PC 2006/10/16I ~ 111
ISSI CI
Monday, ®cfober 16, 2006
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California
® Chairman: Gail Eastman
® Chairman Pro-Tempore: Cecilia Flores
® Commissioners: Kelly Buffa, Stephen Faessel,
Joseph. I<araki, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez
® Call To Order
® Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M.
• Staff update to Commission on various. City developments and issues
(As requested. by Planning Commission)
• Preliminary Plan Review for items on the October 16, 2006 agenda
For record keepino purposes if you wish to make a statement regarding any item
on the agenda please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the
secretary.
® Recess To Public Hearing
® Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M.
® 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: planninacommission(a~anaheim.net
H:\dots\clerical\agendas\101606).doc (10/16/06)
Page 1
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 R.M.
Public Comments:
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the
Anaheim Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing
items.
Consent Calendar:
The items on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call. vote. There will be no separate
discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning
Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
Reports and. Recommendations
1 A. (a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 3
(b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04570
(Tracking No. CUP2006-05147)
Agent: Erik Jordan, 5718 Canehill Avenue, Lakewood, CA 90713
Location: 1777-1779 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is
approximately 0.3 acres, having a frontage of 66 feet on
the north side of Lincoln Avenue and is located 492 feet
east of Crescent Way (Five Points Liquor).
Requests for determination of substantial conformance with
previously-approved exhibits to permit a minor expansion of an
existing convenience market with the sales of alcoholic beverages for
off-premises cdnsumption.
1B.(a)
(b)
(c)
Agent: Thomas Hartley, 25971 Arriba Linda, Laguna Niguel, CA
92677
Location: (No Address): Property is approximately 53 acres having
a frontage of 190 feet on the terminus of Avenida de
Santiago and is located 260 feet west of the centerline of
Point Premier.
Requests a retroactive time extension to comply with conditions of
approvalfor apreviously-approved 28-lot, 21-unit detached single-
family subdivision with waiver of required private street standards.
IUlinutes
-"1 C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission
Meeting of October 2, 2006 (Motion)
Project Planner:
(kwong2@anaheim. net)
Project Planner:
(skoehm@anaheim. nel)
H:\docs\clerical\agendas\101606).doc (10/46/06)
Page 2
Agent: Jonathan Pearson, California Cove Communities, 8105
Irvine, Center Drive, Suite 800, Irvine 92618
Public Hearing Items:
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05126
2d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17092 (READVERTISED)
Owner: Sunrise Fountains Apartments, LLC, 1380 South Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
Agent: David Nix, Newport Capifal Advisors, 1400 Quail Street,
Suite 280, Newport Beach,. CA 92660
Location: 2100 South Lewis Street: Property is approximately 3.63
acres,. and is located at the southeast corner of Lewis
Street and Orangewood Avenue.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05126 -Request to convert a 132-
unit apartment complex into a 132-unit residential condominium planned
unit development with modification to standards and waivers of (a)
minimum lot area per dwelling unit, (b) minimum setbacks between
buildings, and (c) maximum wall length.
Tentative Tract Map No. 17092 - To establish a 1-lot, 132-unit airspace
attached single-family residential condominium subdivision.
Continued from the September 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Project Planner.
Qp2mirez@anaheim.netJ
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1
3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2006-05139
Owner: Walden C. Townsend TR, 34300 Lantern Bay Drive, #21,
Dana Point, CA 92629-2857
Agent: Phillip Schwartze, PRS Group, 39682 EI Camino Real, San
Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Location: 2840 East Coronado Street: Property is approximately
0.69-acre, having frontages of 114 feet on the south side of
Coronado Street and is located approximately 555 feet east
of the centerline of Blue Gum Street.
Request to permit a vehicle impound yard in conjunction with a towing
Company. P/oject Planner:
Qnixon@anaheim.netJ
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
H:ldots\clerical\agendas\101606).doc (10/16/06)
Page 3
4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Request for
4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Continuance to
4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05137 December 11, 2006
Owner: Tom S. and Kay Hiramatsu TR, 3030 East Coronado
Street, Anaheim, CA 92806-2602
Agent: Phillip Schwartze, PRS Group, 31682 Camino Real, San
Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Location: 3040 East Coronado Street: Property is approximately
0.87-acre, having frontages of 129 feet on the south side of
Coronado Street and is located approximately 207 feet
west of the centerline of Kraemer Place.
Request to permit an outdoor storage yard for a drilling contractor and
accessory service vehicle repair with waiver of required fencing abutting a
residential use.
Project Planner:
(dherrick@anaheim. net)
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Sb. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00183
Owner: Leonard W. Gomez, 2025 Hall Canyon Drive, La
Canada/Flintridge, CA 91011
Agent: Leonard Gomez, 140 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92605
Location: 140 West Ball Road: Property is approximately 0.14-acre,
having frontages of 66 feet on the south side of Ball Road
and is located 233 west of the centerline of Iris Street.
Request reclassification of the subject property from the O-L (Low
Intensity Office) zone to the RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) zone, or a
Tess intense zone to retain an existing single-family home. Project Planner:
Qpramirez@ anah eim. net)
Reclassification Resolution No.
H:\docs\clericallagendas\101606).doc (10/16/06)
Page 4
6a.
6b.
Owner: Helmut Fetter, 2221 East Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA
92806
Agent: .lames M. Hahn, 1037 South Matthew Way, Anaheim, CA
92808
Location: 825 North Euclid Street. Suite D: Property is
approximately 0.69-acre, having frontages of 132 feet on
the west side of Euclid Street and is located approximately
175 feet north of the centerline of Glenoaks Avenue (Kim's
Accupressure).
Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a
condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation, to retain apreviously-
approved accupressure (massage) facility within an existing commercial
retail center.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
7a. CEQA P
7b. CONDI'
(TRACK
Owner:
Agent:
NO.
Lincoln Partnership, P.O. Box 1151, Agoura Hills, CA
91376
Larry Tepper, P.O. Box 1151, Agoura Hills, CA 91376
Location: 3440 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 1.2
acres and is located south of the southeast corner of Knott
Avenue and Lincoln Avenue, having a frontage of 253 feet
on the east side of Knott Avenue.
Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a
condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation, to retain apreviously-
approved stealth ground-mounted telecommunications facility..
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
H:\docs\clerica I\ag a nd as\ 101606 ). d oc
Project Planner:
QnizonQanaheim.net)
Project Planner:
(skoehmQanaheim.oet)
(10/16/06)
Page 5
Sa. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Sb. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00184
8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3020
(TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05136)
8d. VARIANCE NO. 2006-04701
8e. TENTATIVE. PARCEL MAP NO. 2006-221
Owner: East Anaheim Christian Church, 2216 East South Street,
Anaheim, CA 92806
Agent: Craig Kosma, Manning Homes, 20151 Southwest. Birch
Street, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Location: 2216 East South Street: Property is approximately 1.58
acres, and is located at the southeast corner of South
Street and Priscilla Street (East Anaheim Christian Church).
Reclassification No. 2006-00184 -Request reclassification of the
subject property from the T (Transition) zone to the RS-2 (Single-Family
Residential) zone, or a less intense zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006.05136 -Request to amend exhibits
for a previously approved church to subdivide and establish athree-lot
single family residential subdivision.
Variance No. 2006-04701 -Requests waiver of minimum lot width. to
establish a detached single family residential subdivision.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-221 - To establish a 4-lot, 3-unit
detached single family residential subdivision.
Reclassification Resolution No. Pmiect i=tanner
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. GPramin=z@anaheim.net)
Variance Resolution No.
H:\dots\clerical\agendas\101606).doc (10/16/06}
Page 6
9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION' (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED)
9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04412
(TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05131)
Owner: Orange County Water District, Donald Jackson, P.O. Box
8300, Fountain Valley, CA 92728
Agent:. Dan Copp Crushing, Karen Ayers, 1300 North Hancock
Street, Unit B, Anaheim, CA 92807
Location: 1120 North Richfield Road: Property is approximately 6
acres, having a frontage of 650 feet on the east side of
Richfield Road. and is located 1,280 feet south of the
centerline of La Palma Avenue (Dan Copp Crushing
Corporation, Inc.).
Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a
condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain a previously-
approved concrete processing facility.
Project Planner:
' Advertised as Mitigated Negative Declaration (skoehmQanaheim.net)
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05135
Owner: SPK -Stadium Towers LLC, Property Tax Department,
P.O. Box. A-3879, Chicago, Illinois 60690-3879
Agent: Rob Perez, 19752 Mac Arthur Boulevard, Suite 240, Irvine,
CA 92612
Location: 2460 East Katella Avenue: Property is approximately 6.4
acres, and is located at the terminus of Howell Avenue, at
the southwest corner of Katella Avenue and the Orange
(57) Freeway (Stadium Towers).
Request to permit ground-mounted telecommunications facilities
disguised as light poles on an existing parking structure.
Project Planner:
(dherrick aQanaheim.net)
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
H:\dots\clerical\agendas\101606).doc (10/16/06)
Page 7
11 a, CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 Request for
11 b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05141 Continuance to
November 11, 2006
Owner: Byzantine Catholic Bishop, 995 North West. Street,
Anaheim, CA 92801-4305
Agent: John Austin, Trillium Consulting, 5912 Bolsa Avenue, Suite
202, Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Location: 995 North West Street: Property is approximately 2.5
acres, having frontages of 222 feet on the west side of
West Street and is located approximately 597 feet south of
the centerline of La Palma Avenue.
Request to permit a stealth building-mounted telecommunications facility
and accessory ground-mounted equipment in conjunction with an existing
Church facility. Project Planner:
(vnonvood@anaheim.net)
Conditional Use Permit Resolution. No.
12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
12b. VARIANCE NO. 2006-04703
12c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17045
Owner: Calvin Graham, 104 West Tiller Avenue, Anaheim, CA
92802
Agent: Carl Vanderhook, 4109 East Fernwood Avenue, Orange,
CA 92869
Location: 2248 South Loara Street: Property is approximately 0.51-
acre, having frontages of 77 feet on the east side of Loara
Street and is located 710 feet south of the centerline of
Lorane Way.
Variance No. 2006-04703 -Request waivers of (a) minimum required
landscaped setback, and (b) maximum permitted wall length to construct
five (5) attached. single-family residences.
Tentative Tract Map No. 17045 - To establish a 1-lot, 5-unit attached
single-family residential condominium subdivision. Project Planner
(kwong2@anaheim. net)
Variance Resolution No.
Adjourn To Monday, October 30, 2006 at 1:00 P.M. for
Preliminary Plan Review.
H:\dotslclericallagendas\101606).doc (10/16/06)
Page B
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
10:00 a.m. October 13, 2006
(TIME) (DATE)
LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND
(C~ O/U~N~C'jIL1/DISPLAY ~KIO~ SK
SIGNED: /I:lCk,t-~L 'f' Y ~C~.~~ C~Ck-t"1
~'
If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written
correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
RIGHTS OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL FROM PLANNdNG COMMJSSION ACTION
Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use
Permits and Variances wilt be final 22 days after Planning Commission action and any action regarding
Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 days after Planning Commission action unless a timely
appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied
by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk.
The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing
before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing.
ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the Planning Department, (714) 765-5139. Notification no later than 10:00 a.m.
on the Friday before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility to this meeting.
Recorded decision information. is available 24 hours a day by calling the Planning Department's
Automated Telephone System at 714-765-5139.
SCHEDULE
coos
~ October 30 ~
November 13
November 27
December 11
December 27 (Wed)
H:\dotslclerical\agendas1101606).doc (10/16/06 )
Page 9
Item No. 1-~
1 rlvl eU
(CUP:
I
3-54-19
JD. FIRMS
Q
Z
W
U
W
U
I RCL 51-52-3
I RCL 51-52-3 T-CUP 2004-04
RCL 53-54-19
I CUP 2746 CUP 4051
CUP 2409 CUP 2409
STORAGE (CUP 2238)
U.S. SPRINT
I
RCL 72-73-27
SMALL IND.
FIRMS
I
RCL 55-58-12
_L INDUSTRIAL
FIRMS
~ j j I
RCL 5&56-12 ~
C-G I I ( CUP 2076 ,o
RCL 97-98-19 SMALL INDUSTRIAL I ~
RCL 61-62-34 FIRMS i i ' u~i
T-CUP 200fi-65147 I -'
CUP 2002-04570 ---'-~ I RCL 55-56-12 ~
(RCL 54-55-3fiA) I I
(CUP 4038) IND. FIRM
I
m
C-G I
e RCL fi5-fib-52 - m w ~ i (
CUP 3034 N p ?
h
~ j
R I
%
~ SMALL SHOPSB y
.
~
~ COMMERCIAL OFFICES O1O ~, ~ / /
SMALL SHOPS ~ ~ 4~E<: ~ ~4?m
U
I L z
LINCOLN AVENUE
7
°" C'C'
C-G RCL
T T CL 90-91-1 °~rc 63-64-53
taco 5 yAR 662 RCL 64-BS-36 (Res of Inl < CUP 2003
R 462 VAR 3465 Iq.CO) rc~ 04743
VAR 4066 VAR 1621 T
fi
V 'CUP 200
MED. MEDICAL OFFICES RCL 94691
CENTER AN AHEIM PLA ZA 63-64-119 CUP 2001-
REDE LDPMENT AREA 04319
MOTEL
N
~E
N9:
-1O" RCL
~ °z CI
(~j INI
¢ ~
Nm
.-y RCL 75-76.61
I ~,
RCL 55-56-12 O~
~
° a
of cUP tsz<
cuP le2a
~~i
EQUIPMENT ~a ~
N ~~m VAR 2616 0
~~
RENTALS ~ o
U~ CAL. PAC.
r
rc ~
lA9El CO.
T
REST.
VAR 259
C
VAC
CUP 564 W
RS-2 CUP 244 ~
VAR 919 5
1 DU EAC (RCL t-
~ Z
63.fi4-119) a
MOTEL T ~
~
EMBASSY AVENUE VAR 819 a
RM-0 APTS MOTEL W O
Z
N RS-2 RCL 87-88-22
03
RCL
89 ¢
68-
- W
Q N. CUP 2956 RM-0 ~
~ ~ CUP 862 RCL 62-63-75
W ~ N
(1 oe-o v CUP 289
.. .. VAR 819
Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04570
TRACKING NO. 2006-05147
Requested By: ERIK JORDAN
1777 West Lincoln Avenue
1D1sa
Subject Property
Date: October 16, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 46
Attachment -Item No. 1-A
RESOLUTION N0. 2002R-208
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-
04570.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Anaheim did receive an application for a conditional use permit to
permit expansion of an existing legal non-conforming mini market
with retail sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises
consumption upon certain real property located within the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, legally described
as: ~
THE EASTERLY 66.00 FEET OF THE WESTERLY
.132..00 FEET.-0F THE WEST 3 ACRES OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE. SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP
r4 SOUTH, RANGElO WEST, IN THE RANCHO SAN JUAN
CAJON DE SANTA ANA, IN THE .CITY OF ANAHEIM:,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS
SAID SECTION IS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 51, PAGE 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS,
.RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 40 FEET THEREOF AS DEEDED TO -
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY DEED RECORDED JULY
28, 1955 IN BOOK 3155, PAGE 147 OF OFFICIAL
.RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE NORTHERLY 420.00
FEET; :and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission ..did hold a public
hearing upon said application at the City Hall in the City of
Anaheim, notices of which public hearing .were duly given as
required-by law and the .provisions of Title 18, Chapter 18.03 of
the .Anaheim Municipal Code; .and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection,
investigation and studies made by itself and in its behalf and
after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing, did adopt its Resolution No. PC2002-.115 .granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04570; and
WHEREAS, thereafter, within the: time prescribed by law,
the permit applicant caused the .review of said Planning Commission
action at a duly noticed public hearing; .and
WHEREAS, the only reason the applicant seeks review of
the decision of the Planning Commission is with regard to the
condition of approval which provides that "beer shall not be sold
in packages containing less than a six pack" (Condition No. 2 of
Resolution PC2002-115; and
WHEREAS, at the time and place fixed for said public
hearing, the City Council did duly hold and conduct such hearing
and did give all persons interested therein an opportunity to be
heard and did receive evidence and reports; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after careful consi-
deration of the recommendations of the City Planning Commission.
and all evidence and .reports offered at said hearing, that:
1. The proposed use is properly one for which a
conditional use permit is authorized by the Anaheim Municipal
Code.
2. The proposed use will not adversely affect the
adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in
which it is proposed to be located..
3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a
manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace,
health, safety and general welfare.
4. 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.
5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the
conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
WHEREAS, the City Council does further find and
determine with regard to the condition requiring the sale of beer
in packages containing not less than a six pack that:
1. The current business, and the location of the proposed
expansion, is located within Reporting District 1621 which has a
crime rate of 42 percent above average. The Reporting District to
the north is 1521 and has a crime rate of 244 percent above
average. The Reporting District to the south is 1721 and has a
crime rate of 3 percent above average. The Reporting District to
the west is 1620 and has a crime rate of 113 percent above
average. The Reporting District to the east is-1622 and has a
crime rate of 393 percent above average.
Z. The consumption of alcoholic beverages in public is a
major factor in contributing to the high crime rate in the
vicinity of the proposed expansion.
3. The sale of beer by the individual bottle or can
.. _ 2
facilitates, and is a major contributor to, the consumption of
alcoholic beverages in public and among the transient population
in the vicinity of the proposed expansion.
4. Therefore, the sale of beer in individual cans and
bottles. at the location of the proposed expansion wculd be
detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and general
welfare by further contributing to the high crime. rate in the
vicinity..
5. The condition prohibiting the sale of beer and wine
coolers by individual cans or bottles is similar to the
restriction placed upon other similar businesses located in high
crime areas in the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Anaheim that, for the reasons hereinabove stated, the
action of the City Planning Commission granting said conditional
use permit be, and the same is hereby, affirmed and that
Conditional Use Permit No. 20D2-04570 be, and the same is hereby,
granted permitting expansion of an existing legal non-conforming
mini market with retail sale of alcoholic beverages for
off-premises consumption expansion of an existing legal
non-conforming mini market with retail sale of alcoholic beverages
for off-premises consumption on the hereinabove described real
property, subject to the following conditonsi -
1. That the hours of operation shall be limited to:
Sunday through Thursday: 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Friday and Saturday: 7 a.m. to midnight
2. That beer shall not be .sold in packages containing less than
a six (6) pack; and that wine coolers shall not be sold in
packages containing less than a four (4) pack.
3. That no advertising of alcoholic beverages shall be located,
placed or attached to any location outside the building; and that
no such-advertising shall be audible (either inside or outside the
building).
4. That no display of alcoholic beverages shall be located
outside the building or within five (5) feet of any public
entrance to the building.
5. That no alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on the
premises.
6. That the areas of alcoholic beverages display shall not
exceed twenty five (25) percent of the total display area in
mini market..
the.
_._ _ 3
7. That the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to
customers only when the customer is inside the building.
e. That no person under twenty one (21) years of age shall be
permitted to sell alcoholic beverages.
9. That no exterior vending machines .shall be .permitted.
10. That no video, electronic or other amusement devices or games
shall be permitted on the premises.
11. That no roof-mounted balloons or other inflated devices shall
be permitted..
12. That shopping carts shall be stored inside the building and
there shall be no outdoor storage or stacking of shopping carts.
13. That no window .signs shall be permitted.
14. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be maintained
with lighting of sufficient :power to illuminate and make easily
discernable the:appearance and conduct of all persons on or about
the parking lot ...Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and
shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate
adjacent properties. A planshowing said lighting shall be
submitted to the-Community Services Division of the Police
Department for review and approval.
15. That there shall be no public telephones maintained on the
property that are located outside .the building-and within the
control of the. applicant.
16. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an
orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping
maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of "graffiti"
within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence.
17. That all.fixtures, displays, merchandise and other materials
shall beset back a minimum of three {3) feet from all windows.
18. That four (4)
displayed on the r~
the roof material.
adjacent street or
specifically shown
Community Services
foot high street address numbers shall be
Hof of the building in a contrasting color tc
The numbers shall not be visible to the
properties. Said information shall be
on plans submitted for Police Department,
Division, approval.
19. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements
of the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone unless a variance allowing
sign waivers is approved by the Planning Commission or City
Council; and that any new signage shall be subject to review and
approval by the Planning Commission as a "Reports and
_.... _ 4
Recommendations" item.
20. That subject property shall be developed substantially in
accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of
Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the
Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1, and as conditioned
herein.
21. That prior to commencement of any activity authorized by this
resolution or within one (1) year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 14, 15, 17, 18
and 20, above-mentioned shall be complied with.
22. 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.
23. That within one (1) month from the date of this resolution,
all existing "rider signs' attached to the existing pole sign
shall be removed; and that a trash enclosure shall be constructed
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and
Sanitation Division.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council 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
conditions, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or
unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein
contained, shall be deemed null and void.
THE. FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Anaheim this 24th day of September,
2002.
~~
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
Pro Tem.
ATTEST:
~~1
ITY CL K O THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
46675.1
5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, SNERYLL SCHROEDER, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2002R-208 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law,. of
the Anaheim City Council held on the 24th day of September, 2002, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
~f.1_...[ 1 Sr .+ . ~~~
ITY CLER OFT E CITY OF ANAHEIM
(SEAL)
Item No. i-B
T
cuo-»spel
WAHEIM HILLS
UENTA0.Y SCHOOL
ANPHEIM HILLS
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
~~
a
ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE.
Reclassification No. 2003-00109, 2006-00185
Variance No. 20D4-04626
TRACKING NO. VAR 2006-04698
Requested ey: JONATHAN PEARSON, THOMAS HARTLEY
No Address
ioiss
Subject Property
Date: October 16, 2D06
Scale: Graphic
O.S. No. 287
~J
0 2ao noo
Feel
City of Anaheim
l~LA1V1~lING ®EPAR'ff~£1V'I'
October 16, 2006
Jonathan W. Pearson
California Cove Communities,. Inc.
8105 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92618
Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of
October 16, 2006.
1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
B. (a) CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPF
(b) RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00109
(c) VARIANCE NO. 2004-04626
(Tracking Nos. RCL200fi-00185 and VAR2006-04698)
Agent: Jonathan W. Pearson, California Cove Communities, Inc., 8105 Irvine Center
Drive, Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92618
Location: Property is approximately 53-acres with a frontage of 190 feet at the
terminus of Avenida de Santiago, a maximum depth of 2,857 feet and located 260
feet west of the centerline of Pointe Premier.
www.anaheim.nel
Request for retroactive time extension to comply with conditions of approval for apreviously-
approved 28-lot, 21-unit detached single-family subdivision with waiver of required private
street standards.
ACTION: Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to
approve a retroactive time extension to comply with conditions of approval for apreviously-
approved 28-tot, 21-unit detached single-family subdivision with waiver of required private
street standards for Reclassification No. 2003-00109 (Tucking No. RCL2006-00185) and
Variance No. 2004-04626 (Tracking No. VAR2006-04698) and also finding that the
previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration serves as adequate environmental
documentation for this. request for approval of a retroactive time extension to comply with
conditions of approval.
Commisstoner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby approve a retroactive time
extension to comply with conditions of approval for apreviously-approved 28-lot, 21-unit
detached single-family subdivision with waiver of required private street standards for
VAR2004-04626 (Tracking No. VAR2006-04698) and Reclassification No. 2003-00109
(Tracking No. RCL2006-00185) based on the following findings:
(i) That this is the first request for an extension of time and would not extend the
entitlement beyond the two extensions authorized by the Code.
(ii) That there have been no changes to the Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code
that would affect this project. No additional information or changed circumstances
are present which would contradict the facts used to support the required. findings for
approval of this Variance and Reclassification.
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
P.0. Box 3222
Anaheim, California 92803
TEL (714) 765-5139
City of Anaheim
1~LAI~IIVING ®EPARTMENT
wvnv.anaheim.nel
(iii) That the property is being maintained in a safe, clean and aesthetically pleasing
condition with no unremediated code violations on the property, as confirmed by an
inspection. of the property by the Community Preservation Division.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
29o South Anaheim Boulevard
P.O. Bax 3222
Anaheim, California 92803
TEL (714) 7fi5-5739
Attachment -Item No. 1-B
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Community Preservation Division
DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
TO: SCOTT KOEHM, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
FROM: KEN MARSH, COMMUNITY PRESERVATION OFFICER
SUBJECT: IDC INSPECTION FOR THE ROBBER'S PEAK AREA
APN #'S:085-581-38/55/56/58
ADDRESS USED: 6795 E. AVENIDA DE SANTIAGO
VARIANCE #: VAR2004-04626
TRACKING #: VAR2006-04698
On September 6, 2006, I conducted an I.D.C. inspection of the above properties, also referred to
as the Robber's Peak area.
During this inspection I observed that all properties were vacant land with a paved, asphalt road
along the crest of the hill.
There is some minor grading and construction being conducted on the properties.
There were no violations of the Anaheim Municipal Code observed. Due to the properties being
vacant land,. none the Conditions of Approval aze applicable.
There is a chain link fence and open gate, with black scrim, in good condition, on the eastern
portion of the properties.
Please feel free to call me at ext. 4595 if I can be of further assistance.
Ken. Marsh
Community Preservation Officer #1016
mavenida de smriiago 6795 c .doc
Attachment -Item No. 1-B
RESOLUTION N0. 2t1D5 - 185
A RESOLUTION OF THE CTI'Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DEPERMINING THAT THE
ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND
THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE
CHANGED.
WHEREAS, the City Planning. Commission of the City of Anaheim did hold a
public hearing in Reclassification Proceedings No. 2003-00109 to consider an amendment to the
Zoning Map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Cpde, and to consider a change in
the boundaries of the zone or zones hereinafter mentioned and described and, at said hearing, did
receive evidence and reports from persons interested therein and from its staff; and
WHEREAS, within a period of forty (40) days following said hearing, the
Planning Commission did duly adopt a resolution containing a report of its findings, a summary
of the evidence presented at said hearing and approved the proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, thereafter, within the time prescribed by law, an interested party or
the City Council, on its own motion, caused the review of said Planning Commission action; and
WHEREAS, at the time and place fixed for said public hearing, the City Council
did hold and conduct such public hearing and did give all persons interested therein an
opportunity to be heard, and did receive evidence and reports, and did consider the same; .and
WHEREAS, the City Council does find and determine that the Zoning Map
referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code should be amended and that the property
hereinafter described should be excluded from the zone or zones in which it is now situated and
incorporated in the zone and zones as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Anaheim that the City Council does hereby declare and indicate its intention to amend the
Zoning Map of the City of Anaheim and to rezone and reclassify the following described
property, situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, :State of California, to-wit:
BEING A PORTION OF PARCELS 2 AND 3 OF PARCEL MAP 87-252
RECORDED IN 900K 226, PAGES 33 TO 34 OF PARCEL MAPS, OFFICIAL
RECORDS:
PARCEL 1: BEGINNING AT THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF A LINE
SHOWN AS NORTH 89° 59' S1"EAST 862.16 FEET IN THE NORTHERLY
LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE
AND THE BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 3 THE FOLLOWING COURSES:
SOUTH 89' S9' S1': WEST 862.16 FEET, SOUTH 71° 23' 00" WEST 365.96
FEET, 50UTH 10' 28' 37" WEST 359.95 FEET, SOUTH 53' S9' 39" WEST
216.80 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
NORTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 301.75 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY 3.96 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND BOUNDARY
OF SAID PARCEL 3 THROUGH A CENTRAL. ANGLE OF 00' 45' 10";
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARCEL 3 SOUTH 80° 32' 46" EAST
1592.22 FEET, THENCE DEPARTING FROM SAID PARCEL 3 NORTH 53'
21' 02" WEST 85.00 FEET, THENCE NORTH 21' S9' S2" WEST 133.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 80' 31' 21"EAST 67.98 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 75° 02' S9"
EAST 181.04 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF ANON-TANGENT CURVE
CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 43.00 FEET A
RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING OF ANON-TANGENT CURVE
BEARS NORTH 70' 33' 29"EAST; TI~NCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG
SAID CURVE 21.52 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28' 40' OS":
THENCE NORTH 75' 02' S9" WEST 410.60 FEET: THENCE NORTH 14° 45'
77" FAST 616.76 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
PARCEL 2: 'BEGINNING AT THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OR A LLNE
SHOWN AS NORTH 89'59' 51"EAST 861.16 FEET IN THE NORTHERLY
LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3; TI~NCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE
AND THE BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 3 THE FOLLOWING COURSES:
NORTH 56° 41' 03" EAST 1321.72 FEET, SOUTH 12` 2T 04" EAST 731.79
FEET, NORTH 7T 30' S3" CAST 31.17 FEET, SOUTH 68' 49' 19"WEST 11.45
FEET. TO TIC BEGINNING OF A CURVB CONCAVE TO THE
SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 720.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY
22.25 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCI~. 3
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF Ol' 46' 15" TO THE BEGINNING OF A
REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH HAVING A RADIUS OF
55.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID BEGINNING OF REVERSE
CURVE BEARS NORTH 22' S6' S6" WEST: THENCE NORTHWESTERLY
39.63 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 3
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 41' 16' S7" TO THE BEGINNING OF A
REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS
OF 45.00 FEET, A RADIAL'LINE THROUGH SAID BEGINNING OF
REVERSE CURVE BEARS SOUTH 18' 20' Ol" WEST, THENCE WESTERLY
AND SOUTHERLY 111.74 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 142' 16' Ol" TO THE BEGINNING OF A '
NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A
RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET. A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID BEGINNING
OFNON-TANGENT CURVE BEARS SOUTH 32' 00' 08" EAST; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND CONTINUING ALONG
' SAID PARCEL 3 122,85 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10' 03'
19" TO THE BEGINNINGOF AREVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
2
NORTHWEST HAVING A RADIDS OF 700.00 FEET; THENCE.
