included a condition of approval requiring termination ofahis permikas this structure is proposed to be demolished. (d) Conditional Use Permit No. 2189 (to permit on=sale beerand wine in an existing restaurant) was approvedby the Commission on April 6,:1981. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring termination of this permit as this structure is proposed to be demolished.` (e) Conditional Use Permit No. 2491 (to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant with waiver of minimum number ofparking spaces) wasapproved by the Commission ort September 7, 1983.: Staff has'inciuded a condition of approval requiring: termination ofahis permit as this structure is proposed tobe demolished. (f) Conditional Use Permit No. 3744 (topermit a 720 square foot expansion of an'existing 3,661. square foot enclosed restaurant with on=premise sale and consumption of beer and wine) wasjapproved by the Commission on March 2,`,.1995. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring termination of this permit as this structure is proposed to be demolishedr PROPOSAL' (6) 'The petitioner requests a conditional use permit and a determination ofpublic convenience or necessity to allow the retail' ales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption r within a proposed pharmacy drug store.+The existing commercial center and restaurant would be demolished to facilitate the construction bf the newipharmacy The existing bank (Bank of the West)'would remain. Page 2 Staff Report to the '' Planning'Commission May 17,:2004 :Item No. 5 y~D`~ F `?+~o-- 6lr s~^P~r~-^s~s,F :. °E'a?- ~~~i yy/'~' ~' ~1 "°r' s~ -~'r''~' y -?~.`qr J.?~ ~`s`~'Y~~s E. ie "~7 FYr,*~ +fy'", 5r i r~ z ~~ ~-n~~f ..~~~`y x z' r~ ~~,~. zr'r f v~ ~ ~, Y ' ~ t"' `y.? ~, w t ~ ~:E l'~ r' er `s` y>'`S k' ~ fn,~~; F ~ sr. ~ 4s. f '.~". z~ ~ ~~ t ~ ~ ~ 3 r,, ~ ~~ '- 1 r '^ ~'r z d'JS~S. 4 ~t ~~ ~ ~ £ t 6~ ~ i ~ b i ~~ ~.,~~ ~ ~~~ ~. f e .. i Fd yam. aa5-.v ....:.f,.. -. fi~:r.: °: aye i View of existing commercial centerand restaurant from Brookhurst Street f (7) The site plan (Exhibit'No. 1) indicates an existing 4,815 square foot bank building and a proposed 15,023 square-foot Sav-On Drug Store. The proposed drug store has the< 'following setbacks: DtreGtton ' ` ~ Rroposed ~ i ° Code regmred , : Proposed Code-required BmldtnglStruc`,turai Building Landscaped Landscaped ;~. ~a.. ~kt _ ~-~et~ack ~ ~ _ ,.$'etback, :Areas ' Ares ," ;' „s ... ~..-._ _,zx. ,,~ North (aa)acent to Varies from 53 feet 10'feet 12 feet 10-foot wide Orange Avenue) to 82 feet <' South (ad)acent to 83 feet None 10 feet None Hone eked Ham East(ad~acentto 183 feet 10'feet 12feet 10-foofwide -.' BrookhurstStreet West {ad)acent to 35 feet 10'feet Varies from 10 10-foot wide apartment complex) feet to 14 feet (8) Vehicular access to the site would be provided via one (1) 35-fook wide driveway oriboth 'Orange Avenue and'Brookhurst Street. The site plan also indicates a total of 115 on-site parking spaces. Code requires a minimum of 112 spaces based on the ratio of 5.5 paces `'per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the proposed Sav-On (15,023 s.f./1,000 x 5.5 = 83 spaces) and the ratio of 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the existing drive through bank (4,815 s.f./1 X000 x 6 ='29 spaces). (9) The floor plan (Exhibit No. 2) indicates a 15,023 square-foot building including a 1,100 square-foot office and receiving area, 230 square-foot beer cooler, 392 square-foot employeebreak room, pharmacy, film development center and a 9,718 square-footmarket 'display area. The beer cooler and sales area is 5.7°~ of the total floor area (560 s.f;'divided Page 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May17, 2004 Item No. 5 by 9,718 s.f. of retail area = 5.7%). Cotle requires that the area used for alcohol display not exceed wenty-five (25%) of the retail sales floor area of the store. (10) ' The elevation plan (Exhibit No. 3) indicates a 31-foot high single story building, with a red Mission Tile roof tower element, textured plaster exterior finish (Color Sherwin Williams _ "Deer Valley"), and asplit-faced CMU treatment along the bottom three-feet, siz-inches of ' each elevation. The CMU band along the entryway and drive-through :columns would extend six feet in height from finished grade. A decorative cornice treatment would be used along the remainder of the building roof, with accent tiles (Dal Tile -Brown) included on each building elevation. (11 } The landscape plan (Exhibit tJo. 4) indicates proposed setback landscaped area: adjacent to Brookhurst Street and Orange Avenue twelve (12) feet in width consisting of twenty-one (21) 24-inch box ~'rnamental Pear trees (seven (7) on Brookhurst Street and fourteen {14) on Orange Avenr:5:',. This landscaped area would'also consist of Ivy Geranium; Marathonll Sod, and Texas Privet. A ten-foot wide landscaped planter is proposed along the west property line and would be planted with fifteen (15} 24-inch tiox Pink Melaleuca trees, Ivy Geranium, Texas Privet, and Creeping,Fig to screen the existing six-foot high wall. Parking of landscaping would include sixteen (16) landscape fingers, aten-foot wide planter along the south property line, and two (2) planter areas adjacent to the building, containing twenty (20) 24-inch box Carrot Wood trees, three (3) 24-inch box Bronze Loquat' trees, and associated shrubbery, vines;and groundcover. Code requires a minimum of one (1) tree per every twenty (20) feet of street frontage to be planted in the landscape areas adjacent to the street frontages (17 trees on Orange Avenue and fifteen (15) trees on Brookhurst Street), as well as at least one (1) free per three thousand (3,000) square feet ' of parking area and/or vehicular access ways distributed throughout the parking area I (69,384/ 3000 square feet = 23 trees). A planter area of forty-eight (48) square feet per tree is required, with a minimum planter dimension of five (5) feet sepa~aflng every ten parking'spaces. The Code further requires a minimum landscaped setback often (10) feet' along property lines adjacent to any residentially zoned property, planted with one (1) tree per every 20 linear feet {298'.feet/20 =15 trees). (12) 2 The sign plan (Fcfiibit No. 5)'indicates four (4) wall signs on the north elevation consisting '; of 142 square feet (5.2% oflhe building elevation)'and seven (7) wall igns on the east elevation consisting of 157 square feet (4.8% of the building'elevation) One (1) "Exit On~:r sign (nine (9) square feet) would be located on the west elevation. Two (2) drive-thrn~. ;n directional signs would be located at each driveway and would be 4'-6";high and approximately three (3) square feet in size. One (1) double-faced monument sign s proposed within the planter area at the comer of Brookhurst Street and Orange Avenue. This sign would be eight (8),feet in height and ten (10) feet wide with a'sign area: df 42.5 square foot per face and would be designed in a manner consistent with the proposed building.: Code allows wall signs for advertising, provided the total area of any such sign shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the area of the face of he building to which such sign is attached. Code further requires that a) all monument signs shall not exceed the lesser of ` sixty-five (65) square feet orb.5 square foot for each linear foot of street or highway frontage. of the parcel of real,property on which said sign is located; b) be located within a landscaped planter, the area'of which is at least ane-half the total sign`area of the sign located: within the planter, c) signs include the numeric street address with numbers no less:` than nine Inches in height; d), the exterior finish, color and materials of the sign shall complement the colors and/or materials of the building that the advertised business Page 4 Staff Report to the Planning.Commission `May 17;2004 .Item No. 5 occupies; and e) a solid base at least eighteen (18) inches in height. Code further allows "entrance":and "exiY'signage not to exceetl three feetin height or width and they may include a logo. (13) The submitted letter of operation: indicates the pharmacy would be open up to twenty-four (24) hours per day seven (7) days a week,: depending on customer need at this location. Stores thatdo not operate 24-hours typically operate 7 a.m. to midnight, with deliveries between 6'a.m, and 10 p.m. Inaddition tdthe pharmacy, the new store would include the sales of school supplies, cosmetics, greeting cards, one-hour photo processing, and general merchandise..: There would also be an ancillary department for food, sodas, juices, milk, and alcoholic beverages. The gross floor area devoted to alcoholic beverages would not exceed en percent (10%) of,the store's: overall gross floor area. The store would also have a dual drive through lane pharmacy to, facilitate customer "drop off" and "pick up" of 'medical prescriptions:' All drivethrough interaction would be face to face, and would. only be utilized for medicalprescriptions. The business would maintain a staff of approximately 40 positions, with a typical shift of 12-15 employees, r (14) Code Enforcement records indicate one (1) active Code violation pertaining to the Carthage .Cafe (Hookah Bar) on his property, The violation pertains to two (2) existing pool tables and the use of a disc jockey (DJ) for entertainment. Code Enforcement has notified'the operator of the cats and is working toward resolving these issues. ENVIRONMENTALI IMPACT ANALYSISS (15) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for; review in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore, .recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning Commission that the Negative Declaration'reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; antl that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration togetherwithany comments'received wring thepublic review process and further finding on the basis of the 'Initial Study and any comments':received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSISf (16) The proposed project has been reviewed by affected City departments to determine whether itconforms'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 Element analysistherefore,ho analysis has been pertormed, HOUSING ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (17) Effective January 1, 2003, Government Code Section 65863 restricts a city's ability to s'reduce the maximum' allowable'density oh property, in areas already designated orzoned for residential uses to a level below the density usedlpy the State of California Housing and ';Community Development Department (HCD) when determining whether 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 Page 5 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17; 2004 Item No. 5 reduction of density or any such residentially-designated parcel, unless the following findings are made= (a) That the proposed reduction in density is consistent with'the General Plan, including the Housing Element. (b) Thatthe remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to accommodates city's share of the'regional housing needs. (18) ; If a city cannot make the second finding, it may still make the reduction in density if it identifies sufficient:"additional, adequate, and available sites" with an equal or greater residential capacity in the jurisdiction so hat there is no net loss of residential unif capacity. In some'instances,i it maybe necessary for the city to "up-zone" some other area of the city ? in order to legallyadcomplisft`a down-zoning (Government Code Section 65863).This statute provides attorneys fees to a successful plaintiff challenging a city under the statute. (19) ', The City Attorney's Office has reviewed'Section 65863 and advised that Govemment Code Sectiom65803 states that the sections in Chapter;4, of which' 65863 isa part, do not apply to charter cities except as otherwise provided. Since Section 65863 does not specifically indicate'applicability to charter cities, it is believed. that such provision does not apply to Anaheim, a charter city. However, as a:practical matter the reclassification of property needs to 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 with the General Plan, it is recommended that the findings in Section 65863''.be utilized as a model, and be analyzed by the City when property: is rezonetl to a density below that considered in the approved Housing Element as a`method of determining continuing conformance with the assumptions contained therein. (20) 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 opportunitysites throughout the City with`density ranges to accommodate 16,048 to 20,841 housing units. In a conservative analysis, a reduction in residential density which results ima Toss of fewer than:'. 4,500 units will notimpact 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 tieyond 4,500 units, provided it remains'jn conformance with'the approved Housing Element, which may be accomplished by identifying sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites with an equal orgreater residential densityso that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity. (21) In order to ensure that zoning. actions which grant a reduction of density on residentially r; zoned properties are consistent with the City's General Plan, jncluding, he Housing Element as approved by HCD, it is recommendeo'thatthe Planning Commission: utilize the methodology set forth in Govemment Code Section 65863. Although it is believed that said' section is not applicable to Anaheim as a charter city, it is recommended that the proposed action be considered and evaluated to'deterrnine that if the reduction of density results in a density level below that used by HCD when determining whether the Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the City's Housing Element complied with state law, that the following findings, without waiver of the City's charter city authority, belmade: Page 6 Staff Report to the Planning Commission ` May 17;'2004 Item No- 5 (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 regional housing need pursuanffo Government Code Section 65584. (22) The project-site contains three (3) of the seven (7) parcels identified as Site No. 67 of the West Anaheim Area within the Housing Element with a density range of 8' 0 18 units per acre. The2.32 acre'site could accommodate from 13 to 41 units. The following table reflects the total maximum loss of residential units from the number of potential units .identified i~ the Housing Element due to zoning actions approved since January 1,2003 (Effective date of GovemmenfCode Section 65803).'. jt~`~~'"d+c'a(i~tu `~~ 611 South Brookhurst Street. [5t eit`~(afn9 ~ = ~ Sav On Dru Store RQci cU t~(Ik~~ L 41 Units endin 1266 Easf Lincoln Avenue Gutierrez Tire Sho 13 Units endin 2823 West Ball Road Buddhist Tem le; 10 Units Various Parcels in the Colon Five-Points Down-zonin 15'Uhits Northeast Terminus) of Via Cortez Caliber Motors 30 Units 2792 West Ball Road thenian Plaza 9 Units TOTAL 118 Ghits (23) As noted above, reductions in residential density which result ih a loss of fewer than 4,500 units will not impact the City'sability to accommodate its share'of the regional housing need and would remain consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan. The 'prior actions and the'proposed'commercial use of the subject property will result in a total combined7eductiorTbf amaximum of 118Units. The remaining sites identified in the !Housing Element provide residential unit capacity in excess of the proposed 118-unit reduction in density identified to date. (24) Based on the foregoing, this reduction of housing density is consistent with the Housing iElement and, further, that the "remaining housing opportunity sites identified in the Housing ..Element are adequate to accommodate the Citys share of the regional housing need, EVALUATION: (25) The sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within a drug store with a floor area of greater'than 15,000 squarefieet is permitted within the CL (BCC) zone subject to approval of a conditional use permit. The drugstore itself isa permitted use within the zone. (26) The applicant is requesting retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption ih conjunction with a`proposed"tlrug store: The Anaheim Police Department has submitted `the attached memorandum dated Marcti 31, 2004, stating this'property is'located within Police Reporting District No. 1619, which has a crime rate 85% above CiN averaoe This !property is' also located within`Census Tract 877.01,`where there are currently 3 licenses I for retail sales of alcoholic beverages foroff-premises consumption and only 3 off-sale `licenses are allowed: This census tractpopulationaiso allows for 6 licenses for retail sales ..Page 7 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May,17, 2004 Item No. 5 of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption where currently 9 exist, The Police Department responded to this location'35 times since March of 2003,!and seven: (7) reports were taken (rapestolen vehicle, AMC'violation, vehicle tow, fight, suspicious circumstances, and one assist recovery with other department). The'calls included seventeen (17) 91:1 hang-ups, 1 rape, 1 battery, 3 disturbances, 2 suspicious persons, 2 _ suspicious vehicles, 4 burglar alarms, 1 stolen vehicle, 1 assist recovery other department;.. 1 AMC violation, 1 car stop,'and 1 tow truck needed. The Deporting .district to the north has: a crime: rate of 231 % above: City average, the reporting district to the south has: a crime rate of 80% below City: average, the reporting disMct to the wesE has a crime rate of 64% above average and the reporting district to the east has: a crime rate of 1 % tielow average. The Police Department opposes'this request due to tfie high crime rate and over concentration; and has included recommended conditions of approval in the event tftis request js grantedr (27) ; Although the business would be located within an area of both high crime and over concentration, the: new pharmacy would provide a variety of;retail services and involve the demolition of the existing commercial center. Because this proposal would involve the termination of four (4) entitlements pertaining to the on-premises sale of beer and wine, as', well as'a pawn shop, and because thebusiness would have less thanl0% of itssales devoted to alcoholic beverages, staff recommends approval'of the request to allow for the sale of alcoholic 6everages'for off-premises consumption fog one vearfrom the date of occupancy in order to determine what effect this proposal would have on the'crime rate for this reporting district and calls for service at this'iocation. (28) The petitioner has'applied for a determination of public convenience or necessity,in order to obtain a,Type 21;(Off--Sale General) license. Due to overconcentration within the Census Tract and high crime rate within the Reporting District of this: property, a determination of public convenience or necessity is required from the City of Anaheim by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control;(ABC). (29) ' On July 11, 1995, the Anaheim City Council adopted Resolution No. 95R-134 establishing , procedures and delegating certain responsibilities'relating to'issuance of licenses by the State Department df Alcoholic Beverage Control'(ABC) with;regard to applications for licenses. which would otherwise be denied but for the issue of whether public convenience or necessity would be served by issuance of the license and'. where the: City is responsible under State law to`make such determination, the resolution delegates uch determinations` to the Planning Commission with the right of appeal (or review) by the: City Council. (30) Sectiort23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that ABC shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license: would end to create,a law enforcement problem or if issuance would. result in, or add to, an undue concentration of licenses, except when an applicant has demonstrated that public convenience or necessity would be served! by the issuance of'a license.? (31) The statement of justification for determination of public convenience or necessity submitted by the petitioner (attached) indicates the sale of alcoholic beverages is'ancillary ; (less than ten percent) to the:overall product mix provided by the store„ and that here are no other full service drug stores in the area that offer alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption. The petitione[further notes that there are multi-family and single family residential neighborhoods in the vicinity; however, a strict training program for employees has been established and consists of oh-going training, indoor store signage, and "mystery? Page 8 > Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17 2004 Item No: 5 shoppers" to ensure all company policies and laws are being followed related to thesales of alcoholic beverages. (32) Staff conducted a survey of thearea and ident~ed aprivate church and school directly 'across the'street from the proposed drugstore (SO feet "as the crow flies") and public school, Walt Disney Elementary School, westerly on' Orange Avenue (915' feet "as the crow 'flies). When a new retail license is requested withim600 feet of a school; he Department of `Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) has the ability to deny the request for the license. (33) The Planning Commission established a policy to determine whether a determination of public convenience or necessity is appropriate. A copy of the'Planning Commission's ;guidelines to determine public'convenience or necessity is attached. StafF believes the determination can be!made based on the fact that there are currently no similar establishments in the: immediate vicinity. The petitioner has also suggested mitigating ,bperationaf characteristics (strict training and monitoring program), and currently there are no other similar businesses inane area that offer the alcoholicbeverages,fornff-premises consumption in conjunction with' a pharmacy. The increase in concentration is not significant'{three (3) censes are allowed and this would be the fourth). Moreover, three (3) establishments that sell beer and wine for: on-premises consumption would be eliminated tlue to the'demolition of buildings on this site. Staff recommends that a determination of :public convenience or necessity be made and approval of the request to allow for the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption witft a time limitation of one year from date of occupancy in order to determine the impact this proposal would have do the crime rate for this reporting district and the calls for"service at this location. (34) The Community Development Department has included the attached memorandum Hated May 4, 2004, indicating they concur with the Planning Department's recommendation of approval of both the request fora conditional use permit and determination of public convenience or necessity because the proposal is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan's goals to alleviate blighted conditions and revitalize/improve commercial properties along this commercial corridor (35) Staff has included standard conditions of approval and has included conditions pertaining 'to landscaping, signage, and exterior builtling elevations to ensure the site design is:' consistentwith othe[recent development projects in'the area (36) As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any communication from the community in support or opposition to this request. : ? FINDINGS: (37) Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of he 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 not listed 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 wfiich`it is proposed to be located; Page 9 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17, 2004 Item:No. 5 (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 highways°designed and improved to carry the traffic in the :area; and (e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, healtfi, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. .RECOMMENDATION: (38) ; Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission; including the evidence presented in thisstaff report, and oral and written'evidence presentetl'at the public hearing, the Commission aoorove the petitioner's request by adopting the attached resolutions including the findings cbntained therein: Page 10 [DI~.FTj RESOLUTION NO. PC2004--* A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04844 BE GRANTED (611 SOUTH BROOKHURST STREET) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verged Petition for Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO LOS COYOTES, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDEp IN BOOK 51, PAGE 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, SHOWN AS PERCEL 1 ON A MAP RECORED IN BOOK 54, PAGE 20, PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on May 17, 2004., at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and .recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section No. 18.55.0442.080; and 2. 