PC 2006/03/20na ei lan i
®rnr~issi®n ena
Monday, arch 20, 2006
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California
• Chairman: Gail Eastman
• Chairman Pro-Tempore: Cecilia Flores
• Commissioners: Kelly Buffo, Joseph Karaki, Ed Perez,
Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez
• Call To Order
Preliminary Plan Review 12:00 P.M.
• Staff update to Commission on various City developments and issues
(As requested by Planning Commission)
Preliminary Plan Review for items on the March 20, 2006 agenda
• Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session
• Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M.
For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement reaarding any
item on the agenda. please complete a speaker card in advance .and submit it to
the secretary.
• Pledge Of Allegiance
• Public Comments
• Consent Calendar
• Public Hearing Items
• Adjournment
You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following
e-mail address: planninocommission(a~anaheim.net
H:\dotslclericallagendas1032006.doc (03/20/06)
Page 1
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M.
Public Comments:
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the
Anaheim Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing
items.
Consent Calendar:
The items on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate
discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning
Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent
Calendar far separate action.
Reports and Recommendations
1 A. (a)
(b)
Location: 1818 South State College Boulevard: Property is
approximately 3.4 acres located south and east of the
southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Katella
Avenue with frontages of 327 feet on the east side of State
College Boulevard and 105 feet on the south side of Katella
Avenue (Platinum Centre Condominiums).
Request to determine substantial conformance for modifications to
previously-approved exhibits for an attached 265-unit condominium
project within the Platinum Triangle.
Continued from the March 6, 2006, Planning Commission meeting.
M'nu
18. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission
Meeting of March 6, 2006. (Motion)
Request a
Continuance to
April 3, 2006
Project Planner,
(avazquezQanaheim.oet)
H:\dotslclerical\agendas\032006.doc (03/20/06)
Page 2
Agent: Reky Hiramoto, Beazer Homes, 1800 East Imperial
Highway, Suite 200, Brea, CA 92821
Public Hearing Items:
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Request a
2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Continuance to
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT tVO. 2005-05060 April 17, 2006
2d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
OR NECESSITY NO. 2005-00024
Owner: Pietro T. Trozzi, 9471 Gateshead Drive, Huntington Beach,
CA 92646
Agent: Rick Solberg, Solberg & Associates, 201 East Center
Street, Anaheim, CA 92805
Location: 3242 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 1.5
acres, located east and south of the southeast corner of
Westchester Drive and Lincoln Avenue, having frontages of
136 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and 187 feet
on the east side of Westchester Drive (Maria's Pizzeria and
Billiards).
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05060 -Request to permit a restaurant
and billiard facility with the on-premises sale and consumption of beer and
wine with waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces.
Determination of Public Convenience and Necessity No. 2005-00024 -
Request to permit sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption
within a restaurant and billiard facility.
Continued from the February 6, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. Project Ptanner
(kwono2(aU1 anaheim. net)
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
Public Convenience or Necessity Resolution No. Q.S.
3a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3b. VARIANCE NO. 2005-04655
3c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-157
Owner: Gary Calkins Trust, 6263 East Trail Drive, Anaheim, CA
92807
Agent: Steve Ellis, 4742 Yorba Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886
Location: 6263 .East Trail Drive: Property is approximately 3.2 acres
having a frontage of 47 feet at the terminus of Trail Drive
and is located 145 feet west of the centerline of W hitestone
Drive.
Variance No. 2005-04655 -Request waivers of (a) maximum structural
height, (b) maximum retaining wall height and (c) lot frontage on a public
or private street to construct asingle-family residence.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-157-To establish a 2-lot, 2-unit
detached single-family residential subdivision.
Continued from the January 9, 23, and February 6, and 22, 2006,
Planning Commission meetings.
Project Planner:
Variance Resolution NO. (avazouezna anaheim.neU
H:\docs\clerical\agendas\032006.doc (03/20/06)
Page 3
4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4b. VARIANCE NO. 2005-04675
Owner: Therese Hotvedt, The Shops at Stadium Towers, 1100
Newport Center Drive, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA
92660
Agent: Peter Louis/John Hill, 3195-B Airport Loop Drive, Costa
Mesa, CA 92626
Location: 2410 - 2420 East Katella Avenue: Property is
approximately 2.4 acres, having a frontage of 600 feet on
the south side of Katella Avenue and is located 37 feet east
of the centerline of Howell Avenue (Stadium Towers Plaza).
Request waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) permitted
number of tenants on a monument sign, (c) maximum number of
monument signs, (d) maximum height of monument sign, (e) permitted
number of wall signs, (f) permitted location of wall signs, and (g)
maximum height of letters/logos on wall signs to waive minimum number
of parking spaces and permitted signs far apreviously-approved
commercial center.
Continued from the January 23, and February 6, and 22, and March 6,
2006, Planning Commission meetings.
Variance Resolution No.
Sa. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Sb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05066
5c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17016
Owner: Brian Dror, 5967 West 3rtl Street, Suite 102, Los Angeles,
CA 90036
Agent: Rey Berona, Condo Conversions.com, 7439 La Palma
Avenue, Unit 309, Buena Park, CA 90620
Location: 729 South Knott Avenue: Property is approximately 1.47
acres, having a frontage of 150 on the west side of Knott
Avenue and is located 193 feet north of the centerline of
Rome Avenue.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05066 -Request to convert a 54-unit
apartment complex into a 54-unit residential condominium complex.
Tentative Tract Map No. 17016 - To establish a 1-lot, 54-unit airspace
attached residential condominium subdivision.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
H :ldocs\cl erica I\ag en d as\032006. d oc
Projec! Planner.
(a vazouez(a1 anaheim. nef)
Requests
Continuance to
April 3, 2006
Project Planner.•
(jpramirez aQanaheim. net)
Q.S. 2
(03/20/06)
Page 4
6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
6b. RECLASSIFICATFON NO. 2006-00174
6c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
6d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05064
6e. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-156
Owner: Saint John the Baptist Greek Orthodox Church, 405 North
Dale Street, Anaheim, CA 92801
Agent: Karen Otis, Otis Architecture, 16871 Seawitch Lane,
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Location: 321. 405, 425, 431, 509 and 511 North Dale Avenue:
Property is approximately 4.9 acres having a frontage of
767 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue and is located
668 feet south of the centerline of Crescent Avenue.
Portion A: This irregularly-shaped 2.8 acre property has a
frontage of 332 feet on the west side of Date Avenue and is
located 483 feet north of the centerline of Yale Avenue
(1405 North Dale Avenue). Portion 8: This irregularly-
shaped .93-acre property has a frontage of 173 feet oh the
west side of Dale Avenue and is located 111 feet south of
the centerline of Baylor Avenue (509 and 511 North Dale
Avenue).
Reclassification No. 2006-00174 -Request reclassification of Portion A
and B from the T (Transition) zone to the RS-2 (Residential, Single-
Famtly) zone, or a less .intense zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05064 - Request to expand an
existing Greek Orthodox Church to permit a new administration building,
multi-purpose hall and religious school with waivers of (a) maximum project Ftannen
structural height and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. (dherrick@anaheim.net)
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-156 -To combine six lots into one lot. Q.S. 12
Reclassification Resolution No.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Request a
7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Continuance to
7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05069 April 17, 2006
Owner: Public Storage Euro Partnership, 701 Western Avenue,
Glendale, CA 91201
Agent: Dean Grobbelaar, Pacific Planning Group, INC., 23412
Moulton Parkway, Suite 140, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Location: 4880 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately
3.5 acres, having a frontage of 340 feet on the south side of
La Palma Avenue and is located 115 feet west of the
centerline of Manasserd Street.
Request to construct afive-story self storage building with building project Fianner:
heights exceeding 60 feet with waivers of (a) maximum floor area ratio (jnixon@anaheim.net)
and (b) maximum fence height.
Q.S.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
H:\docs\clerical\agendas\032006.doc (03/20/06)
Page 5
8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 11
Sb. VARIANCE NO. 2006-04679
Owner: Tim Dolan, Wescom Credit Union, 123 South Marengo
Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101
Agent: AKC Services, 31fi81 Riverside Drive, Suite B, Lake
Elsinore, CA 92530
Location: 5601 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately
3.25 acres, having a frontage of 489 feet on the north side
of La Palma Avenue and is located 591 feet west of the
centerline of Imperial Highway.
Request to permit five wall signs and a monument sign for an existing
office building with waivers of (a) maximum number of monument signs
and (b) maximum letter height for wall signs.
Variance Resolution No.
'Advertised as industrial
9a.
9b.
Owner: Irvine Land Company, LLC., 550 Newport Center Drive,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Agent: City of Anaheim, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim,
CA 92805
Location: This General Plan Amendment applies to an
approximately 1.45-.mile planned segment of Jamboree
Road, west of and parallel to the Eastern Transportation
Corridor (SR-241) between Weir Canyon Road and the
southern City limits.
City-initiated (Planning Department) request to amend the Circulation
Element of the General Plan to remove a planned Hillside Secondary
Arterial roadway (identified as Jamboree Road).
General Plan Amendment Resolution No.
H:\d ocs\clerical\ag e n d a s1032006, d oc
Project Planner:
Qnixon@anaheim.net)
Q.S. 184
Project Planner.
(skoehm@anaheim. net)
O.S. 233, 234
(03!20/06)
Page 6
10a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 331 (PREVIOUSLY
CERTIFIED) AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 137 AND
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 137a
10b. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE MOUNTAIN PARK SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 90-4
(TRACKING NO. SPN2006-00033)
10c. MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT N0.2006.00134
10d. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2006.00004
10e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16665
10f. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO.2006-00001
Owner: Irvine Land Company, LLC., 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport
Beach, CA 92660
Agent: Bryan Austin, Irvine Community Development, 550 Newport
Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Location: The Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 area encompasses
3,001 acres located generally in Gypsum Canyon, south of the
Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, in Orange County, California. The
majority of the project site is in the jurisdiction of the City of
Anaheim; however, open space areas in the southern- and
eastern-most portions of the project site are in unincorporated
County of Orange jurisdiction in the City of Anaheim's sphere-of-
infiuence. SR-91 is immediately north of the project site, and the
SR-241 bisects the site into eastern and western segments.
Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan
area consist of approximately 343 acres located at the southem
terminus of Weir Canyon Road, generally bordered on the west
by The Summit of Anaheim Hills development and on the east by
the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR-241).
Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-0 (SPN2006-
00033) -Request to amend the Mountain Park Specific Plan conditions of
approval and zoning and development standards to add refinements and
clarifications including, but not limited to, fiscal conditions and sign regulations.
Miscellaneous Permit No. 2006-00134 -Requests review and approval of a
Development Area Plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park
Specific Plan.
Final Site Plan No. 2006-00004 -Requests review and approval of a final site
plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan.
Tentative Tract Map No. 16665 - To establish a 150 numbered and 37
lettered lot (advertised as 33 lettered lot) residential subdivision encompassing
145 single-family residential lots, an elementary school site, a public park site,
open space lots, public and private streets and a water reservoir site within
Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan.
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006-00001 - To remove 149 specimen
trees within Mountain Park Development Areas 3 and 7 and replace with 2,980 Project Planner:
trees. (skoehm@anaheim.nef)
Amendment No. 2 To The Mountain Park Specific O•S. 227, 228, 233, 234
Plan No. 90.4 Resolution No.
H:\docs\clerical\agendas\032006:doc (03/20/06)
Page 7
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
1 hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
4:00 p.m. March 17, 2006
(TIME) (DATE)
LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND
CO~UN~}CI~L~D/I~SPLAY KIOSK
SIGNED: ~ L'L(J~ i'/Y /~(~,I (I.P.I~_~
If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written
correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Ccuncil at, or prior to, the public hearing.
RIGHTS OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use
Permits and Variances will be final 22 days after Planning Commission action and any action regarding
Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 days after Planning Commission action unless a timely
.appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied
by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk.
The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in khe Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing
before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing.
ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the Planning Department, (714) 765-5139. Notification no later than 10:OD a:m.
on the Friday before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility to this meeting.
Recorded decision information is available 24 hours a day by calling the Planning Department's
Automated Tele hone S stem at 714-765-5139.
H:\dotslclerical\agendas\032006.doc (03/20/06)
Page 8
SCHEDULE
2006
April 3
~I April 17
May 1
May 15
May 31 (Wed)
June 12
June 26
July 10
July 24
~~ August 7 ~~
August 21
September 6 (Wed)
September 18
October 2
October 16
October 30
November 13
November 27
December 11
~I December 27 (Wed) I)
H:\docs\clerical\agendas\032006.doc (03/2p/06)
Page 9
Item No. 1A
I (PTMU)
~) TTM 16616
0-15 RCL 99-00-15
to SE) (Res. of Int. to SE)
6-t9 RCL 66-67-14
5-4P RCL 55-56-19
RCL 54-5542
T-CUP 2004-04939
CUP 200404906
CUP 2862
CUP 1427
DAG 2005-00010
DAG 2004.00002
q
t5 STADIUM LOFTS
v5E) MIXED USE
-14 RESIDENTIAL
_19 CONDOMINIUM
-42
'7
CUP 3366
VAR 4129
KATELLA AVENUE
I (PTMU)
RCL 9&OOdS
(PTMD) (Ras of lnLtoSE)
RCL 99-00.15 RCL 66.67-14
2es. of lnL W SE) RCL Sb6]-93
RCL fib-fi7-74 CUP 3936
CUP 1370
RCL 56-57-93 5.5.
CUP 1652
CUP 4475 I(PTMU) CUP 4475
VAR 2616 RCL 99-00-1 5 CUP 1319
MOTEL (Res. of Int . CUP 447 S
t0 SE) MOTEL
I (PTMU)
I (PTMU) RCL 99-00.15
RCL 99-00.15 (Res. of InL to SE)
(Res. of Inl to SE) RCL fib-67-14
RCL 56-57-93 RCL 56-57-93
CUP 497 5 CUP 1371
IND
FIRM CUP 447 S
,_
_
______
-__...... -• VAR 2561 •-
I (PTMU)
RCL 9300.15
(Res. of Int. to SE)
RCL 5657-93
CUP 447 5
IND. FIRM
RCL fib-67-14
RCL 5357.93
CUP 2003-D4721
CUP 447 5
SMALL IND.
- FIRMS-
Q
W
J
0
D]
W
W
J
J
U
W
Q
m
(Res. of Int tv SE) ~
RCL 90.91-17
RCL 6667A4
fi0-61-113
RCL 5657-93 0.L
CUP 3957
TOWN PLACE CUP 3406 RCL 21
SUITES CUP 690 RALLY
VAR 27fi5
4147
3957
340fi
BANK ~ PARKING ~~ 0-L (P
6L (PTMU) \\
~ c(~ Z
RCUPO:
\ \\ CUP
O-L (PTMU) OFFICE
\
RCL S0.91a7 ~ \
RCL 66-67-14 \ \
RCL 56-57-93 0.L (PTMU) ( \
T-CUP 2000.04260 6L (PTMU) FOOD I \
CUP 4741
CUP 3957
REST.
COURT ~
\
CUP 340fi
CUP 590
TPM NO. 97-155 (CUP 335v T)
REST
IDS
I (PTMU)
~sx
C RCL 99.110.15
UP 2&11 mss-
cuvzwx ~, "~;
'
~ ~ (Res. a! Inl to SE)
I-
Mc00NAL0
6 cwzsee .~
r^~x RCL fib-67-74 ~ z
vMxxoeDRIVE-TNRU CUa aza
CUPfmz = RCL 59-60.61 ~
-:
VAR imx REST.
vnRZUe ~-~'*'~, •:
x
" Res of lnlent to MH) ~
z `. ~,„'
'
:
t L ~' ~
~`'s "'` RCL 56-57-93 - >
CUP 2226
~
:
,
CUP 1745 r '
%~ VAR 24fi6
L
y ~
-VACANT ~
. - ~, CUP 2005-049fi7
~~uw-wr" OFFICE
200600113
.zoos-o0D4a
I (PTMU)
RCL 99.00-15
(R RCLf 5960-fi1E)
(Res of Intent to MH)
RCL 56-57-93
VAR 24fi6
ANGEL STADIUM
OF ANAHEIM
PR (PTMUI
RCL 9-00.15
I (PTMU) {Res, Of Int. to SE)
RCL 99-00.15 RCL 56-57-9
(Res. of Int. to SE) CUP 2400
o~~ « ~-. ~+ CUP 750
ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04975
TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05074
Requested By: REKY HIRAMOTO
1818 South State College Boulevard
a
10009
~'`` s `<
•- Subject Property
Date: March 20, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
O.S. No. 118
Attachment- R&R 1-A
Hi Amy,
This e-mail serves as a formal request for a continuance of the Substantial Conformance
determination for the Platinum Centre Condos (CUP No. 2205-04975 and CEQA Mitigated
Negative Declaration (previously approved)) that is set to go before the Planning Commission on
Monday, March 20, 2006. We respectfully request atwo-week continuance to be heard at the
April 3, 2006 Planning Commission meeting in order to further refine and work on the
architectural details of the building elevations.
Thank you in advance for you consideration in this regard.
Sincerely,
Karen S. Sully
Project Manager, Land Use
Sheldon Group
901 Dove Street, Suite 140
Newport Beach, CA 9266D
(949) 777-9400 Phone
(949) 355-2011 Mobile
(949) 777-9410 Fax
karenta7sheldongrp.com E-mail
www.sheldongro.com Website
Item No. 2
RS-A-03,000)
TCUP 2001-04459
T-CUP 2001-04437
RCL BZ-8}28
CUP 4181 ® ® m
GUP 527
MOBILE HOME
PARK
T CL 62-63-1
RCL 86-87-35 RCL 56-57-7
(Res of Int T-CUP RM-2
to RM-3000) 2001-04370 RCL 79-BO-04
1 DU CUP 4140 CUP 1691
TCUP 2001-0d459
~-G VAR 3117
VAR 3102
TCUP 2001-0443]
T-VAR 2001-04454 Cl
U ANAHEIM WES
VAR 3666 MEDICAL
a,y TOVvNHOMES
VAR 2365 SMAL pROFE55- 14 DU
CUP 4181 SHOP IONAL
West Anaheim Commercial Corridors
GG ~
RCL 63-64J76 m ~
m
RM
-4 D_'
CUP 4164
RESTAURANT ~
N h R
`
CL 87-
68-55 U!
I-
4 m VAR 3 800 ~
h
®
~ I U
K L
RM-4
RCL 78-79-15
VAR 3051
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
T
CUP 3440
CUP 2405
SENIOR CITIZEN
APARTMENTS
135 DU
LINCOLN AVE
136'•
CUP 414
VAR 1726 5
RM-0.
RCL 63-64-19
VAR 159fi
"31 DU
4
GG
RCL 66E]-0]
RCL 83L4-3]
cuP 912
VETERI-
NARIAN
GIP 2747 GG
WP1900 RCL 63-fi4-131
CUP 822 CUP 3534
W P 3534 CUP 1783
VAR 2437
Mc DONALD'S REST.
r
GG
RCL 65£6-96 CUP 1026
CUP 2166 VAR 2]52
VAR 1771
GIP 1622 CARWASH/REST
GIP 1450 .
CABOTDR O
APARTMENTS
194 DU
I RCL 60-61-20
-T-~®_-1 ~ VAR 1360
® i DE` M~
APARTMENTS
19 DU EACH
RM-4
RM<
RCL
RGL 72-73-
+~~.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05060 ,n~z Subject Property
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2005-00024 Date: March 20, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: PIETRO T. TROZZI Q.S. No. 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-05060 -REQUEST TO PERMIT A RESTAURANT AND BILLIARD
FACILITY WITH ON-PREMISES SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF BEER AND WINE WITH WAIVER OF
MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES.
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2005-00024 - TO PERMIT SALES OF
BEER AND WINE FOR ON-PREMISES CONSUMPTION WITHIN A RESTAURANT AND BILLIARD FACILITY.
3242 West Lincoln Avenue - Maria's Pizzeria and Billiards 2150
RM4
RCL 84-85-16
VAR 3451
60 OU APTS.
RM-4
RCL 73-74-33
APARTMENTS
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20. 2006
Item No. 2
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion) "
2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (Motion)
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-05060. (Resolution)
2d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR
NECESSITY NO. 2005-00024. (Withdrawn)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly-shaped, 1.5-acre property is located east and south of the southeast corner
of Westchester Drive and Lincoln Avenue, with a frontage of 136 feet on the south side of
Lincoln Avenue and a frontage of 187 feet on the east side of Westchester Drive (3242 West:
Lincoln Avenue - Maria's Pizzeria and Billiards),
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of the following;
(a) Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05060 to permit a billiard facility and on-premises sale
and consumption of beer and wine in conjunction with afull-service restaurant under
authority of Code Section No. 18.08.030.040 with waiver of:
SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of Dorking spaces
(114 required; 102 existing and
recommended by staff)
(b) Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2005-00024 to permit the retaiF
sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption in conjunction with a fu~f-service:
restaurant. (This item has been withdrawn since this determination is made by ABC in
conjunction with a Type 41 (restaurant) license)
BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is developed with a 13-unit commercial retail shopping center and is zoned
C-G (General Commercial): The Anaheim Gerieral Plan designates this property for Low-
Medium Density Residential land uses. The Anaheim General Plan further designates
properties in all directions for Medium Density Residential land uses. This property is
located within the Merged Redevelopment Area
(4) This item was continued from the February 6, 2006, Planning Commission meeting to
allow the applicant to redesign the floor plan. The agent, Rick Solberg, has submitted
the attached letter dated, March 9, 2006, requesting a further continuance to the April
17, 2006, Commission meeting since the business owner is unable to attend the
meeting..
RECOMMENDATION:
(5) That the Commission, by motion, continue this item to the April 17, 2006, Planning.
Commission meeting:.
Srcup2005-05060 klwcont32006. doc
Page 1
Attachment -Item No. 2
3/9/06
Kim Wong
Project Planner
City of Anaheim
RE: 3242 Lincoln Ave.,
Kim, we request that our CUP 2005-05060 submittal be continued from the
March 20 meeting and be placed on the agenda for the April 17`h meeting .The
applicant, Maria Trozzi will be out of town for the 3/20 hearing and we feel it's
important that she be able to attend.
Thank you for facilitating this request.
Sincerely,
Rick Solberg
Item No. 3
\ I ' > rt~
\.L_L-¢ T-VA
RH-2 u \
~Q. RCL 72-73-51 ADJ
O P~-~O RCL 72-7347 RGL72-73-51 RH-2 / -\\.
?P~' RCL72-73-47 \\ ~
OFL~~J~~O RCL 72 7
Fly RS-2 VAR
P RCL 72-73-4.8 (2) RCL 72
~Q/G~ RCDU EAGH7
RH-2
'~/y .RCL 72-73-.51
00 RCL 72-73-47
~ ~ ~
• • • O/~ '~ <'~~`'~~~~~~ ~'~ RCL72-73-51 iu
• t w ~ -~ z` ~, '``^ s-'~ RCL72-7347 Z
% • ~, c ~ ~ r 7g ~~ ~ ~ VAR 4386 O ~ -~~
• 7 1' r„~ ti. `~~
•\ RCL 72-7351 (24 tr ~~ ~' `~ ~ ~~°'3s `~ `- / O / /
~ RCL 72-7347 ~~2r"'~.y~~„'r-s#"x~~°"~cs..,G„rY,, ~ ~ / ~
\ y. FYSja ,~ s
\\\ ~\ .r ~'~'*, Fyn' RH-2 % %
\~ / * TPM 2005-157 j %
\ / :. TPM 97-212 ~
/ % VAR 2005 04655 / /
~~' 7~ / RH-2 RCL 72-73-51 O~ i
R4/(` ~ / RCL 72-73-51 (17) !p
~~ ~ OR _ i VAR 3699 RCL 72-7347 G /
' RCL 72-73-07 (VAR 4330) Q~~ ~
~ i / ~ ~ 1~1 VACANT OJPi
~ ~ o \ /~/
t ( IA•I RCL 72 73-51 (17)
\ i0\ VAR 3699
RCL 72-7347
cFt~ =1 RH-2 t~' o /
\{tt~; RCL72-73-51 {Z~ F / 1 p
-- 1Z \ RCL 72-7347 I I RH-2 < I ) w VAI
'Z i 1 DU ~ ~ VAR 4321 w ~ ) RH-2 O
~}~ 1d // / Q / ~ 1 DU EACH vi
\yc ` RCL 72-73-51 / I RH-2 cK I l =
~ \, ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE (SC) (SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE .
Variance No. 2005-04655 ~`~~ t Subject Property
~r,~
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-157 Date: March 20, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: GARY CALKINS TRUST Q.S. No. 197
REQUESTS WAIVERS OF: (A) MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT
(B) MAXIMUM RETAINING WALL HEIGHT
(C) LOT FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET
TO CONSTRUCTASZNGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE..
TO ESTABLISH A 2-LOT, 2-UNIT DETACHED SINGLE-FAMfLY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
6263 East Trail Drive 2114
Dateaf Aerial Photo: May 2002
Variance No. 2005-04655
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-157
Requested By: GARY CALKINS TRUST
Subject Property
Date: March 20, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 197
REQUESTS WAIVERS OF: (A) MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL HEIGHT
(B) MAXIMUM RETAINING WALL HEIGHT
(C) LOT FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET
TO CONSTRUCTASWGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.
TO ESTABLISH A 2-LOT, 2-UNIT DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
6263 East Trail Drive
zeta
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 3
3a: CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION i (Motion)
3b. VARIANCE NO. 2005-04655 (Resolution)
3c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP. NO: 2005-157 (Motion)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) .This irregularly-shaped, 3.2-acre property has a frontage of 47 feet at the terminus of Trail
Drive, a maximum depth of 737 feet and is located 14S feet west of the centerline of
Whitestone Drive (6263 East Trail Drive).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of the following:
Variance No. 2005-04655 -Request to construct asingle-family residence with waivers of
the following:.
(a) SECTION NO. 18.18.060.010 Maximum structural height; (25 feet permitted;
34 feet;proposed),
(b) SECTION N0. 18.46.110:130 Maximum retaining wall height; 3-feet high
permitted; 10-feet: high proposed)
{c) SECTION NQ 18.92.150 i Lot frontage on a public or private street;
{Frontage on a public ororivate street::
required; Frontage on private drive proposed)
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-157 - To establish a 2-lot, 2-unit detached single-family
residentiaP subdivisions
BACKGROUND:
(3) This item was continued from the January 9, January 23, 2006, February 6, and February
22, 2006, Commission meetings in order to comply with the review period requirements for.
the Mitigated Negative Declaration associated with this request and to revise plans
associated with site grading and retaining walls.
(4) This property is developed with asingle-family residence and is zoned RH-2 (SC) (Single-
Family, Hillside Residential; Scenic Corridor Overlay):: The property is designated for Estate
Density Residential land uses in3he Anaheim General Plan. The General Plan designates
properties'abutting the site to the north, east and south for Estate Density .Residential land
uses and the properties to the west for Low Density. Residential land uses;
(5) Variance No. 4330 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 97-212 (to establish a 4-lot, single-famtly
residential subdivision with waiver of minimum Idt frontage) was denied'by tfie Planning
Commission on March 30, 1998:
sr-vaf2005-04655(3-20-06).doc
Page l
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission.
March 20, 2006
Item No. 3
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
(6) The applicant proposes to subdivide this property into two (2) parcels in order to construct a Y
new single-family residence.: '
(7) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) end parcel map indicate the two (2) single-family homes would
have the following characteristics:
~~ ' 'PtoposeG/Requirett Proposed/Require~~ Pmposed/Requlfecf 'proppsed/t~equtfed
~K ~ ~ .~, r .. -r
1 2.2 ecresL5 acre 330 feet / 25 feet 20 feet / 15 feet 65 feet / 25 feet
existin
Page t
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 3
$' ,` Existing fire access ~""
~;; road and proposed ' vtclrrlrYMaP:
,~ ~~w~' private drive '*'
r
~~
l `r ~~ I
,.' ~"~ 1, f ~- ewsra ~ )s~oericE North
' +~
~ r/"~ ~
~'' ,:
000""" t `
,`s
`Ta~ tL!
2-6 foot existing
keystone wall to
be extended `'
3-6 foot high ~~~ '
J
retaining wall , ~^ P ~ ~ ~
{({F,Ij g y ~ ~~ n L
ELI Y "~'1 '\ ~~1 t~f~~t
i. iCyrri..; g~ ~ ~ ':~-~; retaining walls
10 foot retaining wall r2 ~. , -~
~~~.
~ I' 4 Q ~ ~ ~~~ ; \t ~
F~r _~ F'`~ ~ r.. )
,~ p. y~LL a,~.
) ,,, W ~ ~J F
~i it P SED t~y$s r~1~ ~~ s
~I. ~ etD l7w ~~}r.
e
~ :r /
_ .v.a.~ c.->.
2Tbtt! 114BS2L-V'E ~ +~
(6) The site plan indicates access to the site will be provided via a 15-foot wide private access
way that will be constructed as an extehsion of the existing 12-foot-wide fire access road.
from East Trail Drive. The existing 12-foot wide portion of the fire access road will be
widened to 15-feet. Two parallel, 6-foot-high keystone retaining walls are designed near the
northwestern portion of the property, divided by a minimum 3-foot wide bench of 2:1 slopes;
The outermost wall extends to the approximate northern and western perimeters of the lot.
The exlsting 2-6-foot high keystone wall along the fire access road at the southern portion of
the site is designed to be extended to the southeastern corner of the house; A 10-foot-high
retaining wall would also be installed in the eastern portion of the site, approximately parallel.
to the eastern boundary of the site: The majority of this wall would be screened by the
proposed residence. A short (approximately 50 feet), 3-6-foot high retaining wall will be
installed between the extended exlsting keystone wall and the eastern (10-foot high)
retaining wall. The slope between the proposed house and the eastern retaining wall will be
graded to a 2 to 1 slope. Graded slopes would be replanted with landscaping: In addition,
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 3
staff is recommending a cpndition of approval that the applicant construct plantable
retaining walls instead of keystone walls: Plahtable retaining walls would be constructed ,
with materials such. as the "Verdura®" or "LoffelsteinT"'" products. These types bf walls are
segmented where every block can be planted to oreate a7etaining wal(tfiatis completely
covered with vegetation. The following are examples of plantable retaining walls.
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006.
item No. 3
(11) The sectional plans (Exhibit Nos: 6 and 7) depict two (2) sections of the proposed
development which display how the home and retaining walls would be configured on.the
situ: A 10-foot high retaining wall would be located approximatelySS feet up slope from the
proposed. residence: The,plans also indicate that two (2) 6-foot high retaining walls would
be located approximately 100 feet from the front of the home creating' a flat pad for outdoor
recreation:. The following is'a section' plane depicting. the line-of-sight from the'rear yard of
an adjacent single-family home at 291 Riverwood Circle to the west of the site.
447 --- -- ------ --'-----------=------ --- -----e- -
4aa .. - _
-w ws+my wm
417 -- --
- ,,,
406' --- --_.< --- --- - --- ---- --- ----
380'------------- ~- ----vf.~n---- ~ ----------
380' -- -- ---- ---- ---- ----`--------
9
B P6'adep Wa(
3sa --- --- --- - --------
e --- - ---
347.. <-ex~+o°am -- -- -- --- -- ---- - ----------
337 - -
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(12) A Notice oflntent (NOI) to adopt a Mitigated Negative beclaration (MND) was circulated to
public agencies and interested parties on December 23, 2005, fora 30-day comment
period. The N01, Initial Study and MMP No. 139 analyzed environmental issues associated
with the project, including: AestfteticsA/isual, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural
Resources, Geology end Soils,. Hydrologyand Water Quality, Land Use and Planning,
Noise, T~ansportationfTraffic, Utilities/Service Systems, and Cumulative Impacts: Based on
e review of these issue areas, the Initial. StudylMND concluded that thtough project design
features antl/or mitigation measures, all impacts could be mitigated.
(13) The biological section of the MND assesses any potential impacts to biological resources on
or in the vicinity of the. proposed project site. The proposed project site is located within the
Central Subarea of the Centratand Coastal Subregion of the NCCP. The projecf site is not
located adjacent to reserve areas, non-reserve areas; or special linkage/special
management areas. No federal or listed. plant or wildlife species were determined to be
present on the project site, therefore project implementation would not result in impacts to
:listed species. Three NCCP Identified species were observed bn site, including Cactus
Wren, Cooper's Hawk and coyote. Short-term impacts may occur as a result of construction
activities. Therefore, these impacts have been mitigated by the recommended NCCP
construction-related minimization measures listed in MMP. No. 139.
(14) The aesthetics section of the MND analyzes potential` impacts to aesthetic resources that
might occur. if the proposed project were implemented. Since the project was originally
submitted; staff has worketl closely with the applicant to ensure that the viewsfieds from the
surrounding properties would not be impacted by the construction of the new residence.
View of the site from residences to the west and northwest would consist of views of the
second story and roofline of the proposed house. Installation of the retaining walls would
Page 5
Staff Report to the
' Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 3
introduce new structural elements to aportion of the:undeveloped hillside. f9owever, the use
of 6-foot higk; plantable walls would reduce the visual effects of the retaining walls: Upon
initial installation, the surrounding residents would have temporary views of the 6-foot high
retaining walls. Once the vegetation matures; views would be replaced with those of a
vegetated and landscaped hillside. Impacts tobisual resources would be considered less
thartsignjficantahd nomitigationmeasures; other than project desigh would be necessary.
(15) Based on the analysis contained in the Initial Study for the proposed project, a copy of
which has been provided to the Planning Commission and is available for review in the
Planning Department, and staff finds that with the incorporation of mitigation measures set
forth in Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 139 and the projecfdesign features, no
significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed project and, therefore;
recommends that a Mitigated :Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the
Planning Commission that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent
judgment of the lead agency; and that it has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and
further finding do the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
EVALUATION:
(16) The Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element designates this property for Estatebensity
Residential land uses, with a density range of up to 1.5dwelling units per acre:-The
applicanf proposes td subdivide a 3.2 acre property to establish two (2)Jots. The proposed
subdivision would create a density of Oi6 dwelling units per acre in compliance with the
maximum density allowed by the General Plan andthe RH-2 zone.
(17) Waiver (a) pertains to maximum structural height. Code allows a maximum height of 25
feet within the Scenjc Corridor Overlay and the applicant is requesting a heighPof up to 34
feet for the front portion of the new residence. The proposed height would not restrict the
views of the surrounding properties since the home would be substantially lowerthan
neighboring properties to the east and south, and the properties to the north and west are
lower than the proposed homer Several similar height waivers'have been granted on
Ramsgate Drive and Whitestone Dnve, which are directly adjacent to the project site, ,
therefore, strict application of the zoning code would deprive the propertyof privileges
enjoyed by other properties with identical zoning in the vicinity:'
(18) 'Waiver (b) pertains to the maximum retaining wall height. Code allows for a maximum
height of 3 feet for retaining walls that are visible to any pubic'or private right ot'way. The
proposed 10-foot high wall behind the proposed residence and the 6-foot high walls near
the southwest property line would be visible from Arboretum Road and Riverwood Ctrcle.
Staff has wprked closely with the applicant over the past several months to mitigate any
aesthetic'impacts the proposed?etaining walls would create that would be visitile from
public streets and the neighboring properties. Staff is recommending a condition of
approval that the applicant construct plantable retaining walls jnstead of keystone walls.
