PC 2003/06/30CITY OF ANAHEIM
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
JUNE 30, 2003
Council Chambers, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California
CALL TO ORDER '
RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC.;HEARING,SESSION
,, -~,,.. r-.__~.~.-
RECONVENE TO t?UBLIC.HEARING1:30-P.M. ~"-"
For record keeping+purposes if~oufwish to~make a s'tafeinent rega~ingan~
complete a speaker card and soGrriitrtdo•t>e'seeretaip;.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ~~ ~~. .` ~""
41 ..r
PUBLIC COMMENTS '
CONSENT CALENDAR ~ _- _ `
h
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
item on the agenda, please
D ROMERO,
IT SEAT)
(MISSION MORNING SESSION,1,0;30=A.NI.
:TO~COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY `_,
'S'AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY.
AMISSION)- .
~[AN~REVIEV1l"FOR..ITEMS ON T1jE JUNE 30, 2003 AGENDA
06-30-03
Page 1
RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Presentation of a plaque to John Koos in acknowledgement of his 5 years of service on the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS:
Appointment of a Planning Commission Chairperson
Appointment of a Planning Commissron Chairperson Pro-Tempore
(Motion)
(Motion)
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
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-B on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate
discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission,
staff or the public request the item to be discussed andlor removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
REPORTS AND RECOflflMENDATiONS
A. (a) CEQA EIR NO. 313 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED)
(b) FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2003-00006
Edward Chuchla, 1401 Flower Street, Glendale, CA 91221, requests
review and approval of a Final Site Plan to provide for the construction
of a new parking area for the Radisson Hotel and the conversion of a
portion of the existing Radisson Hotel parking lot area to agricultural
uses. Property is located at 1850 and 1870 S. Harbor Boulevard
(Radisson Hotel and adjacent agricultural farm land).
B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission
Meetings of June 16, 2003. (Motion)
Project Planner:
(skim aC~anaheim.net)
Q. S. 88
sr6615sk1.doc
06-30-03
Page 2
PUBLFC HEARING ITEM
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Request for
2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4187 continuance to
(TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04704) July 14, 2003
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 Colleae Boulevard. Property is
approximately 1.93 acres, located north and east of the
northeast corner 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 and June 16, 2003, Planning Commission
Meetings. Project Planner:
(ioramirez(a)anaheim.net)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
Q.S. 111
sr5018jr.doc
3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 Request for
3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT continuance to
3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2001-04435 July 14, 2003
(TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04712)
OWNER: Palmall Properties Inc., 1428 West Bay Avenue, Newport
Beach, CA 92661
AGENT: Louis Garcet, Fat Daddy's Auto Spa, 900 West Lincoln
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 900 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately
0.58-acre, located at the southwest comer of Lincoln
Avenue and Ohio Street (Fat Daddy's Hand Auto Spa &
Chicago Eatery).
Request 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.
Continued from the June 16, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting.
Project Planner:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. (ioramirez(a anaheim.net)
Q.S. 62
sr5019jr.doc
06-30-03
Page 3
4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 Request for
4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04660 continuance to
July 14, 2003
OWNER: Tran Thomas, The Vision Community Church, 1655 West
Broadway, Suite 6, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: Francis Yoon, 1655 West Broadway, Suite 6, Anaheim, CA
92805
LOCATION: 1655 West Broadwav. Property is approximately 0.83-
acre having a frontage of 130 feet on the north side of
Broadway, located 525 feet east of the centerline of Euclid
Street.
Project Planner:
To permit and retain a church within an existing office building. (vnorwood@anaheim.net)
Q.S. 54
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. sr8620vn.doc
5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1
5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1801
(TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04713)
OWNER: Ignacio E. Arroyo, 632 North East Street, Anaheim, CA
92805
AGENT: Alfonso A. Chu, 632 North East Street, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 632 North East Street. Property is approximately 0.27-
acre, located at the northeast comer of Eastwood Drive and
East Street.
Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a Project Planner:
condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on June 4, (cwaoner(o~anaheim.net)
2001 to expire June 04, 2003) to retain a board and care facility for adults.
Q.S. 92
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. sr1119cw.doc
06-30-03
Page 4
6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1
6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04715
OWNER: Tom Stull, Aspen La Loma Circle Properties, 2951 East La
Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806
AGENT: Bryan Myrick, Brian's Auto Service, 4420 Avenida De Los _
Arboles, Yorba Linda, CA 92886
LOCATION: 1258 North La Loma Circle. Property is approximately 1.4
acres, having a frontage of 385 feet on the south side of La
Loma Circle, located 500 feet south of the centerline of
Miralpma Avenue (Brian's Auto Service).
To permit an automotive repair business within an existing industrial
building Project Planner:
(avazcuez(a~anaheim.net}
.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Q.S. 131
sr8622av.doc
7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED)
7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3843
(TRACKING NO. CUP2003.04717)
OWNER: Shakour & Cyrus, 120 North La Reina Circle # 1, Anaheim,
CA 92801
AGENT: Shakour Cyrus, 2600 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA
92801
LOCATION: 2600 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately
0.29-acre, located at the southwest corner of Lincoln
Avenue and Magnolia Avenue (Wheel Service Texaco).
Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a
condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on June 19,
2000 to expire June 19, 2003) to retain retail fire sales and installation, Project Planner:
automobile repair with accessory sales of parts, and used automobile. (evambaoCo~anaheim.net}
safes in a former gasoline service station.
Q.S. 20
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. sr3031ey.doc
06-30-03
Page 5
8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1
8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2003-04711
OWNER: Robert D. Zantos, 1832 North Glassell Street, Orange, CA
92865
AGENT: Roger Padilla, Royal Coach By Victor, 1742 North Case
Street, Orange, CA 92856
LOCATION: 1190 North Kraemer Boulevard. Property is
approximately 1.9 acres, located at the southeast corner of
Coronado Street and Kraemer Boulevard (Royal Coach by
Victor).
To permit conversion of new automobiles into limousines.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO.
9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
9b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00104
9c. REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF "GRANDFATHER" PROVISIONS
CITY-INITIATED: Cityof Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South
Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION:
a combined area of approximately 6.5 acres. Thirty-
five (35) properties are located on the north and south
sides of Broadway between West Street to the west
and Citron Street to the east. One additional property
is located on the west side of Citron Street
approximately 192 feet south of the centerline of
Broadway.
Ciry-initiated request for reclassification of the subject properties from the
RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone to the RS-5000 and RS-
7200 (Residential, Single-Family) zones or a less intense zone.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
Project Planner:
(cwaoner(a.anaheim.oet)
Q.S. 140
sr1120cw.doc
Project Planners.:
(cfl ores(rD a nah ei m.net)
(dsee ananaheim.net)
Q.S.fi3 & 73
s2130ds.dac
06-30-03
Page 6
10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
10b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00105
10c. REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF "GRANDFATHER" PROVISIONS
CITY-INITIATED: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South
Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION:
City-initiated request for reclassification of the subject properties from the
RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone to the RS-5000 or the RS-
7200 (Residential, Single-Family) zone or a less intense zone.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
Project Planners:
(cFlores a(~.anaheim.net)
(d see(a~anah ei m: n et)
Q.S. 71
sr2131 ds.doc
06-30-03
Page 7
west sides of Lemon Street and the east and west
sides of Zeyn Street, with a combined area of
approximately 9.17 acres, located between North
Street to the north and Wilhelmina Street to the south.
11 a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
11 b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00106
11 c. REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF "GRANDFATHER" PROVISIONS
CITY- INITIATED: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim
Boulevard, Suite 1ti2, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: Study Area 1 -512 516 517 520 521 524 525 526 529 530 533 534
537. 539. 540, 542 and 543 West Chestnut Street. This area consists of
21 properties with a combined area of 3.52 acres. Seventeen (17) properties
are located on the north and south sides of Chestnut Street, approximately
165 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard. 513.517. 521 and 527
West Broadway. Four (4) additional properties are located on the north side
of Broadway, approximately 165 feet west of the centerline of Harbor
Boulevard.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
Study Area 2 - 502 506 507 510 511 514 515 518 519 522 523 526
559 South Janss Street. This area consists of 45 properties on the east
and west sides of Resh Street and the west side of Janss Street, with a
combined area of approximately 5.72 acres, located between Santa Ana
Street to the north and Water SVeet to the south.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
Study Area 4 - 302 308 312 318 324 328 400 404 410 414 420 and
424 North Citron Street. This area consists of 12 properties on the east
side of Gitron Street, with a combined area of approximately 2.0 acres,
located between Sycamore Street to the north and Cypress Street to the
south.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
Study Area 5 - 301 307 319 331 401 407 415 417 421 and 427 North
Harbor Boulevard. This area consists of 10 properties on the west side of
Harbor Boulevard, with a combined area of approximately 1.73 acres,
located between Sycamore Street to the north and Cypress Street to the
south.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
Study Area 6 - 302.306. 308. 312. 316, 320 and 324 North Lemon Street.
This area consists of 8 properties with a combined area of approximately
1.35 acres. Seven (7) properties are located on the east side of Lemon
Street, between Adele Street to the north and Cypress Street to the south.
402 North Lemon Street. This property is located at the northeast corner of
Adele Street and Lemon Street.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
06-30-03
Page 8
Study Area 8 - 206. 214 and 216 East Adele Street and 317 and 321
North Emily Street. This area consists of 5 properties on the south side of
Adele Street and the west side of Emily Street, with a combined area of
approximately 0.74 acres, located between Claudina Street to the west and
Emily Street to the east.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
Study Area 9 - 202.204.208, 212.218 and 224 East Broadway. This area
consists of 6 properties on the south side of Broadway, with a combined area
of approximately 1.0 acre, located between Claudina Street to the west and
Philadelphia Street to the east.
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO.
City-initiated request for reclassification of the subject properties from the CL
(Commercial, Limited), RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family), RM-2400 (Residential,
Multiple-Family), PD-C/RM-2400 and (Parking District -Commercial/RM-2400 Zone)
zones to the RS-5000 and RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) zones or a less intense
zone.
ADJOURN TO MONDAY, JULY 14, 2003 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW.
Project Planners:
(cflores Cad a nah ei m. nel)
(dsee(a~ ana h ei m: n et)
Q.S. 62, 72, 73 & 83
sr2132ds.doc
06-30-03
Page 9
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
(TIME) (DATE)
LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND
~j COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK
SIGNED: " o'v''~ ~ ~^.~^'°^^
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 Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing
before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing.
ANAHEIM 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 pepartment, (714) 765-5139. Notification 46 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.
06-30-03
Page 10
~CE-IE®~LE
2003
JULY 14
JULY 28
AUGUST 11
AUGUST 25
SEPTEMBER 8
SEPTEMBER 22
OCTOBER 6
OCTOBER 20
NOVEMBER3
NOVEMBER 17
DECEMBER1
DECEMBER 15
DECEMBER 29
06-30-03
Page 11
I TEF1 IJO. 1-A
el~^ ~
Jam' ~ ~a a ~~"'„m ° drv: 09;
G5°...°. ~~i~Y"~" °° d;~"~
E ±rMi.il~
T~ ~ _ KATELLA AVENUE o....,..1_
ELL °wP°.a~ nn
Bx~oP°
2
m~0
ydj~i
0
V
bP@1
OIENEVIANG EYPLOVEE
pMIVNG
SP B21
acwuanwE
BP@1
RLL86b/d111 G91
RLL 6)A]6
CUPIIBI
cuv l@i
CVP )tW
CVP EIS/bVP id6
msxEVUxo EUpwvEE
paxlBxc
m @a
PPRpNG
PMti
- ~kp p~R~pe
sg ~~~ A~a;;>
r KEN, WN\BYIiP.9
6PB$-1
RLLESdEJ$
IN~oIIMIRb RLL1 Q01
RCL @~d6
~~wa NYn1YCA~
cup ].@
cYP ZUP ILW
IS/6VP 16B
GI6NEYUNG EMPLOYEE
PMXING
pLLIRI
RCLB5f881
CVP )m
wlso
YELUYn
IPM)YEM6
0
'
j
3 d
¢
Y ~ c~
rm W
(7 ~ EMV
MMtY
9
CONVEMION 0 ~
a~ ~
WAY (d pcLbO
d
ll6e1
RCL66b/d11361 rL
~ cw f to W
~ ~
III)
z m
.I
rv
< R' Q
rv u Q PMRING =
i
"
3 SP 823
¢
3
E O pLL13N
@
JB]
d
CVPZI)
iRENCppVM)Eq
VKM1i PFMINENi6
T
v.)
°
vrwvr vv
YVxr
1_.~!_
6Paax RLLI>m
] RLtme/d11E11 M'Lnn 1
CVP]Ett
6Y~wwnde6M O
VM ]A1 By gIL130
fiE6T VRB)FRH PCLB)d}1B
q/iFFIEE IHN {- CVP3®
tBN)EB 6P®3 N VM ]4}GIi9)
RCL)6)Idi M NISIFANOOVB
6B8/dl R41>m
LL MMIYENI6
6PB$
) I~C~P~]BI)~1 RLL)6nd] F pU
8E611
-
Ruweldtlul VM )m1 IRw d°OemelY Cn) Z cw]1v
VM SSY
MNXEW LgIPgM6CWE
VALI.TdIpEBGRi VM ]E)9
P
pWGG W GPIAGEV.00G WgpEN
KAR)Y
IMERIUTGIUL tYW N W EM6
YOO IRN\6UREb M/.R}YEMB J qY,~
1n you U yg/m
i
I
n V.tXG
R
t M
GP9i]m m Xr~l9~~gb
~W
pRANGEW000 AVENUE
~
~ ~
~ ~"'
I ~:: I~ I Bsnm I
Final Site Plan No. 2003-00006 w Subject Property
~.ka ~.4
Date: June 30, 2003
Scale: Graphic
Requested By: EDWARD CHUCHLA Q.S. No. 88
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A FINAL SITE PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PARKING AREA FOR THE RADISSON HOTEL AND THE
CONVERSION OF A PORTION OF THE EXISTING RADISSON HOTEL PARKING LOT AREA
TO AGRICULTURAL USES.
1850 and 1870 South Harbor Boulevard -The Radisson Hotel and adjacent agricultural farm land aao
ITEM N0.
J ~
a ® Rs-7zoD _
x 1 ou EACH
rn ~
a v-14sz
ROSEWOOD AVE
~ ~
RS-7200 _® a < R
I Oi EACH I U U 7-~
j j V
~ ~
Q
O ~ r
m m r
W ^ '
'^ N
W
J <'.
O s!
U
CL (MHP)
RCL 82-83-22
55-56-7
CUP 258
ANAHEIM ROYAL MOBILHOME PARK._
120 RESIDENTIAL SPACES
RM-1200
RCL 70-71-07
VAR 2432
VAR 2195
CHAPARRAL APARTMENTS
260 DU
ROMNEYA DRIVE
CL
RCL 76-77-06
RCL 75-76.36
C
324 RCL 77-7641 VA
ANT BLDG.
APART MENTS
CL
RCL 75-76-
BANK
CL cL
ALBERTSON'S Ve~P cB
RCL
Q SEI
I- FO(
N N
N
~'
273
BALSAM AVE
4 DU ~3DUI 4DU
Conditional Use Permit No. 4187 Subject Property
TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04704 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.
RS-A-43,D00 (MHP)
RCL 82-63-22 -
ANAHEIM ROYAL MOBILHOME PARK
RM-1200
RCL 70-715
RCL 70-71-12
RCL 63-64-29
CUP 469
VAR 2500
VAR 2237
VAR 2203
APARTMENTS
s6 OU
U I
~ ~
~
f- 4DU 3 DU
~ v-lsao
U
\~
D
D
:TI
1
1220-1230 North State College Boulevard -Islamic Institute of Orange County 706(2003-5.20)
Staff Report to the
Planhing Commissioh
`Jane 30,2003
Item No. 2
2a. CEQA NEGATIVEbECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVEDI
2b. '' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4187 (Motion for continuance)
r' (Tracking Na CUP2003-047041='
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly'shaped 1:93 acre property is located north and east df the northeast corner of
Placentia Avenue and`State College Boulevard and has frontages of 171 feet on the north side
of Placentia Avenue, antl 279 feet on the east side of State CollegeBoulevard (1220 - 1230
North State College Boulevard -Islamic Institute of Orange County):
REQUEST:
(2) The petitioner requests to emend exhibits for a previously approved church to permit phased
construction'df the mairi building ahd parking lot.
BACKGROUND:
(3) At the requesfof the petitioner, this item was continued from the June 2, and June 16,
2003, Planning Commission meetings in order to allow the petitioner time to address site
design and coordination issues with staff.
(4) This' property is developed with a partially constructed mosque and is zoned CL (Commercial,
Limited). The Anaheim General Ptah Land Use Element Map designates the site far
Commercial Professiohalland uses::
(5) Tim Caballero„representing the Islamic Institute of Orange County, has submitted the attached
letter received`on June 20, 2003, requesting atwo-week continuarice to the July 14, 2003,
Planning Commission meeting in order to allow more time to address site design and
coordination issues with. staff. If all outstanding issues are resolved, this item. may be withdrawn
from'the Commission's agenda at a subsequent meetingi
RECOMMENDATION:
(6) Staff recommends that the Commission, by motion, continue this item to the July 14, 2003,
meeting to allow the petitioner time to address these items.
Sr5018jr.doc
Page 1
ATTACHPIENT - ITEH N0. 2
To: John Ramirez
Assistant Planner
City of Anaheim
From: Tim Caballero 714.396.1423
Steven Phillips Architect
Re: CONTINUANCE
CUP 4187
Tracking File CUP 2003-04704
1220 N. State College Boulevard
Anaheim, California 92801
JUN72~3
RECEIVED
PLANNING
DER4RTMENT
In order to work out site design and operational issues, we would like to request a continuance of our
case from the June 30, 2003 Planning Commission meeting to the 14" of July, 2003 meeting.
Thank you very much for your kind consideration.
Steven Phillips • Architect • AIA • 23187 La Cadena Drive • Suite 101 -Laguna Hills, GA 92653 949.768-7244
ITEM N0.
~~ GHNn
~~Uv
VAR 236
PSGH~O
PN M~ M N`` H
RM-~2~H~GH
PNPSGHOG~
N
CGS®'n~ Gc
CPPWP N a ~G b AN
a
Z~f
9
of
~~N~v~~
236
19~
C
t
c~Npp
I
G
PN1
DU
UP 832
~ D~
0
Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04435 ~:: Subject Property
_ ..,.~.
TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04712 Date: June 16, 2003
Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: PALMALLPROPERTIES INC. 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
Staff Report to the
Planning. Com mission:
`June 30,2003
'`item No. 3
3a ' CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1
3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0: 2001-04435 :'(Motion for continuance)
tTracking No CUP2003-04712)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This rectangularly-shaped 0.58 acre property is located at the southwest corner of Lincoln
Avenue and Ohio Street with frontages of 168 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenueand
148 feet on the west side of Ohio Street (900 West Lincoln Avenue -Anaheim Car Wash).
r REQUEST:
(2) The. petitloner`requests to amend or delete conditions of approval for apreviously-approved
carwash with accessory take-out fast-food service and fo permit a modular office trailer under
authority of Code Sections 18.03.030.010, 18;03.040, 18.03.092 and 18.45.050.080 with
waiver of:
SECTION 18:06.050.0233 Minimum number of parkino spaces.
(DELETED)
BACKGROUND:
', (3) At the request of the Planning Commission, this item was continued from the June 16,
2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner time to comply
with conditions of approval and'code enforcemenfviolationsyertaining to the car
wash property.
(4) This property is developed with an`existing 1,116 square foot car wash with an accessory
take-out fasffood service and uh-permitted modular office trailer,.and is zoned CG (General
Commercial):: The Land'Use Element Map of the Anaheim General Plan designates this
property for General Commercial land uses.
' (5) The business owner, Louis Garrey has submitted the attached letter dated June 19, 2003,
requesting a'two-week'continuande to the July 14, 2003:, Planning Commission meeting in
order to allow: more time to comply with conditions of approval and code enforcement
violations pertaining to the car wash property.
RECOMMENDATION:
(6) Staff recommends thafthe Commission, by motion, continue this item to the July 14, 2003,
meeting to allow the petitioner time to address these items.
Sr5019jcdoc
Page 1
06/21/2003 13:54 9092773121 GARRETT PAGE 01
ATTACHt1EtJT - I TEt1 IJO. 3
June 19, 2003
Dear planning commission,
~c~ •<~
~3
~U{y' ~~~ `"~
RECEIYEO
PI-ANNI ""
®EF14R7AtENT ~~
As per our conversation on June 16, 2003 we need to request a continuance. To abide by
the stipulations in the C.1?.U we need to hire a contractor. This process is going to take
longer than two weeks to accomplish So 1 am asking for a continuance through July 14,
2003. /
Thank You,
Louis Garreff7r: `~ l
Fat Daddy's Auto Spa cago Eatery
IVV . Y
I
56 57-27
CUP 1357 RM-1200
RM-1200 RM-1200
RCL 67-68-80 CH
VAR 2578 S 55-56-01
55-56-41 VAR 1974 RCL 64-65-53
V-10765 V-1360 V-1360 76 DU VAR 2520,5 .. _..
V-1015 S 40 DU q0 DU MILLS FORD
CAR WASH
PAMPAS LANE
CL
RCL 59-60-113
VAR 2155 S
SMALL SHOPS RM-1200
RCL fit-62-47 RM-1200
RCL 59.60-113 VAR 1454 RCL fi0E1-B
I- VAR 2155 S APARTMENTS VAR 1265
W
W ADJ 0025
CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC 41 DU APTS.
30 DU
~ 9 6
H- :RCL 5
0-113
(n CUP 3956
~ W.M.C.A.
J CL
(
) RCL 59-60-113
,
~
CUP 1451 CL
UJ
MURG PLAZA fi0-61-63
COMM. SHOPS ANAHEIM
MEDICAL -
SQUARE m f
w
R
~
5-06 9 /
1
~~1 GL 5
0-11 DENTAL
141 RCL 5360.113 CUP 3082 OFFICES
115 CUP 3169 CHURCH
SERV. STN.
8 MINI MART
- ' j '
1 525 ~ ~-130
1 CL
-11 5 RCL 90-91-24 CL
6 55-56-2 55-56-2
1 CUP 3358 VAR 2353
'S V-7005 OFFICE
SRV. STN. BUILDING
CL CL
55-56-2
~ 55-56-2 VAR 2353 RM-1200
VAR 2353 V-1081 61-62-OZ
BAR SMALL SHOP S CUP 333
8 LIOUOR CUP 220
U3 LE CHATEAU IV ARMS
464 C APARTMENTS
CUP 2092 96 DU
VAR 1868
RESTAU RANT I
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04660
Requested By: FRANCIS YOON
RS-A-43,000
LOARA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CL
RCL fi0~61-63
CUP 2003-04fi60
BROADWAY
~T
PT6.
LL
CUP 909
PRESCHOOL/
CAV CARE
Rs-a43.o69
CUP 1032
CHURCH
RM-1200
RCL 07.60-19
CUP 2952
SMALL
INDUST.
FIRM
7DU
ML !-
3L 6361-36 W
CUP 221] Q
cuP m45 ~
A-43,aou Q
cUP 939 ~
CUP 922 J
RM-1200
55-56-15
SHERW000 RIVIERA
APARTMENTS
60 DU
Subject Property
Date: June 30, 2003
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 54
TO PERMIT AND RETAIN A CHURCH WITHIN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING.
1655 West Broadway
!I
771
'1
Staff Report to the i
Planning Commission
June 30; 2003
.Item No. 4i
4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1
4b. 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0 2003-04660 " (Motion'for continuance)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION::
(1) This rectangulary-shaped 0.83-acre property has a frontage of 130 feet on the north side of
Broadway;'a maximum depth of 291 feet and is located 525 feet east of the centerline of
Euclid Street (1655 West Broadway).
REQUEST:
r (2) The petitioner requests approval'of a conditional use permit under authority of Code
'Section 18.44.050.130 to permits church within anexisting office building::
BACKGROUND:'
(3) This property is developed with atwo-story office building and is zoned CL (Commercial,
Limited).'The Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element Map designates the site for:
:Commercial Professional land uses.
(4) The representative for the church, Myung Chung, submitted a letter datedJune 13, 2003,
Yequesting;a continuance to the July 14,2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to
advertise a'waiver of setback far institutional uses atljacent to residential zones.
RECOMMENDATION:
(5) That the Planning Commission; by motion;'continue this item to the July 14, 2003, Commission
meeting as requested by the petitioner.
Sr8620vn.doo
.Page 1
ATPACIfi1IIVT - ITl1 PLO. 4
June 13, 2003
Anaheim Planning Department
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, California, CA 92803
Re: CUP .application for church located at 1655 W. Broadway
(Reference CUP No. 2003-04-660)
Dear Ms. Norwood:
I would like to request the continuation of the above referenced case for another 2 weeks.
Thank you for your favorable consideration.
Sincerely,
~`~ n~t
<r~
N ~N,.
JV Vev
p~ANN1N~
pE4AF1MEN~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO.~c327 3-pcf~0
`Staff Report to the
:'Planning Commission
:June 30,:2003
Item No. 5
5a. i CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 (Motion)
5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1801: (Resolu4on)
(TRACKING NO. CUP 2003=04713)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This rectangularly-shaped, 0.27-acre property is located at the northeast corner of
Eastwood Drive and East Street;: having frontages of 98 feet on the north side of Eastwood
Drive and 90 feet on the east side of EastStreet (632 North East Street).
REQUEST:
(2) The petitioner requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a
condition of approval pertaining o a time limitation (approved on June 4; 2001, to expire on
June 4, 2003) to retain a board and care facility for atlults underthe authprity of Code
'Section 78.03.093.
::BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is developed with asingle-family residence that has been converted to a
board and cared fact' and is zoned RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Familyj. The Anaheim
General Pian Land Use Element Map designates this'site for low density residential land
uses.
(4) Surrounding land uses are as follows:
Direction Land Use Zoning General Plan
Desi nation
North, East, South (across Eastwood Drive) Single-Family RS-7200 Low Density
and West!: across East Street) Residences Residential
(5) Conditional Use Permit No. 1801 (to permit a board and care facility for 14 "elderly'
7esldents with waiver'of minimum front yard setback) was approved by the Planning
'Commission on February 13, 1978.On June 4, 2001'the Planning Commission approved a
modification to CUP1801 (Tracking No, CUP2001-04360), which altered the previously
approved board and'care for the "elderly".(over 60 years of age) to allow tioard and care for
adults (age 18-59).,Condition No. 7 of Resolution Nor PC2001-72 (approving the
'modification) reads as follows:::
"7. That subject board and care facility is approved for up to fourteen''(14) adulf (ages
18=59 years}mentally disabled ambulatory residents, who have been screened to
successfully,integrate into a residential setting. This portion of the conditional use
permit shall expire in two (2) years from the date of this resolution; on June 4,
2003 °
DISCUSSION:
(6) Alfonso Chu, Stanford Homes Board and Care Administrator, has submitted a request for
reinstatement to retain a board.and care for mentallyiiisabled ambulatory residentsages
18-59 years. The petitioner alsd requests deletion of the condition of approval pertaining to
'a time limitation.
Sr1119cw.doc
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission`.
June 30,'.2003
'Item No. 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(11) The Planning Director's authorized representative has'determined that the proposed project
falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing.:
Facilities), as defined'in the CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the
requiremehtto prepare additional environmental documentation:
'GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS:
(12) The proposed project has been reviewed by affected City departments to determine
whether itconforms 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
determinetl that this project does not fit within the scope necessary to require a Growth
' Management Element analysis, therefore, ho analysis fias been pertormed.
FINDINGS:
(13) 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) Thatthe proposed use is`properly one for which a conditional use permit Is
authorized by, the Zoning Code, orthat 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 developmentbf 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 mannernot detrimental to the particular area
no6to 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 the raffic 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 18.03.093.040 of the Zoning Code requires that before the Commission grants
'reinstatement of the approval by extension: of any time limitatiors for an additional period or
periods of ime, or such time limitation is deleted or modified, the applicant must present
°evidence o 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 Cftapter 16:03 exist;
(b) Said permit isbeing exercised substantially inthe 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
surroundingiand uses, nor to the public peace, health ahd safety and general
welfare; and
.Page 3
Staff Report`to the
Planning Commission :
June 30,.2003
Item No. 5
(d)' With regard only to any deletion of a time limitation, such deletion is necessary to
permitireasonable operation under the 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 Commission, including the
evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Commission take the following acti3ns:
(a) By motion, determine that the project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301,
Class;l (ExistingFacilities);ofthe'CEQAGuidelines.
(b) By resolution, approve reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 1801 (Tracking
No, CUP 2003-04713) to retain a board and care facility for up to fourteen (14) adult
(ages(18-59 years) mentally disabled ambulatory residents; who have been
screened to successfully integrate into a residential setting; without time limitation,
based on the following:
(i) That this permit has been substaptiatly operated in the same manner as
originally approved by he Commission. Code Enforcement Division has
inspected the premises and has determined that thefacility is ih`compliance
with all applicable conditions of`approval.
(ii) That the permit is being exercised in a manlier not detrimental to the particular
area and surroundinglandnses,+as evidenced by the'absence'of Code
Enforcement Division complaints for this property.
(lii) That there have been no changes to the applicable zone standards that would
invalidate the findings: that were the basis for the original approval of this
permit.
(c) Staff further recommends that the Commission amend Resolution No: PC2001-72 in
its entirety, to be replaced by a new resolution with the following conditions of
approval based on the finding that the modificatipn is necessary to permit the
reasonable operation of this board and care facility:
1. That all services, including meals provided`by this facility, shall tie for the
residents at this address (632 North East Street) only:::
2. That a valid'business license shall be maintained for this facility from the
Business License Division of the City of Anaheim Finance Department.
3. That the maximum number of adult residents shall be'fourteen (14). Residents
of said board and care shall be mentally disabled ambulatory adults (ages,18-
59)who have been screened to successfully integrate into a residential setting.
4. That the number of resident vehicles shall at no time exceed the number of
available parking spaces on thepremises, which spaces are open and
"accessible.';
Page 4
i
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
`June 30,2003
Item No. Si
5. (a) That the petitioner shall provide atwenty-four (24) hour per day, on site
manager who will be'responsible for responding to any neighbor's=
concerns regarding the facility.
(b) That the name and telephone number of the on-site manager shall be
kept on file with the Code Enforcement Division.
6. That the gash storage areas shall be maintained in a mannersatisfactory to
the Public Worksbepartment,!Streets and Sanitation Division:
7. That no signs shall be visible off-site identifying this use as a board and care
facility.
8. 'That subject property shall be maintainetl in accordance with plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by he petitioner and which
plans are on file in the Planning Department marked Exhibit tJo. 1 (Conditional
Use Permit Noy 1801) and as'conditioned herein.
9. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request
only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim' Municipal Zoning Code and
any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Apptoval does'. not
include any action or findings as to compliance orapproval of the request
regarding any otherapplicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
Page 5
ATTACHt4EtJT - I TEPt N0. 5
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Code Enforcement Division
DATE: MAY 2?, 2003
TO: CHARITY WAGNER, PLANNER
FROM: ~~KEN MARSH, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
SUBJECT: INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 632 N. EAST ST.
FOR REINSTATEMENT OF C.U.P. 1801/TRACKING #CUP2003-04713
On Thursday, April 3, 2003, I conducted a compliance inspection of the property located at 632
N. East St. and observed that the property was in compliance with the Conditions of Approval
for C.U.P. 1501 and all Anaheim Municipal Codes. I conducted the inspection with Ms. Perez,
niece of the on-site manager, Alfredo Chu. I took several 35mm photos of the residence. I will
forwazd them to you as soon as I receive them from processing.
• Condition #2 -There is a valid Business License for the residence (BUS2001-03430)
(See the attached printout).
• Condition #3 -There are only twelve (12) male adults living at the residence.
• Condition #4 -There were no vehicles pazked in the driveway, located on the northwest
corner of the property. Ms. Perez, niece of the business owner, said there is only 1
vehicle parking at the residence.
• Condition #5(a) -Either Mr. Alfredo Chu, Ms. Lilibeth Perez, or both aze always present
at the residence.
• Condition#5(b) -The emergency telephone numbers are posted inside the front cover of
the Code Enforcement file.
• Condition #6 -The trashcans were stored on the south side of the residence, in public
view. I requested that Ms. Perez move the trashcans to the reaz of the property, out of
public view. This was accomplished prior to my leaving the azea.
• Conditions #7 -All of the adults were between the ages of 18 and 59 yeazs old.
The exterior of the property was well maintained. The interior of the residence was extremely
clean and well kept. All floors were clean and polished. The rooms were all very neat and tidy.
There have been no complaints received regarding the residence since June 2001.
Please feel free to contact me at extension # 4595 if I can be of fiirther assistance.
m632 n east st-?
ATTACHt1EtJT - ITEt1 N0. 5
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 ah additional period of time, or before such time limitation maybe deleted-o~ modified by
the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator, the following musk 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 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 fallowing exist:
.031 That theproposed 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 land 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 traffiofn the area;
.035 That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to
thepeace, health; safety and general welfarebf the citizens of the City of Anaheim;
18.03.04D (Relative to Variances)
Before any variance may be granted by the Planning Commission it shall be shown:
.031 That there are special circumstances applicable tc 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 iii .031, stricEapplicatioh 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 fs being exercised substantially in the same manner and in conformahce 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 lime 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:
Has any physical aspect of the property for which this use permit or variance been granted changed significantly
since the issuance of this use permit or variance? ^ YES q;NO
Explain:
(over)
CASE
1
N0. -18•~ 1
2. Have the land uses In the Immediate vicinity changed since the Issuance of this use permit or variance?
^ YES Q NO
Explain: _
3. Has .any aspect of the nature of the operation changed since the Issuance of this use permit or variance?
^ YES ~{] NO
Explain:
4. Are the conditions of approval pertaining to the use permit or variance being complied with? ~ "ES ^ NO
Explain: Faithfully complies with'al1' i-hA ,.r,,,,n; r;.,,,~ ~ _..~
resolution & all recommendations by the code enforcement. Signi-
lity & residents have succe fu ly ;n ratan ;r,tn •a
setting & the staff have been vigilant in the supervision to ensu
that all conditions are continuously met.
5. If you are requesting a deletion of the time limitation, Is this'deletlon :necessary for the continued operation of this use
or variance? la YES ONO
Explain: The facility(l;rancaa~ has i-he '*+t nd ~ ~'
----_ ..r..~...:~_.
as an adult residential facility.
Name o-(Property wne0'~oAu~l prized AgenljPlease Pnn~~
r /?J
i
Signal re of roperty Owne or ul rued Agent Daie
Z06225JK.00C i1/97
CASE
2
qua ~n - 18~ ~ 1
ATTACNt1ENT - ITEN N0. 5
RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-72
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. PC78-31,
ADOPTED IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT tJO. 1801
WHEREAS, on February 13, 1978, Resolution No. PC78-31 was adopted by the Anaheim
City Planning Commission to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 1801 and permit a board and care
facility for the aged with waiver of minimum front yard setback on pPopertylocaled at 632 North East
Street; and that said resolution includes'a finding that the prdposed use was granted to permit a board
and care facility for "14 elderly and ambulatory persons"; and
WHEREAS, this property is developed with asingle-family residence that has been
converted into a board and care facility; that the property is zoned RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family);
and that the Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element designates the property for Low Density
Residential lahd uses; and
WHEREAS, the petitioner has requested an amendment to this conditional use permit to
permit the board and care of "adults" instead of "aged" and "elderly and ambulatory persons"; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim oh Jurie 4, 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 amendment 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 alt evidence a~dYepbrts offered at said hearing, does find
.and determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed amendment of Conditional Use Permit Nb: 1801 to permit a board and
care for up to a maximum of 14 adult residents, is hereby approved for a period of two (2) years to expire
on June 4, 2003; and that the propdsed'modificatibn is properlyone for which a conditional use permit is
authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code in the RS-7200 "Residential, Single Family' Zane.
2: That the petitioner has indicated that "adults" are 21 to 59 years old, and "aged" and
"elderly and ambulatory persons" are 60 years old and older. ,
3: That the proposed modification, including the imposition of additional conditions, is
reasonably necessary to protect the public peace, health, safety or general welfare, or necessary to
permit reasonable operation under the conditional use permits as granted.
4. That the size and shape of the site for the iise, as proposed to be amended, is adequate to
allow full development of the board and care facility in a mahnerhot detrimental to the particular area nor
to the peace, health, safety and general welfare.
