PC 2006/06/26~ I i
issi a
Monday, June 26, 2006
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California
® Chairman: Gail Eastman
® Chairman Pro-Tempore: Cecilia Flores
Commissioners: Kelly Buffo, Steve Faessel,
Joseph Karaki, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez
® Call To Order
Preliminary Plan Review 12:00 P.IN.
• Staff update to Commission on various City developments and issues
(As requested by Planning Commission)
• Workshop on Affordable Housing
• Preliminary Plan Review for items on the June 26, 2006 agenda
® Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session
® Reconvene To Public Hearing. 2:30 P.f1A.
For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any
item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit if to
the secretary.
® Pledge Of Allegiance
® Public Comments
® Consent Calendar
® Public Hearing Items
® Adjournment
You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following
e-mail address: planninacommissionfa~anaheim.net
H:\dots\clerical\agendas\062606.doc (06/26/06)
Page 1
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.flfl.
Public Comments:
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the
Anaheim Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing
items.
Consent Calendar:
The items on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call. vote, There will be no separate
discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning
Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from: the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
t s
1A. Receiving and approving the Minutes from. the Planning Commission
Meeting of May 31, 2006 (Motion)
1 B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission
Meeting of June 12, 2006 (Motion)
H:ldocs\clericallagendas\062606.doc (06/26/06)
Page 2
Public Hearing Items:
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05069
Owner: Public Storage Euro Partnership, 701 Western Avenue,
Glendale, CA 91201
Agent: Dean Grobbelaar, Pacific Planning Group, INC., 23412
Moulton Parkway,. Suite 140, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Location: 4880 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately
3.5 acres, having a frontage of 340 feet on the south side of
La Palma Avenue and is located 115 feet west of the
centerline of Manassero Street.
Request to construct afive-story self storage building with building
heights exceeding 60 feet with waivers of (a) maximum floor area ratio
and (b) maximum fence height.
Continued from the March 20, Apol 17, May 1, and 15, 2006, Planning
Commission meetings.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
3a.
3b.
Owner: Shawn Danesh, Calvada Development, 26996 La Paz
Road, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Agent: Ed Perez, EP Development Corporation, 201 Broadway,
Anaheim, CA 92805
Location: 1131 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately
0.39-acre and is located at the northeast corner of Lincoln
Avenue and Carleton Avenue.
Request to amend a condition of approval pertaining to lunch service at a
previously-approved drive-through coffee shop (Starbucks) to permit the
incidental sales of pre-packed non-beverage lunch items.
Continued from the June 12, 2006, Planning Commission meeting.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
H:\docs\clericallage n das1062606.d oc
Project Planner.
Qnixon@anaheim.net)
Project Planner.•
(jpramin:zQanaheim.oet)
(06/26/06)
Page 3
4a. PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE EXEMPTION SECTION 21159.23
4b. DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH STATE DENSITY
BONUS LAW
(MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT NO. 2006.00152)
Owners Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 South Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim,. CA 92805
Agent: Michael Massie, Jamboree Housing Corporation,. 2081
Business Center Drive, Suite 110, Irvine, CA 92612
Location: No Address. Property is approximately 2.6-acres and is
located south of the terminus of Chippewa Avenue at the
intersection of Crescent Avenue and Chippewa Avenue,
with a frontage of 413 feet on the south side of Crescent
Avenue.
Planning Commission determination of conformance with State density protect Planner.
bonus requirements to construct a 63-unit affordable apartment complex (dseeQananeim.net)
with a density bonus and incentives.
5a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISEDI Request for
5b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00175 Continuance to
Sc. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2006.05101 July 10, 2006
5d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16972
Owner: Tom Doyle, 700 South Street LLC, 94 Discovery, Irvine, CA
92618
Agent: Chris Campbell, The Olson: Company, 3020 Old Ranch
Parkway, Suite 400, Seal Beach., CA 90740
Location: 700 East South Street: Property is approximately 3 acres,
having frontages of 212 feet on the south side of South
Street and is located 150 feet east of the centerline of
Dakota Street.
Reclassification No. 2006-00175 -Request reclassification of the
subject property from the I (Industrial) zone to the RM-4 (Multiple-Family
Residential) zone, or a less intense zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05101 -Request to construct a 63-
unit attached condominium complex with affordable units and a density
bonus with incentives`.
Tentative Tract Map No. 16972 - To establish a 1-lot, 63-unit airspace
.attached residential condominium subdivision.
'Advertised as "waivers of (a) improvement of private street, and (b)
-- -sound attenuation for residential developments".
Reclassification Resolution No. Project Ptanner.
(dsee~anaheim.neQ
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
H:\dots\clerical\agendas\062606.doc (06126/06)
Page 4
6a.
6b.
Owner: Brandon Rainon, Outer Spring Volcano LP., 3364 East La
Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806
Agent: Jacob Finney,. ALCOA Wireless Services, 167 Technology
Drive, Irvine, CA 92618
Location: 3364 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately
2.79 acres, having frontages of 252 feet on the north side
of the Riverside (91) Freeway and is accessed via a 652
foot long, 32-foot wide access easement on the south. side
of La Palma Avenue, 1,240 feet east of the centerline of
Shepard Street.
Request to amend or delete conditions of approval to reinstate an existing
co-located telecommunications facility and accessory roof-mounted.
equipment on a legal non-conforming telecommunications monopole.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
7a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 313
(PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED(
7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2006-05103
Owner: Walt Disney World Company, Deanna Detchemendy, 500
Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA 91521
Agent: Walt Disney Imagineering, Dev Hawley, 1401 Flower
Street; Glendale, CA 91221-5020
Peri Muretta, 3 Resalo Drive, Mission Viejo, CA 92692
Location: 1946 South Harbor Boulevard: Property is approximately
32.03 acres, having frontages of 836 feet on the east side
of Harbor Boulevard and is located 850 feet south of the
centerline of Katella Avenue.
Request to permit a temporary parking lot.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
H:\d ocs\clerical\agendas\06260fi.d oc
Project Planner.
QnixonQa anaheim.netJ
Project Planner:
(dherrickQanaheim.vet)
(06/26/06)
Page 5
8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 3
8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05104
Owner: Servite High School, 1922 West La Palma Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92801
Agent: Mark J. Paone, Mark J. Paone AIA, 58 Plaza Square, Suite
F, Orange, CA 92866
Location:. 1952 West La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately
15.4 acres, having frontages of 650 feet on the south side
of La Palma Avenue and is located 515 feet west of the
centerline of Onondaga Avenue (Servite High School).
Request to permit two (2) modular classrooms for an existing private high
school.
'Advertised to include "and 137-feet on the north side of Dogwood
AVenue". Pmject Planner.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. (ewongz@ananeim.net)
9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 3 Request for
9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Continuance to
9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05107 September 18, 2006
Owner: Bruno Serato, Ganlaon, Inc., 887 South Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
Agent: Sylvano Serato, Anaheim White House Restaurant, 887
South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
Location: 887 South Anaheim Boulevard: Property is
approximately 0.82-acre, having frontages of 106 feet on
the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and is located 132 feet
south of the centerline of Midway Manor (Anaheim White
House Restaurant).
Request to erect a permanent canopy within the street setback of an
existing restaurant with waiver of minimum structural and landscape
setback. Pmject Planner.
Qnixon@anaheim.net)
Conditional. Use Permit Resolution No.
H:\docs\clerical\agendas\062606.doc (06126/06)
Page 6
10a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 330
(PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED-
10b. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT N0.2006.00048
Owner: Byzantine Catholic Bishop, 995 North West Street,
Anaheim, CA 92801
Agent: Trillium Consulting, 5912 Bolsa Avenue #202, Huntington
Beach, CA 92649
Location: City-Wide.
Request to amend the Zoning Code pertaining to permitted
telecommunications facilities in single-family residential zones.
Project Planner.
Zoning Code Amendment Resolution No. (kwong2Qanaheim.net)
11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05099
Owner: Robert Teran, Southern California Edison, 2244 Walnut
Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770
Agent: Jason Hadley, 25582 Creek Drive, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Location: 2137 East Cerritos Avenue: Property is approximately
2.23 acres, having frontages of 696 feet on the north side
of Cerritos Avenue and is located 618 feet west of the
centerline of Sunkist Street (SCE Easement).
Request to permit a telecommunications facility on an existing SCE tower
with accessory ground-mounted equipment. Project Planner.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. (kwong2Qanaheim.net)
Adjourn To flAonday, July 10, 2006 at 1:00 P.fifl. for Preliminary
Plan Review.
H:\dots\clerical\agendas\062606.doc (06126/06)
Page 7
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
10:00 a.m. June 22. 2006
(TIME) (DATE)
LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND
COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK
SIGNED:
If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written
correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
RIGHTS OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use
Permits and Variances will be final 22 days after Planning Commission action and any action regarding
Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps wilt be final 10 days after Planning Commission action unless a timely
appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied
by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk.
The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing
before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing.
ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the Planning Department, (714) 765-5139. Notification no later than 10:00 a.m.
on the Friday before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility to this meeting.
Recorded decision information. is available 24 hours a day by calling the Planning Department's
Automated Tele hone S stem at 714-765-5139.
H:\dots\clerical\agendas\062606.doc (06/26/06)
Page 8
SCHEDULE
2006
July 10
July 24
August 7
August 21
September 6 (Wed)
September 18
October 2
16
~_ October 30
November 13
November 27
December 11
I) December 27 (Wed) II
H:\dots\clerical\agendas\062606.doc (06!26/06)
Page 9
Item No. 2
IND. OFFICE BLDG.
SP 941 (SC)
DA Z
RCL 65-66-24 (29)
RCL 65-66-13 F
CUP 2922 UJ
H VAR 3838 ~ SP 941 (SC)
Ll.l SP941 (SC)
W. RCL fi5.66.24 (29) CATELtUS ~ RCL fi5-06 24 (29)
~ RCL 65-66-033 CORPORATE CENTER O CUP 2004-04945
~ CUP 3325 SMALL INDUSTRIAL ~ CUP 3010
~ VAR 36 B FIRMS ~ VAR 4133
VAR 2878
Y VAR 2978 O (CUP 2003-04793)
~ SMALL INDUSTRIAL Q CHURCH
FIRM ~
Z
Q
2
LA PALMA AVENUE
~--340-~ 1ts~
3~r.:
'5
..
Ian z € "~:5
,jj ~ ~n
V ~ Q iq
m i..-r SP 841 (9C)
RCL 66.67-64 ~
~ ~ 3;~~zc. SP 941 SC ` e
( )
~mW
"-m -m (Res. of lntentto ML)
RCL 66-07
63 ~9m0
J a-~, DA2 ~r
RCL 66-67-64 (10) t
~
~' SP 941 SC
~ ) SP 94-1 SC
( )
m J ` J
O o0
o -
AJAX CEMENT ~ m ~ O
~ ~ mz
ao
~o- CUP 2006-05069
~
~'+ ~' COP 3918 `~ 3;'
u~ ~ ~~
' DA 2
RCL 66-67-64 (10) DA 2
RCL B6E7.64(10) I
.
rn ~ ~ o: COMPANY .
J ~ J~ ,
~ Gy VAR 3267 ~~ ~ MTI LING
VAR 232
3
~ m ¢a ' S~LL
~ ~.~;; PUBLIC 3
(' Mx„3 STORAGE ~~~ FIRA
~`~~ ' ~~ r ?~~ `
u1~~~bi ~~
~~y~r
7'
-
,
REp
E~
~
NO ~NTpRO
T /
EASTA!{~
TA[Py
~
,4
RCL 70-71 <7
(Ras of Intent to ML)
RCL 70-71-06
N
ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE.
Conditional Use Permit No.
2006-05069 ~ yaw
~ 3.w, Subject Properly
Date: June 26, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: PUBLIC STORAGE EURO PARTNERSHIP Q.S. No. 166
4680 East La Palma Avenue boos
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05069 Subject Property
Date: June 26, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: PUBLIC STORAGE EURO PARTNERSHIP Q.S. No. 166
4880 East La Palma Avenue
~ooos
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 2
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion)
2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (Motion)
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05069 {Resolution)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This rectangularly-shaped 3.5-acre property has a frontage of 340 feet on the south side of
to Palma Avenue, a maximum depth of 453 feet, and is located 115 feet west of the
centerline of Manassero Street (4880 East La Palma Avenue -Public Storage).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval bf a conditional use permit under authoritybf Code
Section No. ]8.120.070.050.0537 and 18.120.070.080.0801 to construct athree-story self-
storagebuilding` with waivers of the following:
(a) .SECTION NOS. 18.120.080.0803 Maximum Floor Area Ratio tFARI
<; 0.5 FAR permitted; .79 FAR proposed)
(b) ..SECTION NO. 18.120.070.100.1001 Maximum Fence Height
(3 feet permitted; 6 feet proposed)
'Advertised as a five-story
BACKGROUND:
(3) This item was continued from the March 20, April 17, 2006, AAay 1 2006, and the May 15,
2006, Commission meetings to allow the applicant time ao work with staff to address land
use and design concerns: The applican4 has also reduced the fieight of the building
#rom five 4o three stories.
(4) This property is currently developed with seven (7) freestanding self-storage buildings. The
property is zoned SP94-1(DA2) (SC) Northeast Industrial Area Specific Plan, Development
Area 2 (Expanded Industrial Area), Scenic Corridor Overlay. This property is also within the
merged redevelopment area (Alpha). The Anaheim General Plan designates this property
for Office-Low land uses.'Surrounding properties to the east and west are also designated
for Office-Lowland uses; to the north (across La Palma Avenue) for Industrial land uses,.
and to the south for Open Space-Water land uses.
(5) The existing one-story self storage facility is a legal nonconforming facility that was
constructed prior to the adoption of the Northeast Area Specific Plan which requires a
cohditional use permit far self storage facilities. This request would also establish land
use.conformity for the existing qon-conforming facility.
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:''
(6) The following zoning actions pertain to this property:
(a) ConditidnaLUse Permit No. 3918 (to permit an unmanned 420 square foot cellular
communications facility within an existing self storage business with an approximate 47
foot high triangular monument tower with. 12 flush mounted antennas) was approved by
srCUP2006-05069jkn
Page 1
l
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item. No. 2
k
h ~"'"Direcdon'
~ r' ~
r~~tegmired{Pfoposec!
Reguired~Pro~osetl
~
~ ~
'~ s
~~ „~~ Building S®tback
~ - ~
Lanil$
a e
Se~a~k
'
, X
4r„~. , ~ ~.
.
_ , ,
e
_
„
North (adjacent to La 65 feeU65 feet 20 feeU20 feet
Palma Avenue)
0 feeU 240 feet 0 feeU15 feet
.
South .
srCUP2006-05069jkn
Page 2
l _ ____ --
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 2
(11) The elevation plans (Exhibit Nos. 6 and 7) indicate a three (3) story building with a
maximum height of 41 feet 6 inches including the elevator shafts, stair wells,. roof mounted
equipment and roof peaks. Elevation plans indicata the building would be constructed of
pre-fabricated metalpanels painted Navajo white, khaki and'stone. Plans further indicate
stone colored standing seam metal roofs and pre-fabricated fixed dark brown spandrel
'glass windows in natural aluminum frameslocated on all four elevations. A six (6) foot deep
overhang is provided over the main entrance door
Loo`s
,.> R«
~ ~ __,.
~.~
(12) The landscape plan (Exhibit No.B) indicates a 10-footwide landscape planter along La
Palma Avenue. The landscape plan consists of a variety of minimum 24-inch bozsize
trees, shrubbery, and ground cover throughout the Iahdscapedarea. The code requires
the first ten (10) feetbehind tha ROW to be landscaped with a minimum of one (1) tree
planted for every twenty (20) linear feet of sfreet frontage (17 trees on La Palma Avenue
.required; 17 trees proposed). The code further requires a minimum threa (3) foot high
shrub screen planted parallel to the La Palma Avenue; a minimum of one (1) tree shall be
.planted perfour (4) parking stalls, and a minimum of one (1) additional tree shall be
provided for each two thousand three hundred (2,300) square feet of area in the remaining
required fifty-five (55) feet street. setback area. The: proposed andscape plan complies
with cod®.
(13) The section plan (F~chibit No. 9) indicates the roof mounted equipment would be screened
by a parapet roof and a mechanical unit screen wall that is consistent with the architecture
cf the building.
(14) The sign plan (F~chibitNo. 10) indicates the following characteristics:
LOCATION OF a f ` SIZE`OF SIGN;{IN 7 `PERCENTAGE OF
,~ r 1ETiER ttEiGHT
WALL SIGN ,,,.. , y ,°SiQLIARE`FEET) ~ ~,'NIALL IFRQNTAG>; -:
North elevation 1 foot 3 %: inches ' 46 s.f. .6%
(main entrance)
Upper northeast 24 inches 130 s.f. 1.0%
elevation
Uppe[;east 24 inches 80 s.f. 1.5%
;elevation
Code permits wall signs not to exceed tenpercent of the building elevation or;200 square
` feet, whichaverls Tess. The proposed cabinet wall signs would have an orange and purple.
` background with white letters.. The proposed signs comply with the height and area
requirements of the code.
srCUP2006-050691kn
Page 4
_ _ _ _ _
Staff Report to the
PI C
amm~g ommission
June 26.2006
Item No. 2
{15) The applicant has indicaked in the letter of operation that the proposed business hours
:would be from 6 a.m.>to 9 p.m. seven.(7) days a,weekwith one employee. The operator's
duties include the surveillance of the interiorand exterior self-storage units and the sales of
tape and boxes from!the office area. Theexterior self-storage units are accessible by
driving to the unit. The interipcself-storage units would be accessed through ah entrance
on he north elevation. The customer. is able to use a "push cart" o transport their
belongings o amelevator to the designated floor.' Ali floors would be climate controlled.
(16) The customers would be able to access their storage units from Gam - 9:OOpm; 7
days a week.:The keypad activated gate Is always'closed during business hours and
non- business hours. !Each customer has an 3ndivtdual code.` Their code allows
them to open he gate and access the storage facility. For customers located within
the multi-story building the customer uses 4heir code to access the sliding doors to
gain access to the lobby area. `The code only allows 4hem ¢o gain access o the floor
that their unit Is on (i® elevatocwtll no4 open on any other.floor eucept their own). If
their unit is on 4he first floor the elevator will not open at ail. IAII units are
individually alarmed and are linked to a central alarm systems' If a customer tries to
gain access to any unit besides their own the alarm will go off.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(17) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial. Study (a copy of which is available for review
in the Planning Department) and finds no sgh~cant environmental impact and, therefore,
recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by,the Commission
that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and that it has
considered the. proposed Negative Declaration together with any,comments received during
the. public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
signrficant effect on the environment.
EVALUATION:
(18) Self-storage facilities are permitted in the SP94-1, DA2 zone subject to the approval of a
conditional use permit. -
(19) One of the objectives of the General Plan is to "Plan land uses that preserve and enhance
Anaheim's economic assets " In order to facilitate thatobjective, the General Pian Land
Use Element enhances The Canyon's industrial base with limited strategically located office
and mixed uses that take advantage of the area's location, visibility and access: This
property is located within one of those areas; therefore, the land use designation for this
site was changed from.{ndustrial p Office-Low during the comprehensive General Plan.
update. In addition, one of the General Plan goals specific to this area is to maintain and
enhance the Canyon Area as one of the most prominent business centers in Orange
County. Policies to support this goal are to protect and,enhance the integrity and
desirability of,industrialsites and encourage additional office development along the south
side of La Palma Avenue. Staff is concerned that the proposed development is not
consistent with the long-term goals to strengthen the area as a technology center. The
proposed modification and expansion of the existing self storage facility (from 67,937 to
120,296 square feet) is a signfficaht redevelopment of a site in a mannerthat is not
consistent with this General Plan...`.
srCUP2006-05069Jkn
Page 5
i -- - - _
I
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 2
(20) The substantial expansion of thepublic storage facility is not consistent with the
.Redevelopment Plan objectives for the Canyon Area. Dne of the. goals for the Canyon
Area is to enhance the area by providing higher skill, higher. wage employment
rbpportunities. There has been extensive pubNc investment in the area's infrastructure to
attract and support the 55,000 jobs and 2,300 businesses that constitute the Canyon
$usiness Center. Aself-storage use of this size and scale is not consistent with the goals
and objectives of the General Plan and in staffs opinion, would negatively effect the growth
and' development of this area
(21) An, August 17, :1998, the Planning Commission approved and the City Councilconcurred
on a policy relating to the appropriate location forself storage facilities. It states that the
"unique and opportuhe design features of self-storage facilities are most appropriate for
.irregularly-shaped properties which may furtherbe constrained by accessibility or visibility
and which may not be suitable for cohventionaCtypes of development " -The size and shape
of this site is well suited to conventional ypepf office development in'confornahce with the
general'plan, therefore, this. proposal doesnot meet the Council policy on location ofself
storage facilities. Although the site is currently developed with"a self storage facility, the
current request almost doubles the size of the existing facility which significantly extends its
I'~fe at this location and reduces the possibility of establishing land uses that are consistent
with the General Plan and Redevelopment Plan.
