PC 2005/12/12Anaheim Planning
Commission Agenda
Monday, December 12, 2005
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California
• Chairman: Gail Eastman
• Chairman Pro - Tempore: Cecilia Flores
• Commissioners: Kelly Buffa, Joseph Karaki, Ed Perez,
Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez
• Call To Order
Preliminary Plan Review 10:30 A.M.
• Staff update to Commission on various City developments and issues
(As requested by Planning Commission)
• Preliminary Plan Review for items on the December 12, 2005 agenda
• Discussion regarding Planning Commission compensation
• 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(Wanaheim.net
H: \docs \clerical \agendas \121205.doc (12/12/05)
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.
1A.(a)
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED)
(b)
VARIANCE NO. 2004 -04600
(TRACKING NO. VAR2005- 04672)
(c)
SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2004 -00001
(d)
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16632
Agent: Chris West, 16811 Greenview, Huntington Beach, CA
92649
Location: 375 South Mohler Drive: Property is approximately 5.4
acres, having a frontage of 679 feet on the west and the southwest
side of Mohler Drive and is located 50 feet southeast of the centerline
Project Planner:
of Owens Drive.
(avazquez@anaheim.net)
Request to review final site, floor, elevation, fencing and landscaping
O. S.
plans for a previously- approved 7 -lot, 7 -unit residential subdivision.
1B.(a)
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY - APPROVED)
(b)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004 -00421
(c)
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2004 -00137
(d)
VARIANCE NO. 2004 -04633
(Tracking No. VAR2005- 04671)
(e)
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16794
Agent: Yadvinder S. Virk, Castle Development, LLC, 9017 Harvard
Avenue, Buena Park, CA 90620
Location: 502 South Harbor Boulevard: Property is approximately
12 acres, located on the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and
Santa Ana Street.
Request for approval of final site, floor, elevation and fencing plans for
Project Planner:
a 7 -unit single family residential subdivision.
( avazauezOanaheim.net)
O.S.
Continued from the November 14, and 28, 2005, Planning
Commission meetings.
H: \docs \clerical \agendas \121205.doc
(12/12/05)
Page 2
1C.(a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION —CLASS 1
(b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004.04952
(Tracking No. CUP2005- 05058)
Agent: Steve Elkins, 128 West Sycamore, Anaheim, CA 92805
Location: 400, 401, 407, 408, 416 and 424 North Anaheim
Boulevard:
Parcel 1: Property is approximately 0.3 acre, located on the northwest
corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Adele (401 and 407 North Anaheim
Boulevard)
Parcel 2: Property is 15 acres located at the northeast corner of
Anaheim Boulevard and Adele (400, 408, 416 and 424 North Anaheim
Boulevard). Project Planner.
( avazouezOanaheim. net)
Request for determination of substantial conformance for floor and
elevation plans for a previously- approved public dance hall, banquet Q.S. 83
hall and community and religious facility with sales of alcoholic
beverages for on- premises consumption-
1 D. (a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3)
(b) REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATION OF
APPLICATIONS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005-
00440, AN AMENDMENT TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92.1 (Tracking No. SPN2005. 00032) AND
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4078 (Tracking
No. CUP2005. 05053) REGARDING THE ANAHEIM GARDEN WALK
PROJECT
Agent: William J. Stone, Excel Realty Holdings, LLC., 17140
Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 310, San Diego, CA 92128
Location: Multiple Properties: Property is approximately 29.1 acres
in The Anaheim Resort between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine
Street, and Disney Way and Katella Avenue. The project site has
approximate frontages of 1,500 feet on the south side of Disney Way
between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street, 1,185 feet on the
west side of Clementine Street between Disney Way and Katella
Avenue (excluding Fire Station No. 3 at 1713 -1717 South Clementine
Street), 728 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue between
Clementine Street and a point 771 feet west of the centerline of
Clementine Street, and 585 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard
between Disney Way and a point 615 feet south of the centerline of
Disney Way. The site is vacant except for the Anaheim Plaza Hotel
and Suites at 1700 South Harbor Boulevard.
Project Planner.
Request for Planning Commission initiation of applications for a ( twhiteftanaheim.net)
General Plan Amendment, an amendment to The Disneyland Resort
Specific Plan No. 92 -1, and amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. Q.S. 87
4078 for a portion (Area B) of the Anaheim Garden Walk project.
H: \docs \clerical \agendas \121205.doc (12/12/05)
Page 3
7E. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission
Meeting of November 14, 2005. (Motion)
Continued from the November 28, 2005, Planning Commission
meeting.
7F. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission
Meeting of November 28, 2005. (Motion)
H: \docs \clerical \agendas \121205.doc (12/12/05)
Page 4
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -05028
2d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2006.247
Owner: Calvada Development, Shawn Danesh, 26996 La Paz
Road, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Agent: Meg Beatrice, Architecture M, 808 East Ocean Boulevard,
Suite 105, Long Beach, CA 90802
Location: 1131 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately
0.39 -acre, located at the northeast corner of Lincoln
Avenue and Carleton Avenue
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -05028 - Request to construct a 3,897
square- foot *, three unit commercial retail center including a drive - through
coffee shop (Starbucks) with waivers of (a) minimum landscaped setback,
(b) minimum number of parking spaces, and (c) location of drive - through
lane.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -247- To establish a 1 -lot commercial
subdivision.
Continued from the October 31, and November 28, 2005, Planning
Commission meetings.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
*advertised as 4,100 square -foot
3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005.05031
Owner: Mark Ghassemi, 301 East Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92805
Agent: Patrick Anderson, 16022 Aria Circle, Huntington Beach, CA
92649
Location: 301 East Ball Road Property is approximately 0.93 -acre,
having a frontage of 150 feet on the north side of Ball Road
and is located 333 feet east of the centerline of Technology
Drive (011in International, Inc.).
Request to permit and retain an existing outdoor storage area and to
install an overhead crane to load trucks with slab materials in conjunction
with an existing wholesale building material (stone) distribution business
with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
Continued from the October 31, and November 14, 2005, Planning
Commission meetings.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
H : \d ocs \cle rica I \agendas\ 121205.d oc
Project Planner.
(iaramirezO ana helm. ne U
Q.S. 62
Request for continuance
to January 9, 2006
Project Planner.
(iaramirezO ana helm. ne t)
Q.S. 95
(12/12/05)
Page 5
4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION —CLASS 1 AND 15
4b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16958
Request for
continuance to
January 9, 2006
Owner: Anaheim Hotel Partnership, LCP, 777 Convention Way,
Suite 110, Anaheim, CA 92802
Agent: Kelly Carlyle, Psomas, 3187 Red Hill, Suite 250, Costa
Mesa, CA 92626
Location: 777 Convention Way: Property is approximately 8.5
acres, located at the northwest corner of Hotel Way and
Convention Way (Anaheim Hilton).
Project Planner.
( cflores(rD ana helm. n etl
Request to establish a 1 -lot, airspace hotel subdivision for investment
Q 77
purposes.
Sa. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006.05043
Owner: M & B Enterprises LLC, 5464 East La Palma Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92807 -2023
Agent: Phillip R. Schwartze, PRS Group, 31682 El Camino Real,
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 -2657
Location: 5464 East La Palma Avenue Property is approximately
2.4 acres, having a frontage of 15 feet on the south side of
La Palma Avenue and is located 1,097 feet east of the
centerline of Brasher Street.
Project Planner.
Request to permit a 20,823 square foot youth physical fitness facility. ( kwona(rDanahelm.netl
Q.S. 178
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
H: \docs \clerical \agendas \121205.doc (12/12/05)
Page 6
6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -05045
6d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR
NECESSITY NO. 2005 -00023
Owner: Interpacifc Asset Management, Richard Farms Trust, 5505
Garden Grove Boulevard, # 150, Westminster, CA 92683
Agent: Milestone Management, 21196 Jasmines Way, Lake
Forest, CA 92630
Location: 2011 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately 9
acres, located north and east of the northeast corner of
State College Boulevard and La Palma Avenue.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -05045 — Request to permit a
pharmacy with a drive - through and accessory sales of alcoholic
beverages for off - premises consumption with waiver of maximum letter
height for wall signage.
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2005 -00023 —
To permit sales of alcoholic beverages for off - premises consumption
within a proposed pharmacy. Project Planner.
( dherncka.a nah einn. net)
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. Q.S. 111
Public Convenience and Necessity Resolution No.
7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
7b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2005 -00171
7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -05050
Owner: Isam Hanna, 5830 East Lavendar Court, Orange, CA
92867
Agent: Terry Smith, KTK Construction, 18627 Brookhurst Street,
Suite 349, Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Location: 601 South Western Avenue: Property is approximately
0.4 -acre, located at the southwest corner of Western
Avenue and Orange Avenue.
Reclassification No. 2005 -00171 — Request to reclassify this property
from the C -G (General Commercial) zone to the RS -4 (Residential,
Single - Family) zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -05050 — Request to permit four, small
lot single - family residences.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005- 259 —To establish a 4 -lot, 4 -unit, Project Planner.
detached single - family residential subdivision. ( avazouez(cDanaheinn.net)
Reclassification Resolution No. Q.S. 6
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
H: \docs \clerical \agendas \121205.doc (12/12/05)
Page 7
8a. ADDENDUM TO THE POINTE ANAHEIM INITIAL STUDY AND
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION /MODIFIED MITIGATION
MONITORING PLAN NO. 004 (PREVIOUSLY- APPROVED)
8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4078
(Tracking No. CUP2006- 05053)
8d. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 1999.01
(Tracking No. DAG2006- 00009)
Agent: William J. Stone, Excel Realty Holdings, LLC., 17140
Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 310, San Diego, CA 92128
Location: Multiple Properties: Property is approximately 29.1 acres in
The Anaheim Resort between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street,
and Disney Way and Katella Avenue. The project site had approximate
frontages of 1,500 feet on the south side of Disney Way between Harbor
Boulevard and Clementine Street, 1,185 feet on the west side of
Clementine Street between Disney Way and Katella Avenue (excluding
Fire Station No. 3 at 1713 -1717 South Clementine Street), 728 feet on the
north side of Katella Avenue between Clementine Street and a point 771
feet west of the centerline of Clementine Street, and 585 feet on the east
side of Harbor Boulevard between Disney Way and a point 615 feet south
of the centerline of Disney Way. The site is vacant except for the
Anaheim Plaza Hotel and Suites at 1700 South Harbor Boulevard.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 - Request to amend the conditions of
approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 pertaining to the
development of the Pointe Anaheim Lifestyle retail and entertainment
complex (Anaheim GardenWalk)to extend the commencement date of the
initial phase of development for one (1) year until February 26, 2007.
Development Agreement No. 1999 -01 (Tracking No. DAG2005 -00009)
— Request for Amendment No. 2 to the First Amended and Restated
Development Agreement No. 99 -01 regarding the commencement date of
the Initial Development Phase of the Anaheim GardenWalk Project. Project Planer.
( twhiteOanaheim. net)
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
Development Agreement Resolution No. Q.S. 87
H: \docs \clerical \agendas \121205.doc (12/12/05)
Page 8
Adjourn To Wednesday, January 9, 2005 at 1:00 P.M. for
Preliminary Plan Review.
Is] =1:49ly[delI Is] 1[d0161-101�cc
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
4:00 p.m. December 8, 2005
(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 \121205.doc (12/12/05)
Page 9
SCHEDULE
2006
January 9
11 January 23 11
February 6
February 22 (Wed)
March 6
March 20
April 3
April 18
May 1
May 15
May 31 (Wed)
June 12
NffPW
July 10
July 24
August 7
August 21
September 6 (Wed)
September 18
October 2
October 16
October 30
November 13
November 27
December 11
II December 27 (Wed) II
H: \docs \clerical \agendas \121205.doc (12/12/05)
Page 10
ITEM NO. 1-A
RCL 72-73-51
.) VAR 4279 \O~~`RCL 72-73-47 07 7 RF1-2
~_~~~
~~FN3DRIVE 1 7 A~p0008
~~.19\~~l ` ___`` ``
PG\"G\1-~.y:131' \`\\ ~\ RCL72-7&51
Fti / \\ RGL 72.73-47
\ \ 1 DU EACH
_)
RhF2 \\ \
RCL72-73-51(25) \ \\
RCL72-73-47 \
1 DU EACH \ \ (\ ~~
MOHLER DRIVEsD~~
~~ \ RH-2 s~~~~7'c~s,
RH-2 ~ RCL 72-73-51 (3 ~~ ~
RCL 72-73.51 (39) °° RCL 72-7347 ~ a ~#~
RCL 72-7347 ro p° `VAR 3626 ~ .., x-. SP 67-1
'_` 1 U Qrry°°~ \\ \,e\ ~ RH-2 m~~~~ 'p RCL 70-71-33
__ _ n VAR 4017
~- ~ Q \\~y ~~ T-VAR 20093-04672 '''. '~ 9S OPEN SPACE
ANi ~~~~~~ ~~h VACANT <~ ~ ! 10U ev ~ O N
~G G~'
IZ( ~~~ ~~,xi a ~ "m
VACANT RH-2 '~ ° '~''~ ~. .T•:= ~
VACANT % / ~ ~ ~~.~`''~'~~~~~ "' ~, ~ .:
i ~: ~ .~~ ~ ~ ~ r~
UEACH VACANT `--~ f RCL472673-51 f ~ Cam?
_ . ~ & " RCL 72-7347 ~ my+N
w
t'P--' T-VAR 2005.04872 n+
RH-2 ~' a ~ ' `~ . VAR 2004-04600 ~ ~" ~ ~ r+
RH-2 RCL 72-73-51 (36) SPT 2004-00001 ° ~ -°'
~\` 1 DU RCL 72-7347 VACANT ' '~
'~~~~ VACANT
-p ~~.~
3-x9590 \~~~~ n
03 ~ A ~C ,~~ ~'~ ~
J4T \ \\ V 044731 ADJ 0658 ~~ ~~ ~ ~
RH-2 I ~- {'~`_~ ° ~ RCL72-73-51
RCL 72-73-51 1 RH-2 RCL 72-7347
RCL 72-7347 RH-p VAR 4407 RCL 72-73 51 VAC \
1 DU EACH RCL 72-73-51 RCL 72-7347 / 1 RCL 72-73-51
RCL 72-7347 ~~ ~~-- ---- y \\ R`L 72-7347 VAR 4017
VACS i ~~ /_-- -_____ \~~.\`\
RCL 72 73 51 (13)j ~ VAR 3795 ~\`~~
RCL 72-7347 . / ~ (.~
ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE (SC) (SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE
Tentative Tract Map No. 16632 ` ` '
u Subject Property
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2004-00001
Variance No. 2004-04600 Date: December 12, 2005
TRACKING NO. VAR2005-04672 Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: CHRIS WEST O,S. No. 208
REQUEST TO REVIEW FINAL SITE, FLOOR, ELEVATION, FENCING AND LANDSCAPE PLANS
FOR APREVIOUSLY-APPROVED 7-LOT, 7-UNIT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
375 South Owens Drive 26y2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 1 -A
1 -A. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY - APPROVED)
(b) VARIANCE NO. 2004 -04600
(c) SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2004 -00001
(d) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16632 (Motion)
(Tracking No. VAR 2005- 04672)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly- shaped, 5.4 -acre property has a frontage of 679 feet on the west and the
southwest side of Mohler Drive, a maximum depth of 755 feet and is located 50 feet southeast
of the centerline of Owens Drive (375 South Mohler Drive).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests review of final site, floor, elevation, fencing and landscape plans for a
previously- approved 7 -lot, 7 -unit, single - family residential subdivision.
BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is currently being graded for residential development, zoned RH -2 (SC)
(Residential, Single - Family Hillside, Scenic Corridor Overlay) and is designated for Estate
Density Residential land uses by the Anaheim General Plan.
(4) Variance No. 2004 -04600 (to waive the minimum front yard setback) was approved by the
Planning Commission on March 22, 2004. Resolution No. PC2004 -31, approved in
conjunction with this permit, includes the following condition of approval:
1. Thatfinal site, floor, elevation, landscape and fencing plans for the residential
structures shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the
Planning Commission as a 'Reports and Recommendations' item."
DISCUSSION:
(5) In order to comply with Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. PC2004 -31, the applicant is
requesting the Commission's final review and approval of site, floor, elevation, fencing and
landscape plans for seven (7) single - family residences.
SR- VAR2004- 04600(final plans)
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 1 -A
(6) The final site plan indicates the development of seven (7) single - family homes with the
following characteristics:
Lot
Lot Size
*Front Setback
Proposed /Required
Side Setback
Proposed /Required
Rear Setback
Proposed /Required
1
20,580 s . ft.
15 feet / 25 feet
10 feet / 10 feet
58 feet / 25 feet
2
21 s . ft.
15 feet/ 25 feet
10 feet/ 10 feet
66 feet/ 25 feet
3
23,030 s . ft.
15 feet/ 25 feet
17 feet/ 10 feet
70 feet/ 25 feet
4
24,660 s . ft.
15 feet/ 25 feet
10 feet/ 10 feet
30 feet/ 25 feet
5
30,907 s . ft.
50 feet/ 25 feet
10 feet/ 10 feet
144 feet/ 25 feet
6
28,762 s . ft.
20 feet/ 25 feet
10 feet/ 10 feet
165 feet/ 25 feet
7
1 22,446 s . ft.
40 feet/ 25 feet
10 feet/ 10 feet
58 feet/ 25 feet
*Waiver granted for minimum front setback
(7) The site plan also indicates that the residential tract would include a small pocket park for the
residents and a village tower to be located on a common lettered lot to the south of the homes.
(8) The floor plans indicate the homes would be developed as two -story residences. Each home
would have 5 to 7 bedrooms and 4 to 7 bathrooms. Plans also show several luxury features
such as outdoor courtyards, motor courts, libraries, game rooms, maid's rooms, sitting rooms,
retreats, exercise rooms, pavilions and outdoor fireplaces, All of the homes would be
developed with an outdoor swimming pool within the rear yard and all landscaping would be
installed by the builder prior to occupancy.
(9) Elevation renderings indicate two -story residences designed with an overall village theme.
The homes would include exterior features such as arches, stairways, tower elements,
balconies, shutter accents and fountains. The materials include tile roofs, finished stucco of
complementary colors and stone veneer. Plans indicate a maximum height of 25 feet. Code
permits two -story residences in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone with a maximum height of
25 feet.
(10) The landscape and fencing plans indicate that the entry gate and landscape design for the
entrance to the tract would be enhanced with interlocking pavers and decorative stone walls.
Private wrought iron vehicular and pedestrian gates are also proposed. The project entrance,
common areas and slopes would be densely landscaped with trees, shrubs and ground cover.
Thirty (30), 36 -inch box replacement trees are also proposed throughout the tract in
compliance with the specimen tree removal permit required for this project. The terminus of
the cul de sac would be enhanced with a circular inset of interlocking pavers.
(11) The proposed homes would be designed with complementary colors and features and would
be compatible with the estate character of the neighborhood. Staff is pleased with the design
and materials portrayed in the final plans of the homes and feels that the proposed park and
neighborhood tower would provide the new residents with a sense of community identification.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of this request.
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 1 -A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(12) Staff has reviewed the request for review of final plans and the previously- approved Negative
Declaration and finds there are no changes to the originally- approved variance that would
require further environmental review and that this implementing action is a required condition
of approval of the original permit intended to address any aesthetic issues that may result from
construction of the project. Therefore, staff recommends that the previously- approved
Negative Declaration serve as the required environmental documentation for this request
RECOMMENDATION:
(13) Staff recommends that unless 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 meeting, that the
Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, determine that the previously- approved Negative Declaration is
adequate to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this
request.
(b) By motion, aoorove the final site, floor, elevation, fencing and landscape plans for
a previously- approved 7 -unit detached single - family residential subdivision based
on Commission's concurrence with staff that the final plans are architecturally
enhanced to provide a quality single - family estate subdivision that is compatible
with the existing neighborhood.
Page 3
City of Anaheim
~~.,I~I~II~iII~iG I~EI~~iIt~'Ii~EI~'~'
~~w~
~~ ~ December 12, 2005
~" .~~
Chris West
16811 Greenview Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim .Planning Commission meeting of
December 12, 2005.
1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED)
(b) VARIANCE NO. 2004-4600
(TRACKING NO. VAR 2005-04672)
(c) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1fi632
(d) SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2004-00001
Agent: Chris West, 16811 Greenview Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Location: 375 South Mohler Drive
Request to review final site, floor, elevation, fencing and landscaping plans for apreviously-
approved 7-lot, 7-unit residential subdivision.
ACTION:
Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XxX and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby determine that the
previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental
documentation for this request.
Commissioner xXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXx and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve the final site, Floor,
elevation, fencing and landscape plans for apreviously-approved 7-unit detached single-
family residential subdivision for VAR2004-04600 (Tracking No. VAR2005-04672) based on
Commission's concurrence with staff that the final plans are architecturally enhanced to
provide a quality single-family subdivision that is compatible with the existing neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
P:C. Boz 3222
Anaheim, California 92603
wwvaanaheim.net TEL (714) 765-5139
Attachment -Item No. 1-A
RESOLUTION NO. PC2004-31
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2004-04600 BE GRANTED, IN PART
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for
Variance for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California
described as:
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 6 IN TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH,
RANGE 8 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT AN ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE LAND
CONVEYED TO LEON F. BOISSERANO AND WIFE, BY A DEED RECORDED
MARCH 28, 1951 IN BOOK 2165 PAGE 400 OFFICIALRECORDS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, SAID POINT OF
BEGINNING BEING SOUTH 81° 02' 10" WEST 295.60 FEET FROM THE
EASTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN 73.302 ACRES PARCEL, AS SHOWN ON A
MAP OF SERVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 13, PAGE 40, RECORD OF SERVEYS,
IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY;
THENCE SOUTH 9° 42' 30" WEST 333.52 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED OF TRUST EXECUTED BY LEONARD
G. TROELLER, ET. UX., RECORDED AUGUST 31, 1955 IN BOOK 3194 PAGE
513, OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAID COUNTY;
THENCE NORTH 86° 23' EAST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LAND
TO THE CENTERLINE OF MOHLER DRIVE, AS CONVEYED T THE COUNTY OF
ORANGE BY A DEED RECORDER MAY 22, 1950 IN BOOK 2016 PAGE 5
OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICIAL OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID
ORANGE COUNTY;
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID-MOHLER DRIVE TO
THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO BOISSERANO;
THENCE SOUTH 81° 02'10" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on March 22, 2004, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly
given as required bylaw and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter
18.03, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed 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:
homes:
That the petitioner proposes the following waivers to construct seven (7) single-family
(a) Section 18.23.061.020 - Minimum lot width.
CR\PC2004-031.doc -1- PC2004-31
(b) Section 1823.063.010 Minimum front yard setback
(25-foot average setback required along the proposed private street
(Lot "A ") with a minimum of 15 feet);
24 -foot average setback proposed with a minimum of 15 feet
proposed for Lot Nos. 1, 2 3 and 4)
2. That waiver (a), minimum lot width, is hereby denied because it was deleted following the
public notification.
3. That waiver (b), minimum front yard setback, is hereby granted on basis that there are
special circumstances applicable to the property consisting of its irregular shape and the sloping
topography, which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the vicinity, and the proposed
average setback is only 1 -foot shallower than required; and that strict application of the Zoning Code
would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and
classification in the vicinity.
4. That approval of the requested waiver (b) will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is
located.
5. That two people spoke at the public hearing in favor of the proposal, and one interested
person asked questions about the required lot areas.
6. That one person spoke at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal, and no
correspondence was received in opposition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING That the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal for waiver of (a) minimum lot width and (b) minimum
front yard setback to construct seven single - family homes in the RS- HS- 22,000(SC) (Residential, Single -
Family Hillside — Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone on an irregularly- shaped 5.4 -acre property having a
frontage of 679 feet on the west and southwest sides of Mohler Drive and a maximum depth of 755 feet,
being located 50 feet southeast of the centerline of Owens Drive, and further described as 375 South
Mohler Drive; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration
reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of
the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have
a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, in part, upon the following conditions which are hereby
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the
safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
That final site, floor, elevation, landscape and fencing plans for the residential structures shall be
submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a `Reports
and Recommendations' item.
2. That a plan for the design of the private street shall be submitted to the City Traffic and
Transportation Manager for review and approval.
3. That roll -up garage doors shall be shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Said doors
shall be installed and maintained as shown on the approved plans-
-2- PC2004 -31
4. That prior to approval of the grading plan, the developer shall submit a Water Quality Management
Plan ( "WQMP ") specifically identifying the post construction best management practices that will be
used on -site to control predictable pollutants from stormwater runoff. The WQMP shall be submitted
to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division, for review and approval.
5. That the street, sanitary sewers and storm drains within the development shall be privately
maintained.
6. That vehicular access rights to Mohler Drive shall be released and relinquished to the City of
Anaheim except at the intersection with the proposed private street (Lot "N')-
7. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or
abandonment of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through the Water
Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Division.
8. That because this project has a landscaping area exceeding two thousand five hundred (2,500)
square feet, a separate irrigation meter shall be installed and comply with Chapter 10.19 "Landscape
Water Efficiency" of the Anaheim Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 5349. Said information shall
be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
9. That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (Water
Engineering Division) a twenty (20) foot wide easement for water purposes.
10. That all existing water services shall conform to current Water Utility Standards. Any existing water
services that are not approved by the Utility for continued use shall be upgraded to current
standards, or abandoned by developer. If the existing services are no longer needed, they shall be
abandoned by the developer.
11. That the developer /property owner shall provide a detailed water usage analysis and building plans
to the Public Utilities Water Engineering Division for review and approval for determining the
adequacy of the existing water system to meet the projects water requirements. Any system
improvements shall be completed in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility's Rates,
Rules and Regulations.
12. That the water backflow equipment shall be above ground and outside the street setback in a
manner fully screened from all public and private streets. Any other large water system equipment
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or
outside the street setback in a manner fully screened from all public and private streets. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted to the Water Engineering and Cross
Connection Inspector for review and approval prior to submittal for building permits.
13. That prior to rendering water service, the developer /property owner shall submit a set of
improvement plans for Public Utilities Water Engineering review and approval for determining the
conditions necessary for providing water service to the project.
14. That all residential lots shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division.
15. That trash storage area(s) 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 areas shall be specifically shown on the scaled plans (showing storage
and collection areas) submitted for building permits.
16. That approval of this variance is contingent upon approval of Specimen Tree Removal Permit No-
2004-00001 and Tentative Tract Map No. 16632, now pending, and recordation of a final map-
-3- PC2004 -31
17. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plan and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which is on file with the Planning Department
marked Exhibit No. 1, and as conditioned herein.
18. 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, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, above
mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions maybe
granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 (Time Limit for Amendments, Conditional Use
Permits, Administrative Use Permits, Variances and Administrative Adjustments) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
19. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 10 and 17, above - mentioned, shall
be complied with.
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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicants 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.
March 22, 2004.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
(ORIGINAL SIGNED BYJAMES VANDERBILT - LINARES)
CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM 1
1, Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning
Commission held on March 22, 2004, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOSTWICK, BUFFA, EASTMAN, FLORES, O'CONNELL,
VANDERBILT - LINARES
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ROMERO
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
' 2004
(ORIGINAL SIGNED BY PAT CHANDLER)
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-4- PC2004 -31
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 22, 2004
Item No. 3
3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion)
3b. VARIANCE NO. 2004 -04600 (Resolution)
3c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16632 (Motion)
3d. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2004 -00001 (Motion)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly- shaped, 5.4 -acre property has a frontage of 679 feet on the west and the
southwest side of Mohler Drive, a maximum depth of 755 feet and is located 50 feet
southeast of the centerline of Owens Drive (375 South Mohler Drive).
REQUEST:
(2) The petitioner requests approval of the following:
Variance No. 2002 -04547 — waivers of the following under authority of Code Section
18.03.040.020 to construct seven (7) single - family homes:
(a) SECTION NO. 18.23.061.020
(b) SECTION NO. 1813.063.010
Minimum lot width.
(DELETED)
Minimum front yard setback
(25 feet required for Lot Nos. 1, 2 and 3;
15 feet proposed)
Tentative Tract Mao No. 16632 to establish a 10 -lot, 7 -unit detached single - family
residential subdivision.
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2004- 00001 to remove fifteen (15) specimen trees.
BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is currently developed with a single - family residence (to be demolished) and
is zoned RS -HS- 22,000 (SC) (Residential, Single- Family Hillside; Scenic Corridor Overlay).
The City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element Map designates this property for
Hillside Estate Density Residential land uses.
(4)
Surrounding General Plan land uses designations are as follows:
:
� �
�
F
All Directions
Hillside Estate Density
Residential
(5)
sr8715av
There are no prior zoning actions pertaining to this property.
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 22, 2004
Item No. 3
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
(6) The petitioner proposes to subdivide this property to establish a 10 -lot, 7 -unit single - family
residential subdivision with waiver of minimum required front yard setback.
(7) The petitioner also requests approval to remove fifteen (15) specimen tree in order to
grade the property in preparation for constructing seven (7) new single- family homes.
The tree removal and replacement plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates that the specimen trees
are currently located within areas to be graded in order to provide pads for the three (3) of
the seven (7) homes. The plan demonstrates that 2 Oak trees would be removed for the
grading of Lot 1, 2 Oak and 2 Pepper trees would be removed for Lot 2 and a stand of 9
Eucalyptus trees are required to be removed for Lots and 5.
(8) The tentative tract map and site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicate the subdivision of two
residential parcels into seven residential parcels with the following site characteristics:
dot
1 topes d Lot
R 9(ai „ € i e f %
�r¢posed Area
_fZequiredTu ::
1
186 feet
85 feet
20,580 sq. ft.
19,000 sq. ft.
2
140 feet
85 feet
21,540 sq. ft.
19,000 sq, ft.
3
124 feet
85 feet
23,030 sq. ft.
19,000 sq. ft.
4
90 feet
60 feet
24,660 sq. ft.
19,000 sq. ft.
5
60 feet
60 feet
30,907 sq. ft.
19,000 sq. ft.
6
90 feet
60 feet
28,762 s . ft.
19,000 sq. ft.
7
65 feet
60 feet
22,446 s . ft.
19,000 sq. ft.
Required minimum lot width for Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 based on Code Section 18.23.061.020 pertaining to
minimum building site width on the circular or curvilinear portion of a cul -de -sac.
" Required minimum lot area based on Code Section 18.23.061.010, which allows a net lot area of 19,000
square feet.
(9) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates the development of seven (7) single - family homes
With the following characteristics:
u
hb
Y`4�,.i,+'x r'
�
i
O
ree3etb"gc(c
a
5
d(h d
1 VI rpgsedPi4u }ssd
h £;
- .T�..'� R
s:"�ws,.s,s
` rz. $ r .. ! A
t#tq
,.,ns i� *, � Y.�E#
1
20,580 sq. ft.
15 feet/ 25 feet
10 feet / 10 feet
58 feet / 25 feet
2
21,540 sq. ft.
15 feet/ 25 feet
10 feet/ 10 feet
66 feet/ 25 feet
3
23,030 sq. ft.
15 feet/ 25 feet
17 feet/ 10 feet
70 feet/ 25 feet
4
24,660 sq. ft.
15 feet/ 15 feet
10 feet/ 10 feet
30 feet/ 25 feet
5
30,907 sq. ft.
50 feet/ 15 feet
10 feet/ 10 feet
144 feet/ 25 feet
6
28,762 sq. ft.
20 feet/ 15 feet
10 feet/ 10 feet
165 feet/ 25 feet
7
22,446 sq. ft.
40 feet/ 15 feet
1 10 feet/ 10 feet
1 58 feet/ 25 feet
Required minimum front setback based on Code Section 18.04.042.040 pertaining to setbacks on cui -de -sacs.
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 22, 2004
Item No. 3
View of subject property looking northwest
(10) Conceptual floor plans indicate the homes would be developed as two -story residences.
Each home would have 5 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms with the first floor comprised of 4
bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, kitchen with nook, living room, dining room, family room and 3
enclosed garage spaces. An outdoor courtyard would be located near the front entrance of
the home With an outdoor fireplace and fountain features. The second floor would be
designed with a master suite including a bedroom with balcony, bathroom, dressing room,
retreat, and outdoor pavilion. All of the homes would be developed with an outdoor
swimming pool within the rear yard and all landscaping installed prior to occupancy.
(11) Vehicular access for the proposed homes would consist of a new private street accessed
from Mohler Drive. The road would end with a new cul -de -sac and the construction of
driveways leading to each individual residence. The site plan indicates a total of 30
parking spaces, (5 per residence) with 3 spaces provided in a garage and 2 open spaces
adjacent to the garage for each lot. Code requires a minimum of 24 spaces based on the
ratio of 4 spaces per single - family residence, 2 of which must be enclosed in a garage.
(12) Elevation renderings indicate two -story residences designed with an overall village theme.
They would include features such as outdoor rooms, arches, exterior stairways, tower
elements, balconies, shutter accents, fountains and varied complementary colors.
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 22, 2004
Item No. 3
Conceptual plans indicate a height of 25 feet. Code permits two -story residences in the
Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone with a maximum height of 25 feet.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(13) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for
review in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and,
therefore, recommends 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.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS:
(14) The proposed project has been reviewed by affected City departments to determine
whether it conforms with the City's Growth Management Element adopted by the City
Council on March 17, 1992. Based on City staff review of the proposed project, it has been
determined that this project does not fit within the scope necessary to require a Growth
Management Element analysis, therefore, no analysis has been performed.
EVALUATION:
(15) The Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element Map designates this property for Hillside
Estate Density Residential land uses, with a density range of up to 1.5 dwelling units per
acre. The RS- HS- 22,000 Zone is the typical implementation zone for this designation. The
petitioner proposes to subdivide this property to establish a ten lot, seven unit single - family
residential subdivision. The proposed subdivision would have a density of 1_3 dwelling
units per acre consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Hillside Estate
Density Residential and the RS -HS- 22,000 (SC) zoning designation for this site and
compatible with the existing residential developments in the area.
(16) Waiver (a) pertaining to minimum lot width has been deleted as the property lines were
reconfigured to conform with Code.
(17) Waiver (b) pertains to minimum front yard setback. Code requires a minimum front yard
setback of 25 feet and the site plan indicates a proposed setback of 15 feet for lot Nos. 1 2
and 3. The Code also includes a provision to encourage varied setbacks within residential
tracts that allows for a 15 -foot front yard setback, provided that the average setback for all
the homes is at least 25 feet. For this particular project, the average setback for the
proposed 7 homes is 24 feet.
(18) The applicant submitted the attached justification of waiver, which states that the steep
topography and irregular shape of the property present challenging development
constraints. The proposed subdivision is designed with the homes located below the grade
of Mohler Drive within a canyon in an effort to mitigate any impact to the views of the
existing homes in the neighborhood. The justification further states that many of the
neighboring properties with identical zoning have a much larger buildable area, and
therefore, strict application of the zoning code would deprive this property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the immediate vicinity. Staff recommends approval of this
waiver because the submittal has demonstrated that the property's shape and topography
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 22, 2004
Item No. 3
does create a hardship and that when averaged, the front setback waiver requested is
minimal in relation to the entire project.
(19) Due to the steep topography of the project site, retaining walls are being proposed in order
to create useable outdoor area. The retaining walls for Lot Nos. 1 through 7 would be
located within the rear yards of the homes and would retain slopes above the pads
thereby creating useable rear yards. The walls would not be visible from Mohler Drive or
the adjacent residential properties. The retaining wall proposed adjacent to Lot C is
required for the construction of the new private road. This wall would be visible from one
home located to the west of the project. The maximum height of any proposed retaining
wall would be 10 feet, which is in conformance with Section 17.06.04 of Title 17. The
petitioner has indicated that all retaining walls would be landscaped and a drip watering
system would be installed.
(20) Code Section 18.84.038.010 pertaining to tree preservation defines Oak, Pepper,
Sycamore and Eucalyptus trees with a trunk measuring eight (8) inches or greater in
diameter, measured at a point four (4) feet above ground level as a specimen tree. The
Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone permits the removal of specimen trees subject to specified
findings and approval of a Specimen Tree Removal Permit considered by the Planning
Commission at a noticed public hearing.
(21) Code Section 18.84.038.060 requires that any specimen trees removed shall be replaced
on the same parcel at a 2:1 ratio. The Code further specifies that replacement trees shall
be minimum 15- gallon size containers and chosen from a specified list of replacement
trees identified in the Code. Should the Commission wish to grant this request, staff
recommends the replacement trees be 36 -inch box in size and selected from specimen
varieties, as has been the practice in most past approvals.
(22) Staff has reviewed the proposal and inspected the site to determine the possibility for
alternative grading to create a usable pads for the proposed tract without impacting the
existing specimen trees on site and feels that the proposed development is both
reasonable and practical. Commission should also note that the proposed grading plan
preserves significant stands of specimen trees and natural vegetation and the petitioner is
proposing to heavily landscape the site. The replacement plan shows the replanting of 40,
36 -inch box specimen trees, including 30 Pepper and 10 Eucalyptus trees. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of the request to remove fifteen (15) specimen trees.
(23) The applicant is proposing to develop this residential tract with a village -type theme. The
homes would be designed with complementary design features and colors. All
landscaping and hardscaping would be installed for future homeowners prior to occupancy.
Commission should note that staff has included a condition of approval to require future
review of final site, floor, elevation, landscaping and fencing plans by the Commission as a
"Reports and Recommendation" item.
FINDINGS:
(24) 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 is to prevent discrimination and none shall be approved which would have the
effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other similar properties. Therefore,
before any variance is granted by the Planning Commission, it shall be shown:
Page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 22, 2004
Item No. 3
(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.
(25) "The State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, Section 66473.5) makes it mandatory
to include in all motions approving, or recommending approval of a tract map, a specific
finding that the proposed Subdivision together with its design and improvement is
consistent with the City's General Plan.
Further, the law requires that the Commission /Council make any of the following findings
when denying or recommending denial of a tract map:
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."
(26) Zoning Code Section 18.84.038.050 states that as a prerequisite to granting any Specimen
Tree Removal Permit, the Planning Commission may impose conditions and shall make
one or more of the following findings:
a) That principles of good forest management will best be served by the proposed
removal;
b) That a reasonable and practical development of the property on which the tree is
located requires removal of the tree or trees whose removal is sought;
c) That the character of the immediate neighborhood in respect to forestation will not
be materially affected by the proposed removal;
d) That the topography of the building site renders removal reasonably necessary;
e) That regard for the safety of persons or property requires the removal.
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 22, 2004
Item No. 3
RECOMMENDATION:
(27) 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 that the Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, approve a CEQA Negative Declaration.
(b) By resolution, deny waiver (a) pertaining to minimum lot width since it had been deleted
and approve waiver (b) pertaining to minimum front yard setback based on the site
constraints of the property such as the irregular shape and the sloping topography; and
further, that the average setback allowable in the RS -HS- 22,000 (SC) Zone is only one
foot greater than the average setback proposed.
(c) By motion, approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16632 (to establish a 10 -lot, 7 -unit single -
family residential subdivision) since the design and improvement of the proposed
subdivision would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Hillside
Estate Density Residential and the site is suitable for the proposed development.
(d) By motion, approve Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2004 -00001 to allow the
removal of fifteen (15) specimen trees in order to construct seven (7) single - family
residences based on the following:
0) That a reasonable and practical development of the proposed tract on
which the specimen trees are located requires the removal of the trees.
(ii) That the character of the immediate neighborhood in respect to forestation
would not be materially affected by the proposed removal of the fifteen (15)
specimen trees since the trees currently exists within the interior of the
property and is not visible form the public right -of -way or adjacent
properties; and further that a significant amount of specimen trees and
existing vegetation is being preserved and that the trees will be replaced
with 40, minimum 36 -inch box trees.
2. That a plan for the design of the private street shall be submitted to the City Traffic and
Transportation Manager for review and approval.
3. 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.
4. That prior to approval of the grading plan, the developer shall submit a Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the post construction best management practices that will be
Page 7
1. That final site, floor, elevation, landscape and fencing plans for the residential structures shall be
submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports
and Recommendation item.
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 22, 2004
Item No. 3
used on -site to control predictable pollutants from stormwater runoff. The WOMP shall be submitted
to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval.
5. That the streets, sanitary sewers and storm drains within the development shall be privately
maintained.
6. That the vehicular access rights to Mohler Drive shall be released and relinquished to the City of
Anaheim except at the intersection of the proposed private street.
7. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or
abandonment of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through the Water
Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Division,
8. That since this project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation
meter shall be installed and comply with City Ordinance No. 5349 and Chapter 10.19 of Anaheim
Municipal Code. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
9. That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (Water
Engineering Division) an easement 20 feet in width for water purposes.
10. That all existing water services shall conform to current Water Utility Standards. Any existing water
services that are not approved by Utility for continued use shall be upgraded to current standards, or
abandoned by developer. If the existing services are no longer needed, they shall be abandoned by
the developer.
11. That the developer /owner shall provide a detailed water usage analysis and building plans for Public
Utilities Water Engineering review and approval in determining the adequacy of the existing water
system to meet the project's water requirements. Any system improvements shall be done in
accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the water utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations.
12. That the water backflow equipment shall be above ground, outside of the street setback area in a
manner fully screened from all public and private streets. Any other large water system equipment
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or
outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public and private streets. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross
Connection Inspector before submittal for building permits.
13. That prior to rendering water service, the developer /owner shall submit a set of improvement plans for
Public Utilities Water Engineering review and approval in determining the conditions necessary for
providing water service to the project.
14. That all lots shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division.
15. 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 areas shall be specifically indicated on scaled plans (showing storage and
collection areas) submitted for building permits.
16. That approval of this variance is contingent upon the approval of the Tentative Tract Map No. 16632,
now pending.
Page 8
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 22, 2004
Item No. 3
17. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which are on file with the Planning Department
marked Exhibit No. 1, and as conditioned herein.
18. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, above
mentioned, shall be complied with.
19. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 10 and 17, above- mentioned, shall
be complied with.
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.
1. That prior to final map approval, all existing structures shall be demolished. The developer shall
obtain a demolition permit from the Building Division.
2. That approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16632 is contingent upon approval of Variance No. 2004-
04600, now pending.
3. That a final tract map to record the division of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by
the City of Anaheim and shall then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
4. That the City of Anaheim Drainage Assessment Fee for the Mohler Drive area shall be paid. The fee
is currently $ 2,290 /acre. Credit will be applied for the current development. The project architect or
engineer shall document the existing impervious area and the proposed impervious area. If the
impervious area remains the same or decreases, no fee is due. If the impervious area increases, the
fee shall be proportional to the increase.
5. That the City of Anaheim Sewer Assessment Fee for the Timken Canyon area shall be paid. The fee
is currently $ 10,181.00 /acre.
6. 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 the approved Water Quality Management Plan, and a maintenance exhibit. The
covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final map.
7. That 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 map.
8. That the vehicular access rights to Mohler Drive shall be released and relinquished to the City of
Anaheim except at the intersection of the proposed private street.
9. That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (Water
Engineering Division) an easement 20 feet in width for water purposes.
Page 9
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 22, 2004
Item No. 3
10. That all lots shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division.
11. That prior to approval of the final parcel map, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, above -
mentioned, shall be complied with.
12. 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.
00001 IS APPROVED.
1. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning
Department marked Exhibit No. 1 except that a total of thirty (30) minimum 36 -inch box sized
replacement trees of specimen varieties shall be planted and permanently maintained in a healthy
condition on the property. A plan showing those replacement trees shall be submitted to the Zoning
Division for review and approval.
2. That the trees approved for removal shall remain until a grading permit is issued for the construction
of the single- family residences.
3. That prior to the issuance of the final occupancy permit for the first single - family residence,
Condition No. 1, above- mentioned, shall be complied with.
4. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it
complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal
regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
Page 10
ITEM NO. 1-B
p+"' - 0
o-u5414 EET
RD`BaPRy E~Mg-(R ® Rc~BSs
® cuP
c~ ~sa RM ~g.53 VAR 171 ® .4
°iH °N ~~nz RG~ µ39g1.~e~.,.. ® RM P<
c~ fisz Z VP MEN
°''cev ~~~ENt r PPP1R0 DV ® VAR Ao
Rc cR R M AP ~pU T B
Rc`6 ~~~,M N 0
a ~~
c\ DEPAR MENt a~ 1 DU
c8% 2 U
R~GU~~~N D 5 DU p GGRRIDGR Rc~~
cxuR FAgAI
SPCA ~PSIREET SGU71'I AN~GIVERi1`V GNE
®~~'"'9~,u GI 3i RDU ~PB~ ~~ ~1sy Z°nel
IIRGAG ^'c ~~, '~ lento `NRE
N pAGIFIG ~` oswsed°9o vt 0.RGi.~ 461~tx lR°s °f 1n AGR~CV ~2
ER Rcl. R WSA 33 R GH
SGt)1H aas ~p ~mw`ol r~YV~2~,~s z'~' 2 1ou FA
Tz vM Ks Zy u, Y ~~vpzp0~ ~~c RS.2 1DU
ctlR 3-~ m ~ ~ U
" O ~„~ t. ~y oA*lT~.
