The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2005/05/31Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Wednesday, May 31, 2006 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. Anaheim. California Chairman: Gail Eastman Chairman Pro - Tempore: Cecilia Flores Commissioners: Kelly Buffa, Joseph Karaki, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez, (One Vacancy) . 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) • Workshop on Affordable Housing • Preliminary Plan Review for items on the May 31, 2006 agenda Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary. Pledge Of Allegiance Public Comments Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items . Adjournment You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e -mail address: plan ningcommission (caanaheim.net H: \docs \clerical \agendas \053106.doc (05/31/06) Page 1 Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. Consent Calendar: The items on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and /or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 7A. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of May 15, 2006. (Motion) H: \docs \clerical \agendas \053106.doc (05/31/06) Page 2 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006.06060 2d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2006 -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 the division of a commercial unit into two (2) units and to permit the on- premises sale and consumption of beer and wine in a proposed restaurant* and to establish land use conformity for an existing commercial retail center 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, March 20, April 17, May 1, and 15, 2006, Planning Commission meetings. *Advertised to include "to permit a billiard facility" Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 3a. 3b. Owner: Les Lederer, Lederer - Anaheim LTD, 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Agent: Iry Pickier, Iry Pickier and Associates, 5325 East Hunter Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 Location: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard: Property is approximately 14.4 acres and is located north and east of the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard (Anaheim Indoor Marketplace). Request to delete a condition of approval pertaining to time limitation for a previously- approved indoor swapmeet. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. H: \docs \clerical \agendas \053106.doc Project Planner. ( k ona2(&anaheim.nefl Project Planner. Qpramimz @anaheim. net) (05/31/06) Page 3 4a. 4b. (TRACKING NO. SPN2006- 00034) Owner: Tustin Retail Center, LLC, Attn: Julie Collins, 3670 West OQuendo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89118 Agent: Mark Frank, Promotional Signs, 20361 Hermana Circle, Lake Forest, CA 92630 Location: 3610 -3720 East La Palma Avenue and 1001 -1091 North Tustin Avenue: Property is approximately 25.8 acres and is located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Tustin Avenue (The Pacificenter Specific Plan No. 88 -3). Request to modify the zoning and development standards pertaining to signage and hotel occupancy limitations for the Pacifcenter Specific Plan No. 88 -3. Specific Plan Resolution No. 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -05090 Owner: Hunters Pointe Homeowners Association, 2244 Walnut Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 Agent: Jeffery Scherzer, New Cingular Wireless PCS., 12900 Park Plaza Drive, Cerritos, CA 90703 Location: 6910 East Canyon Rim Road: Property is approximately 3.06 acres, having a frontage of 545 feet on the south side of Canyon Rim Road and is located 175 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard. Request to permit a telecommunications facility on an existing SCE tower with accessory ground- mounted equipment. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. H: \docs \cle rical\age ndas \053106.doc Project Planner. (dherrick@ an aheim. n et) Project Planner. (kwong2 @a nah eim. net) (05/31/06) Page 4 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006.00177 6c. VARIANCE NO. 2006.04687 6d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2006 -127 Owner: Ingram Sheng, 1135 East Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 529 South West Street: Property is approximately 0.43- acre, having frontages of 316 feet on the west side of West Street and is located 367 feet south of Santa Ana Street. Reclassification No. 2006 -00177 - Request reclassification of the subject property from the T (Transition) zone to the RS -2 (Single - Family Residential) zone, or a less intense zone. Variance No. 2006 -04687 — Request waiver of lot depth and orientation adjacent to a freeway to construct two single - family detached homes. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006 -12 — To establish a 2 -lot, 2 -unit detached single - family residential subdivision. Reclassification Resolution No. Variance Resolution No. 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -05091 Owner: Ronald Beard Trust, 190 Newport Center Drive, Unit 210, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Agent: Tyler Carlson, Evergreen Devco, 2390 East Camelback Road, #710, Phoenix, AZ 85016 Location: 1222 South Magnolia Avenue: Property is approximately 4.03 acres and is located south and east of the southeast corner of Magnolia Avenue and Ball Road (Walgreens). Request to construct a drive - through pharmacy and permit a commercial retail center within an existing shopping center with waivers of (a) minimum landscape setback, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) maximum number of wall signs, (d) maximum letter height for a proposed wall sign, (e) maximum number of freestanding signs, and (f) minimum distance between freestanding signs. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. Project Planner. (dherrick @ anaheim. net) Request for Continuance to June 12, 2006 Project Planner. Qnixon@ anaheim. net) Adjourn To Monday, June 12, 2006 at 1:00 P.M. for Preliminary Plan Review. H: \docs \clerical \agendas \053106.doc (05/31/06) Page 5 Is] =I:491a19YAII Is] [d2161-1110 V I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 4:00 p.m. May 26. 2006 (TIME) (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: (Original Siqned by Danielle C. Masciel) If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. RIGHTS OF APPEAL 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 the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing. ANAHEIM 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 10:00 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 Telephone System at 714- 765 -5139. H: \docs \clerical \agendas \053106.doc (05/31/06) Page 6 SCHEDULE 2006 June 12 June 26 July 10 July 24 August 7 August 21 11 September 6 (Wed) 11 11 September 18 11 October 2 October 16 October 30 November 13 November 27 December 11 II December 27 (Wed) II H: \docs \clerical \agendas \053106.doc (05/31/06) Page 7 Item No. 2 (Res. of Intent to RS- A- 43,000) CENTRALIA -CUP 2001 -04459 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -CUP 2001 -04437 RCL 82 -83 -28 . . . . . CUP 4181 . . M CUP 527 RM-4 2 RCL 87 -6 8-55 MOBILE HOME VAR 3800 CUP 19W CUP 404 (CUP 1054) PCN 2005 -00024 (VAR 2309 E RM-4 SHOPPING. CENTER C) C) PARK VAR 3451 CUP 414 Of VAR 1726 S RCL6364 -37 CUP 404 MC OONALUS GUP912 CL 62 -63 -11 VHTERI- ECONO CUP 2168 T RCL 86 -87 -35 LURE RCL 56 -57 -7 CUP 1458 CARWASH /REST. 6263 19 (Res of Int T -CUP RM -2 to RM -3000) 2001 -04370 RCL 79-60 -04 1 DU CUP 4140 CUP 1691 T�UP2001 -04459 VAR 3117 - TLUP2001- 04437 C7 C VAR 3102 T -VAR 2001 -04454 6 ANAHEIM WES VAR 3666 MEDICAL TOW VAR 2355 SMAL antl PROFESS- 14 4 DU DU CUP 4181 SHOP IONAL West Anaheim Commercial Corridors 0 ' CG 0 RCL 63 -6446 CUP 4164 RTMENTS 194 DU m 1 D T RM-4 2 RCL 87 -6 8-55 c6 VAR 3800 CUP 19W CUP 404 (CUP 1054) PCN 2005 -00024 (VAR 2309 E RM-4 SHOPPING. CENTER C) C) CUP 3534 VAR 3451 CUP 414 Of VAR 1726 S RCL6364 -37 CUP 404 RM-4 RCL 78-79 -15 VAR 3051 APARTMENTS 194 DU RCL 60 -61 -20 VAR 1360 T DErNTE DR T CUP 3440 CUP 2405 SENIOR CITIZEN APARTMENTS 135 DU LINCOLN AVE {f 136'- CUP 414 = GG PCN 9 &07 U _ H (n RCL 6162 -16 VAR IT S CUP200565060(RCL 604H 2 GUP40W (CUP 2963) CUP 2138 (CUP 2838) W MP414 (CUP 2479) CUP 19W CUP 404 (CUP 1054) PCN 2005 -00024 (VAR 2309 E RM-4 SHOPPING. CENTER RCL 84 -85 -16 CUP 3534 VAR 3451 CUP 414 GG CL63-64 VAR 1726 S RCL6364 -37 CUP 404 Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -05060 Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2005 -00024 Requested By: PIETRO T- TROZZI APARTMENTS 19 DU EACH READVERTISED 3242 West Lincoln Avenue - Maria's Pizzeria and Billiards 10058 ' RM-4 RCL 63 -64 -19 VAR 1562 VAR 1596 CUP 19W 31 DU RM-4 CUP 822 RCL 84 -85 -16 CUP 3534 VAR 3451 GG RCL666737 GG CL63-64 60 DU APTS. RCL6364 -37 CUP25t MC OONALUS GUP912 VAR 2 VHTERI- ECONO CUP 2168 NARIAN LURE ' CU Pia? VAR 1562 CG CUP 19W RCL 6364-131 CUP 822 CUP 3534 CUP 3534 RM -4 CUP 1783 VAR 2437 RCL 62 -63 -96 MC OONALUS REST. GG RCL65 % CUP 1026 CUP 2168 VAR 2752 CUP 16 22 VAR 1771 CUP 1458 CARWASH /REST. RM-4 RCL 73 -74 -33 APARTMENTS RCL 62 -63-96 vna zsso VAR 1562 4 DU EACH CABOT DR RM -4 RCL 62 -63 -96 VAR 1562 4 DU EACH RM 4 RCL 6263 19 RCL 72 1 �1 N ® Subject Property Date: May 31, 2006 Scale: V=200' Q.S- No- 5 Date Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -05060 Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2005 -00024 READVERTISED Subject Property Requested By: PIETRO T. TROZZI 3242 West Lincoln Avenue - Maria's Pizzeria and Billiards Date: May 31, 2006 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 5 10058 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 2 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) (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 the division of a commercial unit into two (2) units and to permit the on- premises sale and consumption of beer and wine in a proposed restaurant* and to establish land use conformity for an existing 13 -unit commercial retail center under authority of Code Section No. 18.08.030.040 with waiver of: SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces (114 required, 102 existing and recommended by staff) * Advertised including "to permit a billiard facility" (b) Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2005 -00024 to permit the retail sales of beer and wine for on- premises consumption in conjunction with a full- service restaurant. (This item has been withdrawn since this determination is made by ABC in conjunction with a Type 41 (restaurant) license.) BACKGROUND: (3) This item was continued from the February 6, March 20, April 17, May 1, and May 15, 2006, Commission meetings to allow the applicant time to modify the site and floor plan and to re- advertise their modified proposal. The Permit Streamlining Act requires a discretionary decision to be made within six (6) months of the application being deemed complete (January 4, 2006), therefore, a discretionary action must be made by July 4, 2006. (4) This property is developed with a 13 -unit commercial retail shopping center and is zoned C -G (General Commercial). The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Low - Medium Density Residential land uses. The Anaheim General Plan further designates properties in all directions for Medium Density Residential land uses. This property is located within the Merged Redevelopment Area. Srcu p2005- 05060klw53106.doc Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 2 PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS: (5) The following zoning actions pertain to this property: (a) Conditional Use Permit No. 4050 (to permit and retain an existing commercial center, 2,200 square foot convenience market, and to permit the sale of beer and wine for on- premises consumption within an existing 5,005 square foot billiard hall) was approved in part, with denial of beer and wine on July 10, 2001, by the City Council. This entitlement was not exercised and staff has included a condition of approval requiring termination of this permit. (b) Conditional Use Permit No. 2138 (to permit a public dance hall (without food service) with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces) was approved by the Planning Commission on December 15, 1980, for five years. A request to delete the condition of approval pertaining to the time limit was approved on April 29, 1985. The public dance hall is no longer in operation at this location and staff has included a condition of approval requiring termination of this permit. (c) Variance No. 1728 (waiver of maximum height of roof signs and maximum distance between roof sign and freestanding sign) was approved by the Planning Commission on August 16, 1965. (d) Conditional Use Permit No. 414 (to establish a drive -in or walk -up restaurant) was approved by the City Council on May 28, 1963, subsequent to Planning Commission denial on April 29, 1963 (Tacos San Pedro - 3240 West Lincoln Avenue). DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: (6) The applicant requests a conditional use permit to permit the division of a commercial unit into two (2) units and to establish land use conformity for an existing non- conforming 13 -unit commercial retail center, and to permit the on- premises sale and consumption of beer and wine in a proposed full service restaurant. The applicant also proposes to retain a portion of the existing non - conforming billiard facility. Page 2 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 2 (7) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates an existing 13 -unit, single- story, 19,185 square foot commercial retail center within three (3) freestanding buildings. The commercial buildings wrap around a vacant parcel located on the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Westchester Drive. No exterior modifications are proposed with this request. (8) Vehicular access is provided via two (2) existing driveways, from Lincoln Avenue and Westchester Drive. Plans indicate a total of 102 existing on -site parking spaces for this center. The proposed full- service restaurant would require 24 spaces and the combined uses in the retail center require 114 spaces based on the following: Address Land Use Square- footage Required Parking Total (Lincoln Avenue 3240 Take -Out Restaurant 1,410 s.f. 5.5 spaces/1,000 s.f. 8 3242 Billiard Hall 1,950 s.f. 6 tables 2 spaces/table 12 3243 Restaurant w /beer 3,000 s.f. 8 spaces /1,000 s.f. 24 and wine 3244- Retail 12,825 5.5 spaces /1,000 70 3268 Total 114 (9) The revised floor plan (Exhibit No. 2) proposes that the 4,950 square foot tenant space would be divided into two (2) units. The new northerly unit would be occupied by the existing non - conforming billiard hall and would consist of 1,950 square feet with six (6) pool tables and amusement devices. The new southerly unit would be a 3,000 square foot full service restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on- premises consumption. Page 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 2 ee �� ■ e F �1101I�IIllri '1 11111'lllll r Proposed revised floor plan (10) Photographs indicate three (3) existing one -story freestanding buildings with tan painted brick, peach painted wood framing and tinted windows on the north and west elevations facing the parking lot and the fast -food restaurant. At the April 17, 2006, public hearing, the applicant expressed intentions to make major modifications to the center and presented a model, but elevation plans have not been submitted for staff's review. A site inspection revealed that the property is in need of general maintenance. In addition, the center is in need of refurbishment of landscaping and the parking lot needs to be re -paved and striped. (11) Photographs and staff inspections of the site indicate minimal landscaping. Small trees and shrubs are in the landscape planters along Westchester Drive. The landscape planter within the parking lot is minimally landscaped with shrubs. (12) No sign plans were submitted with this application. Photographs indicate three (3) existing wall signs on the west elevation identifying the previous pizza and billiard hall and one (1) wall sign on the north elevation identifying the commercial retail center, Centralia Center. Code permits a maximum of three (3) wall signs for the new northerly unit and two (2) wall signs for the new southerly unit. The existing wall signs affixed to the west elevation are not internally illuminated and therefore, do not require building permits. However, Code requires that wall signs shall not exceed a letter height of twenty -four (24) inches (for 1 -story structures) and maximum area of 10% of the unit's elevation (or 200 square feet, whichever is less), the existing wall signs on the west elevation do not appear to exceed maximum Code requirements. However, the existing wall sign on the north elevation exceeds the maximum permitted area and the maximum letter height. Staff has Page 4 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 2 added a condition of approval requiring the sign to be removed, or reduced in size to comply with code. There is a legal non - conforming freestanding sign identifying businesses in the center. Code permits re- facing the sign to reflect businesses changes but does not permit any structural alterations. (13) The revised letter of operation indicates that both the proposed restaurant and non- conforming billiard hall would be in operation between 11 A.M. to midnight seven days a week with a maximum of 10 employees per shift. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (14) Staff has reviewed the proposal to permit the division of a commercial unit into two (2) units and to permit the on- premises sale and consumption of beer and wine in a proposed restaurant, and to establish land use conformity for an existing commercial retail center, and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore, recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning Commission that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency, and that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. EVALUATION: (15) The division of an existing retail unit to create an additional unit and the sale of beer and wine for on- premises consumption are permitted in the C -G Zone subject to approval of a conditional use permit. (16) As of July 8, 2004, a conditional use permit is required for a billiard facility. Since the billiard hall was established prior to 2004, and no expansion or intensification is being requested, (only interior modifications are proposed), the use is a legally non- conforming and may be continued provided compliance is maintained with the provisions of Chapter 18.56 (Nonconformities) of the Zoning Code. The billiard hall is currently permitted for a maximum of 17 billiard tables; due to the division of the unit, the applicant would be reducing the number of billiard tables to a maximum of 6 due to minimum number of required parking spaces required by Code. Further, the applicant is not requesting to serve beer and wine as part of the operation of the billiard hall. (17) The requested waiver pertains to minimum number of required parking spaces. Code requires a minimum of 114 parking spaces for the combined uses proposed on -site. Plans indicate 102 parking spaces provided, resulting in a deficiency of 10 spaces. Code requires that requests for waivers relating to minimum number of parking spaces that do not exceed 10% of the required number of parking spaces shall be accompanied by a parking letter, and a parking demand study need not be completed by the City's Traffic and Parking Consultant. Staff has reviewed the attached parking letter and recommends approval of the proposed number of parking spaces since a majority of restaurant customers are anticipated to be in the evening hours after the surrounding retail units are closed. Based upon this evaluation, staff recommends approval of the parking waiver for a Page 5 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 2 full - service restaurant, non - conforming billiard hall and the division of one retail unit into two within an existing commercial retail center based upon the following findings submitted by the applicant: "(i) That 75% of the existing tenants in the commercial center are closed after 7- o'clock in the evening while the proposed restaurant and billiard hall's peak hours of operation are expected to be in the evening hours between 7 o'clock through 10 o'clock in the evening. (ii) That under current business operations for the commercial center, 50% of the existing parking lot remains underutilized after 7 o'clock in the evening. (iii) That the proposed business is to serve the neighboring multiple - family residential properties and therefore expects a high level of pedestrian traffic instead of vehicular traffic." (18) At the April 17, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, members of the Commission and the public had the following concerns and recommendations about the project: a. Physical condition of the shopping center b. High crime rate C. Modifying the layout of the unit to demise the unit into two (2) units (19) At the April 17, 2006, public hearing, the applicant presented a physical model of the shopping center's proposed elevation upgrades. He expressed the property owner's, vested interest in not only occupying the proposed restaurant and billiard hall, but also in upgrading the entire center as a whole to draw in customers. The Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding the deterioration and disrepair of the commercial center. In addition, it was stressed that the property owner's continued neglect for the property does not indicate the owner's commitment to the