{22) Waiver (a) pertains to the floorarea ratio (FAR). Code permits a maximum FAR of 0:5 for
uses in the SP94-1,+DA2 Zone, and a .79 FAR isproposed. The applicant indicates the
attached Justification of Waiver form that there are special oircumstances applicable to the
:property ielating to size, shape,and configuration. The applicant also explains that the use
'of this storage facility would be for household goods'and technology storage that must be
stored in a climate controlled'atmosphereThereforejthe applicant would like to expand the
floor area oh the site in order to accommodate these needs.
(23) Due to the substantial FAR increase, a traffic trip count was conducted by the City's
independent traffic and parking consultant on June 19, 2006. The consultant compared
the number of trips anticipated for an industrial use at the maximum permitted FAR for the
parcel and the number of trips anticipated for the proposed self storage facility. `For a
typical industrial building at the permitted 0.5 FAR on the subject site, the number of trips
per day at peak hours would be 70 a.m., 75 p.m., and 531 average daily trips. The number
'of trips per day for the proposed :79 FAR for amini-warehouse at peak hours would be 18
a.m., 31 p.m.r ahd 301 average daily trips: Therefore, the proposed self storage facility at
`:79 FAR would have on average, 52 a.m.,'44 p.m.'and 230 average daily trips less than
an industrial use developed at the permitted 0.5 FAR,
(24) Although the height of the structure has been reduced, the building would still create a
significaht building mass alohgthe street frontage with the FARilmitatioh within the
Eexpanded industrial Area (Development Area 2). It is anticipated that most of the buildings
`constructed for uses permitted ih the zohe would notPesult in the height proposed under
this request. The proposed building without the existing single-story structures jn the rear
is at an fAR of 0.52 which exceeds what would be permitted for sumou~dng properties.
`The adjacentbuildings surrounding this parcel are at one and two stories.': Although there
are no slghificanftraffic impacts relating to the additional FAR requested, the deviation from
•- `code results in a building that is three (3) stories ih'height compared to the existing one-
and two-story industrial buildings or atty future office buildings: `Staff has cohcems over the
oeviatioh from code as the FAR increase translates into building mass which results in a
srCUP2006.05069jkn
Page 6
_ - _ - --
f
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
...Item No. 2
.building that would be out df characterwith the surrounding area. In addition, the property
is rectangularly-shaped and is not constrained bytopography, location or surroundings.
There are also no properties in the immediate vicinity thatenjoys theprivilege that is
requested with this waiver.
{25) Waiver (b) pertains to the maximum height of a fence within the street setback along La
!Palma Avenue. Plans propose a 10-foot wide landscaped setback with a six (6) foot high
automaticslidingwroxght iron gate at the back of thelandscaped setback. Code requires a
minimum 10-foot wide fully landsceped setback and permits a 3-foot high decorative fence
at the back of the 10-foot landscaped setback. The applicant. indicates in the attached
Justification of Waiverfonn that site constraints limit the placement of the prbposed gate.
:Staff is supportive of the proposed fence waiver since the proposed location and height is
consistent with permitted fences in the I (Industrial) zone (base zone for this property) in the
rest of the City. However, due to staffs recommendation of denial for the proposed three
(3) story self-storage facility, staff also recommends denial of this waiver since it would no
conger be necessary.
(26) Although the proposed modification to the building height would be more
compatible. with existing buildings in 4he area thanthe previously proposed 5-story
building, 4he overall land use issues remain 4he same. The proposed self storage
facility expansion and associated waiver, would result in a project that is not
consistent with the City's General Plan, Redevelopment Plan and Council Policy.
Given the policy direction contained in these adopted documents, and 4he proposed
project's Inconsistency with chose documents, staff continues to recommend denial
of his protect.
'FINDINGS:
(27) When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from strict enforcement of the
Zoning Code, a modification maybe granted for the purpose of assuring that no property,
.because ofspecial circumstances applicable to H, shall. be deprived of privileges commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The sole purpose of any code
waiver is to prevent discrimination and none shall be approved which wbuld have the effect
ofgrantinga special privilege not shared by other similar properties. Therefore,. before any
code waiver is granted by the Planning Gommission, it shall be shown:
(a) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings,' which do not apply o other identically zoned -
properties in the vicinity; and
(b) .That strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed
by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
(28) Before thePlanning Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding
of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
(a) That the use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the
Zoning Code, or is an unlisted use as defined in Subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses
- Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 {Approval Authority);
stCUP2006-05069jkq..
Page 7
-- - _ ._ _ _
.Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 2
(b) That the use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses orthe growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
(c) That the size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to theparttcular area
or o the health and safety;
(d) That the traffic generated by the use will not impose an undueburden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to cerry the traffic in the area; and
(e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any,
will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
..RECOMMENDATION:
(29) .Staff recommends that, unless additional or centrary information is received during the
public hearing, and, based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the
evidence presented in this staffreport,;and oral and written evidence presented at the
;:public hearing, the Planning Commission take the fpllowing'actions:
(a) By motion, aoprove a Negative Declaration for a project;
(b) By motion, deny waiver (a) pertaining to a maximum Floor Area Ratio (.5 FAR
permitted; .7t1:FAR proposed) based on the findings that there are no special
circumstances relating to size shape or topography that apply to this property and
that this property would not be deprived of a privilege enjoyed. by otherproperties
:.under the same zoning in the vicinity.
(c) By motion, deny waiver (b) pertaining to a maximum fence height (3 feet permitted; 6
feetproposed) since staff Is recommending denial of this project and the waiver
would only be needed if the project is approved.
(d) By resolution, deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05069 to construct a three-
story self-storage building based on the findings contained intheattached
resolution.
IN THE EVENT THE COMMISSION CHOSES TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS ARE SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS ACTING AS AN
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE AND ARE RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION.
1. That finatelevation plans sha0 be submitted to the Planning Services Division. Said plans shall be
designed to preclude the visibility of interior storage for the ihdividual tenants from La Palma
Avenue and incorporate enhanced building materials such asstone veneer and other architectural
enhancements. Any decision by staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports
and Recommendations".item.
- 2: - That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside the building.
srCUP2006-05069jkn
Page 8
_ _ _, _ _ _ _
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 2
3. That adequate lighting ofparking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses
and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be prbvided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide
adequateiliumihation to make clearly visible thepresencebf any persbh bn or about the premises
tluring the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and
vehicles on-site. ;Said ihformation shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police
Departmeht, Community Services Division approval
4. That all trash generated from the self storage facility shall be properly contained in trash bins
loceted within. approved trash. enclosures. The number of bins shall be adequate and the trash
pick-up shall be as frequent as necessary to ensure the sanitary hahdling and timely removal of
refuse from the property. The Community Preservation Division of the Plahning Department shall
determine the heed foradditional bins or additional pick-up. `All costs for increasing'the numberbf
bins or frequency of pick-up shall be paid by the business owner.
5. That any ee or other andsceping planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event
at it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead.:'
6. That no roof-mounted balloons or other inflatable devices shall be permitted on the property.
7. That no outdoor vending machines that are visible from the public right-of-way shall be permitted on
the property.
8. That 4-foot high street. address numbers shall be displayed on the roof of the building in a.color that
contrasts with the roof material: The numbers shall not be visible fromthe streetsbradjaceht
properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
9. That there shall be no outdoor torage permitted on the premises.
10. That roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from view in accordance with the requirements of
Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.38.170 pertaining to the SP94-1 DA2 (Northeast Industrial
Area Specific Plah, Developmeht Area 2) Zone. Said information shall be specifically shown on
plahs submitted for building permits.
1 t That the property shall be permahenUy maintained in an orderly fashion by the provision of regular
.landscaping maintenance, removal of trash. or debris, .and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24)
hours from time of occurrence.
12 That the design, size, and placement of the wall signage and monument signage shall be limited to
thak which is shown on the exhibits submitted by the .applicant and approved by the Planning
Commission. Final sign plansshall be submitted to the Planning Services'Divlsion for review and
:.approval as to placement, design and materials. Any decision by staff may be appealed to the
Planning Commission as a "Reports and: Recommendations".item.
13. That all new backflow equipmeht shall be located above ground and outside of the street setback
area in a manner fully screened from all public streets. Any backflow assemblies curren8y ihstalled
ih a vault shall be brought up to current stahdards. `Ahy other large water ystem equipment shalt
be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or
outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets. and alleys.
..Said Information shall be specifically showh on plans and approved by the Water Engineering
Departmeht.
srCUP2006-06069ikn :
Page 9
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2008
Item No. 2
14. That all requests for new waterservtces or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or
abandonment's of existing wale[services and fire lines, shall be'coordinated: through. Water
Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department.
15. That since this project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation
meter shall be installed in compliance with Chapter 1:0.19 of the Anaheim. Municipal Code. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
16. That alLexisting water services and fire#ines shall conform to current Water Service Standards
Specifications.: Any water. service and/or fire,line that does not meet current standards shall be
upgraded if continued use if necessary o[abandoned if the existing waterservice is no longer
:;needed. ;The owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon'any
water service of fire line.
17. -That prior o the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works'
Department, Development Services Division for review and;approval a Water Quality Management
Plan that:
® Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as minimizing impervious
areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing Directly connected impervious areas, creating
reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and :conserving natural areas.
• Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area
ManagementPlan.
• Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined In DAMP.
• Describes the long-term operatiohand maintenance requirementsforthe Treatment Control
;BMPs:
• Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the
Treatment Control BMPs, and describes the mechanism: for funding the long-term operation and
maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. `'
18. That prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: '
Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described-in the Project WQMP have been constNCted
and installed in conformance with approved plans and specificetions. -
• Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in
the Project WQMP
• Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Projects WQMP are available
onsite:
• Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural
BMPs:
19. .That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street in a manner which may
.adversely affect vehicular traffic in the. adjacent public street.. Installation of the wrought jron gate
`shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No: 609 and shall be subject to the review and -
'approval by the Planning Services Division. Said informatioh shall be specthcally shown on plans
submitted for building permits.
20. That thelocations for future above-ground utility devices including, but not limited,to, electrical
`"'" transformers, water backflow devices,'gas, communications and cable devices, etc., shall oe shown
on plans submitted for building permits. Plans shall also identify the speck screening treatments
of each device (i.e. landscape screening,. color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points, etc.).
srCUP200fi-05069jkn -
Page 10
~ _ ___
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
.,June 26, 2006
:Item No. 2
21. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense.
22. :That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses.
23. That plans shall be submitted to .the Traffic and Transportation manager for his review and approval
showing cohformance with Engineering StandardNo. 115. pertaining to sight distance visibility for
;the monument sign and wall/fence location.
24. That plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval in
conformahce with the current version of Engtneering Standard Plan Nos. 436, and 470 pertaining to
parking standards and driveway location. Subject propertyshall thereupon be developed and ,
maintained' in conformance with said plans.
25. That an on-site trash truck tum around area be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 476
and as required by the Maintenance Divisions. Said information shall bespecificaliy shown on
plans submitted for building permits.
26. That a plan sheet for solid waste torage, collection and a plan for recycling shall besubmitted to
the Public Works Department, Streets ahtl Sanitation Division for reviewand approval.
27. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public
Works Department and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said
storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from
adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be,protected from graffiti
opportunities by the Lse of plant materials such as mfoimum one-gallon size clinging vines planted
do maximum three-foot centersor tall shrubbery. Said information shall bespecfically shown on
the plans submittedfor building permits.
28. That theproject shall provide for truck deliveries on-site. Such information shall be specifically
shown on plans submitted for building permits.
29. That an Emergency Listing Card, Form ADP-281 shall be completed and submitted in a completed
form to the Anaheim Police Department.
30. That all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be
fully screened by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials. Said information shall
be specifically shown on the. plans submitted for building permits.
31. That a final. landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and
approval. Thepuantity, size and location of trees and otherplant material shall comply with code.
Said plan shall also incorporate a layered landscape design along the La Palma Avenue frontage
as required by code. Any decision by staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a
"Reports and Recommendations" item.
32. That the subject property shalt be developed substantially in accordance with the plans and
'specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which: plans. are on file with the
Planning Department Exhibit Nos. 1 through 11, and as conditioned herein.
33. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 3, 8, 10,.12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
srCUP2006-050fi9jkn
Page 11
.u _ .,
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
.Item No, 2
28, 30 and 31, above mentioned, shall be complied. with. Extensions for further time to complete
.said conditions may be granted In accordance with Section18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal
.code.
34. .That priorio issuance of a grading permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition No. 17,'above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
Extensions for further time to complete said conditions maybe granted in accordance with Section
18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
35. Thatprior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 14, 16, 18,29 and 32, above
`mentioned, shall be complied. with: Extensions for furthertime to complete said conditions maybe
granted in accordance with8ection.18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal. Code.
36. That approval of this. application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that
it complieswith the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any otherapplicable City, State and
Federal regulations: Approval does not include any action orfindings'as to compliance or approval
of the request regarding any other appiicablecrdinance, regulation oCrequirement.
37. Thattiming for compliance with conditionsof approval maybe amended by the'Planning Director
upon a showing of good cause provided ji) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original
intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal
Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use
br approved structure.
srCUP2006-06069ikn
.Page 12
[®I~-F7]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2006-05069 BE DENIED
(4880 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE -PUBLIC STORAGE)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional
Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described as:
PARCEL 2, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 67, PAGE 38 OF
PARCEL MAPS,. IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim. on June 26, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given. as
required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60
"Procedures", to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional usepermit and to
investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and that the item. was
continued from the March 20, April 17, May 1, and May 15, 2006, meetings; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection,. investigation and study made by itself
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered: at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed three-story self-storage building is properly one far which a conditional
use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal. Code Sections 18.120.070.050.0537 and
18.120.070.060.0801' with waiver of the following.
(a) SECTION NOS. 18.120.070.080.0803 Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
(0-5 FAR permitted; .79 FAR proposed)
(b) SECTION NO. 18.46.110.030 Maximum Fence Heioht
L feet permitted; 6 feet proposed)
2. That the above-mentioned waiver (a) pertaining. to the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to
construct athree-story self storage facility is hereby denied on the basis that the property Is rectangularly-
shaped and is not constrained by topography, location or surroundings. There are also no properties in the
immediate vicinity that enjoy the privilege that is requested by this waiver. In addition, the substantial
deviation in FAR would result in a expanding a use that is not consistent. with: the goals and policies
contained in the General Plan for the Canyon Area.
3. That the above-mentioned waiver (b) pertaining to the maximum fence. height is hereby
denied. because the waiver is not applidable if the request for the project is denied.
4. That the proposed substantial expansion of the existing self storage use is not consistent
with the General Plan Office-Low land use designation for this site nor the objective of the General Plan to
"Plan land uses that preserve and enhance Anaheim's economic assets." In order to facilitate that objective,
the General Plan Land Use Element enhances The Canyon's industrial base with limited strategically located
office and mixed uses that take advantage of the area's location, visibility and access. This property is
located within-an area where the General Plan strives to enhance The Canyon's industrial base with office
uses as evidenced by then redesignation of this site from Industrial to Office-Low as part of the
Comprehensive General Plan Update in 2004.
5. That the proposed use is inconsistent with the General Plan goal to maintain and enhance
the Canyon Area as one of the most prominent business centers in Orange County. Policies to support this
CR\PC2006-0 -t- PC2006-
goal are tc protect and enhance the integrity and desirability of industrial. sites and encourage additional
office development along the south side of La Palma Avenue. The proposed. use extends the self storage
use by the significant redevelopment of the site and precludes the property from being used in a manner that
is consistent with the long-term goals to strengthen the area as a technology center.
6. That the proposed three (3) story self-storage facility would adversely affect the adjoining
industrial land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is located because the building
would not be in scale with the surrounding area and the land use would not be consistent with the planned
growth and development of the area.
7. That this proposal does not meet the council policy on location of self storage units. The size
and shape of this site is well suited to office development to conformance with the general plan and the site
is not constrained by accessibility or visibility.
8. That the substantial expansion of the public storage facility is hot consistent with the
Redevelopment Plan objectives for the Canyon Area. One of the goals for the Canyon Area is to enhance
the area by providing higher skill, higher wage employment opportunities and the proposed use only
contributes a minimal number of employees.
g. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use Is not adequate to allow full.
development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the health and
safety of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
10. That "' indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim. Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that
the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative
Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the
basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that. the project will.
have a significant. effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does
hereby deny subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, on the basis of the aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
June 26, 2006, Said resolution. is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Zoning
Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced
by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SENIOR.SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION'
-2-
PC2006-
e s _ _ _ - - -
C
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission
held on June 26, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
VACANT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
.2006.
- SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-3-
PC2006-
_ -- - .m _®
SECTION 4
Attachment -Item No. 2
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF
NSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER
(NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER)
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: 18.120.070 (.0803
(A separate statement is required for each Code waiver)
PERTAINING TO: Floor Area Ratio fi a exoanslon of the exisOnc self storece facility from 67 937SF to 174 8075E (1 1FAR11
PLEASE READ THE FINDINGS BELOW IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ENCLOSED FAR JUSTIFICATION LETTER
Sectiaets 18.74.060. of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires that before any variance or Code waiver may be granted by the
Zoning Administrator or Planting Commission, the following shall be shown:
1. That there are special circt~stances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topogrePhY, location or
surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; end
2. That, because of each special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges
enjoyed by other property under identical zoning. classification in the vicinity.
In order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to arrive
at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regarding the property for which a variance is sought, fully and as
completely as possible. If you aced additicnal space, you may attach additional pages.
1. Are there special circumstances that apply to the property in matters such assize, shape, topography, location or
surroundings? X Yes _No.
• If your answer is "Yes,,' describe the special circumstances:
2. Are the special. circumstances that apply to the groperiy different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the
same zone as your property? X Yes _ No
•
• The self s[orave use is atvoical of other properties in the vicinity with the same zoninv Self s[amve is a low impact use
• -The majority of trios venerated by the expanded facility will occur outside of the business hours of the surroundinv
praoetties The twical customer uses the faciliri either before work or after work boon; with the maioriri of customers
urine the faciliri war the weekend Allowine the FAR to be exceeded on this sit for this self starave use will not
significantly affect the traffic canaciri of La Palma Avenue or detrimentally affect the sturonndine uses and~rcoerties
CllP ~p.2oos-o5~~Q
~ __ _ d e
If your answer is `des," describe how the property is differem
0
habitable space is substantially less. than the habitable space portion of the FAR of the surroundingproperties
3. Do the special circumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges cmrently enjoyed by neighboring
properties located within the same wne? X Yes No
If your answer if `des," describe the special circl~stancas:
O Yec. TFIP. Fhirt Il1YPTTP.1Pfi(ttf of }hp f'rrvln rnrnnmc n omec r~ln,lofinn of hnilrlinn em,ona fnn}ane in .lnfcm,inina fho F
a
10 keep Cara Datked Off Of residential St[eetS.
4. Were the special circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property
owners)? X Yes No
EXPLAIN: Yes. The lack of buildable land in urban areas makes am available land more appropriate for honsin¢.
retail or manlffactutin~t~e uses. Because selRstorase is a neiehborhood servine use. it is not a use that can relocate
where vacant ]and is olentifirt. It makes practical sense to expand the floor area on a site that currently offers the same
use_yersus expandine site area on to land that even if it was available would make better sense for other tvoes of uses.
The sole purpose of any variance or Code waiver shall be to prevent discrimination, and nn variance or Code waiver shall be
approved which world Lave the affect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone
which is not otherwise expressly authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances are not permitted.
1/18/06
Si Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
CONDTI'IONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE NO.
