The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2003/06/16CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA JUNE 16, 2003 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California ROMERO, CALL TO ORDER ;~ • rrct~trv GROUP-[ DEVELOI PLANNIW • PRELlM11 RECESS TO AFTE_RNOOP a% RECONVENE TO PUBLIC For record keeping~4rp~ complete a speaker card ,y3 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANOI PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS `l DNftiNISSION MORNING SESSION 1~1:O.O.Asfl(l. 101J~B}~f~THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT}DEPARTMENT ON THE CIM VMTQWN MIXED-USE PROJECT `` ' >,TE`TQ COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY `~'~f} ~hI1'S;AND`ISSUES~AS.RECfUESTED.BY ., ;- _,,. bMMlsstbmj- ~ ~ ' 'YPL~iN~REVIEW FOR=ITEMS ON TI-(EJUNE 16 20D3~/>GENDA 16LIC HEY-RINGSESS~ON ' }~ _} ~'~L4 Fill tff{ I' n•a ~ ARIPIG.1.y301P;Mi"r'ti5-r. f .„, r' 4 , ..~ ~. ;`cif youlwish tq make a ,~~ttaatemerit iegaMmg any item.on the agenda, please I``snbrrJlfit`to'Yti~`secrefary.~~`: -,',, ,, ~`~ ~. ~' f~-„~ ~, Wit,: r - x ~,-; -- ,_ ADJOURNMENT H:\DOGS\CLERICALWGEN~AS1061603.DOC lanningcommission(a~anaheim.net 06-16-03 Page 1 RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P,NI. ITEnAS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance: New Planning Commissioner -Jerry O'Connell. PUBLIC COflAMENTS: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-D 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 putil(c request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1. REPORTS AND RECOflflMENDATIONS A. (a) (b) B. (a) (b) C. (a) (b) D. (TRACKING NO. VAfT2003-04560) Robert Tabares, 1819 East Granada Court, Ontario, CA 91764, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval fora 4-lot single-family subdivision with waiver of minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial highway and minimum lot frontage. Property is located at 1253 North State College Boulevard. Hieu Phan, 10402 Westminster Avenue, Suite 100, Garden Grove, CA 92843, requests review of a final landscape plan for apreviously- approved 5-lot detatched single-family residential subdivision. Property is located at 610 South Sunkist Street. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meetings of June 02, 2003. (Motion) Project Planner: (ioramirezna anaheim.netl O.S. 101 sr5014jr.doc Project Planner: (avazcuezt7a anaheim.net) O:S.923 sr8616av.doc Project Planner: (Idadant a(~anaheim.netl sr1178jd.doc 06-16-03 Page 2 City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests review and approval of the revised second unit deficiencies area map. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS• 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04551 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003.04696) OWNER: Southern California Edison, Attn: Robert Teran, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 AGENT: Novak & Associates, Inc., Orest Dolynikuk, 132 North Maryland Avenue, Glendale, CA 91206 LOCATION: 2721 Stonybrook Drive. Property is approximately 3.1 acres, having a frontage of 265 feet on the north side of Stonybrook Drive, located 130 feet west of the centerline of Sherrill Street Request to amend a condition of approval pertaining to a required landscape planter. Continued from the June 2, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2003-04702 OWNER: Oliviero Mignecp, 597 Brambles Way, Orange, CA 92669 AGENT: Daniel Estay, 945 3'" Street, Suite C, Encinitas, CA 92024 LOCATION: 2130 East Orangewood Avenue. Property is approximately 1.3 acres, located at the southwest comer of Orangewood Avenue and Dupont Drive. Request to permit and retain an outdoor storage yard with waivers of: a) maximum fence height, b) minimum number of parking spaces,-and c) minimum landscaped setback. Continued from the June 2, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. .Project Planner: Ivnonvood(")a anaheim.net) Q.S. 21 sr8605vn.doc Project Planner: Jeyam bao(a~anaheim. net) Q.S. 119 sr3025(a)ey:doc 06-i 6-03 Page 3 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04705 OWNER: Calvary Baptist Church, 2780 East Wagner Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Cingular Wireless, 3345 Michelson Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612 Jim Todaro, The Consulting Group, 5440 Trabuco Road, Irvine, CA 92620 LOCATION: 2780 East Wagner Avenue. Property is approximately 1.97 acres, having a frontage of 144 feet on the south side of Wagner Avenue, located 144 feet east of the centerline of Marjan Street. Request to permit a telecommunications antenna (disguised as a bell tower) with accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the June 2, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION'NO. 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Sb. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PdO.2003-04701 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Gary Heil, 837 South East Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 City of Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Attn: Kerry Kemp, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, 10 floor, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1610. 1620 8 1640 South Claudina Wav. Parcel 1: Property is approximately 0.92-acre, having a frontage of 140 feet on the east side of Claudina Way, located 1591 feet north of the centerline of Anaheim Way. Parcel 2: Property is approximately 0.70-acre., having a frontage of 135 feet on the east side of Claudina Way, located 1440 feet north of the centerline of Anaheim Way. Parcel 3: Property is approximately 0.99-acre, having a frontage of 151 feet on the east side of Claudina Way, located 1305 feet north of the centerline Anaheim Way. Request to establish an outdoor contractor/vehicle storage yard with waivers of: (a) required recorded parking agreement for off-site parking and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the June 2, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Project Planner: (vnorvuood(a anaheim.net) Q.S. 125 sr8603vn.doc Project Planner: (I P ra m irez(al a n a h e i m. n e t) Q.S. 97 sr5010jr.doc 06-16-03 Page 4 6a. 6b. OWNER: Islamic Institute of Orange County, P.O. Box 1236, Brea, CA 92822 AGENT: Gamal E. Nour, 1221 North Placentia Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1220 -1230 North State College Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.93 acres, located north and east of the northeast comer of Placentia Avenue and State College Boulevard (Islamic Institute of Orange County). Request to amend exhibits for apreviously-approved church to permit phased construction of the main building and parking lot. Continued from the June 2, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 11 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2001-04373 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04708): OWNER: Maris E. Vanags, 1510 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Patricia Pereyra, 555 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 555 North State Collette Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.89-acre, located at the southwest comer of La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard. Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on June 16, 2001, to expire June 18, 2003) to retain a mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) unit and generator. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~Requestfor~ ~ continuance to June 30, 2,m03 Project Planner: (iaramireznc anaheim.net) O.S. 111 sr5016jr.doc Project Planner: (vnorwood Col anahei m. net) O.S. 102 sr8597vn.doc 06-16-03 Page 5 8a. 8b. OWNER: Living Stream Ministry, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: John Pester, Living Stream Ministry, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2441 West La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 27.9 acres, located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street (Living Stream Ministry). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on October 23, 2000 to expire October 23, 2003) to retain a temporary teleconferencing center and private conference/training center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 9a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04710 OWNER: Living Stream Ministry, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: John Pester, Living Stream Ministry, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2411-2461_West La Palma Avenue and 1212 North Hubbell Wav. Property is approximately 40.4 acres, located at the northwest comer of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street, and at the northern termini of Hubbell Way and .Electric Way (Living Stream Ministry and former Hubbell site). Request to permit a teleconferencing center and private conference /training center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Project Planner: (evam baoC~ anah ei m. net) Q.S. 24 sr3029ey.doc Project Planner. (eva m baoCa~anahei m. net) Q.S. 24 sr3028ey.doc 06-16-03 Page 6 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04435 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04712) OWNER: Palmall Properties Inc., 1428 West Bay Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92661 AGENT: Louis Garret., Fat Daddy's Auto Spa, 900 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 90D West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.58-acre, located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Ohio Street (Fat Daddy's Hand Auto Spa & Chicago Eatery). Request to amend or delete conditions of approval for a previously- . Project Planner: approved carwash with accessory take-out fast food service and to permit (iaramirez(o7anaheim.net) a modular office trailer with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. O.S. 62 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. sr5015jr.doc 11 a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 71b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3571 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04706) OWNER: City of Anaheim, P.O. Box 3222, Anaheim, CA 92803 AGENT: Dale Stubblefield, SpecVa Site Communications, 2301 Dupont Drive, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 1527 East Broadwav. Property is approximately 0.08- acre, located north of Broadway, has a depth of 36 feet and a width of 100 feet and located 520 feet north of the centerline of Broadway (A portion of Lincoln Park). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 11, Project Planner: 1998 to expire March 2 2003) to retain a telecommunications monopole (vnorwood(a~anaheim.net) , , antenna and accessary ground-mounted equipment. Q.S. 103 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. sr8612vn.doc 06-16-03 Page 7 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003-00410 12c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00097 CITY-INITIATED: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Properties total approximately 31.0 acres, located north and south of Orangethorpe Avenue, 660 feet west of the centedine of Kellogg Drive. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003-00410 -City-initiated (Planning Department) request to amend the Land Use Element Map of the General Plan redesignating the properties from the Low Density Residential designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential designation. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00097 - Ciiy-initiated request to reclassifiy several properties from the County of Orange zoning designation, R-1 "Single-Family Residence", to the RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family) zone or a less intense zone for annexation into the City of Anaheim. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. 13a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00098 CITY-INITIATED: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Properties total approximately 185 acres, located west of the Santa Ana River, east of the Orange (SR-57) Freeway, south of South Street and north of Cerritos Avenue. City-initiated (Planning Department) request for reclassification of several properties from the County of Orange zoning designation A-1, "General Agriculture" to the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone for annexation into the City of Anaheim. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. Project Planner; (ayazquezCa anaheim.net) Q.S. 171 sr8614av.doc Project Planner: (avazguezna anaheim.net) Q.S. 124, 125, 126, 134, 135 8 136 sr8614av.doc 06-16-03 Page 8 14a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14b. RECLASSIFICATION FdO. 2003-00099 CITY-INITIATED: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Properties total approximately 177 acres, located south of the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, north of Lincoln Avenue, and are divided by Glassell Street. City-initiated (Planning Department) request for reclassification of several properties from the County of Orange zoning designation, A-1, "General Agriculture", to the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone for annexation into the City of Anaheim. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. Project Planner: (avazg uez(a~anaheim. net) Q.S. 134, 141, 142 & 146 sr8614av.doc 06-16-03 Page 9 ADJOURN TO MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2003 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 3:0~ P. rt. (TIME) '1~-~ 12~ '-' c 3 (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: ~o.~-e,~+~ ~~--ems-1 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 FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits and Variances shall be considered final unless, within 22 days after Planning Commission action and within 10 days regarding Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps, an appeal is filed. 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 Glerk'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 CITY 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 48 hours prior to 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. 06-16-03 Page 10 SCFiE®l1LE 2003 JUNE 30 JULY 14 JULY 28 AUGUST 11 AUGUST 25 SEPTEMBER8 SEPTEMBER 22 OCTOBER 6 OCTOBER 20 NOVEMBER3 NOVEMBER 17 DECEMBER1 DECEMBER 15 DECEMBER 29 06-16-03 Page 11 ITEtA N0. 1-A RIVERSIDE FREEWAY ~ OA CN I ~N 1 I =°o d ~ i 1 ¢ ROSEWOOD AVE RS-7200 ~ ~ Rs-72ao i ~~ Q~~,~~e RcL ZOO1-oooae ~ y~~ 1DU EACH 1ou EAOR v iv"'r-VAR Zm3-oaseo ,..a ;; o I I ~- _~ f~~ 327' RS-7200 1 DU EACH LY Q W J RS-7200 RM-1200 ~ 1 DU EACH .RCL 70-71-07 m VAR 2432 W VAR 2195 O 1 (~ CHAPARRAL APARTMENTS c W 280 DU , J. J O U W RS-7200 ~ 1 DU EACH ~ (n ROMNEYA DRIVE ~ ---- CL (MHP) RCL 82.83-22 55-56-7 CUP 258 ANAHEIM ROYAL MOBILHOME PARK 120 RESIDENTIAL SPACES RS-A-43,000 (MHP) RCL 82-83.22 ANAHEIM ROYAL MOBILHOME PARK RM-1200 ACL 77.7&35 CUP 373 V-751 APARTMENTS 12 DU CL T-CUP 2003.04704 CUP 4187 CUP 3691 MOSOUE RM-1200 RCL 70-71-35 RCL 70.71.12 RCL 63E429 CUP 469 VAR 2500 VAR 2237 VAR 2203 APARTMENTS 56 DU 5'1' \p.. A 1 F ~- Variance No. 2001-04431 ~~~"`~ Subject Property ~~~~~ TRACKING NO. VAR2003-04560 Date: June 16, 2003 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: ROBERT TABARES Q.S. No. 101 REQUEST FOR A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FORA 4-LOT, SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION WITH WAIVERS OF: (A) MINIMUM LOT DEPTH ADJACENT TO AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY (B) MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE 1253 North State College Boulevard 7zs ATTACHMENT - 7-A MEMORANDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM Code Enforcement Division DATE: JUNE 5, 2003 TO: JOHN RAMIREZ, ASSISTANT PLANNER FROM: MATTHEW D. LETTERIELLO, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER~`~ SUBJECT: 1253 N. STATE COLLEGE BLVD. TIME EXTENSION VAR2001-04431; TRACKING CASE VAR2003-04560 On this date I went to the above location to inspect the property as you requested. I found the property was developed with asingle-story, single-family, residential structure. The house was on the west side of State College Blvd., just south of the 91 Fwy. The property had a chain link fence on the east, north and west sides. The south side had an approximately 10' block wall fence that abuts the large apartment complex to the south. On the east side of the property, on the south side of the house there was an interior wood fence that has a broken, wood gate. The northeast corner of the property was mostly barren, hazd-packed dirt, with four lazge evergreen trees. The west side of the property was a very lazge azea of grass that was very brown and dead. It appeazs the grass was recently mowed and is being somewhat maintained. This grass area extended onto the southeast dead-end of Rosewood Ave. I took Polaroid photographs (attached). If I can be of any further assistance, or you have any questions, please telephone me at extension 4446. MDL 1253 n state college blvd ATTACHMENT - 1-A RESOLUTION NO.'PC2001-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2001-04431 BE GRANTED 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: PARCELI THAT PORTION OF LOT 11 OF THE GOLDEN STATE TRACT NO: 2 IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 4, PAGE 68 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 11, SAID SOUTHEAST CORNER BEING IN THE CENTER LIEN OF CYPRESS AVENUE, AND RUNNING THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 330 FEET; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 100 FEET; THENCE EAST PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 330 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF CYPRESS AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. .EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND AS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY DEED RECORDED MAY 28, 1958 IN BOOK 4298, PAGE 376 OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 3, 2000 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 200000060699 OFFICIAL RECORDS. PARCEL2: THAT IRREGULAR PORTION OF LOT 11 OF THE GOLDEN STATE TRACT NO. 2 IN THE CITY OFANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 4, PAGE 68 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 10; BOUNDED NORTHWESTERLY BY THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF ROSEWOOD AVENUE BOTH AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT37777 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 158, PAGE 19 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; AND BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PAR EC 1 HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED. PARCEL 3: THAT IRREGULAR PORTION OF LOT 11 OF THE GOLDEN STATE TRACT NO. 2 IN THE CITY OF'ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AS PER MAP RECORDED INBOOK 4, PAGE 68 OF MISCELLANEOUS :MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY BOUNDED NORTHERLY BYTHE SOUTHERLY LINE OF ROSEWOOQ' AVENUE; BOUNDED ON THE WEST BYTHE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 11; BOTH AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT 3777, AS PER MAP RECORDEDIN BOOK 158, PAGE 19 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; AND BOUNDED ON THE EAST BYTHE WESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1, HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED. CR5052P K.doc -1- PC2001-38 WFfEREAS, the City Plahning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on April 9, 2001, 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 against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and - WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the petitioner proposes waivers of the following to establish a 4-lot, RS-7200-zoned single-family residential subdivision: (a) .Sections 18.04.020.023 - Minimum loEdeoth adjacent to an arterial highwav. and 18.26.060 (120 feet required along State College Boulevard; 92 to 102 feet proposed for tot No. 4) (b) Section 18.26:061.020 - Minimum lot width. (70 feetYequired; 63 feet proposed for Lot No. 3 and 30 feet proposed for Lot No. 4) 2. That waivers (a) and (b), minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial highway and minimum lot width,'are hereby granted on the basis of the irregular shape of the property which is located between two public streets; that there are single-family RS-7200-zoned residential Tots to the immediate north abutting State College Boulevard which have lot depths less than 120 feet; and that Ic~ts north of this property on the same cul-de-sac have widths less than 70 feet 3. That this property is currently zoned RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) but that a reclassification to the RS-7200. (Residential,. Single-Family) zone is being processed concurrently with this petition; .and that the Anaheim General Plan land'use designation is Low Density Residential. 4. I flat t`lE(E are EXCepilJrial G; Extraordinary d~cumstances 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. 5. That ttie requested variance will not be materially detrimehtal to the public welfare nor injurious to the property o~ improvementsin such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 6. That no one indicated their presence at this public hearing in opposition to the proposal; and that no correspondence wasYeceived in opposition: CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish afour-lot single-family residential subdivision with waivers of minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial highway and minimum lot width on a irregularly-shaped 0.77-acre property located between Rosewood Avenue and State College Boulevard, having frontages of 243 feet on the south side of Rosewood Avenue and 100 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard, having a maximum depth of 327 feet, being located 650 feet north of the centerline of Rdmneya Drive, and further described as 1253 North State College Boulevard; and does hereby spproveYhe Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgement of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further fihding on the tiasis df the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.. -2- PC2001-38 NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to--- be anecessary 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 all ground mounted equipment and utility devices shall be properly screened from view and the sound buffered from adjacent residential properties. Such information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 2. That plahs for a decorative six (6) foot high masonry tilock wall :along the east property line abutting State College Boulevard shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for approval. Clinging vines to eliminate graffiti opportunities shall be planted on maximum five (5) foot centers adjacent to the wall (on the State College Boulevard side), and irrigation facilities shall be provided and the landscaping shall be maintained. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 3. That satisfactory evidence shall be presented to the Building Division showing that the proposed project is in conformance with Couhcil Policy No. 542 "Sound Attenuation in'Residential Projects," and with Noise Insulatien Standards specified in the California Administrative Code, Title 25. 4. 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 submitted and approved plans: 5. That all property owners shall fiave adequate street frontage to set out three (3) barrels for trash collection, and that said barrels shall be stored out of the public's view. The developer shall submit a plan for barrel storage to the Public Works Department; Streets and Sanitation Division, for review and approval. 6. That approval of Variance No. 2001-04431 is granted subject to approval and finalization of Reclassification No. 2001-00046, and finalization and recordation of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-233. 7. That the developer shall pay the sewer deficiency fee for the °Old Town Basin 8" sewer area. The fee shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 8, That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1, and as conditioned herein. 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 and 12, herein-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. 10. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 8, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 11. 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. 12. That if access to State College Boulevard is relinquished to the City of Anaheim, a block wall and landscaping shall be constructed along the east property line of Lot No. 4 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2000-233. -3- PC2001-38 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine tfiat 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. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 2001 fOrl~lnal signed by Jofln Koool CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: `10riginal signed by Osbelia Edmondson) SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE.. ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Osbelia Edmondson, 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 9, 2001, 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 day of 2001 lOriginal signed by Osbelia Edmondson) SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -4- PC2001-38 I ItM NU.. i'~ RS-7200 RCL 75-76-ti ~ VAR 2743 ~ 1 DU EACH -' TITAN CIR a W RS-7200 m ~ RCL 75-76-1 z VAR 2743 ~ 1 DU EACH w 0: F- Y RS-7200 Z 1 DU EACH RS-7200 ~ RCL 75-76-1 N VAR 2743 RS-A-03,000 1 DU EACH' 1 DU RS-7200 -~ '~ 174y,!t~r~~ ' 1 DU EACH ~ , z.r r x <- ~ RS 7200 ~~ TTM 16340 v ALDEN AVE RCL 91.92-15 378 ~ ? a ~ CUP 41 ~ W ~ T-VAR 2003.04567 e o F- o V RS-7200 V~VgR 4180 2 ,- m ~°.~ ~ 1 DU EACH VACANT ' x o U f- F 1~ tl~'"5 ,~K + 5"' `~ "j~Jl ~ ~ O ~ fn O ~Q .~~ ., ~ } 0 ~~ p RS-A-03,00 1 DU ~ T AtVEISH RS-A-43,000 RS-7200 "' CUP 20pt-04309 CL 85-86-20 CUP 3305 AR 353 CUP 455 c 1 DU EACH CHURCH a ° Rs.sooa DAYCARE ac Lnae-s i RS-A-4 3 000 CENTER AR 300 i ou , CUP 1197 RS-7200 Rsssoo KINDER CARE 1 DU :EACH R CLAR77~&61 NURSERY 1ou SOUTH STREET - • -- RS-A-03.,000 CUP 445 CHURCH Variance No. 2002-04542 TRACKING NO. VAR2003-04567 Requested By: HIEU PHAN REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN. 610 South Sunkist Street F- m Q O J x ~i 703 RS-7200 v 1 D i EACHI .. a 0 x VIRGINIA AVE ~r r ~ Subject Property 4" rIN Date: June 16, 2003 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 123 STANDISH AVE R$-7200 ' 1 DU EACH ATTACHMENT - ITEM N0. 1-B RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2002-04542 BE GRANTED WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition fqr Variance for certain real .property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as: THAT PORTION OF LOT THREE OF HEIN'S SUBDIVISION., IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 10, PAGE 40 OF MISCELLANEOUS. MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE - COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, .SHOWN AND DEFINED AS PARCEL 1 ON- LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO: 000440, RECORDED MARCH 26, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT. NO. 20010173107 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on January 13, 2003, 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 against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself. and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:: 1. That the petitioner proposes the following waivers to construct five single-family residences: (a) Section 18..26.061.020 - Minimum lot width and frontage: 70 feet required in the RS-7200 (Residential, Single Family) Zone;... 53%feet proposed) (b) Section 18.26.065.010 - Orientation of residential structures adiacent to arterial highwavs: (Single-family residential structures required to rear onto arterial ...highways;. Five houses proposed to front onto Sunkist Street) r; 2: That the above-mentioned waiver (a), minimum lot width and frontage, is hereby granted on basis that there is a special circumstance applicable to the property consisting of its long depth which does not apply to other identically zoned property in the vicinity and, therefore, the proposed lot sizes (9,389 sq.ft.) are 30% larger than required by Cade (7,200 sq.ft.) although the width is narrower 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 because there are existinglots in the area with similar lot widths. 3. That the above-mentioned waiver (b), orientation of residential structures adjacent to arterial highways, is hereby granted on basis 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 because existing single-family homes and lots in the area are oriented so as to front onto Sunkist Street:.. 4. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the properly that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. 5. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question. cr\PC2003-004.doc -1- PC2003-4 6. 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. 7. That one person spoke at the public hearing in favor of the proposal 8. That no one indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal; and that no correspondence was received in opposition.. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal for waivers of (a) minimum lot width and frontage and (b) orientation of residential structures adjacent to arterial highways to establish a 5-lot single-family residential subdivision and to construct five single-family residences on arectangularly-shaped 1.07-acre property having a frontage of 268 feet on the east side of Sunkist Street and a maximum depth of 174 feet, being located 400 feet north of the centerline of South Street,. and further described as 610 South Sunkist Street; 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, 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 all requests for new water services or fire tines, as well as any modifications, relocations or abandonment of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through the Water Engineering Division, Public Utilities Department. 2. That the property owner/developer shall install street lights on Sunkist Street; and that a bond shall be posted prior to issuance of building pehnits to guarantee said. installation. The street lights shall be installed .prior to occupancy of the first house. 3. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's ezpehse. , 4. That the property owner/developer shall submit and complete an application with the Water Engineering Division, Public Utilities Department, to abandon the existing well site located on the :property in accordance with Engineering Standard No. W-630 and to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division. Said well site shall be abandoned prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first house. 5. That all existing water services shall conform to current Water Utility Standards. Ahy existing water services that are not approved by the Public Utilities Departmentfor continued use shall be upgraded to current standards or abandoned by the developer. If the existing services are not longer needed, they shall be abandoned by the developer. 6. That each lot shall be assigned a street address by the Building Division. 7. That trash storage area(s) shall be provided and maintained in location(s) acceptable to the Publio Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, and in accordance with approved plans on file with said department. Said area(s) shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 8. That approval of this variance is contingent upon approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 16340, now pending, and recordation of a Final Map. 9. That all driveways shall be constructed with enhanced paving. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. -2- PC2003-4 10. 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 Nos. 1 through 7, and as conditioned herein. 11. 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, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14, herein-mentioned; shall be complied with. 12. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 2, 4, 10 and 14, herein-mentioned, shall be complied with. 13. 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. 14. That a landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division, Planning Department, for review and approval by the Planning Commission as "Reports and Recommendations" item; and that the landscaping shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscaping plans. BE IT FURTHER 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. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of January 13, 2003. CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, 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 January 13, 2003, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, EASTMAN, KOOS, ROMERO, VANDERBILT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2003. SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -3- PC2003-4 ATTACHMENT - ITEM N0. 1-C :..RESOLUTION NO,: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING AREAS OF SEWER AND PARKING DEFICIENCIES RELATING TO SECOND UNITS AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, on September 29, 2002, the State of California Legislature approved Assembly Bill No: 1866 which, among other things, amended Government Code Section 65852. I, requiring cities to penniY second units in single-family and multiple-family residential zones, identifying criteria under which a second unit is to be permitted, requiring a ministerial approval process and limiting the requirements cities may impose on the construction of such second units; and WHEREAS, as of July 1, 2003, the new law requires cities to allow second units in residential zones without discretionary action, although cities may adopt ordinances creating specifications and standards for second units subject to compliance with Government Code Section 6S8S2.2; and WHEREAS, cities may prohibit second units in aeeas which are determined to be significantly impacted by insufficient capacity pertaining to traffic circulation, pazking, public utilities and/or other infrastructure and which deficiency would be exacerbated by the construction of second units; and WHEREAS, on May 13 , 2003, the Anaheim City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5857, establishing aprocess for ministerial approval ofsecond units and creating specifications and standazds for such units (the "Second Unit Ordinance"); and WHEREAS, the Second Unit Ordinance permits second units, subject to the standards identified therein, in all residential areas ofthe City, excluding only the aeeas established byPlanning Commission and/or City Council resolution as deficiency aeeas which are significantly impacted by insufficient capacity for sewers, traffic circulation, parking, public utilities, or similar infrastructure needs; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public meeting at the Civic Center in the City ofAnaheim on June 16, 2003, at 1:30 p.m., to hear and consider said proposed Deficiencies Area Map, 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 heazing, does find and determine the following facts: 1 1. Section 65852.2 of thee.Govemment Code:authorizes cities to use criteria such as adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of second units on traffic flow to determine areas where second units may be permitted. 2. The Second Unit Ordinance provides that second units shall not be permitted in any area of the City identified by resolution of the Planning Commission and/or the City Council as being significantly impacted by insufficient capacity for traffic circulation, parking, public utilities and/or other infrastructure. 3. Following review and analysis of sewer capacity throughout the City, as discussed in the Staff Reports to the Planning Commission dated Apri121, 2003, and June 16, 2003, which discussion is incorporated herein by this reference, certain areas of existing significantly deficient sewer capacity, which would be exacerbated by allowing second units, have been identified, based on the following: a second units aze housing units which are not anticipated in the build-out scenario for the City, and the City recognizes a probable increase in the amount of discharge into the sewers generated by the .addition of a second unit compazed to a minor expansion of an existing unit, which would be permitted; b. allowing unanticipated second units in neighborhoods that aze currently deficient in sewer capacity will overburden the existing sewers; c. azeas where some sewer capacity remains but is not adequate to provide for build-out of the current zoning should not be further burdened by allowing second unit.. because in these areas, even with sewer improvements, sufficient capacity may not be available to adequately serve second units, since proposed plans for sewer capacityupgtades have not taken into account these unanticipated housing units; d. permitting second units in said identified areas may lead to sewer spills into the City's storm drain system, which may constitute a hazazd and would subject the City to severe penalties under its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit; e. permitting second units in said identified areas would constitute a health and safety hazazd, and would have adverse impacts on the public health, safety and welfaze. 4. ' Followingreviewand analysis ofon-street pazking throughoutthe City, as discussed in the Staff Reports to the Planning Commission dated Apri121, 2003, and June 16, 2003, which discussion is incorporated herein by this reference, certain azeas of existing significant deficiencies containing insufficient capacity for pazking; which would be negatively impacted by the creation of second units, have been identified, based on the following: 2 a. ' said azeas aze so significantly impactedby deficient on-street parking that the residents have sought and obtained parking by "permit only' on public streets through the City's parking permit program; b. although on-site parking is required as a part ofthe proposed ordinance permitting second units, the number of pazking spaces which may be required is restricted by State law, and the experience throughout the City, as indicated by the Traffic Engineer, is that overflow parking onto public streets is frequently utilized even when existing pazking requirements aze met; c. the need for "permit only" pazking on streets indicates that parking needs for these neighborhoods are not being absorbed on-site, and it can be anticipated that allowing second units, which introduce additional households and may include multiple drivers, will cause a detrimental effect on an already burdened neighborhood, and have negative impacts on traffic flow as residents seek parking spaces; and d. permitting second units in said areas would exacerbate existing parking deficiencies, impact traffic flows, and increase the likelihood that residents willpark in areas that aze not within reasonable wallcing distance to the dwelling, thereby resulting in negative impacts on the public health, safety and welfaze. 5, Based on the above-described review and analysis of sewer capacity and on-street pazking throughout the City, a Deficiencies Area Map dated June, 2003, has been prepared identifying azeas in the City which aze already burdened with sewer capacity and pazking deficiencies and aze not suitable at this time for allowing secondunits without negatively impacting the existing neighborhoods and having adverse impacts on the public health, safety and welfaze. 6. The Planning Commission anticipates that the Deficiencies Area Map will be reviewed and updated from time to timeto ensure that the map continues to reflect areas where second units should not be allowed and to remove azeas which would no longer be negatively impacted by the creation of new second units because improvements to the infrastructure or other changed circumstances have eliminated the previously identified deficiency. WHEREAS, the adoption of this resolution pursuant to the Second Unit Ordinance to implement the provisions of Government Code Sections 65852~i and 65852:2 is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15282(1) and further exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, as a minor alteration to land use limitations which does not change land use or density in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the foregoing, the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the `Deficiencies Area' Map dated June, 2003, on file with the Planning Department of the City, which identifies those certain locations having existing significantly deficient ewer capacity-and/or existing significantly deficient on-street parking capacity where Second Units shall not be permitted.. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning ,Commission meeting of June 16, 2003, CHAIltPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on Apri121, 2003, by the following vote ofthe members thereof: AYES:. COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2003. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 49905.1 4 ATTACHt1ENT - ITEM N0. 