Plantable7etaining walls would be constructed with materials such as the "VerduraC~T or
"LpffelsteinTM'" products. These types of walls are segmented where every block can be
planted to create a7etaining wall that is completely covered with vegetation: In addition, the
proposed7etainingwaIls would be constructed at an'angle thereby allowing itto look more.
like a natural slope when the vegetation oovers the entire watl:' Staff is supportive of the
Yequested waiverbased on site constraints suchas the steep topography and irregular
shape. In addition, there are several retaining walls in the immediate Vicinity (visible to
public or private streets) that'exceed the height limitation prescritiedby Code.'
Page 6
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006:
Item No. 3
(19) Waiver (c) pertains to lot frontage which is required on a public or private street. The
proposed parcel would have frontage: on the. private drive: This access design is very
common within the hill and canyon areas.. Thebonstruction ofen access way that would
meet the private street standards would require substantial grading and higher retaining
walls to achieve a width of 28-feet:: Staff is supportive bf this waiver due to the site
constraints such as the steep topography and irregular shape and the fact that many homes
are developed with frontage on narrow private drives within the immediate area. The
proposed. private drive would meet the access requirements of the Fire'Department and for
trash service.
(20) This proposal does not include the removal of any specimen trees. Concerns have been
raised by a neighboring property owner regarding the stand of eucalyptus trees located west
of the existing fire. access road that would be re-graded and paved as access to the new
residence: The neighbor has submitted an arborist's report (attached) concluding that any:
driveway should be located at least 20 feet from the stand of trees: The applicant has also
hired two (2) independent arborists to survey the projecEsite. Both reports (attached)
indicate that the construction of the driveway would not compromise the health of the trees.
and recommends methods to protect the frees during grading and constriction. Staff is
recommending that abertified arborist be brnsite during grading and construction activities
of the private access way to ensure that the existing gees are not damaged. Further, in the
event that specimen trees are inadvertently destroyed, staff has included'a condition of
approval pertaining toYeplacement of specimen trees; as requjred by Cbde.
(21) Staff believes the proposed project is compatible with existing and surrounding land uses
and that the project is designed to maintain the privacy and livability for residents within and
around the project. The proposed grading and retaining wall design has undergone several
revisions with the intended goal of minimizing aesthetic impacts to surroundingproperties.
Staff believes that the final design together with the recommended mitigation measures
achieves this objective.
FINDINGS:
(22) When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from strict enforcement of the
Zoning Code, a modification may be grantetl for the!purpose of assuring that nb property,
because of special circumstances applicable to it, shall be deprivedbf privileges commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and'zone. The"sblepurpbse of any
variance is to prevent discrimination and none shalibe apprdved which would have the
effect of granting a special privilege not sharedby other similar properties.. Therefore,
before any variance is grantatl by the Commission, iY shall be shown:
(a) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property such assize,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other
identically zoned properties intne vicinity; and
(b) That strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges
enjoyed by tither properties inidenticaf zoning classificatibn in the vicinity:
(23) The State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, Section 66473.5) makes it mandatory to
include in ell mbtions approving; br recbmmending approval of a tract map, a specific
" finding that the proposed Subdivision together with its designand improvement is consistent
with the City's General Plan.
Further, tha law requires that the Commission make any of the following findings when
denying br recommending denial of a tractmap:
Page l
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No: 3
L That the proposed map is notcohsistent with applicable General and Specific
Plans.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with:
applicable General and Specific Plans.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development:.
5. That the design of thesubdivisibh b~ the proposed imprdvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat::
6. That the design of the subdivisioh or the type of improvements is likelyto cause
serious public health problems.'
7. That the design of the subdivision'or the type of improvements will conflicfwith
easements; acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property
within the'proposed subdivision:"
RECOMMENDATION:
(24) Staff recommends that, unless additional br contrary information is received during the
meeting,`ahd based upon the eviderce submitted td the Planning Commission, including
the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral'and written evidence presehted at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 138 for the project.
(b) $y resolution, approve Variance No. 2005-04655 for waivers of (a) maximum
structural height, (b) maximum retaining wall height and (c) lot frontage on a
public or private street by adopting the attached resdlution including the findings
and conditions contained therein.
(c) By motioh, approve Tentative Parcel MapNo. 2005-157 to establish a 2-lot, 2-unit
detached single-family residential subdivision based upon the attached conditions
of approval and the following findings:
(i) The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the General Plan including
the density permitted for the property.
(ii) The site is physically suited for the type and density of development
proposed ih a manner that is oohsisteht with the surrounding community.
(iii) The design of the subdivision minimizes impacts to the environment and
mitigates impacts to a evel of insignificance as indicated in the mitigated
negative declaration prepared for this project;.
(iv) That the design of the subdivision will not cause serious public health
problems or conflict with. easements through the property.
Page 8
[®B~,F7~
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006--°""
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2005-04655 BE GRANTED
(6263 EAST TRAIL DRIVE)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Variance
for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as:
PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE; STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN .BOOK 65 PAGE- 33 OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS; IN THE-0FFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAiD
COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on January 9, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required
by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 "Procedures";
to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings.
and recommendations in connection therewith; and that said public hearing was continued to the January 23,
2006, February 6, and February 22, 2006 and March 20, 2006 Planning Commission meetings; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself ,
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
L, That the petitioner proposes waivers of the following to construct asingle-family residence:
(a) SECTION NO. 18.18.060.010 Maximum structural height; 25 feet permitted;
34 feet proposed)
(b) SECTION NO. 18.46.110.130 Maximum retaining wall height; 3-feet high
permitted; 10-feet high proposed)..
(c) SECTION NO. 18.92.180 Lot frontage on a public or private street;
Frontage on a public or private street
required; frontage. on private drive proposed)
2. That the above-mentioned waivers are hereby approved as the site is uniquely constrained
by its irregular shape and steep topography and these are special circumstances applicable to the property
which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity. The sloping terrain of the imposes
constraints on creating a developable pad without the use of retaining walls.:
3. That the above-mentioned waivers are hereby granted on the basis that strictapplication of
the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity because there are several similarheight waivers that have been granted on
Ramsgate Drive and Whitestone Drive which are in directly adjacent to the project, retaining walls in the
vicinity that are higher than the requested walls that are visible to the public right-of-way and lots created in
the area that have narrow access drives. Therefore, there are multiple properties in the vicinity already
developed with the benefits requested by these waivers, and strict application of the zoning code would
deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity:.
4. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in
question.
CR\PC2006-0 -1- PC2006-
5. That the requested variance will not be materially'detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because
the project has been designed to mitigate the impact of the waivers. Because of the topography of the area
and the design of the home, the surrounding properties would not experience any view obstruction because
of the additional height, and by using plantable.retaining walls, and placing the highest retaining wall behind
the home, the visual impact of the higher retaining walls is mostly shielded from the surrounding homes.
6. That *** indicated their presence at the public meeting in opposition to the proposal; and that
no correspondence was received in opposition:
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to waive of (a) maximum structural height, (b) maximum retaining
wall height and (c) lot frontage on a public or private street to construct a single-family residence; and does
hereby approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the associated Mitigation Monitoring Program No.
138 upon finding that the declaration reFlects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has
considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and together with any comments received during the public
review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study, including the analysis of potential aesthetic.
and biological resource impacts and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does
hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a
necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and
general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1. That plantatile retaining walls shall be constructed with materials such as the "Verdura®" or
"LoffelsteinTM"'products in a manner in which the walls are segmented, where every block can be
planted to create a retaining wall that is completely covered with vegetation. Such information shall be
specifically shown on the plans submitted for grading permits.
2. That a certified arborist shall be present during grading and construction activities of the private access
way to ehsure the safety and preservation of the stand of eucalyptus trees on the adjacent property
along the west property line:. to the event any of the specimen trees are destroyed due to site grading,
replacement trees shall be planted by the applicant in accordance with Section No. 18.18.040.060 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code...
3. That roll-up garage dodrs shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. Said doors shall be
installed and maintained as shown on submitted plans.
4. That all air-conditioning facilities and other ground-mouhted equipment shall be properly shielded from
view and the sound buffered from adjacent residential properties. Such information shall be
specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits:
5. That all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located oh the exterior of the building shall be fully
screehed by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials. Said information shall be
specircally shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
6. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense.
7. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street in a manner which may
adversely affect vehicular trafFlc in the adjacent public street. Installation of any gates shall conform to
Engineering Standard Plan No. 609 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic
and Transportation Manager. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for
building permits.
_2_ PC2006-
8. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval of
wall and fence locations to determine conformance with Engineering Standard No. 115. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
9. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department
Development Services Division for review and approval a Water Quality Management Plan that:
o 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.
o Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area
Management Plan.
10. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall
Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed
and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications.
Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in
the Project WQMP.
a Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available
ohsite.
m ` 'Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural
BMPs.
11. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or
abandonment of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water Engineering
Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department.
12. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Services Standards
Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be
upgraded if continued use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The
owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire
line.
13. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning
Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 7, as conditioned herein.
14. That the developer shall be responsible for compliance with all mitigation measures within the
assigned time frames and any direct costs associated v/ith the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program
No. 138 as established by the City of Anaheim and as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public
Resources Code to ensure implementation of those Identified mitigation measures.
15. That the City of Anaheim sewer connection fee shall be paid.
16. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 15, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance
with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
-3- PC2006-
17. That prior to issuance of a grading permit, Condition Nos. 1, 9 and 11, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with.
18. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 10, and 13, above-mentioned, shall
be complied with.
19. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it
complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal
regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation ar requirement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and
all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared
invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void..
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related
to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or
prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges
shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
March 2p, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 16.60, "Procedures"
of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council
Resolution fn the event of an appeal
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OFORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission
held on March 20, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
-, 2006.
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM :PLANNING COMMISSION
.q_ PC2006-
City of Anaheim
~~ANN~NG ~1E',PA)<2'g'19~EI~I'p'
wwwanaheim.net
March 20, 2006
Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of
March 20, 2006.
Gary Galkins Trust
6263 East Trail Drive
Anaheim, CA 92807
3a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3b. VARIANCE N0.2005-04655
3c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-157
Owner:.. Gary Calkins Trust, 6263 East Trail Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807
Agent: Steve Ellis, 4742 Yorba Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886
Location`. 6263 East Trail Drive: Property is approximately 3.2 acres having a
frontage of 47 feet at the terminus of Trail Drive and is located 145 feet
west of the centerline of Whitestone Drive.
Variance No. 2005-04655 -Request waivers of (a) maximum structural height, (b)
maximum retaining wall height and (c) lot frontage on a public or private street to
construct asingle-family residence.
Tentative Parcel Mao No. 2005-157 - To establish a 2-lot, 2-unit detached single-
family residential subdivision.
ACTION: Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to
establish a 2-lot, 2-unit detached single-family residential subdivision and does hereby
approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the associated Mitigation Monitoring
Program No. 138 upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the
lead agency and that it has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and together with
any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of
the initial study, including the analysis of potential aesthetic and biological resource impacts
and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner mCX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby determine that based on the
finding that (i) the proposed subdivision is in compliance with the General Plan including the
density permitted for the property; (ii) the site is physically suited for the type and density of
development proposed in a manner that is consistent with the surrounding community; (iii)
the design of the subdivision minimizes impacts to the environment and mitigates impacts to
a level of insignificance as indicated in the mitigated negative declaration prepared for this
project and (iv) that the design of the subdivision will not cause serious public health
problems or conflict with easements through the property; and does therefore approve
200 South Anaheim Boolevartl
P.O. Bax 3222
Anaheim, California 92003
TEL (714) 765-5139
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-157, to establish a 2-lot., 2-unit detached single-family
residential subdivision subject to the following conditions:
1. That the final map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and the'
Orange County Surveyor and then shall'be recorded in the Office of the Orange County
Recorder (Subdivision Map Act, Section 66499.40).
2. That a maintenance covenant, shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section and
approved by the City Attorney's office. The covenant shall include provisions for
maintenance of private facilities, including compliance with approved Water Quality
Management Plan, and a maintenance exhibit. The covenant shall be recorded
concurrently with the final map.
3. That the access drives., sanitary sewer and storm drain within the development shall be
privately maintained. Improvement plans for the sanitary sewer, and private drainage
system shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services
Division concurrently with the final map.
4: That approval of this parcel map is granted subject to the approval of Variance
No. 2005-04655, now pending.
5. That prior to final map approval, all building units shall be assigned addresses by the
Planning Department
6. That the legal property owner shall reserve an easement on the final map for vehicular
access, sewer, water and electrical services over Lot 1 in favor of Lot 2.
7. That prior to final parcel map approval, Condition Nos: 1; 2, 3, 5, and 6, above-
mentioned, shall be complied with.
8. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the
extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other
applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or
findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable
ordinance, regulation or requirement.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
cc: Steve Ellis, 4742 Yorba Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886
VAR2005-04655_Excerpt'
MPR-07-2606 17:03 From: FWLGB 7147316138 To:7149~5310 P.2~3
Attachment -Item No. 3
C:REG APPLEGATE
C O N i U t i 1 N f • p B O R 1 i T
March I, 200fi
Mr. Neil Siegel
62'2l Trail Drive
Anaheim Hills, CA 92807
Ra Driveway Cnnstrucuon Adjoining Eucalyptus
Dear Mr. Siegel:
'Thank you for asking me to caamine the grading for the maintenance access road
adjoining your blue gums, Eucalyptua• glnhulus. As we discussed, this letter is to update
the. report that I wrote for you in March of 19911. You asked that I describe the impact of
the maintenance acucss road constnactiou and the future; impact of a permanent and paved
driveway.
The current condition of the treesa~lpeurr to he about the same as it was when I was last
at your home. However, the impactof the maintenance access road construction may not
he obselvablo for years. 1'he recent pruning also tempotut•ily reduces the cfetnand for
water and obscures the impact on the root system.
As I discussed in my previous report, these trees are subject to borer attack if they bcrume
stressed. When the full normal canopy grows out again the and the demand for water
increases, the bun.rs, which are awn: active in warm weather, can successfully attack
trees that are drought stressed. The frees will experience drought stress if roots are cut,
covered, or if the soil is compacted, even though the soil lcmaius nwist. If borers infest
these [revs this summer, it can take a couple years before the trtxs_die.
f also described in my last report that to protect an adequate amount of roots at ll:ast one
foot radius per inch of trunk caliper of proteulive clearance must be provided. This is the
s[andard published on page 74 of the International Society of Arboriculture pttblicadnn
"Tn;es and Duvclopmcnt" by Mathcny and Clark. The maintenance access grading has
already impacted roofs lu the vary base of these trees. To grade the current maintenance
road soil was laid over the trees' root zone in III areas of grading and other roots were
damsgcd in cut areas of grading. Along side the road, using a horticultural penetrotnetcr,
1 found loose coil laid aver the root none between one and two feet deep. Tree roots need
air as well as water to live and t'unetlou. Bath cooing and filling kills mokc by either
cutting them or by suffocation when soil is laid over them.
The roots not only provide water and nutrients to the tree, but also provide support Cut,
dead or dying roots do not support pees well Cut or damaged routs can also decay back
1131 tuclNpe wpc. TIIFp«. Cn 92i8Q. nnnop!sr6~eox.Ner. rl!.~ 714.72/.6 24 n. t:rLC. 71;.292.7184, rN+.: 714,77Lp138
MaR-07-2006 17:03 Prom: RPLGB 7147316130 To:7149985310 P.3B
into the base of [he tree. The sulfur conk fungus, Laeripvrus suljureur, is commonly
involved with toppling blue gums and can scan when mats are injured too cause to the
trunk. Established [reel usually years to die and decay usually takes a few years to just
get started. However, in time you will have a serious risk fmm these u~ecs toppling onto
your driveway, home. or pool area.
The risk of toppling and the risk of lwrers was incroased by the maintenance act~ss toad
grading and will be increased even moro iC the neighbor., ivl[. Calkins, builds a pet'manenl
paved driveway. Tl[e maintenance access road may have been built with minim¢l
compaction, but any type of permanent driveway would require compaction up to 9U or
9$ percent i'rocWr density, and probably over-excavation. 1 have nn[ seen the cntxen[
construction drawings for driveway construction. However, driveway construction so
close to these [rtes as shown in the "Sectional Plan", dated 2-7-U6, will kill and/or
destabilize these trees. As I aid in my last report, roots hold primarily in tension and this
is [he tension side of the trees' runt zone. There is little chance of surviving the
wnslnwfion, but if these trees survive, and a couple smaller ones might, they are more
likely w full into your proporty.
1 recommend that the City not allow the construction of the proposed driveway closer
than 2U feet fiom these hoes.
Respec lly submitted.
Grog A leg te, ASCA, ASi.A
Rcpistcrcd Consulting A.rborist #3Gi
Certified Arbnrist WC-UIgU
F.ndosures
y
, 5~.
fl t
r
GREG APVtEG AT E, .45fA ~r.;~t
[oeru LrlHC nLans,e, r.. ,.,,
]]il 1VCI9 D~Wnr. Tua•I w, CA Y1+A(1. nuaonl.~~M1flrrn.b n. Ye:711 711 o2AP. COLT 714.7 X2.7184. roe. %N.7:; LM1138
C7reg Applegate, asc~, asr_a
As of January26, 2006
Credentials American Society of Consulting Arborists -Registered Consulting Arborist #365 '
International Society of Arboriculture - CertrSed Arborist #WC-0180
F~tienee Mr. Applegate is an independent consuffing arberist. He has been in the horiculmre
industry since 1963, providing professional arboricultural consulting since 1984
within both private and public sectors. His expertise includes appraisal, Vee
preservation, diagnosis of tree and palm growth problems, constmction impact
mitigation, environmental assessment, expert witness testimony, hazard evaluation,
pruning programs, species selecfion and tree health monitoring.
Mr. Applegate consults for insurance companies, major developers, universities,
theme pazks, universities, homeowners' associations, landscape architects, landscape
contractors, property managers, attorneys and governmental bodies.
Notable projects on which he has consulted are: Disneyland, Disneyland Hotel,
DisneySeas-Tokyq Disneys Wild Animal Kingdom, New Tomorrowland, Disney's
California Adventure, Disney Hong Kong project, Knott's Berry Farm, Tustin
Ranch, Newport Coast, Crystal Court, South Coast Plaza, Newport Fashion Island,
Loyola-Marymaunt campus, Bixby Ranch Company, Playa Vista, Laguna Canyon
Road and Myford Road for The Irvine Company, Pasco Wes[park Palms, Wes[park-
Irvine Community Parks, The Irvine Concourse, USC, UCI, UCLA, Universal City
Statron/MTA tree inventory, MWD-California Lakes, and the State of California
review of the Landscape Architecture License exam. (plant materials portion)
Education Bachelor of Science in Landscape Architecture,
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 1973
Arboricultural Consulting Academy (by ASCA)
Arbor-Day Farm, Kansas City 1995
Continuing Bducation Courses in Arboriculture
required to maintain CertiSed Arborist status and for ASCA membership
Prefiessional /lffiliations American Society of Consultrng Arborists (ASCA), Full Member
American Society of Landscape Architects (ASCA), Full Member
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), Regular Member
International Palm Society (IPS), Member
California Tree Failure Report Program, UC,Davis, Participant
Street Tree Seminar (STS), Member
Community Affiliations Horticulture Advisory Committee, Saddleback College (1988 - 1998)
Landscape Arch. License Exam prep, Instructor, Cal Poly Pomona (1986-90)
American Institute of Landscape Architects Board of Directors (1980-82)
California Landscape Architect Student Scholarship Fund-Chairman (1985)
International Society ofArbericulmre-Examiner-tree worker certification (1990)
The Tree Societyof Grange County (1990 until present)
Guest lecturer at Cal Poly, Saddleback College, & Palomar Junior College
The Tree People, member
di 'v
GREG APPLEGAT E, ASCA ~+."He~_a
L O H H U ~ T I N G A H H O H 1 5 T , ,
1131 tunr+on Wxv, Tusn e, CA 92780, naeoHlsrfi®cox.NeT. Pn.: 714.731.6240, Cuc 714.292.7184, Fnz: 714.731.6138
Cortsaalting Arborist's Report
~ ~
E®r Siegel Residence
Prepared for: Mr. Neil Siegel
6221 Trail Drive
Anaheim Hiiis, CA 92807
Prepared by: Greg Applegate
1131 Lucinda Way
Tustin, CA 92780
714/ 731-6240
Date: March 20, 1998
Q
Assignment .......................................................................................................................................................3
Background .....................................................................................................:................................................:L
Report 3
Observations ........................................................... .........................................................................................3
Analysis .................................................................. ..........................................................................................4
Conclusion ............................................................... .........................................................................................5
Recommendations ................................................... .........................................................................................5
Appendix 6
Resume ................................................................... .........................................................................................7
Photographs ........................................................... ..........................................................................................8
Glossary ................................................................. ........................_.,................................................_........., ]2
Site Map ................................................................ ........................................................................................14
Species Pact Sheet ................................................. ........................................................................................IS
Eucalyptus -Construction Impact Report Greg Applegate 3-21-98 Table of Contents
ackgr®und
Fifteen blue gum eucalyptus, Eucalyptus globulus; are growing along the edge of
Mr. Neil Siegel's property at 6221 Trail Drive, in Anaheim Hills. Another eleven
blue gums aze growing along the edge of his neighbor's property, all part of the
same windrow. The trees have good vigor and there have been no recent deaths or
toppling in this row. They range in size from about fourteen inches in caliper to
over six feet in caliper.
Development of the adjoining property is proposed and a Tentative Parcel Map
#97-212 has been submitted to the City of Anaheim for approval. The adjoining
property is steeply sloped and covered with prickly-peaz cactus and shrubbery.
The developer proposes to build an access road about three feet from the above
row of blue gums. -
Analysis
Based on the Schematic Grading Plan, dated 2/5/98, the construction of the access
road will require extensive fill and the construction of a lazge retaining wall on top
of at least half the root system of the subject blue gums.
The standazds of care for tree preservation are greatly exceeded by the proximity
of the construction. Death of the trees or toppling can be expected.
California courts have ruled that neighbors aze required to act reasonably when
cutting encroaching roots and branches, see Booska v. Patel (1994) 24 Cal. App.
4a' 1786; 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 241. Constmction of the access road and retaining
walls will, without a doubt, cause the death or toppling of Mr. Siegel's blue gums.
Eucalyptus -Construction Impact Report Greg Applegate 3-21-96 Summary • 1
Assignrnen$
Mr. Neil Siegel contacted this consultant on Mazch 16, 1998. and set up an
appointment to meet on site and discuss the situation and view the subject trees.
• We met and I inspected the trees on March 19, 1998. I was asked to prepaze a
report that addressed the risks to the subject blue gums from the proposed
construction and grading.
background
Fifteen blue gum eucalyptus, Eucalyptus globulus, aze growing along the edge of
• Mr. Neal Siegel's property at 6221 Trail Drive, Anaheim Hills, County of Orange,
California. Another eleven blue gums are growing along the edge of his
neighbor's property, all part of the same windrow.
Development of the adjoining two pazcels (lot 3 & 4 on the "Schematic Grading
Plan") is proposed and a Tentative Pazcel Map #97-212 has been submitted to the
City of Anaheim for approval. The adjoining property is steeply sloped,:'.
especially lot 4, and covered with prickly-pear cactus.and shrubbery. The
developer proposes to build an access road about three feet from the above row of
blue gums.
Eucalyptus -Construction Impact Report
.Greg Applegate 3-27-98
Introduction 2
®bselvati®ns
Fifteen blue gums, Eucalyptus globulus and one papetbazk tree, Melaleuca
quinquenervia, are growing along the edge of Mr. Siegel's property. Mr. Siegel's
• property is relatively level and in a low density residential neighborhood. Another
eleven trees continue in the same row along his neighbor's property line. The
blue gums aze set outside the main more manicured part of the landscaping. The
ground underneath the trees is densely covered with annual grasses. {See
photograph #4) '
The trees have good vigor and there have been no recent deaths or toppling in this
row. There is no evidence of die-back oc yellowing- :The trees along Mr. Siegel's
' property have been iecently pruned and the upper canopy has a large amount of
new epicormic shoots, There area couple indications of minor decay in several
trees, the depth or extent of which was not explored. The subject blue gums range
in size from about fourteen inches in caliper to over six feet in caliper.
Roots were noted at the soil surface and that the hill on lot 4 is neazly solid rock.
This will mean that the roots will be even more shallow and sensitive to
bompaction than is typical.
The trees frame the view of the home and screen the view of the cactus covered
slope on parcel four. As a mature, eucalyptus windrow, they suggest the
agricultural history of the area. They provide some shade and wind reduction.
They also function to absorb some runoff water from the slopes of lots 3 and 4.
Several stakes. had been set mazking the edge of the proposed access road. The
"Schematic Grading Plan" seems to indicate that the access road is on the edge of
the property line. Photograph #4 in the Appendix shows the line of the staking.
The plan is not clear on which of tvva types of walls , "Type A" or "Type B" will
Eucalyptus -Construction Impact Report Greg Applegate 3-27-96
Report a 3
be used next to the trees. For the purpose of this report, the "Type B" wall is
assumed, since it would cause the least damage.
The first tree, which is about 6 foot, 5 inches in diameter, is neaz the beginning of
Mr. Siegel's driveway and the beginning of the proposed access road. The
beginning of the .access road is not marked and may or may not affect this tree.
The next tree in line is a moderate sized paperbark melaleuca, about 10 inches in
caliper. The fast stake in line is placed within three feet of its trunk.
The rema;nder of the trees aze blue gums varying from about 41 inches to 14
inches in diameter. The line projected from one stake to the next is within three
feet of the trunks of the remaining blue gums.
~~~~ySIS
Blue gum eucalyptus is a lazge species with a correspondingly lazge root system.
Ninety percent of that root system is typically within the top two feet of soil and
most of that in the top foot of soil. The roots that do the bulk of absorbing water
and nutrients is in that top foot of soil. Typically there are no deep anchoring or
tap roots.
In recent years anew pest of blue gumshas been introduced, the eucalyptus long
. horn beetle, Phoracantha semipunctata. This pest attacks and kills trees that aze
in drought or other stress.
When Mr. Siegel's lot was developed a low retaining wall was constructed
between his home and the trees. It should be expected that a lazge number of
roots on his side of the trees were cut Enough time has passed that most of these
roots have put out new roots from near the cut ends. The health and condition of
the trees indicates that this has taken place. However, there is not enough root
' space to provide much anchoring. Further it would take about fifteen yeazs to
recover all the root volume originally lost. So the root system has been
compromised to some degree already and to invade the rootzone a second time.
severing roots all along the other side of these trees could not be tolerated.
The proposed construction of retaining walls and access road would cut and
suffocate 95 percent of roots on the, south side of the trees. Roots support trees by
holding in tension much more than by buttressing the trunks. The result of cutting
roots for the wall footing would be that there would not be enough roots holding
the trees from that side. Toppling of many of these trees could be expected to
follow rapidly.
Typical standards for set back from trees to be preserved vary from staying
outside the dripline to staying back one foot from the trunk for every inch of
caliper. All azboricultural text books and professionals would agree that this
amount of fill and compaction is sufficient to kill the trees even if roots were not
cut. Roots breath. They take in oxygen and give off cazbon dioxide. Roots need
oxygen as much as water and they need to get rid of the CO2. Soil compaction
reduces pore space used for oxygen and water. The fill will reduce necessary
Eucalyptus -Construction Impact Report Greg Applegate 3-21-8ti
Report + 4
gaseous exchange, exclude oxygen, and suffocate the roots. If the severance of
roots and compaction did not directly kill the trees, the long hom beetles would
attack and kill the stressed trees. It is clear from the details shown on the
"Schematic Grading Plan" that the proposed wall requires a compacted leveling
pad, typically about 6 inches fleep. The fast block or two also needs to be
"embedded" below grade compared to the grade neaz the blue gum's. This will
sever most, if not all, the roots on the south side.
In many cities, the developer is required to show existing trees and to take
measures to preserve them. The "Schematic Grading Plan" makes no note of the
.adjoining eucalyptus trees. Even though these irees do not belong to the
developer, there should be evidence on the plan that he is taking measures to
protect them. However, it does not seem that he is even aware of their presence.
C®nc9us9®~9
$t my professional experience and opinion, the trees will die as a result of the
proposed construction and proximity of the access road over and within the root
zone. Retaining wall "Type A" or "Type B" will both have the same effect
California courts have ruled that neighbors aze required to act reasonably when
cutting encroaching roots and branches, see Booska v. Patel (1994) 24 Cal. App.
4a' 1786; 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 241. The present plans aze inconsiderate of Mr.
Siegel's property and may end up causing considerable damage beyond the death
of the trees. There is no way of estimating the amount of damage that could be
caused by one of the lazger trees falling on Mr. Siegel's home. Further, he would
be living there with the unsettling knowledge that these~neazby trees are so
unstable htat they will fall without warning in wet or breezy conditions.
~COC~'16~'1~CEC~~~9®@'~S
There does not appeaz to be any other place the access road could be built, other
than immediately along the edge of the property line. However, doing so will kill
the trees. The only way to protect and preserve the trees is to access the site from
some other direction or to not develop these lots.
Eucalyptus -Construction Impact Report Greg Applegat® 3-21-98 Report a 5
A. Resume.
B. Photographs
C. i'slossary
YD. Site Map
E. Species Fact Sheet
Eucalyptus- Construction Impact Report Greg Applegate 3-21-98 Appendiu < 6
FZESUIVIE: Gi2EGORV l~l. APPLEG,4TE, ,4SCA, ,4SLA
Consulting Certified Arborist_ ,
PROFESSIONAL
REGISTRATIONS; American Society of Consulting Arborists #365
Intemationai Society of Arboriculture, Cert~ed Arborist # WG180
EXPERIENCE: Mr. Applegate is an independent consulting arbortst. tie has been in the
horticulture field since 1963, providing professional arboricuttural consulting since
1984 within) both private and public sectors. His expertise includes appraisal, tree
preservation; diagnosis of tree growth problems, construction impact mitigation,
environmental assessment, expert witness testimony, hazard evaluation, pruning
programs, species selection and tree health monitoring.
Mr. Applegate has consulted for insurance companies, major developers, ,theme
parks, homeowners, homeowners' associations, landscape architects, landscape
contractors, property managers, attorneys and governmental bodies.
Notable projects on which he has consulted are: Disneyland, Califomia
Adventure, Disneyland Hotel, Disney's Wlld Animal Kingdom, DisneySeas-Tokyo,
Knott`s Berry Farm, Newport Coast, Crystal Court, Newport Fashion Island, The
Bonadventure Hotel and Volt Headquarters-interior planting, Big Canyon Golf
Course, Oakcreek Golf Course, Tustin Ranch windrows, Laguna Canyon Road
and Myford Road for The Irvine Company, Hillcrest Park-Fullerton, Westpark-
Irvine community parks, Barlow Hospital, Bullocks-Palm Desert, Loyola
Marymount University, UCI Inland Empire Shopping Center, Universal City
Station/MTA Vee inventory and the State of Califomia review of the Landscape
Architecture License exam (plant materials portion)
EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science in Landscape Architecture,
Califomia State Polytechnic University, Pomona 1973
Tree Management Seminars in Arboriculture
University of California, Riverside 1964 to 1993
Arboricultural Consulting Academy (by ASCA)
Arbor-Day Farm, Kansas City 1995
• Gontinuing Education Courses in Arboriculture required to maintain
Cert~ed Arborist status and for ASCA membership
PROFESSIONAL
AFFILIATIONS: American Society of Landscape Architects (ASCA), Full Member
American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA), Full Member
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), Regular Member
International Palm Society (IPS), Member
Califomia Tree Failure Report Program, UC Davis., Participant
Street Tree Seminar (STS)., Member
COMMUNITY
AFFILIATIONS: Horticulture Advisory Committee, Saddleback College (1988 until present)
Landscape Architecture License Exam, .Reviewer, Cal Poly Pomona (1986-90)
American Institute of Landscape Architects (L.A.) Board of Directors (1980-82)
Califomia Landscape Architect Student Scholarship Fund -Chairman (1985)
International Society of Arboriculture -Examiner-tree worker certthcation (1990)
The Tree Society of Orenge County (1990 until present)
Guest lecturer at Cal Poly, Saddleback College, & Palomar Junior College
Eucalyptus -Construction Impact Report Greg Applegate 3-21-98
Appendix T
Attachment -Item No. 3
~irn ~®rer, Certified Arb®rst #496
Specimen tree preservation, conservation, and analysis
Mazch 7, 2006
Mr. Gary Calkins
Calkins Construction
Telefax: This page plus 3
Re: On site tree inspection report
6263 East Trail Drive
Anaheim, Ca.
Deaz Mr. Calkins,
I am writing at this time as a follow up to our recent February 22, 2006 on site tree
inspection of the mature specimen Eucalyptus globulous trees that aze growing on the
property immediately adj acent to your above referenced property in the Anaheim Hills.
The purpose for the inspection was to assess the existing condition of the six mature
specimens that aze growing immediately adjacent to your un-improved access road that is
proposed for improvement as a driveway and fire access lane to the home site that you
aze developing on the northwest portion of your property. Furthermore we considered and
discussed the affect of the development of your drive and fire access lane upon the six
mature Eucalyptus trees. I have attached representative photographs of the trees in
question in order to make the references to the trees referred herein as cleaz as possible.
The six trees aze mature specimen Eucalyptus globulous (blue gum). The trees have beem
non-selectively reduced (topped) which is never considered to be beneficial to any trees
long-term welfaze, and especially so with Eucalyptus which aze notoriously weak
wooded. The result of the topped condition of the trees is that their branch structures, and
therefore their long-term viability, have been compromised. Based upon the principles of
compartmentalization of decay in trees these trees have been irrepazably damaged. The
result of the compromised condition is that the trees are susceptible to the deleterious
affects of decay and resultant branch sheaz. As the decay migrates within the main trunk
and branch columns the chances for branch sheaz and catastrophic collapse will increase.
I do not anticipate that the implementation of your driveway and fire access road
improvement project will cause the trees to suffer systemic shock and die as a result.
There could be a limited amount of root loss that could occur as a result of your utility
trench development within the right of way of the drive. I recommend that the utility
trench be placed as faz from the trees as possible in order to minimize the amount of root
loss. Hand trenching or using an `Air-spade' could help you to limit the amount of root
loss that occurs in the course of the trench construction. In either scenario the roots could
be left in place and cantilevered while the utilities aze installed underneath them. Any
PO Box 1803, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729-1803
1
Phone 909/ 997-7020 Fax 909/ 948-8882
Jim ~®rer, Ceified Ar®rist #4~6
Specimen tree preservation, conservation, and analysis
roots that are encountered that cannot be left in place should be cut cleanly with sharp
pruning implements. Roots that aze cut cleanly aze faz more responsive to developing
callous at the point where they aze cut than roots that aze either ripped or torn.
You should be careful in improving the drive and access road not to bury the root crowns
of the existing adjacent Eucalyptus trees. The roots crowns are those locations on the
respective trees where the trunks buttress or flair out into woody roots at the soil level.
The burying of these critical locations within the trees structures can cause them to rot
and can cause the development of pathogenic disease organisms.
In general these Eucalyptus trees aze extremely mature with their woody branch
structures having been compromised as a result of the ill advised pruning methodologies
that have been affected heretofore. There aze no cultural practices that can ever eliminate
the damaged caused to date as a result of the topping incidents. I am much more
concerned about the affects of the compromised structures and their potential to fail as a
result than I am about the impact of the drive and access road improvements that you aze.
proposing as defined during our site visit.