CUP P~'D. 2D06 - 0 5 6 4
I
SECTION 4
Contrary to other properties in ...a vicinity with the same zonine the majority o .ne buildine souase footaee of self storase
facilities is oavoied by uninhabitable space (storaee units] The strict interoretation of the Code requires a Bross calculation
Attachment -Item No. 2
(Fence Height Waiver)
PFTTITONF.R'S STATF.MRNT OF
3USTII7CATIONPOR VARIANCFJCODfi WAIVER
(NOTREQUIItEDFORPARICING' WAIVER]
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: 18.46.110.030
(A sepaele statement is required for eoch Code waiver)
PF.RTARdING TO: Puhlic Stamge - 4gR0 F, is Pslrna Ave
Sections 18.03.040.030..and 18.12.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code require that before any variance or Code waiver
may be granted by the Zoning Administrator orPlanning Commission, the following shalt 6e shown:
1. Thafthae am special cacamstaetcev applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or
sujrmmdmgs, which donol apply to other properly under idcritiail Toning classification in the vicinity, and
2, Thsl, because of apch special circwnstancea, strict application oCthe zoning axle deprives the properly of
privileges enjoyed by otherproperty under identical zoning classif~catitm in the vianity.
In order to determine if such special circumstances exist,: and to assist the Zoning Administnt[or or
Planning Commission W arrive at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regarding the
property for wtiich a variance is sought, fully and as completely as passible. If you need additional space,
you mayatlach.additionalgrages. "
I. Are therespecialcircumslances that epply.[o theproperty inmatters ruches size,.ahape,.topogmphy, luartiun
suiroundinga! Yes _ No.
Tf yl
2. Are the epeciel circumstances th@tapply to the propertydifferent fromo0>eeproperties in the vicinitywEtich me inthe
samczoneasyovrproperiy+t Z{"Yes _No
If youranswwsr is""yes," describe how theproperty is dilfenst;
3. Dothespecielcrscutnstr$eesnpplicable~toihepmp¢tydcpriveitofprivilegescrmen0yenjoyedbyneightmrv~g
prapcttics located within the some zone? Yes No
If ymrr~aamv'if."yes" dea~ribe the special-circumstffiuss:
4. Were the special circurnstancea eaee~d by causes beyond the control of the prupaty owner (ar previovaproperly
-owners)'? ZC Yes _ No
Yes. Section 1R 46.110 030 of the Codefie permittina a ma~dmum fencelp~~ hciehl of 3'1 is a C.tity standant
which deprives flee evo]icmit of prnvidine adequate eta security forthesite
1be solepuzpose ofany variance or Cade waiver shall be to prevent di~xouriinaliaq and no variance or Codeweiver shall
h: approval which woulii hsvc Ou: etfa:tof gtaating 8 speciel.piivilege noYSfimed by other propety in the same vic;inily
amlzmte wttibh is nor otherwise expressly audtotized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances are not
penaitted.
~ Authorized Agent
~- '~F ~6
1)atc
WNllIT10NAl. USE PfiaM7rNAkIANCE Nn. _,..._
Item No
RM-3 CH p
~U EACH
D
I
PEARL STREET
oa ° I I
"`
~ U
RM-a
~I I V I I I
U
.,,
-
C~
0 ~
, RM-4
RCL 6566-06 R{~
APARTMENT RCL SS-so-a4 q~j
T-CUP 2006-05105
7 D
D gl
y H
cuP 200505028 1
CUP 720
DIAMOND ST VACANT
ass
M
ao ~ APAR
MENTS 7 w w~
VAR C838 16 DU O z ~ ~ op l
8 JE
O
5
6
(i ~ CW3 IYO°G01$f ~
J
~ ~
SMALL SHOPS
A
~ 5 U
~' $" ~ ~ R
V
C. ~
RCL 87Ab5 ~ ~86
CUP 3888
OLN AVENUE
LINC
VACPNt U.ND
uiv~- E ~
6'1- 0.7 1 ~°U ~~°FQ~}' ~
0112 ~
m Rc~2o6 3
p0 s°°
< SOU aD0
.,
y~»z
ac~zp9 ~
CNy NUi~
` -~ = Subject Property
Date: June 26, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 62
a~
10065
R`~'~
2pU
PCp5gh3A
Rpl,-0
H GH gGNpO~
N
IN
m
f
~ G~WPSH O ~aG ~
N N~
t
,cE'SjR~ET
~~
~N
trial Photo:
2005
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05028
TRACKING NUMBER CUP 2006-05105
Requested By: SHAWN DANESH
1131 West Lincoln Avenue
' Subject Property
.Date: June 26, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 62
10065
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 3
3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) (Motion)
3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-05028 (Resolution)
(Tracking No. CUP2006-05105)
'SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This rectangularly-shaped, 0.39-acre property is located at the northeast corner of Lincoln
and Carleton Avenues, having frontages of 196 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue
and 77 feet oh the east side of Carleton Avenue (1131 West Lincoln Avenue).
REQUEST:
"(2) The applicant requests to amend a condition of approval pertaining to lunch service for a
previously-approved drive-through coffee shop (Starbucks) to permit the incidental sales of
pre-packed non-beveragelunch Items under the authority of Code Sections
18.08.030.040.0402 (Drive-through Facilities) and 18.60.190.030 (Amendment of Permit
Approval).
BACKGROUND:
'(3) This item was continued from the June 12, 2006, Commission meeting to allow the
applicant. additions) time to submit supplemental information relevant to this
request.
(4) This property is vacant and is zoned C-G (General Commercial).. The Anaheim General
Plan designates this property for Mixed Use land uses. Surrounding properties to the east
and west are also designated for Mixed Use land uses; o the south (across'Lincoln
Avenue) for Mixed Use and Low Density Residential land uses and to the north for Medium
`Density Residential land uses.
(5) Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05028 (to construct a .4,100 square-foot, three unit
commercial retail center including adrive-through coffee shop,(Starbucks) with waivers of
minimum landscaped setback, minimum number of parking spaces and drive through lane
location) was approved'by the Planning Commission onbecember 12,.2005..Resolution
No PC2005-156 adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05028,
included the following condition:
1. That at no time shall the Starbucks provide lunch service °
DISCUSSION:
(6) The applicant has submitted the attached letter prepared by Starbucks, dated June 14,
2006, requesting to amend the above-reference condition of approval topermit the
incidental sales of pre-packed non-beverage lunch items. Starbucks maintains that
although prepackaged. sandwiches are a small portion of its business, they are an
important part of the sales mix. The letter further indicates that Starbucks desires to
consistently provide this. sales mix and convenience at each and every tore,,The following
table summarizes the percentage of sales and average number of sandwiches per
day/month:
SR-PC062606-CUP2005-06026jr,.
Page 1'
C _ _ __
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
.Item No. 3
Table Summary of Three Month Survey of Local Starbucks
Period Sandwiches Sandwiches Number of Average 3-month
of as a % of sandwiches number of average of
sales total sales sold' sandwiches daily
sold sandwich.
er da sales
STARBUCKS
@ EUCLID
AND
CHAPMAN March $1,712 1.06% 342 11
ril "$1,349 1.06% 270 ''9
Ma $1,410 1.10% 282 `9 9.77
STARBUCKS
@ BEACH
AND
CHAPMAN March $2,597 1.88% 519 17-
A rt! $2,151 `2.03% 430 14
Ma - $1,722 1.60% 344 b1 14.07
STARBUCKS.
@ BRISTOL
AND
MEAAORY
LANE Marche $1,349 1.15% 270 9
riI $998 1:14% `200 7 ``
Ma $1,154 1.27%' `231 7 ' 7.60
Three Store, Three Month Avera a of Daii Sandwich Sales 10.46
'Based on average sandwich pace of $5,00
(7) The commercial retail center and drive-through coffee shop were originally approved in
conjunction with a parking waiver for the entire site 53 spaces required and 22 spaces
?proposed and approved by the Planning Commission). The parking study submitted as .
part of the original waiver request identified the parking demand of similar commercial
centers with drive-through Starbucks (Garden Grove, Westminster, and Santa Ma) and
found that this site would potentially require an actual demand ranging from 13 to 19
parking spaces during peak demand (The project would provide a total of 22 parking
spaces). As part of the analysis in the associated parking study, it was indicated that the
Starbucks would not provide lunch service, thereby not directly competing for parking
spaces with he Subway restaurant also proposed for this site. Staff included this
stipulation as a condition of approval to ensure that the site would operate in a manner
consistent with the'approved parking waiver. Sincelhis condition was ihcluded to address
on-site parking demand, the applicant submitted supplemental.information provided above
and attached to this report reflecting actual sahdwich sales over athree-month pariod from
`.three local drive-through Starbucks locations. As the table demonstrates,sandwich sales
-are a very small portion of overall sales in any given period;(between 1'.06-2.03%), and
consist,"on average, of about ten sandwiches sold per day. The applicant indicates that
`most sahdwich alas'are in'combinatioh with a beverage being the primary purchase,
- which demonstrates that sandwich sales would not significantly increase the'parking
.demand. Staff inspected several Starbucks locations in the vicinity and observed that
andwich displays typicaNy consisted of about five to eight sandwiches. Based on stafFs
review of the supplemental data provided by the applicant, and staffs inspections of
roarious similar establishments, staff believes the provision of pre-packaged sandwiches at
Page 2
_ _
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26.2006
Item,No. 3
this site would not have an impact on on-site parking. The submitted parking demand
study demonstrated the site provided threespaces abovetheprojected actual peak
.demand for the site, and staff believes that the sale of pre-packed lunch items would not
generate additional on-site parking demand greater than the spaces provided, and
wherefore, recommends a royal of this request.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(8) Staff has reviewed the proposal to amend a condition bf approval'pertaining to lunch
service for apreviously-approved drive-through: coffee shop (Starbucks) to permit. the
incidental sales ofpre-packed sandwiches, and does hereby find hat the' Negative
Declaration previously approved in connection with the original entitlement request is
adequate o serve as the required. environmental documentation for his request upon
>finding that he declaration reflects the independentjudgment of the lead agency and that it
has considered the Negative Declaration ogether with any comments received during the
public review process antl further finding on he basis of the initial study and any comments
received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect
oh the environment.
.FINDINGS:
(g) Before the Commission grants any major modification to a conditional use permit, it must
'make a finding of fact that the evidencepresented shows that all of the following conditions
exist:
(a) That the modification of use is properly one for which a conditional use permit. is
authorized by the Zoning Code, or is an unlisted use as defined in Subsection .030
(Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66A40 (Approval Authority);
{b) That the modification will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth
and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located,
(c) That the size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental. to the particular area
or to the health and safety;
(d) .That the traffic generated by the modified use will not impose an undue burden. upon
.the streets. and highways designed and improved. to carry the traffic in the area; and
(e) That the granting of the modifications under the conditions imposed will not be
.detrimental to the health. and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
(10) .Before the Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding. of fact
that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
(a) That the use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the
Zoning Code, or is an unlisted use as defined In Subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses
Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority);
(b) That the use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
Page 3
- _ - _
..Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 3
jc) .That the size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area
or to the health and safety;
(d) That the traffic generated by the use will not impose an unduebu~deh upon the
streets and highways designed. and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
(e) .That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any,
will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
RECOMMENDATION:
(11) Staff recommends that, unless additionator contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission,'inciuding the
evidence presented in his staff report, and oral ahd written evidence presented at the
public hearing,the Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, determine the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to
serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this request.
(b) By resolution, approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05028 to
amend a condition of approval pertaining to lunch service for apreviously-approved
drive-through coffee shop (Starbucks) to permit the incidental sales ofpre-packed
non-beveragelunch items, by adopting the attached resolution including the findings
and conditions contained therein. -
Page 4
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006'**
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. PC2005-156 ADOPTED IN CONNECTION' WITH
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-05028
(1131 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim. Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional
Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described as:
LOTS 29 TO 36 INCLUSIVE IN BLOCK 4 OF SUMMERFIELD AND POOENHEIMERS
SUBDIVISION OF THE SPOERL TRACT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF
ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 19, PAGE
44 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF LO5 ANGELES COUNTY.
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2005, the Anaheim Planning Commission did, by its Resolution
No. PC2005-156, grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05028 to construct a 3,897 square-foot, three unit
commercial retail center including adrive-through coffee shop (Starbucks) waivers of the following:
(a) SECTION NO. 18.08,060,010.0102
(b) SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010
(c) SECTION NO. 18.42.080.020
Minimum landscaped setback adjacent
to an arterial 15 feet required; 6 feet
proposed)
Minimum number of oarkina spaces
53 required; 22 proposed and
recommended by Staff)
Drive-through lane location
(Drive-through lane not permitted within
setback; drive-through lane proposed in
setback)
WHEREAS, Resolution No. PC2005-156, adopted in connection with subject conditional use
permit, includes the following condition of approval:
"1. That at no time shall the Starbucks provide lunch service "
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested to amend said conditioh of approval to read:
"1. That at no time shall the Starbucks sell non-beverage lunch items that are
freshly prepared on premises "
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City
of Anaheim on June 26, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required
by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 "Procedures" to
hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed amendment and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connection therewith; and that said hearing was continued from the June 12, 2006,
Planning Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and
in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and
determine the following facts:.
1. That the request to amend a condition of approval pertaining to lunch service at a
previously-approved drive-through coffee shop (Starbucks) to permit the incidental sales of pre-packed non-
CR\PC2006-0 -1- PC2006-
beverage lunch items is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under the authority of
Code Sections 18.08.030.040.0402 (Drive-through Facilities) and 18.60.1.90.030 (Amendment of Pennit
Approval).
2. That the incidental sales. of pre-packed non-beverage lunch items will not adversely affect
the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area because the previously-approved parking
demand study demonstrated the site provided three spaces above the projected actual peak demand for the
site, and staff believes that the sale of pre-packed lunch. items would not generate additional on-site parking
demand greater than the spaces provided on-site since the supplemental information provided by Starbucks
demonstrates sandwich sales are a very small portion of overall sales in any given period (between 1.06-
2.03%), and consist, on average, of approximately ten sandwiches sold per day.
3. That the granting of the conditional use permit and modifications under the conditions
imposed, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
4. That the traffic generated by the modified use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because most sandwich sales
are in combination. with a beverage purchase, which demonstrates that sandwich sales would not
significantly increase the need for on-site parking of increase in vehicle trips to the site.
5. That "` indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that. no
correspondence was received in opposttion to the subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the Negative Declaration previously
approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05028 is adequate to serve as the required
environmental documentation in connection with this request upon finding that the declaration reflects the
independentjudgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with
any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study
and any comments. received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect
on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby
amend, in its entirety, the conditions contained in Resolution No. PC2005-156 to read as follows:
1. That at no time shall the Starbucks sell non-beverage lunch items that are freshly
prepared on-premises.
2. That the Subway sandwich shop shall not open for customers prior to 9 a.m.
3. That no additional restauranUfood service uses shall be allowed beyond what is indicated on
the approved plan.
4. That ff the Starbucks or Subway uses change, an updated parking. study shall be provided to
the Planning Services Division for review and approval by staff to determine whether the
assumptions contained in the original parking study are stilt valid. Any decision by staff may be
appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item.
5. That no video, electronic or other amusement devices shall be permitted on the premises.
6.. That alf public phones shall be located inside the building.
7. That adequate lighting. of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways,
recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient
wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on
- - or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for
all persons, property, and vehicles on-site. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and
shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the window areas of the
adjacent residential properties. Light fixtures shall be decorative and a maximum: of 12-feet in
-2- PC2006-
height. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans. submitted for Police Department,
Community Services Division approval
8. That all trash generated from the commercial retail center shall be properly contained. in trash
bins located within approved trash enclosures. The number of bins shall be adequate and the
trash pick-up shall be as frequent as necessary to ensure the sanitary handling and timely
removal of refuse from the property. The Community Preservation Division of the Planning
Department shall determine the need for additional bins or additional pick-up. All costs for
increasing the number of bins or frequency of pick-up shall be paid by the business owner.
9. That any tree or other landscaping planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the
event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead.
10. That no roof-mounted balloons or other inflatable devices shalt be permitted on the property.
11. That no outdoor vending machines shall be permitted on the property.
12. That 4-foot high street address numbers shall be displayed on the roof of the building in a color
that contrasts with the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the streets or
adjacent properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for
building permits.
13. That there shall be no outdoor storage permitted on the premises.
14. That the property owner shall submit a letter to the Planning Services Division requesting
termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 720 (to permit an existing service station within 75
feet of residential zone and not at an intersection of two arterials).
15. That roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from view in accordance with the requirements
of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.38.170 pertaining to the C-G (General Commercial)
Zone. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
16. That. the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by the provision of
regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within
twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence.
17. That the number of tenant spaces for this commercial retail center shall be limited to three (3).
Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted forbuilding permits.
18. That final sign plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and
approval as to placement, design and materials of all proposed on-site signage. The signage
shall be designed to complement the architecture of the commercial retail center. Any decision
by staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations"
item.
19. That all backflow equipment shall be located above grouhd and outside of the street setback
area in a manner fully screened. from all public streets. Any backflow assemblies currently
installed in a vault shall be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system
equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division. in either
underground vaults or outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all
public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved
by the Water Engineering Department.
20. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations,
or abandonments of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water
Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department..
21. That since this project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet; a separate
irrigation meter shalt be installed in compliance with Chapter 10.19 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code. Said information shall. be specifically shown do plans submitted for building permits.
22. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Service Standards
Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall' be
upgraded if continued use. if necessary or abandoned if the existing water service is no longer
-3- PC2006-
needed. The owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any
water service of fire line.
23. That prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works
Department, Development Services Division for review and. approval a Water Quality
.Management Plan that:
• Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as minimizing impervious
areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating
reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas.
• Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area
Management Plan.
• Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in DAMP.
• Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control
BMPs.
• ;Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the
Treatment Control BMPs, and describes the mechanism for funding the long-term. operation
and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs.
24. That prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall:
• Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been
constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications.
• Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement al[non-structural' BMPs described
in the Project WQMP.
• Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Projects WQMP are
.available onsite.
• Submtf for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all
structural BMPs.
25. That the City of Anaheim Sewer Impact Mitigation fee for the Old Town/ Basin 6 Area shall be
paid. ,
26. That the curb radius at Lincoln Avenue and Carleton Avenue shall be designed with a 25' radius
and a sidewalk access ramp w/ truncated domes per Public Works Standard. Detail 111. The
existing radius and ramp shown on the site plan do not conform to City standards. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. -
27. Thatprior to grading plan approval, the applicant shall submit a Drainage Study prepared by a
registered. professional Civil Engineer in the State of California. The Study shall be based upon
and reference the latest edition of the Orange County Hydrology Manual and the applicable City
of Anaheim Master Plan of Drainage for the project area. All drainage sub-area boundaries per
the Master Plan. for Drainage shall be maintained. The Study shall include: an analysis of 10
and 100-year storm frequencies; an analysis of all .drainage impacts to the existing storm drain
system based upon the ultimate project build-out condition; and address whether off-site and/ or
on-site drainage improvements (such as detention/ retention basins or surface runoff reduction)
will be required to prevent downstream properties from becoming flooded.
28.- That the alley shall be improved per Public Works Standard Detail No. 131 (1A-foot % width
measured from the alley centerline.) Said information shall be specifically shown on plans
submittedforbuilding permits.
_ _ 29. That the locations for future abdve-ground utility devices including, but not limited to, electrical
transformers, water backflow devices, gas, communications and cable devices, etc., shall be
shown on plans submitted for building permits. Plans shall also identify the specific screening
treatments of each device (i.e. landscape screening,. color of walls, materials, identifiers, access
points, etc.}. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building
permits.
-4- PC2006-
30. That the property owner/developer shall provide the City of Anaheim. with a public utilities
easement to be determined as electrical design is completed,
31. That any required relocation. of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense.
32. That plans shall be submitted to the Traffic and Transportation manager for his review and
approval showing conformance with. Engineering Standard No. 115 pertaining to sight distance
visibility for the monument ign and wall/fence location.
33. That plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval in
conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nds. 436, and 470
pertaining to parking standards and driveway location. Subject property shall thereupon be
developed and maintained in conformance with said plans.
34. That the drive-through lane shall be designed to meet the radius standards (minimum 16 feet
interior and 26 feet outer radius). Said information shall be specifically shown on plans
submitted for building permits.
35. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage, collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted
to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division far review and approval.