SOUTHWESTERLY 345.01 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND BOUNDARY
OF SAID PARCEL 3 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28' 14' 21";
THENCE DEPARTING SAID BOUNDARY OF PARCEL 3 ALONG THE
NORTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 SOUTH 29° 25'
13" EAST 853.12 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARCEL 2
NORTH 80' 32' 46" WEST 1087.79 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING FROM
BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL 2 NORTH 53' 21' 02" WEST 85.00 FEET;
THINCE NORTH 21 ° 59' S2" WEST 133.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 80' 31'
21"EAST 67,89 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 75' 02' S9" EAST 181.04 FEET TO
THE BEGINNING OF ANON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE
NORTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 43.00 FEET A RADIAL LINE
TO SAID BEGINNING OF ANON-TANGENT CURVE BARES NORTH 70°
33' 29" EAST: THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 21.52
FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28' 40' OS"; THENCE NORTH 75'
02' S9" WEST 410.60 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14' 45' 17" EAST 616.76 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
into the "RH-2(SC) (Single-Family Hillside Residenflal; Scenic Comdor Overlay) T (SC)
(Transition; ScenidCorridor Overlay) and OS (SC) (Open Space; Scenic Corridor Overlay) "
ZONES of the City of Anaheim, subject to the following conditions:.
L That prior to introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, a preliminary
title report shall be famished to the Planning Services Division showing the legal vesting of title,
a legal description and containing a map of the property.
2. That prior to placement of an ordinance rezoning subject property on an agenda
for City Council consideration, Condition No. 1, above mentioned, shall be completEd. The City
Council may approve or disapprove a zoning ordinance at its discretion. If the ordinance is
disapproved, the procedure set forth in Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.60.140 shall apply.
The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the
Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with within one (1} year from the date.
of this resolution, or such further time as the Planning Commission may gran[.
3. 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 fmdings as to
compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or
requirement.
BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Anaheim does
hereby find and determine that the adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon
applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions. hereinabove set forth. Should any
condition or any part thereof, be declazed invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any
- 3 -
court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall
be deemed null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. that this resolution shall not constitute a rezoning
of, or a commitment by the City to rezone, the subject property; any said rezoning shall require
an ordinance of the City Council which shall be a legislative act which may be approved or
denied by the City Council at is sole discretion.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Anaheim this 13th 17ay of September, 2005, by the fallowing roll call vote:.
AYES: Mayor Pringle, Council Members Hernandez, Sidhu
NOES: Council Members Chavez, Galloway
ABSENT: None
- 4 -
RM 4
RCL 81-82-05
RCL 85-86-09
VAR 3513
OCUP 963
HAMPTON POINT
APARTMENTS
204 DU
I
RCL 60-61-32
VACANT
I
RCL 60.61-32
OPTICAL
LABORATORY
ORANGEWOOD AVE
~-- 338' --a-)
RS-3
RCL 67-68-91
1 DU EA.
u RM-4
E- TTM 17092
rn I RCL 87-88-31
~ - ?CUP 2006-05126,;
m
v VAR 3735
APARTMENTS ~;
~ 132 DU
I
0
x
U
z
(~
RCL 71-72-~
CUP 2046
VAR 3194
COMM.
T
CUP 3606
CUP 2141.
CUP 2043
VAR 3177
CUP 1136
MELROSE ABBY
CEMETERY
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05126
Tentative Tract Map No. 17092
Requested By: SUNRISE FOUNTAINS APARTMENTS LLC
2100 South Lewis Street
PEST CC
eco~
N
<': Subject Property
Date: October 16, 20D6
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 109
10123
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05126
Tentative Tract Map No. 17092
Requested By: SUNRISE FOUNTAINS APARTMENTS LLC
2100 South Lewis Street
v
~~
i
~,
~
~~ j ~
~b~ ~~ ~~~~
~~
1~'~
4
~
~'~ a
hn '
a.
_ ..*',Jih "J
;v
~ .,, [ate IV.
Dale of Aerial Photo:
July 2005
Subject Property
Date: October 16, 2008
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 109
10123
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16. 2006
Item No. 2
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION tmoaon~
2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT (Motion)
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05126 (Resolution)
2d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17092 (READVERTISED) {Motion)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: `<
(1) This irregularly-shaped, 3.63-acre property is located at southeast cornecof Lewis Street
and Orangewood Avenue, having frontages of 418 feet on the east side of Lewis Street and
338 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue (2100 South Lewis Street).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of the following:
(a) Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05126 - to convert a 132-unit apartment complex
into a 132-unit residential condominium planned unit development with modification
to standards under authority of Code .Section Nos. 18.06:030.090, 18.06.160 (PUD),
and .1$.38.100:020 (Conversion of Existing Multiple FamilyStructures)tyith waivers
of the following:
(a) SECTION NO. 18.06.040.010. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit
(1;200 square feet per .unit required;
1152 square feet per unit existing and
prbposed)
(b) SECTION NO. 18.06.090.050 Minimum setbacks between buildings.
30 feet and 15 feet required; 9 and 11
feet proposed)
(c) SECTION NO. 18.06.090.060 Maximum wall length DELETED
(b) Tentative Tract Map No, 17092 - to establish a 1-lot 132 unit airspace attached
single family fesidential condominium.subdivision.
BACKGROUND:
(3) This item was continued from the September 18, 2006, Commission meeting to allowfhe
applicant additional time to coordinate theproposal with staff.
(4) This property is developed with an apartment complex and is zoned RM-4 (Multiple-Family
'Residential)' The Anaheim General Plah desighates his property and properties to the
north for Medium Density Residential land uses. The General Plan designates properties
to the south for Open Space and properties to the west (across Lewis Street) for Low
bensity Residential land uses. The Interstate 5 is located across Manchester Avenue to
the east.
`srcup05126pc 101606 jr
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16. 2006
Item No. 2
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:
(5) Variance No. 3735 (to construct a 1B2-unit, 3 and 4 story "affordable" apartment complex
`'with waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum structural height,
and maximum site coverage) was approved by the Planning Commission on January 18,
1988. This item was appealed to the City Council, and subsequently modified to reduce
the number of units to 131., and eliminate the first and third waivers and the affordability
cgmponent of theproject.> Budding permits issued for the development were for 132 units
- which included a rental office unit.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
(6) The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and tentative tract map to convert a
132-unit apartment complex into a 132-unit residential condominium complex: The site plan
(Exhibit No. 1) and tentative tract map indicate the following site characteristics.:
'*Existing site characteristic as previouslyapproved.
(7) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) and tentative map indicate the following setbacks:
`Existing site characteristic as previously-approved. **Modification to tandards is allowed
in order to achieve good project design, privacy,,ltvability, and compatibility with
surrounding uses..
(8) The site plan further indicates a setback of 9 to 22 feet, between the various buildings on
site. Code requires a minimum of 30 feet. between primary walls and a minimum of 15 feet
between blank walls for two story butldings, There are no changes proposed to the existing
_ fencing on the property.. The site plan. indicates an existing 1 to 7 foot high concrete block
.wall along the south and east property lines (adjacent to the cemetery), and an existing 6
foot high combination block wall with wrought iron located along the perimeter of the site
generally fronting on both Lewis Street and Orangewood Avenue. A portion of this
Page 2
Develo" meet Standards Pro osed Pro ect RM-4 Zone Standards
Site Area ' ' 3.49 ne6acres ` 152,024 s.f. N/A
Number of Dwellin Units 132 dwellin units** 131'vnits maximum
Avera a Land Area er Unit 1',151 s:f.** 1,200 s.f. minimum**
Lot Covers a x53:0% `:55%mazimum'
Avg. Rec/Leisure Area per '
DU ' 237 .f. per untt (31, 355.f.
total ** 200 s.f. per unit (26,400 s.f.
total
Direction Foisting Structural and Code-Required Adjacent Zoning
Landscaped Setbacks :Structural Setbacks
12M-4
North (adjacent to 47-50 feet structural* 20 feet structural (across
Orangewood Avenue) 0-59 feet landscaped*I** 20 feet landscaped Orangewood
Avenue
East 10 feet structural*/** ` 15feet structural - C-G
4 feet iandsca ed*/** 5 feet landsca. ed
West (adjacent to Lewis 20-86 feet structural* 20 feet structural RS-2
Street) 20-65 feetlandscaped* 20 feet landscaped (across Lewis
'`Street)
South (adjacent to 10-19 feetstructural*/** 15 feet structural T
cemete ) ; 5-8 feet landsca ed* 5 feet lahdsca ed
Staff Report to the
.Planning Commission
October 16. 2006
Item No. 2
combination wall and fence encroaches within the front etback area along .Orangewood
Avenue as a`result of the widening of the street in conjunction with Caltrans improvements
to the Interstate 5. Cotle permits fences at a maximum of three feet in height within the
required street setback and a maximum height of six feet within all other required setbacks,
except where a multiplefiamily development abuts asngle-famity,zone, the'wall or fence
may be extended to eight (8) feet in height. 'The existing walls complied with code at the.
time they were constructed.
(9) Vehicular access is provided via an existing tlriveway from Orangewood Avenue leading
:into a surface parkingarea and two driveways on Lewis Street leading intoboth surface
and subterranean parking areas. The site plan and parking plan,(Exhibit No: 2) indicates
325 parking spaces are: available on-site (47;spaces are providetl on the three surface.
ots). Code requires a total of 280 parking spaces based on the requirement of 2.25 spaces
fora 2-bedroom unit (2.25 x 64 units = 144 spaces) and 2 spaces fora 1-bedroom unit (2 x
6t3 units = 136 spaces. of the 325,parking spaces, thirty-three (33) are designated as visitor
spaces. Code requires thirty-three (33) of the spaces oh-site to be designated forguests
.(025 spacea`x 132 units = 33). Although the site contains an excess of parking, many of
the spaces are compact (5 spaces) and/or tandem (98 `spaces) in,design. Code indicates
that for non-residential and multiple-family residential uses, any use or structure that does
not comply with the parking requirements of Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading), but is
otherwise in conformance with this title, shalt be permitted to change to another permitted.
use with thesame or lower parking requirement. Since there is no distinction in parking
raquirements between condominiums and apartments,'the current non-conforming parking
provided may continue with this request.
(10) The floor plans (Exhibit Nos. 3 through 14) indicate single-story units within'six (6) buildings
consisting of living and dining rooms, kitchen, bathroom(s), and outdoor deck and balcony
areas. Only the two-bedroom units have a separate utility/storage area which contains
approximately 100 cubic feet of storage space. The applicant has indicated that storage
areas for the bne-bedroom units would be installed in the parking areas as;approprate
(either above the spaces or in lockers). Individual laundry facilities are provided in each
unit. Modifications to the interior floor plans'are not proposed.
(11) The units are located within six (6), two-story buildings and are summarized as follows:
livability, and compatibility with surrounding uses.
Page 3
r ~ SS .~>3,g 'z a s~
. r^~' -' ./a,~.,~ ~ ~
s a ,~. _
~~~ ~~
~ ~
3 a
~ -
r~
~.. ~.
View of buildings from Lewis Street parking lot
(12) ':Elevation plans (Exhibit No. 15,19) and photographs as depicted above, reflect six, two-
story buildings consisting pink/magenta-colored stucco, with concrete "S"the toditops,
aluminum windows,!and green wrought iron fencing and balconylstairway railing.. No
exterior changes areproposed to the existing buildings.
(13) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates a minimum twenty (20) foot wide landscaped setback
`:adjacent to Lewis Street consisting of 15 existing trees, planter areas and sod. A 24-foot
wide landscaped planter area. containing six (6) existing trees is located along a portion of
the property frontage along Orangewood Avenue. A majoritybf the street frontage contains
ittle or nolandscaping adjacent to the street. The plan shows planter areas surrounding
the surface parking lots as well: The site also contains a landscaped area at the northeast
corner of the property within and around the recreation area. A fourto eight foot wide
'landscaped planter is located along the south and east interior property lines. Code
requires one (1) tree fior every twenty (20) lineal feet of streetfrontage,(17 trees on
Orangewood Avenue and 21 trees on Lewis Street). Staff has included a condition of
approval requiring that final landscape plans be submitted including the requisite number of
rees along each street frontage. With exception of the deviation of code for landscape ,
setbacks; 4he landscape plans comply with Code.
(14) The recreation area plan (Exhibit No. 20) indicates the interior courtyards contain potted
plants, fountains, and are finished with grey concrete. The recreation area at the northeast
comer of the property contains a basketball half court, sandbox and play area; as well as a
trellis-covered picnic area. The site also contains a pool area with associated
:clubhouse/community room foCtenant use. Changes to these facilities are not proposed..
(15) California Government Code Section 66427.1 contains specific requirements for approval
of a final map for a subdivision created from the conversion of residential real property into
__ a condominium project. California Government. Code Section 66427.1 reads as follows:
"(a) Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project...has received, pursuant fo
Section 66452.9, written notification of intention to convert at least 60 days prior to the filing
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16. 200fi
Item No. 2
of a tentative map pursuant to Section 66452. There shall be a further finding that each
such tenant, and each person applying for the rental of a unit in such residential real
prperty, has, or will have, received all applicablenotices and rights now or hereafter
'required by this chapter or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 66451). In addition, a
finding shall be made hat eachtenant has received 10 days'. written notification that an
application for a public report will be, orhas been, submitted to the Department of Real
Estates and that such report will be available on request. The written notices to tenants
required by this subdivision shall be deemed satisfied if such notices comply. with the legal
,requirements forservice by mail
(b) Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project..: has been, or will be, given
written notification within 10 days of approval of a final map for the proposed conversion.
(c) Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project... has been, or will be, given
180 days': written notice of intention fo convert prior to termination of tenancy due to the
:conversion or proposed conversion. The. provisions of this subdivision shall not alter or
abridge the. rights or obligations of the parties in performance of their covenants, including,
but not limited to, the provision of services, payment of rent or the obligations imposed by
Sections 1941, 1941.1;,and 1941:2 of the Civil Code. r
(d) Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project.,. has been, or will be, given
notice of an`exclusive right to contract for the purchase of his or her respective unit upon
the same terms and dondtions that such unit will be initially offered to the: general. public or
terms more favorable fo the tenant. The right shall run for a period of not less than 90 days
from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report pursuant to Section 11018.2 of
the Business and Professions Code, unless the tenant gives prior written notice of his or
> her intention not to exercise the,right.
(e) This section shall not diminish, limit or expand, other than as provided herein, the
authority of any city,; county, or city and county to approve or disapprove condominium
.projects.'
The applicant has indicated that written notification of intention to convert the apartments to
condominiums has been provided at least 60 days prior to the filing of a tentative map
(Tenants notified: on March 7, 2006; application filed on August 1, 2006). 'Thus far, the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with applicable Government Code sections
.;.pertaining to condominium conversions. The additional requirements set forth above for
tenant notification prior. to filing of,a public report with the Department of Real Estate, and
.noticing requirements for the final map and termination of tenancy, as well as the exclusive
right of the tenants to contract for the purchase of his or her respective unit would be
included as conditions of approval on the tentative map. The applicant has also provided a
relocation plan including assistance/reimbursement for residents who do not purchase their
respective units (see attached letter).
(16) In the project summary, the applicant has indicated. that all the common areas (interior
' courtyards, parking areas;pool and picnic areas, children's playground and basketball
court areas and common walkways would be maintained by the Homeowners Association
{HOA). The responsibility for on-site management would potentially be transferred: to a
professional condominium association management company to work with the HOA for
--~ maintenance and daily upkeep of the property.
Page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16. 2006
.Item No. 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(17) 'Staff has reviewed theproposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review
in the Planning Department) and finds nosignificant environmental impact and, therefore,
recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by he Planning
Commission that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead
agency; andrthat it has considered the,proposed Negative Declaration together with any
comments received during the public review;process and further finding on the basis of the
Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the.
project will have a significant effect on the environment.
'EVALUATION:
(18) The conversion of existing multiple-familystructures to condominiums brother common
interest development_is permittetl in the RM-4 Zone subject to the approval of a conditional
use permit. A tentative tract map is required for the subdivision of airspace for
condominium purposes.
(19) .Although the development currently exceeds the density set forth in the General Plan l36
dwelling units per acre allowed; 38 dwelling units existing), State Law prohibits the City
from using the density identified ih the General Plan as a basis for denial of condominium
conversions which'consist dEtne subdivision df airspace in an existing structure,. as
indicated below:
"66427.2. Applicability to conversions
.Unless applicable general orspecific plans contain definite objectives and policies,
specifically directed to the conversion of existing buildings into condominium projects pr
stock cooperatives, the provisions df Sections 86473.5 (Findings: consistency with general
and specific plans], 66474 (Findings: grdunds for denial [includes consistency with General
PIanJJ, and 66474.61 (Findings grounds for map denial (includes consistency with General
.PIanJJ, and subdivision (cJ of Section 66474.60 (Pertaining to waste discharge) shall not
`.apply to condominium projects or stock cooperatives; which consist of the subdivision of
'airspace in an existing structure, unless new units are to be constructed or added."
Since the City does not have any policies'in the Generat Plan related to the conversion of
'' apartments to condominiums, the above-specified sections of the Subdivision Map Act to
deny the subdivision canndtbe applied to this project.
Page 6
~ ~ Y
~„~"~r.:, et ~r
:,:~ z ..}rte
y~~
/~
~~
~.
`
`
3
_~~~
~
r t,?,:.,
~.
ubject property
~t area per dwelling, unit. Code requires a minimum lot
3 unit. The site is developed with a minimum area of
the lot area per dwelling unit requirement is within the
lirectly related to density tlesighated by the General
usly, State Law prohibits cities from denying a request
existing structure due to inconsistency with the
sd density). Since specified sections of the
9ivision cannot be applied to this project, the
lard would, indirectly raise the same issue and
of this waives
(21) :Waiver (b) pertains to the minimum required setbacks between buildings.<Code requires a
minimum structural and landscaped setback. of thirty (30) feet between two story high
primary walls and fifteen (15) between two story high secondary and blank walls of
buildings. The existing site contains building separations that vary considerably, but at their
closest point range from nine (9) o eleven (11) feet. Staff surveyed nearby and
surrounding ipropertiesand identified an apartment complex across Orangewood that
contains similar building separations (ranging between ten and fifteen feet) foryarious wall
types. Since the strict applicationbf the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges
:enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification ih the vicinity, staff
recommends aoorovafof this waiver, as requested.
(22) Waiver (c) pertains to maximum wall length.: This waiver has been deleted,: as this section
of he Code has been modified and no longer limits the maximum wall length,!therefore
"staff recommends denial of this waiverbecause it is no longer necessary.
(23) :Modification to development standards, including minimum lot width, minimum floor area,
: maximum site coverage, setbacks, and minimum size of recreational-leisure areas are
_ allowed in order to achieve a good project design, privacy, livability, and compatibility with
surrounding uses as outlined in Code Section 18.06.160. Before the Planning Commission
approves these modifications, it shall make the following findings:
Page 7
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16. 2006
Item No. 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16. 2006
Item No. 2
enhancements (minimum number of code required trees and the addition of landscaping to
create a layered look) to the existing landscaping along Orangewood Avenue; the property
would meet. the intent of this setback'requirement along this street frontage by providing
landscaping in a lush manner to enhance the project from the. public street. Staff believes
that the modification to the setbacks along the interior. property lines would .not negatively
impact adjacent uses. The motlification of standard forthe unit size only applies to four (4)
of the sixty-eight (68) one-bedroom units, and the deviation is ohly 12 percent. Since these
Chits were constructed as originally approved, and since this modification from the Code
'allowed under the Plahned lJnit Development portion of the code would not affect the
livabilitybf the developmeht,staff recommends approval of themodificatiohs, as
cohditionedl
(25) Based upon. review of the project with the requested modification of standards and waivers,
and taking into account. the limitations on the density provisions based on the Subdivision
Map Act,'the site would_comply with the intent of the General Plan and underlying Zoning
`Code. 'Therefore the development is suitable for conversion from an existing multiple family
apartment complex to asingle-family attached condominium development.
(26) Goal 4.1 of the Community Design Element of the General Plan reads as follows:
"Multiple-family housing is attractively designed and scaled to complement the
neighborhood and provides visual interest through varied architectural detailing."
Several policies are indicated in order to implement this goal. In summary,the design
policies include the following:
o Reduce the visual impact of large-scale, multiple-familybuildings by requiring
articulated entry features,. such as attractiveporches, and detailed fapade treatments,
which create visual interest and give each unit more personalized design.
Discourage visually monotonous, multiple-family residences by incorporating different
architectural styles, a variety of roof-lines, wall articulation, balconies; window
treatments, and varied colors and building materials on'alt elevations:
m Require appropriate setbacks antl height limits to provide privacywhere multiple-
family housing is developed adjacent to single family housing.
Reduce the visual impact of parking ereas by utilizing interior courtyard garages,
parking structures, subterranean lots, or tuck-under, alley-loaded designs. -
Require minimum lot size criteria in the Zoning°Code to encourage professional,
respohsible, on-site property management.
a .Provide usable common open space amenities. Commonopen space should be
centrally located and contain amenities such as seating, shade and play equipment.
Private open space may include courtyards, balconies, patios, terraces and enclosed
play areas.
o Provide convenient pedestrian access from multiple-family development to nearby
commercial centers, schools, and transit stops. ;'
o Where passible, underground or screen utilities. and utility equipment or locate and
size them to be as inconspicuous as possible.
(27) Several of the design features indicated in the Desigh Element are already incorporated
_ .into the existing apartment complex. Examples include reducing the visual impact of
.parking areas by utilizing interioroourtyard garages, parking structures, subterrahean loss,
octuck-under, alley-loaded designs; providing usable common openapace amenities with
seating, shade and play equipment; and where possible, underground. or screen utilities
Page 9
.Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16. 2006
Item No. 2
and utilityequipment orlocate and size them to be as inconspicuous as possible. Staff has
discussed with the applicant the need oprovide enhancements to the,property to further
implement the policies above and achieve a good project designed topreserve and
enhance the neighborhood in a manner that is compatible in scale, mass and bulk with
existing buildings in the areaand consistent with the design. guidelines for the area. These
enhancements may include detailed fagade treatments (shutters and surrounds on the
windows and doors), and varied colors on the building wall planes to enhance articulation,
enhancement of common open space amenities such as additional permanent seating and
shade structures and additional landscaping to make the pool and park area more inviting.
Existing utility equipment (such as gas meters and backflow,devices) should be painted
and screened with landscaping where possible. The applicant has indicated a willingness
to enhance the property in manner consistent with recehtly approved condominium
conversions {see attached letter).
(28) :Staff has included conditions of approval relating toJandscape installation and
maihtenance. Detailed final elevation and Iahdscape plans are required for final review and
approval by the Planning Commission prier to issuance of building permits to ensure that
upgrades to the complex are implemented. Staff believes the proposed conversion is
compatible with existing and surrounding land uses,(multiple;familydnd single family
7esidences) and that modificatonslupgrades proposed for thebuildings would enhance the
visual .impact of the property,and livability for residents within and around the. project.
(2g) Although the project is not a housing opportunity site, the proposed project would provide
for ownership housing and contribute to the City's :Housing Element goals by improving
existing housing and adding to the variety of housing opportunities already found within the
City. The General Plan designates this property for Medium Derisity Residential land uses
-::and implementation of this project would be consistent with that designation.
FINDINGS:
(30) When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from strict enforcement of the
Zoning Code, a modification may be,granted for the purpose of assuring that no property,
because of special circumstances applicable to it, shall be deprived of privileges commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The sole purpose of any
variance,or code waiver is to prevent discrimination: and none shall be approved which
.would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared. by other similar properties.
.:.Therefore, before any variance or code waiver is granted by the Planning Commission, it
shall be shown:
(a) That there are special circumstances applicable to theproperty such as size, shape,
topography, location or surrountlings, which do not apply to other identically zoned
properties iri the vicinity; and
(b) That strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the`property df privileges enjoyed
by other, properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
x(31) Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding
of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
__ (a) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is
authorized'by the Zoning Code, pr is an unlisted use as defined in Subsection .030
'(Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approved Authority);
Page 10
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16. 2006
Item No. 2
(b) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth
.and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
(c) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed: use±n a manner not detrimental to the particular area
oEto the health and safety;
(d) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden
upon the streets and. highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the
area; and
je) That the granting of the conditional use permit undecthe conditions imposed, will not
be detrimental to the health and safety pf the citizens ofthe City of Anaheim.
(32) Before the Planning Commission approves a conditional use permit to convert existing
multiple-family dwellings to a condominium or other common interest development, it shall
make the fdllowing findings:
(a) That the project complies with the General Plan, including the Land Use Element;
(b) That the existing structures and other improvements conform to the site
.development standards for the underlying zone or any applicable specific plan.
(c) That the existing structures and other improvements are in compliance with the
Uniform Building Code and other applicable codes as adopted,by the City of
:Anaheim;
(d) Thaf the vehicular and pedestrian access are adequate; `'
(e) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use are adequate to allow full
development. of the proposal in a manner not detrimental to the particular area;
(f) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden
upon the streets and highways desighed and improved td carry the traffic in the
area;,and
`(g) :That granting the conditional use permit under he conditions imposed, if any, will
-not be detrimental #o the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of
ithe City of Anaheim.
(33) "The State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, Section 66473:5) makes it mandatory
to include in all motions. approving, or recommehding approval of a tract map, a specific
finding that the proposed Subdivision together with its design and improvement is
consistent with the City's General Plan.
Further, the law requires that the Commission make any of the following findings when
' denying or recommending denial. of a tract map:
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable General and Specific
Plans.
2. .That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable General and Specific Plans.
Page 11
.Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16. 2006
Item No. 2
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems.
7. :That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision."'
RECOMMENDATION:
(34) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received tluring the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Planning Commission, including
the evidence presented in this staff repprt,' and oral and written evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, approve a Negative Declaration fpF the project.
(b) By motion, approve waivers (a) pertaining to minimum lot area per dwelling unit. and
(b) pertaining to minimum required setbacks between buildings and denv waiver (c)
pertaining to maximum wall length based on the findings contained in the attached
resolution.
(c) By resolution; approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05126 to convert a 132-unit
:apartment complex into a 132-unit residential condominium complex by adopting the
.attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained therein.
(d) By motion,. approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17092 to establish a 1-lot, 132 unit
attached single family residential condominium subdivision based upon the attached
conditions of approval and the findings that the :design and improvement of the site is
physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed development and
because State Law prohibits the City from using the density identified in the General
Plan as a basis for denial of condominium conversions which consist of the r
subdivision of airspace in an existing structure:
Page 12
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006-`**
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-051.26 BE GRANTED
(2100 SOUTH LEWIS STREET)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional
Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described as:
PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 43, PAGE 15 OF PARCEL MAPS, JN THE OFFICE
OF THE. COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED
1N BOOK 43, PAGE 15 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAID COUNTY, LYING NORTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF ORANGEWOOD
AVENUE WITH THE CENTERLINE OF LEWIS STREET AS SHOWN. ON SAID .PARCEL
MAP; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID LEWIS STREET,(65, FEET WIDE)
SOUTH. 00° 25' - 50" EAST, 87:55 FEET; THENCE AT .RIGHT.. ANGLES OF .SAID
CENTERLINE NORTH 89° 34' 10" EAST 20.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE WESTERLYiINE
OF SAID PARCEL 1, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE THROUGH
SAID PARCEL 1 THE FOLLOWING COURSES:
(1) NORTH 89° 34' 10":EAST, 25.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 22.00 FEET; FROM WHICH A RADIAL LINE OF
SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 89° 34' LO" EAST; THENCE;
(2) NORTHERLY, NORTHEASTERLY AND .EASTERLY 35.06 FEET. ALONG SAID CURVE
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 91 ° 18' 21"; THENCE
(3) TANGENT TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 89° 0T 29" EAST 149.11. FEET; THENCE
(4) NORTH-0° 52'31"EAST, 1.25 FEET; THENCE
(5) SOUTH 89°.0729" EAST, 168.69 FEET; THENCE
(6) SOUTH 0° 52' 31"WEST, 1.25 FEET; THENCE
(7) SOUTH 89° 07' 29" EAST, 50.37 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF
SAID PARCEL 1; AND THE HEREIN-DESCRIBED LINE THERE TERMINATING...
WHEREAS; the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on September 18,2006, 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 far and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and that said public hearing. item was
continued to the October 16, 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 proposed request to convert a 132-unit apartment complex into a 132-unit
residential condominium planned unit development with modification to standards is permitted in the RM-4
Zone as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) subject to the approval of a conditional use permit under
authority of Code Section .Nos. 18.06.030.090, 18.06.160 (PUD), and 18.38.100.020 (Conversion of Existing
Multiple Family Structures) with waivers of the following:
Cr1PC2006- -1- PC2006-
(a) SECTION NO. iB.06.040.010. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit
(1.200 square feet per unit required; 1
square feet per unit existing and proposed)
(b) SECTION NO. 18.06.090.050 Minimum setbacks between buildings.
30 feet and 1_5 feet required; 9 and 11 feet
proposed)
jc) SECTION NO. 18.06.090.060 Maximum wall length DELETED
2. That waiver (a) pertaining to the minimum lot areaper dwelling unit is hereby approved
because although the lot area per dwelling unit requirement is within the Zoning Code, it is a standard that is
an implementation of the density designated by the General Plan for this site. State Law prohibits cities from
denying a request for an airspace subdivision within an existing structure due to inconsistency with the
General Plan (in this case; the allowed density of 36 dwelling units per acre; 38 dwelling units existing and
proposed)). Since specified sectibns df the Subdivision Map Act td deny the subdivision cannot be applied to
this project, the application of this development standard would, in effect apply the Subdivision Map Act
section that is prohibited.