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 because the sale of alcoholic beverages is ancillary (less than ten percent [10%]) of the overall product mix provided by the store, and that there are no other full service drug stores in the area that offer alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in the area. Moreover, the operator adheres to strict employee training policies and therefore, the accessary sale of alcoholic beverages, as proposed and as approved, will not have a negative impact on the surrounding area due to the operational characteristics identified in the company's 2002 Policy Information On the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages provided to the Planning Commission and included as an attachment to the staff report dated May 17, 2004; and 3. 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 as the proposed drug would comply with all provisions of the Zoning Code and would not require any waivers for development; and 4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and 5. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because the sale of alcoholic beverages is ancillary (less than ten percent [10%]) to the overall product mix provided by the store. Moreover, the operator adheres to strict employee training policies and therefore the accessory sale of alcoholic beverages, as proposed and as approved, will not have a negative impact on the surrounding area; and Cr\PC2004-0 -1- PC2004- 6. That *** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with a proposed pharmacy on arectangular-shaped 2.3-acre property, and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independentjudgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Gitizens of the City of Anaheim: 1. That the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption shall expire one (1) year from the date of occupancy. 2. That there shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. 3. That no display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside of the building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. 4. That the area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total display area in the building. 5. That the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is in the building. 6. That no person under twenty-one (21) years of age shall sell or be permitted to sell any beer or wine. 7. That beer and malt beverages shall not be sold in packages containing less than a six (6) pack, and that wine coolers shall not be sold in packages containing less than a four (4) pack. 8. That the possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption of alcoholic beverages are prohibited on or around these premises. 9. That the parking lot of the premises shall be equipped with decorative lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal privacy and use of any neighboring residences. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 10. That there shall be no amusement machines, video game devices, or pool tables maintained upon the premises at any time. 11. That there shall be no public telephones on the property that are located outside the building and within the control of the applicant. -2- PC2004- 12. That the gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed thirty-five percent (35%) of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating...,...... the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested. 13. That 3-foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 14. That in order to maintain visibility into the establishment for security purposes, window signage shall not be permitted. All fixtures, displays, .merchandise and other materials shall be setback a minimum of three (3) feet from all window areas. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 15. That the property shall be permanently maintained 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 of occurrence. 16. That any tree or other landscaping material planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged., diseased and/or dead. 17. That no roof-mounted balloons or other inflatable devices shall be permitted on the property. 18. That no outdoor vending machines visible from off-site shall be permitted on the property., 19. That there shall be no outdoor storage permitted on the premises. All shopping cart storage shall be located within the building. A shopping cart retrieval plan shall be submitted to staff for review and approval. Said plan shall be implemented upon occupancy of the store. 20. That roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from view'in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.44:030.120 pertaining to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 21. That final elevation plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division and Community Development Department for review and approval. Said plans shall incorporate a ledge stone or similar enhanced treatment along each building elevation. Any decision by City staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendation item. 22. That final sign plans for the monument sign and directional signage shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Said plans shall incorporate the stone treatment identical to the treatment utilized on the building, an 18-inch high base including 9-inch high address letters, and a decorative cornice treatment along the full length of the monument sign. The final sign plans shall reflect the relocation of the monument sign outside the sight-distance triangle at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Orange Avenue. Any decision made by staff regarding said sign plans may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendation" item. 23. That final landscape and hardscape plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for review and approval including the following: • A landscaped planter along the north and east building elevations (facing Orange Avenue and Brookhurst Street). • Plans shall indicate a total of fifteen (15) 24-inch box sized trees along Brookhurst Street. • Plans shall indicate a total of seventeen (17) 24-inch box sized trees along Orange Avenue. • A minimum thirty-six (36) inch high hedge within the street side setback along both Brookhurst Street and Orange Avenue. _3_ PC2004- o All on site landscaping, including trees, shall be consistent with the Brookhurst Street Corridor Design Study. m Decorative smooth pavement treatment at the driveway entrances on Brookhurst Street and - Orange Avenue. Any decision made by staff regarding said final landscape and hardscape plans may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. 24. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department., Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum one-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum three-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 25. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval. 26. That an on-slte trash truck tum-around area shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said turn-around area shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 27. That ail backflow equipment shall be located above ground and outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault shall be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector. 28. That all requests for new water services and fire lines as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonment of existing water services and fire lines shall be coordinated through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. 29. That prior to application for water meters, fire line or submitting the water improvement plans for approval, the developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations. 30. That since this project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation :meter shall be installed in compliance with Chapter 10.19 of Anaheim Municipal Code No. 5349 regarding water conservation. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 31. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Service Standards Specifications. Any water service or fire tine that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line. 32. That individual water service and/or fire line connections shall be required for each parcel per Rule 18 of the City of Anaheim's Water Rates, Rules, and Regulations. -4- PC2004- 33. That the City of Anaheim Sewer Impact Mitigation fee for the Combined West Anaheim Area, Zone C shall be paid. The mitigation fee is currently $4611000 SF far commercial developments. ,... 34. That prior to the issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department Development, Services Division for review and approval a Water Quality Management Plan that: " • Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas. • Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Contrcl BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan. • Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP. • Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs. • Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. • Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. 35. That prior to issuance of cert~cate of occupancy, the applicant shall: • Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. • Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP • Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available onsite. • Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural BMPs. 36. That the existing building on the proposed site shall be demolished. The legal prcperty owner shall obtain a demolition permit from the Building Division. 37. That the developer shall submit street improvement plans to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division and a bond shall be posted to guarantee that Orange Avenue and Brookhurst Street are improved in accordance with City standards. The improvements shall be constructed prior to certificate of occupancy. - 38. That the property owner shall submik a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1896 (to permit a pawnshop), Conditional Use Permit No. 2073 (to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant in the CL Zone), Conditional Use Permit No. 2189 (to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant), Conditional Use Permit No. 2491 (to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces), and Conditional Use Permit No. 3744 (to permit a 720 square foot expansion of an existing 3,661 square foot enclosed restaurant with on-premise sale and consumption of beer and wine) to the Zoning Division. 39. That the drive through window shall only be used to obtain pharmacy related products. 40. That subject property shall tie developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 5, and as conditioned herein. 41. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 9, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 33, _5- PC2004- 34, 36, 37 and 38, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 42. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 35, 37 and 40, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 43. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shat) be deemed null and void. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of May 17, 2004. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.03, "Zoning Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City:Planning Commission held on May 17, 2004, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF., I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2004, SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -6- PC2004- [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2004 ° A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2004-00015 - FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE {611 SOUTH BROOKHURST STREET) WHEREAS, on July 11, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95R-134 establishing procedures and delegating certain responsibilities to the Planning Commission relating to the determination of "public convenience or necessity" on those certain applications requiring that such determination be made by the local governing body pursuant to applicable provisions of the Business and Professions Code, and prior to the issuance of a license by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC); and WHEREAS, Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that the ABC shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an undue concentration of licenses, except when an applicant has demonstrated that public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of a license; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive an application for a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity for retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off- premises consumption in conjunction with a proposed pharmacy on certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO LOS COYOTES, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, SHOWN AS PERCEL 1 ON A MAP RECORED IN BOOK 54, PAGE 20, PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on May 17, 2004, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by Resolution No. 95R-134 and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to.hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed determination of public convenience or necessity for an alcoholic beverage control license to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the petitioner demonstrated that the sale of alcoholic beverages would be a very minor portion of the proposed business (less than 10%) retail sales. 2. That the accessory sale of alcoholic beverages, as proposed and as approved, will not have a negative impact on the surrounding area due to the operational characteristics including those identified in the companys 2002 Policy Information On the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages provided to the Planning Commission and included as an attachment to the staff report dated May 17, 2004. 3. That the public convenience or necessity will be served because the petitioner would be the only such retailer (full service pharmacy/drug store and general merchandise) in the area that would offer alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption. That indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition. Cr\PC2004-0 -1- PC2004- CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to determine public convenience or necessity for retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with a proposed pharmacy on a rectangular- shaped 2.3-acre property, located at the southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Orange Avenue, and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby determine that the public convenience or necessity will be served by the issuance of a license for retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with a proposed drive through pharmacy, at this location. 1. That the off premises sale of alcoholic beverages shall expire one (1) year from the date of occupancy. 2. That there shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. 3. That no display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside of a building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 4. That the area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total display area in a building. 5. That the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is in the building. 6. That no person under twenty-one (21) years of age shall sell or be permitted to sell any beer or wine. 7. That beer and malt beverages shall not be sold in packages containing less than a six (6) pack, and that wine coolers shall not be sold in packages containing less than a four (4) pack. 8. That the possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption of alcoholic beverages are prohibited on or around these premises. 9. That the parking lot of the premises shall be equipped with decorative lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal privacy and use of any neighboring residences. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 10. That there shall be no amusement machines, video game devices, or pool tables maintained upon the premises at any time. 11. That there shall be no public telephones on the property that are located outside the building and within the control of the applicant. 12. That the gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed thirty-five percent (35%) of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items: These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested. -2- PC2004- 13. That the property shall be permanently maintained 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 of occurrence. 14. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning, Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5, and as conditioned herein. 15. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3 and 9, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 16. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 14, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 17. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the findings hereinabove set forth. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of May 17, 2004. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.03, "Zoning Provisions - General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on May 17, 2004, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of .2004. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION _3_ PC2004- ATTACFII$ENT -ITEM N0. 5 Cl~'~ O~A11a~12%111 POLICE DEPARTMENT DATE: March 31, 2004 TO: John Ramirez Planning Department FROM: Sergeant Mike Lozeau Vice Detail SUBJECT: CUP 2004-04844 / PCN 2004-00015 Albertson / Sav-on 611 S. Brookhurst Street Anaheim, CA 92804 The above listed applicant is requesting a hearing for Public Convenience or Necessity for an off premise Type 21 Alcoholic Beverage Control License in conjunction with a drug store. The location is within Reporting District 1819, which has a crime rate of 85 percent above average.. It is also within census tract 877.01, which has a population of 4,882. This population allows for 3 off sale licenses and there are presently 3 active licenses in the tract. This population allows for 6 on sale licenses and there are 9 active licenses in the tract. The Reporting District to the north of this location is 1719 with a crime rate of 231 percent above average. The Reporting District to the south, is 1919 with a crime rate of 80 percent below average. The Reporting District to the east is 1820 with a crime rate of 1 percent below average. The Reporting District to the west is 1818 and has a crime rate of 64 percent above average. The census tract boundaries are: North Orange Avenue South Ball Road East Nuiwood Street West Corporate City Boundary Off sale licenses in the vicinity of the applicant: 915 S. Brookhurst Street 610 S. Brookhurst Street 921 S. Brookhurst Street On sale licenses in the vicinity of the applicant: 888 S. Brookhurst Street 605 S. Brookhurst Street 646 S. Brookhurst Street 815 S. Brookhurst Street 656 N. Brookhurst Street 2222 W. Orange Avenue Ste. M 2241 W. Ball Road 2230 W. Colchester Ste. 10,11,12 2295 W. Ball Road The census tracts (see attached for addresses) surrounding this location are as follows: south - 877.04 on-sale allowed 5/active 2 population 4,734 off-sale allowed 3/active 2 north - 871.01 on-sale allowed 5/active 15 west - 870.02 on-sale allowed 8/active 4 pending 1 south - 877.03 on-sale allowed 7/active 1 north - 871.03 on-sale allowed 9/active 7 east - 871.03 on-sale allowed 9/active 7 south/west - 878.06 on-sale .allowed 6/active 5 north/east - 871.03 on-sale allowed 9/active 7 population 4,087 off-sale allowed 3/active 3 population 6,714 off-sale allowed 5/active 5 population 6,194 off-sale allowed 4/active 1 pending 1 population 7,631 off-sale allowed 5/active 6 population 7,631 off-sale allowed 5/active 6 population 5,407 off-sale allowed 4/active 6 population 7,631 off-sale allowed 5/active 6 north/west - 870.02 population 6,714 on-sale allowed 8/active 4 off-sale allowed 5/active 5/pending 1 south/east - 876.01 population 5,157 on-sale allowed 6/active 0 off-sale allowed 4/active 3 The Police Department has responded to this location 35 times since March 2003. The calls include: 17 911 hang ups, 1 rape, 1 battery, 3 disturbances, 2 suspicious persons, 2 suspicious vehicles, 4 burglary alarms, 1 stolen vehicle 1 assist recovery other department, 1 AMC violation, 1 car stop, 1 tow truck needed. Of these calls for service seven reports were taken, they consist of: 1 rape, 1 stolen vehicle, 1 AMC violation, 1 fight, 1 suspicious circumstances, 1 assist recovery other department, 1 vehicle tow. The Police Department opposes this request due to high crime rate and over. concentration of Alcoholic Beverage Control licenses. If the request for Public Convenience or Necessity is granted, the Police Department recommends the following conditions be placed on the C.U.P: 1) There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. 2) No display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside of a building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. 3) The area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the total display area in a building. 4) Sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is in the building. 5) No person undertwenty-one (21) years of age shall sell or be permitted to sell any beer or wine. 6) That beer and malt beverages shall not be sold in packages containing less than a six (6) pack, and that wine coolers shall not be sold in packages containing less than a four (4) pack. 7) The possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited on or around these premises. 8) The parking lot of the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal privacy and use of any neighboring residences. g) There shall be no amusement machines, video game devices, or pool tables maintained upon the premises at any time. 10) There shall be no public telephones on the property that are located outside the building and within the control of the applicant. 11) The gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 35 percent of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested. 12) Any Graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. 13) The petitioner shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the premises over which they have control, as depicted. Please contact me at extension 1451 if you require further information. f:lhomeMmirwin~2004-04844 PCN 2004-00015 Albertson-Sav-on.doc ATTACHMENT - ITEM N0. 5 ~~®~~ cam ®F aiv~~ Community Development Department DATE: May 4, 2004 TO: John Ramirez, Planner FROM: Ramona Castaneda, Project Manager SUBJECT: 611 S. Brookhurst Street -Sav-On Drug Store (CUP2004-04844 and PCN2004-00015) The following provides background information in preparation for the Planning Commission's consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) to allow aSav-On Drug Store. The subject property is located at 611 S. Brookhurst Street and is located within the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project Area. The intent of the redevelopment project is to revitalize and improve the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors project area. The Redevelopment Plan for the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project ("Redevelopment Plan") designates the subject property as General Commercial. The proposed use in consistent with the Redevelopment Plan's land use designation and goals to alleviate blighting conditions; therefore, the Community Development Department concurs with the Planning Department's recommendation to approve the CUP and PCN. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at extension 4318. c: Brad Hobson Dave See FdDOCSUIOUSINGIMEMOSIRCM72138.OOC 0 z W F H 1 HW£ x d E 6 a cQ G ~ U O ~ ~ ~ H O ,,~^^ V O Z ~H O N N 40. o. ~ w U W I..L H J a __ my ~~ >~ vv $~ o~ vo a` ~ w a~ ~ L Pi N Y 'L `~ ~ ~ 8 O g ~' ~ Qg, m ` O 'g f v'~ v ~ O a d .... ~~-' e E p p 4; N saw a° S'z' , (6 D .- ~ + CU ~, w ~ m m O cc G J r r Z~ 0 r r r N Q °\ • - z J U 2 J O N ~ ~ ~ ~ r r r nj + _. is 1sanHNOOas - ---- -----~ + _ ' ~ o N - i I ~ ~ ~ - I ~ ~ ~ __-_ __ N t ~}__ WI3HtMtl ~ ~ ¢ ~ W () r ms° r m ~e r Q N. ~ m ~i v, o ,, ~ Q ~ i ' ~ lL I ~~ ~ w i i ~ i U + 1S 1a3811`J w a z ~ 0 U Z 00 00 00 00 -I 00 r Q h r 00 r LIMB ~ ~~ -- r O r. ~ r r r vi N ~ ~ g ~- Q W~ x m ~~ -, ti ~ 3~V tlIIONJVW i R. -'----- c- r (p 00 r I r __ ~-; W W J J J W W W W W W W 7-+ ~ Q ~ f/1NNNN NV¢JNN W LL W W W W Z Z Z Z 2 2 Z 2 Z m O O Q O o O Oo o ~ ~ 9 H ~ H ~ m a I ~ ~ ~ N w $ ... C C ... _ u , N r W ~ ~ m ~ _ 8 ~ u rzj ~ i v i W ~ a ~ r u~i u HHNI-FI-I-f W m ~ ~ v v ~ ~y ~ V ] C K~KmKK~a W N. y ~ a v ~ ~ ; `m ~ ~ U O »~ 0 7 0 D 7 W p W p O a N U ~ H O m Y Y O Y Y Y~ Y Z m U m H ,~ N Q OOy00000 J-~~ ~~oa ¢ ~ o00000oo N Q ~ ~ CA C C mpC¢mCK3~)i ~ mmmmmm mm c~ O~ a N r ~ R~'1 1 T N mmNm NmN N o v~ v w r ~ - / V ~ tl) m m m O ~ m N m N b N N m O O ~ m N N N N ~ a N /~ {y ~ x W Of m O~ m 10 Ip m N N N N N h ~- N t7 Y N f0 I~ m m O ~ ~ J ~ ~ {A~ 1- 7 O m Z~ O 1$ tldtl°~ K K 00 W U ~ ~ r O~ v Omv N O tD N Q~Q~ ~ N IA (~-~'~ w Q K ~ fN (n ~ ~ F w O O ~Q d ° ~ m 1 ° O Q W O i CV ~ v a-- a O t`tiN O F- ~ °D o ~ I U 00 ~ Q o ~ - O . o 0 ~~ O (n 0 ~'~~ o CV ~ °v~; ~ r~~~ '~ ~,~ ~~ °D Z ~ ao~~ p Oo ~ W o i~N ' c 0 0 m U U ~ Y EN N e7 N ahr N tpm t~ v M N iD S11WIl AL9W13NVN N 15 15Hf1 HNOOtl9 m m m N •~----+ N O O i p O O .- ~~~ M~~ AQ I ' Ou~°1 N O N 0 p.0 m ~ F- O O O N m N co cmi 'N a 0-' O o~ O m ~m o p i' Nov B O m ~ t~' ~ ti iD O R'[0 W mm r NN Nfn m~ f~ I N ~C ~ Q ~C~ 00 O .- s tn l.. m N 3Ntl tlIlON~JtlW I ml '-~- ~ __ , L O w a r O I ~ ~ l' O __.._.._.._.. p0 w ~ s_.._.. I " ~ 0 ~ 0 0 3 OD I OD o ° I m 3Atl 37tl0 I j a > I o __ ATTACHMENT - ITEM N0. 5 PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY The City Council has established procedures for the determination of Public Convenience or Necessity and has delegated the responsibility for making such determinations to the Anaheim Planning Commission. In order to assist the Planning Commission in its deliberations as to whether the public convenience or necessity would be served by permitting an additional alcohol establishment within an area containing an over concentration of licenses and/or high crime rate, please answer the following questions. 1. What is the primary purpose of your business? Is the sale of alcohol an essential part of the primary purpose of the business? Please explain. L S. cJ~ 4r ~r~'ef t~G pro~ocf n..X d~PrCd 2. Are there similar businesses or a concentration of alcohol outlets in the immediate area that already provide alcohol service? If so, how would the public convenience or necessity be served by permitting an additional license within the census/ t~ract? ~/jj~~~ /t~--.. -- //•' /. /~ TL.,. .,. pe e~lw~ 'FIA/ SL'r~.U_ /lrat .fl~o/!J DFrC'YiA4 a~LY~~i ~ (~YH~f ?D~ fA[r .fdY 7 ~f 'f~~~s 3. Is there a residential neighborhood or school adjacent to the property for which you are requesting a public convenience or necessity determination? If so, please explain how permitting an additional license would not disproportionately impact an adjacent reside tnttial neighborhood or school. lPm1'~'i - ~iw., ~c, KJ/C~/.~,~E lri,f~r t1-flre [.1t7 O~tLa Jt b irc-~ DM,Q't ~h i ~fnketer, 4S R YldD~ti J' ~' ~ 4. What /o do yod anticipate will be 5. Does your business cater to a specific need or specialty which is not currently available in the area? f~CIG 4K Aria . 6. Are you proposing any specific operational measures to eliminate or limit any potential negative consequences from the sale of alcoholic"beverages? Please expl in. YP.r_ nlFtae .rfl .Ia~--~ P~b~~., ~v/kl~~c~ SvDD~i2~ W~~h -l~i~'r Av,o/~~cE~"ro-.. 7. What~pe of l/ic~ense are you requesting from ABC? Is it an existing license? a2, a/ ¢pr 0>l~:U/a CBhJoM>7~'Cdn - A>~ Gh Pih,f-~IhG 1!CCA~C• PGN P~lO. 2004 - o o ~ 1 ~ s ATTACIPfENT -ITEM N0. 5 r~OLtCY CITYOF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ' GUIDELINES TO DETERMINE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY (PCN) How significant is the "undue concentration"? In census tracts with a few excess licenses, it may be easier to justify the need for additional licenses when considering other factors. However, in areas with a significant number of excess licenses, the City should carefully examine, based on submitted evidence and the evhole record, whether it would be appropriate to make the requested finding. • How close is the proposed site to a residential neighborhood and/or school? If the site is in close proximity to a residential neighborhood or school, then the decision on whether to make the finding of PGN should give weight to these sensitive land uses. How close are other alcohol outlets? Are outlets in close proximity or are they spread throughout the census tract? If the outlet is located near the border of the census tract, is there a cluster of outlets in the vicinity of the outlet located in the adjoining census tracts? In some areas, there are a large number of businesses providing alcohol in close proximity. As a result, the impact is greater than if the same number of businesses were spread throughout the census tract. In these instances, it may be difficult to make the finding. • Are there similar businesses already in the area? Is this the first business of this type or are there several similar businesses nearby? If the product is already available, then it would be harder to justify "public need". • Is the sale of alcohol an integral part of the primary purpose of the business? A "dinner house" would normally sell alcohol; however, a gas station or breakfast cafe would not. • Is there ahistory ofalcohol-related problems in the area?. Determination of PCN in reporting districts that have a much higher than average crime rate will be more difficult to justify. Likewise, even if the proposed location is in a census tract that does not have a higher than average crime rate, it may be adjacent to one or more reporting districts that have a higher than average crime rate. • Are there unusual factors which are applicable fo a particular location? The establishment may cater to a specific customer such as specialty markets or warehouse stores. In these instances, the Planning Commission may determine that the unusual factors are sufficient to determine public convenience or necessity. • Is the proposed site in an area which has both an overconcentratfon of licenses and a higher than average crime rate? In such instances, it maybe more difficult to make the finding. • Would a particular establishment have mitigating operational characteristics such as increased security, limited hours of operation or bulk sales and/or temperatures not conducive to on-site consumption? A Determination of PCN may be justified for establishments with operational characteristics that would offset any negative consequences of approving an additional license. ITEM N0. 6 J J 68G ( i... 7y-~. R \\ `OUVti 9A~) t Gtlp2289 10W 1NG ENTER pP (G 5 Fp00 FP ~-19173 SNO V" ~i REST. OMU) . ._. pptOB OUP Hp~l 59 ROU 2003- OITWEBT g~ 0~~O 9o~59 OPK SS 6 h GLB ~9 FOUp 315c OOg_ ,-~ 20 'p0 . L 6935 ROC p32fi OLIOFSP)20o35408 'S.b TRUOt R~,F _ S RO NAOE ~- , R Z~~ RO`Zpp3A9tp8 PFK NGE P E I'' _ o ~~„~ EET TR / y VP E DISNEY RL`8g.99~59 BTRUOTUR _ , CENTER g ' /' u~ c~ M vP~ N R REE , N r/~I G ~ 05 ~ ~ ~ C PRp'ME / ~' ~` OFFOGES Ol2oo3Ap1o8 R 3-001 Ol 2p0 ~ _ ~ HPR00R P`, r G. m R G p N R 4 2p03 O OOO B UM 20p3 0008 /'///' E e~p C~ F OB 093 OO 58 I ~~8932 6g FS ` ] PA~iK Nu P ~SE M FSp ~ / G ~ PPRKIN O RO12 y Ctl p5P 2pp3 ~ R OU RKING \ ~~~_ ~/, ~ i / ~pMU) ~ ~Mgg ~ 69 ~ PP ®®®®®® OMS )) 89'9og4.3o R VPR 3401 OUp 36NG SSRC~TURE \4 O~ g0-5g ~ RO 32B -: y ®®®® ®/r RO189"$a.30 ~ OERiB9 pOB R~UP PAST m ,¢SPPPRK NG ®®®~ S®thA~ daY 2~ a ROB po2° U OFp~OE g05.OW P•( ®®®®® Opmdor cG T"CUVAR 43S 1` 6ROP ®®® n MpU,`.1"~ER PV ICE ST Redeve®i®® ®®® RM.t2oo p 292 tDU ® OU VPR p12a tpU NUR~N o tDU c n 4 RM,.t2o VAR 412 , DU CD 2 6 p,.~a VPR41fifi5 UNT. R V.t9't9-t 1DU 3 9 ROUP ~p gv PARKING t_O t U PDJ 00 B5 8 1RM RM"t3g16 o s ~ VAR 3589 aDU SMPU'F vaME~ 13 DU lRa Tentative Tract Map No. 16679 v O LE N~ SE & OPRW yG42 m NURLN '-' ly`t.7 Q c M~ 2 MENTa N~ ~ {Uk~Byp6 X99 RV LU ~R~N LN PR ~ ou A c T ou s3-~}4 2 p \ TREET N o OR O ~sTORE ELM S M~18p8 M 1Np, FlR Subject Property Date: May 17, 2004 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: ELISA STIPKOVICH Q.S. No. 72, 83 REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A 5-LOT PLANNED MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION. 201 West Broadway IN 1327 TTFM N(7 Staff Report to the `Planning Commission May 17, 2004 'item No. 6' 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION `=CLASS 32 .(Motion) } 6b TENTATIVETRACT MAP' N0. 16679! (Motion) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:' (1) This irregularly-shaped, 0.93-acre property is located at the northwest corner of Lemon ....Street and Broadway,. with frontages of 120 feet on the west side of Lemon Street, 128 feet on the easYside of Clementine Street, and 305 feet on the north'side of Broadway (201 ;West Broadway). REQUEST: (2) The petitioner requests approval. to establish a 5-lot planned mined-use 'Yesidential/commercial subdivision. BACKGROUND:' (3) This property is currently developed with a parking lotand is zoned CL (DMU) (Commercial 'Limited; Downtown Mixed Use Overlay). The Anaheim General Plan Land Use Map, designates'this property for General Commercial land uses. This property is also located within the Alpha Downtown Redevelopment Project Area. (4) The following zoning actions pertain to this'property: {a} Conditional Use Permit No. 3286 (tq establish a 14-lot commercial subdivision for a portion of Downtown Anaheim and to permit and govern the construction of a commercial office and retail center, including three restaurants with on-sale alcoholic beverages, 200 room hotel, and a 2,500 seat theater withwaiver of required lot frontage} was approved by the City Council on August 26 1990. (b) The establishment of the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) Overlay Zone was approved by the City Council on August 19, 2003. The DMU Overlay zone permits the orderly development of "Planned. Mixed-Use Developments" subject to a final plan review process, limitations on specific uses; and design guidelines. (c) Final Plan Review No. 2003-00008 (review and. approval of flnai site, floor, elevation, roof-mounted equipment parking, and pedestrian and vehicle circulation plans to allow for construction of anew Planned Mixed'Use Development for Parcel B in Downtown Anaheim) was`approved'by the Planning Commission on November 17, 2003. (5) Surrounding GeneraiPlan land use designations areas follows: Direction' General Pian Desi nation North, East, and West Geheral Commercial South. across Broadwa Low-Medium Densi Residential Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17, 2004 Item No. 6 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: (6) The petitioner proposes to establish a 5-lot vertical subdivision to allow for the constructign ` of a new 5-story Planned Mixed Use Development building on Parcel 6 in Downtown Anaheim. The tentative map indicates the footprint of a new multi-story 114,624 quare foot mixed use building to replace an existing parking lot. Proposed setbacks are 0 to 13 feet along Broadway, 3 to 5 feet along Lemon Street, 5 to 21' feet along Clementine Street, and none along the north property line adjacent fo an existing office building. Ground level'! retail stores (6,000. square feet) would'tie located'along Clementine Street and a portion of Broadway, (7) - The tentative map'and building section plan indicates the vertical configuration of all 6 floors. The following chart indicates the characteristics of each proposed lot: Lot Ftoors ? Land Use 1 Under round Parkin 2 Ground:Level 'Parkin 3 `r 'Ground Level Retail 4 - 1 - 5 Residential 95 a artment units 5 Roof E ui ment (t3) ! Since final architectural plans for Parcel B have been previously-approved by the Commission, no floor or elevation plans have been submitted with thistentative map requests ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANAL`SIS: (9) `The Planning Director's authorized representative has determined thafthe proposed project falls within the definition of CategoricaD Exemptions, Section 15332, Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects), as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and'is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (10) , The proposed project has been reviewed by affected City departments o 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 Element analysis, therefpre, no analysis has been performed. EVALUATION: (11) ', The Anaheim General Plan Land Use Map currently designates this property for General Commercial land uses. The'land use designation in the General Plan'Update proposes a Mixed Use designation. This proposed'developmentond 5-lot subdivision would be in conformance with this proposed mixed use designation. Page 7 Staff Report to the Planning,Commission May 17, 2004 Item No. 6' (12) This property is located within the Downtown Sub-area of Redevelopment Project Alpha. The Community Development Department has submitted the attached memorandum:: indicating tfiak this 5-lot subdivision would allow for the conveyance of ARA-owned property to the developer for the construction of a mixed use project located within Downtown' - Anaheim. On October 29, 2002, he City Council approved a Disposition and Development Agreement;(DDA) between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (ARA) and CIM California - Urban ReafiEstate Fund, LP (CIM). On June 17, 2003, the City,Council approved a first amendment to the DDA. Both agreements provide for the conveyance of ARA-owned property and for the construction'of amixed use project located within Downtown Artaheim. (13) The projecfhas been reviewed for consistency with the DMU Overlay Zone pertormahce 'standards end Design Guidelines and for compatibility with surrounding uses in the bowntown area. The submitted'plans are consistentwith the intent of the'Guidelines so as to (i) encourage superior design. mixed-use development projects that combine residential with non-residential uses as a means to continue downtown revitalization,"(ii) encourage a full array of tliverse laid use types and structures, to ensure that the appearance and effects of buildings, improvements, and uses are harmonious with the character of the area in which they are located, and (iii) ensure consistency with and mplemenfthe provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the Alpha Downtown Redevelopment ProjecYArea and belated plans for Downtown Anaheim. r FINDINGS: (14) The State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, Section 66473.5) makes it mandatory to include in all motions approving, or recommending approval bf a tract map, a specific finding thatithe proposed Subdivision together with its design and improvement is consistent with the City's General Plan. Further, the aw requires that the Commission/Council make any of the following findings when denying or recommending denial of a tract map: 11: That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. . 2`: That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable Geheral and SpecifidPlans. 3: That the site is nok physically suitable for the ype of development: 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements'are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivisionor the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision'or the type of improvements will conflict with easements,' acquired by the public at large; for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Page 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17, 2004 Item No. 6 RECOMMENDATION: (15)j 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 hearing, the Commission ao rdve the petitioner's request including the findings and _ conditions contained in the'attached tentative tract map excerpt. Page 4 City of Anaheim ~~AI9TI~T~I~i~ IEPAR'~'T~~I~'d' May 17, 2004 Elisa Stipkovich, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency 201 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 [DRAFT] Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim City Planning Commission meeting of May 17, 2004. 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 32 6b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16679 OWNER: Elisa Stipkovich, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 921305 AGENT: James Gillen, Huitt Zollars, 430 Exchange, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92805 LOCATION: 201 West Broadwav. Property is approximately 0.93-acre, located at the northwest comer of Lemon Street and Broadway. Request to establish a 5-lot planned mixed-use residential/commercial development subdivision. ACTION: Commissioner ********** offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner *****'***** and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner *******"* absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a 5-lot planned mixed-use residential/commercial development subdivision on the irregularly-shaped, 0.93-acre property and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner *******`** offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner `*""""*"`*" and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner """`*** absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16679 based on the following findings: That a maintenance covenant, shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section and approved by the City Attorney's office. The covenant shall include provisions for maintenance of associated public and private facilities, including compliance with the approved Water Quality Management Plan, and a maintenance exhibit. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. www.anahaim.not 2. That the subdivided lot.reserved for multiple familyapartments (Lot 4) shall be for rental purposes only and not fora "For Sale" product. 208 South Anaheim Boulevard P.0. Box 3222 Anaheim, Calliornia 92603 TEL (714) 765-5139 3. That the legal property owner shall execute a Subdivision Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attomey, to complete the required public improvements at the legal property owner's expense. Said .agreement shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Subdivision Section approved by the City Attomey and City Engineer and then recorded concurrently with the final map. -_ 4. That the Iegai property owner shall prepare reciprocal access, parking, maintenance and easement agreements to complete the required improvements. Said agreements shall be submitted (o the Public Works Department, Subdivision Section approved by the City Attomey, City Engineer and Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and then recorded concurrently with the final map. 5. That the developer shall submit street improvement plans including landscaping and irrigation plans to the Public Works Department, Subdivision Section and a bond shall be posted to guarantee that Broadway, Clementine Street and Lemon Street are improved prior to issuance of a building permit. Parkway irrigation shall be connected to the on-site irrigation system and maintained by the property owner. A Right of Way Construction Permit from the Development Services Division shall be obtained for all work performed in the public right-of-way. Improvements must be complete prior to issuance of a cert~cate of occupancy. 6. That the City of Anaheim Drainage Impact Mitigation Fee for the South Central Area shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. The fee is currently $22,509/acre. Credit will be applied for the current development. The project architect or engineer shall document the existing impervious area and the proposed impervious area. If the impervious area remains the same or decreases, no fee is due. If the impervious area increases, the fee shall be proportional to the increase. 7. That the City of Anaheim Sewer Impact Mitigation fee for the Old Tpwn/ Basin 8 area shall be paid. The fee is currently $1,645/unit for multi-family and $369/1,000 gsf for commercial. 