36. That trash: storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public
Works Department. and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said
storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from
adjacent streets orhighways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti
opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum one-gallon size clinging vines
planted on maximum three-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically
shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
37. That the project shallprovide ~n on-site loading area for truck deliveries tobe located such that
said area will not be visible from Lincoln Avenue. Such information shall be specifically shown
on plans submitted for building permits.
38. That an Emergency Listing Card, Form ADP-281 shall be completed and submitted in a
completed form to the Anaheim Police Department.
39. Thatfinat elevation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division. Said plans shall
be designed to preclude the visibility of interior storage for the individual tenants from Lincoln
Avenue: Any decision by staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and
Recommendations" item.
40. That all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall
be fully screened by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials. Said
information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
41. That a final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and
approval. Said plans shall specify the following:
e The size, type, and location. of all trees, shrubs, and ground cover proposed for the site.
• Minimum 24-inch box sized trees, and clinging vines along all perimeter block walls and
landscaped fingers every ten (t0) parking stalls.
o A three-foot high solid hedge along the interior side of the landscape setback adjacent to
the drive-through lane.
0 .Trees within the parking area evenly distributed within all proposed landscaped fingers.
Any decision by staff maybe appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and
Recommendations" item.
__.- . .
42. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with
the Planning Department Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5, and as conditioned herein.
-5- PC2006-
43. That prior to issuance of a building. permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of
this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nas. 7, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 28,
29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, andA1, above mentioned, shall be complied with.
Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with
Section: 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
44. That prior to issuance of a grading permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 23 and 27 shall be complied with. Extensions
for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with. Section
18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
45. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 24, 38, and 42, above
mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may
be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
46. That 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.
47. That timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning.
Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that
satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with
the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress
toward establishment of the use or approved structure. -
BE lT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and
all of the conditions hereinabove set. forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared
invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related
to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or
prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges
shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
June 26, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 "Procedures" of
the Anaheim. Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City CounciP
Resolution in the event of an appeal
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-6- PC2006-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission
held on June 26, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
2006.
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-7- PC2006-
Attachment -Item Pdo. 3
RESOLUTION NO. PC2005-156
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2005-05028 BE GRANTED
(1131 WESTiINCOLNAVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional
Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim., County of Orange, State of California,
described as:
LOTS 29 TO 36 INCLUSIVE IN BLOCK 4 OF SUMMERFIELD AND POOENHEIMERS
SUBDIVISION OF THE SPOERL TRACT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF
ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 19, PAGE
44 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on October 31, 2005 at 2:30 p:m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given. as
required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to
hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith.; and. that said public hearing was continued to
the November 28, and December 12, 2005 Planning Commission meetings; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
1. That the proposal to construct a 3,897 square-foot, threeLnit commercial retail center
including a ddve-through coffee shop (Starbucks) under authodty of Code Section No. 18.08.030.010, with
waivers of the following, is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized:
(a) SECTION NO. 18.08.060.010.0102
Minimum landscaped setback adjacent
to an arterial 15 feet required; 6 feet
proposed)
(b) SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010
(c) SECTION NO. 18.42.080.020
Minimum number of parking spaces
l53 required.;. 22 proposed and
recommended by Staff)
Drive-through lane location
(Drive-through lane not permitted within
setback; drive-through lane proposed in
setback)
2. That the above-mentioned waivers (a) and (c) are hereby approved as the site is uniquely
constrained by having frontage on two public streets and a public alley, resulting in a greater obligation for
setback area than other identically zoned properties within the vicinity. Additionally, the neighboring
properties to the east and west provide no landscape setback, whereas this request includes the provision of
six feet of landscaping along Lincoln Avenue..
3. That the above-mentioned waiver (b) is hereby approved based upon the submitted parking
analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc., dated. September 20, 2005. The City's independent Traffic
Cr\PC2005-156 -1- PC2005-156
Consultant has reviewed the parking analysis and has determined that the proposed parking area referenced
in the study would be sufficient for the proposed uses on the property.
4. That the parking waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street
parking spaces to be provided for such use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all
vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonable foreseeable conditions of operation of
such use, since the observed parking demand of similar commercial centers (Garden Grove, Westminster,
and Santa Ana) indicate that this site would potentially require an actual demand ranging from 13 to 19
parking spaces during peak demand. The project would provide a total of 22 parking spaces. As a result,
the project would provide adequate off-street parking to accommodate all vehicles attributable to the project
under normal operation.
5. That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and
competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. As
demonstrated in this parking. study, the project will provide adequate parking on-site to accommodate parking
demand under normal operation. As demonstrated in this parking study, the project will provide adequate
parking on-site to accommodate parking demand under normal operation. The site is expected to contain a
surplus of lwo to nine spaces during peak operation; therefore, no impact upon on-street parking is
anticipated as a result of this use.. -
6. That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand for
parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use as the property
will provide adequate parking to accommodate actual parking demand. The project will provide adequate
parking on the project site to accommodate its parking generation. The site will. accommodate peak demand
with only 59%-86% ofpn-site parking spaces utilized. No demand for parking on adjacent private property is
forecasted.
7. That the waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase traffic congestion within the
off-street parking areas or lots provided for such use since an existing driveway along Carleton Street would
be removed and access would be gained. directly from the alley to the north. Ingress and egress on Lincoln
Avenue would be right in/right out only: Therefore, traffic congestion would not be anticipated with.
implementation of the project.
8. That the use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development
of the area in which it is proposed to be located as the parking study has demonstrated that the site can
accommodate the combined uses on site;
9. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be
detrimental to the health and safety of the. citizens of the City of Anaheim.
10. That two people indicated their presence at said public hearing in support; and that a letter
was received in support and a petition with 84 signatures in support was received from the applicant; and
that no one indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence was
received in opposition to the subject petition...
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 3,897 square-foot, three unit commercial retail. center
including adrive-through coffee shop (Starbucks) with waivers of (a) minimum landscaped setback, (b)
minimum number of parking spaces, and (c) location ofdrive-through lane; and does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency
and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public
review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is
no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
-2- PC2005-156
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does
hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit,. upon the following conditions which are hereby
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject properly in order to preserve the
safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim;
1. That at no time shall the Starbucks provide lunch service.
2. .That the Subwaysandwich shop shall not open for customers prior to 9 a.m.
3, That no additional restauranUfood service uses. shall. be allowed beyond what is indicated on the
approved plan.
4. That if the Starbucks or Subway uses change, an updated parking study shall be provided to the
Planning Services Division for review and approval by staff to determine whether the assumptions
contained in the original parking study are still valid. Any decision by staff may be appealed to the
Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item.
5. That no video, electronic or other amusement devices shall be permitted on the premises.
6. That all public phones shall be located inside the building.
7. That adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and
grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate
illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the
hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on-
site. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to
unreasonably illuminate the window areas of the adjacent residential properties. Light fixtures shall be
decorative and a maximum of 12-feet in height. Said information shalF be specifically shown on plans
submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division approval.
8. That all frash generated from the commercial retail center shall be properly contained in trash bins
located within approved trash enclosures. The number of bins shall be adequate and the trash: pick-up
shall be as frequent as necessary to ensure the sanitary handling and timely removal of refuse from the
property. The Community Preservation bivision of the Planning'Department shall determine the need
for additional bins or additional pick-up. All costs for increasing the number of bins or frequency of pick-
up shall. be paid by the business owner
9. That any Vee or other landscaping. planted on-site shall be replaced. in a timely manner in the event that
it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead.
10. That no roof-mounted balloons or other inflatable devices shall be permitted on the property.
11. That no outdoor vending machines shalt be permitted on the property.
12. That 4-foot high street address numbers shall be displayed on the roof of the building in a color that
contrasts with the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the streets or adjacent
properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
13. That there shall be no outdoor storage permitted on the premises.
14. That the property owner shall submit a letter to the Planning Services Division requesting termination of
Conditional Use Permit No. 720 (to permit an existing service station within 75 feet of residential zone
and not at an intersection of two artedals).
15. That roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from view in accordance with the requirements of
Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.38.170 pertaining to the C-G (General Commercial) Zone. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
16. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by the provision of regular
landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24)
hours from time of occurrence.
"g- PC2005-156
17. That the number of tenant spaces for this commercial retail center shall be limited to three (3}. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
18. That final sign plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval as to
placement, design and materials of all proposed on-site signage. The signage shall be designed to
complement the architecture of the commercial retail center. Any decision by staff may be appealed to
the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item.
19. That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground and outside of the street setback area in a
manner fully screened from all public'streets. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault
shall be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to
the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside of the street
setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be
specifically shown on plans and approved by the Water Engineering Department.
20. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or
abandonments of existing water services and fire lines, shalt be coordinated through Water Engineering
Division of the Anaheim. Public Utilities Department.
21. That since this project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet; a separate irrigation meter
shall be installed in compliance with Chapter 10.19 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said information
shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
22. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Service Standards
Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be
upgraded. if continued use if necessary or abandoned if the existing water service is no longer needed.
The owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service of
fire line.
23. That prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works
Department, Development Services Division for review and approval a Water Quality Management Plan
that:
• Addresses S(te Design Best Management Practices (BMPS) such as minimizing impervious
areas, maximizingpermeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating
reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas.
e Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPS as defined In the Drainage Area
Management Plan.
e Incorporates Treatment Control BMPS as defined in DAMP.
Describes the long-tens operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control
BMPS.
e Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the .
Treatment Control BMPS, and describesthe mechanism for funding the long-term operation and
maintenance of the Treatment Controf BMPS.
24. That prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall:
a Demonstrate that all. structural BMPS described in the Project WOMP have been constructed
and. installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications.
e Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPS described in
the Project WOMP.
e Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Projects WOMP are available
,. onsite.
o Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural
BMPS.
-4- PC2005-156
25. That the City of Anaheim Sewer Impact Mitigation fee for the Old Townl Basin 8 Area shall be paid.
26. That the curb radius at Lincoln Avenue and Carleton Avenue shall be designed with a 25' radius and a
sidewalk access ramp w/ truncated domes per Public Works Standard Detail 111. The existing radius
and ramp shown on the site plan do not conform. to City standards. Said information shall. be
specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
27. That prior to grading plan approval, the applicant shall submit a Drainage Study prepared by a
registered professional Civil Engineer in the State of California. The Study shall be based upon and
reference the latest edition of the Orange County Hydrology Manual and the applicable City of Anaheim
Master Plan of Drainage for the project area. Alt dralnagesub-area boundaries per the Master Plan for
Drainage shall be maintained. The Study shall include: an analysis of 10 and 100-year storm.
frequencies; art analysis of all drainage impacts to the existing storm drain system based upon the
ultimate project build-out condition:; and address whether off-site and/ or on-site drainage improvements
(such as detention/ retention basins or surtace runoff reduction) will be required to prevent downstream
properties from becoming flooded.
28. That the alley shall be improved per Public Works Standard Detail No. 131 (10-foot'/ width measured
from the alley centerline.) Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building
permits.
29. That the locations for future above-ground utility devices including, but not limited to, electrical
transformers, water backflow devices, gas,. communications and cable devices, etc., shall be shown on
plans submitted for building permits. Plans shall also identify the specific screening treatments of each
device (i.e. landscape screening, color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points, etc.). Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
30. That the property owner/developer shalt provide the City of Anaheim with a public utilities easement to
be determined as electrical design is completed.
31. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense.
32. That plans shall be submitted to the Traffic and Transportation manager for his review and approval
showing conformance with Engineering Standard No. 115 pertaining to sight distance visibility for the
monument sign and wall/fence location.
33. That plans shalt be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval in conformance
with the curent version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, and 470 pertalning to parking
standards and driveway location. Subject property shalt thereupon be developed and maintained in
conformance with said plans.
34. That the drive-through lane shall be designed. to meet the radius standards (minimum 16 feet interior
and 26 feet outer radius). Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building
permits,
35. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage, collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the
Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval.
36. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works
Department and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas
shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or
highways. The walls of the storage areas shall. be protected from graffiti opportunitiesby the use of
plantmaterials such as minimum one-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum three-foot centers
or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building
permits.
37. That the project shall provide an on-site loading area far truck deliveries to be located such that said
area will not be visible from Lincoln Avenue. Such information shat( be specifically shown on plans
submitted for building permits.
-5- PC2005-156
38. That an Emergency Listing Card, Form ADP-281 shall be completed and submitted in a completed form
to the Anaheim Police Department.
39. That final elevation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division. Said plans shall be
designed to preclude the visibility of interior storage for the individual tenants from Lincoln Avenue. Any
decision. by staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations"
item.
40. That all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be fully
screened by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials. Said information shall be
specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
41. That a final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and
approval.. Said plans shall specify the following:
e The size, type, and location of all trees, shrubs, and ground cover proposed for the site.
Minimum 24-inch box sized trees, and clinging vines along all perimeter block walls and
landscaped fingers every ten (10) parking stalls.
a A three-foot high solid hedge along the interior side of the landscape setback adjacent to the
drive-through lane.
e Trees within the parking area evenly distributed within all proposed landscaped fingers.
Any decision by staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and
Recommendations" item.
42. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the
Planning Department Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5, and as conditioned herein.
43. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this
resolution,. whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 7, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32,
33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, and 41, above mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time
to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with. Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
44. That prior to issuance of a grading permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos.. 23 and 27 shall be complied with. Extensions for
further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code.
45. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 24, 38, and 42, above mentioned,.
shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in
accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
46. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it
complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal
regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding. any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon. applicant's compliance with each and
all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition., or any part thereof, be declared
invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution.,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
__. .. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related
to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final Invoice or
-6- PC2005-156
prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges
shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
December 12, 2005. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Zoning
Provisions- General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced
by a City Council Resoluticn in the event of an appeal.
(ORIGINAL SIGNED BY GAIL EASTMAN)
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
!ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ELEANOR MORRIS)
SENIOR SECRETARY,. ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission
held on December 12, 2tl05, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BUFFA, EASTMAN, FLORES, KARAKI, ROMERO, VELASOUEZ
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS: PEREZ
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
....,.2006.
(ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ELEANOR MORRIS)
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-~- PC2005-156
Item No. 4
RM-0
RCL 69-70-06
VAR 2111
LA CRESTA
APARTMENTS
W
Q
Q
w
n.
o_
U
8DU BDU 4DU Q -,~ znrvrc ~r _
GRAMERCYAVE RCL 57-58-52
CUP 274
VAR 2885
_
RM-4 TOWNHOMES
RCL 58-59-88 VAR 2003
~
RCL 57-58-09 04568
BDU BDU 8DU
.4DU
RM-0
RCL 58-59-88 a
RCL 57-58-49 ~ VAR 1467
14 DU
VAR 3387
8DU 8DU 8DU 4DU 16 DU 16 DU
GLENCREST AVE RCL 58.59-BE
r--
RCL
RCL
VAR 3264 VAR 1
® I B,DU I BDU 16 DU ~ > ~ 16~DU 14 DU 1 17 DU
•®
•® CRESCENT AVENUE
s ' ® 413 -~^
~~ 5: ~ ~ 9
o® `~9CUP 1253~~`~~~ ~~ RS-3 ~~.. Z
o .~h^x~~.~1^. ~9 RCL 2006-00178 p ~ U RS-2
® '=,~~ ~..,, '"~ RCL 2001-00044 ~ ~ Q 1 DU EACH
° "~ °i~",~?' ~.. RCL 71-72 38 `` ~ w
®o "`",,,,,. ~~.'- RCL 71-7211 i3~ !Y~
® *~-,~ti~.,,-~~ VAR 2346 ~ ~
e '~~ VAR 2267 ~'~ RS-2
® "~~~ MIS 2006-ODt52 '~-` ~ 1 DU EACH g
o ';~{2es. of Int. to RM- fit;,, P~`16ry
S ®o '`~., VACANT ~;~~q J
q~Yjq ®o ~~ ~,., ~~"~*y'= LAUREL PL
qy - ,. ~~s.~. ~~ _
q.C ®e ~~~ f',, jt?,
'pF ® ""~'i~,~
RS-2
qy o® 1 DU EACH
//,S o®o
®o
o®o ~~ST RS-2
®o ~O~,r 1 DU EAC
®o O,Q
RCL 53-54-19 Q ~@ae® aim o
ANAHEIMUNION
HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT .o qj
Z ~@~ -9a o
I a
U RCL 53-54.19 e o
W CUP2006-05075 ®o
W CUP2006-05065 ® / ~
(~,) T-0 CUP03M44210 \ !/®J\
ADJ 0117
fT-CUP 20D1-04374)
t,~~~
Miscellaneous No. 2006-00152 a3'~ x Subject Property
Date: June 26, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Q.S. No. 46
No Address
1o66s
Miscellaneous No. 2006-00152
Requested By: ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
No Address
Subject Property
Date: June 26, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 46
10085
Date ofAenal Pholo:
- Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26,2006
Item No. 4
4a. PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE EXEMPTION SECTION 21159 23 (Motion)
4b. DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE W ITH STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW (Motion)
1MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT N0.2006-001521
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
(1) This 2.6-acre parcel is located south of the terminus of Chippewa Avenue at the
intersection of Crescent Avenue and Chippewa Avenue, with a frontage of 413 feet on the
south side of Crescent Avenue,(no address).
i REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests Planning Commission determination of conformance with State
density bonus requirements to construct a 63-unit affordable apartment complex with a
density bonus and .incentives pursuant to Code Section No. 18.52.070.010. (Application
Review) and State Government Code Section 65915.
:BACKGROUND: `!
(3) The site is cuRentiy vacant and is zoned RS-3 (Single-Family Residential) with a
Resolution of Intent to he RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential). The Anaheim General Plan
designates the site forLow-Medium Density Residential land uses. The properties to the
north are designated for Medium Density Residential land uses and to the east for Low
Density Residential land uses.
(4) Reclassification No. 2006-00176 (to reclassify this property from the RS-3 zone to the RM-
3 zone) was initiated by the City (Community Development Department) and approved by
the Planning Commission on May 1, 2006. This reclassification was intended to allow for
future construction of an affordable housing project which is the subject of this request.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
(5) The applicant requests Planning Commission determination of conformance with State
`density bonus requirements to construcfa 63-unit affordable apartment complex with a
density bonus and incentives. The site plan. (Exhibit No. 1) indicates thefollowing
information for the proposed 2-and 3-story apartment complex:
"..Deuelo°`men#`;;tandards. ;:' ;: P.<to AsedBroectF:='.. .-..RMr3~ope:Standarsls`"~:'
Site Area 2.6 acres ' N/A
Number of Dwelltn Units B3 dwellin units 47 units max."
Land Area per Unit 1,797 s.f.
24 d.u:/acre 2,400 s.f. per unit min."
" 18 d.u./acre
ibt Covera e ' 28% 45% max.
Recreation/Leisure Area ' b35 s.f. per unit
33,706 s care feet total 350 s,f.per unit
22,050 s.f. total
The applicant has requested a density bonus of 35%parsuant to State Law (Govt. Cotle Section
....65915).
SR-MISZ006-00152ds
Page 1
.~i
~~~
``~~_
.~
Slte Plan of apartment complex
(6) .The. project is designed as a 2-and 3-story residential complex: consisting of six buildings
(including a community center building) separated;by common open space, driveways, and
parking. The site plan indicates the following information pertaining to the proposed
setbacks:'
birectio~s .. . ... :..... . .Zoom °,'j. .; :P.ra' osed ° ° : tae uired° :% .,,,`-
North. (adjacent to d 5 feet 15 feet
Cresceht Avenue
East {adjacent. to single RS-2 55 feet to buildings, 55 feet to buildings,
Tamil homes 10 feetlardsca ed 10 feet landsca ed
Southwest (adjacent to I- - 20 feet to apt.. buildings, 20 feet to apt. buildings,
5 Freeway) 3-7feetlandsca ed' '5 feetlardsca ed
12 feet to Comm.'CtrlBldg, 10 feeftd Comm. Ctr!Bldg,
12 feetiandsca ed 5feetlandsca ed
' -The applicant has requested density bonus incentives,pursuant to State Law (Govt. Code Section
'' 65915).