1-C SAMPLE SECOND UNIT DEED-RESTRICTION This prototype covenant is intended to provide general language which may be helpful to you in prepazation of a covenant required by the City of Anaheim as a condition of approval for development of property. It should not be construed as representing legal advice on, specific, individual matters. Applicants should consult their attorneys regarding use of this prototype in individual situations and upon its legal effect. The Declazation must be unsubordinated. This means that lienholders must agree to be subject to the Declaration if there is a foreclosure. A sample subordination agreement is attached. RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: DECLARATION OF RESTRICTYONS ON OCCUPANCY THIS DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS ON OCCUPANCY ("Declaration") is made this day of 200_, by (insert names of the owners of the property] ("Declazants"), with reference to the following facts: A. Declazants aze the fee title owners of the property at [insert address, including state and zip code] (hereafter the "Property"), more particularly described in attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated in this Declaration by this reference. B. Declazants have'been issued a permiYto construct a second unit, as defined and authorized by Section 18.04.135 of the City of Anaheim Zoning Code, on the Property, which would otherwise be restricted under the Zoning Code to being improved with a single dwelling. C. The purpose of this Declazation is to set forth as restrictions on the Property, and as covenants running with the land, those conditions which relate to the benefit received by use of the two dwelling units on the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the Foregoing, Declarants declaze as follows: 1. The second unit on the Property shall not be sold separately from the main dwelling unit on the Property, .and the parcel upon which the unit is located shall not be subdivided in any manner which would authorize such sale or ownership. 2. The second unit is limited to having a maximum of two bedrooms and restricted to the size, design and location consistent with the permit for second dwelling unit. 3. The second unit is an accessory use to the main dwelling unit. 4. The second unit shall be alegal-unite-and:may-he-used as habitable space, only so long as either the main dwelling unit, or the second unit=is occupied by the owner or one of the. _ _ owners of record of the property. 5. These restrictions shall run with the land and are bindmg upon the heirs, assigns, and successors in interest of Declarants to the Property, and shall be enforceable; at its option, by the City. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to insure that the property is occupied and maintained in accordance with the second unit permit and this covenant. 6. The foregoing restrictions may not be terminated or amended without the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the City of Anaheim. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Declazation has been executed by the owner of the property as of the date first above written at By. By: (Print Name) .(Print Name) APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jack L. White, City Attorney By: _ Planning Director City of Anaheim [Each Declazant's signature must be aclmowledged by a notary.] 49859.2. "DECLARANTS" _2 SAMPLE .SUBORDINATION-AGREEMENT This prototype covenant is intended to provide general language whichmaybe helpful toyou in preparation of a covenant required by the City of Anaheim as a condition of approval for development of property. It should not be construed as representing legal advice on specific individual matters. Applicants should consult their attorneys regazding use of this prototype in individual situations and upon its legal effect. Recording at the request of and when recorded return to: [Name and Address of owners] (Space above for Recorder's Use) SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT [Name of Beneficiary] , a [Type of Entity] as Beneficiary under that certain Deed of Trust dated ,which was recorded as Instrument No. in the Official Records ofthe Orange County Recorder does hereby grant consent to the Declazation ofRestrictions on Occupancy recorded as Instrument No. in the Official Records of the Orange County Recorder on and does agree that the provisions of said declaration shall be and remain at all times a lien or chazge on the real property affected thereby and that said Covenant is prior and superior to the lien or charge imposed on said property by the above described Deed of Trust. [Name of Beneficiary] (Title) By (Title) [Signatures must be acknowledged by Notary] APPROVED AS TO FORM JACK L. WHITE, CITY ATTORNEY 49859.2 3 ITEN N0. 2 STONYBROOK DRIVE RS-A-43,000 CHALLENGER EDUCATIONAL CLINIC POLARIS HIGH SCHOOL WESTHAVEN DR i x 00 N r y~ {- d' O W ~ ~U ~ oQ Z N ~W W ~7 J ~~ S H 0' W W 3 x Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04551 ~ ~ Subject Property TRACK[NG NO. CUP2003-04696 Date: June 2, 2003 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON Q.S. No. 21 REQUEST TO AMEND A CONDITION OF APPROVAL PERTAINING TO A REQUIRED LANDSCAPE PLANTER. 2721 Stonybrook Drive Toz 0 Q W c 0 N _ Wp _ ND ^ C~ ~~ K~ ~. f%1 K. WEST HAV EN DR KEYS LN ROME AVE Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16,2003 Item No. 2 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS I (Motion)J, 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N02002-04551 (Resolution) (Trackino No;'CUP 2003-04696) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This rectangularly-shaped,,3.1-acre property has a frontage of 265 feet on the north side of Stonybrook Drive, a maximum depth`of 520 feet. and is located 130 feet west'of the centerline of Sherrill Street (2721 Stonybrook Drive). REQUEST: (2) The petitioner requests to amend a condition ofapproval pertaining to a required landscape planter under: authority of Code Section 18:03.091. BACKGROUND: (3) This item was continued from the June 2,2003, Commission meeting due o lack of a quorum. (4)i This property is developed with two Southern California Edison high voltage towers (one lattice and one A-frame) and a plant nursery. The propertyis zonedRS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) and the Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element Map designates this property for Low Density Residential land'; uses. (5)' Surrounding land uses areas follows; Direction Land Use Zoning General Plan Desi `nation Edison Lattice Towers & North '.Nurse Stock ' RS-A-43,000 Low Densi ' Residential East Sin le-Famil Residences RS-7200 iLow Densi Residentiaki South (across Edison Lattice Towels, RS-A-43,000 & stonybrook Drive) `Nursery Stock & Single- RS-7200 '~ Low Density Residential `Famil Residences :I_ West '. ::Sin le-Famii Residences RS-7200 Low Densi ResidentiaC DISCUSSION`. (6) Conditional Use Permit No 2002-04551 (to permit a telecommunications antenha and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower. and accessory ground-mounted equipment) was approved by the(Commission on August 12, 2002, for a period of 5 years. Resolution Nd PC2002- 120, approved in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04551 contains the following conditions of approval: "16. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance wikh the plans and specifications submittetl to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked F~cfiibit Nos. 1 2, 3 and'4 and as conditioned herein.: That within a period of one (1) year from he date of this resolution, the applicant shall submit final andscaping plans to the Zoning Division for reviewand approval showing: a (10) foot wide landscaped planter along Stonyt~rook Drive." Sr8605vn Pape 1 Staff Report to the .Planning Commission June 16, 2003 item No. 2 (7) The petitioner has submitted a request to modify a condition of approval and previously-approved exhibits in order to reduce the required 10-footwide landscape planter to 4-feet along;the south property line'adjacent to Stonybrook Drive. The revised Site Plan (Revision=1 of Exhibt,No, 1) indicates a 4-footwide'landscape'planter adjacent to Stonybrook. Drive. A landscape plan (Exhibit No. 5) was submitted indicating groundcove~, shrubs and clingingivines in this new planter area. In'addition, he petitioner proposes to install a green, vinyl coated chain link fence in order to;create a visual buffer that blends withthe proposed landscape material. As part of this revised proposal, the existing 4-foot high chain link fence would 6ia removed and the new green, vinyl coated chain link fence would be located to the north behind' he new landscape planter. The barbed wire currently attached to this fence would be removed aslit is not permitted by Code. No other revisions to the approved site plan are proposed' (8) The Commission may wish to recall that this'oondition was imposed at the Planning Commissioh hearing of August 12,'2002, in an'effort to conceal the telecommunications'facilityequipment sfielter and to address concerns relative to aesthetic enhancement of the property frontage. The submitted letter of request indicates the petitioner was'unable to obtain authorization from the property owner, Southern California Edison;: to provide a 10-foot wide landscape planter. The letter of request further indicates that a 10-foot wide landscape planter'would interfere with on-site circulation utilized by Edison and the nursery tenant. Mr. Robert Teran, Infrastucture Leasing Manager for Edison did, however,:: consent to a 4-foot wide landscape planter and further stipulated that no trees be planted in this area due to potential interference with overhead distribution lines.': (9) The Commission should note thaf'the equipment shelter is located under the legs of a lattice tower approximately 500 feefnorth of Stonybrook Drive and'is unlikely to be seertfrom the street. ~, > ~ - . y ~• ~ ~~ y F K f t `3 _ l 1 9 ~! ~ b Y~ / ~'"~ v ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ y ti n k l ~ 1 f s ~ 1 Y ~ YY} f AY I ~~ w ~} ~ l ~ s I ,, C r s ~ ~ ~ ~F ~.. r' , .., ' - r ~ ~~~~ r f ~ >< ~ Pro~aS~d locnlion of ~ ~ ~ s ~~ , c gmpment helter ~ ^' ,,, 6 s ,, ~ ~ ,q, ~ ts' ~ ~ ~6 ~ ~ r 4.. -~ 4t .d' N~'I.~ r' ~T $ gfrc. r ?~ s'. ~^ ''a ~ .P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ hs wfi~. K ~G',~+.s~s`ra-~'s~,~';'Y~ °`y7.rs t'S~~ ~ y-'S3 .v* h~~s a ~~`'~'~^"r~,~+ tom, e ~ ..s ~~a+r r; s x 'i'ce ~~ rrt ix"'%"~"~.a "' 7, ~~ --r . t a r K !., /.~... '~. :.fs.' ~ ;t~~..r,e.. ~'.rwr.f'~..~: ~',.:..".'~ ar~",u. ... vk,u..,,.~...-.,mu North view of property proposed for a telecommunication facility, (10) Staff has evaluated this request to reduce the: required landscape planter from a 10-foot wide planter to 4-foot wide planter. The petitioner has included a variety of landscaping material iq the proposed 4-foot wide landscape planter andstaff feels that the intent of the original condition of approval would besatisfied. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requesfto modify the condition of approval pertaining to fie required'landscape planter. '- Pape 2 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16, 2003 Item No. 2 `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, Classl (Existing Facilities), as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from`the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (12) 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 hot fit within the scope necessary to require a Growth. Management Element analysis, therefore, no analysis has been performed. FINDINGS: (13) Before the Planning Commission grants any Conditional Use Permit, it must make a finding of fact thaftfie evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions'exist: (a) That the proposed use is properly one forwhich a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by the' :Zoning Code, or that'said use is not listed'therein as being a permitted use; (b) .That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and ,`tlevelopment of the area in which it is proposed to be located; (c) That the size and shape of the site for the proposeduse is adequate to allow the full development of the'proposed "use in a manner not tletrimental to the particular area!nor to the` ;peace, health, safety, and general welfare; (d) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue tiurden upon the treets 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. peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. (14) Subsection 18.03.092 of the Anaheim Municipal Code provides for the modification or termination of a conditional use permit-for one or more of the following'grounds: (a) ,That the approval was obtained by fraud; (b) That the use for which such approval is granted is not being exercised within the time !specified in such permit; (c) ,That the use for which such approval was: granted has ceased. to exist or'has been suspended or inoperative for any reason:for a periotl of six (6)' consecutive months or more; (d) That the permit granted is being, or recently has been exercised contrary;to the terms or conditions of such approval, or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; (e) :That the use for which the approval was granted has been so exercised es to be detrimental to the public health or safety; or so as to constitute a nuisance;: Pape 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16; 2003 'Item No. 2 (f) ;That the'use for which the approval was'granted has not been exercised, and that based upon additional information or due to changed circumstances; the factsnecessary to support one or more of the required showings for the issuance of such entitlement as set forth in this. chapterno longer exist; and/or (g) ;That any;such modification, including the imposition of any additional conditions thereto, is reasonably necessary to protect the public peace, health, safety or general welfare, or necessary to permit reasonable operation under the conditional use permit as granted. RECOMMENDATION`. (15) 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 dial and written evidence presented at the public hewing that Planning Commission take the following actions: (a) By motion, determine that the project is Categorically Exempt under Sectien 15301, Class 1 (Existing`Facilities)' ofthe CEQA Guidelines. (b) ;' By resolution, aoorove this request for an amendment of a condition of approval for Conditional Use Permit Na 2002-04551 (Tracking No. CUP2003-0419Ei) to reduce the required landscapeplanterirom 10-feet to 4-feet in conjunction with a previously-approved telecommunication facility based on the following findings: (i) Thafthe proposed 4-foot wide landscape planter, as proposed with dense planting, is adequate to provide the desired screen of the uses on the property; (ii) Thatthe size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to tfie particular area nor to the peace, health; safety, and general welfare; (iii) Thatthe modification is necessary to permit the reasonable operation of the telecommunications fadlty. (iv) Thaf the granting of the conditional use permit as modified would not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and`generai welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and further contributes to an essential and effective wireless`communication network system: (c) Should the Commission wish to approve this request, staff recommends that the conditions of approvafcontained in Resolution No. PC2002-120!be incorporated into a new resolution with the following conditions of approval (Conditions 17 and 18 are new or revised conditions): 1. That is permit shall expire on August 12, 2007. 2. That the telecommunications facilityshall be limited to a maximum'of 65 feet jn height, with`3 sectors consisting'of 2 panePantennas per sectorwith maximum dimensions of 4.5 feet in height by 8 Inches in width and 2.75 inches thick on the existing tower;:and a maximum 24-inch diameter microwave dish ata maximum height of 50 feet on the tower', and`accessory ground-mounted equipment. 'Said information shall'be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. No additional antennas or equipment cabinets shall be permitted without. the approval of the'Planning'Commission. Pape 4 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16, 2003 Item No. 2 ' 3. That the antennas shall be finished and painted to match the existing' lattice tower structure. If the finish or color of the lattice tower is modified, the antennas sfiall be modified accordingly. Said information shall be!specificallyshnwn on plans submitted for building permits. 4. That the portion of the property being'Jeased to the telecommunication providershall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion byproviding regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 5. That ho signs, flags, banners, or any other form of advertising shall be attached to the antennas or the transmission towefstructure. 6. That the cable connecting the equipment shall tie underground and shall not be'visible to the public; and that said information'shall be specifically shown on plans for building permits. 7. That the operator' of this use (the "Operator") shall ensure that this installation and choice of frequencies will not interfere with the 800 MHz radio frequencies t•equired by,the City of; Anaheim to provide adequate spectrum capacity for public afety and related purposes. '' °8. That at all times,: other thah during the 24-hour cure periodprovided in Condition No. 10 below; the Operator shall not prevent<the City ofMaheim from having adequate spectrum capacity on the.City's 800 MHz radiofrequency.;. 9. That before activating Its facility, the Operator shall submitto apost-installation test to confirm that the facility does not interfere with the City of Anaheim's public safety radio equipment. This test shallrbe conducted by the'Communications Division of the Orange = County Sheriffs Department or aDivision-approved contractor at the expense of Operator. 10. That the Operator shall provide a 24-hour telephone number to the Zoning Division (to be forwarded to the Fire and Police Departments) to which interference' problemsmay be reported, and shall resolve'all interference complaints within 24 hours. 11. That the Operator shall provide a "single point of contact" In its Engineering and Maintenance Departments to ensure continuityon all interference issues. The name, telephone number, fax number and a-mail address of that person shall be provided to City's designated representative. 12. Thafthe Operator shall ensure that each of its contractors;. sub-contractors or agents, or ' any other user of the facility, shall comply with tftese contlitions of approval. 13. That the installer. shall obtain aright-of--way construction permit form he Public Works Department for'any work within the public right-of-way, including but hot limitetl to installation of conduit, cable and electrical service lines. 14. That should this elecommunicationfacility be sold, the City of Anaheim shall be notified ' within 30 days of the close of escrowz 15. That all equipment, including supply cabinets and power meter shall be installetl on private property and shall be screened from public view, as approved by the Zoning Division. Said'informationshall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Pape 5 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16,.2003 Item No. 2= 16. That the subject property shat) be developed substantially in accordance witfi the plans i and: specifications submitted to the Ciry of Anaheim by,the petitioner and which plans aye on file with the Planning 17epartment marked' Exhibit No 1 Revision No. 1; Exhibit Nos:?2, 3, 4 and 5 as conditioned herein. 17. That within a period of two monthsi(2) months from the date of this resolution, the applicant shall submit final landscaping plans to the Zoning Division for review and approval showing a four. (4) foot wide densely landscaped planteralong Stonybrook Drive. Said landscaping: shall be installed within two (2)jmonths following approval of the landscaping plans; and that the landscapingshall thereafter be maintained in`a live and' healthy contlition. 18. That a maximum 6-foot high green, vinyl coated chain link fencing material shall be used adjacent to Stonybrook`Drive. The new fence shall be'setback a minimum of 4 feet from the public right-of-way and north of the required landscape setback. 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.42, 3, 6, 10 11 and';15, above-mentioned, shall,be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 20. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 9 and 16 above- mentioned, snail be complied with. 21. That approvalof this application constitutes approval of She proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code. and any other applicable City, State and Fetleral regulations. Approval does not inclutle any action or findings as to compliance or approval'of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. Pape 6 ATTACHf1ENT - 1 TEtt N0, 2 RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-120 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT tJO. 2002-04551 BE GRANTED 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 EASTERLY 265 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST- QUARTER. OF THE' SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION THIRTEEN, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST IN THE RANCHO LOS COYOTES AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK. 51, PAGE 11 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on July 15, 2002 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 against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and that the hearing was continued to the July 29 and August 12, 2002 Planning Commission meetings; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and offer 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 18.21.050.125 to wit: to permit a telecommunications antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessary ground-mounted equipment. 2. That the proposed telecommunications facility in the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone, as conditioned herein, will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it will be located; and that the equipment shelter will be screened from the putilic right-of-way (Stonybrook Drive) by landscaping and the antennas will be painted to match the legs of the existing electrical transmission tower. 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 because this is an unmanned facility with infrequent maintenance. 4: That the size and shape of the site is adequate to allow-full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety; and general welfare because the existing Southern California Edison transmission towers allow opportunities for telecommunications facilities on the tower legs without separate facilities being built thereby minimizing impacts to the surroundings. , 5. That granting this conditional use permit, under the conditions imposed, will .not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and that the use contributes to an essential and effective wireless communication network system. 6. That no one indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal; and that no correspondence was received in opposition. CR5437DM.doc -1- PC2002-120 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Director's authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of "" Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, 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 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 fn order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: 1. That this conditional use permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of this resolution, on August 12, 2007.. 2: That the telecommunications facility shall be limited to a maximum height of sixty five (65) feet, with three (3) sectors on the existing tower, consisting of iwo (2) panel antennas per sector with maximum dimensions of four and one half (4.5) feet high, eight (8) inches wide, and two and three- quarters (2.75) inches thick; and a maximum twenty four (24) inch diameter microwave dish on th€ existing tower at a maximum height of fifty (50) feet; and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. No additional antennas or equipment cabinets shall be permitted without the prior approval of the Planning Commission;- 3. That the antennas shall be finished and painted to match the existing lattice tower structure. If the finish orcolor of the lattice tower is modified, the antennas shall be modified accordingly. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 4. That the portion of the property being leased to the telecommunication provider shall be perm:: c ,tly maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, rerrr~val of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 5. That no signs, flags, banners, or any other form of advertising shall be attached to the antennas or the transmission tower. 6: That the cable connecting the equipment shall be underground and shall not be visible to the public; and that said information shall be specifically shown on the plans for building permits.. 7. That the operator of this use (the "Operator") shall ensure that the location of the proposed installation and the choice of frequencies will not interfere with the 800 MHz radio frequencies required by the City of Anaheim to provide adequate spectrum capacity for public safety and related purposes. 8: That at all times, other than during the post-installation test provided for ih Condition No. 9, below, the Operator shall not prevent the City of Anaheim from having adequate spectrum capacity on the City's 800 MHz radio frequency.. 9. That before activating this facility, the Operator shall submit a :post-installation test to the City to confirm that the facility does not interfere with the City of Anaheim's public safety radio equipment. This test shall be conducted by the Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriffs Department or a Division-approved contractor at the expense of Operator. 10. That the Operator shall provide a twenty four (24) hour telephone number to the Zoning Division (which will be forwarded to the Fire and Police Departments) to which interference problems maybe reported; and that all interference complaints shall resolved all within twenty four (24) hours. Further, if the 24-hour telephone number changes, the Operator shall immediately advise the Zoning Division of the new number. -2- PC2002-120 11. That the Operator shall provide a "single point of contact" in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments to ensure continuity on all interference issues. The name, telephone number, fax ' number and a-mail address of that person shall be provided to City's designated representative. If the name, telephone number, fax number and a-mail address of that "single point of contact" changes, the Operator shall immediately advise the City's designated representative. 12. That the Operator shall ensure that each of its contractors, sub-contractors or agents, or any other user of the facility, shall comply with these conditions of approval. 13. That the installer shall obtain aright-of-way construction permit from the Public Works Department for any work within the public right-of-way, including but not limited to installation of conduit, cable and electrical service lines. 14. That should this telecommunication facility be sold, the City of Anaheim shall be notified within thirty (30) days of the close of escrow. 15. That all equipment, including supply cabinets and power meter, shall be installed on private property and shall be screened from the public's view, as approved by the Zoning Division. Said information shall be spebifically shown on the plans submitted for buldingpermits. 16. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4; and as conditioned herein. 17. That prior to issuance of a permit by the Building Division or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 15, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03..090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 18, That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 9 and 16, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 19. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal 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. 20. (a) That within a period of one (1)year from the date of this resolution, the applicant shall submit final landscaping plans to the Zoning Division for review and approval showing a ten (10) foot wide landscaped planter along Stonybreok Drive. (b) That within a period of two (2) months following approval of the landscaping plans, said landscaping shall be installed; and that the landscaping shall thereafter be maintained in compliance with City standards. BE IT FURTHER 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. -3- PC2002-120 THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted. at the Planning Commission meeting of August 12, 2002... COriginal signed Dy Paul Bostwick CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: (~I~WB;I ~0~ ~ F~nande8l SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Fernandes, 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 August 12, 2002, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES:. COMMISSIONERS: BOSTWICK, BRISTOL, EASTMAN, ROMERO NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER: KOOS ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: BOYDSTUN,'JANDERBILT , IN W ITNESS W HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of , 2002. lOriglnal signed by Eleanor Fernandes SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -4- PC2002-120 ITEM N0. 3 ORA NGEWOOD AV ENUE f ®-161 ' L ' ~ r ~ ML SE i -,.,. b0-. 6 99.6 1 ~ ~ ML (SE) 89-0 1 i (Res of Inlenl to SE) E By,a0,t6 (Res of Intanl to s fib 67 14 66-67-14 RCL 62 63-09 ~ (Res of inlenl to SE) - - RCL fit-63-09 ML ° - CUP 2003-047021; N 66.g7.1q RCL 62-03-09 66-67-93 99-00-15 ~ o <z 66.57-93 E 0 m 66.67-93 EIR 274 {Res of Intent to SE) - EIR 274 EIR 321 VAR 4206 EIR 274 EIR 321 GPA 2141 66-67-14 o o. C,pA 214.1 EIR 321 GPA 361 RCL 62$3-09 ° ~ ,`:','• GPA 361 GPA 214-I 56-57-93 c y ~ IND FlRM ~ s = ~ GPA 361 M L EIR 274 ~ ~U' 5 r~',"'-x~ $~ .+ t:= "~" IND. FlRMs ~ 99-0 416 EIR 321 ~ o Ez ° ~t . ~ ~s of Inlenl to SE GPA 2141 J 66-67-14 GPA 361 rc = 66.67-93 EIR 274 EVEREST PRECISION 0 = ...o ~ ~ W > j < W > " EIR 327 SHEET METAL '~ wu. ' GPA 2141 = uJ 8~ 0 ~~ ^ W~ GPA 361 IND FlRM ' ` ~~ ML yLL ` . a p ~dg ~ Em o o Z 0 99-00-15 ~ (Res of Intent to SE) 1- ~ ~ 3 ~ o~ y m z p ~ 6657-93 a ~ > ( ~ V~3208 > g o CUP 2003-04666 ~ ^ m ^ ~ ~ (Res ofl~nt to SE) ML" EIR 321 GPA 2141 RCL 88-89-27 99.00-15 GPA 361 (Res o(Intent to CO) (Res of Intent ORANGEWOOD 66-67-14 to SE) STADIUM RCL 62-63-09 66.67-14 BUSINESS PARK S6S7-93 56-67-9 SM. IND. FIRMS T-CUP 2002-04541 EIR 274 - T-CUP 2001-04339 EIR 321 T-000UP 4 ~2~ GPA 214-I M L 1 GPA 361 89- O0 -1s VAR 2002-04504 SM IND SE lenl Osl SWAP MEET . . FIRMS o ss-s~-ie Conditional Use Permit No 2003-04702 f ~ Subject Property . y~ Date : June 2, 2003 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: OLIVIERO MIGNECO Q.S. No. 119 REQUEST TO PERMIT AND RETAIN AN OUTDOOR STORAG E YARD WITH WAIVERS OF: (A) MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT (B) MINIMUM NUM BER OF PARKIN G SPACES (C) MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SETBACK 2130 East Orangewood Avenue 704(2oo3s-1s) ML (SE) ML (SE) ML (SE) OK CATERERS ML (SE) 99-0D-16 99-00-15 ML VAR 2119 99-00-15 (Res. of int. to SE) (Res. of Int. to SE) VAR 4236 n5~ SE) (Rea84I RCL 8485-OB RCL 73-74-34--- SUMMITVILLE 8 (Res. of Int. to CR) 66-67-14 TILE (Res. of Int. to CR) 66-67-14 59-60-61 66-fi7-14 62-63-9 62-63-9 (Res, of Int. to MH) 66-67-93 66-57-93 66.57-93 CUP 3552 CUP 2400 ML (SE) DON MIGUEL CUP 2623 CUP 750 VACANT TIMBERLINE EDISON FIELD ML (SE) GAS LOGS PARKING IAMCOR ELECTRICALINC. Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 1Ei; 2003 Item No. 3 3a, CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion) 3b. WAIVER OF CODEREQUIREMENT (Motion) 3c. `CONDITIONAL USE>PERMIT NO.>2003-04702'. '(Resolution).; SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1 j `This rectangular-shaped, 1.3-acre property is located at the southwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Dupont Drive; having frontages of 181 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue and 305 feet on'the west side of Dupont Drive (2130 East Orangewood Avenue - Tileclub}. REQUEST: (2) The petitioner requests approval of a conditional use permit under authority of Code Section No. 18.61 f050.501 topermit and retain an outdoor storage yardwith waivers of fallowing: (a) SECTION NO': 18.61.064.020 Maximum fence height l3 feet permitted;: 9 feet existing and: proposed).'; (b) SECTION NOS. 18.61.050.501, ' Minimum'number of parking spaces 18.06:050.031, 48 required; 32 proposed and AND 18.06:050.033 recommended by the City Traffic and i Transportation Manager). (c) SECTION NO 18.61.063.013 Minimum' andscaoed setback'area (5 feet required; none'existing oc proposed). BACKGROUND: (3) 'This item was continued from the June 2, 2003, Commission meeting in order for the applicant to be present at the hearing. (4) This property is currently developed with an existing industrial building and is zoned ML (Limited ndustrial); The Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element Map: designates this propertgforGeneral Industrial land uses. (5) Surrounding land uses are as follows: Direction Land Use Zoning General Plan Desi nation North, (across Industrial Firms ML Commercial Recreation Oran ewood Avenue South, East (across Industrial Firms ML ' Business Office/Mixed:.. Dupont Drive) and West ' -Use/Industrial Sr3025(a)ey.doc Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16;2003 Item No6$ (8) Vehicularaccess is provided by one driveway from Orangewood Avenue`and two `driveways from Dupont Drive: A total of 32 employee and customer parking spaces are proposed'bn-site. Cotle requires 48 parking spacesbased on he following; Y '` ~~. y"' r`+ e°~ffia."~ ~ ~~`~'`a--.yr`vt.;,r"k %y'"~ssr`-,t~;- 3~ ~'s^~ fa ,, v`a ~ ~K~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~z ~ ~ ` ' .~`~~t ~~ ~~ode~,k~equt>'ed~~ geode ltequl~retl„'t ` ~ ~~~Use~'~ ~ ~ ~"~ 5 ~ ~Square~Fee~~ ~ ~P,~iking 12a1~o (Rec ~ ~~F,4 Packing ~% ~ ~~ ~~~~'~ ~*~ ``'' L . ~,~ ~~~ ~- ~{ -~-i `S X9,044 s ~of`G' FA~ ~ l ~ ~ $~~ r a ,u. v°.,.~ ~.auLatu"„ fl. ,..,~."'/. , a ~- ~r~. f....f . ~,. r„ :.xve44Y ^-L Exitl~.e i' .:i.,.. '' .a., ..%~ Warehouse (including 10% 26,942 1.55'- 41.7 office of building GFA) Office (above 10% of 68 4 0.3r building GFA) 1 spaceper2,500 Outdoor Storage 10,540 , s.f. 42 Showroom 675 2.25' L5 Totat 38,225 48 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June,16, 2003 Item No. 3 along Orangewood Avenue with one tree for every 20 feet of street frontage for a total of 2a trees. (11) Submitted photographs and staff inspections reveal that thebutdoor storage area is enclosed with chain link fencing with PVC slats and razor wire along the east property line. Code prohibits the use of razor wire when visible o the public right-of-way. With respect to the fencing, Code?requires that all chain fink fencing utilized in the screening of outdoor ` uses include PVCslats and fast-growing vines or'shrubbery: (12) No sign. plans were submitted with this application, and the petitioner states that no new signage; is proposed in connection with"this request. Code permits wall signage'not exceeding 10 percent of the building elevation antl an 8' x 10' monument sign with a maximum sign area of 65 square feet per face. (13) ' The submitted letter of operation indicates the tile. distribution facility would continue to operate Monday through Friday, from t3 a.m. to 6;p.m., Saturday 9 a.m: to 5 p.m.'and Sunday'10 a.m. to 4 p.m., with a total of 25 employees. A second letter of operation, submitted by the Tileclub's authorized agent indicates that there is no retail sales from this facility and that the purpose of the outdoor storage area is for the temporary storage of materials until such time that they are distributed'to a Tileclub retail facility. Additionally, ? the petitioner indicates that they propose to screen any visible roof-mounted equipment and remove the barbed wire from the chain link fencing. 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,6y the Planning Commission that the declaration reflects the indapendentjudgment of the lead agency; and that it has considered the proposed Negative Dedlaration together witfi 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 i have a significant effect on the environment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (15) The proposed project has been reviewed by affected City departments'to determine whether it conforms to the Gity's Growth Management Element adopted by the City Councif on March 17; 1992. Based on City staff review of the proposed project, it has been determined that this project does not fitwithin the`scope necessary to require a Growth Management Element anaysis, therefore, no analysis has been performed. EVALUATION:i (16) Outdoor contractor/building;materials storage yards are permitted in the ML zone subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. (17) Waiver (a) pertains to the maximum fence height within the required setback. Plans indicate an existing 9-foothigh chain link fence and slidinggate located along the side (east)'property line. Photographs of the propertyfurther show existing. barbed wire along ; the top of the fence. Code'permits fencing in the required setback area up to a maximum ' height. of 3 feet. Further, barbed or razor wire islprohibited when visible from the public right-of-way. The petitioner has submitted theattached Statement ofrJustiflcation indicating that the fence was existing when the property was purchased. Additionally, the fence'is used to'screen the-outdoor storage area. Staff is supportive of this waiver since ; there is currently(no intervening landscape setback between the public right-of-way and Page 4 Staff Report to the Planning Commissidn June 16,!2003 Item Noi 3 the fence. Therefore, from a functional'standpoint the logical location and height of the fence is the present location. r (18) !Waiver (b) pertains to minimum number of parking spaces. Code requires 48 spaces based on the information contained in paragraph no. (8) of this report. The site plan indicates' a total of 32 employee and customer spaces available on-site.?The petitioner has submitted a parking study prepared by Traffic Safety Engineers, dated April 15, 2003, to t substantiate the requested waiver. The City Trafficand Transportation Manager has reviewed the studyand determined that here would be sufficient parking for this proposed s land use: (19) The parking study further includes the following findings to substantiate the requested waiver of minimum numbeCOf parking spaces: "(a) That the variance, untler the conditions imposed, if any, will noYcause fewer off- . street parking spaces to be provided for such use tfian the number of such spaces pecessary o accommodate ail vehicles attributable to such use`under the normal and reasonable foreseeable conditions of operation'of such use: The parking study indicates thaf the peak parking demand for off-street parking spaces is ower than he quantity provided for the project site. ` (b) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will nofincrease the 'demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of he proposed use, The proposed projectwill not increase or compete for on-street parking because 'its parking.. fot has adequate parking to accommodate'the project peak parking 'demands. (c) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand far parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. The project site parking lot is physically separated from other adjacent developmeht. Furthermore, there is no reason to encroach other parking facilities because the center's'parking lotprovides ample parking as indicated in the parking analysis. (d) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-streetparking areas or lots'provided for such use. Traffic and: parking congestion will not occur because the supply of parking 'spaces fdr the project site are adequate during the peak parking period. (e) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will nofimpede vehicular :ingress to'or egress,from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. The project site is physically separated from the adjacent private properties. Therefore,',there will tie no impeding of traffic access; into or out of adjacent parking lots " (20) Waiver (c) pertains to the minimum required landscaped setback area along Dupont Drive. Code requires a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped setback abutting a local street. Plans indicate the existing fence'is located on the property line`ahd that the Page 5 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16, 2003 Item No. 3 property does not have a landscaped:"setback. There is currently an'8-foot wide landscaped parkway within: the public right-of-way directly'east of theproperty. This area' is currently, maintained by TileGUb. (21) The petitioner has submitted the attached Statement of Justification indicating that the fence was existing on the property line when the property was purchased. Additionally, the'Jandscaped area located within'the right-of-way has been maintained by Tleclub since they have been at this location. Additionally, the 5-foot wide setback area is utilized by this business in'order to provide adequate room for the loading and unloading'of materials within the enclosed outdoor storage area. Staff is generally not supportive of waiving landscape settiack requirements. However, in thisspecific case, the petitioner is not constructing additional building square footage nor intensifying the property beyond what would be anticipated ih an industrial area. Therefore; staff recommends approval offhis waiver: (22) The Code Enforcement Division has submitted the attached memorandum, dated March 11, 2003,`,describing how this propertys need for a parking waiver became apparent to the,City. Initially, the Traffic Engineering and Code Enforcement Divisions became aware of the lack of on-street parking due to a complaint received from the public. 