8. That all units shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division, 9. That prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department, Subdivision Section for review and approval a Water Quality Management Plan that: • Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas. • Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan. • Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the-DAMP. • Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs. • Identifies the entity that will be responsible for tong-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs, and describes the mechanism for funding the tong-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. 10. That prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: • Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. • Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP • Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available onsite. • Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural BMPs. 11. That a final tract map to record the division of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and shall then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 12. That the locations for future above-ground utility devices including, but not limited to, electrical transformers, water backflow devices, gas, communications and cable devices, etc., shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. Plans shall also identify the specific screening treatments of each device (i.e. landscape screening, color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points, etc.) and shall be subject to the review and approval of the appropriate City departments. 13. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits for Planning Department and Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division approval. 14. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said turn-around area shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 15. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval. 16. That four (4) foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the flat area of the roofs in a contrasting color to the roof material, provided the numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 17. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense. 18. That all backflow equipment shall be above ground, outside of the street setback area In a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Inspector before submittal for building permits. 19. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 4026, 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 20. That the legal properly owner shall provide the City of Anaheim with a public utilities easement. Said easement shall be subject to the Electrical Utilities design for pad-mounted equipment. Said easement shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim prior to connection of electrical service. 21. That prior to final tract map approval, Condition Nos. 1, 3, 4, 11 and 20, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 22. That prior to issuance of a building permit Condition Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 23. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 10, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 24. That approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable Ciry, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any:...-. other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. Sincerely, Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission Cc: James Gillen, Huitt Zollars, 430 Exchange, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92805 CR DM.doc ATTACHMENT -ITEM N0. 6 Sent via Email ~®~®~~ _. C®~iil~IINITY ®EVEL®PNIEPIT DEP,4RTMENT DATE: May 6, 2004 TO: David See Senior Planner, Planning Department FROM: Kerry Kemp Senior Project Manager, Community Development SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map No. 16679 201 West Broadway Planning Commission May 17, 2004 The Department of Community Development endorses the request that the Planning Commission establish a 5-lot planned mixed-use residential/commercial subdivision at 201 West Broadway, which is located within the Downtown Sub-azea of Redevelopment Project Alpha and the Downtown Mixed-Use Overlay Zone ("Overlay Zone"). The Overlay Zone enables mixed-use projects within the azea that is generally bounded by Anaheim Boulevazd, Broadway, Hazbor Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue. The Overlay Zone would allow for a variety of uses, including residential and commercial. The Redevelopment Agency has entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement with CIM Group, Inc. for the construction of a mixed-use project at 201 West Broadway, on the north side of the street between Lemon and Clementine. Tentative Tract Map No 16679 involves creating a 5-lot vertical subdivision that divides the property into its different components (ground space, .air space, pazkng, retail and residential). Thank you for your assistance and consideration. If you have any questions or need more information regazding this matter, please contact me at extension 4368. TTRM Nrl 7 0 B RS-7200 1 DU EACH TYLER AVENUE m ~ _ RS-7200 ~ 1 DU EACH RS-7200 1 DU FhCH YOLK AVENUE Q Z F W (F ~ I RS-7200 n W 1 DU EACH V W W n 4130 ~ CL °m °°~m RCL 63-6¢9 •B? CUP 1656 ~~~ ~ 0. ~ UU ~~< = I d, U 7 K ~® 285'-® 753' LINCOLN AVENUE Q o Z O~ n0 ~~- Ct -131 GL ~ iVV ea d~ d~` ~m ~ ' RCL 66-67-0e ~ CUP 2010 ARP 152 ~ ~°~¢ s a RCL 57-5&19 33 TIRE CENTER CL RCL 57 58 V 2 6 fY d> ,6 - CUP 2003 ° - -39 T-CUP 2002-04588 ~ T-CUP 2002-04564 ~ Rci ei es Z0o rv 2 Du 3o Rs7z66 CUP 2002-04547 CUP 2007-04440 Z m, n nV VAR 3741 RCL es-e6-3z ~ ~ rn T-CUP 2000-04209 Q o d ~8+ YAR 3556 ~ 1DU 3T' CUP 4174 n~ O mm~ RB-A-E3,000 RCL 6 t DU 9-90-36 1 DU CUP 3989 F- ~~~o VACANT RS- 7200 VAR 3764 ~K¢c+ °o W 1 DU VAR 2666 1 DU VAR 1236 5 n 1 DU ~ rzoe ADJ 87-5 to 1 DU CO RE~e }~0 PM14.M00 6a anal 2z teen PCN 97-74 K a Z - 1ou ANAHEIM WEST ' SHOPPING CENTER VAG RS-5000 1 DU ' RCL 9 -00-13 p ~ RS-7200 1 DU EACH I VAC. 7 DU 0 S °od od Wesf Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelo men t Pmje RGL 200 0-00 d ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ m® p R 19 ® 1DU EACH ~~ ¢~ M- 00 Variance No. 2004-04607 Subject Property Tentative Tract Map No. 16683 Date: May 17, 2004 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: ELISA STIPKOVICH, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Q.S. No. 8 VARIANCE NO. 2004-04607: REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN "AFFORDABLE", 1-LOT, 28-UNIT ATTACHED CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX WITH A DENSITY BONUS WITH WAIVERS OF: (A) MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY (B) MINIMUM NUMBER, TYPE, AND DESIGN OFOFF-STREET PARKING SPACES (C) MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF ASINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE {D) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16683: REQUEST TO ESTABLISH AN "AFFORDABLE" 1-LOT, 28-UNIT AIRSPACE ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION WITH A DENSITY 80NUS. 3119-3165 West Lincoln Avenue. 1323 Staff Report to the Planging Commission May 17;2004 Item No: 7 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion for continuance) 7b. VARIANCE NO> 2004-04607 7c. TENTATIVETRACT MAP NOt i 6683 SITE LOCATIONAND DESCRIPTION: (1) This rectangularly-shaped, 2.5-acre property has a frontage of 753 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, a maximum deptfi of 147 feet and is located 285 feet east of the centerline of Western Avenue (3119 -.3165 West LincolrcAvenue -Presidential Tract). REQUEST: r'(2) The petitioner requests approval of the following: Variance No. P004-04607 -waivers of minimum front yard setback adjacent to an arterial highway, minimum number, type, and design: of off-street parking paces, maximum structural height within 150 feet ot"a single-family residential zone, and minimum distance between buildings to construct an "affordable" 1-lot, 28-unit attached condominium complex with a density bonus: Tentative Tract Map No.`16683 - to establish an "affordable" 1-lot,28-unit airspace attached Yesidentiaf condominium subdivision with a density bonus. BACKGROUND: (3) These properties are currently developed with 12 vacant single-family homes, zoned RM-3000 (Residential,; Multiple-Family), and located within the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment ProjecfArea. The Land Use ElementMap of the Anaheim General Plan designates these properties for Low-Medium: Density Residential land uses. (4) The petitioner and property owner, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, has submitted the attached letter requesting a 2-week continuance of this item to the June 2, 2004, Commission meeting in order to advertise an additional waiver pertaining to improvement'of the public right- of-way. RECOMMENDATION: t (5) That the Commission, by motion, oantinue this item to the June 2,2004, meeting. sr2155ds Page 1' ATTACHMENT -ITEM N0. 7 David See From: Mark Asturias Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 3:26 PM To: David See Subject: RE: President's Tract Map No. 16683 Request for Continuance David The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, as owner of property proposed to be subdivided per the above tract map is requesting a continuance to June 2, 2004. The Agency requests the continuance in order to permit advertising of a waiver of improvement of right of way condition. if you have any questions please call me at extension 4315. 1 ITEM N0. 8 LeaeB.p, nppj f ICL p&p1-0alBpj, mm RCL 66417-61 (39) I cw lspt I I CIIP 1]5p I`,Gd...~ N Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04843 Requested By: 888 DISNEYLAND DRIVE, LLC 9 FLS~F,N' 'Ac 1® C ~ ~~ ~ N ~ p d R G~ ~ o e N, ~~ X ® ~ 000 ® -9 ~c 2 q ~ ® ~ m ~$ ~k n: ~ :: j Nj (e5I , ® -9 4~ VERMO T ~~ ® ~ 4~ L 1 .' ~:"a. ® ~~ g c ya p GVP ~1g38 p 24N PLAZA" ® ~`- O W ~ /530 ® c~ P o~dp 9i ® o ® pt n~ ® ~N'n SP 92-2 RCL 66-fi7~1 {24) ® 6BL x888' VAR 2099 5 ADJ 2000-00194 ~e xB' ® SHERATON ANAHEIM HOTEL SP 92-2 SHERATONANAHEIM HOTEL RCL 66-67-01(37) VAR 3483 VAR 3330 5 VAR 3308 SPAGHETTI STATION 0 REST. ' /~ _ _ BALL ROAD -'~~ Sube p rty ~,,-z 1ctProe Date: May 17, 2004 Scale: Graphic Q.S. No. 88 REQUEST TO PERMIT THE MODIFICATION OF A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING OFFICE BUILDING TO ADD 4,335 SQUARE-FEET TO THE PROJECT SITE, EXPAND AND RECONFIGURE THE PARKING LOT AND PROVIDE FOR LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS WITH WAIVERS OF: (A) LAYOUT AND DESIGN OF PARKING AREAS (B) MINIMUM INTERIOR LANDSCAPED SETBACK (C) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS 888 South Disneyland Drive 1317 ®®®®®®®® ITEM N0. 8 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17, 2004 item No. 8 4 Sa. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 313 (previously certified) (Motion) Sb. 'WAIVER OF CODE :REQUIREMENTS (Motion) Sc. :CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT'NO.2004-04843 (Resolution) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This irregularly-shaped 3.13-acreparcel has a frontage of approximately 350 feet on the east side of Disneyland Drive, a maximum depth of approximately 530 feet and is located approximately 780 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road and is further described as' 888 South Disneyland Drive. ' REQUEST: (2) Petitioner requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit under authority of Code Section No. 18.48.070.0511 tp permit the modificatidn of a legal non-conforming office building site to add 4,335 square feet to the project site,'expand and reconfigure the parking lot and provide for landscape,improvements with waiver of the following:.. (a) SECTION NO. 18.06.020.040 'Layout and Desion of Parkino'Areas. ;,(Tandem. parkino spaces prohibited; 72 tandem'oarkino spaces proposed) (b) SECTION NO. 18.48.070.0903 :Minimum Interior Landscaped!Setback (10 feetfully+landscaped required; 6 feet landscaoino proposed) (c) SECTION NOS. 18.48.130.0601 'Maximum Number of Wall Signs AND 18.48.130.064 One wall sign permitted; two wall signs ; 'proposed) `BACKGROUND: '(3) The subject ite is a total of 3.13"acres and'encompasses an existing 3.04-acre site developed. with a 5-story 103,961 square foot legal nonconforming office building (Pacific Inland Bank) and also'encompasses 4,335'square feet of Caltrans I-5 Freeway right-df--way (this area is currently landscaped). The property has been zoned SP92-2; (Anaheim Resort ', 'Specific Plan No. 92-2) since September 1994 and isdesignated for Commercial Recreation land uses in the City; of Anaheim General Plan. An aerial photograph of the property is provided do the following page. (4) The existing office building, site improvements and uses are legal nonconforming as they complied with the Code in effectat the time of construction/commencement of the uses; 'however, they do noYcomplywith current Code requirements (i.e., the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan does not permit new freestanding officebuildings) sr8713dh Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Ivtay 17, 2004 Item No. 8 (5) Surrounding Jand uses are as follows: Direction: j~, ~ -Land Uses r a ~ ~~ 2oning* ~ 6aAerHt Ptatr ; ; y ~ ;~ y r a ,. .: `" best nation.. .. ,,,-~.w. << - ; ~ _m~, ~. .<..... " , North Santa Ana (I-5) r N/A N/A Freewa Ram East Santa Ana (1-5)i N/A N/A Freewa South Anaheim Sheraton 'SP92-2 Commercial Hotel: Recreation W est across otsneylana Single-Family ' RS-7200 Low Density odve Residential/Church Residential /.'SP92-2 (the.Mafieim Resort SpeGfic Plan No. 92-2) (7) The following zoning action has occurred on the subject property:: (a) Conditional Use Permit No. 2178 (to permit an office building) was approved by the Planning Commission on February 23, :1981. DISCUSSION: (t3) The petitioner proposes to modify an existing legal non-conforming office building site as follows: (a) Parkino Lot Modifications -The parking lot is proposed to be redesigned and expanded + by 4,335 square feet to provide for enhanced circulation, new landscaping (including landscape planters: and tree wells) and additional parking spaces. Currently, there are 207 spaces existing on the site. A total of 333 on-site parking spaces are proposed (including 72 tandem parking`spaces and 17 spaces in the expanded area of the parking lot) which would bring a property into compliance with the Code required r number of spaces, (Code requires 312 parking spaces based upon three spaces per thousand square feet of gross floor area for buildings of more than three stories).: Vehicular access o the site is proposed'via a 30-foot wide driveway from Disneyland Drive (previously a 20-foot wide driveway). In addition, new 30-foot high parking lot lights will be provided (with field adjustable glare shields to ensure no )fight spillage to adjacentproperties). The reconfigurediparking lot s proposed to be landscaped. with tree wells to accommodate 24-inch box trees and flowering;plants. The site is ? proposed to be planted with a variety of mature trees, shrubs, flowering plants, vines '? ground cover and annual color including, but not limited to the following: Queen Palms, Date Palms, Washington Fan Palms, Australian Willow trees; Japanese Boxwood, Indian Hawthorn, Dwarf Flax,Bird of Paradise andi Ligustrum shrubs; Star Jasmine, Daylilies and Japanese Honeysuckle ground covet; and, Boston Ivy vines. In addition, all block walls (including the new trash enclosure walls) will be planted with vines: (Bostonlvy) in compliance with cotle. i (b) New and Enhanced Landscaoino in the Setback Area - New'landscaping is proposed to be installed"within a 5-foot to 20-foot: wide area'adjacent to Disneyland Drive and 3- foot to 15-foot wide area along the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway.:: In addition, a lot line adjustment will. be processedao incorporate the 4,335 square feet of Caltrans right-of- 'sr8713dh i Page 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17;2004 Item No S way into the property. A 6=foot wide landscaped area will' be provided adjacent to the new northern property line'abutting the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway southbound ramp (within the expanded parking lot area) bringing andscaped setbacks. more into'; compliance with Code (currently there is very little landscaping on the site). The existing hedge is proposetl to remain along the`south boundary line adjacent to the Anaheim Sheraton Hotel f '(c) Sianaae -Petitioner proposes to install two business identification wall signs (one on the north building elevation oriented tbwards the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway and'one on the south building elevation oriented towards the Anaheim Sheraton Hotel and' northbound Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway). Each sign consists of maximum 30-inch high, internally-illuminated channel letters and only one sign would be visible at a time from the freeway and'adjacent properties.' Planning Commission may wish to note that the wall sign dimensions and design comply with Cotle requirements; however, the number of wall signs: exceeds the Code requirements (one wall sign permitted; two wap` igns proposed). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (9) .Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Petitioner'ssubmitted Environmental Information I Form (a copy of which is on file and available for public review:. in the Planning Department), '.and finds`that the proposed project's environmental: effects are within the parameters, assumptions and time frames'analyzed in the previously-certified Environmental Impact `Report No: 313 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Furthermore, based upon a review of the requested waivers and the supporting documents, staff finds that said waivers will `not result in any new significant environmental impacts. Staff :has prepared Mitigation '.Monitoring Plan No.;063 for the proposed project incorporating those mitigation measures `included in the Anaheim Resort Mitigation Monitoring Program' No. 0085 that are applicable to the project (a copy of Mltigation Monitoring Plan No. 063 has been forwarded to the Petitioner and Is on file and available for public review in the Planning Department): GROWTH MANAGEMENT'ELEMENTANALYSIS: (10) 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 orc City staff review of the'proposed,project, it has been 'determined that thisproject does not fit within the scope necessary to require a Growth Management Element analysis, therefore, no analysis has been performed. EVALUATION: (11) The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan permits modifications to legal nonconforming structures or sites subject to the approvai of a Conditional Use' Permit, provided that said changes 'would bring the use/site into greater conformance with the intent of the'Specific Plan. The exlsting office building and site!is considered to be a legal nonconforming use and structure as it complied with the Code requirements in effect'at the timeit was constructed; however, ; it does not comply with the current Anaheim Resorti;Specific Plan Code requirements ''relative to the use and configuration of the site (i.e., the current Code does not permit sr8713dtr: Page 4 Staff Report to the .Planning Commission r May 17 2004 .Item No. 8 freestanding'cffice buildings and the site improvements do not comply with the current landscape and parkingsrea requirements). Based upon a review of the submitted plans, staff supports the proposed Conditional Use Permit as the proposed expansion and reconfiguration'iofthe parking lot to include landscapingas described in paragraph (6) brings the site into greater conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan design guidelines and enhances the appearance of the site. Further, the proposed expansion is a proper'use for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized and the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land'uses or growth and development of the area in which it is located. (12) The first code waiver pertains to the layout and design of parking areas to provide for tandem parking. The submitted plans indicate 72 tandem spaces proposed. The Code ' does not provide for any spaces'to be in a tandem configuration.