(7) The floor plan (Exhibit Nos. 2-4) for the apartment units indicates a living room, dining
room, kitchen, porch entry, bedrooms, bathrooms, and closets. The unit types are
--. -. summarized as follows:
Page 2
_ _ _ _ _ -- -
R
65915). Code requires a minimum floor area of 700 square feet and 689 square feet is proposed:
(8) The floor plan;(Exhibit No. 5) for he community center. building indicates a multi-purpose
room, offices, storage, ciassroom,,computer room, laundry, restrooms, kitchen, equipment
room, and entry foyer.
(9) Vehicular access would be provided by two driveways on Crescent Avenue. The site plan
ihdicates 123 on-site parking spaces (63 garage spaces and 60 uncovered spaces). Code
requires a total of 156 spaces (twelve 1 bedroom units x 2 spaces = 24 spaces, twenty
eight 2 bedroom units x 2.25 spaces = 63 spaces, and twenty three 3 bedroom units x 3
spaces = 69 spaces; for a total of :156 overallspaces). State Law: requires that automatic
parking incentives be granted for projects that. provide a minimum :often percent of the total
units for a project as affordable units. With respect to parking for. affordable, projects,..
Government Code Section 65915 restricts the City from requiring no more than 1 space for
all 1 bedroom units and 2 spaces for ail 2 and 3 bedroom untts within the protect site. All
apartment units within the development would be affordable for low income households;
therefore, the project would qualify for the parking reduction permitted by State Law.: A
total of 114 spaces are required focthis project under this State Law provision.
i(10) A total of 33,706 square feet of recreational/leisure area.would be provided via a
combination of private patio and balcony areas and common yard/community center areas.
Code requires a total of 22,050 square feet which maybe provided in any combination of
private or common area....
y~ ~
54+ v. ~ l
a E~
%. I pf
S p
nrr
`` d! ,~f
Rendering of apartment complex
(11) Elevation drawings (Exhibit Nos. 6-8) indicate a 37-foot high, 3-story apartment complex
with a Craftsman architectural style. The architecture would include composition shingle
Page 3
1 - 12 6E
Y; 20 8
3 8 8i
4 5 ' 1;(
5 18 1,(
The applicant has requested density bonus incentives
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 4
1 Bed
2 Bed
2 Bed
'3 Bed
i 3 Bed
rsuant to State Law (Govt. Code Section
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 200fi
Item No. 4
'roofing, exterior walls with a plaster finish and horizontal wood siding and window trim,
decorative corbels, wrought iron railings enclosing the balconies, multi-paned windows,
decorative planter boxes and shutters for the windows, and exposed rafter tails: A 40 foot
building height is permitted in the t2M-3 zone. Submitted plans comply with code.
(12) Conceptual landscape plans were not submitted with thiseoplication: The applicant will
provide detaileo landscape plans for Planning Department staff review during the plan
check process.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(13) '.Pursuant to State Govemmeht Code Section No. 21159.23,'CEQA provisions oo not apply
to anydeveiopment project that eonsists of the construction, conversion, or use of
residential housing consisting. of 100 or fewer units that are affordable to1ow-income
households if certain criteria are met. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed
project meets those criteria and'therefore, this project is exempt from CEQA.
EVALUATION:
(14) The Anaheim General Plan designates theproperty for Low-Medium Density Residential
land uses which allows up to 18 dwelling units per acre. The applicant proposes to
?construct a 63-unit affordable apartmeht cgmplex with a density bonusand incentives at a
density of 24 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the type ofhousing ehvisioned for and
existing in the area. `The proposed apartment complex will provide affordable housing in
furtherance of the City's Housing Element and the Affordable Housing Strategic: Plan.
(15} The applicant has submitted the attached density bonus application requesting a density
bonus and incentives .pursuant to State Law. Section 65915 (b} of the Government Code,
in'relevaht part, requires that the City approve a density bonus' and incentives when an
applicant agrees to provide specified levels of affordable housing. The applicant is entitled
to receive three incentives or cohcessions for projects that include at least thirty percent of
the total units fprlower income households.. (Government Code Sectioh 85915 (d) (2)).
.The City must grant the incentive or concession requested unless it makes the findings set
fiorth in Section 65915(d)(1). Section 65915(1) defines a concession or incentive to mean
any of the following: S
"(t) A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code
:requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building
standards approvedby the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part
2.5 (commencing wifh'Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety CodeL
ihc/uding, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square l'oofage requirements and in
the ratio of.vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in
identifiable, financialty ufhcient,'and actual cost reductions.
(2) Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction withYhe housing project if commercial,
office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if
the commercial, office, industrial, or ofher7and uses are compatible with the housing project
and the existing or planned development in the area where the poposeo housing project
wfll be located.
(3) Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the cfty,
county, or city and county that result in ident~able, Bnancially sufficient, and actual cost
reductions. This subdivision does not limit or require the provision of direct financial
incentives for the housing development, including the provision. of publicly. owned land, by
Page 4
- - - - - --
.Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
.Item No. 4
the city, county, or city and county, or fhe waiver of fees or dedication. requirements." A
;copy of Secfion 65915 is attached to this staff report.
(16) This request also includes a density bonus of 35% above the 18 dwelling units per acre
permitted by the Low-Medium. Density Residential land use designation. The density bonus
would result in an overall. project density of 24 dwelling units per acre. SState Law requires
that a density bonus of 35% be granted for: projects thatprovtde a minimum of at least 30%
of the total units for low ihcome households.. A density bonus of 35% would allow for a
maximum. of 24 d.u./acre and 24 d.u./acre is proposed.: Since all the dwelling units within
the complex will be allocated for low income residents, the project would exceed the
minimum affordability requirements ofState. Density Bonus Law. +
(17) Incentive,(a) pertains to minimum landscaped. setback abutting interior property lines.
Code requires a minimum landscaped aetback of 5 feet and 3 to 7 feet is proposed. The
density bonus application submitted by the applicant complies with the provisions set forth
in'Govemment Code Section 65915 and therefore, this incentive rnust,be approved.
(18) Incentive (b) pertains to minimum floor area .Code requires a minimum floor area of 700
square feet for the 1 bedroom units and 688 square feet is proposed. The density bonus
application submitted by the applicant complies with theprovisions set forth in Govemment
Code Section 65915 and therefore,'this incentive must be approved.
(t9) The: proposed project would be wmpatible with surrounding land uses and would not
adversely affect the adjoining land uses. Moreover, the applicant has demonstrated that
the setback and unit size incentivas would be necessary to make the housing units
economically feasible. Therefore, because the modifications would allow for a
development that is compatible with surrounding development; provides recreational space
that'exceeds the minimum coderequirement and utilizes a variety of materials to add
architectural interest,.. staff recommends aoproval of the request..
(20) The project site contains a parcel ident~ed as Site No. 87 of the West Anaheim Area within
the Housing Element with a dansity range of up to 8 dwelling units per acre. Based on this
density, the subject 2.6 acre. site could accommodate a maximum of 21 units. However,
the site has recently beeh rezoned to tihe RM-3 zone and the applicant is requesting a
:density bonus of 35%, for a total of 63 units. proposed with this request. Thus, the
proposad affordable, apartment complex would result in an increase in the City's affordable
housing stock and would be consistent with the goals of the Housing Element.
(21) This request is being processed. under the City's new Affordable dousing Strategic Plan.
The Plan seeks to expand the supply of rental housing affordable to very low, low, and
moderate-income households.. The Plan identifies several incentives to be explored to
encourage the development of new units. Ane of these incentives is expediting the review
of applications for discretionary entitlements and plan check.
FINDINGS:
(22) Pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65915, an applicant for a density bonus may submit
to 2 city, county, or city and county a proposal. for the specific incentives or concessions
that the applicant requests pursuant to this section, and. may request a meeting with the
city. The city shall. grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the
:city makes a written: finding based upon substantial evidence, of either of the following:
(a) The concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing
costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for
the targeted units to be set;.
Page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 4
(b) The concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact; as defined in
paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or
the physical. environment or bn any real property that is listed in the California
'Register. ofNistoricalResources and#ocwhich there is ho feasibie'method to
satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the peclfic adverse :impact without rendering the
development unaffordable to low-and moderate-income households.
RECOMMENDATION:
(23) .Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the
..meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted. to the Planning Commission, including
the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission take the following'actions:
(a) Bymotion, detennlne that the project is statutorily exempt under PublicResources
Code Section 21159.23.
(b) By motion, determine that the proposed 63-unit affordable apartment complex
>cohforms to State Density Bonus Law pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government
Code.
Page 6
- - _ _ _ _
City of Anaheim
IP~.ANI~~IVG D~1[~AY2~'IVtIEI~~'
June 26, 2006
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency
201 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of
June 26, 2006.
4a.
4b.
Owner: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim,
CA 92805
Agent: Michael Massie, Jamboree Housing Corporation, 2081 Business Center
Drive, Suite 110, Irvine, CA 92612
Location: No Address. Property is approximately 2.6-acres and is located south: of the
terminus of Chippewa Avenue at the intersection of Crescent Avenue and
Chippewa Avenue, with a frontage of 413 feet on the south side of Crescent
Avenue._
Planning Commission. determination of conformance with State density bonus requirements
to construct a 63-unit affordable apartment complex. with a density bonus and incentives.
ACTION: Commissioner XmC offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 63-
unit affordable apartment complex with a density bonus and incentives and does hereby
determine that pursuant to State Government Code Section No. 21159.23, CEQA provisions do
not apply.
Commissioner XmCoffered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION CARRIED,
that the Anaheim. Planning Commission does hereby determine the proposed 63-unit affordable
apartment complex conforms with State Density Bonus Law pursuant to Section 65915 of the
Government Code.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
cc: Michael Massie, Jamboree Housing Corp., 2081 Business Center Dr., Ste 1.10, Irvine, CA 92612
MIS2006-00152_Excerpt
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
P:0. Box 3222
Anaheim, California 92003
www.anaheim.ne~ ~ TEL (774) 765-5139
Item No. ;
RM-~0~69
RRVP 4222
P R~~ gG
PO
GpPEHOVSE
ENO. F ~~~~N
~ RM'4 ~
VPR~9 824
1
Q
~F
O~
m
~y
RM A0169
RO V PR 4242 ~~A4460
V PRV PR 4 BV~~p\NG
GPP398 N
O
af \PL
OyDUgCR
ZH
o
O~w,ME
~
RM,_4
RMa
EZON P.
RCl6~-52-26 ~ o
m m
3 ~
3
m n
~ c
6
ail
m
~ SD~SN S~R~~~
2~2~
O,TM O$1tpG pN~ E ON
PUR&v.PPRENpU
~~"~'' ~,~ s~ PNPNESI N
o
.v
.,_
tp
e
aVON P~_
Reclassification No. 2006-00175
Conditional lJse Permit No. 2006-05101
Tentative Tract Map No. 16972
Requested By: TOM DOYLE
700 East South Street
c
v
`o
a~
ioo~o
i
~.
_~ ~~' Subject Property
Date: June 26, 2006
Scale: i" = 200'
Q.S. No. 94
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 5
Sa. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION fREADVERTISEDI (Motion for Continuance)
5b. RECLASSIFICATION NO.2006-00175
5c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
5d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2006-05101
5e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16972
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION•
(1) This rectangularly-shaped, 3-acre parcel has a frontage of 212 feet on south side of South
Street, a maximum depth of 641 feet, and is located }50 feet east of the centerline of Dakota
Street (700 East South Street).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of the following:
Reclassification No. 2006-00175 - to reclassify the property from the I (Industrial) zone to
the RM-4 (Multiple-Family. Residential) zone, or less intense zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05101 - to construct a 63-unit attached condominium
:complex with affordable units and a density bonus and incentives' under the authority of
.Section Nos.'18.06.030.040.0402 (Dwellings-Single-Family Attached) and 18.06.160.010
{Residential Planned Unit Development).
Tentative Tract Mao No. 16972 - to establish a 1-lot, 63-unit, airspace attached residential
condominium subdivision.
Advertised as "with waivers of (a) improvement of private street, and (b) sound attenuation
fior residential developments:'
BACKGROUND:
(3) The subject property is developed with an industrial building and is zoned I (Industrial). The
property is also located in the Merged Redevelopment Project Area. The Anaheim General
Plan designates this property for Medium Density Residential land uses. Properties to the
north (across South Street), south, and west are designated for Medium Density Residential
land uses; and properties to the east (across. the railroad tracks) are designated for
Institutional land uses.
(4) The applicant has submitted the attached letter requesting a two week continuance to the
July 10, 2006, meeting in order to revise architectural plans.
RECOMMENDATION:
(5) That the Planning Commission, by motion, continue this item to the July 10, 2006, Planning
Commission meeting.
SR-RCL2006-00175ds 6.26-06 coot :
Page 1
Page 1 of 1
David See Attachment -Item No. 5
From: Chris Campbell [ccampbell@theolsonco.comj
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 4:07 PM
To: David See
Cc: John Reekstin; Marlon Fenton
Subject: 700 South Street Anaheim Planning Commission
David,
Per our conversation today, we would like to continue our Planning Commission hearing date to the next hearing on July
10~h. I am confident that we can come up with an architectural elevation that is satisfactory to Ciry Staff and our future
homeowners. I will send you revised elevations later this week..
Thank you,
Cbtis Campbell
Director of Development _
The Olson Company
Office: (562) 370-9359
Cell: (714) 914-1915
Fax: (562) 430-5626
6/21/2006
PCl St}97S OGY
5g.56~HNpL
ANNE\M~~E3
OP
SP ~ 7-14 ~
1yGL Ogg
RaL e~7 s
40 -0
46
5~
v~NVE Rct Bo-6lna
p5
p
j MP P
S PUARK~P 3 p ~*PP~
D
1240 SP 84-1
ON
L
O
RE.
EC
FURON
SP 84-i SP B4-1
RCL Bb883B OA3
RCL 66~Ci7-74 ECONOLRE
R
DA 3
RCL 86£7-14
RCL 87E2.69 t1) CL 60-81-103
CUP 3724
VAR 3754
1 CUP 1546
INDUSTRIAL FIRMS VAR 4070
6P ~3
GO6 b4bgl»
~
94'
C D~ R
RCL 6 P 3046 G
U\Lp1N
CC
Z R
2~0 `,~
1uR .. ppp
E B
Y RPGPIC\)\.
Q VAR 2006-04680
, N ie f y-a ~ gg
~~~~~
`--~' ~ y14491 ~ \
T vPVPRapST9711). \V
1 .045
C<~d1 p3Y41,
p~ bg (521
{\CP ~K'.6MG LOS
GUP 1g5~p45gg7
22 2-044
SVRPVPR 4~ 1p7
DMZ OZ~15211
~-CUC P g3fi l
~cAN~ LOT
- R~Byo~O~~g>.® n
®•
s
/°
r1G LpS VEN~~
GPRPENjER P
gq-1
SPpA 9271
RpL BS2-69171
RO ~~p 42~y
VAR JgEMENS
C)`W'EIOG DER
~®~w
a°
a
SP 84-1 I
RCL 61-G2-8811) u
CUP 1546 a
OOVATAON
6VTERNATONAL
ROL Bt-82-03
CUP 1676
CUP 2036
FREEWAY (SR-g1}
E
RI~ERgID ^ p s~RE~t
-`EFtP gb.1
FROM fiP Rpa
SP 947
Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04233 a~ Subject Property
TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05102 Date: June 26, 2006
Scale:. Graphic
Requested By: BRANDON RAINON, OUTER SPRING VOLCANO LP Q.S. No. 145
3364 East La Palma Avenue
--
a
Too~i
SP 84-1
DA5
RCl 8743839
RCL 80-67`103
CUP 3807 .
CUP 3787
CUP 3124
VAR 4070
VAR 3754
IND. BLDG.
VPR qOi
Dale of Aerial Photo:
Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04233
TRACKING NQ. CUP2006-051D2
Requested By: BRANDON RAINON, OUTER SPRING VOLCANO LP
3364 East La Palma Avenue
Subject Property
Date: June 26, 2006
Scale: Graphic
Q.S. No. 145
ioo7i
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
: June 26, 2006
..Item No. 6
. 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) (Motion)
6b. iCONDITIONALUSEPERMITN0.2000-04233 (Resolution)
!(Tracking No: CUP2006-05102)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly-shaped 2.79-acre property has a frontage of 252 feet on the north side of
the Riverside 91 freeway, a maximum depth;of 524 fleet, and is accessed via a 652 foot
long, 32-foot wide access easement on the south side of La Palma Avenue,'1,240 feet east
of the centerline of Shepard Street (3364 East La Palma Avenue).;
REQUEST: `
(2) The applicant'requests to amend or delete conditions of approval for a conditional use
permit under authority of Code Sections 18:120.080.050.0510 (Communications Stations &
Antennas) and 18.60.180 (Reinstatement of atime-limited permit)3o reinstate amexisting
co-located telecommunications facility and accessory roof-mounted equipment on a legal
non-conforming telecommunications monopole facility.
:BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is currently developetl with a single story industrial tilt-up building and legal
non=conforming telecommunication facility and is zoned SP94-1'DA3 8 DA5 (Northeast
Area Specific Plan - LaPalma Core Area and Commercial Area). r;The Anaheim.General
Plan designates this property and the property to east for General. Commercial land uses,
and. properties to the north and west for Office-Low land uses. The SR-91 Freeway is south
of he site.
(4) Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04233 (to retain an existing legal-nonconforming
freestanding telecommunication monopole and to construct and co-locate an additional'
telecommunication antenna facility on the existing ega(non-conforming telecommunication
monopole with accessory7oof-mounted equipment) was approved by the Planning
Commission on November 6, 2000. Resolution No. PC2000-120 adopted in connection
with Conditional Use Permit No.2000-04233 included the following condition:
"1. That the co-location portion of the proposal shall be permitted for a period of five (5)
years, o expire on November 6, 2005 °
DISCUSSION:
s(5) The applicant has submitted a request to reinstate Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04233
sto retain he additional antennas approved with a time lJmit on the existing non-conforming
telecommunication facility: The applicant requests that Condition No. 1;of Resolution No.
PC2000-120:be amended to allow the. permit o be reinstated for the maximum time
allowable. According to the applicant, this facility is an;integral part of their wireless system
and is needed to ensure adequate service area coverage for customers.
Srcup2006-05102Jkn
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTANALYSIS•<
(9) Staff has reviewed the proposal to amend or delete the time limitfor an existing co-located
telecommunications;facility and accessory roof-mounted equipment on a legal non-
conforming telecommunications monopole facility and the Initial :Study. (a copy of which is
available for review in he Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental
impact and, therefore, recommends that the previously-approved .Negative Declaration
serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this. request upon
finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the ead agency; and that it
hassonsidered the previously-approved Negative Deolaration together with any comments
received during the public review. process. and further findjng on the basis of the Initial
Study and any comments received that there is no substantial .evidence thatthe project will
have a significant effect on the environment
FINDINGS:
(10) Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding
of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
(a) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is
authorized by this code,;or is an;unlisted use asiJefined in:Subsection .030
(Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040,(Approval Authority);
(b) That the use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth. and
development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
(c) That the size and shape of the site proposed for use is adequate to allow the full
development of theproposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area
honor to health and. safety;
(d) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden
upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the
area; and
(e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any,
will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
(11) .Section 48.60.180.030 of the Zoning Code requires that an approval for a reinstatement
shall be granted only upon the applicant presenting evidence to establish the following
...findings:
(a) The facts necessary to support each and every required showing for the original
approval of the entitlement as set forth in this chapter exist;
{b) The permit is being exercised substantially in the same manner and in conformance
with all conditions and stipulations originally approved;
(c) The permit 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
Page 3
_ - ~ __ _ _
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 6
(d) .With regard only to any deletion of a time limitation, such deletion is appropriate'.
because it has been demonstrated that the use has operated in a manner that is
.,appropriate in the underlying zone and the surrounding area and that the periodic
'revtewbf the use is no longernecessary and/or that if can be determined that, due
to changes circumstances, the use is consistent with the Citys long-term. plans for
the area
RECOMMENDATION:
(12) Staff recommends that,unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted toYhe Commission, ihcluding the
evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission takethe foilov/ing actions:
{a) By motion, determine that the previously approved Negative Declaration. is the
appropriate environmental determination for this request.
(b) By resolution, aoprove the reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No.2006-05102
by deleting the time limitation to retain an existing co-located telecommunications
facility and accessory roof-mounted equipment on a legal non-conforming
telecommunications monopole factlity, by atloptng the attached resolution including
the findings and conditions contained herein.'