Please call me if you have .any quesfions after reviewing this report if you have any
questions or if I may provide addirional assistance.
Yours hvly,
Jim Borer
Certified Arborist #496
Enclosure: Photographs of the conditions at the time of the inspection
PO Box 1803, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729-1803 2
Phone 909/997-7020 Fax. 909/948-8882
access road that
The topping cuts can be seen cleazly in this photo where the branches orighiate just to the
side of the woody branch that ends in the stub. These branches aze susceptible to
decaying as a result of the branches inability to comparirnentalize the decay that is sure to
develop where the branches were cut cross sectionaly. Furthermore the branches that
emanate above the topping cuts aze susceptible to shearing as a result of Their weak
attachments.
PO Box 1803, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729-1803 -
Phone 909/ 997-7020 Fax 909/ 948-8882
Jirn ~®rer, Ceied Arb®rist #496
See references above in previous photo regazding topping cuts.
PO Box 1803, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729-1803
4
Phone 909/997-7020 Fax 909/948-8882
Specimen tree preservation, conservation, and analysis
OSi 08/2006 19:31 FAE T89 942 4598 DOD13R B:ASSOC.. (1§092/083
®~d®~r®
529 WEST 9WE0.10GE A~!ENUE
ORANGE. CAUP00.NIA 92865
T ]H.9p9.9>l0 F T14.999.9p]>
March L;, 2006
Mr. Gary Calkins
Calkins Construction
6263 )~ Tra17 Drive
Anaheim lIills, CA 42807
Re: ®n Site Teee Inspeetion Summary Report
Desr Grary,
This letter report summarizes my March S, 2006, site evaluation of several mature
Eucalyptus globulrs trees growing on the property immediately adjacent to the proposed
project site at 6263 E. Trail Drive in Anaheim Flirts.
The purpose of this site evaluation was to assess any impacts to the mature Eucalyptus
globules trees tha4 may occur with the proposed improvceaent of an existing unimproved
access mad. The proposed improvement of a driveway access mad would run
immediately adjacent to the Eucalyptus trees.
Upon arrival to the property, I conducted a site survey and observed the location of the
proposed improved driveway access mad. The client and I discussed the proposed work
limits, property ~ and construction that ~wld orris immediately adjaceoY>p the
Eucalyptus trees. A brief visaal inspection of the Eucalyptus trees and suaounding aces
was conducted. Water runoff and drainage was discussed and will be contained to the
client's property.
After this discussion and site review, I oo~lude that the improvement of the driveway
access mad as planned can be constructed with no significemt impacts in the mattne
Eucalyprus globules trees.
I reeommetld that any digging or trenching occur as far away as possible from the
Eucalyptus pees. Aay mots that may lre affected by these activities should remain intact
whenever possible. If any mots are severed, they should be cirt cleanly with a sharp
pruning implemeztt to promote a quicker healing process. All soil ar fill dirt should
remain away from the existing Eucalyptus trees. AL no time should the tree's root crown,
the area of the tree trunk that flares out jngt above the sm1 level, be buried. Burying the
root crown may cause this area of the tree to rot, allowing pathogens and/or disease to
infect the tree, which ultimately may cause the tree to fail.
www.owEx.con
13./0$/2008 p1 g9: 31 FpA,pSp 700 942 4508 DUDHB @ ASSOC. 0003/003
~~10
519 WEST 9LUE0.1DGE AVENUE
OMNGE. ULIFD0.NIA f2B65 - -
T JI L99p.pppp F ]I9.999.9p1J
Please fell free to call me if you have any questions regarding my observations or
recommendations.
Sincerely,
~.
Dudek
Tom A. Larson
Registered Consulting Arborist#3g9
ISA Certified Arborist #6t12
W W W.DUDER.CDM
M
O
E
w
c
d
L
0
Q
M W
P ~J
O ~
a
J
Q
C7 ~
~ Q
a y
a~~
Q LL 9
K
~ O
~ J
~ ~
a
~ w
F ~
N
T d O f1
o aai 'O E
E;.,- ~ d
w p y U U
d~ N C d U
o c = c
.N ~ L N d d
a = ~ >
o p 3~~ o'~
N O N U >
~ d
~~3~n.d
eT d o. a
' ~ ~ d c
o p ~ arnc0
m o c -
d d N N .~ ~
~a >~.
v1° pa v=
o°adi a°i`m
O TO ~~ N 3
~'~va ~ ce
~ d C
dE>,_~._
O a N N a N
.O N 3 N ~
>dEerdE
d en X C ~ ~
a °a o c E_
YO O 0..d. U X U
~aQddEa~
'0 0
Q U > .O d C (1.
c m a m d
~o.OCd L.
Q N - l0 O m ~
c rn"m o. p. •y o
~ c H d p L c
U Y ? d ~ O
o. `m w
m°'W psd.°m
a U N
~mEaaic2~
d d O C d q ~
. a U N ~ O. _ >
tc°~ ~ ~ E E m
U •- X
U 'p
y 3 d d o E a
C U d
~ d t0 '3 a N
.~ ~~ o ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ C N '-
d rnd'p d~
N d~ a C d>
m 3 ~ ? 'o
O d L U G.~.
N- ~H 2 ~fn
d O
C d d ~ CIO U y
o ~.o c a`c
~ a°~
~~~~ma~
U > C y en C d
d O=~X ~ E c c
d p-
o `~° `o m~ o o a
a°'i N-~c'oEOaNi
Z LLl ~ N C C~ N
~ C l0 d d {9
01 (ND F- ~ `) ~ O N
._ ~ d ~ O
~ ~-° m~'S aci d
d = ~ E
a~>~3ad`o
N c ._
a ~ d d ° c
eo~L Q ~
d d = O C !~
p c'3 y._d>
aL.. 'v
U d d d a p1 > .L..
'oEUda,•-
O
U .-
y
c
0
"C
N
O
a
c
d
N
N
~~ `
~c ~ °
~
3~
O
d~-d
' ~
o
~
NmE .d. e
n
a
~m
c
O en
G
L °
e d
C...
~ -..
j.Ovy
j
N
O d C.
..
N O U S
d
a ~
_
~O L d C
~
p '- c n
U m~ ...._ d 'c ~3 E d
°
O- d
d
m U 2i N E a
d y'd d
E o
lE0 y ,C W a C~ C d C C d
c a; ~ N
E d
E ~
~
rnE mo
>~ a
d E p~~ a .Eno 2
eTi .D
L d
v ~~ d d ~ N 3 o c
,
_
o l0 d N d
w
.
~ C d O r
o a m d
-p .L.. L O
E
3
o. d o
N c `o
d
3 .a
o m - U d
~
t0
~ ° m
v o dL ~ ~ i
a i ~~
r
a
.
3mm°~N °-E3mai ~ aNdpE
~` C E ~ U 5 =' ~ N C
~ d t0 d O Ol U
d
~
~
L ~ •_
~
~ •~ .n N T H C N
~
.
. d G
w 3~ o ~ d
U
L m
~ ~ t0
m d L a ~
O
'
a c U> :: ~
3~ ~ ~
~d ~O
c d d 2
'
4dcm d
_a~ v wa
> U G~ d
p N 'C d N W d eT O d d C
C~
Q J_ d
i
C G C U d' W O d
N
L
d en O ~_ U
O Q C
d
d
o € o
m y
c .. U
O
..
.L
v m ~. N
E C
N
~
~ m E m
_ d
n c
aa€ ~ ,
a ~
~
a €
y
$ d~ ~O
U y~ma '~ ~ v,
v~ c
c
d
d
u E -a ~ .c C U C pf
d~ 'p c pf $
U d p
p °- E d ~c
a m m ~ ~ ao ~~~ ~E v ~
o-
°
an d pe d E o "c ~ •p .°n U a
i
•p ~ C~ N
V
w ~ C Y .p
O pe•E d C U O O d d
E d '
`
~ d
~ .d-. a~ ~
C~ .O en ~
~ c. E m
~ o
o
w d m~ w me m ~-
o d
Y ~
ci E
m a a~ m n~
p
d C d .N 3 d° 3
L m
p
-
e= n- > E l0 y~
L O
' w
L rn
a >
.
d L j E C
Es•° ° o y
C E
° ~ c o 3 d a~ ~.~
d
~~d dNOrm ~ YaEtLo
a
d G C d ~ L
to C
_ C ~~
`°c
~Ed° ~
_
~E3au n d d
~«L
=
m
.
m c ~~~ E c m~ a E t
J
m E 3 a
d Q e C L
~ d
y C U U
d O
~ c
c ~=
cm~A3 d O
y _rn ea ~eT
d~-dcc m U
E~ c 3 0
dmea
E~a~3
m EEcEo ~
c~i c
•a°aea~c
o~
~
c c d
o~ d o 0
~
° °o
~
~ c~ c E m ~ ° o"
E
.
~oL. rn«o.d d
mE ~~E2
c~o-3° 3~ O1
d C
t dN,=~m
L
C
Qd~ad Eaoa=v C
~o d
F-~~L~
I p d.p; E m a;.- E•~
d m d ~ ~ r
`
~ d
c°'aci`o ~ d
a mrn H
o ~
N ~ N~ Nil~ Ow
3 ` a >.
~ d r
d d lL a
pi
L N OL
!Q " U C C
~
D Q' N d d
C dL.. a (
j
C d d d N d 'O
d d d m d O U L -
- O d ~ r C a N
Ea o
dUd a o.
d~ 3.3 ~
o d
cEd°wd
3 N
d d O
Etd'wp F tT U>
iLCCO ~ C
end O .
.. 0 0
eTEm
y~
oe3 d
c
° w
~ da
3~ E d c.. °a ~ a~ °~ m E m
E
tO
d
~ 0
E
W mmU o. c.
.
C L
.
F= ~~ ~~'
3
of v eri ~
N
O
m
0
'm
i
0
m
a3i
c E
m
`o
c
o ~
'U
~. m
y ~
C ~.
o a
v E
o .c
a ~
o ~
~ :?
N
N p
.E 'c
`m ~-
ao
Tw
C 'O
l0
l0 ~
Q
~ d
N
C N
~"
N
~ n
T
t0 C
L ~
N N
E ~
a ....
m C
C
a
'~ L
17 N
(0 7
E m
m c
m`o
o.~
a~
C C
O m
X
'C ~
O
E ~
m
0 0
•~ o
:Eon
N
D ..
E '
o
N ~ ~
N C N
c W U
~ m 2
aXm
o m rn
LL C
~ = Vi
X
•~ U N
2=
a`~o
m ° ~+
C ~ C
O
'~
m .Q
ri
d
a`
m
c
D
N
w
t0
O
a
C
O
.
~
c.
E
c
U
w
p rn
o
0
'
0
C
a 'C y
_•g
C y
_~g y
_•g.
N w O C p C 0
E
~ E
~
Ul g C p C C ~p C' C p C
K N N E N~ f0 f0 y l6.
aoa and aoa
'O DI ~ t0 > U y
~ O G O ~
_
111
L
0 L
« ..
>
j
~O>
p C 0
c~
~ ~
°°
~ .. N
U
OI
c p° c 3 0 `
. N~ ~p
y
` m m' ~p p a o m
•
~
p
m
~ ~~aaD.c ~ dx
10
` ?~op,n~p
°O
w O3~,nEy~='~m
rnm
E
~
~vi
o
~ o co.m`. ~
''
' >prn~~m
Ec c~v~:t~
°~y
~~
`
co~. g
~dY~o
d N2 ~$in3~
m ~mm_m.~mypc
oy
~
2 r ~ ~ m ~ p oag~ $ m
a
`
'
~'
~ a v a? c o~~ v
i y
~ y'° m
~% 3 coi y. c. c `m
y
~
c°
'
i aa
o.
O
v
Ev
~
U :°~pN~~'op dm'vi ?vp.a
m°:~
~~omi.o°jc pm
oE
>`~°~
~
mm
~ cmm~m
m=`
:
U aGw
c'~L':E°~yo mom>-o'~o .
~
;
'p~~ncym~~'w-c
p
w
`°
3 N
•
~ f0 O y p N
~
`
~ ~ ~ m_
v ~ 3 E-
°~ yam. uyim ~~
aEi~
o c
my:.~c a~i~ ~~
~ m
y Uyomum-OD~o~~a~0im p~.G~D•>
Gpm' _
C9ma~'-c'3~~p3pQ
d O)~- C DIG p y
G y 7 N 'O E .
¢' ~
y .'~- 3 .. U 'Q L Ciq ... O..-
LL U: V GI ~O) N U ui N- y O
`°
3
a
E
1°
~ r °
i ~
=
a
i
m cE.°_ a
i 3
~
U~ am
m ~ ~ ~'v m
i.
r p E > m ~;H rn~
~ ay,~~~°--
y
O ~
C
N U O
~ ~ ~ y N 'O C
O~
O~(O~QU y
L (n O
j 01 = 'D
d°N.y
nU >. >., ~
-O
~
. N.~O1~pm~~pN
LL ID-p
p .
..
O 0)~.
l0 C O)
N C~ E Z O O U
(A
ty `
O
V
°~ O N G y O .p.~
C
O
E p
~ ~. l9: U ~. `p . p~ C .:
'O
N
.U Ty
.
..
N C D `
G> .O '.
' N 'G ~ E U 7 ?)
E
' y~OG
U
'O N. O O p >`
~~
' UC
p:O N~~cO
ON
~. G O O C O. N y
°
'
E
p
f0
...
a° o c p~
~ a IC p a ~ d m
m
o ~ p o
-
E° ~n
p
a
i o
U O~ 'EO L E m~ v G`~ O- y y a °: °. U
` :° C G .D ~ N N d G •
°-:
p
-
.D ~ V N pF. 0~ N N N ~w
D o y
m2 0 0 ~ .
m.~:
~ 3,p.c.~;F~= ~
~U
=
'
>
m D. ~ ~ ~ y c v > ~ m
~
m
~3y°
° p v S ° c c ~ ~ ~:.
mp
Ec
°~ ~
w c
i >.~-. vi map
~ a.. a
1Om3a
vmGU~'mm
m
~ ~
T~
pc
a
N G
U [0 a y W ~D
~~
p a
$~
p~ O.
O U p l`C
U ;
m
N m N U O N m
p
C
.. y
.
c x~~Dpo~=~?~mm.:
p p
.
m~U~?m.aP?y~ N N O D. >
:
~~s:0'm3.pa~EZ
y~_.
O C
y a~ a y N N N N •O N
2
~ E y Z> ° O U .D
v
3D .
O F'.. ~p .C °. p O p G.L. O) t0 2
o
E
`D ~ x
y°Lp ~t~
p ~ c p °_ ~
y c
~ E
p° pm.
E
~>,c
o z p G
y rn
p vj m m.
~v _°2
.o~LL mLL~ d
m$ oa ~
`
.
.
C'
-
c~ '
~ ~ m o ~•~~o r
.
y y °m ~ Z rm t
m~.~ m~ ~ o y a`o ~~ v
p
p
:
m c
U Ern. ~r.av,cc'cirpn° ~~c°~m°~'~ .O°U~U°~amvEvo
•
0.~ pc~~yNC'ci~~~~~~ ~~hdEpd>,~ .E m~o~mco~~
o~
.
U O y N T ~~ ~ N N y [0 L N
p O C O y E (n O N C.
° 3
E O u' O W N > O~ O O C. O
p
ZZ I-
~~`o min`o m3rno `o. d'a cE c°iU°`oc
~. ¢ c
i~ o.~c:° 0.3 o.E E m
w
~ m
rn
O1
Off. U 'c c
` c
c
' ~
~ °ac
-D G O oc
lC p p~c.
~p C D
E O O)~p rn° O1~o.
F w °C2 ~`
' °G2
a, D'~~ ~
oy rn~y
O m v G
a
° C
O m v:
Q c
s.
U
-U'
~ O
y C
y Z J
_0
r
N
(~')
m m m m
C
O
r
d
O.
E
0
U
w
~ O1 o
~ O O
' o
•
C
a~
o N N N N
N.
.
a'c cp
E cp
E cq
E c0
E
N rn
rn
~ o~
rn
~ rn
rn
~ C rn
m
C U C
g
d C
C
C p,C C
C
C p_C C
C p, C W
C aC
K m y m m o m m° m m y m
and aoa aoa and
N ~
C N
C]
N zm
O d O) N N
p
N N
N d> .
N j -OO -.. y N~
~ 0I A N C i
'
•
a ~O a
' O p ~ C 3 v ~ d y
' N
~~ i ~ d ~
._+ U
m= 0~
S
~ d'~ VV N C O
'
C 2~o
rn ° x me m e c°
~
p
~
~ N
` N =
~ O C .
N O Y~ 0 =
C N p~ Of
Q C L
o
:~ ~> an. ~;a.v m d c w a rn ~cL•O~ ~ ~.E 3 0
'
N-~rn WUO°t°:Eo~' c o
mo3~c~m
~ N~ d Z ~ •3 .N C C L.. r~ •O I~ U C O V C~ y~ G
E~~p ~~w.y~2?~ vi
E moafOiLmp~CO.m
o c
i
m m ~
ao m ~ .
v ° ~
o o'~~ m
c
N
v
m
EdEm .~ o
.'~ic.~.U°ovi~.. -~
oN>, i ~ a
a
i
~
mc:oa~.pE. cm
rn.ma`m ayc°i_p=mma _~'~,
~ O/~~av°i~c°i~~~~
>
af0i'o-~
ia~O 3a~E
~:°-ac m`
-a~ ~.caymcv
v
i
c i
~
y
°' ° E
o
N a8m
c
mao.°E E
~
~°-
E
::Ua~_c2~~'X -yo
~o,E y°~co
L>."om
ao~aov~oo
~ 2 ` N
rn° -n~°
Z
t
~ 2
T
m o ~
v
{
pNL'-N N c~ a
i
aN d
o,c5 c~ n~ v
d. .
- w
t
.
a~
a'y~cN
mm~
`
O) U O ~c
~ O
U
O `mo
,._ N~ o
O O O U N O N O CO T..
` L
~T°N C
V O
~
~'NC~WQ.UN. 0-NN Ua~_.OC ~r°~
E
'
°
ap+c3
o
~~ ~rn°°mU20..
° Um° -
Q
oo.E
~
z
c
`ooco°~'
E S N
a c m •
U'c'CE aov
0
~
2 d>
ao~ .
.o-p. ~ cn a N w o
_
d~~y-p TO~v€
0)
d
~_ N z~
G O .~
° .
.~. O C r U U .
U
Z N C U _ C
°~ O C
V O N ~
O O N N
N
7 0 'O D) ~: ~ C~ Ol N
.
- m Z' a~ y
m
c o o c E o Z~
p
~E
~ z ~~ ~ m °~ ~ m v
m m m c
~
¢
"'
m
n
o-.o no d: ~,
~
om
Sm dc~-. oo o2c
~ y ° o
m
o
~'° o ~ ~~ n°
°
o o
C
v .
n.=.
-
U
E~a a
.~~gEQ co° •-cL~~==
m.c
E
~
~
~~LCy E.G>.
C:C.CN. ~O~ ~
c
io
N~O~N
C L ~+ U C p
C
'G d N
N~ O~ U
~ 7 l6
_ f0 N
N ~ N C
d°~ a N O C 'O U O
'
Z~
~2°:
3~~ m j
p
~::2 0
,v_o~y
mm ~°~
:smE oamorn
0;2N
aEo~"~oi
°
~~
E ~y
m
~m
°~'
O'
ac y
ma~
rvEo.~•o~m
~
o
o
~oEoo o~
o
°
S~o:~°U~oE v
U~m o
F-a~~c~~voa
a
c
O)
C O)
C O)
C N
~
OI 'C 'C 'C C
L J 'O C
N C O p~ C
~ C ~ p .D C
~ C O ~ C
~ O'.
E o~ m ~~ m m ~~ m m '~ rn'~
i- 'oc~ oc2 oc~ °2
D1~ N 01~ N O)~} N p N
O O) U O 0) U O O) U d U
.
7
O
~
d Z N ~ r
~ m m m m
0
a`
m
c
v
.~
O
H
m
W
m
0
a
f
Attachment -Item Plo. 3
SECTIO(V 4
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF
JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER
(NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER)
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION:
(A separate statement is required for each Code waiver)
PERTAINING TO:
Sections 18.74.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires Shat before any variance or Code waiver may be granted by the
Zoning Administmtor 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, mitt 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 variahce 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, topogmphy, location or
surroundings? X Yes _ No.
1f your answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstances:
OUc~ttl. rt2rGt+T 1 Nc'~4Rt.l '34'
2. Are the special circumstances that apply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the
same zone as your property? ~ Yes _ No
If your answer is "yes," describe how the p operty is different: {~' OPEIZ't/ES 'i~/ '7rlE /1llc~i4- :dr7N 711
~km~ ~.~ ; r°7~- tF5 r'$l~ r/ty t/,a2.n+~s ~ /scig5on15 ~E~az.~p AE3ov6
mfL. '8 ttA.Ji= A "1=L~f'r'fE~" 3C.®/-~ LOT
3. Do the special circumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring
properties located within the same zone7l~ Yes ~Na
Ifyour answeriF"yes;' describe the special ciroumstances: ~
4.
The sole purpose ofeny 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 end zone
which is not therwise er res out r' ed by zone regulations governing s bjetx property. Use variances are not permitted.
_ S'S ®S-
rgnature of Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE NO.
T
~QQ ~0. 2005 - 0 4 6' 5 5
fitf~ >'slvifzo,~rnt t3J't
Were the special circumstances created by:causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property
owners)1 QCYes:_No
SECTION 4
PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF
JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER
(NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER)
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION:
{A separate statement is required for each Code waiver)
PERTAINING TO:
Sections 18:03.040.030 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 caning 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 oC the following questions regarding the property for which a variance is sought, fully
and as completely as possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages.
Are there special circumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings? ~ Yes _ No.
answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstances: Yrf6 LXt S-Cf N G 5}{-err' &F y"H t3'
311Ti .JL.,fA Rr\A.nGOn/JLLV ~.dy.ee• ~,.~-r ./ I ....,.. .a_.i ~,~. i.....~s w...
2.
3.
4.
f~t20 t'E'tC-t I~ES . t
Are the special circumstances that apply to the property different fromother 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:
c/t.c.~ G~tI'rrRt't~ Gw ry,s ~ ~'Tr+ia i~7 m~ r~ercma~
Do the special circumstances applicable tq 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:
'Pr10(•'I?Yt-Tt'~S t~ 'TIiE YtLrhlt'Tu i~o h7dl
The sole purpose of any variance ar 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 vt o-ther~w' ex ress a thorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances are not permitted.
c-~~~E~~Z.o~E%t/ / ~~.t~ ZS O$-
Signature ofProperty Owner ar Authorized Agent Date
DECEMBER 12.2000
COND11'IONAL USE PERMffNARIANCE NO.
VAR NQ 2005 - 0 4 6 5 5
Were the sp cial circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property
owners)? ~ Yes _ No
Item No. 4
y.
/
5
='F RCL 9J-00.75
5J (Res. al lnl. to SE)
RCL 70.71-2fi
RGL 70.71-27
STADIUM PLAZA
BUSINESS PARK
SMALL IND.
FIRMS
I
RCL 99-00.15
(Res. o! Int. to SE)
RCL 66-67-14
RCL 590.23
T-CUP 2002-04578
T-CUP 2001-04446
CUP 2001-04441
CUP 1424
CUP 1307
VAR 3791
V-1779 S
AUTO REPAIR
6 RENTAL
a
w
y
RCL 70-77-27
I
SMALL IND. FIRMS
SINCLAIR ST
IND. FIRMS
h
~e
W
6H u
RCL 200460127 I
RCL 99-06-15
(RRCL 838419E) Q
RCL 70.71-28
RCL 70.71-27
h, VAR 339()
~~Z METROPLEX
F((~ OFFICE BLOC. P`IENU~
i`~~l +s
~`~ 61 7~ ~ .NS-`'t.7
,P?SS ~ \ F(Ras allot b19E ~ v, 'fs `"~ye f~"~ti~..
RCL 67-8&2fi ~ ~~ E.~.,~,~;~„s,F"
,y1• :^„ RCL 93-842d ~va ~„~ .~s~.s
RGlL. 990-06-Ut'S
(Res. of lnl. la SE)
RCL 90-91-ii
RCL 62-63-33
RCL 590.23
CUP 3363
CUP 2433
CUP 2257
STApIUM TOWER PLAZA
_ OFFICE BLDG.
6L
RCL
(Res. o
RCL
RCL
RCL
ATCy7SON
TppF
RCL 89-00.15 - ~'9Np 5, VACANT
(Res. of Inl. to SE) h,4~ ANTq FF
RCUP 24003 csTq rioN Rq2 y.AY
CUP 750
RCL 66-67-14
ANGEL STADIUM
ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE PTMU (PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY) ZONE
Variance No. 2005-04675 Subject Property
Date: March 20, 2006
Scale: Graphic
Requested By: THE SHOPS AT STADIUM TOWERS Q.S. No. 117
REQUEST WAIVERS OF: A MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES
B PERMITTED NUMBER OF TENANTS ON A MO NUMENT SIGN
C MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MONUMENT SIGNS
D MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF MONUMENT SIGN
E) PERMITTED NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS
F) PERMITTED LOCATION OF WALL SIGNS
G) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF LETTERS/LOGOS ON WALL SIGNS
TO WAIVE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND PERMITTED SIGNS.
2410-2420 East Katella Avenue -Stadium Towers Plaza
m
2135
Date of Aerial Photo: May 2002
Variance No. 2005-04675
Requested By: THE SHOPS AT STADIUM TOWERS
Subject Property
Date: March 20, 2006
Scale: Graphic
Q.S. No. 117
REQUEST WAIVERS OF: A MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES
B PERMITTED NUMBER OF TENANTS ON A MONUMENT SIGN
C MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MONUMENT SIGNS
D MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF MONUMENT SIGN
E PERMITTED NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS
F PERMITTED LOCATION OF WALL SIGNS
G) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF LETTERS/LOGOS ON WALL SIGNS
TO WAIVE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND PERMITTED SIGNS.
2410-2420 East Katella Avenue -Stadium Towers Plaza
2735
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 4
4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION. (Motion):
4b. VARIANCE NO. 2005-04675 (Resolution)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly-shaped, 2.4-acre property has a frontage of 600 feet on the south side of
Katella Avenue; a maximum depth of 480 feet ahd'is located 37 feeYeast of the centerline
of Howell Avenue (2410-2420 East Katella Avenue =Stadium Towers Plaza).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests waivers of the following pertaining to minimum number of parking
spaces and permitted signs for apreviously-approved commercial center:
(a) SECTION N0: 18:42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces l2?7
spaces required; 179 proposed and
recommended by the City's independent.
Parking and Traffic Consultant)
(b) SECTION NO. 18.44.080.060 Permitted number of tenant5on a monument
sic n (DELETED).:.
(c) SECTION N0: 18.44.090:010 Maximum number of monumenEsions
(DELETED)
(d) SECTION NO. 18.44.090.020 Maximum height of monument sign
(DELETED)
(e) SECTION NO 18.44.110:010.0102 Permitted number of wall signs:
- (DELETED)
r (f) SECTION NO: 18.44.110.010.0102 Permitted oration ofwall signs (Signs required
to be locatedbn frontage of tenant space;.
clustered signs' proposed)
(g) SECTION NO: 18.44.110.0103 Maximum height of letters/logos of wall signs
(?4 inches maximum permitted; 48 inches
proposed).
BACKGROUND:
(3) This item was continued from the January 23, February 6, February 22 and March 8. 2006,
Commission meetings inorder for the applicant to complete the parking study and revise
the sign program to reduce the number of advertised waivers.
(4) This property is currently developed with an office building and a freestanding restaurant
with a commercial center under construction; and is zoned C-G (General Commercial). The
Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Mixed Useland uses.: Surrounding
properties to the east, west and south are also designated for Mixed Use land uses, and to
the north (across Katella Avenue) for Office High IandUses.
sr-var2005-04675akv.doc
• Page 1
Staff Report to the.
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 4
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:
(5) The fallowing zoning actionspertairi to this property:
(a) Conditional Use Permit No. 2257 (to permit a commercial ofrice building) was approved
by the Planning Commission on September 9, 1981.
(b) Conditioria(Use Permit Nd. 2433 (to permit a 4-story office building with waiver of
minimum structural setback) was approved by the Planning Commission on April 18,
1983.
(c) Conditional Use Permit No. 2651 (to permit an 11-story hotel with on-sale of alcoholic
beverages and accessory uses and a 12 and 15-story high dffice complex) was
approved by the Planning Commission on January 7, 1985:
(d) Conditional Use Permit No: 3165 (to permit a commercial retail center and two (2)
freestanding restaurants with the on-sale of alcoholic beverages and waiver of required
site screeningpwas approved by the Planning Commission on June 5, 1989.
(e) Conditional Use Permit No. 3369 (to permit two (2) freestanding monument signs) was
approvedby the Planning Commission bn December 3; 1990.
(f) Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04966 (to permit a commercial retail center) was
approved by the Planning Commission on May 2,.2005: This retail center is under
construction and thisvaria~cebertains to this project.
DISCUSSION;
(6) On May 2, 2005, the Commission approved a two building, eight (8) unit, 15 361 square
foot commercial retail center: When the project was originally before the Commission, the.
businesses that would lease the new tenant spaces had not yet been determined, therefore
it was assumed that the entire center would tie for retail tenants: Since the original
approval, the developer has decided to lease td more restaurant and fast food uses than
originally anticipated and implementan outdoor dining area, which would increase the
parking demand fortlle retail center:
(7) Waiver (a) pertains to minimum number of parking spaces. Code requires 271 spaces.
based on the following chart:
Retail I 7,227 I 5.5 I 39.7
Fast Food 8,134..' 16 130.1
Restaurant
Full-Service
Restaurant 7,785 8 62.3
Hooters
Outdoor Dining. 2,400 16 38.4
TOTAL 271
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 4
(8) The site plan indicates a total of 179 spaces available on-site. The applicant has submitted
a parking study, prepared by Lrnscott, Law and Greenspan; dated February 22, 2006; to
substantiate the requested waiver: The City's Independent Parking and Traffic Consultant
has reviewed the. study and has determined that there would be sufficient parking for the
proposed, restaurant, fast-food and outdoor dining uses within the retail center.
(9) - Based on the City's Independent Parkingand Traffic Consultant's analysis, the parking
study demonstrates the following findings to substantiate the requested waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces:
(a) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any; will not cause fewer off-
streetparking spaces. to be provided for such use than the. number ofsuch spaces
necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal
and reasohable foreseeable conditions of operation ofsuch use.
"Finding supported. Using code parking ratios for the retail and Hooters
site components, plus a "design ratio" determined through extensive field
study of an existing QSR site, the peak parking demand requirement for The
Shops site (to include Hooters) totals 179 spaces. Parking supply will equal
that requirement with a 121•space lot on-site ahd 58 spaces within an
immediately adjoining easement area of Stadium Towers. Based on a code
calculation and shared parking projectioh for the office building as welt as
actual field"study of Stadium Towers parking lots and garage, that site has a
parking surplus welfln excess of the 58 spaces being offered in the
easement (code excess of over 200 spaces, and field study surplus of
approximately 400 spaces)."
(b) Thaf the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the
demand and competition for parking spaces uppn the publid streets in the
immediate bicinity of the proposed use.
"Finding supported. The parking needs of the site will be entirely supported
by on-site and easement spaces. No on-street parking demand will be
generated."
(cJ That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any,'will not increase the
demand for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed use.
"Finding supported. The parking plan includes 121 spaces on-site, and 58
spaces in an easement at Stadium Towers (from'which the shops site was
brigihally createdj. Between those two parking oomponehts totaling 179
spaces, theproject parking heeds will be fully satisfied."
(d) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any; will not increase trafFa
congestion within ttie off-street parking areas or lots provided for sucb use.
"Finding supported. The site plan creates a Shops on-site parking area that
is logical; served by two driveways along the Stadium Tower's circulation
"spine' ;and is ihter•hally looped (no "dead-end" aisles). The easement area
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 4
already exists in the Stadium Towers East Lot; is in close proximity to 'The
Shops, end is served by the'same circulation."spine"."
(e) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any; will not impede vehicular
ingress to or egress frbm adjacent properties upon the public streets in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed use.
"Finding supported. Access to the combined Stadium Towers-The Shops
site, and adjoining Colton site [office building to the west], is via a
signalized intersection on Katella Avenue opposite Howell Avenue. Based
on the Figure 1 (attached) site plan, and on-site circulation improvements
depicted therein, thafacdess fs throated (hd drivewaycohhection) for more
than 250 feet south of Katella Avenue, where a Shops driveway access will
aligh opposite a Stadium Towers internal circulation Yoad in an intersection
with the "spine" road. That "spine" represents a mihorYealignment of
existing Stadium Towers circulation roadways to create a continuous,
single, ihternal roadway alighment between Katella and the East Lot, and
beyond to the: parking structure."
(10) Sign plans (Exhibit Nos.i through 10) proposed the following identification signs:
Sign Type Location Maximum Height Maximum Height
` Pro osed' 'Permitted
SignType A-wall North ahd south `36-inch logo, 24- ' 24-inches both
elevatioh of inch letters '. .logo and letter
<' Building A (parallel height
to Katella Avenue
Sign Type B- wall East elevation of 36-inctrlogo, 24- ' 24-inches both
Building B f' inch letter Idgo and letter
(perpendicular to fieight
Katella Avenue
Sign Type C -wall Clustered on the` 32-inch logo, 21- 24-inches both
' west elevation inch letter fieight ` Idgo andletter
(facing driveway height
into development),
of Buiidin B
Sign Type D -wall East and West 48-inch logo,' 24-inches logo
elevatioh of maximum 16 s.f. height
Building A and
north elevation of
8uildin B
Monument Sign Alohg Katella 8 feet high.' ' 8 feet high..
Avenue frohta e
"BOLD indicates waiver required.
(11) ` Waivers (b), (c), (d) and (e) have been deleted. The applicant has revised the original sign
program ih order to minimize the number of waivers requested.
(12) Waiver (f) pertains to the permitted location of wal(signs. Code requires that wall signs be
Ibcated on the building walls'of the tenant space'.`The sign program presented for the
buildingbriented' perpendidular to Katella Avenue in this retail center includes a clustering
of wall signs at the northwest corner of the building on the rear elevation (west elevation
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 4
facing the driveway leading into the center) in order to provide visibility to Katella Avenue
and to the entrance of the center as illustrated below.- Clustered signs wbuld be only for,
the retail tenants within that particular building: Staff is supportive of this waiver since the
irregular shape of the propertywouldmake it difficult to identify tenants if the signs were
located directly over each tenant space. The southerly end of the building and the tenant
signs for the southammost units would tie located too far from Katella Avenue to be visible.
G._~....._ ~.. a.a o
-- -
~9piTp~C.Sa4Ptls '
BuHd'utn B' west gevot(on
S~c9f32'=F'W%.