surrounding neighborhood, and the center's dilapidated physical condition would not create a family - friendly environment, especially with beer and wine in conjunction with the original proposal that included a significant billiard component to the restaurant. (20) The applicant is requesting to permit the on- premises consumption of alcoholic beverages (beer and wine only) in conjunction with a full - service restaurant, and continuation of the existing non - conforming billiard hall in the adjacent proposed unit. The Anaheim Police Department has submitted the attached memorandum dated January 18, 2006, stating this property is located within Police Reporting District No. 1714, which has a crime rate of 333% above average, designating it as a high crime rate (defined as 20% or more above the City average). This reporting district has the highest crime rate in the City of Anaheim. However, there were no calls for service to this address in the last year since the facility has been closed since April 2003. (21) This property is also located within Census Tract No. 869.01 where there is currently 1 on- sale license and 10 on -sale licenses are allowed. This census tract also permits 6 off -sale licenses and there are presently 6 active licenses in the tract. Although there were no calls Page 6 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 2 for service for the past year for this unit, the crime rate within this reporting district is elevated, and the facility has been closed for some time. (22) Due to the Reporting District's above average crime rate and the history for calls for service, members of the Commission and the public recommended the applicant modify their request for only a full service restaurant with beer and wine, and to remove the request for an accessory billiard hall. Therefore, the applicant has altered the request by demising the existing 4,950 square foot unit into two (2) units, including a 3,000 square foot restaurant with beer and wine sales and retention of the existing billiard hall in the remaining 1,950 square foot adjacent unit. Billiard tables in conjunction with alcohol consumption intensifies the potential for loitering and increased noise in the evening hours which would be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens living adjacent to the business. (23) Although the subject property is located in a Reporting District with an above average crime rate, the Anaheim Police Department recommends approval of the beer and wine sales in a full service restaurant. The Anaheim Police Department believes the recommended conditions of approval and the nature of the operation would control the manner in which beer and wine would be served as well as the duration of stay for the patrons, and therefore, reduce the potential for an increase in crime. Therefore, the Planning Department staff recommends approval to permit the on- premises sales and consumption of beer and wine in a proposed full service restaurant. (24) The existing center was constructed prior to the Code provision requiring a conditional use permit for a commercial retail center. Therefore, the applicant is also Page 7 View of southerly portion of commercial center Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 2 requesting to establish land use conformity for the retail center. The existing commercial center is an aging center that is also non - conforming in terms of signage and landscaping, both within the parking lot and street setback. In addition, there is an excess of window signage throughout the center. Code permits window signage of no more than ten percent (10 %) of the total transparent area of any window surface. Staff has included a condition of approval that any excessive window signage be removed. (25) Staff is supportive of the request to permit the division of one (1) tenant space into two (2) units and to establish land use conformity for an existing, non - conforming commercial retail center because it would be compatible with the underlying zone and would bring the retail center into greater conformity with current code land use requirements. In addition, the recommended standard conditions of approval would ensure proper maintenance, landscaping, and sanitation of the center. FINDINGS: (26) Section 18.42.110 of the parking code sets forth the following findings which are required to be made before the parking waivers are approved by the Commission: (a) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off - street parking spaces to be provided for such use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use, and (b) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use, and (c) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use, and (d) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the off - street parking areas or lots provided for such use, and (e) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. Unless conditions to the contrary are expressly imposed upon the granting of any waiver pursuant to this section, 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 letter that formed the basis for approval of said variance. Exceeding, violating, intensifying or otherwise deviating from any of said assumptions as contained in the parking demand study shall be deemed a violation of the express conditions imposed upon said variance which shall subject said variance to termination or modification pursuant to the provisions of Sections 18.60.200 (City- Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits). �'ID Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 2 (27) Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: (a) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code, or that said use as defined in Subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority); (b) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; (c) That the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety; (d) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and (e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. RECOMMENDATION: (28) 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 Commission take the following actions: (a) By motion, approve the Negative Declaration for the project. (b) By motion, approve the waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (114 required; 102 existing) based on the findings contained in the parking letter submitted by the applicant and the analysis contained in paragraph 17 of this report and the attached resolution. (c) By resolution, approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -05060 to permit the division of a commercial unit into two (2) units and to permit the on- premises sale and consumption of beer and wine in a proposed restaurant and to establish land use conformity for an existing commercial retail center by adopting the attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained herein. (d) By motion, accept the applicant's request for withdrawal of the Determination of Public Convenience and Necessity. Page 9 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2006 - * ** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -05060 BE APPROVED (3242 WEST LINCOLN 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 1 OF TRACT NO. 3886, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 151, PAGES 8, 9 AND 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OR ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPT THEREFROM THE WESTERLY 130.00 FEET ON THE NORTHERLY 120.00 FEET, SAID 130 FEET AND 120.00 FEET BEING MEASURED FROM THE TANGENT PORTIONS OF THE WESTERLY AND NORTHERLY LINES, RESPECTIVELY, OF SAID LOT 1. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on May 31, 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 conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and that said hearing was continued from the February 6, March 20, April 17, May 1, and May 15, 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: 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section No. 18.08.030.040 for the division of a commercial unit into two (2) units and to permit the on- premises sale and consumption of beer and wine in a proposed restaurant, and to establish conformity for an existing commercial retail center with the following waiver: (a) SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces (114 required; 102 existing and recommended by staff) 2. That the parking waiver, under the conditions imposed, 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 the proposal under the normal and reasonably foreseeable operation of such use since 75% of the existing tenants in the commercial center are closed after 7 P.M. while the proposed restaurant and existing billiard hall's peak hours of operation are expected to be in the evening hours between 7 P.M. through 10 P.M. 3. That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposal since 50% of the existing parking lot remains underutilized after 7 P.M. CR \PC2006 -0 -1- PC2006- 4. That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposal since the anticipated parking demand can be accommodated by the parking provided on the property. 5. That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase traffic congestion within the off - street parking areas or lots provided for the proposal since the existing parking lot has adequate access and parking and it is anticipated that all of the traffic for the uses in this center would be contained on-site- 6- That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposal since the existing parking lot provides ingress and egress along Lincoln Avenue and Westchester Drive. 7. That the proposed beer and wine sales for on- premises consumption within a bona fide restaurant would not be detrimental to adjoining land uses as conditioned because the operation would be properly monitored and controlled. 8. That the additional unit within the existing commercial center will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which they are located. 9. That the size and shape of the site for the combined uses within the commercial retail center is adequate to allow full development in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 10. That the modified billiard facility is a legal non - conforming facility that is not being intensified and can therefore remain as proposed in exhibits filed with this request. 11. That * ** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition, and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING That the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit the division of a commercial unit into two (2) units and to permit the on- premises sale and consumption of beer and wine in a proposed restaurant and to establish land use conformity for an existing commercial retail center, and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve the request to permit the division of a commercial unit into two (2) units and to permit the on- premises sale and consumption of beer and wine in a proposed restaurant and to establish land use conformity for an existing commercial retail center, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary .prerequisite to the use as approved, of the subject property in order to preserve the health and safety of the City of the City of Anaheim: Restaurant with beer and wine sales: 1. No admission fee, cover charge, advance prepayment for meals, or similar fee shall be imposed upon patrons as a condition of entry to the premises. 2. That the establishment shall be operated as a "Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code. 3. That there shall be no bar or lounge maintained on the property unless licensed by Alcoholic Beverage Control and approved by the City of Anaheim- -2- PC2006- 4. That food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time until either 10:00 P.M. or closing time, whichever occurs first, on each day of operation. 5. That there shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premises at any time without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code 6. That there shall be no video, electronic, or other amusement devices or games maintained within subject establishment without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 7. That there shall be no pool tables in conjunction with the full - service restaurant maintained upon the premises at any time. 8. That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for public premises (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the California Business and Professions Code. 9. That the sales of beer and wine shall not exceed 40% of the gross sales of all retail sales during a three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of beer and wine and other items. These records shall be made available, subject to audit and, when requested inspection by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. 10. That the sales of beer and wine for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited- 11 - That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcohol beverages. 12. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties. 13. That the business operator shall comply with Section 24200.5 of the Business and Professions Code so as not to employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit - sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. 14. That the portion of this permit regarding the sales of alcohol shall expire one year from the date of approval unless a valid license has been issued by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. 15. That window signs shall be prohibited and existing tinting shall be removed from the windows to allow natural surveillance into the restaurant. Commercial Retail Center: 16. That the number of tenant spaces shall be limited to 14 as indicated on the site plan exhibit submitted by the applicant. 17. That there shall be no more than six (6) pool tables maintained within the existing non - conforming billiard facility proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code shall be maintained for said pool tables. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 18. That a plan shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division showing the refurbishment of on -site parking lot landscaping with the addition of trees and shrubs. Once approved, said plan shall be and maintained in compliance with City standards- -3- PC2006- 19. That the landscape planters shall be permanently maintained with live and healthy plant materials. 20. That any tree planted on -site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and /or dead- 21 - That within sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, all window signs on the property shall not exceed ten percent (10 %) of the window area in compliance with code. 22. That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside the building. 23. That no outdoor vending machines that are visible to the public right -of -way shall be permitted on the property. 24. That there shall be no outdoor storage permitted on the premises. 25. That trash bins or barrels shall be stored outside of public view. 26. That all trash generated from the facility shall be properly contained in trash bins contained within approved trash enclosures. 27. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage, collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval. 28. That all debris in the parking areas and around the building shall be removed immediately and the property shall be maintained free of litter at all times. 29. That a plan shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval for the re- paving and re- striping of the parking area. Said information shall be specified on plans submitted for building permits. 30. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned, and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the window areas of adjacent properties, and that said lighting information shall be specified on plans submitted for building permits. 31. That the owner of subject property shall be responsible for the removal of any on -site graffiti within twenty -four (24) hours of its application. 32. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties. 33. That all doors serving subject establishment shall comply with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and shall be kept closed and unlocked at all times during hours of operation except for ingress /egress, deliveries, and in cases of emergency. 34. That any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code (Section No. 4.16.070 Anaheim Municipal Code). -4- PC2006- 35. That a burglary/robbery alarm permit application, Form APD 516, be completed and returned to the Anaheim Police Department prior to initial alarm activation. This form is available at the Police Department front counter. 36. That a File Emergency Listing Card, Form APD -281, be completed and returned to the Anaheim Police Department. This form is available at the Police Department. 37. That rear entrance doors shall be numbered with the same address number and shall be illuminated during hours of darkness. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 38. That four (4) foot high rooftop address numbers shall be painted flat on the roof in contrasting color to the rooftop material and shall not be visible from ground level. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans for building permits. 39. That all exterior doors and the rear of the unit abutting the alley shall have their own light source, which shall adequately illuminate door areas at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the building. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 40. That rear entrance doors shall remain closed and monitored during business hours to reduce the potential of noise disturbance to surrounding properties. 41. That the wall sign on the north elevation shall be removed and any new sign shall comply with the requirements of the Sign Code with a maximum letter height of 24- inches and an area not to exceed 10% of the total elevation area. Any decision made by staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. 42. That the property owner shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 4050 (to permit and retain an existing commercial center, 2,200 square foot convenience market, and to permit the sale of beer and wine for on- premises consumption within an existing 5,005 square foot billiard hall) and Condition Use Permit No. 2138 (to permit a public dance hall (without food service) with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces) to the Planning Services. 43. 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 No. 1 and as conditioned herein. 44. 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. 18, 27, 29, 30, 37, 38, 39, 41 and 42, above - mentioned, shall be complied with. 45. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 35, 36, and 43, above - mentioned, shall be complied with. 46. 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 this 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- -5- 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 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 May 31, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Zoning Provisions — General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN. ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) 1, 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 May 31, 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- City of Anaheim POLICE DEPARTMENT Special Operations Division Attachment - Item No. 2 To: Kimberly Wong Planning Department From: Sergeant Mike Lozeau Vice Detail Date: July 7, 2005 RE: PRE 2005 -00048 Maria's Pizzeria- Billiards 3242 W. Lincoln Anaheim, CA 92804 The Police Department received the I.D.C. route sheet for PRE 2005- 00048. The applicant is requesting to reduce the number of billiard tables and increase the area and tables for dining and to serve beer and wine. The location is within Reporting District 1714, which has a crime rate of 286 percent above average. It is also within census tract 869.01, which has a population of 8,978. This population allows for 10 On Sale licenses and there is presently 1 license in the tract. This population also allows for 6 Off Sale licenses and there are presently 6 active licenses in the tract. The census tract boundaries are: North Lincoln Avenue South Ball Road East Western Avenue West Knott Avenue Off Sale licenses in the applicants census tract: 3430 W. Lincoln Avenue 3268 W. Lincoln Avenue 550 S. Knott Avenue 3460 W. Orange Avenue 3454 W. Lincoln Avenue 3420 W. Lincoln Avenue On Sale license in the applicants census tract: 3330 W. Lincoln Avenue Anaheim Police Dept. 425 S. Huber Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 TEL: 714.765.1401 FAX: 714.765.1665 Memorandum Kimberly Wong Maria's Pizzeria - Billiards The census tracts surrounding this location are as follows: North — Buena Park South — 878.01 On Sale allowed 6 /active 5 pending 1 East — 869.02 On Sale allowed 6 /active 4 pending 1 West — 1102.02 On Sale allowed 9 /active 1 population 4,890 Off Sale allowed 3 /active 7 population 4,921 Off Sale allowed 3 /active 3 1 pending population 7,757 Off Sale allowed 5 /active 1 Additional Census Tract information: North East — Buena Park North West — Buena Park South West — 1102.03 On Sale allowed 6 /active 1 population 5,453 Off Sale allowed 4 /active 3 South East — 878.02 On Sale allowed 8 /active 2 population 6,725 Off Sale allowed 5 /active 5 The Police Department had no calls for service to this address in the last year. The Reporting District to the north of this location is 1614 and has a crime rate of 40 percent below average. The Reporting District to the south is 1814 with a crime rate of 32 percent above average. The Reporting District to the west is 1713 with a crime rate of 30 percent below average. The Reporting District to the east is 1715 with a crime rate of 129 percent above average. The Police Department strongly recommends denial due to the extremely high crime rate. This high density neighborhood has been plagued with gang problems. There are two long standing gangs with members in this area, Folks and W 18 St. There is an Elementary, Jr. High and a High School in the very nearby vicinity. There is a problem with drug sales in the area. The Police Department feels that the addition of an ABC license at this location would further add to the problems in this area, and the safety and welfare of the citizens of Anaheim. If the request for Public Convenience or Necessity is granted, the Police Department recommends the following conditions be placed on the C.U.P.: Page 2 Memorandum Kimberly Wong Maria's Pizzeria - Billiards 1) At all times when the premise is open for business, the premise shall be maintained as a bona fide restaurant and shall provide a menu containing an assortment of foods normally offered in such restaurant. 