~~rie
w p ~Rg3~F 1VA
Re`fi~fiaa l5l ~ ilVPG~.e~'°S RrrZ
,~R~2
~ sa~z°ss~ m A
m O
~` A m ~ g. DU C1
d
IV c~ssrw'°a ~ c~ m 1DU EAGN N
R ~Rfi4Y G7~ G m ~ /
z
DU Y PRV 'n I O 7
i N El-ES pDl Dyhh'i,, o NI ZpU
N Gb ~ 1 Dl
'I ~° ZGU
i 1GV
acv °a~
GlW`''W OFFCE 1 D~ EAGN
9
6b
se ~Ep, H
L~,"apisa+ v~$wii° vM.oscfieCH 1 D \G
General Plan Amendment No. 2004-00421
Reclassification No: 2004-00137 ,~~ Subject Property
Variance No. 2004-04633 Date: December 12, 2005
TRACKING NO. VAR2005-04671
Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: YADVINDER S. VIRK Q.S. No. 73
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL SITE, FLOOR, ELEVATION, AND FENCING PLANS FOR A
7-UNIT, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
502 South Harbor Boulevard zoos Izoos-lz-ei
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 1 -B
1 -B. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY - APPROVED)
(b) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004 -00421
(c) RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2004 -00137
(d) VARIANCE NO. 2004 -04633
(Tracking No. VAR 2005- 04671)
(e) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16794 (Motion)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly- shaped, 1.2 -acre property is located at the southeast corner of Harbor
Boulevard and Santa Ana Street with frontages of 254 feet on the east side of Harbor
Boulevard and 185 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Street (502 South Harbor Boulevard).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests review of final site, floor, elevation, and fencing plans for a 7 -unit,
single - family residential subdivision.
BACKGROUND:
(3) This item was continued from the November 14, and November 28, 2005, Planning
Commission meetings in order for the applicant to be present at the meeting.
(4) This property is currently vacant, zoned RS -3 (Residential, Single - Family) and is designated
for Low and Low - Medium Density Residential land uses by the Anaheim General Plan.
(5) Variance No. 2004 -04633 (to waive the minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial highway)
was approved by the Planning Commission on January 24, 2005. Resolution No. PC2005 -15,
approved in conjunction with this permit, includes the following condition of approval:
"17. That final site, floor, fencing and elevation plans for the residential structures shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item for
approval prior to the issuance of building permits."
DISCUSSION:
(6) As requested by the Commission at the November 14, 2005 meeting, the applicant has
submitted revised plans and colored renderings in order to clarify the details of the
proposal. In addition, the plans also include a section of the proposed fencing
indicating 6 -foot high, solid wood fencing with block pilasters.
(7) In order to comply with Condition No. 17 of Resolution No. PC2005 -15, the applicant is
requesting the Commission's final review and approval of site, floor, fencing and elevation
plans for seven (7) single - family residences. Since this project is located within the Colony
Historic District, the applicant has also consulted with a sub - committee of the Historic
Preservation Committee for direction in determining design features and colors of the new
homes.
VAR2004- 04633(final plans)akv_SR_PC121205.doc
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 1 -13
(8) The site plan (Final Plan No. 1) indicates the development of seven (7) single - family homes
with the following setbacks:
Lot
Front Setback
Proposed /Required
Side Setback
Proposed /Required
Rear Setback
Proposed /Required
1
16feeU15feet
5feet/5feet
20feeU15feet
2
16 feet/1 5 feet
5feet/5feet
20feeU15feet
3
16 feeU15 feet
5 feeU5 feet
20 feeU15 feet
4
16 feet/15 feet
5 feeU5 feet
20 feeU15 feet
5
21 feet/15 feet
5 feeU5 feet
28 feet/15 feet
6
15 feet/15 feet
5 feeU5 feet
33 feeU15 feet
7
20 feeU15 feet
5 feeU5 feet
19 feeU15 feet
(9) The site plan also indicates that wood fencing would be provided by the developer for all of the
homes. The proposed fencing is in compliance with Code with regard to location and height.
(10) The floor plans (Final Plan Nos. 2 through 11) indicate the new homes would have the
following characteristics:
Lot
Plan
Square Footage
Number of Bedrooms/
Bathrooms
Parking Spaces
Proposed/Required
1
A
3 334
4/3
4/4
2
B
3,334
4/3
4/4
3
A
3,334
4/3
4/4
4
B
3,334
4/3
4/4
5
E
3,334
5/3.5
4/4
6
D
3,815
5/4.5
4/4
7
C
3,334
5/3.5
4/4
(11) Elevation renderings (Final Plan Nos. 12 through 16) were submitted indicating 2 -story,
Craftsman style homes. The homes are articulated with varying roof pitches, fascias, columns
and covered porches. Finish materials include Hardi board wood siding, cedar shakes,
decorative wooden brackets, rock wainscoting, round vents within the gabled roofs and door
and window trim.
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 1 -13
(12) The proposed Craftsman style homes would be designed with complementary design features
and would be compatible with the historic homes facing Harbor Boulevard. The applicant has
consulted with the City's Neighborhood Preservation Office to ensure compatibility with the
Historic District. Neighborhood Preservation staff has submitted the attached memorandum
indicating that the conceptual elevation renderings have been reviewed and tentatively
approved by Neighborhood Preservation and the City's historic preservation architectural
consultant. Staff is pleased with the design and materials portrayed in the final plans and
recommends approval of this request.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(13) Staff has reviewed the request for review of final plans and the previously- approved Negative
Declaration and finds there are no changes to the originally- approved variance that would
require further environmental review and that this implementing action is a required condition
of approval of the original permit intended to address any aesthetic issues that may result from
construction of the project. Therefore, staff recommends that the previously- approved
Negative Declaration serve as the required environmental documentation for this request
RECOMMENDATION:
(14) Staff recommends that unless 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 meeting, that the
Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, determine that the previously- approved Negative Declaration is
adequate to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this
request.
(b) By motion, approve the final site, fencing, floor, and elevation plans for a
previously- approved 7 -unit detached single - family residential subdivision based
on Commission's concurrence with staff that the final plans are architecturally
enhanced to provide a quality single - family subdivision that is compatible with the
existing neighborhood and the historic character of the Anaheim Colony Historic
District.
Page 3
~~ Nk .
.err !~,
City of Anaheim
~~,AIiII~ldlit G ~EP~AI[2~'10/I~1~1,
December 12, 2005
Yadvinder S. Virk
Castle Development, LLC
9017 Harvard Avenue
Buena Park, CA 90620
Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of
December 12, 2005.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
B. (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Agent: Yadvinder S. Virk, Castle Development, 'LLC, 9017 Harvard Avenue, Buena
Park, CA 90620
Location: 502 South Harbor Boulevard: Property is approximately 1.2 acres, located
on the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Santa Ana Street.
Request for approval of final site, floor, elevation and fencing plans fora 7-unit single
family residential subdivision.
vnvw.anahcim.net
ACTION: Commissioner XX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XX and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to
XX and does hereby approve the (Environmental findings) upon finding that the XX serves as
adequate environmental documentation for this request for tentative tract maps XX to permit
XX. The Planning Commission has XX, have been environmentally-cleared by this prior
environmental documentatlon. Aproject-specific Initial Study has been prepared and
additional environmental review and mitigation has been provided as needed pursuant to the
procedures outlined for subsequent projects under a Program EIR.
Commissioner XX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XX and MOTION CARRIED,
that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed tentative
map, including its design and improvements, is consistent with the Anaheim General Plan,
and does therefore approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16794, to establish an XX subject to the
following conditions:
Sincerely,
Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
Cr em.doc
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
P.O. Box 3222
Anaheim, California 92803
TEL (714) 765-5139
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP tJO. 16794
Attachment -Item No. 1-B
flfi EnAORANDUAfl
CITY OF AMAHEIidi
Community Development Department
DATE: November 1, 2005
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Kupfiian, Historic Preservation Coordinator
SUBJECT: Elevations and Exterior Colors for New Homes at Hazbor and Santa Ana
Neighborhood Preservation has reviewed the elevations and exterior colors for the
development of seven new homes at Hazbor Blvd. and Santa Ana St.
The conceptual elevation renderings have been reviewed and tentatively approved by
Neighborhood Preservation and our historic preservation azchitectural consultant, Jim
Wilson. Our recommendation with regazds to exterior materials is that the siding be a
manufactured wood product (not aluminum or vinyl siding) and that any rock shown on
the exterior facades be real rock. Since the roofs of these houses aze so prevalent, we
would also like to see actual samples of the roofing material that will be used. {The
samples attached to the boazds apparently represent only the color of the roof material.)
The color boards were reviewed by Neighborhood Preservation together with a sub-
committee of the Historic Preservafion Committee. We came to some consensus about
the colors for each elevation which aze listed in the attached color pallet. The colors were
also reviewed by our architectural consultant and the general pallet has been approved.
However, since it is uncleaz exactly where and to what extent the trim and accent colors
will be used, we would like to be notified when actual samples of paint are applied for
final review at the site.
Attachment
c: Brad Hobson
Phyllis Mueller
F:\DOCSViOUSINU\hff.MOS\TKMSHH IA}7wbm-5miu Mo.DOC
Attachment - Item No. 1-B
RESOLUTION NO. PC2005-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2004.04633 BE GRANTED, IN PART
(502 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD)
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: LOT 22 IN BLOCK D OF TRACT NO. 365, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED
IN BOOK 15, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
PARCEL 2: THAT PORTION OF VINEYARD LOT G-5, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF VINEYARD LOT G-5, AS PER MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 4, PAGES 629 AND 630 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT G-S, 205.5 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY
PARALLEL WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT G-5, 212 FEET TO A POINT IN
THE .NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 365, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 16, PAGE 14, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID
NORTHWESTERLY LINE 205.5 FEET, TO A POINT IN THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY
LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF
SAID LOT G-5 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY 12.6 FEET AS CONVEYED TO
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM BY DEEDS RECORDED JANUARY 23, 1911 IN BOOK 1832
PAGE 286, DEEDS AND MARCH 1, 1924 IN BOOK 512 PAGE 264, DEEDS IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION INCLUDED WITHIN SANTA ANA
STREET AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, BY DEED RECORDED
NOVEMBER 9, 1937 IN BOOK 915 PAGE 148, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL 3: A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN ALLEY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ABANDONED PER RESOLUTION NO. 83R-440 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF VINEYARD LOT G-5 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK
4, PAGES 629 ANp 630 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES' COUNTY, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE 15° 28' 30"
EAST 162.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 74° 24' 45" EAST 119.36 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 15° 28' 30" WEST 162.Op FEET; THENCE
NORTH 74° 24' 45" EAST 152.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 74° 24' 45" WEST, 20.00
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 4: LOT 1 IN BLOCK "D" OF TRACT NO. 366, HESS SUBDIVISION, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN
ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 15m, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS,
RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
CR\PC2005-015 -1- PC2005-15
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on December 13, 2004, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by
law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 16.60 (Procedures), to
hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connection therewith; and that said public hearing was continued to the January 10,
.and January 24, 2005, Planning Commission meetings; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes to construct seven (7) single-family residences with waivers of
the following:
(a) SECTION NO. 18:04.D60.020 - Minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial
highwav (Lot Nos. 1-4)
(120 feet required; 84 feet proposed)
(b) SECTION NO. 18.04.100
(c) SECTION NO.18.04.100
(d) SECTION NO. 18.04.110
- Minimum front yard setback fLot No: 6)
(DELETED)
- Minimum rear yard setback (Lot No. 4)
(DELETED)
- Mihimum number of parking spaces
Lot No. 6
(DELETED)
2. That the above-mentioned waiver (a) is hereby approved based on the special
circumstances applicable to these properties such as size and location, which do .not apply to other
identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity.
3. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the property or class of
use in the same vicinity and zone.
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, since the adjacent neighborhood is developed without the required lot depth.
5. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
6. That the above-mentioned waivers (b), (c) and (d) are hereby denied on the basis that they
have been deleted subsequent to advertisement.
7. That no one 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 waivers of: (a) minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial highway,
(b) minimum front yard setback, (c) minimum rear yard setback, and (d) minimum number of parking spaces
to construct seven (7) single-family residences; 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
-2- PC2005-15
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 No. 2004-04633, 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 gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street in a manner which may adversely
affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street or alley. Installation of any gates shall conform to
Engineering Standard Plan No. 475. Said requirements shall be subject to the review and approval of
the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans
submitted for building permits.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works
Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said
Department. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits for
Planning Department and Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division approval.
3. 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.
4. That an on-site trash truck tum-around area shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 476
and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department; Streets and Sanitation Division.
Said turn-around area shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
5. 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.
6. That final detailed landscape and irrigation plans for the proposed development shall be submitted to
the Development Services Division for review and approval. Said landscape plans shall show minimum
24-inch box sized trees, shrubs, groundcover and vines to be planted in layers in common areas, and
minimum 24-inch box sized trees in the front yard of each property. All trees shall be properly,
professionally, and permanently maintained to ensure mature, healthy growth.
7. That Variance No. 2004-04633 Is hereby granted subject to the approval and recordation of Tentative
Tract Map No. 16794, now pending.
6. That prior to application for water meters, fire line or submitting the water improvement plans for
approval, the developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Water Engineering Division an
estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project.
This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the
estimated water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall
occur in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations.
9. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Services Standards
Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded 'rf
continued use is necessary or abandoned 'rf the existing service is no longer needed. The owner/developer
shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line.
10. That prior to rendering water service, the developer/owner shall submit a set of improvement plans for
Public Utility Water Engineering review and approval in determining the conditions necessary for
providing water service to the project.
-3- PC2005-15
11. That water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Water Engineering Division for approval and a
performance bond in the amount approved by the City Engineer and from the City Attorney shalt be
posted with the City of Anaheim.
12. That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim an easement for
a domestic above-ground water meter in addition to providing a 5-foot wide clearande around the water
meter pad and a 10-foot wide access easement along the water line from the street to the water meter
pad for maintenance.
13. That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area in a
manner fully screened from the public street. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault
shall be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to
the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside of the street
setback area in a manner fully screened from ail public streets and alleys. Said .information shall be
specifically shown on plans submitted for approval by the Water Engineering Division of the Public
Utilities Department.
14. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or
abandonment of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water Engineering
Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department.
15. That the legal property owner shall provide the City of Anaheim with an easement for electrical service
lines to be determined as electrical design is completed. Said easement shall be submitted to the City
of Anaheim prior to connection of electrical service.
16. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the property owner/developer's
expense. Landscape and/or hardscape screening of all pad-mounted equipment shall be required and
shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits.
17. That final detailed site, floor, fencing and elevation plans shall be reviewed by Planning Commission as
a Report and Recommendation item for approval prior to the issuance of building permits..
18. 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 Revision No. 1 to Exhibit No. 1 and Exhibtt Nos. 2 through 6, and as conditioned
herein. -
19. 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, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17,
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.
20. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No18, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with.
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.
-4- PC2005-15
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.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges
related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 7 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 shalt 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
January 24, 2005. 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 maybe replaced
by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
(ORIGINAL SIGNED BY GAIL EASTMAN)
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
(ORIGINAL SIGNED BY PAT CHANDLER)
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
1, Pat Chandler, 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
January 24, 2005, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BUFFA, EASTMAN, FLORES, ROMERO, VELASOUEZ
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
VACANT: COMMISSIONERS: TWO VACANCIES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
2005.
(ORIGINAL SIGNED BY PAT CHANDLER)
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-5- PC2005-15
Eli M- IT1 T , nft:I:41163
RESOLUTION NO. PC2005 -15
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2004 -04633 BE GRANTED, IN PART
(502 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD)
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: LOT 22 IN BLOCK D OF TRACT NO. 365, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED
IN BOOK 15, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
PARCEL 2: THAT PORTION OF VINEYARD LOT G -5, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF VINEYARD LOT G -5, AS PER MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 4, PAGES 629 AND 630 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT G -5, 2055 . FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY
PARALLEL WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT G -5, 212 FEET TO A POINT IN
THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 365, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 16, PAGE 14, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID
NORTHWESTERLY LINE 205.5 FEET, TO A POINT IN THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY
LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF
SAID LOT G -5 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY 12.6 FEET AS CONVEYED TO
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM BY DEEDS RECORDED JANUARY 23, 1911 IN BOOK 1832
PAGE 286, DEEDS AND MARCH 1, 1924 IN BOOK 512 PAGE 264, DEEDS IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION INCLUDED WITHIN SANTA ANA
STREET AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, BY DEED RECORDED
NOVEMBER 9, 1937 IN BOOK 915 PAGE 148, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL 3: A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN ALLEY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ABANDONED PER RESOLUTION NO. 83R -440 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF VINEYARD LOT G -5 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK
4, PAGES 629 AND 630 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE 15 28'30"
EAST 162.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 74 24' 45" EAST 119.36 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 15 28' 30" WEST 162.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 74 24' 45" EAST 152.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 74 24' 45" WEST, 2000 .
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 4: LOT 1 IN BLOCK "D" OF TRACT NO. 366, HESS SUBDIVISION, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN
ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 15m, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS,
RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
CR \PC2005 -015 -1- PC2005 -15
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on December 13, 2004, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by
law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 (Procedures), to
hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connection therewith; and that said public hearing was continued to the January 10,
and January 24, 2005, 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:
the following:
That the petitioner proposes to construct seven (7) single - family residences with waivers of
(a) SECTION NO. 18.04.060.020 Minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial
highway (Lot Nos. 1-4)
(120 feet required; 84 feet proposed)
(b) SECTION NO. 18.04.100 Minimum front yard setback (Lot No. 6)
(DELETED)
(c) SECTION NO. 18.04.100 Minimum rear yard setback (Lot No. 4)
(DELETED)
(d) SECTION NO. 18.04.110 Minimum number of parking spaces
(Lot No. 6)
(DELETED)
2. That the above - mentioned waiver (a) is hereby approved based on the special
circumstances applicable to these properties such as size and location, which do not apply to other
identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity.
3. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the property or class of
use in the same vicinity and zone.
4. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
properly right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in
question, since the adjacent neighborhood is developed without the required lot depth.
5. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the properly or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the properly is located.
6. That the above - mentioned waivers (b), (c) and (d) are hereby denied on the basis that they
have been deleted subsequent to advertisement.
7. That no one 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 waivers of: (a) minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial highway,
(b) minimum front yard setback, (c) minimum rear yard setback, and (d) minimum number of parking spaces
to construct seven (7) single - family residences; 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
-2- PC2005 -15
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 No. 2004 - 04633, 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 gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street in a manner which may adversely
affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street or alley. Installation of any gates shall conform to
Engineering Standard Plan No. 475. Said requirements shall be subject to the review and approval of
the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans
submitted for building permits.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works
Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said
Department. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits for
Planning Department and Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division approval.
3. 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.
4. That an on -site trash truck turn - around area shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 476
and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division.
Said turn - around area shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
5. 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.
6. That final detailed landscape and irrigation plans for the proposed development shall be submitted to
the Development Services Division for review and approval. Said landscape plans shall show minimum
24 -inch box sized trees, shrubs, groundcover and vines to be planted in layers in common areas, and
minimum 24 -inch box sized trees in the front yard of each property. All trees shall be properly,
professionally, and permanently maintained to ensure mature, healthy growth.
7. That Variance No. 2004 -04633 is hereby granted subject to the approval and recordation of Tentative
Tract Map No. 16794, now pending.
8. That prior to application for water meters, fire line or submitting the water improvement plans for
approval, the developer /owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Water Engineering Division an
estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project.
This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the
estimated water demands. Any off -site water system improvements required to serve the project shall
occur in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations.
9. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Services Standards
Specifications. Any water service and /or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if
continued use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The owner /developer
shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line.
10. That prior to rendering water service, the developer /owner shall submit a set of improvement plans for
Public Utility Water Engineering review and approval in determining the conditions necessary for
providing water service to the project-
-3- PC2005 -15
11. That water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Water Engineering Division for approval and a
performance bond in the amount approved by the City Engineer and from the City Attorney shall be
posted with the City of Anaheim.
12. That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim an easement for
a domestic above - ground water meter in addition to providing a 5 -foot wide clearance around the water
meter pad and a 10 -foot wide access easement along the waterline from the street to the water meter
pad for maintenance.
13. That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area in a
manner fully screened from the public street. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault
shall be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to
the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside of the street
setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be
specifically shown on plans submitted for approval by the Water Engineering Division of the Public
Utilities Department.
14. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or
abandonment of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water Engineering
Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department.
15. That the legal property owner shall provide the City of Anaheim with an easement for electrical service
lines to be determined as electrical design is completed. Said easement shall be submitted to the City
of Anaheim prior to connection of electrical service.
16. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the property owner /developer's
expense. Landscape and /or hardscape screening of all pad- mounted equipment shall be required and
shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits.
17. That final detailed site, floor, fencing and elevation plans shall be reviewed by Planning Commission as
a Report and Recommendation item for approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
18. 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 Revision No. 1 to Exhibit No. 1 and Exhibit Nos. 2 through 6, and as conditioned
herein.
19. 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, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17,
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.
20. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No18, above - mentioned, shall be complied
with-
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-
-4- PC2005 -15
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.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges
related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 7 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
January 24, 2005. 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.
(ORIGINAL SIGNED BY GAIL EASTMAN)
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
(ORIGINAL SIGNED BY PAT CHANDLER)
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Pat Chandler, 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
January 24, 2005, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BUFFA, EASTMAN, FLORES, ROMERO, VELASQUEZ
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
19S S 7_1 V I III LIFA I U 1 6091010 q: R 11 ■ I 1 r i T LO19_C S 7_10 [a] I x:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
2005.
(ORIGINAL SIGNED BY PAT CHANDLER)
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-5- PC2005 -15
R &R Item No. 1 -C
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
January 24, 2005
Item No. 2
2a.
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(Motion)
2b.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004 -00421
(Resolution)
2c.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2004 -00137
(Resolution)
2d.
VARIANCE NO. 2004 -04633
(Resolution)
2e.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16794
(Motion)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly- shaped, 1.2 -acre property is located at the southeast corner of Harbor
Boulevard and Santa Ana Street with frontages of 254 feet on the east side of Harbor
Boulevard and 185 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Street (502 South Harbor Boulevard).
REQUEST:
(2) The petitioner requests approval of the following:
General Plan Amendment No. 2004 -00421 — to amend the Land Use Element Map of the
Anaheim General Plan redesignating this property from the Low - Medium Density Residential
and Low Density Residential land use designation to the Low Density Residential land use
designation.
Reclassification No. 2004 - 00137 to reclassify this property from the O -L (Low Intensity Office)
and the RS -2 (Residential, Single - Family) zones to the RS -3 (Residential, Single - Family) or
less intense zone.
Variance No. 2004 -04633 — to construct seven (7) single - family residences with waivers of the
following:
(a) Section No. 18.04.060.020
(b) Section No. 18.04.100
(c) Section No. 18.04.100
(d) Section No. 18.04.110
Minimum lot depth adiacent to an
arterial highway (Lot Nos. 1 -4)
(120 feet required, 84 -85 feet proposed)
Minimum front yard setback (Lot 6)
115 feet required; 6 feet proposed)
(DELETED)
Minimum rear yard setback (Lot No. 4)
(DELETED)
Minimum number of carkina spaces
(Lot No. 6)
(DELETED)
Tentative Tract Map No. 16794 — to establish a 7 -lot, 7 -unit detached single - family residential
subdivision.
BACKGROUND:
(3) This project was continued from the December 13, 2004, and January 10, 2005,
Commission meetings to allow time for the applicant to submit a sewer study and Water
Quality Management Plan to the Public Works Department and to revise the tract map
and site plan to provide accurate lot dimensions.
**1+7W
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
January 24, 2005
Item No. 2
(4) This property is currently vacant, zoned RS -2 and O -L and is designated for Low and Low -
Medium Density Residential land uses on the Land Use Element Map of the Anaheim General
Plan.
(5) There are no prior zoning actions pertaining to this property.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST:
(6) The petitioner requests an amendment to the Land Use Element Map of the General Plan to
redesignate this property from the Low - Medium Density Residential and Low Density
Residential land use designations to the Low Density Residential land use designation in order
to create consistency for the proposed project. Currently, the configuration of parcels that
comprise the project site have divided General Plan land use designations as indicated in the
following graphic:
VE
® Low Density I i
Residential
Low - Medium
Density
Residential
(7) The Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan is the official guide for Anaheim's future
development. It designates the distribution and location of specific land uses and addresses
the permitted densities for each land use designation.
(8) The Land Use Element text of the General Plan describes the Low - Medium Density and Low
Density Residential land use designations as follows
"The Low - Medium Density Residential designation provides for a wide range of residential
uses, including detached, small -lot single- family homes, attached single- family homes, patio
homes, zero lot line homes, duplexes, townhomes and mobile home parks. This category is
implemented by the RS -4, RM -1, RM -2 and RM -3 zones. The permitted density range is from
zero up to 18 units per gross acre.
The Low Density Residential designation provides for the development of conventional single -
family detached houses. Itis implemented by the RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, and RH -3 zones.
Typical development consists of single- family lots of 5,000 to 10,000 square -feet. The
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
January 24, 2005
Item No. 2
permitted density range is from zero up to 6.5 dwelling units per gross acre. Over half of all
residential land in Anaheim is designated as Low Density Residential."
(9) The Low - Density Residential land use designation is appropriate for the proposed project.
Seven (7) homes constructed on this 1.2 -acre site would provide a density of 5.8 dwelling
units per acre. The proposed density and land pattern is compatible with the existing adjacent
single - family neighborhood. Therefore, staff is supportive of the proposed general plan
amendment.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
(10) The petitioner proposes to reclassify this property from the O -L and the RS -2 zones to the RS-
3 or a less intense zone. The RS -3 Zone is a typical implementation zone for the proposed
General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential.
(11) The petitioner is also requesting to re- subdivide this property to establish a 7 -lot, 7 -unit
detached single - family residential subdivision. The revised tentative tract map and site
plan (Exhibit No. 1, Revision No. 1) indicate the reconfiguration of eight (8) vacant
parcels into seven (7) residential parcels with the following site characteristics:
Lot
Proposed
Lot Width
Required
Lot Width
Proposed
Lot Depth
"Required
Lot Depth
Proposed Lot
Areas . ft.
"Required Lot
Areas . ft
1
63 feet
50 feet
85 feet
120 feet
5,245
5,000
2
63 feet
50 feet
85 feet
120 feet
5 - 1 3 - 5 - 5 -
5
3
69 feet
50 feet
84 feet
120 feet
5,832
5,000
4
69 feet
50 feet
84 feet
120 feet
5,808
5,000
5
60 feet
50 feet
106 feet
15 feet/15 feet
6-
5 000
6
67 feet
50 feet
112 feet
7,468
5,000
7
67 feet
50 feet
92 feet
6,128
5,000
" The required minimum lot depth is based on Code Section 18.04.060.020 pertaining to residential
lots located adjacent to an arterial highway (Harbor Boulevard).
" Lot Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are not perfect rectangles.
(12) The revised site plan (Exhibit No. 1, Revision No. 1) indicates the development of seven
(7) single - family homes with the following characteristics:
Lot
Lot Size
(square feet)
Front Setback
Proposed /Required
Side Setback
Proposed /Required
Rear Setback
Proposed /Required
1
5,245
15 feet/15 feet
5 feet /5 feet
15 feet/15 feet
2
5,355
15 feet/15 feet
5 feet /5 feet
15 feet/15 feet
3
5,832
15 feet/16 feet
5 feet /5 feet
15 feet/15 feet
4
5,808
15 feet/15 feet
5 feet /5 feet
15 feet/15 feet
5
6,344
21 feet/15 feet
5 feet /5 feet
31 feet/15 feet
6
7,468
16 feet/15 feet
5 feet /5 feet
25 feet/15 feet
7
6,128
22 feet/15 feet
5 feet /5 feet
15 feet/15 feet
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
January 24, 2005
Item No. 2
(13) Conceptual elevation renderings (Exhibit Nos. 2 through 6) were submitted indicating 2 -story,
Craftsman style homes. The homes are articulated with varying roof pitches, fascias, columns
and covered porches. Finish materials include simulated wood siding, decorative wooden
brackets, rock wainscoting, round vents within the gabled roofs and door and window trim.
(14) Vehicular access to Lot Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 would be provided from an alley extending
from Santa Ana Street and connecting to the existing alley to the rear of the homes
facing Harbor Boulevard. The alley connecting to Harbor Boulevard would be
abandoned and none of the homes facing Harbor Boulevard would have driveways
adjacent to this arterial highway, as recommended by the City Traffic and
Transportation Manager. Access to Lot No. 5 would be provided by a driveway from
Helena Street and access to Lot No. 7 would be from Santa Ana Street. Since the
January 16 meeting, the applicant has responded to input from the Commission by
relocating the driveway for Lot No. 7 to the east side of the home in order to avoid any
conflicts with vehicles using the alley.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(15) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review in
the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore,
recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the 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:
(16) The petitioner proposes to re- subdivide this property to establish a 7 -lot, 7 -unit single - family
residential subdivision. The proposed subdivision would have a density of 5.8 dwelling units
per acre consistent with the proposed General Plan land use designation of Low Density
Residential and the RS -3 zoning designation. The proposal would also be compatible with the
existing residential land use pattern in the area.
(17) Waiver (a) pertains to minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial highway. Code requires a
minimum depth of 120 feet for lots 1 through 4 and 848485 feet is proposed. The applicant
submitted the attached Justification of Waiver form, which states that the existing surrounding
neighborhoods are developed with the same lot depth and therefore, strict application of the
zoning code would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
immediate vicinity. Staff recommends approval of this waiver because the petitioner has
demonstrated that the establishment of the lots at the proposed depth would be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhoods and consistent with the existing land pattern along Harbor
Boulevard.
(18) Waiver (b) pertains to the minimum front yard setback for Lot No. 6. In response to
input from the Commission, the petitioner has redesigned the site plan in order to
provide a 15 -foot front yard setback in compliance with the development standards of
the RS -3 zone. This project site was supplemented with additional square footage
because there is no longer a requirement for dedication on Santa Ana Street.
Therefore, this waiver has been deleted.
(19) Waivers (c) and (d) have been deleted.
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
January 24, 2005
Item No. 2
(20) The petitioner is proposing to develop this residential tract with Craftsman style homes. The
homes would be designed with complementary design features and would be compatible with
the historic homes facing Harbor Boulevard. The applicant has been working with the City's
Neighborhood Preservation Office to ensure compatibility with the Historic District.
Neighborhood Preservation staff has submitted the attached memorandum indicating a few
outstanding design suggestions, and the petitioner has agreed to work with Neighborhood
Preservation and Planning Department staff to achieve a high quality design that is sensitive
to the historic character of this neighborhood. Staff has included a condition of approval to
require future review of final site, floor, elevation, landscaping and fencing plans to be
approved by the Planning Services Division and Neighborhood Preservation Office prior to the
issuance of building permits-
FINDINGS
(21) 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
is to prevent discrimination and none shall be approved which would have the effect of
granting a special privilege not shared by other similar properties. Therefore, before any
variance is granted by the Planning 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.
(22) The State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, Section 66473.5) makes it mandatory to
include in all motions approving, or recommending approval of a tract map, a specific finding
that the proposed Subdivision together with its design and improvement is consistent with the
City's General Plan.
Further, the law requires that the Commission /Council make any of the following findings
when denying or recommending denial of a tract map:
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.
Page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
January 24, 2005
Item No. 2
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
(23) Staff recommends, unless additional or contrary information is received during the meeting
and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the evidence presented
in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing, that the
Planning Commission approve the petitioner's request by adopting the attached resolutions
and tentative tract map including the findings and conditions contained therein.
Page 6
ITEM NO. I-C
> 9
N
C N G N
-m ^'
7 Z
J
30 p0 6 ~ 1 D
5
87-
~o ~ p~6ERTPS'C
i~~ 1 DU 8513
1 ~
O ~ ~
i
m ~
U N
~ ~
2p
2
FA
~~ , D N
_
~.. Ww.~-~~gosw~
~ ~~CU 2o~ne.d4.91
RAP 1~ 2~X11~~d n~~°'4.
p iv~n ~'N+° .
J ~ ,
r 204
G
~ gG\ti
1
u
Fp, H
I .1 D
m ~ ou EPCr
v
2
2pU
1
,i
0
Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04952 ` ~*
~,~ Subject Property
TRACKING NO. CUP2005-05058 Date: December 12, 20D5
Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: STEVE ELKINS Q.S. No. 82
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE FOR FLOOR AND
ELEVATION PLANS FOR APREVIOUSLY-APPROVED PUBLIC DANCE HALL, BANQUET
HALL AND COMMUNITY AND RELIGIOUS FACILITY WITH SALES OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES FOR ON-PREMISES CONSUMPTION.
401 and 407 North Anaheim Boulevard;
400, 408, 416 and 424 North Anaheim Boulevard
nos(zaos•~ za)
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 1 -C
1 -C. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(Motion)
(Motion)
(1) Parcel 1: This irregularly- shaped, 0.3 -acre property is located at the northwest corner of
Anaheim Boulevard and Adele Street with frontages of 107 feet on the west side of Anaheim
Boulevard and 103 feet on the north side of Adele Street (401 and 407 North Anaheim
Boulevard).
Parcel 2: This irregularly- shaped, 1.5 -acre property is located at the northeast corner of
Anaheim Boulevard and Adele Street with frontages of 361 feet on the east side of Anaheim
Boulevard, 120 feet on the south side of Sycamore Street, 221 feet on the west side of
Claudina Street and 204 feet on the north side of Adele Street (400, 408, 416 and 424 North
Anaheim Boulevard).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests a determination of substantial conformance for floor and elevation
plans for a previously- approved public dance hall, banquet hall and community and religious
facility with sales of alcoholic beverages for on- premises consumption under authority of Code
Section No. 18.60.190.020.
BACKGROUND:
(3) Parcel 1 is currently developed with a commercial retail building, zoned C -G (General
Commercial), and is designated for Mixed Use land uses on the Anaheim General Plan.
Parcel 2 is currently developed with the Son's of Italy banquet hall and a vacant lot, zoned C-
G and RS -3, and is designated for Mixed Use land uses on the Anaheim General Plan.
(4) Conditional Use Permit No. 2004 -04952 (to permit a public dance hall, banquet hall and a
community and religious assembly facility with on- premises sales and consumption of
alcoholic beverages and an off -site parking lot with waiver of minimum landscaped setback)
was approved by the Planning Commission on February 23, 2005.
(5) Resolution No. PC2005 -28, adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-
04952, included the following condition of approval:
"50. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file
with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and as conditioned herein."
s r -cup 2004 - 04952. d o c
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 1 -C
DISCUSSION:
(6) The applicant is requesting a determination of substantial conformance for revised floor and
elevation plans for a previously approved, public dance, banquet hall and community and
religious assembly facility. Since the Commission's approval, the applicant has been working
closely with the project architect to finalize the interior and exterior design of the building. The
applicant has indicated that members of the Colony District and surrounding neighborhood
have provided suggestions forthe building improvements that have been incorporated into the
revised floor and elevation exhibits.
(7) The revised floor plans (Revision No. 1, Exhibit No. 2) indicate that the approved plans would
be reconfigured by relocating and increasing the square footage of the kitchen, creating an
entry /lobby on the north side of the property, and adding a second story mezzanine that would
include offices, dry storage and a conference room. The revision would result in an increase
of 1,740 square feet (originally approved for 5,936 s.f.) for a total of 7,676 square feet.
(8) Vehicular access to Parcel 1 would be provided by one (1) driveway from Anaheim Boulevard.
The applicant is proposing to utilize this area for short-term parking and valet service.
Vehicular access for Parcel 2 would be provided by driveways from Claudina Street and Adele
Street. A total of 126 parking spaces are provided (9 spaces on Parcel 1 and 117 spaces on
Parcel 2) for the proposed banquet and public dance hall and the existing Sons of Italy hall.
Code Section No. 18.42.040.010.0101 states that uses without a specified parking ratio must
comply with the ratio determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Based on
the comparable businesses within the City, the City Traffic and Transportation Manager has
determined that a ratio of 6.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area is appropriate
for the proposed uses. Therefore, 84 spaces are required for both properties based on the
revised floor plans and the following:
(9) The original elevation plans for this project indicated Craftsman style architecture with stone
veneer, wood siding and a concrete roof. Architectural elements such as stone columns,
exposed wood beams, decorative light fixtures and canvas awnings were proposed and
approved by the Commission. The modified elevations (Revision No. 1, Exhibit No. 3)
indicate a contemporary architectural style with elements such as an arched metal roof,
exposed wood beams, a smooth stucco finish and an entry ellipse that is screened by a
perforated metal fence and overhead trellis.
(10) Staff believes that the proposed building would be a distinct and original design with quality
materials. The theme lends itself to making a statement within the downtown as an attractive
gathering place for the community. The proposal does not significantly increase the intensity
Page 2
Code - Required
Parking
Use
Square Footage
Parking Ratio per
Spaces
1,000 s.f. of gross floor
Required
area
Proposed banquet and
dance hall
7,676 s . ft.
6.7
51.4
Sons of Italy hall
ex s nq
4,894 s . ft.
6.7
32.7
Total
15,570 sq. ft.
84
(9) The original elevation plans for this project indicated Craftsman style architecture with stone
veneer, wood siding and a concrete roof. Architectural elements such as stone columns,
exposed wood beams, decorative light fixtures and canvas awnings were proposed and
approved by the Commission. The modified elevations (Revision No. 1, Exhibit No. 3)
indicate a contemporary architectural style with elements such as an arched metal roof,
exposed wood beams, a smooth stucco finish and an entry ellipse that is screened by a
perforated metal fence and overhead trellis.
(10) Staff believes that the proposed building would be a distinct and original design with quality
materials. The theme lends itself to making a statement within the downtown as an attractive
gathering place for the community. The proposal does not significantly increase the intensity
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 1 -C
of the use, and the additional parking required is provided for the project. Based on review of
the submitted plans, staff concludes that the revised building elevations are of a quality unique
design that would be an enhancement to the community. The applicant has indicated that
discussions with the community have taken place and that this revised plan has been
accepted by some members of the community. Since the revised elevations are different than
those reviewed at the public hearing, staff has notified property owners within 300 feet of this
site to provide the community an opportunity to comment on the revisions. Although the
design is a departure from the original craftsman theme, the architecture conveys a well -
articulated contemporary/retro theme. Moreover, the applicant indicates that the new design
reflects changes desired by the community, such as the relocation of the main activity /entry
areas to the north side of the building away from the residential area. Therefore, staff is
supportive of the revised plans. The Commission may wish to consider this recommendation
in light of any additional public testimony provided at the meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(11) The Planning Director's authorized representative has determined that the proposed project
falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing
Facilities), as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the
requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation-
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 that the project is categorically exempt under Section 15301,
Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(b) By motion, approve the request for determination of substantial conformance to
amend floor and elevation plans for a previously- approved public dance hall,
banquet hall and a community and religious assembly facility based on the finding
that the proposed modifications are in substantial conformance with the previously -
approved exhibits and does exceed the parking requirement or intensify the
previously- approved uses.
Page 3
City of Anaheim
~LAI~i1~Idl~1G ~E~'A~Z"I'IVI~I~'>c
.G%; ~
~ M
December 12, 2005
p
r
vr'
-°'~.
~
~
,.
W
c _
"` William Taormina
128 West Sycamore Street
Anaheim, CA 92805
Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of
December 12, 2005.
1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
C. (a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 1
(b) CUP NO. 2004-04952 -Request for substantial conformance
Tracking No. CUP2005-05058
Agent: Steve and Kacey Elkins, 128 West Sycamore Street
Anaheim, CA 92805
Location: 400, 401, 407, 408, 416 and 424 North Anaheim Boulevard
Request for a determination of substantial conformance for floor and elevation plans for a
previously-approved public dance hall, banquet hall and community and religious facility
with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption.
ACTION: Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby determine that
the project is categorically exempt under Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the
CEQA Guidelines.
Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for
determination of substantial conformance for floor and elevation plans for apreviously-
approved public dance hall, banquet hall and community and religious facility with sales of
alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
2o0 South Anaheim Boulevard
P:0. Box 3222
Anaheim, California 92803
wvrvianaheim.net TEL (714) 765-5139
RESOLUTION NO. PC2005 -28
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004 -04952 BE GRANTED, IN PART
400-408,416-417 AND 424 NORTH 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
PARCEL 1: 407 NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD - THE ORIGINAL BUILDING LOT 5, AS
SHOWN ON MAP OF LANDS OF ANAHEIM, BOOK 4 PAGES 629 AND 630 DEEDS
RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION
THEREOF AS GRANTED TO PETER J. WEISEL IN DEED RECORDED JANUARY 6, 1904, IN
BOOK 98, PAGE(S) 364, DEEDS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY. ALSO EXCEPTING
THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF AS GRANTED TO FREDERICK W. KELLOGG, IN
DEED RECORDED MARCH 20, 1923, IN BOOK 462, PAGE 94 DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID
ORANGE COUNTY.
PARCEL 2: 400 -406 NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD - LOT 5 IN BLOCK A OF HEIMANN
AND GEORGE'S MAP OF ADDITION BUILDING -LOTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY
OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 2, PAGE 349 OF
MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 408 N. ANAHEIM
BOULEVARD - LOTS 2 AND 3 OF BLOCK A OF THE HEIMANN AND GEORGE'S MAP OF
ADDITION BUILDING LOTS, AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 2,
PAGE 249 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
416 AND 417 NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD — THE WESTERLY 122 FEET OF THE
SOUTHERLY 81 '/2 FEET OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK "A' OF HEIMANN AND GEORGE'S MAP OF
ADDITION BUILDING LOTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AS PER MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 2, PAGE 249, OF
MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. THE
SOUTHERLY 40.5 FEET IN THE EASTERLY 110 FEET OF LOT 1 IN BLOCK A OF HEIMANN
AND GEORGE'S ADDITION TO ANAHEIM, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AS SHOWN ON A
MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 2, PAGE 249, MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY, CA. 424 NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD — THAT PORTION OF LOT 1
IN BLOCK A OF HEIMANN AND GEORGE'S ADDITION TO ANAHEIM, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 2, PAGE 249 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOS ANGELES STREET, AS IT
EXISTED ON JUNE 28, 1973, SAID POINT BEING 100.00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE,
100.00 FEET TO SAID NORTHERLY LINE; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY
LINE, 119.50 FEET TO A POINT 112.00 FEET, MEASURED ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE,
WEST OF THE WEST LINE OF HERMINE STREET (NOW KNOWN AS CLAUD(NA STREET),
AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTHERLY AND PARALLEL
WITH SAID EASTERLY LINE, 100.00 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY AND
PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTHERLY LINE, 119.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on February 7, 2005, 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 conditional use permit and to
Cr\PC2005 -028 -1- PC2005 -28
investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and that said public hearing
was continued to the February 23, 2005, Planning Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by
Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.08.030.040.0402 to permit a public dance hall, banquet hall and a
community and religious assembly facility with on- premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages
and an off -site parking lot with waivers of the following:
(a) SECTION NO. 18.08.060.010
Minimum landscaped setback
(15 feet required; 9 feet proposed)
(b) SECTION NO. 18.40.060
Required street dedication and
improvement
(DELETED)
2. That the above - mentioned waiver (a) is approved based on the special circumstances
applicable to these properties such as size and location, which do not apply to other identically zoned
properties in the vicinity. Many of the buildings along Anaheim Boulevard north of Lincoln Avenue have no
setback adjacent to the street. Further, no new construction is proposed; rather Parcel 2 would be paved to
provide parking for the facility. Since no new construction is proposed and surrounding properties under
similar zoning have no building setbacks, strict application of the Code would deprive the applicant of
privileges currently enjoyed by properties in the immediate vicinity.
3. That the requested waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in
question, since the adjacent properties along Anaheim Boulevard are developed without the required
landscaped setback.
4. That the above - mentioned waiver (b) is hereby denied on the basis that it has been deleted
subsequent to advertisement.
5. That the request for a public dance hall would be detrimental to the surrounding residential
area because of the land use compatibility issues associated with nightclub -type businesses such as noise,
loitering, fights and public drunkenness.