Wesfelevationbf Building B facing main entrance driveway with clustered wall
"signs
He~
4
t
uCA,io-'B'Wa1EbwHm,
=Se1e~l(1'~i'-0!
fggWTfs CYL~DIdAiIg1
Clustered~wall signs (waiver (f))
(t 3) ; Waiver (g) pertains to the maximum letter/logo height of wall signs: Code allows for a
maximum letter/logo height of 24 inches'and the applicant is proposing signs with 36-inch
logos on the north (facing Katella Avenue) and south elevation (facing parking lot) of the
building parallel to Katella Avenue; and the east elevation (facing parking loq for the
building perpendicular to Katella Avenue.+ One (1) internal wall sign for each. tenant (facing
- the parking lot). is proposed:. In' addition; one 48-inch logo is proposed at the east and west
.elevation of Building A and on the north elevation of Building B and 32-inch logos area
proposed for the clustered sign on the west elevation of Building B. Staff is supportive of
this request and believes that the size of the proposed wall signs is proportionate to the
building elevations. Additionally, the 32-inch, 36-inch and 48-inch logos would increase the
visibility from Katella Avenue.
Page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: ,
(14) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copyof which is available for review
in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impacfand, therefore,
recommends tFiafa Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning
Commission that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; .and
that it hasbohsidered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments
received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial
Studyand anybammerits received that there is ho substantial evidence that the project will
haven significant effect on the environment.
FINDINGS:
(15) Sectioh 18.42.110 bf the parking ordinance sets forth the following findings; which are
required to be made before a parking waiver is approved by the Planning. Commission:
(a) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-
streetparking spaces to be providetl for such use than the humberof such
spaces necessary to accommodate ell vehicles attributable to such use under
the normal ahd reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use; and.
(b) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the
demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed use; and
(c) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the
demand end competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed use (whidnproperty is not expressly provided
as parking for suchUSe under an agreement in compliance with Section
18.42.050.030 of this Code); and
(d) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, ifany, will not increase traffic
congestion within the off-streefparking areas or lots provided for such use; and
(e) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular
ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the.
immediate vicinity of the proposed use.
Unless conditions to the contrary are expressly imposed upon the granting of any waiver
pursuant to this Section by the Planning Commission; the granting of any such waiver '
shall be deemed contingent upon operation of such use in conformance with the
assumptions relating to the operation and intensity of theUSe as contained in the parking
demand studythat formed the basis for approval'of'said waiver. Exceeding; violating,
intensifying orotherwise tleviating from any of said assumptions as contained in the
parking: demand'study shall be deemed aviolation of the expressbonditibns imposed
upon said waiverwnidh snail subject said waiver to termination or modification pursuant to
the provisions bf Chapter 18.60bf this Code.
(16) When practical difficulties o[ unnecessary hardships result from strict enforcement of the
Zoning Code, a modification may be granted for the purpose of assuring that no property;
because of special circumstances applicable to it, shall be deprived of privileges:
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The sole purpose of
Page 6
. Staff Report to the
Planning Commission.
March 20, 2006.
Item No. 4
any waiver into prevent discrimination and none shall be approved which would have the
effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other similar properties. Therefore, ,
before any waiver is granted by the Commission, it shall be shown:
(a) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size;
shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other
identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and...
(bp That strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
RECOMMENDATION:
(17) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the
evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission take the following actions;
(a) By motion, approve a Negativebeclaration for the project.
(b) By resolution, approve in part. Variance No. 2005-04675 pertaining to minimum
number of parking spaces and permitted signs for apreviously-approved
commercial center by adopting the attached resolution including the findings and
conditions contained therein and taking the following actions:
(i) Approve waiver (a) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces
(271 spaces required; 179 proposed) based on the findings outlined in
the parking study approved by the City's Independent Traffic Consultant.
(ii) Denv waivers (b), (c), (d) and (e) since they have been deleted.
(iii) Aoorove waivers (f) and (gJ pertaining to permitted location of wall signs
and maximum letter height:
Page l
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006--""
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2005-04675 BE GRANTED, IN PART
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Variance.
for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as:
PARCEL A: PARCELS 1, 2, 3 ANp 4 OF PARCEL MAP 90-232, AS SHOWN ON A
MAP FILED IN DEED BOOK 278, PAGES 7, 8, AND 9 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
PARCEL B: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THAT PORTION OF
PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT NO. 139
RECORDED NOVEMBER 1, 1985 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 85-423458 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIBED LAND:
BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 3, AS SHOWN ON A MAP
FILED IN BOOK 196, PAGES 8 AND 9 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 34° 23' 42" EAST
ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3 AND ITS SOUTHEASTERLY
PROLONGATION, 309.49 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
PARCEL 3; THENCE SOUTH 00° 00' 11" EAST 106.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 59' 49"
WEST 67.60 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 51 FEET
EASTERLY FROM THE LINE COMMON TO PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF SAID PARCEL MAP
HAVING A BEARING AND DISTANCE OF NORTH 00° 00' 11" WEST 371.55 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00° 00' 11" WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE 89.68 FEET TO A
POINT IN A LINE'PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY 32.50 FEET FROM
THE SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE LINE COMMON TO SAID PARCELS 1
AND 2 HAVING A BEARING AND DISTANCE OF NORTH 34° 23' 42" WEST 147.57 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 34° 23' 42" WEST, ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE 284.77 FEET TO A
POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF KATELLA AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID
PARCEL MAP, SAID POINT BEING. IN THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 940.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY
65.01 FEET ALONG THE AREA OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3°
57' 46" TO THE POINT OF BEGINNINGS, AS CREATED BY THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT
FOR MUTUAL INGRESS AND EGRESS EXECUTED BY l.C. SMULL RECORDED
OCTOBER 7, 1985 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 85-382822, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL C; NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR INGRESS. AND EGRESS FOR
PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, UNDERGROUND UTILITIES; SURFACE.
WATER DRAINAGE AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES AS DEFINED AND
OVER THOSE AREAS AS DESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 2 OF THE DECLARATION OF
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED JULY 2, 1986 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 86284304, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL D: NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS, PARKING
UTILITIES AND CONSTRUCTION PURPOSE AS DEFINED AND OVER THOSE AREAS AS
DESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 2 OF THE DECLARATION ESTABLISHING EASEMENTS AND.
MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS (STADIUM TOWERS PLA7_A) RECORDED DECEMBER 19,
1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 94-0722696., OFFICIAL RECORDS.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the.
City of Anaheim on March 20, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as
CR\PC2006-0 -1- PC2006-
required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60
"Procedures', to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection; investigation and study made by itself
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes waivers of the following pertaining to minimum number of parking
spaces and permitted signs for apreviously-approved commercial center.
(a) SECTION NO.18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces l2?7
(b) SECTION NO: 18.44.080.060
spaces required; 179 proposed and
recommended by the City's Independent
Parking and Traffic Consultant)
Permitted number of tenants on a monument
Sion (DELETED)
(c) SECTION NO. 18.44.090.010
(d) SECTION NO. 18.44.090.020
(e) SECTION NO. 18.44.110.010.0102
(f) SECTION NO. 18.44.110.010.0102
(g) SECTION NO. 18.44.110.0103
Maximum number of monument signs
(DELETED)
Maximum height of monument sign
(DELETED)
Permitted number of wall signs
(DELETED) ,
Permitted location of wall sions (Signs required
to be located on frontage of tenant space;
clustered signs proposed)
Maximum height of letters/logos of wall signs
24 inches maximum permitted; 36 to 48 inches
proposed)
2. That the above mentioned waivers (b), (d); (d) and (e) are hereby denied since they have
been deleted.
3. That the above-mentioned waivers (f) and (g) are hereby approved as the site is uniquely
constrained by its irregular shape: The proposed buildings are aligned uniquely due to the shape of the
property thereby limiting proper tenant identificatidn to those tenants that are directly visible to the tight-of-
way. Additionally, the wall signs would not be visible to Katella Avenue without larger logo height and
clustering of the signs at the ends of each retail building. Strict application of the zoning code would deprive
the property of privileges enjoyed by properties that do not have these site constrains.
4. That the above-mentioned waiver (a) is hereby approved based upon the submitted parking
analysis prepared by Linscott, Law and Gteenspah; dated February 22, 2006. The City's independent Traffic
Consultant has reviewed the parking analysis and has determined that the proposed parking area referenced
in the study would be sufficient for the proposed uses on the property.
5. That the parking waiver; under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street
parking spaces to be provided. Using code parking ratios for the retail and Hooters site components, plus a
"design ratio" determined through extensive field study of an existing retail site, the peak parking demand
requirement for The Shops site (to include Hooters) totals 179 spaces. Parking supply will equal that
-2- PC2006-
requirement with a 121-space lot on-site and 58 spaces within an immediately adjoining easement area of
Stadium Towers. Based on a code calculation and shared parking projection for the office building as well as
actual field study of Stadium Towers parking lots and garage, that site has a parking surplus well in excess of
the 58 spaces being offered in the easement (code excess of over 200 spaces, and field study surplus of
approximately 400 spaces).
6: That the waiver, under the conditions imposed; if any, will not increase the demand and
competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because
the parking needs of the site will be entirely supported on-site and through easement spaces.
7. That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand for
parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. The parkirig
plan includes 121 spaces on-site, and 58 spaces in an easement at Stadium Towers (from which the shops
site was originally created). Between those two parking components totaling 179 spaces, the project parking
needs will be fully satisfied.
8. That the waiver; under the cohditions imposed, will not increase traffic congestion within the
off-street parking areas or lots provided for such use since the site plan creates a Shops on-site parking area
that is logical, served by two driveways along the Stadium Tcwers circulation"spine", and is internally looped
(no "dead-end" aisles). The easement area already exists in the Stadium Towers East Lot, is in close
proximity to The Shops, and is served by the same circulation."spine".
9. ' 'That "" indicated their presence at said publichearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition. '
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to waive (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (f) permitted
location of wall signs, and (g) maximum height of letters/logos on wall signs for apreviously-approved
commercial center; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaratioh
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 fiave a
significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission dbes
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
gene~alwelfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: '
1. That the signage for subject retaitcenter shall be limited to that showh on the exhibits submitted by
the petitioner. The cluster wall signs (Sign Type C) shall be permitted only for the tenants located
within that building.
2. That the granting of the parking waiver is contingent upon operation of the use in conformance with
the assumptions and/or conclusions relating to the operation and intensity of use as contained in the
parking demand study that formed the basis for approvalbf said waiver: Exceeding, violating,
intensifying or otherwise deviating from any of said assumptions andlor conclusions, as contained in
the parking demand study, shall be deemed a violation of the expressed conditions imposed upon
said waiver which shall subject this variance to termination or modification.
3. That an unsubordinated restricted covenant providing reciprocal access and parking (for 58 spaces),
in a form satisfactory to the City Attorriey's Office, shall be recorded with the Office of the County
Recorder and submitted to the Planning Services Division.
3- PC2006-
4. That the subject property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with the
sign plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are'.
on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1-10, and as conditioned herein.:
5. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that
it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal
regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and
all of the conditions hereinabove set forth, Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared
invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competentjurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related
to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or
prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges
shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application;
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of March
20, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Procedures" of the
Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution
in the event of an appeal
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY QF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF ANAHEIM... 1
I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission
held on March 20, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
2006.
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-4- PC2006-
Attachment -Item No. 4
robinson hill architecture, inc.
January 16, 2006
Ms. Amy Vazquez
City of Anaheim
Planning Department
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Ste 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Re: Shops at Stadium Towers
Parking and Sign Variance
VAR2005-x4675
Ms. Vazquez,
~5\61118191p
2/~j,
JAN 2006 ti
REGENE® rn
~EPRft71dFNf tiv .
~~
Per your conversation with Bryon Wazd last Friday, January 12, we are writing to
emphasize the importance of the end-cap signage for the tenants in suites Al and B1. We
have provided herein a written explanation of the importance of the end-cap signs for
both of these tenants as they relate to the overall retail center design.
The Shops at Stadium Towers Retail Center not only serves as a gateway of the Platinum
Triangle Planning District, but also as a support amenity to the Class "A" Stadium Office
Towers adjacent to ow subject property. As such, ow project is intended to serve as a
high quality food and shops court that attracts a variety of professional patrons. To this
end, we have targeted our mazketing effort to the national and name brand tenants.
Exposure is a primary concern to any quality national tenant and especially important to
our proposed end-cap tenants for suites Al (west end-cap) and B1 (north end-cap):
As is the case with most retail projects, the visibility of the signage from the street is most
effective when the sign is perpendiculaz to the street as Apposed to parallel, thus the
proposed building signage on the backside of Building "A" is most visible to vehicles
traveling on Katel;a-:Ave;,Ance thewehicles::are passing the centeror just past it since the
signs are parallel to the street. The visibility of these signs is most effective to vehicles
while traveling in the Westbound direction coming from the freeway, and less effective to
vehicles while they are approaching the center from the East. This lack of advanced
visibility from the Eastbound lanes is accentuated due to the uphill grade along Katella
Ave. as a result of the railroad overpass just west of our project site. Coming down the
Eastbound lanes, the Building "A" signs will not be visible to patrons until the entrance
to the project has been passed or are until they aze right next to the center and it becomes
too late to enter. The end-cap sign for Building "A" is meant as a solution to help
overcome this issue,. as vehicles will have more of an advanced warning of the tenant
exposwe. The same could be said of the Building "B" tenants.
A California Corporalian
3195 B Airport tmp Drina
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
www.rhainc.net
Telephone: 714. 825.8888 • Facsimile: 714. 825.8889
While traveling Westbound down Katella Ave., the view to the Building "B" tenant
signage is hindered to vehicles because the building storefronts are partially blocked by
Building "A". The building signage is only visible to those vehicles traveling Eastbound
on Katella and this view would only be of the cluster sign at the backside of the building.
An end-cap sign on Building "B" will provide added identity to the end-cap tenant far
similaz reasons as Building "A". This sign will also give advanced visibility for vehicles
crossing into the intersection or coming straight towards the center from Howell Ave.
This request is of such importance to the retail center that the owner has authorized the
withdrawal of the following previously requested waivers in trade for the mutual
cooperation from the city on the two end-cap signs described above:
i. Monument sign:
a. Withdraw waiver requesting height increase above the 8'-0" height
requirement.
b. Withdraw waiver requesting increase of tenant panels from (3) panels per
side to (6) panels per side.
(In short, we aze proposing to proceed with a Monument Sign at the 8'-0"
maximum height and with a limit of (3) tenant signs per side which both meet city
code.)
2: End-Cap signs
a. Withdraw waiver requesting a permit for an end-cap sign. at the East end-
cap of Building "A" and South end-cap of Building "B".
(In short, we are only requesting a waiver for the West end-cap on Building "A"
and North end-cap on Building "B".)
This exposure will not only ensure the tenants individual success, but also promote
branding for our center which is important for its ong term success as part of the
Platinum Triangle Planning District.
We look forwazd to answering any questions you may have
Sincerely,
RI•IA, Inc.
Peter Louis
Project Manager
Cc: Mr. Bryon Ward (G&E)
Mr. John Hil] (RHA)
robinson hill architecture, inc. °
Item No. 5
RM3 RM-4
RCL 7471-11 RM-4 RCL 62-63-78
VAR 2199 4 DU EACH CUP 375
EL MIRADOR VAR 2990 -.... ......
APARTMENTS CONDO
29 DU 68 DU
RM4
RCL 73-7412
VAR 2544
APARTMENTS
125 DU
~ RM-4
U
4
RCL fit-63-104
~ Z CUP 407
0 Q
0
K ~
w ~
3 ~
z
~ ~ 374 _
~ 4 ~ LLI VAR 11 B7
LIM'115 2.0? ~` t s
~
~
'~
PP UM 15 N~
~
2
58
1 N ~ VAR 1197
BUEN
PM 011
~E ^%
~
c
:: RCL 6
30 EZ *
6
i
~
- a AR 18
pNA r `
-°
-a :`~
CUR 2008-0508fi
„
~
y VAR 3555
G~" SPRING LAKE ~ 2
APARTMENTS t~ U
~
Cp
O. _~ ~
54 DU F
w !~ RS-2
F
I Z 1 DU CH
I o m
m Y R _2
rv ti
O~ ~~ '- I 1 DU CH
RCL 87^08-33 ~
mm z
~!~`~~
I y
I "'e~z Nmz m
~
w° o OL
ROME AVE
VAR 3739 ~ ~~< m
w YnN ~~o ~~dN~° ~~kzx
VAR 1611 U>a
0= < I ~ ~~ ~'N ¢n~¢m n~ w
t'70 ~JQ Q1-N ~6Q ~ANO~~ J
0_
AP ARTMENTS »Q ~>Q ~JQNK~
~ w RS-2
~. ~
~>o: ii ° ~ 1 DU EACH
O
¢ ~
r
I
SAVANNA ST RS-2
'~
M 1 DU EACH
iae-2 RM-3 I~ N
364E
13127 RCL 79-80.02 tDU iCR IUD w J RM-2 m
~
~Q~
W RCL 2801-00059
} (RCS.. OFI e0l
Q Io RS-7200)
RM-0
~°K
RM-2 RM-0
~rv
~
m
TCI1P 2001-04492
n
~j VAR 3097
APARTMENTS RCL B}84-23
VAR 3364 ~
i
~
'RCL 60.81-04 RCL 618624 Q~u
AVANNA VILLA ~
~~
~
4 VAR 1845
Z eDU
VAC NT a"a
VAR 3163
r
it
a
CONDOS APARTMENTS °»J~ww
ed`80 d' 10 DU 28 DU UU~U°~W
(0 RCL 2001-00059
T-CUP 2001-04492 ~
Q
~ CUP 2001-04453
RM-3 18 OU
RODU~H p~
N
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05066 _~ rf ~ Subject Property
Tentative Tract No. 17016 Date: March 20, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: BRIAN DROR Q.S. No. 2
729 South Knott Avenue
10003
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 5
5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion for Continuance).
5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05066
5c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17016.
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly-shaped, 1.47-acre property has a frontage of 150 on the west side of Knott.
Avenue, a maximum depth of 374 feet, and is located 193 feet north of the centerline of
Rome Avenue (729 South Knott Avenue).
REQUEST:
(2) The petitioner requests approval of the following:
(a) Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05066 - to convert a 54-unit apartment complex into
a 54-unit residential condominium complex under authority of Code Section Nos.
18.06:030.090 and 18.38.100.020.
(b) Tentative Tracf Map No. 17016 - to establish a 1-lot 54-unit attached residential
condominium subdivision.
BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is developed with an apartment complex and is within the RM-4 (Residential;
Multiple Family) Zone: The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Medium
Density Residential land uses. The Anaheim General Plan designates prdperties to the
south for Medium Density Residential land uses; properties to the east (across Knott
Avenue) for Low Density Residential land uses, properties to the west for Low-Medium
Density Residential land uses, and properties to the north for Water Uses:
(4) The applicant, Rey`Berona, has submitted the attached letter dated March 13, 2006,
requesting a continuance to the April 3, 2006, Commission meeting in order to complete
renderings of the plans for the public hearing.
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:
(5) Variance No. 3555 to construcfa 54-unit apartment complex (with waiver of maximum
structural height within 150 feet of a single family residential zone (one story permitted, two
stories proposed within 11 feet of a single family residential zone) was approved by the
Planning Commission on April 28, 1986.
RECOMMENDATION:
(6) That the Commission, by motion, continue this item to the Apri(3, 2006, Planning
Commission meeting.
CUP05066 PC032006 SRJR
:Page 1
Fle:///H~/CASES/Conditional°/n20Use%20Pertnit/CUP2006-05066/ATT%20032006/ATT"/201%°20-%20Continuance%20Request%20 "/20032006.txt
From: Rey Berona [rberona@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 11:06 AM
To: John Ramirez
Subject: 729 Knott Hearing
Hi John,
Attachment -Item No. 5
Per our conversation, this is to request an extension of the scheduled hearing for the 729 Knott condo
conversion project from March 20, 2006 to April 3, 2006.
Thanks in advance.
Rey Berona, Condo Conversion Consultant
Cell:(7l4)595-9809 Fax: (714)459-7360
Webster http://rberona:com
file:///H~/CASES/Conditional%20Use%20PermiVCUP2006-0.../A'IT%201%20%20Continuance°/20Requcst%20-%20032006.txt3/13/2006 7:40:36 AM
Item No. 6
' ' ' ' J l I I I I I
~J l
CRESCENT AVENUE -
°°m°°®°°®°°®°°®°°®°°°
,~
r
rLUP 2oo1-an3e
cuP Z5z1 ~- RM-4
vna ioe5 T w RCL 200D-OOD~
CUP 194 .
h RCL 63-64-58
o CHURGN
o1-0<305
rcuP 2 ~ CUP SD3
CUP 1375
N
T ~ VAR 177D
N CUP 2521
I
STI
UTE
_
E ='
~
~ TLUP 2001-0G305
-- ~ CUP 2521 m
~a
Li i
U c
r ~ CUP 194
IT CIR
Reclassification No. 2006-00174
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05064
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-156
Requested ey: SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST
GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH
321, 405, 425, 431, 509 and 511 North Dale Avenue
BAYLOR AVE
RS-2
1 DU EAC
\ IR
iDU
x
U
~
J, CORNELL PL
~~
N
RS-2 ~
1 DU EACH a
W
~
O
Z = U
1rD \ N V
~
'~ Q ~ STANLEY PL
W D
J .-
Q
f]
RS-2
1 DU EACH
x
QUQ
yw
~~
O
RUSSELL PL
' RS-2 1
1 DU EACH
~> " Subject Property
Date: March 20, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 12
loooa
s
Dale of Aerial Photo:
July 2005
Reclassification No. 2006-00174
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006=05064
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-156
Requested By: SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST
GREEK ORTHODOX OHUROH
Subject Property
Date: March 20, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 12
321, 405, 425, 431, 509 AND 511 North Dale
tooaa
Staff Report to the
' Planning Commission
March 20, 2006.
Item No. 6
6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion)
6b: RECLASSIFICATIONNOz2006-00174 (Resolution),
6c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT <(Motion)
6d: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05064 (Resolution)
6e. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NOr 2005-156 (Mdtion)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly-shaped 4.9-acre property has a frontage of 767 feet on the west side of Dale
`Avenue, a maximum'tleptn of 376. feet, and is located 668 feel south of the centerline of
Crescent Avenue (321; 405, 425; 431, 509 and 511 North Dale Avenue).
Portion A
This irregularly-shaped 2.8-acre property has a frontage of 332 feet on the west side of Dale
Avenue, a'maximum'depth of 376 feet, and is located 483 feel north of the centerline of Yale.
Avenue (405 North Dale Avenue):
Portion B
This irregularly-shaped 0.93-acre property has a frontage of 173 feet on the west side of
Dale Avenue a maximum depth of 234 feet, and is located 111 feet south of the centerline of
Baylor. Avenue (509 and 511 North Dale Avenue).
REQUEST:
(2) TFie applicant requests approval'of the following:
Reclassification No. 2006-00174- to reclassify Portions A and B of the property from the T
(Transition) zone to the RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) zone; or mess intense zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05064 - td expand'an existing 6;feek-9rH3edex Church to
permit anew administration building; multi-purpose hall and religious scnoot under authority
of Code Section No 18.04.030.040 with waives of the following:
(a) SECTION NO: 18.04.070:010 Maximum'structural heioht
(35 feefpermitted; 39 feet 4-inches proposed)
(b) SECTION NO. 18:42.040.01b Minimum number of parking spaces
492 required; 195 proposed and recommended
by the City's Independent Traffic Consultant)
Tentative Parcel Mao No. 2005=156- to combine siz lots into one lot.
BACKGROUND:
(3) The property at 405 North Dale Avenue is currently developed with an existing church and
is zoned T {Transition): The adjoining five additional properties (four existing houses and
bne empty lot at 321, 425; 431; 509 and 511 Nortfi bale Avenue)located north and south
of the existing churchproperty are zohad RS-2 (Residential Single-Family (321, 425 and
431 North Dale Avenue) and T (Transition) (509'and 511 Nortfi Dale) and are not currently
used by the church. The five additional tots are proposed to be demolisfied to provide
room for the expanded facility: The Anaheim General Plandesignates'ths property and alf
surrounding properties for Low Density Residential land uses..
SrcuP2006-05064
Page f
View of existing church and existing. multi-purpose hall
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:
(4) The following zoning actions have occurred oh 405 North bale Avenue, there are no prior
zoning actions on the other properties;
(a) Conditional Use Permit No.14ti9 (to permit the construction of a'church and
fellowship halt and permit the cbntinued use of existing classroom facilities with
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces 486 required; 137 proposed'and
waiver of maximum building height adjacent to a residential use 35 to 49 feet
permitted; 50 to 54 feet proposed) was approvedby the Planning Commission on
May 29,..1974; deleting the waver of minimum number of parking spaces as it was
determined to be unnecessary since the minimum number of parking spaces is
based upon the number of seats ih the sanctuary only::
(b) Conditional Use Permit No. 941 (to temporarily permifchurch offices, a language
school and limited church services in an existing residential structure, and the
eventual construction bf permanent church facilities on a portion of subject property)
was approved by the Planning Commission on May 8, 1967. The applicant
submitted revised plans to enlarge and enclose an existing patio structure for use
as a temporary place of worship for the duration of the conditional use permit until
the final church was built. On September 25, 1967, Planning Commission approved
those plans as being substantially in conformance with the. plans driginally;
submitted.' One extension of time has been granted, and expired on May 8, 1973.
Th(s entitlement is no longer needed and a condition has been added for its
termination
(c) Conditional Use Permit No. 786 (to establish a church :edifice and educational unit
on an L-shaped portion of the site) was approvedby the Planning Commission on
November22, 1965: This entitlement is no longer needed and a condition has been
added for its termination.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
(5) The applicant proposes to reclassify Portions A (405 North Dale Avenue) and B (509 and
511 North Daie Avenue) of the property from the T (Transition) zone to the RS-2 (Single-
..Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 6
Family Residential) zone as identified below. The remaining properties for the proposed
expansion are currently zoned RS-2 (Residential Single Family).
~~ ~ ate. ~~~
' ,~ ~~~' ~ ~~sn 5
e
Portion B - stl' ~ '
509 & 511 VE
- ~e N: bale ,~~ , l,;. , ~~ , ,
~ m, ...+
°g e ~ _m.egu vi I..r"
~ ~ "
j w gym. ;,, ~ . ~ ~,+ . m
~....,r.
t ii ye v
.yips ~•drNitEY. ie t[e-.
k
portion A I ; R ,Ix~
405 N Dale ' iR < ~'~
e a a r
~, Existing,Church ~ -
y~~ }f in d ary`~
d : - o -v G q,~ Y~ ew l ER ,.~.
y M i +~ ~MONROE w~•.
~ ~n,~ A.:v rnw
- - o~ k , ~ ~ y,m ~~* o n~', ,-~ '. 1 i~
(li) The applicant Is requesting approval of a tentative parcel map to combine six parcels into
one parcel and a conditional use permit tb'demolish an existing?10,000 square foo~multi-
purpose and administrative office building,; retain the existing 7;528 square foot sanctuary
and construct onetwo=storyi 53,870 square foot building and a'2,224 square footdetached
storage building for a total of 56;094 square feet of new construction. The tentative parcel
map is a technical requirement to combine the six (6) existing legal lots into one legal lot.
Typically this type of action is addressed through a lot line adjustment and included as a
condition of approval:: Because the number of lots to be combined is greater than what can
be accommodated through the lot line adjustment process (a maximum df fou~ldts), a
tentative,parcel map is necessary.
Page 3
~~~' ~a~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~~ " ~~ode s~~~~z ~ ;~~~ ~'`God~'~' -s
~ ~i~~c
t~o
'~~ ~
~ei~t~ire~dlPrap
osed w Requrd(Pr~o~OO~ed
~
~
~
~
~;; ~
~
8uiltiirXg
Setbac}c'~,
~ Landsca a SetEacle~:
rt ,
. r , , ~~ .~~ ,
. „~ =.
~
~~ ~
w
North (adjacent to smgie- 15 feetl65 feet 15 feeV15 feet
family residence)<:
15 feet/225 to 305 feet:
15 feet/15 feet
South (adjacent tosingle-
family residence) 15 feet/15 feet
far detached storage 15 feeU15 feet
buildln
West (adjacent to single- 25 feet/120 to 180 feet 15 feeU15 feef
family residence)`.
East (adjacent to Dale 25 feet/25 to 35 feet. 25 feet/25 to 35 feet
Avenue}
Page 4
Staff Report to the.
Planning Commission:
March 20, 2006
Item No. 6
(8) The floor plans (Exhibit Nos. 7 and 3) indicate an existing 7,528 square foot 600-seat
church building and anew two story 53,870 square foot building consisting of, a
gymnasium, vestibule; storage a~ea,'kitcfien; ~estrooms, meeting rooms, gift shop/book
store, classrooms, and nursery rooms on the first floor and glassrooms, meeting rooms,
stdragearea, mechanical equipment rooms, multi-purpose rdom and the priest living area
on the second floor. The 2,224 square foot storage building. would consist of one open
room.
(8) `The elevation plans(Exhibit Nos. 4, 5 and 6) indicate a two story, 35-foot high building with
a maximum height of 39 feet 4-inches for an architectural projection (dome) and two roof
peaks between 37 to 38 feet in height. Elevatidn plans further indicate that the building
would consisEof white stucco, precast stone columns, clay file roofing and a gold dome
matching the existing dome on the church building. A covered walkway patio with the
same clay file roof would be providetl in the courtyard area sduth of the proposed multi-
purpose building connecting the new building to the existing church. Plans further indicate
a`one-story, 21 foot high storage building (with the same architectural treatment as the
main structure) located 15 feet from the south property Ilne.
(9) The site plan and landscape plan (Exhibit Nos. 1 and 6) indicate a 25 to 35 foot wide
tandscaped settiacK along Dale Avenue and a 15-foot wide landscaped setback adjacent to
'north; south and west propertylines adjacent to single-family residences in conformance
-with code:: Plans further indicate tftata new 6-foot high block wall planted withBdston Ivy:
clinging vines will be provided®long the expanded property areas adjacent to the north and:
south property lines: The setbackarea along Dale Avenue would contain (41) various trees
including Crape Myrtle, Coast Live Oak; Strawberry Tree, Date Palms; Afghan Pines, Olive
Trees andJtalian Cypress trees, with shrubs consisting of New Zealand Flax, Sweet Bay,
Giant Bird of Paradise, Purple: Hopseed Bush and Indian Hawthorn, Thepropdsed ground
oover wduld consist of Star Jasmine; Lily of the Nile and French Lavender. Code requires
one tree fdrevery 201ineal feet of street frontage (38 treesaldng Dale Avenue): The 15-
footwide landscape areas along the north; south and west property lines would consist of
- existing Cupressus and Rdbina, trees, new Afghan Pine; Purple Orchid, Italian Cypress
andbate Palm treeswitbshrubs consisting of Purple Hopseed Bush, Sweet Bay and
ground cover consisting of Lily'of the Nile and False Heather: Plans further indicate that in
compliance with Code'requirements rees have been;provided in planter areas at the ratio
of one (1) tree per 3,000 square feetof parking area withan average of forty-eight (48)
square feet of planter. area provided per required tree and a minimum planter dimension of
five (5) feet. The landscape plans also indicate Iendscaping, a fountain and decorative
paving in the bourtyard area between the church building and the multi-purpose building
and landscaping in the playground area adjacent to the school portion of the building. The
applicant has also submitted a photometridplan (Exhitiit No: 9) which indicates that none of
the parking lot lights would be located within the 15 foot landscaped setback adjacent to the
single family residential properties and that tfie lighting would be contained bn-site:
(10) ' Vehicular access to the site is provided via three (3) 25-foot wide driveways; one existing
driveway, one proposed drop off/pick up circular driveway and one new driveway from Dale
Avenue. Plans indicate a total of 195 proposed oh-site parkingspaces for this property.
Code requires 492 spaces based on the following:.
~`, Else r Square Feet GadeRaEkingRequirepent(per1,QODsf)~ ~ ~Parking;Required
~~ , . ~~ a ~ F ~ ~ Q, w
Existing Sanctuary 600 seats 29 spaces per 1,OOD square feeTof assembly 218 (based on the
(assembly) ? 7,528 s.f. area or 0.333 spaceper fixed seat whichever is existing square.
greater footage)
Page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 6
Kitchen 1,631 s.f. Two-hundredths {.02) space per person for the 9
433 max: maximum capacity figure of the assembly area.
ca aci determined b the Fire De artment '
Storage 4,827 s.f. 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet. 7 .
Detached Storage 2,224 s.f 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet 3
Buildin
Office (which includes 11,187 s.f. 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet 45
church and school
Multi-Purpose 7.,172 square 29 spaces per 1,000 square feet of assembly,. 208
room/ mnasium feet area
Classrooms` 14 classrooms' N/A N/A
3 nursery
rooms;
14;894's.f.
2-Bedroom Living Area:. 2-bedrooms. 2 spaces per 2-bedroom units 2
for Priest 1.,779 s.f.
Restrooms, lobbies, 12,380 s.f. N/A N/A
hallways, mechanical
rooms, stairs, elevators ,
stage platform and
electrical rooms `
56,094 square feetbf new construction, Total spaces required 492
63 622 totals uare foots e
Code does not require any parking for the accessory Sunday school classrcoms, restrooms, lobbies or hallways.
(11) The applicant has submitted the attached letter of operation and project description that
indicates the existing chinch hasservices on Sunday from 9:00 a.mr to 12:00 p:m.
Sunday school classes from 10:00 a.m: to 12:00 p:m: In addition, there are also.
'< additional services during church holy days (Christmasand Easter): The letter further
indicates that there are approzirnately 600 families that are ohurch mernbers: The
applicant has: indicated that various activities occur on-site. including Greek classes, folk
dance groups; basketball practice ahd other activitieswhich meet Monday through
Thursday 11:30 a.m: to 10:00 p.m: with approximately 15 to 30 members'attending. The.
administrative officesoperate 9:00 a.m. to 5:00'p.rn. Monday through' Friday. On
Saturday the rnulti-purpose hall is occasionally used forredeptions/dinhersand dances
held throughout the year:> The applicantfias indicated that for certain special events (i.e.,
Greek Festival) that an off-site parking lot with shuffle service wouldbe provided:
(12) < No sighage plans were submitted with this application. A site inspection of the property
indicated that there js an existing wood monument sign located: in the setback area along
Dale Avenue, Building permits are not required for this type of sign and the code allows
a twenty square foot identification sign:: It appears that the sign complies with code,
therefore a condition of approval has been added requiring the applicant to'submit sign
plans for Planning Services Division review and approval within thirty (30) days.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(13) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for
review in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and,:
therefore, recommends thaYa Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the
Commission that the declaration reflects the independehfjudgment'of the lead agency;
and that (t has considered he proposed Negativebeclaration together with any
comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of
the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment...
Page 6
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 6
EVALUATION:
(14) The purpose of the T (Transition) zone is to provide for a zone to include land that is used
for agricultural uses, in a transitory or interim use, restricted to limited uses because of
special conditions; or not zoned to one of the zoning districts in Title 18: In order to provide
consistency with surrounding properties; it is appropriate to reclassify properties thatare in
the T zone to the most appropriate zoning designation based on surrounding zoning, the
General. Plan designation and existing o[ proposed: land uses on the property. Since these
properties will be developed with one protect; it is appropriate to provide consistent zoning
across all affected parcels. The General Plan designation for these properties is Low
Density Residential; therefore the most appropriate zoning for the site is RS-2. The
proposed church facility is a conditionally permitted use in the RS-2 zone, .therefore staff is
recommending approval of theYeclassification of Portions A and B from the T zone to the
RS-2 zone.