'Staff is currently working with other businesses in the DuponYDrive area that wish to retain outdoor storage areas to ensure that their business needs are met while providing enough on-site parking for employees and customers and preserving the aestheticsof the area FINDINGS: (23) That Section 18.06.080 of the parking. ordinance sets forth the following findings which are required to be made before the parking waiversare approved by the Planning Commission ar City Council. (a) ' That the variance, under the conditions: imposed if any, will not cause fewer off- streetparking spaces to beprovided for such use han the' number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable'to such use under the normal`and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operationof such use; and Section. and (b) That the variance: under the'conditions' imposed if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets infhe immediate vicinity of the proposed use; and (c) That the variance, under the`condition5 imposed if any, will not increase the demand and competition for'parking spaces upon. adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use; and (d) That the variance', under the conditions imposed, if any, wiq'not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for such' use; and (e) That the variance, under the'conditions imposed,. if any, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vic(nity of the proposed use. (24) Unless conditions to the contrary are expressly imposed upon the grant of any variance pursuant to this section by;the Planning Commission or City Council, he granting of any Page 6 c Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16,2003 Item No: 3 r such variance shall be deemed contingent upon operation of such use ih conformance with the assumptions relatingto the operation and intensity of the use as contained in the parking;demand study that formed the tiasis for approval of said variance. Exceetling, violating,' intensifying or otherwise deviating from any of said assumptions as contained in the parking demand study shall be deemed a violation of the express conditions imposed upon said variance which shall subject said variance to termination or mddificatioh pursuant o the provisions of Sections 18.03.091 and 18.03:092 of this Code, (25) When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from strict enforcement of the Zoning'Gode, a modification may be granted for the purpose of assuring that no property, because'of special'circumstances applicable to it,'shall be deprived ofprivileges commonly enjoyed,by other properties in the samevicinity and zone. The sole purpose of any code waiver is to prevent discrimination and none shall be approved which would have the`effect of granting a pecial privilege not shared by other similar properties. Therefore, before'ahy code waiver is granted by the Planning Commissibn, it shalt be shown: I (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 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 usepermit is authorized by the Zoning Code, or at said use is not listed therein as being a permitted use; (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 developmentof the proposed use: in a manner not detrimental to`the particular area nor to the peace, healtfi~safety, and general welfare; (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 peace, health, safety and'general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. RECOMMENDATION: (27) 'Staff recommends that, unless additionalcr contrary information is received during the meeting, and based upon the evidencesubmitted to the Commission; including the evidence'presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented atthe public hearing, the Commission take the following actions: (a) By motion, approve a CEQA Negative Declaration. Page 7 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16,2003 Item No. 3 (b) ey motion,: aoorove waiver (b) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces - based on the recommendatioh of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager that '32 space5is adequate for thisdistributionfacility, and based on the findings as discussed,in paragraph nos. (18) and (tg) of this report. (c) By motion, aoorove the requested waivers pertaining to (a) maximum fence height within the required setback and (c) minimum required landscape setback based on `' the following: (i) That the existing fence and lack of a landscape setback adjacent to Dupont Drive are existing conditions and the impacts of the proposal do not provide sufficient nexus to require compliance with these development standards. -' (ii) That the strict application of the Code deprives the property owner the privileges enjoyed by other industrial properties in terms of the limitation of the height'of fencing required to effectively screen the outdoor storage yard. (d) By resolution, a rove Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04702. {to permifand retain an outdoor storage yard) based on the following: (i) That the proposed outdoor storage yard is properly one for which a conditional use permitis authorized by the`Zoning Code and as conditioned` herein, complies with all the requGements set forth in the Zoning Code. (ii) That the proposed outdoor storage yard would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the areain which it is proposed to be located because the proposal includes site screening. (iii) That the size; shape and topography of the site for the'proposed outdoor Storage yard is adequate to allow he full development of the proposed use since the proposal meets all the minimum development standards set forth within the Zoning Code;: with the exception of the waivers whicKdo not impact surrounding properties, ahtl therefore would not have a negative impact on the particulararea's peace; health, safety, and generaCwelfare. (iv) That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04702, as conditioned herein, wouitl not be detrimental to the peace, health; safety and' general welfare of the citizensof the City'of Anaheim. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS ACTING AS AN INTERDEPARTMENTALCOMMITTEE'ANDrARE`RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION BYTHE l PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE EVENT THIS PERMIT ISAPPROVED. 1`. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance,'removal of trash and debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 2. That no barbed wire ar razor wire shall be visible in any direction to'any non-industrially zoned property or public right of way. The' existing barbed wire shall be removed. 3: That the outdoor storage'of materials and equipment shall not exceed the height of the perimeter fencing and shall not bevisible to ahy adjacent public right-of-way.': Page 8 Staff Report to the PlanningCommission June 16;:2003 Item No: 3 4. ` That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic snd Transportation Manager for his review and approval showing conformance with the currentwersion'of Engineering Standard Plan Nos'. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations:: Subject property shall thereupon be developed antl maintained in conformance with said plans. 5. That no compact parking spaces shall be permitted. 6. That the granting' of the parking waiver' is contingent upon operation of the use in conformance with the assumptions and/oi• conclusions relating to the operation and intensity of use as contained in the parking demand study that formed the basis for approval of said waiver,'Exceeding violating intensifying or otherwise deviating from'any of said assumptions and/or conclusions, as contained in the'parking demand study, shall be deemed a violation of the expressed conditions imposed upon said waiver which shall subject this variance to termination or motlificationpursuant to the: provisionsof Sections 18.03.091 and 18.03.092 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 7. That the proposed fence and sliding gate securing the employee parking area shall remain. open during hours of operation so that all required parking spaces may be open and available. 8. That any loading;and unloatling of products and materials shall occuron-site, exclusive of any required parking; areas. 9. That no required'parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses excepYas shownand approved on'Ezhibit No. 1 i 10.' That trash storage areas sfiall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Departmeht, Streetsrand Sanitation Division and ih'accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said'storage areas shall be designed, located'snd screened so as not to be readily;identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. 11.' That fencing shall be maintained in conformance with the approved plans, including PVC slats interwoven into the chain link fencing'slong the perimeter of the outdoor storage: area and„further, that clinging vines to eliminate graffiti: opportunities shall beplanted on maximum 3-foot centers adjacent to said fence. The fencing shall be of sufficient height to screen the outdoar materials from view of the public right-of-way. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans 'i submitted for Zoning Division approval. 12.` That the outdoor storage shall be limited to tile, stone and similar products unless otherwise approved by report and recommendation approval of thePlanning Commission:` 13. That subject property shall be developed substantially In accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Ahaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and as conditioned herein.': 14. That within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution Conditioh Nos. 2, 4,,10, 11 and 13; above-mentioned„shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted ih accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal. Code. 15.' That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code ahd any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does riot include any actioh or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any; other applicable ordinance, regulation or;requirement. Page 9 ATTACHMENT - ITEM NO SEt;7lON 4 PPTFFIONfiR'S STATSNIBNT OF nlsl->FtcArlorr 1:ORVAIUAlacercoDSwnlvis (NOT RP.Q1711tED FOR PARKII~IG WAIVER) 1ZEQUEST FOR WAIVER O$' CODE SECTION: PERTAINIlVG TO: WsiYCr) ilectioas 18.03.040A30 and 18.12.460 of the Anahcim.Municipal Code regntte drat before any varisaee or Code waiVermay be granted i'Y the Zoning Adatctistratar or Ylsnnlag Comtnv^.-ion, the following shall be shown: 1. Thar there are SpeClfil Cirr,m~^es spplicaBle to the property, inaludiag nix, :lope, mpogcapby~ Location or emiotmaiu„p~, Which flo not apply m o[I1e[ propary unfler ideaGCa] zoning nlasaifieadon in the vicinity, sa 3 The;lxcsusnofavehapain]cirrum~*Amens,atrictappliuYtiouofthezottmgwdedoprivestheptopettyofprtvlieges etlioyed by odserpmpacry tinder identical zoning =ta=<tf•~rion in the vicinity. in order m dctc~ine if such speeiel citcurav[ancas exist, ana m asssss me Zoning Administrator or Phtntting Commission to arrive at a doci:ion, plwz answer each oFths following quesdons tesarding the ~prapem for which a variance is sooght, ittt~y and as eompletsly as poss~blc. If you aecd additional spocc, you may nlgtFh additional pages, 1. Are iheie special ekr~mataeses mat apply to the property in mattes such sa aiar., shape, top0g<aphy, locarioaor smroundia(,ro? ~ YB6 _No, 2. Ara tyc :pedal dtottsstanccs that apply m tho prapcny different from other ptopetiles in the viciairy which arc is the seas none ecs your P'oPacty? ~,. Yee _ltlo 3. Do the special eirettmstsaees applicable m the propary deptivo it ofprivilegcs ettrrently enjoyed by neighboring properties located within the ease ?one?Yes l~to Ifyour enewer;P°yh5,^ daarnbe the special ci:cwnv'aaec: 4. Were the special ei~ctyr~„-curets neared by cau3cz boyond the control oYtho proprrry owner (orpieviaus pmper0' owners)? _Yes No 8%PLAIN the so ore of e4Y variance or Code waiver shall be to ptsvetn discdminatioa, and rw Varianeo ar Cade waiver aball be appmve wo d have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other gropercy is the same vicinity and none which v erw s t:xpnsaly authorizl~cd~b~yG~hu~rnl~e rCpniarlons gdveemag suhjr ~ . TJSe variances ors trot petmltteed Sigaaturei] '0 erryOvmeror.A.u arizedA.gonc D2ex CAN/ICIONALUSETERh2lT/VANANC=Ni1. ~~ ~03- nacramrx a ~l-~D'~-. SECTION 4 PbTfiTONL°R'S SI'ATFMENP QF ' ]USTIkTCATION FOR VARIANCFJCODE WAIVER (NOT REQUIItFD FOR PARING WAI V);~ .............. 1tHQU13ST FOIL WATVffiL O~ CODb SECTION: PFILTA1N11VG TO: 6eetioa:l 8.03.040.030 and 38.12.060 of the Anaheim Mtutlc[pal Coda regnito that before any variance ar Code waiver rosy be gamed by the Zoning Adtniaisaatnr or Planning Cotmrdssion, the following shall be shown: Iltat there are bpecial circumstances applicable to the proptxty, including sire, shape, topography, loratiom or smmmedmgs, which do not aDplY m other ptnperty ender identical zoning elassi5catioo in the vidaity, and 2. That, because of such special dtcvmstwces, strict epplicatian of the inning code deprive the prvpetsy of primle~ros egjoyed by other property under identical zoning cL~us.°iScatioa in Site vicinity. to order to dcto[tmne if such special circutnstanees exist, and to assist the Zaning Admit»sttator or Plaaaistg Commission to strive 81 a decision, please fltlswM tech of flee following questions rogatding the property for wlfich a variance is sought, fully and as completely as pessiblo. if yon need additional space, yeu may atmch additional page;, I. Are there special eiretmtstances that apPIY ~ ~ PreP"~Y in matters such ss si.^e, shape, topography, location or sttaountliags? ~ Yes ! No. •e_.___ ~_..-e_ nv_~ n ~__a_ _t_ -__e_i :__~_______ o ~V i Cr: pl! GSA V't~ 1 C D1~ ~.~ 2. Are the spedal cacumsmtrces that apply tv the prapary ditYbrent from other ptoperde=s in the vieittibj which are in tug tame zonessyourpmperty7 ~Yp _No If answer is' yes ^ desm7te hots Thep u differ t: ° ~~43~r~ ~'~~ ~ fe 6491M J~ Y~d4 Oaf S?~r ~ OnIL~, 3. DO the special airenmoe^.~c Epplicublc to the eropesry deprive it aFprivile6r~ awrently enjoyed byaoigltboriag propardea located within the same zoae4 ~Xes No ]f Yovr answer if "yes,^ docrn'bo the special cssctms+aaces: 0 4. ov~aa)~ spvcll ~umstxacos cccatui try causes beyond dte tunnel of the property owner ~orpmvlous property P3LPT.HID7 The sole p so of a4Y vaxiauco or /,:ads waiver shall be to prevent disccitz~atioa, mtdao voriaaeo err Code waive shall 1>e approved w would ]rave the effect oP granting a special privflega not shared by other property in the pine vicinity and zone which' t 1 " e tacptessly atnhorized by zone xcgularions govemix` subject propecq.. Use variances ere ant permitted. Sigtan ~ eery Owner or A orized Agent Dat* nFCt:nrtgutt2. GONDITiDNALUSEPF1tMtITVARIANCENO_.~~• ~0~ ~-~~ ATTACHHEtIT_ - ITEH N0. 3 MEMORANDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM Code Enforcement Division DATE: MARCH 11, 2003 TO: DAVE SEE, SENIOR PLANNER `~~~ FROM: MATTHEW D. LETTERIELLO, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SUBJECT: 2130 E. ORANGEWOOD AVE: (CASE# 2003-00015). This memorandum is written to provide you a brief history concerning the complaint Code Enforcement received about the above location, Traffic Engineering referred to Code Enforcement a citizen's complaint of a lack`of on-street parking on Dupont Dr. On August 28, 2002, I went to the location to inspect. I found that most of the businesses in the azea were using the required on-site parking on their property for prohibited, outdoor storage of materials, supplies and equipment: Some locations were also performing prohibited outside work. When I inspected 2130 E: Orangewood Ave., I found the following conditions to exist: There was equipment and a very large amount of materials/supplies and other items stored on the east side of the property, in the requiiedparking spaces (A.M.C. 18.02.040, A:M,C. 18.61.66.010 & .020 & .030 & .050, A.M.C. 18.61.025:020) On September 12, 2002, a Notice of Violation and Order to Comply was mailed to Oliviero and Rebecca Migneco, the property owner of record at their address in Orange. The notice advised them of the violations of the Anaheim Municipal Code and gave them up to ten (10) days to correct them. On September 20, 2002, I received a telephone message from Glenn Bush, an employee of Tileclub, the business at the location. The business is owned by Mr. Migneco. The message said they were neazly ready for my inspection and he requested I call him on Monday (9-23-02). On September 23, 2002, I telephoned Mr. Bush and discussed in detail what was needed to comply, including some options available to them, such as a Variance and Conditional Use Pemut. He said he would come into the Zoning Division to discuss the matter. He telephoned me later in the day and left a message saying they aze required to have forty-three (43) pazking spaces and would need some additional time in which to comply. 2130 E. ORANGEWOOD AVE... PAGE 2 OF 2 On September 27, 2002, Mr. Bush came into my office to speak with me. He said he had been at the Zoning Division and obtained some information. He said they aze going to re-stripe the lot and they will need some additional time, as the owner and he were both going to Italy on business. On October 24, 2002, I received a telephone message from Mr. Bush saying they were back from overseas, and were working towazds complying. On November 21, 2002, I sent a letter to Oliviero and Rebecca Migneco at the Orangewood address. The letter advised them they had been sent a Notice of Violation concerning the property and that they must correct the violations within twenty (20) days to close the Code Enforcement case. On January 23, 2003, I went to the location to inspect the property. I found the property was not in compliance and the following conditions to exist: m There was equipment and a very large amount of materials/supplies stored on the east side of the property, in the required parking spaces. The materials/supplies were stored at .approximately 10-14 feet high, well above the fence height (A.M.C. 18.02.040, A.M.C. 18.61.66.010 & .020 & .030 & .050, A.M.C. 18.61.025.020).. ; ® Fifteen (15) pazking spaces were available in the front (north side) and forty-three (43) spaces aze required (A.M.C. 18.61.66.010 & .020 & .030 & .050) Since I was unable to obtain compliance in regards to correcting the above violations, I requested an office conference by the City Attorney's Office and the Mignecos, in an effort to resolve the matter. The conference is set for March 19, 2003, at 11:00 am. John Ramirez of your division will attend the conference. - If I can be of any further assistance, or you have any questions, please telephone me at extension 4446. 0828miadoc ITEM N0. 4 it J Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04705 Requested By: CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH REQUEST TO PERMIT A TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA WITH ACCESSORY GROUND-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT. 2780 East Wagner Avenue -Calvary Baptist Church of Anaheim ~~~~ Subject Property Date: June 2, 2003 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 125 707(20D3-820) Staff Report to the:, Planning Commission June 16;2003 Item No: 4 4a CEQA NEGATIVE DEC(ARATION (Motion) 4b: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO: 2002-04705 (Resolutipn)' SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION; (1) This irregularly-shaped 1.97-acre property has a frontage of 144 feet on he south side of WagnerAvenue, a maximum tlepth of 664 feet and is located'144 feet east of the? centerline of Marjan Street. (2780 East Wagner Avenue -Calvary Baptist!Church of Anaheim): REQUEST: (2) The petitioner requests approval of a conditional use permit under the authority of Code Section 18.21.050.125 to permit a 45-foot high telecommunications antenna (disguised as i a bell tower) with accessory ground-mounted equipment. BACKGROUND:':. (3) !This item was continued from the June 2, 2003,,Commission meeting due to7ack of a f, quorum. (4) :This property is developed with an existing church and preschool built in :1967, and is !zoned RS-A-43,000j(Residential/Agricultural) Zone:: The Anafieim General Plan Land Use `:Element Map designates this properly for Low Density Residential land uses. (5) 'Surrounding land uses are as follows: Direction Land.Use ~Zoriing , ~ ~ General plan ;,~.. ~ ' ~ ., .:~}esi "nation North across Wagner Single-Family Residences ~RS-7200: LoW Density,Residential' Avenue East VacantiLand Coun of Oran a Geheral O en S ace' South:`: Vacanf Land Couh of Oran a Geheral O en S ace r WesC Sin le-Famil'.:Residences RS-7200!: LbwDensi ResidentiaF PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS: (6) The following zoning actions pertain to this property: ,'(a) Conditional Use Permit No. 1183 (to permit the expansion of an existing church complex to include a 440-seat sanctuary and; pre-school with waiver of maximum permitted building height was approved by the City Council on August 11, 1970) following approval by the Planning; Commission on June 29, 1970. ` (b) Conditional Use Permit No. 952 (to establish a church and Sunday school and to permit the use of an existing residence as parsonage) was approved by the: Planning Commission on July 6, 1967. sr6603vn.doc Page 1 Staff Report to the Plannirg Commission June 16;'2003 Item No:4 include mission file roofing antl a cross on each elevation. The petitioner has alsa `indicated`that no tiells would be placedwithin the tower. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: i (11) The Staff: has reviewed the proposal for a telecommunications antenna with accessory ground-mounted equipment and the Initial Study (ai copy of which is available for review in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore, recommends that aJJegative'Declaratioh be approved upon a'finding by he Planning Commission that the Negative+beclaratioh reflects he 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 ilnitial Study and any comments received hat there is no substantial evidence that the :'project will have a significant effect on the environment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT'ANALYSIS: (12} The proposed project has been reviewedby affected City departments to determine whether it conforms: with the City's Growth Management Element adopted by the City iCouncil on March 17, 1992. Based on Gty staff review of the'proposed project, iEfias been ' 'determined that this;project does nok fit within the scope necessary to require a Growth "Management Element analysis, therefore, no analysis has been performed. EVALUATION: (13) Communications facilities and antennas, including monopoles,. are permitted in the i RS-A-43;000 Zone subject to he approval of a conditional use permit. The Code also ''states that the heights of the antennas are to be determined by the conditional use permit. (14) The petitioner's supplemental information statement indicates that a search ring was centered"at the intersection of 1Nagner Avenue and'Sunkist SGeet, extending nartft to !:South Street, south`to Ball Road, west to State College Boulevard and east to Rio Vista Street. The petitioner has indicated thatthis area is predominantly resitlential which left minimal opportunities for siting: a telecommunication facility. This site was specifically selected due to the need to provide coverage for the SR-57 (Orange) Freeway and! residences in this area. Further, it was noted that as demand for cellular serviceshas '.increased; the capacity of existing facilities has become inadequate. This locationwas ::determined by Cingular's radigfrequency,engineers to offertfie best stealth opportunity > while alsoproviding desired coverage. ' (15) The proposed location of the faux bell tower requires the removal and relocation of the existing trash enclosure to the `south end of the property ad}'scent to the east property line. :This proposal was acceptable o the Public Works, Streets and Sanitation Division::. Further, this location allows the telecommunication facility to aestheticallly integrate into the; :architecture of the existing church building. This location maximizes the distance from residential properties and lessens potential visual impacts of the bell tower to surrounding properties. I (16) rThe Planning Department continues to discourage unscreened telecommunication facilities '.due to the; significant cumulative visual impact on tte community as a whole. Staff feels hat "stealth" installations areahe best alternative to decreascvisual clutter and advance the aesthetic quality'of the community. The proposed telecommunications facility, :'disguised: as a bell tower achieves the. City's objective to screen these types of facilities; therefore;: staff recommends aooroval of this request. Page 3 ' Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16, 2003 Item No. 4 (17) ; Code Enforcement Division records indicate no pending code violations far the church. FINDINGS: (18) ! Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use, permit, it must make a finding : of factthat the evidence presented shows that aIF of the following conditions exist: (a) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Codejor that said use is not listed therein as being a 'permitted Use; (b) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the atljoining land uses and the growth and development of thearea 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'peace, health, safety, and general welfare; (d) That the traffic generated by the: proposed'use will not impose an undue tiurden :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 iietrimental to the peace, health.; safety and general. welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. RECOMMENDATION: (19)'r Staff recommends that unless additional or contrary information is received during the r meeting, and based upon the evidence'submitted o the Planning Commission, including : the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing that Planning Commission take the following actions: (a) By motion,'aoprove a CEQA Negative Declaration. (b) By resolution, approve. Conditional Use Permit No.2003-04705 (to permit a 45-foot; high telecommunications antenna disguised as a bell tower and accessory ground-' mounted equipment) based on he following: (i) That the faux. bell tower elecommunication facility as conditioned herein, would not adversely affect adjoining land uses and would not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Anaheim (ii) That the size'and shape of the site for the proposed use is adequate to allow the fult development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental' to he particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare; ,' '(iii) That the proposed faun bell tower telecommunicationsfacility is consistent with the goal'of concealing such facilities from public view by using existing.. ocproposed'architectural featuresithat complement the site and surrounding area. Page 4` Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16;12003 ? Item No: 4 (iv) Thaf the traffic generated;by the proposed use would not impose an undue burden upon the streets'and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS ACTING AS 'AN INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE AND ARE RECOMMENDED' FOR ADOPTION BY THE PLANNING'COMMISSION'JNTHE EVENT-THIS PERMIT ISAPPROVED. 1. That the elecommunications facility shall be disguised as a bell tower and shall be limited to'45-feet in height; The ground-mounted equipment shall tie enclosed within the base of the bell tower. Said information shall tie specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 2: That no'signs, flags, banners br any other form of advertising or identification shall be attached to the bell ower. 3.' That the faux bell tower shalt be finished with colors and materials that resemble a real bell tower and match or complement the existing church. Said information shalt tie specifically shown'on plans ' submitted for building permits: and shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning.: Division. Upon completion of the bell tower, an inspection shall be conducted by the Zoning Division to determine whetherhe colorstand materials used are compatible with the church and resemble a real bell tower Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding the exterior finish of the structure maybe appealed to the Planning Commission and/or City;Council. 4 ` That any fighting of the bell tower shall tie specifically shown on plans submitted for building'permits. 5li That the: ground-mounted equipment shall be located entirely underneath and enclosed within the faux bell`tower and he cable'connecting to the equipment shall be underground and shall not be visible to the public; Said information snail be specifically shown on plans submitted for building { permits. 6. That all equipment, including supply cabinets and power meter shall be installed qn private property and shall be screened from public view,: as approved by the'Zoning Division. Saitl information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.' 7 ' That the'portion of he property being leased to the communication provider shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash and debris, and removal of graffiti!within twenty-four(24) hours from time of occurrence. 8:! That the Operator shall ensure that its installation and choice of frequencies will not intertere with the 800 MHz radio frequencies required by he City of Anaheim to provide adequate'spectrum capacity for Public Safety and related'purposes. `! 9. That at all times, other than during the 24-hour cure period provided in Condition tVo. 11 below, the Operator shall not prevent the City of Anaheim from having adequate spectrum capacity on the City's ; 800 MHz radio frequency. 10. That before activating its facility, the Operator shall submit to'apost-installation test to confirm that the facility does not interfere with the City of Anaheim's Public Safety radio equipment. This test will be conducted by the Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriffs Department or a Division?approved contractor at the expense of Operator. Page 5 r Staff Report to the Planning Commission June;16, 2003 Item No. 4 11. That the Operator shall provide a 24-hour telephone number to the Zoning Division (to be forwarded to the Fire and Police Departments) to which ihterferenceproblems'may be reported, and shall resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours. 12. That the Operator shall provide a "single point of contact" in its Engireering and Maintenance Departments to ensure continuity on all interference issues. The name, telephone number, fax number and a-mail address of that person shalt be provided to Zoning Division.i 13. That the Operator shall ensure that any of its contractors, sub-contractors or agents, or any other user of the facility, shall comply with. the terms and conditions of this' permit. J4. That should this telecommunication facility be sold, the City of Anaheim Zoning Division shall be notified within'30 days bf the closenf escrow. 15. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the petitioner's expense, Landscape andlor hardscape screening of all pad mounted equipment shall be required and shall be specifically shown on plans. submitted for building permits. 16. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works, Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in'laccordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said information shall be spec~cally shown on plans submitted for building permits. 17. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to he City ofiAnaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the : Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5, 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, 3, 4, 5 6, 11, 12, 15 and 16above-mentioned, shall tie complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said'conditions may be granted in accordance with' Section 18.03.090 df 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 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 6 ITEt1 N0. 5 ML ML VAR 3148 66-67-36 ML VAR 4356 60-61.113 66-67-36-. ... OSCO & 54-55-02 60-61-113 SAV-ON VAR 2619 S 54-55-42 WEYERHAUSER CO CRY OF ANAHEIM LUMBER WAREHOUSE ELEC: SUB-STN ML RCL 2000-00023 (Res of Int to SABC ML ML Overlay Zone) 54-55-42 SABC OveAay Zone SMALL IND. VAR 4356 54-55-42 FIRMS VAR 3146 CUP 2003-04701 ML AMERICAN CUP 2000-04294 66-67-36 DRUG STORES CUP 2002-04264 VACANT 54-55-02 CUP 3786 270 VACANT ML' 66~67.3fi LL M` yPGPtd UC P6376E ANAHEIM LEASE A .. ~ EV ~ VACANT BUSINESS PARK -pP{iC ~ , v ~ X50 6' , _ ~ VP PtA ML 54-55-02 CUP 2000.04294 SOEp gONNECp,SEMEN7P CU VAC O-0T 284 ML 99-00-15 (Res. of Int. to SE) 66-67-36 60-61-113 54-55-02 COORS DISTRIBUTION COMPANY ML 99-00-15 CH (Res. of Int. to SE) 56.57-93 66-67-36 VAR 1901 S fib-67-24 VACANT 60-61-113 ML 55-56-19 RCL 2000.00023 ML 54.55-02 (Res of Int to SABC 54-55-02 CUP 2047 Overlay Zone) CUP 3671 THE ORANGE 54.55-02 iv CUP 3143 COUNTY REGISTER CH SMALL IND.. ~: CUP 1832 56-57-93 FIRMS SMALL IND. VAR 3632 VAR 2623 ~ FIRMS ML 55-56-19 VACANT 99-00-15 5q-55+12 (Res. ofinblo SE) CUP Zp43 66{7-36 THE ORANGE t Anahe~ Way 3 COUNTY REGISTER 60G171 Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04701 Subject Property Date: June 2, 2003 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: GARY HEIL AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM Q.S. No. 97 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REQUEST TO ESTABLISH AN OUTDOOR CONTRACTORIVEHICLE STORAGE YARD. Parcel 1:1610 South Claudina Way, Parcel 2: 1620 South Caludina Way and Parcel 3: 1640 South Claudina Way 703 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16, 2003 Item tJo. S 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion) 5b. < WAIVER OF'CODE REQUIREMENT ' (Motion),' 5c. CONDITIONAL USEPERMIT N0~ 2003-04701 (READVERTISED) ' (Resolution) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) Parcel 1: This irregularly-shaped 0.92-acre parcel has a frontage of 140 feet on the east side of Claudina Way, a maximum depth of 270 feet, and is located .1595 feet north of the centerline of Anaheim Way'(1610 South Ciaudina Way). Parcel 2: This irregularly-shaped 0.70-acre parcel has a frontage of 135 feet on the east side of Ciaudina Way, a maximum depth of 250 feet, and is located 1460 feet north of the centerline of Anaheim Way (1620 South Claudina Way). Parcel 3: This irregularly-sfiaped 0.99-acre parcel has a frontage of 151 feet on the east side of Claudina W ay, a maximum depth of 227 faet, and is located 1309 feet north of the centerline of Anaheim Way (1640 South Claudiha Way}. REQUEST: (2} ' The petitioner requests approval to establish an outdoor contractor/vefiicle storage yard i under authority pf;Code Sections 18:03.030, 18:61.050.502,and 18.61:.050.507,: with waivers of the following: ? (a) SECTION NOi 18.06.010.020 Required. recorded oarking agreement :(DELETED) (b) SECTION NOS. 18.06:050.031 'Minimum number of oarking spaces fore: 18[06.050.033 AND 18'61.066.050 Parcel 3:.(45 spaces required'41 spaces proposed and recommended. by the ' Traffic and Transportation Manager) BACKGROUND: (3) This item was continued from the Juna 2, 2003, Commission meeBng in order to advertise the requested parking waiver. (4) The proposal involves three separate properties, two of which are vacant and are. part of a Southern California Edison fiigh volfage transmission line right-of-way easemeh4 (Parcels 1` & 2). The third parcel is fully developed with an existing industrial building and associated parking:. area (Parcel 3). These three parcels are: within the ML (SA@C) (Limited Jndustrial South Anaheim Boulevard Corridgr Overlay} zone and are within the South Anaheim Boulevard Area of the Anaheim Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project Area, The Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element Map designates these properties for General Commercial land uses. (5) Surrounding land `uses are as follows: Direction Land Use :Zoning General Plan Designation North andSouth Small Industrial Firm ML SABC General Commercial r East (Railroad Hght-of- ' ' VacanUCoors Distributing Company ML General Commercial wa West (across Claudina Vacant/Small Industrial Firm ML (SABC),' General Commercial Wa Sr5010jr Page 1 Staff Report to the Planking Commission June16, 2003 Item No. 5 PROPOSAL:`: (6) ! In March of this year, the petitioner entered into asub-lease agreement with the RedevelopmenC'Agency forthe long-term lease/use of land within the existing Southern ' California Edison right-of-way (Parcels 1 & 2). Because Parcels 1 &`2 are to be utilized for the storage of equipment and vehicles for a demolition contractor firm, the petitioner is requesting approval of a conditional use permitih order to'establish an outdoor- contractor/vehicle storage yard. I '`~`! ~ e T- -~ ~ ~ t I' "~: Parcels 1 &2 Farcel 3' ~~ ~ ~~ E ~~ ~( y L ~ ~'~ `~!'r ~ ' ~ v' yl w,~'r ~ i».. i ~ of to m s ~ ~x ~ f .y ~ .~A.osl ..: n: k~ ~G~A NHS .^. ~eT4`^,. -t i. Is:. r v h.Fp ~. l t .r Aga-,?`^v ... a:....... .... .,. ~ r',., a. ` .."u+h.. . , .~.~,. ...r .. ,'. _ lax >~° View ofi property from Northwest (7) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates'the proposal would include utilizing an existing 20,648 square foot industrial building located'on Parcel 3, and approximately 25,400 quare feet of outdoor vehicleparking/storage area on Parcels 1 & 2. The site planalso indicates there are existing electric power line towers and poles on Parcels 1 '8 2, and an existing 8-foot high chaimlink fence along the perimeter of the three paroels. (8) ' The three parcels would contain the entire business operation, and as reflectedbn the site plan, the building located on Parcel 3 would be used for administrative offices, warehouse/storage area, and vehicular repair for business vehicles only. The`interior division of space would be modified as reflectedwithin the'floor plan (Exhibit No. 1), No expansion of the building footprint is proposed. 'Additionally, two roll-up doors and two man- doors would be installed on the building's north elevation to effectively integratebusiness' operations. (9) i The site would be accessed via two existing driveways and one new driveway (Parcel 1) j from'Claudina Way. The parking area reflected'on the site plan indicates 39 parking spaces! would.: be provided on Parcel 3 and 7'spaces would be provided on Parcel 2, for a total of 46 parking spaces. There are 42 large equipment/vehicle parking spaces provided on both Parcels 1 & 2; however, these spaces are not calculated as part ofCode-required parking. The petitioner has indicated an additional 7 parking spaces on Parcel 2, and 2'spaces within. the warehouse area on Parcel 3 would be provided. There would be'a total of41 spaces'; provided on Parcel 3 and a total of 14 spaces provided on'Parcel 2 - for a total of 55 spaces for the entire project. Although the proposal would provide the minimum required 55 parking Page 2 Staff Report to the`. Planning Commission June 16,2003 Item No 5 spaces as required'by Code and indicated in the following chart, Parcel'3 would contain,only. 41 of the'required'45 spaces (91.1%) forthis property. Ordinarily, a reciprocal parking agreement wouldtie recordetl to provide'the required spaceson Parcef2 for Parcel 3. However, the excess spaces on Parcel'2 cannot be made available by the property owner (Southern California Edison),due to leasing issues, herefore'the parking waiver is being requested for Parcel 3. Use :Square Feet Code Parking Requirement Parking Required Administrative 2',065 1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet 3.2* .:Offices (10% of ';gross building `area ::Administrative ..5,433 4,spaces per :1,000 square feet r 21.7*: Offices (in excess ofi10% 'Vehicle,Repair .2;737 1:55 spaces per 1,000 square feet: 4.2' Indoor stdrage 10,413 1.55 spaces per 1,OOOSquare feet: 16.1' Outdoor story a 25,400 1 s ace er 2,500 s uare feet 10.2; -TOTAL _ 55`: *Total' of 45;spaces required for Parcel 3. (10) Parcels 1 & 2 would be paved with 3 inches of asphalt pavingpver 4 inches of rock base for all areas utilized forrequired parking and equipment storage;areas. Anew S-foot high chain i link fence with two rolling gates and PVC slats would be installed 5 feet behind the front property Jine along;Claudina Way. The petitioner indicates ih`the letter of operation that the existing 6-foot high chain link fence along the north. property line would be repaired and PVC?: slats installed. Thepetitioner'also indicates that PVC slats would be installed in the existing chain link fence along the east property;lne (abutting the railroad right-of way). The minimum required setback for fences atiove three feet in height along alocal industrial street Is 5 feet.': Code further requires that outdoor uses a completely screened from view with fencing such as chain link fence, entirely interwoveh with PVC, simulated wood slats, or other durable material, and the fencing may not encroach into any required setback area. Additionally, Code requires that the site'boundaryiine of anyoutdoor storage abutting any railroad:right-of--way also be planted with: clinging vines and/or tall shrubbery. (11) j Photographs and site inspections indicate an existing approximate 16-foot-high, 1=story tilt- i up building consisting of primarily a smooth concrete finish, painted eggshell white with a blue horizontal band along the west elevation. No'elevation;plans were ubmitted as part of this request as minimal exterior work is proposed on this building. (12) The proposed landscaping within the street setback area indicated on the site plan includes : one 24-inch box Lagerstroemia Indica tree for each 20 linear feet of street frontage (27 5120=1 3), Pandorea Jasmnoides trees along the fence, 20-feet on center, 2-gallon Carpet Roses along the fence, 3-feet ora center, and Hahns Ivy groundcover 12-inches on center.:Code requires a minimum of 13'trees along Claudlnai Way based on the requirement of one (1) tree per20 feet of street frontage. Code further requires that outdoor storage areas adjacent to a street frontage be screened by,fast growing vines or tall shrubbery and 24-incfi'tiox sized trees at a ratio of 1 tree per 121inear feet of fence area. (13) Photographs and site inspections indicate one existing wall sign on Parcel 3 painted on the east elevation of the building and one uhpermitted freestanding sign on`Parcel 2. `:The ? petitioner has indicated both of these signs would be removed as partbf the refurbishment of the properties. Nonew signs have been proposedin connection with this request: Page 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June'16,2003 Item No. 5 (14) ; The petitioner has submitted a letter of operation indicating,that the business would operate from 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Mondaythrough Friday, with some weekend and off-hours operation occurring regularly. The business operation consists of approximately 40 employees, with the site being utilized for vehicle: and equipment storage, as welt as administrative offices for the business;: and vehicle maintenance and repair. Vehicle repair'. wouldbe limited to those vehicles associated with the business. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (15) Staff has reviewed the proposal for the establishment of an'outdoor contractor/vehicle storage yard, and the Initial: Study (a copy of which is available for review in the Planning the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review in the Planning Department): and finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore, ~ecommerds that aNegative Declaratiorbe approved upon a'finding by,the Commission that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and thaf it has considered the. proposed`Negative Declaration together with any'commehts 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 sign cant effect on the environment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (16) The proposed project has been reviewed by affected City departments to determine whether it conforms with he City's .Growth Management: Element adopted by the City Council on Marchll7, 1992. Based on; City staff review of the proposed project, it has beendetermined that this project does not fltwithin the scope necessary to require a Growth Management Element analysis; therefore; no analysis has been performed. EVALUATION:r (17) Outdoor contractors' storage and large equfpmenUvehiclestonage yards are permitted uses in the' ML zone subject to the approval of a conditional use' permit. (18) The Community Development Department has submitted the attached memorandum dated May'23, 2003, indicating that an outdoor contractor/vehicle forage yard is consistent with the goals and objectives of the South Anaheim Boulevard Area of the'Anaheim Commercial/ Industrial Redevelopment Project Area because!the,proposaiwouid result in improving the physical appearance of the Project Area. Additionally, the proposal would facilitate the expansion of an existing business within the community. (19) The proposal, with exception of the minimum number of required parking spaces on Parcel 3, complies with`all provisions for development of this type of use within the ML (SABC) zone. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring a parking iot striping plan be submitted reflecting an additional seven (7) spaces on Parcel 2, (for a total of 14) as well as two (21 spaces within the warehouse area on Parcel 3. Staff has also included standard conditions of approval regarding landscaping, screening, and property maintenance. As conditioned, staff believes the proposed outdoor'contractor/vehicle storage yard would not: adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the'area in which'it is proposed to be located as the surrounding properties are located within the ML (SABC) zone and contain industrial land uses. Moreover, the size and shape of the site (Parcels 1, 2 & 3) is adequate to allowdhe full development of the proposed use'in a manner not detrimental to the particular area.' Because the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the ML (SABC) zone artl with the goals of the' Redevelopment Project Area, staff recommends approval of tfiis conditional use permit, (20) Waiver (a) pertaining to a required recorded parking agreement has been deleted. (21) Waiver (b) pertains to the minimum number of parking spaces required for Parcel 3 (1640 South Claudina Way). Code requires a minimum of 45 parking spaces for the building Page 4 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16; 2003 Item No: 5 located on Parcel'3 as described in paragraph no; (g) of this report and 41 spaces are proposed. The petitioner has prepared and submitted a parking letter dated June 4, 2003. The City Traffic`and Transportation Manager has reviewed this letter and has determined that the parking'spaces provided on parcel 3 would be adequate for4he full business operation. The information contained within the submitted letter further substantiates the requested parking:. waiver and is consistent with the following findings' (a) "That the'waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not'cause fewer off- street parking spaces to be provided forsuch 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; conservatively, only 30`of the 41 spaces would be occupied at the peak hour; and (b) That thewaiver, 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;!approximately 73 percent of the marked spaces will be filled;'. and (c) ! That the'waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking'spaces upon adjacentprivate properly in the immediate vicinity of the propose use (which property is not ezpresslyprovided as parking for such use under an agreement in compliance with Section 18.06.010.020 of this Code);,'again, only approximately 73%of the 41 spaces would be filled at any time on Parcel 3; while there would stilt be parking provided': ' on Parcel 2 for the entire business operation; and (d) 'That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within'the off-street parking areas or lots provided for such use; the site will have an excess of more han 25 percent of the requiredparking area at peaks' times. The subject site is located near the terminus of a local industriai'street where no opportunity for through traffic exists; and' (e) 'That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not;impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties, upon the public streets ih the immediate vicinity of the proposed use, the two-way driveway on Claudina Way is` adequate." FINDINGS: (22) ', Section 18.06.080 of the parking ordinance sets forth the following findings which' are required. to be made before the parking waivers are approved by the Planning Commission:! (a) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer bff-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 reasonablyforeseeatile conditions of operation of such use; and (b) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of `the proposed use; and (c) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the`demand `and competition forparking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate:. vicinity of the proposed use (which property is not ezpresslyprovided as parking for `: such use under an agreementin compliance with Section 18.06.010.020 of this `Code); and Page 5 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Junei16, 2003 Item No. 5 (d) That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-streetparking areas or lots provided.for such use; and (e) :That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular ';ingress to or egress'from adjacent properties upon he public streets in the immediate vicinity of3he proposed use. - lbnless conditions to the contrary are expressly imposed upoh the granting of any `, waiver pursuant to this Section. by the Zoning Administrator, Hearing Officer, Planning Commission or City Council, the granting'of any such waiver shall be deemed 'contingent upon operation of such use in conformance with the assumptions relating to the operation and' intensity of the use as contained in the parking demand study ! that formed the basis for approval of said variance) Exceeding, violating,: intensifying or otherwise deviating from any of said assumptions as contained in the parking 'demand study shallbe deemed a violation of the express conditions imposed upon'. said waiver which shall subject: said waiver to termination or modification'pursuant to the provisions of Sections 18.03.091 and 18.03.092"bf this Code. (23) Before he Planning Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a findingbf fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 'r (a) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Coderor that said: use is noti listed therein as being a permitted use; ' (b) That the proposed use would not adversely affect the adjoining,land uses and the i 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 detrimenta(to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare; (d) That the traffic generated by the; proposed use would: not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry he traffic in the area; 'and (e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any,< would not`6e detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare bf the `citizens of the City of Anaheim. RECOMMENDATION: (24)' 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 tall report, and oral and written evidencepresertted at the public hearing, the Commission ake the following actions: (a) By motion; approve the CEQA Negative lJeclarationi (b) By motioh, denv waiver (a) pertaining to the required recorded parking agreement,'. 'and approve waiver (b) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces for Parcel 3 based on the following: (i) That waiver (a) pertaining to the required recorded parking agreement should be denietl because it fias been deleted. (ii) That waiver (b} pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces for Parcel 3 should be approved based on the information provided' in the parking letter, as Page 6 Staff Report to the Planning' Commission ''June 16,'2003 Item Noi.5 well as the findings and the recommendation of approval by he City Traffic and .. Transportation Manager as identified in paragraph no. (21) of this report and based: on the following: 1. !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 suchuse underahe normal and reasonably foreseeable > conditions of operation of such use as only 30 of the 41 spaces would be occupied at the`peak hour resulting in,the site having an excess of ispaces tluring peak'usage. 2. That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand .and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property`in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use (which'property is not expressly provided as parking for such use under an agreement in compliance with Section 18:06.010!020 of this Code). Approximately ° 73% of the 41 spaces would be filled at any time on Parcel 3, while 'there would still be'parking provided on Parcel 2 forthe entire business operation: Additionally, the waiver woultl not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties, upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. (c) By resolution, aoorove Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04701 to'establish an outdoor contractor/vehicle storageyard, based on the following: (i) That this use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized in the ML(SABC) zone. (ii)j That as conditioned herein, the proposed outdoor contractor/vehicle storage yard would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and he growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located as the surrounding properties are located within a ML (SABC) zone and contain industrial land uses and the size and shape!bf the site (Parcels 1; 2 & 3} for the proposed use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the'particulararea nor to the peace, health, safety, and'general welfare.i (iii). That the traffic generated by the proposed use would not impose an undue d burden upon the streets and;highways;designed and improved to carry the traffic' in the area; and recommend approval of this pemtit. (iv) That as conditioned, the request is consistent withthe intent;of the ML (SABC) zone and the goals of the Redevelopment Project Area, and would notadversely; affect the adjoining land uses and would not be detrimental o the peace, health, ? safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Anaheim. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS ACTING AS AN+INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEEAND ARE RECOMMENDED FOR'ADOPTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE EVENTTHAT?filS PERMIT:IS APPROVED. 1. That outdoor storage shall be limited o construction vehicles and equipment trailers. Noparking or storage of inoperable vehicles or parts shalt tie permitted. r 2. That po canopies or overhead coverings of anykind shallbe permitted. 3. That there shall be no maintenance or repair ofvehicles conducted outdoors. Page 7 Staff Report to tte Planning Commission June 16, 2003 Item fVo, 5 4. That a parking lot striping plan shall be submitted reflecting the addition of seven (7) spaces on Parcels 1 and 2 (a total of 14 spaces), as well as two (2) spaceswithin the warehouse area on Parcel 3 (a total of 41 spaces) for a total of fifty-five (55) parking paces on-site in compliance with Code. 5. That gates shall not be installed across any driveways in a manner, which may adversely affect vehicular traffic on the adjacent public street(s). Installation of any gates shall conform to the ' Engineering Standard Plan No. 609 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. 6. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval in conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos: 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway location. Subject property hall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans, 7. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval in conformance with the Engineering Standard No. 137 pertaining to sight distance visibility for the sign orwall/fence,location. 8. That the parking lot/storage area serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient. power to illuminate and. make easily discemitile the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting. information shall be;specified on plans submitted for review and approval by the Zoning: Division antl the Police Department, Community Services Division. 9. That a final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval indicating the following: • ' That a minimum of 13 trees (1 per 20 feet of street frontage) shall be installed adjacent to Claudina Way within the landscape setback area and 1 tree for every 12 linear feet fortfie outdoor storage;areas adjacent to Claudina Way. Said trees shali'be minimum 24-inch box in size. • That vines or tall shrubbery shall be planted on'maximum 3-foot centers and shall be Irrigated and maintained adjacent to'fencing along the railroad right°of-way and the outdoor storage area adjacentto'Claudina Way. • That landscaping on Parcel 3 shall be refurbished with new groundcover and shrubs. 10. That any tree'planted on-site shalllbe replaced in a timely manner'in the event that it isremoved, damaged, diseased and/or dead and that the andscape planters shall be perrnanently maintained with live and healthy plant materials. 11. That a PVC slatted (or other acceptable screening material), chain link fence shall be installed to'a height sufficient to screen the outdoor storage yard as required by'Code along the eastand west< boundaries ofahe outdoor storage'area. 12. That existing chain link fencing along the northerly property line shall be repaired/replaced and acceptable screening material installed. 13. That an on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 14. That all barbed-wire and razor wire shall be removed or located such that it would not tie visible from Claudina Way. Page 8 Staff Report to the Planning Commission '' June 16,:2003 Item Noi'S 15. That all backfldw equipment shall be located above ground outside the street side setback area in ! a manner fully screened from public`streets and alleys. Any back flow assemblies currently installed in a vault shall tie brought up to current standards. ? 16. ThaY4-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. 17. That the petitioner shall complete Burglary/Robbery Alarm permit application, Form APD 616, available at the Police Department front counter. 18. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance,Yemoval df trash or debris, and removal ofgraffiti wittiln twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 19. Thatthe proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the ML (SABC) Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning Commission. 20. That prior to the operation bf this business, a valid business license shall be obtained from the City ; of Anaheim, Business License Division of the Finance Department.: 21. That subject property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim bythe petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1, and as conditioned herein. 22. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos: 4, 5, 6, 7 S, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 21, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time o complete said conditions may be grantetl in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.' 23. Thafapproval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent thaYit 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 r of the. request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. Page 9 ATTACHMENT - ITEM No. 5 Sent via email MEMORAN®UM CITY OF ,41VA~HEInA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: May 27, 2002 TO: John Ramirez, Planning FROM: Kerry Kemp, Community Development SUBJECT: 1610 - 1640 S. Claudina Way- CUP No. 2003-04701 Planning Commission Meeting, June 2, 2003 The following provides background information for the meeting on June 2, 2003, regarding the request to permit an outdoor contractor/vehicle storage yard. The subject property ("Subject Property") includes property that is generally located east of Claudina Way and north of Anaheim Way that is part of an unimproved utility easement ("SCE Easement"). The Subject Property also includes the site immediately south of the SCE Easement, which is improved with an industrial building ("Adjacent Property"). The Redevelopment Agency ground leases the SCE Easement, and in turn sub-ground leases it to the applicant. The applicant intends to improve the SCE Easement and use it in conjunction with the Adjacent Property, which is owned by the applicant.for its business operations. The applicant is relocating from South East Street. The Subject Property is located in the Commercial/Industrial Project Area ("Project Area") and in the South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor Overlay Zone ("Overlay Zone"). The Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area designates the Property as General Commercial, and the property is zoned ML (Limited, Industrial). General goals of the Redevelopment Plan include, but are not limited to, the following: Improving the physical .appearance of the Project Area through rehabilitation of commercial and industrial buildings and sites The provision for increased sales tax revenues and business license fees and the retention and expansion of existing businesses ® Establishing modern and convenient industrial and commercial areas The proposed use, which will support the applicant's business operations, furthers the goals of the Redevelopment Plan..Therefore, Community Development concurs with the recommendation to grant the request for Conditional Use Permit. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on this matter. Please contact me if you desire more information. Thank you for your consideration. c: Brad Hobson, Deputy Executive Director ITEM N0. 6 J ~ a ~- Rsazoa _ = 1 OU EACH Q V-1462 ROSEWOOD AVE RS-7200 _®; Q ¢ R I OI EACH I ; ? 7 V RM-1200 RCL 70-71-07 VAR 2432 VAR 2195 CHAPARRAL APARTMENTS 280 DU ROMNEYA DRIVE -63-46 I Ro L 324 CL RCL 76-77-06 RCL 76-76-36 CUP 3755 VACANT BLDG. CL RCL 75-76J6 BANK CL ALBERTSON'S Conditional Use Permit No. 4187 TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04704 ~ AP. Q W > -"I ~ ; m LLI ~ l 'n N s:: V 5` J ?` U F R~ Q SEf I- - FIX ~ ~ N ~' / 1~ 273 CL tMHP) RCL 82-83.22 55-56-7 CUP 258 ANAHEIM ROYAL MOBILHOME PARK ' 120 RESIDENTIAL SPACES RS-A -43,000 (MHP) RCL 82-83-22 ANAHEIM ROVAL M081LHOME PARK RM-1200 RCL 70.716 RCL 70.71-12 RCL 63-64-29 CUP 469 VAR 2600 VAR 2237 VAR 2203 APARTMENTS 56 DU v ~,t1 BALSAM AVE 4 DU I3DUI 4DU ' Subject Property Date: June 2, 2003 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: :ISLAMIC INSTITUTE OF ORANGE COUNTY Q.S. No. 111 REQUEST TO AMEND EXHIBITS FOR APREVIOUSLY-APPROVED CHURCH TO PERMIT PHASED CONSTRUCTION OF THE MAIN BUILDING AND PARKING LOT. 1220-1230 North State College Boulevard -Islamic Institute of Orange County D O D r 706(2003520) U ~ ~ ~ J ~ f- 4DU 3 DU ~ V-1500 U Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16, 2003 Item No: 6 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) 6ti. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0; 4187 (Motion for continuance) (Tracking No CUP2003-047041 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) Tftis irregularly shaped 1.93 acre'property is ocated north and east of the northeast corner of Placentia Avenue and State College Boulevard and has frontages of 171 feet on the north side ofiPlacentia Avenue, and 279 feet on the east side df State College Boulevard (1220 -1230 North State College Boulevard -Islamic Institute of Orange County). REQUEST: (2) The petitioner requests to amend exhibits for a previously approved churchYo permit phased construction of the main building'and parking lot. BACKGROUNDi (3) Afthe request of the petitioner, this item was continued from the June 2, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner time to address site design: and coordination issues with staff..!. (4) This property is developed with apartially constructed mosque and is zoned CL (Commercial, Limited). The Anaheim: GeneratPlan Land: Use Element Map designates the site for ; Commercial Professional land uses. (5) Tim Caballero, representing the Islamic Institute of Orange County, has submitted the attached letter dated`June 6 2003, requesting a twd-week continuance to the June 30, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow moretime to atldress site design and coordination issues with staff. RECOMMENDATION: (6) Staff recommends that the Commission, by motion, continue this item to the June 30, 2003, meeting to allow the petitioner time to address these items. Sr5016jcdoc'. Page 1 `' Friday, June O8, 2003 4:36 PM Tim Caballero 714-990-0207 p.01 ATTFlChIMENT - ITEM Mo. 6 ~ ' 0 ,~~~~~~~ ~~ ~. To: John Ramirez Assistant Planner City of Anaheim From: Tim Caballero 714.396.1423 Steven PhNlips Architect Re: CONTINUANCE CUP 4187 Tracking File CUP 2003-04704 1220 N. Sta}e Coll®g® Boulevard Anaheim, California 92801 In order to work out site dosign and operational issues, wo would liko to request a continuance of our case from the June 16, 2003 Planning Commission meeting to the 30w of June meeting. Thank you very much for your kind conslderatlon. ITEM N0. 7 J CL VAR 2037 RCL 57-58-18 VAR 1912 S._ _.. _. CL T-CUP 2002-04621 (CUP 3425) RS-5000 74-75-24 CUP 2001-04451 (CUP 2758) 1 DU EACH CUP 1928 CUP 2001-04433 (CUP 2339) CUP 1764 CUP 3642 (VAR 2136 S) CUP 369 CUP 2608 (VAR 1980 S) SYCAMORE PLAZA CUP 1685 GRANADA RS-5000 NEIGHBORHOOD CUP 1655 ~ SQUARE 1'DU EACH SHOPPING CENTER CL CL RCL fig-66-71 RGL fi5-66-70 CUP 2001-04489 RCL 57-5g-ig CUP 1947 T-AOJ 2002-00224 PCN 97-12 RESTAllRANi SHOPPING CUP 2411 CENTER VAR 2490 S.S. LA PALMA AVENUE ® 248' -sl CL ~~ ~, RGL 75-76-12 RCL65Hi6-72 LA PALMA SOUARE , c ~ 61-fit-3fi RM-7200 5455-21 ® OFFICE BUILDING - R gi-82-36 cuP e0g 4 Du EgcH Q ROWER SHOP LLI 61-62-36 J 5a-5s21 CL ~ CUP 262 RS-7200 RCL 75-78-12 RCL 65-86.69 ~ vaafis 67-62-3fi 7 uRANr 1 DU EACH RS-A-43,000 T-CUP 2003-04708 m ,^„~w RM-1200 CUP 1875 CUP 2001-04373 ll.l ~fd~aois RS-A-43,000 CUP 102 VAR 2914 S RCL 76-79-30 FAMILY MEDICAL ~ y ~-~ww w~5od SYCAMORE JUNIOR CUP 1875 CHURCH AND OFFICES W HIGH SCHOOL CUP 102 PRE-SCHOOL J u APARTMENTS DAYCARE .1 RCL82-63d) O U 59-6521 V-0522 CHWOPRACTOR LLI ES cL E- Rcsnuu 72 E E AL130 OR SSR RME )2 ~ SHOPS 1C CPt'f` S`{ OFFICES CL ADJ 2001-00270 RCLB 92-08 VAC. BLDG. R U 3~,OCY~ CUPOU67 ' R 189 1 CL SMALL SHOP RS-720D \ \ _ VP 1 DU EACH I I Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04373 Subject Property TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04708 Date: June 16, 2003 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: MARTS E. VANAGS Q.S. No. 102 REQUESTS REINSTATEMENT OF THIS PERMIT BY THE MOD IFI CATION OR DELETION OF ACONDITION OF APPROVAL PERTAINING TO A TIME LIM ITATION (APPROVED ON JUNE 18, 2001, TO EXPIRE JUNE 18, 2003) TO RETAIN A MOBIL E MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING (MRI) UNIT AND GENERATOR. 555 North State College Boulevard 719 Staff Report to the Planning: Commission June 16 2003 Item Noc 7 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 (Motion) 7b. !CONDITIONAL'USEPERMITN02001-04373 (Resolution)' (tracking No: CUP2003-04708) s SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This 0.89-acre, rectangularly-shaped property is located at thesouthwest comer of La ..Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard and has frontages of 248 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue'and 120 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard (555`North -State College Boulevard). REQUEST: (2) The petitioner requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification oC deletion of a condition of approval';pertaining'to a time'limitation'(approved on June 18~ 2001, to expire :June 18,2003) to retain a mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) unit and generator under authority of Code Section No. 18:03.093. BACKGROUND: (3) .This property is developed with a 16,500 square foot, two-storybffice building and is zoned CL (Commercial, Limited). The Anaheim;General Plan Land Use Element Map designates 'this property for General Commercial land: uses. (4) 'Surrounding land uses are as follows: Direcfion Land Use Zonin General Plan Desi nation North'(across La PalmaAvenue Commercial Center CL General Commercial Northeast (across LaPalma Avenue Service Station ' CL ' General Commercial East(across state Colle eBlvd. Flower Shop CL General Commercial ..South: Church &Pre-School RS-A-43,000 Medium-Densi .Residential West Office Buildin i CL General Commercial (5) Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04373 (to permit a :mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) unit and generator to be orated in the parking lot of a medical office building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces) was: approved: by the Commission on June 18, 200E :Resolution No. PC2001-78 contains the following condition of approval "1, That this conditional use permit sfiall expire two (2) years form the'date of this resolution, on`June 18,2003 ° Sr8597vn '.Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16, 2003 Item No. 7 DISCUSSION: (6) Petitioner, Patty Pereyra, Vice President of Business Development, submitted a letter requesting afive-year reinstatement of this permit: In order to demonstrate the findings required for reinstatement of this use have been satisfied, the petitioner has submitted the u Justification of Reinstatement (see attached) indicating that'no physical, land use'or operational changes have been made to the property and that all conditions have been complied with. (7) A recent site inspection by the Code Enforcement Division indicates the MRI unhand related: generator are operating in compliance with conditions of approval and that there are f no current Code violations oh the property. (8) The Commission may wish to recall that staff had'concems at the 2001 Planning< Commission hearing regarding noise levels produced by the''generator• Staff, at that time, worked with the petitioner to'explore a permanentpower source in order to reduce noise levels. Although he use is intermittent; it is proposed as long term. Therefore staff feels that a permanent power source is nowappropriate. Staff has added a'condition of approval:. to require a permanent power source for the MRI'unit. (9) Staff recommends that the condition pertaining to' he time limit for the MRl be modified to > allow for an additional (5) five years to expire June 18, 2008] ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (10) , The Planning Director's authorized representative'.has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section`15311, Class 11 (Accessory Structures), as defined in th@ State CEQA Guidelines and is therefore'exempttrom the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (11) ! The proposed project has been reviewed by affected City departments3o determine whether it conforms with the: City's Growth Management Element adopted by the Gity Councfl'on March 17, 1992..Based on' City staff review of the proposed project, it has been: determined that this project does not fitwithin the scope necessary to'~equire a Growth Management Element analysis, therefore, no analysis has tieen performed. FINDINGS (12) Before the Commission grants any conditional use permit, itmust make a finding bf fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: (a) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is'authorized by the Zoning Code, or that said' use is not listed therein as being a permitted use; (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 defrimentaf to the particular area nor to thepeace, health, safety,'and general welfare; Page:2 .. ............................ .. .... Staff Report to the ` Planning Commission June 16 2003 Item No.'7 "(d) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets antl highways designed: end improved to carry the traffic in the area; and (e) That the granting of the conditicnafvse permit under the conditions imposed,.: if any, willnot be detrimental to the peace; health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City ofAnaheim. (13) Subsection 18.03.093.040 of the Zoning Code requires that before the Commission grants reinstatemenk of the approval by extension of any time limitations for an additional! period or periods of time, ofsuch time limitation'is'deleted ofmodified, the applicant must present evidence to establish the following findings: (a) The facts necessary to support each and every required showing for the issuance of such entitlement as set forth in Chapter 18.03 exist; (b) Said permit is'being exercised substantially in`the same manner and in conformance with all conditions and stipulations originally approved by the approval body; ' (c) Said permit is being exercised in a manner not detrimental to the particular area and surrounding land uses, :nor to the public peace, health and safety ahd general'welfare; '; and (d) With regard only to any deletion of a time limitation, such deletion is necessary to permit reasonable operation under the permitas granted. RECOMMENDATION: (14) `Staff recommends that, unlessadditional or contrary testimony. is received during the 'meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to he 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, determine that this project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15311, Class 11 (Accessory Structures) ofahe CEQA Guidelines. (b) ay resolution,'aQOrove reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No! 2001-04373 (Tracking Nd CUP 2003-04708) to,retain a mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) unit and generator for an additional tive'(5) years to expire June 18,2008, based on the following: (i) j That this permit is`curcently tieing exercised substantially in the same manner and in conformance with all conditionsand stipulations originally approved by the Planning Commission as requiredby Subsection 18.03:093.040 ofahe Zoning' Code. (ii) That field inspections by Code Enforcement and Zoning Division staff indicate that the property is curcentlytlemonstrating compliance with all conditions of approval. ' Page 3 ................................. Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16, 2003 '' Item No. 7 `(iii) That the size and shape of the site is adequate to allow this use and the business is being operated in a manner which'is not detrimental to the surrounding area or land uses, nor to the public peace, health, safety and gerteral welfare. '(iv) Thatwithout modification'of the time limitation, the magnetic resonance imaging facility would not be allowed to continue operating at this property. (c) Staff further recommends that the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC2001 78, be incorporatedinto anew resolution with the following conditions of approval: 1. That this conditional use permit shall expire in five (5) years, on June 18, 2008. E. That the MRI unit shall use a permanent power source and that an electric meter shall be provided to serve the MRI unit. 3. Thatno compact parking spaces shall be permitted. 4. (a) ;That the hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7p.m:' on ::Saturdays, and (b) The equipment shall' not arrive after 8 p.m. on Fridays, and (c) -The unitshall be removed by 8p.m. on the day of operation. 5. That minimum one (1) gallon sized clinging vines on maximum three (3) foot centers or tall shrubbery shall be maintained adjacent to the existing trash enclosure. 6. That the property shall be maintained in compliance with. the most current versions of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations for commercial properties as approved by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. 7. That subject property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and spec cations submitted o the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1 and as'oonditioned herein. 8. Thai the generator shall'be maintained at the south end of the west property tine next to the trash enclosure; the MRI trailer shall be backed up against the trash enclosure (on the west property line) and'the petitioner shall maintain compliance with the revised site plan which illustrates the approved location of the MRI Trailer. 9. That within 60 days from the date of this resolution, Cohtlition No. 2 above- mentioned shall be complied with. 10. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only o the extent that ifcomplies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State'and Federal regulations. Approval does r Page 4 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June1fij2003 Item No.' 7 not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. '! Page 5 ATTACHItEtlT - I TEf! N0. 7 PETITIONER'S STATEMENT JUSTIFICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. Section 18:03.093 of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires that before any conditional use permit or variance containing a time limitation canoe reinstated for an additional period of time, or before such time limitation may be deleted or modified by the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator, the following must be shown:. 1. The facts necessary to support each and every required showing for the issuance of such entitlement as set forth in the following excerpts from the Anaheim Zoning Code still exist: 18.03.030 (Relative to Conditional Use Permits) Before the Ctty Council or Planning Commission may grant any request for a conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact, by resolution, that the evidence presented shows that all of the following exist: .031 That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional usepermlt is authorized by this code; or is not listed herein as being a permitted use; .032 That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining lahd uses and the growth and development of the area in which i(Is proposed to be located; ..033 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 nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare; .034 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; .035 That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, wigpot be detrimental to the peade, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; 18:03.040 (Relative to Variances) Before any variance may be granted by the Planning Commission it shall be shown: .031 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; .032 That, because of special circumstances shown fn .031, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classifica8on In the vicinity. 2. Said permit or variance is being exercised substantially in the same manner and in conformance with all conditions and stipulations originally approved by the approval body; 3. Said permit or variance is being exercised in a manner not detrimental to the particular area and surrounding land uses, nor to the public peace, health, safety and general welfare; and 4. With regard only to any deletion of a time limitation, such deletion is necessary to permit reasonable operation under the permit or variance as granted. In order to determine if such findings exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to arrive at a decision, please answer the following questions fully and as complete as possible. Attach additional sheets if additional soace is needed.: 1. Has any physical aspect of the properly for which this use permit or variance been granted. changed significantly since the issuanc~~ejj of this use permit or variance? ,l7 YES ;~ NO Explain: if(~t~l'.~~i re,fVllllYVs '~t1~., SCiML, (over) CASE 1 CUP N0. 2001 - 0 4 3? 3 2. Have the land uses in the immediate vicinity changed since the issuance of this use permit or variance? ^ YES ~ NO P~ /I '(~ .,j,., Explain: 0.Qc~i5 IVllnt V~nb--U Grit N '" SC+~-(~1 ~~lJ(k-1.1pi ~0~ . 3. Has any aspect of the nature of the operation changed since the issuance of this use permiP or variance? ^ YES ~,NO Explain: Cnl~ ODt~f Lv~1o.tiS rGMGtn '~'~ SGw~ 4. Are the conditions of approval pertaining to the use permit or variance being complied with? YES ^ NO Explain: C~l~ lS Cal:~~~(a WY~- 5. If you are requ sting a deletion of the time limitation, is this deletion necessary for the continuedbperation of this use or variance? ~ YES ^ NO Explain: WC. ~a'L Dbl.-nti•~. U~5~4T~ ~^ `~"`J ,JC(~.-~~ti -Fr;~ c~- ~1..,Fit- 0'f- aJe_. ~c.~TGr`-i-S'. ~nla'. vic:: ~cl ~ tlc¢. Gl ~•ii ~~ V z~rr wnc.2.. Patricia Pereyra Name of Property Owner or Authorized Agent (Please Print) ~~~~~ 4I~ti~~'~ Signature of Property caner or Authodzed Agent ' Dale 205225lK000 12/97 CASE NO, Z~1 ~ °~ ~J~ 2 ~~ ~®. 2001-04373 ATTACHh1ENT - ITEM t~0. 7 RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-78 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2 001-04373 13E GRANTED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS UNTIL JUNE 18, 2003 WHEREAS, the Anaheim Ciry Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated ih the City of Anaheim, Gounty of Orange, State of California, described as: THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 OF ANAHEIM EXTENSION, AS SHOWN ON A MAP OF SURVEY MADE BY WILLIAMS HAMEL AND FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLOWS: PARCEL 2 AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 83, PAGE 4 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City ofAnaheim on June 18, 2001 aE 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 against said proposal cgnditional 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 itselfand in itsbehaff, ahd 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 that is authorized t, Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.010 to permit a mobile magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI") unit and generator located in the parking lot of a medical office building with waiver of the followings Sections 18.06.050.021.0211 - Minimum number of Dorking spaces. 18.66.050.0212 (95 required; 85 proposed and concurred with by the City Traf Ic and 18.44.066.050 and Transportation Section) ,. 