2) There shall be no bar or lounge area upon the licensed premise maintained for the purpose of sales, service, or consumption of alcoholic beverages directly to patrons for consumption. 3) The gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 40 percent of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested. 4) There shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premise at any time. 5) The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premise shall be prohibited. 6) There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. 7) The activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties. 8) That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premise (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the Business and Professions Code. 9) There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor minimum purchase required. 10) That all doors serving subject restaurant shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and shall be kept closed at all times during the operation of the premises except for ingress /egress, permit deliveries and in cases of emergency. Page 3 Memorandum Kimberly Wong Maria's Pizzeria- Billiards 11) There shall be no public telephones on the property that are located outside the building and within the control of the applicant. 12) Any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code. (Section 4.16.070 Anaheim Municipal Code) 13) No "happy hour" type of reduced price alcoholic beverage promotion shall be allowed. 14) Petitioner shall not share any profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person, based upon monies collected as a door charge, cover charge, or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders, or the sale of drinks. If further information is required please contact me at extension 1451. fAhome \mmirwin\2005 -00048 Maria's Pizzeria- Billiards.doc Page 4 Letter of Operation 3242 W. Lincoln occupies approximately 5,000 s.f. within a 17,000 s.f. neighborhood retail center and currently has food and billiard licenses. The existing property, developed in the late 1980's, is composed of neighborhood retail uses, a fast food pad tenant and a small convenience store. Total parking on site is 102 spaces. The total required spaces based on a projected tenant mix is 114 spaces, which is a significant reduction from the previous leases requiring 141. The center has been operating with this parking arrangement under a previously approved CUP in acknowledgement of the after hours demand of a previous night club tenant. This request is for a Type 41 beer and wine license in response to the many past requests from patrons for an expanded food and beverage menu. The business will be a bona fide restaurant providing table service for its guests. Beer and wine in the facility will be served in glass containers by staff. Draft beer and house wines will be the primary alcohol offered although a small selection of premium brands or bottles will be available. The goal is to develop a family oriented restaurant facility that will have an appeal across age groups and to serve a rapidly changing area demographic. The hours of operation are: Sunday- Thursday: 11:00 am — 12:00 am Friday and Saturday: 11:00 am —12:00 am May 22, 2006 Most business is expected to be conducted in early and mid - evening hours with the peak times occurring between 6pm and 9pm with Thursdays thru Saturdays as the busiest days. The majority of the other tenants in the center are neighborhood retail and service businesses which typically cease operations around 6pm and 7pm weekdays. This balances well with the peak operating hours of the restaurant translating to a greater availability of parking during the busiest evening hours. Up to 10 employees are expected to be employed /shift: 3 -4 in the kitchen, 1 -2 at the counter and 2 -3 in the dining area. ITEM NO. 2 1/31/06 City of Anaheim Planning Department Anaheim City Hall 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. To Whom It May Concern We are the owners and operators of the neighborhood center at 3242 W. Lincoln Ave. We are applying for a conditional use permit to allow for conversion of tenant space 3242 to operate primarily as a restaurant and to allow for on site sale and consumption of beer and wine. We have owned this center for more than 20 years and are very familiar with its operation. Our property is a corner lot accessed from both Lincoln Ave. on the north and from Westchester Dr. on the west. The east and south frontages are both alleys, consequently all building facades and service areas are directly accessed by roads. The total area of the shopping center is approximately 17,000 s.f. Currently, approximately 3,500 s.f. of the center is vacant. The tenant mix includes: Location Use s.f. Hours a) 3268 Convenience store 2.250 s.f. 10 am- 1Opm b) 3266 Retail /service 700 s.f. 10 am- 7pm c) 3264 Barber Shop 700 s.f. 9am- 6pm d) 3262 Nutrition/Retail 700s.f. 9am- 6pm e) 3260 Vacant 700 s.f. -- f) 3258 Hair salon 700 s.f. 9am- 7pm g) 3256 Appliance Repair 700 s.f. 9am- 6pm h) 3252 Laundromat 1,500 s.f. 6:30 am -lOpm i) 3248 Butcher shop 2,100s.f. 9am- 6pm j) 3244 Vacant 2,100 s.f. -- Our parking area is easily accessible and contains 102 cars. As the chart above indicates, 75% of our tenants are dark after 7pm and if you include the laundromat, which sees light utilization on Friday and Saturday evenings, 50% of our available parking is underutilized at times when are proposed restaurant is at peak operations. We expect our busiest days to be Thursday - Saturday between the hours of 7pm- l Opm at which time we anticipate an 85% occupancy. The balance of the week, based on our past experience, translates to an occupancy approaching 40 %. Our staffing needs fluctuate between 6 and 10 with some overlapping of shifts ITEM NO. 2 occurring on Fridays and Saturdays between 5pm and 8pm when 10-12 staff may be on hand for that overlapping period. We are very comfortable with the available parking based on the complimentary shared use of spaces resulting from our tenant mix, the simple circulation and accessibility of the site and from an expected high level of pedestrian traffic from the sorrounding neighborhood. (A new senior housing project is directly across the street). We respectfully request that you take these mitigating factors into consideration anjj grant an administrative approval of our parking requirement. ."` Sincerely agent for the owner From: Planning Commission Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 8:08 AM To: Kimberly Wong; Judy Dadant; Greg McCafferty; Greg Hastings Subject: FW: the zoning for the liquor license at Maria's Pizzeria and Billiards From: Arla Campbell [mailto:arla @Ism.org] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:08 PM To: Planning Commission Cc: mjang @ocregister.com Subject: the zoning for the liquor license at Maria's Pizzeria and Billiards Dear Commissioners, ITEM NO. 2 Thank you very much for looking at the entire situation in west Anaheim when considering whether we need alcohol served in a place with pool tables. My husband and I own a home at 1802 W. Crone Ave., near the intersection of Ball and Euclid. I drive by the location of Maria Trozzi's pool hall /restaurant daily on my way to work and shop. I teach English to high school students in a private school in Anaheim. My husband and I are the parents of three boys, two of whom live in Anaheim; one still lives at home and attends Cal State Fullerton, and one, living nearby in west Anaheim, has graduated from UCI, is married, and they have a two- month -old baby. I think our community youth need alternatives to pool hall / "restaurants" where drinks are served and gang activity could be revived. We do not need restaurants that have the police showing up three times a month (referencing Mira Jang's article in Anaheim Bulletin). I believe that if Trozzi wishes to serve beer and wine, there should not be pool tables at all. Playing pool at a restaurant involves getting up from table where drinks, and perhaps food, are served and walking around with the drinks to play pool. A family atmosphere can be maintained if drinks stay at the table where they are served. Arla Campbell 714 -991 -7859 1802 W. Crone Ave. Anaheim, CA 92804 From: Planning Commission Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 8:09 AM To: Kimberly Wong; Greg Hastings; Greg McCafferty; Judy Dadant Subject: FW: a response to your article about the liquor license at Maria Trozzi's restaurant From: Arla Campbell [mailto:arla @Ism.org] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:08 PM To: mjang @ocregister.com Cc: Planning Commission Subject: a response to your article about the liquor license at Maria Trozzi's restaurant ITEM NO. 2 Dear Ms. Jang, Thank you very much for your reporting. I care about west Anaheim, where I live, and need reporting like this. I do have a question. You indirectly quote in the section of the article subtitled "Crime Concerns" that Trozzi wants to keep "as few as four pool tables," yet later you report in the section called "In Transition" that she "decreased the number of pool tables from 17 to 14." There is a big difference between four and fourteen pool tables. Is this a proofing error, or am I misreading your summary of the issue? Or is she going to go from 17 to 14 tables down to 4? I personally do not think that the city should issue a liquor license to a "restaurant" with pool tables in an area where gang activity has been present in the recent past. Thanks for your reporting. Arla Campbell 1802 W. Crone Ave 92804 Item No. 3 REYVEC RI(SABC) INC. RRCL RCL 54 -55 -02 545&42 VAC. BLDG. VAR 162] Commercial /lndustnal PALAIS RD (South Anaheim Blvd. Area) S C1 I RCL (SABC) 0 -42 T -CUP 200 -00 8 RCL 91 -92 -02 VAR 1 CUP 3598 RCL 57-14 (CUP 35858 0) CUP 3493 1 G. RCL 54 -4 -5532 (CUP 3439) CUP 3407 CUP (CUP 3064 VAR 4210 IN PARKING LOT 2003 -04802 BDUILDING� I (SABC) 1 (SABC) RCL 545542 1 (SABC) RCL 66-67 -14 RCL 55 -56 -19 PEP MARBOLIS RCL 54 -5532 T -CUP 200354802 CHURCH /SCHOOL VAR 1627 INDUSTRIAL BUILDING 'SABC) RCL 3593] C -G (SANG) RCL 2000 -M23 , m (Res of Int. to SABC ga �, Overay Zone) RCL 54 -5532 RCL 90 -91 -25 CUP 1798 ` mm o' RCL 66-67 -36 CUP 3952 PARKING —FF D7 RCL 6051 -113 CUP 3817 :L )6] 0 6051 -14 CUP 3688 RCL 55 -56 -19 CUP 3665 , C RCL 54 -5542 CUP 3606 `IOUO r T -CUP 2006-05089 CUP 3545 CUP 3400 , GTORE rn T -CUP 2003 -04785 VAR 1627 T -CUP 2002-04597 D T 2 PCN 97 -11 CUP 2001 - 04439 T- CUP2001 -04421 ` RS -A- T- CUP2001 -04345 1 T- CUP2001-04303 RCL 1 T -CUP 2001 -04302 113 42 R CU P FUP 289 T -CUP 2001 -04300 2976 CUP 253 FG T -CUP 2001 -04299 CONTRACTOR I RCLEIEL -42 CUP2%7 T- CUP2000 -04230 NGINEERSINC I RCL 66 -67 -36 CUP 26]2 T -CU P 2000 -04205 66 -6786 RCL 6667 -14 CUP 171 RCL66b786 RCL 60E1 -113 VAR 3910 INDOOR SWAP MEET 60 -61 -113 IBURGERS RCL 5 &5&19 VAR 1627 ANAHEIM MARKETPLACE CL 60-61 -113 RCL 545&42 "— RCL54 -5542 I� RESTAURANT ORANGE CO. COLOR GRAPHICS f 730 ' CERRITOS AVENUE — I 66 -67 -36 C-G 60-61 -113 CUP 2002 -04611 CUP 2002 -04510 RCL 54 -55 42 1 665736 RCL 2000-00023 RCL 66 -67 -36 6051 -113 (Res of Int. to RCL 60-61 -113 ROL se - ss� SABC Overay Zone) CUP 2003 -04817 CUP 2 CUP 3738 (CUP 1396) RCL CUP 3350 VAR 4356 RCL f COUP 1849 VAR 3148 INDL VAR 1961 SCW2006 BUI SCW2 N -00033 Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 Subject Property TRACKING NO. CUP2006 -05089 Date May 31, 2006 Scale Graphic Requested By. LES LEDERER Q.S. No. 96 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard - Anaheim Indoor Marketplace 10052 4, VO . k y 'hat .. .. ,1 1 r e Mrs e _ Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 3 3a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY - APPROVED) (Motion) 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3400 (Resolution) (Tracking No. CUP2006- 05089) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This irregularly- shaped 14.4 -acre property is located north and east of the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard, having frontages of 730 feet on the north side of Cerritos Avenue and 507 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard (1440 South Anaheim Boulevard — Anaheim Indoor Marketplace). REQUEST: (2) The applicant requests to delete a condition of approval pertaining to time limitation for a previously approved indoor swap meet (reinstated August 29, 2000, to expire on August 29, 2010) under the authority of Code Section 18.60.190.030. BACKGROUND (3) This property is developed with a 133,200 square foot indoor swap meet with accessory outdoor uses and is zoned C -G (SABC) (General Commercial — South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor Overlay). The General Plan designates this property and properties to the north, south and east for General Commercial land uses. Properties to the west are designated for Low - Medium and Medium Density Residential land uses. (4) Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 (to permit a commercial retail center /indoor swap meet) was approved by the Council in 1991, to expire on April 22, 2001. On July 17, 2000, the Commission approved reinstatement of this permit for a period of ten (10) years, to expire July 17, 2010- On August 29, 2000, the City Council reviewed this item (called up by two members of the Council) and the Commission's decision was upheld, reinstating this permit for a period of ten (10) years, to expire August 29, 2010- Resolution No. 2000R -188 adopted in connection with the reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 included the following condition: " 1. That this permit shall expire ten (10) years from the date of this resolution, on August 29, 2010" . PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS (5) (a) Conditional Use Permit No. 2001 -4439 (to permit on- premises sale and consumption of beer and wine in an existing restaurant) was approved by the Planning Commission on September 24, 2001. On September 23, 2002, this permit was reinstated to expire on August 29, 2010, concurrent with the expiration of Conditional Use Permit No. 3400, which is the permit for the entire indoor marketplace. (b) Conditional Use Permit No. 3952 (to construct a 6,809 square foot addition for a television studio and entertainment area with sale of beer for on- premises consumption, and a second level, 1,209 square foot office area in conjunction with an existing indoor swap meet) was approved by the Commission on September 29, 1997. On October 12, 1998, the Commission approved an extension of time to expire on September 27, 1999. An additional extension of time was approved by the Commission on May 22, 2000, to expire on September 29, 2000. Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 3 Sr -cu p3400j pr_sr_p c053106 (c) Conditional Use Permit No. 3817 (to permit a 9,367- square foot indoor entertainment facility for a television taping studio and an indoor stage for concerts, live theatrical productions and movie screenings) was approved by the Commission in 1996. The applicants request to relocate the indoor entertainment area and add an outdoor event area was approved by the Commission in 1997 for two years, to expire March 17, 1999. On March 15, 1999, the Commission approved a reinstatement of this permit for two years, to expire on April 22, 2001. On January 17, 2001, this permit was reinstated to expire on August 29, 2010, concurrent with the expiration of Conditional Use Permit No. 3400, which is the permit for the entire indoor marketplace. (d) Conditional Use Permit No. 3688 (to permit a private outdoor roller hockey rink in conjunction with an existing indoor swap meet facility) was granted by the Commission in 1994. Commission further reviewed and approved a request for determination of substantial conformance in 1995, pertaining to size and location of the rink. On January 17, 2001, this permit was reinstated to expire on August 29, 2010, concurrent with the expiration of Conditional Use Permit No. 3400, which is the permit for the entire indoor marketplace. (e) Conditional Use Permit No. 3665 (to permit a pawnshop in conjunction with a jewelry store within an existing indoor swap meet facility) was granted by the Commission in 1994. (f) Conditional Use Permit No. 3606 (to permit sales of beer and wine for on- premises consumption within a proposed restaurant in conjunction with an indoor swap meet) was approved by the Commission in 1993, for one year. Three additional one -year extensions of time have been granted by the Commission. On January 17, 2001, this permit was reinstated to expire on August 29, 2010, concurrent with the expiration of Conditional Use Permit No. 3400, which is the permit for the entire indoor marketplace. (g) Conditional Use Permit No. 3545 (to permit outdoor installation of alarms and stereos and a batting cage with waiver of permitted outdoor uses) was granted by the Commission for one year on September 21, 1992. Since December 1, 1993, the Commission has approved 3 reinstatements expiring on September 21, 1998 and on October 1994, approved a request to add window tinting and tire rim installation to the previously approved uses. On January 17, 2001, this permit was reinstated to expire on August 29, 2010, concurrent with the expiration of Conditional Use Permit No. 3400, which is the permit for the entire indoor marketplace- DISCUSSION (6) The owner of the property, Les Lederer, has submitted the attached letter dated April 3, 2006, requesting deletion of the time limitation, since they are encountering difficulty in the refinancing of the property due to the time limit placed on this permit. The owner further indicates a portion of the loan would be used to enhance the property, including repainting the building, repairing and improving the parking area, and enhancing and replacing landscaping along the property frontages on Anaheim Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue. (7) The attached memorandum dated May 2, 2006, from the Community Preservation Division indicates that following an inspection of this property, all but two conditions were being met from the previously- approved resolution. These conditions pertained to the location of Page 2 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 3 public telephones outside the building and maintenance issues pertaining to the parking area. Planning Services and Community Preservation staff met with the applicant to discuss these issues. The applicant indicated the phones would be relocated to comply with the condition of approval, and that repairs to the parking area were planned subsequent to the completion of the refinance. (8) Based on staffs review of the site and the owner's letter of request, staff has included conditions of approval requiring that the parking area be resurfaced within 90 days of this approval, and that the perimeter and interior landscaping be enhanced (by the addition of shrubs, ground cover, turf, or trees, and irrigation systems as necessary) within 180 days of this approval. Staff has also included a condition of approval requiring two Community Preservation inspections each year, with the cost of the inspections paid by the applicanUproperty owner. The time limit was placed on this use based on concerns that the area was transitioning and that there were beautification and development efforts in the area related to the widening and re- landscaping of the Santa Ana (1 -5) Freeway, the installation of landscape medians and parkways along Anaheim Boulevard, and the street beautification efforts in the Anaheim Resort. The Commission also had concerns as to whether or not a swap meet was an appropriate use at this location. Since the swap meet has been operating for 15 years with no significant Community Preservation or Police Department activity, the time limit is no longer necessary. Based on the operation of the site and staff inspections, the removal of the time limitation is in keeping with the original findings pertaining to the approval of the indoor swap meet and would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area. The request would not include any change to the existing operation of the facility, and since the site has been operating in substantial conformance with the originally approved permit since 1991, staff recommends approval of the request. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (9) Staff has reviewed the proposal to delete a condition of approval pertaining to time limitation for a previously approved indoor swap meet, and does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously approved in connection with the indoor swap meet, is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this request 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- FINDINGS (10) Before the Commission grants any major modification to a 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 modification of use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code, or is an unlisted use as defined in Subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority); (b) That the modification will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; Page 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 3 (c) That the size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety; (d) That the traffic generated by the modified use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and (e) That the granting of the modifications under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. (11) Before the Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: (a) That the use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code, or is an unlisted use as defined in Subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority); (b) That the use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; (c) That the size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety; (d) That the traffic generated by the use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and (e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim- RECOMMENDATION (12) 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 Commission take the following actions: (a) By motion, determine the previously- approved Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this request. (b) By resolution, aoorove an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 to delete a condition of approval pertaining to time limitation for a previously approved indoor swap meet, by adopting the attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained therein. Page 4 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2006 -*'" A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2000R -188, ADOPTED IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3400 (1440 SOUTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD) 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: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO SAN JUAN CAJON DE SANTA ANA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF A 60 FOOT STATE HIGHWAY, AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED JULY 10, 1914 IN BOOK 258, PAGE 66 OF DEEDS, WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CERRITOS AVENUE 40.00 FEET IN WIDTH, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE IN SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 630,00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 82 54'41" EAST; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 4 37' 14 ", A DISTANCE OF 50.81 FEET; THENCE NORTH 6 55' 00" WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LAND DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED APRIL 13, 1929 IN BOOK 257, PAGE 462 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT 3313, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 107, PAGES 34 TO 37 INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTH 89° 56' 31" EAST 1161.91 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 3313, TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY, AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED AUGUST 18, 1899 IN BOOK 44, PAGE 226 OF DEEDS; THENCE SOUTH 15 25'43" EAST 78.85 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID 60.00 FOOT STATE HIGHWAY, THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THEREFROM THE EAST 144.51 FEET OF SAID LAND. ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23 "CENTER LINE OF CERRITOS STREET" AND DISTANT NORTH 220.00 FEET, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED APRIL 13, 1929 IN BOOK 257, PAGE 462 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS "EASTERLY LINE OF LOS ANGELES STREET "; THENCE SOUTH 6 55' 00" EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 150.99 FEET TO A POINT OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 630.00 FEET, SAID POINT BEING IN THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF A 60.00 FOOT STATE HIGHWAY, AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED RECORDED JULY 10, 1914 IN BOOK 258, PAGE 66 OF Cr\PC2006 -0 -1- PC2006- DEEDS, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 78° 17'27" EAST; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6 26'29" AND AN ARC DISTANCE OF 70.92 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 221.36 FEET; THENCE NORTH AND AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 220.00 FEET, THENCE WEST AND PARALLEL WITH SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 250.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. WHEREAS, ON June 4, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91R -165 to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 to permit a commercial retail center /indoor swap meet for ten years, to expire on April 22, 2001, on property located at 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard; and WHEREAS, on August 29, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000R -188 reinstating and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 for an additional period of ten (10) years, to expire on August 29, 2010; and WHEREAS the applicant has requested to amend said conditional use permit and conditions associated therewith to delete a condition of approval pertaining to time limitation for the previously- approved indoor swap meet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on May 31, 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 request to delete a condition of approval pertaining to time limitation for the previously- approved indoor swap meet is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under the authority of Code Sections 18.60.190.030. 2. That the deletion of the time limitation will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area because the swap meet has been operated in a manner such that it has not negatively affected surrounding properties. 3. That the granting of the conditional use permit and modifications under the conditions imposed, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim since this permit has been exercised in substantially the same manner and in conformance with all the conditions and stipulations originally approved in 1991. 4. That absence of current code violations and the prompt resolution of previous violations indicate that this use is being exercised in a manner which is not detrimental to the surrounding land uses, nor to the public peace, health and safety. 5. That the traffic generated by the modified use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because code required parking is provided on -site and there are no land use modifications requested. 6. That * ** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition- -2- PC2006- CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING That the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to delete a condition of approval pertaining to time limitation for a previously- approved indoor swap meet and does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this request upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Mitigated 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, amending Conditional Use Permit No. 3400, and incorporating the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 2000R -188 into a new resolution with 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: "Bold indicates new or modified conditions 1. That the parking lot shall be maintained and repaired when necessary to prevent potholes, cracks, and uneven surfaces. 2. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1- gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3 -foot centers or tall shrubbery. 3. That the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of litter at all times. 4. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the C -G (General Commercial) Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning Commission. 5. That the property shall be maintained in accordance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. 6. That there shall be no public telephones on the property that are located outside the building. 7. That no banners, pennants or balloons shall be permitted unless a Special Event Permit is first obtained. Roof balloons shall not be permitted at any time. 8. That no vending machines shall be visible from any public right-of-way- 9- That the parking lot serving the premises shall be maintained with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby businesses. 10. That the tenant spaces in the subject indoor swap meet shall be leased for periods of no less than one (1) yeareach. 11. That there shall be no outdoor sales, display, or product demonstrations. 12. That this swap meet shall be considered one business for purposes of Special Event Permits. 13. That any tree planted on -site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and /or dies- -3- PC2006- 14. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 15. That subject property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1. 16. That at minimum, the previously required landscaping shall be maintained on the property as identified below: Sixty (60) Juniper trees along the north fence line of the property to create a green shield that will obscure the view of the back of the industrial properties adjacent to the Marketplace, and The addition of ten (10) trees interspersed through out the parking lot area adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard, and The refurbishing and replanting of ground cover along Anaheim Boulevard with plans that are less subject to being trampled down by pedestrians. 17. That within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution, the two public payphones at the primary entrance of the building shall be removed. 18. That within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution, the parking lot shall be repaired and re- striped in accordance with City Standards and specifications. Plans pertaining to the repair and re- striping shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval prior to commencement of work. Any decision by the Planning Services Division may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. 19. That the Community Preservation Division shall conduct inspections twice yearly, to ensure the property is properly maintained and operated in a manner consistent with this permit. All costs associated with these inspections shall be paid for by the applicant/property owner. 20. That within a period of six (6) months from the date of this resolution (May 31, 2006), the parking lot and perimeter landscaping shall be refurbished with the addition of turf, shrubs, ground cover, trees, and irrigation systems, as deemed necessary by the Planning Services Division. Plans pertaining to the refurbishment of the landscaping shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval prior to commencement of work. Any decision by the Planning Services Division may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. 21. 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. 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. -4- PC2006- THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of May 31, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Zoning Provisions — General' of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. 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 May 31, 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 -5- PC2006- F- ARM1 TiM, MIMI — Mr-W MEMORANDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning Department DATE: May 2, 2006 TO: John Ramirez, Associate Planner FROM: Jesse Penunuri, Community Preservation Officer SUBJECT: CUP 3400, Tracking Case No. CUP2006 -05089 On May 2, 2006, I conducted an inspection of the property known as 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard and observed that all conditions of Resolution No.R2000 -188 are being met, except for condition numbers 3 and 8. There are no current Anaheim Municipal Code violations on the property. Since May 2001, until the present day, Community Preservation staff has conducted several inspections of the property resulting in numerous violations being observed. These violations pertained to on -site landscaping, graffiti, debris within the parking area, and businesses operating without appropriate permits (business licenses or carnival permits). Notices of Violation were given to the business owner and the violations were resolved with no further action being taken. If you have any questions, please contact me at extension 4148 LEDERER- ANAHEIM, LTD. 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California 92805 (714) 999 -0952 (310) 470 -6380 April 3, 2006 Planning Department CITY OF ANAHEIM 200 South Anaheim Boulevard P. O. Box 32222 Anaheim, California 92803 Re: C.U.P. Extension CUP No. 2000 -04230 Resolution No. 2000 R -188 To Whom it May Concern: The above - referenced Conditional Use Permit affects the property located at 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard, now commonly known as the "Anaheim Indoor Marketplace," which property has been owned by Lederer - Anaheim, Ltd., a family limited partnership, since 1973. On June 4, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution 91R -165, permitting the current use, which was extended for ten years by Resolution 2000 R -188, and we have always complied with all conditions and requirements thereunder. We are in the process of refinancing the property and are encountering difficulties because of the renewable time limit put on the Conditional Use Permit, and accordingly wish to have that time limitation eliminated. Part of the loan proceeds will be used to enhance the appearance of the property, including repaint- ing the building, repairing and improving the parking area, and enhancing and replacing landscaping along the frontages on Anaheim Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, LEDERER - AHEIM, LTD. Sy: cm - W I �a �. LE E. LEDERER LEL /sp c \S \Anaheim.1et rU? No. L i� 0 Attachment - Item No. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2000 R -188 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REINSTATING AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3400 FOR TEN (10) YEARS TO EXPIRE AUGUST 29, 2010, AND AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NOS. 91R -165, 91R -239, PC92 -95 AND 92R -182 (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000 - 04230) WHEREAS, on June 4, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91R -165 to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 to permit a commercial retail center /indoor swap meet for ten years on property located at 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard (Anaheim Indoor Marketplace) (the "property"); and WHEREAS, on July 23, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91R -239 to amend certain conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3400; and WHEREAS, on July 27, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC92 -95 determining that the indoor swap meet is one business entity for purposes of obtaining special events permits and to amend the conditions of approval pertaining to timing of certain conditions; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 92R -182 further amending the conditions of approval, and denying a request for an extension of a special event permit for outdoor entertainment, and approving flags, banners and balloons for 90 days; and WHEREAS, said property is developed with a 133,200 sq.ft. commercial /industrial building which has been modified for use as an indoor swap meet facility with accessory outdoor uses; that the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for General Commercial land uses; that the property is zoned CL (Commercial, Limited); and that the property is located in Sub Area 2 "South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor" of the Anaheim Commercial /Industrial Redevelopment Project Area and the proposed South Anaheim Boulevard Overlay Zone; and WHEREAS, the petitioner requests modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (the use will expire on April 22, 2001) under authority of Code Section 18.03.093 to reinstate this conditional use permit and retain the existing indoor swap meet operation; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2000, the Anaheim Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing and did adopt its Resolution No. PC2000 -89 reinstating Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 for an additional period of ten years and amending the conditions of approval thereof; and WHEREAS, thereafter, within the time permitted by law, two members of the City Council caused the review of said decision by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on August 29, 2000, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed amendment and to investigate and make findings in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the use, as amended, is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code. 2. That this use permit has been exercised in substantially the same manner and in conformance with all conditions and stipulations originally approved by the City Council in 1991. 3. That the low number of Code Enforcement complaints which have occurred and the prompt resolution of previous violations indicate this use is being exercised in a manner which is not detrimental to the surrounding land uses, nor to the public peace, health, safety and general welfare. 4. That the use, as amended, will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which the use is located. 5. That the size and shape of the site for the use, as amended, is adequate to allow full development of the use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare. 6. That the traffic generated by the use, as amended, will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Council does hereby reinstate and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 3400 to retain the existing indoor swap meet operation at 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard for ten (10) years, to expire on August 29, 2010; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby amend, in their entirety, the conditions of approval of Resolution No. 91R -165, as amended by Resolutions Nos.91R -239, PC92 -95 and 92R -182, adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3400, to read as follows: 1. That this permit shall expire ten (10) years from the date of this resolution, on August 29, 2010. l -2y 2. That the parking lot shall be resurfaced and restriped in accordance with City standards. 3. That the parking lot shall be maintained and repaired when necessary to prevent potholes, cracks and uneven surfaces. 4. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in location(s) acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage area(s) shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage area(s) shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum one (1) gallon sized clinging vines planted on maximum three (3) foot centers, or tall shrubbery. 5. That the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of litter at all times. 6. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the City Council. 7. That the property shall be maintained in accordance with the most current versions of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. 8. That there shall be no public telephones on the property, which telephones are located outside the building. 3 I • • 9. That no banners, pennants or balloons shall be permitted unless a Special Event Permit is first obtained. Roof balloons shall not be permitted at any time. 10. That no vending machines shall be visible to any public right -of -way. 11. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be maintained with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby businesses. 12. That the tenant spaces in the subject indoor swap meet shall be leased for periods of no less than one (1) year each. 13. That there shall be no outdoor sales, display, or product demonstrations. 14. That these swap meet premises shall be considered one (1) business for the purpose of Special Event Permits. 15. That any tree planted on -site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and /or dies. 16. That the existing nonconforming freestanding electronic readerboard sign adjacent to the building shall be removed. Any new signage shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for review and approval of the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. Once approved, the signage shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with approved plans. 17. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 18. That subject property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1. 19. That within a period of twelve (12) months from the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 2, 4 and 16, above - mentioned, shall be complied with. U 0/21/ LI 0 • 20. 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. 21. That within a period of six (6) months from the date of this resolution, a final landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. Said landscaping plan shall show the following improvements as described in a letter submitted by the applicant and dated July 13, 2000: (a) The addition of sixty (60) juniper trees along the north fence line of the property to create a green shield that will obscure the view of the back of the industrial properties adjacent to the Marketplace; and (b) The addition of ten (10) trees interspersed throughout the parking lot area adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard; and (c) The refurbishing and replanting of the ground cover along Anaheim Boulevard with plants that are less subject to being trampled down by pedestrians. Said landscaping shall be installed within a period of twelve (12) months from the date of this resolution. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this 29th day of August, 2000. MA O OF THE CITY O V ANAHEIM 36938.1 E 0 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, SHERYLL SCHROEDER, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2000R -188 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of the Anaheim City Council held on the 29th day of August, 2000, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Anaheim this 29th day of August, 2000. aA C OF ANAHEIM (SEAL) I, SHERYLL SCHROEDER, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2000R -188 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim on August 29th, 2000. Direction . land Use, , : - - -Zot g: a .. General Plan Designation North Industrial, Church with accessory private school ML General Industrial East Industrial ML General Industrial South across Cerritos Avenue Industrial ML General Industrial Southwest Restaurant CL General Commercial West across Anaheim Boulevard Fast Food, Liquor Store, Restaurant and Bar RS- A- 43,000 Medium Density Residential • sr2030ds SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: REQUEST: *Advertised as 490 feet BACKGROUND: (3) 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission July 17, 2000 Item No. 5 ITEM NO. 3 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION — CLASS 1 (Motion) 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3400 (Resolution) (CUP TRACKING NO. 2000-04230) (1) This 14.74-acre irregularly- shaped property is located north and east of the northeast comer of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard with frontages of 725 feet on the north side of Cerritos Avenue and 485* feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard (1440 South Anaheim Boulevard - Anaheim Indoor Marketplace). (2) The petitioner requests reinstatement of this permit under the authority of Code Section No. 18.03.093 by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (originally approved on July 23, 1991, to expire on April 22, 2001) to retain an existing indoor swap meet operation. This property is currently developed with a 133,200 square foot, former commerciandustrial building which has been modified for use as an indoor swap meet facility with accessory outdoor uses. This property has been zoned CL (Commercial, Limited) since 1990, and is also located within Sub Area 2 — South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor of the Anaheim Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project Area and the proposed South Anaheim Boulevard Overlay Zone currently pending before City Council. The Land Use Element Map of the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for General Commercial land uses. (4) Surrounding land uses are as follows: Page 1 Item No. 4 •" CUM CUP 3341 EAGLE DR 2Z) CORVETTEMINE SP 941 IN DR RM RCL 6182- 69(23) CUP2516 CUP 2]59 MELVILLE WAY CUP 3254 W VAR 1 = GENERAL ELLE C SP 941 0 RCL 618269 (32) SP941 W RCL 61826 9 (32) O C RCL 61 6269(32) INDUMSATRIALN Q cArvvoN LATE PIPZA IND. FIRMS FIRMS `✓ SP 1 sP941 R 656624( 3 (p eN SP 941 F CL 656624(2 CL 65E61fl L (D SP 91 -1 m� RCL E66 (n RCL6 13 CLIP 1164 A RCL 6162- 69(32) ti� CL 61L2L9 IN CUP2030 EcoalnnNc m CBP 3851 F BUILDING CENTERS PCN 605 SP941 a SE STN. RCL -6 �'9(64)C SP 1 LA PAL MA AVENUE � 65 9 (21) RCL 2 LC C& R CL 65fi&13 CUP 2'308 VAR 4329 SM ALL OFFICES SP 94 -1 RICE 61 -62 -69 (3) SP941 CUP 3844 RCL 656&24 (18) VAR 4064 SP 88J RCL 656613 AUTO SP 94 -1 p T -SPN 2006 -00034 T CUP206284574 REPAIR RCL 61 -62- 69(36) Q RCL 66 -67 -14 GUP20 01 -0 4 33 8 CUP 3689 p RCL 58-59 -112 CUP2685 RESTAURANTS INDUSTRIAL y CUP 4119 ' - - -- ! al FIRM Q CUP 3410 --- - - - - -- - - -- CUP 3371 LU ! acLSj S`z�dsas CUP 3368 v4�°°aa CUP 3215 Z ! h 541 = VAR 4103 ! W SP 94 -1 Q FSP 2002 -00008 o � RCL 65 -66- 24(25) (VAR 41 ¢ RCL61s2,'6 (36) U 3609 COM ERC AL RETAIL Z CUP 2019 I O Q SHOPPING CENTER CUP 1987 ~ CUP 1902 � VAR 3076 ! rrnn p vn Q RCL 65 -66-13 - P SP941 p SMALL COMMERCIAL! SMALL IND. h SHOPS ! m DRUMS -P O I I I I I h iN °ICI Q SP 94 -1 sP 94 -1 LEVITZ CUP 678 SMALL IND. FIRM wl 4 rrva(ul M I I SP 94 -1 RCL 65-66 (Res of Intent RIVERSIDE FREEWAY RCL 65 -66 T -CUP 2003 -( CUP 402 CUP 216 ^' IV ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (NORTHEAST AREA) Specific Plan No. 88 -3 1:3 Subject Property TRACKING NO. SPN2006 -00034 Date: May 31, 2006 Scale: 1"=200' Requested By: TUSTIN RETAIL CENTER, LLC Q.S. No. 150 3610 -3720 East La Palma Avenue and 1001 -1091 North Tustin Avenue (The Pacificenter Specific Plan 88 -3) 10053 Specific Plan No. 88 -3 TRACKING NO. SPN2006 -00034 Requested By: TUSTIN RETAIL CENTER, LLC ED Subject Property Date: May 31, 2006 Scale: 1"=200' Q.S. No. 150 3610 -3720 East La Palma Avenue and 1001 -1091 North Tustin Avenue (The Pacificenter Specific Plan 88 -3) 10053 ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (NORTHEAST AREA) Date of Aerial Photo: July 2005 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 4 4a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 280 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED), (Motion) 4b. AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE PACIFICENTER SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 88 -3 (Recommendation Resolution) (TRACKING NO. SPN2006- 00034) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This irregularly- shaped, 25.8 -acre property is located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Tustin Avenue, having frontages of 745 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and 1,240 feet on the west side of Tustin Avenue (3610 - 3720 East La Palma Avenue and 1001 - 1091 North Tustin Avenue; The Pacificenter Specific Plan No. 88 -31 REQUEST: (2) The applicant requests approval of Amendment No. 4 to the Pacificenter Specific Plan No- 88-3 to modify the zoning and development standards pertaining to signage and hotel occupancy limitations- BACKGROUND (3) This property is developed with a mixed -use commercial center, a home improvement retail store, offices, a 150 -room hotel, two drive - through restaurants and supporting commercial uses. The Anaheim General Plan designates this property and the property to the east for General Commercial land uses. The properties to the north and west are designated as Mixed Use land uses. To the south is the SR -91 (Riverside) Freeway. (4) The following zoning actions pertain to this property: a) Amendment No. 3 of the Pacificenter Specific Plan No. 88 -3 (amending Exhibit Nos. 4 and 6, Development Area standards, to permit the listed permitted and conditionally permitted uses, and the Sign Program Appendix to permit one maximum fifty five (55) foot high freeway- oriented pylon sign for Expo) and a Final Site Plan in order to create a single, unified Development Area for the development of a mixed -use commercial center within the Specific Plan, including the development of retail (including Expo), office, hotel and other supporting uses was recommended for approval by Planning Commission on June 9, 1999 and subsequently approved by Council on August 24, 1999, by Ordinance No. 5695. b) Conditional Use Permit No. 4119 (to permit a drive - through fast food restaurant (Taco Bell)) was approved by the .Planning Commission on June 9, 1999. c) Tentative Parcel Map No. 99 -129 (to permit a 5 -lot commercial subdivision within the existing mixed -use commercial center (creating a total of 11 parcels located within the Pacificenter Specific Plan No. 88 -3 Development Area) was approved by the Planning Commission on June 9, 1999. d) On December 10, 1991, following Commission approval, in part (recommending denial of a 44 -foot high pylon sign and a 96 square foot freestanding monument sign), the Council, by Ordinance Nos. 5277 (amending the Zoning and Development Standards adopted under Ordinance Nos. 5045 and 5207) and 5278 (amending the Specific Plan SP88 -3 Zone as adopted under Ordinance No. 5046), approved Amendment No. 2 of Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 4 the Pacific Center Specific Plan to expand the list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses within Development Area 2 and amending the Sign Program to permit a 44 -foot high pylon sign and a 96 square foot freestanding monument sign for the drive - through restaurant. Commission should note that the 44 -foot high pylon sign for the drive through restaurant was not constructed; however, the 6.5 -foot high, 96 square foot freestanding monument sign advertising Carl's Jr. was established adjacent to La Palma Avenue. e) Conditional Use Permit No. 3410 (to permit a 1,587 square foot Chinese restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on- premises consumption at 1071 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 106) was approved by the Commission on May 6, 1991. This restaurant is no longer in operation and a condition of approval has been added to terminate this permit. f) On March 5, 1991, following Commission approval, the Council, by Ordinance No. 5207 (amending the Zoning and Development Standards as adopted under Ordinance No. 5045), approved Amendment No. 1 of the Pacific Center Specific Plan to allow a warehouse building and an indoor physical recreation facility as a permitted use within Development Area 1. Subsequently, a 20,000 square foot warehouse building was constructed; however, no physical fitness center was developed within the Pacificenter. g) Variance No. 4103 (waiver of maximum number of freestanding signs, permitted location of and minimum distance between freestanding signs to construct 3 freestanding signs) was approved, in part (waiver (c) denied) by the Council on February 5, 1991. The freestanding monument identification signs were constructed on La Palma Avenue and Tustin Avenue; moreover, the freestanding monument identification signs for the Pacificenter have been added to the Specific Plan document within the Sign Program Appendix. h) Conditional Use Permit No. 3368 (to permit a 1,008 square foot doughnut shop at 1081 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 115) was approved by the Commission on January 14, 1991. This use is no longer in operation and a condition of approval has been added to terminate this permit. i) Conditional Use Permit No. 3371 (to permit a 1,335 square foot pizza restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on- premises consumption at 1071 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 110) was approved by the Commission on December 17, 1990. This restaurant is no longer in operation and a condition of approval has been added to terminate this permit. j) Conditional Use Permit No. 3215 (to permit industrially - related commercial uses) was approved by the Commission on November 6, 1989. This entitlement is no longer needed and a condition of approval has been added to terminate this permit. k) On July 25, 1989, following Commission approval, the Council, by Ordinance Nos. 5045 (to implement the Zoning and Development Standards) and 5046 (to implement the Specific Plan SP88 -3 Zone), approved the Pacificenter Specific Plan permitting a mixed -use commercial development including 500,000 square feet of office area, 24,000 square feet of retail commercial area, 4,000 square feet of drive - through restaurant area, a 150 -room hotel, an 8,000 square foot restaurant and three parking structures within three Development Areas on 25.71 acres. Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 4 DISCUSSION: (5) The applicant is proposing to amend the specific plan in order to allow one additional monument sign for the four tenants located in the commercial center. The site plan below indicates the existing signage and the proposed monument sign. Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 4 (6) The Pacificenter Specific Plan has standards pertaining to the number, type and design of all signage on the site including directional, wall and monument signage. The specific plan established these design guidelines to ensure that each tenant sign would contribute to the center's success. The specific plan permits 7 freestanding monument signs in the locations indicated on the following site plan. LEGEND Projectl Tenant Freeway Pylon Q Existing Project /D Monuments P a r d - Ifa Exiling Paa)MOnumeM ID ? o� y T RT Vehicular 0irettional I `N) Pedestrian Directional 4 1 1 , n ES C a yy b ITT 61M _j J, I 1 M ' J11 116 I'll � Q/ 4vgj'. �o ,m �. A O W : >." Y a EXHIBIT G col . AVENUE ' Proposed 'moo monument sign (7) The applicant is proposing a 6 -foot, 7 -inch high, 8 foot wide, 36 square foot monument sign advertising 4 tenants as indicated in the photo on the following page. El Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 4 QUIMOSSUB I T'S A}GRIND 0 3E I -T-Mobile 12 INIRN YILWMINAM WOBLE FACE MONUMENT SIGN ONE(1)e QUIREN SGLE: WS TENANT ./W 1. BE.11.4I...1 NXYL.1P ..VE FFCNFIEXTPX (8) The Pacificenter Specific Plan does not permit a monument sign at the proposed location. Further, the monument sign does not meet the design criteria of the specific plan as all of the monument signage for the center only identifies one tenant, the proposed monument sign identifies four tenants. The Specific Plan further states that all signage conform with the Anaheim Municipal Code. The proposed monument sign does not comply with the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the minimum distance of 300 feet between free - standing signs. As indicated on the aerial below there will only be 82 feet between the proposed sign and the existing Pacificenter identification sign. Y "y Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 4 (9) As part of this request, the existing hotel owner within the Pacificenter Specific Plan area is requesting to modify the hotel occupancy limitations contained in the Pacificenter Specific Plan. On March 25, 2003, the City Council amended Council Policy No. 550 (attached) which states that "It is the policy of the City Council that no zoning entitlement for any hotel nor motel shall be approved, and no existing zoning entitlement for any hotel or motel shall be amended, in any manner which would require the owner or operator of such hotel or motel to limit the length of occupancy of any guest therein to any specific period of time." In order for the specific plan to be consistent with Council Policy No. 550, the following condition in Appendix 11, Hotel Conditions of the Pacificenter Specific Plan, would be deleted as part of this proposal: "11. That hotel guest rooms shall not be rented or let for periods of less than twelve (12) consecutive hours nor more than thirty (30) consecutive days, excluding one (1) manager's unit." ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (10) The City Council certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 280 on February 28, 1989, in connection with the adoption of the Pacificenter Specific Plan No. 88 -3 and General Plan Amendment No. 243. EIR No. 280 analyzed environmental impacts associated with the development of a mixed -use commercial center which includes office and retail commercial land uses in conjunction with the redesignation of the property from the General Industrial land use designation to the Business Office /Service /Industrial land use designation. Staff has reviewed the initial study and finds that there are no new impacts beyond what was previously identified in EIR No. 243. Upon review of the applicant's Environmental Information Form, staff finds that the proposed project's environmental effects are within the parameters, assumptions and time frames analyzed in the previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 243 for the Pacificenter Specific Plan- EVALUATION (11) The applicant has indicated the proposed monument sign is required in order to allow additional visibility to the four tenants located at the site. The applicant further indicates the orientation of this building does not allow storefront visibility and therefore a freestanding sign is needed to assist customers to easily identify the location of the businesses. The applicant further explains that other freestanding tenants (drive- through restaurants) have monument signs. Given the close proximately of the building to the public right -of -way, and the high visibility of the building, wall signage would provide the best identification for the site. An alternative that could be explored in lieu of the proposed monument sign would be to cluster wall signs at one of the elevations facing Tustin Avenue. Due to the number of existing monument signs on the property a request for an additional monument sign would add to visual clutter of the site. Moreover, the integrity of the original sign standards contained in the specific plan have been eroded by the incremental approvals of additional signage for individual businesses that reside in the Pacificenter. The Community Design Element of the General Plan includes a policy to "Ensure adherence to sign regulations, which address issues of scale, type, design, materials, placement, compatibility, and maintenance for uses along freeways, toll roads and major arterial corridors." The proposed sign would be located and clearly visible from Tustin Avenue, a highly visible arterial within the City. The proposed amendment to allow an additional sign would not comply with this General Plan policy of adherence to sign regulations, as the additional sign would not be permitted in the sign code, and would conflict with the issue of placement and compatibility as mentioned above. The proposed modification to the sign regulations to allow an additional monument sign within the Pacificenter Specific Plan would not be consistent with the goals and policies contained with Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 4 the Community Design Element of the General Plan, therefore staff recommends denial of this request. (12) The proposed modification to delete hotel occupancy limitations contained in the Pacificenter Specific Plan will make the use and development standards consistent with current Council direction as indicated in Council Policy No. 550. FINDINGS: (13) Before the Commission grants any specific plan amendment, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: (a) That the property proposed for the specific plan has unique site characteristics such as topography, location or surroundings that are enhanced by special land use and development standards; (b) That the specific plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and with the purposes, standards and land use guidelines therein; (c) That the specific plan results in development of desirable character that will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood; and, (d) That the specific plan respects environmental, aesthetic and historic resources consistent with economic realities- RECOMMENDATION (14) Staff recommends that unless additional or contrary information is received during the public hearing and, including the evidence presented in this Staff Report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission take the following actions: (a) By motion, determine that that the previously- certified EIR No. 280 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this request. (b) By resolution recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 4 in part, approving the deletion of hotel occupancy limitations and denying the request to amend the zoning and development standards to allow an additional monument sign by adopting the attached resolution including the findings contained therein. IN THE EVENT THE COMMISSION CHOOSES TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST, THE FOLLOWING That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4, and as conditioned herein. 2. That final sign plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division indicating that the subject sign shall be limited to two (2) panels which would advertise tenants within the building which do not have wall signage visible from Tustin Avenue. Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 4 3. That the legal property owner shall submit a letter to the Planning Division requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3410 (to permit a restaurant with beer and wine for off - premises consumption at 1071 North Tustin Avenue), Conditional Use Permit No. 3368 (to permit a doughnut shop at 1081 North Tustin Avenue), Conditional Use Permit No. 3371 (to permit a restaurant with beer and wine for off - premises consumption at 1081 North Tustin Avenue) and Conditional use Permit No. 3215 (to permit industrially - related commercial uses). 4. 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. 2 and 3, above - mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 5. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 1, above mentioned shall be complied with. 6. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2006 - * ** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION, IN PART, AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE PACIFICENTER SPECIFIC PLAN 88 -3 ORDINANCE NO. 5728. WHEREAS, On July 25, 1989, the City Council, by Ordinance Nos. 5045 (to implement the Zoning and Development Standards), approved the Pacificenter Specific Plan permitting a mixed -use commercial development including 500,000 square feet of office area, 24,000 square feet of retail commercial area, 4,000 square feet of drive - through restaurant area, a 150 -room hotel, an 8,000 square foot restaurant and three parking structures within three Development Areas on 25.71 acres; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 1989, the City Council further adopted Ordinance No. 5046 relating to reclassification of certain real property described therein into the Specific Plan 88 -3 Zone subject to certain conditions as specified therein; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 1991, the City Council, by Ordinance No. 5207 (amending the Zoning and Development Standards as adopted under Ordinance No. 5045), approved Amendment No. 1 of the Pacificenter Specific Plan to allow a warehouse building and an indoor physical recreation facility as a permitted use within Development Area 1; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 1991, the City Council, by Ordinance Nos. 5277 (amending the Zoning and Development Standards adopted under Ordinance Nos. 5045 and 5207) and 5278 (amending the Specific Plan SP88 -3 Zone name from Santa Fe Pacific Plaza to Pacificenter as adopted under Ordinance No. 5046), approved Amendment No. 2 of the Pacificenter Specific Plan to expand the list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses within Development Area 2 and amending the Sign Program to permit a 44 -foot high pylon sign and a 96 square foot freestanding monument sign for the drive - through restaurant; and WHEREAS, on August 24, 1999, the City Council, by Ordinance No. 5695, approved Amendment No. 3 to the Pacificenter Specific Plan No. 88 -3 (amending Exhibit Nos. 4 and 6, Development Area standards, the listed permitted and conditionally permitted uses, and the Sign Program Appendix) and a Final Site Plan in order to create a single, unified Development Area for the development of a mixed -use commercial center within the Specific Plan, including the development of retail, office, hotel and other supporting uses; 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 May 31, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 and 18.72, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed amendment and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission, after due consideration, inspection, investigation and study made by itself and on its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That Amendment No. 4 pertaining to the deletion of the length of occupancy for the existing hotel is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Anaheim General Plan, including the standards and land use guidelines provided therein; and 2. That the proposed amendment pertaining to the deletion of the length of occupancy for the existing hotel would result provide for consistency with Council Policy No. 550 pertaining to hotel occupancy; and 3. That the proposed amendment pertaining to an additional monument sign would create freestanding signage on the property in a manner that is inconsistent with the surrounding area and the zoning code relating to signage for the City. Cr1PC2006- -1- PC2006- 4. That the building is located in close proximately to the public right -of -way with high visibility and wall signage would provide the best identification for the site. Due to the number of existing monument signs on the property a request for an additional monument sign would add to visual clutter of the site. The intent of monument signs throughout the City is not to identify every tenant within a commercial center. 5. That the requested modification to the specific plan for additional monument signage would not be consistent with the goals and policies contained with the Community Design Element of the General Plan because the additional sign would not be permitted by the sign code for the City, and would result in signage that is incompatible with the signage in the immediate vicinity. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the requested Amendment No. 4 to the Pacific Center Specific Plan No-88-3, and did find and determine and recommend that the Planning Commission 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. 280 and the evidence received at the public hearing, that the previously - certified EIR No. 280 is 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 Pacificenter Specific Plan and satisfies all of the requirements of CEQA, and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for this Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to the above findings, the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Anaheim approve Amendment No. 4 to the Pacific Center Specific Plan in part, denying the proposed amendment pertaining to freestanding signage and approving the amendment pertaining to length of occupancy as follows: Amend Appendix No. 11 hotel conditions to delete as follows: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this resolution is expressly predicated upon compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should such any condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approval herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of May 31, 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 -2- PC2006- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) 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 May 31, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 2006. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -3- PC2006- /G[IFL.7 =TST7'iTa lm'i M r-M! RESOLUTION NO. 2003R- 61 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING A POLICY PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF ANY SPECIFIC TIME LIMITATION ON THE LENGTH OF GUEST OCCUPANCY IN A HOTEL OR MOTEL AND RESCINDING ANY SUCH LIMITATION HERETOFORE IMPOSED IN ANY ZONING ENTITLEMENT. WHEREAS, in a limited number of instances and under certain circumstances, the City Council or City Planning Commission has heretofore approved new zoning entitlements, or amended existing zoning entitlements, for certain hotels or motels to include conditions limiting the permitted length of guest occupancy in such hotels or motels to a maximum of thirty days within any ninety day period, or other similar specific time limitation (the "Occupancy Limitation "); and WHEREAS, said Occupancy Limitation has heretofore been imposed as a condition of approval in the following zoning entitlements currently in effect: Conditional Use Permits Nos. 244 and 564 authorizing a 52 -unit motel on the property located at 1800 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California (Executive Suites Motel). Conditional Use Permit No. 3928 authorizing a 45 -unit motel on the property located at 420 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, California (Best Budget Motel). Variance No. 1229 authorizing a 70 -unit motel on the property located at 823 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, California (Covered Wagon Motel). (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Existing Entitlements "); and WHEREAS, the stated purpose of such Occupancy Limitation was as expressly stated in each of said Existing Entitlements; and WHEREAS, upon further review, the City Council has determined that such occupancy limitation is no longer necessary as a means to accomplish the stated purpose for which such limitation was originally imposed; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires, as a City -wide policy determination, to rescind any such Occupancy Limitation heretofore imposed, including any such limitation currently contained in any of the Existing Entitlements; and WHEREAS, the City Council further desires to prohibit the imposition of such Occupancy Limitation as a required condition of any future zoning entitlement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Anaheim as follows: Section 1 That any Occupancy Limitation heretofore imposed in any conditional use permit, zone variance, or other permit or entitlement which is otherwise currently in effect, including any such Occupancy Limitation contained in any of the Existing Entitlements, is hereby rescinded and of no further force and effect. The Planning Commission is hereby directed to initiate such amendments to the Existing Entitlements as may be necessary to conform the Existing Entitlements to the provisions of this resolution. S ection 2. That new Council Policy No. 550 be, and the same is hereby adopted, to read as follows: "It is the policy of the City Council that no zoning entitlement for any hotel or motel shall be approved, and no existing zoning entitlement for any hotel or motel shall be amended, in any manner which would require the owner or operator of such hotel or motel to limit the length of occupancy of any guest therein to any specific period of time. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to prohibit any limitation on the term of any zoning entitlement. The term `zoning entitlement' as used herein shall mean any zoning reclassification, conditional use permit, zone variance, administrative adjustment, or other discretionary entitlement approved by the City Council, City Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator pursuant to any provision of the Anaheim Zoning Code." THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is her y adopted proved by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this 25th day of Ma 2 3 MAYOR OFT CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: r CITY CLERK F THE CITY OF ANAHEIM 48594.1 1) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, SHERYLL SCHROEDER, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003R -61 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of the Anaheim City Council held on the 25th day of March, 2003, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: MAYORICOUNCIL MEMBERS: Chavez, Hernandez, McCracken, Pringle, Tait NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY CLERK 6F THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (SEAL) i. 20361 Hermona Circle Lake Forest, CA 92630 949 458 -1000 PHONE 949 458 -3530 FAx F -AIiMl 1TOMI afM111 \NX Project Name: Pacific Center Proposed: One Double Face Monument Sign with 4 tenant names 1035 —1045 North Tustin Ave. Anaheim, CA 92807 The development is located in Pacific Center (A Catellus Development), which is bordered, by the 91 Freeway, North Tustin Ave. and La Palma Ave. We are requesting a sign variance to allow one monument sign to help the 4 tenants in the Pacific Center development as they currently rely on the traffic generated by Home Expo which is not enough considering the traffic count on North Tustin Ave. There is one entrance to the entire project on each street frontage (Tustin Ave. & La Palma Ave). The entrance street is Pacific Center Drive that goes through the development to both main streets. Each entry way has 2 signs (one on each side of the entry / Exit Driveways) identifying the Pacific Center name. The two fast food restaurants each have one monument sign identifying Carl's Jr. (on La Palma) and Taco Bell (on North Tustin Ave). The newest and last parcel closest to Home Expo was developed 2 years ago with this building housing four tenants that has the storefronts facing inward to the devolvement. The rears of the stores are facing North Tustin Ave. with the building (wall) sign rights only allocated to 3 tenants. These 4 tenants, It's A Grind Coffee House, T- Mobile, Ergo Custom Mattress, & Quizno's Sub are retail oriented businesses that rely mostly on impulse customers. The orientation of this building does not allow "storefront visibility" to the street as enjoyed by the businesses across the street with storefront signs and monument signs that have a better impact on drive by traffic. The proposed 4 tenant ID monument sign is in keeping with the size, shape & color of the existing Taco Bell monument sign located to the North of the Pacific Center Drive entry driveway off North Tustin Ave. "A Full Service Electrical & Commercial Sign Company" State Contractor's Lic #636512 A California Corporation April 3, 2006 Requested amendment✓change to sign program for: Pacific Center Tustin Ave.& La Palma Ave. Riverside Freeway- Route 91 Anaheim Ca. Current Criteria: M.2 Pad Monuments Quantity allowed- 2 Requested amendment /change: M.2 Pad Monuments Quantity allowed- 3 "A Full Service Electrical & Commercial Sign Company" State Contractor's Lic #636512. ACalifornia Corporation Item No. 5 RH -2 (P( VACANT VACANT T (PC)(SC) - 7374 - -46 VACANT P PSEO o��NGR�E RS -3 (PC)(SC) T (PC) (SC) 73 -74 -46 RCL 70 -71 -33 VACANT 'n TRACT NO. 12687 SP 87 -1 02 0 0 G !n C RH- RCL RCL V P V RH -3 (PC)(SC) CANYON RIM READ RCL 73 -74 -46 (1) O, -0 RS -2 (PC)(SC) VAR 2569 VAR 3693 EACH i� 0 00 G1lS g2� P ,GH F OV 0 VAR 3144 VACANT h tyM T(PC)(SC) CUP2002 -04507 TRACT NO. 8463 CUP 4047 RCL98 -99-5 V -2569 RCL 73 -74-46 (1) (RCL 97- 98 -12) RCL 70 -71 -33 (5) (CUP 4001) CUP 2006 -05090 POWERLINE T -CUP 2003 -04798 STRUCTURE CUP 2003 -04693 VACANT RH -3 (PC)(SC) TRACT NO. 8463 6UP RCL 73 -74 -46 (1) RCL 70-71 -33 (5) RCL 70 -71 -33 ANAHEIM HILLS ( VAR 2569 RH- RCL RCL V P V ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE - Conditional Use Permit No- 2006 -05090 ED Subject Property Date: May 31, 2006 Scale: 1"=200' Requested By: HUNTERS POINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Q -S- No- 204 6910 East Canyon Rim Road 10050 RH -3 (PC)(SC) RCL 73 -74 -46 (1) RCL 70 -71 -33 (5) VAR 2569 1 DU EACH PR (PC)(SC) - RCL 73 -74 -34 RCL 70 -71 -33 ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE - Conditional Use Permit No- 2006 -05090 ED Subject Property Date: May 31, 2006 Scale: 1"=200' Requested By: HUNTERS POINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Q -S- No- 204 6910 East Canyon Rim Road 10050 Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 -05090 ED Subject Property Date: May 31, 2006 Scale: 1"=200' Requested By: HUNTERS POINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 6910 East Canyon Rim Road Q.S. No. 204 10050 ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE. Date of Aerial Photo: July 2005 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 5 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion) 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -05090 (Resolution) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This irregularly- shaped 3.06 -acre property has a frontage of 545 feet on the south side of Canyon Rim Road, a maximum depth of 335 feet and is located 175 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard (6910 East Canyon Rim Road). REQUEST: (2) The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit under the authority of Code Section No. 18.14.030.010 and 18.38.060 to permit a telecommunications facility on an existing Southern California Edison electrical transmission lattice tower and accessory ground- mounted equipment- BACKGROUND (3) This property is developed with two (2) lattice towers on a Southern California Edison (SCE) easement with the remainder of the property being vacant and is zoned T (Transition Zone). The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Open Space land uses. Properties to the north and south are designated for Open Space — Parks and properties to the east and west are designated for Low Density Residential land uses. PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS: (4) The following zoning actions pertain to this property: (a) Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -04693 (to permit a telecommunications antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground - mounted equipment (AT &T) with waiver of minimum front yard setback (deleted)) was approved by the Planning Commission on November 17, 2003. This entitlement was not exercised and staff has included a condition of approval requiring termination of this permit. (b) Conditional Use Permit No. 2002 -04507 (to permit a telecommunications antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground - mounted equipment (westerly lattice tower)) was approved by the Planning Commission on March 11, 2002 for a period of five (5) years to expire on March 11, 2007. (c) Conditional Use Permit No. 4047 (to construct a telecommunications antenna on an existing lattice tower (Edison) structure and ground mounted accessory equipment (easterly lattice tower)) was approved by the City Council on January 26, 1999. This entitlement was reinstated on December 15, 2003, and set to expire on November 9, 2008. Srcup2006- 050901<1w Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 5 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: (5) The applicant proposes to construct a telecommunications facility consisting of three (3) sectors for a total six (6) panel antennas on an existing 166 -foot high Edison transmission tower. This request also includes expansion of an existing ground- mounted accessory equipment building located near the tower along Canyon Rim Road. (6) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates the 166 -foot high lattice tower is located approximately 82 feet from the east property line and approximately 110 feet from the north property line along Canyon Rim Road. There are currently two (2) transmission towers on the property with one (1) existing telecommunications facility on each tower. (7) The elevation plans and photo simulations (Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3) indicate that antennas would be placed at an operating center of 30 feet above ground level and ground- mounted equipment would be located 47 feet from Canyon Rim Road, by expanding the existing equipment shelter. Page 2 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 5 .M VAR .U✓1.. f CN1fR K / N21w�5 _ W �I �N I:YLUEL Mn(Np,(mmfa SECI � �Ita51orM ryl[J vow oa Ir'� r rrnL[z Elevation of proposed antennas (8) The site plan does not propose any additional landscaping. However, staff recommends a total of twelve (12) 15- gallon Photinia fraseri and twenty -three (23) 5- gallon Tecomaria capensis be planted to screen the expansion of the existing equipment shelter from Canyon Rim Road. Page 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 5 (9) The antenna plan (Exhibit No. 4) indicates the panel antennas are five (5) feet in height by one (1) foot in width and four (4) inches in depth. The antennas would be painted to match the existing tower. Also proposed is a 6 -inch tall 3 -inch wide GPS antenna affixed to the expansion of the equipment shelter. This would also be painted to match the shelter. The proposed antennas and brackets would not be flush - mounted. Southern California Edison standards do not allow for antennas to be flush - mounted. According to SCE, in order to service the lattice tower, staff must climb the flush- mounted antennas, creating a potential hazard because staff would need to climb in front of the brackets and antennas. (10) The equipment layout plan (Exhibit No. 4) proposes an approximately 154 square foot addition to the existing equipment shelter located northwest of the subject lattice tower, and 47 feet from the public right -of -way along Canyon Rim Road. Code requires a minimum setback of 25 feet. The addition would be partially submerged into the sloping hillside in order to decrease visibility of the shelter. In addition, staff is recommending additional landscaping in front of the shelter along Canyon Rim Road to further decrease visibility. The plan further indicates the equipment shelter would be constructed of split face block and a clay tile roof to match the existing shelter. (11) The applicant's supplemental information and search ring indicate this area is in need of enhanced coverage and capacity particularly in the vicinity of Nohl Ranch Road, Santa Ana Canyon Road, and the Riverside (SR -91) Freeway. The location of the proposed facility was found to be the most reasonable for the proposed facility when taking into consideration the residential nature of the area and scarcity of non - residential sites in this area of the City. Page 4 View of existing equipment shelter from Canyon Rim Road Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (12) Staff has reviewed the proposal for a telecommunications facility and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore, recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning Commission that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment- EVALUATION (13) Telecommunications facilities and antennas are permitted in the T Zone subject to the approval of a conditional use permit and the requirements of Code Section No. 18.38.060 pertaining to telecommunications antennas of Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Uses). (14) Three (3) telecommunications facilities were previously- approved for this property and two (2) were constructed (see paragraph no. 4 above). This proposal is for the co- location of facilities on the eastern lattice tower at a height substantially lower than either of the existing facilities which are at a height of 65 feet. In an effort to reduce visual intrusion for the associated ground- mounted equipment, the applicant would be utilizing and expanding the existing equipment shelter. (15) The recently updated Zoning Code includes design guidelines and requirements for telecommunication facilities. Code requires wireless communication facilities to be co- located where technologically feasible and visually beneficial. Staff feels "stealth" installations and installation on existing SCE lattice towers are the best alternative to decrease visual clutter and preserve the aesthetic quality of the community. Due to the topography, visibility from Canyon Rim Road is minimal and placement of the antennas on the tower would not significantly contribute to the visual clutter of the towers. These antennas would be painted to match the existing lattice tower, and therefore, would be less visible and blend into the framework of the tower. Locating the facility on the existing SCE transmission tower is the best alternative to decrease visual clutter and preserve the aesthetic quality of the community and therefore, staff recommends approval of this request- FINDINGS (16) Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: (a) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this code, or is an unlisted use as defined in Subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority); (b) That the use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; Page 5 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 5 (c) That the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to health and safety; (d) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area: and (e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 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, aoorove a Negative Declaration for the project. (b) By resolution, approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 -05090 to permit a telecommunications facility on an existing SCE electric transmission tower with accessory ground- mounted equipment, by adopting the attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained herein. Page 6 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2006 * ** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -05090 BE GRANTED 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 43 OF TRACT NO. 8463, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 392, PAGE(S) 28 THROUGH 31 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on May 31, 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 applicant's proposal to permit a telecommunications facility on an existing transmission tower with accessory ground- mounted equipment is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section Nos. 18.14.030.040.0402 and 18.38.060. 