Page 4
-- - __ _ __
[DRAFT}
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006-"'
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
REINSTATING AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2000-04233, AND
AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITONS OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. PC2000-120,
ADOPTED THEREWITH
(3364 EAST to PALMA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2000, the Anaheim Planning Commission, by Resolution No.
PC2000-120 approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04233 to retain an existing legal-nonconforming
freestanding telecommunication monopole and to construct and co-locate an additional telecommunications
antenna facility on the existing legal non-conforming telecommunications monopole with accessory roof-
mounted equipment; and
WHEREAS, said Resolution No. PC 2000-120 includes the following condition of approval:
"1. That the co-location portion of the proposal shall be permitted for a period of five (5)
years, to expire on November 6, 2005:'
WHEREAS, the property is currently developed with a single story industrial. tilt-up building
and is zoned SP94-1 DA3 & DA5 (Northeast Area Specific Plan - La Palma Core Area and Commercial Area)
and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for commercial land uses; and
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for
Reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim County of
Orange, State of California, described as:
PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 90-161, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 260, PAGES 42 AND 43 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE
.OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDEROF SAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested reinstatement of this conditional use permit to retain
an existing legal-nonconforming freestanding telecommunication monopole and to construct and co-locate an
additional telecommunication antenna facility on the existing legal non-conforming telecommunication
monopole with accessory roof-mounted equipment and modification to condition no. 1 of Resolution
No. PC2000-120 pertaining to a time limit pursuant to Cade Section 18.60 of the Anaheim Municpal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on June 26, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as
required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to hear
and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make
findings and recommendations in connection. therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection,. investigation and study made by itself
and in its behalf, and after due consideration,of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
1. That the applicant's proposal to reinstate an existing co-located telecommunications facility
and accessory roof-mounted equipment on a legal non-conforming telecommunications monopole facility is
authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section Nos, 18.120.080.050.0510 (Communications Stations &
Antennas) and 18.60.180 (Reinstatement of atime-limited permit).
Cr\PC2006- -1- PC2006-
2. That the proposed reinstatement and deletion of time limitation for the telecommunications
facility would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the grcwth and development of the area in
which it is currently located because the facility already exists and is being operated in conformance with all
conditions of approval
3. That the proposed deletion of the time limitation is appropriate because it is not anticipated
that the existing pole would be removed in the near future, and the periodic review of this use is no longer
necessary since the telecommunications site has been properly maintained over an extended period of time
4. That the facts necessary to support each and every required showing for the original approval
of the entitlement exist; and that an inspection conducted by the Community Preservation Division of the
Planning Department revealed that the site is in compliance with all conditions of approval
5. That this conditional use permit is being exercised in a manner not detrimental to the
particular area and surrounding land uses, nor to the public health and safety.
6. That "' indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal; and does hereby find that the Negative Declaration previously
approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04233 is adequate to serve as the required
environmental documentation in connection with this request upon finding that the declaration reflects the
independentjudgment 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 any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby
approve the reinstatement of this permit and deletion of the time limitation; and further, incorporates the
conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC2000-120 into a new resolution with the following.
conditions of approval:
1. That a maximum of three (3) antenna arrays with two (2), six-foot (6') high by eight-inch (8") wide, panel
type antennas per array shall be located on the existing monopole, with one (1) GPS antenna attached
to the accessory roof mounted equipment; and
2. That no signage, flags, banners andlor any other form of advertising shall be attached to the antennas or
the transmission tower structure.
3. That subject property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with the existing
plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file
with. the Development Services Division of the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and as
conditioned herein.
4. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it
complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal
regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request
regarding any other applicable, ordinance, regulation or requirement.
-2- PC2006-
BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and determine
that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the
conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid' or
unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution., and any
approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to
the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice prior to
issuance of a building permit or prior to commencement of the activity, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay
all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
June 26, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Procedures" of
the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council
Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM }
I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was passed. and adopted at a meeting. of the Anaheim. Planning Commission
held on June 26, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
__, 2006.
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM. PLANNING COMMISSION
-3- PC2006-
Item No.
nn P6 :,nneY.°~w u~3~> °^' 1f'° 5.3 vwwmmu ~'
e °6..^~7 .. ~ .. ':m e. ~"~nef ~}~,~S~mr ~ {j$V~~~~• ao~f5~ a°"°^'°~'i o..
® 'uW,P.I~ ,R~.... m. nw.n.~ ~~"daa I .,rrRi°m9a"..c ^5'•. IY eF•.E ~'rn'rt~ SY s
r ~
ItATELIA AVENDE
~ -
~
r
I
` '
~ ~
, .
:
6P@2
PCL ¢4fi1Ef IMI
~9YB5
Q&21W
VMZIOSdfit!
VM 9eB1
VM]B858
VAR ffiba
6FEMTON1blE1
W6W W 6TtlER0i.
RG W1d1 nel
CONVENTION WAY ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~
o x! n`x` -y''~ ~-~ 1
xx n~~e'.t'a w~ ~ ~rva s r~M1"~''
ova.uw~mv~Y'~ £pet
^u- ~ §
~ u~ ~. I:~ a > ~
'ay a ~, vn;4~
vrurt
uwia~ w
3
~re vmmg'i mva {
..r_w.
j4.
_ 4„„'
Hmn ~axa
m ..r.t w~
w• E4f V.E41EW
' vµ' v.wrt a.V~F vx
EYlbnbfAl
owvlf
Poa aet Ml wnwl
~~~ ~~NB~
OPANGEWOOD AVENUE
I
w~wwtu+~ton
omwi
arewis
YIDIlNJOEWI-.FE
1WNnfi
xp6i'm`..':
prMw.b Wl
.9l: nE
µWR16)116
9nWml F
N
Z
plnnm f
aZmna~
fA~
~ W
bq IDE
PW3NNGYnIACE W
/WAwFN16
awume J
U
'g e
y :Be•a
~wngyi .. dS.'v_ z3.' -
wwutc g3. B~a~ B~da Sa
oN•wnFs
rc~dliss
m.n..xbw.tmo,
~iu`ii8a~
p.~.abuq
onim
Y9E.4/.MGADIEE
Y/RIaG
~lBWf
owna
1FLUi1.
Isv.4rveY(s
ww~9
~~0
WRY ~a
0WR6
o°win
w~a~ alai
uns
u
rn
on
~
p
vN
f®
m
1/GR~
t
~~ o
~~
~
W1CEbOm6N~J1
IPIANPNIE
wume
YA
VM
O
.wgmrn
ORANGEWOOD AVE
.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05103 `'~%~`~~~ Subject Property
Date: June 26, 20D6
Scale: Graphic
Requested By: WALT DISNBY WORLD CO. Q.S. No. 88
1946 South Harbor Boulevard
~omz
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 7
7a. ';CEQA E^~~rIRONMENTAL IMPACT REP
PREVti
7b. CONDiI
SITE LC
(1)
REQUE
(2)
BACKGI
(3)
DEVEL(
(4)
ORT NO. 313
SLY-CERTIFIED) < (Motion)
JAL USE PERMIT N0.2006-05103 (Resolution)
TION AND DESCRIPTION:
rectangularly-shaped 32.03-acre property has a frontage of 836 feet on :the east side
arbor Boulevard, a maximum;depth of 1,919 feet, and is located 850 feet south of4he
erline of Katella Avenue (1946 South Harbor Boulevard).
applicant requests approval ofa conditional use permit under authority of Code
lion 18.116.070.050.0506 to permit a temporary parking lot
1ND
currently developed with a temporary parking lot. The Anaheim General
s this property forCommercial Recreational land uses. The Anaheim
rrther designates properties in,all directions for CommercialrRecreational
~OSAL:
proposes to continue'use of an existing temporary parking lot used for
g for the existing Disney theme parks and overflow for the Anaheim
of
rrve;taJ years. i nererore, me appncanr is now requesting a conomonal use permit to retain
the parking lot for an additional period of time:
(5) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates the parking lot consists of two parking areas. The
northern portion of the parking lot consists of 701 spaces and is adjacent to the existing..:
Katella Avenue cast member parking lot. The southern portion of the parking lot consists of
1,000 spaces. The applicant has indicated: that over the past five years. of operation, the
site is generally used approximately 20 times a year for overFlow parking but the primary
use of the lot is for Anaheim Convention Center. When the parking lots are not in use,lhey
are gated off at the main entry to the parking lot.
.Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
:Item No. 7
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 7
ALI applicable mitigation measures and conditions df approval were satisfied by Disney as
part of the plan check ahd permit issuance process. Disney would still be required to
satisfy any on-going mitigation measures and conditions of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(11) .Upon review of the applicant's Environmental Information Form, staff finds that the
proposedproject's environmental effects are within the parameters, assumptions and time
frames analyzed in the previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 313 for the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. ;Staff previously prepared Mitigation Monitoring Plan No.
043 for the project which incorporated those mitigation measures included in the Anaheim
Resort Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085 that'are applicable to the project (a copy of
this plan is on file In the Planning Department and available forpublic review).. All
`applicable mitigation measures required were completed prior to operation of the temporary
parking lot.'Mitigationmeasuressnd conditions of approval that were required to be
satisfied on an on-going basis have also been implemented.
EVALUATION:
(12) Temporary parking lots are permitted in the SP92-2 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan) zone
subject to the approval of a cohditional use. permit.
(13) The applicant and staff recognize that the parking lots are a temporary land use for this
`property. ,Over the past five years, the operation of the site has been well maintained with
no record of any complaints:' The landscaping provided along the street frontage is well
rnaintained'and complies with the Anaheim Resort standards. ;Given the recognized
emporary nature of the use, and the aesthetically pleasing manner in which parking is
.'.maintained, staff recommends approval of this request for a pe[iod of five (5) years to
expire on June 26, 201 L
FINDINGS:
(14) 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 conditionakuse permit is
authorized by this code, or is an unlisted use as definedSih Subsection .030
(Unlisted Uses :Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority);
{b) That he use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and
development of the area`in which it is proposed to be located;
(c) That the size and shapepf the site proposed for use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use ih a manner'. not detrimental to the particular area
nor or to health and safety;
"' (d) That the traffic generated by the proposed use wilt not impose an undue burden.
upon. the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the
area; and
Page 4
--- _ _ _ _ _
~:
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No, 7
(e) .That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any,
will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
RECOMMENDATION:
(15) Staff recommends that unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based upon4he evidence submitted to the Commission, including the
evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented. at the
public hearing, that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 313 in conjunction with
the applicable mitigation measures from the Anaheim Resort Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 0085 and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 43 created for
'this project are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation
for this request.
(b) By resolution, a rove Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05103, to permit a
temporary parkking lot for five (5) years to expire on June 26, 2011, by adopting
the attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained herein.
Page 5
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006--"`
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2006-05103 BE GRANTED
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional
Use Permit for certain. real property situated ih the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described as:
PARCEL 1 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 287, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY
OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, W HICH RECORDED SEPTEMBER 16, 1992 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 92-621127, OFFICIAL RECORDS
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM IN DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 26. 1996 AS INSTRUMENT NO.96-
0649602, OFFICIAL RECORDS. -
PARCEL 2 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 287, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY
OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH RECORDED SEPTEMBER i6, 1992 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 92-621127, OFFICIAL RECORDS
-EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO THE CITY
OFANAHEIM IN DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 26. 1996 AS INSTRUMENT NO.96-
0649602, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on June 26, 2006, at 2:30 p.m.; notice of said public hearing having been duly given as
required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to
hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional. use permit and to investigate and.
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by
Anaheim Municipal Cade Section 18.116.070.050.0506 to permit a temporary parking lot
2. That the temporary parking lot is existing and has not adversely affected the adjoining land
uses or the growth. and development of the area because the temporary parking lots have been well
maintained and operated in compliance with. all mitigation measures and conditions of approval; and has
served to meet the parking demands of the Disney theme parks and the Anaheim Convention Center.
3. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, will not be
detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim since this use has been operating
in the substantially same manner, in conformance with all conditions and mitigation measures since it was
originally approved in 2001.
4. That the traffic generated by the temporary parking lot will not impose an undue burden upon
the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area as there is adequate ingress
ard`egress to the site and there have been no documented traffic problems during the operation of the
current temporary parking lots.
Cr\PC2006-0 -1- PC2006-
5. That *** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposed temporary parking lot and does herby find that the project's
environmental effects are within the parameters, assumptions and time frames analyzed in the previously
certified Environmental Impact Report No: 313 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and that the Mitigation
Monitoring Plan No. 043 for the project has incorporated those mitigation measures included in the Anaheim
Resort Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085 that are applicable to the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does
hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional. Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the
safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1. That this permit shall expire on June 26, 201 t
2. That the property owner/developer shall be responsible for compliance with all of the mitigation
measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring"Plan No. 043 for this project which incorporates those
mitigation measures included in the Anaheim Resort Mitigation. Monitoring Program No. 0085 that
are applicable to the project, and for complying with the monitoring and reporting requirements
established by the City in compliance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.
3. That the parking lots shall operate in compliance with the conclusions set forth in the Acoustical
Evaluation of the Temporary Parking Lots SP-3B and SP-8 prepared by Gordon Bricken 8
Associates and dated March 24, 2001 (as revised on May 29, 2001) and that at no time shalt the
sound levels of the temporary parking lot exceed 60dBA at any exterior project property lines.
4. That the subject property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with the
plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on
file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 2, and as conditioned herein.
5. That approval of this application: constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that
it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal
regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution. is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and
all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should: any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared
invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related
to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or
prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges
shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application.
-2- PC2006-
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
June 26, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Zoning
Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal. Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced
by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission
held on June 26, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
.2006.
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-3- PC2006-
y¢a.
Attachment -Item No. 7
cp71~~~~ Ilnagineering
May 8, 2006
".Della Hertick
Associate Planner
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
RE: Conditional Use Permit Application for SP-3B and SP-8
Dear Ms. Herrick:
On June 14, 2001, the City approved the SP-3B ("Pongo") and SP-8 ("Buzz") temporary
pazking lots ("temporary pazking lots") for an inital one-year period,. in accordance with
'the provisions of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan.. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
identifies temporary pazking lots as a permitted temporary use; subject to the review and
' approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and the City Manager (Section
18.116.110.060, "Temporary Pazking" of the Anaheim Municipal Code).
Subsequent to the knifial one-year approval, the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan also
provides that temporazy pazldng lots may be renewed for up to a total of five years; in
one-year increments. Based on that provision, the City has approved utilization of the
SP-3B and SP-8 temporary pazking lots since Tune 2001. On May 9, 2005, the City
granted the fmal one-yeaz extension permitted by the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (with
utilization of the temporary pazldng lots approved through Tune 14, 2006).
As part of initial approval of the temporary pazking lots, as well as concurrent with each
of the one-year extensions that have been. granted, City staff determined that:
1. The temporary parking lots have Been constructed and operated in accordance
with the approved plans on file with the Department of Public Works;
2. The temporary parking lots have complied with all mitigation measures set for the
in Mitigation Monitoring. Plan. No. 043, which was established for temporary
pazldng lots SP-3B and SP-8; and,
3. Documentation submitted by Disney show that all conditions of approval required
for the temporary pazking lots have been implemented.
At this'6me, Disney is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to continue utilizing the
temporary pazking lots as originally-approved in June 2001, and as they have continued
°to be operated since that time, until such time as Disney proposes to develop the
Mal^ng Addma: Post OFtim Boa 25020/ClrndalS CaOfamia 91221-5020
1401 Flown Strtet/G~,le~1n"~~d~^~ele~,~Califomia 91221-SV20/81&5446500
Pan Of We M~pc of TM ~/~7rCampvvY oDimry ~, Cu(" atlo~ 2oas - 0 5 >. 0 3
•a 4,,
Della Herrick
Associate Planner
May 8, 2006
temporary parking lots in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim ResorC Specific.
Plan.
It is our understanding from City staff that there have been no problems related to the
current utilization of the temporary pazking lots..
On March 20, Disney representatives (including me, Deanna Detchemendy and Peri
Muretta) met with you, John Lower, Tri Nguyen and Rudy Etnami to discuss any issues,
as identified by City staff, that Disney should address as part of the application process
fora Conditional Use Permit for the continued use of the SP-3B and SP-8 temporary
parking lots. City staff requested the following information be included as part of the
Conditional. Use Permit. application package for the SP-3B and SP-8 temporary parking
lots:. ''
1. Discussion of how the temporary parking lots are used,. including the
arrangements for use by the Anaheim Convention Center;:
2: Discussion of the temporary parking lots' compliance with Mitigation Monitoring
Plan No. 043; .
3. Discussion. of existing landscaping at the perimeter of the temporary parking lots. ,
and how Disney would ensure_such landscaping.continuea to be maintained; and,
4. Confirmation that-water qualityfeatures installed'as part of the initial approvals
are adequate and functioning as designed.
Information related to each of these items is provided below.
Under Section 6,4 of the Infrastructure and Parking Finance Agreement ("Finance
Agreement") dated October 8,.1996 by and among the Anaheim Public Financing
Authority; the City of Anaheim ("City"), The Walt Disney Company and Walt Disney
World Co. ("Disney"), the City and Disney agreed to share use of the public pazking
facilities financed by the Finance Agreement (i.e., the Mickey & Friends parking.
"structure). As alloived.in the Finance Agreement, the City ahd Disney later agreed to.
substitute the SP=8 temporary pazking lot for the Mickey and Friends pazking structure,
because of SP-8's proximity to the Anaheim Convention Center.
Under the Finance Agreement, Disney also operates the pazking facilities (including a
tram providing service between the SP-8 temporary pazking lot, the Disney theme pazks'
entry plaza and the tram stop on Katella Avenue opposite the Convention Center), and
pays the revenues collected from Anaheim Convention Center.pazkers to the City.
Hours for use of the 5P-8 temporary parkinglot vary depending on Anaheim Convention
Center events. Anaheim Convention Center usage is generally from 9:00 a.m. to 9100
Page 2
ao~~, CUP Na 2006: - 0 5 10 3
'p ¢e.
Della Herrick
Associate Planner ,
May 8,2006..
p.m., and sometimes eazlier or later depending on the type of event. Disney's hours are
more consistent;. theme pazk guests parkin SP-8 only (although if demand arises, the SP-
3B parking lot, which is currently used for cast pazking, can be used), with hours
generally from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a:m.
At the March 20 meeting with City staff, no access, circulation or traffic issues were
identified related to the usage of the SP-3B and SP-8 temporary parking lots.
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 043 was created in conjunction with the approvals for the
SP-3B and SP-8 temporary parking lots and.provided to Disney on April 11, 2001.. In
'addition, City staff identified relevant conditions of approval. from Ordinance No: 5454
(approving Specific Plan 92-2), as being applicable to the temporary pazking lots.
Applicable mitigation measures. and conditions of approval were satisfied by Disney as
part of the.plan check and permit issuance process. Additionally, based on City staff
direction, mitigation measures and conditions of approval that were required to be
satisfied on ah ongoing basis have been implemented since Disney began utilizing the
parking lots. in 2001,,
Mitigation measures and conditions of approval related to landscaping were included as
part of the above-referenced requirements. We will continue to maintain the live
landscape screen of Eugenia hedge along the existing fence. The-existing scrim is
- maintained on a regular basis, with scrim being replaced when it begins to show
deterioration from sun and wind. This practice will continue.
As part of the initial approvals for the temporary parking lots, Disney submitted a "Water
Quality Management-Plan for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff` (dated May 2001 and
prepared by RBF Consulting): As recommended by that report, aflow=through, detention
basin was. constructed to convey storm water runoff from each of the temporary pazking
lots. The. detention basin is functioning as.designed. Indeed, 2005 was one of the wettest
years on record, and the detention basin functioned well. Disney recently,inspected the '
detention basin to confirm its sound condition,'and routine rfiaintenance activities were
completed. These. practices will continue.
' Based on'the information discussed above, as well as information contained in the
attached;applicationpcckage, Disney's continued use of the SP-3B and SP-8 temporary
parking lots will not adversely affect the land. uses adjoining the temporary pazking lots
or the growth and development of the azea. Furtlier, traffic related to the continued use of
the SP-3B and SP-8 temporary parking lots will' not impose an undueburden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. In summary,.
the granting of this Conditional Use Pemut will not be detrimental to the health and
safety,of the citizens of the City. of Anaheim.
Page 3 -
' oDimry
CUP "NA. 2006 - 0 5 t n z
__ _ ----
C4O~ .