6. That the banquet hall and a community and religious assembly facility with on- premises
sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages and an off -site parking lot as conditioned herein and with the
operational restrictions stipulated by the applicant including valet service, security and contractual restrictions
will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is
proposed to be located;
7. That the size and shape of the site proposed 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 provided that valet service is offered and that security is employed to deter any unlawful conduct and
to prevent disturbance to adjacent residential neighborhoods;
8. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
9. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be
detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim-
-2- PC2005 -28
10. That at the prior public hearing on February 7, 2005, one person indicated their presence at
said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject
petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING The Planning Director or her
authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical
Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and is,
therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does
hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit by approving the public dance hall, banquet hall and
a community and religious assembly facility with on- premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages
and an off -site parking lot, 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 conditional use permit shall expire two (2) years from the date of this resolution, on
February 23, 2007.
2. That a valid business license shall be obtained from the City of Anaheim, Business License Division.
3. That the legal property owner shall submit an application for a Subdivision Map Act Certificate of
Compliance to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division. A Certificate of
Compliance shall be approved by the City Engineer and recorded in the Office of the Orange County
Recorder prior to issuance of a grading permit for the parking lot.
4. That prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the parking lot, the applicant shall submit to the Public
Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval a Water Quality
Management Plan that:
• Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as minimizing impervious areas,
maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or "zero
discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas.
• Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area
Management Plan (DAMP).
• Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP.
• Describes the long -term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs.
• Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long -term operation and maintenance of the Treatment
Control BMPs.
• Describes the mechanism for funding the long -term operation and maintenance of the Treatment
Control BMPs.
5. That prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall:
• Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and
installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications.
• Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non - structural BMPs described in the
Project WQMP
Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available onsite.
Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural
BMPs.
6. That the developer shall construct tree wells and street trees along Adele Street between Anaheim
Blvd and Claudina Street. A bond shall be posted for the required improvements in an amount
approved by the City Engineer and a form approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a grading
permit. A Right of Way Construction Permit shall be obtained from the Development Services Division
of the Public Works Department for all work performed in the public right -of -way. The improvements
-3- PC2005 -28
shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspections. If the application for the
abandonment of Adele Street is not approved, or not submitted within six (6) months of the date of this
resolution, that an 8 -foot wide landscaped parkway and a 4 -foot wide sidewalk shall be installed along
Adele Street in conformance with Public Works Detail No. 160 -A.
That the developer shall submit a cash payment in an amount determined by the City Engineer to be
sufficient to pay for the required street improvements along Sycamore Street. The cash payment shall
be paid to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division prior to issuance of a grading
permit. The cash payment shall be refunded if the street designation is reclassified through a General
Plan Amendment approved by the City Council.
8. That prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the
City of Anaheim an easement 53 -feet in width from the centerline of the street along Anaheim
Boulevard, 30 -feet along Adele Street, 30 -feet along Claudina Street and 32 -feet along Sycamore
Street, including corner cut -offs for road, public utility and other public purposes. Offers of dedication
along Anaheim Boulevard shall contain specific conditions that allow the City to accept the easement
dedication offer if the City Engineer approves street improvement plans to widen Anaheim Boulevard.
Said offer of dedication shall also offer to compensate property owner for any required refacing of
existing buildings encroaching into the ultimate right -of -way. If streets are redesignated under an
approved General Plan Amendment or abandoned by the City Engineer and the irrevocable offers of
dedication are no longer required, then the applicable dedication offers shall be terminated by the City.
9. 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.
10. That any tree and /or landscaping planted on -site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that
it is removed, damaged, diseased and /or dead.
11. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway in a manner, which may adversely affect
vehicular traffic in the adjacent public streets. Installation of any gates shall conform to Engineering
Standard Plan No. 475 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and
Transportation Manager.
12. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and
approval showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and
470 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be
developed and maintained in conformance with said plans.
13. That the driveways shall be reconstructed to accommodate ten (10) foot radius curb returns in
conformance with Engineering Department Standard No. 115. Said information shall be specifically
shown on plans submitted for building permits.
14. That the business on Parcel 1 shall provide a complementary valet service to minimize pedestrian
crossing on Anaheim Boulevard. Information pertaining to the valet service shall be provided to
potential customers holding private events at this facility.
15. That the property owner shall provide a loading zone for the valet parking service. A plan shall be
submitted to the Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval.
16. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses.
17. That roof - mounted equipment shall be screened from view in accordance with the requirements of
Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.38.170 pertaining to the CG (General Commercial) Zone. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits-
-4- PC2005 -28
18. 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.).
19. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the property owner's expense.
20. That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground and outside of the street setback area in a
manner fully screened from all public streets. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault
shall be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to
the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside of the street
setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be
specifically shown on plans and approved by the Water Engineering Department.
21. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or
abandonments of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water
Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department.
22. That since this project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation meter
shall be installed in compliance with Chapter 10.19 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said information
shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
23. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Service Standards
Specifications. Any water service and /or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be
upgraded if continued use if necessary or abandoned if the existing water service is no longer needed.
The owner /developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service of
fire line.
24. That final sign plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval as to
number, size, placement, design and materials. Any decision by staff may be appealed to the
Planning Commission as a 'Reports and Recommendations" item.
25. That a final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and
approval. Said plans shall specify minimum 24 -inch box sized trees and incorporate broadheaded
trees on maximum twenty (20) foot centers adjacent to the streets. Any decision by staff may be
appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item.
26. That 4 -foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof
material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police Department, Community Services
Division approval.
27. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works
Department and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas
shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets. The
walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials
such as minimum one - gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum three -foot centers or tall
shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
28. That the project shall provide for truck deliveries on -site. Such information shall be specifically shown
on plans submitted for building permits.
29. That adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and
grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide
adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises
during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and
-5- PC2005 -28
vehicles on -site. Said lighting shall be decorative and complementary to the architecture of the
building. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police Department,
Community Services Division approval.
30. That an Emergency Listing Card, Form ADP -281 shall be completed and submitted in a completed
form to the Anaheim Police Department. In addition, the operator shall provide the Code Enforcement
Division with a contact name and phone number in the event a complaint is received.
31. That a plan for solid waste storage, collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Public
Works Department for review and approval.
32. That an on -site trash truck turnaround shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610.
Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted to the Public Works Department for
review and approval.
33. That the permitted event or activity shall not create sound levels which violate any ordinance of the
City of Anaheim.
34. That at all times that dancing is being permitted, security measures provided shall be adequate to
deter unlawful conduct on the part of employees or patrons, or to promote the safe and orderly
assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, or to prevent disturbance of the neighborhood by
excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. The security measures
implemented for each event, including the number of security guards shall be subject to review and
approval by the Police Department.
35. 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.
36. That the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited.
37. That the number of persons attending the event shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as
determined by the Anaheim Fire Department. Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted in a
conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit from the room.
38. That the doors shall remain closed but unlocked at all times that entertainment is permitted, except
during times of entry or exit, emergencies and deliveries.
39. That all employees shall be clothed in such a way as to not expose "specified anatomical areas" as
described in Section 7.16.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
40. That no minor under the age of sixteen (16) years shall be allowed to attend the dance, unless
accompanied by a parent or guardian.
41. That the business shall not 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.
42. That there shall be at least one meal of a substantial nature as described in Section 4.16.050.030 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code.
43. That the floor space provided for dancing shall be free of any furniture or partitions and maintained in a
smooth and safe condition-
-6- PC2005 -28
44. That there shall be no amusement machines, video game devices, or pool tables maintained upon the
premises without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code.
45. That no "happy hour" type of reduced price alcoholic beverage promotion shall be permitted.
46. That no alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises
under the control of the licensee(s).
47. That the petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of
persons about the premises.
48. That the 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.
49. That no alcohol shall be allowed in the patio area. Signs shall be posted at doors stating "No alcohol
beyond this point'.
50. That subject property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the
Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos-1, 2, and 3 and as conditioned herein.
51. That the business owner shall require a written agreement for private parties that enforces the rules
and regulations pertaining to alcohol consumption for private events.
52. That there shall be no outdoor special events. No banners and balloons shall be displayed at 401 and
407 North Anaheim Boulevard unless a Special Event Permit is first obtained.
53. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use
Permit No. 3813 (to permit a motorcycle sales and service facility with waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces), Variance No. 1486 (to establish a furniture re- upholstery service) and Variance No-
ll 05 (to permit the sale and installation of mufflers) to the Planning Department.
54. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 12 a.m. (midnight) Sunday through Thursday,
and 8 a.m. to 1 a.m. on Friday and Saturday.
55. 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. 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
31, 32 and 53, 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.
56. That prior to issuance of a grading permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7, above mentioned, shall be complied
with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with
Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
57. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 2, 5, 6, 30, 37, 49 and 50, 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.
58. 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-
-7- PC2005 -28
59. That the use of all pyrotechnical material, special effects and fireworks shall be permitted only if, and to
the extent, approved by the Anaheim Fire Department prior to their use.
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 7 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
February 23, 2005. 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.
(ORIGINAL SIGNED BY GAIL EASTMAN)
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
r_\1r:.9ri
(ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ELEANOR MORRIS)
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 February 23, 2005, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BUFFA, EASTMAN, FLORES, PEREZ, ROMERO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS: VELASQUEZ
VACANT: COMMISSIONERS: ONE VACANCY
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
1 2005-
(ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ELEANOR MORRIS)
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-8- PC2005 -28
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
February 23, 2005
Item No. 2
2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 (Motion)
2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (Motion)
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004 -04952 (READVERTISED) (Resolution)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) Parcel 1: This irregularly- shaped, 0.3 -acre property is located at the northwest corner of
Anaheim Boulevard and Adele Street with frontages of 107 feet on the west side of Anaheim
Boulevard and 103 feet on the north side of Adele Street (401 and 407 North Anaheim
Boulevard).
Parcel 2: This irregularly- shaped, 1.5 acre property is located at the northeast corner of
Anaheim Boulevard and Adele Street with frontages of 361 feet on the east side of Anaheim
Boulevard, 120 feet on the south side of Sycamore Street, 221 feet on the west side of
Claudina Street and 204 feet on the north side of Adele Street (400, 408, 416 and 424 North
Anaheim Boulevard).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit under the authority of Code
Section 18.08.030.0402 to permit a public dance hall, banquet hall and a community and
religious assembly facility with on- premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages and
an off -site parking lot with waivers of the following:
(a) SECTION NO. 18.08.060.010
Minimum landscaped setback
(15 feet required; 9 feet proposed)
(b) SECTION NO. 18.40.060
BACKGROUND:
Required street dedication and
improvement (DELETED)
(3) This item was continued from the February 7, 2005, Commission meeting to readvertise this
petition to include waivers of the required street dedication and improvement and setback
requirements.
(4) Parcel 1 is currently developed with a commercial retail building, zoned C -G (General
Commercial), and is designated for Mixed Use land uses on the Land Use Element Map of the
Anaheim General Plan. Parcel 2 is currently developed with the Son's of Italy banquet hall
and a vacant lot, zoned C -G and RS -3, and is designated for Mixed Use land uses on the
Land Use Element Map of the Anaheim General Plan.
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:
(5) Conditional Use Permit No. 3813 (to permit a motorcycle sales and service facility with waiver
of minimum number of parking spaces) was approved by the Planning Commission on
December 11, 1995. This use is no longer in operation and should be terminated.
(6) Variance No 1486 (to establish a furniture re- upholstery service) was approved by the City
Council on July 10, 1962. This use is no longer in operation and should be terminated.
(7) Variance No. 1105 (to permit the sale and installation of mufflers) was approved by the City
Council on May 12, 1959. This use is no longer in operation and should be terminated.
sr8858av
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
February 23, 2005
Item No. 2
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
(8) The proposed project includes the operation of a public dance hall and banquet facility with
on- premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages and off -site parking. The main
building, located on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, would have a total floor area of
5,936 square feet and would house both wedding and banquet facilities. The applicant is also
proposing to use the building as a public dance hall that would be open to the public when
private events are not scheduled.
(9) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates the proposed parking lot and existing buildings would be
developed with the following structural and landscaped setbacks:
Parcel No. 1 (Banquet and dance hall)
* The building on Parcel No. 1 is existing, legal- non - conforming
Parcel No. 2 (Parking lot and existing Sons of Italy hall)
Code-
Code - Required
Direction
Existing Building/
Required
Landscaped
Landscape Setback
Building
Setback
Setback
North (adjacent
60 feet to building
10 feet
10 feet
North
0 feet of landscaping
none
none
East (adjacent to
1* foot to building
Anaheim Boulevard)
0* feet of landscaping
15 feet
15 feet
South (adjacent to
5* feet to building
Adele Street)
0* feet of landscaping
10 feet
10 feet
West
0 feet to building
West (adjacent
0 feet of landscaping
none
none
* The building on Parcel No. 1 is existing, legal- non - conforming
Parcel No. 2 (Parking lot and existing Sons of Italy hall)
* Although the plan indicates 15 feet, the setback is measured from the ultimate right -of way
Page 2
Code-
Code - Required
Direction
Existing Building/
Required
Landscaped
Landscape Setback
Building
Setback
Setback
North (adjacent
180 feet to building
10 feet
10 feet
to Sycamore
10 feet of landscaping
Street)
East (adjacent to
141 feet to building
10 feet
10 feet
Claudina Street)
3 feet of landscapin
South (adjacent
110 feet to building
10 feet
10 feet
to Adele Street)
11 feet of landscapin
West (adjacent
0 feet to building
15 feet
15 feet
to Anaheim
*9 feet of landscaping
Boulevard
* Although the plan indicates 15 feet, the setback is measured from the ultimate right -of way
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
February 23, 2005
Item No. 2
(10) The floor plan for the proposed banquet and public dance hall (Exhibit No. 2) reflects a single -
story 5,936 square foot building containing the following:
Description
Seating Capacity
Square feet
Assembly area
247 seats
3718
Bar area
Standing room only
402
Vestibule
N/A
86
Kitchen
N/A
137
Office
N/A
91
Restrooms
N/A
455
Storage
N/A
40
Miscellaneous floor area
N/A
208
Patio
45 seats (for smoking &
pictures only)
680
Entrance
N/A
119
Total
292 seats
5,936
(11) Vehicular access to Parcel 1 would be provided by one (1) driveway from Anaheim Boulevard.
The applicant is proposing to utilize this area for short-term parking and valet service.
Vehicular access for Parcel 2 would be provided by driveways from Claudina Street and Adele
Street. The site plan indicates a total of 130 parking spaces (13 spaces on Parcel 1 and 117
spaces on Parcel 2) for the proposed banquet and public dance hall and the existing Sons of
Italy hall. Code Section No. 18.42.040.010.0101 states that uses without a specified parking
ratio must comply with the ratio determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager.
Based on the comparable businesses within the City, the City Traffic and Transportation
Manager has determined that a ratio of 6.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area is
appropriate for the proposed uses. Therefore, 72 spaces are required for both properties
based on the following:
Page 3
Code - Required
Parking
Use
Square Footage
Parking Ratio per
Spaces
1,000 s.f. of gross floor
Required
area
Proposed banquet and
dance hall
5,936 s . ft.
6.7
39.7
Sons of Italy hall
4,894 sq. ft.
6.7
32.7
( existin g)
Total
10,830 sq. ft.
72
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
February 23, 2005
Item No. 2
(12) The elevation plan (Exhibit No. 3) indicates that the building on Parcel 1 would be renovated to
a natural colored stucco finish with stone veneer, wood siding and a concrete roof.
Architectural elements such as stone columns, exposed wood beams, decorative light fixtures
and canvas awnings are also proposed.
(13) Conceptual sign plans were submitted with this request indicating a wall sign at the entrance
to the banquet and public dance hall. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that final
sign plans be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval.
(14) Conceptual landscaping is depicted on the site plan and staff is recommending a condition of
approval that final landscape plans indicating size, species and location of all parking and
setback areas to be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval.
(15) The proposed facility on Parcel 1 would be open on an event - specific basis. The operating
hours would range from 8-am- to 2 a.m., depending on the type of event scheduled. The
proposed uses include a public dance hall to provide music and dancing for patrons and
community and religious assembly such as wedding receptions, baptisms, meetings and
corporate seminars, community educational outreach and cultural events. The facility would
have two full -time employees and variable event - specific support staff such as waiters,
bartenders, valet attendants and security. The existing non - conforming facility on Parcel 2
currently conducts religious and community meetings during the week, and banquets on the
weekends.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(16) The Planning Director's authorized representative has determined that the previously -
approved project is within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, Section 15301,
(Existing Facilities), as defined in the CEOA Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the
requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation-
EVALUATION
(17) The establishment of the proposed banquet facility and public dance hall with on- premises
sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages is permitted within the C -G Zone subject to the
approval of a conditional use permit.
(18) Waiver (a) pertains to minimum landscaped setback adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard. Code
requires a 15 foot wide landscaped setback as measured form the ultimate right -of -way to all
structures including the parking lot. The plans for Parcel 2 indicate 15 feet measured from the
property line, but only 9 feet from the ultimate right -of -way, therefore necessitating a waiver for
the new parking lots. Many of the buildings along Anaheim Boulevard north of Lincoln Avenue
have no setback adjacent to the street. Further, no new construction is proposed; rather
Parcel 2 would be paved to provide parking for the facility. Since no new construction is
proposed and surrounding properties under similar zoning have no building setbacks, strict
application of the Code would deprive the applicant of privileges currently enjoyed by
properties in the immediate vicinity. Staff plans to place on a future agenda for Commission
consideration a proposal to reduce and /or eliminate building setbacks along Anaheim
Boulevard north of Lincoln Avenue in recognition of the existing development pattern and the
"urban" character of this area. Staff recommends approval of waiver (a).
(19) Waiver (b) pertaining to the required street dedication and improvements has been deleted.
(20) The Police Department submitted the attached memorandum dated January 26, 2005, noting
that the reporting district in which the property is located has a crime rate of 126 percent
above the citywide average. Reporting districts to the north, east and south all have crime
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
February 23, 2005
Item No. 2
rates above the citywide average. Reporting District 1623, located directly west, is the only
district with a crime rate below the citywide average (20 percent below average). The Police
Department opposes the request due to the high crime rate in the area and potential safety
issues associated with patrons utilizing off -site parking. This concern results from patrons
crossing Anaheim Boulevard to access the parking lot next to the Sons of Italy hall parking lot
and vice versa, and potential neighborhood disturbance from patrons convenience parking on
surrounding residential streets.
(21) Staff believes that if properly conditioned to address compatibility and parking issues, the
operation of the proposed community and religious assembly hall could serve as a venue for
community celebrations and events without disturbing nearby residential neighborhoods.
Specifically, the applicant has proposed a contractual agreement from patrons holding private
parties stipulating strict rules pertaining to the service of alcohol and room capacities, licensed
security guards, complimentary valet parking and a clean, well -lit building exterior. These
operational limitations are a part of the exhibits for this request and would become a
requirement of this conditional use permit.
(22) Planning Department staff shares the Police Departments concern and opposition to the
public dance hall portion of this request. Potential issues with private parties and banquets
could be easily monitored by the business operator since a contractual agreement would be
drafted with the customer. The operational restrictions imposed through the contract
combined with the recommended conditions of approval would, in staffs opinion, mitigate
potential disturbance issues associated with banquets and other community assembly events.
However, the combination of opening the doors to the public and the consumption of alcoholic
beverages associated with the public dance hall could be detrimental to the surrounding
residential neighborhoods. Most of the nightclub -type businesses the Commission has
considered in the recent past have been in non - residential areas and /or on properties with
sufficient on -site parking — neither of which is the case with this request. Staff also has
concerns with night club -type activity taking place in an area with a crime rate of 126 percent
above the citywide average-
FINDINGS
(23) 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
is to prevent discrimination and none shall be approved which would have the effect of
granting a special privilege not shared by other similar properties. Therefore, before any
variance is granted by the Commission, it shall be 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 in identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
(24) 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:
Page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
February 23, 2005
Item No. 2
(a) That the proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 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:
(25) 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 approve the applicant's request, in part (denying the
request to permit a public dance hall and waiver (b) since it has been deleted) and approving
the banquet hall and a community and religious assembly facility with on- premises sales and
consumption of alcoholic beverages and an off -site parking lot by adopting the attached
resolution and including the findings and conditions contained herein.
Page 6
ITEM NO. 1-D
6P P2-2 VqR J6le MMNGYI/1N11 V~PARRINGV VNR ]0
RLL 66aTJi1 (Bal VM 2a55 PARHING VAR].
GNP ]a9 RAMApn••MAINWTc 6M. IIID.1
6P 52-1
RCL 6Bar-01 R1) _
LOP meI LAND6WE0 SP 92-1 IANOSLAPED SP 92-1 SPF
VAR aa1]6 EA6EMENi RCLfib6]-61(1901 {A$EMENT RCL6G61.61(190) RCL S&6i
PIP Y216 LNP
DISNEY WAY
cvvZwlww ~s~k'-.. fey yx °+. tys-y°~^ °~ ~.;~' .9-~"~ 8%.# r g s ~- r;-v,
iJ1aq~P~]m]
1 `=sfygFal°s° g; ~.~~ a 's .: r- .-G,+`t ', ~,' r~.r~~ .~~, ~ ~u
~. 3 3~<%'c } 4*J v ~~ .l:^u x~,by f+l "~M 6 6P Bb1
5110e1 „AREAS '~' `~" ~t r RcL afi-fiTal lTat
a ~ ~ ,, 3AREAA ~~ ~~~-cuv zew-9a94+
sP az 1 u a. mcL so-s]-0z!
AND ,~"~ . , -~ ReL sear-01(657 ~. ~ c ~ F wcANr
Qd ~ T-0UP 2D04ww1 S ./~-' ~L6~at1 (N 00) s p ~.,ar~ .~,-..
,y.rgs '+YS ° d1P IP/e %~ Zew-o)3JI "r .,mss: .c~yc' :~' T
VM w3] r ~'~`" Y YK P TLUP wt ,a
vM tozl ~ T-cuP~~ aces ,~YV ~;~"'~.~s, °~`~ ~'
°~. (CW 165e) 1~ ~ '_ (CUP 35511 r„~'~`~~/4.,~ Y san F~
~ K s~~ (CIP 1]55BB~~ ~' }' ICLP 11291 ` ~'i~~'~
rx. ~ ~` ANAHEIMPWA ,-+'~. IGNP tfa a ?1~'' ~. .~~d
I (HOTELM9 eURE6 (cw eeel ~"r~„f~r-r`~'`~
I s" .:. t (OWWfi811 € ~~ SP9
it lio°s1 ~ ~ ~'~a!4y', ~,.; "r ~ j,~.% .. .. Y }'Y _`i (~FAwC Ie ~''~r~'#y#~ ~ SP 82-1 (! Rc wea
.ND Q' ~., "~ <. .~53~ FIRE STATDN W CUP
r'^`y""' S ~~1~;qa~ yfi#; N0.3 ~ MMI9TTI
< Cyy
Q ~ ply ~ INN 6
-1 ~ / ~~' ' `~?' S
91 11051 J ~4G~ ~ zfi'.^~(y.'$`3„y 't !f kf~i
ANNND = - +~~~`~~~.d~' Jv ~h~ W
SAS ~ 0.CL e6aI-01 (3) RGL 66-0]J
ADJ 11 '' RCL 8&87.61 59 6P@-1 Z RCL 56:
VM4al ~ '~ .- r, RGLBfi-0T-0f 100) W ~T~
RA GABTLE INN rf RCL S65I~1 ~ CLEANF
O e 6NITE6 $P 92-2 SP 92-1 ? ~ ~ T-0UP 2051-01&1
YRCL 6867E1(196) ~ TLNP 29wa13sa W
(n RCL 86E7-01(45) RLL 66ER61 (793) - o'g GUp1 0 J fiP 541
VAR 22485 T-CUP 20049444941 91CL Be-5~JU1 RcL e6S/-0
gp pL2 ADJ 0929 T-0UP 2002-04606 WCAM U RCL SaS~
= RCL 66-0Tat (leq SUPERB (CAP 2~9) ~~ ,nrfi
VM 020 MOTEL ~s -a3=i--.
VAR ICI
MLLAGE INN MOTEL - ILUP 5771) RGL ~-0]-0t 11901 ~ 6P 5]
6 RCLfib6l.I1 RCL a66]J
ILUP 2001dwt ~'~ RCL 58:
Gl~~rs ~A~R 1465 ( (R P -0Zf A 6UIiPE6~
AR 1371
sP az-z sP P!-2 aP ]3, ~~~~g cuP 1314 .. ... _ _. 6Pn
~~5 ~7.5~-54
~Sl"°I RCLaSJfI-01115) RCL888I-01 (13)RGLesae-01 P8 aP Btd L2. AARL1269~ RCL B6~aT~-011108) ~ ne 2v s®1
v' WP1550 VAR WO6 VM 2]n ..
vAR21P RCL80aT-0f RS ~ 1 aCL 5B-0]it ]Hpi~
~~x~e+ ANM$M EfiORT VAR40ie HCLIOAI NN V~R6Y R~$n°n'~ ~`~ T-VM 209x°a15J21 A
RETNL CENTER RAMA9APLA2A E%RBE68 q~n.R¢y- (VM at Rc~~ I+~I
ARNEf/ HGTEL hYN1Ew 6URFH WN~Vj<j NM 1211 1 j1
~. y IRGLMCRSM ZI Fry~E
~'v
~,~ .~~ RTAC]R
KATELLA AVENUE
s~
sP ea-2 ~~'T~g ~~
•53-2 RGL 0681-01(52)
19A]At (Ial q1P 216g SP 92-2 6P Bia sP,pa
IP 355 CUPT1t RCL efi-6]-91(16) pcLesndla]s1R¢eem-0, Haal _~ a `.
23256 VM 2U06 LUP 699 VM21] VM 1]fe 8 ']S GUP lUO SP93-1
SMiDN VAR 1694 VAR 1188 FI(1]N Sqa RCLBfiBr-01 (w) GlIP 10w
5.5. ZAfiYS MOTOR y8~~ryj ,auxcea $ WP TS] 6P 524 SP 92-1
LODGE ~. NarEL '°a~c 9~g vM 399fi GOP tew CUP 1894
3~ug p6NE PYLMMwO EMPLOYEE PARRING
> v
SP BZ-2 `~
Anaheim GardenWalk
Date: December 12, 2005
Requested By: WILLIAM J. STONE Scale: Graphic
EXCEL REALTY HOLDINGS, LLC Q.S. No. 87
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT N0. 2005-00440, AN AMENDMENT TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN
NO. 92-1 (TRACKING NO. SPN2005-00032), AND AN AMENDMENT TO CONpITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 4078 (TRACKING NO. CUP2005-05053) FOR AN 8.8-ACRE PORTION OF THE ANAHEIM
GARDENWALK PROJECT SITE (IDENTIFIED AS AREA B ON THE LOCATION MAP).
z~oD
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 1 -D
1 -D. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
a. CEQA EXEMPTION —SECTION 15061(b)(3) (Motion)
b. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATION OF
APPLICATIONS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005 - 00440,
AN AMENDMENT TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN
NO. 92 -1 (TRACKING NO. SPN2005- 00032), AND AN AMENDMENT
TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO- 4078 (TRACKING NO.
CUP2005- 05053) REGARDING THE ANAHEIM GARDENWALK
PROJECT. (Motion)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) The Anaheim GardenWalk (formerly known as 'Pointe Anaheim ") project site is located
on approximately 29.1 acres in The Anaheim Resort between Harbor Boulevard and
Clementine Street, and Disney Way and Katella Avenue. The project site has
approximate frontages of 1,500 feet on the south side of Disney Way between Harbor
Boulevard and Clementine Street, 1,185 feet on the west side of Clementine Street
between Disney Way and Katella Avenue (excluding Fire Station No. 3 at 1713 -1717
South Clementine Street), 728 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue between
Clementine Street and a point 771 feet west of the centerline of Clementine Street, and
585 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard between Disney Way and a point 615 feet
south of the centerline of Disney Way. The site is vacant except for the Anaheim Plaza
Hotel and Suites at 1700 South Harbor Boulevard.
REQUEST:
(2) Request for Planning Commission initiation of applications for a General Plan
Amendment, an amendment to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92 -1, and an
amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 for an 8.8 -acre portion of the Anaheim
GardenWalk project site (identified as Area B on the Location Map included with this staff
report).
BACKGROUND:
(3) On July 13, 1999, the Anaheim City Council approved the Anaheim GardenWalk project
to provide for a 565,000 square foot retail /dining /entertainment complex (including up to
three live performance theaters, or alternatively, a 24- screen movie theater), and up to
1,050 hotel rooms /suites with associated parking to be developed in a single phase. The
project applications included an amendment to the General Plan, The Disneyland Resort
Specific Plan, Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 and Development Agreement No. 99 -01.
(4) On February 26, 2002, the City Council subsequently amended the General Plan, The
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and Development Agreement No. 99 -01 to modify the
mix and allocation of land uses and to permit phasing of the project in up to five phases.
The modified uses are as follows: Up to 634,700 gross square feet of
retail /dining /entertainment uses (which includes a 94,000 square foot aquarium); a
maximum of four hotels comprising up to 1,662 hotel rooms /suites (of which up to 200
units may be Vacation Ownership Resort units) with approximately 322,071 gross square
feet of related accessory uses, of which up to 178,120 gross square feet could be used
sr nitiatio n tw.doc
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 1 -D
for a hotel conference center on top of the parking structure; and, a parking structure with
up to 4,800 parking spaces and 15 bus spaces with a 10,200 square foot bus
terminal/facility for airport transport to and from sightseeing venues. A waiver of the
minimum required number of parking spaces (6,581 spaces required, up to 4,800 spaces
in the parking structure proposed at full project build -out) was also approved.
The City Council also approved a Disposition and Development Agreement by and
between the City and Excel Pointe Anaheim, LLC, to provide for the sale of
approximately 1 3 acres located at the southwest corner of Disney Way and Clementine
Street, north of Fire Station No. 3 to the developer and the lease to the city of certain
public parking facilities to be constructed within the project.
(5) On December 14, 2004, the City Council amended Conditional Use Permit No. 4078,
approved Amendment No. 1 to the First Amended and restated Development Agreement
No. 99 -01 and Amendment No. 1 to the Disposition and Development Agreement, to
extend the date by which the developer must commence construction of the Initial Phase
of Development (from within 3 years after February 26, 2002 to February 26, 2006) and
to reflect the name of the new owner (Anaheim GW, LLC). No modifications were made
to the project description.
(6) The project site consists of eight parcels, of which seven (20.3 acres) are owned or
leased by Anaheim GardenWalk, LLC (identified as Area A on the Location Map included
with this staff report). The remaining approximately 8.8 -acre parcel is developed with the
Anaheim Plaza Hotel and Suites and is owned by Pyrovest Corporation (identified as
Area B on the Location Map). The entire site is located in the Pointe Anaheim Overlay of
The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92 -1 Zone. The General Plan land use
designation is Commercial Recreation.
(7) The land uses and zoning surrounding the project site are shown on the following chart.
Direction
Land Use
Zonin
North (across Disney
Southern California Edison
Parking District of The
Way)
Company overhead utility
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan
easement
No. 92 -1
East (across
Marriott Residence Inn
C -R District of the Anaheim
Clementine Street)
Cleaners
Resort Specific Plan No. 92 -2
Enterprise car rentals
Extended Stay America
Hotel Circle Specific Plan
La Quinta Inn and Suites
No. 93 -1
East (bounded by The
City Fire Station No. 3
Parking District, C -R Overlay of
Anaheim GardenWalk
The Disneyland Resort Specific
project area on the
Plan No. 92 -1
north, west and south
South (across Katella
Disneyland Resort employee
Future Expansion District of The
Ave.)
parking lot
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan
No. 92 -1
South and West
Castle Inn Suites
C -R District of the Anaheim
Super 8 Motel
Resort Specific Plan No. 92 -2
West (across Harbor
Disneyland Theme Park
Theme Park District of The
Blvd.)
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan
No. 92 -1
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 1 -D
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(8) Initiation of these petitions is the first step in scheduling a public hearing to consider
proposed amendments to the Anaheim GardenWalk project. A comprehensive CEQA
review will be conducted and made available for public review in connection with the
public hearing and, therefore this initiation action will not cause a significant effect on the
environment. Staff recommends that Commission find this action exempt under CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3).
PROPOSAL:
(9) William J. Stone, Excel Realty Holdings, LLC, the project applicant, has submitted a
letter, dated December 5, 2005, to the Planning Commission indicating his intent to
submit applications to modify the Anaheim GardenWalk project. The letter indicates that
the proposed amendments affect the entire 29.1 -acre project site and relate to the mix
and allocation of land uses, phasing, and project layout. The applicant owns or controls
approximately 20.3 acres of the project site and is requesting that the Planning
Commission initiate applications to amend the Anaheim General Plan, The Disneyland
Resort Specific Plan No. SP92 -1 and Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 for the remaining
8.8 acres of the site not under control of Excel Realty Holdings, LLC, in order to provide
for a comprehensive review of the proposed amendments. The applicant will be
submitting applications for amendments to the Anaheim General Plan, The Disneyland
Resort Specific Plan No. 92 -1, Conditional Use Permit No. 4078, the Disposition and
Development Agreement by and between the City and Anaheim GW, LLC, and the First
Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99 -01 by and between the City and
Anaheim GW, LLC, for the portion of the site under their control-
DISCUSSION
(10) Sections 18.68.030 (Initiation) and 18.72.020 (Application) of the Anaheim Municipal
Code permit General Plan Amendments, Specific Plans and Conditional Use Permits,
including amendments thereto, to be initiated by the verified application of one or more of
the recorded owners of each parcel, or by the authorized agent for said owners, or by
motion of the Planning Commission or City Council. The Planning Director is also
authorized to initiate petitions for General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments.
(11) The applicant is in the process of preparing a proposal to modify the current entitlements
to allow for the development of up to 624,300 square feet of specialty retail, restaurants,
and entertainment, including movie theaters; 1,628 hotel rooms (including up to 500
vacation ownership units) and 278,817 square feet of hotel accessory uses; a
transportation center, and 4,800 parking spaces in two development phases. The first
phase includes the development of approximately 20.3 acres of the project site (the
portion of the site under the ownership and /or control of the applicant) with 439,600
square feet of specialty retail, restaurants, and entertainment, including movie theaters;
1,266 hotel rooms (including up to 400 vacation ownership units) and 216,820 square
feet of hotel accessory uses; a transportation center; and, 3,200 parking spaces. The
remaining 8.8 acres would be designated for a subsequent phase with up to 184,700
square feet of specialty retail, restaurants, and entertainment; 362 hotel rooms (including
up to 100 vacation ownership units) and 61,997 square feet of hotel accessory uses; and,
1,600 parking spaces. The primary differences between the approved and proposed
projects are the replacement of the aquarium with a 16- screen movie theater, an increase
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 1 -D
in the number of potential vacation ownership units from 200 units to 500 units, and the
project phasing which will be amended from five phases to two phases.
(12) The current Anaheim GardenWalk distribution of uses and the intensities of development
are specifically contained in the Anaheim General Plan, The Disneyland Resort Specific
Plan No. 92 -1 (including Chapter 18.114 pertaining to the specific plan zoning and
development standards) and Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 and, therefore, various
text, tables and exhibits are proposed to be amended to reflect the project changes.
(13) The applicant has also submitted a separate request on the Planning Commission agenda
today (Item No. 8) to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 to extend the
commencement date of the Initial Phase of Development for one (1) year until February 26,
2007, and amend Development Agreement No. 99 -01 to define "Outside Initial Phase
Commencement Date" to mean February 26, 2007 in order to process the proposed
modifications to the project description in this report.
(14) Staff has reviewed the proposed request and the applicant's letter dated December 5,
2005. Inasmuch as any changes to the current project entitlements would affect the
entire 29.1 -acre site and would need to be evaluated in a comprehensive manner both for
Land Use and Zoning considerations and potential environmental impacts, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission initiate the applications for the 8.8 -acre
portion of the project site. This will allow staff to proceed with processing the proposed
modifications to the Anaheim GardenWalk project. Staff anticipates that the project
amendments will be scheduled for Planning Commission and City Council consideration
at advertised public hearings in February and March of next year-
RECOMMENDATION
(15) Staff recommends that unless contrary information is received during the meeting, and
based on the evidence submitted to the Planning Commission, including the evidence
presented in this staff report, and any oral and written evidence presented at the public
meeting, that Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, determine that this action is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section
15061(b)(3) because the environmental analysis of the proposed modifications to
the Anaheim GardenWalk project will occur in conjunction with the future public
hearing.
(b) By motion, initiate applications for a General Plan Amendment, an amendment to
The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. SP92 -1, and an amendment to
Conditional Use Permit No. 4078, for the 8.8 acres of the Anaheim GardenWalk
project area shown on the Location Map as Area B, and more specifically
described as the Anaheim Plaza Hotel and Suites, located at 1700 South Harbor
Boulevard.
Page 4
MCEL REALTY
HOLDINGS
October 24, 2005
Mr. Ted White
Senior Planner
Ms. Annika Santalahti
Zoning Administrator
Mrs. Linda Rios Johnson
Principal Planer
Anaheim Planning Department
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92803
Re: Anaheim GardenWalk
Dear Ted, Annika and Linda,
On behalf of Anaheim GW, LLC and due to the fact that the new Environmental
Documents relative to the revised Anaheim GardenWalk project will take far longer than
expected I am asking that the required start of vertical construction date contained in the
Development Agreement, Development and Disposition Agreement and Conditional Use
Permit No. 4078 be extended via amendment prior to the end of this calendar year. We
all agree we will collectively be working concurrently on the other changes to the above
named agreements with the goal of further amending the documents as soon as legally
possible. We are all however aware that those further changes will be impossible to
make prior to the vertical construction deadlines as they exist in the current agreements.
I appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Should you have any questions please call.
Sincerely
William J. Stone
Cc: G.
Sherman
H.
Pohl
J.
Fick
S.
Vander Dussen
L.
Stipkovich
B.
Hobson
17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92128
(858) 613.1800 • Fax (858) 487 -9890
ITEM NO. 2
m O I RCL 89-9U-02 CL 89.9
$4m q p 1 DU EACH ~ 1 DU EACH ~ ~ ~
rcaQ ~ I I ~ D ao 30U o v
> j RM-3 <t° AA
u v rn-1g ... ._._.
OZ+p
RM-4~ 1 DU Qa ' ^ C
APTS. APTS. ^
1 DU EACH ^ 9 DU 14 DU ~ ~~ Sad I 1I r i DU ~ ~ RM'a HIGH
o RM-0 -~ PNPSCNODL
DIAMOND ST
RM-0 o RM-4 RMa
I I I w w W I I ~ I vAe zool.oaaas `L
VAR 3836 APARTMENTS APTS. 7 x k 7 > > 1 DU VAR 3755 m
VAC. 10 DU 6f1U o Q ~~ ^ ^ ^ APARTMENT
2 t0 DU
O~ c~ U'a
fis ~ _ ~m n
a cuPZO~ zap n .,?~ClR1P 200&SO6o2B ` 1 DU MALL SHOPS ~ O-G~~ ~~
~ SMALL SHOPS V C ~9PS (a,)-z ='~ TPM 200&2d7 ~:. 5 OPS C P3 12 CuP xO SH =p GN
CL _ TR' GPRWP ~~
RCUP 38869 ~-798'
LINCOLN AVENUE
2T ~p 38101
V q ~C.6
Rc~,a~~ `nil 1~~U~P~R~~D
Tn^`1~aet\2 LUP UP IYS ®/ ~Lw-' !`T £
pGtloa\.N'fl\ ~' ~ STREE~ F y6NOP
LUP \B4T1 TP
~LCaP n\m 1 DU ENTE ;r~~a , o~ `u:
~`~+-~,t,°~1L ~ oV C as"Z o7tz ~x
advxo6o-81.s11 ~ v ~ a~,
~ Af `RC`s ~ op G G
2/® O a~ ' O O cS T
Rs , n c cm o c p o U
q ~~ 1,~~c`Lee°~-"~'sil H `Piu G GPNj 4D
6R~;•ye11 O` ~ ~~µN~'USi ~ ~ Z VP 2pU
n ~-(1p2~lD~U X3-001112 0 FlLE J , V ~C ZO 0~~~2 ~ DU 'Z pl1
= RG120 Q p~ `RC`6g-9 A GUP g7e91 pU
S'9 A 2pU ~' 2p L y Q G I~FP\CE 3
~'J9 A~ 1 U U VPp~~9 G~ G c 1pU
p
yZ ~ 2pU R52 2pU ~ SjN~T ST -U
-9~ 40U CHE 2 f
pU ~ D
~~~~ 2 RO`2UO1 OU12 ~ DU 5io 4ypo1T2
~~ R 2 U 0.RLL6pV 19 tOU '
\ '~ ~ 185-1 .1N 2pU ~ 1U ~L P G ~
- acVS'"U Pp~p023 0 ,~
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05028 , ~,~~ Subject Property
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-247 Date: December 12, 2005
Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: CALVADA DEVELOPMENT Q.S. No. 62
REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 3,897 SQUARE-FOOT, THREE UNIT COMMERCIAL RETAIL CENTER
INCLUDING ADRIVE-THROUGH COFFEE SHOP (STARBUCKS)
WITH WAIVERS OF: (A) MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SETBACK
(B) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES
(C) LOCATION OF DRIVE-THROUGH LANE
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-247- TO ESTABLISH A 1-LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION.
1131 West Lincoln Avenue 2033
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 2
2a.
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(Motion)
2b.
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
(Motion)
2c.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -05028
(Resolution)
2d.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005 -247
(Motion)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
(1) This rectangularly- shaped, 0.39 -acre property is located at the northeast corner of Lincoln
Avenue and Carleton Avenue, having frontages of 196 feet on the north side of Lincoln
Avenue and 77 feet on the east side of Carleton Avenue (1131 West Lincoln Avenue).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests the following actions:
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -05028 - to construct a 3,897 square -foot, three unit
commercial retail center including a drive - through coffee shop (Starbucks) under authority
of Code Section No. 18.08.030.010, with waivers of the following:
(a) SECTION NO. 18.08.060.010.0102
Minimum landscaped setback adjacent
to an arterial (15 feet required; 5 feet
proposed)
(b) SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010
(c) SECTION NO. 18.42.080.020
Minimum number of parking spaces
(53 required; 22 proposed and
recommended by Staff)
Drive - through lane location
(Drive- through lane not permitted within
setback; drive- through lane proposed in
setback)
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -247 - to combine eight (8) lots into one (1) lot to establish a
commercial retail center-
BACKGROUND
(3) This item was continued from the October 31, 2005 to the November 28, 2005,
Commission meeting, to allow the applicant time to work with staff to address the
site plan design issues expressed by the Commission and members of the public.
The item was further continued from the November 28, 2005, meeting to further
address site development issues expressed by the Commission including location of
the drive - through lane and to incorporate an outdoor seating area for Starbucks.
SR-PC 121205 -C U P2005 -05 028j r
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 2
(4) This property is vacant and is zoned C -G (General Commercial). The Anaheim General
Plan designates this property for Mixed Use land uses. Surrounding properties to the east
and west are also designated for Mixed Use land uses, to the south (across Lincoln
Avenue) for Mixed Use and Low Density Residential land uses and to the north for Medium
Density Residential land uses.
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:
(5) The following zoning actions pertain to this property:
(a) Conditional Use Permit No. 720 (to permit an existing service station within 75 feet of
residential zone and not at an intersection of two arterials) was approved by the
Planning Commission July 7, 1965. The previously- approved service station is no
longer operating, and staff recommends that this permit be terminated.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
(6) The applicant requests a tentative parcel map and conditional use permit to construct a
3,897 square -foot, three unit commercial retail center including a drive - through coffee shop
(Starbucks). The tentative parcel map is a technical requirement to combine the eight (8)
existing legal lots that make up the site into one legal lot. Typically this type of action is
addressed through a lot line adjustment and included as a condition of approval. Because
the number of lots to be combined is greater than what can be accommodated through the
lot line adjustment process (a maximum of four (4) lots), a tentative parcel map is
necessary. The site contains remnant accessory structures from the previous service
station which would be completely removed to facilitate the new commercial center.
View of the project site from the West (along Lincoln Avenue)
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 2
(7) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates the following proposed setbacks:
**Requested waiver for landscaped setback and drive - through lane location.
The site plan indicates the proposed drive - through lane located along the west and south
sides of the building would be setback six feet from Lincoln Avenue (within the required
setback) and 10 feet from Carleton Street. Entry to the drive - through lane would occur
directly south of the alley entrance to the site and exiting would occur at the southeastern
portion of the site adjacent to Lincoln Avenue. Plans propose a length of 66 feet from the
drive - through entry to the ordering device, and another 100 feet from the ordering device to
the pick up window. Code requires that drive - through lanes be located outside the
minimum landscaped setback and that lanes utilizing a separate ordering device have a
minimum distance of sixty (60) feet between the start of the lane to the ordering device, and
an additional minimum distance of one hundred (100) feet between the ordering device and
the service window or area.