- Petitioner indicates that there arespecial circumstances applicable to the property consisting of(size, shape and configuration of the existing propeiy, building and parking lot which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity because this parcel is irregularly-shaped andiis surrounded on three sides by public right-of-way (the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway on two sides and Disneyland Drive on one side). In addition, in connection with the expansion of the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway, the office parking lot area and number of`parking spaces were reduced. The petitioner has indicated that additional parking spaces are needed in order to attract tenants to the building as the proposed office tenants have a demand for more parking spaces in order to accommodate employees and visitors to the site. The petitioner proposes to regulate the tantlem parking spaces,by an on-site property managemenYcompanyand/or primary tenant: in the building. Traffic Engineering staff have reviewed the plans and support the requested waiver since the petitioner proposes to have an on-site property managemenfcompanyand/or primary tenant in the building regulate the!tandem parking spaces. Staff has recommended e condition of approval requiring the property owner to submit a plan to regulate the proposed tandem spaces to the Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval prior to the final building and zoning inspection for the parking of improvements. Ongoing use of the tandem'spaces will be required to be in conformance with the approved plan. '(13) The second code waiver pertains to the minimum Interior landscaped setback. The code requires a minimum 10-foot wide fully landscaped setback adjacent to the new northern property line'. Plans indicate a 6-foot wide landscaped; setback will be provided adjacent to the freeway right-of-way. Petitioner indicates that there are special circumstances applicable to the property consisting of the shape and'configuration of the existing property, building, parking lot and the new. parcel, which do nofapply to other identically zoned' properties in' a vicinity. The properly is surrounded on three sides by pubic right-of-way (the Santa Ana (i-5) Freeway on wo sides and Disneyland Drive on one side) and the 4;335 square foot expansion area is a small remnant parcel (20,feet wide by 216 feet long) of Caltrans right-of-way. If a 10-foot wide landscape setback were to be constructedwithin the expansion area it would make the installation of new parking'spaces in'the expansion 'area infeasible. sr8713dh Page 5 Staff Report to the i Planning. Commission May 17, 2004 Item No 8 Staff has'reviewed the plans and supports the requested waiver, as there are special circumstances with regard to the size antl shape of the site as described above, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zone. AlthougH the applicant is only providing ai6-foot witle landscape setback', the proposed tree wells and andscaped planters hroughout the parking area will enhance'the views of the site from bisneyland Drive. (14) `The third Code Waiver pertains to the maximum number of wall signs. The code permits one buslness identification wall sign per building or storefront. Petitioner is proposing to install two business identification wall signs, one on;the north elevation which would be oriented towards the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway (southbound) and one on the south elevation which would be oriented towards the Anaheim Sheraton Hotel/Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway (northbound). Plans intljcate that the proposed wall signs would not be visible from offsite locations (Disneyland Drive, the Santa'Ana (I-5)Freeway or,the adjacent hotel property) at he same time, therefore, the intent of the Code to provide for'one business identification sign to be :visible from the adjacent right=of-way would be maintained. Staff has reviewed the plans and supports the requested waiver as there are special circumstances wiW regard to the size and configuration of the'property which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity as the subject property has two different directions of traffic flow (Disneyland Drive and the Santa Ana; (I-5) Freeway) and one wall sign would not be sufficient to(provide reasonable identification visible to both adjacent +'directions of trafficflow. Further, plans indicate that the proposed wall signs would. not be visible from offsite locations atthe same'time, therefore, the intent of the Code to `provide for one buslness identification`sign to visible from the adjacent right-of-way would e ''maintained. In addition, in connection with the Citywide Zoning Code Update in process, staff is recommending some modifications to the Anaheim'Resort Specific Plan. One of the !proposed changes'is to permjtbusinesses located on comerproperties to have two wall ;signs provided that only one sign is visible from the: direction of traffic flow at any one time. FINDINGS: (15) 'When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from strict enforcementof the Zoning Code, a modification may be granted for the purpose'of assuring that no property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, shall be deprived ofprivileges;common?y ::enjoyed by other properties in!the samevicinity and zone. The sole purpose of any code ':waiver is' o preventdiscrimination and none shall be approved which would have the effect of granting a special''. privilege not shared: by other similar properties. Therefore, tiefore any ; code waiver is granted by the. Planning Commission, it shall be shown: '(a) That there are special circumstances applicable to theproperty such assize, shape, topography, location orsurroundings, whicfi do not appis to other identicallyzoned properties in the vicinity; and c sr8713dh 'Page 6 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17, 2004 Item No. 8 (b) Thafstrict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identicatzoning classification in the vicinity. (16) Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding bf 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, orthat said use: is not listed therein'as being a permitted use; (b) That the proposed use will'not adversely affectthe 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 davelopmenfof the proposed use irta mannernot detrimental to the particulaCarea nor to the peace, heaith'safety, and general welfare; (d) That the traffic generated oy the proposed use will not impose an undue burden uponthe streets and highways designed and improved to'carry the traffic in the area;: and, (e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace; health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. RECOMMENDATION: (17) Staff recommends that, unless additional or; contrary informationis received during the public hearing, and, based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the 'evidence presented in'this staff report, and'oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission take the following actions; (a)', By Motion, determine that the previously-certified EIR No. S13 (with Mitigation Monitoring Pian'No. 063) is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the subject request; (b) By Motion, aoorove waivers pertaining to (a) layout and design of parking areas based upon the approvatof City's Traffic and Transportation Manger as discussed in paragraph (12) of this staff report; (o)'minimum interior landscaped setback as discussed in,paragraph (13) of this staff report;'and, (c) maximum number of wall signs as discussed in paragraph (14) of this staff report. (cJ By Resolution, aoorove Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04843, as'conditioned herein„to permit the modification of a legal non-conforming office building site to add 4,335. square feet to the project site, expand and reconfigure the parking lot and provide for landscape improvements with waivers of layout and design of parking areas, minimuminterior landscape setback and maximum numberof wall signs based upon the findings contained in the attached draft Resolution. asr8713dh `P Page 7 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04843 BE GRANTED (888 SOUTH DISNEYLAND DRIVE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as: THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 2, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 52, PAGE 39 OF PARCEL MAPS., IN THE OFFICE OF 7HE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF WEST STREET AND BALL ROAD AS SAID INTERSECTIONS SHOWN ON A PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 40, PAGE 9 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID BALL ROAD S89° 09'34:E 1659 .62 FEET; THENCE N39°57'34"W 524.89 FEET; THENCE N30°57'37"W 76.72 FEET; THENCE N 39°57'40"W 246.60 FEET; THENCE N41°06'12:W 82.40 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2989.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 166.59 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03°11'36"; THENCE N44°17'48"W 486.69 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N44°1748W 2.78 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 2.42 FEET NORTHWESTERLY OF SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINES 75° 10' 04" W 47.79 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID PARALLEL LINEN 65° 44' 18" W 27.88 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 20.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY OF SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3; THENCE S 75° 10' 04" W 125.00 FEET; THENCE S 3° 33' S3" W 29.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINEN 75° 10' 04" E 216.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. DD 200041-01-02 RESERVING UNTO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AN EASEMENT FOR SLOPE PURPOSES OVER THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 2, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 52, PAGE 39 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY LYING WITHIN A STRIP OF LAND 2.42 FEET WIDTH, THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID STRIP BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF WEST STREET AND BALL ROAD AS SAID INTERSECTION IS SHOWN ON A PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 40, PAGE 9 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID BALL ROADS 89° 09' 34" E 1659.62 FEET; THENCE N 39° 57' 34" W 524.69 FEET; THENCE N 30° 57' 37" W 76.72 FEET; THENCE N 39° 57' 40" W 246.60 FEET THENCE 41° O6' 12" W 82.40 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2989.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 166.59 'FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGEL OF 03° 11' 36"; THENCE N 44° 17' 48" W 486.69 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3; THENCE CONTINUING N 44° 17' 48" W 2.78 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 2.42 FEET NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3;THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINES 75° 10' 04" W 24.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING WESTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINES 75°10' 04" W 23.00 FEET cr\PC2004-O.doc -1- PC2004- COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF WEST STREET AND BALL ROAD AS SAID INTERSECTION IS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 40, PAGE 9 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE ALONG THE ._.. CENTERLINE OF SAID BALL ROAD SOUTH 89° 09' 34" EAST 1659.62 FEET; THENCE NORTH 39° 57' 40" WEST 524.89 FEET; THENCE NORTH 30° 57' 37" WEST 82.40 FEET TO THE "POINT OF BEGINNING", SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALSO BEING"`THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2989 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 166.59 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3° 11' 36"; THENCE NORTH 4° 17' 48" WEST 486.69 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3. BOUNDED WESTERLY BY THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HAMPSHIRE AVENUE AND WEST STREET AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 1949, RECORDED IN BOOK 89, PAGES 6, 7 AND 8 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID WEST STREET NORTH 14° 50' 23" WEST 116.63 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3; THENCE NORTH 75° 10' 04" EAST 60 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE NORTH 75° 10' 04" EAST 65.17 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE TO THE "TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING"; THENCE SOUTH 19° 00' 26" WEST 33.93 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 267 .FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 157.65 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33° 40' 52"; THENCE NORTH 75° 10' 34" EAST 7 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14° 49' 26" EAST 80.62 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 16° 07' 30" EAST 90.69 TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on May 17, 2004 at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing .having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03 (Zoning Procedures-Amendments, Conditional Use Permits and Variances), to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: - 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section No. 18.48:070.0511 to.permit the modification of a legal non- conforming office building site to add 4,335 square feet to the project site, expand and reconfigure the parking lot and provide for landscape improvements, with waiver of the following: (a) SECTION NO. 18.06.020.040 (b) SECTION NO. 18.48.070.0903 (c) SECTION NOS. 18.48.130.0601 AND 18.48.130:064 Lavout and Design of Parkino Areas. (Tandem parking spaces prohibited; 72 tandem Parkino spaces proposed) Minimum Interior Landscaped Setback (10 feet fully landscaped required; 6 feet of landscaoing proposed) Maximum Number of Wall Sions One wall sign permitted; two wall signs proposed) 2. That the proposed use is located in the C-R District (Development Area 1) of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. -2- PC2004- 3. That waiver (a), layout and design of parking areas to permit tandem parking, is approved on the basis of special circumstances applicable to the property consisting of size, shape and configuration of the existing property, building and parking lot which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity because this parcel is irregularly-shaped and is surrounded on three sides by public right-of-way (the Santa Ana I-5 Freeway on two sides and Disneyland Drive on one side). In ' addition, in connection with the expansion of the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway, the office parking lot area and number of parking spaces were reduced and additional parking spaces are needed in order to fully utilize the site for viable office tenants; and that strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. 4. That waiver (b), minimum interior landscape setback, is approved on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property consisting of the size, shape and configuration of the existing property, building, parking lot and the new parcel., which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity as the property is irregularly-shaped and is surrounded on three sides by public right-of-way (the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway on two sides and Disneyland Drive on one side) and the 4,335 square foot expansion area is a small remnant parcel (20 feet wide by 216 feet long) of Cal Trans right-of- way, if the minimum 10-foot wide landscape setback were imposed it would make the installation of new parking spaces in the expansion area infeasible; and that the strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. 5. That, waiver (c), maximum :number of signs, is approved on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property consisting of size, shape, location and surrounding, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity because the property is surrounded by the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway on two sides and Disneyland Drive on one side; that strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of reasonable business identification from the adjacent public right-of- way because one wall sign would not be sufficient to provide reasonable identification visible to both adjacent traffic flows; and, that the proposed wall signs will not be visible at the same time from any point along the adjacent direction of traffic flow or from any adjacent private properties. 6 That, as conditioned herein, the proposed modification of a legal non-conforming office building site will not adversely affect any adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the surrounding area because modification of the existing site will bring the property into greater conformance with the intent of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan by providing new landscape, signage and a refurbished parking area which will enhance the property's appearance. 7. That the size and shape of the property is adequate to allow full development of the proposed use, including approval of the waivers, in a manner which is not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the surrounding area or citizens of the City of Anaheim. 8. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry traffic in the area. 9. That "" indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal, and no correspondence was received in opposition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit the modification of a legal non-conforming office building site to add 4,335 square feet to the project site, expand and reconfigure the parking lot and provide for landscape improvements in a legal nonconforming office building site with waiver of layout and design of parking areas, minimum interior landscape setback and maximum number of wall signs on an irregularly-shaped 3.13-acre parcel with a frontage of approximately 350 feet on the east side of Disneyland Drive, a maximum depth of approximately 530 feet and is located approximately 780 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road and is further described as 888 South Disneyland and does heretiy determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 313 (with Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 063) is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the subject requests upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the previously certified EIR No. 313 together with any comments received during the public review process _3_ PC2004- and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission. ,. _. does hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: That the property owner/developer shall be responsible for compliance with all of the mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 063 for this project which incorporates those mitigation measures included in the Anaheim Resort Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085 that are applicable to the project, and for complying with the monitoring and reporting requirements established by the City in compliance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Furthermore, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for any direct costs associated with the monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure implementation of those mitigation measures identified in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 063 which is made a part of these conditions of approval by reference. 2. That prior to issuance of a grading permit, a rough or precise grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 3. That prior to final building and zoning inspections of the parking lot, the property owner/developer shall submit a parking management plan to the City TrafFlc and Transportation Manager for review and approval. The plan shall show how the 72 tandem spaces will be numbered and allocated in blocks to specific tenants pursuant to their lease. Ongoing during the project operation, use of the 72 tandem spaces shall be managed in accordance with the approved plan. 4. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, a licensed landscape architect shall provide a letter to the Planning Department certifying that all landscaping and irrigation systems have been installed in accordance with landscaping plans approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04843. 5. That any tree planted within the Setback Realm shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 6. That a licensed arborist shall be responsible for all tree trimming. 7. That sweeping operations in the parking lot shall be performed utilizing sweeping/scrubbing equipment which operate at a level measured not greater than-60dBA at the nearest properly line. 8. That ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for the removal of any on-site graffiti within 24 hours of its application. 9. That the location, configuration and type of aA lighting fixtures :including ground-mounted lighting fixtures utilized to accent buildings, landscape elements, or to illuminate pedestrian areas, shall be shown on the plans submitted for building permits. All proposed surtace parking area lighting fixtures shall be down-lighted with a maximum height of twelve (12) feet adjacent to any residential properties. All lighting fixtures shall be shielded to direct lighting toward the area to be illuminated and away from adjacent residential property lines. 10. That No Trespassing 602(j) P.C. shall be posted at the entrance of the parking lot (outside of any required setback area) and located in other appropriate places. Signs must be at least 2' X 1' in overall size, with white background and black 2" lettering. 11. That the entrance to the parking lot shall be posted with appropriate signs per 22656(a) C.V.C. (outside of any required setback area), to assist in removal of vehicles at the property owners/managers request. -4- PC2004- 12. That trash storage areas shall be maintained as indicated in the approved exhibits and in accordance with approved plans on file with the Department of Streets and Sanitation, Such information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. _. _ 13. That the backflow equipment shall be fully screened from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties as located and designed on Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4 of this Conditional Use Permit. Any modifications to the approved exhibits would require Planning and Water Department approval. 14. That all requests for new water service or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services and fire Tines, shall be coordinated through the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. 15. That all existing public water facilities shall be protected in place. The contractor performing this work shall be responsible for all costs as a result of any damage or repairs to existing water facilities. 16. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic on the adjacent public street. Installation of any gates shall conform to the Engineering Standard Plan No. 609 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager prior to issuance of a building permit. 17. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, a separate water meter shall be installed for landscaping on all projects where the landscape area exceed, 2,500 square feet in accordance with Ordinance No. 5349. 18. That the property to be served with underground utilities per the Electrical Rates, Rules and Regulations (most current fees apply) and the City of Anaheim Underground Policy shall be paid to the Utilities Department, Electrical Engineering. 19. That the legal owner of subject property shad provide the City of Anaheim with a public utilities easement (dimensions will vary with electrical design) along/across high voltage lines, low voltage lines crossing private property and around all pad mounted transformers, switches capacitors, etc. Said easement shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim prior to connection of electrical service. 20. That fire hydrants shall meet minimum Fire Department Specifications and Requirements for spacing, distance to structure and available fire flow. 21. That emergency vehicular access shall be maintained in accordance with Fire Department Specifications and Requirements. 22. That prior to approval of the grading plan, the developer shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WOMP) specifically identifying the post construction best management practices that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutants from stormwater runoff. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval. 23. That prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City of Anaheim Storm Drain Impact and Improvement Fee for the South Central area shall be paid in the amount in effect at the time of the issuance of the permit. The fee is currently $22,509/net acre. The project architect or engineer must document the existing impervious area and the proposed impervious area. If the impervious area remains the same or decrease, no fee is due. If the impervious areas increase., the fee will be proportional to the increase. 24. That a lot line adjustment shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Service pivision, to adjust the existing property line to incorporate the 4,335 square foot expansion area into the site. The Lot Line Adjustment shall be approved by the City Engineer and recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder prior to issuance of a grading permit. 25. That all uses shall be conducted indoors, with no outdoor areas used as waiting areas and that the parking lot shall only be used for parking and circulation, not uses related to the offices. _~ PC2004- 26. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 17, and as conditioned herein. 27. That within one (1) year from the date of this decision or prior to issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 3, and 24 above-mentioned shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 28. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of May 17, 2004. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.03, "Zoning Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Pat Chandler, of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on May 17, 2004, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN W ITNESS W HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2004. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -6- PC2004- ATTACHMENT -ITEM N0. 8 SECTION 4 PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF - JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: 18.48.070.0903 {A separate statement is required for each Code waiver) PERTAINING TO: waiver of minimum 10 foot interiorlandsc3pe setback. Sections 18:03.040.030 and 18.12.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code require that before any variance or Code waiver may be granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shall be shown: 1. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and 2. That, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the Zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. In order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to arrive at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regazding the property for which a variance is sought, fully and as completely as possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages. 1. Are there special circumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? x Yes _ No. If your answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstances: see attached 2. Are the special circumstances that apply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the same zone as your property? x Yes _ No If your answer is "yes," describe how the property is different: aaP attached 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 If your answer if "yes," describe the special circumstances: see attached 4. Were the special circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? x Yes _ No EXPLAIN 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 othe 'se ea press y authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances aze not permitted. ignamre of Property Owner or Authorized Agent 1 Date ~ ONDIT AION L USE PERMIT AItIANCE NO. ~~~~~V DECEMBER 12, 2000 ATTACHMENT -ITEM N0. 8 ~`'•. Code Waiver Attachment 18.48.070.0903 The subject property was initially acquired by OCTA to allow widening improvements to the 5 freeway and ancillary on ramps. The property was subsequently acquired by the correct owner after freeway improvements were completed. Project includes upgrading the remaining pazking azea after the freeway to maximize pazking for the site. The site is restricted by being bounded on three sides by street and or freeway right of way. 2. The subject property has been impacted by right of way taking on three sides of the property restricting its ability to conform to the interior side yazd requirement and upgrade the pazking azea to city standazds. 3. The subject property is currently developed with the 5 story office building and the property was impacted by CalTrans R-O-W acquisition reducing the azea for surface pazking. Other properties in the azea have not been subjected to the similaz right of way acquisition. 4. The right of way acquisition impacting the property were beyond the control of both the current and previous property owner. CONDITIONAL USE PERMI': ~o_ ,~~~~-oNd~ ~ PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAVER) REQUEST FOR WAVER OF CODE SECTION: _ PERTAINING TO: Minimum number of wall ATTACIIMENT -ITEM N0. 8 SECTION 4 18.48.130.0601, 18.48.130.0601 (A separate statement is required for each Code waiver) Sections 18.03.040.030 and 18.12.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code require that before any variance or Code waiver may be granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shall be shown: That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and 2. That, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. In order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to arrive at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regazding the property for which a variance is sough[, 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? X Yes _ No. If your answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstances: See Attached 2. Are the special circumstances that apply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the same zone as your property? X Yes _ No If your answer is "yes," describe how the property is different: See Attached 3. Do the special circumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the same zone? R Yes No If your answer if "yes," describe the special circumstances: See At 4. Were the special circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? %Yes No EXPLAIN See Attached 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 of Ise expressly authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances aze not perrnitted. 0 Signature of Property Owner or Authorized Agent . -~ D~~ate--~~ )/ ~/~ / /) ,/~ '{ NDITIONAL USE PERNII'FIVARIANCE NO.O~ ~/ ~v ~v ~`~' DECEMBER 12, 2000 ~ '~~-~-~ ATTACHMENT -ITEM N0. 8 CODE WAIVER ATTACHMENT 18.48.130.0601/18.48.130.0601 1. The subject project is on anirregular-shaped property bounded by streets on three frontages. Due to previous right of way acquisition by CalTrans, the existing building frontages aze obscured from view on multiple frontages. The additional wall sign will allow exposure to freeway in multiple directions. Other properties in the azea are not bounded by streets/freeway right of way on three sides. 2. The property is bounded on three sides by street/freeway right of way and due to recent freeway improvements considerably higher in elevation than original construction, obscuring ability to place wall signs. 3. The subject property has been impacted by construction of street and freeway improvements obscuring the building elevations for visible signage. In addition, the property is bounded by streets/freeway on three sides. 4. The configuration of the property in relationship to the existing building were created by right of way acquisition beyond the control of the current and previous property owner. CONDfTIONAL USE PERMI. NO~~-O `~~~ ~ r/ 10-0997-02/a/misc/rcs/waiver/3-02-04/Im .SECTION 4 ;~ ATTACHPIENT -ITEM N0. 8 PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF 7USTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION:. 18.06.020.040 ' (A separate statement is required for each Cotje PERTAINING TO: _ allowing Tandem parking spaces. Sections 18.03.040.030 and 18.12.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code require that before any variance or Code waiver may be granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shall be shown: That there are special 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 azsist 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 az possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages. Are there special ci~umstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? _Yes ~ No. If your answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstances: aee attached 2. Are the special circumstances thayapply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the same zone as your property? _/Yes _ No If your answer is `'yes," describe how the property is different: see attached 3. Do the special circumstances applicable to thgproperty deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the same zone? _Yes _No If your answer if `des," describe the special circumstances: Gee attachar3 4. Were the speci~ctrcumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? ?'Yes _No EXPLAIN see attache$~I The sole purpose of any variant or C d waiver shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance or Code waiver shall be approved w ' h would,)tth effe granting a special privilege no[ shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone which i ojkfe~vt es ly a ized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances are not permitted. Signature of Property Own r r Authorized gent Date DECEMBER 12, 2000 ~ONDI IT O AN L USE PERMI /VARIANCE NQ-~~(~~~D ~~y--3 ~ ATTACHMENT -ITEM N0. 8 CODE WAIVER ATTACHMENT 18.06.020.040 1. The configuration of the subject property was impacted by right-of--way acquisition. This acquisition restricted the site's ability to upgrade pazking. The site is currently improved with a 5-story building which further restricts the design of pazking area improvements to upgrade the pazking .area. The entrance drive location is a fixed point that dictates the overall design of the parking azea improvements. In order to provide an upgrade in the pazking azea, tandem pazking .spaces aze the practical alternative. The tandem spaces will be regulated by the on-site property management company and/or the primary tenant in the building. 2. The site was impacted by CalTrans right of way acquisition that restricts the site's ability to upgrade pazking to City standazds. Tandem pazking will permit additional pazking on-site for visitors and employees. 3. The site was impacted by CalTrans freeway taking that eliminated existing on-site pazking. Tandem parking is the viable option to increasing pazking on-site for the existing building. 4. The site conditions restricting the ability to upgrade pazking was beyond the control of the current and previous owner. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT idO .~<77 4 - L~ '. rF]0-0997-02/a/misc/rcs/weiver2/3-02-04Am ATTACHMENT -ITEM N0. 8 Tanderrt Space Operations Tandem parking spaces will be numbered and allocated in blocks to specific Tenants, pursuant to their lease; i.e., if the Tenant has 200 employees, approximately 20 tandem spaces (10) A & B spaces, would be required to be used by that Tenant. They will not be utilized by visitors to the building. Tenant will have the responsibility of assigning their tandem spaces to individual employees covering A & B pazking spots, providing Building Manager with names, phone numbers and auto license numbers of each employee. Landlord will provide valet assistance if and when needed. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TTF.M N(1 O ,~ ~~ OVA V 1 V m N a a ~m a CC P ~p~ GHURGH CHES ~ST ~~N~P~,~ Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04846 Subject Property Date: May 17, 2004 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: YU-KUANG LIANG Q.S. No. 93 REQUEST TO PERMIT AND RETAIN AN EXISTING TIRE SALES AND INSTALLATION BUSINESS. 1266 East Lincoln Avenue - Gutierrez Tire Shop -~ u' i 1316 1 i `~ b ; t 4 ~ ~~ 3 £ '~ ~~ L~, 1 ~ u ~ * 4 ~ ,~ ''~u 5. ~ fl.~ei die` ~~9 j w~ ~ „d ~ i ~ 4x f L f ~ ~ ~ Y a / ~~ F F `M B ~ b ~ J. ~ ~ ~~~ `~ k u c 3, 1 ~ Nj5 a~ r ~~~ ~ ~~ r` ~ ~, s ~ r ~ _ ~~ . ~ '~°, 4 ... ,amP ~ ,~ - ~~, ~ ~'~ r ~ ~ ` E `~` K ~ ~ ~.„ ~ ~ ri~ ~~ q wart @*''~r-~~,. ,zss ~ Ar/'' r '' , ,' 1 ~~ ti ~' s3 r "~'~ 5: ` r ~~ ,. ~.` ~, ~~~ d~ > r ~ ~ r t.,3{ c R-, r S. r ~.r '~ ~ 4 '.~ c'. . } ~g` " ~~y `~ ~g t ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~Po~~ ~ .. "-` t m .'y tom` Ty t -; as. ,^ $ .~~ dS ~~ ~ yr r' ~rv X11 ~ Y ~ ~~~~ ~~ .. ~ ~. .-o ~~~~ ~ ~w~ ~a --; q ~~ N~ ' i~ ~ ~'_y~ t ~ ~ ~ ~, ~} / ~ n X ~ m''~~' S ~?~~'g~ 51,r.;•~'r'`v rva"e v~ ~ v >-_ g 3~S "~w~ ~yY ~a d.` ~2~'~' '"~' 3'~g ~ F u 'r ~y "Rf ~s' Y 4~ S~:s.~v`Y q'? 1 ITEM N0. ~ 9 Staff Report to the °Planning Commission May 17, 2004 Item No. 9 9a. 'iCEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 (Motion) - 9b. CONDITIONAL'USE PERMIT N0 2004-04846 (Resolution) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This irregularly-shaped, 0.29-acre property has a frontage of 75 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, a maximum depth of 20Tfeet and is ocated 800 feet east of the centerline of East Street (1266 East Lincoln Avenue-`Gutierrez Tire Shop)[: 'REQUEST: (2) The petitioner requests approval`of a conditional use;permit under authority of Code Section 1.8:44.050.085 to permifand retain an existing fire sales and installation business. BACKGROUND: (3) This property is developed with a fire salesand installation business on the southern portion is zoned CC(Commercial, Limited)'pn the northerly portion of the property and RM-2400'(Residential; Multiple.Family) on`the southern portion and is designated for' .General Commercial'and Medium Density,t2esidential land uses on the Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element Map. 4 (4) Surrounding General Plan land uses designations are as follows: Direction ~ General Plan Designation North (across Lincoln General Commercial Avenue} and East and Medium Density Residential South ` Medium Density Residential West General Commercial PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS: (5) Conditional: Use Permit No. 615'(to permifthe expansion of an existing small equipment rental, sales yard and'repair facility) was approved by the Planning Commission on August 17,':1964. On October 13, 1997, the Commission, by motion, requested that toff set this permit for public hearing to consider it's revocation or modification: On April 13, :1998, the conditional use permit was modified to expire in one (1 }year. The permit was never reinstated andhas beenexpired since April 13, 1999. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: (6) The petitioner is proposing to permit and retain an existing fire sales and installation shop. The existing fire sales and installation business is currently located on a :12,632 square foot `property. The submitted site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates the following structural and 'landscaped setbacks: sr8731au ..Page 1 Staff Report to the `Planning Commission May 17, 2004 Item No. 9'' Cade Req~ired,Parktng~ ~~~"~~::afse;~"~~ ~- ~ Square,Feet; ~,~; ~.;yRatto '; ;:-~.~Ccide-Required: °„ .~ ~ " ~~ (s:f.) „ ^;; `-, ~ ~ ~tper.lQOd's.f,) :,,,~~" ~~ ~" ;.Rae(~in ~. . Office 278 s.f. 4 er 1,000 s':f. of GFA 1 Automotive Uses 1,186 s.f. ? 3.5 er 1,000 s.f. of GFAi 4.2 Total 1,464 s.f. 5 (10) The site plan indicates a 9-foot wide landscaped planter adjacent to Lincoln Avenue with a total of 4 trees. Code requires a total of 4 gees for this 75-foot wide property based on the requirement of 1 tree,per 20 feeE of street frontage. Code further requires that at least one (1) tree per,three thousand square feet of parking area and/or vehicular accessways be tlistributed hroughout the parking area and an average of forty-eight (48) square feet of planter area providetl`per required tree, with a minimum planter dimension of five (5) feet, :'(6,900 square feet of parking area! 3000 square feet = 2 trees within associated planter areas). The site plan' oes not indicate any additions to the existing landscape areas. (11) Sign plans were not submitted as part of this application. However, a site inspection revealed an unpermitted freestanding sign'within the7andscaped setback along Lincoln Avenue. The sign appeared to be constructed of plywood with painted sign copy area supported by two wood posts. Any proposed signage must comply with Code requirements for the CL Zone unless a separate variance is applied for and granted by the Commission. Code permits wall sighage not to exceed 10 percent of each building elevation and one maximum 10-foot wide by 8-foot high, 38 square fooYdouble-faced monument sign far the entire property. (12) The submitted letter of operation indicates the hours of operation for the tire sales and installation businesswould be 9 a.m, to 7 p.m., daily. The letter further indicates that the new property owner recently purchased the property without knowing that he conditional use permit had expired. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT'ANALYSIS: `, (13) The Planning Director's authorized representative has determined that the proposed;project 'falls within'the definition of Categorical Exemptions; Section 15301, Class;l (Existing Facilities),`as defined'in the State CEQA (Calffornia Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the preparation of further environmental`i `documentation. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENTANALYSIS S (14) The proposed project has been'reviewed by affected'City departments to determine whether iYconforms with the City's Growth Management Element adoptetl?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 Element analysis,! herefore, no analysis has been performetl. HOUSING ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (15) Effective January 1, 2003, Government Code Section 65863 restricts a cit~ls ability to `reduce the'maximum`allowable density on property In areas already designated or zoned `for residential uses td a level below the density used by the State of California Housing and Page 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17, 2004 Item No. 9 Community Development Department (HCD) when determining whether a city's dousing `° Element complied vuith state law. It is'immateriaPunder the statute whether the7eduction is initiated by a city or by a member of the public. A city may neither require nor permit the I reduction of density or any such residentially-designated parcel, unless he following findings!are made: `; (a) That the proposed reduction in density is consistent withahe General Plan, including the dousing;Element. (b) Thatahe remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to accommodateahe City's: share of the regional housing needs. (16) ` if a city cannot make the second finding, it may still make the reductionin density if it identifies sufficient"additional; adequate, and available sites° with an equal or greater residential capacity n the jurisdiction soithat thereis 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 in order to legally accomplish adown-zoning (Govemment Code Section 65863).! This statute provides attorneys fees to a successful plaintiff challenging a city under the statute, (17) '' The City Attomey's'Office has reviewed Govemment Code Section 65863 and advise that Section 65803 states that the'sections in Chapter 4, of which 65863 is a part, do hot -, to charter cities except as otherwise provided. Since Section 65863 does not specific.;;" indicate applicability to charter cities, it is believed that such provision does not apply tv Anaheim, a charter city. However, as a'practicai matter the reclassification of property needs to'be consistent with th€ -:~eneral?Plan, including the Housing Element. Anaheim has a Housing Element, apprc~ed by HCD, based'upon the Guys provision of certain identified Housing :Opportunity Sites. To ensure that zoning actions remain consistent with the General Plan, if is recommended that the findings in Section 65863'be utilized`as a model, and be analyzed by the City when property"is rezonedito a density belowanat considered in the approved dousing Element as a'method of determining continuing conformance with the assumptions contained therein. (18) 'The City's regional housing need share during the planning period from'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. s In a conservative analysis, a reduction in residential density which results in a loss of fewer than 4,500 units would 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 withahe approved Housing Element, which maybe accomplished by identifying sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites with an; equal or greater residential density so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity. (19) ! In order to ensure that zoningactions which grant a reduction of density on residentially zoned properties are consistent with the City's General Plan,^including he Housing Elementas approved by HCD, it is recommended hat the Planning Commissiorcutilize the methodology set forth in Govemment Code Section 65863. 'Although if is believed 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 Sites identified in the City's Housing Element complied with state law, that the following findings, without waiver of tha City's charter city authority, be made: (a) Thatthe proposed reduction in density is consistent withahe General Plan, including the dousing,Element; and Page 4 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17, 2004 :Item No. 9 (b) That the remaining sites identified in the Housing;Element are adequate to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Government Code Section 65584. (20) The project site contains one (1) of the three (3) parcels identified as Site No. 32 of the .Central Anaheim Area'within the Housing Element with a density range of36 to 44 units per acre. The 0.29 acre site could accommodate from 10 to 13 units. The following,table Yeflects the total maximum loss of residential units from the number of potential units:: .identified in the Housing Element due to zoning actions approved since January 1, 2003 (Effective date of Govemment Code Section 65803):.: Stte.Lt7catldFl, , , r ~ ~; ~°n x <,__, Pro eft"~teme s ". s ` . Fieductlon:Graftt@d 1266 East Lincoln Gutierrez Tire Sho 13 Units endh 611 SoutF Brookhurst Street Sav On Dru Store 41 Units endh 2823 West Bali Road: Buddhist Tem le ' 10 Units arious Parcels in the Colon Five-Points DownZonin 15 Units Northeast Terminus of Via Cortez Caliber Motors 30 Units 2792 WestBall Road Athenian Plaza : 9 Units TOTAL 118 Units c (21 } As noted atiove, reductions in residential density which result in a loss of fewer than 4,500 units will not impact the Cit~/s ability to accommodate: its share of the regional housing need and would remain consistent with the Housing: Element of the General Plan. The prior actions and the proposed continued commercial use of the subject property would 'result in a dtal combined reduction of a maximum of 118 units.`The remaining sites': identified in'!the Housing Elemertt provide residential `unit capacity in excess of the 'proposed 118-unit reduction in density identified to date. (22) Based on the foregoing, this reduction of housing density is consistent with the Housing Element and, further, hat the remaining Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the Housing :Element are adequate to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need, EVALUATION: (23) Code permits tire sales and installation businesses in'the CL zone subject o approval of a conditional use permit. Code does not permit a tire shop in the;RM-2400'Zone. (24) The attached Code Enforcement Division records and memorandum dated May 6, 2004, indicate this property'has generated numerous complaints dating back to 1997. Staff inspections' have confirmed than although the property owner has recentiy'made an effort to clean up the site, there are still many outstanding Code violations, The numerous violations include the following: o' Land use violations (operating without a C.U.P.) e Overgrown and dead vegetation Deteddratedlunsightlyfencing e Unperrnitted signage ,,; Unperrnitted outside storage and work (ihcluding repair and installation of tires) Damaged and poorly maintained building structures '• On-site debris Page 5 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17 2004 Item No. 9 ~ ~,^* `%. ~ .e ~.r fF~ ' I .( ft-N S #~ ' ~ I !~ Y ~ '^~ ~ ® ~~ 4 ' ~ ''~', em . u ~ y ~`: 1 ~~ ~ ~ c ~~,.~ ~' ~7 ,_ ~~ 1 Y Q 4' ~, ,< { ~ q :.n ~ ~.. ~ fL ~ ~ ~ ~aN m ~ 4 r ~ ~ ;~ d , . ,. ~ ,. ~,h .