5: Thafthe traffic generated by the board and care facility, as prbpdsed'to be amended, will
not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in
the area
Tracking No. CUP2001-04360
CR5102PK.doc -1- PC2001.72
6. That modifying Conditional Use Permit No. 1801 as proposed, including revising the
conditions of approval, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the
citizens of the City of Anaheim.
7. That no one indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal;
that a County representative spoke for informational purposes regarding this proposal; and that no
correspondence was 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, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), as defined in the State of California
CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental
documentation
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby amend Resolution No. PC78-31, adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1801, to
permit a board and care facility for a maximum of fourteen 14) adult residents; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Conditional Use Permit No. 1801, as amended, is
approved for a period of two (2) years to expire on June 4, 2003; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditions of approval of Resolution Na. PC78-31 be
amended in their entirety to read es follows;
1. That all services including meals provided by this facility shall be for the residents at this address
(632 North .East Street) only.
2 That a valid business license shallbe obtained from the Business License Division of the City of
Anaheim Finance Department.
3. That the maximum number of adult residents shall be fourteen (14).
4. That the number of residehfvehicles shall at no time exceed the number of available parking
spaces on the premises, which spaces are open and accessible.
5. (a) That the petitioner shall provide a twenty four (24) hour per day, on-site manager who will be
responsible for responding to any neighbor's concerns regarding the facility.
(b) Thal within a period of one (1) month from the date of this resolution, the name and
telephone number of the on-site manager shall be submitted to the Code Enforcement
Division to be kept on file.
6. That trash storage area(s) shall be refurbished or new trash enclosure(s) shall be constructed to the
satisfaction df the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division.
7. That the subject board and care facility is approved for up to fourteen (14) adult (ages 18 - 59
years) mentally disabled ambulatory residents, who have been screened to successfully integrate
into a residential setting. This portion of the conditional use permit shall expire in two (2) years from
the date of this resolution, on June 4, 2003.
8. That the petitioner shall furnish a copy of the license, with any attached conditions, issued by the
State of California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division, authorizing
the operation of this adult care facility to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department. Said
conditions shall also be conditions of this resolution.
-2- PC 2001-72
That subjecTproperty 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 (Conditional Use Permit No. 1801), and as conditioned herein.
10. That within a period of one (1) month from the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 2, 5(a). 5(b), 6
and 8, 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.
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.
June 4. 2001.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
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 June 4, 2001, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, KOOS, tJAPOLES, VANDERBILT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
2001.
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-3- PC2001-72
ATTACIit1EtJT - ITEt4 tJO. 5
~ Stanford Homes 1 & 2 (1.1~ No.3060000252~ ^ Slnnrord Homes-Anahehn ¢ic No. 306000965)
® 1533-1579 W. Stanrortl SL ® 328 N. V'me St.
Senfn Ann, CA 9270) Anaheim, CA 92805
Phanc: (714) 4J-4-0052 Phanc: (714) 808-9532
Faz: (714) 533-1905
^ Stanford Homes - Fullerton (Lic No306000388) ® Stanford Homes Anaheim I[ (I:ic. No306001401)
® 440 E WOshlre Ave. ® 632 N. East St. ..
Fullerton. CA 92832 Annhchn, CA 92805
Phone: (714)526-7248 Phone: (714)776-2807
Fox:(714)738-7159 Faz: (714)776-1366
May 1, 2003
City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
201 S. Anaheim Boulevard
California 92805
RE: Amendment of Resolution No.PC2001-72
ATTN: Commissioners: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, KOOS,
NAPOLES & VANDERBILT
This formally request the commission to amend the conditional Use Pern7it No.1801, which will expire on June
4, 2003.
Please review the following facts in light of your decision regazding my petition:
I. I have faithfully complied with all the conditions as required by the resolution and all recommendations
by the code enforcement.
II. I have made significant physical improvement to the facility thereby enhancing the value of the properly,
of the neighborhood and the whole community.
III. In the course of ahnost two years the facility and the residents have successfully integrated into a
residential setting and had become a new and contributing member of the community.
IV. My being a resident of the city and the community along with my close proximity to the facility, I have
been vigilant in my supervision to ensure that all conditions aze continuously met and be immediately
responsive to any need.
I trust that after reviewing my case you will find favor in my petition and 1 am hoping that you can either extend
or permanently allow me to operate my facility as is. In either case, any consideration you can extend on behalf
of this request, will be highly appreciated and for that I will be forever grateful.
I have enclosed a copy of the resolution and I will be immediately available to you should you need further
action on my part to facilitate the granting of my request.
Respecly ours,
Alfonso A. Chn
Licensee/ administrator
SUP N0. •• 18•~ 1
ATTACHf1ENT - ITEM N0. 5
State of California
Department of Social Services
Facility Number: 306001401
Effective Date: 08/28/01 Total Capacity:
In accordance with applicable provisions of the Health and Safety Code of
California., and its rules and regulations; the Department of Social Services, hereby issues
this ~,1C~I1S~ to
ALFORNSO A® CHU
to operate and maintain a ADULT RESIDENTYAL
I~Tame of Facility
STANFORD HOMES ANAHEIM II
632 NORTH EAST STREET
ANAHEIM CA 92805
This License is not transferable and is granted solely upon the following:
AMBULATORY MENTALLY DISABLED ADULTS AGES 18-59®
12
Client Groups Served: M. D.
Complaints regarding services provided in this facility should be directed !o:
ORANGE COUNTY RES. DISTRICT OFFICE (71 7 - 840
MARTHA LOPEZ ~ {-
Deputy Director, Authorized Representative
Community Care Licensing Division of Licensing Agency
SUP ~f0. ° 1 S•~ 1
ITEH N0. 6
\ FARM ` F
P P NVE RG`
vE ~r
oM
SP gD4'1 M1RP`" RGL 61.62DP9 \191
r
' ~ ~ ~
~~ ~Pf m 9
2,. 'am miO '
~ m ~'
(1 ~ P!
CUP 1695 Sp 9 1 131 ~ s gP 9q'~19 \351
CUP 1260 RCL66-66~g.36 r. RG\-61-6 g1g9
an RVPR 3963 'zo GUPpIRMS ~
A
\ oo \Np.F\RM IND. RG
1 A ~
u~ A~'
SP 6g,39 l81 c ~ m m
RG\.6 6&69.36 Ya P'~~'
O RGUP166 'I ~ V V
GV 153q P
~ GV P 1519 365
~ \Np p\RMS ~:. sF 9~.3i 1131 '. ~ '
)1 CP RC~G~o~~j15 m A
~ ~\ pip 2P Z6p6 - ' p SP 941
~' VPR 3~aM" AOrnm RCL 68-69-37(12)
p - p,F., ~ r w v RCL 68-69-36
~r N 941.61 <, 1N ~ ~> SMALL IND.
o+`p ~ 66-63136 ~W~~ FIRMS
t ~°, ~ R Fp1.6632 5 'U'~
pP M
i>~ Np'F\R S N SP 941
r-.~~(' m n ~ RCL 66-fig-37
SP 9q-071211 ) \ 3931 y ~ ~ O RCL fi8-69
aP~o-1FFM`'6 \\ i vNR v av`~~~P A SMFIRMSC
. m.
\ND. ~ \ is r ~,...
9q-1 G \ \ y~f.O'm fn m l 31 l\21
\ G`S p-j1y,A611 SP 9~"A71231 P Tq ~~ aµc\.ve cr3s
a n za,a X1121
1 R RGNp,F\RMS RGPGo-1a210 0 ypr JOb ~2 N
9 qA1 1241 SP 9q A7 1291 GUP ~ i 4~ y m RG1.~G8-6g-69'36 RG~c g
\ o ~~ r R R
rYp-j1A6 ` GLTp'~1j1A6 6~ ~ -n b~ Z
NpUg\R\P R RGN Io-RMS \ P \~ ~m J 6y.37 1121
•FlR\'1`S \ a ~ m RG~6 sg-69-36
SP 9q-Al l2~ \ Z \ RCL
~p-j1 A6 \ \
R FlGNO~ RMS ~ \ y \\ GUP 2363
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04715 Subject Property
Date: June 30, 2002
Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: TOM STULL Q.S. No. 131
TO PERMIT AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR BUSINESS WITHIN AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING.
1258 North La Loma Circle -Brian's Auto Service 773
Staff Report to the
Planning: Commission
June 30,'2003
Item No. 6
6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 (Motion)
6b. 'CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.'2003-04715 (Resolution)
':SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly-shaped, 1.4-acre property has a frontage of 385 feet on the: south side of La
" ..Loma Circle, a maximum depth of 166 feet`and is located 500 feet south of the centerline of
Miraloma Avenue (1.258 North La Lama Circle-Brian's Auto Service).
REQUEST:
`(2j The petitioner requests approvai'of a conditional use permit under authority of Code
Section 18.110.050.050.0505 to,'permit an automotive: repair business within an existing
industrial building.
BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is developed with an industrial building and is zoned SP 94-1; Development
`Area 1 (Northeast Area Specific`Plan; Industrial Area). The property is also located within
the Alpha: (Northeast Area) Redevelopment. ProjecfArea. The Anaheim General Plan Land
`Use Element Map designatesthis property for General Industrial land uses.
(4) Surrounding land uses are as follows:
Direction Land Use Zoning General Plan
Designation
All Small Industrial SP 94-1 (DA 1) General Industrial
Businesses
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:
(5) The following zoning actions pertain to this;property:
(a) Conditional Use Permit No. 2806 (to permit an automobile repair facility in an existing
indushial complex with waiver of minimum numtier of parking spaces (63 spaces
required; 58 spaces permitted) for 1242 North La' Loma Circle was approved by he
Planning Commission on June 9, 1996'. This permit was limited to the operator that
originally obtained the permit. The business is no longer irnoperation.
(b) Variance No. 3063 (to waive maximum wall height to retain'an 8-foot high block wale
was approved by the Planning Commission on Nbvember20, 1978.
PROPOSAL:
(6) The petitioner is proposing to establish artautomotive repair business within a vacant
tenant space of an existing industrial building. There is no new construction associated
with this proposal
sr8622av
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30, 2003
Item No. 6 '
(7) The submitted site plan (Exhibit No: i) indicates that the proposed automotive business
would occupy a 1,584 square foot tenant space of a 22,176 square fcot, 12-unit industrial
complex.
(8) The floor plan (Exhibit No; 2) indicates a service area with two automotive lifts, an office;
storage area, restroom and aroll-up service door located. to the rear' (south side) of the !`
industrial tenant space.
(9) Vehicle access is provided by two driveways from La Loma Circle. ?he site plan indicates
a total of S9 parking spaces available for the entire industrial complex. Code7equires a
minimum of 37 parking spaces for the auto repair facilitybased on the following chart:
Code-Required!
Use "~ ~~~ z " Square: Feet ~ ~ Parking Ratia(per Code-Required
1,000 s.f. of.GFA 'Parkin .'
Industrial/warehouse
includin 10% office of GFA 20,592 ,1.55 31.9
Motor vehicle re air facilities 1,584 3.5 5.5
Total 22,176 37
(10) Photographs of the exterior elevations indicate white, tan and green concrete tilt-up walls, a
flatroof and full=length windowed storefronts on the north'(front) elevation facing La Loma
Circle. The rear (south) elevation contains roll;up bay doors for each industrial tenant. 1
F
b `~~~~~ ,gr,', ~' ye?r { ~ ~~ e r ~
..?~~'- ,o u .sue.. ~' m >~~3.~ e"'r"'c ,.mss.,
~..r Z< ~ `x r4 . 2 i
~4 ';;
1
! y
i
~~ 11
go- `
i ~
,~ .~ -.
View of indusVtal tenant space from the north
(11) Photographs and staff inspections indicate a 10 to 20-foot wide landscaped setback
adjacent to La Loma Circle with a total of 10 trees and mature, welt maintained landscape
planters along the base of the building. The site plan does not indicate any additions tp the
existing landscape areas:
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commissiort
June 30, 2003
Item No. 6
~'- ~ ~ } ~
~„ ~,:. '~
G~ i} .
x ~^. r~ rr d'''`
T ~' ~,y L
.r ~ ~ L ) .IYr tt ~~pJL
~~ ~ . ~~
F ,~ ~
}~ y ,~.p1SF, ~~i _,.,
i ~ ~•~~. ~~~'"~
n
y ~
-~~ s~'~ ~~~ &~ ~
a
~~" ~
w d c?
~ ~
..^' `./ d .4+ 2 ~~
^~ ~ ~
~'k~ f.
Photograph of front landscapad'setback
(12) Sign plans were not submitted as part of this application. Any proposed signage must
'comply with Code requirements for the SP 94-1 (DA 1) Zone unless a separate variance is
applied forand granted by the Commission: Code permits wall'signage not to exceed 10
percent of each building elevation and one i10-foot witle by S-foot high, 65 square foot
tlouble-faced monument sign for the entire property.
(13) The submitted letter of operation indicates the petitioner would be the only: automotive
aechnician at this location with the possibility of hiring another in he future.'.. The hours of
operation for the automobile repair facility would be B a.m. to 6p.m. Monday through(
Friday, and t3 a.m, to 3 p.m. on Saturday. The proposed operation would include general
mechanical: repair and scheduled automotive maintenance.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTANALYSISc
(14) The Planning Director's authorized representative has determined that the proposed'project
.falls within3he definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Classii (Existing
Facilities),'as defined in the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines
`and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the preparation of further environmental
documentation.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS:
(15) The proposed project has been reviewed by affected Ciry departments to tletermine
whethecitconforms with the City's Growth Management Element adopted; by the Ciry
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; herefore, no analysis has been pertormetl.
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30, 2003
Item No. 6
EVALUATION:
(16) Code permits automobile repair businesses in the SP 94-1 (DA 1) Zone subject to approval
of a conditiona(use permit.
(17) The property is located within the Alpha (Northeast Area) Redevelopment Project Area.::
The Community Development Department has reviewed the proposal and indicated that,an
automotive repair business is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Alpha
(Northeast Area) Project Area.
(18) This property is surrounded by other, properties developed with subdivided buildings utilized
by small industrial firms. The proposed automotive repair businessis comparable in size,
and compatible in use to the existing surrounding businesses. As cdnditionetl; staff
believes that the proposed automotive repair business 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 surrouhtling properties are located within the SP 94-1 (DA'1) zone and
contain industrial land uses. Moreover, the size and shape of the site is adequate to allow
the 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 SP 94-1 (DA 1)'zone and with
the goals of the. Redevelopment Project Area, staff recommends approval of this
conditional usepermit.
FINDINGS:
(19) Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use permiY`it must make a finding
of fact that the evidence presented shows thatiall 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 thatsaid use is'hot listed herein as being a
permitted use;
(b) : That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining;land uses and the r
growth end development of the area irr 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 ndf 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 burden
upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the
area; and
(e) That the. granting df the conditional use'permit under the conditions imposed, if any,
will nofbe detrimental to the'peace, fiealth, safetyand general welfare'of the
citizens'of the City. of Anaheim.
RECOMMENDATION:
(20) 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 presentetl at the
public hearing, he Commission take the following actions:
Page: 4
Staff Report to the
'Planning: Commission
<June 30,i 2003
:Item No. 6
(a) By motion, determine that the project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301,
Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(b) By resolution, aoprove Conditional Use Permit No. 2003'04715 (to permit an
automotive repair facility in an existing industrial building) based on the following:
(i) That the proposed automotive repair business is properly one for which a
conditional use permit is authorized by he Zoning Code and as conditioned
herein,: complies`with all the;requirements set forth in the Zoning Code.
(fi) That the proposed automotive repair business as conditioned herein, would
not adversely'affect the adjoining land uses and'the growth`and
development of the area in'which it is proposed to be located because the
site is'completely surrounded by other small industrial firms.
(iii) ' That the size and shape of the site foYthe proposed automobile repair
business is adequate to allow the fultdevelopment of theproposed use in a
manner not detrimental to'tfie particular area's peace, health, safety,'and
general welfare. '!
(iv) That the granting. of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04715, as conditioned
herein, would ndf be 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 FOIE ADOPTION BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE EVENT THATTHIS PERMIT ISAPPROVED.
1. ' That window signage shall not be permitted.
2. That no banners dr other advertising shall be displayed and'that no special event permits shall be
issued'for this business.
3. That only automotive mechanical repair and maintenance work shall 6e permitted. Absolutely no
vehicular body or collision repair workshall be permitted.
4. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the SP 94-1 (DA'1) Zone unless a
variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning. Commission.
5. That prior to the operation of the business, a valid business license shall be obtained fromthe
City of Anaheim, Business License Division.
6, That nd required parking area shall be fenced or'otherwise enclosed or used foc outdoor storage
uses.
7. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained,im a location acceptable to the Public
Works' Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file
with said Department. The trash enclosure provided shall be roofed. to prevententry of storm
water:: Said information sfiall be specifically shown on plans submittetl for Pubtic Works <
Department, Streets and Sanitation Division approval.
Page 5
Staff Report iv the
Planning Corm*~ission
June 30, 200:!
Item No. 6 '
8. That plans'shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager fpr his` review and
;approval showing conformance with the current version of EngneeringStandard Plan Nos. A36,
601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall
thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans.'i
9. That gates shall not tie installed across any driveway or private treet in a manner which may
adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street. Installation'of any gates shall
conform to Engineering Standard Plan No 609 and shall be subject to the review and approval of
the City Traffic and Transportation Manager.
10. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular
landscape maintenance, removal of trash dr debris,`and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24)
hours from time of occurrence.
11. That the storage or overnight parking of vehicles, vehicle parts,,or business-related materials and
all work on,vehicles shall be cogfined entirely to the'interior of the building. Absolutely no
vehicular bddywork, painting ocother business-related activities, or storage of vehicles, vehicle
parts or materials shall be allowed outside of the building or in parking areas.
12. That customer parking spaces shall be striped and clearly marked for "customer parking only' ;'
.and at no time shall customer vehicles berstacked, double parked, or Jeff standing in tandem in
front of, or'adjacent to the buildings.
13. That 4-foot high address numbers shall be displayed'on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof
materiah The numbers shall not be visible from the view of thestreet or adjacent properties. `;
Said information shall be specifically shown on plans'submitted for Police Department,
Community Services Division approval.
14. That there shall be no vehicle sales or dismantling permitted on the premises.
15. That the property owner shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit i
No. 2806 (to permit ah automotiile repair facility in art existing industrial complex with waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces to the'Zoning Division.