(15) Waiver (a) pertains to maximum structural height. Plans indicate that the proposed 2-story.
administration portion of the building would be 35 feet in height with two roof peaks at 37 to
38 feet in 1leight and` a proposed dome which would be at a height of 39 feet, 4 inches, The
school and multi-purpose portions of the building has two roof peaks of 37 to 3t3 feet high.
The existingchurch building has two towers at 50 feet in height and an existing dome at the
height of 54 feet which were approved under Conditional Use Permit No: 1469: As indicated
in the attached Statement ofJustification for. Waiver form submitted by thee. applicant, a higher
height for the dome and the roof peaks is necessary for the architectural features to be in
proportion to the scale of the existing church building: The roof peaks tireless than 10
percent of the roof area,:and are needed toprovide architectural relief to the Iong7oof Tine.
The dome is 45 feet to the closesf residential propertyJlne to the west, Further, the dome
portion of the roof is setback 45 feet and the: roof peaksare setback 27 to 66 feet from the
property line abutting the residential zone boundary:. This building is a part of the existing
church complex and staff feels that exceeding tfte structuratheight in the limited area'of the
dome and the roof peaks would be compatible with the existing church building and would hot.
negatively impact the surrounding properties: This. request would resulYin an additional
structure that is lower than the existing dome and tower structures approved. by waiver for the.
existing church.
(16) Waiver (b) pertains to the minimum number of parking spaces. Code requires a minimum of
492 spaces for the church use and the proposed multi-purpose building and plans indicate
195 spacesproposed: The City's independenfTraffic Consultant has reviewed the parking ,
analysis prepared by Traffic Safety Engineers Inc. and has determined that based on the
analysis provided in the parking study, adequate parking wouldbe'provided. Based upon the .
analysis provided by the applicant and upon the recommendation of the City's independent
. Traffic Consultant recommending approval of the parking study; staff recommends approval
of this waiver based on the following findings:
(a) That the waiver, ender the conditiohs 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 artd
reasonable foreseeable conditions of operation of such use.
The parking study indicates that the peak parking demand :for off-street parking
spaces is lower than the quantity provided for the project site [76 space demand; 195
spaces provided]:
.....Pagel
Staff Report to the
.Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 6
(b) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand
and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed use.
The proposed church expansion project will hof increase or compete for oh-street
parking because the project parking tots will have. adequate parking to accommodate.
the projecf5peak parking demand.'<
(c) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed; if any,` wil(not increase the demand for
parking spaces upom adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed use.-'
There is not reason to ehc~oach othet facilities because the project site will provide
adequate parking as indicated in the parking' analysis.
(d) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will hot increase traffic congestion
withih the off-street parking areas or lots provided fdr such use.
Traffic and parking congestion will not occur because the supply df project site parking
spaces is adequate to accommodate the anticipatedprdject peakparking demand,
(e) That the waiver, under the cohditions imposed; will not impede vehicular ingress to or
egress from'adjacent properties upon the publicstreets ih the immediate vicinity of the
proposed use.:
The: proposed project site is physically separated from the adjacent private properties.
Therefore; there will be`ho'impeding df Gaffic access intobr ouYdfadjacehtparking
lots.
FINDINGS:
(17) Section 16.42.110 of the parking code sets forth the following findings which are required to
be madebefote a parking waiver is approved by the Planning Commission:
(a) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street
parking spaces to be provided for suchUSe than the number of such spaces.
necessary tb accommodate alf vehiclesattributable to such use under the normal and
reasonable foreseeable cdhditions bf operatiort of such use.
(b) That the waiver, Under the conditions imposed; if any; will not increase the demand
and competition forparking spacesLpon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed use.
(c) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand for
parking spaces upon adjacent`private property in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed uses
(d) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed; will not increase traffic congestion
within the off-street parking areas or Tots provided for such use:
(e) That the waiver; under the conditions imposed; will not impede vehicular ingress to or
egress from adjacent properties upon the publicstreets in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed use.
..Page 8
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006.
Item No. 6
Unless conditions to the contrary.are expressly imposed-upon the granting of any waiver
pursuant to this section, the granting of the waiver shall be deemed contingent upon;, ,
operation of the proposed use in conformance with the assumptions relating to the operation
and intensity of the use as contained in the Parking Demand Study that formed the basis for
approval of the waiver: Exceeding, violating, intensifying or otherwise deviating from any of
the assumptions as contained in the Parking Demand Study shall be deemed'a violation of
the express conditions imposed upon the waiver, which shall subject the waiver to
revocation or modification pursuant to the provisions of Section.18.60.200 (City-Initiated
Revocation or Modification of Permits).
(18) When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from strict enforcement of the
Zoning Code; a modification 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 otheFproperties in the same vicinity ahd zone. The sole purpose of any variance
is to prevent discriminatiorf ahd none shall be approved which would. have the effect of
granting a special privilege not shared by other similar properties. Therefore, before any
variance is granted by the Commission, it shall be shown:
(a) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings; which do not apply to other identically zoned
properties in the vcihity; and
(b) Thafstrict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed
by other properties under identical zoningclassification in the vicinity.
(19) Before the Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that
the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
(a) That the use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the
Zoning Code; or is ah unlisted use as defined in Subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses
Permitted)bf Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority);
(b) That the use will'not adversely affect the adjoining IahdLses or the growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed to belocated;
(c) That the size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the prbposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area
or to the. healtft and safety;
(d) That the traffic generated by the use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
(e) .That the grahting of the conditionalUSe permit under the conditions imposed, if any,
will not be detrimehtal to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
(20) The State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, Section 66473.5) makes it mandatory to
:.include in all motions approving, or recommending approval of a tract map, a specific finding
that the proposed Subdivision together with its design and improvement is consistent with
the City's General Plan.
Further, the law requires that the Commission/Council make any of the following findings
when denying or recommending denial of a tract map:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans.
Page 9
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 6
(b)` That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable Geheral and Specific Plans,
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.' -
(d) That the site is notphysically suitable for the proposed density of development..
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements wilt conflict with
easements; acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION:
(21) Staff recommends that, unless additionai or contrary information is received during the
meeting, ahd based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission; including the evidence
presented jh this staff`report; and oraland written evidence presented at the public hearing,
that the Planning Commission approve the applicant's request by taking the following
actions:
(a) By motion, approve a CEQA Negative Declaration for the project.
(b) By resolution, approve Reclassification No. RCL2006-00174 to reclassify Portions
A and B from the T (Transition) zone to the RS-2 (Residential Single-Family) zone:
(o) By motion, approve waiver (a) for maximum height. based upon the findings in the
staff report and attached draft resolution. '
(d) By motion; approve the waiver of minimum number of parking spaces 492
required;195 proposed) based on the findingscohtained in the parking study
prepared by Traffic Safety Engineers and the independent analysis is performed by
the City's Traffic Consultant and summarized in paragraph (16) of this report.
(e) ByYesolution; approve Conditional Use Permit No'. 2006-05064 to expand an
existing Greek Orthodox Church to permit a new administration. building; multi-
purpose hall and religious school by adopting the attachedYesolution including the
findings and conditions contaihed herein.
(f) By motion, approve Tentative Parcel Map No.'2005-156 based'on the fihdings that
(i) the desi'gnand improvements of the map are consistent with the General Plan
as proposed with the reclassification request; (ii) the Yequest is to consolidate six
parcels into one would, not create any environmental impacts, or conflicts with
easements or access through the property from the request; and (iii) that the site is
suitable for the type and density of development proposed for the site:
Page 10
[®R~FT~
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006 °`*
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT APPLICATION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00174 BE GRANTED
(321, 405, 425, 431, 509 and 511 NORTH DALE AVENUE) ,
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified application for "
Reclassification for real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described as follows:
PORTION A
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND
MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS
PER MAP RECORDED 'IN BOOK 51, PAGE 11 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTERI DISTANT
NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST 491.27 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
NORTH 0° 1 Y' 30" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 173.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 49' 30"
WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION, A DISTANCE OF 264.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH
0° 11' 30" EAST 173.33 FEET TO A LINE PASSING THROUGH THE POINT OF BEGJNNING AND
PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE NORTH 89° 40' 30" EAST 264.00 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT THEREFROM THE SOUTH 86.665 FEET.
THE NORTH 20:00 FEET OF THE EAST 264.00 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER. OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12 AND THAT
PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12;
TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED
IN BOOK 51, PAGE 11 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF .THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE: SOUTHEAST CORNER-0F THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE,
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE NORTH p° 11'. 30" WEST:316.27
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 40' 30" WEST, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER, 396.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 11' 30" EAST PARALLEL W ITH THE
EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER,: 316.27 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE
OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12;
THENCE NORTH 89° 40' 30" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 396.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING..
THE SOUTH 105 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN
BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE,
STATE. OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE. 11 OF,
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,.
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN TH'E EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, DISTANT
Cr\PC2006- -1- PC2006-
NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST 316.27 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST, 175.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST
LINE; THENCE SOUTH 89° 40' 30" WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER, 264.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 11' 30 EAST PARALLEL TO THE
EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 175.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH
89° 40' 30" EAST 264.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PORTION B
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, 'RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND
MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS
PER MAP RECORDEDJN BOOK 51, PAGE II OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN.THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, DISTANT
NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST 316.27 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST, 175:00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST
LINE; -THENCE SOUTH 89° 40' 30" WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID -
NORTHEAST QUARTER, 264.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 11' 30 EAST PARALLEL TO THE
EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 175.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 40' 30" EAST
264.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT THEREFROMTHE SOUTH 105 FEET THEREOF
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of
Anaheim oh March 20', 2006:; at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by
law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code., Chapter 18.60 "Procedures", to hear
and consider evidence for and against said proposed reclassification and to investigate and make findings and
recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commissiorv, after due inspedtfon; 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 `reclasstficatior of Portions A and B of the subject properties from
the "T' (Transition) zone to the "RS-2" (Residential Single Family) zone.
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary andlor desirable for the
orderly and proper development of the community provides consistency in the zoning far the entire project site
and is the proper implementation zone for the Geheral Plan designation of Low Density Residential:
3.' That the proposed reclassification pf subject property does properly relate to the zones and their
permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their permitted
uses generally established throughout the community:
4. That'** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; .and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Ptahning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the "T" (Transition) zone to the "RS-
2" (Single-family Residential) zone, or less intense zone; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration
upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has
considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
-2- PC2006-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby
approve the subject Application for Reclassification to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map of the
Anaheim Municipal Code to exclude the above-described property from the "T' (Transition) zone and to
incorporate said described property into the "RS-2" (Single-family Residential) zone, upon the following
conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of subject property in
order to preserve the health and safety of the Citizens of the Ciry of Anaheim:
1. That prior to introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, a preliminary title report shall be
furnished to the Planning Services Division showing the legal vesting of title, a legal description and
containing a map of the property.
2. That prior to placement of an ordinance rezoning subject property on an agenda for City Council
consideration, Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The City Council may approve or
disapprove a zoning ordinance at its discretion. If the ordinance is disapproved, the procedure set forth in
Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.60.140 shall apply. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution
shall become null and void by action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with
within one (1) year from the date of this resolution, or such further time as the Planning Commission may
grant.
3. That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2006-05064, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-156.
4. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it
complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal
regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request
regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that
adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to
the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to
the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in
delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
March 20, 2006, Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 "Procedures" of
the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution
in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
_3_ PC2006-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on
March 20, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
2006.
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-4- PC2006-
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006--"'
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05064 BE GRANTED
(321, 405, 425, 431, 509 and 511 NORTH DALE AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional
Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described as
LOT 40 OF TRACT NO. 3099, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP. RECORDED IN BOOK 95, PAGES 33 AND 34 OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN
BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 11 OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAIp SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 12, SOUTH 95.00 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12; THENCE WEST 145.00 FEET
PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH
18.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE; THENCE EAST 40.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH
SAID NORTH LINE; THENCE SOUTH 9:00 FEET PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE;
THENCE EAST 105.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH LINE TO SAID EAST LINE;
THENCE SOUTH 9.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING..
EXCEPT THE EAST 40.00 FEET THEREOF.
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND
MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE,.STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A$
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 11 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS; IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTERI DISTANT
NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST 491.27 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 173.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 49' 30"
WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION, A DISTANCE OF 264.00 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 0° 11' 30" EAST 173.33 FEET TO A LINE PASSING THROUGH THE POINT OF
BEGINNING AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE NORTH 89° 40' 30" EAST
264.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT THEREFROM THE SOUTH 86.665 FEET.
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND
MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS
Cr\PC2006- -1- PC2006-
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 11 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, DISTANT
NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST 491.27 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF-.SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST, 86.665 FEET ALONG SAID
EAST LINE; THENCE SOUTH 89° 40' 30"WEST, 264.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH
LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 0° 11' 30" EAST 86.665 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89° 40' 30" EAST 264.00 FEET PARALLEL W ITH SAID SOUTH
LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND
MERIDIAN., IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE II OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, DISTANT
NORTH 0° 11` 30" WEST 316.27 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST, 175.00 FEET ALONG SAID
EAST LINE; THENCE SOUTH 89° 40' 30" WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER, 264.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 11' 30 EAST PARALLEL TO THE
EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 175.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 40' 30"
EAST 264.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT THEREFROM THE SOUTH 105 FEET THEREOF.
THE SOUTH 105 FEET OF .THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN
BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 11 OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, DISTANT
NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST 316.27 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST, 175.00 FEET ALONG SAID
.EAST LINE; THENCE SOUTH 89° 40' 30" WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER, 264.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 11' 30 EAST PARALLEL TO THE
EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 175:00 FEET; THENCE NORTH
89° 40' 30" EAST 264.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THE NORTH 20:00 FEET OF THE EAST 264.00 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12 AND THAT
PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
12, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 11 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE NORTH 0° 11' 30" WEST 316.27
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 40' 30" WEST, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER, 396.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0° 11' 30" EAST PARALLEL WITH
-2- PC2006-
THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 316.27 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 12; THENCE NORTH 89° 40' 30" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 396.50 FEET ""
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on March 20, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given'as
required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to
hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by
Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.04.030.040 with the following waivers:
(a) SECTION NO. 18.04.070.010 Maximum structural height
(35 feet permitted; 39 feet 4-inches proposed)
(b) SECTION NO: 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parkino spaces
(492 required;. 195 proposed and recommended by
the City's Independent Traffic Consultant)
2. That the above mentioned waiver (a) is hereby approved based on the finding that the
additional height is necessary for proper proportion of the building and that there are existing waivers granted
on the property for similar features at a greater height than what is requested for this expansion. The
additional height areas are architectural elements that are a part of the identity of the church, would be ,
compatible with the existing church building and would not negatively impact the surrounding properties:
3. That the parking waiver (b) is hereby approved based upon a parking analysis prepared by
Traffic Safety Engineers Inc. and reviewed by the City's Independent Traffic Engineer providing evidence
that adequate parking exists on the property for the expanded church facility on the site.
4. That the parking waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street
parking spaces to be provided for the church and accessory operations than the. number of such spaces
necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonable.
foreseeable conditions of operation of the church and accessory operations because the parking study
indicates that the peak parking demand for off-street parking spaces is lower than the quantity provided for
the project site (76 spaces needed and 195 spaces proposed).
5. That the parking waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic
congestion and will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in
the immediate vicinity of the use because the church expansion will have adequate parking to accommodate
the project's peak parking demands.
6. That the parking waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and
competition forparking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicjnity of the proposed use
because as indicated in the parking study, adequate parking to accommodate the anticipated project peak
parking demand will be provided on-site.
7: That the parking waiver, under the conditions imposed if any, will not impede vehicular
ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed use because the project site is physically separated from adjacent private properties. Furthermore,
it has been determined by the parking study that adequate on-site parking spaces are being provided.
-3- PC2006-
8. That the use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development
of the area in which it is proposed to be located as the parking study has demonstrated that the site can
accommodate the combined uses on site;
9. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not
be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
10. That'° indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Planning Commission
has reviewed the proposal to expand and existing Greek Orthodox Church to permit a new administration
building with waiver of maximum structural height and minimum number of parking spaces; and does hereby
approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the
lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received
during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments
received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment_
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does
hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the
heath and safety of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1. That this religious institution with amulti-purpose building, school and administration offices shall
operate consistent with assumptions contained in the approved parking study: If at any such time the
operational characteristics of the church change, a detailed description of the operational changes
shall be submitted for review by the City's Traffic and Parking Consultant to determine if the changes
would cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided than the number of spaces provided on
site. If it is determined the expected demand is greater than the spaces provided on site, an
application for modification of the conditional use permit shall be submitted to the Planning Services
Division for approval by the Planning Commission.
2. That this facility shalt not be used as a private daycare, nursery, elementary, junior and/or senior high
school. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits:
3. That alt church activity, including the use of the parking lot, shall cease by 10:00 p.m., daily:
4. That no portable signs shall be utilized to advertise the church.
5. Any additional signs shall tie submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and apprbval. Any
decision by staff regarding signs may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a 'Report and
Recommendation' item.
6. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashidn through the provisions of
regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four
(24) hours from time of occurrence.
7. That prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works
Department, Development Services Division for review and approval a Water Quality Management
Plan that:.
-4- PC2006-
• Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as minimizing impervious
areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced
or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas.
• Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area
Management Plan.
• Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in DAMP.
• Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control
BMPs.
• Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the
Treatment Control BMPs; and describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and
maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs.
8. That prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall
• Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and
installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications,
• Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implemenfall non-structural BMPs described in the
Project WQMP.
• Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Projects WQMP are available
onsite.
• Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural
BMPs:
9. That prior to demolition of any existing buildings a demolition permit shallbe obtained from the Building
Division.
10. That the developer shall submit street improvement plans to the Public Works Department,
Development Services Division and a bond shall be posted to guarantee that Dale Avenue is improved
per Public Works Standard Detail 160-A prior to issuance of a building permit. The improvements shall
be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspections.
11. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and
approval in conformance with the Engineering Standard tJo. 115 pertaining to sight distance visibility
for any sign or wall/fence location.
12. That the locations for future above-ground utility devices including, but not limited to, electrical
transformers, water backflow devices, gas, communications and cable devices, etc., shall be shown on
plans submitted for building permits. Plans shall also identify the specific screening treatments of each
device (i.e. landscape screening, cbldr of walls; materials, identifiers; access points, etc.).
13. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or
abandonment's oYexisting water services and fire lines, shall be cdordinated through Water
Engineering Divisionof the Anaheim Public Utilities Department
14. That since this project has a landscaping area exceeding 2;500 square feet; a separate irrigation meter
shall be installed in compliance with Chapter 10.19 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said information
shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits..
15. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Service Standards
Specifications. Any water service andlor fire line that does not meet current standards shall be
upgraded for continued use if necessary or abandoned if the existing water service is no longer
needed. The owner/develbpe~ shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water
serviceof fire lihe."
-5- PC2006-
16. That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground and outside of the street setback area in a
manner fully screened from all public streets. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault
shall be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to "
the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside of the street
setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said informatidnshall be
specifically shown on plans and .approved by the Water Engineering Department:
17. That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (Water
Engineering Division) an easement twenty (20) in width for waters service mains and or an easement
for large meter and other public facilities.
18. That plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval showing
conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 470 pertaining to
parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and
maintained in conformance with said plans.
19. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works
Department and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas
shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or
highways: The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of
plant materials such as minimum one-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum three-foot centers
or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building
permits.
20. That the legal owner of subject property shall provide the City of Anaheim with a public utilities
easement (dimensions will vary with electrical design) along/across high voltage lines, low voltage
lines crossing private property and around all pad mounted transformers, switches capacitors, etc.
Said easement shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim prior to connection of electrical service.
21. That at no time shall there be any outdoor storage on the site for the church.
22. ThaEprior to the issuance of a building permit Park in Lieu fees of $5,388:14 shall be paid for the
residential unit.
23. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense.
24. That all air-conditioning facilities and other ground-mounted equipment shall be properly shielded from
view and sound buffered from adjacent residential properties. Stidh information shall be specifically
shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
25. That all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtureslocated on the exterior of the buildings shall be
fully screened by architectural devices and/drappropriate building materials: Said inforrnaticn shall be
specifically shown oh the plans submitted for buildirg permits
26. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to approval of Reclassification No. 2006-00174 and
the approval and recordation of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-156 now pending.
27. That each individual building shall be clearly marked with its appropriate building numberand address.
Marking shall be positioned so they are easily viewed from vehicular and pedestrian accessways
throughput the complex. Main building numbers shall be a minimum height of 12" and illuminated
during hours of darkness. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building.
permits..
28. That prior to application for water meter, fire line or submitting the water improvement plans for
approval, the developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Water Engineering an estimate of the
maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This
-6- PC2006-
information will be sued to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the
estimated water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall
be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations...
29. That an Emergency Listing Card, Form ADP-281 shall be completed and submitted in a completed
form to the Anaheim Police Department:
30. That four (4) foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof of the building in coritrasting
color to the roof material. The humbers shall not be visible to adjacent and nearby streets or
properties: Said information shall be specifically shown oh plans submitted to the Police Department,
Community Services Division, for review and approval
31. That No Trespassing 602(k) P.C. signs shall be posted at the entrance to the parking lot and located in
other appropriate places.
32. That all entrances to the parking area shall be posted with appropriate signs per 22658(a) G.V.C to
assist in removal of vehicles at the property owner's request.
33. That the property owner shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 941
(to temporarily permit church offices, a language school and limited church services in an existing
residential structure, and the eventual construction of permanent church facilities on a portion of
subject property) and Conditional Use Permit No. 786 (to establish a church edifice and educational
unit on an L-shaped portion of the site) to the Planning Services Division.
34. That within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution, a sign plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Services Division for review and approval of the existing freestanding wood sign.
35. That the subject property shalt be developed substantially in accordance with the plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the
Planning Department Exhibit Nos. 1 through 10 and as conditioned herein.
36. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 and
30, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions
may be granted ih accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
37. That prior to issuance of a grading permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition No. 7, above-mentioned shall be complied with.
Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section
18.60.170
38. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 8, 10, 26, 28, 29 and 30,
above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
39. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it
complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal
regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and
all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared
invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction., then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
-7- PC2006-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related
to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or
prior to the commencement of the activity or issuance of building permits for this ;project, whichever occurs°' ""
first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of
the approval of this application.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning,Commission meeting of
March 20, 2006. Said resolution is subject td the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Zoning
Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and. may be replaced
by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal..
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY pF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission
held on March 20, 2006; by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS;
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
, 2006..
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-6- PC2006-
Cjty of Anaheim
1f~~,A1~II~id19iG ~E~A~'~'ME1~iT
March 20, 2006
Saint John the Baptist Greek Orthodox Church
405 North Dale Street
Ariatieim, CA 92801
Following is an excerpt frdm the minutes df the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of
March 20, 2006.
6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
6b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00174
6c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
6d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05064
6e. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-156
Owner: Saint Jahn the Baptist Greek Orthodox Church, 405 North Dale Street,
Anaheim, CA 92801
Agent: Karen Otis, Otis Architecture, 16871 Seawitch Lane, Huntington Beach,
CA 92649
Location: 321 405 425 431 509 and 511 North Dale Avenue:
Property is approximately 4.9 acres having a frontage of 767 feet on the
west side of Dale Avenue and is located 668 feet south of the centerline
of Crescent Avenue.
Reclassification No. 2006-00174 -Request reclassification of Portion A and B from the
T (Transition) zone to the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a less intense
zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05064 -Request to expand an existing Greek
Orthodox Church to permit a new administration building, multi-purpose hall and
religious school with waivers of (a) maximum structural height and (b) minimum number
of parking spaces.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-156 -To combine six tots into one lot.
www.anaheim.net
ACTION: Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of
the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any
comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the
initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Tentative
Parcel Map No. 2005-156 based on the finding that (i) the design and improvements of the
map are consistent with the General Plan as proposed with the reclassification request; (ii)
the request is to consolidate six parcels into one would not create any environmental impacts,
or conflicts with easements or access through the property from the request; and (iii) the site
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
P.0. Box 3222
Anaheim, California 92803
TEL (714) 765-5139
is suitable for the type and density of development proposed for the site, subject to the __ ..
following conditions of approval
1. That the final parcel map shall be submitted to and approved by the City df Anaheim
and the Orange County Surveyor and then shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange
County Recorder (Subdivision Map Act, Section 66499.40).
2. That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim
(Water Engineering Division) an easement twenty (20) feet in width for water service
mains and or an easement for large meter and other public facilities:
3. That this parcel map is subject to the approvatof Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-
05064 and Reclassification No. 2006-00174 now pehding
4. That prior to final parcel map approval, Cohdition Nos. 1 and 2above-mentioned,
shall be complied with.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Morris., Senior Secretary.
Anaheim Planning Commission
cc: Karen Otis, Otis Architecture, 16871 Seawitch Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92649
REQUE:
PERTAI
Sections
granted t
1.
2.
In order
arrive at
and as G
].
2.
3.
4.
The solr
approve
w 'ch'.
t
2SDE
Iustlficatic
PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF Attachment -Item No. 6
STIFICATION FOR VARIANCEJCODE WAIVER
(NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKQ9G WAIVER)
iT FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION:
KING TO: hl~ _ (A separate state ent is r aired for each Cade waiver) ;
•.~f '11'a•C S f
18.03.040.030 and 18.12.06 ofthe Anaheim Municipal Code requure that before any variance or Code waiver may be
~y the Zoning Administrator Planning Commission, the following shall be shown:
That there are special circa ces applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, which do not ply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and
That, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges
enjoyed by other propertyun er identical zoning classification inthe vicinity.
to determine ifsuch special c ces exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to
a decision, please answer of the following questions regarding the property for which a variance is sough, fully
ampletely es possible. If you eed additional space, you may attach additions! pages.
Are there special ciroumsta>t
surroundings?~[Yes _ es that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or
if your answer is "Yes," des
t I ri the special circumstances: "(1'] C r?C~7/
,~
~ s ss. 3' m
i
3~~~„
Are the special circumstance ih~t apply to the property difFerent from other properties in the vicinity which are in the'
same zone as your propertyl _ Yes _No
if yo answer is `~+es," desc 'be how the propelty is difte ent: ~ 5 LL N G~a-
Yl tA-t I 0
5
Do the special circumstan
properties located within th applicable to the properly deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring
same zone? Yes .~NO
If your answer if `des," des 'be the special circumstances:
Were the special circ
owners)? _Yes ~fo es created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property
EXPLAIN:
purpose of any variance or
d whit uld have the eff ode waiver shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance or Code waiver shall be
of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone
t not 'se expressly su
~ orized by zone n:gulations governing subject property. Use variances are not permitted.
) ( e ~,a~'o4
re of ap Owner o Aut orized Agent Date
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE NO.
CLMBER 12, 200D
is Waiver. dot
Z'd Ll9Z-9bB-blL silp ue~e~{ d9Z~ti0 90 6Z 9a~
Attachment -Item No. 6
February 25, 2006 (Revision No. 2)
February 15, 2006 (Revision No. 1)
September 17, 2004
Ms. Karen Otis
Otis Architecture
16871 Sea Witch Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Dear Ms. Otis:
This report summarizes our second revised traffic pazking study for the proposed school building
addition and a new multi-purpose room/gymnasium building for the St. John The Baptist Greek
Orthodox Church locatedat 405 N. Dale Avenue in Anaheim. This revised study was prepared in
response to the City of Anaheim's review comment memo dated February 23, 2006. We trust that
the findings of this parking study will be of assistance to the City of Anaheim in formulating their
decision pertaining to the proposed church facility and school expansion project.
1. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The existing church facility consists ofa sanctuary room with a seating capacity of 600 seats,
and an adjacent building attached to the sanctuary building. This multi-purpose building
consists of the following facilities:
- An Administration Office
- Priest Offices
- Nine Classrooms
- A large meeting/conference room
- A gymnasium with kitchen facility
Page 2
A worship service along witlt religious study classes are held from 9:00 A.M. to Noon on
Sundays. During weekdays, the following social and religious education activities aze held:
- Monday, from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Folk Dance classes
- Tuesday, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., Bible study
- Tuesday, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Greek School
- Tuesday, from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Basketball
- Wednesday, from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Basketball
- Wednesday, from 7:00 p.m. to :8:30 p.m., Orthodox Faith classes
- Thursday, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Greek school
- Thursday, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Bible study
- Thursday, to be announced, Bible study
- Friday, to be announced, Bible study
- Saturday, to be announced, Bible study
The church proposes to build a new two-story, 55,862 square-foot building consisting of 14
classrooms, 3 nursery rooms, church administration and priest offices, meeting rooms, boazd
rooms, libraries, and amulti-purpose/gymnasium with kitchen facility. The proposed
classrooms will be used for bible study, Greek School, Orthodox Faith and other religious
education. These classrooms aze nat used for regulazpre-school or elementary school
instructions. The proposed multi-purpose building/gymnasium facility will be used for folk
dance classes, choir practice, basketball practice, and other recreational/social events during
weekdays. On Sundays, this multi-purpose building is used for coffee/donut fellowship
get-together immediately following the worship services. The existing 10,000 squaze-foot
one-story multi-purpose and administrative building, immediately adjacent to the church.
sanctuary building, will be demolished to partially provide space for the new 2-story
multi-purpose building. A total of four lots (three existing houses and one empty lot) on both
.sides of the existing church property were purchased and be demolished to provide room for
not only the new building but also for an additional pazking lot. Detailed breakdown of the
existing sanctuary and the proposed church,. classrooms, administration and
multi-purpose/gymnasium facilities are outlined in Table "A"below:
TABLE A
Existin Site Use Pro osed Site Use
Existin 600-Seat Sanctua No Chan e
Existing 10,000 squaze-foot Anew 22,554 square-foot multi-purpose
multi-purpose and administrative office room/gymnasium building, a 11,187 squaze-foot
building, immediately adjacent to the administration building consists of church and priest
church sanctuary building, will be offices, a boazd room, and meeting rooms, and a
demolished to partially provide space for 22,122 squaze-foot school building consists of 14
anew 2-story multi-purpose building classrooms, 3 nursery rooms, meeting room and
including a gymnasium. offices.
A total of 127 pazking spaces were physically counted on the existing parking lot. The 105
Page 3
spaces stated in the original parking study were taken drrectly from the proposed project site
plan. With the additional 68 spaces to be provided as part of the proposed church expansion
project, the total parking spaces available for the church site would be 127 + 68 = 195 parking
spaces..
2. CI'I"~" PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS
Based on the City's Parking Code Requirements, a total of 218 parking spaces will be required
for the proposed project (existing sanctuary plus proposed new buildings) on Sunday and 264
parking spaces will be required on weekdays. However, based on total project building floor
areas, a total of 492 pazking spaces will be required regardless of Sunday or weekday usage.
Detailed calculations of these pazking requirements are shown below:
A. SUNDAY CHURCH SERVICE.....
Site use Intensity City Parking Code Parking Spaces
Requirements Required by Code
Existing Sanctuary 600 seats or 0.333 space per seat 198
7,528 sq. ft. or 29 spaces for TSF or
whichever is greater 218
New School Facility 14 Classrooms 1 space per class (*)
and 3 Nursery room, plus 1 space
Rooms Plus 600 per non-office
sq. ft. of Offices employee plus 4
spaces per TSF for
office use
Total _ 218
(*) Some of these classrooms are used for Sunday school classes. No additional pazking
spaces aze required because children and parents aze transported in the same vehicles. Children
are being dropped off at the classrooms while the parents attending the worship service.
Page 4
B. WEEKDAYS
Site use Intensity City Par g Co a
R
i
t Paz ng Spaces
R
i
d b
C
d
equ
remen
s equ
re
y
o
e
New School Facility 14 Classrooms 1 space per class 17(Classrooms) +
and 3 nursery room, plus 1 space 1(Janitor)
rooms plus 600 per non-office +
sq ft. of employee plus 4 3(offices)
offices spaces per TSF for
office use
Church 11,187 sq. ft. 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. 45
Administrative and ft.
Priest Offices
29 spaces per TSF of
Multi-Purpose 6,500 sq. ft. of assembly azea plus 189 + 9
room/gynmasium nmasium 0.02 space per person
~33 persons*) for maximum
1,631 sq. ft. of occupancy
kitchen
Tota 2 4
* Based on City of Anaheim's Fire Department occupancy rate of one person per 15 sq. ft.
of floor azea or 6,500 sq. ft. divided by 15 sq. ft. = 433 persons
Page 5
C. CITY PARHING CODE REQUIREMENTS BASED ON BUILDING FLOOR AREAS
Detailed oazkine calculations based on total nroiect building floor areas aze shown below:
Use SquareFeet Code Parking Requirement (per 1,000 s.f.)' Parking Retjtiired
Sanctuary (assembly) 600 seats 29 spaces per 1,000 square feet of assembly area or 218
0.333 space per fixed sent whichever is greater
Kitchen 1,631 Two-hundredths (.02) space per person for the 9
maximum capacity figure of the assembly area
determined by the Fire Department
Storage 4,827 L55 space per 1,000 square feet 7
Detached Storage Building 2,224 1.55 space per 1,000 square feet 3
Office (which includes 11,187 square 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet 45
church and school) feet
Multi-Purpose 7,17? squaze feel 29 spaces per 1,000 square feet of assembly area 208
roorn/gymnnsium
Classrooms' ]4 classrooms N/A NIA
3 nursery rooms
(14,894 square
feet)
2-Hedroom Living Area for ' 2-bedrooms 2 spaces per 2-bedroom units 2
Priest
(1,779 square
feet)
Restrooms, lobbies, 12,360 square N/A N/A
hallways, mechanical feet
rooms, stairs, elevators ,
stage platform and electrical
rooms "'
56,094 square feet total Total spaces required 492
PONo[e: Code does not require any parking (or the accessory Sunday school classrooms, restreoms, lobbies or hallways.
Page 6
3. PARKING DEMAND SURVEYS
Pazking surveys were conducted at the existing church parking lot on Sunday, September 12,
2004 and weekdays (9-13-2004, 9-14-2004 and 9-16-2004)). Results of the highest peak
parking surveys are tabulated below:
Day of Week Time of Day Number of Parking Spaces Occupied
Sunday 11:00 a.m. -I~- 76(*)
(9-12-04
Monday 5:30 p.m. 33
(9-13-04)
Tuesday 6:30 p.m. 36
(9-14-04)
Thursday 6:30 p.m. 31
9-16-04
(*) The 136 parked vehicles previously stated in this pazking study were erroneously typed.
4. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
On Sunday morning, our parking demand surveys at the church pazking lot indicated a peak
parking demand of 76 spaces during the Sunday church worship service. No overflow of
parking onto the adjacent streets were observed because the peak parking demands of 76
vehicles were substantially less than the 127 parking spaces provided by the existing parking
lot. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the 195 spaces to be provided by the proposed
parking lot are more than adequate to accommodate the Sunday peak parking demands.
During weekdays, our pazking demand surveys at the church pazking lot indicated. a peak
parking demand of 12 spaces per classroom (36 pazking spaces divided by existing 3 Greek
School classrooms). Based on this peak pazking demand rate of 12 spaces per classroom, a
total of 168 parking spaces will be needed when the number of classrooms expand to 14
classrooms with the proposed church expansion project. These anticipated 168 parking spaces,
assuming that all the 14 classrooms aze fully occupied, aze substantially less than the 195
spaces to be provided by the proposed parking lot.