3. That waiver (b) pertaining to the minimum required setbacks between buildings is hereby
approved as the existing site contains building separations that vary considerably. An apartment complex
across Orangewood contains similar building separations for various wall types and the strict application of
the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by this other property under identical zoning
classification in the vicinity.
4. That waiver (c) pertaining to maximum wall length is hereby denied because this section of
the Code has been modified and this waiver is no longer required.
5. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and
development of the area because the apartment complex is existing, and no expansion or increase of units is
proposed. The proposed conversion would be compatible with existing and surrounding land uses and
modifications and upgrades proposed to the buildings would enhance the visual impact of the property on
surrounding properties and livability for residehts within the project In addition, this proposal as conditioned
is consistent with other recently approved condominiumsubdivisions.
6. That the requested setback modification along Orangewood Avenue is justified in this case
because a large portion of the setback area exceeds the minimum 20 feet required. With enhancements
along Orangewood Avenue, the property wduld meet the intent. of this setback requirement along this street
by providing landscaping in a lush manner The modification of standard: for the unit size only applies to four
(4) of one-bedroom units, and would not have a significant impact on the quality of the project. These units
were constructed as originally approved, and this modification from the Code allowed under the Planned Unit
Development portion of the code would. not affect the livability of the development
7. That based upon review of the project with the requested modification of standards and
waivers, and taking into account the limitations on the density provisions based on the Subdivision Map Act,
the site would comply with the intent of the General Plan and underlying Zoning Code, making. the
development suitable for conversion from an existing multiple family apartment complex to asingle-family
attached condominium development.
8. That the existing structures and other improvements are in compliance with the Uniform
Building Code and gther applicable codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
9. That the proposed conversion would not create any new units or additional. square footage
....and. therefore would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area
in which it is proposed because the size and shape of the site for the project has been adequate for the full
development of the existing use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area.
_p_ PC2006-
10. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the project already
exists. with 132 dwelling units (as previously approved). No increase in the number of units is proposed.
11 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.
12. 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 grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the
health and safety of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1. That final landscape and hardscape plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review
and approval as a "Reports and Recommendations" item. The landscape plan shall incorporate
layered landscaping within the street setbacks along Orangewood Avenue and Lewis Street and
clinging vines, shrubs and groundcover adjacent to all block walls visible from the public right of way.
Plans shall reflect the following:
• Common open space amenities enhanced with permanent seating and decorative shade
structures and additional landscaping to make the pool area and picnic area more inviting.
o 'Existing utility equipment (gas meters and backflow device) shall be painted and screened with
landscaping where possible.
• All landscaped planters shall be enhanced with the use of stacked stone or other decorative
material.
• Exterior solid walls shall be enhanced with the use of stacked stone or other decorative material.
• The installation of landscaped planters within the courtyard areas between the buildings.
2. That all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be fully
screened by architectural devices andlor appropriate building materials. Said information shall be
specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
3. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion. by providing regular landscape
maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time
of discovery.
4. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the approval and recordation of Tentative Tract
Map No. 1.7092, now pending.
5. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed,
damaged, diseased andlor dead.
-3- PC2006-
6. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense. That
landscape and/or hardscape screening of all pad-mounted equipment shall be required and shall be
shown on plans submitted for building permits.
7. That a written Solid Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department,
Streets and Sanitation Division. Said program shall include a detailed, scaled site plan showing the
storage and collection areas and the location of any trash enclosure with enclosure details drawings,
and truck access.
8, That any new backflow equipment shall be located above ground. outside of the street setback area in
a manner fully screened. from all public streets. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault
shall be brought up to current standards. Existing large water system equipment shall be fully
screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be shown on plans and approved by
Water Engineering and Cross. Connection Control Inspector before submittal for building permits.
9. That if this site does not already have a separate irrigation meter, a separate irrigation meter shall be
installed and shall comply with City Ordinance No. 5349 and Chapter 10.19 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code. Said information shall be showr on plans submitted for building permits,
10. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Services Standards
Specifications. Any water service andlor fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if
cdntinued use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The
owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line.
11. That final detailed elevation plans and colors and materials shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for Planning Commission review and approval as a "Reports and Recommendations" item.
Plans shall reflect detailed facade treatments (shutters and surrounds on the. windows and doors), and
varied colors on the building wall planes to enhance articulation of the building. Plans should also
provide stone veneer wainscoting for portions of the building around the pool, interior courtyard and
areas visible to the public right-of-way. In addition, a natural stone surface shall be provided within the
interior courtyard and pool areas in place of the existing gray concrete.
12. That the Home Owners Association (HOA) shall have the responsibility to maintain the building
exteriors and use of the property for residential development. All common facilities such as recreational
areas, parking areas, community buildings and landscaping, as well as the general appearance of the
premises and buildings, shall be adequately and professionally maintained. .
13. That a minimum of 100 cubic feet of storage area shall be provided for each unit. This information
shall be specifically indicated on plans submitted for building permits.
14. That the applicant shall submit a plan to reduce the visibility of satellite dishes serving the individual
units. The plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Services Division prior to issuance
of building permits. -
15. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning
Department marked Exhibit Nos: 1 through 20, 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, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with
Section 18.60.190 of the Anaheim Municipal.
_ 17. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 10 and 15, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with..
_4_ PC2006-
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 requirement.
19. 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
development.
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
alt 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 Wulf 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
October 16, 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 October 16, 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
_6_ PC2006-
City of Anaheim
I9LANIVIIVG I~EPAI~TIVlEI~1T
October 16, 2006
Sunrise Fountains Apartments, LLC
1380 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim. CA 92805
Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of
October 16, 2006.
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05126
2d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17092 (READVERTISED)
Owner. Sunrise Fountains_Apartments, LLC, 1380 South Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805
vnvveanaheim.net
Agent: David Nix, Newport Capital Advisors, 1400 Quail Street, Suite 280,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Location: 2100 South Lewis Street: Property is approximately 3.63 acres and is
located at the southeast corner of Lewis Street and Orangewood
Avenue.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05126 - Request to convert a 132-unit apartment
complex into a 132-unit residential condominium complex with waivers of (a) minimum
.lot area per dwelling unit, (b) minimum setbacks between buildings, and (c) maximum
wall length.
Tentative Tract Map No. 17092 -To establish a 1-lot, 132-unit airspace attached
single-family residential condominium subdivision.
ACTION: Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to
establish a 1-lot, 132-unit airspace attached single-family residential condominium
subdivision and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon a finding that the
.:declaration reflects he independent judgment pf the lead agency; and that it has considered
the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and comments received that there
is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed
tentative map, including its design and improvements, is consistent with the Anaheim General
Plan, and does therefore aoorove Tentative Tract Map No. 17092, to establish a 1-lot, 132-
.unit airspace attached. single-family residential condominium subdivision based. on the finding
that the design and improvement of the site is physically suitable for the type and density of
the proposed development and because State Law prohibits the City from using the density
identified in the General Plan as a basis for denial of condominium conversions which consist
of the subdivision of airspace in an existing structure, subject to the following conditions:
200 South Anaheim Boulevartl.
P.O. Box 3222
Anaheim, California 92883
TEL (714)765-5139
1. That the final map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and the
Orange County Surveyor and then shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County
Recorder (Subdivision Map Act, Section 66499.40).
2. The vehicular access rights to Lewis Street and Orangewood Avenue, except at the
driveway openings,. shall be released and relinquished to the City of Anaheim.
3. That prior to final map approval, a maintenance covenant, shall be submitted to the
Subdivision Section and approved by the City Attorney's office. The covenant shall include
provisions for maintenance of private facilities and a maintenance exhibit. The covenant
shall be recorded concurrenlly with the final map.
4. That approval of this parcel map is granted subject to the approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2006-05126, now pending.
5. That CC&R's recorded on the property shall include provisions requiring the following:
• That assigned. parking shall be maintained' for vehicle parking in compliance with
code.
• That guest spaces shall only be used as such and will be clearly designated at all
times.
• That balconylpatio areas shall not be used far storage.
• Overall general maintenance of the property.
6. That the subdivider shall submit evidence to the Public Works Department, Subdivision
Section that all requirements of Section. 66427.1 of the Subdivision Map Act, pertaining
to condominium conversions, have been met, including the following:
• That each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project will receive 10 days'
written notification that an application for a publicYeport will be submitted to the
Department of Real Estate, and that such report will be available on request. The
written notices to tenants required shall be deemed satisfied if such notices comply
with the legal requirements for service by mail
• That each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project will be given written
`notification within 10 days of approval of a final. map for the proposed conversion.
• That each of the tenants df the propdsed condominium project will be given 180
days' written notice of intention to convert prior to termination of tenancy due to this
conversioh: The provisions of this subdivision shall not alter or abridge the rights or
obligations of the parties in performance of their covenants, including, but not limited
to, the provision of services, payment of rent or the obligations imposed by Sections
1941, 1941.1, and 1941.2 of the Civil Code.'
• ` That each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project will be given notice of
an exclusive right to contract for the purchase of his or her respective unit upon the
same terms and conditions that such unit will be initially offered to the general public
or terms more favorable to the tenant. The right shall run for a period of not less
than 90 days from the date of issuance of the. subdivision public report pursuant to
Section 11018.2 of the Business and Professions Code, unless the tenant gives
prior written notice of his or her intention not to exercise the right.
-- - 7. That prior to final map approval, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, above-mentioned, shall
be complied with.
8. 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.
9. 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 MunicipaP Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant
progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
TTM17092_Excerpt
Attachment -Item No. 2
PETITIONER'S. STATEMENT OF
IUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER
(NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER)
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: /E%,D~, l'Y6'. L'S 'I`7/NJroturol 5['aA~~7lb!v_~e'Tatl~~l~l
d (A separate statem nt is required for each Code waiver) ~,ul t..br rvc-$
PERTAINING TO: try/~ISC ~ttlJTitlnJ.( /if~~YivleN'rt- ~cniDervllNli.tM ~'aAiliFR,lloiJ
Sections 18.03.040.030 and ] 8.12.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Cade require that before any variance or Code waiver may be
granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, the following shall be shown:
That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and
2. That, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges.
enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
In order to detennine 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 soueht, fully
and as completely as possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages.
Are there special circumstances that apply to the property in matters such az size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings? _ Yes ~ No.
If your answer is "Yes;' describe the special circumstances:
2. Are the special' circumstances that apply to the pro erty different from other properties in the vicinity which are in the
same zone as your property? _ Yes _ No , ~ /1k , f;,~,z.E
If your answer is "yes," describe how the property is different: ~tCaE Nt,4~f t.~ C 6,77~-C; 2
iN T7sr V/GIN rYV lai~rr.F-r'1.1-E SAME 7nnr. i/! d-,.tA .~"t,f~i~riR ~
3. Do the special circumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring
properties located within the same zone? _Yes ,~LNo
If your answer if "yes," describe the special circumstances:
4. Were the special circumstances. created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property
owners)? ~ Yes _ No
EXPLAIN: IiGE A i7i;-LtkEd
The sole purpose of any variance or Code waiver shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance or Code waiver shall be
approved which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone
which/'s no[ expres/sly authorized by zone regulations governing subject property. Use variances are not permitted.
` f~'Z C.t~- '~- ~ 1---r ~' a-(c to ~,
Sign~tgre of Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE NO.
J7625iDECEMBER 12, 2000
Jusrificmion Waiver. dot
Attachment -Item. No. 2
PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF
JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE/CODE WAIVER
(NOT REQUIRED FOR PARKING WAIVER)
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: / ~ • ~ ~ • ®`~ D L0 ~ ~ ~--E
i (A swarate statement is required for each Code waiver)
PERTAINING TO; SUN i2/ SE f'aunl7fl ~ N d /a PH /Z~~vtL NT ~ /-nN(IOnvN/H.~~c ~~i~ •~.~
Sections 18.03.040,030 end 18.12.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code require that before any variance or Code waiver maybe
granted by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission,. the following. shall be shown:
1, That there are special circumstances applicable to the property,. including size,. shape, topography, location or
surroundings, which do not apply to other properly under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and
2. That, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges
enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
In order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to
arrive at a decision, please answer each of the following questions regarding. the property for which a variance is sought, fully
end as completely as possible. If you need additional space, you may attach additional pages,
1. Are there special circumstances that apply to the property in matters such es size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings? _ Yes ~ No.
If your answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstances:
2. Are the special circumstances that apply to the properly different from other properties in the vicinity which ere in the
same zone es your property? _ Yes - No _K P/ ~'/ fµ K E
If your answer is "yes," describe how the property is different:~~12.~ M/1`~ g~ a'~Ea-- p~oPE~Q-T~1
.. _ _ . . -.. ..._ _ .w ..~ _.. ... _ .. . i•.w , w n Leer dO,
3. Do the special circumstances applicable to the property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring
properties located within the same zone? Yes ~C No
If your answer if "yes," describe the special circumstances:
4. Were the special circumstances created by causes beyond the control of the property owner (or previous property
owners)? ~ Yes _ No
EXPLAIN: ~Eti f1 ?7'A-U+~,D
The sole purpose of any variance or Code waiver shall be to prevent. discrimination, and no variance or Code waiver shall be
appro d which. would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone
which no~ rwrs expr ssly au orized by zone regulations governing subject p~ arty. Use variances are not permitted.
~d ~ ~
Si atiu of Properly Owner or Authorized Agent . D to
~Ad t ~ W • AI t x --~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE NO.
37625~DECP.MB6R 12, 20D0
oN
S
]usaacation Waiva. dot
Conditional Use Permit and Variance Application -Sunrise Fountains Apartments
Petitioner's Statement of Justi£eation For Variance/Code Waiver of Sec. 18.06.040
October 6, 2006
The Sunrise Fountains Apartment project was approved by the Anaheim City Council
(Resolution NO. 88R-150) on April 12, 1988. The project was built according to the
City's Building Code (as evidenced by Building Deparhnent approvals on file at the City)
and construction was completed in 1989.
Sunrise Fountains complied with density, minimum lot size, separation betweenbuildings
and open space/yazd areas requirements in force by the City at the time the project was .
built and approved by the Building Department. On September 14,.1995 the owner of
Sunrise Fountains signed a grant deed to transfer to the City of Anaheim 9,787 squaze
feet of land along the property's northern boundary for a CalTrans-related use. This
transfer resulted in a decrease in the property's net acreage from 3.7146 acres to 3.49
acres. Prior to such transfer the minimum lot azea per dwelling. unit was 1,225.84 sf per
unit. Following such transfer, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit decreased to
1,151.7 squaze feet per unit.
A Conditional Use Permit is being sought by the owner of Sunrise Fountains Apartments
in order to convert the project from for-rent apartments to far-sale condominiums. Such a
conversion is not a chance in use, merely a change in ownership structure. Accordingly,
the applicant requests that the City grant a waiver of code section 18.06.040.
Attachment -Item No. 2
Relocation Assistance Plan
Sunrise Fountains
2104 Lewis Street
Anaheim, CA
The Owner -Sunrise Fountains Apartments LLC -will provide the following relocation
assistance to those residents who choose not to purchase a Sunrise Fountains
condominium. Owner's offer to provide Relocation Assistance does not apply to any
resident remaining. in their unit beyond the term of their lease. In order to make the
relocation process as smooth as possible, the Owner will designate an individual to act in
the capacity of "Relocation Coordinator". The Relocation Coordinator will be the
primary contact point for Sunrise Fountains residents requiring relocation assistance.
1. The Owner owns and/or manages a number of apartment communities in Southern
California totaling 933 apartments units (excluding Sunrise Fountains). The
communities are listed in Exhibit I.
For those Sunrise Fountains residents choosing to relocate to any of the above
properties, the Owner will provide the following assistance:
a) Owner will provide a moving company at Owner's expense to move residents
from Sunrise Fountains to any of the Owner's projects listed on Exhibit I that
are still owned or managed by Owner at the time of the resident's move,
excluding. the cost to package individual items.
b) Owner will pay for utility transfer costs
c) Owner will waive lease application fee
d) Owner will transfer security deposit to new property
2. The Owner will provide all residents with a list of comparable rental properties
within the Sunrise Fountains competitive market area. Such list will identify those
properties with facilities that meet the special needs of residents with disabilities,
special transportation requirements, pets, etc. The Owner will contact comparable
properties on behalf of those residents requesting relocation assistance to determine
unit availability and price.
3. On a case-by-case basis, the Owner will consider special assistance for those
residents with children enrolled in grades K-12 for whom expiration of tenancy
prior to the end of the current school year becomes a hardship due to
commencement of sales or issuance of the final public report by the DRE.
~ Subject to return of resident's unit in reasonable condition.
Sunrise Fountains
Relocation Assistance Plan
Page 2 of 3
4. The Owner will reimburse residents required to move because of commencement of
sales or issuance of the final public report by the DRE for their actual and necessary
moving expenses, not to exceed the costs to move a typical unit to a comparable
unit within the City of Anaheim, based on the lowest of three written estimates
obtained from licensed moving companies. Alternatively, the Owner will provide a
moving service at Owner's expense to move qualifying residents to another unit
within the City of Anaheim: In either case, such moving services will not include
packing individual items unless the Relocation Coordinator agrees. that such
resident is not physically capable of packing themselves. This reimbursement offer
will not apply to those residents who received an express written notice of Owner's
intent to convert at the time a lease was signed.
Sunrise Fountains
Relocation Assistance Plan
Page 3 of 3
Exhibit I
Relocation Properties
As of Oct. 9, 2006
No: of
PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS CITY ZIP Units
French Quarter Apartments 2001 s. Haster_______ Anaheim s2so1 152
1767 W. Sumac Lane .
1767 W. Sumac Lane Anaheim 92804 18
1557-1563 W. BaIP Road 7557-1563 W. Ball Road Anaheim 92802 16
196 W. Guinida Lane 196 W. Guinida Lane Anaheim 92805 _ 16
216 W. Guinida Lane 216 W. Guinida Lane Anaheim 92805 12
1125-1131 N, Onondaga 11255_1131. N. onondagp_ Anaheim 92801 _ _ 12
309-315 Palais Road. 309-315 Palais Road Anaheim 92605 12
8850 Pacific Avenue 8850 Pacific Avenue _ Anaheim 92804 9 _
331 E. Leatrice Lane 331 E. Leatrice Lane Anaheim 92802 8
528 N. Pauline 528 N. Pauline Anaheim 92805 8
321 W. Palais Road 321 W. PalaisRoad__ Anaheim 92805 _ 6 _
128 E. Wakefield 128 E. Wakefield Anaheim 92802 7
9461. Houston AVe. 9461 Houston Ave. Anaheim 92801 4
1314 S. Iris 1314 S. Ids Anaheim ~ 92805 4
436 W. Orangewood 436 W. Oran eg wood___ Anaheim 92802 4____
206 E. Wakefield Ave. 205 E. Wakefield Ave. Anaheim 92802 4 __ _.
341 & 345 5. Walnut _341 8 345 5. walnut _ Brea 92821 _ 8 _ __
8232 C.ahfOmla St. 8232 California SL Buena Park 90621 20
2331 West AVe. 2331 West Ave. Fullerton 92833 4
Garden 82841 15
12911 Galway _12911 Galway._ __ Grove _ __ _ __
Garden 92842 8
12702 SUnBwept 12702 Sunswept Grove
-
---
Garden gp841 6
11102 Barclay Drive 11102 Barclay Drive __ Grove
129 & 139 W. Wilson Orange 92867 18
129 & 139 W. Wilson Ave. Ave.
Villa Marseilles Apartments 3to1 s. Bristol Santa Ana 92704 193
1316 Civic Center West 7316 Civic Center Wesl Santa Ana 92703 14
1417 $ 1419 N. Bush St. 1417 8 1419 N. Bush St. Santa Ana 92707
-- 4
10532 Court St. 10532 Court St. Stanton 90680 4
Holiday West Apartments 7012 Main SI. __ _ Westminster 92683 _ 88_
Mediterranean Apartments:
_
_ 11555 Santa certrudes _Wniwer _
--- - sofioa 257
_..__ 933
Attachment -Item No. 2
Sunrise Fountain Apartments, LLC
c/o Consenys Property Management
1380 S. Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
October 11, 2006
Mr. John Ramirez.
City of Anaheim
Planning Department
Planning Services Division
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805
RE: Sunrise Fountains Apartments -Proposed enhancements
Dear John:
Sunrise Fountains Apartments, LLC -the applicant for the Sunrise Fountains
condominium conversion - is willing to provide the following enhancements to the
subject property prior to the sale of any condominium unit:
o New paint on building exteriors with complementary/contrasting colors
o New shutters added to windows, where feasible
o New decorative light fixtures on building exteriors
o New trellises along large stucco walls
o New address number panels on each building
o New paint on wrought iron railings
o New decorative columns on staircase landings
o Surface parking lot entrances refinished with stamped concrete decorative
treatment
o New decorative concrete treatment on pool area deck
o New shrubs to screen gas. meters and backflow devices
o Planter boxes with flowering shrubs in interior courtyards
o Pool area to include new lounge chairs, covered seating area and new barbecue
grill
To assist staff and the Planning Commission in their evaluation of such improvements,
we have enclosed digitally-enhanced photos of the proposed exterior improvements.
The owner also will consider improvements to the interior of the units based on an
evaluation of condominium purchasing patterns in the Anaheim area nearer the time
'" ` "` when an application is submitted to the California Department of Real Estate for a final
Mr. John Ramirez
City of Anaheim
October I1, 2006
Page 2 of 2
public report. As part of that process, the owner will engage a condominium sales and
marketing organization to recommend interior improvements such as the following:
Replace countertops
Replace AC/forced air units
® Replace dishwashers
® Replace flooring
New interior paint
a Replace plumbing and lighting fixtures
® Replace door and window hardware
Replace/add mirrors
Replace the/vinyl
The owner will evaluate the consultant's recommendations and then decide which
features should be incorporated into the condominiums based on buyer preferences.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Sincerely,
David W. Nix
Agent for Sunrise Fountains Apartments, LLC
DWN/mmi
cc: Rick Rodriguez
Item No. 3
~~'~%
.w
°~®ea)-
q-t
2524
1
ME5
.P 94-1
G~ 66 6.24
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05139
Requested By: WALDEN C TOWNSEND TR
2840 East Coronado Street
ARMS
~~~
~~
~ai3s
\Srq ~
\~~F
OPT
~GpG~6B~
. I
Subject Property
Date: October 16, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 132
0:
July 2005
Conditional Use Permit No. 2D06-05139
Requested By: WALDEN C TOWNSEND TR
Subject Property
Date: October 16, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 132
2840 East Coronado Street
70139
.Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. 3
PROPOSAL:
(5) .The site plan. (Exhibit No. 1) indicates the proposed outdoor vehicle impound area would be
located in the rear portion of the property. There is an existing 34 foot wide access gate on
the side #hat would keep the impound yard secure:. The existing ten (10) foot high. wrought
iron gate along the side of the building is designated to screen and secure materials, and
separate storage and unloading from customer parking areas: The six (6) rear parking
spaces are designated for employee parking. This gate would remaih open during business
hours during the unloading of delivery vehicles and securely locked after business hours.
(6) Vehicular access to the site would be provided via two (2) driveways from Coronado Street
as shown bythe aerialphotograph located above:The first tlrivewaycan only access 15
parking spaces to the front ofahe existing industrial tilt up building. The second driveway
provides access to the front parking spaces and the rear ofahe property where the
proposed impound yard and remaining 6 spaces parking spaces are located.. There is an
existing six (6) foot high chain link fence with barbed wire on top surrouhding the perimeter
of the proposed impound yard: The site plan also indicates a total of 21 parking spaces
available on-site. Code requires 18 spaces based bn the following chart:
' f '
a ~Use~~ ~~~~" ^ Are>s~)~ Y ~ `Cd~eR
u*3d ~
~ "S2 3 m:
~
~ ~~~'arkirtQ
"
y `z ~' r 'i r=.r iS ' S i ~ s zsc;, c m,! r
,
P
O
~
f " ,~ 7
~'i3~ u
i
'
n .v .~~ . w _ .: ,,t-~
~~~,~_~ .
ps
1U
~ ~rklr~ erg . ,.,s
~ iref
~.. ,-
896 1.55' 1:3 <
Office 64 4.0 02
Warehouse ` 8,000 1.55 12.4
Outdoor Stora a 10,488 0.4 4.1
10,488 Outdoor.
Buildin Total 8,9601ndoor 18
First 10 percent of office areais.parked at the industrial ratio.
(7) !The proposed floor plan (Exhibit No. 2) indicates warehouse, indoor vehicle storage, and
office uses. The floor plan further reflects one large roll up door on the east side of the
::building.
(8) 'Photographs indicate that the existing industrial building is a one-story tilt up building with a
!blue awning located on the front elevation. No modifications'are proposed to the existing
building.
(9) ;Sign plans were not submitted with this request and no changes to existing signage are
proposed'Staff inspections indicate one existing wall sign as seen in the following
!,photograph advertising the existing business which complies with the current Zoning Code
;:regulations.
Sr-CUP2006-05t 39jkn 'Page 2 '.
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
' Item No. 3
~ r ;~ ~ ~~
r
~r wfr'' ~
//t i
z L 1;
~ r`~
~~ ~~, ~.
.nt~s
,...~h~, f~~
~. u
~ S
' 1 n
Tow truck stored in i Access Gate
Dorking area
.View of property from Coronado Avenue
(10) The submitted letter of operation indicates the business as an existing towing service with a
proposaLfor vehicle impound. The hours of operation for the tpw service is 24 hours a day,
seven days a week. The business office operates Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to
5:00 pm, with three (3) employees at thesite at anytime duringpusiness hours. The letter
of;operation further indicates the only use df the outdoor area is for storage of impounded
vehicles. It is anticipated that the business will be servicing lodal government agencies in
the community. Repair, painting or work on the vehicles would not be conducted on the
property.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:`
(11) The Planning Director's authorized representative has determined that the proposed project
'falls within tfie definition of Categorical Exemptions; Section''15301, Class 1 `(Existing
facilities); as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is, therefore, exempt from the
:requirements to prepare additional environmental documehtatian.
EVALUATION:
{12) Towing services with an outdoor vehicle impound yard is permitted in the SP94-1 DA1 zone
subject. to the approval of a conditional use permit. The existing operation. of a towing
dispatch facility is a-permitted use within the zone.
(13) Code Section 18.38.200 pertaining to outdoor storage includes the following stipulations:
".010 Screening. Thestorage area shall be surrounded on all sides by a substantial solid
'and opaque fence or wall at least six (6) feet in height as set forth in Section 18.46.110
(Screening; Fences, Walls andNedges), unless otherwise specified in the underlying zone
or unless a higher fence is required or approved,by the City..; All stored equipment or
material shall be located belowthe fence height. The wall or fence shall6e kept in a clean,
heat andpainted condition, free of graffdi.'The desigh and the materials used for the fence
or wall shall comply. with the. provision of Section 18.40.150,(Structural Setbacks and
Yards) of Chapter 18.40 (General Development Standards) unless provided otherwise in
`this section."
The outdoor storage area would be screened by the existing 8 to 10 foot high walls at the
rear of the property, and a ten foot high wrought iroh'fence/gate: Staff has included a
condition of approval limiting the height of the storage to the height df the fence and further
>requiring that screening be installed on the gate and maintained in good. condition.
° 020 Location. Outdoor storage shall not be located in any required setback area It shall
be confined fo the rear of the main structure(s) or the rear two-thirds of the sde, whichever
sr-cuP2oos-os~asjkn Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. 3
is the more restrictive except as maybe permitted under conditional use permit for Outdoor
Storage Yards. When it is located adjacent to residential zones, it shall be at least ftteen
{15) feet from the property line:"
The outdoor storage. area is not within any setback areas and is at the rear portion of the
property behind the existing buildings. There are no residential zones abutting this site.
"030 Gates. All gates for access to the property shall swing inwardly dr slide sideways.
The gates shall be kept closed. when noon use except that the gate maybe kept open
`during business hours if the interior or contents of the storage. yard cannot be seen from
<non-industrial areas: or public streets. `The gates shall be subject to approval by the City
Traffic and Transportation Managers
.`Access to the outdoor storage portion of the property would tie through gates that slide
inward or slide sideways. The gates would be locked and secure except during business
hours and during loading/unloading of impounded vehicles.
"'.040 Surface Conditions. The storage area shall be properly graded and a'layer of gravel
at least one-ihch thick or a layer of concrete or approved asphalt material or similar..
substance shall be placed over the entire urface dr as approved by City staff.. Additional
'limftatidnsmay be imposed if vehicles such as trucks or forklifts are regularly used in this
area."
The surface of the entire storage area consists of asphalt that has been recently re-
surtaced: A recommended condition of approval included in the draft resolution requires
continued maintenance df the surface areas.
".050 Maintenance..: The sidrage area shall be kept free and clear of weeds and debris of
all kinds; both inside and outside the fence or wall -Any grafFti shall be removed within
.forty-eight hours of occurrence."
Staff has recommended the standard mantenance`conditionspertaining to outdoor storage
in the attached resolution.
".060 Height of Storage. All outdoor storage shall be below the height of the enclosing
'`fence or wall "
The applicant will be responsible for ensuring that the height of the outdoor storage does
not exceed the height of the perimeter fencing as required by Code.
".070 Vehicles.. All vehicles shall be parked orstored in an orderly manner"
The applicant has indicated that all impounded and running vehicles would be parked
within designated. spaces and no storage would be within these spaces:
"A80 Liquids. All gasoline, oil or otherliquids shall be drained and removed from any
'unregistered vehicle located h the storage area." ',
Staff has recommended the standard maintenance'conditions pertaining to outdoor storage I
and the removal of any liquids from the impounded. vehicles in the attached resolution.