Della Herrick
Associate Planner
May 8, 2006
If you have any questions'related to Disney's request for a Conditional Use Permit for
continued use of the SP-3B and SP-8 temporary pazking lots, .please do .not hesitate to
contact me at (818) 544-5028.
Sincerely,
V .
J. Devereaux Hawley
Project Director
cc: Deanna Detchemendy
Bryan Elliott
Enclosures:. Conditional Use Permit App cation and supporting materials
Page 4
°°`~"'' CUP gyp, 2006 - 0 5 10 3
I
Item No. 8
~ ,
~ RAF2
3CL 771743fi O~ L ]
ss. al InL b PC)
~ RC
37435
RCL Bt-fit-t2
31C~~~7~115 ~ C173743b
R
~HNMMSHALL uZj ¢es
((RRe
p7TACHED CON[
PARK W ~ DU
B
Z
L~~
Q
N RS2
3 t u cH
w
_~
LL RS2
DU CH
DOGWOODAVENUE
Rhi3
s
~ ~
~ ¢V¢ W
( 7
~W ~
~RCL13]<353f ~ O
i sAR Ana
i
LA PALMA AVENUE
DOGWOOD AVENUE
w
z
6
Q
O
ZZ2
O ~
~ tl
CATALPA AVENUE
v it of
GLENOAKS AVENUE
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05104 ' ~'; Subject Property
Date: June 26, 2006
Scale: Graphic
Requested By: SERVITE HIGH SCHOOL Q.S. No. 45
1952 West La Palma Avenue - Servite High School
~i
10073
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05104
Requested By: SERVITE HIGH SCHOOL
1952 West La Palma Avenue - Servite High School
Subject Property
:Date: June 26,2006
Scale: Graphic
Q.S. No. 45
10073
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 8
8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -.CLASS 3 (EXISTING FACILITIESI (Motion)
Sb. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2006-05104 % (Resolution)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly-shaped, 95.4-acre property has a frontage of 650 feet on the south side of
La Palma Avenue', a maximum depth of:1;000 feet and is located 515 feet west of the
centerline of Onondaga Avenue (1952. West La Palma Avenue - Servite High School).
:Advertised to Include "137 feet on the north side of Dogwood Avenue"
`REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit under authority of Code
Sections 18.14.030:040.0402 (Educational:Institutions-General) and 18.14.030.080
(Temporary. Modular Units) to permit two (2) modularbuilding foruse as four{4)
classrooms fof an existing private high chool.
=BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is developed with a private high school and is zoned T (Transition). The
Anaheim General Plan designates this property for School land uses. The Anaheim
General Plan further designates properties to the north for Low-Medium Density. Residential
land uses andproperties`to the south, east, and west for Low Density Residential land
uses.
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:
(4) The following zoning actions pertain to this property:
(a) Conditional Use Permit No. 38ti0 (to permit a two story, 11,000 square foot classroom
addition and remodel of a 38,476 square foot two story classroom building ih
:conjunction with an existing private educational facility with waiver of maximum
tructuralheight adjacent to asingle-family residential zone and minimum number of
parking spaces) was approveti;by the Planning Commission on November25, 1996.
+On September 23, 2002, the Planning Commission'approved amodification. to this
permit to expand an existing private highschool byiemelishing one single-family
'residence to construct a faculty;parking lot (Tracking No. CUP2002-04592).
(b) .Conditional Use Permit No. 4154 (to permit a freestanding electronic readerboard sign}
was approved by thePlanning Commission on October 11, :1999.
(c) Administrative Adjustment No. 126 (to waive maximum fence height to construct an t3
foot high wrought iron fence adjacent to La Palma Avenue to enclose an'ezisting
?private high school) was approved by theZoning Administrator on September 25,
'I1997.
Srcup2006-05104k1w.doc
Page 1
l - __ __ _ - ---
f`
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission.
June 26, 2006
Item No. 8
(7) Vehicular access is provided via two (2) existing driveways from La Palma Avenue and
Wichita Street. Plans indicate a total of 324 existing on-site parking spaces for the high..
school. The request does not propose to increase student enrollment and therefore, only
211 parking spaces are required based on the following existing facilities and student
count:
Use Code-Required Area{s.f.) or No. No. of
::Parking of Required
StudentslTeachers S aces''
Student 1 space per 6 850 Students s 142
students
.'Non-office 1 spacepernon- 56 Teachers 56
em to ee office em to ee
Office 4 er 1',000 GFA 3,200 s:f. 13
Total 211
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 8
two (2) classrooms, fora total of four (4) additional classrooms which would house
;approximately l5 students and one teacher.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTANALYSIS:
(10) .The Planning Director's authorized representative has determined that the proposed project
falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions'Sectton 15301, Class 3 (New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines
and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental
documehtation.
EVALUATION:
(11) Temporary trailers (modular classrooms) are permitted in the T (Transition) Zone subject to
approval of a condittonal use permit
(12) .The subjectlequest to permit the modular units is compatible with the existing school
operations,`and the modular units will not negatively,impact the adjacent single-family
.residential .neighborhood since they will not be visible due to the proposed location. and the
screening that existing adjacent school buildings provide. Schqol enrollment will not be
increased therefore, vehicular traffic andparking demands would not change.:Although the
applicant has indicated that the modular structures would only be used for. approximately
five years, due to the low visibility of the proposed structures; staff is supportive of this
request without a time limitationlo allow the school flexibility rr its. expansion plans.
FINDINGS:
(13) Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding
of fact that the evidence presented shows Ghat all of the following conditions exist:
(a) Thaf the proposed use is`properly one for which a conditional use permit is
authorized by he Zoning Code, or`fhat said use as defined in Subsection .030
(Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority);
(b) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the
growth and developmeht of the area in which!it is proposed to be ocated;
(c) ThaEthe size and shape of the site for the proposed use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use in a manner. not detrimental to the particular area
or to health and safety; ,
(d) Tha(the traffic;generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden
upon the streets and highways designed and improvetl to carry the traffic In the
area; and
(e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any,
will not be detrimental to the'health snd safety of the citizens of the Cityof Anaheim.
Page 4
,
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
..June 26. 2006
Item No. S
RECOMMENDATION:
(14) :Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting; and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the
evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Commission: take the following actions:
(a) By motion, determine that the project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301,
Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures} of the CEQA Guidelines.
(b) By resolution, approve, Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05104 to permit two (2)
modular buildings for use as four (4} classrooms for an existing private high school by
adopting the attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained herein.
Page 5
I - - _ _ __ _ - _ _ - ---
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006-"*
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION.
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-051A4 BE GRANTED
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional
Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described as:
THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH; RANGE 10 WEST, S.B.B. AND M., EXCEPT THE
SOUTH 263 FEET THEREOF.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on June 26, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as
required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim. Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to
hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by
Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 1.8,14.030.040.0402 (Educational Institutions-General) and 18.14.030.080
(Temporary Modular Units).
2. That temporary modular units would be used in conjunction with a previously approved
private educational institution only and would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and
development of the area since student enrollment would not be increased, and there is no significant change
in the operation of the existing school
3. That there will be no added traffic or parking impacts that would occur due to the addition of
the two (2) modular buildings for a total of four (4) classrooms since enrollment would not. increase.
4. That the granting of this permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the
health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim since there will be no significant change in the
existing land use and operation on the site.
5. That "' indicated. their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Director or her
authorized representative has determined that the proposed. project falls within the definition of Categorical
Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), as defined in the
State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental
documentation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does
hereby grant subject Petition. for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the
safety and general. welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1. That within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, the applicant shalt obtain any
necessary building permits and shalt. obtain Building Division clearance for the modular units.
Cr\PC2006-0 -1- PC2006-
2. That prior to issuance of a building permit or within 90 days from the date of approval, the
applicable traffic signal fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount established by City
Council Resolution.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning
Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2.
4. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 4, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with.
5. That timing. for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director
upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original
intent and purpose of the condition(s), (tt) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal
Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use
or approved structure..
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption. of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and
all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared
invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,.
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related
to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or
prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges
shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
June 26, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Zoning
Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal. procedures and maybe replaced
by a City Council Resolution. in the event of an appeal
ATTEST:
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission
held on June 26, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: ~ COMMISSIONERS:
AB S E N T:.. C O M M I S S I O N E RS:
IN W ITNESS W HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
_._... __
2006.
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-2- PC2006-
vPty4'~'
EPVE
io
Sa
Mt~w MPS
2pU
~t ou
a
Z
7
al
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05107
~ ~ ov
~'~y_ pU
~ Z
~.G N ~ a
e~~ ~
Rc` ~ ~ ~a C
~~
w 1~ ~'~ ~ O
L~T~pN~, L
~~
mss,, ~ y
GG B
¢G18~55$
Rc~ •,-
RMONT PvENVE
VE ~ rr
GL ~S'1
G4`'.3~
Requested By: BRUNO SERATO GANLAON, INC.
887 South Anaheim Boulevard -Anaheim White House Restaurant
too~a
~ ~V, RCl <5P8~'~
lRe\ot\nt/~_.,~d MPCPRTH~
V P~EN~\ / \
t`3~~-~ Subject Property
Date: June 26, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 85
uem rvo. a
2 DU `~' ~ N t DU
> VpR j5~ j
G VpR
2t
DU
2 ~ 2
w
't t2~ i\
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
..June 26, 2006
Item No. 9
9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion for continuance)
9b. .WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05107
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) Shts irregularly-shaped,. 0.82-acre property has a frontage of 106 feet on the west side of
Anaheim Boulevard,'a maximum depth of 282 feet, and is located 132 feet south of the
centerline of MidwayManor (887 South Anaheim Boulevard -Anaheim White House
Restaurant).
REQUEST:
(2) :.The applicant requests approval. of a Conditional Use Permit under authority of Code
Section No. 18.08.030.040.0402. (Unlisted Uses) to erect a permanent canopy in front of an
existing restaurant in the C-G (General Commercial) zone with waiver of the following:
SECTION NO. 18.08.060.010.0103 Minimum structural and landscape setback
15 feet required;. 9 feet existing and
proposed)
BACKGROUND:
(3) The subject property is developed with a restaurant and is zoned C-G (General
Commercial). The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for General Commercial
land uses.7he properties to thesouth and. west are also designated General Commercial;
the properties to the north are designated Lowbensity Residential; and the properties to the
east (across Anaheim Blvd) are designated Low-Medium Density Residential. The property
is also located within the.Merged Redevelopment Project Area..
(4) The applicant, Sylvano Serato, has submitted the attached letter dated, June 21, 2006,
.'requesting a continuance to the September 18, 2006, Commission meeting in order to meet
with City staff to discuss permanent structures with the proposed plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
(5) That the Commission, by motion, continue this item to the September 18, 2006, Planning
Commission meeting.
SR-CUP200fi-05107(con't-6.26-06)Jkn
Page 1
t _ _ - --_
~naFieim
Mite ®~se
7~estaurant
Attachment -Item No. 9
June 21,2006
Dear Jessica,
This letter is in request for a continuance. We wish to postpone our upcoming date of Monday
June 26 to Tuesday, September 1 B. Unfortunately, I will be out of the country from late August until
mid-September. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you require any further information,
please contact me directly..
Regards,
Sylvano Serato
Email: sylvano@anahetmwhitehouse.com
r~~.m~wma~oY~t..~.i.
Date of Aerial Photo:
Zoning Code Amendment Flo. 2006-00048
Requested By: BYZANTIFIE CATHOLIC BISHOP
Subject Property
Date: June 26, 2006
Scale: Graphic
Q.S. No. N/A
too~s
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 1A
10a CEQA ENIVRONMENTALiMPACTBEPORT N0.330
(PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) j (Motion)
10b. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2006-00048 < (Resolution)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This proposed Zoning Code Amendment would apply Citywide.
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant, Trillium Consulting, Inc., requests to amend the Zoning Code pertaining to
telecommunications facilities in single-family residential zones..
BACKGROUND:
(3) The proposed code amendment is requested in order to construct a new stealth building-
: mounted telecommunications facility at an existingYeligious institution. south of the
intersection of West Streat and La'Palma Avenue.
DISCUSSION:
{4) Currently, the Zoning Code only permits telecommunications facilities on single-family
residentially zoned properties developed with publicly owned parks orgolf courses subject
to approval ofa conditional use permit.
(5) The applicant requests amendments to Chapter 18.04 (Single-Family Residential Zones)
and 18.38 (Supplemental Uses) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to include stealth building-
mounted telecommunications facility as a conditionally permitted`use in asingle-family
zone. This code change would allow the applicant. to apply for a conditional use permit to
install of a stealth building mounted facility on the church. property::
(6) The Anaheim Zoning Code currently does not permit telecommunications facilities in single-
.family residential zones.' Religious institutions; are non-residential uses that are ypicaliy
found in areas zoned forsingle-family residential uses.:The proposed amendment would
tallow applications for telecommunication facilities on properties zoned for single-family
`residentialJand uses provided the facility is architecturallyintegrated through tha addition of
a bell or clock Gower, religious icon ocsome other architectural feature; and that the
:property is located on an arterial or collector treet.:Such installations have tieen
successfully incorporated within existing structures in other zones throughout the City.
Staff believes the requested amendment would create additional opportunities to site
telecommunications facilities thereby enhancing coverage in areas where little opportunity
exists to establish such facilites on commarcial property:: The public hearing would allow
staff and the Planning Commission to determine whether such an installation would be
appropriate and alsoprovide an opportunity for public input on specific proposals.
S2ca2006.00048k1w.doc
Page 1
- --- - __ _ i__
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
...Item No. 10
(7) The complete text of the proposed amendments is provided in strike-out format and is set
#orth in Attachment No. 1 of the draft resolution. This attachment includes respective
::changes to the "Primary-Uses" table within Chapter 1.8.04.(Single-Family Residential`
::Zones) to reflect the changes indicated in bold text below and textual changes to Chapter
18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) as follows:
"18.04.030.010 primary Uses
RH-1 RH-2 RH-3 RS-I )tS-2 RS-3 ttS-4 .Special Provisions
Antennas-Telecommunications- C C C C C C C Subject to
Stealth Building-Mounted.... ;; §1838.060.040
"18,38.060.040 Location Standards
.0407 The only winless communications facil$ies allowed in single-
familyresidential zones is (a) sports :field lighting located on publicly. owned parks or golf
courses or (b) stealth building-mounted facilities that are architecturally integrated
with existing structures on properties developed with a religious institution or non-
residential uses located along an arterial or col/ectorstreet."
(8) Staff has also included a few minor corrections to Section 18.38.060.040 as shown to
redline in Attachment No. 1.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(9) Staff has reviewed the. proposal and finds no significant environmental impact and
therefore, recommends that Planning Commission determine that the proposed Code
Amendment No. 2006-00048 is within the scope of the previously-certified Final EIR Nd:
330 for Zoning Code Amendment No, 2004-00029, which was a comprehensive update to
Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code, in compliance with the California
s'Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the. State and City CEQA Guidelines and is
adequate to serveasthe required. environmental documentation fodthe proposed Code
:'Amendment tosatisfy alt: the requirements of CEQA; and that no further environmental
documentation need be :prepared. for the proposed Code Amendment.
RECOMMENDATION:
(10) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Planning Commission, including
the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the
'public hearing, the Planning Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, determine that the previously-certified Environmental Impact Report
No. 330 is adequate to serve as the environmental determination for this request.
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 10
(b) By motion, recommend that the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment
No. 2006-00048, to amend the Zoning Code to allow stealth building-mounted
telecommunications facilities in single-family residential zones, by adopting the
attached resolution including the findings contained therein.
Page 3
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006--"*
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF TITLE 18 (ZONING
CODE) OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO STEALTH BUILDING-MOUNTED
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES
(ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2006-00048)
WHEREAS, the Zoning Code was originally adopted in 1929 and has been updated a
number of times over the years; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 18.76 (Zoning Amendments) of the Anaheim Municipal
Code, provisions of Title 18 may be amended whenever the public necessity and convenience and the
general welfare require, when adopted by an ordinance of the City Council in the manner prescribed by law;
and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Code implements the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes recommendations to the City Council
regarding Zoning Code Amendments; and
WHEREAS, Zoning Code Amendment No. 2006-00048 is a request for Planning
Commission to recommend to the City Council adoption of amendments to Title 18, Chapters 18.04 (Single-
Family Residential Zones) and Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of the Zoning Code,
pertaining to the establishment of stealth building-mounted telecommunications facilities in Single-Family
Residential Zones; which said attachments will be incorporated into a draft resolution for consideration by the
City Council following a recommendation by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on June 26, 2006 at 2:30 p.m., notice. of said public hearing having been duly given as
required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code,. Chapter 18.60
(Procedures), to hear and consider evidence for and against the Zoning Gode Amendment No. 2006-00048
and to investigate and. make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the amendments to
Chapters 18.04 (Single-Family Residential Zones) and Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of the
Zoning Code (Zoning Code Amendment No. 2006-00048), has determined that the public necessity and
convenience and the general welfare require its amendment based upon the following findings:
1. That the proposed changes included in the Code Amendment are a result of an interest in
review of the standards applicable to telecommunications facilities in Single-Family Residential Zones in the
City, and such changes would result in a more consistent application of standards throughout the City;
2. That the proposed Code Amendment would also create more opportunities for the
establishment of telecommunication facilities within the City, thereby enhancing coverage while maintaining a
critical emphasis of the design and location criteria within the entitlement process for each facility;
3. That "' indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposed Amendment pertaining to telecommunications facilities in single-
familyresidential zones; and does hereby determine the proposed Code Amendment No. 2006-00048 is
within the scope of Final EIR No. 330 that was certified in conjunction with the approval of Zoning Code
Amendment No. 2004-00029, which was a comprehensive update to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim
Cr\PC2006-0 -1- PC2006-
Municipal Code; and therefore Final EIR No. 330, is adequate to serve as the required environmental
documentation for this request for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"} and the
State and City CEQA Guidelines; and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the
proposed Code Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that an ordinance be prepared reflecting the proposed amendments to Title 18, Chapters
18.04 (Single-Family Residential Zones) and Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) of the Zoning
Code (Zoning Cade Amendment 2006-000.48), pertaining to the establishment of stealth building-mounted
telecommunications facilities within single-family residential zones, and that the City Council approve said
Ordinance.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
June 26, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Procedures" of
the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council
Resolution in the event of an appeal.
- CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission
held on June 26, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN W ITNESS W HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
2006.
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-2- PC2006-
Attachment -Item No. 10
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING TABLE 4-A OF SECTION 18.04.030 OF
CHAPTER 18.04 AND SUBSECTION .040 OF SECTION
18.38.060 OF CHAPTER 18.38 OF TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES (ZONING CODE
AMENDMENT NO. 2006-00048)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM HEREBY ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
That Table 4-A (Primary Uses: Single-Family Residential Zones) of Section
18.04.030 of Chapter 18.04 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Cade be, and the same is
hereby, amended to read as follows:
Table 4-A
PR[MARY USES: SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONES
P Permitted by Right
C Conditional Use Permit Required
N Prohibited
RH-1 RH-2 RH-3 RS-1 RS-2 RS-3 RS-0 SpecialProvisions
Residential Classes of Uses
Dwellings~ingle-Family Detached P P P P P P C
Mobile Home Pazks N N N N N C N
Residential Care Facilities. P P P P P P P Subject to
§ 18.36.030.050
Note on Table 4-A -Residential Classes of Uses:
New Residential Development. All new residential development with in 600 feet of any railroad, freeway,
expressway, major arterial, primary arterial or secondary arterial, as designated by the Circulation Element of the
General Plan, is subject [o the provisions of Section 18.40.090.
Non•Residential Classes of Uses
Agricultural Crops P P N N N N N
Antennas-Private. Transmitting P P P P P P P Subject to
§ 18.38.040
Antennas-Telecommunications- C C C C C C C n
Stealth Building-Mounted ^- `~,-~.~'~'-}i~.a.°g
~~~`
. sSubject to
§ 18.38.060.OA0
Antennas-Telecommunications- N N N N N N N
Stealth Ground-Mounted
Table 4-A P Permitted by Right
PRIMARY USES: SINGLE-FAMILY C Conditional Use Permit Required
RESIDENTIAL ZONES N Prohibited
RIi-1 RH-2 RH-3 RS•1 RS-2 RS-3 RS-4 Special Provisions
Antennas-Telecommunications- N N N N
Ground-Mounted
Bed & Breakfast Inns N N N C
Beekeeping C N N N
Community & Religious Assembly C C C C
Convalescent 8c Res[ Homes N N N C
Day Care Centers _C C C C
FducationalInstitutions-General C C C C
Golf Courses & Country Clubs C C C C
Group Caze Facilities C C C C
Oil Production N N N N
N N N
C
N
C
C
C
C
C
C
N
N N Must he located on
an arterial
highway; subject to
§ 1838.080
N
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Public Services C C C C C C
Recreation-Low Impact C C C C C C
Transit Facilities C C C C C C
Utilities-Minor C C C C C C
SECTION 2.