16. That subject property. shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file
with the Planning Department marked Exfiibit Nos.1 and 2, ands conditioned herein.
17. 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. 7, 8 13 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 the commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or prior to final
building and zoning inspections, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos, 12'and 16,
'above-mentioned, sfiall be complied with.
19. That approval of this applicatiohconstitutes approval'of the proposed request only to the extent
that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable'City, State sod
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 tJO. 7
RM-3000
RCL 77-7641
(Res pf Int Ip RM-1200)
RCL fi5-66-38
CL RCL 66-67-2a RM-1200
CUP 1309 (Res pf Int. tp CL)
95 DU .........
RCL 67-68-87
LINCOLN VAR 1961
RV PARK Rh}3000 APTS.
RCL 80.81.18 146' DU
RCL 77-7315
RLL 8364-40 CL
CUP 3938 RCL 98.59-09
VACANT RCL 63.84-40
CUP 1047
SMALL
SHOPS
RCL BZ8306
RCL 83-ed-40 RLL 8389-09 RCL 98.99.0
RLL 8384-40 RCL 83644
OL RM-1200
CUP 3807
SMALL SMALL CL
RCL 65.66-94 RCL 85-66-18
CUP 3580 SHOPS
SHOPS RCL B&99.09 DRUG RCL 73-74-00
VAR 1737 I I
RCL 6384-40 STORE VAR 3531
PCN BB-01
SMALL SHOPS BOyS BURGERS (VACANT) 34
I REST. / DU
R
RS-A-
RM-1200
RCL 85-86.39
VAR 3574
63 DU
C
RCL6
CUP1
VAR 9
MO
CL
RCL 6465-07
T-CUP 2003-04717
T-CUP 2000-04220
(CUP 3843)
(CUP 1592)
(CU P 602 T)
AUTO REPAIR
RM-7200
RCL 77-78-54 APTS.
VAR 3005. 24 DU
RM-1200
RCL 68-69-63 gpTS.
VAR 2047 24 DU
VAR 2009
RM-1200
RCL 68.69-22 APTS.
VAR2009 24 DU
RM-1200 APTS.
RCL 61-62-72 18 DU
W
Z
W
Q
Q
J
O`
Z
Q
RM-1200
RCL 83-6421
RCL 6465-06
APTS.
32 DU
RM-1200
VAR 2774
VAR 2682
CONDOS
64 DU
RCL
RM-1200
RCL 6465-03
56-51-42
VAR 3417
APTS.
4o Du
RM-1200 RM-1200
RCL 67-68-10 - RCL 68-69-61
VAR 1904 CUP 1076
APTS. VAR 2079
120 DU APTS.
100 DU
Conditional Use Permit No. 3843 ~ ;~u" Subject Property
TRACKING NO. CUP 2003-04717 Date: June 30, 2002
Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: SHAKOUR AND CYRUS Q.S. No, 20
REQUESTS REINSTATEMENT OF THIS PERMIT BY THE MODIFICATION OR DELETION OF A
CONDITION OF APPROVAL PERTAINING TO A TIME LIMITATION (APPROVED ON JUNE 19, 2000
TO EXPIRE JUNE 19, 2003) TO RETAIN RETAIL TIRE SALES AND INSTALLATION, AUTOMOBILE
REPAIR WITH ACCESSORY SALES OF PARTS, AND USED AUTOMOBILE SALES IN A FORMER
GASOLINE SERVICE STATION.
LINCOLN AVENUE
~-12a ~
L <n <n f CL
t
0~9 ado ~~o ` 7 ,~'~'' - RCL 62-63-126
95 S `g er ~' ~ ~=~.',s CUP 2
TEL RSA- Rs-A- VAR 2467 S
SHOPPING CENTER y q'7B 43,000 ~ KFC
°~~t nura Rsn_ ~ REST.
m
ii
A
4
2600 West Lincoln Avenue -Wheel Service Texaco 77a(2oo3-s-zs)
Staff Report to the
'Planning. Commission
`June 30,2003
'Item No. 7
7a. > CEQA NEGATIVEDECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVEDI (Motion):.
7b. CONDITIONAL' USE PERMIT NO>3843 (Resolution)
(CUP TRACKING N0.2003-04717)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTIONi
(1) This 0.29-acre irregularly-shaped, property is located at the southwest corner of Lincoln
Avenue and' Magnclia Avenue with frontages of 128 feet on thesouth side of Lincoln
Avenue and 85 feet ort the west side of Magnolia Avenue (2600. West Lincoln Avenue -
Wheel Service Texaco).
REQUEST:
(2) The petitioner requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a
cdndition of,approval'pertaining to atime limitation (approved on June 19,:2000, to expire
on June 19,2003) to retain retail tire sales and installation, automobile repair with accessory
sales of parts, and used automobile sales in a former gasoline service station under the
authority of Code Section No. 18.03.093
BACKGROUND:'
(3) This property is developed with a 1,586 square foot former gasoline service station building
currently utilized for retail tire sales and installation, automobile repair with accessory ales
of parts, and used automobile sales. The property is zoned CL (Commercial, Limited) and
is also located within the W estAnaheim. Comme~ciaf Corridors Redevelopment Project
Area. Theand Use Element Map of the Anaheim General Plan designates this property
for MediumDensity Residential land uses.
(4) Surrounding land uses are as follows:
Direction Land Use Zoning General Plan
Desi nation
North across Drive-Through Restaurant CL General Commercial
Lincoln Avenue and Retail Stores
East across Drive-Through Restaurant CL Commercial Professional
Ma nolia Avenue
South Single-Family Residence RS-A-43,000 Medium Density
Residential
Medium Density
.West 'Auto Repair RS-A-43,000 :,Residential
Sr3031ey
Page 1 ?
<l
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
'June 30 2003
+ Item No. 7
(7) In order to demonstrate that the findings required for the reinstatement of this use have
been satisfied, the petitioner has submitted the attached Justification for Reinstatement
which indicates that no aspect of the nature of the operation has'changed since thelast
approval, that the physical property has remained the:`same, and that all conditions df
.approval pertaining to;the permit: have been compliediwith.
(8) Historically,:. the Code Enforcement Division has documented numerous violations and
noncompliance with conditions of approval... The documented violations included illegal
signage, outdoor storage, outdoor auto repair, fence' in need of repair, building in need of
refurbishment, substandard trash enclosure, and debris accumulation. With the petitioner's
previous request for reinstatement, it was identified that substantial improvements had been
`made to the property..':
(9) The Code Enforcement Division has submitted a memorandum dated June 19, 2003;
regarding the currenfstatus of the property: The memorandum'documents that the
petitioner is'complying with conditions of approval and a recentstaff inspection indicates
that the property is being properly maintained. Violations that have historically been a
problem foc this business have tieen addressed and the business is currently in compliance.
It should tie Hated, however, that two citizen complaints have been issued for this property
since the last reinstatement, resulting in multiple violations including vehicle parts stared
outside, vehicular work being conducted outside, landscape maintenance and the fence
refurbishing.
(10) With regard to the petitioner's requestfor a deletion of the time limitation, and based'on
past activity on this property and the fact that this property is situated at a very visible: corner
whereby any deterioration on the operation: of the business would be apparent, staff feels a
:.time limitation is necessary to ensure thaf the property remains in compliance with the
adopted conditions ofapproval. The Community DevelopmentDepartment has contacted
staff and does not object to the approval of this reinstatement, however, they are in
agreementwith staff; that a time limitation is appropriate. Therefore, staff'recommends that
he permit be reinstated for an additional five years to exp(re on June 19, 2008.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(11) Staff has reviewed the proposal to reinstate an existing automobile sales and repair facility
'and finds'no significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the'existing activity
on this property. Therefore, staff recommends that the previously-approved Negative
.Declaration in connection with this requestbe approved upon a.finding by the Commission
that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agencyand that
' it has considered theNegative Declaratiofi 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 for reviews the Planning Department) and any comments received that there is
substantiali evidence: that the project will have a significant effect on the environment:
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 not fit within the scope necessary to require a Growth
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30, 2003'
Item No. 7
Management Element analysis, therefore, no analysis has been performed. >
FINDINGS:
(13) Before the Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that
the evidence presented sfiows thafall of the following conditions exist:
(a) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional'use permit is authorized
by the Zoning Cade, or that said use is not listed therein as being a permitted use;
(b) 'That the proposed use will noY adversely'affect the adjoining land uses and the growth
and developmenYof the area'ih which if is proposed tc 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 noTdetrimental 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 undueburden upon
the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; antl
(e) :That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any,
-will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safetyand general welfare of the citizens
of the City of Anaheim.
(14) 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 applicant must
present evidence to establish the following findings:
(a) ', The factsnecessary 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 conformer -:-~
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 ~nci
?surrounding land uses, nor to'the public peace, health, safety`and general welt.;
and
(d) With regard only to any deletion of a timelimitation,'such deletion is necessary to
permitveasonableoperation under the permit as granted.
RECOMMENDATION`.
(15) Planning Department staff'recommends that unless additional 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 at the public hearing thafthe Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, determine that the previously-approved CEQA Negative Declaration is
the appropriate environmental documentation for this request.
Page 4
.Staff Report to the
r Planning Commissior
'June 30,2003
'Item No. 7c
(b) By resolution, aoorove this request for reinstatement (to retain retailltire sale5and
installation, automobile repair with accessory ales of parts, and used automobie
sales) for a period of five (5) years; to expire on June 19; 2008, based on the
following:
(i) ;That this permit has been substantially operated in the same manner as
`originally approved by the Commission. Code Enforcement Division has
inspected he premises and has determined that thee. businessis currently in
compliance with all applicable conditions of approval.
(ii) -That the permit is currently being exercised in a manner not detrimental to the
particulafarea and surrounding land uses.
(iii) That there have been no changes to the applicable zone standards that would
`'invalidate the findings that were the basis for the original approval of this permit.
(c) Staff further recommends that the Commission, by resolution, amend Resolution No.
PC2000-83 in its entirety, tc be replaced with a new resolution which includes the
following conditions of approval based on the finding that the modification is
necessary to permit the7easonable operation of this auto: repair facility:
1. That this permit shaltexpire on June 19, 2006.
2. That the parking lot shall be maintained and repaired when necessary to prevent
potholes and uneven surtaces'and to ensure that parking spaces are properly
marked. ':
3. That no outdoor storage of, display of, or work on vehicles or vehicular parts shall
be permitted, and that all work on vehicles shall be conductedwholly inside the
building.
4. That no banners, pennants or balloons shall be permitted unless a Special Event
`' Permit is first obtained.
5. %That no banners or other advertising shal(be displayed within the service bays
facing the. public rights-of-way unless a Special Event Permit has first been
issued.
6. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that
it is removed, damaged, diseased and/dr dies.
T. That no inoperable vehicles or parts shall be stored on the premises outside the
building.
8, r That a maximum of four (4) cars available for sale shall be displayed at any one
time.
9. `That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specfications`submitted'to the Cityof Maheim,tiy the petitioner and which
plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1.
Page 5 r
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30;2003
Item No. 7
10. That the existing wrought-iron fence shall be continuously maintained in good
condition.
11. That the property shall be permanently maintained in arrorderly fashion by
providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and
removal of graffiti within'twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence.
12. That signage for this business shall be limited to the existing permitted wall sign.
13. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed requesti only
to the extenfthat it complies with"the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any
other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include
any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any
other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. -
Page 6
ATTACNkENT - ITEM fJO. 7
PETITIONER'S STATEMENT
JUSTIFICATION FOR REINSTATEIViENT
Section 18.03.093 of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires that before any conditional use permit or variance containing a
time Ifmitation can be reinstated for an additional period of lime, 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 Condit(onal 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 Tha[ the proposed use is property one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this code, or is not
fisted herein as being a permitted use;
.032 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;
.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 fn 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 welfare of the citizens of the C(ty of Anaheim;
18.03.040 (Relative to Variances)
Before any variance may be granted by the Planning Commission it shall be showrr. _
.031 That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, which dd 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 pdvileges 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 ih 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
space is needed.
l
(over)
CASE
t~ ~n_ ~ 3 s~ 4 3
Has any physical aspect of the property for which This use it or variance been granted changed significantly
since the issuance of this use permit or variance? YES t
2. Have the nd uses In the immediate vic(nity changed since the issuance of this use permit or variance?
^ YES O
Explain: __ , ._
3. Has any~ a,ssppect of :the nature of the operation changed since the issuance of this use permit or variance?
^ YES ~3'NO
Explain:
4. Are the conditions of approval pertaining to the use permit or variance being complied with? UG Yt$ ^ NO
Explain: ~ c ~~f Q..S ~ 1L ~ 1 `j-~c r" '~'Fi~ rE-^`~~ fl ~'
t ,
ram ~~ ; ` ~ -~-o -Ft:.,_ ~A.c, ~~,-~.,,,,
5. If you are requestippg a deletion bf the time limitation, is this deletion necessary for the continued operation of this use
orvariance7 L9'yES ^ NO
Explain: S'i~Y1 PE --f'~'lf~o ' < -~~ana ~ jmil~,L„n. l7rn "f"1ni5~ -z_ m, j~ I-~-
~S_ \n~h~~ -~., ~ irr~a,~5 SLID 0.~ i ~v m~~,^._
Name of Properly Owner or ~A'ulhodzed A enl(Please Print)
Signatureo Owner or AUth n ed Agent Dale
G4-~.~-a3
zoszzs~x.ooc ~z~s7 CASE N0.
2
~~ip a~n - s s~a ~
ATTACHPIENT ITEhI N0. 7
RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-83
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REINSTATING AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3843
FOR THREE (3) YEARS, TO EXPIRE JUNE 19, 2003,
AND AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NOS. PC96-55, PC97-158,
PC96-106, and PC99-89, AS AMENDED AND ADOPTED THEREWITH
(CUP TRACKING NO. 2000.04220)
WHEREAS, on June 10, 1996, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC96-55
to approve Conditional Use Permit Na. 3843 for one (1) year to permit used automobile sales and
automotive vehicle repair with retail sales and installation of accessory automobile parts in a former
gasoline service station on property located at 2600 West Lincoln Avenue (Wheel Service Texaco); and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 1997, the Commission adopted Resolution No. PC97-158 to
approve an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval to expire on June 10, 1998; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 1998, the Commission adopted Resolution No. PC96-106 to
reinstate this permit with an expiration dale of June 10, 1999; and
'WHEREAS, on February 17, 1999, the Commission adopted Resolution No. PC99-27 and
denied a request to permit an addilionalbusiness owner within. the existing automobile repair facility
based on concerns about further intensification of a properly, which had numerous Code violations and
was not in c~-?pliance with conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 1999, the Commission adopted Resolution No. PC99-69 to
approve a reinstatement of this permit to expire nn June 10, 2000; and
WHEREAS, this property is developed with a 1,586 square foot former gasoline service
station building currently utilized for retail lire sales. and installation, automobile repair with accessory
sales of parts, and used automobile sales. The property is zoned CL (Commercial, Limited) and is
locatedwithin Community Planning Area. No. 3. This property is also .located within the West Anaheim
Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Area:, The Land Use Element Map of the Anaheim General Plan
designates this property for Medium Density Residential land uses; and
WHEREAS, the petitioner requests reinstatement of this. permit under the authority of Code
Section No. 16.03.093. by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time
limitation (originally approved on June 10, 1996, to expire on June 10, 20001 to retain retail fire sales and
installation, automobile repair with accessory sales of parts, and used automobile sales; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing al the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on June i9, 2000, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given
as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code; Chapter 16.03,
to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed amendment 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 af! evidence and reports offered al said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
t. Thal the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by
the Zoning Code,
2. Tliat the Code Enforcement Division has inspected the property and determined that
previous Code violations have been eliminated.
CR3997MS.DOC - t - PC 2000-83
3. That the improved condition of the property and current compliance with conditions of
approval constitute this use as being exercised to a manner which Is not detrimental to the public peace.,
health, safety and general welfare. `"
4. That the size and shape of the site for the proposal is adequate to allow full development
of the use in a manner not detrimental. to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety and general
welfare.
5. That the traffic generated by the use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets
and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area.
6: Thal granting this reinstatement., underthe conditions imposed, will not be detrimental to
the peace, health, safety arid general welfare of the citizens of the Cily of Anaheim.
7r That this conditidhaf use permit is being exercised in substantially the same manner and
in conformance with all conditions and stipulations originally approved by the Planning Commission.
8. That no `one indicated Their presence at the public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to retain retail lire sales and installation, automobile
repair with' accessory sales of parts, and used automobile sales on a 0.29-acre irregularly-shaped
property, located at the southwestborner of Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Avenue, having frontages of
128 feet on the south side of Lincolri Avenue and 85 feet on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, and
further described as 2600 West Lincoln Avenue (Wheel Service Texaco); acid does hereby find that the
Negative Declaration previously approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3843 is
adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection' with this request upon
finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has
considered the previously approved Negative Declaration together with any comments received during
the public review process and further finding on the basis of the .initial study .and ahy comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will Have a significant effect on the environment:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
reinstate Conditional Use Permit No. 3843 to retain retail fire sales and installation, automobile repair with
accessory sales of parts, and used automobile sales at 26D0 West Lincoln Avenue, for three (3) years, to
expire on June 19, 2003; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby amend, in their
entirely, the conditions of approval of Resolution Nos. PC96-88; PC97-188, PC96.406; and PC99-89
adapted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3843 to read as Follows:
1. That this permit shall expire Ihree (3) years from the dale of this resolution on June 19, 2003.
2. That the parking lot shall be maintained and repaired when necessary to preven( potholes and
uneven surfaces.
3. That no outdoor storage of, display of, or work on vehicles or vehicular parts shall be permitted, and
that all work on vehicles shall be conducted wholly inside the building.
4. TI-.a! no banners, pennants or balloons shall be permitted unless a Special Event Permit is first
obtained.
5. That no banners or other advedising shall be displayed within the service bays facing the public
rights-of-way unless a Special Event Permit has first been issued.
CR3997MS:DOC -2- PC2000-83
6. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced In a timely manner in the event that it is removed,
damaged, diseased and/or dies.
7. Thal no inoperable vehicles or parts shall be stored on the premises outside the building.
8. That a maximum of four (4) cars available for sale shall be displayed at any one time.
9. 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. L
10. That the existing wrought-iron fence shall 6e continuously maintained in good condition.
11. Thal the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular
landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffdi within twenty-four (24)
hours from lime of occurrence.