° 090 Salvage ,Yard. No storage shall take place in such a fashion that it constitutes a
junkyard or salvage yard unless a junkyard or salvage yard has been approved as a use on
he parcel."
: This request for outdoor storage is exclusively for the storage of impounded vehicles. No
other equipment or materials would be stored in outdoor areas and no junkyard or salvage
operations would be conducted on the property.
sr-cuPZOds-os~3sJkn Page4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006.
Item No. 3
{14) Community Preservation records indicate there are no open code violations pertaining to
this property.
(15) The request to permit a vehicle impound yard in conjunction with an existing towing
company is compatible with the neighboring industrial uses. Adequate parking is provided
on-site and the facility will be screened from public view along Coronado Street. Because
the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Code, and because the site and area is
industrially zoned, staff is supportive of the request subject to the recommended conditions.
of approval
FINDINGS:
(16) 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 does 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 is adequate to allow the full development of
he use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area onto the health and
safety;
(d) That the traffic generated by the use does not impose an undue burden upon the
treets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
(e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if
any, will not be detrimental to the 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, aoorove a CEQA Categorical Exemption -Class 1 (Existing Facilities)
fior the project.
(b) By resolution, aoorove Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05139 to permit a
vehicle impoundyard in conjunction with an existing towing company by adopting
the attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained therein.
Sr-CUP2005-05139jkn Page 5
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006--*
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05139 BE GRANTED
(2840 EAST CORONADO STREET-AMERICAN ALL STAR TOWING)
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:
LOT 5 OF TRACT 65019, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 318, PAGES 21 AND
22 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAID ORANGE COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on October 16, 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 4o 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 request to permit a vehicle impound yard in conjunction with an existing
towing company use. is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal
Code Section 16.120.050.050.0544.
2 That the use does 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 surrounding land uses are developed
with similar industrial land uses;
3. That the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area
4. That the traffic generated by the use does not impose an undue burden upon the streets and
highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
5. 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.
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: The Planning Director or her
authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical
Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and is,
therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does
hereby grant.: subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the
health and safety of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
Cr\PC2006-0 -1- PC2006-
1. That the gates on-site shall be open and unlocked during business hours during the loading/unloading
of product delivery vehicles and securely locked after business hours. The gate and perimeter fencing
for the impound area shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 18.38 of the zoning code
pertaining to screening of outdoor uses.
2. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of
regular landscaping and fence maintenance, asphalt repair, removal of trash and debris, and removal.
of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of discovery.
3. That barbed wire or razor wire shall not be visible in any direction to any non-industrially zoned
property or the public right-of-way.
4. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage use.
5. That all gasoline, oil, or other liquids shall be drained and removed from any unregistered vehicle
located in the storage impounded vehicles area
6. That any loading and unloading of vehicles shall occur on-site only, and shall not take place in any
required parking area or within the public right-of-way.
7. That washing of vehicles or equipment shall not occur on the property.
8. That the outdoor storage shall be limited to the impounding of vehicles as indicated in the submitted
letter of operation. No other outdoor storage shall be permitted and the property shall not be used for
a salvage, dismantling or junkyard.
9. That the height of the outdoorstorage shall not exceed the height of the perimeter fencing as required
by code.
10. That an on-site trash truck turn around area shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 476 or
an approved alternative, which. shall be shown on plans as required by the Department of Public Works,
Sanitation Division. Said information shall be specifically shown. on plans submitted for Public Works
Department, Streets and Sanitation Division approval.
11. That trash storage areas shall. be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works
Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said
Department. Said 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 areasshall be protected from
graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on
maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted
for Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division approval
12. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the
Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval
13. That the address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily readable from the street. Numbers
should be illuminated during hours of darkness.
14. That 4-foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof of the Building in a contrasting color to
the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties.
Said. information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police Department. approval.
i5. That adequate lighting of parking lots, shipping and receiving areas, driveways, 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
-2- PG2006-
on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all
persons, property, and vehicles on-site.
16. That an Emergency Listing Card, Form APD-281 must be filed with the Police Department, available at
the Police Department front counter
17. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning
Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 2, and as conditioned herein.
18. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized by this permit, or within a period of one (1) year,
whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section
18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal.
19. That prior to commencement of the impound operation, Condition Nos. 16 and 17 above-mentioned, shall
be complied with.
20. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it
complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal
regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
21. That 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.
development.
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 commencement of the activity, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shalt result in
delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
October 16, 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, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-3- 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 October 16, 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 COMMfSSION
-4- PC2006-
Item No. 4
~VPR °y3T
A
m yA ~
`2 ~~~
i~
Ca
\rv~F\Rid~
DP1
A SP 94-1
it RCL 68-69-37 (12)
~ i RCL 68-69-36
m ~> SMALL IND.
~ j' FIRM6
' BLDG
°'
N~ \ND ~
SP 94-1
a ~ RCL 68-69-37 (12)
s n ~ N RCL 68-69-36
1:ym y,q ~ SMALL IND.
zx`b ~> O FIRMS RCL 68-6&3fi. RC~~~
°~P ? y RCL 68-69-37 COR~
~~
®o
e _
®
,o
\ 9 ~
5 a ~A7
i ~loM 1
pc~`
~ 94'1 fi
e~~~T° ~<fi
o~~a6121
)
7
~ ~
9 ~
~O
L70-
a Ml
\
~t \n\~OE 0
~ N
l
a
(Res. of Int. to ML)
CUP2006-05137
CUP2001-04394
CUP 1595
RGRG&g8-63g 3y ~ DA 1
~ ~ ~~ 207 , ~\
12y
SP g~
7P 6
~ 6 .6;
R SUP
pORND
SP g b2'69 Q)
81
RG~
of \n\' ~
lRet'M\-1 G
>Z~g 1601 VJ PS l~ ((\
VJE
G
P
~~\DN 1
VPGPNT ~~
~ Q
~1 G
1
"` ®m \ Rv`C,UP ~.. • E - Ri.~UP .3qo 4
j~~T ®~
U 1DU
g6 ~
EL
P
E G
-
P
1D
S
`( `. RG\-6
p 29gZ
-
o
~tER \ EN`)
1
DP SM
RO\P\-
R
\
. RD GG SHOPS
DP
mAA ~
N f f 9
o m ~ m o
46~--6g.
^o w `~~ DA 6B 5OF f0
-`-~~ SC~6B 59-1 ~
~ pe RG P6 59_10
ls° ~
111`i
10 R
VP~?' ~ e\ oA1 R
~ S~SLRIW- RG\"UP 161A
G
f
-
~oj~ai l3 Qa`j0T\ NURSERY q1 ~\ \NDFDpS EDPO
°-i~
~l7 M
g65l Area
1RM
66-59'~~f
68.6`y3g36\(F
C\P
5&69 M°\
AIP
NaNh ~~
G\. 7 .
TO
~ ede
R OP'137 1111.
SP g41 R RG~g 59-30..
Dp137 1111
RGL66-Bbg.36 M VPG eq.1
F\R 5 O
GI
11
HE\M Fy
\p\O
GPRME` Pg37 11
ND~F\R\'h
RDRD~B~g
Pp1P
EPSS GENSER
O\S ' 1
SP 9 ~
11
8
Pg-373 \
p g4.1
NPS
P94"1 \
61
\ S 6
~
6
RRGL 66.69" P\RO
GOB S
~ DL fi8~g6?36\
GL 66-
~ R
\RN`
.
DPy 3111
P`L\Ep eloPmsp g4l R~N ~RM FSUPREME m ~a9°.611-6g RG~56
~ R .,0361 <c
R
\ND F
GRG~6-6g 36 SP gy1 7y VPGPNS 1 \
SoP~~ fi RRG D68.6gSMp O iyGC6BP-6g 59'f36V PGPN"G
TPM 2bg.3T l51 R
R~i-~Bfi°'9225
Conditional Use Permit. No. 2006-05137
Requested ey: TOM HIRAMATSU TR
KAY HIRAMATSU
3040 East Coronado Street
10138
RC156"6 \ND, \ RR\
sMP\RMS p ~
U- ,/V
6P 9q1 IV
~~~ .~;_
Subject Property
Date: October 16, 2005
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 140
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. 4
4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2006-05137 (Motion for Continuance)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
{1) This rectangularly-shaped 0.87-acre property has a frontage of 129 feet on the south side
of Coronado Street and. a maximum depth of 310 feet and is located approximately 207 feet
west of the centerline of Kraemerplace (3040 East Coronado Street).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit under authority of Code
Section Nos. 18.38.200 and 18.1.20.050.0135 to permit an outdoor storage yard for a
drilling contractor and accessory service vehicle repair with waiver of the following:
(a) SECTION NO. 18.46.110.020 Required fencing abutting a residential
use
8-foot high block wall required adjacent
to a residential use;. 6-foot high chain
`link fence existing.
BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is currently developed with asingle-family residence and an outdoor storage
area, and is zoned SP94-1, DA-1 (Northeast Area Specific Plan, Development Area 1 -
Industrial Area). The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Industrial land
uses. The surrounding General Plan land use designations for properties in all directions
are also for Industrial land uses.
(4) The applicant, Phi Schwartz, has submitted the attached letter dated September 26, 2006,
requesting a continuance to the December 11, 2006, meeting in order for the applicant to
prepare a Water Quality Management Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
(5) .:That the Commission by motion, continue this item to the December 11, 2006, Planning
Commission meeting.
Page 1
Attachment -Item No. 4
From: Phillip Schwartze [mailto:phillip@prsgrp.biz]
Sentr Tuesday, September 26, 2006 11:33 AM
To: Della Herrick
Cc: Tom Mulrooney; kevin.cbi@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Continuance
Della:
Please continue the Contractors Storage Yard Conditional Use Permit 2006-05137 so that we
may prepare a Water Quality Management Plan.
Please continue our hearing. till the meeting of Dec. 11, 2006
Phillip R. Schwartze agent for
California Boring -
Item No.
~ o
9~ CD
2 N
m
a
~C~S'-y72 ° o
GUP 3549 N o
CUP X151 n °o
VPR34 8 O w
OG N
O v
PNPN RN
TEM m
m N
r <m S
CPI.
M E
>
=
~ ~ o
N z SP Tp1-
GENT
CON pSpITP~ N
O O R GUP 256
UP
mA figbb55 MEDIGES
Gl 98 1C
OFF
1
(n U X662
RG169.61-98
GU 5~y.10 1-23
µGl6 b
s
RC~90 ~"VPR 3'n
~.
21
R
RG x.161 P
c c-0,39
51 5
N
ii 24 DU 0
RGl.6p
56-61 {yG1.53.5 49
VS PUSS
66
Fn 0 X1.96 G.G 651 RG1
~ 10
fi16 RE SU
C
p
RG
5
6
9
aGl S?~s,651 Ua O
]
1
~
6
6t
/
\/oN AVENUE
Gl.1FF -;bn.'I
sH°E c
THE ANAHEIM
RESORT
W
ut
~ NO 1
F- of
t4 Fmy
O ~3
2
W
U
BALL ROAD I
~I66'I®-233'-+~{ S
o-L ~ / m
n RS-2 - RCL ~ n~ C-G.
K ~ ~ 1 DU m )-68-2 RS-2 o CUP 3959 ~
UP 98 i DU EACH ao
° 1pU F o° VAR 2613 2
W oa ° ~ Y
W rvy a. °um ii+ m F
K
RS-2 '~ ~ Kc w' ~~ 4+.p ~ ~
1 DU EACH N o O
d m
MARGATE DRIVE m
G
o-L aG
RCL 2006-00163 RCL 53-54-13 O
RS-2 CUP 3959
RCL 67$6-33 (4) ~ j DU EACH CUP 266fi
' CUP 2647 CUP 1544
VAR 2675 VAR 375
rx W ADJ 0093
(RCL 64-66-20) a Z PCN 9601
1 DU ~ H SHOPPING
_ HILL AVE ~ > CENTER
RS-2
1 DU EACH
Reclassification No. 2006-00183
Requested By: LEONARD W. GOMEZ
140 West Ball Road
10142
HILL PL
Subject Property
Date: October 16, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 86
Reclassification No. 2006-00183
Requested By: LEONARD W. GOMEZ
140 West Ball Road
~~ ~,~
~~
~~., N
DatebfAerial Photo:
July 2005
Subject Property
Date: October 18, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
O.S. No. 86
io~a2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
.Item No. 5
Sa. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion)
`5b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00183 (Resolution)
81TEtOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) Thisb.l4-acre, regtangularly-shaped property has. a frontage of 66 feet an the south side of
Ball Road,'a maximum depth 94 feet, and is located 233 west of the centerline of Iris Street
(140 West Ball Road).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests to reclassify the property from the D-L (Low Intensity Office) zone to the.
RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) zone, or less intense zone to retain an existing single family
home.
BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is developed with a converted single family home that was developed with a
former insurance office and is zoned O-L (Low'Intensity Office), and is Iooated in the Merged
Redevelopment Project Area. The Anaheim GeneraLPlan designates this property and
properties to the south, west and east for Low Density Residentialiand uses,'and properties to
the:north forlnstitutional land uses.
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:
(4) The following zoning action pertains to this property:
(a) Variance No. 2675 (to waive permitted uses to establish a photography studio) was
approved;by the Planning Commission on February 19, 1975 fora period of two (2)
years. This permit has expired.
(b) Conditional Use Permit No. 2847 (to permit an office use in a residentialstructure) was
approved by the Planning Commission on January 7, 1985. This permit is no longer
necessary.
:DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
(5) The applicant is requesting reclassification of theproperty from. the 0-Leone to the RS-2 zone
to retain an existing single family home. The applicant has indicated that the former office
would be converted. back to a single family home and the property would be sold as such.
RCL20060183 PC101606
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(6) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review in
he Planning Department) and finds no significant environmentalimpact and, therefore,
recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning
Commission that the Negative Declaration reflects the independentjudgment of the lead
.'..agency; and that it has considered theprdposed Negative Declaration together with any
comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the
Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect on the environment.
EVALUATION: P
(7) The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Low Density Residential land uses; with
a density range of 0 to 6,5 dwelling units per acre. The applicant. proposes a reclassification of
.the property from the 0-L zone to the RS-2 zone to retain an existing single familyhome. The
use of the property as a residence would be compatible with the existing residential
neighborhoods to he south and west (detached single family homes zoned RS-2) and
`.consistent with the Lowbensity Residential .land use designation forthe site.
(8) Detached single family residences are permitted in the RS-2 zone. Since the reclassification
vuould implement the General Plan land use designation, the site'complies with the
development standards for single family residences in the RS-2 zone and the zoning would be
cdmpatible with surrounding zones and. land uses, staff recommends approval of this
reclassification.
RECOMMENDATION:
(g) Staff recommends that, unless additional occontrary 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
Planhing Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, approve a Negative Declaration for the project.
(b) By resolution, approve Reclassification No. 2006-00183 to reclassify the prdpery
from the O-L zone to the RS-2 zone, by adopting the attached resolution including
the findings and conditions cdntained therein.
Page 2
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006--*"
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00183 BE GRANTED
(140 WEST BALL ROAD)
WHEREAS,. the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified petition for
Reclassification for real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described as follows:
LOT 52 OF TRACT NO. 2090, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 61, PAGES 38 AND 39 OF
MISCELLANEOUS 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 October 16, 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 reclassification and to investigate and make findings and
recommendations in connection therewith; and that said
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 proposes reclassification of subject property from the O-L (Low Intensity
Office) zone to the RS-2 (Single-Family Residential).
2 That the Anaheim General Plan designates this. property and the properties to the south, west,
and east for Low Density Residential land uses. The RS-2 zone is a typical implementation zone for this land
use designation and the proposed reclassification would implement the General Plan land use designation for
this property.
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary and/or desirable for the
orderly and proper development of the community.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly relate to the zones and their
permitted uses locally established in close proximity to the south and west to subject property and to the zones
and their permitted uses generally established throughout the community.....
5. That `"* indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that
the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative
Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the
basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby
approve the subject Petition for Reclassification to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map of the Anaheim
Municipal Code to exclude the above-described property from the O-L (Low Intensity Office) zone to the RS-2
(Sirigle-Family Residential) zone, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary.
CR\PC2006- -1- PC2006-
prerequisite to the proposed use of subject property in order to preserve the health and safety of the Citizens of
the City of Anaheim:
1. That prior to introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, a preliminary title report shall be
furnished to the Planning Services Division showing the legal vesting of title, a legal description and
containing a map of the property.
2. That prior to placement of an ordinance rezoning subject property on an agenda for City Council
consideration, Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be completed.. The City Council may approve or
disapprove a zoning ordinance at its discretion. If the ordinance is disapproved, the procedure set forth in
Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.60.140 shall apply. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution
shall become null and void by action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with
within one (1) year from the date of this resolution, or such. further time as the Planning Commission may
grant.
3. .That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed. request only to the extent that it
complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal
regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request
regarding any other applicable ordinance,. regulation or requirement.
4. 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
development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall not constitute a rezoning of, or a
commitment by the City to rezone, the subject property; any such rezoning shall require an ordinance of the City
Council, which shall be a legislative act, which may be approved or denied by the City Council at its sole
discretion.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 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 conditions, or any part thereof, be declared. invalid or
unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any
approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that 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. 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
October 16,2006. 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
CHAfRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-2- 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
October t6, 2006, by the fallowing vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
2006.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-3- PC2006-
3:
¢U<
u) W
K~
O
1
RM-4
l I I I I I I aM L ~UOR Y5 J
FRANCIS DR
c-G
~ p d RM-0 ° p RCL 56-57-61
~ ~ °o RCL 56-57-61 ~ ~ SMALL COMM.
~ 3DUEACH SHOPS
RM-0
RCL RM-0 ~ RM-4 C~
1-65-98 RCL 59-60-22 RCL 63fi4-13
J3 169 4 DU 4 DU R
R
5
3 DU VA
159
THRIFT STORE
CATALPA AVE
RM-0
RCL fi6E9-62
VAR 2045
fib DU
RM-0
RCL 57-58-52 ~ ~
~.
CUP 485
tIIDTOVJNHOUSESZ
®
W
t~ RM-0 ®
'
"
' Q
2
~ RCL 57-SB-52
CUP 485
70WNHOUSES ~I'
~I(I
~I
~' K
C__1.1_L3--I Q
LL
GREENLEAF AVE
RM-4
TOWNHOUSES
C-G
RCL 53-54-fi
CUP 1600
CUP 778
54-55-19
LIQUOR
~-
RS-2
1' qU EACH
RS-:
70l
C-G RLL ]<
RLL 5359-104 RCL S&
RLL 535427 RCL 53
MIXED RETAIN VAR
OFFICE USE 2[
CATALPA DRIVE
c-G ' cup 4144
RCL 7677-39 CUP 3]29:
4:UP 2966-051
3
'
- f- C-G
3
CUP 2193
, W RCL 56-59.164
CUP29W-04767 GLENOAK m W RCL 53-54-27
CUP 2992-04553 „,p~~,
~ CUP 2629
-CUP 2997-04307 SMALL
41
7
' CUP 1426
-
CUP
5', $HOPB - ~ REST
.
tom--226'
~
C-G J C-G
3
RCL 57-SB-52 uo V RCUP
32B7
CUP.1487 ~ ~ VAR 4109
VACANT.. W
OgKS ~
_
AVENUE T
T
RM-3
RCL 5354-2]
VAR 1914
APTS.
SDU
z
~a
RI
¢a 56-5
`~ RCL 5
$~m V-•
iv°ii `mm
'
m
,
i,~K
RM-0
RCL 69-99-60
RCL 53-54-27
CUP 3268
m C-G
4 z y C-G CUP 3576
~ 3 O CL 57-58-5 CUP 754 C~ CUP 3728
~ O O RCL 59-60-8
F- _ VAR 2444 RCL 5354-27 CUP 1929
L ADJ 9082
5M. COMM. SHOPS & OFFICES DRIVE THRU REST.
RCL 64~-fi5-132 C-G
CUP 1653 RCL 63414-31
OPTOMETRIST RCL 594i0-0fi
(Res. of Intent. to CH)
C~ RCL 53-5427
RCL 57-58-52 C-(i
T-VAR 2903-04595 RCL 65-66-23
VAR 2745 RCL 53-54-2~
OFFICE ADJ 0067
BUILDING
I CARBON CREEK CHANNEL (O.C.F.C.D.)
Conditional Use Permit No. 4175
TRACKING NO. CUP200 6-0 51 3 3
Requested By: HELMUT FETTER
825 North Euclid Street Suite D, Kim's Acupressure
10141
CG
RCL 53-54-27
T•CUP 2003-04619
CUR 3900
CUP 3799
VAR 7848
VAR 1fi02
OFFICES
A ~ppV~
Itl
Subject Property
Date: October 16, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 45
CATHERINE DRIVE it l
~:
Conditional Use Permit No. 4175
TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05133
Requested By: HELMUT FETTER
Subject Property
Date: October 16, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200`
Q.S. No. 45
825 North Euclid Street Suite D, Kim's Acupressure
10141
Jmv Zoos
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
.:.:October 16, 2006
Item No. 6
6a. CEQA NEGATIVEDECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) (Motion)
6b. CONDITIONAL`USEPERMIT N0. 4175 (Resolution)
(Tracking No. CUP20p6-05133) ,';
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This rectangularly-shaped, 0.69-acre property has frontage of 132 feet on the west side of
Euclid Street and a maximum depth of 226 feet and is located approximately 175 feet north
df the centerline of Glenoaks Avenue (825 North Euclid Street Suite D, Kim's Acupressure).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a
.condition of(approval pertaining to a limeJimitation toretain apreviously-approved
acupressure (massage) facility within an existing commercial retail center under authority of
:Code Sections 18.08.030.040,0402 (Personal Services-Restricted) and 18.60.180.
BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is currently developed with a single story commercial center and is zoned C-
G (General `Commercial). The Anaheim General Plan designates this property and the
properties to the north:and south for Residential Corridor land uses, properties to the west
and east (across Euclid Street) for Medium Density Residential land uses.
{4) .Conditional Use Permit No. 4175(to permit a 2,240 square foot acupressure (massage)
facility) was approved,by the Planning Commission on January 3l; 2000, for a period of
one year to expire on January 31; 2001. Subsequently, Planning Commission approved a
reinstatemeht on February 26, 2001 (Tracking No. CUP2001-04307) with the latest
reinstatement expiring on February 26, 2006.
(5) Resolution No. PC2001-28 adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-
04307 included the following condition;
1. That the subject acupressure: (massage} facility shall expire five (5) years from the date
`of this resolution, on February 26, 2006:'
DISCUSSION:
(6) The applicant has submitted a request dated July 26, 2006, to reinstate Conditional Use
Permit No. 4175 to retain the approved massage facility. The applicant requests the
deletion of Condition No. 1 of Resolution'No. PC2001-28 pertaining to the time limit. Code
: requires the submittal of a request for reinstatement within six (6) months (August 26,
:2006) from the date of expiration. The applicant indicates in the attached Justification of
Reinstatement form'that the property is being properly maintained antl is in compliance with
Mall conditions of apprdvaL The following'is a photograph of the existing site aldng with an
'aerial viewihdicat(hg the location of the subject business within the existing commercial
:retail center.
CUP2006-051'33jkn.
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. 6
'made. Since the massage facility is operating in compliance with the conditions of
approval and has had no calls forservice focthe Police Department,and Community
Preservation Division, no time limitation is necessary. However, as operators can change,
staff recommends that a condition of approval be added to require Community Preservation
Division and/or Police Department inspections on an annual basis for the durationbf this
permit, or as deemed necessary by the. City's Community Preservation Division and/or
Police Department to maintain compliance with State ahd local statues, ordinances, Taws or .
`regulations.° Based upon the finding that the property has been adequately maintained and
.the periodic review through a reinstatement of the use is no longernecessary, staff
recommends deletion of the time limitation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
(10) .Staff has reviewed theproposal to reinstate thispermit by themodification or deletion of a
condition of approval pertaining to a time ltmitation oretain apreviously-approved .
.massage facility within an existing commercial retail center and the nitial Study (a copy of
which is available for review ih the 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 ihdependentjudgment of the lead
`.agency; and that it has considered the previously-approved Negative Declaration together
.with any comments received during the public review,processand further finding on the
basis of thelnitial Study and any comments received hat there is no substantial evidence
that the project wilt have a significant effect on the environment.
FINDINGS:
(11) Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding
of fact that he evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
(a) That the proposed use is properly one for which a cohditional 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 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 the proposed use in 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
(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.
(12) Section 18.60.180.030 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:
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006.
.Item No. 6
(a) The facts necessary to support each and every required showing far 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 mannecnot detrimental to the particular area and
surrounding land uses, nor to the public peace, .health, safety and general welfare;
and
(d) .With regard only to any deletion of a time limitation, such deletion is 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
review of the use is no longer necessary andlor that it can be determined that, due
>to changes ciSCUmstances, the use is consistent with the City's long-term plans for.
the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
(13) <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 writtemevidencepresented at the
I public hearing, the Planning Commission take the following 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 lJse Permit No. 4175
{Tracking No: CUP2006-05133) bydeleting the time limitation to retain an existing
massage facility, by adopting the attached. resolution including the findings and
conditions contained herein.
Page 4
[DR,4FT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006--"
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
REINSTATING AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4175, AND
AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITONS OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-28,
ADOPTED THEREWITH
(825 NORTH EUCLID STREET SUITE D, KIM'S ACUPRESSURE)
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2000, the Anaheim Planning Commission, by Resolution No.
PC2000-11, approved Conditional Use Permit No. 4175 to permit an acupressure (massage) facility within an
existing commercial retail center; and that Condition No. 1 specified. that the conditional use permit shall expire
one (1) year from the date of the resolution, on January 31, 2001;
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2001, the Anaheim Planning Commission did, by Resolution No.
PC2001-28, reinstate the use for five (5) years until February 26, 2006;
WHEREAS, said Resolution No. PC2001-28 includes the following conditions of approval
"1. That the subject acupressure (massage) facility shall expire five (5) years from. the date of
this resolution, on February 26, 2006"
WHEREAS, the property is currently developed with a single story commercial building, the
underlying zoning is C-G (General Commercial), and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for
Residential Corridor land uses; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested reinstatement of this conditional use permit to retain a
previously-approved acupressure (massage) facility within an existing commercial retail center pursuant to Code
Section 18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of
Anaheim on October i 6, 2006, at2:30 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
PARCEL 1: THAT PORTION OF LOT 67 OF TRACT NO. 2517, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORMNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 133, PAGE(S) 40, 41, AND 42, INCLUSIVE, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, iN THE OFFICE
-0F THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1 AS
SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 8, PAGE25 OF PARCEL. MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE
COUNTY. CALIFORNIA.
PARCEL 2: THE EAST 279.33 FEET OF THE SOUTH TWO ACRES OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH,. RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANGE LOS COYOTES, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS. IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
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
determinethe following facts:
1. That the applicant's proposal to reinstate apreviously-approved acupressure (massage) facility
i§ aith'orized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section Nos. 18.08.030.040.0402 (Personal Services-Restricted:) &
18.60.180 (Reinstatement of atime-limited permit).
CR\PC2006-0 -1- PC2006-
2. That the proposed reinstatement and deletion of time limitation for the acupressure (massage)
facility would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth 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 size and shape of the site for the proposal is adequate to allow full development of the
use in a manner not. detrimental to the particular area.
4. That the proposed deletion of the time limitation is appropriate because it is not anticipated that
the acupressure (massage) facility would' relocate in the near future or change its operation, and the periodic
review of this use is no longer necessary since the facility has been properly maintained over an extended
period of time..
5. That granting this reinstatement, under the conditions imposed, will not be detrimental to the
health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
6. 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 and that there have been no
vice related calls for service within the last year.
8. 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:
9. That "" indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition; and that no correspondence
was received in opposition to the subject petition.
CALIFORNJA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: Thatlhe Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal; and does hereby find that the Negative Declaration previously
approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 4175 is adequate to serve as the required
environmental documentation in connection with this request to reinstate a acupressure (massage) facility
without a time limit upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and
that it has considered the previously approved'Negative Declaration together with any comments received
during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, 13E 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
following conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC2001-28 ihto a new resolution with following
conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in
order to preserve the health and safety of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1. That, as stipulated by the applicant, the hours of operation shall be limited to 9 a.m. to 10 p:m., Monday
through Saturday, with no more than four (4) employees working at any one time.
2. That this business (including the conduct of all its employees) shall be operated in full compliance with
Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 4.29 pertaining to Massage Establishments.
3. That all records of treatment shall be maintained on the premises for a minimum of one (1) year and shall
be made available for inspection by any authorized City official during regular business hours.
4. That this business shall be subject to unscheduled inspections by authorized City of Anaheim personnel in
.order to observe and enforce compliance with all applicable Code requirements.
5. That if a security system is installed, a security alarm system and alarm permit application shall be
obtained from the Community Services Division of the Anaheim Police Department.
-2- PC2006-
That the property owner shall pay the cost of Community Preservation Division and/or Police Department
inspections on an annual basis for the duration of this permit, or as deemed necessary for the City's
Community Preservation Division and/or Police Department to gain and/or maintain compliance with State
and local statues, ordinances, laws or regulations.
That subject property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department
marked. Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and as conditioned herein.
