Resolution-PC 2000-48~
RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-48
i
A RESOLUTION OF TH~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04191 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for
Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State
of California, described as:
THAT NORTH 66 FEET OF THE SOUTH 528 FEET OF THE WEST 330 FEET OF
THE SOUTWWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUART~R OF
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF S~CTION 13, IN TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11
WEST, IN THE RANCHO LOS C!OYOTES CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF
ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORMIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF
RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 1, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID
ORANGE COUNTY;
EXCEPT THE WESTERLY 92.00 FEET THEREOF.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on April 24, 2000 at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given
as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03,
to hear and consider evidence for and agaimst said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate
and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by
itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing,
does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by
Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.44.050.160 to retain an un-permitted two-story 23-unit motel.
2. That this property is developed with a two-story 23-unit motel (Pacific Inn Motel) located
at 426 South Beach Boulevard in the CL (Commercial, Limited); that the property is also located within
Planning Area No. 3 of the West Anaheim Community Planning Program and within the West Anaheim
Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project Area; that the area is currently under study by the
Community Development Department as a potential zoning overlay area ("Beach Boulevard Study Area");
and that the Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element designates this property for General Commercial
land uses.
3. That, as discussed in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated April 24, 2000
including the attachments thereto, this motel (with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces,
maximum structural height and minimum landscaped setback) was established under Conditional Use
Permit No. 1978, which was approved by the Planning Commission in 1979; and that following a July 20,
1995 public hearing, the Commission modified said use permit to allow the operation for six more months
to expire on January 19, 1996; and that on February 5, 1996, the Planning Commission considered a
request to delete or modify the time limitation imposed on July 20, 1995, and denied the request; and
that the Commission's decision was appea4ed and, based on a hearing officer's consideration of the
findings of fact and his recommendation regarding the appeal of the Commission's decision, the City
Council approved the hearing officer's recommendation and modified said use permit to expire on
December 18, 1996.
CR3941 PK.DOC -1- PC2000-48
• •
4. That, as further discussed in the April 24, 2000 Staff Report and the attachments thereto,
another conditional use permit (No. 3949) was filed to permit the existing 23-unit motel; and that, based
on the excessive amount of criminal activity occurring on the property, the inordinate number of calls for
service to the Anaheim Police Department and the high number of Municipal Code violations observed by
the Code Enforcement Division, the Council determined that the use was being exercised in a manner
which was detrimental to the public health, peace, safety or welfare, or in such a manner as to constitute
a public nuisance and denied said use permit on January 6, 1998 (following denial by the Planning
Commission); and that a request for rehearing was denied by the Council on February 3, 1998; and that
this motel has been operating without a zoning entitlement since that time.
5. That the proposed use is hereby denied because since 1992 this motel has been
operated, and the previous conditional use permit has been exercised, in a manner resulting in an
inordinate number of calls for service to this property causing a disproportionate draw upon Police
Department and Code Enforcement Division resources thereby causing secondary detrimental impact to
the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
6. That the history of Municipal Code violations and criminal activity in this motel at this
location indicates the owner's inability to operate this business in compliance with City, County, and State
regulations even after modification actions were taken by the Planning Commission, a Hearing Officer
and the City Council regarding the previous conditional use permit.
7. That granting this condition~al use permit would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim due to the negative secondary effects that
motels have had in the Beach Boulevard and West Lincoln Avenue area, including using motels as
substandard apartments which are not designed for long term residency, causing overcrowded housing
conditions, having a negative impact on local public schools, negatively affecting adjacent single family
residences, and causing a high incidence of criminal activity, including drug sales and use, prostitution,
and disturbances, causing blight and degradation to the area, and creating a disproportionate burden on
city services because of excessive calls for service.
8. That the approval of the proposal would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the
growth and development of the area in which it is located.
9. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is not adequate to allow full
development of the proposal in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
10. That one person spoke in opposition to the proposal at the public hearing; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONM~NTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Director or his
authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of
Categorical Exemptions, Class 32, as defined in the State of California Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby deny subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, on the basis of the aforementioned
findings.
-2- PC2000-48
~
~
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
April 24, 2000.
~i~~ ~~'4iC'u~.cJ
HAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~~ `~""/`~~
SECRETARY, AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Margarita Solorio, 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 April 24, 2000, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, KOOS, NAPOLES, VANDERBILT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ~
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this G2 day of
, 2000.
~..~J~ .
SECRETARY NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-3- PC2000-48