2. That the proposed telecommunications facility would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the proposal locates the proposed antennas on an existing electrical transmission tower reducing the cumulative visual clutter of such facilities by using existing infrastructure, and the transmission tower is located black [47 ?] feet from Canyon Rim Road further minimizing the visual impact of the proposed facility. 3. That the size and shape of the site is adequate to allow full development of the proposal in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the health and safety because the telecommunications facility would be located on an existing electrical transmission tower with minimal new equipment. 4. That because this is an unmanned facility with infrequent maintenance, the traffic generated by the proposed use will not, under the conditions imposed, impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. 5. That granting this conditional use permit will not, under the conditions imposed, be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and that the use will contribute to an effective wireless communications network system in a manner that would blend in with the existing facilities. 6. That * ** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING That the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a telecommunications facility on an existing SCE tower with accessory ground- mounted equipment; 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 Cr\PC2006 -0 -1- PC2006 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 safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: 1. That this telecommunications facility shall be limited to no more than three (3) sectors with no more than two (2) panel antennas on each sector and a 6 -inch tall 3 -inch wide GPS antenna, on the existing electrical lattice tower with accessory ground- mounted equipment. The six (6) antennas shall be limited to an operating center height of 30 feet. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted by building permits. No additional antennas or equipment cabinets shall be permitted without the approval of the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing. 2. That the antennas shall be finished and painted to match the existing electrical lattice tower structure. If the finish or color of the tower is modified, the antennas shall be modified accordingly. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted by building permits. 3. That that ground- mounted equipment shall be located entirely within the enclosure the cable connecting to the equipment shall be underground and shall not be visible to the public. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 4. That all equipment, including supply cabinets and power meter shall be screened from the public right - of -way. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 5. That the Operator shall ensure that its installation and choice of frequencies will not interfere with in the 800 MHz radio frequencies required by the City of Anaheim to provide adequate spectrum capacity for public safety and related purposes. 6. That before activating this facility, the Operator shall submit to a post - installation test to confirm that the facility does not interfere with the City of Anaheim's Public Safety radio equipment. This test shall be conducted by the Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriffs Department or a Division approved contractor at the expense of Operator. 7. That the Operator shall provide a 24 -hour telephone number to the Planning Services Division (to be forwarded to the Fire and Police Departments) to which interference problems may be reported, and shall resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours. 8. That the Operator shall ensure that any of its contractors, sub - contractors or agents, or any other user of the facility, shall comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. 9. That should this telecommunication facility be sold, the Planning Services Divisions shall be notified within 30 days of the close of escrow. 10. That twelve (12) 15- gallon Photinia fraseri and twenty -three (23) 5- gallon Tecomaria capensis shall be planted to screen the expansion of the existing equipment shelter from Canyon Rim Road and indicated on building plans submitted for review and approval by the Planning Services Division. The on -site landscaping plan shall include type, size, and location of planting materials intended to screen the equipment enclosure. Once approved, the landscaping shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the plan and the irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards- 11 - That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the petitioner's expense. Landscape and /or landscape screening of all pad mounted equipment shall be required and shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits- -2- PC2006- 12. That the applicant shall obtain a Right -of -Way Construction Permit from the Public Works Department for any work within the public right -of -way, including but not limited to installation of conduit, cable, and electrical service lines. 13. That portion of the property being leased to the telecommunication provider shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty -four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 14. That no signs, flags, banners, or any other form of advertising shall be attached to the antennas or to the transmission tower structure. 15. That the property owner shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003- 04693 (to permit a telecommunications antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground- mounted equipment with waiver of minimum front yard setback) to the Zoning Division. 16. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 7 and as conditioned herein. 17. 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. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, and 15, above mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions of further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 18. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 6, 7, and 16, above mentioned, shall be complied with. 19. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State, and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation, or equipment. 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 May 31, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Zoning Provisions — General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. ATTEST: CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION 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 May 31, 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- Item No. 6 PP15. A 34 UU 2� "9 T aL 10 �9��y4`d, 7L AA 52 �� L TERIAL JLING 9L S F -2 HAZELWOOD ST B UTY SALO m RS -2 >� L 53 -54 -2 IU EACH ELDERWOOD AVE V FiR 1319 �� A A REE� � 1 vnc�� G v 12 T RCL 2006 -00177 VAR 2006 -04687 TPM 2006 -127 VACANTLAND R P Reclassification No. 2006 -00177 Variance No. 2006 -04687 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006 -127 Requested By: INGRAM SHENG 529 South West Street = W Rg'(RE� ED Subject Property Date: May 31, 2006 Scale: 1"=200' Q.S. No. 63 1 Date of Aerial Photo: July 2005 Reclassification No. 2006 -00177 Variance No. 2006 -04687 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006 -127 Requested By: INGRAM SHENG ED Subject Property Date: May 31, 2006 Scale: 1"=200' Q.S. No. 63 529 South West Street 10060 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 6 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion) 6b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006 -00177 (Resolution) 6c. VARIANCE NO. 2006 -04687 (Resolution) 6d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2006 -127 (Motion) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This irregularly- shaped 0.43 -acre property has a frontage of 316 feet on the west side of West Street, a maximum depth of 125 feet and is located 367 feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana Street (529 South West Street). REQUEST: (2) The applicant requests approval of the following: Reclassification No. 2006 - 00177 Request to reclassify this property from the T (Transition) zone to the RS -2 (Single - Family Residential) zone or a less intense zone. Variance No. 2006 -04687 — Request for waiver of the following to construct two single - family detached homes. Section No. 18.04.060.010 Minimum lot depth and orientation adjacent to a freeway (Minimum depth of 150 feet required adjacent to a freeway; 91- 125 feet and zero -91.62 feet proposed) Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006 -127 —to establish a 2 -lot, 2 -unit detached single - family residential subdivision- BACKGROUND (3) This property is currently vacant, zoned T (Transition) and is a remnant parcel remaining from the widening of the I -5 (Santa Ana) Freeway. The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Low Density Residential land uses. The properties to the north, south and east is also designated for Low Density Residential land uses, the property to the west is the 1 -5 Freeway. PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS (4) There are no prior zoning actions pertaining to this property. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: (5) The applicant proposes to reclassify this property from the T zone to the RS -2 zone in conformance with the General Plan in order to construct a 2 -unit detached residential subdivision. (6) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates the following: Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 6 Development Standards Proposed Project RS -2 Zone Standards Total Site Area .43 acre (18,724s q- ft. N/A Density 4.65 d-u. per acre 6.5 (d-u- per acre Lot Size Parcel 1: 7,696 sq. ft/ 7,200 square feet 25 feet / 25 feet Parcel 2: 11,028 s . ft. 25 feet / 25 feet Lot Depth Adjacent to a Parcel 1: 91 -125 feet* 150 feet Freeway Parcel 2: 0 -91 feet* 2 11,028 sq. (property comes to a 10 feet/ 5 feet 25 feet/ 25 feet point) ft. * Waiver of code requirement requested (7) The site plan and parcel map indicate the development of two (2) single - family homes with the following characteristics: Lot Lot Size Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Proposed /Required Proposed /Required Proposed /Required 1 7,696 sq. 25 feet / 25 feet 10 feet/ 5 feet 25 feet / 25 feet ft. 2 11,028 sq. 25 feet/ 25 feet 10 feet/ 5 feet 25 feet/ 25 feet ft. (8) The first unit floor plan (Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3) on Parcel No. 1 indicates a 2 -story unit consisting of a living room, patio, kitchen, six bedrooms, five bathrooms, and attached 2 -car garage. The second unit (Exhibit Nos. 4 and 5) on Parcel No. 2 indicates a 2 -story unit consisting of a den, kitchen, loft, 3 bathrooms and an attached 813 square foot garage. Code does not require living, dining or family room areas, however, these are rooms found in a typical single - family residence. (9) Vehicular access for each residence would be provided by driveway from West Street. The site plan proposes 2 garage spaces and 2 driveway spaces for each home. Code requires a total of 4 parking spaces (2 must be enclosed in a garage) for each single - family residence. (10) Conceptual elevation drawings (Exhibit No-14) indicate 2 -story structures with a maximum height of 24 feet. Contemporary style architecture would be incorporated into both homes. The proposed homes would include stucco and a flat roof with minimal articulation and architectural enhancements. Page 2 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 6 (11) The conceptual landscape plan shows 20 -foot maple trees existing on the site with two new 12 foot high maple trees proposed. The plan also indicates trees, shrubs and lawn within the front yards of the proposed residences. The side and rear landscape consist of gravel /slate hardscaping adjacent to the sides of the residences and to the rear adjacent to the freeway. Code requires that at least fifty percent of the front setback to be landscaped with live landscaping. Plans submitted for building permits would need to demonstrate compliance with this code requirement. (12) The tentative parcel map indicates an existing 15 -foot high Caltrans sound wall along the westerly property line adjacent to the 1 -5 Freeway with a 25 -foot wide setback to the proposed residences. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (13) Staff has reviewed the proposal to construct two single family residences and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore, recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Commission that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Page 3 View of the property abutting the 1 -5 Santa Ana Freeway Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 6 EVALUATION: (14) The applicant is requesting a reclassification form the T zone to the RS -2 zone. This zone classification implements the property's General Plan designation of Low Density Residential. This designation permits up to 6.5 dwelling units per acre and this proposal has a density of 4.65 units per acre; therefore, the reclassification and proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the surrounding area is developed with single - family homes, therefore the proposed residences would be compatible with the existing residential land uses in the vicinity. (15) The waiver pertains to lot depth and orientation adjacent to a freeway. Code requires lots adjacent to the freeway to have a minimum lot depth of 150 feet as measured from the freeway to provide a greater buffer to mitigate noise impacts from the freeway. Plans indicate that parcel 1 has a lot depth of 91 to 125 feet and parcel 2 has a lot depth of zero to 9191 = 62 feet. The applicant has indicated in the attached Justification for Variance that the lot is irregularly shaped and is reclaimed land that was not used for the freeway expansion. Although the property abuts the Santa Ana Freeway, there is an existing 15 -foot high sound wall between the proposed subdivision and the freeway which provides sound attenuation to the parcel and adjacent single - family homes to the north. In addition, the single - family residential lots to the north which are regularly- shaped, have a lot depth of 115 feet which is also less than what is required by code. The current zoning of the parcel is the same as the parcels to the north. With the requested reclassification, the zoning of these parcels would not be identical (the northern properties are zoned T (Transition)) however this property and the two to the north would both allow single - family homes as a primary use and under both zoning designations would still be subject to the same code requirement pertaining to lot depth and orientation adjacent to a freeway. The closest property that is adjacent to the freeway with the identical zoning has a lot depth of 79 to 100 feet. Therefore, the strict application of the zoning code would deprive this property of a privilege that is enjoyed by parcels to the north and south which only have lot depths of 79 to 115 feet adjacent to the freeway further, there are special circumstances pertaining to the irregular shape of the property that limit the ability to provide the 150 -foot lot depth. Based on these special circumstances, staff recommends approval of this waiver. (16) Code requires that any residential development which includes two (2) or more parcels, and is located within six hundred (600) feet of any railroad, freeway, expressway, major arterial, primary arterial or secondary arterial, as designated by the Circulation Element of the General Plan, needs to prepare a noise study to determine the projected interior and exterior noise levels within the development. The study needs to be completed during the building plan check stage and prior to issuance of building permits. The study needs to include any recommended design modifications that would be required to comply with applicable City noise standards. For the exterior noise levels, staff has reviewed a noise study prepared for a residential development in close proximity to this site in order to determine the noise impacts from the existing railroad right -of -way at Santa Ana Street (which is located 365 feet north of the subject property) on this proposal. The study indicates that the noise level for the train at a distance of 30 feet was expected to be less than 55dB CNEL; therefore exterior noise mitigation for this site would not be required. Regarding the location of the property adjacent to the freeway, the existing sound wall will mitigate the noise associated with the freeway. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring a final noise analysis prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the first dwelling unit, to ensure compliance with noise attenuation standards for the interior of the residences. Page 4 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 6 rnix ■ cpur ti��...ww� .�e Anaheim Colony Historic District Southwest Quadrant (17) The graphic above the shows the location of the property relative to the Anaheim Colony Historic District. Although this property is not located within the Historic District, staff recommends that the intent of the guidelines pertaining to new residential construction within the District be incorporated into the design of the homes to blend in with the historic character of the area as the current architecture of the proposed homes are contemporary in nature with flat roofs. The proposed building material of stucco with wood doors does not provide architectural articulation and does not match surrounding homes that have defined roof peaks, wood siding, brick siding and wood shutters. Neighborhood Preservation staff has submitted the attached memo indicating elements of the Preservation Plan that should be observed. These guidelines include: • Incorporating architecture compatibility in such elements as style, height, proportion, and materials of surrounding neighborhoods. • Relationship of the houses to each other in regards to open space and to the street. • The functional and aesthetic design of open space. • The distribution, layout and character of parking. • Landscaping should use the prevailing landscape style and plant materials of the neighborhood. (18) Staff believes the proposed residential use is compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses. The proposed parcels exceed the minimum lot size required in the RS -2 zone, and the proposed setbacks meet or exceed code requirements. However, staff recommends the applicant incorporate the design guidelines from the Historic District to achieve homes that are more architecturally compatible with the existing single family neighborhood. As a recommended condition of approval, the applicant will be required to work with Neighborhood Preservation staff to incorporate the guidelines identified in paragraph (17) above and submit final detailed elevation plans for Planning Commission review as a "Reports and Recommendations" item prior to the issuance of building permits. Page 5 .4u hsim C4 ..y I La.ie Oiwh� Invrnay of f? ilifieil Hisnrie Shur -rarca Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 6 FINDINGS: (19) When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from strict enforcement of the Zoning Code, a modification may be granted for the purpose of assuring that no property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, shall be deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The sole purpose of any variance or code waiver is to prevent discrimination and none shall be approved which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other similar properties. Therefore, before any variance or code waiver is granted by the Commission, it shall be shown: (a) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and (b) That strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. (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 make any of the following findings when denying or recommending denial of a tract map: 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable 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 the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision." RECOMMENDATION: (21) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Planning Commission, including the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission take the following actions: (a) By motion, approve a Negative Declaration for the project. Page 6 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 6 (b) By resolution, approve Reclassification No. 2006 -00177 to reclassify the property from the T zone to the RS -2 zone by adopting the attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained therein. (c) By resolution, approve Variance No. 2006 -04687 to permit two (2) single - family residences with waiver of lot depth and orientation to a freeway by adopting the attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained therein. (d) By motion, approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006 -127 to establish a 2 -lot, 2 -unit detached subdivision based upon the attached conditions of approval and the finding that the parcel map and proposed single - family homes are consistent with the General Plan, and the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed development. Page 7 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2006 - * ** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006 -00177 BE GRANTED (529 SOUTH WEST STREET) WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified petition for Reclassification for real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0000565 EVIDENCED BY DOCUMENT RECORDED MAY 9, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 354050 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on May 31, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 "Procedures ", to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed reclassification and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts 1 - That the applicant proposes reclassification of subject property from the T (Transition) zone to the RS -2 (Residential Single Family) zone. 2. That the Anaheim General Plan designates this property and surrounding properties for Low Density Residential land uses. The RS-2 zone is a typical implementation zone for this land designation. 