<.a` s, 4a ! ~ sF /.. di ~ ~,. r. ( On-site debris and outdoor storage of tires and vehicles Page 6 Staff Report to the Planning Commission ,May 17, 2004 Item No. 9' (+ 4 4 3 ~ ~~. M t .,~ b ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T o~ `~ € R `1 r f ` ' ~Fs.. ~ -. ~ ,, ~. ,. ' r S ~m"~ s »¢ ~ v°.. t '~Hi... i Y~~ f~ ~~ ~ ' :..1 '~ ' ~,[ ` ~ ~~ ~ I s n ~, a r ~ ~ - ~, ~ `.:` I 46 G oK 'i 5 ~ S , . yam, / £ ` ` fi .., Unpermitted sign '" " ~ R ~_ ' ~d Y 4~~ - 1 ~ ` ~.fl .yyy~ 7< I 4 W, ~ ~ ~ ~~n ~ ~~ 1) S. ( ` ` y .il rj V~ ~ Yn ~ e i~ ,. ~~ i 9 ~ r { ~ ~ ' x ~ ~~ f , D f E 6l ' -++S~~ ~`fi k ''• ~ I ~~ ~~ e ~ ". ~ } ± ~ ~. ~~1~ ~ p~ Q~ f 2 ~ ~ 'K ~ =~~ x ~ ~ i ~ ~' - ~. rol. a ~ w I S/ ~ " ~ „ Y l Y <Jt Ste' d / t /~ ~ Z. r i c~ T F lY ~ ~. .i i i 9 . S 2 "~~ l "- F l3h f~ .. i ~ ~~ i 1 1 G / ~ f J' ~ r y. ...,.. r ~ i~~ :.1 r . ii .>.~} . .,., t Dead landscaping and unsightly fence ,Page 7 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17; 2004 Item No. 9 Page 8 Staff Report ko the Planning: Commissioh May 17, 2004 .Item No. 9 f THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS ACTING AS AN INTERDEPARTMENTALCOMMITTEE AND'ARE'RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION BY'THE' PLANNING'COMMISSION'IN THE EVENT THAT THIS PERMIT'ISAPPROVED. 1. That window signage shall not be permitted. 2. That the unpermitted sign within the front setback shall be removed. If any new signs are proposed, the petitioner shall. submit a final sign plan for review and approval by Zoning Division staff. Any decision made by he Zoning Division regarding said plan maybe appealed to the `- Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendation: item. 3. That a valid business license shall be obtained from the City of Anaheim, Business License: Divisidn. 4. ' That no(required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed or used for outdoor storage uses. 5. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review'and approval showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos: 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and'driveway locakions. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 6. That the property shall be permanently'maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti withinitwenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 7. That any tree and/or landscaping planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed damaged diseased`and/or dead. 6. That customer parking spaces shall be striped and clearly marked for"customer parking only", and of no time sfiall customer vehicles be stacked, double parked, or left standing in tandem in front of or adjacent to the buildings. 9, That if required to'provide additional ormew electrical service, the legal property ovmer shall provide: the City of Anaheimwith an easement to be determined as electrical design Is completed for electrical service lines.: Said easement shalt be submitted to the. City of Anaheim prior to connection of electrical service. 10. That 4-foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be Visible from the viewbf the street or adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division approval. i L ' That there shall be no vehicle dismantling permitted on the premises. 12.' That no amplified`sound systems shalt be utilizetl outside the building: 13. That the hours of'operation'shall be limited to 9 a.m. to 7 p:m., daily. 14. That the parking lot serving,the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the ..Page 9 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17, 2004 Item No. 9 parking lot. Said lighting shall be tlirected, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as riot to"' unreasonably'illuminate the windows of nea~tiy residences. 95. That aBurglary/Robbery Alarm permit application, Form APD-516 and Emergency Listing Card, Form APD-281, shall be completed and filed with the Police Department. 16. That the storage or overnight parking of vehicles, vehicle parts, or business-related materials and all work on vehicles (including the'washing of,vehicles)!shall be confined entirely to the interior of the'buildings. i'Absolutely no vehicular body work, painting or other business-related activities, or storage of vehicles, vefiicle parts br materials shall be allowed in the front orYear yard'areas, or onthe roof of the buildings. 17. That the existing fence shall be removed. Any new fencing shall comply with'. the requirements contained in Chapter 18:.04 "Site Development Standartls-General" of the Zoning Code: pertaining to fencing materials and maximum height. Said fencing shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Division. 18. That a landscape refurbishment plan shall beisubmitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Implementation of the plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Zoning Division' within a peribtl of sixty (60) days from the date of the resolution. The decision of the Zoning Division maybe appealetl to the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item: 19. That subject property shall be developed and'maintained substantially in accordance with plans and: specifications submitted to the',City of Anaheim by,the petitioner and which plans are on file witft the Planning Department marked ExhibiYNo. 1, and as conditioned herein. 20. That within sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos: 2, 3, 5, 8 9, 10, 14~ 15, 17, 18 and 19, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03:090 of the AnaheimMunicipal Code. 21, That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent thatit complies with the'Anaheim Munlcipal`Zdning Code and any;bther applicable City,jState and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to cdmpliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable bFdinance, :regulation or requirement, Page 10 (®~~~ RESOLUTION NO. PC2004--** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION _ ., THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2004-04846 BE DENIED (1266 EAST LINCOLN AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for.. Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as: PARCEL 1: PORTION OF PARCEL 43. THE EAST 75 FEET OF THE NORTH 185 FEET OF THE WEST 6 ACRES OF THE EASTERLY HALF OF THE NORTHERLY HALF OF LOT 8 OF ANAHEIM EXTENSION, AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF SURVEY BY WILLIAM HAMEL, A COPY OF WHICH IS SHOWN TO BOOK 3, PAGES 163 AND 164 OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTION THEREFROM THE SOUTHERLY 52-FEET OF THE WESTERLY 61 FEET THEREOF. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on May 17, 2004 at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 16.03, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That a fire shop is not a conditionally permitted use in the RM-2400 Zone, and outdoor storage and tire installation is not permitted in the CL or RM-2400 Zones. 2. That the existing tire shop is not operating in a manner which complies with Code. This use has a history ofnon-compliance with numerous Code Enforcement issued Notices of Violation. 3. That the size and shape of the site for the tire sales and installation business is not adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area's peace, health, safety, and general welfare. 4. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04846 would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim based on the numerous . 5. That ** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Director or her authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1 {Existing Facilities), as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to provide additional environmental documentation.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, on the basis of the aforementioned findings. CR\PC2004-0 -1- PC2004- THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of May 17, 2004. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.03, "Zoning Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal Cade pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced° by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on May 17, 2004, by the following vote of the members thereof; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN W ITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2004. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -2- PC2004- -. - ATTACHMENT -ITEM N0. 9 MEIVIOI2AIVDUM CTI'Y OF ANAHEIM Code Enforcement Division DATE: MAY 6, 2004 TO: AMY VASQUEZ, CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNER FROM: ~ KEN MARSH, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SUBJECT: 1266 E. LINCOLN AVE. - CUP2004-04846 On February 3, 2003, in response to a citizen's complaint regazding an unpermitted fire store operating on the property located at 1266 E. Lincoln Ave., I conducted an inspection of the property and "Gutierrez Tire". Prior to the inspection, a check of Planning Department and Code Enforcement records indicated there was a fire store operating at the above address without a Conditional Use Permit. During this inspection, I observed numerous violations of the Anaheim Municipal Code. There were inoperable vehicles, discazded tires, and discazded vehicle parts stored on the roof of the business as well as in the reaz of the business. There was an unsightly fence on the front of the property, they were changing tires outside of the building, and refuse and waste on the property. There were numerous Notices of Violations and Order to Comply letters mailed to the prior property owner, Alfonso Gomez. On August 28, 2003, Mr. Gomez submitted apre-file application, CUP2003-00074, for the fire store. After reviewing the application and inspecting the property, staff recommended denial of the C.U.P. application. it _. The violations continued to exist.at the property. After numerous attempts to bring the property into compliance and discussions with Mr. Gomez, I was forced to file a Criminal Complaint against Mr. Gomez. On approximately January 27, 2004, Mr. Gomez sold the property to Mr. Y K Liang. The Criminal Complaint against Mr. Gomez was closed. The new property owner, Mr. Liang, was mailed a new Notice of Violation and Order to Comply letter requiring him to obtain a Conditional Use Pemut for "Gutierrez Tire" or cease allowing the tine store to operate on the property. m1266 a Lincoln ave-3 MEM®RAN)<DUM PAGE 2 ®F 2 Mr. Liang called me and requested information on what violations still existed at the property. I met Mr. Liang at the property and outlined the violations I observed. Mr. Liang brought the property into compliance. There were still some A. M. C. violations that I did not address in the letter but discussed them with Mr. Liang. I explained to Mr. Liang that these violations would be addressed in the Conditions of Approval for the C.U.P. There was an unpernutted sign in the front setback, the landscaping needed maintenance, there was an unsightly, 6' to 7' foot fence in the front setback, .and they were still conducting business outside of the building. I have not conducted an inspection since Mr. Liang filed the Conditional Use Permit application. Please feel free to call me at ext. #4595 if I can be of further assistance. m1266 a Iincoln ave-3 TTF.M Nn 1n CL /~ /RCL 92-93-03 VAR 4239 CAR // RCL 82-93.27 CUP 3919 WASH Cl RCL 69-90-22 .RCL 62-63-21 CUP 3990 CUP 3757 CUP 3550 VAR 2003-04565 VAR 3744 VAR 4251 ADJ 2003-00248 SCW 2003-00024 HOME DEPOT CUP 3757 y CUP 3556 ~P C AUTO 2 ~~ pEALER ~QP ~G y\~P RCL 97-98-3 'OG CjP' RCL 62-83.21 CUP 3962 ``~ CUP 3472 9Z Auro p0 ~ DEALER ~~ ~~~~ O\~/ s ~ v~~;2Q ~`o~~ ._..... _. ~~ ~~ t ~ ~o N~~ `N ~~o CL F ~T-CUP 2001-04418 O T-CUP 2001-04323 9.L~ CUP 4100 ,L VAR 3744 p2, PCN 99-OS OQ` SERVICE 111 STATION RS-A-03;000 ~ CUP 3757 \ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SUBSTATION CL RCL 62-63-21 CUP 4108 CUP 3757 VAR 2004-04605 VAR 3744 GPA 142 EIR NO. 230 EIR NO. 195 PUBLIC STORAGE R~ ~ I~ EWgY (gR-9~) REQUESTS WAIVER OF MAXIMUM NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS WITHIN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE TO PERMIT TWO WALL SIGNS (FOR A TOTAL OF THREE) ON ADJACENT BUILDING ELEVATIONS IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. 8180 East Old Canal Road Ip 1322 l'TFM NO_ 10 Staff Report to the Planning Commission `,May 1T, 2004 Item No. 10 10a CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 11 (Motion) 10b: VARIANCE NO; 2004'-04605 (Resolution) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION`. (1) This irregularly-shaped, 2.1-acre property has a frontage of 376 feet on the south side of Old CanalrRoad, a`maximum :depth of 380 feet and is located 347 feet south of the `centerline'of Savi Ranch Parkway (8180.East Old Canal Road =Self Storage USA). i REQUEST: (2) The petitioner requests waiver of the following, to permit and construct two wall signs (for a <total of three) in conjunction with aself-storage facility: SECTION NO. 18.05.091.020 - Maximum number of wall signs within the (SCYScenicCb~ridor'OverlayZoneii One sign permitted; two wall signs proposed [for a total of three';on adjacent building elevations) BACKGROUND: (3) This property is currently developed with a 95,800 square foot self-storage building and is zoned CL (SC) (Commercial. Limited; Scenic Corridor Overlay): The Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element Map designates this property and surrounding properties for General Commercial land uses and this'properly is also located within the River Valley 'Redevelopment Project Area PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS: (4) The following zoning actions pertain to this property:: (a) Conditional Use Permit No. 4108 (to construct a new self storage facility with a building height in excess of 35 feef(up to AO feet high requested) with waivers of permitted commercial identificatiom,signs, maximum structural height adjacent to a residential zone, minimum landscape setbacks adjacent to a residential zone and required screening adjacent to a residential zone) was approved in part by the Commission on March 12, 1999. (b} Cohditional Use Permit No, 3757 (to permit the Savi Ranch Retail Community Wayfinding Sign Program) was approved by,the Commission on April 3, 1995. This program has not yet been fully implemented and there are currently no plans for implementation in the near future..: (c} Variance No. 3744 (waiver of required lot frontage to establish a 5-lot commerciallihdustrial subdivision) was approved by the Commission on February 29, ; 1988. Sr8730gk Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17, 2004 Item No. 10 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: (5) The petitioner requests approval of a waiver of permitted signs within the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone to construct two wall signs. The site plan (F~hibit No. 1) indicates'a proposed freeway-orientedwall sign on the south elevation and a proposed wall sign on the east elevation. (6) The elevation and sign plans (Exhibif Nos. 2 and 3) indicate two (2), 3-foot high by 45.2- foot wide illuminated channel letter sign with bluei and red colored pleziglas faces and white trim caps. The photo simulations on the same plans indicate the proposed locations of the.: signs oh the building. The elevation plans show that one sign would tie placed near the top of the building and would face south towards the SR-91 (Riverside) Freeway... Said sign would be located approximately 250 feet from the freeway.:The second proposed wall sign.: would also be placed on the'east elevation near the roof of the building. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (7) The Planning Director's authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section'15311, Class 11 (Accessory Structures), as defined in the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act); Guidelines and is, therefore; oategoricaily exempt from the preparation'of further environmental documentation. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (8) The proposed project has been reviewed by affected City departments to determine whether it conforms to 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 fifwithin the'scope necessary to require a Growth ` Management Element analysis, therefore, no analysis has been performed. EVALUATION:'. (9) The requested waiver pertains to permitted signs within the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. Code permits nofmore thanone walC'sign for each individual building'unit, and'in no case shall the aggregate total area of all such signs exceed ten percent of a total area of the face of said building unit. Submitted plans Indicate two 135 quare foot illuminated, channel letter signs located bn the building wall facing the SR-91 Freeway to the south and I on the building wall facing Weir Canyon. Road to the east. The petitioner has submitted the attached Statement of Justification Form for the requested waiver stating that there is an existing hardship on this property due to its difficult accessibility and building location that is lower than the elevation of the freeway.; (10) { The Storage USA currently has an 81 square foot wall sign located on the north 6uliding elevation oriented`towards Old Canal Road and Pullman Street and a'80 squarefoot monument sign located at the front of the building oriented to the east'and west fraffic along Old Canal Road. The 60 square foot monument sign was approved as a part of a sign waiver th conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 4108.` Code permits a maximum 26 square foot, single-faced sign as part of a 36-inch'high wall (11) The petitioner indicates in their attached letter of justification that the Home Depot home ` improvement store located'adjacenfto the Storage USA was granted. additiona(signage Page 2 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17x2004 :Item No. 10 due to the topographical hardship that also exists at the Storage USA site:: The petitioner atates that"The significant gratle differential between. the property and the difficult indirect r access to the site from Weir Canyon Roadcombineto create a pecial circumstance `applicable to the property which'does not apply to the other identically zoned properties in the vicinity." (12) The Home Depot is a retail use that is much larger than most stand-alone retail uses. or 'commercial retail centers. The nature of the home improvement business, the variety and `quantity of'jnventoryand the overall general popularity of this type of store dictate the large building and site required to accommodate: such a use. For these reasons, home > improvement and "big box" retailers draw their customer base on a regional scale. Self- . storage facilities historically have not beenvtilized through an "impulse" action but typically result from a foreseeable need. (13) On August 17, 1998, he Planning Commission recommended City Council review and approval of the following policy pertaining oself-storage facilities. On September 22, '1998, the Gity Council discussed this policy stating the policy would take effect immediately as recommended by the Commission. °Self-storage facilities may continue to be permitted in the CL (Commercial, Limited); ML (Limited Industrial) and MH (Heavy Industrial) Zones; ubject to the approval of a `conditional' use permit. The unique and opportune design features of self-storage facilities are most appropriate+for irregularly-shaped properties which may further be constrained by accessibility or visibility and which may not be suitable for conventional types of :'development. A limited number of these types of properties are found in commercial and industrialzones. Provided there does not'appear tobe other viable or strategic uses of the 'property, the architecture of the facility is of high quality, the use is appropriate and compatible with its surrounding;land uses, and the facility is in compliance with all Zoning `.Code Development Standards(ncluding setbacks where possible, signage and landscaping), self-storage facilities maybe conditionally permitted in the CL, ML or MH Zones:' (14) An evaluation of this parcel against the policy for self-storage facilities indicates that this '.request for a sign waiver would appear to be inconsistent with the aforementioned policy `and with the premiseupon which the facility was originally approved. Specifically, approval of the facility was obtained in part, because the building was designed to7esemblean office building. The placement of additional wall: signs visible to the freeway and Weir Canyon Road would, in staffs opinion; a contrary;to the original approval. Therefore, staff 'recommends the request be denied. FINDINGS: (15) When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship result from;strict enforcement of the Zoning Code, a modification maybe granted for the purpose of assuring that no property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, shall be deprived of privileges commonly `enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The sole purpose of any variance is to prevent discrimination and none shall. be approved which would have the 'effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other simila[ properties. Therefore, before any variance: is granted`by the Planning Commission, it shall be shown: (a) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property such assize, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically 'zoned properties in the vicinity;'and Page 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 17, 2004 Item tVo. 10 (b) That strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning`classification in the vicinity. RECOMMENDATION: (16) ' Staff recommends that unless additional or contrary information is received during the meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Planning Commission, including i the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the `` public hearing that the Planning Commission deny this request based bn the findings I contained in the.: attached resolution. (17) , Should the Commission wish to approve this request, staff recommends that the item be continued for two'weeks in order to incorporate the following conditions together with the appropriate findings into a resolution for consideration by the Planning. Commission. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS ACTING AS ANs INTERDEPARTMENTAL. COMMITTEEAND ARE. RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION BY THE PLANNfNG COMMISSION IN THEEVENT THAT THIS VARIANCE ISAPPROVED: 1'. That on-site signage shallbe maintained in "like-nevW' condition and free of graffiti at all times. 2: That no additional permanent or temporary advertising ofany type whatsoever' hall be displayed on the walls thaf.will contain the sign(s) approved by this variance. 3 That, as required by Code'Section 18.05.091.050, signage shall not be lighted between the hours `- of midnight and 6:30 a.m. 4 That the subjecfproperty shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to'the City of Anaheim;by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the'< Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3, antl as conditioned herein. 5 That prior to issuance of a'building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Noi 4, above-mentioned', shall be complied with. Extensions for further time o complete said conditions maybe granted In accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the' Anaheim'.. Manicipah, Code. 6l That prior to final building and zoning' inspections, Condition No. 