2. That the waiver, minimum number of parking spaces, is hereby approved on the basis of the letter of operation submitted by the petitioner to substantiate that the existing parking supply is adequate for the proposed mobile MRI unit (i.e.; trailer) and the existing businesses in the office building at 555 North State College Boulevatd; and that the Traffic and Transportation Section concurs that 85 spaces are adequate to serve the combined uses on this property: 3. That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not cause fewer off-street. parking spaces to be provided for the proposal than the number ofsubh spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to the uses under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such uses. 4. That the waiver, Uhler the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposal. 5. That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposal (which property is not expressly provided as parking for such use under an agreement in compliance with Section 18.06:010.020 of the Anaheim Municipal Code). CON~DI~TjIONAL USE PERMIT CR5114PK.doc -1- N0~ ~ ~~3 PC2001-78 1 ~- ~~ o1eo3-ohl37g 6: ~ That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase traffic congestion.. within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposal. 7. That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposal. 8. Thaf the proposed use (MRI trailer) wilt not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because of the temporary and periodic nature of the proposed use; that the growth or development of the surrounding area will not be impacted; and that the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry traffic in the area 9: That the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is 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: 10. That granting of this conditional use permit, under the conditions imposed, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 11: That one persoh spoke at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal; and that no correspondence was received inopposition. ' CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDMG: The Planningbirector's authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition' of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State of California Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") Guidelines and is; therefore, categoricallyexempttrom the requirement to prepare an EIR. 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 tc 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 June 18, 2003. 2. That no "compact" or "small car" parking spaces shall tie permitted. 3. (a) The hours of operation shall belimited to 7 a.m: to 7 p.m: on Saturdays., and (b) Tfte equipment shall not arrive after 8 p.m. do Fridays; and (c) The unit shall'beYemoved by $ p:m. on the day of operation. 4. That recommended Condition No: 4 was deleted at the June 18, 2001 public hearing. 5: That minimum one (1) gallon sized clinging vines on maximum three (3) foot centers or tall shrubbery shall be planted adjacent to the existing trash enclosure: 6. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval showing conformance with the most current versions of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations for commercial properties. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 7. That the legal property owner shall provide the City of Anaheim with a public utilities easement to be determined as electrical design is completed. -2- PC2001-78 8. That subject property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1, and as conditioned herein. 9. That within a period of two (2) months from the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 5, 6; 7, 8 and 11, herein-mentioned shall be complied with. 10. 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. 11. (a) That the generator shall be placed further south on the west property line next to trash enclosure; (b) That the MRI trailer shall be backed up against the trash enclosure (in front of the generator on the west property line; and (c) That the petitioner shall submit a revised exhibit (i.e., site plan) to illustrate the approved locations of the generator and the MRI trailer. BE IT FURTHER 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. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of June 18, 2001. ~®rl~inatl oigne0 by oohn hoot) CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: (Original signed by Eleanor Fernandes) SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Fernandes, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, db hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on June 18, 2001, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, KOOS, NAPOLES, VANDERBILT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BRISTOL IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2001. (Original signed by Eleanor Fernandes) SECRETARY. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -3- PC2001-78 ITEM N0. 8 ML 5154.7 cuP Tp94MnD cuP zoD9-Dn366 VPR 2002-04999 FORMER HUS6ELL BUILDING M L n CUP SMALL INDUSTRIAL FIRMS ~ F WOODLAND DRIVE CUP Tp07 Nl UC P 1~BB7~ SMALL INDUSTRW. FIRMS ML b66/-14 5354] CUP 235/ COP 2201 CUP 1740 SMALL IND. FIRMS RM4200 0 CUP d24 'n^¢n VAR 2369 „ VAR 2230 IA PPLMA WOODS ~~:~ !A 66$1-14 5156-07 A0.10636 MAGNETIC METAlS LA PALMA AVENUE RS-7200 1 00 EALH RSI2D0 9 UU EACM RS72D0 S 9 Du EACH ~LTgq~q~ R oo~sq~e h RFF~gY CUP 2003-04710 T-CUP 2003-01709 CUP 2001-04366 CUP 29004M29 CUP 4074 CUP 3953 T-VAR 20024N594 VART0024H496 VAR 3240 ANAHEOA PALMS WES7WODD COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY ML RCL 9.51.24 664i]-14 CUP 4093 THE PARK SMPIL INDUSTRIAL FIRMS Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04263 Subject Property TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04709 Date: June 16, 2003 Scale: Graphic Requested By: LIVING STREAM MINISTRY Q.S. No. 24 REQUESTS REINSTATEMENT OF THIS PERMIT BY THE MODIFICATION OR DELETION OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL PERTAINING TO A TIME LIMITATION (APPROVED pN OCTOBER 23, 2000 TO EXPIRE OCTOBER 23, 2003) Tp RETAIN A TEMPORARY TELECONFERENCING CENTER AND PRIVATE CONFERENCE/TRAINING CENTER. 2441 West La Palma Avenue -Living Stream Ministry ~zD Staff Report to the Planning Commission Junei16, 2003 Item No. 8 (4) Surrounding land uses are as follows:' Direction Land Use Zoning, General Plan Desi' nation North Santa Ana (I-5) - Freeway Freewa East across Gilbert Small Industrial Firms ML ' General Industriah Street South across: La Single-Family RS-7200 Low Density Palma Avenue '= Residences Residential '.West Small Industrial Films ML ` and Former Hubbell General Industrial'. Industrial Site (5) ; Conditional Use Permit No 2000-04263 (to permit a temporary teleconferencing center and private conference/training`center) was approved by the Planning Commission on Octotier 23, 2000 to expire on October' 23, 2003; Resolution No. PC2000-118 adopted in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04263 contains the foilowing'conditions of approval: "1. That the petitioner shall pay the full cost for installation of protected easUwest left tum signal phasing at La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street. Prior to installation of the left tum phasing, the petitioner shall provide for3he use ofand pay the full cost`: associated therewith, Police Departmentfand/or Traffic Management staff to ensure I the orderly ingress/egress of traffic from La Palma Avenue. That within a period of six (6) months fromthe date of this resolution, installation of the east/west signal phasing shall be completed and operational. 22. (That subject use permit shall expire three (3) years from the date of this resolution; on October 23, 2003 DISCUSSION; (6) The Commission should note that the:: petitioner has been in operation under the authority: of this permit without the completion of Condition No. 1, asdescribed in paragraph no. 5. In reference to Condition. No. 1, Traffic Engineering Division staff has indicated hat the traf8c(signal has: been constructed, but is not yet operational. Staff recommends that the above-referenced conditions of approval be metwithin thirty (30) days of the date of the resolution for the pending reinstatement. Page 2 Staff Report to the Planh(ng Commission June 16, 2003 Item No. 8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (13) i Staff has reviewed the request for reinstatement of this permit and fintls no significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from this request. ;Therefore; staff recommends that the: previously-approved. Negative Declaration in connection with Conditional Use _ Permit No. CUP2000-04263'serve as the required environmental documentation'forthls reinstatement request upon a finding by the Commission that the Negative Declaration reflects he independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has consideredahe Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the`public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study (a copy of which is available foc review in the Planning Department) antl any comments received that there is no'substantial evidence that the`project wilChave a significant effect on theienvironment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (14) The proposed project has been reviewed by affected City departments to determine whether it conforms with theCity's Growth Management Element adopted by the City Council on March r17, 1992. 'Based on'City staff review of the proposed projecQ it has beert determined that this project tloes not fit within the?scope necessary to require a Growth Management Element analysis, therefore, no analysis has been performed. FINDINGS: (15) Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use.: permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that elf of the following conditions exist; (a) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code,. or that said use is not listed therein as being a permitted use; (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 tie 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 detrimentafto the particular area.! nor to the peace, health, safety,'and general welfare;:. (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 he traffic in the area; and (e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under a conditions imposed, if any, , will not be tletrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City ofAnahelm. (16) Subsection 18.03,093.040 of the Zoning Code requires that before the Commission grants reinstatement of the approval by extension of any ime limitations for an additional period or periodsof time, or such time limitation is deleted or modifietl, the applicant mustpresent evidence to establish the following findings: (a) The facts necessary to support'each and every required showing for the issuance of such entitlement asset forth in Chapter 18.03 exist;, Page 4 Staff Report to the Planning Commission + June 16,`2003 Item No 8 (b) Said permit is being exercised substantially h the same manner and in conformance with all conditions and stipulations originally approved by the approval body; (c) Said permit is being exercised in a manner not detrimental to the particular area and surrounding land uses, nor to the public peace, health: and safety and general welfare; and (d) With regard only to any;deletion of a time limitation, such deletion`is necessary to permit reasonable operation under the permit as granted. RECOMMENDATION: (17) Staff recommends that, unless additional'or contrary information is received during the 'meeting,and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the: evidencepresented in this staff report, and oral and:written evidence presented at the i public hearing, the Commission take the;ollowing actions: (a) By' motion, determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request. (b) By resolution; aoorove reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04263 (Tracking No CUP 2003-04709) o retain a temporaryteleconferencing center and private conference/training centerfor a period of four,(4) years to expire on October 23; 2007, based on the following: (i) That this permit has been substantially operated in the same. manner as originally approved by the Commission: Code Enforcemenf Division has inspected the premises andfias determined that the facility is in compliance with ali,applicable'conditions of approval. (ii)' That the permit is being exercised in a manner not detrimental to the particular area and surrounding land uses, as evidenced by the absence of Code: Enforcement Division complaints for this property:.. (iii) That there have been no changes to the applicable zone standards that would invalidate the findings that were the basis for thepriginal approval of this permit. 'r (c) Staff further recommends that the' Commission amend Resolution No. PC2000-118 in its entirety,. to be replaced by a new resolution with the following conditions of approval based on the'finding that. the modification is necessary to permit the reasonable operation of this temporary teleconferencing center and private conference/training center: 1. ` That subject use`permit shall expire upon the issuance of a permanent Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Division fora permanent facility; located at 1217 North Hubbell Way, or on October 23, 2007, whichever occurs first. 2. That the petitioner shall maintain a dedicated westbound right-tum lane on La Palma Avenue at Gilbert Street. Page 5 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June16, 2003 Item: No. 8 ` 3. That no church activitiesshall be permitted unless a separate conditional use: permit is approved by the Planning'Commission. 4. That no required parking area shallbe fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. 5. That no compact parking: spaces shall be permitted. 6. That an on-site trash truck tum-around area sfiall be maintained per EngneeringStandard Detail No. 1i10 and as required by he Maintenance Division. 7. That the project shall maintain adequate passenger loading and unloading ; areas acceptable to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. ` 8. That the property shall be maintained in conformance with plans approved by the City Traffic and TransportationlManagerpertaining to Engineering Standard No: 137 concerning sigfit distance visibility for'any future. sign/fence locations: 9. That the petitioner shall be responsible for paying the full. cost associated witfi the use of any'Police Department and/or Traffic Management Cehter staff who maybe needed for traffic control purposes. 10. That this facility shall be limited to tfie following operational characteristics: (a) The public teleconferencing sfiall be limited to a maximum of :1,500 personslo ensure adequate parking for all businesses on-site. The hours of operation shall be limited to'8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through ` Friday. (b) ,The private conferencing/training center shall be limited to a maximum of 4,000 persons. The facility shall be utilized for this;purpose a maximumbf 21 days per year, including two (2) six day conferences during winter and summer vacation. The hours'of operation shall beiimited to 2:00 p.m: to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday for the two: (2) bi-annual conferences; and 2:00 p.m. to10:00 p.m:, Saturday and Sunday, for the remaining conference/training dates. 11. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped and maintained with decorative lighting of sufficientpower to illuminate. and make'easily discernable the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed,,positioned and shielded in sucfi'a manner' so as not to unreasonably illuminate the window areas of nearby residences.`: 12. That the petitioner shall make every effort to coordinate activities with the Sa Rang Presbyterian Church (north and west of the northeast comer of La Palma Avenue and Brookhursf Street) to schedule large events at separate times to ensure adequate circulation on thesurrounding public streets. 13, That an on-site pedestrian circulation plan shall be maintained to the satisfaction of3he Zoning and Traffic Engineering Divisions. Said plan shall Page 6 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16;2003 Item No: 8 indicate all pedestrian pathsof travel from the parking areas to the teleconferencelttaining center. 14. That the provisions of the approved event traffic management plan shall be continuously implemented on the property to ensure efficient and safe ingress/egress of traffic during events. 15: That evening traffic (after 5:00 p.m.) departing the site shaltbe prohibited from using Gilbert Street south of La Palma Avenue. 16. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscapeimaintenance, removal of trasfi`or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time ofoccurrence. 17. That this facility shall only be used for teleconferencing, conferences and training activities. i 18. That the petitioner shall pay for the full cost of installation of protected east/west left turn signal phasing at Gilbert Street and La Palma Avenue. Prior to installation of the left turn signal phasing, the petitioner shall ? provide for the use of and'pay the full cost associated therewith for Police`Departmentond/or Traffic Aanagement staff to ensure the orderly ingress/egress of traffic on'La Palma Avenue. `installation of the '' east/west left turn signal phasing shall be completed and operational c thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution`. 1 g. 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 Exhitiit No. 1,'Revision No. 1, and Exhibit Nos. 2, and 3, and as conditioned herein. r 20. That within 30 days from the date of this resolution, Condition No. 18 above-mentioned, shall be complied'with. 2T: That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extenYthat 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 requitement. Page 7 : 06/04/2063 09:31 7142366005 LIVING STREAM MNSTRY 06-oa•2o08 Oa:14es From- PAGE 03 T-182 P.gOZ/OW F-24o ATTACHMENT - ITEM No. E . PETITIONER'S STATEMENT JUSTIFICAl'ION F®R RElN37AT~MENT ° 3ttcdon 16.03.003 ofthe Anehslm Mtantctpal Code roqutfes that bekre any conditional use parmlt or valance contatnlrtg a Ume Ilmltatlon can De relnstatad for an addttlonal palod of dme, or before such dme Ilmitadon may be deleted or tnodlfled by the Planntn8 Commisslon ortoning AtlmlNaGator, the following must be shown: 1. The facts necessary to support each end every required showing for the leeuaneo o(auch engdement as set forth in the following exrxrpts from the Anaheim Zoning Code aGll axial; 18.03.030 (Relative to Condltlonal Uae Patmha) Beforo the Clty Council or Planning Commisslon may grant any request for a condldonel use penntt, It must make e finding of tact, by resolutlgn, that tna ®vtdmnce presentao shows that all of Iha olllowing wrist: .031 That the proposed use is properly one for which a condidona(use Detroit Is authotlzad by this coda, or la not Iieled hereto as being a permitted use; .D32 That the proposed use will oat adversely affect the adjoining land ueea and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; .033 That the size and shape of the site proposed tar the use Is adequate to allow the fug developmem of the proposal use In s manner not daflmantal w the partiealar area nor to Ne peace, health, safely and general welfare; ,034 That the tratgc generated by the proposed use wgl not impose an undue twrden upon ute streets and highways designedand Improvatl to carry the tratllc In the area: .035 That the grandng of the condtttonal use penal[ untler the eondldons Impasetl, g any, will not be detrrmental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the el~ens of the City o1 Anaheim; iB.03.04D (FteletNe to Varlancaa) before any uarlanco may ba granted by the Plannln0 Commission it shag De shown: ..051. That Share are spacial eircumstancas appficahle to the property, Induding slxe, shape, topography, Ieeatlon ar surroundings, which do not apply to over property under IdendCel zotung elassgicedon in Ne vteinity; .033 'that, becauss of special dreumstencea shown .n .031, sldet appllr~gon of the zoning code deprives the property of pdvilagae anJeyed by othor property under identleat zoning claaoiflcadon In the viclni[y. Z. Said permit or valance is being ®xoraaed aubslantialty in the same manner and in cant,,^a^~ce v~i,h 2" c::z "!lions end stipulations odglnally approved by the approval body; 3. said permit or variance is Estop exerrlsse m a manner not detrimental to the paniwlar area and sunounding land uoas, oar W the pubhe Reece) hasltn, safety end general watltare; end 1. WI[b ragaW only to any de!:'~n tii a dme limitedon, such deledan is necessary to parrn@ teasonablo opotadon under the permit or vaAent:e as Granted.. ° In order to detennlne H such Mdings axial, and to assist the Zoning Adminleaater or Planntng Commission to arrNa at a decision, please answer ths following quesliens fugy and as complete as posalhle. ARach aedlttonal sneers N addttlonel aaaca is naaded_` 1. Has any physical aspect of the property 4or which this use permit or valanoe been granted changed algnifirandy since the Issuance of Ws use permR or vadance7 DYES ®NO Expiam: Building 5, wh•bch houses the temp rare Teleconf ranee and Trainino center rep mains, unchanged. , {over) ~j., CASE NO.~~ r D~ ~/ ~fi''~ ~' ~`'~, 20°~ o`f'j p01 ~ 06/04/2003 09:31 7142366005 LIVING STREAM MNSTRY PAGE 02 OB-08-2008 0®:1daa Fiom- T-192 P.008/008 F-240 2. Have the lend Haas in ihv immadlata vtdnity ohangaA since tl~a issuance of thlt ua® pormh or vadanea? O YE8 ~ NO Explain: All land Lases on the 41`acre APCC site remain the same. Construction of cingi -fami M residences is ~urino on the southeast corner of Gilbert and la Palma. 3. Has any aspen of the nature of the op®ratbn changed since the IOauanca of this use permit or variance? O YE9 ~9 NO Explain; lice of ttlg_facility remains conssstent with ooer•ational guidelines of our original CUPL with 21 days or less ear year for private teleconference and'trainina_uses tieing utilized,'Even with the installation of traffic sianalizatian at Gilbert-and La Palma, we continue, as a cohvehience far our• attendees, to utilize police traffic con9:l 4. Are the conditions oP approval pertaining to the use permit or Vedanta b®In®mmp0ed with? x7tYE3 1] NO Fxptaln: 5. ff you are requesting a dalellon of the iame limitation, is this deletlon ner:eeanry for the canflnuad operation of this use or Vedanta? ~1 YES ONO Explain; We are reaues.inc an xt n ion of our t moorarv time limit`which expires - 10/09 for four y ag r~opjy rather than a permanent delet~non zomasax~c rv9r cASENO.I~'~~~0~ `~ 2 ATTACHtgENT - ITEM No, $ RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-118 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04263 BE GRANTED FOR THREE YEARS TO EXPIRE ON OCTOBER 23, 2003 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: PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 141, PAGES 26 AND 27 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTYRECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.. and PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 26, PAGE 49 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFIGE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. :and PARCEL 2, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM; COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 26, PAGE 49 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim bn October 23, 2000et 1:30 p:m., notice of said public Fiearinghaving been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisiohs of the Anaheim Miinidipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed cdnditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and :recommendations in connection therewith; and that the hearing was continued from the meeting. of October 9, 2000; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation end study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does firid and determine the following facts: t That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 16.03.030:010 and 18.61.050.450 to permit a teleconferencing center and private conference/training center with waivercf the following: Sections 18.06.050.020.021:0212 - Minimum number of oarkino spaces. 18.06.050.020.026.0263 (iJ985 required; 1~ proposed and cohcurred with by 18.06.050.030:031 the City Traffic and Transportation Manager) 18.06.080 and 18.61.06.050 2. That the parking waiver is hereby approved on the basis that the City Traffic and Transportation Manager tias reviewed the traffic study and has determined that the proposed number of parking spaces is adequate to serve the proposed combination of uses. 3 That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and competition forparking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. CR4928PK.doc -1- PC2000-118 4. Thatthe waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand :and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use (which property is not expressly provided as parking for such use under an agreement in compliance with Section 18:06.010.020 of this Code). 5. That the waiver', under the wntlrtions imposed, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or tots provided for such user ` 6. That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, wil(not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use, 7. That the proposed use, as conditioned herein, will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; and that the proposed use will not affect adjoining industrial or nearby .residential land uses because existing setbacks will provide a buffer between theproposal and those industrial uses to the east and residences to the south. 8. That the size and shape of the property is adequate to accommodate the proposed use, as conditioned herein, 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; and that there will be no impact on adjoining properties because no new construction is proposed and existing parking facilities will be utilized. 9. That the traffic generated by this use, as conditioned herein, will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. 10. That granting of this permit, under the conditions herein, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because the proposed use is located in an area that can accommodate the proposed scale of operation without impacting adjacent properties. 11. That the proposed use, as conditioned herein, wilt not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for such use than the number of such"spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use'under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use. 12. That no one indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal; and that no correspondence was received in opposition. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a teleconferencing center and private conference/training center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregularly shaped 27.9-acre property located at the northwest oorner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street, with frontages of 780 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and 830 feet on the west side bf Gilbert Street, and further described as 2441 West La Palma Avenue (Living Stream Ministry); 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 public7eview process and further finding on thebasis 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: 1. That the petitioner shall pay the full cost for installation of protected east/west left turn signal phasing at La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street. Prior to installation of the left turn signal phasing, the petitioner shall provide for the use of, and pay the full cost associated therewith, Police Department and/or Traffic Management staff to ensure the orderly ingresslegress of traffic on La CR4928PK:doc -2- PC2000-118 Palma Avenue. 'ghat within a period of six (8) months from the date df this resolution, installation of the east/west left turn signal phasing shall be completed and operational 2. That the petitioner shall install a dedicated westbound right-turn lanebn La Palma Avenue at Gilbert Street. 3. That nd church activities shall be permitted at this location unless a separate conditional use permit is approved by the Planning Commission or City£ounciL 4. That no required parking area shall be fenced br otherwise ericldsed for storage or other outdoor uses. 5. That no "compact" or "small car" parking spaces shall be permitted 6, That an on-site trash truck tum-around area shall be providetl in accordance with Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and as required by the Maintenance Division. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 7. That this project shall provide passenger loading and unloading acceptable to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Said information shall tie specifically shown on plaris submitted for building permits. 8. That plans for any future signs and/or fences shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval showing conformance with Engineering Standard No. 137 pertaining to sight distance visibility for such sign and/or fence locations: 9. That the petitioner shall pay the full cost associated with the use of any Police Department and/or Traffic Management Center staff who may be needed for traffic control purposes. 10. That the property owner shall provide the City of Anaheim'with a public utilities easement, to be determined as electrical design is completed, for primary lines and transformer location. 11. That the developer shall obtain aRight-of-Way Construction Permit from the Public Works Department to construct a five (5) foot wide sidewalk on Gilbert Street adjacent tb the right-of-way line, and to install landscaping and irrigation between the sidewalk and curb, as approved by the Parks Division of the Community Services Department. 12. That the water backflow equipment shall be above ground and outside the required street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and .alleys: 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 area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted to and approved by Water Engineering and the Cross Connection Inspector prior to submittal for building permits. 13. That three (3) foot high street address numbers shall be displayed on the`rodfbf the building in a color contrasting to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible to the street o~ adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits 1A. That this facility shall comply with the following operational limitations: (a) The public teleconferencing center shall be limited to a maximum of one thousand five hundred (1,500) persons to ensure adequate parking for all businesses on-site. The hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, (b) The private conferencing/training center shall be limited to a maximum of four thousand (4,000) persons. This facility may be utilized for this purpose a maximum of twenty one (21) CR4928PK.doc -3- PC2000-118 days pec year, including two (2), six (6) day conferences during winter and summer vacations. The hours of operation shall be limited to 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday........ through Saturday, for the two (2) bi-annual conferences, and 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, for the remaining conferenceltraining dates. 15. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with decorative lighting of, sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernable the appearance and conduct of'all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the window areas of nearby residences. Photometric plans shall be submitted to the Anaheim Police Department for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 16. That the petitioner shall make every effort to coordinate activities with the Sa Rang Presbyterian Church (located north and west of the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Brookhurst Street) to schedule large events at separate times to ensure adequate circulation on the surrounding public streets. 17. That an on-site pedestrian circulation plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division and the Traffic Engineering Division for review and approval. Said plan shall indicate all pedestrian paths pf travel from the parking areas to the teleconference/training center, The approved plan shall be implemented prior to occupancy of the building. 18. That an "event traffic management plan' shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval. Said plan shall include measures to efficiently and safety move ingress/egress traffic during events. 19. That evening traffic (i.e., after 5100 p.m.) departing the site shall be prohibited from using Gilbert Street south of La Palma Avenue.... 20. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 21. That this facility shall only be used for teleconferencing, conferences, and training activities. 22. That subject use permit shall expire three (3) years from the date of this resolution, on October 23, 2003. 23. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter to the Zoning Division requesting terminationpf Conditional Use Permit No. 1888 (to permit offices and restaurants in an industrial complex). 24. 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 of Exhibit No. 1, and Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3, and as conditioned herein. 25. 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, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 23, 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 Mun:~cipal Code. 26. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 2, 11 and 24, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. CR4928PK.doc -4- PC2000-118 27. 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 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. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2000. CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: (Original signed by Margarita Solorio) SECRETARY, ANAHEIM 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 an October 23, 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 band this day of 2000. - !Original signed by Margarita Soloriol SECRETARY, ANAHEIM .CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CR4928PK.doc -5- PC200D-118 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16, 2003 Item No: 9 9a CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion) 9b:` :CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOs2003-04710 ' (Resolution) SITE LOCATION'AND DESCRIPTIONi (1) This irregularly-shaped 40,4-acre property'is located at the northwest comer of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street, and at the northern termini of Hubtiell Way and Electric Way, `.having frontages of 780 feet do the north'side of La Palma Avenue, 830 feet on the west 'side of Giltiert Street, 64 feet at-the northem terminus of Hubbell Way, and 64 feet at the northem terminus of Electric Way (2411 -2461 West La Palma Avenue and 1212 North Hubbell Way-Living Stream Ministry and fomter Hubbell site),`. REQUEST: (2) The petitioner requests approval of a conditional usepermit under authority of Code' Sections .18,03.030.010 and 18.61.050:450 to permifa teleconferencing'center and private 'conference/training center. BACKGROUND: (3) This property consists of two (2) mixed use industrial/office complexes with a total of eight (8) buildings having a cumulative floor area of approximately 543,000 square feet. The :property tszoned ML'(Limited Industrial} and the Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element Map designates this property for General Industrial land uses. The property is also Idcated .within the,West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project Area. (4) Surrounding land uses are as follows: Directions Land Use :'Zoning General'Plan Desi nation North ! Santa Ana (I-5} _ Freeway Freewa East across Gilbert Small Industrial Firms ML General Industrial Street South'across La Single Family Low Density Palma Avenue Residential ' RS-7200 Residential Wickes Furniture West' Warehouse and Small' ML General Industrial Industrial Firms Sr3028ey_temp~doc Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16, 2003 Item No. 9 PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS: The following Zonirtg actions pertain to this property: (5) `; (a) Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04366 (to permit a teleconferencing center and private conference/training center with waiverof minimum numberof parking paces, (Phase 1 - 2093 required;1719 proposed) (Phase 2 - 3j093 required; 2,681 proposed) was: approved; by the Commission on December 3, 2001'. The proposal permitted by,this entitlement was not developed and'the permit has expired. (b) Conditional Use PermiENo. 2000-04263 (to permit a temporary 40;000 square foot teleconferencing center and private conference/training center with'waiver ofninimum " number of parking spaces, 1~ required; 1'` proposed) was approved by,the Commission on October 23, 2000 (to expire on OctobeC23, 2003)..' (c) Conditional Use Permit No. 4074 (to permit a 22,000 square-foot adult career/training center for approximately;200 students with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces) was approved by the Commission on November 23, 1999. (d) Conditional Use Permit No. 3953 (to permit industrially-related office uses within a corporate complex) was`approved by the Commission in July, 1997. (e) Variance No. 3240 (waiver of maximum fence height to permit a siz-foot high chain link fence in the ML zone) was approved by the Commission: in November, 1981. (f) Variance No. 3110 (waiver of permitted location of flashing signs; maximum height of flashing signs;;maximum'area of free-standing signs; and maximum height of igns within 750 feefbf a residential structure, to construct a freestanding sign) was approved'. by the City Council in October, 1979. (g) Conditional Use Permit No. 1888 (to permit offices and restaurants`in an industrial complex) was'approvedby the Commission in September, 1978. This entitlement was required to be terminated as a condition of approval for 0UP2000-04263 and`has not been completed. `DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: (6) The petitioner proposes to establish a 98,259 square foot permanent teleconferencing center and private conference/training center, including the renovation of an existing warehouse building. The proposal also includes the demolition of an existing 18,000 square footbuilding on the former Hubbell site to accommodate a new parking lot. There is no new construction associated with this proposal. (7) The submitted site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates the teleconference and training center would occupy 98;259 square feet of an'existing 1:10,259 square foot industrial building. The,petitionec' anticipates that Adelphia Cable will occupy he remaining 12,000 quare foot warehouse space within the south portion of the building. Due to financial uncertainty related'to this prospective tenant, artaltemative would consist of a similar general warehouse use. (8) The site plan and letter of operation indicates the proposed project will include a total of seven (7) buildings with the following characteristics and uses: Page'2 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16, 2003 Item No. 9 Building No. 