3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community. 4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the community. 5. That * ** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING That the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify the subject property from the T (Transition) zone to the RS- 2 (Single - Family Residential) 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve the subject Petition 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 safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: CR \PC2006 -0 -1- PC2006 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 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 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 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 May 31, 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 I_ \1111Ix.9i SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -2- 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 May 31, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 2006. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -3- PC2006- [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2006 * ** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2006 -04687 BE GRANTED (529 SOUTH WEST STREET) 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 AS SHOWN ON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0000565 EVIDENCED BY DOCUMENT RECORDED MAY 9, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 354050 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on May 31, 2006, at 2:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 "Procedures ", to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: That the applicant requests the following waiver to establish a 2 -unit, 2 -lot subdivision: Section No. 18.04.060.010 Minimum lot depth and orientation adjacent to a freeway (Minimum depth of 150 feet required adjacent to a freeway; 91 -125 feet and zero -91.62 feet proposed) 2. That the above - mentioned waiver is hereby granted on basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property because of the irregular triangular shape of the property which was created by a freeway widening, which precludes the ability to provide the required lot depth. 3. That the two properties directly to the north of the subject property which are rectangularly shaped have a lot depth of 115 feet which does not comply with code and although those parcels do not have the identical zoning as the proposed zoning for the parcel, they allow for similar residential land uses. The closest property with the identical zoning to this parcel as proposed is to the south and also has a lot depth less than that required by code. Therefore, strict application of the zoning code would deny this property a right that is being enjoyed by other parcels that are adjacent to the freeway in the immediate vicinity with the same or similar zoning. 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. 5. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health and safety or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 6. That * ** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING That the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal for waiver of lot depth and orientation adjacent to a freeway to construct two single - family detached homes; 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 CR \PC2006 -0 -1- PC2006- the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: 1. That roll -up garage doors shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. Said doors shall be installed and maintained as shown on submitted plans. 2. That final landscape shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval. . The landscape plan shall incorporate a layered landscape theme and indicate clinging vines, shrubs and groundcover along any proposed wall and the existing sound wall. Any decision made by the Planning Services Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendation item. 3. That final building elevation plans incorporating recommendations from the Neighborhood Preservation Office shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Report and Recommendation item. 4. That all air - conditioning facilities and other roof- or ground- mounted equipment shall be properly shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent residential properties. Such information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 5. That all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be fully screened by architectural devices and /or appropriate building materials. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 6. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty -four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 7. That this Variance is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 2006 -00177 and recordation of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006 -127, now pending. 8. That any tree planted on -site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and /or dead. 9. That the locations for future above - ground utility devices including, but not limited to, electrical transformers, water backflow devices, gas, communications and cable devices, etc., shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. Plans shall also identify the specific screening treatments of each device (i.e. landscape screening, color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points, etc.) and shall be subject to the review and approval of the appropriate City departments. 10. 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. 11. 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: -2- 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. 12. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: • Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. • Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non - structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP. • Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available onsite. • Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural BMPs. 13. Prior to final building and zoning inspections, the developer shall remove the existing driveway approaches and replace with curb, gutter, parkway landscaping and sidewalk. A Right -of -Way Construction Permit needs to be obtained from the Development Services Division. 14. That the developer shall submit a grading plan to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division and post a bond to guarantee that the street improvements are constructed as approved by the City Engineer. The improvements must be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspections. 15. 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 15, as conditioned herein. 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. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 14, above - mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 17. That prior to approval of a grading plan, Condition No. 11, above - mentioned, shall be complied with. 18. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15, above - mentioned, shall be complied with. 19. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon 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- -3- 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 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 May 31, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Procedures" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. ATTEST: CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION 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 May 31, 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- May 31, 2006 Ingram Sheng 1135 E. Broadway Anaheim, CA 92805 Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of May 31, 2006. 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006 -00177 6c. VARIANCE NO. 2006 -04687 6d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2006 -127 Owner: Ingram Sheng, 1135 East Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 529 South West Street: Property is approximately 0.43 -acre, having frontages of 316 feet on the west side of West Street and is located 367 feet south of Santa Ana Street. Reclassification No. 2006 -00177 - Request reclassification of the subject property from the T (Transition) zone to the RS -2 (Single - Family Residential) zone. Variance No. 2006 -04687 — Request waiver of lot depth and orientation adjacent to a freeway to construct two single - family detached homes. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006 -127 —To establish a 2 -lot, 2 -unit detached single - family subdivision. ACTION Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 2 -unit detached single family residential subdivision and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon a 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 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 that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve the proposed 2 -lot, 2 -unit detached single - family tentative parcel map based on the following (i) the parcel map and proposed single - family homes are consistent with the General Plan and (ii) the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed 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. The legal property owner shall execute a Subdivision Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to complete the required public improvements at the legal property owner's expense. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Subdivision Section approved by the City Attorney and City Engineer and then recorded concurrently with the final parcel map. 4. That prior to final map approval, all units shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division. 5. That approval of this parcel map is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 2006 -00177 and Variance No. 2006 - 04687, now pending. 6. That prior to final parcel map approval, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, above - mentioned, shall be complied with. 7. 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 TPM2006- 127_Excerpt Attachment - Item No. 6 SECTION 4 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE /CODE WAIVER (TROT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: 18.04.060.010 Lot Depth and Orientation (A separate statement is required for each Code waiver) PERTAINING TO: Lots Adjacent to Freeway or Scenic Expressway (Requesting waiver of 150 fee minimum lot depth to freeway) Sections 18.74.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires that before any variance or Code waiver may be granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shall be shown: 1. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and 2. That, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. In order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to arrive at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regarding the property for which a variance is sought, fully and as completely as possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages. 1. Are there special circumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? X Yes No. If your answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstances: lot shapes are triangular and exceed th e minimum square footage requirements for zon 2. Are the special circumstances that apply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the same zone as your property? X Yes _ No If your answer is "yes," describe how the property is different: Other lots are not triangular, but instead are rectangular. 3. Do the special circumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the same zone? X Yes —No If your answer if "yes," describe the special circumstances: The triangular shapes of the lots and subsequent lot depth precludes Construction of homes like those enjoyed by all neighboring properties. 4. Were the special circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property owners)? X Yes _ No EXPLAIN Lo is composed of reclaimed land that was not used for freeway expansion and return to the City of Anaheim by the California Dept. of 'Transportation. 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 haveAtc effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone which is not othell1ye exp essl author d by zone regulations governing su leytroperty. Use variances are not permitted. Signature ofkZrWrtJ Own Aut onzed Agent Date CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE NO. F- ARM1 TiT7', nlm, — IVSX CITY OF ANAHEIM DATE: May 22, 2006 TO: Della Herrick Planning Department FROM: Phyllis Mueller Neighborhood Preservation SUBJECT: Plans for construction of two new residences at 529 S. West St. Thank you for forwarding to me the parcel map and plans for the construction of two new residences at 529 S. West St. West Street is the western border of the Anaheim Colony Historic District; therefore, guidelines for new construction — as delineated in the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan — would apply to all properties on the east side of West Street. Also applicable is the City of Anaheim Residential Design Guidelines. Because this site is across the street from the Historic District and in close proximity to six historic structures in the same block, these guidelines should be observed to maintain compatibility within the neighborhood. As for new construction, the Preservation Plan contains the following: "New houses within the district must assert their identity in harmony with that of their street and neighborhood." "Site planning new construction in the context of infzll projects requires special attention to four primary issues: 1. The design of infzll architecture should be compatible in such elements as style, height, proportion, and materials of surrounding neighborhoods. 2. The relationship of houses to each other, to the surrounding open spaces, and to the street. 3. The functional and aesthetic design of open space. 4. The distribution, layout, and character of parking." A review of the parcel map and plans reveals that the two houses do not meet these criteria. The proposed new houses are incompatible in all elements and do not relate to F:\ SUOFSA(.1MEMOS�MA5" s We4MOC the historic houses, all one story, across the street on the 500 block of S. West Street (500, 506 — which is a Mills Act historic preservation house — 512, 520, 530, and 542.) Recommendation: That the developer redesign the residences to be compatible with the historic neighborhood in keeping with the Preservation Plan and Residential Design Guidelines. Neighborhood Preservation staff are available to confer with the developer in exploring a more harmonious development. If you have any questions, I may be reached at extension 4351. C: Brad Hobson Tom Kupfrian F:\ SUOFSAG MOS�MA5" s We4MOC Photos of Existing Homes on West Street 500 South West Street ITEM NO. 6 Photos of Existing Homes on West Street ® •iri WE ME ME EMI i ® 506 South West Street Photos of Existing Homes on West Street 512 South West Street Photos of Existing Homes on West Street 520 South West Street Photos of Existing Homes on West Street 530 South West Street Photos of Existing Homes on West Street 542 South West Street Item No- 7 RS-2 q S -2 RS -2 1 DU EA H U EA H 1 DU H West Anaheim Commercial Corridor edevelopment Area RS -2 AR 111 C -G RCL 57 -58 -5 CUP 3040 w CUP 3030 x �(as. or mie ) CUP975 x RCL6M144 CUP642 U C) cLS1�2- CUP 339 -G U) �� x e oflntentt CH) CUP 129 C� C, RCL RCL6"4 SHOPS 57 -5W14 R of Int. to L) GG GG CUP 2444 1-0 o RCL64fiS31 RCL VAR 2254S CUP 1749 58 -59 -24 RESTAURANO MUFFLER CUP857 RS -2 RS -2 SHOP REST AR 1275 VAR 1072 AGJ0175 BALL ROAD 373' 0. C� C -G RCL64ES30 RCL 64 -65 -32 CL 59GW 5 VAR 2691 RM-0 CUP 626 84-6505 T uOUOR FIRESTONE W TIRE RM-4 -4 RM 3TMENTS SUB- STORE 8"1 -19 STATION RCL 64 -65 -37 RCL 64 -65 -37 73 -74-51 Cm of Z C -G VAR 1662 VAR 1662 U1 3424 ANAHEIM T W RCL 60 -61 -83 RCL6" I CUP 2006 -05091 (Res_ of mL to CL ADJ 0092 PUMP MAGNOLIA SQUARE APARTMENTS PUMP Q N SHOPPING CENTER ( N RM -3 O I R VAR0. V 1 VAR 2592 Q 24 DO T r RCL 74 -75 -11 I MAGNOLIA HIGH SCHOOL 37451 Q -G ;ANT (Rcs Int. to RM -1200) 2592 • d RCL 60 -61 -83 CUP 2003 -04728 pp UP 61 T CUP 2002 -04628 DAY CARE 9 CUP 159 ti MAGNOLIA SQUARE 1 SHOPPING CENTER 1 West Anaheim Commercial Comidor Redevelopment Area LOLAAVE 1 GO 1 RCL 65 -12 • RCL 62� &124 (Res of Intent to RM -1200) 1 T -CUP 2002 4)463B CUP 3000 CUP 3763 GO 1E00 RM-4 CUP7ss RCL 65 -66-46 CORONADO SQUARE RCL 62 -63 -124 N Conditional Use Permit No- 2006 -05091 Requested By: RONALD P BEARD TRUST 1222 South Magnolia Avenue ED Subject Property Date: May 31 2006 Scale: 1"=200' Q -S- No- 29 10051 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 7 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion for continuance) 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -05091 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This irregularly- shaped, 4.03 -acre property is located south and east of the southeast corner of Magnolia Avenue and Ball Road with a frontage of 225 feet on the east side of Magnolia Avenue and 373 feet on the south side of Ball Road (1222 South Magnolia Aveune - Walgreens). REQUEST: (2) The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit under authority of Code Section No. 18.08.030.040.0402 to construct a drive - through pharmacy and permit a commercial retail center within an existing shopping center with waivers of (a) minimum landscaped setback, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) maximum number of wall signs, (d) maximum letter height for a proposed wall sign, (e) maximum number of freestanding signs, and (f) minimum distance between existing freestanding signs- BACKGROUND (3) This property is currently developed with a freestanding market and is zoned C -G (General Commercial). The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Neighborhood Commercial land uses. Surrounding properties are designated as follows: Direction General Plan Designation North (across Ball) Residential Corridor /General Commercial North and West (across Neighborhood Commercial Ball and Magnolia) East Medium Density Residential and High School Site South Neighborhood Commercial West (across Magnolia) General Commercial Public Institutional Low Medium Density Residential (4) The applicant, Kayman Wong, has submitted the attached letter dated, May 23, 2006, requesting a continuance to the June 12, 2006, Commission meeting in order to complete revisions to the proposed pharmacy with drive through. RECOMMENDATION: SR- CUP2006- 05071(con't- 4- 3- 06)jkn Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission May 31, 2006 Item No. 7 (5) That the Commission, by motion, continue this item to the June 12, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. SR- CUP2006- 05071(con't- 4- 3- 06)jkn Page 2 Page 1 of 1 /_[iFT7. ITIVE MIM ilONWl Jessica Nixon To: Kayman Wong Subject: RE: Planning Commission Jessica, Please accept this e -mail as a request for a continuance for our Planning Commission hearing to June 12th Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Kayman Wong Evergreen I)evco, Inc 2396 Emt Camelback Road. Suite 41 Phoenix. Arizona 85016 P: 602.808.8600 / F: 602.8089206 KAymaii@eveigieendev.com 5/23/2006