(8) Vehicular access to the site would be provided via one (1) driveway from Lincoln Avenue
and one (1) driveway from the existing alley (the existing driveway on Carleton Street would
be closed). The site plan indicates a total of 22 parking spaces available for this
commercial retail center and drive - through facility. Code requires 53 spaces based on the
following chart-
USE
Code
Code
Direction
Required /Proposed
Required /Proposed
5.5 spaces
Building Setback
Landscape Setback
North (adjacent to alley)
0 feet/42 feet
0 feet/0 feet
South (adjacent to
15 feet/17 feet, 8 inches
15 feet/6 feet"
Lincoln Avenue)
Drive Through Fast
2,000
East (adjacent to
0 feet/ 46 feet
0 feet/0 feet
commercial zone)
West (adjacent to
10 feet127 feet, 9 inches
10 feet/10 feet
Carleton Street)
**Requested waiver for landscaped setback and drive - through lane location.
The site plan indicates the proposed drive - through lane located along the west and south
sides of the building would be setback six feet from Lincoln Avenue (within the required
setback) and 10 feet from Carleton Street. Entry to the drive - through lane would occur
directly south of the alley entrance to the site and exiting would occur at the southeastern
portion of the site adjacent to Lincoln Avenue. Plans propose a length of 66 feet from the
drive - through entry to the ordering device, and another 100 feet from the ordering device to
the pick up window. Code requires that drive - through lanes be located outside the
minimum landscaped setback and that lanes utilizing a separate ordering device have a
minimum distance of sixty (60) feet between the start of the lane to the ordering device, and
an additional minimum distance of one hundred (100) feet between the ordering device and
the service window or area.
(8) Vehicular access to the site would be provided via one (1) driveway from Lincoln Avenue
and one (1) driveway from the existing alley (the existing driveway on Carleton Street would
be closed). The site plan indicates a total of 22 parking spaces available for this
commercial retail center and drive - through facility. Code requires 53 spaces based on the
following chart-
USE
SQUARE FEET
CODE-REQUIRED
PARKING RATIO
(per 1,000 sq. ft.)
PARKING
REQUIRED
Retail
897
5.5 spaces
5
Fast Food
1,000
16 spaces
16
Restaurant
Drive Through Fast
2,000
16 spaces
32
Food Restaurant
TOTAL
3,897
53
(9) The floor plan for the commercial center (Exhibit No. 1) indicates three (3) tenant spaces
consisting of a 2,000 s.f. Starbucks coffeehouse with drive - through, a 1,000 s.f. Subway
sandwich shop, and an 897 s.f. T- Mobile cellular phone retail store. A small interior access
to the roof would be located at the south side of building. Storefront entryways would be
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 2
located along the north side of the building facing the parking lot (interior facing). The drive
through lane service window would project three (3) feet from the main building and would
face Lincoln Avenue. Based on the feedback from the Commission, the applicant has
modified the floor plan of the Starbucks tenant space to incorporate an outdoor
seating area as depicted in the graphic below:
OarcOOR SEATING
AREA
PLANTER
a , e
• d
0 0 0 0
a'
ARE=
11A I
New seating area at the northeast corner of the building.
The entry door would be located at the western portion of the outdoor area to
facilitate unencumbered entry/exit to the interior of the building. The outdoor area
proposed would comply with all the provisions of the Code pertaining to outdoor
seating.
(10) The elevation plans, color rendering and material boards (Exhibit No. 2, 3, 4 and 5) indicate
a 25 -foot high, single -story Craftsman style building containing a smooth plaster finish,
wood siding, and brick veneer on each elevation. A gabled, multi - colored concrete tile roof
(Monier lifetile Slate Charcoal Brown Blend and Cobblestone) would be used on the
building. The center portion of the building would be a green -grey color (Stucco - Dunn
Edwards Union Springs; Trim - Dunn Edwards Smoky Forest) and the towers on each end
would be a yellow -amber color (Stucco - Dunn Edwards Highlight Gold; Trim - Dunn
Edwards Brassy). A horizontal trim line, window mullions, and canvas canopies would be
black (Dunn Edwards — Stargazing). Each elevation would incorporate the use of brick
finish along the bottom four (4) feet of the building (Robinson Brick Company —
Chesapeake) to complement the smooth stucco finish. The south elevation (facing Lincoln
Avenue) would include pilasters with a brick base and a tapered wood post. The north
elevation (facing the parking area) would contain identical pilasters supporting an arcade
over the walkway and entry along the center portion of the building. Exterior lighting would
be consistent with the period architecture proposed for the center.
(11) The site plan and elevation plans (Exhibit Nos. 1 through 2) indicate the conceptual location
of proposed wall and monument signage for the commercial center. Although the signage
is not dimensioned, the number and location of the signs comply with Code. Code allows
the total aggregate area of wall signs(s), including the area of awning signs or similar signs
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 2
affixed to the building elevation, to be a maximum of ten percent (10 %) of the area of the
face of the building to which such sign(s) are attached or two hundred (200) square feet,
whichever is less. Since specific tenant signage has not been identified at this time, staff is
recommending a condition of approval, requiring the applicant to submit a final detailed
sign program for staff review once the specific sign design and tenant signage have been
determined for the retail center.
(12) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates a 6 -foot wide landscape planter along Lincoln
Avenue (a small portion is 12 feet wide) and a 10 -foot wide landscape planter along
Carleton Street. The plan further proposes a 4 -5 -foot wide landscaped area along the west
and south walls of the building adjacent to the drive - through lane. There would also be
four (4) landscaped areas /fingers within the parking area and adjacent to the entryways.
Small triangular planters would be distributed throughout the parking area to provide vine
coverage on the new and existing masonry walls. The setback areas would contain thirty -
one (31) trees (10 along Carleton St. and 21 along Lincoln Ave.) as well as shrubs and
groundcover. The landscaped area next to the building would consist of shrubs and
groundcover as well. The landscaped fingers within the parking area would be planted with
four (4) trees, shrubs and groundcover. Code requires one tree for every 20 lineal feet of
street frontage (10 trees on Lincoln Avenue and 4 trees on Carleton Street) and fast
growing shrubbery of clinging vines planted on 3 -foot centers for the trash enclosure. Code
further requires that at least one (1) tree per 3,000 square feet of parking area and /or
vehicular accessways be distributed throughout the parking area with an average of forty -
eight (48) square feet of planter area provided per required tree, and a minimum planter
dimension of five (5) feet. With the exception of the requested waiver of landscape setback
along Lincoln Avenue and the distribution of trees within the parking area (of which the
applicant is aware and willing to address to comply with Code as conditioned), the
landscape plans comply with Code.
(13) The submitted letter of operation indicates that the proposed tenant spaces would have the
following hours of operation and employee information:
Starbucks Subwav Retail (T- Mobile)
Hours 5AM -12AM 8AM -10PM 8AM -10PM
Employees Maximum of four Maximum of three Maximum of two
The property owner has further indicated that the Starbucks would not be permitted (as a
condition of their lease) to sell sandwich or lunch items and Subway would not be permitted
to sell breakfast items.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(14) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review
in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore,
recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the 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-
EVALUATION
(15) Commercial retail centers (two or more tenant spaces) and restaurants with a drive - through
are permitted in the C -G zone subject to the approval of a conditional use permit.
Page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 2
(16) Waiver (a) pertains to the minimum landscaped setback adjacent to an arterial highway.
Code requires a 15 foot wide landscaped setback along arterial highways and plans
indicate a setback ranging from 6 to 12 feet to accommodate parking and the location of
the drive - through lane. Staff surveyed properties along Lincoln Avenue to determine if the
strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties with identical zoning classification in the vicinity. Staff identified other properties
in the area that had no landscaped setback (see following photograph); however, these
properties appeared historic in nature and contain storefronts immediately adjacent to the
sidewalk thereby providing a pedestrian oriented design — consistent with the historic
theme and character of the nearby Anaheim Colony Historic District (5- Points
Neighborhood). The development pattern for these properties with the buildings adjacent
to the right -of -way was not due to constraints of the individual properties but rather a
deliberate decision to place the building along the street frontage consistent with older
downtowns. This is not the case with the current proposal as the drive - through lane
separates the building from the street. Staff observed that no other properties in the vicinity
have reductions in their landscaped setback to accommodate a drive - through operation.
Staff also observed other commercial uses that provided the Code - required landscaping
along Lincoln Avenue (see following photograph). Staff believes the necessary findings for
approval of the requested waiver cannot be justified as there are no 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 that the strict
application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties with identical zoning classification in the vicinity, and therefore, staff
recommends denial of waiver (a).
Photograph of existing building with a traditional "downtown" look with no setback
Page 6
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 2
(17) Waiver (b) pertains to the minimum number of parking spaces. Code requires a minimum
of 53 spaces for the drive - through restaurant and retail center and plans propose 22
spaces. The applicant has submitted a parking analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates,
Inc., dated September 20, 2005, to substantiate the requested parking waiver. The City's
independent Traffic Consultant has reviewed the parking analysis and has determined that
the proposed parking area referenced in the study would be sufficient for the proposed
uses on the property. Based upon the analysis provided by the applicant and upon the
recommendation of the City's independent Traffic Consultant, staff recommends approval
of this waiver based on the following findings:
"(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
reasonable foreseeable conditions of operation of such use.
The observed parking demand of similar commercial centers (Garden Grove,
Westminster, and Santa Ana) indicate that this site would potentially require an actual
demand ranging from 13 to 19 parking spaces during peak demand. The project
would provide a total of 22 parking spaces. As a result, the project would provide
adequate off - street parking to accommodate all vehicles attributable to the project
under normal operation.
(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.
Page 7
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 2
As demonstrated in this parking study, the project will provide adequate parking on-
site to accommodate parking demand under normal operation. The site is expected to
contain a surplus of two to nine spaces during peak operation; therefore, no impact
upon on- street parking is anticipated as a result of this use.
(c) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand for
parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed use.
The project will provide adequate parking on the project site to accommodate its
parking generation. The site will accommodate peak demand with only 59 % -86% of
on -site parking spaces utilized. No demand for parking on adjacent private property is
forecasted.
(d) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase traffic congestion
within the off - street parking areas or lots provided for such use.
An existing driveway along Carleton Street would be removed and access would be
gained directly from the alley to the north. Ingress and egress on Lincoln Avenue
would be right in /right out only. Therefore, traffic congestion would not be anticipated
with implementation of the project.
(e) 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
proposed use.
The project would reduce the number of access points to public streets adjacent to
this property. The location of the proposed driveways would not impede vehicular
ingress to or egress from adjacent properties. Furthermore, it has been established
previously that a sufficient supply of off - street parking will be provided to meet the
forecasted parking demand. Therefore, neither stacking onto the public street nor
blocking an adjacent driveway would be expected to occur."
(18) Waiver (c) pertains to the drive - through lane proposed within the required landscape
setback area. Code specifies that drive - through lanes cannot be located within the required
15 foot wide landscaped setback and plans indicate a setback ranging from 6 to 12 feet to
accommodate the location of the drive through lane and parking. Staff surveyed properties
in the vicinity and along Lincoln Avenue and could not identify other properties that had
drive - through lanes within the front setback area. Therefore, strict application of the Zoning
Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties with identical
zoning classifications in the vicinity. Eliminating the drive - through lane would allow greater
area for commercial center operations such as loading and unloading or landscape setback
in compliance with Code along Lincoln Avenue. Staff believes the necessary findings for
approval of the requested waiver cannot be justified as there are no 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 therefore, staff
recommends denial of waiver (c).
(19) Goal 6.1 of the Community Design Element of the General Plan reads as follows:
`Focus activity centers at the intersections of selected major corridors to provide
convenient and attractive concentration of retail and office uses.'
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 2
Several policies are indicated in order to implement this goal. In summary, the design
policies include the following:
• Locate buildings close to the street with shielded parking
• Encourage pedestrian -scale features such as public art and awnings
• Incorporate architectural interest through varied rooflines, colors, materials and
lighting
• Link newly developed retail centers to residential and /or office uses through clear
safe pedestrian and bicycle connections
• Provide layered landscaping
• Provide people gathering spaces such as outdoor eating areas, water features,
courtyards, etc.
• Screen utilities
(20) Several of the design features indicated in the Design Element have been incorporated into
the proposed retail center building. Examples include awnings, varied building facades,
quality materials, screened utility equipment and parking located behind the building.
(21) At the October 31, 2005, Commission meeting, members of the Commission and of
the public had the following concerns about the project:
a. Number of proposed parking spaces
b. No designated loading area for deliveries
c. Opposition to drive - through portion of project
d. The building should be re- oriented to have storefronts facing Lincoln
Avenue
e. Impact of drive - through speaker amplification on adjacent residents
f. Need for increased landscaping along Lincoln Avenue
g. Location of drive - through is not appropriate (should be at back of building)
h. Overall site plan design issues
I. Overall building design issues
j. Concerns with traffic along alley to the north of the project
As well as concerns shared, members of the Commission and the public expressed
support for the project (some with reservations regarding the drive - through) and
were pleased with the architectural treatment of the building. As a result of the
public testimony and the concerns expressed by the Commission, staff was directed
to work with the applicant to redesign the site plan to accommodate the feedback
expressed at the public hearing.
(22) Both Planning and Public Works Department staff met with the applicant to evaluate
alternative site plan configurations that would meet the needs of the applicant and tenants,
provide for safe vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation on site, while not creating a
potentially unsafe situation within the public right -of -way.
(23) As a result of these discussions, staff and the applicant concurred that if the drive -
through lane would remain, the proposed configuration with the drive - through lane
in front of the building and parallel to Lincoln Avenue would be the best location.
This alternative provides landscaping along Lincoln Avenue, safe on -site pedestrian
and vehicular circulation, while improving vehicle safety on Carleton Avenue by
eliminating the existing driveway and relocating this access to the alley to the north.
The alternative submitted for the November 28, 2005, meeting was identical to the
site plan provided to the Commission at the October 31, 2005, meeting, except
modified to reflect a reduced drive - through lane width at the south side (one foot
Page 9
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 2
reduction), enlarged radius for the turn from the drive - through towards Lincoln, a
designated loading area (with posted hours for loading) and added directional
signage. Due to the constraints related to on -site Code requirements (length of the
drive through, setbacks, parking) and constraints related to off -site issues not within
the purview of the Planning Department (prohibited driveway access on Carleton
Avenue regulated by the City Engineer - Title 12 of the AMC ), staff believes the
proposed configuration is the least problematic of any of the alternatives, if the
drive - through is approved.
(24) Although staff is supportive of the request to construct a commercial retail center,
and character of the downtown area. An additional item of concern is on -site parking
and loading. Although staff is recommending approval of the requested parking waiver
based on the submitted study, staff independently verified parking counts conducted at the
commercial center in the City of Santa Ana. Staff's parking counts were higher (a peak
demand of 21 spaces as opposed to 17 spaces from the parking study) and in the event
that there is shift in demand of any of the proposed on -site uses, potential on -site parking
deficiencies may occur. There are also adjacent commercial uses that do not contain
sufficient parking on -site (Casa Garcia) and may create a situation where patrons from that
restaurant may park at this proposed commercial center. The current projected demand
requires the use of all but three of the available parking during peak times.
(25) At the November 28, 2005, meeting, Commission members expressed concerns
pertaining to the site plan design of the proposed center. These concerns pertained
to the location of the drive - through lane within the required setback, lack of an
outdoor seating area, and the impact the deletion of the drive - through may have on
available parking at the site. Based on the feedback from the Commission, the
applicant has modified the floor plan of the Starbucks tenant space to incorporate an
outdoor seating area adjacent to the Starbucks tenant space. No other modifications
have been made.
(26) Staff contacted the City's independent Traffic Consultant to determine if any impact
to on -site parking demand would occur as a result of the elimination of the drive
through. Although no technical studies have been conducted, surveys of existing
Starbucks in Garden Grove, La Mirada, and Fullerton indicate that the facilities
without drive through lanes tend to have a higher on site parking demand.
(27) Careful consideration has been given to the architectural design of the proposed center and
the architect and owner have worked closely with staff to provide a quality design. The
owner has indicated that the drive - through lane is a necessary part of this project and
would like to move forward with the plan as proposed. Based upon the recommended
denial of waivers (a) and (c), and because the size and shape of the site for the use is not
adequate to allow the full development of the drive - through lane portion of the request in a
manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety, staff recommends
the Commission continue this request to allow the redesign of the project to eliminate the
drive - through lane and to provide Code - required landscaping.
FINDINGS:
(28) Section 18.42.110 of the parking code sets forth the following findings which are required to
be made before a parking waiver is approved by the Planning Commission:
Page 10
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 2
(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
reasonable foreseeable conditions of operation of such use.
(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.
(c) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand for
parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed use.
(d) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase traffic congestion
within the off - street parking areas or lots provided for such use.
(e) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not impede vehicular ingress to or
egress from adjacent properties upon the 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 Study that formed the basis for
approval of the waiver. Exceeding, violating, intensifying or otherwise deviating from any of
the assumptions as contained in the Parking Demand Study shall be deemed a violation of
the express conditions imposed upon the waiver, which shall subject the waiver to
revocation or modification pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.60200 (City- Initiated
Revocation or Modification of Permits).
(29) 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 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
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.
(30) 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;
Page 11
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 2
(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.
(31) "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.
(32) 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:
(33) 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 action:
(a) By motion, continue this request to the January 09, 2005, Commission meeting to allow
the applicant to work with staff to redesign the project to eliminate the drive - through
lane and provide the minimum Code - required landscape setback along Lincoln
Avenue.
(34) Should the Planning Commission wish to approve this request, staff recommends that the
Commission incorporate the conditions of approval indicated below based on the finding
Page 12
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 2
that the conditions are reasonably necessary to protect the public health and safety and to
ensure proper operation of this proposed commercial retail center and drive - through coffee
shop:
1. That at no time shall the Starbucks provide lunch service.
2. That the Subway sandwich shop shall not open prior to 11 a.m.
3. That no additional restaurant/food service uses shall be allowed beyond what is
indicated on the approved plan.
4. That if the Starbucks or Subway uses change, an updated parking study shall be
provided to the Planning Services Division for review and approval by staff to
determine whether the assumptions contained in the original parking study are still
valid. Any decision by staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a
"Reports and Recommendations" item.
5. That no video, electronic or other amusement devices shall be permitted on the
premises.
6. That all public phones shall be located inside the building.
7. That adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles,
passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with
lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible
the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness
and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on-
site. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as
not to unreasonably illuminate the window areas of the adjacent residential
properties. Light fixtures shall be decorative and a maximum of 12 -feet in height.
Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police
Department, Community Services Division approval.
8. That all trash generated from the commercial retail center shall be properly contained
in trash bins located within approved trash enclosures. The number of bins shall be
adequate and the trash pick -up shall be as frequent as necessary to ensure the
sanitary handling and timely removal of refuse from the property. The Community
Preservation Division of the Planning Department shall determine the need for
additional bins or additional pick -up. All costs for increasing the number of bins or
frequency of pick -up shall be paid by the business owner.
9. That any tree or other landscaping planted on -site shall be replaced in a timely
manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and /or dead.
10. That no roof - mounted balloons or other inflatable devices shall be permitted on the
property.
11. That no outdoor vending machines shall be permitted on the property.
12. That 4 -foot high street address numbers shall be displayed on the roof of the building
in a color that contrasts with the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from
the streets or adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on
plans submitted for building permits.
13. That there shall be no outdoor storage permitted on the premises.
14. That the property owner shall submit a letter to the Planning Services Division
requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 720 (to permit an existing
service station within 75 feet of residential zone and not at an intersection of two
arterials).
Page 13
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 2
15. That roof - mounted equipment shall be screened from view in accordance with the
requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.38.170 pertaining to the C -G
(General Commercial) Zone. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans
submitted for building permits.
16. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by the
provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and
removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence.
17. That the number of tenant spaces for this commercial retail center shall be limited to
three (3). Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building
permits.
18. That final sign plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review
and approval as to placement, design and materials of all proposed on -site signage.
The signage shall be designed to complement the architecture of the commercial
retail center. Any decision by staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission as
a "Reports and Recommendations" item.
19. That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground and outside of the street
setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets. Any backflow
assemblies currently installed in a vault shall be brought up to current standards.
Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside of the street
setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by the Water
Engineering Department.
20. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications,
relocations, or abandonments of existing water services and fire lines, shall be
coordinated through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities
Department.
21. That since this project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet; a
separate irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with Chapter 10.19 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans
submitted for building permits.
22. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Service
Standards Specifications. Any water service and /or fire line that does not meet
current standards shall be upgraded if continued use if necessary or abandoned if
the existing water service is no longer needed. The owner /developer shall be
responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service of fire line.
23. That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of
Anaheim, Water Engineering Division) an easement twenty (20) feet in width for
water service mains and /or an easement for large meters and other public water
facilities.
24. That prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public
Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval a Water
Quality Management Plan that:
• 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.
Page 14
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 2
• Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the
Drainage Area Management Plan.
• Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in DAMP.
• Describes the long -term operation and maintenance requirements for the
Treatment Control BMPs.
• Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long -term operation and
maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs, and describes the mechanism for
funding the long -term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control
BMPs_
25. That prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall:
• Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been
constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications.
• Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non - structural BMPs
described in the Project WQMP
• Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Projects
WQMP are available onsite.
• Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan
for all structural BMPs.
26. That the City of Anaheim Sewer Impact Mitigation fee for the Old Town/ Basin 8 Area
shall be paid.
27. 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).
28. That the curb radius at Lincoln Avenue and Carleton Avenue shall be designed with a
25' radius and a sidewalk access ramp w/ truncated domes per Public Works
Standard Detail 111. The existing radius and ramp shown on the site plan do not
conform to City standards. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans
submitted for building permits.
29. That prior to grading plan approval, the applicant shall submit a Drainage Study
prepared by a registered professional Civil Engineer in the State of California. The
Study shall be based upon and reference the latest edition of the Orange County
Hydrology Manual and the applicable City of Anaheim Master Plan of Drainage for
the project area. All drainage sub -area boundaries per the Master Plan for Drainage
shall be maintained. The Study shall include: an analysis of 10 and 100 -year storm
frequencies; an analysis of all drainage impacts to the existing storm drain system
based upon the ultimate project build -out condition; and address whether off -site and/
or on -site drainage improvements (such as detention/ retention basins or surface
runoff reduction) will be required to prevent downstream properties from becoming
flooded.
30. That the developer shall submit improvement plans to the Public Works Department,
Development Services Division to improve right of way with the installation of street
trees and irrigation on Lincoln Avenue and Carleton Street in conformance with
Public Works Standard Detail 110 and the Department of Public Works Landscape
and Irrigation Manual for Public Streets, Highway, Right -of -way and Easements.
Landscaping and irrigation in the public right -of -way along Lincoln Avenue and
Carleton Street shall be connected to the on -site irrigation system and maintained by
the property owner.
Page 15
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 2
31. That a performance bond shall be posted to guarantee installation of right -of -way
improvements in an amount approved by the City Engineer and a form approved by
the City Attorney prior to final map approval. A Right of Way Construction Permit
shall be obtained from the Development Services Division for all work performed in
the right -of -way. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and
zoning inspections.
32. That the alley shall be improved per Public Works Standard Detail No. 131 (10- foot'' /2
width measured from the alley centerline.) Said information shall be specifically
shown on plans submitted for building permits.
33. That the property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim an
easement 51 feet in width (10 -feet total r/w behind curb is required, therefore 1 foot
additional dedication from existing right -of -way is necessary) from the construction
centerline of Lincoln Avenue for road, public utilities and other public purposes.
Corner cut -off dedication at Carleton Street and Lincoln Avenue is also required. No
additional right -of -way dedication is required on Carleton Street. A 3 -foot additional
dedication is required along the alley frontage (existing '' /s width is shown to be 7 -feet
on the site plan.) All irrevocable offers of dedication shall be made on the final map.
34. That a title report is required to confirm existing property lines and right -of -way
dedication.
35. 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.). Said information
shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
36. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's
expense.
37. That plans shall be submitted to the Traffic and Transportation manager for his
review and approval showing conformance with Engineering Standard No. 115
pertaining to sight distance visibility for the monument sign and wall/fence location.
38. That the property owner /developer shall provide the City of Anaheim with a public
utilities easement to be determined as electrical design is completed.
39. That plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and
approval in conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos.
436, and 470 pertaining to parking standards and driveway location. Subject
property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said
plans.
40. That the drive - through lane shall be designed to meet the radius standards (minimum
16 feet interior and 26 feet outer radius). Said information shall be specifically shown
on plans submitted for building permits.
41. 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.
42. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to
the Public Works Department and in accordance with approved plans on file with said
Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not
to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage
areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such
Page 16
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 2
as minimum one - gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum three -foot centers or
tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted
for building permits.
43. That the project shall provide for truck deliveries on -site. Such information shall be
specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
44. That an Emergency Listing Card, Form ADP -281 shall be completed and submitted in
a completed form to the Anaheim Police Department.
45. That final elevation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division. Said
plans shall be designed to preclude the visibility of interior storage for the individual
tenants from Lincoln Avenue. Any decision by staff may be appealed to the Planning
Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item.
46. 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.
47. That a final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for
review and approval. Said plans shall specify the following:
• The size, type, and location of all trees, shrubs, and ground cover proposed for
the site.
• Minimum 24 -inch box sized trees, and clinging vines along all perimeter block
walls and landscaped fingers every ten (10) parking stalls.
• A three -foot high solid hedge along the interior side of the landscape setback
adjacent to the drive - through lane.
• Trees within the parking area evenly distributed within all proposed landscaped
fingers.
Any decision by staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports
and Recommendations" item.
48. 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 Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5, and as
conditioned herein.
49. 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. 7, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18,
19, 21, 22, 23, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47
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.
50. That prior to issuance of a grading permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the
date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 24 and 29 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.
51. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 20, 25, and 48,
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.
Page 17
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 2
52. 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.
Page 18
' City of Anaheim
PLAI~Ili1IIVG ~~~A~'~'iVIEIiI')<'
~~ ,..
~~ ~' December 12, 2005
Calvada Development
Shawn Danesh
26996 La Paz Road
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim .Planning Commission meeting of
December 12, 2005.
2a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-05028
2d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0.2005-247
Owner: Calvada Development, Shawn Danesh, 26996 La Paz Road, Aliso Viejo,
CA 92656
Agent: Meg Beatrice, Architecture M, 808 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 105,
Long Beach, CA 90802
.Location: 1131 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 0.39-acre,
located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Carleton Avenue
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05028 -Request to construct a 3,897 square-foot",
three unit commercial retail center including adrive-through coffee shop (Starbucks)
with waivers of (a) minimum landscaped setback, (b) minimum number of parking
spaces, and (c) location of drive-through lane.
Tentative Parcel wAap No. 2005-247- To establish a 1-lot commercial subdivision.
Continued from the October 31, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
'advertised as 4,100 square-foot
ACTION:
{ALWAYS VERIFY ENVIRONft~fENTAL INFORII~ATION}
{FOR TENTATIVE PARCElJTENTATIVETBACT ft9AP}
CommissionerXXXoffered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XmCand MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a
1-lot commercial subdivision and does hereby approve the (Environmental findings) upon
finding that the CEQA Negative Declaration serves as adequate environmental
documentation for this request for tentative tract maps to permit a 1-lot commercial
subdivision. The Planning Commission'has>~, have been environmentally-cleared by
this prior environmental documentation. Aproject-specific Initial Study has been prepared
and additional environmental review and mitigation has been provided as needed pursuant to
the procedures outlined for subsequent projects under a Program EIR.
Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXk and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
P:C. 6ox 3222
Anaheim, Calilornia 92803
wwwanaheim.nel TEL (714) 765-5139
tentative map, including its design and improvements, is consistent with the Anaheim General
Plan, and does therefore approve Tentative Tract Map No. XXX,, to establish an XXX subject
to the following conditions:
Sincerely,
Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
Cr em.doc
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2005 -*
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -05028 BE GRANTED
(1131 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:
LOTS 29 TO 36 INCLUSIVE IN BLOCK 4 OF SUMMERFIELD AND POOENHEIMERS
SUBDIVISION OF THE SPOERL TRACT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF
ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 19, PAGE
44 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on October 31, 2005 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
18.66.040.030, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to
investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and that said public hearing
was continued to the November 28, and December 12, 2005 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
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 construct a 3,897 square -foot, three unit commercial retail center
including a drive - through coffee shop (Starbucks) with waivers of (a) minimum landscaped setback, (b)
minimum number of parking spaces, and (c) location of drive - through lane; and does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency
and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public
review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is
no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does
hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the
safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
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
Cr\PC2005 -0 -1- PC2005-
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
December 12, 2005. 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 December 12, 2005, 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
, 2005.
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-2- PC2005-
Attachment - Item No. 2
September 20, 2005
Mr. Shawn Danesh
CALVADA DEVELOPMENT, INC.
26996 La Paz Road
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Dear Mr. Danesh:
INTRODUCTION
The firm of Kunzman Associates is pleased to submit this revised parking analysis for
the proposed Lincoln-Carleton Retail Center development. The project site is located
north of Lincoln Avenue and east of Carleton Avenue in the City of Anaheim.
The proposed development consists of a 2,000 square foot Starbuck's with drive-thru,
1,000 square foot Subway, and 850 square foot retail area for a total of 3,850 square
feet. It should be noted that the Starbuck's lease does not allow the sale of
sandwiches. Also, the Subway lease does not allow the sale of donuts and is not open
during the morning peak flour. The project site provides a total of 22 on-site parking
spaces. The project site is proposing right turns in/out only access to Lincoln Avenue
and full access to Carleton Avenue. Figure 1 illustrates the project site plan..
This report summarizes our methodology, analysis and _findings. We trust that the
findings, which are summarized in the front of the report will be of immediate as well as
continuing value to you and the City of Anaheim in evaluating the project.
ARhough this is a technical report, every effort has been made to write the report clearly
and concisely. To assist the reader with those terms unique to transportation
engineering, a glossary of terms is provided within Appendix A.
FINDINGS
The project site is located north of Lincoln Avenue and east of Carleton Avenue
in the City of Anaheim.
IIII TOWN SL COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 34 # ORANGE, CA 92868-4667
TELEPHONE: (714) 973-8383 # FACSIMILE: (714) 973-8821
E-MAIL: MAIL ®TAAFFIC-ENGINEER.COM # WEB: WWW.TRAFFIC-ENGINEER.COM
2. The proposed development consists of a 2,000 square foot Starbuck's with drive -
thru, 1,000 square foot Subway, and 850 square foot retail area for a total of
3,850 square feet. It should be noted that the Starbuck's lease does not allow
the sale of sandwiches. Also, the Subway lease does not allow the sale of
donuts and is not open during the morning peak hour. The project site provides
a total of 22 on -site parking spaces. The project site is proposing right turns
in /out only access to Lincoln Avenue and full access to Carleton Avenue.
3. The maximum number of occupied parking spaces at the City of Garden Grove
similar site is a total of 24 parked vehicles (including the retail area parked at
code with no sharing of parking assumed). The City of Garden Grove similar site
is approximately 30% larger (5,000/3,850) than the City of Anaheim proposed
development and is projected to occupy approximately 17 parking spaces with a
30% reduction.
4. The maximum number of occupied parking spaces at the City of Santa Ana
similar site is a total of 17 parked vehicles. The City of Santa Ana similar site is
approximately 29% larger (4,950/3,850) than the City of Anaheim proposed
development and is projected to occupy approximately 13 parking spaces with a
29% reduction.
5. The maximum number of occupied parking spaces at the City of Westminster
similar site is a total of 22 parked vehicles (including the retail area parked at
code with no sharing of parking assumed). The City of Westminster similar site
is approximately 14% larger (4,380/3,850) than the City of Anaheim proposed
development and is projected to occupy approximately 19 parking spaces with a
14% reduction.
6. The City of Anaheim parking code requires a total of 52 parking spaces for the
proposed development. In this particular case, treating Starbuck's as a fast food
restaurant with drive -thru over estimates the amount of parking required for the
project site.
7. Based on the finding that three (3) similar sites demand parking spaces similar to
those proposed for this project, it is concluded that adequate on -site parking is
proposed for the project site.
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The project site is currently vacant and not generating significant traffic. Lincoln Avenue
is currently six lanes divided and is restricted from on- street parking adjacent to the
project site. Carleton Avenue is currently two lanes undivided and allows on- street
parking adjacent to the project site.
Carleton Avenue is a T- intersection with Lincoln Avenue and stop -sign controlled. Left
turns out of Carleton Avenue onto Lincoln Avenue are restricted.
2
PARKING SURVEY
To quantify the existing parking demand for the proposed development, parking surveys
were conducted at three (3) similar sites. The existing parking demand was determined
by surveying three (3) existing similar sites at 15- minute intervals on a Friday (July 29,
2005) from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM, on a Saturday (July 30,
2005) from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM, and on a Sunday (July 31, 2005) from 10:00 AM to
2:00 PM. In addition, the three (3) existing similar sites were surveyed at 15- minute
intervals from 6:45 AM to 8:00 AM on a Friday (September 16, 2005), on a Saturday
(September 17, 2005), and on a Sunday (September 18, 2005). The survey periods
were established based upon discussions with the City of Anaheim, the applicant, and
previous parking studies conducted by Kunzman Associates personnel.
The City of Garden Grove similar site is located at the intersection of Haster Street/SR-
22 Freeway. The City of Garden Grove similar site consists of a 1,680 square foot
Starbuck's with drive -thru, 1,200 square foot Subway, and 2,120 square foot retail area
for a total of 5,000 square feet. It should be noted that the 2,120 square foot retail area
is currently vacant and the parking occupancy has been based upon City of Anaheim
parking code requirements. The existing parking survey is shown in Table 1. As
indicated in Table 1, the maximum number of occupied parking spaces at the City of
Garden Grove similar site is a total of 24 parked vehicles (including the retail area
parked at code with no sharing of parking assumed). The City of Garden Grove similar
site is approximately 30% larger (5,000/3,850) than the City of Anaheim proposed
development and is projected to occupy approximately 17 parking spaces with a 30%
reduction.
The City of Santa Ana similar site is located at the intersection of Bristol Street/Memory
Lane. The City of Santa Ana similar site consists of a 1,650 square foot Starbuck's with
drive -thru, 1,300 square foot Subway, and 2,000 square foot retail area for a total of
4,950 square feet. The existing parking survey is shown in Table 2. As indicated in
Table 2, the maximum number of occupied parking spaces at the City of Santa Ana
similar site is a total of 17 parked vehicles. The City of Santa Ana similar site is
approximately 29% larger (4,950/3,850) than the City of Anaheim proposed
development and is projected to occupy approximately 13 parking spaces with a 29%
reduction.
The City of Westminster similar site is located at the intersection of Goldenwest
Street/Natal Drive. The City of Westminster similar site consists of a 1,500 square foot
Starbuck's with drive -thru, 1,560 square foot Subway, and 1,320 square foot retail area
for a total of 4,380 square feet. It should be noted that the 1,320 square foot retail area
is currently vacant and the parking occupancy has been based upon City of Anaheim
parking code requirements. The existing parking survey is shown in Table 3. As
indicated in Table 3, the maximum number of occupied parking spaces at the City of
Westminster similar site is a total of 22 parked vehicles (including the retail area parked
at code with no sharing of parking assumed). The City of Westminster similar site is
approximately 14% larger (4,380/3,850) than the City of Anaheim proposed
development and is projected to occupy approximately 19 parking spaces with a 14%
reduction.
3
PARKING CODE
The City of Anaheim parking code requirements are included in Appendix B
The City parking code requires 16 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area for
restaurants with drive -thru. A total of 32 parking spaces are required for the proposed
2,000 square feet of Starbucks with drive -thru.
The City parking code requires 15 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area for
restaurants. A total of 15 parking spaces are required for the proposed 1,000 square
feet of Subway.
The City parking code requires 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area
for retail. A total of 5 parking spaces are required for the proposed 850 square feet of
retail.
The City of Anaheim parking code requires a total of 52 parking spaces for the
proposed development. In this particular case, treating Starbuck's as a fast food
restaurant with drive -thru over estimates the amount of parking required for the project
site.
VARIANCES FROM PROVISIONS OF ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
The City of Anaheim variance shall be granted upon a finding by the Zoning
Administrator, Hearing Office, Planning Commission or City Council that the evidence
presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
Comment
That the variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not cause fewer off - street
parking spaces to be provided for the proposed 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.
Response
Based on the finding that three (3) similar sites demand parking spaces similar to those
proposed for this project, it is concluded that adequate on -site parking is proposed for
the project site.
Comment
That the variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not increase the demand
and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed use.
4
Response
The project site provides a total of 22 on -site parking spaces. Based on the finding that
three (3) similar sites demand parking spaces similar to those proposed for this project,
it is concluded that adequate on -site parking is proposed for the project site.
Comment
That the variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not increase the demand
and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed use (which property is not expressly provided as parking for
such use under an agreement in compliance with Subsection 18.42.050.030 Non -
Residential Uses — Exception).
Response
The project site provides a total of 22 on -site parking spaces. Based on the finding that
three (3) similar sites demand parking spaces similar to those proposed for this project,
it is concluded that adequate on -site parking is proposed for the project site.
Comment
That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic
congestion within the off - street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use.
Response
It is not anticipated that the project site will increase traffic congestion within the off -
street parking area.
Comment
That the variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not impede vehicular ingress
to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed use.
Response
Lincoln Avenue is currently six lanes divided and is restricted from on- street parking
adjacent to the project site. Carleton Avenue is currently two lanes undivided and
allows on- street parking adjacent to the project site.
Carleton Avenue is a T- intersection with Lincoln Avenue and stop -sign controlled. Left
turns out of Carleton Avenue onto Lincoln Avenue are restricted.
5
CONCLUSIONS
In certain situations, calculating the number of required parking spaces based strictly on
gross floor area will produce a parking requirement that is beyond that necessary to
adequately serve the proposed use.
The City of Anaheim parking code requires a total of 52 parking spaces for the
proposed development. In this particular case, treating Starbuck's as a fast food
restaurant with drive -thru over estimates the amount of parking required for the project
site.
The idea of shared parking is that if the various land uses have peak parking demands
at different points in time, or on different days of the week, then the number of spaces
required is not the sum of the parking requirements for each land use, but rather less. If
the peak demands for the various land uses are non - coincidental, then there is an
opportunity for sharing of parking.
The proposed development consists of a 2,000 square foot Starbuck's with drive -thru,
1,000 square foot Subway, and 850 square foot retail area for a total of 3,850 square
feet. It should be noted that the Starbuck's lease does not allow the sale of
sandwiches. Also, the Subway lease does not allow the sale of donuts and is not open
during the morning peak hour. The project site provides a total of 22 on -site parking
spaces. The project site is proposing right turns in /out only access to Lincoln Avenue
and full access to Carleton Avenue.
Based on the finding that three (3) similar sites demand parking spaces similar to those
proposed for this project, it is concluded that adequate on -site parking is proposed for
the project site.
It has been a pleasure to serve your needs on this project. Should you have any
questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES
Q� 1 / J 'U A
Carl Ballard
Senior Associate
�AOFESSio
F 5,0
y y v Z
W 3 No TR0056 Z a
d
* T RAFF�
\�OFM 9
KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES
William Kunzman, P.E.
Principal
Professional Registration
Expiration Date 3 -31 -2006
#3359
0
Table 1
Haster StreeVSR -22 Freeway (Garden Grove)
Parking Survey
Friday counted 11'.00 AM to 1'.00 PM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on July 29 2005
and 6:45 AM to 8:00 AM on September 16, 2005.
Saturday counted 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on July 30, 2005
and 6:45 AM to 8:00 AM on September 17, 2005.
3 Sunday counted 11 00 AM to 1:00 PM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on July 31. 2005
and 6:45 AM to 8:00 AM on September 18 , 2005.
Number of Parked Vehicles
Time Period
Friday'
Saturday
Sunday'
6:45 AM -7:00 AM
5
3
1
7:00 AM -7:15 AM
7
5
1
7:15 AM -7:30 AM
5
4
1
7:30 AM -7:45 AM
6
4
1
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM
11
6
3
10:00 AM - 10:15 AM
--
19
19
10:15 AM - 10:30 AM
--
18
19
10:30 AM - 10:45 AM
--
17
18
10:45 AM - 11:00 AM
—
22
19
11:00 AM - 11 :15 AM
19
20
20
11:15 AM - 11:30 AM
20
19
19
11:30 AM - 11:45 AM
20
20
17
11:45 AM - 12:00 NOON
18
20
18
12:00 NOON - 12:15 PM
19
19
19
12:15 PM -12:30 PM
24
18
18
12:30 PM - 12:45 PM
22
19
19
12:45 PM - 1:00 PM
24
19
20
1:00 PM - 1:15 PM
--
18
24
1:15 PM -1:30 PM
—
19
24
1:30 PM - 1:45 PM
--
19
22
1:45 PM - 2:00 PM
--
18
17
4:00 PM -4:15 PM
23
4:15 PM -4:30 PM
21
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM
18
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM
19
5:00 PM -5:15 PM
19
5:15 PM -5:30 PM
20
5:30 PM -5:45 PM
18
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM
17
Maximum
24
22
24
Friday counted 11'.00 AM to 1'.00 PM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on July 29 2005
and 6:45 AM to 8:00 AM on September 16, 2005.
Saturday counted 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on July 30, 2005
and 6:45 AM to 8:00 AM on September 17, 2005.
3 Sunday counted 11 00 AM to 1:00 PM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on July 31. 2005
and 6:45 AM to 8:00 AM on September 18 , 2005.
Table 2
Bristol Street/Memory Lane (Santa Ana)
Parking Survey
' Friday counted 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on July 29.. 2005
and 6'.45 AM to 8:00 AM on September 16, 2005.
z Saturday counted 11 00 AM to 1',00 PM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on July 30, 2005
and 6:45 AM to 8:08 AM on September 17, 2005.
' Sunday counted 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on July 31, 2005
and 6 45 AM to 8:00 AM on September 16, 2005.
Number of Parked Vehicles
Time Period
Friday'
Saturday'
Sunday'
6:45 AM - 7:00 AM
7
3
8
7:00 AM -7:15 AM
4
4
4
7:15 AM -7:30 AM
6
4
5
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM
10
6
7
7:45 AM -8:00 AM
10
7
7
10:00 AM -10:15 AM
--
8
7
10:15 AM - 10:30 AM
--
6
9
10:30 AM - 10:45 AM
--
6
8
10:45 AM - 11:00 AM
--
6
10
11:00 AM -11:15 AM
15
8
9
11:15 AM -11:30 AM
14
6
10
11:30 AM - 11:45 AM
17
7
4
11:45 AM - 12:00 NOON
16
15
5
12:00 NOON - 12:15 PM
14
12
6
12:15 PM -12:30 PM
17
9
7
12:30 PM -12:45 PM
14
10
5
12:45 PM- 1:00 PM
14
6
4
1:00 PM -1:15 PM
--
5
6
1:15 PM -1:30 PM
—
10
8
1:30 PM -1:45 PM
—
8
9
1:45 PM - 2:00 PM
--
8
8
4:00 PM -4:15 PM
12
4:15 PM -4:30 PM
10
4:30 PM -4:45 PM
10
4:45 PM -5:00 PM
10
5:00 PM -5:15 PM
13
5:15 PM -5:30 PM
10
5:30 PM -5'45 PM
11
5:45 PM -6:00 PM
11
Maximum
17
15
10
' Friday counted 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on July 29.. 2005
and 6'.45 AM to 8:00 AM on September 16, 2005.
z Saturday counted 11 00 AM to 1',00 PM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on July 30, 2005
and 6:45 AM to 8:08 AM on September 17, 2005.
' Sunday counted 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on July 31, 2005
and 6 45 AM to 8:00 AM on September 16, 2005.
Table 3
Goldenwest Street/Natal Drive (Westminster)
Parking Survey
Friday counted 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on July 29, 2005
and 6:45 AM to 8:00 AM on September 16, 2005.
' Saturday counted 11.00 AM to 1:00 PM and 4.00 PM to 6:00 PM on July 30, 2005
and 6 45 AM to 8:00 AM on September 17, 2005.
a Sunday counted 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM and 4.00 PM to 6:00 PM on July 31, 2005
and 6 45 AM to 8 '.00 AM on September 18, 2005.