'Square Footage Use (Existing/Proposed) 1 75,736 Office (Existing) 2 19,600 Office (Existing) 3 8,114 Affice (Existing) 4 62,748 Warehouse (Existing.temporary conference/training building per CUP 4263 will revert to warehouse use at completion of project) I Telecom: larehouse Pro osed 5' 26,460 Office/ Warehouse (Existing) 6 196;992 Telecom. Warehcuse/Private School. (Existing to be closed'ih April 2004) `Telecom.' Narehouse Pro osed 7 110,259 Warehouse (Existing) 'Teleconferencin Center Pro osed Total 499,909 - (9) !Floor plans (Exhibit No. 2) for the proposed teleconferencing/training center, indicate a ;.45,000 square foot exhibition'ftall with 5;000 floor seats. Other notable features of he floor plan include a large deception/lobby areaand 200-seat theater. A complete floor plan `summary is as follows: ~~ Use ~ ~ Area(sq~iarerfeet~ ~~ Pre-Function Area 10;250 .5,000 Seat: Conference_ Facility ; 45,000 Exhibition Hall 3;600 200-Seat Theater x3;700 Sitting Area 1-,500 Multipurpose Room - 3,000 Audio Visual Room 2;450 Administrative Offices 2;000 Translation:. Room 3',800 Receiving Area 2;150 Subtotal '.85,600 Circulation/Mechanical/Electrical 12, 659 Total 98,259 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16,2003 Item No. 9 (10) The renovation of the existing warehouse facility includes structural and roof modifications and decorative exterior treatments. Elevation renderings for'the proposed remodeh(Exhibits No. 3 and 4) indicate a contemporary design utilizing a mix of materials including inted glass, natural-toned exterior stucco and`decorative metal finishes. The'majoritybf the building'would have a height of 24 feet, with the front (east) elevation having a maximum height of 40 feet. The east elevation facing the existing campus would contain the main entrance and would receive the most architecturai'treatment.'' This elevation, while ' substantial in length, is successfully divided into smaller sections by the use of surface relief,': glass entryways, varied fagade height and a mix of natural toned colors: The only proposed sign for this building would be located at the entryway to the'facility, comprising less than 10 ' percent of the eastbuilding elevation. The northern building. elevation facing the freeway would receive less architectural treatment, but would have substantial landscaping to "break up" the building. No signage visible to the adjacent freeway is proposed. The west elevation would include the loading docks and service doors,'leading to the back`of house. (11) ,The submitted cross section of the building (Exhibit No. 5) indicates that no roof-mounted equipment is anticipated. AiI,HVAC equipment would be located to the west of the building, screened by landscaping and.: not visible to the freeway. (12) Vehicular' access to this properly is provided by two (2) existing driveways on La Palma Avenue"and three{3} existing driveways;on GilbertSkreet. Additional access would be provided; by one (1) driveway from Hubbell Way, and one (1)'driveway from Electric Way. A bus parking area td accommodate 24 buses is proposed to the southeast of the proposed r teleconferencing center. Buses would follow a circular path of travel through the site, by entering`through the driveway at the terminus of Electric way via Magnolia Avenue and Woodland Drive, parking at an angle in the designated bus parking stalls, then exiting through the driveway leading o Hubbell Way. (13) The petitioner had submitted a traffic management plan with their teleconferencing center i proposaliin 2001 demonstrating how event traffic would be managed on-site and'directed off` of the surrounding public streets. Traffic Engineering Division staff has verified that this traffic management plan is adequate to address traffic issues associated with the+eurrent proposal: The plan includes the following operational provisions which, where determined ta` be appropriate by the Anaheim Police Department raffic Bureau and Traffic Engineering Division; shall be incorporaked into a final traffic management plan; • "Police Department and/or Traffic Management personnel will ensure the orderly and timely ingress/egress of traffic on La Palma Avenue at staffing levels recommended by the Anaheim Police Department Traffic Bureau. • Circulation intoand out otthe project site will be facilitated by protected left turn phasing ,' at the intersection of Gilbert Streetand West La Palma Avenue, installed pursuant to conditions contained in £UP 2000-04263. • Police Department and/or Traffic Managementpersonnel'will prevent southbound departures on Gilbert Avenue. ' • Bus arrivals and departures will occur on Woodland Drive: • The movementiof vehicles into and out of APTTC for private teleconference events will ' be facilitated py the coordinated use of interior: traffic flow. and parking assistants. • Cars'entering he site wiU'be directed to interior areas of the site through the use of traffic floW'assistants'and traffic Bones to reduce backups and delay on public streets. • Parking assistants will systematically fill parking areas:' Pags 4 Staff Report to the r Planning'Gommission June 16;2003 Item No; 9 ;3 ~. ~.,, _ _ " e'S''`TM ~' f'L .:r F} D iCrt ~ y~ ~ evf+~ai' S~,"9, "~,~§s' ~~E'". .zcs acaa~ ; sq ~" : h~~ kx r~ a'' ~~ ~~~~~Z7~ ~~l~i,=4s`r~'~ c~e.'.°~€s. s 5 a ~~e~ ~"`a`sv.r c. ~ f ~` ~.~'~~ -,-~ -tee ..,w~rw~-.~+.'~esazsx~a le; +~« ..~ ~ ~,., v I HG S"4'~ .r+ `~ ` 1 ": S' i •'~.`~5~ /,f ~ ~ ~HZ`"~~ S..ti/ Yr. ? ""~~,..,`^'"t++sL°o-~E c ~ ~' n ~~t ~ ~-y ' err tea; 1~ ~i..^a~n N'_.r-~ ~ j"-a~"r~"' t?^^-r ,p~~"»~,' .c.~g~' ~`r:~`~',d c=»'dsy.~„~,~ o-~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ r ~-;~~ ~ err, ~~ .{'~.~ z r .~.r --~; „~, s t~.'~ 4 sci E ~, w ~ .~ r~T~ -ms's ,r ~~~~.~` "W' ~i°'a„s°":.;a^d `~~.~`° `~ .t'rs ~ ~1T}F,/~-v' r .`'s°' ,~ r 4G '~ -~ :~s~„h~ ~"~~ '~`i' ~" 4 .L ;~ "~`4,r "~~" ,.a. ~xx5'~~'u..,'~'3~ i~ 1 iEa ''z,''` 5; Y~i "~.i-'~'"s"S"~~~ ~ ~`f~',~-~."` i5~ "i u'oL' S.~ I -i .'~ W''.W:t -y4v.4. TS Y b~~ ~-as„` ~, ~~ ~F-"~gr ~'~u''.?e' r?,y, ~M1r' ~."` ~sr' .,~°'..~r`~' ~~~~,. ;fr. a ~~'.~~~~t~`'~"'-~`^" .,. s:~.,. w~....-~-r,~~xa ~.~ ,. c".,:a,.. z...~ ... ~,. .. ~ .:mss,. Existing Hubbell Warehouse (to be upgraded) (14) The site plan indicates that 22235 parking spaces and 24 bus parking spaces would be provided'on-site. Code requires the submittal of a`parking demand study to determine the parking requirements for unlisted uses. A study was conducted by Katz, Okitsu and Associates on November 22, 2002, recommending,that aminimum of t;000 (and 23 bus) '::parking spaces be provided for the teleconferencing center. The City Traffic and Transportation Manager has reviewed the study and has determined the'existing uses combined with the proposed teleconferencing center would not create any additional demand tieyond the proposed'number ofspaces. Code requires a total of 1_,922 spaces ;:based on the following: Use Area (in square' flfiinimum Code-required Code-required Number of feet) Parking Ratio S aces Office(Bldgs. 1 through 3 129;910 s.f. 4/1 000 s.f: 519.6 and,5) , Bldg. 4 (Proposed 62 748 s.f, (.55/1 000 s.f. 97.2 Telecom. Warehouse) , , Bldg. 6 (Telecom. Warehouse)' 196;992 s.f. 1'.55/1,000 s.f. 305.3 Bldg. 7 (Proposed Teleconf. And Training '.1,000 car spaces; Center) As determined by the City 23 bus spaces Maximum capacity: 110;259 s.f. ' Traffidand Transportation ((as noted on page 1,900,'(public daytime) Manager 40 of the Parking 5,000 (prvate evening conf.) Study) 21 da s er ear. TOTAL 1,922 spaces Building No. 6 is currently occupied with 174,992 s.f. of warehouse and a 22,000 s.f. pdvate training school (Westwood College of Technology -C.U.P. Nol4074). The: petitioner indicates that this conditional use permit will be terminated in Aprl 2004(to coincide with the termination of the lease. ' Page 5 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16, 2003 Item tJo. 9 The traffic and parking studyassumes the schootwill not operate once'the teleconferencing center is operational. (15) The submitted letter of operation outlines the operation of the facility as a multiple user _ teleconferencing center whicfi would be open to tfie public for corporate meetings, featured: speakee broadcasts, distance learning seminars, town meetings, virtual trade shows, product'presentations, etc. This part of he operation would occur primarily during normal business hours of Monday through Friday, 8:00 a:m. to S:OO p.m., with'occasional evening and weekend uses. The number of participants could range;from an executive board of fewer than 25 persons up to a large training groupbf 1,90D persons. The main teleconference and training area will be'divisible by movablewall systems according to the size of the group.:: (16) The facility is also proposed as a private conference and training center for the owner of the property, Living Stream Ministry. In this capacity,'the facility would host international conferences for a maximum'of 5,000 people. These events would utilize the teleconferencing technology of the facility to broadcast on-site events hroughouf3he world.' The letter of operation indicates that this aspect of the facility would be utilized no more than 21days per year, with 12 of those;days occurring during two (2) six-day cohferences held during major'winter andisummer fiolidays. Other smaller conferences are held ? primarily during the weekends (usuallyholiday weekends such as Labor Day, Memorial Day, 4'h of July, Thanksgiving, etc.). Proposed hours of operation for this aspect of the facility would be Monday through Saturtlay, 2 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., with participants arriving between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m., and departing between 9:30 p.m, and 10:30 p.m. Dining these events,jother services would not be available to the general public. The numberbf employees would vary depending on the number of conference participants. (17) Preliminary landscape plans (Fachlbit No. 6) indicate that all existing landscaping would remain. Additionally, the proposed landscaping for the teleconferencing center would match'the existing landscaping found on the Anaheim Palms campus.!This includes Crape: Myrtle,'Magnolia and Camphor trees throughout the parking: areas and Star Jasmine, Flax and Bird of Paradise plants'primarily surcounding'the entrance to the teleconferencing center.: Most notably, the row of Mexican Fan Palms along the northern border of the property adjacent to the freeway would be continued the entire length of the northern property line. '~ :~- ~uffi~ ~ ~.~°~ ";f , a y ,;,. .... -~~,- . f .y, .'~ r~ t ~. i ryri u a r.Y Existing Mexican Fan palms adjacent to the Santa Ana Freeway Page(6 `Staff Report to the Planning Commission !June 16,'2003 Item Np. 9 (18) Plans also show new landscaping adjacent o the teleconferencing building, including. rows of Camphor trees in parking areas and adjacent to the elevation`visible to the freeway. The plan also shows enhanced paving for the pedestrian areas surrounding the building entryway as well as in',the parking lotto the'east of the proposed eleconferencing building. (19) The letter of operation indicates that the existing freeway-orientetl pole sign for the former Hubbell facility would be removed with no proposal for a new freestandingsign. The'only proposed sign would be attached to the building's exterior design, as described in paragraph i no.19. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT'ANALYSIS: (20) 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 adverse environmenfal impacts which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Mitigation measures havebeen identified in the Negative Declaration and Revised Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 117 for the project. Therefore, staff recommends that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Commission that the declaration reflects the independentjudgment of the lead agency; and that it has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding ort the basis of the Initial Study that there is no substantial evidence, with the imposition of i mitigation measures, hat the project will have a significant effect on the environment: Commission may wish to note that the mitigation measures identified and incorporated into this Negative Declaration are subject to the monitoring/reporting,program as set forth;by :Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (21) The proposed projecthas 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 factthat the proposed use will result in an excess of one-' hundred (1.00) peak Hour trips, a Traffic Impact Analysis was performed to, identify any potential impacts. Based on the'study conducted by Katz, Okitsu and Associates, dated November 22, 2002, mitigation measures recommended by the Public Works Department have been'ncluded in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. EVALUATION: `; (22) The use of this facility'as a teleconferencing center and private training center is permitted .within the ML zone subject to the approvajof a conditional usepermit under the "unlisted use" section (18.03.030.010) of'the Anaheim Municipal Code. This code section states that °Where a use is not authorized or mentioned in any zone throughout the city or ambiguity exists concerning the'appropriate classification and procedure for the authorization of a particular use or type of development within the meaning and intent of this code, safd use or aype of development maybe authorized by condftional use permit (QU.P.f until such'time as this code is amended in accordance with provisions of this chapter designating the proper zone or procedure by which said use or type of development shall thereaRer be 'established." Page 7 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June'16, 2003 `' Item No. 9 (23) Code Section 18.06.050 contains the following provision regarding the required parking for unlisted uses: "That;any use npf listed below shall provide a minimum ofnine-tenths (0.9) of one space per eachemployee on the largest work shin, 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." (24) As discussed in paragraph no: 22, the petitioner has submitted a traffic impact analysis and' i? parking study prepared by Katz, Okitzu end Associates, dated November 22, 2002. The study was reviewed and approved by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. The parking and traffic study (pages 34, 41 and 42}.also contains a number of recommendations which have been included in the proposed conditions of approval • "The Living Stream Ministry and Sa Rang Presbyterian Church should coordinate their events to avoid traffic impacts due to participants from tioth events arriving and leaving ?, at the same time. + • Special Events now require and will'continue to require ragistration,' including information on"the location where the participant will be staying. • Busing will be provided to and from he facility o the designated conference hotels. Living Stream Ministry currently uses buses to'reduce traffic and parking congestion at its existing West Ball Road facility. ;Records indicate that 30% of participants'routinely arrive and depart in buses. As per the assumptions made earlier regarding bus utilization it wiltbe necessary to keep close to his level of bus utilization to adequately allow for on-site parking and transportation of all conference participants at APTTC. • The event administrators'will require participants to use accommodations at designated. conference hotels in order to cluster he individuals and thus facilitate transit to and from the teleconferencing center by bus, hotel shuttle, or taxi. • Participants will be informed of the parking available at the facility and every effort will tie made to encourage individuals to use the buses. • Participants will be informed that on-street parking at the event should be avoided as a courtesy to local residents and businesses. • Living Stream Ministry personnel will assess the parking during events to determine if parking demand Is exceeding the supply and imposing on local on-street parking. Permit parking measures to encourage carpooling will be utilized through issuance of a limited numberof parking: permits and forcing those without a permit to utilizebus transportation. • Living Stream Ministry personnel will direct and control arriving and`departing'traffic to ensure smooth flow in APTTC parking lot andstreets immediately adjacentAPTTC properly." (25) The draft traffic management plan, as described is paragraph no. 21, provides the framework for alleviating potential traffic congestion problems on surrounding public streets; `i The combination of signal enhancements, police and private'personne[directing off-site and on-site traffic respectively, will serve to reduce potential traffic congestion. Commission should note that this plan is in draft form and maybe revised to improve efficiency based on field observations.:: (26) Commission may wish to note that the parking study assumed that the'school operating under Conditiona(Use Permit No. 4074 would cease to operate once the teleconferencing Page:. 8 Staff Report to the Planning: Commission :June 16', 2003 Jtem No. 9 center opens. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring that a letter be submitted requesting termination of CUP 4074 prior to commencement ofoperation of the teleconferencing center. (27) The proposal to establish a teleconferencing center and conference/training center facility is complementary to the'existing businesses'at this location and isan appropriate use for the site. The facility would benefit from the fiber optic lines adjacent to the site'and couldhave a positive impact on area hotels and restaurants. However, appropriate operational measures 'must be incorporated into the approval to ensure that the residential neighborhood located on the south side of la Palma Avenue is not negatively impacted by "event." traffic. The recommended conditions of approval and mitigation measuresare intendetl to facilitate movement of traffic dining events and to minimize inconvenience to residents across La 'Palma Avenue. (28) Plans submitted to Commission are conceptual in nature, meant to represent the scope, 'size, scale and quality'of the proposed project. In order to assure that the proposed project is a quality development, staff recommends that final site, elevation (including colors'end materials), andscape equipment screening, lighting,'floor plans'and a sign program be submitted for Zoning. Division review. Staff is especially interested in thebuilding elevations facing the freeway. FINDINGS: (29) 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 he proposed use i5 properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning,Code, or that said use is not listed therein`as being a permitted use;'.: (ti) 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 developmentof the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, heaith,'safety, and general welfare; (d) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the treets and highways'designed end improved to carry the traffidin the area; and (e) That the granting of the conditional use permitunder the'conditions imposed, if any, wiil'not be detrimental to the peace,+health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Page 9 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16, 2003 Vtem No. 9 RECOMMENDATION: (30) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the meeting, and based upon the ?vidence submittetl to the Commission,: including tte 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, aoorove a CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration including adoption of Revised Mitigation Monitoring;Plan No. 117. (b) By resolution, aoorove Conditional Use Permit No, 2003-04710'(to permit a teleconferencing center and private conferenceltrainng center)'based on the !following: (i) That the proposed teleconferencing center and private conferenceltraining center is a use for which a conditional use permit is authorized within the ML Zone as an "unlisted use" under authority of Code Section Nos. 18.03.030.010 and 18.61.050.450:': (ii) That the proposed use as conditioned herein would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growtfi and development of he area to which'itis proposed. (iii) That the granting of the'conditionaf use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will noFbe detrimental to the.. peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens' of the City of Anaheim: THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SUBMITTED'BY VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS ACTING AS' `AN INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE AND ARE RECOMMENDED' FOR ADOPTIONBY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN'THEIEVENT THAT THIS PERMITdSAPPROVED. i, That the petitioner shall!provide pedestrian sidewalk access throughout the project. Anon-site ' pedestrian circulation plan shall tie submitted to the Zoning and Traffic Engineering Divisions for review and approval. Said plan shall indicate all pedestrian paths of travel from the parking areas to the teleconference/training center. 2. That no church activities shall be permitted unless a separate conditional use permit is approved`. by he Planning Commission. 3. That this facility shall be used for teleconferencing, conferences and training: activities only. 4, That no outdoor activities involving gathering. of persons shall be permitted on-site. 5. Tftat this facility shall be limited to the following operational characteristics: (a) The public teleconferencing shall be limited to a maximum of,1,900 persons to ensure '- adequate parking for all businesses on-site. The hours of operation sfiall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5100 p.m.; Monday through Friday. (b) The private conferencing/training center shall be limited to a maximum of 5,000 persons. The facility shall be utilized for this purpose a maximum of 21 days per year, including two (2) six Page 10 !Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16 2003 Item No. 9 day conferences during winter and summer vacations. `The hours of operation shall tie limited to 2;00 p.m. to':10:00 p.m~ Monday firough Saturday, for the twp (2)'bi-annual conferences; and 2:00'p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday(and holidays), for the remaining conference/training dates. 6. That no requiredparking area shall tie fenced or otherwise' enclosed for outdoor storage uses. T. That no compact parking spaces shall be permitted. 8, That the Living Stream Ministry and Sa Rang Presbyterian'Church should coordinate their events to avoid traffic impacts due o participants from both events arriving and leaving'at the same time. Additionally, no parking spaces at the Anaheim'Palms Corporate site'shall be utilized as overflow parking by Sa Rang Presbyterian Church without prior approval by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. 9. That a final traffic management plan (TMP) shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation :Manager for review and approval. Said plan shall include measures to efficiently and safely move; ingress/egress traffic during events as identified in the draft TMP dated November 28, 2001. The TMP maybe amended subjecYto review and approval of the Traffic and Transportation Manager, as appropriate, in order to improve the efficiency of said plan. Said plan may include the following components at the discretion of the Traffic and Transportation Manager: • That Special Events sfiall requireiYegistratioh, including information on the location where the participant will be staying. • That busing'shail be provided to and from the facility to the designated conference hotels. ® That the event administrators shall require participants to use accommodations at designated conference hotels in order to cluster the individuals and thus facilitate transit to and from the teleconferencing center' by bus, hotel shuttle, or taxi. • That participants shall be informed of the parking available at the'facility and every effort shall be made to encourage individuals to use the buses. • That participants shall be informed that on-street parking at the event shouitl be avoided as a courtesy to local residents and businesses. • That Living Stream Ministry personnel shall assess the: parking during events to determine if parking demand is exceeding the supply and impacting local on-street parking, Permit parking measures to encourage carpooling will be utilized through issuance bf a limited number of parking permits and forcing those without a permit to utilize bus transportation. ® That Living Stream Ministry personnel shall direct and'eontrol arriving and departing traffic to ensure smooth flow in APTTC parking lot and streets immediately adjacent APTTC property. 10. ; That the project shall provide passenger loading and unloading areas acceptable to the City Traffic and Transportation. Manages: Said information shall be specifiQally shown on plah5 submitted for building permits. ;Page 11 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16, 2003 Item No. 9 11. That the developer shall comply with Ordinance No. 5209 and Resolution No- 91 R-89 relating to t the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) by providing on-site taxi and shuttle bus loading zones, and by`joining and financially participating in the ATN and Clean Fuel'Shuttle Program and by installing bicycle racks. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Traffic Engineering Division approval, 12. That trash storage areas hall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened sous not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or;highways.; The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities. by the use: of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines!planted on maximum'3-foot centers or tallishrubberyc Said information snail be specifically shown on the, plans submitted for building permits. 13. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitationbivision for review and approval. 14. That an on-site trash truck tum around area shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail Na'610 and as required by the Streets and Sanitation Division. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 15. That due to the change (n use and/or occupancy of the building, plans shall be submitted to the Building division showing compliance with the minimum tandards'of the City. of Anaheim, including the Uniform f3uiiding, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the; City of Anaheim. 16. That prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a WateCQuality Management. Plan for the review and approval of the Public Works: Department, Development Services Division. 17. That prior to Issuance of a grading permit, the: applicant shall demonstrate to'the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Development Services Division, that coverage has beeh'obtained under California's General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Natice of Inkent (NOI) ubmitted o the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identlfication'(WDID) Number. The applicant hall prepare and implement a Storrnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SW PPP). A copy: of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and 6e av~ Table for City review on request: 18. That any required relocation of City,electrical facilities will be at the property owner's expense. Landscape and/or hardscape screening of alf padmounted equipment will be'required and shall be outside the easement area of the equipment. Said information'shall be specificaliy'shown on plans submitted for building permits. 1 B, That the property owner'shall provide the Citybf Anaheim with a public utilities easement for primary lines and transformer location to be determined'as electrical design is completed. 20. That this project has lantlscaping area exceetling 2,500"square feet, a separate irrigation meter shall be installed and comply with Ordinance No. 5349and Chapter 10.19 ofthe Anaheim Page 12 'Staff Report to the Planning Commission .June 16,'2003 Item No: 9 Municipal Code. Said Information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 21, That prior to application for water meters, fire line or submittal of water improvement plansfor approval, the applicant shall submit to the Public!Utilities Departmenf Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. 22. That the water backflow equipment shall be above ground, outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public 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 streets. Said information shall be specifically shownlon plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Inspector before issuance'of building permits. 23. ; 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 he view of the street or adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 24. ' That the existing freeway-oriented sign on the Hubbell property shall be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new teleconferencing center. 25. ' That the existing business and trade school operating under Conditional Use Permit No. 4074 shall'cease to operate priorto the operation of the permanent teleconferencing:center. A9etter requesting termination of said permit shall be submitted to he Zoning: Division. 26.' That the parking lot serving;the premises shall be equipped with decorative {fighting of sufficient power o illuminate and make easily discernable the appearance and `conduct of ail persons on or about the parking lot. Said fighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in`such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the window areas of nearby residences. Photometricplans shall be submitted to the Anaheim Police pepartment for review and'approval prior to issuance of building permits.+ 27. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of gf•affiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time'of occurrence. 28.' That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos, 2000-04263' (temporary public teleconferencing and private training center) and Variance No. 31.10 (waiver of permitted locatiortof flashing signs and maximum height of igns within 750 of a residential structure to construct a freestanding sign) to the Zoning Division. 29.; That final parking lot layoutplans shall comply with all Code required landscape. requirements. 30. That final site, elevation, landscape, roof-mounted equipment, lighting, floor plans and sign plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for the review and approval Any decision by the Zoningbivision may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. '.Page 13 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June,16, 2003 Item IJo. 9 31. That final landscape plays shall reflect the retaining of all mature landscaping features'that are not'impacted`by construction of the new buildings, and the extension of the'row of Mexican Fan Palm trees along the north property line adjacent to the freeway. All trees shall be minimum 24- inch box in size. Said information`shall be sfiown on plans submitted for building permits. " 32. That the developer shaH'be responsible for compliance with all mitigation measures within the assigned time: frames and any direct costs associated with the attached Revised Mitigation Monitoring Program No,117 as established by the City of Anaheim and as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code to ensure implementation of those identified mitigation measures. 33. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specificationsi'submitted`to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Pianningbepartment marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 6, and as conditioned herein. 34. That prior to issuance of a building`permit, orwithin a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, ConditiomNos, 1, 9, 1b, 11, 12„13, 14, 15' 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, , 21;:22, 23, 24 26, 27,29, 30, and 31, above-mentioned', shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete'said conditions maybe granted in accordance with Section 18:03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 35. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 25, 28 and 33, above- mentioned, shall be complied withc 36. That approval' of this application constitutes approval of he proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim MunicipalZoning Code and anyother applicable City, State and Fetleral regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to comptiance''or approval of the requesf'~egarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. Page 14 ATTACHt1ENT - ITEPt N0. 9 ~. O W A tom. ~ d N O. 3 ~ .n y o U .O O O a p ~ N iA ~ w f'~/I Q, l'! ,J °' ~ ~+ 5 A ~ P.i m '~ .G ~ ~ C m ~ a o. o U C G d ~ O G ~ F ~ m .. ~ ~ o ~ p m ~ U m ."O. C d .C 'D C •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ m ~ N C G ~ ~ ~ ~v = 3p. N ~ a tyt~ y b b0 '7 ~ d ~ •... N. ~ C 'd p N •WpJ G U ~ 'O •b ~ ~ ~ A ~ m ~ = '~ ~ ~ p E ~ ~ VJ O b , r' ~ ~ ,p ' O ~'~ z ^ ¢ d a ~~ ~ o 7 ~ „ ~ x ~~~ ~,~ y " W C 7 C ~ ' .~ C W b O N p . .~ ~ ~ , GL ~ d Y LC d lE ~ ~'1 N ~'~ N r ~ m ~ (~ ' ~ Q1 ti N i N F p ~..~ ~ ,5 ~ 4~4 O !+ ° . °" ~ ~ . y O ~ ~ N Q a . . c ~ . d ~' ~ p ;~ m ~ ~ o ~ 3 > ~~^ ~ 6 ~~ O N U ~ Q' q ~..~ . ~ E ~ .-. O. a m eq q ~ w N w F ~ ~ N ~ y O.n_. R q F N ^~ O q vy m N ctl o ~ tl G' ~~. E d ' .n 7-+ m ~ N y.. b .~ .OC ~ C '~ N y O ~ b ~; y r± ~ ~ m v N 3 (;~ _ ~ p ° y ~ vd ~ ~ ;~ a C P.i ~ .~ ~ W p .fl on G ci ' ~ ~ ~ U f^ a ti N ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ r , . U c c ~ ~ • ' ~, ~ p •a F ~ tC ,Y ,~ S . p 0 y^N^,~ ~ ,~ F. O ~ ~ ~+ m ~ d ~ ~ a q m ~ C w t" t" C o • C ~~ g G C , o en ~ .• ~ '~ a •~ ~ C] p a a ~' FS~ v ~ a~ ~ o'~ d ~ ~~ ~ a ~ o ;; °' ~ .. ~ m g ~~ ~ o ~ U ~ a O d a c4 F~ .- N ~; x v s C O i+ 6~ d O U 0 e v •°^ „ ~' c ~ o ~ ° ~ ~ °' c • A ~ ° ~ o c ' ,~ F a , v y a 5 x 3 ~ ~~ U O n W.~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ftl M . aE-~A ~ wA .- y V ~ ~`+ ~ T .C m C ~ `~.. r. ` .~ y ~ 'p .C U Q t7 ~ •~ " Y ~ h 3 v A ~Y ~ A y w b w ~ P y °a ye w o y~ i ¢~ ~ a ~ a > n ivv E~'C ~ b'3 ~ , ~w.°'F ~ o ~ c H p W .E". 0 6 c S° ~~ m ~•• p N . U q v ~" C O O a A '~ C> v N 'rJ. ~ q ~" m y ,~ U O F > r. m a O A S ~~ C '. v m w td O~ ~ n. ;gd m ~ «. xE•.. Y ~ O q .° m p 7 ~ o ~ C p . v 'O b O O r. v O w p Q. °~ O ~ '~ w p p w a i w ~ N o ftl a3i o o . c~ p. m~ G a . ~ ~ a~a ~ ~ i y > U a0i ~ ° a o ~ °~' N ~ ~ G ~e w Q1 0 ~ ;3 H O W ~ .~ U ,(„y tC N ~.~ .y C al ~'Vi w ~ ~ .S - ~ ° ~ ~ T ~ ~ c . C ~ ~ b O e o ~ ~ ° ~ d a A. ^~ 7 c ' m a n a0i 'O. ~. ° ~ y~ v '° ~~~ o~ c p .a ~ ~ ~ .c ~ a m m ~ ~ m ~ c i ~ O y m . Q U .. on= cOe i ~ ~. w ca a~ ,~.. w a N V1 c `~ ~ e~p-!~. Ci t ~ O w / v . i D ~ a a0i ~ i ~ . C C .~ C ~ ^~ T ~ N ti ,~ I Ld ~/ 6y ~r VJ lQ p p 0 Y Q m O C m ~ G p y~ w w C m C ~'"' al cd ~ > i..l ~ c . R ~FG O Q ~ w M O O H d r = 00 G • ~ F ~ F y~o ~ ~ 3~os~ ~ pcG O^o o ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ s ~: ~ ~n° ~ ~ 4• ~ f-. ~+ O G ~ +~ Ca ~ w Q `° r~ y ' E'+ ` ~ F Q ~ y y F a. .1 o f y .~ O p X p'fl q ,V. ~ ° ~ 4+ ~ .V. U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •5 aHL1 7 y .~ F,FCa ~ .5 a;Fq N a . •d :; O ~ ~ • y R 7 O O N O ' c ;~ ~ a° ~ w E.J ~ .o °' " ~ ° ~ ~ ^ ~ . o y w ~ ~ ~ ° y o ~ ~ '.r' l N > ~' u > bA V~ G~ p u . Q p ro O aS y .'A...G..d y ti C (!~ U R q •O eA Y ~ ~ ~ '~ U 0.'w •p ,~„ y C L t y~ u N P. bq w N a ~ m p a e ~ ~ ~ ~ a~i P. ~ •C y ~ d~ = u ~ a i n °' R Z y a y• 0 o• •d = ~ . y~y • ~ o. ti ~'n VJ ° ' I Il ~ Q L b y ~ ~ ~ J ' ~ to fA ' ~ a. ~ ° ~ y o 0. R C u . p N N ~ .D 00 N ^ F i O O N~ = . C c o N ~ c ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ y Q w 3 O rn o Q ° ~ ~ ~ o ~ O C i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ C ~ ~ C ~ p w R u u v D. P a ~ '~ > b p~ h m ~' d ~ fi . ~ v~ o w ~ ~ w'iy o , a~ o •~ e~ y c ~~ •~ N H w o «' ~ O w ~"~ fC it p y y ~ W 7 'fl G N~ ~ N U ~ o ~ V F u 7 ° ~ y 'ru. w R G pR R p ~ ll y p b ~p R O w p G. c j ~ O a) p O C y , ~ Q ^ c N ' J 'ca ~ vj F N O ..C u ~"'p y G V 7 d u bpCe o bn, 4 W N N y 'w ° w~ h pF-~w ~ " Co u F ~ N y i. R .L C ^ b°~° 7 N ~ ..V. + + b R a+ ~ ~ s y C C ~ ~ ° y ~, H ~ M17i •C ° . ~ m o w ro e ~ o. ~ ° ~ c"c ~ •° ~J p ~ W n ~r.~y. ~ ~ ~ HH~ ~ S3 d • ~H ~F ~~ 5 ~ Aw R '., d O R w a w ~ w ~ .~ G u '+ •O ~ G r ~ Y Ei O O U G F~1 ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ a o:~ y ~ ~ .~ o n a ~ ~ o n• ~ . ~ , u ~ p O o ri o, y~ c ~ n. o a :' a na W ~.7 O v o C C a o. Q Q c c ~ ~ ~ ~ a. o. b b ~ ~ a en G ~ o ~ .N ~ ~ ~ Y °~ o o ~ N ~ ~ O ~ N ~ n+ O T Y p N p .C m Q i ~ p, t ~ ~ . N L ^ a ~ bD ~~ ~ ~ h ~ _s a ~° a •C .. A ~ 'a v ~ G ~ v ~ '~ ai °o 'O a c 3¢ b> y U Q ~ ~ W ~ m y b ~ Vl y ~~i ~ ~w ~a ~ ~ > o .n ~ ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ a an o m o °o'C v °~'C a"i Ob O O'00 O of Q S ~./ G.HPt~ DG/® r N GC N9 ~N UPWp N pZC w A a G GPR 'o'~ b O G PN~ D~ vP 832 1 D~_ Conditional Use .Permit No. 2001-04435 TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04712 FyM.12pN\GH PNPSGN~~~ ~\N i 168 r - '" ~ Requested By: PALMALL PROPERTIES INC. i ~ 9~ -~z N SNP P NR AN z N ~ENtE PD"C N'(S PPPR1~MpU Zi O a i PEA TME/ VPRZ3,fi ' CG A VPR 19'6'! N VPR` i ~ ` Rs inV1S5ER~ F ~ GG GGP g941 D ~ CDMM' ~ 41 _~~~ ~r~q9 ,, ~I''i TT\\ Opp e ~ t GpND~`• Subject Property Date: June 16, 2003 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 62 TO AMEND OR DELETE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR APREVIOUSLY-APPROVED CARWASH WITH ACCESSORY TAKE-OUT FAST FOOD SERVICE AND TO PERMIT A MODULAR OFFICE TRAILER WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. 900 West Lincoln Avenue -Fat Daddy's Hand Auto Spa & Chicago Eatery 7zz RM ~M HIGH / `1 / \ \ St / PNPSGNGO` Staff Report to the Planning,Commisson June 16,2003 Item No. 10 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 ' (Motion) 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (Motion) ,_ 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2001-04435 (Resolution) (Tracking No. CUP2003-04712) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTIOtV (1) This rectangularly-shaped 0.58 acre property is located at the southwest comer of Lincoln Avenue and'Ohio Street with frontages of 168 feet ohithe southside of Lincoln Avenue and 148 feet on the west side of Ohio'Street (900 West Lincoln Avenue -Anaheim Car Wash). REQUEST: (2) The petitioner requests to amend or delete conditions of approval for apreviously-approved car wash with accesspry take-out fast-food service and to permit a modular: office trailer under authority of Code Sectionss18.03.030010, 18:03.040, 18:03,092 and 18.45.050.080 with waiver of: SECTION 18.06.050.0233 Minimum number of parking spaces. .!(DELETED) BACKGROUND:P (3) This property is developed with an existing 1,116 square foot car wash with an accessory take-out fast food service and un=permitted modular office trailer,: and is zoned CG (General Commercial). The Lantl Use Element Map of the Anaheim General Plan designates'tfiis property for General Commercial'iand uses. (4) Surrounding' land uses `are as follows: Direction ! Land.Use Zonin '' iGeneral P.Ian Desi nation North„across Lincoln Avenue Small Sftdps Law Offices CG General Commercial East, across Ohio Street:. Shopping Center CG General Commercial South,: across public alle Apartments RM-1200/ PDC Medium Density West ` BUsiness'Offices CO General Commercial PREVIOUSZONING ACTIONS: (5) Cdnditional Use Permit No. 2001-04435 (to'retain and expand an existing carwash to include accessory take-out fast food service) was approved by the Planning Commission September 24, 2001. DISCUSSION: (6) She agenf for the property owner, Louis Garrett, requests an amendmenfto the hours of operation for the existing car wash to allow the car wash to be open on Sundays from 8 a.m. until i p.m., as well as the'deletion of the condition of approval requiring the vacuum ';equipment be enclosed. Sr5015jr.doc' Page 1 `.Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16;2003 Item No. 90 ~- - -- - ~, j3 x w ~ r }tl~^qz$N. rpN' $3 5 ~G ~~ ~1t h,..:~ .. f r k s-~5- F~ Y~p..~r 'sic ~,=~' p ,~r ~ :" y ~. ~~ c .. e.-' `p ar Un-permitted modular office trailer o be removed (10) The new business owner, Jin Choi, indicated to staff his intent to comply with all conditions of approval: related to Condition Use Permit No. 2001'-04435, as well as his intent to i eliminate the take-out fast food service operation, and focus on he development of a successful car wash operation. ':With the exception of the modifications requested herein, the new business owner has indicated he would address all existing Code violations bn the property, including the removal of all signage associated with the take-outservice operation 'and the removal of the unpermitted construction trailer (currently being used as an ' employee changing room). The: new business owner has also indicated he would operate in compliance with the approved conditional use permit. Staff provided the new business 'owner with a copy ofil2esolution No. PC 2001-138, as well as correspondence from'the City's Code Enforcement Division regarding Zoning Code and Conditional Use Permit violations associated with the business operation. (11) Staff believes that the petitioner's requestto amend Condition No. 5, to extend the daily operation to Sunday: is consistent with activity in thesurcounding commercial area, as other businesses in the general vicinity are open Sundays... Further, he business is alreatly open from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m:; Monday,through Saturday. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the petitioner's request for modification to the condition of approval pertaining to flours/days of operation. Page 3 Staff Report to the? Planning Commission June 16, 2003 Item Noi 10 ..~ -.- i ~ A~~~t r~~r,„~r%~ ~~ S 4 P rf t,F r t` '~y k" t ~ ~r ~'~` -r r e., ~ ~, ,~ ./ r rx-rte`' :K r 1.~" r~ix7 tf ,e. ;m' vc r;-,u~- H~ f n ~ 5 Yx ~ ~ F rfi ~ ~.;"ra=' '~~i ~~ ~' ~~4 f~`~sf%:a "r'°`a5-rxs ~"~w~~~ ~r''~ s%';a c ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ . k ~ ~' View of un-enclosed vacuum equipment: (12) Althougfi staff supports the petitioner's request regarding the$usiness operation expanding to Sundays, staff believes the! petitioner's request to keep the vacuum equipmentopen without an adequate enclosure would adversely affect the adjoining land uses antl be detrimental to the peace and health of residents living near the car wash facility. Staff has received'complaints from nearby residents regarding noise dsturbance'from the car wash facility. The residential properties directly to the south of the site are of'particularconcem. Section"6.70 (Sound Pressure Levels) of the Anafteim Municipal Code states that: "No person shall, within the City, create arty sound, radiated for extended periods from any premises which produces a sound pressure'1eve1 at any point on'the property line in excess of sixty decibels (Re 0.0002 Microbar) read on the'A-scale of a sound level meter.° Staff believes thafin order to ensure the operation of the carwash consistently complies '! with Section 6.70 regarding sound pressure levels, the enclosure of the'vacuum equipment is necessary as required by he previous approval The Commission may wish to note that the most recent application for a car wash (located at the corner of Crescent and Magnolia Avenues) included a completely enclosed vacuurn equipment room. Because there have been cornplaints from residents living in he vicinity and because the sound pressure levels are a nuisance to neighboring properties, staff recommendsdenial of the petitioner's `' request to delete ConditionNo. 