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. i 7r That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposetl request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State: and Fede~ai regulations. Approval does not include'any actionbr findings as to compliance or approval of the'request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. .Page 4 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2004-'* A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0.2004-04605 BE DENIED (8180 EAST OLD CANAL ROAD) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Variance for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as: ALL THAT PORTION OF PARCELS 2 AND 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 87-416, RECORDED IN BOOK 242, PAGES 1 THROUGH 4 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, LYING WITHIN PARCEL 3 OF THAT CERTAfN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 297, RECORDED MAY 16, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 94-0335956 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS., BOTH IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on May 17, 2004, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the petitioner proposes waivers of the following to construct two additional wall signs in conjunction with aself-storage facility: SECTION NO. 18.05.091.020 - Maximum number of wall sions within the (SCl Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone One wall sign permitted; two wall signs proposed [for a total of three on adjacent building elevations). 2. That a waiver of signage was previously-approved for this property in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 4108. 3. That the original approval of the self-storage facility was predicated on the facility being disguised as an office building; and that granting additional wall signage would be inconsistent with that original approval. 4. That "'*" indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny subject Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementioned findings. CR\PC2004-0 -1- PC2004- THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of May 17, 2004. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.03, "Zoning Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal Cade pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a Ciry Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on May 17, 2004, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS W HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of -_, 2004. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -2- PC2004- ATTACHMENT -ITEM N0. 10 - ~` SECTION 4 PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER ' (NOT REQUI/RED FOR PARKING WAIVER) REQUEST FOR WANER OF CODE SECTION: / ~' ate' ~ ~ ~ {A se arate statemen is required for each Code waiver) PERTAINING TO: ~u+~k455 S; ks ~crw..;{Fe~ W.4 ~1.~L ~$C~ ct..;c (~urr;ePoT O~cil 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 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 arrive at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regarding the property for which a variance is sought, fully and as completely as possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages. i. Are there special RSrcumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? _ Yes _ No. , If your~nswer is "Yes," describer the special circumstances: ~G~_ ~ .F' ~ ~~'-~S~ 1//.~-E-. 2. J Are the special circumstances the 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 "fires," describe how the property 11-f~ r5 3. 4. Were the spec' 1 circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? _ Yes _ No EXPLAIN The sole purp~~os~ y vari~ anee o Co a waiver shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance or Code e~sh be -~~:w~ approved which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the s ,Vibimt~:arrd ni which is of otherwise expressly authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use varian~c,~s~are dot peitnitted ~y ~' a ~r~_~. ~VFD ~ -IjC, Signature of Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date ~ ~/ ; ~ " ~+ti~(~ ~^ ~{ r ~6'~; ~ry~/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE NO. " ' _" '~ ' pECEMBER 12, 2000 --- ~=~ VAR No. 2004 - a 4 ~'n 3 Do the special circumstances applicable to thr~property deprive it of privileges cuaently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the same zone? (/Yes No ITEM NO- 17 J WINSTON RD CL (sABG) RCL 65.6fi-27 RCL 5s-67-30 CUP 3567 CL ( SABC) CUP 2706 CUP 1730 CUP 737 RM-1200 CL (SABC) APT' f0 DU EACH RCL 59-60.100 (Res, of Intent to CH) RCL SB-59-72 GUINIDA LN RM-1200 CL (SABC 0 RCL 59E0-1 0 4 DU EACH (Ras. of lntant to CH) RCL 58-59-72 VAR 33fi5 OFFICE BLDG. RS-A-43,000 RCL 2000-00023 (Res o(Inlenl to CL SABC Overlay Zone) RCL REVERE VAI ELEMENTARY VAI SCHOOL MIDWAY DRIVE ptGL ~~ 6C pvel~°, y~tas of tnt to SP 1 //` M~tSPgcl ML ISPB, ~, MLP~~,ND. 66-fic.56-19 SMFIFMS 34 UP SMFtFM9 t C V-1627 ~ 7 O l ML (SABC) N MV l5 A2 4 ML SA9C 5 1 REYVEC INC -1 p1.L 1ND~ 5 BM S RCL 5-56- 9 ML (SABC) . FIFM E VAC. BLDG. ~ B OG ~'® 325'--m{ PALAISRD D T-CUP (SA9 C~ D 2 2003 04802 RCL = 0 66-fi7-14 CUP 3560 m - 54-55-03 CUP 3439 54-55-02 CUP 3064 CUP 2004-04Bg5 I DUSTRIA BUILDING ~ ML (SABC) ML (SABC) 54-55-42 W 54.55-42 CUP 4228 ~ CUP 3598 C CUP 3499 r m ML (BABC) fis-6T.,a RDL6S6G PEP MARBOLIS CUP 3407 v-a2,D D ,9 s4-ss~a2 vnsz7 C HURCHISCHOOL TtUP 2003-04602 ,~ INDUSTRIAL BUILDING RCL 67-fit-37 ~~~-ACL-~ CL{SABC) ML15ABq SB-59-3] RCL 2000.00023 (Res o(InL to 6ABG CUP 3952 ~ RCL 61.6247 Overlay Zone) CUP 3617 ~ Z ML (SABC) ci z oy RGL 90-91-25 66-fi7-36 CUP 3698 CUP 3665 } -m ~ n ~~> °~ 60.61-113 CUP 3fi0fi W N RCL 61-b2.37 RCL 59-fi0-Sa w ~ a >a ~ ~" 60-61-14 RCL 55 6 CUP 3545 CUP 3400 ~a ~ ~ -5 -19 54-55-42 CUP 171 RCL 651A62C~7 O'i K T-CUP 2003-04765 V-1827 PCN 97-11 ¢ ¢r T-CUP 2002-04597 (67A8-20) ML (sA6C) RCL RCL 61-62-25 S9-5o4i7~ T-CUP 2002-04532 CUP 2 001-04 4 39 {CUP 3566 T)) T-CUP 2001-04421 (CUP 3447 W) LIQUOR T-CUP 2001-04345 CUP 3050 T))) CUP 283 I STORE T-CUP 2001-04303 T-CUP 2001-04302 5 CUP 2735 T T-CUP 2001-04300 (CUP 2721 ) T-CUP 2001-04299 (CUP 2463 T) T-CUP 2000.04230 (CUP 335 Tj ~ 0 T-CUP 20 430) ~0 NDOOR SWAP MEET Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04845 Subject Properly Date: May 17, 2004 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: DANG TRI MINH Q.S. No. 96 REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A CHURCH WITHIN AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. 220 East Palais Road 1319 StafF Report to the Planning Commission May 17, 2004 Item No. 11 (5) ;The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates att existing industrial building on the southeast portion '' of the property with the majority of the packing between Anaheim Boulevard and the building. Existinglandscape setbacks include a 10 foot wide;planter adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard ' and a 5 foot wide planter adjacent to Palais Road. (6) :.The floor plan (Exhibit No. 2) indicates that the church would consist of 2,976 square foot .sanctuary, kitchen and fellowship area, classrooms and pastor's office.'A proposetl 1,060 °square foot addition o the west side of the building: would ihclude the main entrance to the .'church and greeting area adjacent to the sanctuary (7) 'Vehicular access would be provided via three (3) existing driveways on Palais Road. Plans indicate a total of 85'iproposed on-site parking spaces for this' property. Code requires 94 spaces based the.following: Usa i ' Siae Code-Required Parking iParking ; s.f. Re wired Sanctuary !2,976 '29spacesper1,000'square r 86.3 ; (assembly) ;; feet of assemblyarea Office 223 4 spaces,per 1,000 square 0 9 feet . Kitchen 316 `None 0 0.02 space per person for the maximum capacity Fellowship Hall 2,112 .,figure of the assembly area 6 :determined by the City Fire De artment Classroom ':2,424 :None' 0 Ancillary Uses (sound room, entry foyer, storage, :5,009 i None 0 :hallways, restrooms TOTAL 13,060 94 spaces. Note: Code does not require any parking for the accessory;Sundayschooi classrooms. No pdvate school is proposed. (8) The elevation plan (Exhibit No. 3) indicates a fagade, remodel of the west elevation.' A 29 foot high tower'element with a cross: is proposed. The building would also be expanded along the west elevation to accommodate an indoor;greeting area adjacent to the sanctuary.'.. This new building wall would consist of six rectangular windows. The new building walls would have a stucco finish and all walls would be painted with a neutral color(scheme. ' (9) The roof plan (Exhibit No. 4) indicates new rocf-mounted equipment consisting of air conditioning and ventilation equipment. A'4-foot high mechanical screen;is proposed and would have a stucco finish to match the building. No roof-mounted equipment would be visible to any public right of way. (10) The sign plan (Exhibit No. 5) includes one`monument sign and two wall signs. The proposed ': monument'sign would comply with Code requirements for freestanding signage. Tfte sign would be a maximum of 6 feet high, including the required 18 inch base, and would oonsist of a maximum width of 8 feet. The site plan°shows that the monument sign',would belocated at t the comer of the Anaheim Boulevard andPalais Road, within the landscape plantee in front of i the existing block wall. Waif signage would consisfof a 51 square foot and a 103 square foot Page 2 'Staff Report to the Planning Commission `.May 17, 2004 :Item No. 11 channel letter sign on the west and north elevations, respectively. ;These signs would comply _ _ with the maximum walfsignage as permitted;by Code, which is a maximum'of 10 percent of the building elevation. ,Sign text for' all signage would read "Alliance Evangelical Church:' (11) The petitioner has submitted the attached letter of operation and project description indicating two (2) Sunday worshipiservices to be held'at 9 a.m. and 11 a.m Bible study would operate concurrently'with the worship services and the fellowship hall would be utilized between 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. The'overall cohgregationsize is 160 members (100 adults; 25 teens; 35 children). There would'also various programs on Fridays and Saturdays which have an expected attendance of approximately 25 people. Additionally, the administrative office may operate throughout the v/eek with'a maximum of five (5) people on the premises at any time. Further, witfi the exception of accessory Sunday school activities'and bible study, no school or daycare uses are proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTANALYSIS: ' (12) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review in the PlanningDepartment) and finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore; recommends that a Negative Declaration be; approved upon a finding by the Planning Commission that the Negative Declaration reflects the independeht judgment of the lead agency; and that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public reviewprocess and further,finding on the basis of the Initial Study end 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 byaffected City departments to determine whether it ` conforms with the Citys Growth Management Elementadopted 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 Element analysis, therefore, no analysis has been performed. EVALUATION: (14) Churches are permitted within in the ML zone subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. (15) The requested waiver pertains to minimum number of parking spaces. Code requires a minimum of 94 parking spaces for this proposed church and other uses odthe property as described iniparagraph no. (7) of this report: and 85 spaces are proposed. When the requested parking waiver does not exceed ten percent of the Code requirement or for uses requiring thirty or fewerspaces, the Code permits "such other study' approved by the Traffic ::and Transportation Manager. The petitioner has submitted a parking letter,to substantiate the requested parking waiver. Based on information provided in the;parking letter, 90 percent of the Code required parking will be`provided on-site. (16) The petitioner has also: provided the following operational information as evidence to ubstantiatethe requested waiver: (a) At their current location, the church occupies approximately 65 parking spaces with the r average attendance of 150 congregants including adultsand children. (b) Further, three adjacent businesses have granted permission to the church to utilize their.parking lots should the need arise. Page 3 Staff Report 4o the Planning Commission ' May 17, 2004 Item No. 11 (17) ,.While the,adjacent businesses have agreed to allow the church to utilize their parking lots, . this is an informal agreement and does not involve the recordation of covenants oh the deeds of said properties. Traffic Engineering Division staff believes the number'pf parkingspaces proposed'on-site is adequate to meet the `demands`of the church's congregation and "sanctuary;size, without utilizing any off-site parking. 'i (18) The proposed church complies'with all site development and zoning standards (with the exception?of parking) required: for properties and uses within the ML zone: Because the " :proposed `church complies with'aii site development and zoning standards (with the exception of parking'which hasi been deemed adequate by the Traffic and Transportation Manager) requiredfor properties and uses within the ML zone, staff recommends approval of this 'request. FINDINGS: (19) Section 18.06.080 of the parking ordinance sets forth the following findings, which are 'required to be madebefore a parking waiver is approved 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 such use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation'df such use; and (b) Thaf the waiver, under the conditions imposed; if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the putilic streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use; and (c) Thatthe waiver, under the conditions imposed; if any, will not increase the demand and s competition for parking spaces upon adjacentprivate 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 or lots provided for such use; and (e) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed] if any, will not impede vehicular ingress to oregress from adjacent properties upon thepublic streets in the immediate vicinity of; theproposed 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 of any such waiver shall be deemed contingent uponoperation of such use in conformance with the assumptions relating o the operation andrintensity of the use as contained in the parking demand study that formed the tiasis for approval of'said waiver: Exceeding, violating, intensifying or otherwise deviating from any of said assumptions as contained in the parking demand study shall be deemed a violation of the express conditions imposed uport said waiver which shall subject said' waiver to termination or modification pursuant to the provisions' of Sections 18.03:091 and 18:03.092 of this Code. (20) Before the Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows hat 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 not listed therein as being a' permitted`use; (b) Thaf 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; Page 4 Staff Report to the Planning Commission ..May 17, 2004 Item No. 14 (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 he proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and. highways designed and: improved to carry the traffic in the area; and (e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be'detrimental to the peace, health;. safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. + `'RECOMMENDATION: (21) Staff recommends that, Unless additional or contrary information is received during the;. hearing, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the`public hearing, the Commission ~orove the petitioner's request byaddpting the'attached resolution including the findings contained therein: Page 5 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2004--' A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04845 BE GRANTED (220 EAST PAtAIS ROAD) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as: PARCEL 1 OF THAT CERTAIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 00000548, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED NOVEMBER 21, 2003 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2003001416308 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. W H'EREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the Gity of Anaheim on May 17, 2004 at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.44.050.130 to wit: to establish a church within an existing industrial building with waiver of the following: SECTION NO. 18.06.050:0266 - Minimum number of parkino spaces (94 spaces required; 85 proposed and recommended by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager) 2. That the subject property is developed with an vacant industrial building and parking lot, formerly used as a storage lot for Super Shuttle vehicles; that the zoning is ML; and that the Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element designates the site for General Commercial land uses. 3. That the waiver will not, under the conditions imposed and based on the conclusions contained in the parking letter submitted by the petitioner, cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be available for the church and other on-site activities provided the church adheres to the assumptions contained in the parking letter and the hours of operation because the parking letter indicates that the peak parking demand for off- street parking spaces would be accommodated by the number of available on-site spaces for the proposed church use. 4. That the waiver will not, under the conditions imposed, increase the demand and competition for parking spaces on the public streets and adjacent private properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the project parking lot has adequate parking to accommodate the peak parking demands of the proposed church use; that the parking lot would be physically separated from adjacent properties; and, further, there is no reason to encroach into other parking facilities because the parking lot will provide ample parking as indicated in the parking analysis. 5. That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, would not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for such use. Cr\PC2004-0 -1- PC2004- 6. That the parking waiver will not, under the conditions imposed, impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the project site is physically separated from adjacent private properties. 7. 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. 8. That the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is adequate to allow full development of the proposal in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare. 9. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. 10. That granting this conditional use permit, under the conditions imposed, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because the proposal complies with all the applicable site development and zoning standards, except for the waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, for properties and uses in the ML Zone. 11. That "' indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a church within an existing industrial building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped, 1.5-acre property and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the :independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: 1. That church services and fellowship shall be limited Sundays, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., as stipulated by the petitioner in the letter of operation dated March 15, 2004. 2. That no portable signs shall be utilized to advertise the church. 3. That signage shall be limited to one monument sign and two (2) wall signs as shown on Exhibit No. 5, and shall be subject to final sign plan review and approval by the Zoning Division. Any additional signs shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Any decision by staff regarding signs may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a'Reports and Recommendations' item. 4. 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. 5. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 6. That at no time shall there be any outdoor storage on the site. 7. That plans analyzing the existing building conditions and the codes applicable to the proposal, shall be submitted to the Building Division for review and approval to ensure compliance with such Building and -2- PC2004- Safety Code requirements (i.e., exiting requirements and occupancy loads). Said plans shall be prepared by a licensed architect andlor engineer. 8. That the property owner shall implement appropriate non-structural Best Management Practices ("BMPs"), which may be found online at www.cabbmohandbooks.com. The selected BMPs shall be implemented and maintained tp minimize the introduction of pollutants to the storm water drainage system. 9. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 10. That four {4) foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof of the building in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible to adjacent and nearby streets or properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted to the Police Department, Community Services Division, for review and approval. 11. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his 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. 12. That the water backflow equipment and any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Utility Division behind the street setback area in a manner fully screened from aII public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 13. That a double trash enclosure shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 14. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Putilic Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval. 15. That subject property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5, and as conditioned herein. 16. That prior to issuance of a building permit orwithin a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03:p90 (Time Limit for Amendments, Conditional Use Permits, Administrative Use Permits, Variances and Administrative Adjustments) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 17. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 15, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. i 6. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. .3_ PC2004- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared-- tnvalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of May 17, 2004. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.03, "Zoning Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and maybe replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on May 17, 2004, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of .2004. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -`3' PC2004-