Number of Parked Vehicles
Time Period
Friday'
Saturday'
Sunday'
6:45 AM -7:00 AM
16
4
4
7:00 AM -7:15 AM
11
5
3
7:15 AM -7:30 AM
14
5
4
7:30 AM -7:45 AM
13
7
6
7:45 AM -8:00 AM
13
5
4
10.00 AM - 10:15 AM
--
19
18
10:15 AM - 10:30 AM
--
20
14
10:30 AM - 10:45 AM
--
20
14
10:45 AM - 11:00 AM
--
17
17
11:00 AM -11:15 AM
15
19
19
11:15 AM -11:30 AM
21
21
19
11:30 AM - 11:45 AM
19
20
19
11:45 AM - 12:00 NOON
17
20
20
12:00 NOON - 12:15 PM
21
17
18
1215 PM - 12:30 PM
20
17
20
12:30 PM - 12:45 PM
21
18
18
12:45 PM- 1:00 PM
17
17
20
1:00 PM - 1:15 PM
—
22
17
1:15 PM -1:30 PM
--
17
15
1:30 PM -1:45 PM
--
17
15
1:45 PM - 2:00 PM
--
19
22
4:00 PM -4:15 PM
18
4:15 PM -4:30 PM
18
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM
19
4:45 PM -5:00 PM
19
5:00 PM -5:15 PM
17
5:15 PM -5:30 PM
18
5:30 PM -5:45 PM
18
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM
20
Maximum
21
22
22
Friday counted 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on July 29, 2005
and 6:45 AM to 8:00 AM on September 16, 2005.
' Saturday counted 11.00 AM to 1:00 PM and 4.00 PM to 6:00 PM on July 30, 2005
and 6 45 AM to 8:00 AM on September 17, 2005.
a Sunday counted 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM and 4.00 PM to 6:00 PM on July 31, 2005
and 6 45 AM to 8 '.00 AM on September 18, 2005.
10
APPENDIX A
Glossary of Transportation Terms
GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS
COMMON ABBREVIATIONS
AC:
ADT:
Caltrans:
DU:
ICU:
LOS:
TSF:
V /C:
VMT:
TERMS
Acres
Average Daily Traffic
California Department of Transportation
Dwelling Unit
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Level of Service
Thousand Square Feet
Volume /Capacity
Vehicle Miles Traveled
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: The total volume during a year divided by
the number of days in a year. Usually only weekdays are included.
BANDWIDTH: The number of seconds of green time available for
through traffic in a signal progression.
BOTTLENECK: A constriction along a travelway that limits the amount
of traffic that can proceed downstream from its location.
CAPACITY: The maximum number of vehicles that can be reasonably
expected to pass over a given section of a lane or a roadway in a given
time period.
CHANNELIZATION: The separation or regulation of conflicting traffic
movements into definite paths of travel by the use of pavement
markings, raised islands, or other suitable means to facilitate the safe
and orderly movements of both vehicles and pedestrians.
CLEARANCE INTERVAL: Nearly same as yellow time. If there is an all
red interval after the end of a yellow, then that is also added into the
clearance interval.
CORDON: An imaginary line around an area across which vehicles,
persons, or other items are counted (in and out).
CYCLE LENGTH: The time period in seconds required for one complete
signal cycle.
CUL -DE -SAC STREET: A local street open at one end only, and with
special provisions for turning around.
DAILY CAPACITY: The daily volume of traffic that will result in a volume
during the peak hour equal to the capacity of the roadway.
DELAY: The time consumed while traffic is impeded in its movement by
some element over which it has no control, usually expressed in seconds
per vehicle.
DEMAND RESPONSIVE SIGNAL: Same as traffic - actuated signal.
DENSITY: The number of vehicles occupying in a unit length of the
through traffic lanes of a roadway at any given instant. Usually
expressed in vehicles per mile.
DETECTOR: A device that responds to a physical stimulus and
transmits a resulting impulse to the signal controller.
DESIGN SPEED: A speed selected for purposes of design. Features of
a highway, such as curvature, superelevation, and sight distance (upon
which the safe operation of vehicles is dependent) are correlated to
design speed.
DIRECTIONAL SPLIT: The percent of traffic in the peak direction at any
point in time.
DIVERSION: The rerouting of peak hour traffic to avoid congestion.
FORCED FLOW: Opposite of free flow.
FREE FLOW: Volumes are well below capacity. Vehicles can maneuver
freely and travel is unimpeded by other traffic.
GAP: Time or distance between successive vehicles in a traffic stream,
rear bumper to front bumper.
HEADWAY: Time or distance spacing between successive vehicles in a
traffic stream, front bumper to front bumper.
INTERCONNECTED SIGNAL SYSTEM: A number of intersections that
are connected to achieve signal progression.
LEVEL OF SERVICE: A qualitative measure of a number of factors,
which include speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to
maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs.
LOOP DETECTOR: A vehicle detector consisting of a loop of wire
embedded in the roadway, energized by alternating current and
producing an output circuit closure when passed over by a vehicle.
MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE GAP: Smallest time headway between
successive vehicles in a traffic stream into which another vehicle is
willing and able to cross or merge.
MULTI - MODAL: More than one mode; such as automobile, bus transit,
rail rapid transit, and bicycle transportation modes.
OFFSET: The time interval in seconds between the beginning of green
at one intersection and the beginning of green at an adjacent
intersection.
PLATOON: A closely grouped component of traffic that is composed of
several vehicles moving, or standing ready to move, with clear spaces
ahead and behind.
ORIGIN - DESTINATION SURVEY: A survey to determine the point of
origin and the point of destination for a given vehicle trip.
PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENTS (PCE): One car is one Passenger
Car Equivalent. A truck is equal to 2 or 3 Passenger Car Equivalents in
that a truck requires longer to start, goes slower, and accelerates slower.
Loaded trucks have a higher Passenger Car Equivalent than empty
trucks.
PEAK HOUR: The 60 consecutive minutes with the highest number of
vehicles.
PRETIMED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal that directs traffic to stop
and go on a predetermined time schedule without regard to traffic
conditions. Also, fixed time signal.
PROGRESSION: A term used to describe the progressive movement of
traffic through several signalized intersections.
SCREEN -LINE: An imaginary line or physical feature across which all
trips are counted, normally to verify the validity of mathematical traffic
models.
SIGNAL CYCLE: The time period in seconds required for one complete
sequence of signal indications.
SIGNAL PHASE: The part of the signal cycle allocated to one or more
traffic movements.
STARTING DELAY: The delay experienced in initiating the movement
of queued traffic from a stop to an average running speed through a
signalized intersection.
TRAFFIC - ACTUATED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal that directs
traffic to stop and go in accordance with the demands of traffic, as
registered by the actuation of detectors.
TRIP: The movement of a person or vehicle from one location (origin) to
another (destination). For example, from home to store to home is two
trips, not one.
TRIP -END: One end of a trip at either the origin or destination; i.e. each
trip has two trip -ends. A trip -end occurs when a person, object, or
message is transferred to or from a vehicle.
TRIP GENERATION RATE: The quality of trips produced and /or
attracted by a specific land use stated in terms of units such as per
dwelling, per acre, and per 1,000 square feet of floor space.
TRUCK: A vehicle having dual tires on one or more axles, or having
more than two axles.
UNBALANCED FLOW: Heavier traffic flow in one direction than the
other. On a daily basis, most facilities have balanced flow. During the
peak hours, flow is seldom balanced in an urban area.
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL: A measure of the amount of usage of a
section of highway, obtained by multiplying the average daily traffic by
length of facility in miles.
APPENDIX B
City of Anaheim Parking Code
Anaheim Municipal Code
Title 18 ZONING*
Chapter 1 8.06 VEHICLE PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS*
i._.. o.050 MINIMUM N UMBER, TYPE AND DESIGN OF OFF - STREET PARKING SPACES AND AREAS.
The minimum number of off - street parking spaces provided for any land use shall not be less than the following numbers given for
subject use(s); provided, however, that any use not listed below shall provide a mininuun of nine tenths (0.9) of one space per each
employee on the largest work shift, plus such additional parking as is determined to be reasonably necessary by the City Traffic and
Transportation Manager to meet the parking demand for such use. Except as expressly provided in this Section 18.06.050, where a
combination of uses is proposed, the minimum number of spaces provided shall be not less than the sum total of the requirements for each
individual type of use to be established.
For purposes of interpretation of subsection .010 for residential uses, all rooms other than a living room, family room, dieing room.
bathroom, hall, lobby, closet or pantry shall be considered a bedroom. Further, in computing parking requirements, fractional
requirements shall be rounded off to the nearest whole number, fractions of one -half (0.5) or more being counted as one full spacc.
For purposes of interpretation of subsections .020 and .030, "GFA" shall mean gross floor area of buildings as measured from exterior
wall to exterior wall. If the GFA upon which the number of parking spaces is based is less than 1,000 square feet (or other unit of
ntcasurentent as designated herein), the minimum number of required spaces shall be prorated in direct proportion to the minimum
number of spaces required for each 1,000 square feet (or other unit of measurement designated herein). Such proration shall also apply in
instances where a division of such applicable unit of measurement into the GFA produces a quotient of other than a whole number_ Unless
othenvise expressly provided herein, any employee parking space requirements shall be based upon the maximum number of cmployccs
present at any given time. (Ord. 5437 § 4, August 2, 1994.)
,010 Residential Uses:
.011 Single - Family Dwellings. A total of not less than floor (4) off - street parking spaces shall be provided on -site for any single -
family detached dwelling, not less than two (2) of which shall be provided in a garage- Any remaining required spaces not provided in a
garage shall be provided on a paved surface or other suitable on -site location, as approved by the Planning Department, having mininuuu
dimensions of eight (8) feet wide and twenty -five (25) feet Tong (if located in landcm to parking spaces enclosed with a tilt -up garage
door) and eight (8) feet wide and twenty (20) feel long (if located in tandem to parking spaces enclosed with a roll -up gar door),
measured from the garage door to the nearest edge of the pedestrian walkway or property line whichever is the lesser distance. Spaces
I in tandem to a garage may be permitted to encroach into the required from setback. All other spaces shall be located outside of the
i ed front setback area and shall conform xwitli Engineering Standard Detail Nos. 601 and 602 entitled "Mininm n Off- Street Parking
Dimensions." (Ord. 5437 § 5 (part); .August 2, 1994.)
.012 Multiple- Family Dwellings including attached, detached or semi - attached condominiums, stock cooperatives, townhomcs,
rowhouses, rental apartments or other forms of clustered dwellings. (Ord. 54. § 5 (part), August 2, 1994.)
0121 For each unit there shall be provided not Tess than one and one quarter ( 1.25) oil- street parking spaces for each bachelor unit,
not less than two (2) parking spaces for each one - bedroom unit - not less than two and one quarter (2,23) for each two- bedroom unit, not
less than three (3) parking spaces for each three- bedroom unit, and not less than three and one half (3.5) parking spaces for each four -
bedroom or larger unit. At least two (2) parking spaces per unit shall be covered. except that only one (1) required space for cacl bachelor
and one bedroom unit need be covered. Of the number of required parking spaces. one- quarter (25) space per dwelling unit shall be
reserved and clear]) marked for guest parking only and shall be readily accessible to motorists front contiguous streets and/or accessvays.
(Ord. 4577 6 1, February 12, 1985: Ord. 5018 § l; April 25, 1989: Ord. 5340 § 1; November 17, 1992,)
.0122 All covered spaces shall be located within 100 feet of, and be readily accessible to, the dwelling unit served. Required open
spaces shall be located within 200 feet of the unit served. (Ord. 5437 § 6 (part); August 2, 1991.)
.0123 Tandem parking spaces shall not be permitted, except for detached single - family condominiums, as provided in subsection
18.06.050.011. The tcnm "tandem parking spat;" as used in this Section 18.06.050 shall mean any off - street parking spice designed in
such a manner that a vehicle properly parked in such space may: by design, have its ingress to or egress from such parking spare blocked
by a vehicle properly parked in a contiguous parking space. (Ord. 4936 § 8; ]ulp 18, 1988 Ord. 5157 § 1; August 14, 1990: Ord. 5340 §
2, November 17, 1992, Ord. 5437 § 6 (part); August 2, 1994.)
,0124 (Repealed by 5074, 11114/89)
.0125 Required open parking spaces for residents and tenants shall be unassigned and no fee shall be assessed for their use. (Ord.
5437 § 6 (part); August 2, 1994.)
.0126 Parking areas shall be screened b means of plant landscaping or architectural devices from adjacent streets and properties
and from living or recreational - leisure areas to a height of 36 inches %with the exception of "Line of Sight Triangle" (see note 2), as shoos
on Standard Plan No. 137 entitled "Commercial Drive Approach." (Ord. 5074 § 6; November 14, 1989.)
27 Any interior %ills of covcred parking areas shall be finished with exterior finish material. General storage cabinets of not Less
L rte hundred (100) cubic feel capacit shall be provided for each dwelling unit and shall be located within the covered parking area
or conveniently located thereto. Adequate bumper guards shall be provided to protect any interior walls from damage. (Ord. 5437 § 6
(part); August 2, 1994.)
013 Retirement Dwelling: (Ord 5340 § 3 (pail): November 17, 1992.)
help: /h��ativ.amlegal com /anahcim _ ca /lpext. dll /Iit fobase/ 3575 /_,9ce /39RY?f— templates &fn = document- frune.hunfi2.0 01 /17/200
_0131 Senior Citizens' Apartment Project: not less than one (1) parking space for each bachelor unit and one bedroom unit, and not
Tess Than two (2) parking spaces for each two bedroom unit. All parking spaccs shall be located so as to minimize walking distance from
the living area to the parking facility. Parking spaccs ma} be covered or open and shall be Unassigned and equally available to all
r guests or employees. Tandem spaces shall not be permitted. (Ord. 4567 § 3 (part): February 5, 1985; Ord. 5074 § 7; November
189: Ord. 5340 § 3 (part); November 17, 1992.)
0132 Second residential dwelling units (granny units) for which a conditional use permit is approved pursuant to the authority of
Section 65852.1 of the Government Code. One (1) parking space, covered or open. for each such unit iihich space may be tandem to
another one -site parking space. (Ord. 4567 § 3 (part); February 5, 1985.)
.0133 Senior Citizen Housing Development: not less than one and one quarter (1.25) parking spaces for the initial bachelor or one
bedroom unit plus one (1) space for each additional bedroom in the project. Parking spaces shall be covered or open and shall be
unassigned and equally available to all residents, guests, and employees. Tandem spaces shall not be permitted. Parking spaces shall be
located so as to minimize walking distance from the living area to the parking facility. (Ord. 4929 § 2; May 31. 1988: Ord. 5340 § 4:
November 17, 1992.)
.014 Mobilchomcs: Two (2) parking spaces (which ntav be tandem) on -site adjacent to the mobilehonte, plus one (1) guest space for
every four (4) mobilchomes.
Guest parking shall be located within 200 feet of each mobilchome served and may be provided along anv private street (designed and
improved in compliance with Standard Detail No. 122 entitled "Private Street ") and serving the interior circulation of a mobiletiome park.
.020 Commercial and Institutional Uses: (Ord. 5437 §§ 7, 8, August 2, 1994.
.021 Office Uses:
.0211 Medical and/or Dental Offices: Six (6.0) spaces per 1000 square feet of GFA.
.0212 Professional and General Business Offices and Research and Development: Four (4.0) spaces per 1000 square feel of GFA for
buildings of three stories or less; three (3.0) spaces per 1000 square feet of GFA for buildings of more than three stories. (Ord. 5074 § 8,
November 14, 1989.)
.022 Retail Stores and Service Businesses General: Five and one -half (5.5) spaces per 1000 square feel of GFA for the first 100
square feet of GFA; plus Four and one -half (4.5) spaces per 1000 square feet of GFA over 100,000 square fee(
.0221 Financial Institutions: Five (5.0) spaces per 1000 square feet of GFA for facilities without drive -up windows; six (6.0) spaces
per 1000 square feel of GFA for facilities with drive -up o rude%%s.
.0222 Motor Vehicle Repair Facilities: Three and one -half (3.5) spaces per 1000 square feet of GFA or five (5) parking spaces_
whichever is greater.
223 Motor Vehicle Sales Facilities: Two and one -half (2.5) spaces per 1.000 square feet of GFA for interior showroom use plus
1, 4) spaces per 1,000 square feel of GFA for office use, plus fine and one -half (5S) spaccs per 1,000 square feet of GFA for parts,
sales, storage and repair use.
.0224 Kiosk Facilities (such as keys, film, etc.): One (1.0) space per twenty -Gve (25) square feet of GFA or five (5) spaccs per
facility whichcvcr results in the greater number of spaces.
.0225 Convenience Market, Take -out, Food/Mcal Service: Five and one -half (5S) spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA plus three (3)
parking spaces for the first additional rise plus one parking space for each additional use thereafter, except that said additional spaccs
shall not be required when the use is integrated within a commercial retail center.
.0226 Furniture, Carpet and Flooring Sales and Displal Tiro and one - quarter (2.25) spaces per 1.000 square feet of GFA.
(Ord. 5706 § I; November 16, 1999.)
.023 Eating and/or Drinking Establishments:
0231 Restaurants — Enclosed and Semi - Enclosed, with or without cocktail lounge and/or entertainment facilities, and integrated
into a planned development complex such as a shopping center or industrial complex: Eight (8.0) spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA.
(Ord. 5437 § 11 (part), August 2, 1994, Ord. 5565 § 8; June 11, 1996.)
.0232 Restaurants — Enclosed and Senii- Enclosed, with or without cocktail lounge and/or entertainment facilities, and not
integrated into a planned development complex such as a shopping center or industrial complex: Fifteen (15.0) spaces per 1,000 square
feet of GFA. (Ord. 5074 § 10 (part); November 14. 1989: Ord. 5437 § 11 (part), August 2, 1994; Ord. 5565 § 9; June 11, 1996.)
.0233 Restaurants — Walk up, Drive -in, Drive - through, Fast Food- Sixteen (16.0) spices per 1000 square feel of GFA. /Ord. 5074
§ 10 (part), November 14, 1989_)
.0234 Restaurants, Takc -out (not to exceed a cumulatii e maxinwm total of Icn scats for patrons): Five and one -half (5.5) spaccs per
1,000 square feel of GFA. (Ord. 5074 § 11 (part): November 14. 1989: Ord, 5137 § I I (part): August 2, 1994.)
.0235 Bars and Nightclubs: Seienlcen (I7.0) spaces per 1.000 square feel of CPA. (Ord. 5074 § I I (part), November 14, 1989, Ord.
5565 § 10; June 11, 1996.)
.0236 Billiard Halls: Two (2) parking spaces per billiard table, plus required parking for other uses within the facility. (Ord. 5437
12, August 2, 1994.)
'4 Lodging Accommodations:
-41 Hotel/Motel Facilities: The following number of parking spaces shall be prodded: Four - fifths (0.8) of a space for each guest
room, plus eight (8.0) spaces for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of banquet /meeting room. eating /drinking and restaurant floor
area and one (1.0) space per 1000 gross square feet of retail space, plus one - quarter (.25) space for each employee working in guest room
areas. (Ord. 4832 § 2, Mat 26, 1987: Ord. 5074 § 12: November 14. 1989: Ord. 5706 § 2: November 16. 1999.)
.0242 Bed and Breakfast Inns: One (1) parking space for each bedroom in the residence, plus one (1) parking space for cacti
nonresident employee, plus one (1) additional parking space for visitors. For purposes of this subsection wily, the term "bedroom" shall
mean any room designed, intended or primarily used for sleeping purposes. (Ord. 4456 § 3; October 25, 1983: Ord. 5706 § 2; November
V 1 999.)
55 Punusement and Recreational Facilities:
.0251 Theme Amusement or Recreation Type Facilities: Due to the unique nature of these types of uses, parking requirements shall
be determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and/or Planning Commission based upon the nature and exent of the
intended use and upon information contained in a parking demand study prepared by an independent traffic engineer licensed by the State
of California, or such other study as approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and provided by the developer to the City.
at the developer's sole expense, at the time of application for such use (Ord. 5437 § 13 (part), August 2, 1994 )
.0252 Bowling Alleys: Three (3) spaces per bowling lane plus one space per each thirty -five (35) square feet of GFA used for public
assembly, plus five and one -half (5.5) spaces per 1000 square feet of GFA used for other commercial purposes.
.0253 Golf Course - General: Ten (10) spaces per hole plus one (1) space per each thirt -five (35) square feet of GFA used for
public assembly, plus five and one -half (5.5) spaces per 1000 square feet of GFA used for other commercial purposes.
.0254 Golf Course - Miniature: Tyventy (20) spaces per course, plus one space per each employee.
.0255 Golf Driving Range: One (1) space per driving tee.
.02555 Health Spas and Physical Fitness Centers: Five and one -half (5.5) spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for
facilities under 4,000 square feet; for facilities 4,000 square feet or larger, parking regtdremcnts shall be determined by the City Traffic
and Transportation Manager and/or Planning Commission based upon a parking demand study prepared by an independent traffic
engineer licensed by the State of California, or such other study as approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and provided
by the developer to the City, at the developer's sole expense, at the time of application for such use. (Ord. 5437 § 13 (part); August 2.
1994.)
0256 Skating Rinks - Ice or Roller: Two and four - tenths (2.4) spaces per 1000 square feet of GFA.
.0257 Racquetball Facilities: Five (5.0) spaces per court. (Ord. 5074 § 13 (part); November 14- 1989.)
.0258 Tennis Facilities: Five (5) spaces per court. (Ord. 5074 § 13 (part); November 14, 1989.)
.0259 Theaters:
.02591 Live Performance: Four - tenths (GA) space per seat or per patron, whichever results in a higher number, plus eight - tenths
(0.8) space per employee, including performers.
'2592 Single Screen Motion Picture Theater: Six- tenths (0.6) space per seat or per patron, whichever results in a higher number,
,ve (5) employee spaces.
.02593 Multi- Screen Motion Picture Theater: Three- tenths (03) space per seat or per patron. whichever results in a higher number,
plus (2) employee spaces per screen. (Ord. 5074 § 13 (part); November 14, 1989: Ord. 5437 § 14; August 2, 1994: Ord 5471 § I;
December 13, 1991.)
.026 Educational and Institutional Uses:
.0261 Art Galleries with Accessory Retail Sales. Exhibition Halls, and Museums: Three and three- tenths (33) spaces per 1.000
square feet of GFA.
.0262 Assembly Halls and Auditoriums: One -third (0.333) space per fixed seat or Twenty -nine (29) spaces per 1,000 square lcet of
GFA of the assembly area, whichever results in the higher number of parking spaces, plus four (4) spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA
for office use, plus, if a kitchen facilip is provided, two - hundredths (.02) space per person for the maximum capacity figure of tkc
assembly area determined by the City Fire Department.
.0263 Business Schools, Trade Schools and Training Centers: Eighty -mo hundredths (0.82) space per student or twenty (20) spaces
per 1,000 square feet of GFA of instruction area, o °hichever results in the higher number of parking spaces, plus four (4) spaces per 1 000
square feet of GFA of office area.
.0264 Child Daycare Centers, Preschools and Nurseries: One (1) space per employee plus one (1) space per ten (10) children plus
one (1) space for loading and mtloading children on -site.
.0265 Convalescent Homes and Senior Citizens' Apartment Project - Congregate Care: Eight - tenths (0.8) space per bed.
.0266 Churches, Synagogues and other Places of Religious Worship: One -third (0.333) space per fixed scat or twenty -nine (29)
spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for the assembly area, whichever results in the higher number of parking spaces, plus four (4) spaces
per 1,000 square feet of office use, plus, if a kitchen facility is provided, two - hundredths (.02) space per person for the maximum capacir%
figure of the assembly area determined by the Fire Department. Churches, synagogues and other places of religious worship tyhich also
provide educational and /or daycare senices on the premises nfiich meet the standard set forth in this paragraph .0266 shall not be
required to provide additional parking for said accessory uses.
.0267 Elementar v Schools and Junior High Schools: One (1) space per classroom. plus one (I ) space per non -office employee, plus
f 1) spaces per 1.000 square feet of GFA for office use. plus parking as required by paragraph .0262 for anc assembly halls and
riunts.
.0268 High Schools: One (1) space per nonoffice entplovec, plus one (1) space per six (6) students, plus four (4) spaces per 1,000
square feet of GFA for office use, plus parking as required by paragraph .0262 for any assembly halls and auditoriums.
.0269 Hospitals and Other In- Patient Care Facilities: One (1) space per bed, plus six (6) spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for tine
remaining area not containing roosts with beds. (Ord. 4929 § 3: May 31. 1988, Ord. 5074 §§ 14, li; November 14, 1989: Ord. 5437 §
15 2.. 1994)
.027 Transportation Terminals and Heliports: Due to the unique nature of these uses, parking requirements shall be determined by
the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and/or Planning Commission based upon information contained in a parking demand studs
prepared by an independent traffic engineer licensed by the State of California or such other study as approved by the City Traffic and
"- isportation Manager and provided by the developer to the City. at the developer's sole expense, at the time of application for such use.
5437 § 16; August 2, 1994.)
.028 Self- Storage Facilities: Twenty -seven hundredths (0.27) space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or five (5) spaces,
whichever results in a higher number, plus adequate loading and unloading areas as required by the City Traffic and Transportation
Manager. (Ord. 5558 § 1. March 26, 1996.)
.030 Industrial Uses:
.031 Gencml Industrial, Manufacturing and Warehouse Uses: One and fifTy -five hrudredths (1.55) spaces per 1,000 square feet of
GFA which may include a maximum of ten percent office space, plus, if the percentage of office space exceeds ten percent of the GFA,
four (4) spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for the floor area in excess of ten percent. (Ord. i074 § 16; November 14, 1989: Ord. 5437 §
17, August 2, 1994.)
032 Industrial Training Facilities: Eiglny -two hundredths (0.82) space per student or taente (20) spaces per 1,000 square feet of
GFA for instruction area, whichever results in the higher number of parking spaces, plus four (4) spaces per 1,000 square feet of GFA for
office use. (Ord. 5437 § 18, August 2, 1994.)
.033 Outdoor Uscs: One (1) space per each twenty -live hundred (2500) square feet of lot area devoted to outdoor uses, excluding
parking areas and vehicular accessways, or one (1) space per each two (2) of the maximum contemplated number of employees to be
engaged in the outdoor operation, niticherer results in the greater number of parking spaces.
034 Trick Parking Requirements. In addition to the above parking requirements. track parking spaces_ of a number and size
adequate to accommodate the maximum number and types of trucks to be stored on the site at one time. shall be provided on each
industrial site. (Ord. 4382 § 4, January 25, 1983, Ord. 4383 § I (part)', December 28, 1982.)
ITEM NO. 3
'n R w~3g .~ U g0U
vPR
1263 epU 60
U
y 90 gpU BO CL1F(ON PVE
a
PMS5pp~.~'1
0.CGUPMEipS
PPP 6pU
a1
1
Bg
fi
CL ` y`.y.11
FaU~OG~ER RCL 52-5"
pP1' SpN
X59
~ `
SZ-~47a2 W 0.CL52~E~N,N~pN-
pN
g
44 ppL
Z~ Bad
Up ~
(
1 pWNS
pOL
B0. SGH
C
G
~pE
G „ ,a"~.~~G
>
`
~
~S1a
~ Mp
Cpl
ryER U
>- x"
fit
y
~ `
~
1 B51
2
o.~.pn1~}
R pE
O I ~,
~'+~ 7RCL 52-53-11 ~
°'p1
RCL 52-53-11
CUP 4024
5
n
p!
~~;, I UP 20650503 -
-
,
+r 1fi~9
Up 69
cNS& Z
2
U ~ ~
~ r
~
RCL 52-53-71
VAR 2963 JR' ~ CL 55
20 H
0< etR
K> t {CUP 1025) CUP 3430
AUTO REPAIR
Epm W
~ 6:
w
J~'
V V ~ BELL PIPE
COMPANY _ ^~ NNC ON SHOPS
SHp ff ~^, y .
1'®-- 333' --s7-a-150' -®
BALL ROAD
RCL 66 56-~ 5
RCCUP 229
VPR 162OOGE
McPEEKO
I
RCL 66{7-14
RCL5455-42
~ RCL 5556-19
CUP 777
McPEEK DODGE
7
O
2
a
m
m~
I
RCL 66-67-14
RCL 55-56-19
RCL 54-55-02
{ ~a
RCL 556.19
R ~p,R 1627
VPR t382 ROLippa~~~pvanayl
n
.~ F5~56-~9 lRes of ln~
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05031
Requested By: MARK GHASSEMI
1
68-fi7-:11
W~ERHAEVgER
I
1
I
RCL 66-67-14
a
RCL 55-56-79 J
RCL 54-55-42 p
SMALL IND. W
FIRM ~
I
RCL 54-55-02
SMALL IND
FIRMS
Subject Property
Date: December 12, 2005
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 95
REQUEST TO PERMIT AND RETAIN AN EXISTING OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA AND TO INSTALL
AN OVERHEAD CRANE TO LOAD TRUCKS WITH SLAB MATERIALS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN
EXISTING WHOLESALE BUILDING MATERIAL (STONE) DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS WITH WAIVER
OF MINLMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES,
301 East Ball Road - Ollin International., Inc.
2034
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 3
3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion for continuance)
3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -05031
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly- shaped, 0.93 -acre property has a frontage of 150 feet on the north side of
Ball Road, a maximum depth of 295 feet, and is located 333 feet east of the centerline of
Technology Drive (301 East Ball Road - 011in International, Inc.).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests to permit and retain an existing outdoor storage area and to install
an overhead crane to load trucks with slab materials in conjunction with an existing
wholesale (stone) distribution business under authority of Code Section 18.10.030.010 with
waiver of the following:
(a) SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010
Minimum number of parking spaces
(34 spaces required; 18 proposed)
BACKGROUND
(3) This item was continued from the October 31 and November 14, 2005, Commission
meetings to allow the applicant time to complete revisions to the submitted parking
study.
(4) This property is developed with an existing warehouse and showroom for a wholesale
building material (stone) distribution business and is zoned I (Industrial). The Anaheim
General Plan designates this property and all surrounding properties for General
Commercial land uses.
(5) The applicant, Patrick Andersen, has submitted the attached letter dated December 7, 2005,
requesting a continuance to the January 9, 2006, Commission meeting in order to complete
revisions to the submitted parking study and resolve site planning design issues.
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:
(6) Conditional Use Permit No. 1222 (to permit an automobile frame and body repair shop in
the M -1 zone) was approved by the Planning Commission on February 22, 1971.
RECOMMENDATION:
(7) That the Commission, by motion, continue this item to the January 9, 2006, Planning
Commission meeting.
Sr- cup2005- 05031(cont 121205)jpr_sr _pc121205
Page 1
Attachment - Item No. 3
rom: Patrick Andersen [PAndersen@waremalcomb.com]
ent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 9:28 AM
o: John Ramirez
object: Ollin International Outdoor Grane - 301 E. Ball Road
~hn,
~e would like to request a continuance from the October 31 Planning Commission Meeting to the
ovember 14 Planning Commission Meeting to complete the revisions requested to the Parking
nalysis. Please let me know if there are any problems with this.
tank You,
itrick
ntriclc R. Andersen
~oject Architect
949.660.9128
949.863.1581
714.381.3732
pandersen@waremalcomb.com
BAIZE IVIALCOIVIB
ading Design for Cotnmerdal Real Estate
aremalcomb.com
tile:!//H~/REPORTS/Ceses/CondiNonel%20Use%20Permit/C...ne%20-%20301%20E.%20Bull%20Road%20 "/°20Continunnce.html0/24/2005 6:28:33 AM
file: / //HI/REPORTS/ Cases / Conditional% 2OUse% 2OPemft/CUP2005- 05 ... ooi%20C=eo /o20 " /o20301 %20E. %20Ba11 %20Road %20 " /o20Continu ce.htm
From: Patrick Andersen [PAndersen @waremalcomb.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 9:28 AM
To: John Ramirez
Subject: 011in International Outdoor Crane - 301 E. Ball Road
John,
We would like to request a continuance from the October 31 Planning Commission Meeting to the
November 14 Planning Commission Meeting to complete the revisions requested to the Parking
Analysis. Please let me know if there are any problems with this.
Thank You,
Patrick
Patrick R. Andersen
Project Architect
p 949.660.9128
f 949.863.1581
c 714.381.3732
e pandersen@waremalcomb.com
WARE MALCOMB
Leading Design for Commercial Real Estate
waremalcomb.com
file: / //IIVREPORTS/ Cases / Conditional %2OUse %2OPemiiUC ... neo /o20 " /02 03 0 1 %20E. %20Ba11 %20Road %20 " /o20Cmtinumee.html0 /24/2005 6:28:33 AM
ITEM NO. 4
-- - _`~
KATELLA AVENUE
1
`rI r
rV
``I
i
YJLLY ROC£R 6P B2.2
Rf188HE1 He) P,
~~ I WN REST. ,. GUp R9
VMZ]ZO6
CHEVRIXJ
11 6P 923 66.
444 Rcl as9]-at (61)
LUP ]fie
I VPA 12)a
JOLLY RGGER
PNHIEIM LONVEMIDN I
~ I INN
CENTER / I PORTOFINO INN
% ~ONVENIION CEMER , HOTEL
) / PARKING
/ L
1
s I
I
,J
fiP9?2 I ~
~>) ;~i
RCL )})691 ~
~
`
ANPHEIM CONVENtION ~ °
/'
/
CENIEA ~
r
SP 82-2
/ RCL
644)
UP
~
~
~ C
386
/ -
~
~
'
~ CUP 2136
- ~ VAR 3891
/
"
yG
M te
5 VAR 2985 5 p
+
i
9
a y VAR 2862 ~
CLIP 9n9
'. cw 22e6 `" ~
~ Q COAST ANAHEIM
i
~
~ ~ ~ HOTEL ~
ION
J ~
' µB
e N ~ W
CENTQY x TOWER J
W J
~
H
~ 0
~ = OVENlANO 6TAGE REST. m
~
1
( m
, I- ~ __^
~ CONVENTION WAY
W 83-2 6P 9b2
PR (PUfiUC RECREATION 6P 82.2 RCLGUP 11011(
RCL a6a1-10 RLLBBE]A1 (221
T-CUP 30w-0IM VPR 2fifi96
ClW 20wA1929 VAR 3]916
F6P 96w
P CLARION HOTEL
CU
221a
cuP 1x91
~
vAR299swfisl vATLiaafi
Giesfi
RU a6s)-a1 na) vM:00.18/aai
(CIIP tom-61ga7
UP 8061
AR 11]2 VACANT
~ )
PNAHEm~ RIOTT SP 82-2
RLL 866]-61 (/])
/
~~/
- CLIP 9886
pAY6 VAR6a]
--- INN
ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE ANAHIEM R ESORT ~ vAG~+r
Tentative Tract Map No. 16958 Subject Properly
Date: December 12, 2005
Scale: Graphic
Requested By: ANAHEIM HOTEL PARTNERSHIP, LCP Q:S. No. 77
REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A 1-LOT, AIRSPACE HOTEL SUBDIVISION FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES.
777 Convention Way
zaeo
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 4
4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION — CLASS 1 AND 15 (Motion for continuance)
4b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16958
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This approximate 8.5 acre property is located at the northwest corner of Hotel Way and
Convention Way with frontages of 606 feet on Convention Way and 672 feet on Hotel Way
(777 Convention Way— Anaheim Hilton).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests to establish a 1 -lot, airspace hotel subdivision for investment
purposes.
(3) This property is currently developed with the 15 story, 1,572 rooms, Anaheim Hilton Hotel.
The hotel has been in operation since May, 1984. The applicant is not proposing any
changes to the structures, grounds or site operations as part of this application. The map is
solely for the purpose of modifying the hotel from being a lender financed entity to owner
financed entity.
(4) On behalf of the applicant, Kelly C. Carlyle, Psomas Project Manager, requests a
continuance to the January 9, 2006 Commission meeting to provide staff with further
information-
RECOMMENDATION
(5) That the Planning Commission, by motion, continues this request to the January 9, 2006,
Planning Commission meeting.
SR- SUBTTM16958121205 cont
7ufi"Vion and Engineering Soladeons
November 30, 2005
Ms. Cheryl Flores
City of Anaheim Planning Department
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF TENTATM TRACT MAP 16958
Dear Cheryl;
Per a previous conversation, the DRE has indicated the condominium plan for the Anaheim Hilton does
not fall under their jurisdiction. As such, we need to supplement our map submittal with a condominium
plan. Therefore, we respectfully request a continuance for the above noted Tentative Tract Map to the
January 9, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting.
Your assistance is greatly appreciated and should you have any questions, please contact me at 714 -751-
7373.
Sincerely,
k e
Kelly C. Ca 1e
Project Manager
c: Richard Pope, Anaheim Milton
3187 Had Mil I Avenue
Bu¢e250
Cosa Mesa, CA 92626
Z 'd X609 'ON
114.751.7373
714,545.8883 Fax
wwvpscmas.com
NB :6l 5W 'H 'AON
ITEM NO. 5
(CUP 2421) SP 94-1
(CUP 2155) CUP 3095
(CUP 2120) CUP 2914 RCL 70-71-15 (1)
1 4
L
HI
R
-07 (22) CANYON COMMERCE HEA
TH P
LAZA
CUP 2167
7136 CENTER VAR 4271
I-04390 LAND ROVER OFFICE BLDG.
-04272 DA2 '
188
oT
Olas LA PALMA AVENUE
terline 15' I~
0~a cen
SVeet
09Y t
~ 1~
~sher
of B
9
SP 94-1
RCL 70-71-07 (4)
RCL 70-71-06
H. KOCH & SONS
GULF 8 WESTERN
IND. INC.
SP 94-1
SP 94-1 CEROMET INC.
RCL 70.7147 (4) CENTER
RCL 70-71-46 DA 2
CUP 2728
UNOCAL
DA2
J
g $
~
~ { ~ SP 94-1
~ w i RCL 70-71-15 (1)
o ~ RCL 70-71-14
Z¢
-LL I
~
ISP 94-1
' Q i
70-71-47 4) f.="', y s
S. 5' i FAMILY TREE
PRODUCE
2881
SP 94-i
ANAHEIM
MILLS CORP.
SP 94-1
RCL 70-717 (4)
RCL 70-71.46
SP 94-1
ICL 70-71-15 (i)-
RCL 70-71-14
PARKING LOT
rALPHA
Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-05043 ::,, Subject Property
Date: December 12, 2005
Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: M & B ENTERPRISES, LLC Q.S. No. 178
REQUEST TO PERMIT A 20,823 SQUARE FOOT YOUTH FITNESS CENTER.
5464 East La Palma Avenue
2991
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 5
5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion)
5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -05043 (Resolution)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly- shaped, 2.4 -acre property has a frontage of 15 feet on the south side of La
Palma Avenue, a maximum depth of 608 feet and is located 1,097 feet east of the
centerline of Brasher Street (5464 East La Palma Avenue - Bogifit).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit under authority of Code
Section No. 18.120.070.050.0519 to establish a youth fitness facility-
BACKGROUND
(3) This property is developed with a single -story industrial building and is zoned SP 94 -1 (DA
2) (Northeast Area Specific Plan Development Area 2; Expanded Industrial Area). The
Anaheim General Plan Land Use Map designates this property and all surrounding
properties for office -low land uses.
(4) The following zoning actions pertain to this property:
(a) Conditional Use Permit No. 2728 (to permit an industrially - related office complex) was
approved by the Planning Commission on October 14, 1985.
(b) Conditional Use Permit No. 2981 (to permit a church with waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces) was approved by the City Council on March 29, 1988. The church is
no longer in operation at this location and staff has included a condition of approval
requiring termination of this permit.
(c) Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -239 (to establish a 1 -lot, 4 -unit airspace condominium
subdivision to subdivide an existing industrial building) was approved by the Zoning
Administrator on October 18, 2005.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
(6) The applicant requests a conditional use permit to establish a youth fitness facility within
two of the four units within the one -story industrial building. The site plan (Exhibit No. 1)
indicates the building and associated parking area are surrounded by a two -story industrial
building to the north along La Palma Avenue and a single -story industrial building to the
south bordering the Santa Ana River and the Riverside Freeway, each located on separate
parcels. No changes to the site plan are proposed.
Srcup2005- 05043klw
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 5
(7) Vehicular access to the site is via two driveways on La Palma Avenue on the northeast and
northwest corners of the site (shared accessways with the two adjoining sites to the north
and south). Code requires land uses without a specified parking ratio to comply with
requirements determined to be reasonably necessary by the City Traffic and Transportation
Manager through a parking demand study. Based upon comparable businesses in
Anaheim and surrounding cities, the City's Independent Traffic and Parking Consultant has
determined that the proposed land use would require a minimum of 37 parking spaces for
weekday and weekend operation hours. The site plan indicates a total of 105 on -site
parking spaces including handicapped spaces.
Based on the study, the site would require a minimum of 65 parking spaces based on the
following table:
Unit
Use
Unit Area
Required Parking
(per 1,000 s.f.)
Required
Parking •
1 & 2
Vacant **
18,285 s.f.
1.55
28
3&4
Proposed
Bogifit
20,823 s.f.
Determined by parking
demand study
37
Total
65
** Based upon submitted floor plans the units are developed for industrial uses.
(9) The floor plan (Exhibit No. 2) indicates an approximately 39,108 square foot building
containing four - units, two of which are vacant (westerly units). The proposed youth fitness
facility would occupy a 20,823 square foot area with a 526 square foot mezzanine for
storage. The proposed facility would be comprised of two (2) sport workout and training
rooms, three (3) small exercise rooms for waiting parents, one (1) mezzanine storage
facility, four (4) offices, a front reception area, four (4) restrooms two (2) of which are within
locker- rooms, and a break -room. The fitness facility would provide entry to the public along
the northeast corner of the building and exit doors on the south and east portions of the
building.
(10) Photographs indicate an existing one -story tilt -up concrete industrial building with smooth
plaster finish painted cream and beige. Entryway doors for the proposed facility are located
on the northeast corner facing the parking lot. Windows are located on the north and east
elevations facing the parking lot. No exterior modifications to the existing building, to the
parking lot, or landscaping are proposed as part of this application.
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 5
(11) No landscape plans were submitted with this application. Photographs and staff
inspections of the site indicate that on -site landscaping is being properly maintained and is
in good condition. Proposed interior modifications would not exceed 50% of the gross floor
area of the existing building and therefore enhancement/upgrade to the existing
landscaped area is not required by Code.
(12) No sign plans were submitted with this application. Code permits a maximum of two (2)
wall signs for the facility, one affixed to the north elevation and one on the east elevation.
Wall signs shall not exceed a letter height of twenty -four (24) inches (for 1 -story structures)
and a maximum area of 10% of the facility's elevation (or 200 square feet, whichever is
less).
(13) The submitted letter of operation indicates the proposed youth physical fitness facility
caters exclusively to youth between the ages of 9 to 18. This facility will provide
personalized sport workout and training programs and general athletic conditioning with
both scheduled appointment visits (between 60 to 90 minutes in duration) and informal
drop -in workouts. There would be a maximum of 40 to 50 people working out at any given
time. In addition, classes in healthy eating and drug prevention will be provided on an
occasional basis. Operating hours would be from 6 AM to 10 PM daily with approximately
16 employees divided between 3 shifts.
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(14) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review
in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore,
recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning
Commission that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead
agency; 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) Code permits physical fitness facilities in the SP 94 -1 (DA2) (SC) zone subject to approval
of a conditional use permit.
(16) The proposed 20,823 square foot physical fitness facility requires a parking demand study
to determine the required number of parking spaces. A parking study was prepared by the
City's independent traffic and parking consultant. The parking study was conducted at two
(2) sites that offered comparable services with adjustments for operational characteristics
and building sizes. The maximum parking demand per this analysis would be 65 parking
stalls. The site plan indicates 105 parking stalls would be provided. Therefore, the City's
independent traffic and parking consultant acting on behalf of the City Traffic and
Transportation Manager has determined that the number of parking spaces provided would
be adequate to support the number of employees and customers for this use and other light
industrial uses on site.
(17) The subject property is located in an area that allows a variety of industrial and industrially -
related uses, ranging from light industrial businesses to research and development offices.
Further, a conditional use permit (CUP No. 2728) was approved for industrially - related
offices and therefore, staff believes a youth sports training facility would be compatible with
the existing land uses in the multi- tenant light industrial /office park. As with previous
requests for similar types of uses within areas zoned for industrial land uses (House of
Bounce and Pump It Up), staffs analysis included evaluating the operational characteristics
of existing adjacent land uses to ensure the proposed use would not result operational
conflicts with other businesses in the vicinity. The potential for operational conflicts would
be minimal due to the types of uses located to the north and south. The 2 -story building to
the north is an electronic publishing and prepress facility sales office while the 1 -story
building to the south is a public utility telephone service office building. Neither of these
businesses have outdoor uses associated with their business operation. In addition, the
proposed building contains two additional units on the west. Both units are currently vacant
and have previously been used for digital printing and warehousing and wholesaling with
accessory offices. Because this particular property is not adjacent to heavy manufacturing,
the likelihood of conflict with adjacent land uses is unlikely, and therefore will not adversely
affect the adjoining land uses or growth and development of the surrounding properties;
therefore, staff recommends approval of the project, as conditioned in the attached draft
resolution.