12 pertaining to the required enclosure of vacuum and dryer equipment. (13) The requested wajver pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces has been deleted. (14) } Commission should note that the petitioner has placed ametal-frame canopy along the r west property line So provide a covered area for automobile detailing. Although the canopy , was approved in conjunction'with the expansion in September 2001, the petitioner' has not obtained the appropriate permits from the Building Division.'A condition of approval has been added to require compliance with Building Codes. Page 4 .'Staff Report to the Planning. Commission .'June 16,'2003 >ltem No: 10 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS`. (15) The Planning Director's authorized representative has determined that the proposed project "fells within the definition' of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing `, Facilities), asdefined in the CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to-prepare additional environmental documentation. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (16) The proposed project has been reviewed by effected City departments to determine whether it oonforms with the City's Growtfi Management Element adopted by the City Council oh March 17, 1992. Based on City staff review of the proposed project, it has been determined that this project does not fit withinthe scope'necessary to require`e GrowthManagement Element analysis, therefore, no analysis has been perrormed. FINDINGS: (17) Before the Commission. grants any conditional use permit, it mustmake a finding of fact that the evidencepresented shows that all of the following conditions exist: (e) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Cotle, or that'said use is not listed therein as being a permitted use; (b) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses antl 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 peace, health, safety, and general welfarej' (d) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improvedto carry He traffic in the area; and (e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, ifeny, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and generatwelfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. (18) Subsection 18.03.092 of the Anaheim Municipal Code'provides for the modification or termination'of a conditional use permit for one or more of the following grounds: (a) That the approval was obtained by fraud; (ti) That the use for which sucfi approval is granted is not being exercisetl within the time specified in sucfi'permit; (c) That the use for which such` approval was granted has ceased to exist or has been suspended or inoperative for any reason for a period of six (8) consecutive months or more; (d) That the permit granted is being, or recently hasbeen exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such approval, or in`violation of eny statute, ordinance, law or regulation; (e) That the use for Which the approval was granted has been'so exercised as to be detrimental toifie public fieelth or safety, or sous to constitute a nuisance; Page 5 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 1ti, 2003 Item No. 10 (f) That the use for which the approval was granted has not been exercised, and that based upon'additional information'or due to changed circumstances, the facts necessary to support one pr more: of the required showings for the issuance of such entitlement as set forth in this chapter no longer exist; and/or (g) That any such modification, including the imposition of any additional conditions thereto, is reasonably necessary to protect the public peace, health, safety or general welfare, or necessary to permit reasonable operation under the conditional use permit `' as'granted. RECOMMENDATION: (19) ,Staff recommends that, unlessadditional or contrary information is received during the `hearing, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented ak 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, denv the requested parking waiver since it has been deleted. (c) By resolution, aoorove, in part, the request to amend Conditional Use PermifNo. 2001- 04435 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04712) pertaining to,hours of operation and denv the request to delete Condition No. 12, pertaining to the(required enclosure of vacuum and: dryer equipment for an existing car wash with accessory take-out fast-food service, based on the following: (i) That petitioner's request to amend Condition No. 5, to extend the dally operation to! Sunday (t3 a.m. to 6p.m.) is cpnslstent with the current hours'of the carwash and ::the surrounding commercial area and would not adversely affect the adjacent residential land uses or the growth and development of the area and is reasonably !necessary o permifthe successful operation of thecar wash. (ii) .That the petitioner's request to keep the vacuum equipment open without an 'adequate enclosure constitutes a nuisance to neighboring residents as the City has Yeceived complaints from citizens regarding noise emanating from the car wash operation, and would adversely,affect the adjoiningJand uses'and be detrimental to .the peace and health of residents living near the car,wash facility. (d) Staff further recommends the Commission incorporate the conditions of approval contained in Resolution IVo. PC2001-138 Into a new resolution with the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 5, 11 and 17 are new conditions): 1. That there shall be no public telephones on the premises, which telephones are located outside the building. 2. That all existing and proposed rootmounted equipment shall be screened from view in i accordance with the requirements'of the CG "Commercial General" Zone. Said information shall be peciflcailyshown on he planssubmitted for building permits. i 3. That no portable canopies ar awnings shall be permitted. 4. That no advertisement of food or drink shall be permitted. Any additional signs shall be subject to review and approval by he Planning Commission as a "Reportsand Recommendation" item. Page 6 .Staff Report to the Planning;Commission 'June 16,2003 Item No. 10 5. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 8 a.m, to' 6 p.m, daily. 6. That a"non-audible system shall be used to inform customers that their vehicle is ready forpick- up. 7. That all outdoor activities shall comply,with the requirements of Chapter 6.70 "Sound Pressure Levels:" 8. That oh-site tables and seating areas shall be limited to those shown on exhibits: submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission. 9. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through he provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time df occurrence. 10. That no public address ("PA") system'shall be used on the premises. 11. That the appropriate building permits shall be obtained from the Building Division for the detail canopy located'at the west property line. 12. That the vacuum'and dryer equipmenf shall be entirely enclosed in the equipment room; and that the doors to the equipment room shall be solid core construction and'equipped with self-closing devices. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Building Division approval. 13. That no banners or other atlvertising visible to adjacent streets shall be displayed inside the car wash tunnel unless a Special Event Permit is first obtained: 14. That trash storage area(s) shall be provided and`maintained in location(s) acceptable to the Publid Works Department,'Streets and Sanitation Division;"and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage: area(s) shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacentstreets or, highways. LThe walls of the storage area(s) shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plants such as!minimum one (1) gallonsized clinging vines'pianted on'maximum three (3)foot centersor tall shrubbery. Said information shall. be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. t 5. That a'plan sheet for solid waste storage and cdtlection and a plan for recycling; shall be submitted to the Streets and Sanitation Division for review'and approval. t 6. Thatah on-site trash truck tum-around area shall be provided in accordance with Engineering Standard Detail'No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Streets and Sanitationbivisicn. Said tum-around''area shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 17. That the carwash shall comply with all state taws and local ordinances for Water Conservation Measures, 18. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans`and specifications submitted to the City ofAnaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1:through 3'and as conditionedherein. 19. That within sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution,. ConditionNos. 2, 11,:.12, 14, 15 16 and tt3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete aid conditions may be grantedin accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. '.Page 7 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June i6, 2003 Item No. 10 20. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution or prior to final building and zoning inspections, whichever occurs first, Condition' Nos. 12 and 17, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 21. That approva(of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim MunicipalZoning 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 requestregarding any other applicable ordinance, :regulation or requirement. 22. That the petitioner stipulated at the September 24, 2001? public hearing, that signs were posted throughout the property:. advising customers not to loiteror trespass on adjacent properties. Page 8 ATTACHMENT - ITEM N0. 10 RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-138 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04435 BE GRANTED, IN PART 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: LOT 4, 5 AND 6 IN BLOCK A, VILLA TRUST, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 14, PAGES 45 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 24, 2001 at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required bylaw and'in accbrdande with the prdvisionsbf the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations fn connection therewith; and that this was continued from the September 10, 2001 Planning Commission meeting; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itselr and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said,haaring, does find and determine the following facts: ' 1. That tha proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is'authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.45.050.080 and 18.45.050.290 to retain and expand an existing car wash to include accessory take-out fast food service with waiver of the following: - '- - - - - Sections 18.06.050 - 18.06.050.020.023.023 3 and 18.45.066.050 Minimum number of oarkino spaces. - 2. That the waiver of minimum number of parking spaces is hereby denied because following public notification iEv; as determined that the waiver is not necessary: 3. That the proposed use wilLnot adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. 4. That the size and shape of the site for the proposed use, as conditioned herein, is adequate to allow full development of the proposal ih a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare. S That the traffic gene~atedby the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. 6. That granting this conditional use permit; uhderthe cdnditions imposed, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 7: That the existing car wash is a legal non-conforming land use and approval would bring it into conformance with currentZoning Code provisions requiringa conditional use permit and, as conditioned herein will not adversely affect the adjacent residential land uses or the growth and development of the area. 8. That the property provides adequate ingresslegress from public streets, on-site vehicular circulation, and adequate parking for customers and employees patronizing the property. CR5204PK.doc -1- PC2001-138 9. That no one indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal; and that two letters were received in opposition. °' CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Director's authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), as defined in the State of California Environmentallmpact 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 grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, 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: 1. That there shall be no public telephones do the premises, which telephones are located outside the building. 2 That all existing and proposed roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from view in accordance with the requirements of the CG "Commercial General" Zdne. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.. 3. That no portable canopies or awnings shall be permitted. 4. Thafnb advertisement of food or drink shall be permitted. Any additional signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendation" item. 5. That hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Saturday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. 6. That anon-audible system shall be used to inform customers that their vehicle is ready.for pick-up __ . 7. That all outdoor activities shall comply with the requirements pf Chapter6.70 "Sound Pressure. Levels.°_ - 8. That on-site tables and seating areas shall be limited to Grose shown on exhibits submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission. 9. That the property shallbe permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular - - landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 10. That no public address ("PA") system shall be used on the premises. i 1. Proposed Conditrdn No. 11 was deleted at the September 24,.2001 public hearing 12. That the vacuum and dryer equipment shall be entirely enclosed in the equipment room; and that the doors to the equipment room shall be solid care construction and equipped with self-closing devices. 13. That no banners or other advertising visible to adjacent streets shall be displayed inside the car wash tunnel unless a Special Event Permit is first obtained. 1S. That trash storage area(s) shall be provided ahd maintained in location(s) acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Divisipn, and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage area(s) shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage area(s) shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plants such as minimum one (1) gallon sized clinging vines planted on maximum three (3) foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. -2- PC2001-138 15. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection ahd a plan for recycifhg shall be submitted to the Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval 16. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be provided in accordance with Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Streets and Sanitation Division. Said turn-around area shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits:: 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 plans are on file with the Planning ' Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3, and as conditioned herein: 18. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or 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, 14, 15 and 16, 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. 19. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution or prior to final building and zoning inspections, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 12 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. 21. That the petitioner stipulated at the September 24, 2001 public hearing, that signs were posted throughout the property advising customers not to loiter or trespass on adjacent properties. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Cn~„mission 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. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at theplannfng Commission meeting of September 24, 2001. (Original signed by J. Vanderbilt? CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: IOri~;inal si~oned by Elsancr Fzrnandesl SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -3- PC2001-138 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Fernandes, 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 September 24, 2001, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ARNOLD, BOS7WICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL KOOS, VANDERBILT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: EASTMAN IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2.001. (Original sigrsd by Eleanor Foy nandes) SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -4- PC2001-138 To: Planning Commission Apri129, 2003 From: Louis Garrett Jr. Fat Daddy's Auto Spa and Chicago Eatery Subject: C.P.U changes.. We are requesting that items NOS ,~ /D~ in the conditional use permit please be removed as such is causmg severe hardship on our business. As you well know the constant construction of Lincoln Ave. has caused a severe hardship on our business and others as well.. The removal of these waivers will allow us to generate income so that we can receive a return on our sizeable investment made in this business so far. It will also allow us to advertise in order to amact those customers interested in eating while waiting on their cars. That is the market we are fully focused on. We also would like to be able to keep our office trailer in the back of the building as this facilitates our employees to keep a neat and clean atmosphere. It also serves as my office so that I can keep a constant eye on the employees and the customer cars. We have legally changed our name to "FAT DADDY' S AUTO SPA AND CHICAGO EATERY". Thank you for yotu prompt attention to this matter. Respectfully , C11P N0. 2001-~4~35 Vice President ATTACHt1ENT - I TEt1 N0. 10 ME)tiIORANDUM CITY OF ANAHEIYi I Code E~:forcement Division DATE: JUNE 4, 2003 T0: JOHN P. RAMIltEZ, ASSISTANT PLAN'~IER FROM: DAN DOMINGUEZ, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SUBJECT: COIv'DITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-04435 On June 4, 2003, Code Enforcement inspected the property located at 900 W. Lincoln and observed that the property is in violation of its C.U.P. and numerous A.M.C. codes. I observed the following violations: o Condition #3: No portable canopies and awnings shall be permitted. a). The owners have chosen to bolt down the canopy over the customer waiting azea without benefit of Planning and Zoning approval, b). A building permif was never finalized for this canopy because the owner failed to provide factory structural specifications. Plans were submitted to Building on 08-29- 02 (BLD2001-02764). Building noted requirzd structural corrections, prior to issuance of the permit; however, the owner has never picked np the corrections, m Condition #4: No advertising of food or drink shall be permitted. Anv additional signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Conunission (as a report and recommendation) item. a). The main marquee "Fat Daddy's" sign. b). The circular "Fat Daddy's" sign on the north wall of the business. c). The "Fat Daddy's" sign and menu above the vacuum station (This sign was submitted to Planning and Zoning on 7-25-O1 and was denied). d). The red V.W. sign above the vacuum station (This sign was submitted to Planning and Zoniu~ on 7-25-01 and was denied). a e). The car wash hours sign on the west side of the block wall. f). The car wash hours sign above the caz wash exit tunnel., ® Condition #12: The vacuum and dryer equipment shall be entirely enclosed in the equipment room; and that the doors to the equipment room shall be solid core construction and equipped with self-closing devices. a). The vacuum and dryer equipment has not been enclosed in an equipment room. b). This is also a violation of Condition #19. PAGE 2 OF 2 • Condition #14: The trash enclosure shall be protected by graffiti opportunities by the use of plants such as minimum ]-gallon sized clirging vines planted on maximum three-foot centers or tall shrubbery. ' a). Neither the clinging vines, b). Nor tall shrubbery been planted as required at the trash enclosure area. • Condition #1 S: Prier to commencement of the business, issuance of a building permit or 1 year from the date of the resolution, Condition #14 shall be complied with (anti-graffiti vines shall be planted at the trash enclosure). • Condition #19: Prior to commencement of the business or prior to the final building and zoning inspections, Condition #13 shall be complied with (enclosure of the vacuum and dryer e , ,1;-. ~ '). In addition to violations of the Conditions noted above, there are additional Zoning, Building and A.14.C. Cede violations that require correction: V • There is an unpermitted temporary construction-type trailer being used as an employee changing room. The trailer is located oii the south side of the caz wash structure. ® There aze red and white pennants flying on the north side of the business. S.E.P. guidelines state that pennants may only be flown during grand openings. • A 21' x 3~' canopy has been erected on the west side of the property and is being used as a detailing area. This canopy is considered a permanent structure, as it is cemented into the ground. The canopy also requires a parapet wall on the west side due to the size and location on the property. Both the canopy and the pazapet Nall require building permits that have not been applied for or issued. • There are three portable signs next to the vacuum station • There is a portable table display next to the vacuum station with car fram antes for sale, with no S.E.P. on file. In addition the following violations of the C.U.P., Conditon # 8 were noted on 5/17/03 and 5%20/03: • There were two sets of tables, chairs and utrtbrellas set directly outside the east exit of the' building. If you have any questions or desire additional information concerning this inspection, please feel free to call me at extension #4417. _ 900 W. LRJWLN Page of CE-SJ Rev. 4/99 Date of Fhotos: ~ %~ ~~ Address: c Remarks: -- ~T,, _~ ~-.~S ~~ -- Remarks: __.. _ , Page of Date of Photos: ~ ~ ~''-' ~' Address: Remarks: .,V ~ `- Remarks:..... CE-50 Rev. 4/99 Page of Date of Photos: c:/_?'f ==_ Address: c ::/. Remarks: ~' , r~ ..~ ..e ,., ,-, Cr s.<1 ~: :;t.' .i can rs t! Remarks:.... s • r ,,..n. whi ~o~~..,. CE30 Rev. 4798 Page of Date of Photos: -~~u~_ Address: ~,: r tv'. ,_:~.•<<.-tom;., Remarks: °r~ y?~ a ~~ %~' 5: - fsrei CE•SO Rev. 4/99 Page of CE-50 Rev. 4199 Date of Photos: ~i' ~~ _= - Address: ~;. Remarks: Remarks.... -~'r c~S`~-c"' i~.:gf~ L~4 ('- -~~'~. .day .F Ji/ Page of Date of Photos: ~ ~' "'~'`~% _ Address: Remarks: ~~ -_ Air CE-W Rev. ~:eIIladCS: ^~ rCs- e ,`F'.w.~L.( e~ Page of .~. F ~ ~t: - U J Date of Photos: ~~' ~'i ~' '° > ---_ Address: Remarks: r• ..':.Remarks: CE-50 Rev. 4/99 Page of Date of !address: .. .f F~emarks ~'..~ .'.rM °'F .: r.. ~.`,,~ ~_... _.C.> ~'~.':, `; ref' Remarks: ~ s CE-59 Rev. 4199 I 1 N° 54-55-12 R6.7200 PNPHE,Mj 6 SDG~S u, ~ > n ~DN ~ DU n = .. 165 9 pp 0 RM 62-67-8] ~ ~f ~r RM-120D'p N N y P GO~Afi A99 N RCGUP SdI ~ °aiFwEs mai C~ ~- R ~-5222 27 ~ 1fi-77- ON B33 2~ Ty R 72 o~ePpHu m A . 5 5 .24 E PptS. 6SDR 50 DU VAR2 og mr ~ r ~ l PR n 4DU 4DU fn\UE ``+ v D G15y2 GV PR 717 R .~1 CO`1V G P GH -~ 0o FVPR DPRE MotE H ~N ~- S L HEPl-S ENSER ~ C q mf D = <n C,a~,` ~ ~ m AnA x r~i ZNr aP w O7nr ~m an mN bia a~C> Po 4'yo v wr gm G~f CU 7~ m N~-+o A ma' n "' D~ ~6 &74A1 ?~ 100 5~P 615 B >o .1942 6 r 52-530 ~ SORE 52; pU o gS ~C 5 CL .> CUP 3571 T-CUP 2003-04706 ~ +p ~N, y.C pF c~ N 5~5j~fi ~p~ PART OF LINCOLN PARK m ~"~ O na RM-12E~EM~ \ v = \ 1-1NCS01{pOl y i RS"PA3 ~PRK P ~~~ `tNC,pIN \1 R~ v -p~~+ N Ncyn ° Y RM-240 6 ~ o i, 52' ~4 GU 254 'y3 GH O Z P 199 H RS-P EP v / 10U -o CHURC ~ w m J Dw PY - 6ROP .. R V EpGH ~ . 1D ~ 0 5 2 7 ~ O R`~-TEACH DU ,CF1 p Du ~ / 1 ZO ' 1 ® E`M g ( Conditional Use Permi[ No. 3571 Subject Property TRACKING NO. CUP20D3-04706 Date: June 16, 2003 Scale: 1" = 200' Requested By: CITY OF ANAHEIM Q.S. No. 1D3 REQUESTS REI NSTATEMENT OF THIS PERMIT BY THE MODI FICATION OR DELETION OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL PERTAINING TO A TIME LIMITATION (APPROVED ON MAY 11, 1998, TO EXPIRE MARCH 2, 2003) TO RETAIN A TELEC OMMUNICATIONS MONOPQLE ANTENNA AND ACCESSORY GROUND-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT. 1527 East Broadway- a portion of Lincoln Park 723 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16;2003 Item No 11 11 a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION(PREVIOUSLYAPPROVEDI (Motion) 11 b. 'CONDITIONAGUSEPERMITNO`3571 '(Resolution):. .(Tracking Not CUP2003-04706) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: _ (1) `This rectangularly-shaped and landlocked 0.08-acre property is located north of Broadway, has a depth of 36 feet and is Idcated 520 feet north''of the centerline ofBroadway;(1527 East' Broadway-a portion of Lincoln Park). REQUEST: (2) `a The petitioner requests reinstatement of this permiYby the modification of deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation. (approved on May 11; 1998, to'expire on `March 2,:2003) to retain a telecommunications monopole antenna and accessory ground- mounted'equipmenkunder authority of Code Section 18.03:093. BACKGROUND:!. (3) +This property is developed with a City park (Lincoln'Park) and'is zoned CL (Commercial, Limited) and the Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element Map designates this property for Neighborhood Park Site land uses. (4) Surrounding land uses are as follows: "Direction Land Use Zdnin General Ptan Desi nation a '.North A"artmenfCom lex RM=1200 LowDensi :.Residential East' RetailSfio CL General Commercial South 'Lincoln Park & Sin Ie Famil Residences': RS-A-43,000 and! RS-7200 Neighborhood Park Site and LowDensi Residential West Restaurant & Lincoln Elements School CL and RM-1200 Low Density Residential and' Elements School Site ` (5) `Conditional Use Permit No. 3571 (to permit a 75-foot high cellular telephone tower and unmanned equipment building,with waiver of required setback abutting a residential zone) was approved by the City Council on March 2 1993, subsequent to Commission approval on i January 11, 1993. The permitwas reinstated by the Planning'Commission on May,11, 1998. 'Resolution No. PC98-79 (as corrected by Nunc Pro'Tunc Resolution PC2000-19)`approving this permit includedithe following condition of approval: "10. Thafthis permit shall be permitted for a period of five (5)years until March 2, 2003; provided; howeverthat reinstatement may be granted by the Planning Commission of a noticed public hearing and following a written request by the'petitionec! In connection with the request, the petitioner shall submit: information about improved technology regarding the cellulaPtelephonetnwer and attached equipment (i.e., appearance, size, etc.). The Planning Commission may„in connection with approving at reinstatement,trequire that subjecfcellular telephone tower and/or the attached equipment be modified and/or replaced if the visual and/or other impact of the: tower can:' be reduced or othenvise'improved.':The decision of the Planning Commissiort'shall be subject to appeal to, or review by the City Council in the :manner set forth in Chapter 18:03 of the Anaheim Municipal Code." Sr6612vn Page 1 I Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16, 2003 Item No, 11 DISCUSSION: (6) , The petitioner, has submitted a request for reinstatement in order to continue operation of a telecommunication facility. 'Ih order to tlemonstrate that the.findings required forreinstatement of this use have tieen satisfied, the petitioner has submittedthe attached Justification for Reinstatement which indicates that no significanYchanges to the operation have occurred, ; - conditions of approval have been complied with, and the surrounding land uses in the '! immediate vicinity have not changed. (7) ` The existing facility consists'of a 75-foot high monopole witfi 3 sectors containingi4 panel i antennas per sector having maximum'dimensions of 4 feet: in height by 1 foot in width. The' facility also includes accessory ground=mounted equipmentwithin afenced enclosure. (8) Staff feels that as technology improves end area surroundings transition, stealth opportunities should be explored for these facilities. Several years ago, monopoles'of this type were the only mechanism for wireless communication systems. Today, opportunities for a variety of stealth facilities exist. Staff believes that wireless carriers with older facilities, such as this one, should anticipate a requirement to'explore all alternatives and prepare for amodification or change-out of Alder facilities in order to adequately stealtFi and decrease visual clutter along major corridors throughout the City. Due to the height of the monopole, this facility is visible i from Lincoln Avenue. Further, a condition of approval required that in'order to obtain reinstatement of this permit the petitioner would need to discuss current technology for + evaluation of upgraded stealth facilities: Staff has encouraged the petitioner to explore relocation of the facility and;potential "stealth" options; however, the petitioner has indicated: that they have notyet initiated pursuit of a replacement facility but are aware that`this site will i lose the existing entitlementat the end'of the 15-year lease: (June 29, 2008) with'the City of; Anaheim. Staff has indicated to the petitioner that this site will not be eligible for future reinstatements as`cumently'designed. 1 (9) The Community Services Department has indicated that because of the anticipated expansion of Lincoln School,'it would not be advisable to pursue stealtfi facilities at this location when it is unlikelythat the lease would be renewed. Community Services Department staff has further indicated, in the attached memorandum dated June 10, 2003, that afive-year reinstatement to June 29, 2008, (date of lease expiration), would tie supported. Page 2 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16, 2003 Item No. 11 available for review in the Planning Department) 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: (13) ; The proposed project has been reviewed by affected City dapartmentsito 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 he proposed project, it has been determined that his project tloes not fit within the scope necessary to require a Growth Management Element analysis, therefore, no analysis has been performed. FINDINGS: (14) ! Before the Planning Commission grants any Conditional Use Permit, itmust make a finding bf fact that the evidence presented shows`that all of the following conditions exist; <' (a) That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit`is authorized by the Zoning Code, or that said?use is notiisted therein as being a permitted use; `: i (b) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the atljoining 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' developmeht of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, andgeneral welfare; (d) That the trathc generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon he 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 peace;.. health, safety and geheral welfare of the'citizens of the :City of Anaheim. (15) Subsection 18.03.093.040 of the Zoning Code requires that before the Commission grants reinstatement of the approval. by extension, modification or deletion, the applicaht must presentevidence to establish. the following findings: (a) The facts necessary to support each and every required showing for the issuance oF' such entitlement as set forth in this chapter exist: (b) Said permit is being exercised substantially in the same manner and in conformance with all conditions and stipulations originally approvetl by the approval hotly; (c) Said permit is being exercised irr a mannernot detrimental to the particular area and: surrounding land uses, nor to the public peace, health, safety and general welfare; and (d) With regard only to any deletion of a time limitation, such deletion is necessary to ,.permit reasonable operation under the permit as granted Page 4 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16;'2003 Item No. 11 RECOMMENDATION: (16) 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 evidencepresented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at he public 'hearing that Planning Commission take the following actions: (a) By'motion, determine the previously-approved CEQA Negative Declaration is adequate toserve as the appropriate environmentai'documentation determination for this request. (b) By resolution, aoorove this request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3571 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04706) to retain an existing telecommunication monopole antenna and'accessoryground-mounted equipment to expire on`June 29, 2008 based on the following: (i) ' That this permit is'being exercised substantially in'the same'manner and in conformance with ail conditions and stipulations originally approved bythe approval body as required bySubsection 18.03.093.040 of the Zoning. Code. (ii) ; That there have been no Code violations associated with this operation, and the facility has not adversely affected adjoining land uses. (iii):.: That the size and shape of the property'is adequate to allow the full development of the site, as described in the letter of'operation, in a manner not detrimental to '' '? the particular area'nor to the peace, health safety,: and general welfare: (iv) That without the modification of the time. limitation,: this operation would hot be permittetl on this property because a telecommunication facility requires a conditional use permit. (c) Staff further recommends that the Commission amend Resolution Nos. 93R-39 and PC98-79 (as corrected by Nunc Pro Tunc Resolution PC2000-19j in its entirety to be replaced by a new resolution with the following conditions of approval (Conditions Nos. 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are'new conditions): 1. That this permit shall expire on June 29, 2008, concurrent with the remaining five years on the term of the lease with the City of Anaheim. No additional reinstatements of this';permit for a non stealth facility shall be permitted in this location. 2. That the telecommunications facility shall belimited to a maximum of 75 feet in height,', with 3 sectors consisting of 4 panel antennasper sectorwith maximum dimensions of4 feet in height by 1-foot in width on'the existirg tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment. No additiortai antennas shall be permitted without the approvatof the Planning Commission. 3. That the number of dishes and antennas shall be limited to those shown oo Exhibit No. 1. Any additional dishes or antennas shall tie subject to further Planning Commission review and approval. '4. That the petitioner shall maintain an encroachment license with the Real Property :Section of the Public Works Department. Page 6 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 1ti, 2003 Item No. 11 5. .That security lightingshall be maintained on the building in a manner thatprevents light from glaring into the'adjacent residences to the north: Security'lights shall not be installed on the tower; Said lights shall be shown on`the plans submitted for building permits. 6. That no emergency oh-site generator(s) sfiall be permitted. 7. That landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with plans on file in the Planning Department. 8. That the portion of the property being leased to the communication provider shall be' permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape :maintenance, removal of trash and debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four' (24) hours from ime of occurrence. 9. That no signage, flags, banners, or any other form of advertising shall be attached to the antennas or the transmission tower structure. 10. That the operator of this use (the "Operator") shall ensure that this installation end choice of frequencies will not interfere with: the 800 MHz radio frequencies .required by the City of Anaheim to provide adequate spectrum capacity for public safety and related purposes. 11. That at ail times the Operator'shall not prevent the City of Anaheim from having adequate spectrum,capacity on the City's 800 MHz radio frequency. 12. That within thirty (30) days from the approval of this resolution, the Operator shall provide a 24-hour telephone number to the Zoning Division (to(be fornrarded'to the Fire and Police Departments) to which interference problems may be reported, and shall resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours. 13. That within thirty (30) days from the approval of this resolution, the Operator shall provide a "single point of contact' in its Engineering and Maintenance :' :Departments to ensure continuity on all interference issues. The name, talephone number, fau number and a-mail address of that person shall be :provided to the City's designated representative.: 14. That the Operator shall ensure that each of its contractors, sub-contractors oc agents, or any other user of the facility,: shall comply with these conditions of `approval 15. That should this telecommunication facility be sold, the City of Anaheim, Zoning Division shall be notified within 30 days of the close of escrow. 16. That the subject property shall tie developed substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Ezfiibit Nos. 1'through 5 and as `conditioned herein. !: Page 6 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16,2003 Item No 11 17. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not'include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of he request tegarding any other applicable drdinance, regulation or requirement. Page 7 ATTACHMENT - ITEM N0. 11 PETITIONER'S STATEMENT JUSTIFICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT Section 18.03.093 of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires that before any conditional use permit or variance containing a time limitation can be reinstated for an additionalperiod of time, or before such time limitation may be deleted or modified by the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator, the following must he shown:: 1. The facts necessary to support each and every required showing for the issuance of such entitlement as set forth in the following excerpts from the Anaheim Zoning Code still exist: 18.03.030 (Relative to Conditional Use Permits) Before the City Council or Planning Commission may grant any request for a conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact, by resolution, that the evidence presented shows that all of the following exist: .031 That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this code, or is not listed herein as being a permitted use; .032 That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining lahd uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; .033 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 nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare; .034 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; .035 That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general vrelfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; 18.03.040 (Relative to Variances) Before any variance may be granted by the Planning Commission it shall be shown: .031 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; .032 That, because of special circumstances shown in .031, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. 2. Said permit or variance is being exercised substantially in the same manner and in conformancewfth all conditions and stipulations originally approved by the approval body; 3. Said permit or variance is being exercised in a manner not detrimental to the particular area and surrounding land uses, nor to the public peace, health, safety and general welfare; and 4. With regard only to any deletion of a time limitation, such deletion Is necessary to permit reasonable operation under the permit or variance as granted. - In order to determine if such findings exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to arrive at a decision, please answer the following questions fully and as complete as possible. Attach additional sheets if additional soace is needed. 1. Has any physical aspect ofthe property for which this use permit or variance been granted changed significantly since the issuance of this use permit or variance? ^ YES 1~1 NO Explain: There have been no changes to tha phvs ;al acnacta of the property the structures or uses on this property. The conditions have not changed since the antennas facil (over) CASE NO. ^ ~~?Y' ~ ~ / I 2. Have the land uses In the immediate vicinity changed since the issuance of this use permit or variance? ^ YES~NO Explain: The land uses in the area have not changed in several years and the prodominant land use is still residential and Commercial uses 3. Has any aspect of the nature of the operation changed since the issuance of this use permit or variance? p YES CXNO Explain: No. the operation of this facility has not changed since installation 4. Are the conditions of approval pertaining to the use permit or variance being complied with? CXYES ^ NO Explain: Yes, all conditions continue to be complied with. 5. If you are requesting a deletion of tha time limitation, is this deletion necessary for the continued operation of this use or variance? ^ YES.J D10 Explain: No, the deletion is not necessary, buy condit_:._c at the site and the ooeration of the facility will not chance renewing the CUP every five years does not seem necessary. J )~P~ ~V~E~1f,~C~ Name of Property Owner or Authorized Agent (Please Pdnq Sign ure of Property Ow r or F thorized Age t Date Z06225JK.000 12/97 CASE 2 Spectrasite April Zl, 2003 Ms. Vanessa Norwood Planner City of Anaheim Planning Department 200 South Anaheim Anaheim, CA 92503 ItE: Jttsti6cation Letter to reinstate CUP No. 3571 Dear ~~Is. Norwood: ATTACHMENT - ITEM N0. 