Page 7
Section 18.06.080 of the Anaheim Parking Ordinance requires certain findings to be made before
parking waivers can be granted by the Planning Commission. On the basis of this report, five
findings must be made. The findings and specific responses are provided as follows:
A. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street
pazking spaces to be provided for such use than the number of such spaces necessary to
accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonable foreseeable
conditions of operation of such use.
Response:
The pazking study indicates that the peak parking demand for off-street parking spaces is lower
than the quantity provided for the project site.
B. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand
and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed use.
Response:
The proposed church expansion project will not increase or compete for on-street parking
because the project parking lots will have adequate pazking to accommodate the project's peak
pazking demands.
C. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand
and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed use (which property is not expressly provided as parking for such use under an
agreement in compliance with Section 18.06:010.020 of the Code)
Response:
There is no reason to encroach other parking facilities because the project site will provide
adequate parking as indicated in the parking analysis.
Page 8
D. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic
congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for such uses.
Resnonse:
Traffic and pazking congestion will not occur because the supply of project site parking spaces
is adequate to accommodate the anticipated project peak pazking demand.
E. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular
ingress to or egress from adjacent properties, upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity
of the proposed use.
Response:
The proposed project site is physically separated from the adjacent private properties.
Therefore, there will be no impeding of traffic access into or out of adjacent parking lots.
Should you need additional information or clarification of this parking study, please feel free to
call us at any time.
Very truly yours,
C. Hui Lai, P.E. ,
Traffic Engineer
Attachment -Item No. 6
SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH -
Facility use and hours of operation
WORSHIP
As a worshiping community the Church comes together on Sunday mornings from9 to 12 in
corporate worship. In addition there are about :another 75 days in the year, when we have either
weekday morning services (usually 9 to 10:30) or evening services 6 to 7:30. On Easter the
church has an extended period of services during the entire week beginning on Palm Sunday
evening and continuing every night and almost every morning until Easter Sunday. For Christmas
we have services on Christmas eve 6 to 8 p.m. and on Christmas day from 9-11.During Holy
Week we have three services on Great Wednesday on Holy Thursday there are two services and
on Great (Good Friday) there are three services: The lazgest crowd of the year in worship
services is the Good Friday and Easter services. With about 700 to 900 attending:
There aze about 60 to 70 other services during the year such as Baptisms, Weddings, and
Funerals. Average attendance on Sundays (Mid-September to May) is approximately 225-250
adults and about 75 to 100 children. During the Summer we have no Sunday School or Greek
Afternoon Classes and attendance at worship is between 150 and 210 total.
EDUCATION CLASSES
AFTERNOON GREEK SCHOOL
T7ils school meets on Tuesdays with a hour and half per class.(4 TO 7 P,M) We have a total of
seven classes. Six meet on Tuesday and one on Thursday. We also have two. adult evening: ,
classes which meet on Thursday evenings for two hours. There are 60 children and 10 adults
attending. The School does not meet during the Christmas and Easter Week nor during the
summer. In the fall, classes commence about the middle of September and end last week in May.
CHRISTIAN EDIICATION (Sunday. School)
We have approximately 180 enrolled with about 75 to 110 .attending any given Sunday. School
is in session for approximate 30 Sundays per yeaz and the hours of operation are 10:00 to 12:00 -
n00n.
~1-g3 ~H JV~P JIY~I~~ TE®1~! ®~ aJ 17~ ®~ Y'Hi_:.ue~AY ~17
SUNDAYS
Church
Worship Services, 9 to 12 noon: During Summer months Services are from 9-11. (See above for
a descripfion'of other services during the yeaz)
Multi-Purpose Hall and Small HaIl
The hall is used on Sunday mornings from 12-2 for Coffee Fellowship and occasional lunches.
Sometimes its used also by the Sunday School for classes. During the yeaz it is also used.for
baptismal and wedding receptions
Classroom Wing
Used for Sunday School from 9:30-12 noon. Attendance 70 -110 ,
M®~f~~S
Office/13oard Room
The office is open from 9 -5 p.m. Monday thru Friday.. The staff consists of a full time
Secretary/Bookeeper,(40 hours) apart-time. Assistant (two to three days a week 10-12 hours as
needed) and a Bart time Word Processor who works about 15-17 hours per week. The priest (and
the assistant priest) also have offices and are usually at the office five days a week
Multi-Purpose Hall and Small Hall
Used by our Folk Dance groups from 4 to 10 p:m Attendance approximately 70
B'~JESD11~'S
OfficeBoard Room
In addition to normal use, the Parish Council meets there the first and third Tuesday of the month
from 7:00-10:00 p.m. Attendance 15-17
Also every Tuesday from 11:30 to lp.m. 10-12 members of our Bible Class meets.
Multi-Purpose Hall'
Used for Youth Basketball practice from 6 to 10 p.m every Tuesday..(Decemtier -March)
Number participating 26'
Classroom Wing .
Greek afternoon school from 4 -7 p:m Approximately 50 attending
Small Hall
Meeting by Adult group 17-25 from 4-9 p.m(Once a month)
D~SDE~Y.~
Off~ce/Board Room
'The Boazd Room is used for meetings/blasses every Wednesday from 7 - 9 p.m by about 12-
15(except during the summer)
Multi-Purpose Hall
Used for Youth Basketball practice from 6 to 10 p.m every Wednesday (December-March) with
20 -25 participating.
Small Hall
Used by our Ladies Philoptochos Society, on the first Wednesday of each month from 7-9 p.m,
(Does not meet July, August and September) Attendance 20-30.
~ ~r~~'S
Office/Board Room
After business hours from 7 - 8:30 p.m. the Boazd Roam is used for a Bible Study class.
Attendance 6 - 10.
Classroom Wing
Used by our Greek School for three classes. 4-8:30 p.m. Attendance fluctuates by usually 15-25
Multi-Purpose Hall
Used for weekly Basketball by adults every Thursday evening from 7 -10 p.m. (Almost year
round)
~+R~1~~~
No programs-Facilities not in use, EXCEPT Office
SAT'iT~A~'S
OFFICE IS CLOSED
Multi-Purpose Hall
Used occasionally by our Societies for lunch etc. There aze some receptions/dinners,dances held
in the evenings during the yeaz. Nothing during most of the summer months. The largest affair
is the Annual Church Dance with 275 -300 attending. The hall is also used during our Annual
Greek Festival which is held on the second weekend after Mothers Day.
PLEASE NOTE
The only time that we have an overlap with Church and School facilities is on Sunday morning.
The parents do use the existing parking lot and also off street parking on Dale Street. We don't
now nor do we plan on dropping off the children on Dale Street in the future expansion.
~~*~*~
We don't have any Daycaze Center at present and we do not propose to have one.
a**~**
Our maintenance staff consists of a full-time Custodian who lives on the premises. Other part-
time help is hired as needed during the year.
**~*~*
Our paid membership is .approximately 600 families
item No. 7
SP 94-1 (SC) ~ .
DA2
RCL 65-66-24 (29)
RCL 65-66-13 h
CUP 2922 LL
W
•- VAR 3638 ' SP 94-1 (SC) . '
R
Ill SP 94-1 (SC) VAR 2676 F- OA 2
LLl RCL 65-66-24 (29) CATELLUS ~ RCL 65-66-24 (29)
~ RCL 65-fib-1 CORPORATE CENTER O CUP 2004-04945
~ CUP 3325 SMALL INDUSTRIAL ~ CUP 3010
~ VAR 3838 FIRMS ~ VAR 4133
U
ADJ 0843 VAR 2876
Q (CUP 2003-04793)
~ SMALL INDUSTRIAL Z CHURCH
FIRM Q
~
Z
a
LA PALMA AVENUE
-- 340' 115'
:,z
Y
j J
_.._."
~~
U ~ o ~
r 6P 94-1 (6C)
RCL 66- 7- 4 =~ 9P 94-1 (SC)
,; '
~
N~ ~
m `4
m -co
{Res. of Inlenl to ML) ~
a.
nN DA2
~ ° m0 ,~
~ RCL 66-67-64 (10) a
SP 94-1 (SC)
SP 94-1 (SC)
m J _c~ RCL 66-fi7-63 ~ w ~~ r ", CUP 2006-05069 "'s 3'
m Dp' 2 DA 2
a. U o0 AJAX CEMENT ~ 5 mZ N F~~ CUP 3916 '
r~ RCL 66-67-64 (10)
RCL 66-67 64 (10
) I
m ~ ~ ¢ COMPANY y v G,:
v o o~ ~ .. VAR 3287 ~~~ ~. MTI LING VAR 232 3
~ ~ a ~0- PUBLIC ~'~~"'~
~ SMAL L INDi
`~ ~~.
~ STORAGE FIRA
'"
~ x
, s ~„ +,~ ~"
,
~ a
a ~ aam~
T
RF~EV
E<OP
/NORTy~s R
p~ECT
AREq~ ACPyA
RCL 70-71-47
(Res of Intent to ML)
RCL 70-71-46
N
ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE.
3
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05069 x~~~a Subject Property
Date: March 20, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: PUBLIC STORAGE EURO PARTNERSHIP Q.S. No. 166
488D East La Palma Avenue 10005
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 7
7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion for continuance)
7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05069
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This rectangularly-shaped 3.5-acre property has a frontage of 340 feet on the south side of
La Palma Avenue, a maximum depth of 453 feet, and is located 115 feet west of the
centerline of Manassero Street (4880 East La Palma Avenue- Public Storage):
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit under authority of Code Section
Nos. 18.120.070.050.0537 and 18.120.070.080.0801 to construct alive-story self storage
building with building heights exceeding 60 feet with waiver of the following:
(a) SECTION NO. 18.120.080.0803. Maximum floor area ratio (FAR)
0.5 permitted; 1_1 proposed)
(b) .SECTION NO. 18.120.070.100.1001 Maximum fence height
(3 feet permitted; 6 feet proposed)
BACKGROUND:
(3) The property is developed with an existing self storage facility and is zoned SP94-1(DA2)
(SC) (Northeast Industrial Area, Development Area 2 (Expanded Industrial Area), Scenic
Corridor Overlay). The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Office-Low land
uses: Surrounding properties to the north (across La Palma Avenue) are designated for
Industrial land uses, to the east and west for Office-Low land uses and to the south for
Open Space-Water uses:
(4) The applicant, Dean Grobbelaar, has submitted the attached fetter dated, March 9, 2006,
requesting a continuance to the April 17, 2006, Commission meeting in order to complete.
revisions to the proposed addition to the existing self storage facility.
RECOMMENDATION:
(5) That the Commission, by motion; continue this item to the April 17, 2006, Planning
Commission meeting.
SR-CU P2006-05069(co n't-3-20-06 )jkn
Page 1
file:///H~/CASES/Conditional%20Use'% 20Penni(/CUP2006-05069/LTR-CUP2006-05069jn.htm
From: Dean [dean@pacificplanninggroup.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 09, ?006 3:50 PM Attachment -Item No. 7
To: Jessica Nixon; Judy Dadant
Ce: karen@pacificplanninggroup.com; jfitzpatric]c@publicstorage.com; nhattenburg@publicstorage.
com; jimgoodman@jgaia.com
Subject: Public Storage, 48801r La Palma Ave
Jessica,
The applicant does not wish the project to be placed on the 03/20/06 Planning Commission agenda. This
email serves to confirm that the applicant requests a 4 week continuance.
Dean Grobbelaar.
file:///HI/CASES/Conditional%?OUse%20Permit/CUP2006-05069/LTR-CUP2006-p5069jn.htm3/13/2006 8:41:54 AM
Item No. 8
,~~,y~E
SP 941
RCL 70-71-15 (1)
Sp 94.1 RCL 70-71.14 '
RCL 70-71-15 (1) CUP 2167
RCL 70-71-14 VAR 4271
t CUP 2167 OFFICE BLDG.
VAR 4271 D.A. 2
OFFICE BLDG. gp gq_1
DA2 NORTHEAST
INDUSTRIAL AREA Sp gq-1
RCL 89-90-08 RCL 89-901
RCL 87-B8-OB RCL 86-89--:
SP 841 RCL 86-87-29
RCL 70-71-15 (1) RCL 65-66-25 (2) RCL 65 66
RCL 70-71-14 RCL 65-6G17
(Res of Intent tc
CUP 2001-04318 CUP 2005-05049 RCL 65-66-1
CUP 2167 T-CUP 200404689 CUP 2003-041
VAR 4271 CUP 2003-04622 CUP 3687
OFFICE BLDG. CUP 3881 CUP 3253
D.A.2 CUP 3414 CUP 3514
CUP 3240 VAR 4198
~~ ~. s ~, ~ CUP 2905 VAR 4192
*~ ~~~„~ VAR 3692 VAR 4156
SP 94 1 _,,, ~,,,s.
` (CUP 3314)
CUP 1 S85
a SHOPPING CP
~ ~
- RC170-71 15 (1) ~~' )
o ( D
A. 5
RCL 70-71-15 (1) ~ RCL 70-71 14 EEE ~~, fO CINEMA CITY .
RCL 70-71-14 r _ CUP 2187 ~'~
h~ ~ VAR 2006-04678 THEATRES
A
5
D
CUP 2167 ~~~ ~ ;
VAR 4271 .
. Rc~ esse~
VAR 4271 ~ ~ r~, a,
.a
< OFFICE BLDG
j' '
' {Res of imsnu
RcLn.7e~
OFFICE BLDG.
W
.ra
-
r~
"
" RCL 65£fi.
1 ',. D.A 2 f
l~' `
yy
F~ VAR 426
~ ri~- t o-~
~x ~
? VAR 310.5
V3145 6
~
c~~
s..,.., -r.+.,; ru..
. d4NK
.
. A 5
~--489' S91'to wntedine
LA PALMA AVENUE ollmperial Highway
SP 94-1 SP 94-b
RCL 70-71-15(1) SP gat
RcL 65~6s-t7 SP 94-1
RCL 64-65-07
CEROMET INC. RCL 70-71-14 r-cuP Zaos-oae7a RCL 65-66-25(1
CENTER T-CUP 2003-04765 r-cuP ZOOaoael o CUP 371t
DA 2
T-CUP 2001.04375 CUP 20624)4644 PCN 96-04
CuP Seas
CUP 4084
DA
5 5.6./MINI MKT.
CUP3860 .
iR
Dr g CAR WASH
CUP 2708 RE-0 D.A 5
CUP 2022
¢ CUP 1963 SP 841
Y SP 94-1 CUP 1747 RCL 65.66-25 CUP 3239
rn
~ RCL 70-71-15 (1)
C INDUSTRIAL PARK (Res of Intent to ML) CUP 3233
~ R
L 70-71-14 SMALL INDUSTRIAL T-CUP 2oDS•o4473 CUP 172z
Z ~
~ LL
FIRMS
D.A. 5 T-CUP 200304610
CUP 2000-04640
T-CUP 2002-04609 CUP 1721 ~\
/
/ \
\
VAR 4267
VAR 4252
S
~
CUP 2001-04465 /
1
VAR 3863
n FAMILY TREE T-CUP 200o-0421s (
'
V
~ PRODUCE CUP 4115
ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE AND ALPHA (NORTHEAST) REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
,,
,,.~._: ~ Subject Property
Variance No. 2006-04679 Date: March 2 0, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested B y: WESCOM CREDIT UNION O.S. No. 184
5601 East La Palma Avenue boos
Variance No. 2006-04679
Requested By: WESCOM CREDIT UNION
5601 East La Palma Avenue
Subject Property
Date: March 20, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
O.S. No. 184
10006
AlL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE AND ALPHA (NORTHEAST) REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 8
8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION- CLASS 11 (Motion)
8b: VARIANCE NO. 2006-04679 (Resolution).:..
r SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly-shaped, 3.25-acre property has a frontage of 489 feet on the north side of
La Palma Avenue a maxjmum depth of 409 feet; and is located 591 feet west of the
centerline of Imperial Highway (5601 East La Palma Avenue- W ESCOM Credit Union).
REQUEST:
(2) The petitioner requests waivers of the following to permit five wall signs and a monument
sign for an existing office building:
(a) SECTION N0.18.44.090.010 Maximum number of monument signs
(1 permitted 1 proposed and 2 existing)
(b) SECTION NO 18.44.110.010.0103 Maximum height ofletters for wall sions
l36 inches permitted; 48 and 60 inches
'proposed)
BACKGROUND:
(3) The existing office center is zoned SP94-1 {DA2) (SC) (Northeast Area Specific Plan,
Expanded industrial Qrea; Scehic Corridor). The Ahaheim Geheral Plan designates this
property and properties to the north; west; and south for Office-Low land uses and
properties to the eastfor General Commercial land Lses.
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:
(4) Cdnditiona(Use Permit No. 2167 (to permit an industrial office complex in the 94-1 DA2
- (SC) Zone) was approved by the Planning Commission on'January 12; 1981.
(5) Variance No. 4271 (td request a waiver of required lot frontage for three (3) parcels) was
approvedby the Zoning AdministratoP on April 27, 1995.
PROPOSAL:
{6) The applicant, W ESCOM Credit Union; proposes to construct five (5) wolf signs and one (1)
monument ign for a total of three (3) monument signs for an existing single tenant four (4)
story office building.) The site plan (Exhibit No: 1) indicates the proposed mohumentsign
would tie located along the easterly portion of the: property frontage and would be a
minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the curb face: The site plan further indicates two (2)
existing monumenfsigns and dhe directional sign visible from La Palma Avenue located on
the property identifying the office park andother tenants on site. The proposed monument
sign is located 96 feet west of the adjacent parcel to the east Code allows one monument
sign for properties with street frontages of less than six hundred (600) feet, and further
requires a minimum separation of 300 feet between monumeht signs fog properties with
more than 600 feet of frontage::: This property has a frontage of 489 feet, which would allow:
one monument sign. The proposed monumenfsign is located 300 feet from the existing
monument sign identifying. the office park (Canyon Corporate Center) at the entrance drive;
and approximately 340 feet from the monument sign located on the property Tine within a
Srvar200rr04679jn
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 8
median planter at the entrance drive. This monument sign identifies the name of the office
park and several tenants within the parka
(7) The proposed monument sign is 5 feet 3 inches in height and 8 feet 8 inches in width with
the words "W ESCOM Credit Union", is located within a landscape planter and provides a
base and address numbers in cdmpliance with code: The sign would be a double-faced
internally illuminated'sign with a gray face, blue letters, blue ahd white logd, and a concrete.
base with a red stripe across the top td match the other freestanding signs do the property:
Proposed location of monument sign
Sys" r
tip!
w J p ~
i~ f~ tt Y # 4'^
i arc
~~ ~~ ~y
J. c~.~".et '~y"x Law
~~~ baia»
View across l.a Palma Avenue
Existing monument signs
(8) ..The elevation plans (Exhibit No. 2, 3, and 4) indicate wall signs with the following
characteristics:
' The code allows 3 wall signs dn'each elevation based on the building frontage and a
maximum letter height bf 36 inches fdr a 4 to 5 story building: The code further provides
that the aggregate area df wall signs not exceed 10% of the face bf the building to which
Srvar2006-04679jn
Page t
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. B
such signs are attached or 200 square feet, whichever isless. The proposed wall signs
comply with all aspects of the code except for letter and logo height.
r- ~ ~--------~
Proposed west elevation No. 4 wall sign Proposed south elevation No. 2 wall sign
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 8
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTANALYSIS: ,
(9) Staff has determined that the proposed wall signs and monument sigh falls within the`
defirtitidnbf Categorical Exemptions, Sectioh 15311; Class 11 (AccessoryStructures), as
defined in the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines and is,
therefdre'categorically exempt from the pPeparatidn'of further environmental
documentation.
EVALUATION:
(10) Waiver (a) pertains to the permitted number of freestanding or monument signs. Code
permits one monument sign for properties with frontage of less than 600 feet and the
property has a streetfrontage of 489 feet; therefore;: only one' monument sign is permitted.
The applicant has intlicated in the attached Justification of Waiver Form that given the.
height of the building (64.5 feet), the waq signs would not be'visibte to vehicular and
pedestrian traffic. Therefore, aground-mounted sign at eye level is needed to assist.
customers to easily identify the location of the subject business. The applicant further
explains that the twd existing monumentsigns identifying the entire commercial center and
the individual businesses are not adequate for customers to locate their business. Staff
feels that given the close proximity of the building to he publid fight-df-way; and the high
visibility of the building due to jts height; the proposed wall signage wilt provide adequate
identification for the tenant. The two existing monument signsbn the property are legal
nonconforming and exceed code requirements a5 to'number of signs permitted fob the
property. ,Therefore) the request for a third monument sign would further deviate from
Code. Therefore, staff has determined that there are no special circumstances applicable
to the prdperty thatjustifythe third monument sign'and therofd~e recommends dehial of this
request.
(11) Waiver (b)pertains to maximum letter height. The cdde allows up to 3 wall signs for
building frontages over 81 feet:. The code also states that the maximum IetteP height for
4- to 5-story buildings is 36 inches. Plans :propose letter heights of48 to 60 inches as
described;n paragraph (7). The applicant has submitted the attached Justification of
Waiver Form indicating that the building is unique becauseit is taller and longer than ',
surrounding buildings;and are generally occupied bymultiple,tenants; whereas this tenant
occupies the entire building. In addition, the applicant indicates that compliance with code
requirements would result in signs that are not proportional to the four-story building. Photo
simulations'of the proposed signs verify that the size proposed is in scale with the building
as requested by the,'applicant. The intentof the letter height limitation in the code is to
ensure that proposed`signs are properly proportioned to the building elevation. Information
submitted by the applicant indicates thatthe intent of the code is still maintained with the
requested'waiver. Given the height of tfie structureend scale'df the proposed signs with
the building; staff recommends'approvat bf this waives
FINDINGS:
(12) When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from strict enforcement of the
Zoning Code; a modification may be granted for the purpose of assuring that no property,
because of special circumstances applicable to it, shall be deprived of privileges commonly I
enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, The sole purpose of any
variance is to prevent discrimination and none shall be approved which would have the
effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other similar properties. Therefore,
before any variance is granted by the Commission, it shall be showm
Srva2006-04679jn
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 8
(a) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned
properties in the vicinity; and
(b) That strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed
by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
RECOMMENDATION:
(13) Staff recommends that unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting; and .based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the
evidence presented in this staff report; and oral and written evidence presented at the
public hearing that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, determine that the project is Categorically Exempt, under Section
15311, Class 11 (Accessory Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(b) By resolution, aoorove, in Dart. Variance No. 2006-04679 td waive the maximum
letter height for five new wall signs by adopting the attached resolution including
the findings and conditions contained therein and take the following actions.
(i) Deny waiver (a) pertaining to maximum number of monument signs.
(ii) Approve waiver (b) pertaining to maximum letter height of wall signs.
Srvar2006-04679jn
.Page 5
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006--"`
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2006-04679 BE GRANTED, IN PART
(5601 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Variance
for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as:
PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 95-118, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A'-
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 287, PAGES 17 THROUGH 20 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY. RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 1 ON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 352, RECORDED JANUARY 24, 1996 AS
JNSTRUMENT NO. 96-35111, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF PARCELS 1 AND 5 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 95-
118; IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE., STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS
SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 287, PAGES 17 THROUGH 20 OF PARCEL
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 2 ON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 352, RECORDED JANUARY 24, 1996 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 96-35111, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL C: NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR ACCESS, INGRESS, EGRESS,
DRAINAGE, MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, AS SAID
EASEMENTS ARE SET FORTH IN SECTION 5.04 OF THAT CERTAIN DECLARATION OF
RESTRICTIONS OF CANYON CORPORATE RECORDED-AS INSTRUMENT NO. 95-
288660, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA:...
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on March 20, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as
required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60
"Procedures", to hear and consider evidence for and againstsaid proposed variance and to investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered.at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes waivers of the following to permit 5 wall signs and a monument
sign for an existing office building:
(a) SECTION N0.18.44.090.010 Maximum number of monument signs,
(1 permitted; 1 proposed and 2 existing)
(b)SECTION NO 18.44.110.010.0103
Maximum height of letters for wall signs
36 inches permitted; 48 and 60 inches
proposed)
CR\PC2006-0 -1- PC2006-
2. That waiver (a) pertaining to maximum numberof monument signs is hereby denied based
on the finding that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property relating to the proposed
monument sign and the property would not be deprived of a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity under the same zoning. In addition, the close proximity of the building to the public right-of-way, and
the high visibility of the building due to its height provide the site with adequate identification opportunities to
the public. An additional monument sign would exacerbate an existing non-conforming situation since there
are already two existing monument signs on the property.
3. That the above-mentioned waiver (b) pertaining to the maximum letter height of wall signs is
hereby granted on basis that that the building is unique because it is taller and longer than surrounding
buildings and other buildings are generally occupied by multiple tenants, whereas this tenant occupies the
entire building: In addition, compliance with code requirements would result in signs that are not proportional
to the four-story building. The intent of the letter height limitation in the code is to ensure that proposed signs
are properly proportioned. to the building elevation. Submitted plans demonstrate that the intent of the code
is still maintained with the requested waives
4. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances orbonditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the property or class of
use in the same vicinity and zone.
5: That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in
question.
6. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property orimprovements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located:.
7. That "" indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Directp~ or her
authorized representative has determined that the proposed :project falls within the definition of Categorical
Exemptions, Section 15311, Class 11 (Accessory Structures), as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and
is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does
hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a
necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and
general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1. That the proposed monument sign be located two (2) feet from the ultimate right of way.
2. That the wall signs shall be maintained in good condition.
3. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the sign plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the
Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, through 4, and as conditioned herein.
4. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 3, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with.
5. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that
it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal
-2- PC2006-
regulations. Approval does not include any action or Endings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
Should the Commission approve waiver (a) the following additional conditions shall apply:
1. That the proposed monument sign be located two (2) feet from the ultimate right of way..
2. That the background of the monument sign shall be opaque with only the letters and logo routed out
and illuminated. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and
all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared
invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related
to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or
prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges
shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
March 20, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Procedures'
of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council
Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission
held on March 20, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
.2006.
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-3- PC2006-
Attachment -Item No. 8
seclloty a
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF
JUSTIFICATTON FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER
(NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER)
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: 18 . 44..11 D -
(A sepazate statement is required for each Cade waiver) ,
PERTAINING T0: ~7~ t t ~; qn~
Sections 18.74.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires that before any variance or Cade waiver may be granted by the
Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shall be shown:
1, That there. ere special cimumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, locatien or
sunundings, which do not apply tp other property render identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and
2. That, because of such special cimumstances, 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 Zonng Administrator or Planning Commission to
arrive at a decision, please answer each ofthe following questions regazding the property fur which a variance is sought, fatly
and as complete]y as posstble. Ifyouneed additional space, you may attach additional pages.
1. Are there spacial crrcumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings? X Yes _ No. °
If your answer is"Yes,"desedbethespecialcimumstances: Our.buildin4 is 251' long :and has
proportions.
2. Are the special circumstances that apply m the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the
sanrezonaasyourproperty? Yes _No
Ifycuransweris"yes,'describehowthepropertyisdifferettt:This building is taller and ion
than surrounding buildings. Other buildings are mu ti-tenant an
3. Do the special circumstances applicable to tKtte property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring
properties located wi0dn the same zone? _Yes No
EXPLAIN The bail
tenant o ice s
and have shorter fro
4, Were the special cimumstances created by causes beyond the control ofthe property ovmer (or previous property
owners)? ,Yes _No
i
i
i
C.
the special
nqs ar
is four stories tall and was used as a multi-
e.
The sole purpose of any variance or Cade 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 outer property in the same vicinity end zone
which is not otherwise expres authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances ere not permitted
~~i9 ~ '~.~ /2-/S-26DS'
Signature of Pr m' Owner or Authorized Agent ~~ Date
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE NO.
Attachment-Item No. B
SECTION 4
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF
JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER
(NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAVER)
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: 18.4 4. 0 9 0.010 -
Monument Sign (AseporatestatementisrequiredforeachCodeweiver)
PERTAINING TO:
Sections 18.74.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires thnt before any variance ar Code waiver may be granted by the
Zoning Administrator or Planing Commission, the fallowing shall 6e 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; r rd
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 [o
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 pos5lble. 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, IocaSon or
surroundings? XYes _ Na.
the wall
Therefor
If your answer is"Yes;'describethespecia!circumstances: Given the height of the building
signs will not be visible to loco ve icu a
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? XYes _No
If your answer is
signage is on our
in the same center
"desctibehowthepropertyisdifferent: Because the "commercial center~~ants
cal we cannot place ou
e.
3. Do [he special circumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring
properties located within the same zone? XYes No
Ifyeur answer if `yes," describe the ecial ci c Stan s:
Neighboring bumldings, which l~iave ~ta~f ~ehe ismz~ and less Frontage, are
utilizing simi ar signage ecause e
located on thier parce .
4.
building
occupant
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 specia] privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone
which~is'not oQtJherwise expressly_authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use vaziances are not permitted..
Signature of P arty Owner or Authorized Agent Date
le
CONDITIONAL USE PERMTTNARIANCE NO.
Were the special circumstances created by causes beyond the control ofthe property owner (or previous property
owners)? XYes _ No
ITEM N0. S
0
~za
w
U¢
5
O
~11G Q O
! FR
m i " -
I / r
~ ,
i~e~
~9C LL
, s~ee
Fr
! eeway
_•~ /, O=
~'
. OAK CANYON
i Oft , ~
i'°
~'"• •_ _ Remove Jamboree Road fior
_ _~_,j• PlannedROadwayNehvodc
n~
~Y
r ~ _ !!
O
Zw
¢7
w > )Q
~n ¢
General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00441
Requested By: CITY OF ANAHEIM
Mountain Park
zzos
a
pro
aza
O¢O
~Z UU¢
~o
iao _ _
[7U¢
~,
i
~.. ~
C ~ \~J••7
7 ~v~)
_ 1 ,'~_/
j
(' t
S: , .
i
,`1
r,
/~
~ ••~
`~_> r"
I
Subject Property
Date: March 20, 2006
Scale: Graphic
O.S. No. 227,228,233,234
Date of Aedal Photo:
General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00441
Requested By: CITY OF ANAHEIM
Subject Property
Date: March 20, 2006
Scale: Graphic
O.S.. No. 227,228.,233,234
Mountain Park
10008
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 9
9a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO: 331
(PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) AND SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
NO. 1278IEIR NO. 1716 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) (Motion)
9b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-00441 (Recommendation Resolution):
LOCATION DESCRIPTION:
(1) This General Plan Amendment applies town approximately 1.45-mile planned segment of
Jamboree Road, west of end parallel to the Eastern. Transportation Corridor (SR-241)
between Weir Canyon Road and the southern City limits.
REQUEST:
(2) `' Request for approval of a City' initiated amendment to the Circulation Element of the
General Plan to remove'a planned Hillside Secondary Arterial roadway (identified as
Jamboree Road) from the Planned Roadway Network Map. `'
DISCUSSION:
(3) On September 10; 1991, the City Council approved the Mourtain Park Specific Plan No.
90-4 td provide for the deyelopmentbf up to 7,966'residential dwelling uhits( 179 acres of
commercial uses,'schools; parks{ public facilities and openspace in Gypsum Canyon.
The approved' Specific Plan incorporated the planned extensidn oPJamtioree Road
(designated a5a Hillside Secondary Arterial roadway) from Weir Canyon Road to the
southern City limits.-'
(4) In November 2001, The Irvine Company dedicated approximately 11;000 acres of The
Irvine Ranch as permanent open space, primarily in unincorporated Orange County
within'the City of Orange Sphere-Of-Ihfluence (Easf Orange) and Gypsum Cahydn
(Mouhtain Park Speoifio Plan) areas.
(5) On May 25, 2004, the City Council approved a comprehensive update to the City of
Anafieim General Plan (Geheraf Plan Amendment No: 2004-00419). As part of this
update; at the request of The Irvine Company; the City Couhoil approved'a reduction in
density in the Mountain Park Specific Plan-area from 7,966 dwelling units to 2,500
dwellingLnits: The amended Circulation Elemehf continued to designate the future
extension of Jamboree Road as a Hillside Secondary Arterial (see Figure 2 to this staff
report).
(6) ' On August 22, 2005, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) approved an
amendment td the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) to remove or modify severat
roadways in the East Orange and Anaheim areas; including the deletion of the planned
extension of Jamboree Road between Santiago Canyon Road in the City of Orange and
Weir Canyon Road ih tfie City of Anaheim'(within the Mouhtain Park area). This
'amendment was in response to aYequest by the Citybf Orange, with ttte'concurrence of
the CitybfAnaheim and other participating'agencies, to evaluate whether several
roadways were still necessary in light of reductions in planned density that were under
consideration in the Citiesbf Ahaheimarid OrangeG The City of Orange took the lead in
preparing the required traffio analysis and envirohmentaf documentation (Supplemental
EIR No: 1278/EIR No; 1716) tb'evaluate the request."The traffic analysis`concluded that
reductions in density in both cities would7esult in Tower projected traffic volumes and the
<!removafofJamboree Road from the MPAK(along'with deletions and modifications to
other requested roads) would not adversely impact the integrity of the MPAH,
Subsequent to OCTA's action, the City of Orange City Council approved an amendment.
H\CASPStGenmlPW AmmAnwIGPNOP4MiIItl1on95ml(RCponlj dac
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 9
to their Genera(Plan to modify roadways in their City. and sphere-of-influence consistent
with the amended MPAH.
(7) Oh August 23; 2005, the City Councif adopted Resolution Nos. 2005-175 and 2005-177
approving Amendment No. 1 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 and certifying
Environmental Impact Report No: 331 to provide for the development of a residential
communitywith up to 2,500 residential units, a fire station; public trails; a trail staging
area} a concession store/interpretive center, a school site, a public community park and
opeospace conststenfwith the updated'General Plan.
Both the Mountain Park Specific Plan document and EIR No. 331, prepared to evaluate:
the Mountain ParK project, include a discussion of the proposal to remove the extension
of Jamboree Road from the MPAH. Both documents further indicate that if OCTA were
to approve the MPAH amendment, an amendment to the. City of Anaheim General Plan
would tie processed to maintain consistency between the General Plari and the MPAH.
The Specific Plan oonditioneof approval require the dedication of Jamboree Road only if
the roadway is :not eliminated from both the MPAH and Anaheim General Plan prior to
approval of the first final subdivision map for Mountain Park Specific Plan Development
Area T.
(8) As a separate item on the Planning Commission's March 20, 2006 agenda (Item No. 10),
The Irvine Company is requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 16665,
which encgmpasses Mountain Park Specific Plan. Development Areas 3 and 7. TTM Nn
16665. has been prepared consistent with this proposed General Plan Amendment and
does not show the Jamboree Road alignment A condition of approva(has been added
to said map stating that approval of TTM No. 16665 is contingent upon approval of this
General Plan Amendment.
(9) The proposed amendment to the General Plan Ciroulation Element involves the removal
of Jamboree Road, fn its entirety, from the Planned Roadway.: Network Map (Figure C-1,
Page C-7 of the General Plan) as indicated in Figure 3 of this staff report.