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 alt charges related to
the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. 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 October
16, 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
October 16, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
2006.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
3- PC2006-
PETITIONER'S STATEfiflENT Attachment - Item. No. 6
JUSTIFICATION FOR RELNSTATEIVIENT
Section 18.60.180 of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires that requests for reinstatements or renewals of a time-
limited permit shall be made in writing no later than six (6) months after the expiration date of the permit sought to
be reinstated or renewed and must be accompanied by an application form and the required filing fee. -
1. In order to reinstate or renew a permit, the facts necessary to support each and every finding for the original
approval of the entitlement as set forth in the following excerpts from the Anaheim Zoning Code still exist:
18.66.060 (Relative to Conditional Use Permits)
Before the approval authority, or City Council on appeal, may approve a conditional use permit, it must make
a finding of fact, by resolution, that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions is
required:
.031 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);
.032 That the. proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development
of the area in which it is proposed lobe located;
.033 That the size and' shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of
the proposed use in a manner riot detrimental to the particular area or to health and safety;
.034 That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and
highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
.035 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..
18.74.060 (Relative to Variances)
Before any variance may begranted by the approval authority, or City Council on appeal, it shall be shown:
.0201 That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in
the vicinity;
.0202 That, because of special circumstances shown in .0201, strict application of the zoning code deprives
the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
2. Said permit or variance is being exercised substantially in the same manner and in, conformance with all
conditions and stipulations originally approved;
3. Said permit or variance is being exercised in a manner not detrimental to the particular area and surrounding
land uses, nor to the public peace, health, safety and general welfare; and
4. With regard only to any deletion of a time limitation, such deletion is 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 review of the use in no longer necessary and/or that it can be
determined that, due to changed circumstances, the use is consistent with the City's long-term plans for the
area
In order to determine if such findings exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to
arrive at a decision, please answer the following. questions Tully and as complete as possible. Attach additional
sheets if additional_space is needed.
1. Has any physical aspect of the property for which this use permit or variance been granted changed
significantly since the issuance of this use permit or variance?
Yes ^ No Q
.Explain: -'~l~re ~i.:, r b:~~ .~, c,- t;,,.E~ .-~~ vti~ ,b h.is-: c_.~.(
(over) CASE NO. ~U~ ~'~~ ~~ u ~~.7
2. Have the Land uses in the unmediate vicinity changed since the issuance of this use permit or variance?
Yes ^ No ~ -~ I ,
Fvnl~in' / ~J.QYA h.< C I~..+.. ..~ COY i.~,'L~~-t 'C'-2- 7'L-.'t (~L t-~~r C. i
3. Has any aspect of the nature of the operation changed since the issuance of this use permit or variance?
Yes 0 No ® /
EXplafn: _7r~ e re ~~ y 6r e-., ar f.-z.~,~' -C~-c 7w c L,<,-..=F~: czz -f!`<-
4. Are the conditions of approval pertaining to the use permit or variance being complied with?
Yes No
Fvnlain• /.~ k/ 1' ~._...~' ~-ev~c e~ / nnn.-,..-.-_kJ /7e ._~'~ ~..~/' ~-J
5. If you are requesting a deletion of the time limitation, is this deletion necessary for the continued operation
of this use or variance?
Yes No
r~;: , .
Explain: ~ n ~ e 6 ~e sr ~,., -•-~ : s ~ c«,{„-., ~., ~ u, fr,~
,ti
- r
The applicant for this request is: ^ Property Owner Authorized Agent.
SA-tv1~5 ~`t~ ~ Nit/ , ~t~c,tuh ~~~r
Name of Property Owner or Authorized Agent (Please Print)
Signature of Property Owner or Authorized Agent
~ Date
Reinstatement applicatlon.doc
Revised 8f13ID4
pNUM ~~,
/oi ~o
~., ~_.
IV DI
"'_
l ; i'
~':OV~ ~gV
N
City of Anaheim
P®I,ICE DEPAR'I'IdIEI®T'I'
Special Operations Division
Attachment -Item No. 6
To: Jessica Nixon
Planning Department
From: Sergeant Mike Lozeau
Vice Detail
Date: October 11, 2006
12E: CUP 4175
Kim's Acupressure
825 N. Euclid Street
Anaheim, CA 9280]
The location is within Reporting District 1521, which has a Crime Rate
of 234 percent above average.
There have been no calls for service in the last year to this location.
The Police Department does not oppose the new resolution. We
request that any and all previous conditions still apply, and that they
comply with all rules set forth in the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Please contact me at extension 1451 if you. require further information in
regards to this matter.
f:\homeMmirwin\825 N. Euclid Kim's Acupressure.doc
Anaheim Police Dept.
425 S. Harhor Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805
TEL: 714.765.1401
FAX: 7I4.76S.1665
Attachment -Item No. 6
September l9; 2006
City of Anaheim
Planning Department
Planning Services Division
200 S Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805
Re: Request for Deletion of Time Limitation.
Address: 825 N Euclid St #D
Anaheim, CA 92801
To Whom It May Concern:
We are requesting for deletion of time limitation for our conditional use permit on
the above referenced property since we didn't have any major changes in our operations
or any problems or violations with the city during the conditional use period.
We will appreciate your kind consideration in regazd to this request. Thanks.
Respectfully yours,
Harry Hwang
Attachment -Item No. 6
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Community Preseri~atio~s Dirision
DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 2006
TO: JESSICA NIXON, ASSISTANCE PLANNER
FROM: DON YOURSTONE, SENIOR. COMMUNITY PRESERVATION OFFICER
SUBJECT: KIM'S ACUPRESSURE, 825 N. EUCLID STREET #D
REINSTATEMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2006-05133
This memo is written in response to your request for information regarding Kim's Acupressure
located at 825 N. Euclid Street #D.
Community Preservation records indicate for the past year no citizen complaints had been
received regazding this business.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2006, I conducted an inspection of Kim's Acupressure and was
met by the owner Hee Nam Hwang. During my inspection the business was open and operating
within the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit # 2006-05133.
If you need further information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at ext. 4451.
Attachment -Item No. 6
RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSFON
REINSTATING AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.4175
FOR FIVE (5) YEARS TO EXPIRE FEBRUARY 26, 2006
(CUP Tracking No. 2001-D4307)
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2000,. the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
PC2000-11 to grant Conditional Use Permit No. 4175 to permit a 2,240 sq.ft. accupressure (massage)
facility at 825 North Euclid Street, Unit D (Kim's Acupressure); and that Condition No. 1 of said resolution
specified that the use was approved for a period of one year tq expire January 31, 2001; and
WHEREAS, this property is developed with a commercial shopping center in the CL
(Commercial, Limited) zone; and. that the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for General
Commercial land uses; and
WHEREAS, the petitioner has requested reinstatement of this use permit to retain the
existing accupressure (massage) facility in an existing commercial retail center uhder authority of Code
Section 18.03.093; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civlc Center in
the City of Anaheim on February 26, 2001, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly
given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter
18.03, to hear and consider evidence for and against saidpropdsed amendment and to Investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and that this hearing was continued from
the meeting of January 17, 2001; 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 use proposed to be reinstated is properly one for which a conditional use permit is
authorized by the Zoning Code.
2. That the business has complied with the original conditions of approval ahd the property is
being satisfactorily maintained and, therefore, a reinstatement periodlonger than one year is justified.
3. That all physical aspects of the property remain the same as when this use permit was
originally approved; that surrounding land uses in the immediate vicinity have not changed; that the
petitioner has complied with the conditions of approval; that this massage use in a commercial retail
center has demonstrated compatibility with the surrounding area and existing land uses; that there have
been no Code violations or complaints associated with this business operation; and, therefore, this
facility has not adversely affected adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area.
4. ` 'That the petitioner has shown compliance with the cdnditions of approval as documented
by the Anaheim Police Department, the Code Enforcement Division and the Zoning Division.
5. That this use is being exercised in a manner which is not detrimental to the surrounding
areas or land uses, nor to the public peace, health, safety and general welfare.
fi. That reihstatementbf this use permit and modification of the time limitation is necessary to
permit reasonable operation of the business`at this property under the use permit as originally granted.
--CR5024PK.doc -1- PC2001-28
7. That the traffic generated by the use, as reinstated, will not impose an undue burden upon
the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area.
8. That reinstating this conditional use permit, under the conditions imposed,. will not be
detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
9. That the size and shape of the subject tenant space within. the shopping center is adequate
to allow full development of this massage facility, as described in the letter of operation, in a manner not
detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health safety and general welfare because no
expansion of the tenant space dr intensification of the use is proposed.
10. That no one indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal;
and that no correspondence was received in opposition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING That the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reinstate an existing accupressure (massage) facility
in an existing commercial retail center and does hereby find that the Negative DeclaratiorT previously
approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 4175 is adequate to serve as the required
environmental documentationln connection with this request upon finding that the declaration reflects the
independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the previously approved Negative
Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on
the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect oo the environment.
`NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby reinstate Conditional Use Permit No. 4175 to retain an existing accupressure (massage) facility
within an existing commercial retail. center for a period of five (5) years to expire on February 26, 2006;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby amend,. in
their entirety, the conditions of approval of Resolution No. PC 2000-11, adopted In connection with
Conditional Use Permit No. 4175, to read as follows
1. That the subject accupressure (massage) facility shall expire five (5) years from the date of this
resolution, on February 26, 2006.'
2. That,. as stipulated. by the petitioner, .the hours of operation shall be limited to 9 a.m. to 10 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday, with no more than four,(4) employees working at any one time.
3, That this business (including. the conduct of all its employees) shall be operated in full compliance
with Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 4.29 pertaining to Massage Establishments.:.
4. That all records of treatment shall be maintained on the premises for a minimum of one (1) year
and shall be made available for inspection by any authorized Citypfficial during regular business
hours.
5. That this business shall be subject to unscheduled inspections by authorized. City of Anaheim
personnel in order to observe and enforce compliance with all applicable Code requirements.
6. That if a security system is installed, a security alarm system and alarm permit application shall be
obtained from the Community Services Division of the Anaheim Police Department
7. That subject property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning
Department marked Exhihit Nos. 1 and 2, and as conditioned herein.
_.. _ .
-2- PC2001-28
8. 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 Gity, 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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted atthe Planning Commission meeting of
February 26, 2D01.
tOrl~lnal signed by John boos)
CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
lOriginal signed by Osbelia Edmondson)
SECRETARY. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Osbelia Edmondson, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and. adopted at a meeting. of the Anaheim City Planning
Commission held on February 26, 2001, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, KOOS, NAPOLES, VANDERBILT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
2001.
lOriginal signed by Osbelia Edmondson)
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
3- PC2001-28
Item No. 7
- cc
rn RCL5657-09
CUP 2590
i CUP 1073
VAR 1725 5
SERVICE
STATION
a -
RCL 5 57-09 --
~ TCUP 200 09363
® ~ '. CUP 3941
6UENA PARK CITY LIMITS
ANAHEIM G7YLIM/TS I C-G
RM-0 RM-0
RCL 62-63-35 APTS
CUP313 9DU
APARTMENTS
e Du
DEl MONTE DR
RCL 62 63-35 RM-4
CUP 313 APTS
APARTMENTS .
g DU
B DU
B U.I.
~-
ez
BW
Q
1 F
~ O
Z
Y
a
7
N
T
O
'3
m
~d
O
0
l
Conditional Use Permit No, 2001-04363
TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05140
Requested By: LINCOLN PARTNERSHIP
3440 West Lincoln Avenue
10136
LINCOLN AVENUE
C-G C-G
RCL 56-57-09 CL 68-69-1 i
C-G CUP 3941 CUP 3941
RCL 56-57-09 VAR 2042 ,VAR 2042
CUP 3941 PCN 2063-00013 pCN 2003-
PCN 2003-00013 (RCL 59-60-64)
(RCL 59-60-64J 00013
(CUP 1044)
SMALLS PS
RCL(
CUI
MOTE
-221'-~.
C_G. GG
RCL 56-57-49 RCL fie-fi.9-57
T-CUP 2000-04315 'RCL 6B-69-19
CUP 1061
CUP 4160
SELF STORAGE FACILITY
RM-0 RM-4
.RCL 67-66-50 RCL 67-68-50 RM-4
RCL 56-57-09 RCL 56-579 RCL 62-63
VAR 1946 VAR 1948
DEL MONTE DR
RM-0 RM~
RCL 67-68-50 APARTMENTS RCL 62-63--:
RCL 56-57-49
VAR 1946 91 DU /~
Subject Property
Date: October 16, 2006
Scale: 1" _ 200'
Q.S. No. 5
BUENA PARK CITYLIMII
e.. m.. e... m.. m..,
~ANAHE/M CITY LIMITS
Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04363
TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05140
Requested By: LINCOLN PARTNERSHIP
3440 West Lincoln Avenue
Subject Property
Date: October 16, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 5
10136
i~~m zoos
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. 7
7a- -CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION tPREVIOUSLY-APPROVEDI {Motion)
7b. r CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2001-04363 -- (Resolution)
(Tracking No. CUP2006-05140)
SITE LOCATION ANDbESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly-shaped 1.2-acre. property is located south of the southeast corner of Knott
Avenue and Lindoln Avenue, having a frontage of253 feet on the east side of Knott
Avenue, a maximum depth of 221 feet, and located 190 feet south of the centerling of
.:Lincoln Avenue,(3440 West Lincoln Avenue).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a
cdndition of apprdvatpertaihingto atime limitation to retain apreviously-approved stealth.
.ground-mounted telecommunication facility under authority df Code Section Nos..
18.08.030.040.0402 (Antennas -Telecommunications-Stealth Building-Mounted) and
18.60.180.
BACKGROUND: '
(3) This property. is developed with a commercial shopping center and is zoned C-G (General
Commercial). The Anaheim General Plan designatesthis property for Neighborhood
Commercial .land uses; furthermore, this property is in he Merged Redevelopment Area
(4) Conditional Use PermitNo. 2001-04363 (to permit a telecommunication antenna with
accessory ground mounted equipment) was. granted by the City`Council on October 2, 2001
for five years to expire October 2, 2006. Resolution No. 2001 R-157 adopted in connection
with this permit contains the following condition of approval
"1. That the proposed telecommunications facility, consisting of one (1) "clocktower" with
six (6) concealed antennas, shall be permitted for a period of five (5) years, to expire on
Octotier 2, 2006."
DISCUSSION:
(5) The applicant has submitted a request dated August 29, 2006, to reinstate Conditional Use
Permit No, 2001-04363 to retain the telecommunication antenna'withaccessory ground
mounted equipment. In conjunction with the reinstatement, the applicant requests that '
Cohdition (Vo: 1 of Resolution No: 2001 R-157 be amended to tlelete the time limitation.
Code requires the submittal of a request for reinstatement within siX(6) months (April 2,
2007) from the date of expiration. To demonstrate that the findings required for
reinstatement of this use permit have been satisfied, the applicant has'submitted the
attached Justificationfio~ Reinstatement. The applicant has indicated that the physical
aspects of the property have remained the same and the permit is being exercised
substantially in the same manner and in conformance with all conditions of approval.
`(6) The Community Preservation Division has submitted the attached memorandum dated,
:September 6, 2006, indicating that the site is in compliance with all the conditions of
approval adopted in connection with the original approval and that the property is being
_ properly maintained. In addition; Community Preservation records indicate that there are no
outstanding complaints pertaining to this property.
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. 7
(7) Staff has inspected the property and found it to be well maintained and that the use does not
appear to be operating in a manner detrimental to the surrounding area: The permit has
been exercised in a manner consistent with the original approval and each of the required ',
.findings used to approve the original request can still be made. The telecommunications
facility has not visibly or otherwise caused a disturbance to the surrounding properties and
has operated in compliance wish all conditions of approval Further, the facility has operated
in a manner that is appropriate in the underlying zone and the surrounding area and
therefore,'periodic review of the use is no longer necessary. 'Based on the foregoing, staff
`recommends approval of the reinstatement without a time limitation.
(8) .Current code allows telecommunications facilities within clock towers through an
administrative Telecommunications Antenna Permit (TCA). The applicant has the. option. to
withdraw this request and submit a new application for a TCA, but because this erititlement
has already been previously-approved, and staff is recommending deletion of the time limit,
`the applicant hasbhosen td'continue with this request to secure a conditional use permit
that runs with the land for the facility.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(9) Staff has reviewed the proposal to retain the telecommunication antenna with accessory
.ground mounted equipment 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 the previously-approvetl Negativebeclaration serve as the required
environmental documentation`in connection with this. request upon finding that the
declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and that it has: considered
the previously-approved Negative Declaration together with any comments received during
the publiE~eview process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any
comments receivedthat there'is no substantial evidence thatthe project will have a
significant effect on the environment.
FINDINGS:
(10) `Before the Commission grants any conditional use`permit, itmust make a finding of fact
that the evidence presented shows that. alf of the followirtg 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 areain which if is proposed to be located;
(c) That the size and shape,of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the
proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and
safety;
(d) That the traffic generated by the use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and. highways,designed and improved to carry the traffic in the. area; and
(e) That the granting of the conditiona(use permit under the conditions imposed, if any,
will not. be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens bf the City of Anaheim.
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. 7
(11) ..Section 18.60.180.030 of the Zoning Code requires that an approval for a reinstatement
shalt 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
(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
review. of the use. is no longer necessary and/or that it can be determined that, due
to changes circumstances, the use is consistent with the City's long-term plans for
the area
RECOMMENDATION:
(12) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the
hearing, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the evidence
presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing,
5the Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, determine that the previously approved Negative Declaration is the
appropriate environmental determination for this request.
{b) By resolution, a rove the reinstatement of Condtfional Use Permit No. 2001-04363
(Tracking No. CUP2006-05140) deleting the time limitation to retain a stealth
ground-mounted telecommunication facility, by adopting the attached resolution.
tncluding the findings and conditions contained herein.
Page 3
[DRAFT];
- RESOLUTION NO. PC2006-
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
REINSTATING AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04363, AND
AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-257,
ADOPTED THEREWITH
(3440 West Lincoln Avenue)
WHEREAS, on October 2, 2001, the Anaheim City Council, by Resolution No. 2001R-257
approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04363 to permit a telecommunications antenna with accessory
ground-mounted equipment on property located at 3440 West Lincoln Avenue; and
WHEREAS, said Resolution No. 2001R-257 includes the following condition of approval
"1 That the proposed telecommunications facility, consisting of one (1) "clocktower" with six
(6) concealed antennas, shale be permitted for a period of five (5) years, to expire on
October 2, 2006:'
WHEREAS, this property is currently developed with a commercial shopping center, the
underlying zoning is C-G (General Commercial); the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for
Neighborhood Commercial land uses; and the property is located within the Merged Redevelopment Area; and
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Reinstatement
of Conditional Use Permit to modify or delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain a
previously-approved telecommunications antenna with accessory ground-mounted equipment pursuant to Code
Section Nos. 18.08.030.040.0402 (Antennas -Telecommunications-Stealth Building-Mounted) and 18.60.180 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim County of Orange, State of
California, described as:
PARCEL 2, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 22, PAGE 5 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 October 16, 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
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 a telecommunications antenna with accessory ground-
mounted equipment is authorized by the Anaheim Municipal Code Section Nos. 18.08.030.040.0402 (Antennas
-Telecommunications-Stealth Building-Mounted) and. 18.60.180.
2. That the proposed reinstatement and deletion of time limitation for the telecommunications
antenna with accessory ground-mounted equipment would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the
growth 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 apprdval.
3. That the facts necessary to support each and every required showing for the original approval of
the entitlement exists; 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.
4. That this conditional use permit is being exercised in a manner not detrimental to the particular
area and surrounding land sues, nor to the public health and safety.
CR\PC2006- -1- PC2006-
5. That the deletion of the time limitation is appropriate because it has been demonstrated that the
use has operated in a manner that is appropriate in the underlying zone and the periodic review of the use is no
longer necessary.
6. That "" indicated. their presence at the public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal; and does hereby find that the Negative Declaration previously
approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04363 is adequate to serve as the required
environmental documentation in connection with this request upon finding that the declaration. reflects the
independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the previously approved Negative
Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the
basis of the initial study and 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 Resolution No. 2001 R-257, adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04363, to
reinstate this conditional use permit by incorporating the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No.
2001 R-257 into a new resolution to read as follows:
1. That the telecommunications facility shall continue to be maintained with the following characteristics
(a) A maximum of six (6) panel-type antennas shall be located within the clocktower;
(b) The overall structure shall not exceed a maximum height of fifty (50) feet; and
(c) The clocktower antennas shalt be completely enclosed within the clocktower and shall not be visible
to the public.
That no additional or replacement antennas shall be permitted without the prior approval of the Planning
Commission.
2. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular
maintenance, removal of trash and debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of
.discovery..
3. That the accessory equipment shall be ground-mounted and located within an enclosure behind the
shopping center.
4. That the proposed clocktower shall contain one clock facing west and one clock facing north, and shall be
.maintained in working order for the life of the facility.
5. That the tower shall be constructed of permanent, solid materials simulating an authentic clocktower. The
tower shaft remain painted to match the color of the Stater Bros. building and maintained: in good, clean
conditions.
6. 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 Revision No. 2 of Exhibit Nos. 1 through 6, and as conditioned herein.
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
-2- PC2006-
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 October
16, 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
October 16, 2006,. by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
2006.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-3- PC2006-
PETITIONER'S STATEMENT Attachment -Item No. 7
JUSTIFICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT
Section 18.60.180 of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires that requests for reinstatements dr renewals of a time-
Iimlted permit shall be made iri writing no later than. six (6) months after the explratioh date of the. permit sought to
be reinstated or renewed and must be accompanied by an application form and the required filing fee.
1. In order to reinstate or renew. a permit, the facts necessary to support each and every finding for the original
approval of the entitlement as set forth in the following excerpts from the. Anaheim Zoning Code still exist:
18.66.060 (Relative to Conditional Use Permits)
Before the approval authority, or City Ccuncil on appeal, may approve a conditional use pennit, it must make
a finding of fact, by resolution, that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions is
required:
.031 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.p40
(Approval Authority);
.032 That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses: or the growth and development
of the area in which it is proposed to.be Iccated;
.033 That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of
the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to health and safety;
.034 That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and
highways designed. and. improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
...035 .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.
18.74.060 (Relative to Variances)
Before any variance may be granted. by the approval authority, or City Council on appeal, it shall be shown:
0201 That there are special. circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classtfcation in
the vicinity,
..0202 That, because. of special circumstances shown in .0201, strict application of the. zoning code. deprives
.the property of privileges enjoyed. by other property under. identical zoning classification. inthe vicinity.
2. Said permit or variance. is being exercised substantially in the same. manner and in conformance with all
conditions and stipulations originally approved;
3. Said permit or variance. is being exercised in a manner not detrimental to the particular area. and. surrounding
land uses, nor to the public peace,. health, safety and general welfare;. and
4. With regard only to any deletion. of a time limitation, such deletion is 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 review of the use, in no longer necessary and/or that It can be
determined that, due to changed circumstances, the use is consistent with the City's long-term. plans. for the
area
In order to determine if such. findings. exist, and to assist the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commfssicn to
arrive at a decision, please answer the following questions fully and. as complete as possible. Attach additional
sheets if additional space is needed..
1. Has any physical aspect of the property for which this use permit or variance been granted. changed
significantly si ce a issuance of this use permit or variance?
Yes ^ No
(over) CASE NO U~ ~~' ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ('
2. Have the I~n,-d-~} sin the immediate vicinity changed since the issuance of this use permit or variance?
Yes ~ Noy-fI~
G,..,i~~., TTTT
3. Has any asp t of the nature of the operation changed since the issuance of this use permit or variance?
Yes 0 No~
Explain: !!!!l/~~~~~"'''"'''"
4. A e th conditions of approval pertaining to the use permit or variance being complied with?
Ye o ^
Exp ain:
5. If you are requesting a deletion of the time limitation,. is this deletion necessary for the continued operation
of this use variance?
Yes^ No
Explain: ((( ~~~
The applicant for this request is: Q Property Owner p~Authorized Agent
Name of Property Ow r or Autho iz'd Agent (Please Print}
~~~
~/ ~ J
f
S nature of Pr pe n or authorized Agent
~~t~~~
ate
Reinstatement application.doc
Revised 9119/04
CUF j~(}. 2G01-x43!;3
P.O. Box I I5I i
Agoura Hills, CA 91376
Phone (fll8) 889-5074
' Fax (8]H) 6B9-5270.
n z
_ * e
~1'~t929 X13
,
~
y
r'I
4
August 28, 2006 .~ 2009
q RECEIYEO
T ~P NARTNdFldt
~
,
D
'(/ ~
,``\
S/ bl ~~'
City of Anaheim
Planning Department
We aze writing to request a reinstatement of the permit for the wireless antenna located
atop the clock tower at 3440 W Lincoln Avenue. There aze no changes being made upon the
property site for which we aze requesting reinstatement, nor do we foresee any changes in the
future. If possible, given the nature of this structure as simply a clock and wireless station, we
aze requesting a waiver of any time restriction.
Please contact us with any questions or concerns, and we appreciate your timely
assistance.
' cerely,
1.
--_-...
arty Teppe
Authorized Partnership Agent
___
CUP~j~; 2001-045'
A4tachment -Item No. 7
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Community Preservation Division
DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
TO: SCOTT KOEHM, PLANNER
FROM: MARK DICKINSON #1015, COMMUNITY PRESERVATION OFFICER
SUBJECT: 3440 W. LINCOLN AVE. (TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY)
On September 6, 2006, I conducted. an inspection of the property located at 3440 W. Lincoln
Ave. The inspection was in regards to a request for a reinstatement of a C.U.P. (CUP2001-
04363, tracking case no. CUP2006-05140).
Upon inspecting the property, I observed no vioCations of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
A seazch of the Community Preservation Division Records revealed that the property
(telecommunication facility) has had only one (1) previous case on September of 2002. The case
was generated For not having installed the clocks in the tower and landscaping not being planted;
around the base of the tower. The property was brought into compliance on November of 2002.
Ifyou have any further questions, please contact me at ext. 4195.
Attachment -Item No. 7
RESOLUTION N0. 2001R-257.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-
09363 FORA PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS. TO
EXPIRE OCTOBER 2, 2006.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Anaheim .did .receive an application for a conditional use permit
to permit a telecommunications antenna with accessory ground-
mounted equipment upon certain real property located within the
City of Anaheim, .County of Orange,. State of California, legally
described as:
PARCEL 2, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 22,
PAGE 5 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; and.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commissioh did hold a public
hearing upon said application at the City Hall in the City of
Anaheim, notices of which public hearing were duly given as
required by law and the provisions of Title 18, Chapter 16.03 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection,
investigation and studies made by itself and in its behalf and
after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing,. did adopt its Resolution No. PC2001-90 granting
Conditional Use Permit. NO. 2001-04363; .and
.WHEREAS, thereafter, within the time prescribed by law,
an interested party or the City Council, on its own motion,
caused the review of said Planning Commission action at a duly
noticed public hearing; and
WHEREAS, at the time and place fixed for said public
hearing, the City Council did duly hold and conduct such hearing
and did give all persons interested therein an opportuhity to be
heard and did receive evidence and reports; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after careful consi-
deration of the recommendations of the City Planning .Commission
and all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, that:
1. The proposed use is properly one for which a
conditional use permit is authorized by the Anaheim Municipal
Code.
2. The proposed use will not adversely affect the
adjoining land. uses and the growth and development of the area in
which it is proposed to be located..
3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a
manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace,
health, safety and general welfare.
4. 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.
5'. The granting of the conditional use permit under the
conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the. citizens of the City of
Anaheim.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Anaheim that, for the reasons hereinabove stated
Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04363 be, and the same is hereby,
granted permitting on the hereinabove described real .property,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the proposed telecommunications facility,`
consisting of one (1) "clocktower". with six (6) concealed
antennas, shall be permitted for a period of 'five (5) years, to
expire on .October 2, 2006.
2. That the following information shall be specifically
shown on plans submitted for building permits:
(a) A maximum of six (6) panel-type antennas shall be
located within the clocktower;
(b) The overall structure shall not. exceed a maximum height
of fifty (50) feet; and
(c) The clocktower antennas shall be completely enclosed
within the clocktower and shall not be visible to the
public.
That no additional or replacement antennas shall be
permitted without the .prior approval of .the Planning Commission.
3. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an
orderly fashion through the provision of regular maintenance,
removal of trash and debris, and removal of graffiti within
twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence.
__.... 2
4. That trash storage areas shall be refurbished to comply
with approved plans on file with the Public Works Department.
Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted
for building permits.
5. That the accessory equipment be ground-mounted and
located within an enclosure behind the shopping center.
6. That the legal owner of the subject property shall
provide the City of Anaheim with a public utilities .easement to
be determined as electrical design is completed.
7. That the proposed clocktower shall contain one clock
facing west and one clock facing north, and shall be maintained
in working order for the life of the facility. -Said information
shall specifically be shown on plans submitted for building
permits..
8. That the owner shall be constructed of permanent, solid
materials simulating an authentic clocktower. The tower shall be
painted °Navajo White" to match the existing color of the Stater
Bros. building and maintained in good, clean conditions. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for
building permits.
9. That the walls of the commercial center west of the
Stater Bros. building shall be repainted `Navajo White" to match
the color of the clocktower and the Stater Bros.. building.
10. That landscaping plans specifying the type, size and
variety of plant materials proposed for the existing planter at
the base of the monopole shall be submitted to the Zoning
Division for review and approval.
11. Deleted.
12. Deleted.
13. 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 Revision
No. 2 of Exhibit Nos. 1 through 6, and as conditioned herein.
19. That prior to issuance of a building permit or within a
period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution,
whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9
.above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further
___ 3
time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance
with Section 16.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
15. Deleted.
16. Deleted..
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council 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
conditions, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or
unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein
contained, shall be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the
City Council of the C-ty of Anaheim this 2nd day of October,
20-01,
MAYO OF THE.C TY OF ANA ~IM
ATTEST:
G~ - .