12, That signage for this business shall be limited to the existing permitted wall sign.
13. That the applicant shall pay for Code Enforcement inspections twice annually.
14. Thal 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 Cit;~, Slate 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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted al the Planning Commission meeting of
June 19, 2000.
(Originaj signed by PhyCis R. 6oydstun)
CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
(Original sigr,cd 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 al a meeting of the Anaheim Cily Planning
Commission held on June 19, 2000, by the following vole of the members thereof:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: BOSTWICK, BRISTOL, KOOS, NAPOLES, VANDERBILT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BOYDSTUN
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ARNOLD
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
_, 2000.
(Original signed by Margarita Solorio)
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CR399JMS.DOC -3- PC2000-83
ATTACHMENT - ITEM N0. 7
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Code Enforcement Division
DATE: JUNE 19, 2003
TO: ELAINE YAMBAO, ASSISTANT PLANNER
FROM: .JESSE PENUNURI, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-83
2600 W. LINCOLN AVE,
On June 19, 2003, I conducted an inspection of the property located at 2600 W. Lincoln Ave.
and observed that all conditions are being met.
I did not observe any of the follwng violations:
1. Illegal signage
2. Outdoor storage
3. Auto repair being conducted outside the building.
However, I did observe that the wrought iron gate fence had been re-painted, there was only (4)
vehicles displaying for sale signs, and two inoperable vehicles that were waiting for automotive
parts to arrive. The pazking lot seem to be in fair condition with no potholes.
Since May 1, 2001, Code Enforcement staff has received rivo citizen requests for service on the
property resulting in 10 violations. Furthermore, staff has issued two Notices of Violation to the
business owner and the property owner for those violations.
)f you have any questions regazding this property please contact me at ext 4148.
Thank you..
ITEM tJO. 8
SP 691941 q 1
61 V PoPNT 1 SP 84.14 fip-61_6 T
6662.60 66 ,bjgTR\PI. FIRMS FRENE
~m oc~RK sMP~~1Np
~ PRA Uo S
SP gq.1 ~
T
SP g4-69 X601 spvjp"CER ~G OORONPOO SCREE 66 6 51
R 61-6PP VJE~~ ~~ ~ SMg R1P~
oOF ORPT\ON Q 302' \NOF,RMS
9q.1 g41
SP 61-14 SP 61'14
66 -62bOq'f 11 G~_62-6 \pd. F\RMS
SP gq 1 ~ GU CC F DO SMP`~MOVSTR
O
SP g4-gg 1461 66bbZb91461 SF3•;-
RGA.61 P 161q RC~58 59g486 1 ' ,
GU ST PTE GuP 161q ~ 5P 94 04511
ER ENVEUOPE o SMERO\PU SCUP 22 p 04 26 `'
CO SNppS T_oUP P Zp90
CUP 166
1 gq-1
NoFp ~p\ NUF R\•t'S~ SUP 1614 \P0 Ms't~•. PNP\'\EMp~'K\NGp~NT
i ESSGO pR
P sr ~~'
0 5911E ~ 9P 0b 1q a+-~ £SCO of
,Upp.BM 66.61 X10
5gb9' 11
SP 9 X10 GV NDUSTR`P` 51 62 figtµ\P1-
5g.59.O~R SMP1'\-p,RMS RC\" ,NpUS
\NT~o SMPU'p,RMS
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04711 Subject Property
Date: June 30, 2003
Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: ROBERT D. ZANTOS Q.S. No. 140
REQUEST TO PERMIT CONVERSION OF NEW AUTOMOBILES INTO LIMOUSINES.
1190 North Kraemer Boulevard ns
Staff Report to the
Planning:Commission
(June 30,.2003
Item No. S
Ba. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION7CLASS 1 (Motion)
8b. CONDITIONAL'USEPERMITNO.2003-04711 (Resolution)
' SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly-shaped, 1.9-acre property is located at the southeast comer of Coronado
Street and Kraemer Boulevard with frontages of 307 feet on the'south side of Coronado
Street and'195 feet on the easYside of Kraemer Boulevard (1190 North Kraemer Boulevard
Royal Coach By Victor).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of a Conditional UsePermit under authority of Code
Section No 18.110:080:050.0533 to permit the conversion of new vehicles into limousines.
BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is developed with an industrial building and is zoned SP94-1' Development
Area 3 (Northeast Area Specific Plan, La Palma Core) and the General Plan Land Use
:Element Map designates this property for General Industrial land uses. The property is also
'located in he Alpha NortheastRedevelopment Project Area
(4) Surrounding land uses are as follows;
±Direc4ion Land Use :Zoning General Plan
oaDesi nation
North, across
Coronado Street Industrial Firms SP94-1; DA 2 General Industrial
East ! Industrial Firms SP94-Y DA 3 General Industrial
South 'IhdustrialFirms SP94-1; DA3 General Industrial
West; across Kraemer
Boulevard Commercial Shops SP94-1,;DA 1 General industrial
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:
(5) The following zoning,actions pertain to this property:
(a) Conditional Use Permit No.' 3616 (to permit accessory service and outdoor display of
marine vehicles and to construct a 2,100 square foot mezzanine in conjunction with a
previously approved marine vehicle manufacturing and retail sales facility with waiver of
permitted encroachments) was approved by the Commission on Apri(1, 1996. This
use is'no longerbperating at this location and therefore, this permit sfiould be
terminated.
(b) Conditional Use Permit No188 (to establish a planned unit shoppingeenter with
..restaurant and cocktail lounge) was,approved by the Commission on December 27,
1961. `This use js no longer operating. at this location and therefore, this permit'should
be terminated
sr1120cw.doc
.Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30, 2003
Item No. 8
bEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: ,
(6) The applicant, Royal Coach by Victor, requests approval of a conditional use permit to
establish a vehicle conversion operation. The site plan (Exhibit Not) indicates an existing
55,968 square foot industrial building (area includes second story mezzanine)`setback' 65
to 70 feet from Kraemer Boulevard and 68 feet from Coronado Street. The site plan
indicates existing 10 footwide landscape planters along both streeffrontages!and adjacent
to the building. The site plan further indicates an existirg Joading ramp and compressor
room adjacent to the rear of the building and a rash enclosure adjacent to the east
property line.
(7) The first floor plan (Exhibit No. 2) indicates theiapplicant would occupy only a portion of the
first floor for a total of 21,000 square feet. The warehouse area of the building would be
usedfor meta fabrication exterior tiody preparation, parts storage room, spray booth and
various assembly areas. The first floor plan also indicates restrooms, vendorand customer
waiting areas and general offices. The plan indicates the main entrance on the north
elevation (facing Coronado Street). The second floor (mezzanine) would not be utilized as
part of this request. The Commission may wish to note that the applicant proposes minor
interlor improvements including the installatiortbf a spray:booth.
(6) The site plan indicates vehicular access by one driveway from both Kramer Boulevard and
Coronado Street and a total of 124 parking spaces on the, property. Code requires 100
spaces based the ratio ofi1.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet of manufacturing area, which
may'include up;tc ten percent of office area. Office area in excess of ten percent is parked
at 4 spaces per; 1,000 square feet (50,642 / 1,000 x 1.55 = 78.5 spaces plus 5;326 / 1,000 x
4 = 21.3 spaces for a total. pf 100 spaces). Staff has analyzed parking based on the entire
gross floor area of the building, even though the applicant is requesting to permit the
vehicle conversion business to occupy only a portion of the first Floor.
(9) The submitted elevation plans and photographs indicate an existing wo-story (full first floor
with: partial mezzanine) tilt=up industrial building with windows along''the north and west
elevations. The elevations also indicate a main'entrance on the west elevation'. (facing
Kraemer Boulevard) and loading doors on the south and east elevations (facing interior
property lines). There are no changes proposed for the exterior of the building:
(10) No new signage is proposed in conjunction with this request; however, there are two
existing freestanding signs (one per street frontage) located within the landscape setbacks
adjacent to the street frontages. Code permits'one monument sign'per street frontage
having dimensions of 8 feet in height, 10 feet in width and a maximum sign area of 65
square feet per,face. Wali signage is permitted up to tenpercent of each building
elevation.
(11) The letter of operation defines this use as "remanufacturing of luxury vehicles into
limousines "Hours of operation would be one shift from 8100 a.m. to`5:00 p.mi'daily, with'.
fifty (50) employees. Staff has had numerous conversations with the applicanf regarding
the proposed use. The applicant has indicated that the use does not operate as automotive
repair or auto body business, rather automotive remanufacturing. New vehicles are
purchased by the company and brought to the site to be converted into luxury limousines:
The conversion includes cutting the vehicles in half, extending theJength of the vehicle and
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30, 2003
`.item No. 8'
installing technical equipment. The converted vehicles maybe painted, detailed and
"sometimes washed prior to customer pick-up. All activities associated witfi the business
would occur indoors except for tfie washing of vehicles.
ENVIRONMENTALiMPACT ANALYSISi
(12) The Planning Director's authorized representative has determined that the proposed project
falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions; Section 15301, Class'1 (Existing:
'Facilities), as definedin the CEQA Guidelines and isj herefore; exempt from the
requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation':
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS:
(13) The proposed project'has been reviewed 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, herefore,"no analysis has been performed.
EVALUATION:
(14) A business'involving "new vehicle conversion" is permitted in the SP94-1 DA3 (Northeast
Area Specific Plan, La Palma Core Area) zone, subject to the approval of a conditional use
permit under authority of Code Section 18:110.080.050.0533. This Code Section was
adopted by the City Council on June 15, 2003, following a recommendation for apprdval by
the Planning Commission on May 27, 2003. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve
this case, the permit would be subject to the 30-day referendum period for Specific Plan
'Adjustments, which would end on July 27, 2003.
(15) The Commission may wish to note that the applicant has indicated that atl automotive
"remanufacturing" would be conducted completely within the building. Limited outdoor
storage of vehicles would be restricted to the rear of the building for finished vehicles. The
:applicant also indicated the business would involve washing finished vehicles, which"would
also be done at the rear of the property. Sfiould the Commission wish to approve this
request, staff has included a recommended condition o require'all storage and washing of
vehicles to'be screened from view of the public right-of-way, so as to not 6e visible to
'pedestrian or vehicular traffic along Kraemer Boulevard or Coronado Street.
(16) The applicant, Royal Coach by Victor, currently operates a limousine conversion business
in the City of Orange: The applicant has indicated they have outgrown them existing site
'and believe the proposed site is+more than'adequate'to serve tioth their current and future
'needs. Staff has contacted City of Orange; planning Department and confirmed that there is
no record of Code enforcementviolationsfgr the existing business. This facility would be
the point of sale for all vehicles remanufactured by the petitioner.
(17) The Commission should note that this project is located in the Alpha (Northeast Area)
..Redevelopment Project Area. The Community Development Department has submitted the
:attached memorandum dated June 20,'2003, stating hat they do not object to the r
proposed vehicle conversion use.
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30, 2003.
Item No. 8
FINDINGS: ,
(113) Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use permit,' it must make a finding
of fact that the evidence presentedshows that all of the following conditions exist:
(a) That the proposed' use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is
authorized by the2oning 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 end the
grpwth 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, fiealth, safety, and general welfare;
(d) , That the traffic generated by the proposed use wilt not impose an undue burden '
s 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 tie detrimental to the: peace, health, safety"and general welfare'of the
citizens of the City of Anaheim.
RECOMMENDATION:
(19) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the
evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Commission take he following actions:
(a) By motion, determine that theproject is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301,
Class 1,(Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines.
(b) 8y resolution, approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04771 (to permit the
conversion of newvehicles into limousines) based on the following:
(i) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is
authorized, pending the 30-day referendum period for the`~ecently adopted
Specific Plan Adjustment to allow "new vehicle conversion. by conditional use
permit' in Development Area 3 of the Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1.
(ii) That the proposed use of vehicle conversion would not be detrimental tp the
surrounding industrial businesses as he proposed use is similar in nature to ari
industrial manufacturer,
(iii) That the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is adequate to allow full
development and operation of the business in a'manner not detrimental to
surrounding properties, nor, to the peace, health, safety and general'welfare.
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commissioh
June 30;2003
ltem No. 8`!
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS'CITY DEPARTMENTS ACTING AS
ANsINTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE AND ARE RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION BY-THE
PLANNING COMMISSION IN THEEVENT>THIS PERMIT IS'APPROVED.
1. .That there shall be no outdoor vehicle sales display area.
2. That all temporary outdoor storage of finished vehicles and washing of the'vehicles shall be limited to
the area behind the existing industrial building as shown on Ezftibit No. 1 Wand not in view from'the
'public right`of-way. Further, that no required parking'area shalt be fencedbr otherwise enclosed for
outdoor storage. All other storage shall be'limited to he inside of the building.
3. That all auto body work shall be conducted wholly inside the building.
4. That no special event: permits shall be permitted for this property.
5. That the operation shall be limited to the modification of new vehicles for resales. No other
'automobile: repair and/or auto body work shall be permitted on`the premises,
6. That the property owner shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos.
3616 (to permit accessory service and outtloor display of marine vehiclesand to construct a 2,100
'.square foot meaanine in conjunction withia previously approved marine vehicle manufacturingand
'retail sales facility with waiver of permitted encroacfiments) and 188 (to establish a planned unit
'shopping center with'restaurant'and cocktail lounge) to the Zoning Division.
7. .That the developer shall submifa water quality management plan (WOMP) specifically identifying
best management practices that will be used on-site o control;predlctable pollutants from storm water
Yunoff. The WQMP'shall be submitted to'the Pubiia Works Department, Developmeht Services
Division for: review and approval.
8. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular
landscapemaintenance, removal of trash' or debris,'and removal of graffiti within twenty-four'(24)
hours from time of occurrence.
9. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with Ciry'
'standards.`
10. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed,
.'.damaged,'. diseased and/or dead.
1 L'That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the SP94-1, DA 3 Zone unless a
variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning Commission.
12. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and
+ approval showing conformance with the current version of Engiheering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601
:'and 602 pertaining to parking standards'and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be
developed,and maintained in conformance with saidplans.
13. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway in a manner which may adversely affect
vehicular traffic on the adjacent`public streets. Installation of any gates shall conform to Engineering
.Page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30, 2003
Item No. 8
Standard Plait No. 609 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and
Transportation Manager:
14. That there shall be no outdoor storage in any required parking area.
15. That 4-foot high address numbers shall be displayed onthe roof in a contrasting color to the roof
material. The humbersshall 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.
16, That subject property shall be maintained in accordance.with plans and specifications submitted to
the City of Anaheim by ttte petitioner and which plans are on file ih the Planning Department marked
Eznibit Nos. 1'and 2 antl as conditioned herein.
17. That prior to commencement of the. activity authorized by this resolution, or prior to issuance of a
building permit, or within a periodof one (1) year from the date bf this resolution, whichever pccurs
first; Condition Nos, 6, 7,:12, 13 and 15, above-mentioned, shall be complied: with. Extensions for
further time td'complete said conditions maybe grantedrin accordance with'Section 18:03.090 ofthe
Anaheim Municipal Code,
18. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or prior to final building
andoning inspections, whichever occurs firsf, Condition No. 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 he Anaheim Municipal Zoning,Code and;any other applicable City, State and Federal
regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to;compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
Page 6
ATTACHHEtJT - I TEII N0. II
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: June 20, 2003
TO: Charity Wagner
FROM: ~ Bob Gorson
SUBJECT: Royal Coach by Victor
~~ b ~,,
J~
PR~H,~3
N~
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency staff have been working closely with the Planning
Department and agree that "new vehicle conversion" may be an appropriate land use
within SP 94-1, Development Area 3 (La Palma Core Area), provided a conditional use
permit is approved.
Please contact me at (714) 765-4300 if you have any questions
BGM3619A.DOC
i itri wu.
Reclassification Nos. 2003-00104 Subject Property
2003-00105 ~ ~~~~~
Date: June 30, 2003
2003-00106
Scale: Graphic
:Requested By: CITY OF ANAHEIM (PLANNING DEPARTMENT) Q.S. No. 62, 63, 71,
72, 73, 83
ACITY-INITIATED REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF NINE STUDY AREAS
(SHOWN ABOVE) IN THE COLONY HISTORIC DISTRICT.
829
ITEt1 N0, 9 - STUDY AREA 3
~ 'o ~ ~ A oq~ ~M ~- T.cup 20~i ~- \ \\ R~
~Up2 \
GG/® a~ ~ > GG ~ c~aia°na P~MENSS FpR oo \ \\
o ~ i ~ ~ ~ ESCRpVJ t DU 2pU \
'm'_.~ Pp.G ; ... .
~Nin~ PO G 1 DU t DU ~c~-(l l\.1j S~ ~
a pU 0 DU ~ 3pU GH \\
g02DU VPgDUSi 1DDU A~ ~~2 N O ~, P pRSMENjS \~~~,_,~~~
o ? ~
2 DU 4 DU ~ 4 DU %°' °o VPR ~Zi O NOO ~ RM-2A6
~~ No N Zq DU \ N~ ..r RGl g6-
3p 3pU 3DU ,n `® ~n~ it
U N pU ~r ~; sue' ,,~+=~"~' '~~„ ~ ,,pna
SUatU ° VPR2~30\, r 40U 3pU ~ a r~ RM240~104 ~ 3 Y
t D t 0 \\\iL\\ r ,,. ~ GU 2003- 00102~~s :c
'f DU ~ 4 DU O t DU ,.... ~~ ~,~t k~-,,.~ ~ RGU 2p03'~ ~ .
® 2T6 ~ ~M 2gp0o1o4 ~ --"' w.
GUP ~ ~~ RGR 2p0,JOp10~~ ?4 F, ~ , s;"~
!L -:~~='Y ~ ~FyM 2q p01p4 .;. `+` ~A112g' ~,~;, `~~Z RM 23 p010~ ~~'oo
~ ~ ~RG~ 2000 ~ootoz ~ PpV~ P~ ~ ~ f ~~ , RGU ~op3 oaloz .