(10) ; Staff recommends approvatof the proposed amendment as it would be consistent with
the amended MPAH.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
(11) On August 23, 2005, the Anaheim City Councif certified Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 331 ("FEIR No. 331") under Resolution No. 2005-175, and determined that
said FEIR fully complies with the California EnvironmentaLQuality Act ("CEQA") and is
adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the Mountain Park Specific
Plan, Amendment No. 1 and associated actions to implement the plan:: EIR No. 331
included an analysis of the impact on the City of Anaheim of the potential deletion of
Jamboree Road from the MPAH`and CityofAnaheim General Plan and determined that
with the incorporation of mitigation measureeset forth in'Mitigation Monitoring Program'
No: 137, there would be no significant impact associated with this action.
(12) On November 8; 2005, the City of Orange City Councif certified Supplemental EIR No:
1278/EIR No. 1716 (SCH#1988110905) under Resolution No: 10018 and determined that
said documentation fWly complies with CEQA'and inadequate to serve as the required
environmental documentation for the Santiago. Hills LI and East Orange Planned.
Communities Project, including the MPAHamendments, and adopteda Statement of
Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
N\GSFSIG[nenl Plan AmmLnM1GPA2ooGUONINCm95uRRryPN1 Vae
Page t
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 9
(13) Staff has determined that Supplemental EIR No. 1278/EIR No. 1716, previously oertifled
by the Orange City Council, and EIR No. 331, previously certified by the Anaheim City
Council, are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the
proposed General Plan Amendment and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA; and that
no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the proposed action. A
copy of the certified Supplemental EIR No. 1278/EIR No. 1716 has been provided to the
Planning Commission and is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Staff
previously provided the Commission with a' copy of EIR No. 331 in connection with the
processing of Amendment No. 1 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan:
RECOMMENDATION:
(14) Staff recommends that unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based oh the information presented to the Planning Commission, including
the information presented in this staff report and the attachments hereto, that the
Commission take the following actions:
{a) By motion, recommend that the City Council, based on its independent review of
Supplemental EIR No. 1278/EIR tJo. 1716 prepared in connection with the
Santiago Hills II and East Orange Development Project in the City of Orange and
EIR No: 331 and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 prepared in connection
with the Mountain Park Specific Plan; Amendment No. 1, and unless additional or
contrary informatiorcis received during the public meeting, find and determine;
based upon aid EIRs and any evidence received at the public meeting; that no
additional significant effect wilt result from the proposed modifications; no new
mitigation measures or alternatives will be required; and that the propdsed
General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00441 is within the scope of Supplementat
EIR No. 1278/EIR No: 1716 and EIR No: 331, and that the previously-certified
Supplemental EIR No. 1278/EIR No. 1716 and EIR No. 331, are in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State and City
CEQA Guidelines and are adequate to serve as the required environmental
documentation for the proposed General Plan Amendmentand satisfy all the
requirements of CEQA; and that no further environmental documentation need '
be prepared for the proposed General Plan Amendment.
(b) ey resolution and .its findings (Attachment 1), recommend that the City Council
adopt General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00441, amending the Circulation
Element of the Anaheim General Plan to remove a planned Hillside Secdndary
Arterial roadway (identified as Jamboree Road)..
HIC65E5\GrncmIPW AmeWmrn~IGPRINSaMW IVmm 95uQRryoNI~
Page 3
a
lIOA
~'
z
N
9
J Z'
~ ~ T
m O N
d T ~ L
U a °_~
E ~ _
m m-
~ L 9- N
~ _.
~ Q = Q
Y e u
°e ®J
N
N
v
7
O
O
dtlOa
NDANtl~
ai~n
UJ
o a
N ~ ~
c E c
m m o ,-
E ui '~ ~
C U j
Ul ~ J m
E m 3~
~ U C
t9 - U
a~">
m
m
c
v
f~
Existing ®esignation of Subject Hillside Secondary Arterial Highway
-~NOHL~-
as
¢3
w~
fi
0
p
~a° _
U¢ ~Uyp
F
it aZa
oao
, ~Z UU¢
ic° i'" ~- ~ Rive
. o
/ ~s
de p~ee i~
o 1... _.-~
' We
D /SR,9j
RoA / ` '
~- /
~ J
O '
2
o ..
i
- /
I ~~ I
'~% ;_`~__
-~
~ 4
OAK LANY N h ~
``C'~J
pR ~lF, ~ ' ~\i \
P>'~ ~ ?PC~ e J •'. ~'
o2
o ~-
2
~l
C
e~
'GNY a
Ory Ri
y c \
,
RANCH M Rpq
, ~
L m
~y
, o
,
Rggo /
_l.
/ ~ /
~ '
~ E C
~' ~ ° ~' Jamboree Road ~,y
~,.y _
" (Hillside SecondaryARenal) w1'. ~
e~ l /
rL
_
~Y 04'
,, ~/ ~~l
o _
-
0
w m
K w ~P
vwi6
General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00441
Circulation Element
Existing
Figure 2 2205 it
Proposed Removal of Ssabject lilllside Secondary Arterial Fligh~noay
0
~ao
uc '
~~a
az¢
¢
~
~2 U
J /MAF O
rc° /- -~-'
R/~e~ y0
YQO
9< d
~' Fie
O i
~ ;
..
I ~
t 4
OAK CANY N N
~, • -~
` `,~[.•J
~ ~
'~
SANTA ~02
p
o U ~
~
~NYOn/RIM
'
~ ^•
NOH4 RAN CH q~AO
y
~ ~ C
o
I,
~ 4
Rp4p /
5.:' ~ t
- -
• - ~ j~B ~~. c
_
_.~
L.
<Ya
:' ~ .•i
Jamboree Road ~ ®
m
W ~?
i
~~ ~••:' (Delete) ~ I j /:
_~
o
zw ~
¢z
NQ
General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00441
Circulation Element
Exhibit A
Figure 3 22t)B
{DRAFT)
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ADOPTING AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-00441 PERTAINING TO
THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, PLANNED ROADWAY NETWORK
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Council did adopt the Anaheim General Plan by Resolution No.
69R-644, showing the general description and extent of possible future development within the City; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council, by its Resolution No. 2004-95, adopted a
comprehensive update to the General Plan for the City of Anaheim; and
WHEREAS, as part of the comprehensive update to the Anaheim General Plan, the density in
the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 area,. at the request of the property owner, was reduced from 7;966
residential dwelling units to 2,500 residential dwelling units and the land uses were amended to provide fora fire
station, a park site, a school site, trails and open space; and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2005, the City Council, by Ordinance Nos. 5993 and 5994 did
approve Amendment No. 1 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4, providing for the Specific Plan land
uses and density to be consistent with the updated General Plan designations; and
WHEREAS; on August 22, 2005, the Orange County Transportation Authority, Board of
Directors approved the City of Orange's request to amend the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) to
remove andlor modify several roadway designations on the MPAH and as part of said approval, the planned
extension of Jamboree Road from its current terminus in the City of Orange at Santiago Road to the planned
extension of Weir Canyon Road in the City of Anaheim in the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 area was:
removed from the MPAH; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00441 is acity-initiated amendment to the
Circulation Element of the General Plan, Figure C-1, Planned Roadway Network to remdve`aplanned Hillside
Secondary Arterial roadway (identified as Jamboree Road) from the Planned Roadway Network; and.
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Anaheim Civic
Center, Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, on March 20, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public
hearing having been duly. given as required by law and in accordance with the prpvisidns of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against said General Plan Amendment and to
investigate and.make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due consideration, inspection, investigation and study
made by itself, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, DOES HEREBY
FIND:
1. That the amendment is consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan for the Hill.
and Canyon Area.
2. That the Mountain Park Specific Plan area was previously-identified on the Anaheim General Plan for
development of up to 7,966 residential dwelling units, 179 acres of commercial uses, schools, parks, putilic
facilities, hiking and riding trails and open space areas., and, that as part of the comprehensive General Plan
Update approved by the City Council in May, 2004, the Mountain Park Specific Plan area was redesignated for `
a maximum of up to 2,500 residential dwelling units, a fire station, a park site, a school site, trails and open
space.
-1- PC2006-
3. That the City Council adopted Amendment No. 1 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 in August,
2005 to provide for land uses and density consistent with the updated General Plan.
4. That the Orange County Transportation Authority approved. an amendment to the Master Plan of Arterial
Highways removing Jamboree Road from its current terminus in the City of Orange at Santiago Road to the
planned extension of Weir Canyon Road in the City of Anaheim....
5. That the proposed amendment maintains the internal consistency of the General Plan and would be
consistent with the amended MPAH.
6. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience,
or welfare of the City.
7. The proposed amendment would maintain the balance of land uses within the City.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to amendlhe Circulation Element of the Generat Plan, Figure C-1,
Planned Roadway Network to remove a planned Hillside Secondary Arterial roadway (identified as Jamboree
Road) from the Planned Roadway Network Map; and did recommend, by motion, that the City Council based on
its independent review of the Initial Study prepared in connection with the proposed General Plan Amendment
No. 2006-00441 and unless additional or contrary information is received during the public hearing, find and
determine, based upon said initial Study and any evidence received at the public meeting, that no additional
significant effect will result from the proposed modifications, no new mitigation measures or alternative will be
required and that the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00441. is within the scope of the Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 331 and Supplemental EIR No. 1278/EIR No. 1716, and that the previously-
certified Environmental Impact Report No. 331 and Supplemental EIR Na 1278/EIR No. 1716 is in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State and City CEQA Guidelines and is
adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed Amendment and satisfy all the
requirements of CEQA; and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the proposed
General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to the above fintlings, the Anaheim
Planning Commission does hereby adopt and recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim adoption of
General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00441 pertaining to the Circulation Element as set forth in Exhibit "A" to this
Resolution.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of March
20, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Procedures" of the
Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures.
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
-2- PC2006-
I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on
March 20, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of ,
2006.
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
.3- PC2006-
Item No. 10
Specific Plan Amendment No. 2006-00033
Final Site Plan No. 2006-00004
Tentative Tract Map No. 16665
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006-00001
.Miscellaneous No. 2006-00134
Requested By: IRVINE LAND COMPANY, LLC
Mountain Park Specific Plan
r r;
~ ' ~ ~ ~ Subject Property
Date: March 20, 2006
Scale: Graphic
Q.S. No. 227, 228, 233, 234
~ooo~
1
Date of Aerial Photo:
July 2005
Specific Plan Amendment No. 2006-00033
Final Site Plan No. 2006-00004
Tentative Tract Map No. 16665
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006-00001
Miscellaneous No. 2006-00134
Requested By: IRVINE LAND COMPANY, LLC
Subject Property
Date: March 20, 2006
Scale: Graphic
Q.S. No. 227, 228, 233, 234
Mountain Park Specific Plan
iooo7
Staff Report td the .
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 10
10a. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 331 (PREVIO'USLY
CERTIFIED) MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 137.
AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO: 137A; (Motion)
10b. AMENDMENT NO: 2 TO THE MOUNTAIN PARK ':
SPECIFIC PLAN NO: 90-4 (SPN2006-00033) (Recommendation Resolution)..
10c. MISCELLANEOUS NO. 2006-00134 {DEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN
FOR DEVELOPMENT AREAS 3 AND 71 (Motion)
10d. FINAL SITE PLAN. NOr 2006-00004 (Motion)
10e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0,16665 {Motion)
10f. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT N0: 2006-00001 (Motion)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) The Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 area encompasses 3,001 acres located
generally in Gypsum Canyon, south of t11e Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, in Orange County,
California. The majority of the project site is in the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim;
however; open space areas in the southern-and eastern-most portions of the'project site
r are in uhincorporated Countypf Orange jurisdiction in the City of Anaheim's sphere-of-
ihfluence. SR-91 is immediately north of the project site; and the SR-241. bisects the site
into eastern and western segments. Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park
Specific Plan area consist ofapproximately 343. acres located at the southern terminus of
Weir Canyon Road, generally bordered'on the west by The Summit of Anaheim Hills:
development and on the east by the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR-241).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of the following:
(a) Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 (SPN2006-00033)
- Request to amend the Mountain Park Specific Plan conditions of approvatand
3onng and devetopmenfstandards to add`refihementsand clarifications including,
but not limited to, fiscal cohditons and sign iegulations (subsequent to the
advertisement of this request, the amendment to the sign regulations was
withdrawn). z
(b) DevelopmenEArea Plari for Development Areas 3 and 7 (Miscellaneous No. 2006-
00134).- Request for review and approval of a Development Area Plan for
DevelopmentAreas3 and 7 of the Mountain-Park Specific Plan:
(c) Final Site Plan No. 2006-00004.- Request for review and approval of a final site
plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan.
(d) Tentative Tract Map No: 16665 -Request to establish a 150 numbered and 37
lettered lot (advertised as 33 lettered lot) residential subdivision encompassing 145
single-family detached residential lots, an elementary school site, a putilic park site,
open space lots; public and private streets and a water reservoir site within
Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan.
(e) Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006-00001 -Request to remove 149
specimen trees within Mountain Park Development Areas 3 and 7 and replace with
2,980 trees.
1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 10
BACKGROUND:
(3) The project site is zoned SP90-4 (Mountain Park Specific Plah No. 90-4) and is currently
undeveloped with the exception of an approximately,300-acressnd and gravel mihing
operation (closed in January 2004 -currently under reclamation) Ideated south of the SR-
91 Freeway; east of the Gypsum Canyon Road interchange.:'.
(4) On August 23, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2005-175 and 2005-177
approving Amendment No. 1 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 and certifying
Environmental Impact Report No. 331. to provide for the development of a residential
community with up to 2,5007esidentialLnits; afire station; public trails; a trail staging area,
a concession store/interpretive center; a school site;'a public community park ahd open
space. The City Cbuncilsubsequently adopted Ordinance Nos. 5993 and 5994 to amend
the Specific Plah Zone. and establish revised zoning and development standards as part of
Chapter 18.117 of ttie Anaheim Municipal Code.
(5) On August 22, 2005; the Orange County Transportation Agency (OCTA) approved a
request by the City of Orange to amend the Master Plan bf Arterial Highways (MPAH) to
-incorporate several changes td theplanned roadway system'assocated with7eductions in
planked develdpment levels in the East Orange and'Anaheim (MduntairrPark) areas.
Since the majority of the ohanges were within the City of Orange's sphere-of-influence; the
City of Orange (with the concurrence of the Cityof Anaheim'and other agencies) took the
dead irf preparing environmental documentation and making the request to OCTA: One of
the approved amendments to the MPAH was the deletion of the proposed extension of
Jamboree Road between Santiago Canyon Road in the City of Orangeand the extension
of Weir Canyon Road in the City df Anaheim (within the Mountain Park area). Asa;
separate item on the March 20; 2006: agenda, the'Planning Commissiohwill be considering
a staff-initiated request (General Plan Amehdment Nd: 2006-00441) to amend the Generale
Plan Circulation Element to remove the extension of Jamboree Road (between the
- extension of Weir Canyon Road to the southern City limits) from the` Planned .Roadway
Network Mapbonsistent witti the amended MPAH.
(6) On March 15, 2006, the Planning Director approved a DensitySransfer Request No. 06-01
to transfer two dwelling units from Development Area 7 to Development Area 3 as follows:
Said approval (see Attachment 2 to this report), which was processed in accordance with
density transfer procedures established as part of the Specific Plan, will become final
(following atwenty-two day appeal peribd) on April 6, 2006; unless appealed to the City
Council
2
Development -
Area SP90-4 Units
A roved Units to be
Transferred Total
3 50 +2 52
7 91 -2 93
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 10
DISCUSSION:
Amendment No 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 (SPN2006-000331
(7) The applicant is proposing to amend the Specific Plan to modify. the timing of two
conditions of approval related to the preparation and establishment of fiscal
agreements/mechanisms: An amendment to clarity certain sign regulations has been
withdrawn and will be submitted to the Planning Commission at a later date as a Specific
Plan Adjustment.
(8) Condition Nos: 77 and 78 of Ordinance No. 5993 require the applicant tb establish a
mechanism to provide the Citywith annual reports concerning the fiscal impact of the
Mountain Parkproject and to forma community facilities district or other appropriate public
financing mechanism acceptable to the City td assure the project generates continuing.
revenues to meet the annual assigned cost of City. services These conditions are required
to be completed prior to the approval of the first tentative tract map:; The applicant is
currently working with City. staff on the satisfaction bf these conditions; however; additional
time is needed to establish the required mechanisms Staff has reviewed thsrequesfand
has determined that modifying,the timing to require.that these mechanisms be in place prior
to the issuance of the first building: permitwould ensure that required fiscal mechahismsare
in place prior to the first homesbeing sbld: Therefore, staff supports the requested
modifications. The revised conditions would read as follows::.
77. That prior to
issuance of the first
building permit, theproperty owner/developershaltestablish amechanism,
acceptable td the City of Anaheim, to provide on-going: monitoring and transmittal
- to the City of Anaheim of information concerning fiscal impact of all develdpments
within Mountain Park; provided, however;. that the subsequent do-going fiscal
monitoring maycdnsist of a letter, subject to the. city's approval, if there are ho
ohanges proposed by the developer or governmental entity other than the Citybf
Anaheim to the assumptions in the fiscal impact. report or development plan, but if
there are changes, detailed documentation addressing those fiscal. impacts
affected shall be required.
78. That prior td
issuance of the first
building permit, the property owner/developer shall form a community facilities
district or otherappropriate public financing mechanism acceptable to the City. to
assure the project generates cdntinuing revenues to meet the assigned cost of City
`services., per the fiscal .impact report dated August 8, 2005; on a year by year basis
recognizing cumulative surpluses and/or deficits and to provide. monitoring and
flexibility to fund any additional future shortfall should assumptions in the fiscal
impact report prove incorrect The cost to establish the mechanism shall be borne
by the property owner/developer,
Development Area Plan for Development Areas 3'and 7 (Miscellaheous No. 2008-00134}
(9) The Mountain Park Specific Plan, Exhibit3, "Development Plan" (Attachment 1 to the
report), depicts the conceptual boundaries of each of the Development Areas, the general
location of the school and park sites and the corresponding land use designations and
3
Staff Report to the.
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 10
implementation zories. Prior to approval of the first tentative subdivision map for each
Development Area, the applicant is required to submit detailed DevelopmentArea Plans
identifying the subdivision map boundaries, the size and location df the public scfiool' and
park sites and the oonfiguratioh and acreage of each zoning districtwith a statistical
summary identifying the number of detached and/or attached dwelling units in each district.
The Code requires the Planning Commission to review the Development Area Plan at a
noticed public hearing and make a'determination whether the Plan is in conformance with
the Specific Plan.
(10) The applicant has submitted a Development Area Plan (DAP Exhibit Nd: 1) for Areas 3 and
7 which indicates the following:
(a) Development Area 3 is located west of SR-241, north bf the extension of Weir
Canyon Road. This Area is designated forow-Medium Hillside Residential land
uses (permitting up to 6 dwelling units per acre) and wilt be implemented by the
RMP-4 Zone which permits single-family detached dwelling uhits do a minimum lot
and pad size of 3;375: square feet: A total of 52 single-family detached dwelling
units are proposed on lots ranging from a minimum of 3,825 up to 8,694 square
feet in area (over fialf of the lot'pad sizeswould be$ver 5,000square feet in area):
Access to residentiaf uses within the DevelopmentA~ea wilt beprovided from Weir
Canyon Road via Mountain Park Drive; a new roadway within theproject site. A
15-acre public community park'site and 10=acre school site aye also located in this
Area
(b) Development Area 7 is located south of the Weir Canyon Road extension, west of
SR-241. Thisa~ea is designated forLdw-Medium Hillside Residentiatland uses
and will also be implemented by the RMP-4'Zone. A total of 93 single-family
detached dwelling units are proposed on Tots ranging from a minimum of 3,828 to
up to 11,799 square feet in atea (approximately 1/3 of the lot pad'sizes would be
over 5,000 square feet in area): Access to the residential units end a new water
reservoir site wilt be provided from the extension of Weir Canyon Road:
{11) Staff has reviewed the submitted plans and determined that they have been prepared in
compliance with the Specific Plan; including Chapter 18.112 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code and the approved Density Transfer Request No: 06-01 as discussed in paragraph (6)
of this report.
Tentative Tract Mao No. 16665 and Final Site Plan No '2006-00004
(12) The applicant hassubmitted a tentative tract map (TTM Exhibit Nos. Y and 2) to develop a
- total of 145 single-familydetached residentiaf units: THe lot andpad sizes are in
conformance with the RMP-4 Zone requirements' as described in the' Development Area
Plan discussion inparagraph (10) bf this report:' The lot widths range from 41 to 120 feet in
conformance with Cade requirements (a minimum 40-foot lot width is required as measured
at the building setback line).
{13) The tentative tract map also includes the creation of eleven (11) landscape lots (Lots Q
through Y) adjacent to eleven homes ih Tract Nds 15128; .15142; and 15143 of The
Summit of Anaheim Hills development which will provide an additional buffer between
these homes and the Mountain Park development.
4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 10
(14) Ih accordance with the Specific Plan conditions of approval (Condition No. 6 of Ordinance
No. 5993), the applicant has submitted the following information and plans for review and
approval in conjunction with the tentative tract map:
(a) Topographic map (shown on tentative tracfmap - TTM Exhibit Nos, 1 and 2) -
These exhibits, which identify the proposed elevations of the lots and depict the
slope areas to be graded, have been prepared in accordance with the grading
plans and slope ezhitiits evaluated `irrElR No: 331 and the slope exhibits in the
Specific Plan document:
(b) Landscape plans (TTM Exhibit Nos. 3 though 6) -These exhibits indicate the
extent and type of proposed landscaping, including existing vegetation that will be
retainedf The applicant has also submitted sections showing how the
manufactured slopes; fue6 modification areas and streetscape will be landscaped in
compliance with the Landscape Concept Plan and associated exhibits in the
Specific. Plan.
(c) Vefiicular circulation plans (shown on the tehtative tract map - TTM Exhibit Nos. 1
and 2) -These exhibits indicate the typeand location' of planned roadways,
ihcluding public roads (the extehsion of Weir Canyon Road andlhe new Mountain
Park Drive (Street "A") between Weir Canyon and the entry. drive to the school site
(Lot GG)) and private Toads (all streets witfiin the resitlential Neighborhoods and
Mountain Park Drive' (Streets "B" and "C") northeast of the entry drive td the school.
site (Lot GG)): The gated entryoh Mountain Park Drive will serve private streets
"C", "D"and. "E" and the future development areas east of SR-241. The private
streets will be owned and maintained bytfie future homeowners associatioh:
With regard to the Weir Canyon Road extension, the applicant is requesting the
City Engineer's approval of a modification to the roadway design speed (a 55 mile
per hour (mph) design`speetl is typically required fora Primary Arterial Highway, a
50 mph desigh speed isrequested ahd reflected in the design of the tentative track
map). The posted speed limit is typically 10 miles under the design speed: Staff
has recommended a conditioN of approval (Cohdition No: 2 of tfte tentative tract
'map) requiring the final design"speed to be7eviewed and approvedby the City
Engineer priorto the approval of the final map.` If the 55 mph desigh speed is
'required, the final map will need to reflect a lower grade elevatioN for Weir Canyon
Road and the slopesadjacent to the road will be adjusted toYeflect the revised
grade.
With regard td Jamboree Road, as indicated in paragraph (5) of this report; city.
staff has initiated a request to amend the City of Anaheim General Plan Circulation
Element to remove the proposed extension of Jamboree Road from the Planned
Roadway Network Map (General Plah AmehdmentNo 2006-00441f The tentative
tract map has been prepared consistent with the proposed General Plan
Amendment and does hot show the alignmenfof Jamboree Road within the tract
map boundaries. Staff has recommended a condition of approval (Condition No.
10 of the tentative tracfmap) stating that approval of this tentative tract map is
cohtingeht upon the approval of General Plan Amendment No 2006=00441. An
amendment to the Specific Plan is not required as the Specific Plan acknowledges.
the processing of the MPAH amendment and the subsequent City of Anaheim
General Plan Amendment and only requires the dedication of Jamboree Road if
5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006:
Item No. 10
the roadway is not eliminated from both the MPAH and Anaheim General.Plan prior..
to,approval of khe final map. for Development Area 7.
(d) Fence and wall plans (TTM Exhibit No. 7) -The fence and wall plans include the
design and placement of community walls; internal privacywalls and combinatiore
walls (including sections).
(i) Community Wall with vines: Plans ihdicate a 6-foot high, earth tone split
face or slump stone block wall, planted with cingingvi~es to eliminate
graffiti opportunities.. These walls face the publiclprivate streets and open
space areas.
(ii), Internal Privacy Wall: Plans indicate a 6-foot high, earth tone split face or
slump stone block wall, to be constructed on property lines between
individual residential lots.:
(iii) Combination Wall: Plans indicate 6-foot high, tubular steelbiew fence atop
a split face or slump stone block low wall; intended to provide a walllfence
with a view, along the rear property line of lots that rear upon private open
space lots.
Plans indicate that combination walls are located at the edgebf the proposed
landscape lots (Lots O through, Y) adjacent to Tract Nos. 15128; 15142; and 15143
of The Summitbf Anaheim Hills development (see discussimn of these lots in
'paragraph: (13) of this report). The applicant has reviewed the location of these
walls with the adjacent property owners.
(e) :Sign plans -The Specific Plan: requires. sign plans to be submitted in conjunction
with the tentative tract map, Site Plan or DevelopmentPlan or pursuant to a
separate Conditiooat Use Permit: The applicant has indicated that theywill submit
proposed sign plans of a later date pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit
(15) The applicant has also submitted aStreet"F" -Parking Exhibit (TTM Exhibit No. 8) for
purposes of depicting guest parking opportunities on Street "F"and the adjacent cul-de-sac
(Street "G"). This exhibit has been submitted to support the applicant's request for a
modification to the:"Typical Hillside Interior Street- Private" standard set forth in the
Specific. Plan. Street "F" is proposed to have a street width of 31 feet with no parking or
sidewalkbn the south side of the street; the "Typical Hillside Interior Street- Private"
standard requires a street width of 36 feet with parking and sidewalks on both sides of the ;
street: A condition. of approval (Condition. No. 5 of the tentative tract map) has been
included requiring;, prior to final map approval, the review and approval of street
..,improvement plans showing the final)aymut of the guest parking opportunities for Streets
"F" and"G" by the City Engineer and the Fire Chief.`
(16) The applicant is also required to submit a Final Site Plan (FSP Exhibit No. 1) prepared in
conformance with the Specific Plan for Planning Commission's review and approval prior to
or concurrent with the processing of the. tentative tract map:: For single-family detached:
residential zones, the Code permits the Final Site Plan to depict the."typical" building
footprint for each proposed unit. The Final Site Plan submitted by the applicant indicates a
typical"conceptuaC' footprint which conforms to the required building setbacks. The
..applicant indicates that the building design has not been finalized. Therefore, staff has
included a condition of approval on the Final Site Plan (Condition No. 1) requiring the
6
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 10
submittal of final building footprints, floor plans; roof plans, elevations and color renderings:
for review and approval by tFie Planning Commission as a report and recommendation
item.
(17) Staff has reviewed the Tentative Tract Map and Final Site Plan and has determined that
with the incorporation of the recommended conditions ofapp~oval; the map is consistent
with the General Plan (as proposed for amendment pursuant to General Plan Amendment
No. 2006-00441), the Specific Plan as proposed for amendment pursuant to Amendment
No: 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan and Density Transfer Request No. 06-01; .and
further; that the: Final Site Plan inconsistent with the Specific Plan zoning and development
standards.
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No: 2006-00001
(18) The applicant is requesting approval to remove 149 California Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
specimen trees located in Development Areas 3 and 7 and replace the treenwith 2,980
trees from the City's Replacement Tree List (4 to t ratio) and from the Mountain Park
Specific Plan Tree List (16 to 1 ratio), resulting in an ove~alf replacement ratio of 20 to 1
(see the Impacted Specimen Tree Plan and Conceptual Tree Replacement Plan; SPT
`Exhibit Nos; 1 and 2) All replacement trees will be'planted at a minimum size: of 15 gallons
as specified in the Mountain Park Tree List and will be sfiown on Final Landscape Plans to
be submitted with building permits consistent with the Specimen Tree Removal Permit.
(19) The Specific Plan requires the replacement of removed specimen trees atan overall ratio
of 20 to 1`: The Specific Plan further requires a Specimen Tree Removal Permit to be
processed prior to approva~of each mass grading: plan to the Specific Plah area:: If the
specimen trees td tie removed are located within graded areas identified in the Specific
Plan Conceptual Gradingplan (Appendix C oEthe Specific Plan) and`ifthe removed trees
are replaced in accordance with the Specific Plan requirements (Section 18.112.070.040 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code), the Code states that the7emoval permit shall be approved.
(20) Staff has reviewed the submitted plans and has determined that the trees proposed for
removal are located in the grading areas identified in the_Specific Plan document and that.
the proposed treereplacement is in conformance with the CodeYequtrements. Further,
FEIR No. 331 addressed the environmental impacts of the removal of specimen trees
throughout the project site, including within Development Areas 3 and 7.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(21) On August 23, 2005, in conjunction with the approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Mountain
Park Specific Plan, the City Council certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 331
(FEIR No. $31), adopted a Statement of Findings and Facts and Overriding Considerations
and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) No. 137 (City Council Resolution No.
2005-175). The City Council further determined that FEIR No. 331 was prepared in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was adequate to
serve as the required environmental documentation for Amendment No: 1 to the Mountain
Park Specific Plan' and related actions to implement the plan: The lnjtial Study indicates
that no additional impacts above those covered in FEIR No. 331 would result from the
proposed project actions,. therefore, staff has determined that FEIR No. 331 is adequate to
serve asthe required' environmental documentation for the proposed project actions and
satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and that no furtner environmental documentation
need be prepared for the proposed actions. Applicable mitigation measures from MMP No.
7
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 10
137 which pertain to Development Areas 3 and 7 have been incorporated into Mitigation
-.Monitoring Plao No: 137a (on file in the Planning Department):
FINDINGS:
(22) t3efore the Commission grants any specific plan amendment, it musfmake a finding of fact
that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
(a) That the property proposed for the specific plan has unique site characteristics
such as topography;: location or surroundings that are enhanced by special land
use and development standards;
(bp That the specific plan is consistent with the goals and policiesbf the General Plan
and with the purposes, standards and land use guidelines therein;
(c) That the,specific plan results in development of desirable character that will be
compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding
neighborhood; and,
(d) :.That the specific plan respects environmental, aesthetic and historicresources
consistent with economic realities.
(23} The State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code; Section 66473.5) makes it mandatory
to include in all motionsapproving; or recommending approval ofa tractmap; a specific
finding. that the proposed Subdivision together with its design and improvement is
' consistent with. the City's General Plan.
Further; the law requires that the CommissionlCouncil make any of the following findings
when denying. or recommendingdenial of a tract map:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable General and Specific
Plana
(b) That the design or improvementof the proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable General and Specific Plana
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
(d) That the site is not physicaliysuitable for the proposed density of development:
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to
cause substantial environmehtal damage br substantially end avoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause
' serious `public health problems.'
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
easemehts acquired by the public atlarge; for access through or use of property
' within the proposed subdivisioh:`
8
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 10
(24) Zoning Code Section 18.18.040.050 states that as a prerequisite. to granting any permit to
destroy any specimen tree; the Planning Commission or City Council may impose
conditions and shall make one (1) or more of the following findings:
(a) That principles of good forest management will best be served by the proposed
destruction;
(b) That a reasonable ahd practical development of the property on which the tree is
located requires destruction of the tree or trees;
(c) That the character of the immediate neighborhood in respect to treescape will not
be materially affected by the proposed destruction;
(d) That the topography of the building site renders destruction reasonably necessary;
or
(e) That regard for the safety of persons or property requires the destruction.
The Mountain Park Specific Plan (Section 18.112.070) further states that the purpose of the
Specimen Tree Removal Permit for the Mountain Parkarea is to document the number of
existing trees to beYemoved and the number of hew trees to be planted. If thie specimen
trees are located withih graded areas as identified in Appendix C, Conceptual Grading
Plan; ahd if the removed trees are replaced in adcordance with Section 18.112.070.040
Yequiring a 20 to 1 Yeplacement ratio from specified tree lists, said Section states that the
tree removal permit shay be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
(25) Staff recommends that unless additional or contrary information is received during the
public hearing and; based upon its review and'cohsideration of Final EIR No. 331,
Mitigation Monitoring Program 137 and Mitigation Monitoring. Plan No: 137a and the
evidence'submitted to the Planning Commission, including the evidence presented in this
Staff Report; ahd oral and written evidence presented: at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, determine ahd recommend that the City Council, unless additional or
contrary information is received during the public hearing, determine that based
upon its independent review and consideration of the previously-certified FEIR No.
331 together with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 (for the Specific Plan
Amendmeht) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a (for the remaining actions).
and the evidence received at the public hearing, that the previously certified EIR
No. 331; Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No:
137a are in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines and
are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Project
Actions and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA; and. that ho further
environmental documentation need be prepared for the Project Actions: Applicable
mitigation measures from MMP No. 137 which pertain to Developmeht Areas 3 ahd
7 have been incorporated into Mitigation Mohitoring Plan No, 137a (oh file ih the
Planning Department);
(b) By resolutioh (Attachment No. 3), recommend that the City Council aoo~ove
Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 (SPN2006-00033)
to add refinements and clarifications to fiscal conditions, by adopting the attached
resolution including the findings contained therein.
9
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 20, 2006
Item No. 10
(c) By motion; approve Miscellaneous Nd. 2006-00134, approving the Development
Area Plan for Development Areas 3 ahd 7; by adopting tfte attached excerpt
(Attachment 4) including tfte findings contained therein:
(d) By motion, approve Fihal Site Plan No: 2006-00004'by adopting the attached
excerpt (Attachment 5) including the findings contained therein.
` (e) By motion, approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16665 by adopting the attached
excerpt (Attachment 6) including the findings contained therein.
(f) By motion, approve SpecimenTree Removal Permit No: 2006-00001 by adopting.
the attached excerpt (Attachment 7) including the findings contained therein:
10
Attachment 1
Mountain Park Specific Plan -Exhibit 3, "Development Plan"
Attachment ~
q1\
~~,q'~~`~"9~~14` u ~'~ r~~r rpp Ylr t ~`
W' l~ iM% N ~~c~ {h
JJ ~
~A 6 ~~ ~ fn ly. l Y~ .t
]]]? x e °Ri(3 - I pl
y ~t ,)fir.: t c~s
soNOa,o C1ry~
tf ~t3'+~~~~~`s 14
z
S ~ S ~,~~ 1 nir.ku r t1 u.
e
YJ v' I- rf'L Sly ~6:X ~;Y
}E ~~ t ~
~.'k~, r _~ ~y~yrh Lf
tt 1 ((yy 4
U 5......yyyyyy',,q,,,~~~~~~~. 743 1 p f`
Jg~~4L Ls •',
pak Cgaythp' 7 ~ ;
~ ~. to ~~~ onz
DA 3 .r}' " Y
P RMP3 tiro t~.k~t ~ i ~, RMP2 , b'.