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 5
FINDINGS:
(18) 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 is an unlisted use as defined in Subsection .030
(Unlisted Uses Permitted of Section 18.66.010 (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
nor 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 will not
be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim-
RECOMMENDATION
(19) 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 a Negative Declaration.
(b) By resolution, approve the applicant's proposal to permit a youth fitness facility, by
adopting the attached resolution, including the findings and conditions of approval
contained herein.
Page 5
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2005 *
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -05043
(5464 EAST LA PALMAAVENUE)
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:
PARCEL A: PARCEL 2, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT NO.
141, RECORDED MARCH 6, 1986 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 86- 090569 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on December 12, 2005 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
18.66.040.030, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to
investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed youth physical fitness facility is properly one for which a conditional use
permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section No. 18.120.070.050.0519; and
2. That the proposed youth physical fitness facility would not adversely affect the adjoining land
uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is located because the site is surrounded by
industrial - related offices, wholesaling, and warehousing and is not adjacent to any heavy industrial land uses
that contain outdoor storage yards or large equipment; and
3. That the traffic generated by the youth physical fitness facility would not impose an undue
burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. As
demonstrated by the parking study dated October 18,2005, the peak parking demand would be 65 parking
stalls, and the site plan indicates 105 parking stalls provided; and
4. That granting this conditional use permit, under the conditions imposed, will not be
detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and
5. That * ** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a youth physical fitness facility 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.
Cr1PC2005 -0 -1- PC2005-
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 establishment shall be operated as a youth physical fitness facility. If at any such time the
business is no longer operated as indicated herein, a detailed description of the proposed business
shall be submitted for review by the City's Traffic and Parking Consultant to determine if the new use
would cause fewer off - street parking spaces to be provided than the number of spaces provided on site.
If it is determined the expected demand is greater than the spaces provided on site, an application for a
variance shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for approval by the Planning Commission.
2. That all doors serving the facility 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.
3. That at all times when the premises is open for business, the premises shall be maintained as a
physical fitness facility.
4. 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 information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted to the Police Department, Community
Services Division for approval.
5. That all trash generated from this facility shall be properly contained in trash bin(s) contained within the
approved trash enclosure(s). The number of bins shall be adequate and the trash pick -up shall be as
frequent as necessary to ensure the sanitary handling and timely removal of refuse from the property.
6. That the existing trash enclosure gates shall be replaced per City Standard. Said information shall be
specifically shown on plans submitted for Streets and Sanitation approval.
7. 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 or occurrence.
8. That no outdoor uses and /or assembly shall occur on this property.
9. That if an alarm system is installed, a Burglary/Robbery Alarm Permit application, Form APD 516, shall
be completed and submitted to the Police Department prior to initial alarm activation. This form is
available at the Police Department front counter.
10. 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 submitted for building permits.
11. That a Fire Emergency Listing Card, Form APD -281, shall be completed and submitted to the Police
Department. The form is available at the Police Department front counter.
12. That the property owner shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2981
(to permit a church with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces) to the Zoning Division.
13. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning
Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and as conditioned herein-
-2- PC2005-
14. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this
resolution, or within one (1) year from the date of this resolution whichever occurs first, Condition Nos.
4, 6, 10, 11, and 12 above mentioned shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete
said conditions shall be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
15. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 9 and 11, above - mentioned, shall be
complied with.
16. 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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
December 12, 2005. 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 December 12, 2005, 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
.2005.
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-3- PC2005-
PARKING STUDY
BOGIFIT GYM
5464 East La Palma, Anaheim, California
Prepared for
Prepared by:
► Rafiq &
Lam° Hssodates, Inc:
October 18, 2005
0
Table of Contents
40
Section
Page
I. Introduction
3
H. Project Location
3
III. Site Description
3
A. Existing Site
3
B. Proposed Site
3
C. Characteristics
3
D. Existing Site Plan
4
E. Proposed Site Plan
4
IV. Site Uses
4
A. Other Site Amenities
4
V. Parking Requirements
4
VI, Similar Site Parking Counts
4
A. Similar Site #1
4
B. Similar Site #2
5
VII. Methodology of Study
5
VIII. Findings
5
D{. Recommendations and Conclusions
7
X. Appendix
7
Appendix A Site Plan/Tentative Parcel Map
8
Appendix B Parking Counts Site #1
9
Appendix B Parking Counts Site #2
10
Bogifit Gym Parking Study 2 Rafiq & Associates, Inc.
0 .0
I. Introduction
The project applicant proposes to open a youth gym in a vacant, existing industrial
building. The target members are teenagers. The activities offered will be personalized
exercise routines, general conditioning, and specific sports training. Classes in healthy
eating and drug prevention are expected to be taught. This study was conducted as there
is no parking rate identified in the City of Anaheim Municipal code for this use. Two
similar sites were studied to determine the appropriate parking ratio to apply at this site.
II. Project Location
The site is located at 5464 East La Palma in Anaheim. The access is located
approximately half a mile west of the intersection of La Palma Avenue and Imperial
Highway. La Palma Avenue is a six lane major arterial with a continuous two -way left
turn lane along the project frontage. The site is 0.7 mile from the State Route (SR -91)
Riverside freeway at Imperial Highway.
M. Site Description
A. Existing Site
The youth gym will occupy 20,823 square feet, or approximately half of an
existing, 39,108 square foot building. The building is currently vacant. The
parking lot and landscaping are existing, and in need of resurfacingtre-
stripingtrenovation. There are three buildings within this industrial park. The
building directly behind the project site is addressed as 5468 and 5472 La Palma
Avenue. The building in front is 5460 La Palma Avenue.
B. Proposed Site
The proposed gym will occupy an existing building. No new structures or
physical changes to the layout of the parking area are contemplated. The parking
immediately surrounding 5464 E. La Palma Avenue consists of 21 parking stalls
on the south side, 72 parking stalls on the east side and 12 stalls along the north
side, for a total of 105 stalls. Of the parking stalls available, the lease provides
60 assigned parking stalls for this use. Because the project shares access and
parking, the applicant will need to enter into a reciprocal access and parking
covenant.
C. Characteristics
The three buildings share drive aisles and a common, full access to La Palma at
the northwest comer of the site. Along this main entry drive aisle, there are
additional access points to an adjacent industrial site to the west, which contains
the Custom Comfort mattress factory and showroom. Within the parking lot in
Bogifit Gym Parking Study 3 Rafiq & Associates, Inc.
0 0
front of 5460 La Palma, at the northeast comer of the site is an opening to a
shared drive aisle with the adjacent property to the east, 5500 La Palma Avenue,
and to another full access to La Palma Avenue.
D. Existing Site Plan
The Tentative Parcel Map Number 2005 -239 depicts the site, as it exists today.
This map is included in Appendix A.
E. Proposed Site Plan
No changes are proposed to the building footprint, nor are any additional
buildings proposed. The 60 stalls assigned to the gym are immediately adjacent
to the building, among the approximately 105 stalls that exist along the north, east
and south sides of the building.
IV. Site Uses
The existing building is divided into two separate uses. The Bogifit gym will occupy the
easterly half of the building. The entrance is at the northeast comer of the building. A
bicycle rack is situated near the entrance. There is a roll -up door at the southeast comer
of the building.
A. Other Site Amenities
There are several pay telephones in front of the building south of the project site
(5468 and 5472 La Palma). There is no pedestrian walkway from the public
sidewalk along La Palma Avenue into the site to this building.
V. Parking Requirements
Section 18.52 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code 18.42 does not have a parking rate
for a youth gym. This study will determine the parking requirements for this use.
VI. Similar Site Parking Counts
Parking counts were taken at two similar sites to determine an appropriate parking rate
for this use. The first similar site is in Irvine, and the second site is in Anaheim, located
along La Palma Avenue, within close proximity to the project location.
A. Similar Site #1
Site #1 is Velocity Sports Performance, at 40 Tesla, Suite D, Irvine. This site is
approximately 20,000 SF, of which 2,000 SF is office and 2,000 SF is for physical
therapy. Training classes are held Monday through Friday from 4:00 PM to 9 PM,
and Saturday from 8:00 AM to 2:00 PM. There are a maximum of 5 classes held
Bogifit Gym Parking Study 4 Rafiq & Associates, Inc.
0 0
concurrently. This site contains a secluded workout area for parents who wish to
stay while their children are attending classes or working -out. In this respect, the
site encourages parents to stay, rather than just to drop -off their children. The
parking ratio for this use was 3 spaces per 1,000 SF. They have 53 parking
spaces.
Parking counts were conducted on Friday, October 7, 2005 and Saturday, October
8, 2005. The maximum number of parked vehicles on Friday was 14, observed at
6:00 PM. The maximum number of parked vehicles on Saturday was 11 at 9:00
AM. The facility was closed on Sunday.
B. Similar Site #2
Site #2 is Kips School of Gymnastics at 4620 East La Palma, Anaheim. It
occupies two warehouse buildings with a total of approximately 30,000 SF,
including approximately 1,000 SF of office. Classes are held Monday through
Wednesday from 9:30 AM to 9:00 PM, Thursday 10:30 to 9:00 PM, Friday 3:00
PM to 9:00 PM, Saturday 9:00 AM to 1:30 PM. There are approximately 100-
150 students onsite at any one time. There are 15 employees. Most parents drop -
off their children, however, approximately 30-40 stay onsite according to the
office manager. This site has members who are all ages from very young children
to adults, rather than limited to teenagers.
Parking counts were taken on Friday, October 7, Saturday, October 8, and
Monday, October 10, 2005. The maximum number of vehicles parked on each
day was 39, 33, and 45, respectively.
VII. Methodology of Study
The determination of a parking ratio was based upon evaluation of the parking usage at
the two similar sites. The maximum number of parking stalls at Velocity Sports
Performance was 14. The facility consists of 20,000 square feet. The calculated parking
ratio for this site would be 0.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
The maximum number of parking stalls at Kips School of Gymnastics was 45. The
facility consists of 30,000 square feet. The calculated parking ratio for this site would be
1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
Applying the higher factor of 1.5 spaces per thousand square feet to the 20,823 square
foot project site would be 1.5 X 20.823 TSF equals 32 stalls.
VIII. Findings
There will be 60 parking stalls allocated in the lease to the Bogifit site. Based upon the
parking ratio determined from the larger of the two similar sites, this use would have a
need for 32 parking stalls. Adding a 15% buffer to this would be an additional 5 stalls,
Bogifit Gym Parking Study 5 Rafiq & Associates, Inc.
0
for a total of 37 required parking stalls. The number of stalls assigned to this site exceeds
the required stalls by 23 stalls. This site will have an adequate parking supply.
A variance from the parking code is being requested, as the code does not contain a
parking ratio for this type of use. All of the five findings below are met:
Finding 18.42.110.0101: That the variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not
cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed 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
All of the site - required parking spaces will be provided onsite. The parking requirement
as determined by this study has been met and exceeded.
Finding 18.42.110.0104: That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not
increase traffic congestion within the off- street parking areas or lots provided for the
proposed use.
The off - street parking area is providing sufficient parking for this use. The drive aisles
through this site are sufficient to accommodate the site's anticipated traffic, and no
congestion will occur.
Finding 18.42.110.0102: That the variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not
increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed use.
There is no existing on- street parking available along the project frontage on La Palma
Avenue. All parking for this site will be accommodated within the off - street parking lot.
Finding 18.42.110.0103: That the variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not
increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property
in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use (which property is not expressly provided as
parking for such use under an agreement in compliance with subsection 18.42.050.030
(Non - residential uses- exception).
All parking will be provided immediately adjacent to this building, and there will be no
need for members of the gym to use any other parking areas that are allocated to the other
buildings on the site.
Finding 18.42.110.0105: That the variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not
impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in
the immediate vicinity of the proposed use.
The site will not impact the ingress or egress from any adjacent uses to the public streets.
Vehicles entering this site will enter via the westerly drive aisle, and traverse along the
main shared drive aisle to the center building on the site. The vehicles belonging to
Bogifit Gym Parldng Study 6 Rafiq & Associates, Inc.
0 0
members and staff of the gym will not adversely impact vehicular ingress or egress from
the adjacent properties to La Palma. The gym will occupy a portion of an existing
building within an industrial park. The applicant will enter into a reciprocal access and
parking covenant for the use of the common drive aisles and parking areas.
IX. Recommendations and Conclusions
The parking supply of 60 parking spaces is found to be adequate for the intended use as a
youth gym. All of the findings for a variance to the City of Anaheim Municipal Code for
parking have been met.
X. Appendix
Appendix A contains the Site Plan/Tentative Parcel Map. Appendix B contains the
parking counts for the two similar sites, Velocity Sports Performance and Kips School of
Gymnastics.
Bogifit Gym Parking Study 7 Rafiq & Associates, Inc.
0 0
Appendix A
Site Plan/Tentative Parcel Map
Appendix B
Parkine Counts Site #1
E
IRVINE SITE
PROJECT No. 05-1219-001
CITY:
DAY: Friday
LOCATION: Velocity Sports Performance 40
Telsa Suite D
DATE: 1017/2005
' - 1 1 A M.1
5 �56WFRONTOT-
1 X M
la"I
5
�
6
%TOTA ig
M&A
xaffllmooj 1
6
6
12
MR.-AMPM
9
5
14
17
t� 00
5
5
10
L�M
3
5
8
3
0
3
PROJECT No. 05-1219-001
CITY: Irvine I
DAY: Saturday
LOCATION: Velocity Sports Performance 40
Telsa Suite D
DATE: 10/8/2005
"TIME
RR
f, ER
��'vi
I Lz
6
3
9
1- 001-99 1 MIMI
8
3
11
1
3
4
4
3
7
P.M
4
3
7
4
3
7
PM
4
2
6
Bogifit Gym Parking Study 9 Rafiq & Associates, Inc.
0
Parking Counts Site #2
ANAHEIM SITE
PROJECT No.05-1220-001
CITY: Anaheim
LOCATION: Kips School of Gymnastics 4620 East La Palma Ave
0
DAY: Friday
DATE: 10/7/2005
PROJECT No. 05-1220-001
CITY: Anaheim
LOCATION: Kips School of Gymnastics 4620 East La Palma Ave
DAY: Saturday
DATE: 10/8/2005
,A R Aq,
W
a
-M
V-Q,
�4�1
14
T
Zia
ro-V W04"
f4�
'i
4.
E
aff-lux ,
Me
Fro'nt l ot iV
1V1 "I
X
7
5
6
17
35
'c4 3U;PM
12
4
4
19
39
� 3:30,
12
4
3
16
35
A'30MM
9
2
2
12
25
5
2
2
3
12
8:30M
3
1
1
2
7
PROJECT No. 05-1220-001
CITY: Anaheim
LOCATION: Kips School of Gymnastics 4620 East La Palma Ave
DAY: Saturday
DATE: 10/8/2005
,A R Aq,
W
a
-M
k RK
`
VGA
S —
M4t
QtFront)lot
0
2
9
14
9
1
2
17
29
]-+�`%W11:31WAIVI
4
0
2
1 21
1 27
'X,A&i12.'30
2
24
30
4 0
2
25
Bogifit Gym Parldng Study 10 Rafiq & Associates, Inc.
0
Site #2 (continued)
PROJECT No. 05-1220-001
CITY: Anaheim
LOCATION: Kips School of Gymnastics 4620 East La Palma Ave
DAY: Monday
DATE: 10/10/2005
M
;- A,
S
r z s4
�'A,�
Y " k
A
'u,
N N
ffl
A�E a
tp�'w M3,
Ront*
affl-
ptlio
PM
11
3
6
25
45
12
3
5
22
42
12
2
1 5
21
40
,K 016:X M
9
2
3
18
32
walk�,RN , �7430?PM
7
1
2
13
23
.30--PM
5
0
6
12
A = Back Lot
B = East Lot
C = West Lot
D = Front Lot
Bogifit Gym Parking Study 11 Rafiq & Associates, Inc.
n
L7
Bogifit Youth Conditioning Center
5464 E. La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA Units C & D
LETTER OF OPERATION:
A) Employees
At the peak of our operation (12 to 15 months from opening) we estimate
having 16 employees. We estimate the following employee needs:
6 am to 8 am:
5 employees
8 am to 3 pm:
3 employees
3 pm toio pm:
6 employees
B) Hours of Operation
Open seven days per week from 6 am to io pm. The busiest days will be
Saturdays and Sundays from 4 pm to 8 pm.
C) Appointments Versus Informal Drop In
The bulk of our visits will be by appointment only, however, members will
have the opportunity for informal drop in workouts. We estimate that at
"peak operation," a maximum of 40 to 50 people will be working out at
any given time, with the majority of these being "drop- offs" (youth being
dropped off by their parents). Most workout sessions require 6o to go
minutes.
D) Square Footage
The approximate square footage for 5464 East La Palma, Units C & D, is
2o,823.
CUP N0. 2005 -05043
ITEM N0. 6
BA KOF AMERIC U 4DU I3DU
Y ¢ ~ AR 150
CUI~B9 RM3 ~ u=1
RCL57-5&31 N ~ .v.. _. U -
OFFICE 6L6
4DU EACH ^
a
F
o'
4DU
3DU
_
N ¢
~ W ¢
~ W
~ ~_ ~_
RMJ U = a•
= ^ ^ -
RCL57-5631 U
^
RCL 6461-15 Q
= BANYAN DR
P
Rg t
L
NG w
A
~ n~ ~
^
BANYAN LN
.
C-G e
RCL Se-61.15 K >> RM-4
RCL ss-s7-5s o^
CUP 2126 'P RCL 57-58-31
McDONALD'S 4DU EACH '
REST -
RCL 5759-18
'"` ~ "~' ~ CUP 2005-05045 ~ '~
~ rt ~ CUP 2003-04742
~
-
1 0~~,, -
Q. 7-CUP 2003-04728
' r ,
,.
~ '
~
Q , CUP 2001-04451 yg,
CUP 2001-04433 p+ -'
C-G
RCL 74-75-24 ~
W o ~ CUP 3642
~
`~ ~ CUP 2608
~~s~1
RM-0
2
CUP 1928 ~ v ,
r CUP 1685 ~., ~- RCL 07-88-30 w o
~ -
~ `' ^!,~ ' CUP 1656 . ,~, r VAR 3732 rn
CUP 389
m VAR 2037 GPA 346 ~ ~
^
SYCAMORE PLAZA VAR 1812 5
'p-
~
Y ~ ~ ~~,
~ APARTMENTS
NEIGHBORHOOD
W
„ i PCN 2005-00023
92 DU _
SHOPPING CENTER PC
12
~
W (
)
~~
.
.I
ar ,.
. _ ~ ~
CUP 2758
~,
. ~ ( ) -
65
~ ',.: ,,. (VAR 213
)
C.G U C-G (VAR 1880 B) -
RCL 65-6671
~ RCL 6541670 GRANADA
RCL 57-58-16 ,
SDUARE `
>~"
GUP 2061-04965 .
PCN 87-12
~
• T-ADJ 2002-06229 Q
SMALL SHOPS CUP 2111 C~
VAR 2/80
~ %'
~
~ CUP 1847
USED CAR eLACKANGUb
: RS-2
VAR 32E
SALES .]. RESTAURANT y V-3265
~° 540'-- -m-~
LA PALMA AVENUE
~'
RGL 7S]S12 T-C6P 20N-W70B
RCL 6S66dB CUP 2001-04373
V
4 S GG
RCL 85.8672
ppL g7.6 p
RCL 59-5527
-
RM~
RCL 81-62-38
-i DU EAC '
_
T
R
M<
L o
'^
' e
m~'O
~
AR 281
ME6ICAL OFFILE6 VAR 865
4DU C
70-71-52
SDU o
K
~rv
CDNROYS U
RCL 1-62-3B
RGL 515521
RCL 5~-59-36
ycppugqPggZggaggzS RSZ T (R
VAR 11ae es of Int. to RS-72 00)
T
75
CUP 1 NG POLLD RE T GL 61-82J8
1 DU EACH VAR 2734
VAR 885 VAR 1245
1 DU EACH
~
8 ~'YLY~ ~~ ( --
1 DU EACH
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05045 Subject Property
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2005-00023 Date: December 12, 2005
Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: INTERPACI FIC ASSET MANAGEMENT Q.S. No. 111
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-05p45 -REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A PHARMACY WITH A
DRIVE-THROUGH AND ACCESSORY SALES OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR OFF-PREMISES
CONSUMPTION WITH WAIVER OF MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT FOR WALL SIGNAGE.
DETERMINATION OF PUBLI C CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2005-00023 - TO PERMIT SALES
OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR OFF-PREMISES CONSUMPTION WITHIN A PROPOSED PHARMACY.
2011 East La Palma Avenue 2079
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 6
6a.
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(Motion)
6b.
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
(Motion)
6c.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -05045
(Resolution)
6d.
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
(Resolution)
OR NECESSITY NO. 2005 -05023
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly- shaped, 9.0 -acre property is located north and east of the northeast corner
of State College Boulevard and La Palm Avenue with frontages of 460 feet on the east side
of State College Boulevard and 540 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue (2011 East
La Palma Avenue).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests the following actions:
(a)
(b)
BACKGROUND:
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -05028 to permit a pharmacy with drive - through
and accessory sales of alcoholic beverages for off - premises consumption under
authority of Code Section No. 18.08.030.040.0402 with waiver of:
SECTION NO. 18.44.110.010.0103 Maximum Letter Height for Wall Signage
(24 inches permitted: 30 to 42- inches
proposed for the CVS logo)
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2005 -00023 to permit
sales of alcoholic beverages for off - premises consumption in conjunction with a
proposed pharmacy.
(3) This property is developed with a commercial retail shopping center, restaurant and drive
through fast food restaurant and is zoned C -G (General Commercial). The Anaheim
General Plan designates this property for Neighborhood Commercial land uses.
Surrounding properties to the north and south (across La Palma Avenue) are also
designated for Neighborhood Commercial land uses, to the east for Medium Density
Residential land uses and to west (across State College Boulevard) for General
Commercial land uses.
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:
(4) The following zoning actions pertain to this property:
(a) Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -04742 (to permit a drive - through restaurant with
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces 827 required; 480 proposed) was
approved by the City Council on November 4, 2003 (1092 N. State College Boulevard
— Wendy's).
(b) Conditional Use Permit No. 2001 -04451 (to permit a restaurant with public
entertainment and on- premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages with
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces) was approved by the Planning
Commission on November 5, 2001.
(c) Conditional Use Permit No. 2001 -04433 (to establish land use conformity with existing
Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center,
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 6
laundromat and liquor store and to permit a convenience market) was approved by the
Commission on September 10, 2001. This permit was amended to allow off -sale beer
and wine within the convenience market.
(d) Conditional Use Permit No. 3642 (to retain a restaurant/nightclub expansion including
a public dance hall with on- premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages and
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces) was approved by Planning Commission
on November 1 1993, for a period of one year until 1994. On December 12, 1994, the
Commission approved a one -year time extension until November 1, 1995. On
January 22, 1996, the Commission approved a two -year time extension until
November 1, 1998 On December 2, 2002, the Commission approved an extension
until November 5, 2006, (1084, 1084 -A, 1086 -A North State College Boulevard — J.C.
Fandango).
(e) Conditional Use Permit No. 2608 (to permit on -sale alcohol in a proposed restaurant
and cocktail lounge with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces) was approved
by City Council on October 16, 1984, following approval by the Planning Commission
on August 20, 1984 (1086 -A North State College Boulevard — J.C. Fandango).
(f) Conditional Use Permit No.1947 (to permit on- premise sale and consumption of
alcoholic beverages and waiver of minimum number of parking spaces) was approved
by Planning Commission on April 23, 1979 (2011 E. La Palma Avenue — Stuart
Anderson's Black Angus).
(g) Conditional Use Permit No. 1685 (to permit on- premise sale and consumption of beer
and wine in an existing restaurant) was approved by Planning Commission on January
31, 1977, for a period of 5 years. A time extension was approved by the Planning
commission on February 8, 1982, to expire on January 31, 1987. No further extension
has been requested (1046 N. State College Boulevard — formerly Sun's Chinese
Restaurant).
(h) Conditional Use Permit No. 1655 (to permit on- premise sale and consumption of beer
and wine in a proposed restaurant) was approved by the Planning Commission
September 27, 1976 (1060 N. state College Boulevard formerly Angelo's Pizza
Restaurant).
(i) Variance No. 2037 (to waive the permitted uses to permit a retail tire, battery and
accessory store) was approved by City Council on January 28, 1969, following
approval by the Planning Commission on December 16, 1968.
Q) Variance No. 1912 (to permit a freestanding sign with waiver of minimum distance
between free - standing signs 300 feet separation required; 270 feet approved) was
approved by Planning Commission on August 28, 1967. This variance pertains to the
existing freestanding signage on State College Boulevard frontage.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
(5) The applicant requests a conditional use permit and a determination of public convenience
or necessity to allow the retail sales of alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) for off - premises
consumption within a proposed pharmacy drug store with a drive - through facility. The
existing restaurant (Black Angus) would be demolished to facilitate the construction of the
new pharmacy.
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 6
(6) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates the following proposed setbacks:
The site plan indicates the proposed drive - through lane would be located along the south
side of the building, setback 23 feet from the property line and visible to La Palma Avenue.
Entry to the drive - through lane would occur from the parking lot to the north of the proposed
pharmacy. Plans propose a length of 160 feet from the drive - through pick up window.
Code requires that drive - through lanes be located outside the minimum landscaped
setback and that lanes have a minimum distance of one hundred (100) feet between the
start of said lane and the service window or area.
Page 3
View of the existing site from La Palma Avenue
Code
Code
Direction
Required /Proposed
Required /Proposed
Building Setback
Landscape Setback
North (adjacent to the
existing commercial
N/A
N/A
center parking area
South (adjacent to La
15 feet/45 feet to the
Palma Avenue)
building; 23 feet to the
15 feet/18 to 23 feet
drive-through lane
West (adjacent to
existing service
None /62 feet
None /5 feet
station
East (adjacent to tire
center located within
N/A
N/A
the commercial center
The site plan indicates the proposed drive - through lane would be located along the south
side of the building, setback 23 feet from the property line and visible to La Palma Avenue.
Entry to the drive - through lane would occur from the parking lot to the north of the proposed
pharmacy. Plans propose a length of 160 feet from the drive - through pick up window.
Code requires that drive - through lanes be located outside the minimum landscaped
setback and that lanes have a minimum distance of one hundred (100) feet between the
start of said lane and the service window or area.
Page 3
View of the existing site from La Palma Avenue
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 6
(7) Vehicular access to the site would be provided via one (1) existing 30 -foot wide driveway
from La Palma Avenue. The proposed pharmacy requires 71 parking spaces and the
entire commercial center 813 spaces for the entire retail center based on the following:
LOCATION
USE /TENANT
TOTAL
SQUARE
FEET
CODE-
REQUIRED
PARKING RATIO
(p er 1,000 s.f.
PARKING
REQUIRED
1046, 1048
The Reef Tropical Fish
Store
3,370
5.5
18.5
1052
Mariscos Restaurant
1,250
16
20
1054
Personnel Office
1,250
4
5
1056, 1058, 1060
Market
3,750
5.5
20.6
1062
Mom's and Baby's
Market
1,250
5.5
6.8
1064, 1068
Jimenez Party Rentals
3,750
5.5
20.6
1070
Vacant
1
5.5
6.8
1072
Vacant
4,859
5.5
26.7
1074
Vacant
1,400
5.5
7.7
1076
Padia Taco Restaurant
1
16
22.4
1078
Beauty Salon
1,400
5.5
7.7
1080
Laundromat
2,800
5.5
15.4
1084,1084A
&1088A
JC Fandango Dance
Club
19,188
17
326
1086 B
Just 98 Mart
6,882
5.5
37.8
1086 C
Tot Line Staffing
1,584
5.5
8.7
1088
Northern Auto Parts
8
5.5
482
1090
Barber
900
5.5
4.9
1092
Optometrist
900
6
5.4
1092
Wend 's Restaurant
3
16
51.9
1094
TV & VCR Repairs
900
5.5
4.9
1096
Liquor Store
1,440
5.5
7.9
1098
Blockbuster Video
5
5.5
29.7
2011
Proposed CVS Pharmacy
12,900
5.5
71
2120
Good ear Tire
7,000
5.5
38.5
TOTAL
98,247
813
(8) The floor plan for the proposed pharmacy (Exhibit No. 2) indicates a 12,900 square -foot
building including a 493 square foot cooler, employee and manager room, pharmacy, film
development center and 8,464 square feet of market display area. The cooler and sales area
devoted to alcohol display is less than one percent -of the total floor area. Code requires that
the area used for alcohol display not exceed twenty -five (25 %) of the retail sales floor area of
the store.
(9) The elevation plans and color rendering (Exhibit No-3) indicate a 30 -foot high, single -story
building containing a Tower Tan colored stucco finish and a 3 -foot high ledge stone treatment
and 3 -foot wide ledge stone columns on each elevation. The plan also indicates a white
cornice trim around the roof area. The main entrance (which faces the interior of the parking
area) includes a tower element which includes windows and red trim surrounding the glass
entry doors.
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 6
(10) The elevation and sign plans (Exhibit Nos. 3 and 10) indicate the following signs:
Page 5
LETTER
COMPLIES
SIGN
NUMBER
TYPE
SIZE
HEIGHT AND TEXT
LOCATION
WITH
CODE
A
2
Wall signs
102 s.f.
42- inches
North and
Yes for size
(Channel
(CVS)
West
No for letter
Letter)
Elevation
height
24- inches (Pharmacy)
for
"CVS"
19 % inches
(24)
7- inches
(Hours)
7- inches
(Photo Center, Beauty,
Drive -Thru Pharmac
B
1
Wall Sign
52 s.f.
30- inches
South
Yes for size
(Channel
(CVS)
Elevation
No for letter
Letter)
Height
17'/2 - inches
for
(Pharmacy)
"CVS"
14- inches
(24)
5- inches
(Hours)
7- inches
(Photo Center, Beauty,
Drive -Thru Pharmac
F
4
Directional
9s.f.
3'/2- inches
(1) Driveway
Complies
Sign
(La Palma
with Code
Drive Thru Pharmacy
Avenue)(1)
within planter
area
(2)
Do Not Enter
Entrance /Exit
Thank You
of drive-
through lanes
H /J /I
2
Channel
7.75
9- inches
Located
Complies
Letter
s.f.
(Drive thru Pharmacy
above the
with Code
Full Service /Drop -off
drive through
Only)
lanes on the
south and
7- inches
east
(Exit)
elevations
Page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 6
(11) Code allows the total aggregate area of wall sign(s) affixed to the face of the building to which
such sign(s) are attached to a maximum of ten percent (10 %) or two hundred (200) square
feet, whichever is less. Code further allows a maximum letter height of 24 inches for a one
story building. The proposed signs meet Code with the exception of letter height for "CVS ".
(12) The site plan (Exhibit No-1) and landscape plan (Exhibit No. 4) indicate a 15 to 23 foot wide
landscape planter adjacent to La Palma Avenue and a 5 -foot wide landscaped area along the
west property line. The setback area along La Palma Avenue adjacent to the drive - through
lane would contain eighteen (18) Queen Palms, shrubs consisting of New Zealand Flax and
Japanese Privet with Daylilies, Natal Plum and Fornight Lilies groundcover. In addition, a 3-
foot high screening hedge of Indian Hawthorn is proposed along the entire length of the drive
through lane as required by Code. The landscaped area along the west property line would
contain three (3) Carrotwood trees and the same mix of shrubs and groundcover as proposed
for the landscaped setback along La Palma Avenue. Code requires one tree for every 20
lineal feet of street frontage (18 trees on La Palma Avenue) and fast growing shrubbery of
clinging vines planted on 3 -foot centers for the trash enclosure. Code further requires that at
least one (1) tree per 3,000 square feet of parking area and/or vehicular accessways (2) trees
be distributed throughout the parking area with an average of forty -eight (48) square feet of
planter area provided per required tree, and a minimum planter dimension of five (5) feet.
The landscape plans comply with Code.
(13) The submitted letter of operation indicates that pharmacy would be open up to twenty -four
(24) hours per day seven (7) days a week. In addition to the pharmacy, the new store would
include the sales of school supplies, cosmetics, greeting cards, one -hour photo processing,
and general merchandise. There would also be an ancillary department for food, sodas,
juices, milk, and alcoholic (beer and wine) beverages. The gross floor area devoted to beer
and wine would not exceed ten percent (10 %) of the store's overall gross floor area. The
store would also have a dual drive through lane pharmacy to facilitate customer "drop off' and
"pick up" of medical prescriptions. All drive through interaction would be face to face, and
would only be utilized for medical prescriptions. The business would have 4 to 6 employees
per shift.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(14) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review
in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore,
recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the 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-
EVALUATION
(15) The accessory sales of beer and wine for off - premises consumption within a premises which
also sells packaged food products, general household goods and beverages (Markets -
Small) with a floor area of less than 15,000 square feet is permitted within the CG zone
subject to the approval of a conditional use permit.
(16) The requested waiver pertains to maximum letter height. Code permits a letter height of 24
inches for buildings 1 to 3 stories in height. The proposed pharmacy is 1 story in height and
the letter height of the wall sign would be 30 to 42 inches for the CVS logo with smaller
letters (17 to 24 inches) for the word "Pharmacy ". The applicant indicates that special
Page 6
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 6
circumstances apply to the property that do not apply to other properties in the area in that
due to the large vertical and horizontal spans of the wall area to which the signs are
attached, a 24 inch sign would not be easily readable and would make the signs appear to
be disproportionate with the building. A copy of the applicant's justification for increased
letter height is attached to this staff report. Staff is supportive of the requested waiver for the
CVS logo to exceed the permitted letter height as the design of the sign would be
proportionate to the building.
(16) The applicant is requesting retail sales of alcoholic beverages (beer and wine only) for off -
remises consumption in conjunction with a proposed pharmacy. The Anaheim Police
Department has submitted the attached memorandum dated September 20, 2005, stating
this property is located within Police Reporting District No. 1428, which has a crime rate of
10% above City average (which is not designated as a high crime area defined as 20%
above City average). This property is also located within Census Tract No. 864.02 where
there are currently 4 licenses for retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off - premises
consumption and only 4 off -sale licenses are allowed.
(17) The petitioner has applied for the determination of public convenience or necessity in order
to obtain a Type 20 (Off -Sale Beer and Wine) license. Due to over concentration within the
Census Tract, a determination of public convenience or necessity is required from the City of
Anaheim by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). The Police Department
does not oppose this request subject to the recommended conditions of approval.
(18) Although the business would be located within an area of over concentration, the new
pharmacy would provide a variety of retail services. Because this proposal would involve
the termination of one (1) entitlement for on- premise sales and consumption of alcoholic
beverages and because beer and wine sales would be accessory to the pharmacy and
grocery sales, staff recommends approval of the request to allow for the sale of beer and
wine beverages for off - premises consumption.
(19) On July 11, 1995, the Anaheim City Council adopted Resolution No. 95R -134 establishing
procedures and delegating certain responsibilities relating to issuance of licenses by the
State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) with regard to applications for
licenses which would otherwise be denied but for the issue of whether public convenience or
necessity would be served by issuance of the license and where the City is responsible
under State law to make such determination, the resolution delegates such determinations
to the Planning commission with the right of appeal (or review) by the City Council.
(20) Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that ABC deny an application
for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem or if
issuance would result in, or add to, an undue concentration of licenses, except when an
application has demonstrated that public convenience or necessity would be served by the
issuance of a license.
(21) That statement of justification for determination of public convenience or necessity submitted
by the petitioner (attached) indicates the sale of beer and wine is ancillary (between three to
seven percent) to the overall product mix provided by the store, and that there are no other
drive- through full service drug stores in the area that offer alcoholic beverages for off -
premises consumption. In addition, the applicant has indicated that the sale of beer and
wine will be controlled by trained staff and that there will be surveillance cameras which are
monitored by management to ensure compliance with all regulations.
(22) Staff conducted a survey of the area and identified a church (approximately 430 feet south)
of the proposed pharmacy. The surrounding properties are multiple - family residential
Page 7
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 6
(approximately 104 feet south and 411 feet east) and single - family residential
(approximately 263 feet south).
ABC may deny any retail license located (a) within the immediate vicinity of churches and
hospitals, or (b) within 600 feet of schools, public playgrounds and non profit youth facilities.
Generally, ABC will deny a license in the above situations when there is evidence that
normal operation of the licensed premises will be contrary to public welfare and morals.
Mere proximity by itself is not sufficient to deny the license. ABC will not license a new retail
location within 100 feet of a residence unless the applicant can establish that the operation
of the proposed premises will not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the property by
residents.
(23) The Planning Commission established a policy to determine whether a determination of
public convenience or necessity is appropriate. A copy of the Planning's Commission's
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 6
guidelines to determine public convenience or necessity is attached. Staff believes the
determination can be made based on the fact that there are currently no pharmacies in the
immediate vicinity that sell beer and wine. The increase in concentration is not significant
(four licenses are allowed and this would be the fifth). Moreover, one of the existing on -sale
licenses (the existing restaurant sells alcoholic beverages for on- premises consumption)
would be eliminated due to the demolition of the restaurant for this new pharmacy. Staff
recommends that a determination of public convenience or necessity be made and the
request to permit retail sales of beer and wine for off - premises consumption be approved.
(24) Although staff is supportive of the land use, concerns remain regarding the design of the
facility. The current design places the main entry to the building inward towards the parking
lot and away from the street. Staff believes the main entrance to the building should face La
Palma Avenue, and not the back of the building. Further, although staff has worked with the
applicant to relocate the trash enclosure and compactor away from La Palma Avenue, the
loading area would still be visible to the street. A redesign of the building may also facilitate
better placement of the drive - through lane to minimize its visibility to La Palma Avenue.
Staff is also concerned about the lack of landscaping adjacent to the building and
recommends that a planter area or potted plants be placed adjacent to the building to
provide for more depth and character to the building. Staff has surveyed a similar CVS
pharmacy located in the City of Buena Park that has the drive - through facing the rear of the
property and the entry way facing the main street (La Palma Avenue). Staff recommends
that the Commission continue this request to the January 9, 2006, Commission meeting in
order for staff to work with the applicant on a design similar to their facility in Buena Park.
Page 9
View of new CVS facility on La Palma Avenue in the City of Buena Park
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 6
View of drive through lane of Buena Park facility oriented away from La Palma Avenue
FINDINGS:
(25) 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 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
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.
(26) 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);
Page 10
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 6
(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
(27) 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 action:
(a) By motion, continue this request to the January 9, 2006, Commission meeting to allow
the applicant to work with staff to redesign the project to relocate the entrance of the
building to face La Palma Avenue and the loading area to the rear (north) elevation.
(28) Should the Planning Commission wish to approve this request, staff recommends that the
Commission incorporate the conditions of approval indicated below based on the finding
that the conditions are reasonably necessary to protect the public health and safety and to
ensure proper operation of this proposed drive - through pharmacy:
1. That all public phones shall be located inside the building.
2. That adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles,
passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with
lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible
the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness
and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on-
site. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as
not to unreasonably illuminate the window areas of the adjacent residential
properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police
Department, Community Services Division approval.
3. That any tree or other landscaping planted on -site shall be replaced in a timely
manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and /or dead.
4. That no roof - mounted balloons or other inflatable devices shall be permitted on the
property.
5. That no outdoor vending machines shall be permitted on the property.
6. That 4 -foot high street address numbers shall be displayed on the roof of the building
in a color that contrasts with the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from
the streets or adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on
plans submitted for building permits.
7. That there shall be no outdoor storage permitted on the premises.
Page 11
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 6
8. That the property owner shall submit a letter to the Planning Services Division
requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No, 1947 (to permit on- premise sale
and consumption of alcoholic beverages with waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces 2011 E. La Palma Avenue — Stuart Anderson's Black Angus), Conditional
Use Permit No. 1685 (to permit on- premise sale and consumption of beer and wine in
an existing restaurant 1046 N. State College Boulevard) and Conditional Use Permit
No. 1655 (to permit on- premise sale and consumption of beer and wine in a
proposed restaurant1060 N. State College Boulevard).
9. That roof - mounted equipment shall be screened from view in accordance with the
requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.38.170 pertaining to the C -G
(General Commercial) Zone. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans
submitted for building permits.
10. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by the
provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and
removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence.
11. That there shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including
advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability
of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages which are clearly
visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition.
12. That there shall be no display of alcoholic beverages located outside of a building or
within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building.
13. That the area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the total display
area in the building. Said information shall be specifically indicated on plans
submitted for building permits.
14. That the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the
customer is in the building.
15. That beer and malt beverages shall not be sold in packages containing less than a
six (6) pack, and that wine coolers shall not be sold in packages containing less than
a four (4) pack.
16. That the possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption
of alcoholic beverages is prohibited on or around these premises.
17. That there shall be no amusement machines, video game devices, or pool tables
located outside the building and within the control of the applicant.
18. That the gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 35 percent of all retail
sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a
quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and
other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of
Anaheim official when requested.
19. That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground and outside of the street
setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets. Any backflow
assemblies currently installed in a vault shall be brought up to current standards.
Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside of the street
setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Water Engineering
Division approval.
20. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications,
relocations, or abandonment's of existing water services and fire lines, shall be
Page 12
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 6
coordinated through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities
Department.
21. That since this project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet; a
separate irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with Chapter 10.19 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans
submitted for building permits.
22. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Service
Standards Specifications. Any water service and /or fire line that does not meet
current standards shall be upgraded for continued use if necessary or abandoned if
the existing water service is no longer needed. The owner /developer shall be
responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service of fire line.
23. That prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public
Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval a Water
Quality Management Plan that:
• Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as minimizing
impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected
impervious areas, creating reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving
natural areas.
• Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the
Drainage Area Management Plan.
• Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in DAMP.
• Describes the long -term operation and maintenance requirements for the
Treatment Control BMPs.
• Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long -term operation and
maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs, and describes the mechanism for
funding the long -term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control
BMPs.
24. That prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall:
• Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been
constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications.
• Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non - structural BMPs
described in the Project WQMP.
• Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Projects
WQMP are available onsite.
• Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan
for all structural BMPs.
25. That the existing driveway approach shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter,
parkway landscaping and sidewalk. A bond shall be posted in an amount approved
by the City Engineer and a form approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance of
building permit. Obtain a Right of Way Construction Permit from the Public Works
Department, Development Services Division. Improvements must be complete prior
to final building and zoning inspections.
26. That a lot line adjustment shall be submitted to the Public Works Department,
Development Services Division. The Lot Line Adjustment shall be approved by the
City Engineer and recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Page 13
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 6
27. 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.). Said information
shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
28. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's
expense.
29. That the property owner /developer shall provide the City of Anaheim with a public
utilities easement to be determined as electrical design is completed.
30. That plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and
approval in conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos.
436, and 470 pertaining to parking standards and driveway location. Subject
property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said
plans.
31. That the drive - through lane shall be designed to meet the radius standards (minimum
16 feet interior and 26 feet outer radius). Said information shall be specifically shown
on plans submitted for building permits.
32. 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.
33. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to
the Public Works Department and in accordance with approved plans on file with said
Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not
to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage
areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such
as minimum one - gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum three -foot centers or
tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted
for building permits.
34. That the project shall provide for truck deliveries on -site. Such information shall be
specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
35. That an Emergency Listing Card, Form APD -281 shall be completed and submitted in
a completed form to the Anaheim Police Department.
36. 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.
37. That a final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for
review and approval. The plans shall specify a minimum tree size of 24 -inch box and
shrubs container size of 5- gallon. The plans shall incorporate a layered landscape
design adjacent to the project's frontage on La Palma Avenue.
38. That the pedestrian accessway through the drive - through lane shall be removed.
Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
39. 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 Exhibit Nos. 1 through 10, and as
conditioned herein.
Page 14
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 6
40. 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, 6, 8, 9, 13, 19, 21,
25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37 and 38 -above mentioned, shall be complied
with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in
accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
41. That prior to issuance of a grading permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the
date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition No. 23 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.
42. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 24, 25 and 39
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.
43. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to
the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other
applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action
or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other
applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
Page 15
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2005-
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -05045 BE GRANTED
(2011 EAST LA PALMAAVENUE)
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 WEST 11 ACRES OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN
THE RANCHO SAN JUAN CAJON DE SANTA ANA, CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF
ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 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:
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 1, SAID
LINE BRING ALSO THE CENTERLINE OF LA PALMA AVENUE AND THE EAST LINE OF THE
WEST 200.00 FEET OF SAID SECTION 1: THENCE NORTH 00 53' 57" WEST ALONG SAID
EAST LINE 69.00 FEET TO A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND LOCATED 69.00 FEET
NORTH AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 1 AND THE TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE NORTH 00 53' 57" WEST ALONG SAID
EAST LINE, SAID EAST LINE BEING ALSO THE WEST LINE OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON
PARCEL MAP NO. 79 -242 AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 136, PAGE 38 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, 154 FEET TO THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE NORTH 89 43'08" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 29.80
FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 53' 57" WEST 70.36 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 43' 08" EAST
202.93 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 53'57" EAST 119.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 43
EAST 62.31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 53' 57" EAST 104.52 FEET TO THE
AFOREMENTIONED PARALLEL LINE WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE
SOUTH 89 43'08" WEST ALONE SAID PARALLEL LINE 295.04 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT
�]�- 410
THE RIGHT TO USE THE PARKING FACILITIES OF THE ADJOINING SHOPPING CENTER
KNOWN AS GRANADA SQUARE, AS PROVIDED IN THE PARKING AGREEMENT DATED
JULY 17, 1979, EXECUTED BY A.G. RICHTER AND DORIA K. RICHTER, RECORDED JULY
20, 1979 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 28453, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on December 12, 2005, 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
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 drive through pharmacy with accessory retail sales of beer and wine for
off - premises consumption is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim
Municipal Code Section No. 18.08.030.040.0402 with the following waiver:
(a) Section No. 18.44.110.010.0103 Maximum Letter Height for Wall Signage (24 inches
permitted: 30 to 42- inches proposed for the CVS
logo and 2T' /s inches proposed for Pharmacy
Cr\PC2005- -1- PC2005-
2. That the above mentioned waiver is hereby granted as amended by staff based on
constraints on the building elevation due to the long length that the CVS letter would not be as easily
readable and that strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by
other commercial properties along La Palma Avenue;
3. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the sale of beer and wine is ancillary
to the overall product mix provided by the drive through pharmacy. The accessory sale of beer and wine, as
proposed and approved, will not have a negative impact on the surrounding area;
4. That the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the health and
safety as the proposed drive through pharmacy would comply with all provisions of the Zoning Code and
would not require any waivers for development; and
5. 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
6. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be
detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because the sale of beer and wine
is ancillary to the overall mix provided by the pharmacy and the property is located at the intersection of two
major arterials within the City and has no direct vehicle or pedestrian access to any residential area; 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 construct a drive through pharmacy with the retail sales of beer
and wine for off - premises consumption in conjunction with a 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 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
health and safety of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim
1 - That all public phones shall be located inside the building.
2. That adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and
grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide
adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises
during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and
vehicles on -site. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to
unreasonably illuminate the window areas of the adjacent residential properties. Light fixtures shall be
decorative and a maximum of 12 -feet in height. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans
submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division approval.
3. That any tree or other landscaping planted on -site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event
that it is removed, damaged, diseased and /or dead.
4. That no roof - mounted balloons or other inflatable devices shall be permitted on the property.
5. That no outdoor vending machines shall be permitted on the property-
-2- PC2005-
6. That 4 -foot high street address numbers shall be displayed on the roof of the building in a color that
contrasts with the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the streets or adjacent
properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
7. That there shall be no outdoor storage permitted on the premises.
8. That the property owner shall submit a letter to the Planning Services Division requesting termination
of Conditional Use Permit No, 1947.
9. That roof - mounted equipment shall be screened from view in accordance with the requirements of
Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.38.170 pertaining to the C -G (General Commercial) Zone. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
10. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by the provision of regular
landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24)
hours from time of occurrence.
11. That there shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to
the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays
of alcoholic beverages which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this
condition.
12. That there shall be no display of alcoholic beverages located outside of a building or within five (5) feet
of any public entrance to the building.
13. That the area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the total display area in the
building.
14. That the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is in the
building.
15. That beer and malt beverages shall not be sold in packages containing less than a six (6) pack, and
that wine coolers shall not be sold in packages containing less than a four (4) pack.
16. That the procession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption of alcoholic
beverages is prohibited on or around these premises.
17. That there shall be no amusement machines, video game devices, or pool tables located outside the
building and within the control of the applicant.
18. That the gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 35 percent of all retail sales during any
three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the
separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made
available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested.
19. That any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the
licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied.
20. That the petitioner shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the premises
over which they have control, as depicted.
21. That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground and outside of the street setback area in a
manner fully screened from all public streets. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault
shall be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to
the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside of the street
setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be
specifically shown on plans and approved by the Water Engineering Department.
22. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or
abandonment's of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water
Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department.
23. That since this project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet; a separate irrigation meter
shall be installed in compliance with Chapter 10.19 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said information
shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits-
-3- PC2005-
24. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Service Standards
Specifications. Any water service and /or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be
upgraded if continued use if necessary or abandoned if the existing water service is no longer needed.
The owner /developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service of
fire line.
25. That prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works
Department, Development Services Division for review and approval a Water Quality Management
Plan that:
• Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as minimizing impervious
areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced
or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas.
• Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area
Management Plan.
• Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in DAMP.
• Describes the long -term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control
BMPs.
• Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long -term operation and maintenance of the
Treatment Control BMPs, and describes the mechanism for funding the long -term operation and
maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs.
26. That prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall:
• Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and
installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications.
• Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non - structural BMPs described in the
Project WQMP
• Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Projects WQMP are available
onsite.
• Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural
BMPs.
27. That the existing driveway approach shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter, parkway
landscaping and sidewalk. A bond shall be posted in an amount approved by the City Engineer and a
form approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance of building permit. Obtain a Right of Way
Construction Permit from the Public Works Department, Development Services Division.
Improvements must be complete prior to final building and zoning inspections.
28. That a lot line adjustment shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services
Division. The Lot Line Adjustment shall be approved by the City Engineer and recorded in the office of
the Orange County Recorder prior to issuance of a building permit.
29. 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.). Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
30. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense.
31. That the property owner /developer shall provide the City of Anaheim with a public utilities easement to
be determined as electrical design is completed.
32. That plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval in
conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, and 470 pertaining to
parking standards and driveway location. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and
maintained in conformance with said plans-
-4- PC2005-
33. That the drive - through lane shall be designed to meet the radius standards (minimum 16 feet interior
and 26 feet outer radius). Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building
permits.
34. 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.
35. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works
Department and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas
shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or
highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of
plant materials such as minimum one - gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum three -foot centers
or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building
permits.
36. That the project shall provide for truck deliveries on -site. Such information shall be specifically shown
on plans submitted for building permits.
37. That an Emergency Listing Card, Form ADP -281 shall be completed and submitted in a completed
form to the Anaheim Police Department.
38. That the business shall be equipped with an alary system (silent or audible) that provides a
comprehensive security system to the building perimeter and high valued storage areas.
39. That closed circuit television (CCTV) security cameras are recommended with coverage areas in the
lobby entrance and pharmacy area /drive through.
40. That all exterior doors shall be adequate security hardware.
41. 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.
42. That a revised signage plan be submitted for review and approval to the Planning Department
indicating elimination of one of the drive -thru pharmacy signs on the south elevation and removal both
of the signs on the east elevation with replacement with one sign indicating exit only.
43. That a revised landscape plan indicating potted plans located adjacent to the building shall be
submitted for review and approval to the Planning Department.
44. 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 Exhibit Nos. 1 through 10, and as conditioned herein.
45. 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. 6, 8, 9, 21, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 42, 43 and 44-
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.
46. That prior to issuance of a grading permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition No. 25 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.
47. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 26 and 27, 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.
48. 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-
-5- PC2005-
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.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges
related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 7 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
December 12, 2005. 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 )
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 December 12, 2005, by the following vote of the members thereof
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
VACANT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
2005.
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-6- PC2005-
RESOLUTION NO. PC2005-
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
DETERMINING PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2005 -00023
FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE
(2001 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, on July 11, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95R -134
establishing procedures and delegating certain responsibilities to the Planning Commission relating to the
determination of "public convenience or necessity" on those certain applications requiring that such
determination be made by the local governing body pursuant to applicable provisions of the Business and
Professions Code, and prior to the issuance of a license by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
(ABC); and
WHEREAS, Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that the ABC
shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement
problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an undue concentration of licenses, except when an
applicant has demonstrated that public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of a
license; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive an application
for a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit sales of beer and wine for off - premises
consumption within a proposed convenience market on certain real property situated in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as:
THAT PORTION OF THE WEST 11 ACRES OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10
WEST, IN THE RANCHO SAN JUAN CAJON DE SANTA ANA, CITY OF ANAHEIM,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 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:
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 1,
SAID LINE BRING ALSO THE CENTERLINE OF LA PALMA AVENUE AND THE EAST LINE
OF THE WEST 200.00 FEET OF SAID SECTION 1: THENCE NORTH 00 53' 57" WEST
ALONG SAID EAST LINE 69.00 FEET TO A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND
LOCATED 69.00 FEET NORTH AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM SAID SOUTH LINE OF
SECTION 1 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE
NORTH 00 53'57" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE, SAID EAST LINE BEING ALSO THE
WEST LINE OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 79 -242, AS PER MAP
FILED IN BOOK 136, PAGE 38 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, 154 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1;
THENCE NORTH 89 43' 08" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 29.80 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 00 53'57" WEST 70.36 FEET, THENCE NORTH 89 43'08" EAST 202.93 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 53'57" EAST 119.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 43'08" EAST 62.31
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 53' 57" EAST 104.52 FEET TO THE AFOREMENTIONED
PARALLEL LINE WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE SOUTH 89 43'
08" WEST ALONE SAID PARALLEL LINE 295.04 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
THE RIGHT TO USE THE PARKING FACILITIES OF THE ADJOINING SHOPPING
CENTER KNOWN AS GRANADA SQUARE, AS PROVIDED IN THE PARKING
AGREEMENT DATED JULY 17, 1979, EXECUTED BY A.G. RICHTER AND DORIA K.
RICHTER, RECORDED JULY 20, 1979 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 28453, OFFICIAL
RECORDS.
Cr>,PC2005- -1- PC2005-
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on December 12, 2005 at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given
as required by Resolution No. 95R -134 and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal
Code, Chapter 18.60 "Procedures ", to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed
determination of public convenience or necessity for an alcoholic beverage control license to investigate
and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
1. That the applicant demonstrated that the sale of beer and wine would be a very minor
portion of the proposed business retail sales; and that the conditions of approval limit the gross sales of
beer and wine to 35% of the all retail sales within any three (3) month period.
2. That the accessory sale of beer and wine, as proposed and as approved, will not have a
negative impact on the surrounding area due to its location adjacent to two arterial highways with no direct
access to a residential neighborhood; and that the property is located in a crime reporting district with a
crime rate of 10% above the City -wide average which is not considered a high crime area.
3. That the public convenience or necessity will be served because the applicant would
provide a convenience to potential customers traveling on eastbound La Palma Avenue and northbound
State College Boulevard and would be a pharmacy with incidental sales of beer and wine.
4. That ** *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 sales of beer and wine for off - premises consumption
within a proposed drive through pharmacy and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon
finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has
considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby determine
that the public convenience or necessity will be served by the issuance of a license for sales of beer and
wine for a drive through pharmacy at this location.
1. That there shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to
the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior
displays of alcoholic beverages which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of
this condition.
2. That there shall be no display of alcoholic beverages located outside of a building or within five (5)
feet of any public entrance to the building.
3. That the area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the total display area in the
building.
4. That the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is in the
building.
5. That beer and malt beverages shall not be sold in packages containing less than a six (6) pack, and
that wine coolers shall not be sold in packages containing less than a four (4) pack.
6. That the procession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption of alcoholic
beverages is prohibited on or around these premises.
7. That there shall be no amusement machines, video game devices, or pool tables located outside the
building and within the control of the applicant-
-2- PC2005 -35
8. That the gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 35 percent of all retail sales during any
three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the
separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made
available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested.
9. That any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of
the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied.
10. That the petitioner shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the premises
over which they have control, as depicted.
11. That all public phones shall be located inside the building.
12. That adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses
and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide
adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises
during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and
vehicles on -site. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not
to unreasonably illuminate the window areas of the adjacent residential properties. Light fixtures
shall be decorative and a maximum of 12 -feet in height. Said information shall be specifically shown
on plans submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division approval.
13. That the property owner shall submit a letter to the Planning Services Division requesting termination
of Conditional Use Permit No, 1947.
14. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the
Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 10, and as conditioned herein.
15. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3 through 14 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.
16. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No-, 14 above - mentioned, shall be
complied with.
17. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that
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 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 findings hereinabove set forth.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related
to the processing of this discretionary case application within 7 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-
-3- PC2005 -35
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
December 12, 2005. 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 December 12, 2005, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
VACANT:
COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
, 2005.
(1
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
4- PC2005 -35
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY
The City Council has established procedures for the determination of Public Convenience or Necessity and has
delegated the responsibility for making such determinations to the Anaheim Planning Commission. In order to
assist the Planning Commission in its deliberations as to whether the public convenience or necessity would be
served by permitting an additional alcohol establishment within an area containing an over concentration of
licenses and/or high crime rate, please answer the following questions.
What is the primary purpose of your business? Is the sale of alcohol an essential part of the primary
purpose of the business? Please explain.
2. Are there similar businesses or a concentration of alcohol outlets in the immediate area that already provide
alcohol service? If so, how would the public convenience or necessity be served by permitting an additional
43
convenience or
not disproportic
operty for which you are requesting.a public
how permitting an additional license would
ood or school.
4. Whatpercentage of your business do you anticipate will be alcohol sales?
5. Does your business cater to a specific need or specialty which is not currently available in the area? Please
explain.
4e�6 0,�' �il�9�IC�trllCe4Gf
6. Are you proposing any specific operational measures to eliminate or limit any potential negative
consequences from the sale of alcoholic beverages? Please explain-
What type of license are you requesting from ABC? Is it an
Application Im determination of PCN.doc
zevised T' l � ;05
license within the census tract?
SECTION 4
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF
JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER
(NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER)
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: I&, 4`f ,,/ r (do
(A separate statement is required for each Cade waiver)
PERTAININGTO: 4A�SIC -NN
r
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:
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.
Are there special eircumstar�ces that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings? A Yes _ No.
If your answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstances:
2. Are the special circumstances th"pply to the property different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the
same zone as your property? yYes _ No
If your answer is "yes_" describe how the property is different.
Do the special circumstances applicable to tkze�property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighbor ng
properties located within the same zone? es No
" describe the soecial circumstances:
4.
The sole purpose of any variance or Code waiver shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance or Code .waiver shalt be
approved which would have the ffect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same � icinity and zone
which is Sao a ire �r s authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances in not permitted.
/ ; //- 2
Signature of Property r or Authorized Agent Date
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITIVARIANCE NO.
Were the speci circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property
owners)? _ es _ No
lmagePoint.
West Plant
13489 Slover Avenue
Building B
Fontana, CA 92337
Tel 909.823.1239
Fax: 909.823.2013
w Jnnagepointconn
October 31, 2005
City of Anaheim
Planning Department
City Hall East
200 South Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805
Re: CVS /Pharmacy, NEC State College and La Palma
Justification for Increased Wall Signage
The following sign waiver is requested to increase the letter height on 3 wall sign elevations by allowing two letter
sets at 42" tall and one letter set at 30" tall.
Per Section 18.44.110, for any wall elevation exceeding 81', up to 3 wall signs are permitted, not to exceed 10% of the
face of the building. Addttionally, signs are restricted to 24" maximum letter height if buildings are 1 to 3 stories high.
The (3) subject wall elevations fall within this category. The proposed wall signs conform to the restrictions above
stated with the exception of the letter heights. The CVS national trademarked sign standard dictates 48" letter heights
with 18" hi individual ancillary message letters. Due to the large vertical and horizontal spans of the wall area to which
the signs will be applied, (10' vertical, 42' horizontal on primary elevations), a 24" letter height is not in scale with the
building and appears disproportionate. The increased letter height improves the aesthetic appearance of the wall signs
which are fully within the 10% area restriction. The west elevation is allowed 200 sq ft and uses 152 sq ft; the north
elevation is allowed 286 sq ft and uses 152 sq ft. the south elevation is allowed 200 sq ft and uses 93.8 sq ft. The
increased letter heights also enhance visibility to motorists moving a traffic speed of 40 mph. The optimal viewing
distance for a 42" tall letter is 420', which gives the motorist adequate time to make necessary lane changes to move
into the correct drive approach. The grouping of letters and logos presents as a single sign, not multiple signs, and
directs the driver's focus to a single point.
We believe the proposed sign modifications do not conflict with the intent of the code nor do they constitute
special privileges or adverse conditions to any neighboring uses. The proposed signage will not create any traffic
safety hazards either vehicular or pedestrian in nature.
Respectfully Submitted,
Debora J. Ivey
Senior Field Activities Manager
Image Point
(714) 505 -9810
divey@imagepoint.com
:t.
POLICY
CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
GUIDELINES TO DETERMINE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY (PCN)
• How significant is the "undue concentration "?
In census tracts with a few excess licenses, it may be easier to justify the need for additional
licenses when considering other factors. However, in areas with a significant number of
excess licenses, the City should carefully examine, based on submitted evidence and the
whole record, whether it would be appropriate to make the requested finding.
• How close is the proposed site to a residential neighborhood and /or school?
If the site is in close proximity to a residential neighborhood or school, then the decision on
whether to make the finding of PCN should give weight to these sensitive land uses.
How close are other alcohol outlets?
Are outlets in close proximity or are they spread throughout the census tract? If the outlet is
located near the border of the census tract, is there a cluster of outlets in the vicinity of the
outlet located in the adjoining census tracts? In some areas, there are a large number of
businesses providing alcohol in close proximity. As a result, the impact is greater than if the
same number of businesses were spread throughout the census tract. In these instances, it
may be difficult to make the finding.
• Are there similar businesses already in the area?
Is this the first business of this type or are there several similar businesses nearby? If the
product is already available, then it would be harder to justify "public need ".
• Is the sale of alcohol an integral part of the primary purpose of the business?
A "dinner house' would normally sell alcohol; however, a gas station or breakfast cafe would
not.
• Is there a history of alcohol- related problems in the area?
Determination of PCN in reporting districts that have a much higher than average crime rate
will be more difficult to justify. Likewise, even if the proposed location is in a census tract
that does not have a higher than average crime rate, it may be adjacent to one or more
reporting districts that have a higher than average crime rate.
• Are there unusual factors which are applicable to a particular location?
The establishment may cater to a specific customer such as specialty markets or warehouse
stores. In these instances, the Planning Commission may determine that the unusual
factors are sufficient to determine public convenience or necessity.
• Is the proposed site in an area which has both an overconcentration of licenses and a higher
than average crime rate?
In such instances, it may be more difficult to make the finding.
• Would a particular establishment have mitigating operational characteristics such as
increased security, limited hours of operation or bulk sales and /or temperatures not
conducive to on -site consumption?
A Determination of PCN may be justified for establishments with operational characteristics
that would offset any negative consequences of approving an additional license.
POLI Z DEPARTMENT
U.•\
Special V Gl YIt1V11J L1 vlJlvl'l
�£V i
lU: LCl /Q L1Ci'PlCll
Planning Department
L`Cl7ll: ,3CS eAlll lPllHC Ozeaa
Vice Detail
LA!{:i se te[m.be 2V'2VV"
.�.; IIRE. 2005 -a0006$
V v o Pua! 121m1.y
2011 E. La Palma
AR-ahem" CA S2
The Police Vepartment has received an i.o.>v. Koute tineet Tor vKk
�*: ES�3'vc` w�. �l?v r'S��ssGassa E5 i�{E.icSe{s Fy to p$ri, rrc vFlmc+FC yener3{ in
conjunction with a charrrlacyfurug stole.
mot__ a•.... t a.:..a id'y.� ,A'.:k A , n B
I ssa lEf4aEfOn is within fieporling ui'f3cr:v, ',w, vf„n.,: "au El lrn...e F sate
of 15 percent above average. it is also within Census Tract Number
864.02 which has a population of 5,336. This population allows for 4 off
a'wiB rciwt`eG vc`r'erF+g'a r e7i a�€F4•°a pp .F iL. pr ✓C
4Vn4F 4FFGre Rr4 ri 4t
licenses in the - tract, it also allows fvr 6 on sale licenses and there are
presently 2 licenses in the tract,
i he Police ve{4atit7aeiti does riot oppvsc this request. The Pollee
Department would request the following conditions be placed on their
rrr to-
f) There shall be no exterior advertising� or sign of any kind or type,
including advertising directed to the enter or t =� 0 M, , promoting
or Indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior
displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible
fi^ the e"fi..terium sl:afft cot— stitYkte a %dolafion of this coein 3* ion
2) No display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside of a
bLi ilding or vvithin f;tre i5) feet of any p ublic entrance to the
..i i d
ts t_ uit nn.
The area of air- -holic beve -age disp lays shalt not eyceed 25% of
U ec t'v'.' .!.VV sy - e'v. in °u 1,J.4 .l m .
4) Sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers- only
w`an 4'. s`o =r i= i^ the building.
.Sraueirr. notice Dq)t
425 S. Hobor Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 42 905
TYEI , 7 s 4; t,461 PAX: 714.769.7663
Memorandum
r�ss� LJarra,lr
C11S Pharmacy
6) That beer and malt beverages shalt not be sold in packages
containing less than a six (8) pack, and that wine coolers
shalt not tie sold in packages containing less than a four (4)
parka
6) The possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the
consumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited on or around
these premises.
75 The naririnn in} Y # the nrormnes shall be equipped with lightinn of
s uffiC;aritt Powar I "Itueinna" and easily d the
appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot.
additinnnIly the nysitlen of such lighting shall not disturb the
normat pr vavy and use of any neighbo in- residences.
g) There shall be no amusement machines, video game devices, or
p ool tau: = Wined � Vh J'nm t any a urns.
p^ poi: — 3 .1..,i..V„v ;..1
g) There shall he no p� �blir. telephones on the property that are
located outside the building and wiL+sin the control of the applicant.
1 d) The gross sales of alcoholic beverages shell not exceed 36
t. nt r f all retail sales during any three {3) month period. The
applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the
cana_rate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items.
These records shall be made available fnr inspection by any City
of Anaheim official when requested.
111 Ail r Graft's nainted or marked unnn the premises or on env
adjacent area under the control of the llcersse shall be rern ved
or painted over within 24 hours of being applied.
12) The petitioner Shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the
area adjacent to the premises over which they have cont,al, ay
depicted.
Please contact rho at extension 1451 if you require further infnrmafinn in
regards to this matter, -
:?, >ot;+,mim4i:�?2 W-- GGGl39 2011 E La Palma CVS.doc
Page 2
P.C. Date:
December 12, 2005
Existing A.B.C. Sites:
854.02
FIGUEROA PASCUALTIRAOO
30 E ORANGETHORPEAVE
1
ACEVEDO GUSTAVO CESAR
1056 N STATE COLLEGE BLVD
2
TACOS Y FANDANGO INC
1086 N STATE COLLEGE BLVD
3
ASKED DANY
1096 N STATE COLLEGE BLVD
4
PC I EN tHYHISeINC
1u9eNSI AI e COLL GEFLA
S
FAHMtH BOYD JFUU. MAHKtI I INC
1114 NtlI HIt CVLLtlit tlLW
6
ARG ENTERPRISES INC
2011 E ITS PALMA AVE
116.02 3sites in Anaheim. 23 sites in Fullerton
Legend
1
FIGUEROA PASCUALTIRAOO
30 E ORANGETHORPEAVE
e
RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY
ee E ORANGETHORPEAVE
9
MEER FOODS INC
1420 N STATE COLLEGE
117.02
No sites in Anaheim, 4 sites in
Placentia
864.06
Licenses:
10
NU MOVES
200 D4 N RIO VISTA
11
MAHAVIRAI NCO PRORATED
2540 EUA PALMA AVE
863.04
12
HUA CHENG TOM
2010 ELL NC OW AVE
13
OH MICHELLE FUN SUN
2016 E LL NCOW AVE
14
RALP ITS GROCERY COMPANY
2010 ELLNCOW AVE
15
THRIFTY PAYLESS INC
2120 ELINCOLN BLVD
16
BUS A0ItINC
GOOD ELINCOLN AVE
IF
11LAVtNINC
2Pm E LINCOLN AV,
18
WOO CHAE HONG
5125 STATE COLLEGE BLVD
863.01
19
tELPVPNINC
1201 LbAN AANAbI
20
UPPAL HARVEEN KALE
201 S STATE COLLEGE BLVD
21
CH AV, KENNETH JAMES
4W S STATE COLLEGE DLVR
22
KRUNAT INVESTMENT INC
425 S ST COLLEGE BLVD
23
ANGELOS DRIVE IN INC
511 S STATE COLLEGE BLVD
24
NGUYEN WM TRANG THI
541 S STATE COLLEGE BLVD
25
SPITS IN C
700 S STATE COLLEGE BLVD
26
CATIZONE ADELE
801 S STATE COLLEGE DLVR
21
MONI LLONGO JLUNANUO
G215 SI AI L COLL LGL
OF
FtHHAHI ANI UNIT
US CC AI L CULLUL BLVD
864.06
2Y
KAU"LIC1
1221 tLLNCUNAM,
30
FLORES FLORA
125 N STATE COLLEGE
31
TRAN CANH HUYNH
1287 ELINCOLN AVE
32
CHAVEZ KENNETH JAMES
1287 ELINCOLN AVE
33
YEN INTERNATIONAL INC
1909 ELINCOLN AVE
34
AGUIRRE GUILLERMO MIYASAKI
1925 ELINCOLN AVE
35
SETH GULSHANA
1311 ELINCOLN AVE
36
CHODHAKULPATI
OFF N EACH ST
,I
HUHALCAVA UANILL So
Sm,UJNtASI SI
TO
WHNNA MAIL K, CANW1NMLLC
SW,UJNtACI CI
39
INIOUEZERNESTO
530 N EAST ST
864.04
40
ALBERTSONS INC
1021 N STATE COLLEGE BLVD
41
STATER BROS MARKETS
1131 N STATE COLLEGE BLVD
42
KIM JASON YOUNGCHEOL
1140 N EAST ST
43
N0RTHGATE GONZALEZ INC
1150 N EAST ST
44
ASKED DMIY
1501 E ITS PALMA AVE
45
DUARTE AVIEL
151315 E lA PALMA AVE
46
THAI D D O SPICE &JUICYINC
1521 E IS PALMA AVE
Legend
1
On Sale License
Off Sale License
Pending License
Suspended /Surrendered
Not In Use License
219.22
Census Tract
6/3/1
Licenses:
Flowed /Active / Pending
CUP 2005 - 05045 /PCN 2005 -00023
CENSUS TRACT MAP
CUP 2005 - 05045 /PCN 2005 -00023
POLICE REPORTING DISTRICT MAP
P.C. Date:
December 12, 2005
Proposed Site:
CVS PHARMACY
2011 E LA PALMA AVE.
1244 Police Reporting Districts
184 % + /- Percentage Above or Below the Average
Number of Crimes per District Citywide
ITEM NO. 7
i uu rs~~n
O
~ p
DU EACH
1
,..
.
C
0¢
~~ „. VALLEJO DR
¢_¢
T
CUP 3800
WESTERN HIGH ~~ 1 DU EAG
SCHOOL p
'
0 U
~
. RCL 20
500171 ~ RS3
RCL 63-64132 W ~ 1 DU EACH
RCL fiO-61.43 =LLi.
CUP 2005.05050 2 C
TPM 2005258: F BRIDGEPORT AVE
(RCL 61-62-21) ~1
(VA
M) ~ RS-3 VAR
CA 1 DU EACH 3725
m m ® ® 0 40
ORANGE AVENUE
~ 119'-~
PARTMENTS 1 DU $ w ' "~"~
a
~ T
37 DU a ~ ~ ~
RM-4 ~~ RM-4
CL 73.74
H
~
~;
~
Y ~_ YP
~ "~
RCL 82A3-13 ~dG
VAR 3308 ~~~ CUP 1240
VAR 2529
RM~4 ~' @
1. ~o m
GH u~
u> ~ RC L B}84-28 V~
~
~ VAR 3381 W 1
W QR
~J~N
Egt
~ m
1 DU T Z
~ <
CUP 3396 ~ z
W O
T 3 ~
T-CUP 2000-04195
CUP 3956
CUP 3450
CUP 1775
CHURCH RS•3
RCL 69-70-85
VAR 2183
1 DU EACH
T
o: RS-2 CUP 395 STONYBROOK DR
m z 1 DU EACH 1 T
1' US 2 H ¢ m I I ar
R7n ie
~1 RS_3
_
. _
_..
Reclassification No. 2005-00171 Subject Property
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05050 Date: December 12, 2005
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-259 Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: ISAM HANNA Q.S. No. 6
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2005-00171: REQUESTS RECLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY FROM
THE C-G (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) ZONE TO THE RS-4 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE OR
A LESS INTENSE ZONE.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-05050: REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT 4 SMALL LOT, SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCES.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2005-259: TO ESTABLISH A 4-LO T, 4-UNIT, DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
601 South Western Avenue 29az
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 7
7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion)
7b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2005 -00171 (Resolution)
7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -05050 (Resolution)
7d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005 -259 (Motion)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly- shaped, 0.4 -acre property is located at the southwest corner of Western
Avenue and Orange Avenue with frontages of 114 feet on the west side of Western Avenue
and 119 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue (601 South Western Avenue).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of the following:
Reclassification No. 2005 -00171 —to reclassify this property from the C -G (General
Commercial) zone to the RS -4 (Single - Family Residential) zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -05050 — to permit four (4), small -lot, single - family
residences.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 - 259 —to establish a 4 -lot, 4 -unit detached single - family
residential subdivision-
BACKGROUND
(5)
(6)
(3) This property is currently vacant and zoned C -G (General Commercial). The Anaheim
General Plan designates this property for Low - Medium Density Residential land uses. The
property to the west is also designated for Low - Medium Density Residential land uses, the
properties to the north (across Orange Avenue) and south are designated for School land
uses and the property to the east (across Western Avenue) is designated for Open Space -
Water land uses.
(4) Conditional Use Permit No. 2833 (to permit an automotive service facility with waivers of
minimum number of parking spaces and minimum landscaped setback) was approved by
City Council on September 16, 1986. Staff recommends that this permit be terminated.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to reclassify this property from the C -G zone to the RS-4 zone in
conformance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan in order to construct a 4 -unit
detached residential subdivision.
The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates the following:
Development Standards
Proposed Project
RS -4 Zone Standards
Site Area
.39 acres 16,983 s . ft.
N/A
Density
10.3 (d-u- per acre
11 (d.u. per acre
Average Land Area per Unit
3,665 s . ft.
Determined by CUP
Average Lot Coverage
34%
50%
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 7
(7) The site plan and parcel map indicate the development of four (4) single - family homes with
the following characteristics:
Lot
Lot Size
Front Setback
Proposed /Required
Side Setback
Proposed /Required
*Rear Setback
Proposed /Required
1
4,114 s . ft.
15 feet/ 10 feet
6 feet / 5 feet
10 feet/ 15 feet
2
3,390 s . ft.
20 feet/ 10 feet
5 feet/ 5 feet
5 feet/ 15 feet
3
3,640 s . ft.
27 feet/ 10 feet
5 feet/ 5 feet
5 feet/ 15 feet
4
3,515 s . ft.
15 feet/ 10 feet
5 feett 5 feet
16 feet/ 15 feet
* Modification to minimum setbacks is allowed in order to achieve good project design, privacy, livability
and compatibility with surrounding uses.
(8) The site plan further indicates rear yard patio covers would be installed for each single -
family residence prior to occupancy. The applicant has indicated that a 6 -foot high
decorative block wall would be constructed along the north, south, and west property lines.
The entrance and terminus of the cul -de -sac would be enhanced with stamped concrete.
(9) The floor plans (Exhibit No. 1) for the residences indicate 2 -story units consisting of a living
room, family room, dining room, kitchen, 3 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, laundry rooms and
attached 2 -car garages.
(10) Vehicular access would be provided by a new cul de sac from Western Avenue. The site
plan indicates 16 parking spaces available within the subdivision, including 2 garage
spaces and 2 driveway spaces for each home. Code requires a total of 16 parking spaces
based on the requirement of 4 parking spaces (2 must be enclosed in a garage) for each
single - family residence.
(11) Elevation drawings (Exhibit No. 1) indicate 2 -story structures with a maximum height of 25
feet. Craftsman style architecture would be incorporated into Plan Nos. 2 and 4. The
homes would include concrete -tile roofs, wood fascias and corbels, HardiPlank siding and
large front porches. Plan Nos. 1 and 3 are proposed with a contemporary Mediterranean -
style architecture with earth toned stucco, terracotta tile roofs, ledgestone and arched
entries.
(12) The conceptual landscape plan shows 24 -inch box trees, shrubs and lawns within the front
yards of the proposed residences and within the 5 -foot wide landscaped buffer along
Orange Avenue. The landscaping within the rear yards of the new homes would be
installed by the future homeowners. As a recommended condition of approval, the
applicant will be required to submit final detailed landscape plans for staff review prior to
the issuance of building permits.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(13) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review
in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore,
recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning
Commission that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 7
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
(14) The Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element designates this property for Low - Medium
Density Residential land uses, with a density range of 0 to 18 dwelling units per acre. The
applicant proposes a reclassification from the C -G zone to the RS-4 zone to construct 4
detached single - family units at a density of 10.3 dwelling units per acre in compliance with
the maximum density allowed by the General Plan and the RS-4 zone. The proposed
development would contribute to the City's long term housing needs by providing dwelling
units. In addition, this property is identified as a housing opportunity site in the Housing
Element of the General Plan.
(15) Detached, small -lot, single family residences are permitted in the RS -4 zone, subject to the
approval of a conditional use permit under authority of Code Section 18.04.160 pertaining
to small lot developments. Modification to standards is allowed in order to achieve high
quality project design, privacy, livability, and compatibility with surrounding uses. The
project varies from the Code with regard to rear yard setbacks for Lot Nos. 2 and 3 in order
to create more useable and private yard area within the side yard setbacks.
(16) Staff believes the proposed project achieves the best design for this residential product
type given the configuration of the property. The setbacks would be reduced to 5 feet
adjacent to the flood control channel and the apartments to the west in order to incorporate
private, useable open space into expanded side yards. This design also allows for an
adequate landscape buffer from the adjacent streets. These modifications are allowed if
the Commission finds that the deviations would achieve a good project design, enhance the
privacy and livability for residents within and around the project, and create a project that is
compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses. Staff believes that the proposed
design achieves these objectives-
FINDINGS
(17) Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use permit in the RS4 zone, it must
make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions
exist:
(a) The uses within the project are compatible;
(b) New buildings or structures related to the project are compatible with the scale,
mass, bulk, and orientation of existing buildings in the surrounding area, provided
the existing buildings conform with the provisions of this title;
(c) Vehicular and pedestrian access are adequate;
(d) The project is consistent with any adopted design guidelines applicable to the
parcel or parcels;
(e) The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular
area;
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 7
(f) 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;
(g) The impact upon the surrounding area has been mitigated to the maximum extent
practicable;
(h) The project complies with the General Plan and Subdivision Map Act; and
(i) 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.
(18) "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
(1 9)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.
(b) By resolution, approve Reclassification No. 2005 -00171 to reclassify the property from
the C -G zone to the RS -4 zone by adopting the attached resolution including the
findings and conditions contained therein.
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 7
(c) By resolution, approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -05050 to permit four (4) small -
lot, single - family residences by adopting the attached resolution including the findings
and conditions contained therein.
(d) By motion, approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -259 to establish a 4 -lot, 4 -unit
detached subdivision based upon the attached conditions of approval and that the
design and improvement of the subdivision is consistent with the General Plan.
Page 5
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2005-
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004 -05050 BE GRANTED
(601 SOUTHWESTERN AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for
Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of
California, described as:
THE EAST 172.00 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, IN THE RANCHO
LOS COYOTES, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 11 OF MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, LYING
NORTHERLY OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 5, 1959, IN BOOK 4614, PAGE 493 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on December 12, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly
given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter
18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate
and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by
Anaheim Municipal Code Section No. 18.04.160 to construct four (4), small -lot, single family residences.
2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed to be located as staff believes the proposed project is
compatible with existing and surrounding land uses and that the minor deviations from the Code as provided
in Section 18.04.160 would achieve a well designed and livable project, while being compatible and
consistent with surrounding land uses. The proposed use would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses
and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed and because the size and shape of the
site for the project is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental
to the particular area.
3. 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 as the proposed project because
the project would be implementing the Low - Medium Density Residential land use designation of the General
Plan. This designation was environmentally analyzed as part of the environmental review process required
by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) performed as part of the General Plan Update approved
by the City Council on May 25, 2004.
4. 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.
5. That **no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING That the Anaheim City Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 4 -unit detached residential subdivision 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
Cr\PC2005- -1- PC2005-
during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments
received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the
safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
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 and fencing plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review
and approval. The fencing plan shall incorporate a six (6) foot high decorative block wall along the
north, south, and west property lines and a planter adjacent the east elevation (garage) of the unit at
the corner of Orange and Western Avenues. The landscape plan shall incorporate a layered
landscape theme and indicate clinging vines, shrubs and groundcover between the block wall and the
northern property line. Said plans shall show minimum 24 -inch box size evergreen, trees within the
front yards of each home (two (2) trees per property). 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 all air - conditioning facilities and other 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 2004 -00171
approval and recordation of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -259, now pending.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense. That
landscape and /or hardscape screening of all pad- mounted equipment shall be required and shall be
shown on plans submitted for building permits.
10. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses.
11. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street in a manner which may
adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street. Installation of any gates shall conform to
Engineering Standard Plan No. 609 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic
and Transportation Manager. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for
building permits-
-2- PC2005-
12. 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.
13. That a comprehensive trash management program shall be submitted to the Public Works Department,
Streets and Sanitation Division. Said program shall include information on the following: a detailed,
scaled site plan showing the storage and collection areas for automated trash barrels for each unit, the
location of any trash enclosure with enclosure details drawings, and truck access.
14. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department
Development Services Division for review and approval a Water Quality Management Plan that:
• Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as minimizing impervious areas,
maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or "zero
discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas.
Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area
Management Plan.
15. 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.
16. That the City of Anaheim Sewer Impact Mitigation fee for the Combined West Anaheim Area, Zone B
shall be paid. The mitigation fee is currently $1,669 /unit for single family developments.
17. The vehicular access rights to Orange Avenue and Western Avenue, except at street opening, shall be
released and relinquished to the City of Anaheim.
18. That the Developer shall remove the existing driveway approaches and replace with curb, gutter,
parkway landscaping and sidewalk. Obtain a Right of Way Construction Permit from the Development
Services Division.
19. That the developer shall submit grading plans 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 shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning
inspections.
20. That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area in a
manner fully screened from all public streets. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault
shall be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to
the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside of the street
setback areas in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be
shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector before
submittal for building permits.
21. That if this project has a common landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation
meter shall be installed and shall comply with City Ordinance No. 5349 and Chapter 10.19 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code. Said information shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits-
-3- PC2005-
22. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or
abandonment of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water Engineering
Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department.
23. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Services Standards
Specifications- Any water service and /or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if
continued use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The
owner /developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line.
24. That prior to submitting water improvement plans, the developer shall submit a water system master
plan, including a hydraulic distribution network analysis, for Public Utilities Water Engineering review
and approval. The master plan shall demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed on -site water system
to meet the project's water demands and fire protection requirements.
25. That water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Water Engineering Division for approval and a
performance bond in the amount approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney shall be posted with
the City of Anaheim. That the water improvement plans shall indicate a minimum clearance of five (5)
feet from the water main to the curb and gutter and a minimum clearance of ten (10) feet from the
water main to the sewer line.
26. That prior to application for water meters, fire line or submitting the water improvement plans for
approval, the developer /owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Water Engineering Division an
estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the
project. This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to
provide the estimated water demands. Any off -site water system improvements required to serve the
project shall occur in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and
Regulations.
27. 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, as conditioned herein.
28. 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, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25 and
26, 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.
29. That prior to approval of a grading plan, Condition Nos. 14, above - mentioned, shall be complied with.
30. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 15, 18, 19, 23 and 27,
above - mentioned, shall be complied with.
31. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it
complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal
regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and
all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared
invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
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- PC2005-
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
December 12, 2005. 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 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 December 12, 2005, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
2005.
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-5- PC2005-
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2005-
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT APPLICATION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2005 -00171 BE GRANTED
(601 SOUTHWESTERN AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified application for
Reclassification for real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described as follows:
THE EAST 172.00 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, IN THE RANCHO
LOS COYOTES, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 11 OF MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, LYING
NORTHERLY OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 5, 1959, IN BOOK 4614, PAGE 493 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of
Anaheim on December 12, 2005, 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 petitioner proposes reclassification of subject property from the C -G (General
Commercial) zone to the RS -4 (Residential, Single - Family) zone.
2. That the Anaheim General Plan designates this property and the property to the west for Low
Medium Density Residential land uses. The RS -4 zone is a typical implementation zone for this land use
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 XX people indicated their presence at said public hearing in XX.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the C -G (General Commercial) zone
to the RS -4 (Residential, Single - Family) zone, or less intense zone; and does hereby approve the Negative
Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it
has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process
and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby
approve the subject Application for Reclassification to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map of the
Cr1PC2005- -1- PC2005-
Anaheim Municipal Code to exclude the above - described property from the C -G (General Commercial) zone
and to incorporate said described property into the RS -4 (Residential, Single - Family) zone, upon the following
conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of subject property in
order to preserve the health and safety of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
That prior to introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, a preliminary title report shall be
furnished to the Planning Services Division showing the legal vesting of title, a legal description and
containing a map of the property.
2. That prior to placement of an ordinance rezoning subject property on an agenda for City Council
consideration, Condition No. 1, above - mentioned, shall be completed. The City Council may approve or
disapprove a zoning ordinance at its discretion. If the ordinance is disapproved, the procedure set forth in
Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.60.140 shall apply. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution
shall become null and void by action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with
within one (1) year from the date of this resolution, or such further time as the Planning Commission may
grant.
3. That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2005 -05050 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -259.
4. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it
complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal
regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request
regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that
adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicants compliance with each and all of the
conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such conditions, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or
unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any
approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall not constitute a rezoning of, or a
commitment by the City to rezone, the subject property; any such rezoning shall require an ordinance of the City
Council, which shall be a legislative act, which may be approved or denied by the City Council at its sole
discretion.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to
the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to
the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in
delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
December 12, 2005. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 "Procedures"
of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council
Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-2- PC2005-
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
December 12, 2005 by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
2005.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-3- PC2005-
City of Anaheim
I~LAN~~NG D~~AR~M~~T
~~.
~ ~ ~~ • December 12, 2005
..t,<i
Isam Hanna
5830 East Lavender Court
Orange, CA 92804
Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of
December 12, 2005.
7a. CEQA Negative Declaration
7b. Reclassification No. 2005-00171
7c. Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05050
7d. Tentative Parcel Mao No. 2005-259
Owner: Isam Hanna, 5830 east Lavender Court, Orange, CA 92804
Agent: Terry Smith, KTK Construction, 18627 Brookhurst Street, Suite 349
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Location: 601 South Western Avenue.
Reclassification No. 2005-00171 - to reclassify this property from the C-G (General
Commercial) zone to the RS-4 (Single-Family Residential) zone, or less intense zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05050 - to permit four (4), small-lot, single-family
residences.
Tentative Parcel Mao No. 2005-259 - to establish a 4-lot, 4-unit detached single-family
residential subdivision.
Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by XXX and MOTION CARRIED, that the
Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 4-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 XXX and MOTION CARRIED that the
Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed tentative parcel
map, Including its design and improvements, is consistent with the Anaheim General Plan,
and does therefore approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-259, to establish a 4-:lot, 4-unit
detached single-family residential subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the final map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and the
Orange County Surveyor and then shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County
Recorder (Subdivision Map Act, Section 66499.40).
2. That a maintenance covenant, shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section .and
approved'by the City Attorney's office. The covenant shall include provisions for
maintenance of private facilities, including compliance with approved Water Quality
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
P.O. Box 3222
Anaheim, California 92803
wwwanaheim.nel TEL (714) 765-5139
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. The vehicular access rights to Orange Avenue and Western Avenue, except at street
opening, shall be released and relinquished to the City of Anaheim.
5. That the property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate on the final map to the City of
Anaheim a corner cut -off easement for road, public utility and other public purposes.