CITY ERK OF T E CITY OF ANAHEIM
92061.1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, SHERYLL SCHROEDER, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2001R-257 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of
the Anaheim City Council held on the 2nd day of October, 2001, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
~`t_~ ~~~~!~~
t~T CI ERK OF T CITY OF ANAHEIM
(SEAL)
Item No. 8
~~
N
~ ~
0
~L)
W
W
K
f-
rn
Q
w
w
~ l I i "" `i`"" I I f I I I I I P l l k l l
ALDEN AVE ALDEN AVE
RS-2'
1 DU EACH
1 DU EACH
RESEDA PLACE
RS-2
1 DU EACH
DU
SOUTH STREET
.--,--
u
'B
363 ~ u
i de
u
~oo a
mom
~"~~o
~~;~
II U
a
7-71-22
14-04663
12fi4
)RHOOD
'PING
TER
w
U
Q
J
a
S
¢ ~
W ~
}
~ J
a
RS-2
- VAR 1886
1 DU ACH rn
w
U
VAR 1 26
VAR 6Z 1 D EAC v.
'a-1ss • --®'
.1
o I ~t l U EAICH I 11~ EACH I I I I I l
l W
VIKING AVENUE U
A ' VAR U
_ 4 ' RS-2 _ 1684 W
RS-Z 1 DU EACH I Z ~
Reclassification No. 2006-00184
Conditional Use Permit No. 3020
TRACKING NO. 2006-05136
Variance No. 2006-04701
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-221
Requested ey: EAST ANAHEIM CHRISTIAN CHURCH
2216 East South Street
}
Q
3
w
z
O
Y
O
Subject Properly
Date: October 16, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 114
10143
N
-tt~
0
iCL 70.71-0 ~ `
CUP 1173 ~.
aNa
..7
J
VAR 4034 r ii
STANDISH AVENUE
o:
Reclassification No. 2006-00184
Conditional Use Permit No. 3020
TRACKING NO. 2006-05136
Variance No. 2006-04701
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-221
Requested By: EAST ANAHEIM CHRISTIAN CHURCH
2216 East South Street
Subject Property
Date: October 16, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 11.4
10143
- July 2005
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. 8
Sa. `CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion)
8b. -' RECLASSIFICATION N0. 2006-00184 (Resolution)
8c. CONDITIONAL'USEPERMITN0.3020 - (Resolution)
8d. VARIANCE N0: 2006-04701 (Resolution)
Se . TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2006-221 (Motion)
(TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05136)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) :This rectangulary-shaped, 1.58-acre property is located at the southeast corner of South
Street and Priscilla Street, with frontages of 159 feet on the sbuth side of South Street and
424 feet on the east side of Priscilla Street (2216 East South Street -East Anaheim
Christian Church).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests the following actions:
a) Reclassificatidn No. 2005-00166 - to reclassify the property from the T
(Transition) zone to the`RS-2 (Single-Family;Residential) zone, or less intense
zone.
b) Conditional Use Permit No. 3020 - to amend exhibits for previously approved
church to subdivide and establish athree-lotsingle family residential
subdivision (East Anaheim Christian Church)...!
ic) Variance No. 2006-04701-Request for waiver of the fallowing to establish a
4-lot, 3-unifdetached single family~esidentia(subdivision:
Section No. 18.04:050.010 • Minimum lot width
(Mrnrmum widthbf 70 feet
required; 51 feet proposed)
d) Tentative Parcel Mao No: 2006-221= to establish a 4-lot, 3 unit detached
single familyYesidential subdivision..
BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is developed with a church and is within the T Zone. The Anaheim General
Plan designates thisproperty and all surrounding properties forLow Density Residential
land uses.."
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:
(4) 'Conditional Use Permit No. 302. (tc establish a temporary church use in an existing home)
was approved by the Planning Commissioh on September 1T,'1962.' This permit is no
IYohger necessary as he church has been permanehtly entitled.. Staff has included a
condition bf approval requirrng termrhatidn of this permit.
(5) Conditional Use Permit No. 1.246 (to permit a nursery school in conjunction with an existing
_ „ church) was approved bythe Planning Commission bn Juhe 28, 1971. -This permit is no
longer necessary as the nursery schobl is no longer' in operation. 'Staff has included a
condition of approval requiring termination of this permit.
SR RCL00184 CUP3020 PC 101606
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. 8
(6) Conditional Use Permit No. 3020 (to permit caretakers/ministers quarters for an existing
church) was approved by the Planning Commission on Juhe 20, 1988., Resolution No.
PC88-163 adopted in connection with Conditiohal Use Permit No. 3020 included the
following condition:
"9. That the subject property hall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked. Exhibits Nos.. 1
and 2.'.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
(7) The applicant requests to amend exhibits for the previously approved church to subdivide
ahd establish athree-lot single family residential subdivision on an existing southerly
portion of church property as depicted in the following aerial
b r
~,r, ~,
~;F 2 o r A~ >.. '`z.
Aerial of Site
(8) 'In conjunction with the request for modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 3020, the
applicant proposes td reclassify the property from the T zohe to the RS-2 zone in order to
apply consistent zoning for the entire property and to establish athree-lot single family
residential subdivision.
(9) The site. plan (Revision 1 of Exhibit No. 1) indicates the southern 103 feet of the church
property would be developed with three single family residences, and the remainder of the
- church property would be reconfigured to accommodate on-site parking for the church.
There are four buildings on the church site; however', two of the buildings would be
,. demolished for parking.
_ (10) ,Vehicular. access to the church. would be provided via a driveway from South Street and
one driveway from, Priscilla Street. The. site,plan proposes 49 parking spaces and code
requires 48 parking spaces based on the following:
Pa e 2
9
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. 8
'(11) The floor plan (Revision 1 of Exhibit No. 2) indicates the churchbuildings consist of a
.sanctuary„administrative office, community room, nursery, and accessory meeting. rooms
and classrooms. The community room and sanctuary. are not used simultaneously.
{12) The landscape plan .(Exhibit No. 3) reflects the installation of a fifteen (15) foot wide
lahdscape,buffer between the reconfiguredparking area of the church and the new single
family lots, as required by Code..
(13) The site plan and tentative parcel map (Exhibit No. 1) for the new residential component
indicate the following characteristics for the proposedlots:
Develo mentlStandards' Pro osed'Prc'ecY ` RS-2 done Standards
Total Site Area :58 acre 25,245s : ft. N/A
Densit -5.17 d.u: er acre - 6.5 d.u. eracre
LdfSize ' Parcels 1-3i 8,415 s . ft/ - 7,200 s uare feet
tot Width - Parcel 1-3: 51 feet* 70 feet
Waives of code 7equtrement requested
(14) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) and parcel map further indicate that each of the three (3)
single-family homes would comply with the development standards of the RS-2 zone.
(15) The conceptual floor plans (Exhibit No. 2) reflect 2-story residences consisting of a living
room, family room and dining room, a porch, patio,.kitchen, up,to six bedrooms, three
bathrooms; and an attached oversized 2-car garage option.
(16) Vehicular access for each residence is provided by a drivewayfrom Priscilla Street.. The
site plan. proposes 2 garage paces and 2 driveway: spaces for each home in compliance
with code. Code requires a total of 4 parking spaces (2 must be enclosed in a garage) for
each single-family residence.
(17) `Conceptual elevation drawings (Exhibit No.3) indicate 2-story structures designed in the
Cottage,'Spanish, and Traditional Styles of architecture. The proposed architecture would
include varied materials (stone veneer,'river rock, wood siding), varied roof materials, and a
covered porch entryway.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(1 B) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of,which is available for review
in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and., therefore,
recommends that a Negative beclaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning
Commission that the Negativebeclaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead
agency; and that it has considered the proposetl Negative Declaration together with any
r
comments received during thepublic reviewprocess and further finding on the basis of the
Initial Study and any comments'received that there is no substantial evidence that the
.:project wih have a significant effect on the environment.
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. B
EVALUATION:
{19) The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Low. Density Residential land uses,
.with a density range df 0 to 6:5dwelling units per acre. The applicant proposes a
reclassifipation of the property from the T zone to the RS-2 zone, to establish a 4-lot, 3 unit
detached single family residential subdivision at a density of 5.1 dwelling units per acre.
The existing church and proposed residences wduld be compatible with the surrounding
residential neighborhood. Religious institutions are conditionally permitted uses in both the
T zone and the RS-2 zone. The residential project is consistent with the density of the Low
Density Residential land use designation for the site and the7eclassification of the entire
site to the RS-2 zone would make the entire property consistent with the General Plan.
{20) 'The applicant is requesting to amend exhibits for the previously approved church to
"subdivide and. establish athree-lot single family residential subdivision on a portion of
church property. Code allows churches in the RS-2 zone subject to approval of a
conditional usepermit. The remaining church property would be reconfigured and
`'additional landscaping added adjacent to the new7esidential propertiesto comply with
code. In addition, staff has added a condition of approval requiring the enhancement of the
perimeter landscaping along both South and Priscilla Streets. (addition of trees/shrubs as
`necessary). Since the requested amentlments to he exhibits would not~esult in an
.:.:intensification of the church, and would comply with code with regard to parking and
landscaping, staff recommends apprdval of this request.
SOIITX ST
~ .10.489 ii _ BB BY _ 1
'~ 1zo Consistent with ~"
.q y~2 design/orientation ="
4zo of surrounding ~r
s *2 properties
r19B o ,-°
;.- ! ~ Proposed. ti
~ ,:21 a ~f ~ SFR lots
1z93 4 f-
A ~.
,~ i~c2O 3, 9,, ~ "9, $5 ~ P' GC-L4 ~ ~
1YB.52 ,~. ~~ -
. a1'
~~ m 19 g ~ V i ~- ib AC ~~ ~ ~'~ 31~~
146.30 t
lly,
r:% 18 >s s 7 Tx ; ~ 5
r'
...138' ,_
111• J.
~ x,17 s ~ 8ID' s4 ""y -5°
-11090
9ms ~M1:' ff
d' 16 R g lB 53 ~~ I e
ufae• H
,N ,
18919 ~~IU~' ~-bPL1E w - 1 e
~ m1~ 1 i'KiF
fillap of site and surrounding properties
(21) .The waiver pertains minimum lot width. Code requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet for
newly created lots within the RS-2 zone..: Plans indicate that each new,parcet would have a
iot width of 51 feet. The applicant has indicated in the attached Justification for Variance
he single-family residential lots to the west and south have lot widths of 50 and 55 feet, as
Page 4
.Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. B
:..depicted above, which is also less than what is required by code. The applicant may
request reclassification to the RS-3 zone (which is also an implementation zone of the
General Plan designation for the site), and the lots would comply with Code. However,
since where are no otherRS-3 zoned properties adjacent to the site (only across the street)
:'staff encouraged the applicant to implement the RS 2 zone,'to maintain consistency with
the surrounding properties and eliminate the potential for"spot" zoning.. The site design is
consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and other properties within the same.
coning classification and on thesame street have imilarJot widths; herefore staff
rewmmends approval of this waiver.
(22) Staff believes the proposed residential use is compatible and consistent with surrounding
land uses. The proposed parcels exceed the minimum lot size. required in the RS-2 zone,
and the proposed setbacks meet or exceed code requirements. However, staff
r recommends the applicant incorporate additionalarchitectural treatments on the elevation
of the residence that is visible from:South Street (north elevation of the northern most lot).
Staff has added a condition of approval to submit final detailed elevation plans for review
and. approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
>FINDINGS:
(23) When practical difficulties or unnecessary. hardships result from. strict enforcement of the
:Zoning Code, a modification may be granted for the purpose ofassuring that no property,
.because ofspecial circumstances applicable to it, shall be deprived ofprivileges commonly
enjoyed bybther properties in the same vicinity and zone. The sole purpose of any
variance occode waiver is to prevent discrimination and none shall be approved which
.would have the effect of grantinga special. privilege not shared by other similar properties.
Therefore, before any variancebr code waiver is granted bythe Planning Commission, it
shall be shown:
(a) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape,
aopography,' location oc surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned
properties in the vicinity; and
(b) Thai strict application of the Zoning Code deprives he property of privileges enjoyed
by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
(24) Before the Commission grants any major modification to a 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 modification of use is properly one for which ,a conditional use permit is
authorized by the Zoning Code, dr is an unlisted use as defined in Subsection .030
... (Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (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) Thatthe 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 o 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
Page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. 8
(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..
(25) Before the Planning Gommission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding
of fact that the evidence presented shows.that afl of the following conditions exist:.
{a) That theproposed 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 or the growth and
development of the area irnwhich it is proposed to be located;
{c) That the size and shape of the site proposed for use is adequate to allow the full
r development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area
nor or 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 to 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.
(26) "The State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, Section 66473.5)makes it mandatory
o include in all motions:approving, o~ recommending approval of a tract map, a specific
finding,that the proposed Subdivision together with its design`and improvement is _'
consistent with the City's General plan. Further, fhe law requires that fhe'Commission
make any of the following findings when denying or recommending denial of a tract map:
1. That theproposedmap is not consistent with applicable General and Specific
Plans.
2. That the design or improvementbf the proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable General and SpecifidPlans.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely do
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially'and avoidably injure fish
or wildlife or theirhabitat.
6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems.
- 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
easements,'acquired'by the public at large, for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision."
-- RECOMMENDATION:
(27) 'Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted. to the Commission, including the
Page 6
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. 8
evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, approve a Negative Declaration.
(b) By resolution, aoorove Reclassification No. 2006-00184 to reclassify the property from
the T (Transition) zone to the RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) zone by adopting the
attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained therein.
(c) By resolution, approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3020 to amend
exhibits for previously approved. church to allow for athree-lot single family residential
subdivisionby adopting the attached resolution including the findings and conditions
contained therein.
(d) By resolution, approve Variance No. 2006-04701, to waive the minimum lot width to
establish a detached single family residential subdivision by adopting the attached
resolution including the findings-and conditions contained therein.
(e) By motion, a rove Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-221 to establish. a 4-lot, 3 unit
.detached single family residential subdivision. based upon the attached conditions of
approval and the findirgs hat the. parcel map and proposed single-family homes are
consistent with the General Plah and the design and improvement of the site is
physically suitable for the ype and density of the proposed development.
Page 7
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006-"
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00184 BE GRANTED
(221.6 EAST SOUTH STREET)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified petition for
Reclassification for real property situated in the City of Anaheim,. County of Orange, State of California,
described as follows
PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-253, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 330, PAGES 7
TO 9, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of
Anaheim on October 16, 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 reclassification and to investigate and make findings and
recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said .Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and
in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and
determine the following facts:
1. That the applicant proposes reclassification of subject property from the T (Transition) zone to
the RS-2 (Single Family Residential) zone.
2. That the Anaheim General Plan designates this property and surrounding. properties for Low
Density Residential land uses. The RS-2 zone is a typical implementation zone for this land designation.
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary and/or desirable for the
orderly and proper development of the community.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly relate to the zones and their
permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject property and to the zones ahd their permitted
uses generally established throughout the community.
5. That "` indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that
the declaration reflects. the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative
Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the
basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby
approve the subject Petition for Reclassification to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map of the Anaheim
Municipal Code to exclude the above-described property from the T (Transition) Zone and to incorporate said
described property into the RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) Zone upon the following conditions which are
hereby found. to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of subject property in order to preserve the
health and safety of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
CR\PC2006-0 -1- PC2006-
1. That prior to introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, a preliminary title report shall be
furnished to the Planning Services Division showing the legal vesting of title, a legal description and
containing a map of the property.
2. That prior to placement of an ordinance rezoning subject property on an agenda for City Council
consideration, Condition No. 1, above-mentioned., shall be completed. The City Council may approve or
disapprove a zoning ordinance at its discretion. If the ordinance is disapproved, the procedure set forth in
Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.60.140 shall apply. The provisions or rights granted by this
resolution shall become null and void by action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are
complied with within one (1) year from the date of this resolution, or such further time as the Planning
Commission may grant
3. That timing for compliance with conditions of approval maybe 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.
4. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it
complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal
regulations. Approval does not'include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request
regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall not constitute a rezoning of, or a
commitment by the City to rezone, the subject property; any such rezoning shall require an ordinance of the City
Council, which shall be a legislative act, which may be approved or denied by the City Council at its sole
discretion.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 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
October 16, 2006. -Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 16.60 "Procedures" of
the Anaheim Municipal. Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution
in the event of an appeal
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-2- PC2006-
STATE OF CALLFORNIA )
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
October 16, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
2006.
IN W ITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
SENIOR SECRETARY; ANAHEIM PLANNJNG COMMkSSION
-3- PC2006-
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006--**
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. PC88-163 ADOPTED IN CONNECTION WITH
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3020
(2216 EAST SOUTHSTREET)
WHEREAS, on June 20, 1988, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did, by its Resolution
No. PC88-163, gran6Conditional Use Permit No. 3020 to permit caretakers/ministers .quarters for an existing
church; and included the following condition:
"9. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and
specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibits Nos. t and 2:'
WHEREAS, the property is developed with a church and is within the T (Transition) Zone. The
Anaheim General Plan designates this property and all surrounding properties for Low Density Residential
land uses; and is situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as:
PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-253, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 330, PAGES
7 TO 9, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THE SOUTHERLY 153 FEET OF SAID PARCEL.
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested an amendment to this conditional use. permit to
amend exhibits for a previously approved church (Condition No. 9), to subdivide and establish athree-lot
single family residential subdivision;`and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City
of Anaheim on October 16,2006, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as
required by law and in accordance with he provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 1:8.60, 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 request to amend exhibits for previously approved church (Condition No. 9), to
subdivide and establish. athree-lot single family residential subdivision is properly one for which a conditional
use permit is authorized by Section 18.60.190.030 of the Zoning Code.
2. That the remainder of the church property would be reconfigured to incorporate additional
landscaping adjacent to the new residential properties, and as conditioned, the applicant would enhance the
perimeter landscaping along both South and Priscilla Streets (addition of treeslshrubs as necessary). The
requested amendments to the exhibits would not resultin an intensification of the church, and woWd comply
with code with regard to parking and landscaping.
3. 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 onto the. health and safety.
4.. :That no additional traffic would be generated by the proposed changes and therefore, would
not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved,to carry the traffic in the
area
Cr\PC2006-0 -1- PC2006-
5. That the granting of the modifications as recommended and under the conditions imposed will
not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim;. and
6. That *" indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition;. and that no
correspondence was received in oppositidn 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
fnding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby amend Resolution No. PC88-163, adopted in connection with ConditionalUse Permit No. 3020, to
approve the applicant's request, to amend exhibits for. previously approved church (Condition No. 9j, to
subdivide and establish athree-lot single family residential subdivision; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditions of approval in Resolution No. PC86-163 are
hereby amended and updated in their entirety to read as follows:
Bold denotes modified or new condition
That final landscape plans in compliance with Zoning Code requirements for the subject
property shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review. and approval.. Said plans
shall show minimum 24-inch box size trees or a minimum brovvn trunk height of 8 to 10 feet,
shrubs, groundcover, and clinging vines. to be planted in layers on all walls visible from the
public right-of-way and within landscaped setbacks. The landscape material selected shall be
appropriate to the width of the planter area. Any decision made by the Planning Department
regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission'as a Reports and
Recommendations item. Alf trees shall be properly and professionally maintained by the
property owner to ensure mature, healthy growth. Such information shall be specifically shown
on the plans submitted for building permits.
2. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense. That
landscape andfor hardscape screening of all pad-mounted equipment shall be required and shall
be shown on plans submitted for building permits.
3. That. gates shalt not be installed across any driveway or private street in a manner which may
adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street. That if gates are proposed, such
installation shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 475 and shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Said information shall be
specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
4. 'That the developer shalt submit grading plans to the Public Works Department, Development
Services Division. and post a bond'. to guarantee that the street improvements are constructed as
approved by the City Engineer.. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final building
and zoning inspections.
5. That the developer shall include landscape and irrigation plans with the grading plan to the Public
Works Department, Development Services Division to replace the 4' wide landscaped parkway that
has been filled in with concrete along South Street. The Developer shall reconstruct the sidewalk
access. ramp at the corner to be in compliance with ADA requirements and Public Works Std Detail
111-2.
-2- PC2006-
6. That the developer shalt submit a cash. payment in an amount determined by the City Engineer to
be sufficient to pay for the required street widening along South Street. The maximum cash
payment will be 3.125 times 100% of the traffic impact (estimate $761/ unit x 3 units x 3.125=
$7,135). The cash payment shall be paid to the Public Works Department, Development Services
Division prior to issuance of a building permit. The traffic impact fee will be increased in August,
2007.
7. That parkway landscaping and sidewalk shall be constructed with the parkway irrigation connected
to the on-site irrigation system and maintained by the property owner. A bond shall be posted in an
amount approved by the City Engineer and a form approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance
of a building permit. A Right of Way Construction Permit shalt be obtaihed from the Development
Services Division for all work performed in the right-of-way. The improvements shall be constructed
prior to final building. and zoning inspections.
8. That the developer shall submit improvement plans to the Public Works Department,
Development Services Division to construct an 8' wide landscaped parkway and 4' wide
sidewalk adjacent to the new church parking lot and new homes along Priscilla Street. The curb
and adjacent sidewalk between South Street and the new driveway approach shall remain where
it is.
9. That prior to grading plan. approval, the applicant shall. demonstrate that coverage has been
obtained under California's General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with
Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water
Resources Control Board and a Dopy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste
Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. The applicant shall prepare and implement a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site
and be available for City review on request.
10. That the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division,
for review and. approval, a Water QualityManagement Plan, as described in Drainage Area
Management Pian for Orange Couhty. 'Said WQMP shall:
• Address Site Design Best Management. Practices (BMP's) such as minimizing impervious
areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating
reduced or "zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas.
Incorporate applicable Routine Source Control BMP's.
• Incorporate Treatment Control BMP's.
° Describe the long-term operation and maintenance, identifies the responsible parties, and
funding mechanisms for the Treatment Control BMP's.
11. That prior to the issuance of grading permit, the applicant shale 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 (BMP's) 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 BMP's as defined in the Drainage Area
.Management Plan.
° Incorporates Treatment Control BMP's as defined in the DAMP.
• Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for. the Treatment Control
BMP's.
• Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the
Treatment Control BMP's, and
® Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment
- Control BMP's.
-3- PC2006-
12. That an ADA compliant curb access ramp with truncated domes shall be constructed at South
Street and Priscilla Street in conformance with Public Works Standard Detail 111-2.
13. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of
regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash. or debris, and removal of graffiti within
twenty-four (24) hours from the time of discovery.
14. That the applicant shall submit a request for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 302 (to
permit a temporary church use in an existfng home; and. Conditional. Use Permit No. 1246 (to
permit a nursery school in conjunction with art existing church).
15. That subjectproperty shall. be developed substantially igaccordance with plans and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning
Department marked Revision 1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and Exhibit No. 3, and as conditioned
herein.
16. That prior td 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, 5; 6, 7, 8, 10 and 14, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section.
18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal
17. 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. 9 and 11,above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for
.further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the
Anaheim Municipal
18. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 2, 4, 7 and 12, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with.
19. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the. proposed request only to the extent that it
complies with. the Anaheim Municipal 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.
20. 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
development.
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 df any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and. any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related
to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or
prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges
shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application.
-4- PC2006-
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
October 16, 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 October 16, 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
-5- PC2006-
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006--"`
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2006-04701 BE GRANTED
{2216 EAST SOUTH STREET)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Variance
for certain real property situated. in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as:
PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-253, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 330, PAGES
7 TO 9, INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THE NORTHERLY 331.09 FEET OF SAID PARCEL:
-WHEREAS, the Planning Commissiortdid hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on October 16, 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 variance and to investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and -
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
L -That the applicant requests the following waiver to establish a 4-lot, 3-unit detached single-
family residential subdivision:
Section No. 18.04.050.010 Minimum lot width (Minimum width of 70 feet required; 51
feet proposed)
2. That the above-mentioned waiver is hereby granted based on the finding that the single-
family residential lots to the west and south have similar lot widths of 50 and 55 feet. The site design is
consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and since other properties within the same zoning
classification and on the same street have similar lot widths, strict application of the zoning code would deny
this property,a right that is being enjoyed by other parcels in the immediate vicinity with the same or similar
zoning.
4. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed. by other property in the same vicinity and zone.
b. That the requested variance will not be materiallydetrimental to the public health and safety
or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
6. That "".indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in.opposition to subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal; 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 haves significant effect on the environment.
CR\PC2006-0 =1- PC2006-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does
hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a
necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health and safety
of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1. That roll-up garage doors shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. Said doors shall be
installed and maintained as shown on submitted plans.
2. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense. That
landscape andlor hardscape screening of all pad-mounted equipment shalt be required and shall be
shown on plans submitted for building. permits.
3. That gates shall not be installed. across any driveway or private street in a manner which may
adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent publicstreet. That if gates are proposed, such
installation shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 475 and. shall be subject to the review and
approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Said information shall tie specifically shown
on plans submitted for building permits.
4. That the developer shall submit grading plans to the Public Works Department, Development Services
Division and post a bond to guarantee that the street improvements are constructed as approved by
the City Engineer. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning
inspections.
5. That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area in a
manner fully screened from all public streets. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault
shalt be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to
the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside of the street
setback areas in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be
shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector before
submittal for building permits.
6, That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or
abandonment of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water Engineering
Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department.
7. That water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Water Engineering Division for approval and a
pertormance bond in the amount approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney shall be posted with
the City of Anaheim. That the water improvement plans shalt indicate a minimum clearance of five (5)
#eet from the water main to the curb and. gutter and a minimum clearance of ten (10) feet from the
water main to the sewer line.
8. That prior to application for water meters, fire line or submitting the water improvement plans for
approval, the developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Water Engineering Division an
estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the
project. This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to
provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the
project shall occur in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and
Regulations.
9. That final detailed elevation plans including colors and materials shall be submitted to the Planning
Services Division for review and approval. Such plans shall reflect further enhancements/additional
architectural design treatments on the elevations of the residences that are visible from South Street
(north elevation of the northern most property). Any decision by staff regarding said plans may be
appealed to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item.
-2- PC2006-
10. That the owner shall submit a request for termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 302 (to establish a
temporary church use in an existing home) and Conditional Use Permit No. 1246 (to permit a nursery
school in conjunction with an existing church) since these permits are no longer necessary.
11. That all air-conditioning facilities and other roof- or ground-mounted equipment shall be properly
shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent residential properties. Such information shall
be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
12. That all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be fully
screened by architectural devices andlor appropriate building materials. Said information shall be
specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
13. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing. regular landscape
maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time
of discovery.
14. That this Variance is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 2006-00184 and
recordation of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-221,. now pending.
15. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed,
damaged, diseased and/or dead.
16. That the locations for future above-ground utility devices including, but not limited to, electrical
transformers, water backflow devices, gas, communications and cable devices, etc., shall be shown on
plans submitted for building permits. Plans shall also identify the specific screening treatments of each
' device (i.e. landscape screening, color of walls, materials, identifiers; access points, etc.) and shall be
subject to the review and approval of the appropriate City departments.
17. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval of
wall and fence locations to determine conformance with Engineering Standard No. 115.
16. That the developer shall submit improvement plans to the Public Works Department,' Development
Services Division to construct an 8' wide landscaped parkway and 4' wide sidewalk adjacent to the
-new church parking lot and new homes along Priscilla Street'The curb adjacent sidewalk between
South Street and the new driveway approach shalt remain where it is.
19. That parkway landscaping and sidewalk shall be constructed with the parkway irrigation connected to the
on-site .irrigation system and maintained by the property owner. A bond shall be posted in an amount
approved by the City Engineer and' a form approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building
permit. A Right of Way Construction Permit shall be obtained from the Development Services Division for
all work performed in the right-df-way. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and
zoning inspections.
20. That prior to grading plan approval, the applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained
under California's General Permit for Stonnwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by
providing a copy bf the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. and a
copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number.
The applicant shall prepare and implement a Stonnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of
the current SW PPP shall be kept at the project site and be available for City review on request.
21. That the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division, for
review,and approval, a Water Quality Management Plan, as described in Drainage Area Management
Plan for Orange County. Said WQMP shall
e Address Site Design Best Management Practices (BMP's) such as minimizing impervious areas,
__ :.. .
maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or
"zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas.
-3- PC2006-
• Incorporate applicable Routine Source Control BMP's.
• Incorporate Treatment Control BMP's.
• Describe the long-term. operation and maintenance, identifies the responsible parties, and funding
mechanisms for the Treatment Control BMP's.
22. That prior to issuance of the first building permit, the final map shall be submitted to and approved by the
City of Anaheim and the Orange County Surveyor and then shall be recorded. in the Office of the Orange
County Recorder..
23. That prior to the issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department
Development Services Division for review and approval a Water Quality Management Plan that:
• Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMP's) such as minimizing impervious areas,
maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious. areas, creating reduced or "zero
discharge" areas, and conserving natural. areas.
o Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMP's as defined in the Drainage Area.
Management Plan.
• Incorporates Treatment Control BMP's as defined in the DAMP.
• Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMP's.
• Identifies the entity that will. be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment
Control BMP's, and
• Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment
Control BMP's.
24. That prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall
• Demonstrate that all structural BMP's described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and
installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications.
• Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMP's described in the
Project WQMP. ,
• Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available onsite.
• Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for alt structural
BMP's.
25. The City of Anaheim Sewer Impact and Improvement Fee for the Old Town/ Basin 8 area shall be paid.
The fee is currently $1,824/ unit for residential developments...
26. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning
Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3, and as conditioned herein.