N
N
N
C
C
N
C Subject to
§ 18.36.040.070
N Subject to
§18.38.180
C _
C
C
C
That Subsection .040 of Section 1838.060 (Antennas-Telecommunications) of
Chapter 18.38 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended
to read as follows:
".040 Location Standazds.
.0401 ~"~-°'^°^ ^^--~°^~~°~^^'~^^ °^^~'~'~°°Wireless Communication Facilities shall
be co-located where technologically feasible and visually beneficial. Facilities that aze not
proposed to be co-located shall provide a written explanation why the facility is not a candidate
for ce-lesaHanCollocation.
.0402 Where determined to be technically feasible and appropriate, unutiliZed
space should be made available for se-lec-t~ietiCollocation of other ~• ~~°'^^° ~°--~--~~~°~^°'~^~
`^^Wireless Communication Facilities,. including space for entities providing similaz,
competing services. Ee-lesetienCollocation is not required in cases where the addition of the
new service or facilities would cause quality of service impairment to the existing facility or if it
__„became necessary for the host facility to go off-line for a significant period of time.
2
.0403 Front or street setback. No :..r:.l:,~o -„ °°^"~«-Wireless
Communication Facilitv shall be constmcted or placed in any street setback in any zone except
as maybe specifically allowed by the regulations of that zone.
.0404 Interior setback. All portions of any ^n,,~„.a-Antenna structure and
associated equipment shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from any interior property line
unless otherwise specifically allowed by the regulations of the zone.
.0405 Ins^"~°'° F^m~'- ~ ^:a°°«~^' ° °^Multiple-Family.Residential Zones, no
:,.°,°^^ ,.,...,...,.°:^^«:°., r^°:,:«. Wireless Communication Facilitv shall be installed on the roof
of a building except as specifically provided in subsections 18.38.060.030 and 18.38.060.060
OS~ertaining to ~ uildin -mounted ^°'°; ° °••«'~~ c°^7J°°^Wireless
Communication Facilities.
.0406 A Ground-mounted Wireless
Communication Facilitv shall not be located in a required pazking azea, vehicle maneuvering
area, or vehicle/pedestrian circulation area in such a manner that it interferes with, or in any way
impairs, the utility or intended function of such azea.
.0407 The only ~°'°^•• °^`~°~^ ~°^""~°°Wireless Communication
Facilities allowed in ^~~°'° a°m~'-• -°°~''°°`~°' °•-°°° ~^SinQle-Family Residential Zones are (i)
sports field lighting. located on publicly owned parks or golf courses or (iil stealth building_
mounted facilities that are architecturally integrated within an existing structure on property
develoned with non-residential uses and located on an arterial or collector street.
.0408 A Wireless Communication Facilitv shall
not be permitted on property with a Transitional Zone designation where the existing. use is a
single family use or a multiple family use.
.0409 Ground-mounted ~ir~-setr~t=ais~-€as~'~''.'~sR'ireless
Communication Facilities shall not be permitted in any zone, except for Stealth facilities-as
,,°a.,°a:.. ,.~.°°°.:°., non, ^,.°..°„
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY
The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should any section,
paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance of the Code, hereby adopted, be declared for any
reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the Council that it would have passed all other portions of
this ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom of any such portion as may be declared
invalid.
SECTION 4. SAVIIQGS CLAUSE
Neither the adoption of this ordinance nor the repeal of any other ordinance of this
City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations
were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any license or
penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. The provisions of this
ordinance, insofaz as they are substantially the same as ordinance provisions previously adopted
f
by the City relating. to the same subject matter, shall be construed as restatements and
continuations, and not as new enactments.
SECTION 5. PENALTY.
Except as may otherwise be expressly provided, any person who violates any
provision of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be
punished in the manner provided in Section 1.01.370 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Anaheim held on the day of , 2006, and
thereafter passed and adopted at a regulaz meeting of said City Council held on the day
of , 2006, by the following roll call. vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK OF THE CTTY OF ANAHEIM
62259.v 1/MGordoN06.21.06
4
Attachment -Item No. 10
June 22,.2006
Mr. John P. Ramirez
Planner
City of Anaheim Planning Department
200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 162
Anaheim,. CA 92805
RE: Proposed Text Amendment to Wireless Locational Standazds
Deaz Mr. Ramirez:
My firm, Trillium Consulting, Inc., is representing T-Mobile in their efforts to secure the
necessary approvals to construct a new unmanned wireless telecommunications facility at
the Byzantine Catholic Bishop Church located at 995 N. West Avenue. Currently, the
Anaheim Zoning Code does not permit wireless telecommunications facilities from being
located in single family residential zones. However, it is T-Mobile's belief that there are
certain instances where it would be appropriate to allow these facilities to be built in
single family zones and, therefore, proposes that a text amendment to the Zoning Code be
approved for this purpose.
Section 18.38.060 of the Zoning Code provides criteria for the placement, design and
screening of wireless communication facilities. -Subsection .040 Allowable Locations,
specifies in which zones these facilities are pemutted and what entitlement process is
required for the review and approval of the proposed facility. In the table under
Subsection .040, Single-family Residential zones do not. permit Stealth - Building-
mounted facilities. T-Mobile proposes that this restriction be changed to indicate that
Stealth -Building-mounted facilities. require City approval for all facilities proposed in
Single-family Residential zones..
Furthermore, in an effort to continue to meet the intent of the code, which is to preclude
these types of facilities on properties improved with single-family uses, T-Mobile
proposes that the following language be inserted into Subsection .050 Locational
Standards:.
".0508 - In single-family residential neighborhoods and zones, no wireless
-' conununication facility shall be erected on a property with the primazy use being
that of asingle-family residence."
All other standards including, design and operational standards, would remain applicable
and any proposed facility in asingle-family zone would be required to meet these
standazds or would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit or Variance.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 799-2000 x311 or via
email at iaustin@trilliumcos.com.
Regazds,
Trillium Consulting, Inc.
John Austin
Planner
Item ND
I
RCL 5E57-76 (5)
CUP 3477
VAR 4309
TILE 6 CARPETING
CENTER
I
RCL 58-57-7fi (2)
IND. FIRMS
RCL 58-57-76 (2)
1
IND. FlRMS
VAR 2003-09576
VAR 701
IND. FIRMS
T
RCL 56-57-76
T (Res. of InL b M
NEVILLE CHEMICAL CUP 2006-0SOF
RCL 56-57-78
(Res, of InL b N
(RCL 56-5/.26
VAR 701
NURSERY
EOISON CO.
I
RCL 72.73-25
RCL 71.72J6
VAR 3352
VAR 3013 S
VAR 2620
1
RCL 82-83-16
CUP 2003-04766
JOLAMA TILE I
STORAGE YARD RCL 72-73-25 F-
RCL 71-72J6 W
SMALL IND. FIRMS
~
f-
N
f-
Y
N
VACANT
Or
d +
laKKl 1 OS AVENUE . °„ ++' " ° '~ - RCL f
(Ras. of
.6
a asa 6.C~EMF Ni °
y • - ° ® I RRCL 7
,
5
2005-05030 ~' r+°° SMALLIND. ~ CUF
9R 1700 '
+ I
RCL 09-00.15 FIRMS (V CUF
l(~ CUF
T~6ngle
m (Res. of In[. to SE)
RcLSS-s7as ~Q' gMAI
ib tinu
e Ple RcL60-61-113 ,y
R L 59-0423 Gj
I J
VACANT 3DAY
SLINDS ~
RCL e&00-15
1 (Rae. 0/Inl b SE)
RCL 7475-21 (2)
RCL 74-75-20
4RV CUP 2205
CUP 18fi6
SMALL IND. FIRI
I
MILF3ANK WEST
RCL £10-00-15
(Res. 0(Inl b SE)
CUP 1301
I
RCL 00-00-15 SMALL IND.
FRMS RCL tk3-00-15
(Res. of Int. b SE)
(Rea. of Int. to SE)
RC' S9-0 ~ 3 \ RCL 70.71-26
RCL 70.71.27
w t
r~~is
"
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05099 „
~ %:> .
Subject Property
Date: June 26, 2006
Scale: Graphic
Requested By: ROBERT TERAN O.S. No. 116
2137 East Cerritos Avenue -SCE Easement loofis
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05099
Requested By: ROBERT TERAN
Subject Properly
Date: June 26, 2006
Scale: Graphic
Q.S. No. 116
2137 East Cerritos Avenue -SCE Easement
iooss
Jw~ zoos
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Jtem No. 11
11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion)
11 b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2006-05099 (Resolution) _
:SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly-shaped, 2.23-acre property has a frontage of 696 feet on the north side'of
Cerritos Avenue, a depth. of 195 feet, and is ocated 618 feet wesf of the centerline of
Sunkist Street (2137 East Cerritos Avenue -:SCE Easement).
REQUEST:'
(2) The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit under authority of Code
Section 18.14.030.040.0402 (Antennas -Telecommunications -Stealth Ground-Mounted)
and!18.38.060 (Antennas -Telecommunications) to permit a telecommunications antenna
on an existing'SCE electrical transmission tower with accessory ground-mounted
equipment.
BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is currently developed with Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission
towers anrj a plant nursery and is zoned T (Transition Zone). The Anaheim General Plan
designates this property;and properties to the north for;Open Space land uses. Properties
to the south, east, and west are designated. for Industrial land uses.
(4) The following zoning actions pertain to this property:
(a) .Variance No. 701 (to permit a manufacturer synthetic resin) was approved Planning
Commission February 18,.1957. This entitlement also applies to the property to the
north of the subject property.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
(5) The applicant proposes to construct a telecommunications facility consisting of three (3)
sectors with two (2) panel antennas on each sector, on an existing 107-foot high SCE
transmission tower. This request also includes aground-mounted accessory equipment
shelter located directly beneath the tower within a 150 square foot lease area
(6) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates the 107-foot high lattice tower is located in the center
of the property, approximately 141 feet from the east property line and 73.5 feet from the
'south property line along Cerritos Avenue. There are currently two (2) transmission towers
on the property and no telecommunications antennas are presently located on these
towers.
Srcup2006A5099k1w.doc
Page 1
-- - ~,_ _ _
page 2
t - ~ - --
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
.Item. No. 11
ground-mounted equipment and security. The existing land use, a plant nursery, has a
large quantity of trees and shrubs that would be placed around the legs of the tower to help
screen the equipment from public view along Cerritos Avenue.
(11) The applicant's supplemental information statement indicates that Royal Street
Communications/Metro PCS is a new wireless carrier to the Southern California region.
This proposal's primary objective is to cover the vicinity of Cerritos Avenue (south), Sunkist
Street (east), State College Boulevard (west), and Winston Road (north}. ;Coverage and
capacity are a function of distance and network customer usage. There are surrounding
sites that are planned that will integrate with this particular. site as the network develops.
As sitesbegin to go "on air; this site will. cover a much wider area than the aforementioned
street boundaries.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(12) Staff has reviewed the proposal for a telecommunications facility and the Initial Study (a
copy of which is available for review in the: Planning.Department) and: finds no significant
environmental impact'and, therefore, recommends that a Negative Declaration be
approved upon a finding by the Planning Commission that the Negative Declaration reFlects
the independent judgment of3he lead agency; and3hat it has considered the proposed
Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the publie review
process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that.
: where is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant affect on the
environment.
EVALUATION:
(13) Telecommuhicationsfwcilities and antennas are permitted tnthe T Zone subject to the
`approval'of a conditional use permit and the requirements of Section 18:38.060 pertaining
to telecommunications antennas of Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Uses}.
(14) On June 7, 2005, the City Council approved a franchise agreement with SCE. Within that
agreemehtJprovisions were made to upgrade fencing and landscaping on properties
owned bySCE to ah effort to improve the aesthetics bf the property to the public right-of
.way. The agreement states that SCE would require that at the time a license or lease is
renewed, termjnated, or created, a 10-foot wide area would be devoted: to landscaping.
The site is currently developed with a 15-foot wide'landscape setback, therefore additional
iandscaping is not required.
(15) :The recently updated Zoning Code includes design guidelines and requirements for
elecommuhtcation facilities. `:Code requires wireless communication facilities to be co-
' located where technologically feasible and visually beneficial Staff feels "stealth"
installations and installation on existthg SCE lattice towers ere the best altemative to
decrease visual elutter and preserve'the aesthetic quality of the community.' The new
facility would belocated approximately 73:5 feet away from Cerritos Avenue further
minimizing the visibility of the proposed antennas and equipment location from public view.
Staff feels the location on the existing'SCE transmission toweP is the best altemative to
decrease visual clutter and preserve the aesthetic quality of the community and therefore,
• - - staff recommends approval of this request:
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 26, 2006
Item No. 11
FINDINGS:
(16) Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional. use permit, it must make a finding
of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
(a) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is
.authorized by this code, or is an unlisted use as defined in Subsection .030
(Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority);
(b) That the use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed tope located;
(c) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area
nor to health and: safety;
{d) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will. not impose an undue burden
upon. the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the
area; and
{e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any,
will. not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
RECOMMENDATION:
{17) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the
evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, approve a Negative Declaration for the project.
(b) By resolution, a rove Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05099 to permit a
telecommunications facility on an existing SCE electric transmission tower with
accessory ground-mounted equipment,. by adopting the attached resolution
including the findings and conditions contained herein.
Page 5
_.
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION. NO. PC2006--"`
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05099 BE GRANTED
(2137 EAST CERRITOS AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional
Use Permit for certain real property situated' in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described ax
THAT PORTION' OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST IN THE
RANCHO SAN JUAN CAJON DE SANTA ANA, CONVEYED TO NEVILLE CHEMICAL
COMPANY BY DEED DATED APRIL 5, 1957 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 3896, PAGE 111, OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,
LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF A LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A 2 INCH IRON -PIPE WITH' BRASS CAP MARKED S.C.E. CO. L.S. 2619
BURIED 12 INCHES BELOW THE SURFACE OF THE GROUND AND BEING SET IN THE
WESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED BY SAID DEED, SAID IRON PIPE BEING
SOUTH 00°18'43" EAST MEASURED ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE 62.54 FEET, FROM A 2
INCH IRON PIPE WITH BRASS CAP MARKED "S.C.E. CO., L.S. 261 9" AND BURIED 12
INCHES BELOW THE SURFACE OF THE GROUND AND SET FOR THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED AND DESIGNATED AS PARCEL 1 IN THAT CERTAIN
ACTION FILED AS CASE NO. 92806 OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF
BEGINNING NORTH 77°31 '38" EAST 715.56 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A 2 INCH IRON
PIPE WITH BRASS CAP MARKED "S.C.E. CO., L.S. 261 9" AND BURIED 12 INCHES BELOW
THE SURFACE OF THE GROUND AND SET IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, SAID
LAST MENTIONED 2 INCH IRON PIPE BEING SOUTH 0001 8'28" EAST 82.43 FEET,
MEASURED ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE FROM A 2 INCH IRON PIPE WITH BRASS CAP
MARKED "SC.E.CO., L.S. 2619" BURIED 12 INCHES BELOW THE SURFACE OF THE
GROUND AND SET fOR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THAT
CERTAIN RIGHTOF: WAY EASTERLY, DATED OCTOBER 11, 1960 FROM WILLIAM L.
KLENCK, ET AL., TO' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY AND RECORDED IN
BOOK 5456, PAGE 178 AF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY
RECORDER.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on June 26, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as
required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to
hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
1, -- That the applicant's proposal to permit a telecommunications facility on an existing
transmission tower with accessory ground-mounted equipment is properly one for which a conditional use
permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section Nos. 18.14.030.040.0402 and 18.38.060.
Cr\PC2006-0 -1- PC2006-
2. That the proposed telecommunications facility would not adversely affect the adjoining land
uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the proposal
locates the proposed antennas on an existing electrical. transmission tower located 73.5 feet from Cerritos
Avenue further minimizing the visual impact of the proposed facility.
3. That the size and shape of the site is adequate to allow full development of the proposal in a
manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the health and safety because the telecommunications
facility would be located on an existing electrical transmission tower with minimal new equipment.
4. That because this is an unmanned facility with infrequent maintenance, the traffic generated
by the proposed use will not, under the conditions imposed, impose an undue burden upon the streets and
highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area
5. That granting this conditional use permit will not, under the conditions imposed, be
detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and that the use will contribute to
an effective wireless communications network system. in a manner that would bend in with the existing
facilities.
6. That "' indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding
that the declaration reflects the independentjudgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the
Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and. further
finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that
the project will. have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does
hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the
safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1. That this telecommunications facility shall be limited.to no more than three (3) sectors with no more than
two (2) panel antennas on each sector on the existing transmission tower and accessory ground-
mounted equipment. The six (6) antennas shall be limited to a maximum height of 65 feet. No
additional antennas or equipment cabinets shall be permitted without the approval of the Planning
Commission at a noticed public hearing. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans
submitted by building permits.
2. That the antennas shall be finished and painted to match the existing lattice tower structure. If the finish
or color of the tower is modified, the antennas shall be modified accordingly. Said information shall be
specifically shown on the plans submitted by building permits.
3. That that ground-mounted equipment shall be located entirely within an 8-foot high decorative wrought
iron fence and the cable connecting to the equipment shall be underground and shall not be visible to
the public. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
4. That all equipment, including supply cabinets and power meter shall be screened from the public right-
of-way:- Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
5. , That the Operator shall ensure that its installation and choice of frequencies will not intertere with in the
800 MHz radio frequencies required by the City of Anaheim to provide adequate spectrum capacity for
public safety and related purposes.
-2- PC2006-
6. That before activating this facility, the Operator shalt submit to apost-installation test to confirm that the
facility does not interfere with the City of Anaheim's Public Safety radio equipment. This test shall be
conducted by the Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriffs Department or a Division
approved contractor at the expense of Operator.
7. That the Operator shall provide a 24-hour telephone number to the Planning Services Division (to be
forwarded to the Fire and Police Departments) to which interference problems may be reported, and
shall resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours.
8. That the Operator shall ensure that any of its contractors, sub-contractors or agents, or any other user
of the facility, shall comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
9. That should this telecommunication facility be sold, the Planning Services Divisions shall be notified
within 30 days of the close of escrow.
10. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the petitioner's expense. Landscape
and/or landscape screening of all pad mounted equipment shall be required and shall be specifically
shown on plans submitted for building permits.
11. That the applicant shaA obtain aRight-of-Way Construction Permit from the Public Works Department
for any work within the public right-of-way, including but not limited to installation of conduit, cable, and
electrical service lines.
12. That portion of the property being leased to the telecommunication provider shall be permanently
maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of
trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence.
13. That no signs,. flags, banners, or any other form of advertising. shall be attached to the antennas or to
the transmission tower structure.
14. That a final landscape and equipment enclosure plan indicating an 8-foot high decorative wrought iron
fence around thee equipment and the applicant shall exercise best efforts to place ten (10) feet of
landscaping from the nursery stock in the street setback to screen the equipment from the public view
along Cerritos Avenue. Any decision by staff regarding said plans may be appealed to the Planning
Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. Said information shall be specifically shown on
plans submitted for building permits.
15. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the
Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4 and as conditioned herein.
16. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, and 14, above mentioned, shalt be
complied with. Extensions of further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance
with. Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim. Municipal Code.
17. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 15, above mentioned,
shall be complied with.
18. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it
complies. with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and. any other applicable City, State, and Federal
regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation, or equipment.
-3- PC2006-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and
all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared
invalid or unenforceable by the finaljudgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related
to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final: invoice or
prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges
shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
June 26, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Zoning
Provisions -General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and maybe replaced
by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF ANAHEIM ' 1
1, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission., do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was passed and. adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission
held on June 26, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, f have hereunto set my hand this day of
2006.
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-4- PC2006-