~~
N ~ "~ 2A0 ° ~'
RM.t200 ~"~~ ,~ ~ x o ~`~r„ ~~~RGRZa0y~-,~0? t~_ ~~~~ ~~`~ ~.,_.--'^
U „:{-a., t f R\'!'0~00104 °~. a ~cas<'`" 1tt,
~"-_'' ~ RM 24 001p4 ~ ~ - RM-2400 7~
z' RGU 200 p01~ ~;°„'-= RRCL 800-fi~~704 - Ry~2p0 2
RM-1200 ~' ~+!, RGU ; ;.,- VAR 1440
.e;~?.•l. ,.;,a <, ~ VPR 3902 1200 O
fr
Z R VPR 39~t O
RM.126y130 Ry1200 y a
R Vp~R 1'jp6 r Z
9
Fyg 1209 p N,\
FPy IN ~ A
~\\\^` - J
\ \2p0 c
Reclassification No. 2003-00104 '`~~~ Subject Property
Date: June 30, 2003
Scale: Graphic
Requested By: CITY-INITIATED (PLANNING DEPARTMENT) Q.S. No. 63, 73
REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED IN STUDY AREA 3
WITHIN THE ANAHEIM COLONY HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR FROM THE RM-2400 (RESIDENTIAL,
MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE TO THE RS-5000 AND RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY)
ZONES OR A LESS INTENSE ZONE.
775(2003.6.24)
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30,'.2003
Item No. 9`
9a CEQANEGATIVEDECLARATION (Motion)
9b. ,RECLASSIFICATION N0. 2003-00104 (Resolution)
9c. REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF "GRANDFATHER" PROVISIONS (Motion)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION;
(1) Study Area 3 -This area consists of thirty-six properties with a combined area of
approximately 6.5 acres. Thirty-five properties are located on the north and south sides of
Broadway tietween West Street to the west and Citron Street to the east (804, 808,: 809,
:812, 815, 816, 817, 825, 900, 902, 903, 904, 907, 91:1, 915,9:19, 923, 924, 928, 930, 936,
940, 1000,:1001, 1004, 1007, 1011, 1015, .1018, 1021, 1022, 1024 and 1025 West
Broadway and contiguous parcels 216 South West Street and 217 South Illinois Street).
One additional properly is located on the west side of Citron Street approximately 199 feet
south of the centerline of Broadway (315 South Citron Street). ,'
REQUEST:
(2) City-initiated (Planning Department) request for reclassification of the subject properties in
Study Area 3 within the Anaheim Colony Historic District (bounded by North, South,: East
and West Streets) from the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) to theRS-5000 and RS-
:7200 (Residential, Single-Family) zones or less intense single-family residential zones.
BACKGROUND:
(3) Study Area 3 is developed with thirty-four single-family residences (including single-family
'dwellings with conforming and non-conforming accessory second units orsenlor second
units, one apartmenCcomplex, and one duplex. The'Anaheim General Plan Land Use
'.Element Map designates theseproperties'Low-Medium Density. Residential with the
exception of the property at 315:: South Citron Street, :which is designated Low Density
'Residential.
(4) Surrounding land uses are as follows:
Direction Land Use Zoning General Plan Designation:
North Single-Family ' RM-1200 Medium Density
Residences andl Residential
Apartments
East Apartments RM-1200 Medium Density
Residential
Low-Medium Density
Church RM-2400 .Residential ,
South Single-Family l RS-7200 Low Density Residential
Residences '
West Single-Family RM-1200 Medium Density
Residences and Residential
Apartments '`
Sr2130ds
Page 1
'Staff Report to the
i Pl ann ing. Corn m iss ion
June 30, 2003
Item No. 9'
(8) Study Area 3 is one of nine study areas developed in'conjunctioh with studies and field
'surveys conducted 6ymembers of the Anaheim Colony's Historjc Preservation Committee
and Planning Department staff to determine which neighborhoods within the Anaheim
Colony Historic District would be most appropriate for reclassification. The areas selected
are predominantly single-family'or are characteristic of asingle-family neighborhood'as
viewed from the street, have significant community support for reclassification, and contain
existing Qualified Historic Structures as identified in the Anaheim Colony Historic District
'Presevatioh Pian.
(9) One-hundred and ninety-four surveys were mailed to the property owners within the nine
Study Areas to evaluate neighborhood opinion regarding the proposed downzoning.::
Seventy-six property owners responded. The majority of the surveys (49 surveys or 64%)
were returned indicating support of the downzoning. Nine surveys (12%) indicated "not
sure" about downzoning, and eighteen surveys (24%) containedvarious degrees of
opposition or concern; however,;only four of the seventy-six returned surveys gave specific
reasons for. opposition: property rights issues (2 responses), downzoning was "too late"
due to existing apartments "on Broadway";(1 response), and "we do not feel
jnconvenienced" [by apartments (1 response).
(10) fall property owners within the nine Study Areas were invited by mailed invitation to attend
an Anaheim Colony Neighborhood Councilmeeting on April 24,2003, to hear an
informational presentation by Planning Department staff describing survey: results, an
explanation of the reclassification process,:and aquestion and answer session.
Approximately 30 residents attended the meeting.
(11) The process leading to the proposed reclassification has truly been an effort by residents to
self-determine the future directjon of their neighborhoods. Throughout the area targeted for
reclassification, it is evidentthaNresidents`fiave taken great pride in their Historic homes
Nand view this effort as a means to preserve the integrity of their neighborhoods. Further,
he preservation of historic neighborhoodsis consistent with the objectives of the Anaheim
.Colony Historic District Preservation Plan'that was adopted by he City Council in 1999 and
.with the pending General Plah Update that will address the preservation of this area'
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30, 2003
Item No. 9
~ - --- - -
r~ ~
i~ ~~ -
~. ~~ / uz~~sT p"*_.
~~~rv~ ~f;>. .~>
-wc 'S ~ '-" ~ ~~ dt ~" t
"~"~ .~° ~'~ v ~~. ~v`3 ~~`~"~~ r...a-rte+„~ s X41 ,
w,.
u5.an.. ^fy. . i~".'y"^~~~y~v"v.
.Eu
} ,
~ m I t~ ! - i
.
/~~ °L
5~'
.4~
Gs%` a
~~ ~ P ~ ~ ~ ' ~
V'..=~~ ~ 1 y pM 5 •~
~~~ ~ s ~ 1
Example of incompatible land uses :
(12) It Is the intention of staff to include provisions for "grandfathering" of existing legal non-
conforming uses and structures such as second units, senior second units, duplexes,
triplexes, and apartment complexes in a draft ordinance for consideration by the City
Council for a first reading if the Commission approves this Reclassification request.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS•
(13) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review
in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and; therefore',
recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning
Commission that the Negative Declaration reflects the independentjudgment of the lead.'
agency; and that it has considered the proposed Negativebeclaration together with any
comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of fhe
InitiafStudy and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect oh the environment.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS•
(14) The proposed project has been reviewed by affected City departments to determine
whether it conforms with the City's Growth Management Element adopted by toe City
Council on March 17, 1992. Based on City staff review of the proposed project, it has been
determined that is project does not fit within the scope necessary to require a Growth i'
Management Element analysis, therefore, np analysis has been performed.
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30,:2003
'Item No. 9
? EVALUATION:
(15) The properly located at 315 South Citron Street (developed with'. a duplex) is proposed to
be reclassified from the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to the RS-7200
..(Residential, Single-Family) Zone to be consistent with the zoning to the south and west of
this property and the existing Low Density;l2esidential land use: designation in the Anaheim
General Plan Land Use Element.
(16) The remaining properties in Study Area 3 are proposed to be reclassified from the RM-
2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to the RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family Zone
to be consistent with he existing Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation for
these properties.
(17) Legally-established multiple-family dwellings that become non-conforming by this
:reclassification wouldbe subjectto the following ezisting Code Section:
"18.02.0581030.033 Reconstruction of Nonconforming Buildings. Any nonconforming
building which is (1) destroyed to the extent of NOT MORE than fifty (50%) percent. of its
reasonabl@'value by fire, explosion or other casualty or Act of God, or the public enemy; or
(2) destroyed, in whole or in part', as part of a disaster:' or calamity, involving not less that
300 residential and/or commercial units which results' in a state'of emergency or local
.emergency being duly proclaimed pursuant to the Califomia Emergency Services Act as
set forth in'Chapter Tbf Division 1 of Title 2 of the GovemmentiCode of the State of>
California, maybe restored and the occupancy or use of such building or part thereof which
existetl at the time ofsuch partial destruction may be continuedisubject to all other
.provisions bf this chapter."
(18) During the Planning Commission's discussion of the initiation of these reclassification
'proceedings at the May 5~' and May 19, 2003 meetings, the Commission expressed'an
!interest in'; grandfathering" existing legally-establishetl multiple-family dwellings that would
:become non-conforming by this reclassification. Staff requests: Gommission comment and
'recommendation to the City Council on the following: draft text for a code amendment to the
Permitted Primary Uses of the t2S-5000 and RS-7200 zones as follows:
"The reconstruction of any legally-established multiple-family dwelling, second unit or
senior second unit located within the Anaheim Colony Historic DisVict (bounded by North,
South, East and West Streets) hat is damaged or destroyed by earthquake, fire, wind,
!.flood, explosion or other disaster, casualty or act of God, or of a public enemy shall be
permitted`provided that: (i) the dwelling orunit is matle non-conforming by the adoption of
an ordinance for reclass~cation to a less intense zone after July _,::2003, (ii) the`
'dwelling is'constructed in conformance with development standards in effect on the
effective date of the reclassification to a less intense'zone, (iii)I he number of units shall not
exceed the number of legally established`units which existed on the effective date of said
reclassification, (iv) reconstruction is in conformance with all applicable building codes in
'effect at the time of reconstruction, and (v) a complete application for a building permit is
.filed with the Building Division within two years of the date of the event that caused the
'damage or destruction
' Page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30, 2003
Item No. 9
RECOMMENDATIONa
(19) Staff recommends that unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the
evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the
public hearing that the Commission3ake the following actions:
(a) By motion, approve a CEQA Negative 0eclaration.
(b) By resolution, approve Reclassification No. 2003-00104, uriconditionatly, to
reclassify properties within': Study Area3 as follows:
(i) The propery located at 315 South Citron Street, located on west side of
.Citron Street, approximately 199 feet south of the centerline of Broadway,::
from the RM-2400 zone to the RS-7200 zone, or a less intense'single-family
residential lone.
(ii) All other properties within Study Area 3 on the north and south sides of
Broadwaypetween West StreeNand Citron Street from the RM-2400 zcne to
the RS-5000 zone, or a less intense single-family residentlal zone,
(c) ' By motion, re uest that the City Attorney's Office prepare a draft Ordinance for C.S~~
Council review and approval which contains provisions for "grantlfathering" of
legally-established multiple-family dwellings such as second dwelling units, send
second. units, duplexes, triplexes, andapartment complexes that become non-
conforming by the reclassification of the subjectproperties.;
F,^-:ge 6
ATTACHMENT - ITEM N0. 9
12,~gs
~>
April 30, 2003
City of Anaheim Planning Commission
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
- Anaheim, CA 92805
Dear Planning Commissioners:
MAY 2003 ~
pLANNINoG °
DEPARTMENT ,
For a number of years residents and property owners in the Colony Historic
District have been very interested in effecting a change in the existing land use
and zoning of particular neighborhoods in the downtown. This effort is an
attempt to preserve the character and quality of life in predominantly single-family
residential neighborhoods that are threatened by the existing permissible land
use. Current zoning in these neighborhoods would permit property owners to
demolish homes and construct apartment complexes in their place.
From the onset of these discussions with the City, Colony residents have been
actively involved in this effort. It has been a part of our multi-year plan of action
for the Colony Neighborhood Council and the subject of many agenda items.
Community members walked and surveyed all the proposed areas for possible
downzoning to determine the current land use and the overall appearance and
"feel" of the neighborhoods. We requested support from City Staff in this process
knowing that a community effort of this nature would require the partnership of
City Planners and ultimately the Planning Commission .and City Council.
I am pleased to share with you that there is overwhelming support for this effort
among residents and property owners of the Colony. This has been
demonstrated at the Colony Neighborhood Council Meetings as well as at
informal gatherings in the community among owners of properties affected by the
potential downzoning.
We ask that you support our effort to preserve the quality of life in our
neighborhoods and forward this action to the Council for their consideration.
Sincerely,
<-' ~--~ L`~~-tom
Mitchell T. Caldwell, Chairman
Colony Neighborhood Council
i Tr~~ nin to
Reclassification Nos. 2003-00104 ~ Subject Property
2003-00105 Date: June 30, 2003
2003-00106
Scale: Graphic
Requested By: CITY OF ANAHEIM (PLANNING DEPARTMENT) Q.S. No. 62, 63, 71,
72, 73, 83
A CITY-INITIATED REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION Of NINE STUDY AREAS
(SHOWN ABOVE) IN THE COLONY HISTORIC DISTRICT.
829
ITEt4 N0. 10 - STUDY AREA 7
.A
GN
~~
~8~~~3
~ OU A n~
U ~~
y0
g3
~J2p QB~1~19 o V
ZOU\ o\ yD
nqC X87-23 \\®
`m ZpU
2DU9RB7-Z3 F
1
~ s'~ p'Ep,VN
1
v~~gg6.1fi
i
N'
N
O
O
G
PR'
1PR
Reclassification No. 2003-00105
WA~
`W1~H~
Requested By: CITY-INITIATED (PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
Subject Property
Date: June 30, 2003
Scale: Graphic
Q.S. No. 71
REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED IN STUDY AREA 7
WITHIN THE ANAHEIM COLONY HISTORIG DISTRICT FROM THE RM-2400 (RESIDENTIAL,
MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE TO THE RS-5000 AND RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY)
ZONES, OR A LESS INTENSE ZONE.
D
776(2003-6-24)
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30,2003
>`Item No. 10
10a CEQANEGATIVE'DECLARATION (Motion)
10b: RECLASSIFICATION N0 2003-00105: (Resolution)
10a%REOUESTFOR'REVIEWOF"'GRANDFATHER".PROVISIONS (Motion)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:'.
(1) Study Area 7 -This area consists of fifty-seven properties on the east antl west sides of
:Lemon Street and the east and west sides"iof Zeyn Street, with'a combined area of
approximately 9.17 acres, located between North Street to the north and Wilhelmina Street
to the south (702, 703, 706, 711, 710, 714'} 718, 720,,721, 725, 729, 730,..731, 732, 735,
736, 741, 742, 745, 746, 747, 750, 751, 755, and 756 (2 parcels) North Lemon Street,
contiguous parcels 211 West Wilhelmina Street and202 WestNorth Street and 700; 703,
706, 707, 710, 711, 714, 715, 71 S, 719, 720, 723, 726, 727, 730, 731, 734, 737, 738; 739,
742, 743, 746, 747, 750, 751, 754, 757, 760 and 761 North Zeyn Street)..:
REQUEST:
(2) City-initiated (Planning Department) request for reclassification of the subject properties in
'Study Area 7 within the Anaheim Colony Historic District (bounded by North, South,'East
and WestiStreets) from the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple Family) to the RS-5000
(Residential, Single-Family) and RS-7200;(Residential, Single-Family) zones or less t
intense single-family residentiat:zones.
BACKGROUND:
(3) Study Area 7 is developed with fifty-four single-family residences (including single-family
tlwellings with conforming and non-conforming accessory second units or senior second
'units), three duplexes, two tri-piexes, three apartment complexes, and one convenience
market. The Anaheim General Plan Land`Use Element Map designates these properties
!for Low-Medium Density Residential land uses on both sides of Zeyn Street and the' east
'side of Lemon Street; and Lowbensity Residential land uses on the wesf side of Lemon
Street.
(4) Surrounding land uses are as follows:
Direction Land Use Zoning 'General Plan Designation '
North Apartments i RM-2400 Low-Medium Density '
Residential
East Retail Stores '! CG General Commercial
South and
West ' Single Family ;'
Residences RS-7200 Low Density Residential
(5) On May 5 and May 19, 2003, the Commission initiated proceedings to reclassify two
hundred parcels, located within Study Areas 1 through 9, from. multiple-family residential
zoning tosingie-family residential zoning.%
Sr2131ds
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30, 2003
Item No. 10
t~~w' ~,
r
r ~~~~~
~~:` ~~a~<s ~ a
*~ `~ s~ ~~',x ~~
~, '` r ~~1 Y` y-~~ ( _ ~~~"t~
Y~ ~ ~
~ moo' ~•~' '~~~~•. ~'~~
4~ <
~~ K -i ~~s ~~~r~.,
F
r
~~ ~~
~ m,~, f u }~ ~ , j
`~` ~ ` ~ f~~,~t t" `~ 'I ` ~,.
s (~
~ ~°~,i{~ qua ~ ~ sS~ ~xeuY ~f i'~it ~S ~ ~"' .
` r '~ccr"" ~"` k.«..'~'k~` ~ ~'t'-~-4 `qtr-~ yap m...j:
`~ .LY4 ~ ~~~xa~r96..
/r¢} ^ryf"'f 7~w.: ~y „S+ '„3g" e mow: .Y- ~., ~ ~
.f z r~`~ y'~~„'--Jr,~" e"~2 r"3k~-" ref ^~
y ~ ,.si~,r-.~y~`~t~".~'^"_"f4~~ ,'t" t>~s:.,,.sl "`n .~~."'`s o-'r~lF~S"`~"'"
Example of a single family residence within Study Area 7
-0ISCUSSIOfJ:
(6J Reclassification of properties in Study Area 7 from.the RM-2400 to the RS-5000 and RS-
7200: zones is,being requested by the Planning.. Department on behalf of the Anaheim
Colony Neighborhood Council as a means to preserve s(ngie-family neighborhoods located
within the Colony that are'currently zoned multiple-family.. Reclassification of these
properties to replace multiple-family'zoning with single-family zoning is proposed to
eliminate the potential of hese neighborhoodsbeing demolished and replaced by
apartment ormultiple-family development,
(7); The proposed reclassification would be consistent with the existing Land Use Element Map
of the General Plan and the preferred land use aitemative of the General Plan'Update;
therefore, no general plan'.amendment is proposed in conjunction with the requested
reclassification:
Page 2
Staff Report to the i
Planning' Commissioh
June 30;2003
tem No, 10
(8) 'Study Areal is one of nine stutly areas developed in conjunctloh with studies and field
'surveys conducted by members of the Anaheim Colony's Historic Preservation Committee
`and Planning Department staff tb determine which neighborhoods within the Anaheim
Colony Historic District would be the mostappropriate for the proposed reclassification.
The areas'selected are predominantly single-family or are characteristic of asingle-family
neighborhood as viewed from the street, have significant community support for
reclassification, and contain existing Qualified Historic Structures as identified in the
Anaheim Colony Historic Preservation Plan.