RMP-4 ~; ` e rm 4s ItMP3 ~~ta rr, r
. ~ ~ /~ r L :I4~ ~'${ F¢ e~.~"'>< v~Y~,Yy:Ar~~ by v #
DA 6'31 ~~13'`ti DA T. YtS.~ , y~.ri-au y.~ ts~-i ' ~0 1
MP~{r r~" aet~'~.~7 RMP2 ?~~fi y.t~ ~ ~ ~w~~.~~>`~f xst
~ }k
<s v t{x wed I~ ~ ~5x r~ G '~,T,~ ~.INr. ,~k;"~rr ~E `,1' ~". ~`
~,+-'~S.~,rf'~ir k ~>~~ ,~,,ryry}'u{~ p ~P~~~r1Y.1` '.~+zf ~+`~M3
y, ~ i F~~y~ k' a~.p"'~' ~`~24~ n~o u `mil v "h4q s~~`k ~°t ~}'gYi'3rr'3~;=~1
x ~ /a"~..r srt-gs ~^(0 zroxf. I t d.Y1'yy. +h~~v `Lm ~
Y' °'~ \r f R ~~m r2.' i R Y~ '~., ~G'-Lfk` ~?a ar~„~1 ,~ e
t ems' ~' S ~`~CY'~ ~ ~~ ~e ` ~ ~
4~ t+~d" '" k~, s '~5 ~Y ~YkPr~u.eP 'Yz
Y !, ~'" y~ at Ns~ ~ ,., ~n ~~~dx~A..~~~i ~ s,.3j"is
'~ 1rp 46"+€y ~x LR" x~e 3 ~a~ +rx;.°r e i '+"
~' Rl c~`J.y^~frYr.~ err ~J' y° P md'~fi~~~~~3r~tT 4,[t d s(~tT 1. w ly 5 4 k
iK~n ~ ~.rf ~~t~~4r"`~~ S~~ti r a~w„9:,.;.~~p i ~'%~rs~st~~~h #M'-x~ .+~ s
F3rx u> P~'^tS~r~'4~, p~"i' ~i qy~.~ ~ + "~ ~s~hydx ~ Y>x ~r~ ~ .+.
:'f e ~'•1y'r"~fir3'p~"~iiaosK~~~t"Se~"~~r. ~,~'~a`~~.i-\~.sM1y.it''y,ix ..
x
,eXa °~.. Lf4°s..;~iYx"a`~ d ~'~,15°~~"~. 3f~F ,~ ~ i`F», rt
'I ~~~~~F~,~~+Y4~~5~ Tlar~~~~~~
Legend ~~ ~* a"I~YK"yY:T Y°ir}~sY~~F+~L~ri :~42,fF/
Law-Medium HUtsido Residemial lup m 6 dWad ~t~wa,~;~'" ~'bs~'
~iy~z. Low-Medlum Re.idential lupml4 dWaW ~:,~~p~~~~~y...
;y OPen SParQ
InsUMlanal
S~ School
QF Fire Station
® Public COmmuniry Park
® Privam Neighborhood Park
® Private Reoeatian Center
DAS Davelopmen[Ama
pMP-0 Implemenq[ion Zvne
®eve!®penen9 Plsan ~xhfibat 3
Mountain Park Specific Plan (SP90-4, Amendment No. 1) naa,en n, zoos
H~ ro seals
II-2
Attachment 2
Density Transfer Request
City of Anaheim
Planning Department
DATE: Mazch 15, 2006
TO: Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director
FROM: Scott Koehm, Associate Planner
RE: Mountain Park -Density Transfer Request No. 06-O1 for
Development Areas 3 and 7
Bryan Austin, Irvine Community Development Company, has submitted a letter dated
March 8, 2005, requesting the Planning Director's approval of a transfer of two single-
family detached dwelling units between Development Areas 3 and 7 in the Mountain
Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 as follows:
Development SP90-4 Units Proposed for
Area pp ved Transfer
50
_2
+2
Total
93
52
The proposed transfer would provide for the development of a total of 145 single-family
detached lots as shown on the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 16665 currently in
process and scheduled For Planning Commission's consideration on March 20, 2005.
The Mountain Park Specific Plan permits the Planning Director to approve transfers of
dwelling units between Development Areas provided that the transfers are consistent with
the General Plan and Specific Plan (Sections 18.112:030 and 18.112.050 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code). Staff has reviewed the request and recommends that the Planning
Director approve Density Transfer Request No. 06-01 as being consistent with the
General Plan and the Specific Plan based upon the following required fmdings;
(A) The overall maximum of 2,500 dwelling units is not exceeded;
{B) The proposed transfer does not result in a modification to the boundaries of
Development Areas 3 and 7 as shown on the Mountain Park Specific Plan
Development Area Plan;
(C) The General Plan density for Development Areas 3 and 7 (Low-Medium Hillside
Residential permitting up to 6 dwelling units per acre) is not exceeded; and,
(D) This is the first density transfer request associated with the Specific Plan and the
cumulative number of dwelling units transferred to date (2 units proposed) does not
exceed 250 dwelling units (the maximum allowable units that could be transferred
within the Specific Plan area).
Units A ro
Mountain Pazk -Density Transfer Request No. 06-0 l far Development Areas 3 and 7
March 15, 2006
Page 2
Approved by:
Sheri Vander Dussen, AICP Date
Planning Director
The Planning Director's decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council,
in writing, accompanied by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 22 days of
the date of the signing of this decision.
A copy of this decision has been mailed to the applicant and a copy has been delivered to
the City Clerk.
Date: 3 /S ~(o ~S~oQ~.A_, °CC.o
OsbeGa Edmondson
Planning Commission Support Supervisor
Attachment
1. Letter from Bryan Austin, The Irvine Company
H:~STAFF DIRECTORIES\.Special Projects and Forward Planning Team\Scott Koelun\Density Transfer doc3.doc
03/15/2006 08:29 FAX 949 720 2820 ICDC CONSTRIICTION
CI2j 002/004
~''~
'~ V IItlG ~®IVIIVIVItl ~L®PIVI~Itl 1 ~®~P"41tl 1 .....
M Afifiate of TFIE IRVINE COMPANY
March 8, 2006
Ms. Sheri Vander Dussen
Planning Director
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805
Re: Mountain Park Specific P-an Dwelling Unit Transfer
Dear Ms. Vander Dussen;
As provided in Mountain Park Specific Plan Section 18.112.050, we are requesting your
approval of a dwelling unit transfer between Specific Plan Development Areas (DA) 3
and 7.
Per the attached Development Area Plan, we are requesting to transfer two (2) single
family detached residential units from DA 7 to DA 3. The revised unit counts are
reflected on the attached revision to Table A of the specific plan document. The changes
aze consistent with our application for Tentative Tract 16665 for DA 3 and 7, which is
scheduled for review by the Planning Commission on Mazch 20.
Please contact me at (949) 720-2724 if you require additional information.
Sin ely,
~~
Bry A ti
Vic resident
Attachments
a
m
a
F
0 0 0 ~
C N
~ A
[•'i N .-• 7 7 ~n
-~
DD
d ~ cy
-
:y
y •C 00 0o O o~n
a m
A
C0
~
Q O
L
y
.
0
„
, 0 N 01
~~ vt 0 0
V7 3 C N~ V 7 [~
Q
~ 0
d h 00 lp N ch ~--~
V b o0 ~ rn l~ b rn
a "' "" N
N at
U
'v O O
F ~o `o
vi ~ P.i
A N M V ~ ~
~ GL
. ~~~~
,~ v;
~
Q
M to
'~ NN ~
N + ~
Q ~ ~
~ ~-r R F
~
Q
~i
a
O L -' N M t~ e{ Vt
d
d
Q
w .~,.
•~ ~
O 00
ti G ^
.
3 ~
.d
E v
~
~ ~
~ O
N
U
y
.7
~ ~
n
O O ~. U b N 'am •O
Q ~' "' G O ' ^
~
N N ~"' U ~7..
W Q A
a
I~I~11
IC.
u
h
~~`•'
Q
f'^
7
.?
~~
C O
n. ~
O
~ ~ O'
w
0
O
O
C.
N
O.
Q
N
0
0 :
Vi vi
o
G
O
~; U
~
9 ~0' t_
v
U
E
9
~ N,
c:-o ~
>'.o a
Ki G_
d'
¢
O Q
H p O
E
o .
.D ~' ~ a
-t
H' ~ y
oe
W ~. O .~
~
G
I o pn. ~ d
] N c •5 3
W
C7 c 3 n
~ '
o
~
nL
~ ~~
E ° 3
U
I 6 U p•~
i O ~ y G
6°
C 7
~ L
i 'O
O 'LJ O
L7 C ~ vOi
.D C m ~.
i
1 P
~ ~ C
~ ~ O m
~ d y
r y G ~ ^D O
¢ Y 3 v 9
_ ^ ~ 9 J ~
~ c a n
~ Q o 0 0
Eh
9 . r
~
~ y a
4 ~ ei
i c E "" ° t ~
o cw ~
C
v U p
u G N
`o
~
i
I b
y
~ ~
~] Q
„' ~
T y ~'
3 .a
i a
G +~ '00 m `' h O
v v ~
dam' C v ? E~
~ 5 c
` y
~
.
O. m ~
~' C O
.. co ~
~
O ti ~ C
N ~ ¢
h ~ n ¢~ 3rwn
U O '"' V1 C O G
~. e ~ G ~ raN V
v °
E ~
aB
¢ „
¢ wZ ,
,
o
E
`~
'~
v
,
S
< m u c m a u
C
F
C
d
E
a
0
v
v
Q
r~
b
O
O
N
O
S
`n
Statistical Summa
Development Applicable Dwelling
Area Land Usa Zoning Dlsbict Acres Units
Resitlen0al RMP-4 57 52
3 School - 10 -
Park - 15 -
Mcuntain Park Road - 5 -
Area3TOta1: 97` 52
7 Rasiden0al RMP3 37r 93'
- Weir Canyon Road - 4.6 -
Notos: t. Two dwelling units era Imnsl¢rred from DA7 la DA3 in a¢ordan<e with
SeNan 18.112.020.030
2. Aves have been atlJustetl to silo surveys in accordance with
s¢cuon te.112.ozg.oao
93 Dwelling Unils
LEGEND
® Development Area Boundary
~ ~~ TTM BOUntlery
I__J
RMPd Zoning District
52 Dwelling Units
School Site
10 acres H
y
Public Park Site
15 acres
Open Space
i
rvrounram rarK ueveiopmenr,yrea Tian
OEYel!]PMENr COMPANY
a eaV 1;¢aV
Attachment 3
Draft Resolution -Amendment No. 2 to the
Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 (SPN2006-00033)
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006-
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT.
NO. 2 TO THE MOUNTAIN PARK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 90-4 (SPN2006-
00033), AMENDING THE SPECIFIC PLAN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 77
AND 78 OF ORDINANCE NO: 5993.
WHEREAS, on August 27, 1991, the City Council of the City of Anaheim adopted Resolution
Nos. 91 R-263 and 91 R-264 approving the Mountain. Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 (including a Public Facilities
Plan and Zoning and Development Standards) to provide for the development of an approximate 3,179-acre site
(the "Mountain Park area") located within the County of Orange in the City of Anaheim's sphere-of-influence and
generally bordered on the north by the Riverside Freeway (SR-91) and the Gypsum Canyon Road interchange;
on the west by The Summit of Anaheim Hills and Sycamore Ganyon developments in the City of Anaheim and as
further described in Attachment A of City Council Resolution 91 R-263. The Specific Plan includes zoning and
development standards, design guidelines and a public facilities plan, and permits the development of up to
7,966 residential dwelling units, 179 acres of commercial uses, schools, parks and public facilities and provides
for hiking and riding trails and open space areas; and
WHEREAS, on September 10, 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5253 to reclassify
the property to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No: 90-4 Zone and Ordinance No. 5254 to establish the zoning
and development standards for the specific plan as part of Chapter 18.76 of the Anaheim. Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 1992, 2,339 acres of the Mountain Park site were annexed to the City of
Anaheim; with the remaining site: acreage remaining as unincorporated land in the County of Orange; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Cauncil, by its Resolution No. 2004-95, adopted a
comprehensive update to the General Plan for the City of Anaheim and as part of said update and at the request
of the property. owner, the density in the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 area was reduced td 2,500
residential dwelling units and the land uses were amended to provide for a fire station, a park site., a school site;
trails and open space.
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2005-175 and 2005-
177 approving Amendment No. 1 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan. No. 90-4 and certifying Environmental
Impact Report No. 331 to provide for the development of a residential community with up to 2,500 residential
units, a fire station, public trails, a trail staging area, a concession store/interpretive center, a school site, a public
community park and open space consistent with the updated General Plan. The City Council subsequently
adopted Ordinance tJos. 5993 and 5994 to amend the Specific Plan Zone and establish revised zoning and
development standards as part of Chapter 18.112 of the Anaheim Municipal; and
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commissiohdid receive a verified Petition from the legal
property owner ("The Irvine Company") for Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 td
amend the Mountain Park Specific Plan conditions of approval pertaining to provision of required. fiscal.:
mechanisms (Condition Nos. 77 and 78 of Ordinance No. 5993) and zoning and development standards to add
refinements and clarifications to Section 18.112.110.040.0402 pertaining to Major Community Entry Sign
regulations {subsequent to the advertisement of this request, the amendment to the sign regulations was
withdrawn); and
WHEREAS, the property owner has also submitted applications requesting approval of a
development area plan for Mountain Park Development Areas 3 and 7; a final site plan for Development Areas 3
and 7; a tentative tract map to establish a 150 numbered and 371ettered lot residential subdivision-
encompassing 145 single-family detached residential lots, an elementary school site, a public park site, open
space lots, public and private streets and a water reservoir site within Development Areas 3 and 7; a specimen
tree removal permit to remove 149 specimen trees within Development Areas 3 and 7 and replace with 2,980
trees, and that the applications submitted by The Irvine Land Company are hereinafter referred to as the
"Proposed Project Actions'; and
1- PC2006-
WHEREAS, the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 area consists of approximately 3,001
acres including 2,161 acres which have been annexed to the City of Anaheim and 840 acres of unincorporated'
land located within the County of Orange in the City of Anaheim's sphere-of-inFluence (an additional
approximately 172 acres which was also annexed to the City of Anaheim and which bisects the western portion
of the Mountain Park site have been developed with the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR-241). The property
description is set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Resolution and incorporated herein as if set forth in full; and,
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Anaheim Civic
Center, Council Chambers, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, in the City of Anaheim on March 20, 2006, at 2:30
p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by lawand in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 and 18.72, to hear and consider evidence for and
against said proposed amendment and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection
therewith; and:
WHEREAS; the. Anaheim Planning Commission; after due consideration,? inspection,
investigation and study made by itself and on its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
L That the Mountain Parke Specific Plan No. 90-4; Amendment No. 1 has unique site
characteristics such as topography,. location or surroundings as described in the Specific Plan identified as
Exhibit A on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department and in Volume II of FEIR No. 331 that are enhanced
by special land use and development standards; and
2. That the proposed Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4; Amendment No. 2 is consistent with
the goals, objectives and policies of the Anaheim General Plan, including the standards and land use guidelines
provided therein; and
3. That the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan would result in development of a desirable
character by permitting land uses which are compatible with both the existing and proposed development in the
surrounding neighborhood; and, that future development of the property would be enhanced by the special land
use and development standards set forth in the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4, as amended; and,
4. That the specific plan respects environmental, aesthetic and historic resources consistent with
economic realities:
< CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGSa That the Anaheim City Planning
Commission has reviewed the Proposed Project Actions, including Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park
Specific Plan No. 90-4, and did find and determine and recommend that the City Council find and determine,
pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), based upon .its independent
review and consideration of the previously-certified Final EIR No: 331 and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137
(certified by the City Council pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2005-175) and the evidence received at the
public hearing, that the previously-certified FEIR No. 331 together with Mitigation'Monitoring Program No. 137
are in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines and are adequate to serve as the
required environmental documentation for this Amendment to the Mountain Park Specific Plan and satisfy all of
the requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for this
Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to the above findings, the Anaheim
Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of the Gity of Anaheim approve Amendment
No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 as follows:
Amend the Mountain Park Specific Plan conditions of approval pertaining to provision of .required fiscal
mechanisms (Condition Nos. 77 and 78 of Ordinance No. 5993) to read as follows:
-2- PC2006-
77. That prior to
issuance of the first building permit, the property
owner/developer shall establish a mechanism, acceptable to the Cityof Anaheim, to provide'oi-
going monitoring and transmittal to the City of Anaheim of information concerning fiscal impact
of all developments within Mountain Park; provided., however, that the subsequentdh-going. -
fiscal monitoring may consist of a letter, subject to the city's approval; if there are no changes'
proposed by the developer or governmental entity other than the Cityof Anaheim to the
assumptions in the fiscal impact report or development plan, but if there are changes, detailed
documentation addressing those fiscal impacts affected shall be required.
78. That prior to
issuance of the first building permit, the property
owner/developer shall form a community facilities district or other appropriate public financing
mechanism acceptable to the City to assure the project generates continuing revenues to meet
the assigned cost of City services, per tfie fiscal impact report dated August 8, 2005, bn a year
by year basis recognizing cumulative surpluses and/or deficits and to provide monitoring and
flexibility to fund any additional future shortfall should assumptions in the fiscal impact report
prove incorrect. The cost to establish the mechanism shall be borne by the property
owner/developer.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find
and determine that adoption of this resolution is expressly predicated upon compliance with each and all of the
conditions hereinabove set forth. Should such any condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or
unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approval
herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to
the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to
the issuance of building permits far this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in
delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of March
20, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 "Procedures" of the
Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures.
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST;
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
-3- PC2006-
I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission
held on March 20, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof:.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of ,
2006.
SENIOR SECRETARY; ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-4- PC2006-
Attachment 4
IDraft Excerpt -Miscellaneous No. 2006-00134 (IDevelopment Area Plan)
March 20, 2006
Bryan Austin
Irvine Community Development Company
550 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of
March 20, 2006.
10a.
10b.
10c.
10d.
10e.
10f.
Owner: Irvine Land Company, LLC., 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach.,
CA 92660
Agent: Bryan Austin, Irvine Community Development Company, 550 Newport
Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Location: Multfale Properties: The Mountain Park Specific Plan No: 90-4 area
encompasses 3,001 acres located generally in Gypsum Canyon, south
of the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, in Orange County, California. The
majority of the project site is in the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim;
however, open space areas in the southern- and eastern-most portions
of the project site are in unincorporated County of Orange jurisdiction in
the City of Anaheim's sphere-of-influence. SR-91 is immediately north of
the project site, and the SR-241 bisects the site into eastern and western
segments.
Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan area
consist of approximately 343 acres located at the southern terminus of
Weir Canyon Road; generally bordered oh the west by The Summit of
Anaheim Hills development and on the east by the Eastern
Transportation Corridor (SR-241).
Project
Actions:
00033) - Request to amend the Mountain Park Specific Plan coriiiitions of
approval and zoning and development standards to add refinements and
clarifications including, but not limited to, fiscal conditions and sign
regulations,
Miscellaneous No. 2006-00134 -Request for review and approval of
a Development Area Plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the
Mountain Park Specific Plan.
Final Site Plan No. 2006-00004 -Request for review and approval of a
final site plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park
Specific Plan.
Tentative Tract Map No. 16665- To establish a 150 numbered and 37
lettered lot residential subdivision encompassing 145 single-family
detached residential lots, ah elementary school site, a public park site,
open space lots, public and private streets and a water reservoir site
within Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan.
Specimen Tree Removal Permit tJo. 2006-00001 - To remove 149
specimen trees within Mountain Park Development Areas 3 and 7 and
replace with 2,980 trees.
ACTION: Commissioner offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the Project
Actions, including Miscellaneous No. 2006-00134 pertaining to the Development Area Plan
for Development Areas 3 and 7, and does hereby determine that based upon its independent
review and consideration of the previously-certified FEIR No. 331 together with Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 137 (for the Specific Plan Amendment) and Mitigation Monitoring
Plan No. 137a (for the remaining actions) and the evidence received at the public hearing,
that the previously certified EIR No. 331, Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a are in compliance with CEQA and the State and City
CEQA Guidelines and are adequate to serve es the required environmental documentation
for the Project Actions and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA, and that no further
environmental documentation need be prepared for the Project Actions. Applicable mitigation
measures from MMP No. 137 which pertain to Development Areas 3 and 7 have been
incorporated into Mitigation Monitoring Plan No: 137a (on file in the Planning Department).
Commissioner offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve
Miscellaneous No. 2006-00134 pertaining to the Development Area Plan for Development
Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan based on the finding that the Development
Area Plan is consistent with the Specific Plan, including Chapter 18.112 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code and Density Transfer Request No. 06-01 (approved by the Planning
Director), and subject to the following condition of approval-
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are
on file with the Planning Department marked DAP Exhibit No. 1 (Development Area
Plan for Development Areas 3 and 7).
Sincerely,
Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
cc: Bryan Austin, Irvine Community Development Company, 550 Newport Center Drive,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
MIS2006-00134 Excerpt_
Attachment 5
Draft Excerpt -Final Site Plan No. 2006-00004
March 20, 2006
Bryan Austin
Irvine Community Development Company
550 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of
March 20, 2006.
10a.
10b.
10c. MISCELLANEOUS NO. 2006-00134
10d. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2006-00004
10e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16665
10f. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT N0.2006-00001
Owner. Irvine Land Company, LLC:, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach,
CA 92660
Agent: Bryan Austin, Irvine Community Development Company, 550 Newport
Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Location: Multiple Properties: The Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 area
encompasses 3,001 acres located generagy in Gypsum Canyon, south
of the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, in Orange County, California. The
majority of the project site is in the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim;
however, open space areas in the southern- and eastern-most portions
of the project site are in unincorporated County of Orange jurisdiction in
the City of Anaheim's sphere-of-influence. SR-91 is immediately north of
the project site, and the SR-241 bisects the site into eastern and western
segments:
Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan area
consist of approximately 343 acres located at the southern terminus of
Weir Canyon Road, generally bordered on the west by The Summit of
Anaheim Hills development and on the east by the Eastern
Transportation Corridor (SR-241).
Project
Actions:
Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No 90-4 (SPN2006-
00033) -Request to amend the Mountain Park Specific Plan conditions of
.approval and zoning and developmentstandards to add refinements and
clarifications :including, but not limited to, fiscal conditions and sign
regulations.
Miscellaneous No. 2006-00134 -Request for review and approval of a
Development Area Plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain
Park Specific Plan.
Final Site Plan No. 2006-00004 -Request for review and approval of
a final site plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park
Specific Plan..,,,
Tentative Tract Mao No. 16665 - To establish a 150 numbered and 37
ettered lot residential subdivision encompassing 145 single-family
detached residentiallots; an elementary school site, a public park site,
open space lots, public and private streets ahd a water reservoir site
withimDevelopment Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan.
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No 2006-00001 - To remove 149
specimen trees within Mountain Park Development Areas 3 and 7 and
replace with 2,980 trees.
ACTION: Commissioner offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the Project
Actions, including Final Site Plan No: 2006-00004, and does hereby determine that based
upon its independent review and consideration of the previously-certified FEIR No. 331
together with Mitigation .Monitoring Program No. 137 (for the Specific Plan Amendment) and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a (for the remaining actions) and the evidence received at
the public hearing, that the previously certified EIR No. 331, Mitigation Monitoring Program
No. 137 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a are in compliance with CEQA and the State
and City CEQA Guidelines and are adequate to serve as the required environmental
documentation for the Project Actions and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA, and that no
further environmental documentation need be prepared for the Project Actions. Applicable
mitigation measures from MMP No. 137 which pertain to Development Areas 3 and 7 have
been incorporated into Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a (on file in the Planning
Department).
Commissioner offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve Final Site
Plan No. 2006-00004 for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan
based on the finding that Final Site Plan No. 2006-00004 is in conformance with the Mountain
Park Specific Plan No. 90-4, subject to the following condition:
1. That prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer
shall submit final building footprints, floor plans, roof plans, elevations and color
renderings to the Planning Department for the review and approval of the Planning
Commission as a Report and Recommendation item. Plans shall be prepared to the
satisfaction of the Planning Department and in compliance with the Mountain Park
Specific Plan, Residential Design Guidelines and Residential Architecture Guidelines.
2. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the property ownerldeveloper shall
submit plans to the Department of Public Works, Streets and Sanitations Division,
indicating that each parcel shall have adequate storage space to accommodate
curbside trash collection (minimum three (3) barrels per parcel), and further, that
each parcel shall provide trash barrel access to and from the storage location to .
curbside.
3. That prior to issuance of building permits, the property ownerldeveloper shall provide
plans to the Department of Public Works, Streets and Sanitation Division, indicating
that the width of all pedestrian access gates on lots within the tract map shall be wide
enough to accommodate trash barrels.
4. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are
on file with the Planning Department marked FSP Exhibit No. 1 (Site Plan) and as
conditioned herein.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
cc: Bryan Austin, Irvine Community Development Company, 550 Newport Center Drive,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
FSP2006-00004_Excerpt_
Attachment 6
Draft Excerpt -Tentative Tract Map No. 16665
March 20, 2006
Bryan Austin
Irvine Community Development Company
550 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of
March 20, 2006..
10a.
10b.
10c.
10d.
70e.
10f.
Owner. Irvine Land Company., LLC., 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach,
CA 92660
Agent Bryan Austin, Irvine Community Development Company., 550 Newport
Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Locatiorr. Multiple Properties: The Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 area
encompasses 3,001 acres located generally in Gypsum Canyon, south
of the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, in Orange County, California. The
majority of the project site is in the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim;
however, open space areas in the southern- and eastem-most portions
of the project site are in.unincorporated County of Orange jurisdiction in
the City of Anaheim's sphere-of-influence. SR-91 is immediately north of
the project site, and the SR-241 bisects the site into eastern and western
segments..
Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan area
consist of approximately 343 acres located at the southern terminus of
Weir Canyon Road, generally bordered on the west by The Summit of
Anaheim Hills development and on the east by the Eastern
Transportation Corridor (SR-241).
Project
Actions: Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 (SPN2006-
00033) -Request to amend the Mountain Park Specific Plan conditions of
approval and zoning and development standards to add refinements and
clarifications including, but not limited to, fiscal conditions and sign
regulations.
Miscellaneous No. 2006-00134 -Request for review and approval_of a
Development Area Plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain
Park Specific Plan.
Final Site Plan No. 2006-00004 -Request for review and approval of a
final site plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park
Specific Plan.
Tentative Tract Maa No. 16665 - To establish a 150 numbered and 37
letterediot residential subdivision encompassing 145 single-family
detached residential lots, an elementary school site, a public park
site, open space lots, public and private streets and a water
reservoir site within Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain
Park Specific Plana
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006-00001 - To remove 149
specimen trees within Mountain Park Development Areas 3 and 7 and
replace with 2,980 trees:
ACTION: Commissioner offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the Project
Actions, including Tentative Tract Map No. 16665, and does hereby determine that based
upon its independent review and consideration of the previously-certified FEIR No. 331
together with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 (for the Specific Plan Amendment) and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a (for the remaining actions) and the evidence received at
the public hearing, that the previously certified EIR No. 331, Mitigation Monitoring Program
No. 137 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a are in compliance with CEQA and the State
and City CEQA Guidelines and are adequate to serve as the required environmental
documentation for the Project Actions and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA, and that no
further environmental documentation need be prepared'for the Project Actions. Applicable
mitigation measures from MMP No. 137 which pertain to Development Areas 3 and 7 have
been incorporated into Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a (on file in the Planning
Department).
Commissioner offered a motion; seconded by Commissioner and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve Tentative
Tract Map No. 16665, to establish a 150 numbered and 37 lettered lot residential subdivision
encompassing 145 single-family detached residential lots, an elementary school site, a public
park site, open space lots, public and private streets and a water reservoir site within
Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan based on the finding that
pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 (a) the proposed tentative tract map including
the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision, is consistent with the General Plan
(as proposed for amendment pursuant to General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00441) and the
Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4 (as proposed for amendment pursuant to Amendment
No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No. 90-4), and (b) the site is physically suitable for
the proposed type and density of development and therefore would not cause public health
problems or environmental damage, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final Map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and the
Orange County Surveyor and then shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange
County Recorder
2. That prior to approval of the first final tract map or mass grading plan, whichever-
occurs first, the property owner/developer shall. submit a vehicular design speed
analysis for Weir Canyon Road to the Department of Public Works for review and
approval by the City Engineer. The analysis shall be prepared to the satisfaction of
the Department of Public Works and shall address the proposed street width,
alignment and grade, intersection signal requirements for the mid-block public park
entrance from Weir Canyon Road, and the necessity for a pedestrian sidewalk along
the west side of Weir Canyon Road between Mountain Park Drive and the mid-block
public park vehicular entrance: Prior to approval of the final tract map or grading
plan, the property owner shall submit a final tract map; grading plan and street
improvement plan to the Department of Public Works, Development Services
Division, designed in accordance with the approved vehicular design speed analysis
3: That prior to approval of the finaltract map, the property owner/developer shall
submit a design and maintenance plan to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval for the proposed water quality basin (or an equivalent City-approved
treatment control BMP) (Lot JJ of Tentative Tract Map 16665) located adjacent to the
proposed SR-241 (Eastern Transportation Corridor) on-ramp at the southern
terminus of Weir Canyon Road: The design and maintenance plan shall be prepared
to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works and shall address the
ownership of the proposed water quality basin (or equivalent City-approved treatment
control BMP);. responsible parties for the on-going maintenance,. and any proposed
cost sharing mechanisms acceptable to the Department of Public Works between the
property owneddeveloper and/or Homeowners Association and the City of Anaheim.
4. In the event that multiple final maps are filed based on this tentative tract map, the
property owner/developer shall dedicate Weir Canyon Road, Street A, the public park
site, the public school site, and water reservoir site, as depicted on the tentative tract
map, on the first final map.
5. The property owner/developer shall submit streetimprovement plans for Street "F"
and Street "G" prior to the approval of the first finaltract map or mass grading plan,
whichever occurs first, to the Department of Public Works and Fire Department for
review and approval by the City Engineer and Fire Chief. The plan shall provide at
least one on-street parking space, minimum 22 feet long, per lot. Street "F" is
designed for parking only on the north side. The south side shall be posted "No
Parking". The street improvement plan shall provide an adequate fire lane, as
determined by the Fire Chief, in the event that cars are improperly parked on the
south side of the private street.
6. Sewer improvements associated with the proposed tentative tract map shall conform
to West Basin - Offsite Sewer Alternative 3 "Gravity Main to The Summit of Anaheim
Hills via Weir Canyon Road" as described in Final EIR No: 331. All improvements
shown on Final EIR No. 331, Figure 7.5 and the Running Springs Road sewer
identified in the Build Out condition in the Combined East Anaheim Area Master Plan
of Sanitary Sewers shall be constructed prior to the first final building and zoning
inspection within the subdivision boundary.
7. That the median island depicted on Street "F" shall'be maintained by the property
owner/developer and/or homeowners association.
8. That approval of this tract map shall be contingent upon the approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 2006-00441, amending the City of Anaheim General Plan
Circulation :Element to remove the Hillside Secondary Arterial Highway (identified as
the future extension of Jamboree Road) from Weir Canyon Road to the southern city
limits, Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan, and Density Transfer
Request No. 06-01.
9. That prior to approval of the final tract map, all lots shall be assigned street addresses
by the Building Division.
10. - That prior to approval of the final tract map, the property owner/developer shall
demonstrate compliance with Conditions Nos. 4b, 10, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28,
29, 35, 39, 45, 46, 53, 55, 62 and 63 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan tJo. 90-4, as
set forth in Ordinance No. 5993.:
11. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and
specifications. submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are
on file with the Planning Department marked TTM Exhibit Nos. 1 through 8 and as
conditioned herein:
12. That the property owner/developer shall be held responsible for compliance with the
mitigation measures and for implementation of the project design features and
standard conditions identified in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a in compliance
with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Furthermore, the property
owner/developer shall be responsible for any direct costs associated with the
monitoring and reporting required to ensure implementation of those mitigation
measures, project design features and standard conditions identified in Mitigation
Monitoring Plan No. 137a.
13. ' That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to
the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Zoning Code and any other applicable
City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings
as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable
ordinance, regulation or requirement.:.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
cc: Bryan Austin, Irvine Community Development Company, 550 Newport Center Drive,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
TTM1&665_Excerpt_
Attachment 7
Draft Excerpt -Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006-00001
March 20, 2006
Bryan Austin
Irvine Community Development Company...
550 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of
March 20, 2006.
10a.
10b.
10c.
10d.
10e.
10f.
Owner: Irvine Land Company, LLC., 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach,
CA 92660
Agent: Bryan Austin, Irvine Community Development Company, 550 Newport
Center Drive; Newport Beach; CA 92660.
Location: Multiple Properties: The Mountain Park Specific Plan No: 90-4 area
encompasses 3,001 acres located generally in Gypsum Canyon, south
of the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, in Orange County, California. The
majority of the project site is in the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim;
however, open space areas in the southern- and eastern-most portions
of the project site are in unincorporated County of Orange jurisdiction in
the City of Anaheim's sphere-of-influence. SR-91 is immediately north of
the project site, and the SR-241 bisects the site into eastern and western
segments.
Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan area
consist of approximately 343 acres located at the southern terminus of
Weir Canyon Road, generally bordered on the west by The Summit of
Anaheim Hills development and on the east by the Eastern
Transportation Corridor (SR-241).
Project
Actions: Amendment No. 2 to the Mountain Park Specific Plan No 90-4 (SPN2006-
00033) -Request to amend the Mountain Park Specific Plan coriiiitions of
approval and zoning and development standards to add refinements and
clarifications including, but not limited to, fiscal conditions and sign
regulations.
Miscellaneous No. 2006-00134 -Request for review and approval of a
Development Area Plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain
Park Specific Plan.
Final Site Plan No. 2006-00004 -Request for review and approval of a
final site plan for Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park
Specific Plan.
Tentative Tract Mao No. 16665 - To establish a 150 numbered and 37
lettered lot residential subdivision encompassing 145 single-family
detached residential lots, an elementary school site; a public park site,
open space lots, public and private streets and a water reservoir site
within Development Areas 3 and 7 of the Mountain Park Specific Plan.
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006-00001 - To remove' 149
specimen trees within'Mountain Park Development Areas 3 and 7
and replace with 2,980 trees.
ACTION: Commissioner offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the Project
Actions, including Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006-00001, and does hereby
determine that based upon its independent review and consideration of the previously-
certified FEIR No. 331 together with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 (for the Specific
Plan Amendment) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a (for the remaining actions) and
the evidence received at the public hearing, that the previously certified EIR No. 331,
Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 137 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a are in
compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines and are adequate to serve
as the required environmental documentation for the Project Actions and satisfy all the
requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared
for the Project Actions. Applicable mitigation measures from MMP No. 137 which pertain to
Development Areas 3 and 7 have been incorporated into Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 137a
(on file in the Planning Department):
Commissioner offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve Specimen
Tree Removal Permit No. 2006-00001 to remove 149 specimen trees within Mountain Park
Development Areas 3 and 7 and replace with 2,980 trees based on the findings that (a)
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2006-00001 is in conformance with the Mountain Park
Specific Plan No. 90-4, (b) that a reasonable and practical development of the property on
which the trees are located requires destruction of the trees, (c) that the trees to be removed
are located within the boundaries, of the graded areas identified in Appendix C, Conceptual
Grading Plan, of the Mountain Park Specific Plan, and (d) that trees shall be replaced in
accordance with Code Section 18.112.070.040, and subject to the following condition:
That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and...,
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are
on file with the Planning Department marked SPT Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 (Impacted
Specimen Tree Plan and Conceptual Tree Replacement).
Sincerely,
Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
cc: Bryan Austin, Irvine Community Development Company, 550 Newport Center Drive,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
SPT 2006-00001_Excerpt_