27. That prior to approval of a grading plan, Condition No. 4, 20 and 23, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with.
28. That prior to issuance of a building. permit, or within a period of one (1 }year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22 and
25, 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
29. That. prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 4, 6, 19, 24 and 26, above-mentioned,
shalt be complied with.
30: That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it
complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal
_ regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
-4- PC2006-
31. 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
development.
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
October 16, 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 October 16, 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
-5- PC2006-
City of Anaheim
~LI~l~1VIlVG 1~EPARTt1~ElV'T
October 16, 2006
East Anaheim Christian Church
2216 East South. Street
Anaheim, CA 92806
Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of
October 16, 2006.
Sa. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
8b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00184
8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3020
`(TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05136)
8d. ' 'VARIANCE NO. 2006-04701
Be. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2006-221
Owner: East Anaheim Christian Church, 2216 East South Street, Anaheim, CA
92806
Agent: Craig Kosma, Manning Homes, 20151 Southwest. Birch Street, Suite 150,
Newpdrt Beach, CA 92660
Location: 2216 East South Street: Property is approximately 1.58 acres, and. is
located at the southeast corner of South Street and Priscilla Street (East
Anaheim: Christian Church).
Reclassification No. 2006-00184 -Request reclassification of the subject property from
the T (Transition) zone to the RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) zone, or a less intense
zone.
Conditional Use Permit Na 3020 (Tracking No. CUP2006-05136) -Request to amend
exhibits for a previously approved church to subdivide and establish athree-lot single
family residential subdivision.
Variance No. 2006-04701 -Requests waiver of minimum lot width to establish a
detached single family residential subdivision.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-221 - To establish a 4-lot, 3-unit detached single family
residential subdivision.
ACTION:
Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a 4-
lot, 3-unit detached single-family residential subdivision and does hereby approve the Negative
Declaration upon a finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead
agency; and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments
received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study
and comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION
CAI~Ii~Qh bhtlte&F+eoAatalaeim Planning Commission does hereby approve the proposed 4-lot, 3-
unitPd~et~cR~d sin~le-family tentative parcel map based on the following (i) the parcel map and
Anaheim, California 2803
wvnv.anaheim.net TEL (714) 7fi5-5139
proposed single-family homes are consistent with the General Plan and (ii) the site is physically
suitable for the type and density of development proposed subject to the following conditions:
1. That the final map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and the
Orange County Surveyor and then shall be recorded in the Office pf the Orange County
Recorder (Subdivision Map Act, Section 66499.40).
2. That a maintenance covenant shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section and approved
by the City Attorney's office. The covenant shall include provisions for maintenance of
private facilities,. including compliance with approved Water Quality Management Plan, and
a maintenance exhibit. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final map.
3. That the legal property owner shall execute a Subdivision Agreement, in a form .approved
by the City Attorney, to complete the required public improvements at the legal property
owner's expense. Said agreement shallbe submitted to the Public Works Department,
Subdivision Section approved by the City Attorney and City Engineer and then recorded
concurrently with the final parcel map.
4. That prior to final map approval, all parcels. shall be assigned street addresses by the Building
Division.
5. Prior to final map, the property owner shall .irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of
Anaheim a corner cut-off for road, public utilities and other public purposes at South Street
and. Priscilla Street. All street improvements shall be completed prior to final building and
zoning inspections.
6. That approval of this parcel map is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No.
2006-00184 and Variance No. 2006-04701, now pending.
7. That prior to final parcel map approval, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, above-mentioned,
shall be complied with.
8. 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. ,
9. 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 development.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
Cr em.doc
Attachment -Item No. 8
PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF
7USTIFICATION FOR VARL4NCE(CODE WANER
(NOT REQURtED FOR PARKING WANER)
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CODE SECTION: ~ ~~ 0 ~/, D~U, 0/D
(A separate statement is required for each Code waiver)
PERTAINING T0: Lots 1.2. 3. of Tentative Parcel Mao 2006-221
Sections 18.03.040.030 attd 18.12.D60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code require that before any variance or Code waiver may be
granted. by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, Ute following shall be shown:
That Utere aze special circumstances applicable to Ute property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in Ute vicinity; and .
2. That, because of such special circumstances, strict application of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges
enjoyed by outer property tinder identical zoning classification in Ute vicinity.
In order to determine if such special circumstances exist, and to assist the Zouiog 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. Tf you need additional space, you may attach additional pages.
Are [here special circumstances that apply to the property in matters such as size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings? _ Yes X No.
If your answer is "Yes," describe the special circumstances:
2. Are Uie special circumstances that apply to Ute property different from older properties in the vicinity which ere in the
same zone as your property? X Yes _ No
If your answer is "yes," describe how Ute property is different: 3 Adjacent Homes to the East are within Ute RS-2
zone and have widths less titan the minimum. Also, existing homes on west side of Priscilla St. ere zoned RS-3 attd
have a narrower widUt. Proposed lots will be consistent with others on col-de-sac.
3. Do Ute special circumstances applicable to Ute property deprive it of privileges currently enjoyed by neighboring
properties located within the same zone? X Yes _No
If your answer if "yes," describe the special circumstances:
4. Were the special circumstances created by causes beyond the control of Utc property owner (or previous properly
owners)? _ Yes `C No
EXPLAIN:
The sole pur se of any v lance or Code waiver shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance or Cade waiver shall be
approved ich wool ve Ute effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in We same vicinity and zone
which i o[ otltenvi 8xpressly authorized by zone regulations governing subje t property. Use variances are not. permitted.
Signature roperty Owne or Authorized Agent Date
- CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNARIANCE NO.
37625tDECEMBER 12, 20D0
Justification Waiver. dol
Attachmen# -Item fVo. 8
A RESOLUTION OF TH6 ANAHEIDf CITY PLATiNTNG COMMI5S2027
THAT PfiTITION 'FOR CONDITIONAL ll5E PERMIT 770. 3020 SS GRANTED.
WHEREAS, the Anaheim CSty Planning Commission did recotva a vorified
Petition for Cond.tional Uso Pormit From EAST'AT7AHE]:M CHRISTIAti CHURCH, ATTUt
JO6SPH W. SHSLLfiY. 2216 fi. South Street, Anahoim, CA 92806, owner and FRANCIS
L. WOOD. 570 Century DrSve, Anshelm.'CA 92805. agont for curtain real
proporty situatod !n thv City of Anaheim, 'Co•tnty of Orango. State of
California.-descrlbad as: --
'Tho East 165 foot ofth® Woat 330faot of thv 2lorth.
650 Yent of tho East half of the Uorthwoat quarter of
auction 13, Township 4Soath, Rarga 1C Host on tho
Rancho San. Juan do Sonto Ana, as shown on a Map
recordod' in Book Sd, pago 30 of miscel lonuous Maps. e
recorals of OrangoCounty,"Caiitornia.
w'Nf.REAS. tho City PlannSng Corrwlsalon did hold a public hosting st
thr •'•~•f~- ientar in tho City o[ Aaahelm'on Juno 20, 198E et'1:30 p.m., notico
cf "c•;n -publichearing he w.I ngbae dduly gluon estoquirod by law and !n
aa.eord.,•,ca wlth tho provlafons bF tho Anahoim Alunielpal Codo, Chaptor 18.01,
to hoarmnd consideravldoncofor and against said pr~posod condStional uao
perm,tand to lnvestlgato and mako flndings'anA r®eommoudatlona in connection
thotevlthi and
WHEREAS,'aald Cotmnisainn, actor 'duo 'lnspoetion, investtgetior. and
study mod. by ltaolf and !n !t+ behalf.' and aftor duo consideratlan o[ all
ovldonco and roports of[orod at saio hosting, doss Find and doto:minn the
iollowlnq factai
1. Titat tlao propomod uaa !s praparly ono for which n condltlune:
use pormlt !a authorlaod by Anaha lm Municipal Codn 'Soctlon 18.21.050.110 Io
vitt to permit a carotaker's/minletor'a qunrtora [or an oxlatingchutch.
'2. That the propusod uao x111 not advoraoly af[oet the adSolnSny
lend usos end Cho growth end davelopwont of the areo Sn. which ft !s praposod
to ba located.
3. xhat the else end ahapo oI the alto proposed for tho uao is
adequate to allow tho toll developaant of tho propoaod usv In a manner nut
dotrlmontal to tho pareleular acne nor t~ thv peace. Uoalth, sefoty and
general wolfarm o[ the Citl sn na o[ thv Clty of Anaheim,
0353r -1- PCBB-163
d. That tho granting of the Conditional Uso Permit under the
conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peaco, health,
safety and general welfare of the Citiaons of tho City of Anaheim.
$. That the traffic genoratod by tho propose9 use will not impose
an undue burden upon the stroets and highways dosigred and improved to carry
the traffic in tho wren.
6. That no one. indicated their prosouco at said public hearing in
opposition; and thaL• no corraspondanca vas saceivnd in opposition to the
subject potitioa.
CALIFORNIA EtiVIRONNENTAL OUALI'rY ACT FINDING; That the Anaheim
City Planning Commiss on has roviewod thu propoool to permit a caretakor's/
ministez's quarters for-an oxisting church on a roctangulprly-shaped parcol
of .land consistiny of appraximatoly 2.].aecos-aocatod at the southaastcornor
of South Street and Priscilla Street, having frontagos of opproximatoly Tfifi
feot on. the south sido of South 5treot and B00 Eoet on tho oast silo of
Priscilla Strout, and Surther describod as 2216 Eest South Street (East
Anahaim Christia» Church)I,and duos hnrnby approvo tho Nagativo Doclaration
upon finding that it hoe considered the Negative Doclarotion together with
any comments rocaived during the public roviow process and [urthor Pinding on
the bnsis of the initial .study an8 any eommonta roeoivafl that there is Ito
substantial evidoneo that the project will hevo a significant eEtect on the
onvironmant.
NON, THEREFORE, DEIT 1tESOWED that the Aneholm City Planning
Commission dooa horoby.:grant aubjoctPOtltlon fot Conditional Use Permit,
upon the following condltiona _vhich are ,haroby found to bo a nocoaeary
proraquisltu to-tho,proposodusa of the subject ptoperty,ln order to praaorve
the safotyaadganoral woltara of .the Citlzone of the City o[ Anehelmt
1. That prix to laauanco of a buildiny pormlt, the appropriate
traffir.:algnalosaaesmon6 too tlhell bopaid to the Clty of Anahaim
in,oq nmotntt,ca detarminod 6y Clty Council raaolutlon.<
2. That the drlvovey on South Street she71 bo. roronetructad to
eecomraodata ton tl~l foot radlua curb retur'ts. Exiet-nq broken or
,craekod drlvovayo .shall. bo removed end teplace4 ao roy.+lred by the
City Bnglnuar.
1. That a fao shall bo paid to the City ct Anahaim for atreot lighting
along South Straot !n en, waount, eo P••torminod by City Connell
resolution.
4. That a toe shall bo paid to the City •.t Anaheim for :raa planting
along. South 6troot andPriocllle..Stroet !n_an amount as dotorminod
by City,Councllresolution..
035]r •2- PC00-16]
5. That .prior to .issuance of ,a building parroit. appropriate park and
rocraatlon in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an
amount as datermiaod by the City Council.
-!i. That drainage of subject proporty shop ba disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
7. That the nee construction authorizod by this resolution shall be
served by underground .utilities.
fi. That all air conditioning facilitios and ether roof and ground
mountod agulpmont shall ba properly shielded from viow, and the
sound buftorod from adjacont rosidontial properties.
9. That subjort property shall bo devoloped substantially in
accordance with plans and spoeifieations on filo vlth the City of
Anaheim roarkod Exhibit Hos. 1 and 2.
30. That prior to issuonco of a building pormic, or within a period of
one year from_tho date of this resolution, ahlchovur ocaura first.
Condition eos. 1, 3. 4 and 5,. Dhow-montlonad, shall 6o coropliad
a1th. Extansious for furthor imo to completo said conditions may
ba granted in accordance with Soctlon 18.01.090 of ihu Anaheim
Municipal Codo.
il. That prior to final building end coning lnspoctlons. Condition tioa.
2..:6, 7,6.and.9, above-mentioned, aha31 bo caroplied with.
12. That approval of thla application constitutes approval of the
proposed reguoet only to the extont that it compllaa with tho
Anahnin Munlelpel EOn1ng COda and any othor appliceblo Clty
rogulatlona.Approvnldo®anot7neludo any aetton or findings as
to complianco or approval of [ho roguoat rogardlnq any othor
appliceblo ordinanw, rogulation or raquiremont.
OE 1T t'UItTItEN PESOLVEO that tbo Anobolm Clty Planning Commlaalon
floes horeby find and dotasrolna that adoption of this Roaolutlon la exprossly
prodlcatad upon appllcant'a eompllanco with oaeh and all of the conditions
heralnabovo not forth. Should any such conditions, or any part thoreot, bo
daclarod invalid or unentorcoablo by the final judgment of ony court o[
competent jurladiction. thon this Pmaolutlon, and any approvals horoin
contalnod, shall bo daomad null. and void.
0353r -3• PCBB-163
RNE FOREGOING RE50LUTIUN i9 signed and apprnva8 by ma thin 20th day
of Juna. 1906.
(Original signed by Hobert Masse)
- CHAIRMAR, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C0lAf255I0N
ATTEST:
(Original signed by Edith L Harris)
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI5520t1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
1, Edith L. Harris, Saaretacy of the Anahoiro City Planning
Commission. do hereby certify that the foregoing roso]vLlon was pasaod .and
'adopted at a maoting of the Anaheim CSty Planning Commission hold an Juna 20.
1958, by tk.o following tote of tl:a mamber3 theraor:
'AY651 "CfOMMISSIONERSs EOUAS, 'SOYOSTUH, CARU51LL0. F6LbIlAUS. Ft6R55T,
MC SURIIEY, M6SSE e
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
AB56NTt COkAIISSIOttERS: BONE
!tr HITN6S5 WIIEREOF. I havo haroanto sot roy hand this 20th day of
Juno. 1908.
(Origlnai s1Aap~~-hl:aiarrtSS
SECRETARY, At1AlI61M CITY PLAIIII~NC COMMISSION
03b3r -d- PCISB-153
Item No. 9
e
ORANGE COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT
ORANGE COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT
J N
N O
~~
~mc~
a`„'° _ `~
mV aw
I g~
ORANGE COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT
teal ® e
aS~PPtea .
o~,~e~e~®: /
l~ ~oP e
P~p~ea®e /
0
e/
ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04412
TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05131
Requested By: ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
1120 North Richfield Road
1c1a6
SP 94-1(SC)
RCL 6566-13
RCL 6566-24
(Res of Intent to ML)
-CUP 2274 -
ORANGE COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT
gas of Intent to ML)
RCL 55-66-13
-CUP 2006-05131
' 2113
4-65-2
P 675)
COPP
T
RCL 65-66-13
ORANGE COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT
>u ~
¢¢
Subject Properly
Date: October 16, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 161
T(SC)
RCL 70-71 ~46
RCL 7D-71-47
(Res, of Int. to ML)
ORANGE COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT
ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE: Date tifAerial Pho(o:
- - Juty 2005
'! Subject Property
Conditional. Use Permit No. 2001-04412 Date: October 16, 2006
TRACKING.NO. CUP2006-05131 Scale: 1" = 200'
Requested By: ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Q.S. No. 161
1120 North Richfield Road 10148
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. 9
9a. < CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) (Motion)
9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3001-04412 (Resolution)
(Tracking No CUP2006-05131)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
;; (1) This irregularly-shaped 6 acre property has a frontage of 650 feet on the east side of
Richfield Road, a maximum depth of 740 feet and is located f,2t30 feet south of the
centerline of La Palma Avenue (1120 North Richfield Road -Dan Copp Crushing
Corporation inc.).
REQUEST:
{2) The applicant requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a
condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain apreviously-approved concrete
processing facility under authority of Code Section Nos. 18.66.040:030:0301 (Unlisted
Uses Permitted), 18,68.180 (Reinstatement of atime-limited permit), and 18.120.110 (Land
use and developmentstandards -Open. Space Area,(Development Area 6).
BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is developed as a concrete and asphalt recycling center and is zoned SP94-
1, pevelopment Area 6 (Northeast Area Specific Plan, Open Space Area). The Anaheim
General Plan designates this property for Parks land_uses; furthermore, this property is in
the Anaheim Merged: Redevelopment Project Area.
(4) Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04412 (to .retain a concrete processing facility) was:
grantedby the Planning Commission on August 13, 2001.. Resolution No. PC2001-113
adopted in connection with this :permit contains the following condition of,approval:
" 1. That this conditional use permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of this
resolution on August 13, 2006:'
DISCUSSION:
(5) The applicant has submitted arequest to reinstate Conditional.Use Permit No. 2001-04412
to retain the concrete processing facility. In conjunction with the reinstatement; the applicant
requests that Conditioh No. 1 bf Resolutidn No. PC2001-113 be amended to permit the
concrete processing facility,for, a period of five years, o expire Octoberl6, 2011.
(6) To demonstrate that the findings Yequired for reinstatement of this use permit have been
satisfied, the applicant has submitted the. attached Justification for Reinstatement. The
applicant has indicated that thephysical aspects of the property have remained the same
and the permit is being' exercised substantially in the same manner and in conformance with
all conditions of approval
(7) The Community Preservation Division has submitted the attached memorandum dated,
September 8, 2006, regarding the current status of the property.' The memorandum
documents that the applicant is complying with all the conditions of approval adopted in
connection with the original approval and that the property is being properly maintained. In
addition,`Commuhity Preservation records indicate that there are no outstanding complaints
-` pertaining to this property.
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item. No. 9
(8) The Community DevelopmentpepartmenLhas submitted the attached memorandum dated
:September 29, 2006, regarding the request for reinstatement. She Community
Development Department believes that there are other permanent uses that would support
and promote the objectives of the Canyon Industrial Area;. therefore, they support the
applicant's request and recommend reinstatement of this permit for a period of five years as
requested by the property owner.
(9) 'Staff has inspected the property and found'it to be well maintained and that the use does not
?appear to be operating in a manner detrimental td the surrounding area'The permit has
been exercised in a manner consistent with the original approval and each of the required
.findings used to approve the original request can still be made. Since the cohcrete
processing facility has not caused a disturbance to the surrounding properties and has
operated in compliance with all conditions of approval, staff recommends reinstatement of
this permit for aperiod of five years to expire August 13, 2011.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(10} 'Staff has reviewed the proposal to retain concrete processing facility and the Initial Study (a
copy of which is available for review in3he Planning Department) and finds ho 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 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 Ihitial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence
thafthe project will have a significant effect on the environmeht
FINDINGS:
(11) `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, Deis 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;
(c) That the size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the
proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the: particular area or to the health and
safety;
(d) That the traffic generated by the use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways. designed and improved to carry he traffic ih 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.
(12) .Section 18.60.180.D30 of the Zoning Code requires that an approval fora reinstatement.
shall be granted only,upon the,applicant presenting evidence td establish the following
- findingsr
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. 9
(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
(d) With regard only tc 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
review of the use is no longer necessary andlor that it can be determined that, due
o changed circumstances, the use is consistent with the City's long-term plans for
the area
RECOMMENDATION:
(13) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the
hearing, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the evidence
presented'in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing,
the Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, determine that the. previously approved Negative Declaration is the
appropriate environmental determination for this request.
(b) By resolution, approve the reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04412
s (Tracking No. CUP2006-05131) to retain apreviously-approved concrete processing
facility for a period of five (5) years, to expire on August 13, 2011, by adopting the
attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained herein.
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006--"'
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION.
REINSTATING AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04412, AND
AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-113,
ADOPTED THEREWITH
WHEREAS, on August 13, 2001, the Anaheim Planning Commission, by Resolution No.
PC2001-113 approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04412 to retain a concrete processing facility at 1120
North Richfield Road; and
WHEREAS, said Resolution No. PC2001-113 includes the following condition of approval:
"1. That this conditional use permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of this
resolution on August 13, 2006:'
WHEREAS, this property is currently developed with a concrete processing facility, the underlying
zoning is SP94-1, Development Area 6 (Northeast Area: Specific Plan, Open Space Area); the Anaheim General
Plan designates this property for Parks land. uses; and thisproperty is,lpcated within the Anaheim Merged
Redevelopment Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Reinstatement
of Conditional Use Permit for reinstatement of this conditional use permit to retain a concrete processing facility
pursuant to Code Section 18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for certain real property situated in the City of
Anaheim County of Orange, State of California, described as, and
PARCEL 5: THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 22 AND 23 IN BLOCK 35 OF YORBA LINDA
TRACT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, .STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOKS PAGES 17 AND 18 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 22, SAID TINE .BEING
CONSIDERED FOR THIS DESCRIPTION AS THE CENTERLINE OF THAT CERTAIN
UNNAMED STREET, SHOWN ON THE EAST SIDE OF SAID LOT 22, COMMONLY KNOWN
AS FEE ANA STREET, SOUTH 0° 12' 25" EAST 284.80 FEET-FROM THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF LOT 22, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE LAND
'DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 3, 1937, IN BOOK 919 PAGE 221 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 0° 12' 25" EAST 57.81 FEET TO A POINT IN THE
NORTH TOE OF THE NORTH DIKE OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER; THENCE SOUTH 51° 50' 20" -
WEST 973.11 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH TOE TO THE CENTERLINE OF RICHFIELD ROAD
TO A POINT SOUTH. 0° 0T 10" EAST 284.80 FEET FROM THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 22;
THENCE NORTH 89° 46' 05" EAST 766.30 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING...
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold. a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of
Anaheim on October 16, 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
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 atsaid hearing, does find and
determine the following facts:
-- 1. That the request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition. of
approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain apreviously-approved concrete processing facility is properly
one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under. authority of Code Section Nos. 18.66.040.030.0301
CR\PC2006-0 -1- PG2006-
(Unlisted Uses Permitted), 18.68.180 (Reinstatement. of slime-limited permit), and 18.120.110 (Land use and
development standards -Open Space Area (Development Area 6) of the Anaheim. Municipal Code.
2. That. the proposed reinstatement for the concrete processing facility would not adversely affect
the adjoining land uses and the growth 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 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
4. That the traffic generated by the use will not. impose an undue burden upon the streets and
highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area.
5. That granting this reinstatement, under the conditions imposed, will not be detrimental to the
peace, health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
6. That **" indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed. the proposal; and does hereby find that the Negative Declaration previously
approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit. No. 2001-04412 is adequate to serve as the required
environmental documentation in connection with this request upon finding that the declaration reflects the
independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the previously approved Negative
Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the
basis of the initial study and 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 further, incorporates the following conditions of approval contained
in Resolution No. PC2001-113 into a new resolution with the following. conditions which are hereby found to be a
necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health and safety of
the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
Bold indicates a modified condition.
1. That this conditional use permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of this resolution.
on August 13, 201E
2. That the hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.
3. That the subject property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit 1.
4. That the 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. Failure
-2- PC2006-
to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits ar the revocation of the approval of
this application.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
October 16, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 16.60 "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
October 16, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
2006.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM. PLANNING COMMISSION
-3- PC2006-
PETITIONER'S STATEMENT Attachment -Item No. 9
JUSTIFICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT
Section 18.60.180 of the Anaheim-Municipal. Code requires that requests for reinstatements qr renewals of a time-
IlmOed permit shell be made In writing no. later than six (6) months after the gxpliatlpn data, of the permit. sought to
be reinstated or renewed and must be accompahled by an.appllcatlon form and the required filing fee...
1. In order to reinstate or renew a pertnlt, the facts riecessety to support each end every finding for the original
approval of the entitlement as. set forth-in the folldwing excerpts from the ~Anahelm Zoning Code still exist:
18.66.060 (Retatfve to Condlttoinal Use Permits)
Before the approval authority, or City ~ounoll "on appeal, may approve a coridltbnel use permit,. ft must make
a fintling of fact; by resolution, thatthe evidence presented shows that all pf the following conditions Is
required:
.031 That the proposed use is properly one for wfi~h a condiOonal use permit is authored by this dude, or
is an unlisted use as deflried Insybsedion :030jUnlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040
(Appoval Authority);
.032 That the proposed use will-not adversely affect ttie adjoiriing land uses or the growth and development
of the area In whieh'It Is. proposedao be located;
A33 That the size and shapa,oPtha`slte proposed for the use is atlequate So allow the full development of
the proposed use In a.manner not datrlmenisl to.tha pattlctilar area or to health end safely;
:034 That the trafix; generated by the pinposeduae.wlll natimptiae anuhdue burden uponfha streets and
highways designed anct;lmprovedao barty3he traffic In the area;"and
.035 That the:granting of. the condltiorial use pertrtitvhder the cand(tions imposed, ff any, will not be
detrimental to the.health and safety of the bi8zena of the City of Anaheim:
18.74.080 (Ralathte tc Variances)' - ' : -
Before any variance "may begrented by the approval authonty, or City Council on appeal, It shall be shown:
:020,1 That there era special clrcumstanaea applicable.lo the property, inclutling size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings, which do notapply.to.olher property under identical zoning glassfflcetlon in
the vicinity; - ~ ~ ..
.0202 That; because. of special clrcumstegces shown fn .0201; stilct application of the. zoning code. deprives
the property. of privileges enjoyedby other piopertyUndei' hientigal zoning classttica0on in the. vicinity. "
2. Said permit or. variance Is beingexerclsed•subslantielly Ih the same manner and in confdhnancew(th all
conditions and stipulations.origlnallyapproved;
3- Sa(d permit or variance Is being exercised Ih;a manner hot detrinfehtal to-the particular area and surtaunding "
land uses, nor tc the public pease, health, safety and genetal welfare; and"
4. W Ith regard only to any dele0ori of a time OmitaOon, such deletlgn Is: appropriate because lihas been
demonstrated thatthe use has. operated`Iri a manner that Is appropriate In the underlyirig zone and the
surrounding area end. thefttte:perbd(c, ~evleVa pf the use In na lohgernei;essery and/or that it can be.
determined that, due toth'anged circumstahces, Ole use ts'cpnslsteht with the"City's long-term plads for the
atea. ..
In order to doterm(ne if suchgndkigs. exist, and to' assist the.Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to
artlve at a decision, please answer the following ques0ons fully and as complete es possible. Attach additional
sheets i( additional space fs needed
t Has any physical aspacf of, the p'ropertyfoFwhich this use permk dr variance been granted changed
slgnficently since the iasuahce. of thls,dserpermifar vadence7
Yes ^ No ~. ~ ~ .
Explain:
Na physical aspect of the property has chariged. On August 13, 2001, the Anaheim Planning Commission
granted Conditional Use Permit No, 2001-04412 (Resolution No. PC 2001-113) to Oan Copp Crushing
Corporation for crushing and recycling of asphalt and concrete rubble, Since that approval date no
modifcations tb the physical property have occurred.
(over) "; CASE NO. ~..
SUP 1&®. ~ 7 ~ ~1 - ~ ~+ ~l i
2: Have the land uses in the Immediate vlrinity changed since the Issuance or rh(s use permit or variance9
Yes ^ No
Explain:
Noland uses near the project ske have changed since the previous approval. The. project site, containing
approximately 5.73 acres, is located on land leased to Den. Copp Crushing Corporation (lessee) from the
Orange County Water District (lessor). Percolating ponds used foFgoundwaterrecharge by the Orange
County Water District border the project site on the west, north: and east.TBe Santa Ana River borders the
project site on the south.
3. Has any aspect of the. nature of the operaliori changed since the Issuance of this use permit or varlence7
Explain:
No changes to the nature of the project have occurred since the issuance of the conditional usepermit. The
nature of theproject (asphalt and concrete recycling) has been dorisistentthroughout itsoperational history
(1980 to the present). Moreover, no changes to the operations are proposed.
4. Are the conditions of approval pertaining to the use permit or variance ¢airig complied with?
Yes® No ^
ExPlaln:
The project has complied' vdth the applicable Conditions of Approval, contained in. the August 13, 2091
Planning Commission staff report.
Please see attached additional Justification for Reinstatement sheet.
5. If you are requesting a deletion of the'Qme Ilmitatich, is,fhls deletion necessary for the conflnued operation
of this use or. variance?. '
Yes No ^
Explain:
A request for deletion of a time limitation is not being made vviththis epphcation..
The applicant for this request is: Q~ PropertyOrinar ~Agthorizsd Agent
~ .f~ ~,>~ r' ~~~g C~~
NameUgf Properly Owner~or uUtori d Agent (Please Print)
Slghafure of Pr rty Owner oFAuth d Agen
--~- ~ ..Dale.
Reinslaiement appllratlon.doc
Revi6ed.9/13!04
Cl1P {gyp, 2UU1 - 0 4 4 1 2
Attachment -Item No. 9
N,;~1~I M`,~
\
/4r
~O
~~
City of r~naheim
C®MMUIVITI' DEVEL®PMElVT
~s~~Nneo ~a n
To: Scott Koehm, Planner
~
From: Sara Pashalides, Project Manager
~
G
CC: Brad Hobson
Date: September 29, 2006
RE: Proposed Reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No.
2001-04412
The Community Development Department has reviewed the proposal
to reinstate the above-noted conditional use permit by modifying a
condition of approval pertaining. to time limitations. This action will
retain a previously approved. concrete processing facility located at
1120 North Richfield Road in the Anaheim Merged Redevelopment
Project Area. Since this use is considered interim, we recommend
that the use be permitted to continue only for an additional five-years.
It is our belief that there are other permanent uses that would support
and promote the objectives of the Canyon Industrial Area. Thank you
for your assistance with this project.