(9) One-hundred and ninety-four surveys were mailed to the property owners within the nine
Study Areas to evaluate neighborhood opinion regarding the proposed downzoning.
'Seventy-six property owners responded. The majority of the surveys (49 surveys or 64%)
were retumed Indicating support of the downzoning. '.Nine surveys (12%) :indicated "not
sure" about downzoning, and eighteen surveys (24°/a) contained various degrees of
opposition'or concern; however, only four of the seventy-six returned surveys gave speciFlc
reasons for opposition: property rights issues (2 responses), downzoning'was "too late"
due to existing apartments "on Broadway"`(1 response), and "we do not feel
inconvenienced" [by apartments] (1 response).
(10) All property owners within the nine Study Areas were'invited by mailed invitation to attend
an Anaheim Colony Neighborhood Council meeting on April 24,'.2003 to hear an
'informational presentation by Planning Department staff describing survey results, an
explanation of the reclassification process; and a question and answer session.
Approximately 30 residents attended the meeting.
(11) The process leading to the proposed reclassification has truly tieen an effort by residents to
self-determine the future direction of theirneighborhoods. Throughout the area targeted for
reclassification, it is evident that residents have taken great pride in their historic homes
and view this effort as a means, o preserve the integrity of their'neighborhoods. Further,
the preservation of historic neighborhoods' is consistent with the objectives of the Anaheim
"Colony Historic District Preservation Plan`that was adopted by the City Council in 1999 and
with the pending General Plan Update that will address the preservation of this areas
'Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30, 2003
Item No. 10
i
~~
n ~~` ~~s
~ ~ ELF ~ s~~~~~~~ ~~ t
~r 3 ~p"~ ~ ~'~'~~tr ~~ '~ta~~y .s'
N'S J+ 1Mi ~ `Sv/Y
-~`Y' ~~ -:: ryq.' / ',`~"~J ~~i~r~n'+~ '~"~za"'-«'}~`~~3'~r`~ ~ -^°Y-rte.`-"~ ~ s u
.~^. ~~v Y ~~v ~ 'war
m ~ „n
~, I -
..., a ,,:t5 r:
~^
~~ ~
ppQY
t~,?
9 .. ~
.
r ~'
Qc' y / ,
°3~i,,:,v<"~i'~`"c~"~, ,.,,~,..,';3r,.,r,...c~Fr'rk, +~sm',a;,,,;~ ..:,,,i.,x;'~'.x:~au=~~~,u'~- ~ .'~- .. o-,~,..,
Example of incompatible land uses
(12) It is the intention of staff to include provisions for "grandfathering" of existing legal non- '
conforming uses and structures such as second units, senior second units, duplexes,
triplexes and apartment complexes in a draft ordinance for consideration by the City
Council for a first reatling'if the Commission approves this Reclassification request.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(13) Staff has reviewed the proposal and. the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review
in the Planning'Department) and finds no significant environmentaliimpact and, therefore,
recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning
Commission that the Negative Declaration reflects the Independentjudgmenf of the lead
agency; and that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any
comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the
Initial Study and any comments received that tfiere is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effecton the environment.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS
(14) The proposed project has been reviewed by affected City;departments to determine
whether it conforms with the City's Growth Management. Element adopted by the City
Council on March 17, 1992. Based on City staff review of the proposed project, it has been
determined that this project does not fit within the scope necessary;to require aGrowth -'
Management Element analysis, therefore, no analysis has been performed.
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commissien
June 30, 2003
Item No. 10
EVALUATION:
(15) The properties on the,west side of Lemon Street between NorthStreet and W ilhelmina
Street are currently zoned RM-2400 with a'General Plan Land'Use Designation of Low-
Density Residential These properties areproposed'for Reclassification to'the RS-7200
' (Residential, Single-Family) Zone to be consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use
Designation.
(16) The remaining properties in Study Area T, located onboth sidesbf Zeyn Street and on the
'east side of Lemon Street, between North`Street and Wilhelmina Street, are currently
zoned RM-2400 with a General Plan Land'Use Designation oALow-Medium Density
Residential. These properties are proposed for reclassification to the RS-5000 Zone to be
consistenYwith the existing General Plan Land Use Deslgnation
(17) Legally-established multiple-family dwellings that become non-conforming by this
Reclassification would be subject to the following ezietinq Code Section:
"18.02.058:030.033 Reconstruction of Nonconforming Buildings. Any nonconforming
building which is (1) destroyed'to the extent of NOT MORE than fifty (50%) percenfof its
reasonablevalue byfire, explosion or other' casualty or Act of God, or the public enemy; or
(2) destroyed, in whole or in part, as partof a disaster or calamity, involving not less that
.'300 residential and/or commercial units which resultsiin a state!of emergency or local
emergency being duly proclaimed pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act as
set forth ini Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Tifle 2 of the Governmenf Code of the State of
California, maybe restored andthe occupancy or use of such building or part thereof which
°existed at the time of such partial destruction may be`continued subject tb'aIl other i
provisions'of this chapter."
(18) During the Planning Commission's discussion of the initiation of these reclassification
`proceedings at the May 5~' and May 19, 2003 meetings, the Commission expressed'an
interest in Ygrandfathering" existing legally-established multiple-family dwellings that would
become non-conforming by this`reclassification. Staff requests Commission comment and
Yecommendation on the following draft tezf for a code amendment to the Permitted Primary
)Uses of the RS-5000'and 12S-7200 Zones' as followsi
"The reconstruction of any legally-established multiple-family dwelling, second unit o[
senior second unit located within the Anaheim Colony HistoricDistrict (bounded by North,
South, East and West Streets)'that is damaged or destroyed by earthquake, fire, wind,
flood, explosion or other disaster, casualtybr act of God, or of a public enemy shall be
permittedprovided that: (i) the dwelling or'unit is made non-conforming 6y the adoption of
'an ordinance for reclassification to a lese intense zone after July _ 2003, (ii) the
'dwelling is constructed in conformance with development standards in effect on the
effective date of the reclassification to a less intense zone, (iii) the number of units shall not
'exceed the number of legally established units which existed on the effective date of said
'reclassification, (iv) reconstruction is in cohformancewith all applicable building cotles in
effect at the time of reconstruction, and (v) a complete application for a building permit is
'filed with the Building Division within two `gears of the date of the event that caused the
damage ordestruction."
Page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30, 2003
Item No. 10
RECOMMENDATION:.`
(19) Staff recommends that unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commissidn, 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, a rove a CEQA Negative'. Declaration.
(b) ' By resolution, a rove Reclassification No. 2003=00105, unconditionallu, to
reclassify properties within' Study Area 7 as follows:
(i) The properties on the west side of Lemon Street between North Street and
Wilhelmina Street from the RM-2400 zone to the RS-7200 zone'or a less
intense single-famllyYesidential zone.
(ii) Tfte remaining properties in Study'Area 7 located on both sides of Zeyn Street,
and on the east side of Lemon Street, between North'Street and'Wilhelmina
Street, from the RM-2400 zone to the RS-5000 zone ora less intense single-
family residential zone.
(c) - By motion, recuest that the City Attorney's Office prepare a'draft Ordinance for City
Council review and approval which contains provisions for Cgrandfathering" of
legally-established multiple-family dwellings such`as second dwelling'units, granny
units, duplexes, triplexes, and apartments complexes that tiecomevon-conforming
by the reclassification of the subject properties.
Page 6
ATTACHMENT - ITEM N0. 10
April 30, 2003
City of Anaheim Planning Commission
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Dear Planning Commissioners:
.~~~
MAY 2003
pECEIVEt{O _
DEPARTMENT ,~~
For a number of years residents and property owners in the Colony Historic
District have been very interested in effecting a change in the existing land use
and zoning of particular neighborhoods in the downtown. This effort is an
attempt to preserve the character and quality of life in predominantly single-family
residential neighborhoods that are threatened by the existing permissible land
use. Current zoning in these neighborhoods would permit property owners to
demolish homes and construct apartment complexes in their place.
From the onset of these discussions with the City, Colony residents have been
actively involved in this effort. It has been a part of our multi-year plan of action
for the Colony Neighborhood Council and the subject of many agenda items.
Community members walked .and surveyed all the proposed areas for possible
downzoning to determine the current land use and the overall appearance and
"feel" of the neighborhoods. We requested support from City Staff in this process
knowing that a community effort of this nature would require the partnership of
City Planners and ultimately the Planning Commission and City Council.
I am pleased to share with you that there is overwhelming support for this effort
among residents and property owners of the Colony. This has been
demonstrated at the Colony Neighborhood Council Meetings as well as at
informal gatherings in the community among owners of properties affected by the
potential downzoning.
We ask that you support our effort to preserve the .quality of life in our
neighborhoods and forward this action to the Council for their consideration.
Sincerely,
7'9 ~~ L.4 L~~~~t~
Mitchell T. Caldwell, Chairman
Colony Neighborhood Council
ITetl No. ti
Reclassification Nos. 2003-00104 ~,~~~ Subject Property
2003-00105 Date: June 30, 2003
2003-00106
Scale: Graphic
Requested By: CITY OF ANAHEIM (PLANNING DEPARTMENT) Q.S. No. 62, 63, 71,
72, 73, 83
A CITY-INITIATED REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF NINE STUDY AREAS
(SHOWN ABOVE) IN THE COLONY HISTORIC DISTRICT.
829
ITEh1 V0. 11 - STUDY AREA 1
~oA VPR 24Un `V
aN
D
~ ~ ~ GG
J316 V N
~19'j6 YA G ~ COIN Pv~, Z c P Z p0A4222 .....,...
~ `n ~ VP~PN ~~
~-W oG K W
~s
8 v~ 6PN ~
~~ ~ CG 'j,w ~ ~C~14 ~p4Y22
~ ~' ~~'' ~f 1 CUP 2581 G CUP 2003286
'' O GUP~PN'C
~ ~ f 1 ~ VP
3 M a r ~
~ G ff f 1 ff1\ ,n aa. ~ ~''~3'' ~~--'''~~ pG1_ 21d~~.~0001p2~~'y' ~~`` w G
- 1 \ • ~ ~ ;~~ ~r. RCt• 20p3g0 20 ~ ~; ~, .~
µ 8~ „e Z 4' ~~i
-''' -~ f f ~~- .~ you ~" GHESjN 1 3
~'I'' M.30 0» \ ~~ a o~ ~ 422 ,max. m ~ R L~ UP 362 R~
"' 0 C
g1-62_ f C~ ,
R vUPFi 93g9 , ~\ ~ f ~ ~r.:~R2 0~p01f02 ~~ ~.~ -_. KE P~' CD
p 362
µC~ g 1 82~ 2 1 f ~~ ~ y~G` 2 89-9p 20 ~ ~ ~ CU FECES 63 64.14
RCU 6 2118 1 A '~s RCl MTS 5 , 7 ~-,v., CG OF µC1.
~ o
CUP ~ % «t ao,~zoo 6.° ;~ S
00 PS
t __ ~'~ i 6~'-~' RM p3A6106 ~ FCpD
~ ~ ~~~ _~ ~' ~ ~~RC120fi6~9 03 1 RESt f
~~\
ff ~ / ~ µM_2400 A R Bq?85,3 ~C 2, 1'16,
\~ ~~__i' ~ m a c w CL ;. ~.. 193,
~~~i~'' L ~gr N p
A '~ b ~ r 6~6g_62
RM~2gp003 m s`G BR~PpW p`Y RvPRZOg9
L 68b9 o n
RC POP~IG~S
L
RCL ~_6q_,4
RM_128~11 001 LfB~
µG~ ~ w µM•30
(t1~\~oi, (ResoffVP 346
s*~f L \\ pPSS• ~~
Reclassification No. 2003-00106 ~~~ Subject Proper#y
Date: June 30, 2003
Scale: Graphic
Requested By: CITY-INITIATED (PLANNING DEPARTMENT) Q.S. No. 72, 73
REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED IN STUDY AREA 1
WITHIN THE ANAHEIM COLONY HISTORIC DISTRICT FROM THE RM-2400 (RESIDENTIAL,
MULTIPLE-FAMILY) AND PD-C/RM-2400 (PARKING DISTRICT -COMMERCIAL / RM-2400)
ZONES TO THE RS-5000 AND RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONES, OR A LESS
INTENSE ZONE.
830
ITEt1 N0. 11 - STUpY AREA 2
li
5M-520 5 E St pt\ON
CUP 23,1 PpllC y
0
CSEtMENtS as ~°'6~s-6~ °s i j~ ,.. ~.. 0.c!
pppR FG~~P3@7@
~( CUP 1@05
A SpNtPPNPS vM~~.ssl~ ~ ~
~ l6 5@ 6
N -sf s~~ ~oUP ~. O
o ~~ r
~~'~ R
VAR ~fi37 .-!^~ ~e.rit~ ~ss~al ''`, 6r64'g0h
VAR 1035 ~;~.,.. ..'' ~ ~,wy, ~ h VAR 2615
r ~F ~ ~ e~% vMa~: 0.Gl
W ~~+`s ~~~ ~~u f~u n.»r v RO b2
~~
e 3~'~~~TMj~~ .` ~ ~ ;`. pp 0540
~% M• tP Y
2 ~p~ ~`~''s ~. E EMH~pR
a q~~.~~,, FiM•p3A0106 9 N ono
~~pap4 ~ ~~7~ aCU ~op3Ap102 ,~~~~~ ~
~ o G~ -' o~~ F~CU53"54 ~} p °.
=+ O C~
o y~~~~ A , a "~ ~ c~~
Z Z ~ m
a ~ ;. 'b ~,~.~, X65
~ ~ a ~ ppTS
<l~~' ~' .
hl^ G h
is ae ;,2p. .,. N
40 N ~ o
A N o
N p
WpTERSj o ~ ~o
0
A ~ N
A N N a
,\ / \ 4 /!
Reclassification No. 2003-00106 p~ Subject Property
Date: June 30, 2003
Scale: Graphic
Requested By: CITY-INITIATED (PLANNING DEPARTMENT) Q.S. No. 73
REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED IN STUDY AREA 2
WITHIN THE ANAHEIM COLONY HISTORIC DISTRICT FROM THE RM-2400 (RESIDENTIAL,
MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE TO THE RS-5000 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONES, OR
A LESS INTENSE ZONE.
831
I I tf1 NU. I 1 -
S
O
VPR~31a
R~~0 ~~~
.~oU ~GN RSU ~GN =
~ D ~°
_ \ f SYGPMG~ l
,-~
PNPH H G1.
\~\GN SG
~~
\ a
~ SS SS
GYpFtE i
9
m
a
R Ca~e~nes
SMiG\2cY SchpO\
,p
Reclassification No. 2003-00106 ;,~, ;" Subject Property
Date: June 30, 2003
Scale: Graphic
Requested By: CITY-INITIATED (PLANNING DEPARTMENT) Q.S. No. 62, 72
REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED IN STUDY
AREA 4 WITHIN THE ANAHEIM COLONY HISTORIC DISTRICT FROM THE RM-2400
(RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE TO THE RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-
FAMILY) ZONE, OR A LESS INTENSE ZONE.
832
ITEt1 N0. 11 - STUDY AREA
V
VAR 1666
VAR 4116 FLS'~0 000
E ST
~0 p00 SYG~GR
RS"
~~
0
0 ~ i .
4
Rg.~0 X0
? .
i~r 0 ~E
„~3 app.
vv~~"4
ouxr:
~z
~ ~ ~
~ oc ts N pPRK
S
2 ~o pEPS
m ~Nrn__ ~
7
oA R
0
~A CV7~ C7° GUP 84B
„
UP
~
'G
v G~ ~ o Z
.
:
ct
~
,
:y~
Q~ y 1n N n_o
9
Z 'RM-~1340
Sy o N
~ S ~ G~p1188
°
x
~T. u.
<„_... ,260
R 19 ~
1
VP
1,V16F~' "
1'121
~ 2
A
f N Z
F
YPRESS ST y ~ in T
v N o N° N7
C ~ ~, o
1 RCa~10.1a o\
ini ct~6
S rn ~ p15
~ 5
~
SMdi121Y REg S
P ~
Reclassification No. 2003-00108 ~,r ~Y~ ,.> Subject Property
Date: June 30, 2003
Scale: Graphic
Requested By: CITY-INITIATED (PLANNING DEPARTMENT) O.S. No. 72
REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED IN STUDY
AREA 5 WITHIN THE ANAHEIM COLONY HISTORIC DISTRICT FRO M THE RM-1200
(RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE TO THE RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-
FAMILY) ZONE, OR A LESS INTENSE ZONE.
833
ITEM N0. 11 - STUDY AREA 6
\ ~`\ P
rG
GL ~9
gYGP ARE 91
PFp'RS N PARK
m~
z
N1
~ S~•
GYPRES/
~+~' Al
FtG~ 6y" 56'90
R C~~2214
R GItIF 3F6pB¢~t5 ~ N
~M.125G~{ PU S~ORt `nw
~~~~ ~. c~
c~
a µM-~ZpCH vPP~~v ~vP
N ~ DU ~ PUSSNpP
p[
rp0 ~oz,
1q6~~ CCU
oU~~„%~~: vPF Dut GG
rn
A
'1~9 ~U
~+n
GG
~C. ~~ 1 pU
a°a
° ZpU
N
L
ff
~y. ~R~W 9 ~...
RS.50pp P -
pp F. \SP~V
SANS iO -{
?~ R
G~05
:~~ VAR
Z
S
mq U~
7
~ 4
O
m
G
SMpe HECK O
c
pUP
pN'
RG1.
P~
pF;
`z p
~~.
Reclassification 1Jo. 2003-00108 ~~~` Subject Property
~~
Date: June 30, 2003
Scale: Graphic
.Requested By: CITY-LNITIATED (PLANNING DEPARTMENT) Q.S. No. 72
REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED IN STUDY
AREA 6 WITHIN THE ANAHEIM COLONY HISTORIC DISTRICT FROM THE RM-1200
(RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE TO THE RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-
FAMILY) ZONE., OR A'LESS INTENSE ZONE..