11 As per your request, dre purpose of this letter is to provide justiFcation for the reinstatement of CIJP Nb. 4016 for the existing Spectrasite Communications facility located at 1527 East Broadway in the City of Anaheim's Park facility. Currently, Verizon Wireless is the only tenant on the tower and was the carrier who installed the 7S monopole and equipment shelter. This anteruta facility is located in a Commercial Limited zone and located in a City owned park. The suroundiug area is primarily residential to the south with commercial and hi,h density residential to the north. The City Council approved the site For Verizon Wireless to construct the facility on March 2, 1993 with a conditimt that the use permit having an expiration date of b-larch 2, 1998. In blay 1998, the Plannine Contntission adopted a resolution reinstating the use until March 2, 2003. The mtte~Lt,: facility in this area is an integral part of Verizon ~4'ireless Teleconvmunica[ions system. It efficiently sen~es the area as designed and provides valuable interconnection to other surrounding Verizon Wireless anterum facilities. The interconnect system is critical for providing Verizon's wireless telecrnnmunica[ionservives during natural or other emereencies when standard land-line telephone systems are disrupted. The misting facility is a 7Smonopole, and given the lack of complaint regardine its appearance in this aria, Spectrasite is not proposing to stealth the facility. Additionally, the site has been established since 1993, and the alteration of [he facility to disguise the antennas would only draw more attention to the facilin. The misting telecommunications facility has operated in this area without complaint and all conditions of approval are still being met at this facility. Phase feel free to contact me for guy additional questions or additional information needed at 9-19'»- 2323. SincerelylI, ~~AC ~~ Dale Smbblztield ' Land Use Planner, Western Region ~~ONDITIONA USE PERM17 No ~~~ r ~- L~ ~ ~'~ a-e27 3-oy 2301 Dupont Drive. Suite 200 • Irvine, CA 92612 • te1949.255.2300 • fax 949.255.2301 • wawspectraslle.com /~TTACHt1ENT - I TEtI IJO. 1 7 C%TY ®F ANA%IE%M COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Parks Division MEMORANDUM DATE: JUNE 10, 2003 TO: VANESSA NORWOOD, PLANNER FROM: RICH A ARK PLANNER SUBJECT: LINCOLN PARK CELL TOWER Since the lease agreement for this project continues to June 29, 2008, at a minimum, we will recommend that the C.U.P for the facility be continued for an additional five years. At the end of that time period, the use will need to be reevaluated as the Anaheim City School District may have plans for facility expansion from the existing park to Lincoln Avenue. That possible expansion would be factored into our future consideration of an additional C.U.P. continuance for the facility, at that time. If you have questions, please let me know. C: Jack Kudron Ron Robertson .;ONDITIONAL USE PERMI'P No- 35~ ~ ~~ Cv~ ,vd , 3 -a y Iota ATTACHt1ENT - ITEtt N0, 11 MEMORANDUM CITY OF ANAHEIM Code Enforcement Division DATE: MAY 14, 2003 TO: VANESSA NORWOOD, PLANNER FROM: ~'N MARSH, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SUBJECT: REINSTATEMENT OF CUP 3571, TRACKING CASE NO. CUP2003-04706 REGARDING A TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY On Thursday, May 8, 2003, I conducted an inspection of the property located at 1537 E. Broadway. There is an unmanned, 7~ foot high, monopole cellular telephone tower located on the north side of a park and the grounds of an elernentary school. During this inspection, there were no violations observed. There have been no citizen complaints submitted to Code Enforcement regarding the cellular monopole and enclosure. Please feel free to contact me at extension X4595 if I can be of further assistance. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No .~ 5~ ~ m1i27 a broadaay ~~~ C~V ~P ~~ • ~-QU3- C~~ ~L (c. ATTACHf1ENT - ITEf; N0. 11 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AMENt:~ING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ADOPTED IN CONNECTION WITH RESOLUTION N0.93R-39 TO REINSTATE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 3571- WHEREAS, on March 2, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolulloh No. 93R-39 to grant Conditional Use Permll No. 3571 and permit a 75-foot high cellular telephone tower and unmanned equipment building with waiver of required setback abutting a residential zone at 1527 East Broadway for a period of five (5) years; and WHEREAS, Condition No. 10 of said resolution reads: 10: That this use permit shall tie permitted for a period of five (5) years until March 2, 1998; provided; however, that extensions of time may be granted by the Planning Commission al a noticed public hearing and following a written request by the petitioner, Jn connection with the request, the petitioner shall submiE infonnalion about Improved technology regarding the cellular telephone tower and attached equlpment (I.e. ,appearance, size, etc.). The Planning Commission may, in connection with approving a t(ma extension require that subject cellular telephone tower and/or the attached equipment be modified and/or replaced if the visual and/or other Impacts of the lower can be reduced or otherwise improved. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to appeal to, or review by, the City Council In the manner set forth In Chapter 18.03 of the Anaheim Municipal Codo. WHEREAS, the underlying property Is developed with a'75-foot high cellular telephone lower and 360 sq. ft. unmanned equipment building In the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone; and that the property Is des(gnated for Neighborhood. Park Sito land uses by the Anaheim General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did Yedelve a verified request to amend or delete Condition. No. 10, pertaining to a time IimRation, to reinstate This Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS; the Cify Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center In the City of Maheim on May 1 1; 1998 al 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 Maheim Municipal Coda, Chapter 18.03., to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed contl;tlonal use penult and to Investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection the~ewlth. WHEREAS, said Commission, after due Inspection, Investigation and study made by Itself and In Its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing., does find and determine the following facts: L That this request, to reinstate Conditional Use Permit No. 3571, Is authorized by Section 18.03.093 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.; which permits modification or deletion of conditions of approval pertaining to time limitations, to retain a 75-foot high cellular telephone tower and 360 sq. ft: unmanned equlpment building with waiver of the following: Section 16.44.063.040 - Required setback abuttino a residential zones (20 feel required; 10 feet proposed) CR3285P L.DOC -1- PC98-79 CONDITIOfUAL USE PERMIT NO ~~~ T ~~ C,~:%~ ~~~-~-c; y 7~~ 2. That this" conditional use Is properly one for which a cond(llonal use permit Is euthorized_by the Zoning Code... 3. That the conditional use has not adversely affected the adJolning land uses and'lhe growth end development of the area In which It Is located, , 4. Thal the size end shape of lho site for this use Is adequate to allow full development of the use In a mannecnot detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safely and general welfare. 5. That the traffic generated by the use has not Imposed an unduo burden upon the slroets and highways designed and Improved to carry the traffic in the area. 6, That relnsta!ing this conditional use pennll, under the conditions Imposed, will not be detrimental fo the peace, health, safety and gar~aral welfare of the citizens of the Clty of Anahalm. 7. Thal facts necessary to support each and every required showing forlhe Issuance of this enlit!ement as set forth In Chapter 18.03 exist 8. That this use permit Is being exercised In substantially the same manner end In conformance with ail conditions and stipulations originally approved by the approval body... 9., Thal this use permit is being exercised in a manner not detrimental to the particular area and surrounding land uses, nor to the public peace, health and safety and general welfare. 10. That one person spoke at the public hearing In opposition; and that no correspondence was received In opposition to the this request CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING:. That the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the Negative Declaration previously. approved in connection with 6`~is Conditional Use Permit No. 3571 Is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation In connecticn with this request upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency .end that It has considered the previously approved Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the iriitial study and sny comments received that there Is no substantial evidence that the proposal vrlll have a significant effect on the environment: NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does hereby amend Resolution No. 93R-39, adopted In connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3571, as follows: (a) Amending Condition No. 10 to read 10. That th(s permit shall be permitted for a period of two (2) years until March 2, 2000; provided; howoverthat extensions of time may be granted by the Planning Commisslon al a noticed public hearing and following a written request by the petitioner. In connection with the request, the petitioner shall submit Information about Improved technology regarding the cellular telephone tower and attached equipment (Le., appearance, size, etc.). The Planning Commisslon may, in connection wit! r approving a lime extension, require that subject cellular telephone tower and/or the attached equipment be modified and/or replaced If the visual and/or other Impacts of the tower can be reduced or otherwise Improved. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to appeal to, or review by, the Clty Council In the manner set forth in Chapter 16.03 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. - 2 - PC98.79 (b) Adding the following condition: 12. That, within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, the exlstfng monopole shall be repainted gray In color. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and a!I of the conditions herelnabove 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. May 11, 1998. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commisslon meeting of lQrlglnal slgnea by Paul ®ostvflckl CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: (Original signed by Margarita Solorio) SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Margarita Solorio, Secretary of the Anaheim Clry Planning Commisslon, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Clay Planning Commission held on May 11, 1998, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS:BOSTWICK, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, NAPOLES , PERAZA NOES: COMMISSIONERS:NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:BOYDSTUN VACANCY: ONE SEAT VACANT 1998. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hav9 hereunto set my hand this day of _, tOriginal signed by Margarita Salorisl SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 3 - PC98-79 . - ATTACHMENT - ITEM NO. t1 RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-19 A NUNC PRO TUNC RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. PC98-79 GRANTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3571 WHEREAS, on March 2, 1993 the Anaheim City Council' adopted Resolution No. 93R-39 to grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3571 permitting a 75-foot high' cellular telephone tower and unmanned equipment building with waiver of required setback abutting a residential zone for a period of five years on property located at 1527 East Broadway; and' WHEREAS, on May 11, 1998 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC98-79 to reinstate Conditional Use Permit No. 3571 for a period of five years to expire on March 2, 2003, including amending Condition No. 10 to read as follows: 10. That this permit shall be permitted for a period of five (5) years until March 2; 1998; provided, however, that extensions of time may be granted by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing and following a written request by the petitioner. In connection with the request, the petitioner shall submit information about improved technology regarding the cellular telephone tower and attached equipment (i:e:, appearance, size, etc.). The Planning Commission may, in connection with approving a time extension, .require that subject cellular telephone tower and/or the attached equipment be modified and/or replaced if the visual and/or other impacts of the tower can be reduced or otherwise improved. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to appeal to, or review by, the City Council in the manner set forth in Chapter 18.03 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. WHEREAS said Condition No. 10 was inadvertently amended incorrectly. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Condition No. 10, adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3751., as amended, is hereby amended, nunc pro tunc, to read as follows: 10. "I hat ibis permit shall be permitted for a period of five (5) years until March 2, 2003; provided, however, that a reinstatement may be granted by the. Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing and following a written request by the petitioner. In connection with the request, the petitioner shall submit information about improved technology regarding the cellular telephone tower and attached equipment (i.e., appearance, size, etc.). The Planning Commission may, in connection with approving a reinstatement, require that subject cellular telephone tower andlor the attached equipment be modified and/or replaced if the visual and/or other impacts of the tower can be reduced or otherwise improved. The decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to appeal to, or review by, the City Council in the manner set forth in Chapter 18.03 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of .2000. (Original sgned by Phyllis R. Boydstun) CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CR3893PK.DOC -1- PC2000-19 ATTEST: .`rignal signed by PAargarita Solorio) SECRETARY, ANAHEIM 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 February 28, 2000, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ARNOLD, BRISTOL, NAPOL.ES, VANDERBILT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KOOS, I30STWICK IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of 2000, tOriginal signed by Margarita Solorio) SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CR3893PK.DOC -2- PC2000-19 RS-5000 v RGL 6fi-67-19 66-66.13 RCL 64-85-101 VAR 1?-1 ~O 1 DU Ef>;: m A D Z O O A 65-66-13 RCL 64-65-101 VAR 1741 y 1~D~U/EyACH ~J- A ~ \I 1Du O, m rn m z ~~ WOODWIND LN ANANE/ / C MC/ryC/ M js SP 94.1 RCL 65-66-24 (29) 65-6fi-13 VAR 3505 VAR 2878 SP 94-i SMALL IND. FIRM RCL 6fi-67-64 (14) VAR 2676 IND. FIRMS ,, I F y J a U I t of WOOpyyIND LN RSSOpp RCL ~]p-t2 RC~ ~~fi- t DDEACH TANGO CIR o: a 1 ~u EACH a General Plan Amendment No. 2003-00410 Subject Property Reclassification No. 2003-00097 Dale: June 16, 2003 Scale: Graphic Requested By: CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING DEPARTMENT Q.S. No. 171 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.2003-00410-CITY-INITIATED (PLANNING DEPARTMENT) REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATING THE PROPERTIES FROM THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION TO THE LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0.2003-00097 -CITY-INITIATED REQUEST TO RECLASSIFY SEVERAL PROPERTIES FROM THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ZONING pESIGNATION, R-1 "SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL", TO THE RS-5000 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE OR A LESS INTENSE ZONE FOR ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Properties located north and south of Orangethorpe Avenue 724 ' t i ~. 1'~ IY V F ~L fifiig{q RCL fiBE&08 Z y Q iDU EACH a ~ ¢ ~ zz Awat>e ~ % pU U ~ BUOLONG ST Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16;'2003 Item No. 12 12a CEQA NEGATNE DECLARATION (Motion) 12b. >GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0: 2003-00410 (Resolution] 12c. RECLASSIFICATIONNO2003-00097 (Resolution) 12d.: REQUEST FOR CITY;000NCIL REVIEW OF ITEM 12c (Motion):: SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTIOfVt (1) i This irregularly-shaped, 31.0-acre clusterbf properties is located north and south of Orangetttorpe Avenue with frontages of 1245 feet on the north side of O~angethorpe Avenue and 1220 feet on the south side of Orangethorpe Avenue, maximum depths of ::1000 feeton the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue and 70 feet on the south side of Orangetftorpe Avenue and is located 6ti0 feet west`of the centerline of Kellogg Drive. REQUEST: (2) City-Initiated request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan pertaining to several properties within the County of Orange for annexation into the City of Anaheim as '' follows: Redesignation of several properties from he Low Density Residential and Low-Metlium Density Residential land use designations to the Low-Medium'bensity Residential land use designation. (3) City-initiated request for reclassification to reclassify several properties within the County of ' Orange from the County of Orange zoning designation, R1 "Single Family Residence" to i the RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family); zone or a less intense single-family residential zone for annexation`into the City of Anaheim. BACKGROUND:: (4) 'The proposed general plan amendment and reclassification is'part of the. pre-zoning process and the preliminary steps required by LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) to process the ahnexation'bf several County properties into the City of Anaheimr (5) On May 5, 2003, the Planning Commission initiated the Reclassification'and General Plan Amendment of the subject properties for'annexation. (6) These properties are currently. developed with single-family residences and are zoned R1 "Single-Family Residence" within the County of Orange. sr8614aav.doc Page 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16 2003 Item No; 12 (7) 'Surrounding land uses are as follows: Direction Land Use - Zoning ` General Plan Designation. North and Single-Family; RS-5000 Low-Medium Density East Residences - rResidehtial South (across ' Industrial businesses ML General Industrial Orangethorpe Avenue) West Single-Family RS-5000 Low-Medium Density Residences ` 'Residential GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST: (8) The General Plan provides anofficial guide for future development within the City;and is intended;to promote an arrangement ofland uses, ransportation services and other public services,`which provide orderly development and adequate provision for public improvements. Since the Initial adoption`of the General Plan,' he Planning Commission and City Council have viewed the General Plan as being flexible within the specified ranges, This idea is reflective of the introductory ext of the General Plan text, which readsas ' follows: "The Anaheim General Plan is not a precise plan and does not show, nor intend to show, the exact land use pattern which will in fact occur. Instead, it indicates the general7ocation ofland uses and the interrelationships of various land use patterns as shown on the z GenerafP/an Land'Use Map.The Plan constitutes an expression of current City objectives, ; principles, standards, proposals and policies and provides a basis from which decisions i relating o specific land use proposals can be made. ° (9) 'The proposed General Plan amendments provide an opportunity for residential development that would be consistent with existing' and surrounding land uses and the proposed zoning. (10) 'General Plan Amendment No 2002-00410 proposes the redesignation df this cluster of properties from the Low Density Residential and the Low-Metlium Density Residential land use designations to`the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation. Page 2 Staff Report to the Planntngl Commission June 16;'2003 '- Item No 12 (11) The following is a comparison of the existing Low Density Residential land use designation and the proposed Low-Mediuml7ensity,Residential land use designation; including',! :associated traffic information. !The average daily trips are described below based on the 'Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model (ATAM) for associated land use types.' Maximum number of dwelling units are. based on density ranges permitted for the!given land use designation and potential dwelling unit averages are based on estimated averages experienced on a ..:City-wide basis. ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN' EXISTING Land Use Approximate Typical Density: Range , ' Potential Estimated Average Daily Designation Acres Implementation , (DU s per ' ' Dwelling Units :Trips (ADT) , Zones ; gross : (Avg. to Max.):' (Avg.;to Max.) ; acre) Low Density RS-10,000 0 - 4.4 +136 1836 Residential 31 RS-7200 0 - 6.1 136-189 1836-2552 (12) iThe existing Low Density Residential lantl use designation is intended to provide for and :encourage the development of detached single-family homes which comply with the 'development standards of the zone. This designation is typically implemented by the RS- '10,000 and RS-7200: (Residential, Single-Family) zones. The'Low Density Residential land `'use designation would permit a heoretidal maximum of up to 189 units at a densityof 6 'dwelling units per gross acre. EXHIBIT A -PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN Density Estimated Land Use Approximate Typical Implementation :Range (DU's per Potential Dwelling Units Average Daily Designation Acres Zone gross (Avg. to'Max) !.Trips (ADT) : acre) (Avg. to Max.) Low-Medium - RS-5000 °0 - 8.7 211 -270 ' 2849-3645 Density 31' RM-3000 0 - 14.5 357 -'450 3749-4725 i Residential RM 2400 4 0 - 18 419 - 558 3562-4743 (13) The proposed Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation is intended to provide 'for and encourage he development of detached, small-lot single-familyhomes, condominiums, townhouses, and apartments not exceeding the maximum density range as 'prescribed by the General Plan' and zoning. This designation s typically implemented by he RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family);. RM-3000 and RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple- Family) zones. The Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation would permit a theoretical maximum of up to 558 units at a density'of 18 dwelling units per gros5acre. However, the proposed implementation zone of RM=5000 would permit aaheoretical ?maximum' of up to 270 units at 8,7 dwelling units per gross acre. (14) Staff believes that the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation is appropriate "for this cluster of properties since the properties contain existing single-family residential Page 3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission June 16, 2D03 Item No. 12 units consistent with the RS-5000 zoning designation and would be an appropriate transition from the single-family neighborhood to he north, east and west. RECLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS: (15) "The rezoning of these properties from the County "R1 Single=Family Residence' zone to the RS-5000 zone'wouid be consistentwith the single family?nature of these properties. This zone would also be consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment of this area to he Low-Medium Density Residential designation. biSCUSSION: (16) This City-initiated request for the subject reclassification and'general plan amendment is the preliminary step of the annexation process of "County islands" into the City of Anaheim. `' An "island" is a pocket of land that is surrounded'by, but notwithin anycity's boundaries. The subject properties are currently receiving municipal services from,`and are represented> by, the County Board of Supervisors. (17) ' Annexation includes the following steps: Approval of Adoption of CEQA Application to Initiating pre-zoning compliance LAFCO Motion Property tax LAFCCI LAFCO staff LAFCO public 9 PP,~ _ ~ 9 exchan a ~® a Ucation review hearin Recordation of Certificate of Completion (18) ;' On October 29, 2002, the City Council approved a memorandum of understanding with the County of Orange tipulating that the City of Anaheim pursue a process that maylead to the annexation of all the unincoporated'territories within Anaheim's sphere of influence over:: a two year period.'. The State has also made the annexation''of county islands a priority of local govemmentthrough the adoption of AB 1555 in January, 2000. This bill eased the procedural requirements for'certain island annexations in order to assist LAFCO and local cities with the annexation process. (19) The benefits of annexing the county islands would include an improvement in the delivery of government services, land use and development standard compatibility, local code enforcement services and a clearer understanding of jurisdiction by the. community. (20) In an effort to provide information to the property owners regarding the'proposed annexation, staff has worked closely with the Couhty of Orange and LAFCO to provide background information to the community regarding the annexation process. In a community meeting held on April 9, 2003, residential property owners residing in the Page'4 Staff Report to the Planning: Commission ':'June 16 2003 Item No:,12 neighborhood attended to provide feedback to staff: Many of the concerns expressed pertained`to the inefficiency ofiservices currently provided in the unincorporated County area. Staff feels that the annexation of this area to the City ofAnaheim would be a substantial benefit to the neighborhood, especially pertaining to code enforcement and land use issues. _ (21) The proposed prezoning would'reclassity these properties into'City of Anaheim zones that :are comparable to existing Countyzoning'and the existing developments'and uses existing ' on the subject properties. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (22) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study'(a copy of which is available for review ' in the Planning Department) and finds no ignificant environmental impact and, therefore, `recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning Commission that the Negative Declaration reFlects tfie indepentlent 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 tiasis of the .Initial Study and any. comments received hat there' is no substantial evidence thafthe ;project will have a significant effect on the environment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (23) The proposed project has been reviewed by affected. City departments to determine whether it conforms with the. City's Growth Managemenk Element adopted by the City Council on March 17; 1992. Based on City staff review of thep~oposed project, it has been 'determined khat this'project does not fit within the scope necessary to require a Growth (Management Element analysis, therefore'no analysis has been performetl. RECOMMENDATION: (24) '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, antl oral and written evidence presented at the 'public hewing that the Commission take the following actions: (a) By motion, approve a CEQA Negative Declaration. (b) By resolution, recommend that the City Council a rove, Genera(Plan Amendment No. 2003-00410 to redesignate properties from the Low Density Residential and Low-Medium Density Residentia(land use designations to the Low-Medium` Density Residential land use designation. (c) By resolution, a rove Reclassification No. 2002-00097 to reclassify several properties from the County R1 "Single Family Residence" zone to the City of Anaheim: RS=5000 zone. (d) By motion, recommend City Council review of item 12c. of the above-mentioned entitlements, in conjunction with'the mandatory review of the General Plan Amendment: Page 5 ATTACHt1ENT - ITEt1 N0. 12 N N d G 'O n m S ~ T ,~ D r 3 e ~ ~ m °' 3 -` o N > >_ ~ N 9 O O O A O J OI a) I j ~..g ~ . c° vl vx 2i c~ ~m ~! o c i ~~ 0 aemer ulavard ler eat stin enue terson eel pedal air Irmonl iulevard elr Canyon iatl ipsum Cenyan iad gal Canyon iad EXISTING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ~. s ~ S o ~Z LOW. a DENSITY MEDIUM > ~~DENTIAL ti BUO~ONG ST WOODWIND LN ~ ~':"i ~,'` `' nr F 'LOW DENSITY .; ~~ = ~ ~ ~`"° _ ~ ~ " r ~ RESIDENTIAL~ ,_ '~~~ ` ~ s~ r , 1 ~ ~ ~ , r ygq Oi y pp ~ ~ i ~~~*Y i ~ . '2 ~ t T . ~ : w Q d~2~ ;{ N ANGO AVE c.. ~ ~ x '-~-, ts d~ O ~ m A 3 ~, g ~ ~ ^~ ~ Y ~ ~'r'' f fie, ~, ~~; ~ ~ { r `~` -n ~ s x ,~ s'"e. A ~< z rv g ~'' ~'w ~.; ,. ~~. ~ ~ ~ c r, '~. e ~"1i ).~ ~. h/~ "~ v Oh+gHC+ET °~ „n ~~~~ ~r ~~,~~~ HORpEAVEy ~°~ x ~~ .J~,~ ~d ~~~~__ UE (MajorHl9hK, Y) __ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL I General Plan Amendment No. 2D03-D00410 Existing Figure 2 ACRES 31.00 W~DWIND~N TANGOO~q J J Q V zww W ~ ~O U- 769 EXHIBIT A ACRES LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL No: m N' r 0 A ~ "^> O TANGO qyE m , y w N ~ 7~ j DEMSID7'Y~-MEDIUM ~ l RESIIDENTIAL ~ _ aUDLONG ST WOODWIND W 4 1 x~X VENUE -yrgnWaY) GENERAL INDUSTRIAL I General Plan Amendment No. 2003-000410 Exhibit A Figure 3 h U 31.00 WOOOWINp I,N TANGO qR ZU rc~ a J a U W W Z ~ W~ ~V- 769 1 as:~.zoo ~ du Eac m ~'m-~~' '. ern `~ / W 2 2 c/ CITY OF ORANGE Reclassification No. 2003-00098 Subject Property Date: June 16, 2003 Scale: Graphic Requested By: CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING DEPARTMENT Q.S. No. 124, 125, 126, 134, 135, 136, A CITY-INITIATED (PLANNING DEPARTMENT) REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF SEVERAL PROPERTIES FROM THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ZONING DESIGNATION, A1, "GENERAL AGRICULTURE" TO THE RS-A-43,000 (RESIDENTIAUAGRICULTURAL) ZONE FOR ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. West of the Santa Ana River, east of the Orange Freeway, south of South Street and north of Cerritos Avenue `Staff Report to the S ? Planning`Commission June 16j2003 Item NoP13 13a: CEQANEGATIVEbECLARATION (Motion) 13bc RECLASSIFICATIONNO:'2003-00098' r(Resolution) SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:- (1) :This irregularly-shaped, 185-acre cluster of properties is located west of the Santa Ana `River, east of the Orange (SR-57) Freeway, south of South Street and north of Cerritos 'Avenue. REQUEST: (2) 'City-initiated request to reclassify several'properties within the County of Orange from the County ofOrange zoning designation, A1'"General: Agricultural" to the RS-A-43,000r {Residential/Agricultural) zone for annexation into the City of Ahaheim: ' BACKGROUND: (3) The proposed reclassification is part of the pre-zoning processand the preliminary steps 'required by LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) to process the annexation of several County properties into the City of Anaheim. (4) On May 5,..2003, the Planning Commissioh initiated the Reclassification df the subject properties<for annexation. (5) These properties are curcently Utilized forCounty water services and are zoned Al "General Agriculture" within the County of Orange. The Anaheim General Plan Lantl Use 'Element Map designates these?properties for Open Space and' Water land uses. (6) Surrounding land uses are as follows: "ty d.';^at f,y~ "r* "w'~'A' r~ Drrect~on ~ y~;,~`-~~~ p-~v~.,~r~ ~ ~ ~~, „-eta d~UseR ~ ~ y^x . ~ ci, 5~ dN ~tiR~Zaning~ ~ ,~' p ~ry/2 '~~' ~ '~.".~C`' .v- c $ _~ 6eneral RlarrDest~natian r y ~ 4 North Single-Family RS-7200 Low Density Residential !: Residences East City of Orange - South (across Industrial businesses ML ! General Industrial Cerritos Avenue) West Single-Family'.'. RS-7200 and CL Low Density Residential Residences ahd and General Commercial Anaheim Auto Center DISCUSSION: (7) :The rezoning of these properties from the County Al "General`Agricultural" zone to the RS- A-43,000"zone would be consistent with he existing,water uses of these properties:: < sr8614bav.doc Page 1 Staff Report to the; Planning. Commission June 16;2003 Item No 13 (8) This City-initiated request for the subjectreclassification is the preliminary step of the `annexation process: of "County islands" into the City of Anaheim. An "island" is a pocket of `:land that is surrounded by, butnot within any city's;boundaries. The subject properties are ' ' currently;receiving municipal services from, and are: represented by, the County Board of Supervisors. (9) Annexation includes. the following steps: Approval of Adoption of CEQA Application to Initiating pre-zoning compliance LAFCO Motion` Property tax LAFCO LAFCO'staff LAFCO,public exchange application review ' hearing; Recordation of Certificate of Completion (10) : On Octotier 29, 2002, the City`Council approved a memorandum of undi:rstanding with the County of Orange stipulating that the City of Anaheim pursue°a process hat mayf cad to the annexation of all the unincoporated territories within Anaheim's sphere of influence over a two year period. The State fias also made the annexation of county islands a priority of local government through the adoption of AB 1555jn January; 2000. This bill eased the procedural requirements for certain island annexations in order to assist. LAFCO and local cities with the annexation process. (11) :The benefits of annexing the county islands would include an improvement in the delivery of government services, land use and development. standard compatibility, local code enforcement services and a clearer understanding,of jurisdiction by the community. (12) s The proposed prezoning would reclassify these properties into City of Anaheim zone that is ' compa~abie to existing Gounty zoning and the existing development and use existing on 'the subject properties. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: (13) Staff has'reviewed the proposal and the tnitial Study (a copy of which is'available for review in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore, r recommends thata 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,togetherwhh any ' comments receivetl 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 thatthe projecYwill have a significant effect on the environment. Page 2 Staff Report to the 'Planning, Commission lJune 16; 2003 Item No.'13 GROWTKMANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (14) The proposed project has been Peviewed by affected: City departments to determine whether if 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; flp analysis has been performed. RECOMMENDATION: (15) Staff recommends that unless additional or contrary information is received during the meeting, and based'upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the ' evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing that the Commission take the following actions: (a) Bymotion, a rove a CEQA Negative Declaration. (b) By resolution; a rove Reclassification No. 2003-00098 to reclassify several properties from the County Al "General Agriculture" zone to the City of Anaheim RS-A-43,000 zone. ".Page 3 I RS-A-03,000 MOBILEHOME FARM 4, FREEY~ PY y. s 0 Reclassification No. 2003-00099 Subject Property Date: June 16, 2003 Scale: Graphic Requested By: CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING DEPARTMENT O.S. No. 134, 141, 142, 146 A CITY-INITIATED (PLANNING DEPARTMENT) REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF SEVERAL PROPERTIES FROM THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ZONING DESIGNATION, A1, "GENERAL AGRICULTURE", TO THE RS-A-43,000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE FOR ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. South of the Riverside Freeway, north of Lincoln Avenue and is divided by Glassell Street. 726 Staff Report to the Planning;Commisson Uune16;2003 Item No; 14 14a1 CEQA NEGATIVEbECLARATION (Motion) ; 14b; RECLASSIFICATION N0: 2003-00099'- (Resolution) SITE LOCATIOMANDDESCRIPTION'; - ( (1) This irregularly-shaped, 177-acre cluster of properties is located south of the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, north of Lincoln Avenue and is divided by Glassell Street. REQUEST: (2) City-initiated request for reclassification tb reclassify several properties within the County of Orange from the County of Orange zoning designation, Al "General Agricultural" to the RS- A-43,000`(Residential/Agricultural) zone for annexation Into the City of Anaheim. BACKGROUND: (3) The proposed reclassification is part of the pre-zoning process'and the preliminary steps required by IAFCQ (Local Agertcy Formation Commission) to process the annexation of `several County properties into the City of Anaheim. (4) On May 5,;2003, the'Planning Commission initiated he Reclassification of the subject propertiesfor annexation. (5) These properties are currently utilized for County water services and are zoned Ai r "GenerafAgriculture" within the County of Orange. The City of Anaheim Land Use Element Map designates these properties for Water• land uses. (6) 'Surrounding land uses are as follows: ~.~,' a~,'.~'`{4`"` ` "" s ~:r~, Nf~ r'f.~ ?m se,-i t .a~ ,~~:h ~ rr s~n`'f~ .--w".-, t S r ves .4 ^ .r :-., ;, µx. x d'Yr.. ~ Daregfiaq ~ t La~-d Use ~ ~. ~< .a Zoramg ~ ~ ~ ehera Plan Dasi naf~on ~ g4 ~ F,... a , , ~~ , ~ ~_ ~~ _,,.,..r. ~ ~ ,.. . s >,, ~ ~,w North 'Hotel ML -` General Industrial East City of Orange - South City of Orange - West ' Single-Family and F2S-7200 and Low Density and Medium Multiple-Family- Density Residential Residences RM-1200 DISCUSSION: (7) The rezoning of these properties from the. County Ai' "General Agricultural" to the RS-A- 43,000 zone would. be consistent with the'existing water uses. ' sr8614cav,doc Page 1 ': Staff Report to the ` Planning Commission June 16,2003 Item No.'14 (8) :This City-initiated request for the subject reclassification is thepreliminary step of tte "annexation process of "County'islands" into the City: of Anaheim. An "island" is a popket of eland that is surrounded by, bufnot within any city's boundaries: The subject properties are currently receiving municipal services from, and arerepresented by, thetCounty Board of Supervisors, (9) Annexation includes the following steps: Approval of Adoption of CEQA Application to Initiating pre-zoning compliance LAFCO Motion': Property tax LAFCO IAFCO staff LAFCO public exchange application review hearing Recordation of Certificate of Completion (10) On October 29, 2002, the City Council approved a memorandum of understanding with the County of Orange stipulating that the City of Anaheim pursue a process that may lead to the annexation of all he unincoporated territories within Anaheim's sphere of influence over !a two year period. The State has also made the annexation of county islands a priority of local govemment through the adoption of A6 1555 in January,'2000. This bill eased the 'procedural requirements for certain island annexations in order to assisEtAFCO and local rcities with`the annexation process. (11) The benefits of annexing the county islands would include an improvement in the delivery of government services, land use and development tandard compatibility, local code s enforcement services and a clearer understanding ofjurisdiction by the'community (12) The proposed prezoning would reclassify these properties into. City of Anaheim zone that is `comparable to existing Countyzoning and the existing development and'use existing on 'the subject properties. Page 2? 'Staff Report to the i Planning'Commissioh June 16j2003 Item No: 14 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 nosignificant environmehtal impact and, therefore, recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning Commission that the Negative.Declaratioh reflects the independentjudgment of the! lead agency; and that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with`any comments received`during thepublic review processand further finding bn the basis of the 'Initial Study and any comments`Yeceived that there is no substantial evidence thatihe project willhave a significant effect on the environment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS: (14) ?he proposed projec$has beenireviewedbyaffected City departments tp'determine whether it ponforms with the City's Growth: Management Element adopted by the'City Council on March 1T' 1992. Based on City staff review of theproposedproject, ifhas been determined that thisproject does not fit within the scope necessary to require a Growth Management Element analysis,: therefore; no analysis has been pertormed. RECOMMENDATION: (15) Staff recommends that unless additional pr contrary information is received during the :meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the evidence p~esented'in this staff :report, and oral andwritten evidence presented at the 'public hearing that the Commission take the following actions:' (a) By'motion, approve a CEOP, Negative Declaration. (b) By;resolution, approveReclassification No. 2003-00099 to reclassify severs( properties from the County Al "General Agriculture" zone to the City of Anaheim RS-A-43,000: Page 3