Resolution-PC 92-109h~
A FiESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIUI CITY PLANNIN(3 COMMI~SION
THAT P~'TITION FOH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3539 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the Anahelm City Planning Commisolon did receive a verl~ed Petitlon tor
Conditlonal Use Permft for certain real property sftuated in the City of Anaheim, County of Qranga, Stato of
Calltornia, descrlbsd as;
PARCEL 1: 7NAT ~ORTION OF TNE NORTHWEST (]UARTER pF 7HE
NOR?HWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSWIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE SO
WEST, IN THE RANCHO SAN JUAN CAJON DF_ SANTA ANA, IN THE CITY OF
AtJAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CAUFORNIA, AS SAiD SECTION IS
SH~WN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 10 OF MISCEILANEOUS
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNN RECORnER OF uAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the City Planr,ing Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anahoim on Septembor e, 19~J2 at 1:30 p.m., notfco of said pubtic hearing having been duly given
ao requfr~d by law and In accorciance with the provisiuns of tho Anaheim Municipn! Code, Chapter 18.03,
to hoar and constder evidence for and agninst ss~id proposecl conditional use permft and to irne4tiflate and
make findings end recommendatlons tn connecti~n therewith; and
WHEREAS, sah~ Ct~mmfssic,n, aft9r due Inspectfon, Irnostigation end study made by itself
and in fts bt~half, and aker due corsideratlon of ~!I avidence bnd reportss ~Hered at sAld hea~inp, does ifrxl
and determino the fdlowing facta:
t. That the propoa~d use is properly one (or which a condltlonal use permit Ia authorizetl
by Anahetm Municlpal CorJo Sectlon 98.03.030.010 to permlt a 4~1-unit, single room occupancy (SRO)
roside^.tial hotol wkh wafver of thc~ lollowing:
SECTtON 18.04.0$~.3 - IAfnim~llandscaoe reaulrements.
,gg,d 18,44.083.050 ~a trees ad)acent to Stnte Cdlege Boulevard
rAqutred; p t,_ reas exlsting and propased)
2. That tho size ancl shape of the sub(ect property fs not adequate to aliow the tull
devalopmont oi tho propossd use In a manner not detrimental to the ~articutar aroe nor to tha peace, heelt~i,
safety arxf qnnerel woliarx,
3. That tho propcsvd ~raject does not meet the folfowinp mfnimum stc»ndarda set by the SRO
Housinp Pdicy adopted by the City ~rouncN:
- Mlnimum number ~f ~mlts (tor the purpose ot valldating 24•hour on-sltP menegert-ant)
- Mtnimum number of parking spoces {ro serve the resfdents and employees)
- M(nlmum slze of laurx:ry facilities (to sdequately sarve the residents)
- Requlred parkfnq lot streening and landscapfng
4, That, eccording to the aoplicant, tho proposed p-•oJect fs locat~ whhtn 1,OQ0 foM of 2~
alcuhd•related businesses.
3. Th~t adequate secu-fty moni!orfnp concorns exfst due to iho apecNic locatlor. of the properry
which Is surtounded nn tw~ sldoR by an alley and the existence of eoveral tirat Boor wlndows opening orrto
said alleys.
CR1603MS.wp -~' P~'~~
~,, ~,
6, That there are no special circumstancas opplicable to the subject proporty which would
substantiate the requested codg walver for minimum landscape requfrements.
7. That Community Development Departrriont staff has serious reservatlans rogarding the
nr~posed project bocause of tha project's IACk oi compliance wfth guldelines established by the SRO Policy.
S. 7hat tho proposod use will adversely affect the adJoining land uses and the ~rowth and
~. opment oi the area In which it Is proposed to be located.
9. That tiie granting oF the Conditlonal Use f~ermft will be detrfinental to the pepce, health,
sntety enci general welfare ot the Cit(zons of tlie City af Anaheim.
10. 7hat the traific generated by the proposed use wlll Impose an ~ndue burden upan the
stroets and hfghweys de~igned and improved to carry Yhe treKic In the area.
11. TFiat fifteen (15) people indlcated thelr presence at ~fd public hearing fn opposlt(on; that
correspondence was roce(ved in opposition to tlie subJect petition; and that a petitlon w~s submftted
containing forty one (41) slgnatures expressing oppositlon tu subJoct requost.
CALIFORNIA EtJV!@QNMEyIpL QUALITY,g~T FINDING: ?hat the Anahelm City Pla~ning
Commisslon has revlewed tha proposal ta permit a 44-unit, single room occupancy (SRO) residenttal hotel
with walver of minlmum IandscApe requirements on an Irregularly sheped parcel of I~nd consistin4 of
approximately 0.32 acro, having ars eppr~ximate frontage of 81 feet on the enst side of State CollAge
Boulevard, having e maximum depth of opproximately 170 feet, being loceteti appro~cimate~y 1,180 feet south
of the contoriino ol La PaImA Avanue, and further described as 330 North StAto College Bouleverd; and does
I~ereby deny th9 Nogativa Doclaration upon finding that the decleration retlocta tho Independent JudOemont
of the lead agency and thAt it has considered the Nogative Doclaration together with any comments received
durlnp the public review process and (urther tl~ding on tho basl, of the inftiai atudy and any comments
rdcoivoc+ that there Is substantlal eviderce that the proJoct wlli h e e alpnfiicant eHect on the environment.
NOW, THERtFORE, BE IT RESOI.VED that the na Im City Pla ng Commissfon does
heroby deny sub~ect Petition for Conditional Use Permft, o e ~is the ementioned Mciings.
THr FOREGdING RESOLUTION was pt ~at th Pla g Commissfon' meetin~ of
September 9, 1992.
CHA RMAN, ANAHE~M CITY PLANNING MMISSIQN
A'tl'EST:
~~RETARY, AN~~M~{ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
/
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANCi~ } ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, JanAt t_ Jenson, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby c~rtHy
that the foreyoing resdut(on was pesst-d and adaptetl et n moetlnfl of the Anahe(m City f'lannlnQ
Cammisslon held cn Septembor 9, 1992, by the fdlowfng vote of the membors theruof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BRISTOI, HENNINGER, MESSE, PERAZA, TAIT, ZEMEL
NOES: COMMI$EIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: NONE
VACANCY: ONE SE/1T
IN WiTNESS WHEREOF, I hevo hereunto set rny hend this 6_.~day of ~~ 7~.,1~.., ~,
1992.
S ARY, ANAH I PLANNINCi COMMISSIOt~
.2. PC92-109