834
ITEH ND. 11 - STUDY AREA 8
coMMEµ~.~
c~~~~r`
I I tl`1 IVU. I I ~ J I UUY HKtH
V- 29 9 `_G' ~ ~
0
zoo'
~,l
PRM
GG _~4
v~N~yHP~
~+~ 11
R~` 1NSa
c~ ~e
RCS 6~ g19
59'6~ten~
lR w P~ ~~
GUP
8R p,~W p.`(
c
A
g6.61.24
~ ~C`VP5+,3636 a
ne
Reclassification No. 2003-00106 ~~~~° Subject Property
.~
Date: June 30, 2003
Scale: Graphic
Requested By: CITY-INITIATED (PLANNING DEPARTMENT) Q.S. No. 83
REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED IN STUDY
AREA 9 WITHIN THE ANAHEIM COLONY HISTORIC DISTRICT FROM THE CL (COMMERCIAL,
LIMITED) AND RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE TO THE RS-7200
(RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) ZONE, OR A LESS INTENSE ZONE.
!I
836
Staff Report to the
Planning,Commission
June 30; 2003
'Item No. 11
11a.t CEQANEGATIVEDECLARATION (Motion)
11 b. RECLASSIFICATION NCk'2003-00106 ! (Resolution)
11c. !REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF-"GRANDFATHER"PROVISIONS (Motion)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: I
(1) Study Area 1 -This area consists of twenty-one properties with'a combined area of 3.52
acres. Seventeen properties are located oh the north and south sides of Chestnut Street,
`approximately 174 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard (512, 516, 517, 520,
521, 524,:.525, 526,.529, 530,533, 534,537, 539,b40, 542 and 643 WestChestnutStreet).
`Four additional properties are located on the north side of Broadway, approximately 176
`feetwesfof the centerine of Harbor Boulevard (513,(517, 521 and 527 West Broadway).
Study Area 2 -This area consists of forty-five properties on the`east and west sides of
Resh Street and the west side'of Janss Street, with a'combinedarea of approximately 5.72
acres, located between Santa Ana Street to the north and Water Street to the south'(502,
606, 507,.510, 511, 514, 515,518, 519,522, 523, 526, 527, 530, 531, 534; 535, 539;:540,
643, 544,:548, 549, 550, 551,+555, 556,:558, and 559 South Resh Street, 612 and 706
:West Santa Ana Street, and 507, 511, 515, 519, 523(: 527, 531,:535, 539,'.543, 549,:553,
;555, and 559 South Janss Street).
Study Area 4 -This area consists of twelve properties on the east side of CiVon Street,
with a combined area of approximately 2.0 acres, located between Sycamore Street to the
north and:Cypress Street to the south (302, 308, 312, 318, 324,°328, 400,'404, 410, :414,
420, and 424 North Citron.Street).
Study Area 5 -This area consists of ten properties on the west'slde of Harbor Boulevard,
'with a combined area of approximately 1.73 acres, located between Sycamore Street to the
north and Cypress Street to the south (301', 307, 319; 331, 401;;407, 415,1417, 421, and
'427 North' Harbor Boulevard).
Study Area 6 -This area consists of eighPproperties with a combined area of
:approximately 1.35 acres. Seven properties are located on the`east side of Lemon Street,
:between Adele Street to the north and Cypress Street to the south (302, 306, 308, 312,
316, 320,.and 324 North Leman: Street). One additional property is located at the northeast
'comer of Adele Street and Lemon Street (402 North Lemon Street).
Study Area 8 -This area consists of five properties on the south side of Adele Street and
'the wesfside of Emily Street, with a combined area of approximately 0.74 acres, located
`between Claudina Street to the west and' Emily Street to the east (206, 214, and 216 East
Adele Street and 31Tand 321 North Emily. Street).
Study Area 9 -This area consists of six properties on the south side of Broadway, with a
combined `area of approximately 1.0 acre;llocated tietween Claudina Street to the west and
Philadelphia Streetto the east(202, 204,208, 212; 218, and 224 East Broadway).
Sr2132ds
`Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30, 2003
Item No. 11 ?
REQUEST:::
(2) City-initiated (Planning Department) request for reclassification of the subject properties in
Study Areas 1; 2, 4, 5, 6 8 and 9 within the Anaheim Colony District (bounded by Nortfi,
South, East and West Sheets) from the CL (Commercial, Limited), RM-1200; (Residential,
Multiple Family), RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple Family)', and PD-C / RM-2400 (Parking
District- Commercial, RM-2400) zones to the RS-5000' (Residential, Single-Family) and
RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) zones or less intense single=family residential zones.
.BACKGROUND:
(3) The current and proposed zoning and existing General Plan designations for the subject
properties are indicated ih the chart below (also refer to?attached maps).
Study Existing Land lJses ExistingsZoning Proposed Existing General Plan
Area Zoning Designation
1 Nineteen single-family RM-2400 and RS-5000 on Low-Medium Density
residences*, one pD-C/RM-2400 Chestnut Street ' Residential and Medium
apartment complex, and and RS-7200 on Density Residential on
one triplex Broadway Broadway
2 Forty single-family RM-2400 R5=5000 Low-Medium Density
residences* and five Residential..
apartment complexes
4 Twelve single-family RM-2400 RS-7200 Low Density Residential
residences*
5 Seven single-family RM-1200 RS-7200 Low Density Residential
residences*, two
duplexes, and'one
apartment complex
6 Eight single-family RM-1200 RS-7200 Medium Density
tesidences'; Residential
8 Four single-family ' PD-C/RM-2400 RS-5000 Low-Medium Density
residehces* and one Residential
apartment complex
9 Five Ingle-family CL and RM-1200 RS-7200 Medium Density
residehces* and: one Residential i
apartment complex
'Single-family residences in this'chart include all residences ofsingle-family character with or i
without legal and/or legal non-donforming second units and senior second units.
Page 2
.'Staff Report to the
Planning,Commission
June 80 2003
Item No: 91
(4) Surrounding land uses are as follows:
Study Area 1
Direction 'tand Use Zoning :General Plan Designation
North Retait Stores, Offices CG General Commercial
East ;Retail Stores, Offices and Fast CG CL Medium Density
Food Restaurant Residential
South Apartments RM-1200, Medium Density
Residential
Public Library (south of CO
Broadway) Library Site
West Condominiums RM-3000, Low-Medium Density
Residential,
Apartments RM-1200
Medium Density
Residential
Studv Area 4
Direction iLand Use Zoning General Plan Designation::
North'across Single-Family Residences RS-1.0,000 Low Density Residential
Sycamore
Street`
East Single-Family Residences RS-7200 Low Density Residential
South`': Single-Family Residences RS-5000 Low-Medium Density
Residential
Wesfacross High School RM-1200 Higti School Site
Citron Street
Page 3'
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30, 2003
Item No. 11
Study Area 5
Direction Land Use Zoning General Plan Designation
North across Single-Family Residences RS-10,000 Low Density Residential '
.:Sycamore '-
Street
East across Park RS-A-43,000 Community Park Site'
.Harbor
Boulevard
South across Private School RM-1200 Low-Medium Density i
;Cypress Residential
Street
West Single-Family Residences RS-7200 Low Density Resideritiai
Study Area 6
Direction Land Use Zoning General Plan Designation
North Apartments RM-1200': 'Medium Density
Residential
East Apartments RM-120p; General Commercial
PD-C
South across Offices CG General Commercial
Cypress
Street
West across Park RS-A-43,000 Community Park Site
.Lemon Street
Study Area 8
Direction Land Use Zoning General Plan Designation'
North across Single-Family Residences, RS-5000 Low-Medium Density
Adele Street ` Residential
Apartments
East across Single-Family Residences RS-5000 Low-Medium Density
Emily Street Residential
South Church PD-C / ' Low-Medium Density
i RM-2400 r Residential
West Single-Family Residences ' RS-5000. Low-Medium Density
Residential
Page 4
`Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30 2003
Item No: 11
< Studv Area 9
Direction Land Use ' Zoning General Plan Designation
North across Performance Theater CL General Commercial
Broadway
East across Apartments. RM-1200 Medium Density
Philadelphia Residential
Street i
South s Apartments RM-1200 Low-Medium Density
Residential -`
West across Mortuary;. CG General Commercial
Claudina
Street
Staff Report to the
Planning Commissioh
s June 30,:2003
Item No. 11
contain existing Qualified Historic Structures as identified in theAnaheim Colony Historic
Preservation Plan.
(9) One-hundred and ninety-four surveys were mailed to the property owners within the nine
Study Areas to evaluate neighborhood opinion regarding the proposed reclassifications.
Seventy-siz property owners responded. The majority of the surveys (49 surveys or 64%)
:were retumed indicating support of the reclassifications. Nine surveys (12%) indicated "not
sure" about reclassifications, and eighteen'. surveys (24%) contained various degrees of
oppositionor concern; however, only four of the seventy-six retumed surveys gave'specific
reasons for opposition: property rights issues (2 responses), reclassifications was "too late" '
due to existing apartments "on Broadway";(1 response), and'Yve do not feel
'inconvenienced" [by apartments] (1 response).
( (10) All property ovmers within the nine Study Areas were invited by mailed invitation to attend
an Anaheim Colony Neighborhood Council meeting on April 24,:2003, to hear an
?informatiortal presentation by Planning Department staff describing survey results, ah
explanation of the reclassification process; and a question and answer session.
`Approximately 30 residents attended the meeting.
(11) The process leading to the proposed reclassification has truly been an effort by residents to
self-determine the future direction of their'rteighborhoods. Throughout the area targeted for '
(reclassification, it is evident that residentshave taken great pride in their historic homes
and view this effort as a means #o preserve the integrity of theicneighbortroods. Further,
lthe preservation of historic neighborhoods is consistent with the objectives of the Anaheim
'Colony Historic District Preservation Plan hat was adopted by the City Council in 1999 and
'with the pending General Plan Update that will address the preservation of this area:
Page 9
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30, 2003
Item No. 11 '
- - - -- - -
~~
~~ ~ ~ ~~
->yu ~"
4tv'"''`-r-?•N~~f/~' ur`*`s~r~'N~-'Y~~^2`~u'.~YL~{'~~.;"2 S ~-4ff} -k'
~~J ~..t~,a r=fi i,.s:~`:~,x,,r"' 6- .~.,, v3 nf~~~~ t
}/vim ~ °" ,"'s~. ,~ 4a~ ,~ t tar' r,'? Ss, ~,'s'~'T wfi" .mac??.-sit L5
r r ~r 'nF Ors . v~~:_- .. ~ s .J,~,'`.r ~~~ wE~/~.~~"f' r 7 ~
yr+ ./ `' 4'0 .='e `F~~~ ~~,~Nh ~ ~i`~ ~ b~ ~~Srt q ~~}t -i: -5
z7y;r r =-S9', ~„'X ..`eAx.,Ka ..+.^w`:", ~ f
'-w ~ r
r
..... ~ .,.r.. , s . ,,. ~~ ., , z„ Y.. .~ ,i.
1
5Y
3i.5, ;,`.r:.`_7' ~'tt"~Yz2°~-.c„ r''f`?£^f ..,v`"r.'`..,~~~, ~"~„~is~o`~,+~~,~"~.-~??...~""r2.~~ ~ sex. rFa ~.K„w r_ .~.''. ..:<...
Example of Incompatible land uses
(12) It is the intention of staff to include provisions for "grandfathering" ofexisting legal non-
conforming uses and structures such as second units, senior second units, duplexes,
triplexes and apartment complexes in a draft ordinance for consideration by the City
Council for a first reading jf the Commission approves this Reclassification request.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(13) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review
in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmentalimpact and, therefore,
recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning
Commission that the Negative Declaration reflects the independehtjudgment of the lead.'.
agency; and that it has considered the proposetl Negative Declaration together with any
comments received during the public review process and`further finding on the basis uF the
InitiaC Study and any comments received thaf there is no substantial' evidence hat the
project will have a significant effect on the environment.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ANALYSIS:
(14) The proposed project has been reviewed by affected City departments to determine
whether it conforms with the City's Growth Management Element adopted by fte City
Council on March 17, 1992. Based on City staff review of3he proposed project, it has been
Pager 10
.Staff Report to the
' Planning:.Commission
June 30 2003
Item No: 11
determined that this project does not fit within the scope necessary to require a Growth
.'Management Element analysis;: therefore;: ho analysis has beenperformed.
EVALUATION:
(15) The existing zones and General: Plan land Lse designations for'properties' in Study Areas 1,
2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are fisted in tfie chart inparagraph?(3) of this'report in addition to tfie
' proposed zoning for the properties in these study areas. The proposed zones are all
:'consistent with the existing General Plan Land Usebesignatlons and/or the preferred land
:use alternative for the Generaf Plan Update.
(16) Legally-established multiple-family dwellings that become non-cbnforming by this
.'reclassification wouldbe subject to the following existino Code'Section:
"18.02.058:030.033 Reconstruction of Nonconforming Buildings. Any nonconforming
>building which is (1)8estroyed;to the extent of NOT MORE than fifty (50%) percentef its
reasonablevalue by fire, explosion or other casualty or Act of God, or the public enemy; or
(2) destroyed, in whole or in part, as part of a disaster or calamity, involving not less. that
300 residential and/or:commercial units wfiich results in a state'of emergency or local
emergency being duly proclaimed pursuant to the California Emergency Services Act as
,set forth in Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title2 of the Government Code of the State of
..California, may be restored andlthe occupancy or use of such building orpart thereof which
existed atthe time oflsuch partial destruction may be'continued'subject to all other '
provisions'of this chapter."
(17) During the Planning Commission's discussion of the initiation of these reclassification
'proceedings at the May 5~h and May 19, 2003 meetings, the Commission expressed an
!interest in "grandfathering" existing legally-establishetl multiple-family dwellings thatwould
.'become non-conforming by this reclassification. Staff requests Commission comment and
'recommendation ondfie following draft text for a code amendment to the Permitted Primary
.Uses of the RS-5000`and RS-7200 Zones as followsS
"The reconstruction of any legally-established multiple-family dwelling, second unit or
senior second unit located within the Anaheim Colony Historic District (bounded by North,
South, East and West Streets) that is damaged or destroyed by earthquake, fire, wind,
flood, explosion or other disaster, casualtybr act of God, or of a public enemy shall be
:permitted. provided that: (i) the'dwelling or unit is made non-conforming by the adoption of
'an ordinance for reclassification to a less intense zone after July _,.2003, (ii) the'+
'dwelling is constructed in conformance with development standards in effect on the
effective date of the'reclassification to a less intense zone, (iii)`the number of unitsshall not
exceed the: number of legally established`units whichexisted on the effective date dfsaid
!reclassification, (iv) reconstruction is in conformance with all applicable building cotles in
`effect at the time of reconstruction, and (v) a complete application for a building permit is
filed with tfie Building Division within twoyears of the'date of the event that caused. the
'tlamage or destruction:'
RECOMMENDATION:
(18) Staff recommends that unless additional or contrary nformatiofi is received during the
r meeting, ahd based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the
evidence presented in this staffYeport, and oral and written evidence presented at the
.public hearing that the Commission take ttte following actions:
.Page 11
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 30, 2003
item No. 11
(a) By motion, a rove a CEQA Negative Declaratipn.
(b) By resolution, approve Reclassification No. 2003-00106, unconditionally, to
reclassify properties within Study Area 1 as follows:
(i) The properties located on the north and south sides of Chestnut Street,
approximately 174 feetwest of the centerline. of Harbor! Boulevard, from the
RM-2400 and PD-C/RM-2400 zones to the RS-5000 zone.
(ii) The properties located on the north side of Broadway, approximately 176 feet
west of the centerline of Harbor Bpulevard from the RM-240Qto the 12S-7200
zone.
(c) ; By resolution, a rove Reclassification No. 2003-00106, unconditionally, to
reclassify properties within Study Areal from the RM-2400' zone to the RS-5000
zone.
(d) By resolution, approve Reclassification. No. 2003-00106, unconditionaily, to
reclassify properties within: Study Area'4 from the RM-2400'zone to fie RS-7200
zone. '<
(e) By resolution, a .rove Reclassification: No.2003-00106, unconditionaily, to
reclassify properties within'Study Area' S from the. RM-1200: zone to the RS-7200
zone. ';
(f) By resolution, approve Reclassification: No. 2003-00106, unconditionally, to
reclassify properties withimStudy Area 8 from the. RM-1200izone to the RS-7200:
zone.
(g) By resolution, approve Reclassification No. 2003-00106, unconditionally, to
reclassify properties within:StudyArea 8 from the PD-C fRM-2400 zone to the RS-
5000 zone.
(h) By resolution, approve ReclassificationNo.l003-00106, unponditionaliv, to
reclassify properties within Study Area' 9 from the: CL and RM-1200 zones to the
RS-7200 zone. r`
(i) By motion, re uest that the City Attorney's Office prepare a draft Ordinance for City
Council review and approval'which contains provisions for;"grandfatnering" of
legally-established multiple-family dwellings such"as second: dwelling'units, granny
units, duplexes, triplexes, and apartment complexes that tiecome non-conforming
by the reclassification of the subject properties.
Page 12
ATTACHMENT - ITEM N0. it
,D~\ 1 z,~Q`SG
R,' ~
April 30, 2003 ~° Mp`! 2003 ~
s pLANNINN~~ °
City of Anaheim Planning Commission r, pEpARTMENT .
200 South Anaheim Boulevard ~~~~1I~6181 U9~~\~\`
Anaheim, CA 92805
Dear Planning Commissioners:
For a number of years residents and property owners in the Colony Historic
District have been very interested in effecting a change in the existing land use
and zoning of particular neighborhoods in the downtown. This effort is an
attempt to preserve the character and quality of life in predominantly single-family
residential neighborhoods that are threatened by the existing permissible land
use. Current zoning in these neighborhoods would permit property owners to
demolish homes and construct apartment complexes in their place.
From the onset of these discussions with the City, Colony residents have been
actively involved in this effort. It has been a part of our multi-year plan of action
for the Colony Neighborhood Council and the subject of many agenda items.
Community members walked and surveyed all the proposed areas for possible
downzoning to determine the current land use and the overall appearance and
"feel" of the neighborhoods. We requested support from City Staff in this process
knowing that a community effort of this nature would require the partnership of
City Planners and ultimately the Planning Commission and City Council.
I am pleased to share with you that there is overwhelming support for this effort
among residents and property owners of the Colony. This has been
demonstrated at the Colony Neighborhood Council Meetings as well as at
informal gatherings in the community among owners of properties affected by the
potential downzoning.
We ask that you support our effort to preserve the quality of life in our
neighborhoods and forward this action to the Council for their consideration.
Sincerely,
Mitchell T. Caldwell, Chairman
Colony Neighborhood Council