6. That the access drives, sanitary sewer and storm drain within the development shall be
privately maintained. Improvement plans for the sanitary sewer, and private drainage
system shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services
Division concurrently with the final map.
7. That approval of this parcel map is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification
No. 2005 -00171 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 - 05050, now pending.
8. That prior to final parcel map approval, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10, above -
mentioned, shall be complied with.
9. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the
extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other
applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or
findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable
ordinance, regulation or requirement.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
cc: Terry Smith, KTK Construction- 18627 Brookhurst Street, Fountain Valley, CA 92708
ITEM N0. 8
SP BZ-2 VAq ]0]0 u0ntilAnu Y~PAR-ICING- VAR ]C
RGL 608161 (6B) VAR 2885 PANNING VAR it
aPJ68 RAMPDAMAINAAiE 6M. INp.I
sP ez.1
RCL088161 Rt)
aP 1Be1 LANp6CAPED SP 82-1 LANDSCAPED SP 82-1 SP E
VAR E116 E46EMENT RCL 6&61.61 Qp01 EASEMENT RCL 6fi-fi)-011106) ~ROLCUPI
CUP 1216
DISNEY WAY
~e,~
~ amemmoe °-e „~~~~^t,.~"a t~P~.~t`a~J &..,,~~ ~ttk ~,`E3yi~4*` ~+fi".,-'°y"',~~s~ .~~1s^.1'-,+~ ~r,~ti l :"" c•i
LLP]mT E' aS +Sx 'S`N'
~GVPx]0 rd4"']5 .a" ,;. ~' n`^~ '- sY.~~~,. m,~~f.'N `E2" s,o-~" '> y='~..~
11Be1 ~+vA I1 mi~AREAB ''"~~ s,~;:.. &' u,+1' 6P Bat ~
SB 'xY''~v~'-c''~„ '} r ~~ (AREA ~i ~ + x,"~1~~%~~ )T-CUP ]~4049d1~
1 Z"" m 1 8P 821 2.- l - k'.L aP {me
ANO Sk. N~~~ ROL80S1b1 (05) ~„j ., '~ /~~"~ SP 811 ~' (qa~%R21
TLUP 200401W1 ~:~. *~.( ftCLfiSBx-01 (1001 '
Q +"~: Cs" aP1me RLL 66~6L0116-101(B1t1) .,;. Y-?'~5'y.
Cry ~`~"' y 1 VAR 3l]] ~ '£'? -~ TLUP IOOI-016001 f ~`~~~.
VAR 1021 CUP b)e .~ ~ ,
'~ ~ (OlIP 1500) ~ _ss~~ ((((O~~IR ]C51 x~~&
~~ ~ .~", ANAe~IM PS IIAZA YV' . ~'`~~ ~ (CI~R 1169 ~ .
3 HOTEL MID 6UNE8 ~?%~ Y'F (cW 080)
11)i~~ Q ., 4 "'~ l lA&O t0 ~ SP 82-1 W ROLOaeb
Rp ~ V FIRE STATION d' cup
C .~' rt i' •~'" ~~ N0.3 ~ MARIOTTI
~- R f ! ~ BIN 5
• k _ .f ' Yo
S5 m RCLfiB6e-01 (!) ~ f "~'~~ RCL OB-01{
AOI 11 RGL 8Gfi7-61 (SB 6p 02.1 f W ROL 505
CA6REINN ' • ^~ SL. -IJ~ ~RCLSB-s/~108) ~ W uEANE
ISNTE6 mar 6P 62 1 ( ~„ YS:j; ~ TLUP 20040/8/1 '
m RCL 668]-81(45) ;'`i"~{'?"~I RCL 6667d11103~ ~s~k`wi`; TL C13F0ott0-IOUSB ~ eP B1t
VAR 22465 444 ~A' p1d.5&5162) ftCL 68618
T-CUP 2004-0 841
SP B2-2 AD10024 T-CUP 2002-04808 .~ U1cANi RCL 585:
= ROL 66A6fti-0~t lt6el MOTEL CUP IpT6 f " _
VM 4W (CUP 2148) ~~
MLLAOE INN MOTEL (CUP 1777) ~ ~~RCL~m Wdt toe) ~ sP B]
CUP PC169~~1 RCL 6661{
((~!~y ~ ~,. T{VP x001LIB1t RCL 58:
Ary9~ IVgqARRR 1165 1 lR P b1) 6VR~E6
BP 823 BP®-] ~ggPd O CUP 1311 Y~43R .~ BP xx
3mj1°IB RCL 8681-01115) ~ VARI~UJ) RCLB~~011 8P B2-3 Ou2~g VA~C~~ S 4,' RCL0661-011100) P[ ~pL5p.~~3 s~ml
CUP 1859 VAR 1mOb VM21I] RCLmdldtp6 5 ~ "5P~ pa 588/ 1 HE}ily~.
Amn VAR 201 VM BiB VMitN ANONIEM ,~"(& ~M TLUP 2004048/1 -A-
dldl11to VAR 101 4 i°-m~ t:;~ ti+fi~ f~F ~. aP101B x
usSS IWAHEIM RE60Ri HapAY NN fNRA6Y ~I ~on= -''~'~ ~ {~~ T-VM 2002-01~2 qc a tm~
i-It RETNL CENTER ~~APN2A ENRiE66. B1N6 Iyy~~ n¢¢p ~M ]280 P ~i;l
Agy,Ef HOTEL 0.VNIEM BURE6 ~mj~jj M1211
U ~ WC,Nii 2) W E
.. ^ ~.u ..., ..v MAGP
KATELLA AVENUE
6g ~~
'P4~ RCL8BE1.01(52) $~~
1081611{8) LUP 2285 SP B2-2 w®-]~~-mm R~
IP JSB aP711 RCL 66-W~61 (16) ga06erd1wlRCLe681at 1tml ~~
.1]206 VAR21]II6 CUP Bhp vMxfx VAA teID E n= CUP UIB SP 82-0
cmON VAR 1884 vAR tfeB gq JU B^~ RC10881d1 la11 aP10D1
6.fi. 1ASVS MOTOR VARGxe I~1QLR M9~=g39 aPT51 SP0-1 SP 82-1
VAR ]Bm aP 1801 CUP 1604
LOGGE BIpG. gCeg DI6NE ~0 ENT40PLOYEE PARKING
Nm~+m
6P 82-2 ~
Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 Anaheim GardenWalk
TRACKING NO. CUP2D05-05053 Date: December 12, 2005
Development Agreement No. 1999-00001 Scale: Gra
TRACKING NO. DAG2005-00009 phic
Requested By: WILLIAM J. STONE Q.S. No. 87
EXCEL REALTY HOLDINGS, LLC
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4078: REQUEST TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE POINTE ANAHEIM LIFESTYLE RETAIL AND
ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX (ANAHEIM GARDENWALK) TO EXTEND THE COMMENCEMENT
DATE OF THE INITIAL PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT FOR ONE (1) YEAR UNTIL FEBRUARY 26, 2007.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 1999-00001 (TRACKING NO. DAG2005-00009): REQUEST FOR
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO. 99-01 REGARDING THE COMMENCEMENT DATE OF THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT PHASE
OF THE ANAHEIM GARDENWALK PROJECT. 2~oa
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 8
'.:t:7�_1UUq�I�1�1���C�lla�li7 111 %1�1_1:1�1��I�11//_1�91�1U %1�1�
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION /MODIFIED MITIGATION
MONITORING PLAN NO. 004 (PREVIOUSLY - APPROVED) (Motion)
8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4078
(Tracking No. CUP2005- 05053) (Resolution)
8c. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 99 -01
(Tracking No. DAG 2005 - 00009) (Recommendation resolution)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) The Anaheim GardenWalk (formerly known as 'Pointe Anaheim ") project site is located
on approximately 29.1 acres in The Anaheim Resort between Harbor Boulevard and
Clementine Street, and Disney Way and Katella Avenue. The project site has
approximate frontages of 1,500 feet on the south side of Disney Way between Harbor
Boulevard and Clementine Street, 1,185 feet on the west side of Clementine Street
between Disney Way and Katella Avenue (excluding Fire Station No. 3 at 1713 -1717
South Clementine Street), 728 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue between
Clementine Street and a point 771 feet west of the centerline of Clementine Street, and
585 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard between Disney Way and a point 615 feet
south of the centerline of Disney Way. The site is vacant except for the Anaheim Plaza
Hotel and Suites at 1700 South Harbor Boulevard.
REQUEST:
(2) William J. Stone, Excel Realty Holdings, LLC, the project applicant, has submitted the
attached letter dated October 24, 2005, requesting approval of the following:
(a) Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 — Request to amend the
conditions of approval pertaining to the development of the Anaheim
GardenWalk lifestyle retail and entertainment complex to extend the
commencement date of the Initial Phase of Development for one (1) year until
February 26, 2007.
(b) Amendment No. 2 to the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement
No. 99 -01 — Request to amend the required commencement date of the Initial
Development Phase of the Anaheim GardenWalk project by amending the
definition of the "Outside Initial Phase Commencement Date" to mean February 26,
2007.
BACKGROUND:
(3) The 29.1 -acre Anaheim GardenWalk project site is located in The Anaheim Resort in The
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92 -1, Pointe Anaheim Overlay Zone. The easterly
20.3 -acre portion of the site, located on the west side of Clementine Street between
Disney Way and Katella Avenue, is vacant. The westerly 8.8 -acre portion of the site,
located at the southeast corner of Disney Way and Harbor Boulevard, is developed with
the Anaheim Plaza Hotel and Suites at 1700 South Harbor Boulevard.
srCUP4078 amendment tw.doc
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 8
(4) The surrounding land uses and zoning are shown on the following chart. The entire area
is designated for Commercial Recreation land uses by the General Plan.
Direction
Land Use
Zoning
North (across Disney
Southern California Edison
Parking District of The
Way)
Company overhead utility
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan
easement
No. 92 -1
East (across
Marriott Residence Inn
C -R District of the Anaheim
Clementine Street)
Cleaners
Resort Specific Plan No. 92 -2
Enterprise car rentals
Extended Stay America
Hotel Circle Specific Plan
La Quinta Inn and Suites
No. 93 -1
East (bounded by the
City Fire Station No. 3
Parking District, C -R Overlay of
Anaheim GardenWalk
The Disneyland Resort Specific
project area on the
Plan No. 92 -1
north, west and south
South (across Katella
Disneyland Resort employee
Future Expansion District of The
Ave.)
parking lot
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan
No. 92 -1
South and West
Castle Inn & Suites
C -R District of the Anaheim
Super 8 Motel
Resort Specific Plan No. 92 -2
West (across Harbor
Disneyland Theme Park
Theme Park District of The
Blvd.)
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan
No. 92 -1
(5) The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92 -1 was adopted by the City Council on June
29, 1993 for an overall area of about 501 acres generally bounded by Ball Road on the
north, Interstate 5 /Santa Ana Freeway on the northeast, Katella Avenue on the south
including about 25 acres located south of Katella Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and
Haster Street, and Walnut Street on the west. Since the 1993 adoption of the Specific
Plan, several Specific Plan Amendments and Specific Plan Adjustments have been
approved, including Amendment Nos. 4 and 5 pertaining to the subject 29.1 -acre site.
(6) On July 13, 1999, the Anaheim City Council approved the Anaheim GardenWalk project
to provide for a 565,000 square foot retail /dining /entertainment complex (including up to
three live performance theaters, or alternatively, a 24- screen movie theater), and up to
1,050 hotel rooms /suites with associated parking to be developed in a single phase. The
project applications included an amendment to the General Plan, The Disneyland Resort
Specific Plan, Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 and Development Agreement No. 99 -01.
(7) On February 26, 2002, the City Council subsequently amended the General Plan, The
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and Development Agreement No. 99 -01 to modify the
mix and allocation of land uses and to permit phasing of the project in up to five phases.
The modified uses are as follows: up to 634,700 gross square feet of retail /dining/
entertainment uses (which includes a 94,000 square foot aquarium); a maximum of four
hotels comprising up to 1,662 hotel rooms /suites (of which up to 200 units may be
Vacation Ownership Resort units) with approximately 322,071 gross square feet of
related accessory uses, of which up to 178,120 gross square feet could be used for a
hotel conference center on top of the parking structure; and, a parking structure with up
to 4,800 parking spaces and 15 bus spaces with a 10,200 square foot bus terminal/facility
for airport transport to and from sightseeing venues. A waiver of the minimum required
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 8
number of parking spaces (6,581 spaces required, up to 4,800 spaces in the parking
structure proposed at full project build -out) was also approved.
The City Council also approved a Disposition and Development Agreement by and
between the City and Excel Pointe Anaheim, LLC, to provide for the sale of
approximately 1.35 acres located at the southwest corner of Disney Way and Clementine
Street, north of Fire Station No. 3 to the developer and the lease to the city of certain
public parking facilities to be constructed within the project.
(8) On December 14, 2004, the City Council subsequently approved amendments to
Conditional Use Permit No. 4078, Development Agreement No. 99 -01 and the
Disposition and Development Agreement as follows (no modifications were made to the
project description):
(a) Amended paragraph A of Condition No. 68 of Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 to
extend, by one year, the date by which construction of the Initial Phase of
Development must be commenced (by February 26, 2006 instead of within 3
years after February 26, 2002).
(b) Adopted Amendment No. 1 to the First Amended and Restated Development
Agreement No. 99-01 by and between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim GW,
LLC, as successor -in interest to Excel Pointe Anaheim, LLC, and amended
subsection 1.43 of Section 1 (Definitions) of the Development Agreement to
define the "Outside Initial Phase Commencement Date" to mean February 26,
2006.
(c) Approved, by motion, Amendment No. 1 to the Disposition and Development
Agreement by and between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim GIN, LLC, as
successor -in interest to Excel Pointe Anaheim, LLC.
PROPOSAL:
(9) The applicant is currently preparing a proposal to amend the existing entitlements for the
Anaheim GardenWalk project relating to the mix and allocation of land uses, phasing,
and project layout (see Item No. 1 -D on this agenda for a further discussion of the
proposed applications). These changes are anticipated to be scheduled for Planning
Commission and City Council consideration in February /March of next year. In order to
allow time to process the applications, the applicant requests that the Planning
Commission amend Condition No. 68 of Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 to extend the
commencement date of the Initial Development Phase by one (1) year, as follows.
(Deletions are shown RtFuek eut and additions are shown underlined.
"68. That the Pointe Anaheim GardenWalk project shall be developed in up to five (5)
development phases, as shown on Exhibit No. 1, titled 'Phasing Diagram" and
dated November 19, 2001, as follows:
A. The property owner /developer shall obtain approval of Final Site Plans,
obtain the appropriate building and other permits, and commence
construction of the Initial Phase on or before February 26, 2006 2007.
B. The property owner /developer shall complete the construction of and open
the improvements comprising the Initial Phase within a period of two (2)
years after commencement of construction of the Initial Phase. "Opening" of
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 8
the improvements shall be defined as the opening of at least seventy five
percent (75 %) of the total square footage of the uses within the underlying
phase.
C. Following the Initial Phase, the property owner /developer shall use
reasonable commercial efforts to commence construction of subsequent
development phases within approximately two (2) years, but in no event later
than four (4) years, following the opening of the previous phase, provided the
timing of each subsequent phase will depend primarily on market demand at
the time, the availability of project financing, and acquisition of land for the
proposed uses.
D. The property owner /developer shall complete the construction and open the
improvements comprising each subsequent development phase within a
period of two (2) years after the building permits for said phase were issued;
provided, however, that the final development phase shall commence
construction within a period of ten (10) years from the date of this resolution.
Extensions for further time to comply with these conditions may be granted in
accordance with Section 18.60.170 (Extension of Time to Comply with Conditions
of Approval) of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code."
(10) The applicant also requests that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council amendment of subsection 1.43 of Section 1 (Definitions) of the First Amended
and Restated Development Agreement No. 99 -01 to extend the commencement date of
the Initial Development Phase by one (1) year, to read as follows:
"1.43 "Outside Initial Phase Commencement Date" means February 26, 2906 2007" .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(11) Staff has reviewed the actions described in paragraphs (9) and (10) of this staff report
and the Addendum to the Pointe Anaheim Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration, including Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004, which was previously
approved by the City Council on February 26, 2002 in connection with the first
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 and Development Agreement No. 99 -01,
and finds that said Addendum and Mitigated Negative Declaration are adequate to serve
as the required environmental documentation for the proposed time extension actions
and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA; that there is no substantial evidence, with the
imposition of the mitigation measures identified in Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No.
004, that the proposed actions will have a significant effect on the environment; and that
no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the proposed actions.
Therefore, staff recommends that the previously- approved Addendum and Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including the Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004, serve as
the required environmental documentation for the proposed actions-
EVALUATION
(12) The proposed amendment to Condition No. 68 of Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 to
extend the commencement date of the Initial Phase by one (1) year, is authorized under
subsection .030 of Section 18.60.190 (Amendment of Permit Approval) of Chapter 18.60
(Procedures) and Section 18.66.070 (Procedures) of Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use
Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 8
(13) Article 2.5 of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of Title 7 (commencing with Section 65864) of the
Government Code of the State of California (hereinafter the "Statute ") authorizes a city to
enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest
in real property for the development of the property as provided in said Statute. Pursuant
to subdivision (c) of Section 65865 of the Statute, on November 23, 1982, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 82R -565 (hereinafter the "Procedures Resolution ")
establishing procedures and requirements for the consideration of development
agreements upon receipt of an application by the city. Amendment No. 2 to the First
Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99 -01 is requested pursuant to
authority set forth in California Government Code Section 65864, et seq.
(14) As part of the Anaheim GardenWalk project, Anaheim GW, LLC (Developer) purchased
an approximately 1.35 -acre city -owned parcel with an option for the City of Anaheim to
re- acquire the property if the Developer fails to meet certain performance milestones.
One such milestone is the commencement date of the Initial Phase (February 26, 2006)
which is set forth in the Conditional Use Permit and the Development Agreement. The
Developer has indicated that he is unable to meet this milestone because he is currently
proposing changes to the project which will be scheduled for Planning Commission and
City Council consideration in February/March of next year. Staff has reviewed the
applicant's request and has determined that the proposed extension to February 26,
2007 will provide sufficient time to process the proposed modifications to the Anaheim
GardenWalk project entitlements and facilitate the project moving forward in a timely
manner. Therefore, staff is supportive of the proposed request.
FINDINGS:
(15) Before the Commission approves, in whole or in part, the amendment to Condition No. 68
of Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 to extend the commencement date, the Commission
must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all the following
conditions exist:
(a) That the proposed amendment to the conditions of approval is properly
authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.60.190 (Amendment of
Permit Approval) of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) and Section 18.66.070
(Procedures) of Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits);
(b) That the use, including the amendment to the conditions of approval to extend
the commencement date of the Initial Development Phase, is properly one for
which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code;
(c) That the use, including the amendment to the conditions of approval, will not
adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the
area in which it is proposed to be located;
(d) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use, including the
amendment to the conditions of approval, is adequate to allow full development
of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or
to health and safety;
(e) That the traffic generated by the proposed use, including the amendment to the
conditions of approval, will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and
highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and,
Page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
December 12, 2005
Item No. 8
(f) That amending this conditional use permit, under the conditions imposed
including the amendment to the conditions of approval, will not be detrimental to
the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Since the request before the Planning Commission to amend Conditional Use Permit No.
4078 does not change the actual development proposal, with the exception of extending
the commencement date of the Initial Phase of development for one year, the findings
made in connection with previous approvals of the Conditional Use Permit still apply as
indicated in the attached resolution.
(16) Pursuant to the Procedures Resolution No. 82R -565 (regarding development
agreements), the Planning Commission is required to made a recommendation to the
City Council relative to the proposed Amendment No. 2 to the First Amended and
Restated Development Agreement No. 99 -01. Since the request before the Planning
Commission does not change the actual development proposal, with the exception of
extending the Initial Phase Commencement Date, the findings made in connection with
the Ordinances adopting the Development Agreement (Ordinance No. 5808, as amended
by Ordinance No. 5953) that the project has demonstrated eligibility to enter into a
Development Agreement, that the Agreement is consistent with the Anaheim General
Plan and The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and is compatible with the property in the
surrounding area and not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the
citizens of Anaheim, still apply as indicated in the attached resolution-
RECOMMENDATION
(17) Based on the information submitted to the city, staff recommends that, unless additional
or contrary information is received during the public hearing, and based on the evidence
submitted to the Planning Commission, including the evidence presented in this staff
report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission, by
motion, find that the Addendum to the Pointe Anaheim Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including the Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004, are
adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed actions
and approve the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 and recommend that
the City Council approve an amendment to Development Agreement No. 99 -01 by
adopting the attached resolutions including the findings contained therein.
Page 6
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2005-
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 99R -136
AS AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NOS. 2002R -57 AND 2004R -253,
ADOPTED IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO- 4078
(ANAHEIM GARDENWALK)
WHEREAS, on June 22, 1999, the Anaheim City Council did, by its Resolution No. 99R-
136, grant Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 to permit the Pointe Anaheim Lifestyle Retail and
Entertainment Complex consisting of up to 565,000 gross square feet of retail /dining /entertainment uses;
two to three hotels comprising 1,050 rooms /suites with approximately 86,985 gross square feet of related
accessory uses (the hotel rooms /accessory uses would encompass a maximum of 923,800 gross sq.ft.)
and an approximately 141,200 gross sq. ft. area on the top floor of the parking structure to be used to
provide parking and /or hotel amenities serving guests and patrons of the Pointe Anaheim hotels only; up
to three theaters with a total of 4,600 seats for live performances or, alternatively, a 24- screen movie
theater with 4,757 seats; a 1,600,000 gross sq.ft. parking structure with 4,800 striped parking spaces and
25 bus spaces with provision to park an additional 400 vehicles, which would bring the total number of
vehicles that can be accommodated in the garage to 5,200 cars, and including a 21,600 gross sq.ft. bus
terminal/facility for airport transport and to /from sightseeing venues; and waiver of the minimum number
of parking spaces (7,668 spaces required, 4,800 striped spaces proposed with provision for an additional
400 vehicles which would bring the total number of vehicles that can be accommodated in the parking
structure to 5,200); with development of the project to take place in a single phase; and
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2002, the Anaheim City Council did, by its Resolution No-
2002R-57, amend Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 to permit the Pointe Anaheim Lifestyle Retail and
Entertainment Complex consisting of up to 634,700 gross sq. ft. of retail /dining /entertainment uses (which
includes a 94,000 sq.ft. aquarium); up to four hotels comprising a maximum of 1,662 hotel rooms /suites
(of which up to 200 units may be Vacation Ownership Resort units) with approximately 322,071 gross sq.
ft. of related accessory uses, of which up to 178,120 gross sq. ft on top of the parking structure may be
used for a hotel conference center (the hotel rooms /suites and accessory uses would encompass a
maximum of 1,370,711 gross sq. ft.); and, a 1,949,800 gross sq. ft. parking structure with up to 4,800
striped parking spaces and 15 bus spaces with a 10,200 sq. ft. bus terminal /facility for airport transport
and to /from sightseeing venues; with the proposed development taking place in up to five phases; and,
with a waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces (6,581 spaces required, up to 4,800 spaces in
the parking structure proposed at full project buildout); and, that said Resolution No. 2002R -57 contains
certain conditions of approval, including paragraph A of Condition No. 68 which pertains to the
commencement date of the Initial Development Phase, as follows:
68 -A. The property owner /developer shall obtain approval of Final Site Plans, obtain the
appropriate building and other permits, and commence construction of the Initial Phase
within a period of three (3) years from the date of this resolution.
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2004, the Anaheim City Council did, by its Resolution No-
2004R-253, amend Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 to amend Condition No. 68 therein to read as
follows:
68. That the Pointe Anaheim project shall be developed in up to five (5) development
phases, as shown on Exhibit No. 1, titled "Phasing Diagram" and dated November 19,
2001. as follows:
A. The property owner /developer shall obtain approval of Final Site Plans,
obtain the appropriate building and other permits, and commence
construction of the Initial Phase on or before February 26, 2006.
1 - PC2005-
[DRAFT]
B. The property owner /developer shall complete the construction of and open the
improvements comprising the Initial Phase within a period of two (2) years after
commencement of construction of the Initial Phase. "Opening" of the
improvements shall be defined as the opening of at least seventy -five percent
(75 %) of the total square footage of the uses within the underlying phase.
C. Following the Initial Phase, the property owner /developer shall use reasonable
commercial efforts to commence construction of subsequent development
phases within approximately two (2) years, but in no event later than four (4)
years, following the opening of the previous phase, provided the timing of each
subsequent phase will depend primarily on market demand at the time, the
availability of project financing, and acquisition of land for the proposed uses.
D. The property owner /developer shall complete the construction and open the
improvements comprising each subsequent development phase within a period
of two (2) years after the building permits for said phase were issued; provided,
however, that the final development phase shall commence construction within a
period of ten (10) years from the date of this resolution.
Extensions for further time to comply with these conditions may be granted in
accordance with Section 18.60.170 (Extension of Time to Comply with Conditions of
Approval) of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
WHEREAS, the 29.1 -acre project site is vacant with the exception of 8.8 acres at 1700
South Harbor Boulevard which is developed with the Anaheim Plaza Hotel and Suites; that the site is
zoned SP92 -1 (The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92 -1) consisting of District A/Pointe Anaheim
Overlay (18.9 acres) and Parking District (East Parking Area) /C -R Overlay /Pointe Anaheim Overlay (102
acres)); and that the site is located in The Anaheim Resort and is designated for Commercial Recreation
land uses by the Anaheim General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the petitioner has submitted a letter requesting an extension of one year until
February 26, 2007 to commence construction of the Initial Development Phase of the Anaheim
GardenWalk project; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on December 12, 2005 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 the proposed amendment to the
conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection
therewith.
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 amendment to the conditions of approval is properly one that is
authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.60.190 (Amendment of Permit Approval) of Chapter
18.60 (Procedures) and Section 18.66.070 (Procedures) of Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits).
2. That the use, as amended to extend the commencement date of the Initial Development
Phase, is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Anaheim Municipal Code.
3. That the use, as amended to extend the commencement date of the Initial Development
Phase, will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in
which it is proposed to be located (this amendment does not change the Anaheim GardenWalk project, it
only extends the commencement date of the Initial Phase of development for one year).
2- PC2005-
[DRAFT]
4. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use, as amended to extend the
commencement date of the Initial Development Phase, is adequate to allow full development of the use in
a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to health and safety (this amendment does not change
the Anaheim GardenWalk project, it only extends the commencement date of the Initial Phase of
development for one year).
5. That the traffic generated by the proposed use, as amended to extend the
commencement date of the Initial Development Phase, will not impose an undue burden upon the streets
and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area (this amendment does not change
the Anaheim GardenWalk project, it only extends the commencement date of the Initial Phase of
development for one year).
6. That amending this conditional use permit, under the conditions imposed including the
amendment to the conditions of approval to extend the commencement date of the Initial Development
Phase, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim (this
amendment does not change the Anaheim GardenWalk project, it only extends the commencement date
of the Initial Phase of development for one year).
7. That indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition; and that
correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition.
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed action
and has found and determined that the Addendum to the Pointe Anaheim Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004, which was previously
approved by the City Council on February 26, 2002, in connection with the first Amendment to Conditional
Use Permit No. 4078, is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed
actions and satisfies all of the requirements of CEQA; and further finding that there is no substantial
evidence, with the imposition of the mitigation measures identified in Modified Mitigation Monitoring
Program No. 004, that the proposed action will have a significant effect on the environment; and that no
further environmental documentation need be prepared for the proposed action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby amend Condition No. 68 of Resolution No. 99R -136, as amended by Resolution Nos-
2002R-57 and 2004R -253, and adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 4078, to read as
follows:
68. That the Pointe Anaheim project shall be developed in up to five (5) development
phases, as shown on Exhibit No. 1, titled "Phasing Diagram" and dated November 19,
2001, as follows:
A. The property owner /developer shall obtain approval of Final Site Plans, obtain
the appropriate building and other permits, and commence construction of the
Initial Phase on or before February 26, 2007.
B. The property owner /developer shall complete the construction of and open the
improvements comprising the Initial Phase within a period of two (2) years after
commencement of construction of the Initial Phase. "Opening" of the
improvements shall be defined as the opening of at least seventy -five percent
(75 %) of the total square footage of the uses within the underlying phase.
C. Following the Initial Phase, the property owner /developer shall use reasonable
commercial efforts to commence construction of subsequent development
phases within approximately two (2) years, but in no event later than four (4)
years, following the opening of the previous phase, provided the timing of each
3- PC2005-
[DRAFT]
subsequent phase will depend primarily on market demand at the time, the
availability of project financing, and acquisition of land for the proposed uses.
D. The property owner /developer shall complete the construction and open the
improvements comprising each subsequent development phase within a period
of two (2) years after the building permits for said phase were issued; provided,
however, that the final development phase shall commence construction within a
period of ten (10) years from the date of this resolution.
Extensions for further time to comply with these conditions may be granted in
accordance with Section 18.60.170 (Extension of Time to Comply with Conditions of
Approval) of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicants compliance
with each and all of the conditions adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 4078. Should
any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any
court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be
deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
December 12, 2005. 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.
CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
1, 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 December 12, 2005, 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
' 2005.
SENIOR SECRETARY. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
H: \GardenWalk folder \PCR -amend CUP 4078.doc
4- PC2005-
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2005-
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE FIRST AMENDED
AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 99 -01 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AND ANAHEIM GW, LLC, AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATED THERETO
(ANAHEIM GARDENWALK)
WHEREAS, Article 2.5 of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of Title 7 (commencing with Section
65864) of the Government Code of the State of California (hereinafter the "Statute ") authorizes a city to
enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property
for the development of the property as provided in said Statute; and
WHEREAS, upon request of an applicant, cities are required to establish procedures and
requirements by resolution or ordinance for the consideration of development agreements; and
WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim (hereinafter the "City ") did on November 23, 1982, enact
Ordinance No. 4377 (hereinafter the "Enabling Ordinance ") which makes the City subject to the Statute;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65865 of the Statute, the City did on
November 23, 1982, adopt Resolution No. 82R -565 (hereinafter the "Procedures Resolution ")
establishing procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements upon receipt
of an application by the City; and
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2002, the Anaheim City Council did, by its Resolution No-
2002R-57, approve an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 to permit the Pointe Anaheim
Lifestyle, Retail and Entertainment Complex consisting of up to 634,700 gross sq. ft. of
retail /dining /entertainment uses (which includes a 94,000 sq. ft. aquarium); up to four hotels comprising a
maximum of 1,662 hotel rooms /suites (of which up to 200 units may be Vacation Ownership Resort units)
with approximately 322,071 gross sq. ft. of related accessory uses, of which up to 178,120 gross sq. ft on
top of the parking structure may be used for a hotel conference center (the hotel rooms /suites and
accessory uses would encompass a maximum of 1,370,711 gross sq. ft.); and, a 1,949,800 gross sq. ft.
parking structure with up to 4,800 striped parking spaces and 15 bus spaces with a 10,200 sq. ft. bus
terminal/facility for airport transport and to/from sightseeing venues; with the proposed development
taking place in up to five phases over time; and waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces (6,581
spaces required, up to 4,800 spaces in the parking structure proposed at full project buildout); and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2002, the City Council did, by its Ordinance No. 5808, (i)
approve the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99 -01 by and between the City of
Anaheim and Excel Pointe Anaheim, LLC, regarding certain regulations that will govern construction of
the Anaheim GardenWalk project (formerly known as the Pointe Anaheim project); (ii) make certain
findings related thereto, and (iii) authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement for and on behalf of the
City; and
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2005, the City Council did, by its Ordinance No. 5953,
approve Amendment No. 1 to the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99 -01 by
and between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim GW, LLC, as successor -in- interest to Excel Pointe
Anaheim, LLC, and amend subsection 1.43 of Section 1 (Definitions) of the Development Agreement to
define the "Outside Initial Phase Commencement Date" to mean February 26, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the 29.1 -acre project site is located between Disney Way and Katella
Avenue, and Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street; that the site is vacant with the exception of 8.8
acres at 1700 S. Harbor Blvd. which is developed with the Anaheim Plaza Hotel and Suites; that the site
is zoned SP92 -1 (The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92 -1) consisting of District A/Pointe Anaheim
IRIer[:=1iC7Go[7�11�1:.
Overlay (18.9 acres) and Parking District (the East Parking Area /C -R Overlay /Pointe Anaheim Overlay
(102 acres)); and that the site is located in The Anaheim Resort and is designated for Commercial
Recreation land uses by the Anaheim General Plan.
WHEREAS, the Developer, Anaheim GW, LLC (hereinafter the "Developer "), has
purchased an approximately 1.35 -acre City -owned property with an option for the City to re- acquire the
property if the Developer fails to meet certain performance milestones; that one such milestone is the
commencement date of the Initial Phase, which is February 26, 2006; that the Developer is unlikely to
meet this milestone because certain modifications to the development proposal are being considered and
will soon be submitted to the City to be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and City
Council at future public hearings; that the Developer has requested that the City extend the February 26,
2006 date by one year to February 26, 2007 to provide sufficient time to obtain approval of the modified
Anaheim GardenWalk project and amendments to various entitlements under which the project was
approved, including the environmental documentation, the General Plan Land Use Element, The
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92 -1 and Conditional Use Permit No. 4078; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority set forth in California Government Code Section
65864 et seq. (the "Statute "), City of Anaheim Ordinance No. 4377 (the "Enabling Ordinance ") and
Resolution No. 82R -565 (the "Procedures Resolution "), William J. Stone of Excel Realty Holdings, as
authorized agent for Anaheim GardenWalk, LLC, has submitted an application for approval of
Amendment No. 2 to the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99 -01 by and
between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim GW, LLC, to extend the date by which commencement of the
Initial Phase of the Anaheim GardenWalk project (formerly the Pointe Anaheim project) must begin; and
has also submitted, pursuant to Chapters 18.60 (Procedures) and 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits) of the
Anaheim Municipal Code, a request that Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 be amended to extend the date
by which commencement of the Initial Phase of the project must begin; and that said requests for
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 and Amendment No. 2 to the First Amended and
Restated Development Agreement No. 99 -01 are jointly known as the "Proposed Project Actions ", and
WHEREAS, the Anaheim GardenWalk project addressed in Amendment No. 2 to the
First Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99 -01, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Attachment No. 1 and incorporated herein, encompasses the same area as that addressed in
Amendment No. 1 to the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99 -01; and
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the
Anaheim Civic Center, Council Chambers, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, in the City of Anaheim on
December 12, 2005, 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, Chapters 18.60 (Procedures) to
hear and consider evidence for and against the Proposed Project Actions and to investigate and make
findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, by its Resolution No. PC2005 -, amend
Condition No. 68 -A of Resolution No. 99R -136, as amended by Resolution Nos. 2002R -57 and 2004R-
253 and adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 4078, to specify that "The property
owner /developer shall obtain approval of Final Site Plans, obtain the appropriate building and other
permits, and commence construction of the Initial Phase on or before February 26, 2007 "; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of and based upon all the evidence and
reports offered at the public hearing, does find and determine that Amendment No. 2 to the First
Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99 -01 by and between the City of Anaheim and
Anaheim GW, LLC, meets the following standards set forth in the Procedures Resolution
1 - That no modification is proposed to the development proposal, with the exception of
extending the commencement date of the Initial Phase for one year until February 26, 2007, and
2 of 4 PC2005-
therefore, the findings made in connection with Ordinance No. 5808, adopted in connection with the First
Amended and Restated Development Agreement, still apply.
2. That the Development Agreement is entered into pursuant to and in compliance with the
City's charter powers and the requirements of Section 65867 of the Statute, the Enabling Ordinance and
the Procedures Resolution.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING That the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the Proposed Project Actions and has found and determined that the
Addendum to the Pointe Anaheim Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including Modified
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004, which was previously approved by the City Council on February 26,
2002 in connection with the first amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 and the First Amended
and Restated Development Agreement No. 99 -01, is adequate to serve as the required environmental
documentation for the proposed actions and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA; and further finding
that there is no substantial evidence, with the imposition of the mitigation measures identified in Modified
Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 004, that the proposed action will have a significant effect on the
environment; and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the Proposed
Project Actions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the aforesaid findings and
determinations, the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
approval of Amendment No. 2 to the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement by and
between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim GW, LLC.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
December 12, 2005. 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.
r_T41III:1011111I
CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, 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 December 12, 2005, 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
' 2005.
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
3 of 4 PC2005-
Attachment No. 1
Amendment No. 2 to the First Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99 -01 By and Between
the City of Anaheim
and Anaheim GW, LLC,
as successor -in- interest to Excel Pointe Anaheim, LLC
4 of 4 PC2005-
RECORDING REQUESTED BY )
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: )
City of Anaheim )
20 South Anaheim Boulevard )
Anaheim, California 92805 )
Attention: City Manager )
This document is exempt from a recording fee
pursuant to Government Code Section 6103.
AMENDMENT NO.2 TO
FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO. 99-01
By and Between
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
and
ANAHEIM GW LLC
AMENDMENT NO.2 TO
FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO. 99-01
This AMENDMENT NO.2 TO FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT NO. 99 -01 (this "Amendment No. 2 "), dated for purposes of identification only
as of December 1, 2005 (the "Date of Amendment"), is made and entered into by and between
the CITY OF ANAHEIM, a municipal corporation and charter city, (the "City") and
ANAHEIM GW LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, ( "Developer ").
RECITALS
A. The City and Excel Pointe Anaheim, LLC (the "Original Developer') entered into that
certain First Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99 -01 dated as of
February 26, 2002 and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County California on
December 22, 2003 as Instrument No. 2003001507769 (the "Original Development
Agreement ") with respect to that certain real property described in the "Legal
Descriptions" which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this
reference.
B. The City and the Developer, as successor -in- interest to the Original Developer, entered
into that certain Amendment No. 1 to First Amended and Restated Development
Agreement dated as of December 1, 2004 and recorded in the Official Records of Orange
County California on February 22, 2005 as Instrument No. 2005000132156
( "Amendment No. 1. "). The Original Development Agreement and Amendment No 1
shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Development Agreement." All capitalized terms
set forth in this Amendment No. 2 shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the
Development Agreement unless otherwise defined in this Amendment No. 2. Copies of
the Development Agreement are available as a public record in the office of the City
Clerk located at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California.
B. The Development Agreement addresses, among other things, the Developer's
construction of the Project, requiring that the Developer commence construction of the
Initial Phase of the Project on or before February 26, 2006,
C. The Developer has requested that the City amend the Development Agreement to require
the Commencement of Construction of the Initial Phase to occur on or before February
26, 2007.
D. The City and the Developer (each, a "Party" and jointly, the "Parties ") intend, in this
Amendment No. 2, to amend the Outside Initial Phase Commencement Date.
NOW, THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES,
COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. The Definition of
Outside Initial Phase Commencement Date set forth in Section 1.43 of the Development
Agreement is deleted and replaced with the following:
1.43 "Outside Initial Phase Commencement Date" means February 26, 2007.
SECTION 2. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. To the extent any of the Conditions of
Approval contain any deadlines for the Commencement of Construction of the Initial Phase, such
deadlines shall be extended to February 26, 2007.
SECTION 3. INTEGRATION. Except as expressly provided to the contrary herein, all
provisions of the Development Agreement shall remain in fall force and effect. The
Development Agreement and this Amendment No. 2 shall hereinafter be collectively referred to
as the "Agreement ". The Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions of agreement
between the Parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the Parties
with respect to the subject matter hereof.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Amendment No. 2 shall take effect upon the date the
ordinance approving this Amendment No. 2 takes effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS AMENDMENT
NO. 2 AS OF THE RESPECTIVE DATES SET FORTH BELOW.
Dated:
ATTEST:
"CITY"
CITY OF ANAHEIM,
a municipal corporation and charter city
SHERYLL SCHROEDER, CITY CLERK
SHERYLLSCHROEDER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JACK L. WHITE, CITY ATTORNEY
JOHN E. WOODHEAD IV
Assistant City Attorney
CURT L. PRINGLE,
Mayor
"DEVELOPER"
ANAHEIM GW LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
a_
Its:
Dated:
Dated:
59849.1
11
By:_
Name:
Its:
By:_
Name:
Its:
State of California )
ss.
County of )
On , before me,
personally appeared
(name, title of office e.g., Jane Doe, Notary Public')
(name(s) of signer(s))
• personally known to me —OR—
❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me
that he /she /they executed the same in his/her /their authorized capacity /ies, and that by his/her /their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which person(s) acted, executed
the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(Signature of Notary)
Capacity claimed by signer:
❑ Individual
❑ Corporate Officer(s):
❑ Parmer(s):
❑ General ❑ Limited
❑ Attorney -in -fact
❑ Trustee(s)
❑ Guardian/Consmator
❑ Other:
Signer is representing:
(furs section is OPTIONAL)
(name of person(s) or entity(ies))
Attention Notary: Although the information requested below is OPTIONAL, it could prevent
fraudulent attachment of this certificate to an unauthorized document.
THIS CERTIFICATE
MUST BE ATTACHED
TO THE DOCUMENT
DESCRIBED AT RIGHT:
Title or Type of Document:
Number of Pages: Date of Document:
Signer(s) Other than Named Above:
State of California )
ss.
County of )
On I , before me,
personally appeared
(name, title of officer, e.g., Jane Doe, Notary Public')
(name(s) ofsigner(s))
❑ personally known to me —OR—
❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me
that he /she /they executed the same in his/her /their authorized capacity /ies, and that by his/her /their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which person(s) acted, executed
the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(Signature of Nota
Capacity claimed by signer:
❑ Individual
❑ Corporate Officer(s):
❑ Partner(s):
❑ General ❑ Limited
❑ Attorney -in -fact
❑ Trustee(s)
❑ Guardian/Conservator
❑ Other:
Signer is representing:
(This section is OPTIONAL)
(name of person(s) or entityries))
Attention Notary: Although the information requested below is OPTIONAL, it could prevent
fraudulent attachment of this certificate to an unauthorized document.
THIS CERTIFICATE
MUST BE ATTACHED
TO THE DOCUMENT
DESCRIBED AT RIGHT:
Title or Type of Document:
Number of Pages: Date of Document:
Signer(s) Other than Nained Above:
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
(to be attached)
Exhibit A
(3AIkDEN)� ALK
December 5, 2005
Gail Eastman, Chairperson
Planning Commission
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805
Re: ANAHEIM GARDENWALK PROJECT — REQUEST TO INITIATE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN, THE DISNEYLAND RESORT
SPECIFIC PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4978.
Dear Chairperson Eastman:
The purpose of this letter is to make a formal request of the City of Anaheim
Planning Commission to initiate consideration of amendments to the City of Anaheim
General Plan, The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and Conditional Use Permit No. 4078
to provide for the development of the Anaheim GardenWalk project in the Pointe
Anaheim Overlay. A project description is attached for your reference.
Excel Realty Holdings, LLC, is the owner of 20.3 acres of the 29.1 -acre
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, Pointe Anaheim Overlay. The Pointe Anaheim Overlay
is located east of Harbor Boulevard, south of Disney Way, west of Clementine Street and
north of Katella Avenue, as depicted in the attached exhibit.
In 1999, the City Council adopted amendments to the General Plan and The
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan and approved Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 to
establish the Pointe Anaheim Overlay and permit the development of the Pointe Anaheim
Lifestyle Retail and Entertainment Complex. The City Council subsequently approved
one revision to the plan (this revision included a renaming of the project as the "Anaheim
GardenWalk "). When the initial applications were processed to permit the Pointe
Anaheim Overlay, the applicant submitted applications for the properties under their
control and the Planning Commission, at the applicant's request, initiated the applications
for the remaining properties in the project site.
17140 Bernardo Center Dr.
Sui to 310
San Diego, CA92128
a 858.6111800
a 858.487.9890
Gail Eastman
December 5, 2005
Page Two
The proposed amendments affect the entire 29.1 -acre Pointe Anaheim Overlay,
therefore, we are requesting that the Planning Commission initiate applications for the 8.8
acres of the Overlay not under control of the Anaheim GW, LLC, in order to provide for
a comprehensive review of the proposed revisions.
Although our predecessor in interest had certain rights to the 8.8 acres, Anaheim
GW, LLC does not presently own or have any legal interest in the 8.8 acres. Anaheim
GW, LLC would like to acquire that property sometime in the future, if it is at all feasibly
possible and therefore keep the integrity of the overall entitlements. As you are aware,
since the entitlements are personal to the GardenWalk project, your action would not
preclude the owners of the existing 8.8 acres submitting an alternate development plan
for the 8.8 acres.
We appreciate the consideration of the Planning Commission of our request.
Sincerely,
William J. Stone
Excel Realty Holdings, LLC
cc: Members of the Planning Commission
Enclosures: Project Description
Exhibit of Project Site