F:~DOCS~PROPSVCSVdEMOSGSPM692BA Dan Capp Crushing.DOC
Attachment -item No. 9
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Conununiry Preservation Division
DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 2006
TO: SCOTT KOEHM, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
FROM: MARTI DE LA CUEVA, COMMUNITY PRESERVATION OFFICER
SUB7ECT: 1120 N. RICHFIELD RD CUP2006-05131
Per the vaziance request, I conducted an inspection at the above-referenced location on
September 8, 2006, and did not observe any violations on the property at that time.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at extension 4484.
Attachment -Item No. 9
RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-113
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001.-04412 BE GRANTED
- FOR FIVE (5) YEARS TO EXPIRE AUGUST 13, 2006
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for
Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State
of California, described as:
PARCEL 5: THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 22 AND 23 IN BLOCK 35 OF YORBA
LINDA TRACT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEtM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 5 PAGES 17 AND 18 OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON
THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 22; SAID LINE BEING CONSIDERED FOR THIS
' DESCRIPTION AS THE CENTER LINE OF THAT CERTAIN UNNAMED
STREET, SHOWN ON THE EAST SIDE OF SAID LOT 22, "COMMONLY
KNOWN AS FEE ANA STREET", SOUTH 0 DEGREES 12" 25" EAST 284.80
FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 22, SAID POINT ALSO
BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBEDJN DEED
RECORDED DECEMBER 3, 1937, IN BOOK 919 PAGE 221 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 12' 25" EAST 57.81 FEET TO A
POINT IN THE NORTH TOE OF THE NORTH DIKE OF THE SANTA ANA
RIVER; THENCE SOUTH 51 DEGREES 50' 20" WEST 973.11 FEET ALONG
SAID NORTH TOE TO THE CENTER LINE OF RICHFIELD ROAD TO A POINT
SOUTH 0 DEGREES 07` 10" EAST 284.80 FEET FROM THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID LOT 22; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 46' OS".EAST 766.30 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on August 13, 2001 at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly
given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter
18.03, to hear and consider evidence for and against said. proposed 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 18.03.030 and 18.110.11.0 to retain a concrete processing facility.
2. That the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is adequate to allow full
development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace,
health, safety and general welfare.
3. _ That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area
4. That granting of this conditional use permit, under the conditions imposed, will not be
detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and
that the use was established at this location under Conditional Use Permit No. 2113 which was approved
in 1980 with a time limitation.
CR5164PK.doc -1- PC2001-113
5. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth
and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located since it is isolated from surrounding
properties.
6. That the use is integrated into a single development of 3 acres located on a 6-acre site in
conformance with subsection 18.110.110(1) of the Zoning Code pertaining to minimum site area for
concrete processing facilities in Development Area 6 "Open Space Area" of the Northeast Area Specific
Plan No. SP 94-1.
7. That the use, which is located north of the Santa Ana River bed, is not located adjacent
to or in the vicinity of any residential zone in conformance with subsection 18.110.110(11) of the Zoning
Code; and that the adjoining land use consists of Orange County Water District uses (to the north, •east,
south and west) zoned Development Area 6 of the Northeast Area Specific Plan (to the west and north)
and RS-A-43,000 Residential/Agricultural. (to the east and south).
8. That the use is screened from public rights-of-way in conformance with subsection
18.110.110(111) of the Zoning Code because Fee Ana Street has been abandoned along the east side of
this site and Richfield Road along the west property line of this site serves only subject use and Orange
County Water District uses.
9. That the use is compatible with surrounding Orange County Water District land uses in
conformance with subsection 18.110.110(iv); and that the site is isolated from other industrial businesses
in the Northeast Industrial Area.
10. That no one indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal;
and that no correspondence was received in opposition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to retain a concrete processing facility located on an
irregularly-shaped 6 acre property having a frontage of 650 feet do the east side of Richfield Road, a
maximum depth of 740 feet, being located 1280 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue, and
further described as 1120 North Richfield Road (Dan Copp Crushing Corporation lnc:); 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 City Planning Commission
does hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are
hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to
preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1. That this conditional use permit shall expire five (5) years from the date of this resolution on August
13. 2006.
2. That the hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday
3. That the subject property shall be developed and maintained substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit L
4. That the 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 doesnot include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of
the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement
-2- PC2001-113
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof,
be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this
Resolution,. and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
August 13, 2001.
CHAIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Fernandes, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning
Commission held. on August 13, 2001, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, BRISTOL, EASTMAN, KOOS, VANDERBILT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BOYDSTUN
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand this day of
.2001.
ARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION:
-3- PC2001-113
Item No. 10
/
J~ I '¢ 'RCL 70-71-20
1
y 5; RCL 70-71-27
RCL 99-00-15 5 I 1
RCL ]0.]1-ZB
RLL ]0.]1-Z]
~
SMALL IND. FIRMS
STADIUM PLAZA a
BUSINESS PARK I-
SMALLIND. w
SINCLAIR ST
\ FIRMS 0.H
RCL 2004-00727
p,J~C1VE
~PZE1"~P
PNGEL
SiP-IIIM
ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05135
Requested By: SPK -STADIUM TOWERS LLC.
2460 East Katella Avenue -Stadium Towers
10137
Subject Property
Date: October i6, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 117
~:
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05135 Subject Property
Date: October 16, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200`
Requested By: SPK -STADIUM TOWERS LLC. Q.S. No. 117
2460 East Katella Avenue -Stadium Towers iota?
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No. 10
1Oa. CEQANEGATIVEbECLARATION (Motion)
10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2006-05135 (Resolution)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) < This irregularly-shaped 6.4-acre,property is located at the southwest corner of Katella
Avenue and the Orange (57) Freeway with a frontage of 32 feet on the south side of Katella
.Avenue, a.frontage of 910 feet on the west side df the Orange (57) Freeway and is located
at the terminus of Howell Avenue (2460 East Katella Avenue -.Stadium Towers).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of a conditional usepermit to permit ground mounted
telecommunications facilities disguised as light poles on an existing parking structure under
authority of Code. Section 18.08.030.040.0402 (Antennas -Stealth Ground -Mounted) and
-18.38.060 (Antennas -.Telecommunications).
..BACKGROUND:
(3) .This property is currently developed with sn office building (Stadium Towers) andparking
structure and is zoned O-L (Office Low). The Anaheim General Plan designates this
property for. Mixed Use land uses and further designates all surrounding properties for
Mixed Use land uses.':
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:
(4) The following zoning actions pertain to this property::'
(a) Conditional Use Permit No. 3369 (to permit two freestanding monument signs for
2300, 2400 and 2420 East Katella Avenue) was approved by the Planning
Commission on December 17, 1990.
`(b) Variance No: 3608 (to waive required lot frontage to establish a 3-parcel
subdivision) was approved by thePlanning Commission on October 27, 1986.
(c) Conditional Use Permit No. 2651 (to permit an 11-story,128 ft. high hotel with on-
sale'ofalcoholic beverages and accessory uses; and a 12 and 15-story high
commercial complex with waiver of minimum structural setback artl required site
screening) was approvedby the City Council on January 29, 1985'
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
(5) As depicted in the photo-simulatign on the following page, the applicant proposes to
construct two newJight poles on top of the parking structure with two (2) stacked panel
antennas on two (2) sectors mounted on the pole of the light fixture with a cover over the
antennas which are painted to match the pole. In addition onebuildng-stealth mounted
facility is proposed on the northwest elevation of the 5-story parking structure with three (3)
sectors and four (4) panel antennas on each sector.
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
September 18, 2006
Item No. 6
~ ~
Vlt VV t unk[t~y `~butti 4~ z~;~~j~"Li,x~~~~;;~ ''
2 "1i-+ ~~~~~my
, ~ ~ ~~
tv: s+rs mot' ~ ~~' ~}
r ~ ~a-~t a ~zz,~ ~r~am
~r ! , ~...a ,, ~ ~~,~,,"~''~'N~ ~
y 1~G". ~4 ~lm'~~ `' Sr~ ~+
s ~ ~
mss. ~~ ,sue ~~~~~ ~~1
x~
f ~ Proposed Antenna ~~-~ °'~~ §
,~.
Light Pole
height 24 feet
i y
~ ,,.~ r
I
. _ r____ -
Y91m YtlOC N
Elevation of proposed facility
(6) The site and roof,plans (Exhibit No. 4) as depicted above, indicate two new 24-foot high
light poles proposed on the southeasterly edge of the roof deck of the parking structure.
The pole of the facility is approximately eight (8) inches afthe base and the antennas and
radome used to cover the antennas has a diameter of approximately twenty six (26) inches.
The diameter of the other existing light poles is approximately 4 inches. The materials and
colorbf the proposed light poles match the materials of the existing Jight poles. The cables
leading to the equipment will be mounted on the walls of the. parking structure. Below is a
detail of the proposed light poles:
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
September 18, 2006.
Item No. 6
'`
J 'o
1
N O
N
PRCPJSm '6PRhf-H:X(CC
'.7 S1CK~ PANCI
x+m+ius, µ~.hrrn
4 ~y510E ~ 26' fiD. W„CNE
4,
i
ftiCWJiEO 'WNhI~ !L><IEl'
26' 6C. NAx'Ik. o
1 '.iG
76' S9.
. fi~5 .
I
- b,
c
N
r(q ax+c~E ruoF
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
September 18, 2006
Item No. 6
(3) sectors and four (4) panel antennas on each sector. The plans indicate that the
antennas would be mounted. behind a proposed screen wall to obscure the view of the
antennas as indicated above. The screen wall,is proposed with materials to match the
existing concrete walls and would be painted to match the exterior walls of the parking
structure. The equipment cabinet would be located adjacent to the building-mounted
antenna in the parking structure. This. equipment area would be screehed with a chain link
fence with slats and surrounded by four (4) bollards for protection from vehicles. Code
does not permit chain ~ihk fencing within the 0-L (Office Low) zone. Staff is including a
condition of approval to,require wrought iron fencing around the accessory equipment. The
proposed equipment area does not eliminate any parking spaces nor does it negatively
..impact any existing spaces.
(8) The applicant's supplemental information statement indicates that the services from this
facility would include improved phone and data coverage for the homes and roads
surrounding the property and enhanced services for guests and employees at Anaheim
Stadium including enhanced public and emergency crew services'and upgraded a-mail and
walkie-talkie services.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(g) Staff has reviewed the proposal to permit a stealth ground-mounted telecommunications
facility and the Initial Study (a copypf v/hich is available for review in the Planning
Department) ehd finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore, recommends.
that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning Commission that
the Negative DeGa~ation reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and that it
has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any commerts received
during the public review process and. further finding on the basis of the lhitial Study and any
.comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect oh the environment
EVALUATION:
(10) Stealth ground-mounted telecommunications facilities disguised a light poles and
..accessory equipment are permitted within the O-C (Office Low) Zone subject to approval of
a conditional use permit. Stealth building-mounted facilities are permitted through a
Telecommunications Antenna Permit..'.
Page 4
Staff Report to the
'Planning Commission
September 18,2006
Item No. 6
Location c
proposed
antennas
behind the
=screen wa
(11) The Planning Department continues to discourage unscreened telecommunications
facilities'due to the significant cumulative`visual impact on the communtyas a whole. The
recently updated Zoning Code includes design guidelines and Yequirements for
telecommunications facilities: Code requires'wireless communication.#acilities to be
designed to minimize the visual impact and to be compatible with existing architectural
'elements, building materials, and othensite characteristics. Code requires
telecommunication facilities be: co-located where technology is feasible and visually
beneficial Staff feels."stealth".instaliatohs and co-location are the'best alternative to
rdecrease visual clutter and preserve,the aesthetic quality of the community::Code defines
a "stealth" facility as "A wireless communication facility that is disguised o appearas a _
naturaLobject or part of an existing man-made object, facilitypr tructure, which is designed
to blend into the surround environment qr which js concealed within or architecturally
integrated into a building or other concealing. structure" In order for a facility to be an
appropriate.stealth installation two (2) main factors must be addressed. ;First, the facility
itself needs to be designed such that the antennas :are disguised to appear as a natural
,object orpart of an existing man-made object, facility or structure. Secondly, the facility
:needs to blend into the surrounding environment in which it is proposed. Factors to
'consider for this second criterion includethe height. of buildings in the surrounding area,
structures on the proposed property, in the case of facilities that are disguised as natural
objects, thepresence of other similar natural objects in the immediate area, and the
.visibility of the facility.;.
- (12) The proposed telecommunication facility disguised as Tight poles and mounted on the
parking structure meets the intent of the O-L Zone and the design,guidelines and
requirements for telecommunication facilities. The telecommunications facility disguised as
page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
September 18,.2006
Item No. 6
i light poles blends in with the existing light poles. In addition, the angle of the pedestrian
viewpoint from the ground also makes itless visible. The building-mounted antennas
located bn the parking structure wall behind a screen wall would be concealed and
designed in a manner to look'like a part of the parking structure. This portion of the request
could be Yeviewed hinder a Telecommunications Antenna Permit, however the accessory
equipment is shared with the light polestherefore, he Commission is reviewing this request
as well In order to ensure that the proposed screen wall matches the finish and texture of
the existing parking structure and light poles on the roof, staff recommends a contlition of
approvaLrequiringPlanning Services Division approval of final colors and materials for both
facilities.:: Since the proposed facility is consistent with the design guidelines and
requirements for telecommunication facilities and meet the criteria for stealth facilities, staff
recommends approval of the.{equest.
FINDINGS:
(13) Before the Planning Commission grants' any conditional use permit, it must make a finding
of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist`.
(a) 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
$ermitted) 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 belocated;
(c) -.That the size and shape of thesite for the use is adequate to.allow the full
development of the proposed use in a mannernot detrimental to the particular area
or to the health and safety;
(d) .That the traffic generated by the use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
(e) :That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if
,any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of
Anaheim.
RECOMMENDATION:
(14) Staff recommends that, unless adtlitional or contrary information is received during. the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the
evidence presented in thisstaff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Commission take the follpwing'actions:
(a) ' By motion;'a~proveaNegative Declaration for the project.
(b) By resolution, approve the request to permit ground mounted telecommunications
facilities disguised as Jight poles on an existing parking structure and the stealth
':building-mouhted facilitywithin theparking structure by adopting that attached
_~,. __ -resolution including the findings and conditions contained therein.
Page 6
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006-
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2006-051.35 BE GRANTED
(2460 EAST KATELLA 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:
PARCEL A: PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 3 IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF
ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 2.20,
PAGE(S) 42 AND 43 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THEAFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAID COUNTY.
PARCEL B: PARCEL 2, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHON ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 220, PAGES 42 AND 43 OF
PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICEAF 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 October 16, 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 request to permit ground mounted telecommunications facilities disguised as light
poles on an existing parking structure and accessory equipment is properly one for which a conditional use
permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code under authority of Code Section. 18.08.030.040.0402
(Antennas- Stealth Ground -Mounted) and 18.38.060 (Antennas -Telecommunications). -In addition, the
Stealth Building-Mounted'antenna within the parking structure is permitted under authority of Code Section
18.38.060.030.
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 since the new facility would be
designed to minimize the visual impact, and the proposed accessory ground-mounted equipment would be
located within the parking structure itself and not visible from public view.
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 parking structure and the new equipment facility would not reduce the.
number of parking spaces provided within the parking structure:
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 tb the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and that the use contributes. to an
essential and effective wireless communication network system in a manner that would blend in with the
existing facilities.
6. That ""'indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and no
correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition.
Cr\PC2006- -1- PC2006-
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 grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the
safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1. That the telecommunications facility shall be limited to two new light poles at a maximum height of 24
feet on the roof of the parking structure with two (2) stacked panel antennas and two (2) sectors
mounted on the light fixture including a radome to cover the antennas, which are painted to match the
existing Tight fixtures. The stealth building-mounted antennas shall be limited to three (3) sectors with
four (4) panel antennas on each sector mounted behind a screen. wall of the parking structure along.
the northwest elevation of the parking structure with ah equipment enclosure directly behind the
antennas. No additional antennas.or equipment cabinets shall be permitted without the prior approval
of the Planning Commission or staff for the Building-Mounted facility. Said information shall be
specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
2. That the ground-mounted equipment shall be located entirely within a wrought iron enclosure and the
cable connecting to the equipmentshall be concealed and shall not be visible to the public. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
3. 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.
4. That the Operator shall: ensure its installation and choice of frequencies will not interfere within the 800
MHz radio frequencies required by the City of Anaheim to provide adequate spectrum capacity for
public safety and related. purposes.
5. That before activating this facility, the Operator shall submit 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 the Operator.
6, 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.
7. 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.
8. That should this telecommunications facility be sold., the Planning Services Division shall be notified
within 30 days of the close of escrow.
9. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the applicant's expense. Landscape
and/or landscape screening of all pad-mounted equipment shall be required andshallbe specifically
shown on plans submitted for building permits.
10. That the portion of the property being leased to the telecommunications provider shall be permanently
-° - maintained in an orderly fashion providing for removal of trash and debris, and removal of graffiti within
twenty-four (24) hours of discovery.
11. That no signs, flags, banners, or any other form of advertising shall. be attached to the antennas or to
the transmission tower structure.
-2- PC2006-
12. That colors and materials of the proposed screen wall shall match the texture and color of the parking.
structure to ensure a seamless appearance. The two (2) proposed stealth building-mounted light poles
shall be painted the same color as the existing light poles. All colors and materials shall be approved
in the field prior to final building and zoning inspections. Any needed modifications to the facilities shall
be made prior to final sign off by the Planning Services Division on the building permit.
13. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning.
Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5 and as conditioned herein.
14. 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, and 9, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section
18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal
15. That prior to fnal building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 5, 6, 12 and 13, above-mentioned, shall
be complied with.
16. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it
complies with. the Anaheim MunicipaV 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.
17. That timing far 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
development.
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
shalt result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission. meeting of
October 16, 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
-3- 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 October 16, 200fi, 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
-4-
PC2006-
Hein rvu. i i
I vr~t V.nn~ ~ I VAR 166 J ~ ~ ~ I.
- "` \' - - LA PALMA AVENUE J
cc-
R$-2 D-C' RGtfio -04999 RR~~59.69'g~i
1 U EACH R CUP 70138 cUP~Pp gga C0.R'~
cc LIOUOR MED\GPLFP
RCL 6a~s9b5 STORE ~
MEDIGAL
LOMITA C-G
RCL 58-59-65
U pL ~ _
CUP 99B
-NQ ~~ o VAR 669
~ w
p ~
G m
~
CONVALESCENT
~ O HOSPITAL
~ RS-2
1 DU EACH
(L
c~~EDi~
® 1
RS-2
AGE
!-21
N O.C F
RK
SAGE PARK
VAR 2300 _
oc-~ VAR 4126
a
RS-2
RcL Bs-so-s3
CUP 1660
`~ ADJ 0070
VAR 4035
1 DU EACH
RS-1
CUP 2006-05141 'S';lf
CUP 3fi99
VAR 1630
CHURCH . ,.
C
1
V
WATER UMW
AND P
1D
A
~~
v
n
= N
C
KS-7
VAR 2242
1 DU C RS-1
4 DU EACH
R8-1
~ ENTRADA CIR
vAR 3187
RS-1
1 DU EACH
VAR 2518
VAR 2]W
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05141
Requested By: BYZANTINE CATHOLIC BISHOP
995 West North Street
RS-1
1o1ao
30j3 _ O
Subject Property
Date: October 16, 20D6
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 61
PDJ ' 8772
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item. No. 11
11 a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1
11 b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05141 {Motion for continuance)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly-shaped, 2.5-acre property has a frontage of 222 feet on the west side of
West Street and a maximum depth of 500 feet and is located approximately 597 feet south
of the centerline of La Palma Avenue (995 North West Street -Byzantine Catholic Church).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to permit a stealth building-
mounted telecommunications facility and accessory ground-mounted equipment in
conjunction with an existing church facility under authority of Code Sections
18.04.030.040.0402 (Antennas-Telecommunications-Stealth Building-Mounted) and
18.38.060.
BACKGROUND:
{3) This property is currently developed with the Byzantine Catholic Church and is zoned RS-1
(Single-Family j2esidential). The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Low
Density Residential land uses.`Properties to the north, east (across West Street), south and
.west (acrdss Carbon Creek Channel) are also designated for Low Density Residential land
uses, properties to the northwest (across Carbon Creek Channel) are designated
Commercial -Neighborhood Center.
'.BACKGROUND:
(4) :The applicant, John Austin, has submitted the attached letter dated, October 3, 2006,
requesting a continuance to the November 13, 2006, Commission meeting in order to
modify the location of the proposed telecommunication facility and related ground-mounted
equipment.
RECOMMENDATION:
(5) That the Commission, by motion, continue this item to the November 13, 2006, Planning
Commission meeting.
SR-CUP2006-05141(con'1-7030-06)vm :
Page 1
Attachment -Item No. 11
Date: 10-5-06
To: City of Anaheim -Attention: Vanessa Norwood
From: Trillium Consulting, Inc. -Land Use Entitlement Representative
For T-Mobile
Subject: CUP 2006-05141 Request for Hearing Continuance
Dear Ms. Norwood,
Per our conversation on Monday, October 2, 2006, for the above referenced
project, please continue our hearing to the hearing on November, 13'h, 2006. We
are following City comments regarding design changes and making the
necessary revisions.
Please contact me if you have any questions or I can be of further assistance.
Thank you,
John Austin
Land Use Planner
Trillium Consulting, Inc.
5912 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 202
Huntington Beach, California 92649
Office: 714-799-2000 ext. 311
Mobile: 714-362-5314
Fax: 714-799-2020
Email: iaustin(catrilliumcos.com
~ ) LORANE WAY
R5-2 _
RCL 64-65-114
iDU CH
RS-3 RM-0
_ RCL 66-87-17 RCL _
N¢ 1 DU EACH 58-59-59
yw 3DU
~ ~ FACH
WILMOT LN
T
RCL 6fi-67-1'.
(Res of Interr
to RM-1200)
Q2
W
F- ~
ORD WAY
1 DU EACH
Z
Q
J
W
0
REGINA WAY
- - - LORANE WAY
RS-2
1 DU EACH
RM-2
RCL 99-90-58 gpTS
RCL 56.59-101 15 DU
VAR 371 Z
2 2
RM.2 w W
RCL 76-77-OS N N
RCL 68.69-57 ~ ~ ~ ~
Res of Intent Ia RM-1206) APTS ~ ~ ~
c RCL 62~fi3-74
Res of Int. to RM-1200 6 DU ~ W
~
'~ 2 q
RM-
RCL 89-90-58 1 DU CH F
RCL 58-59-7
RM-2
RCL 89-90.58
RCL 56-5&7
~ APTS
~ 36 DU
RM-2
Q RCL 89-90-SB
Q RCL 58-59-7
J
292'
A RS-2
' ~ ~ 1 DU EACH
RM-2
TTM 17045
RCL 89-90-58
RCL 58-59-7
CUP 964
VAR 2006-04703
1 Du
IU. IL
ORD WAY
w
3
a
Variance No., 2006- 04703
Tentative Tract Map No. 17045
Requested By: CALVIN GRAHAM
2248 South Loara Street
1o1as
Subject Property
Date: October 16, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 59
~:
Variance No. 2006- 04703
Tentative Tract Map No. 17045
Subject Property
Date: October 16, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 59
Requested By: CALVIN GRAHAM
2248 South Loara Street
10145
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
...October 18, 2006
Item No. 12
12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion)
12b. VARIANCE NO. 2006-04703 (Resolution)
12c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17045 (Motion)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This rectangularly-shaped, 0.5-acre property has frontage 77 feet on the east side of Loara
Street, a maximum depth of 292 feet, and is located 710 feet south of the centerline of Lorane
Way (2248 South Loara Street);
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of the following:
Variance No. 2006-04703 - to construct five (5) attached single-family residences under
authority of Code Section No. 18.08.030.010 with waivers of:
(a) SECTION NO. 18.060.090.030 Minimum Iaridscaoe setback.
`(5 feet required; 3 feet proposed)
(b) SECTION NO. 18.06.090.060 Maximum permitted wall length:
DELETED..`
.Tentative Tract Mao No. 17045 - to establish a 1-lot, 5-unit attached residential condominium
subdivision.
:BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is developed with asingle-family residence and is zoned RM-2 (Multiple-Family
Residential). ;The Anaheim General Plan desighates this site for Low-Medium Density
Residential lahd uses. 'Properties o the north and west are also designated far Low Medium
Density Residential land uses; properties to the east are designated for Low Density
Residential land uses and properties to the south arelocated in the City of Garden Grove.
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:
(4) The following zoning actions pertain to this property:
(a) i Conditional Use Permit No. 964 (to permit a rest home for the ambulatory aged) was
approved by the City Council on October 31, 1967. This entitlement is no longer valid.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
(5) The applicant proposes to develop this parcel as a 1-.lot, 5-unit attached single-family
residential airspace condominium subdivision. The tentative map and site plan (Exhibit No. 1)
indicate that access.to the development is provided: by a private driveway from Loara Street.
srvarzoos-oa~oaklw.doc Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No.
Plans indicate the following project characteristics:
Code Standards Code Re uirements Pro osed Pro ect
Site Area (after ' N/A 0:5 acres.(22,216 s:f.)
dedication
Number of 9 units (14 d.u. per acre) 5 units (9 d.u. per acre)
Dwellin Units
Average Land 3,000 s.f. minimum 4,443 s.f.
Area er Unit
Lot Covera a 40% Maximum 34% Pro osed
Structura(Hei ht ! 40 Feet Maximum 25.5 Feet Pro osed
Parking Spaces 15 Minimum 17 Proposed (10 in
garage; 5 carport; 2
uncovered
Recreational 1,000 square feetper unit 1,159 square feet per;unit
Leisure Area 5,000 s ware feet total 5,795 s uare feet total
(6) Plans indicate the following setbacks:
Direction Code Re wired Setback Pro osed Setback '
North 5 Feet Landscape 5 Feet Landscape
15 Feet Structural 15 Feet Structural
East 10 Feet Landscape 20 Feet Structural &
20 FeefStructural blank wall Landsca e
South 5 Feet Landscape 3-S Feet Landscape`
15 Feet Structural 25 Feet Structural
West (across 15 Feet 15 Feet
Loara Street
* 'Waiver requested
(7) >The floor plans (Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2) indicate 2-story units with a single configuration. Plans
,: indicate 2,787 square feet units that consist of a living and dining room, kitchen, laundry room,
.:..powder room, two-car garage, cone-car carport pn the first floorand three (3} bedrooms and
iwo (2) bathrooms on the second floor. In addition, plans indicate twc (2) exterior balconies
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No.
:.from the master bedroom. Code requires a minimum floocarea of 1',150 square feet for three
(3) bedroom units.
(8) Vehicular access would beprovided by one driveway from Loa~a Street accessing the
proposed private drive. The site plan and tentative tract mapindicate 17 parking spaces
available within the subdivision with two (2) garage spaces and one (1) carport space for each
dwelling unit plus two (2) uncovered parking spaces along the eastportion of the property for
additional guest parking (total of 15 covered spaces and 2 opeh spaces). ':Code requires a
`,total of 15 spaces based on the requirement of 3 spaces for each 3 bedroom unit (3 x 5 = 15)
of which,one is required tobe designated for visitor.parking. Theapplicant does not propose
>gates across the entry to the driveway.
(g) The elevation drawings and color renderings (Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4) as depicted below, indicate
i :the proposed condominium buildings are two-storystructures with a maximum height of
.approximately 25.5 feet. Plans further indicate building materials cohsisting ofstucco finish
:and wood siding building wallswith a tan color, compositionbrown roof shingles and stone
wainscoting.
M ~ L
..~ , ~i .. i~ Cr' ' ~Li CC
Proposed Rendering (Facing Private Driveway)
(10) The landscape plan (Exhibit No. 5) incorporates a layered landscape theme and indicates a
15-foot wide landscape setback adjacent to Loara Street in compliance with node. Code
.requires one (1) tree for every twenty (20) feet of street frontage for a total df 4 trees and the
plans indicate a total. of four (4) trees.: Code also requires that yards and setbackareas are
.landscaped. with. lawn, trees, shrub, or other plant materials. In addition,. the landscape plans
indicate small planters between garage door entrances along the private drive as well as
s landscaping along the perimeter of the building.. The site plan does not indicate proposed
fencing on either the north or south property lines:` Site inspections indicate an existing 6-foot
high block wall along the north property line and a 6-foot high fence along the south property
line. Code does. not require screening along the north and south. property lines but permits
:.fences. and vualls at a maximum of three (3) feet in height within the required street setback
.and a maximum height of six (6) feet adjacent to residential uses and eight (8) feet adjacent to
non-residential uses. Concrete brick pavers or colored/stamped concrete would be
incorporated into the driveway entry as a decorative treatment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(11) Staff has reviewed the proposal to construct five. (5) attached single-familyresidentia(
condominiums and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review. in the Planning
Department) and: finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore, recommends that a
Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning Commission that the
__. Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; and that it has
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
....October 16, 2006
Item No.
considered the proposed Negative Declaration together. with any comments received during
.the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and. any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment.
;EVALUATION:
(12) The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Low-Medium Density land uses, with a
density range of 0 to 18 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density is 9 dwelling units per
acre. The project is consistent with the density and land use envisioned for the Low-Medium
Density Residential land use designation for the site.. The proposed single-family attached
project is a primary permitted use within the RM-2 Zone.
(13) Waiver (a) pertains to minimum landscape setback adjacentto interior lot Tines. Code requires
a setback of 5 feet atthesouth property line and 3 to 5 feef is proposed. The;applicant has
ubmitted the attached Justification,of Waiverfiorm.indicating#hat the narrow width and the
length of the property results in unique circumstances. Staff believes thatthe deviation from
the Code. requirement is minimal and the waiver can be justified due to the narrow and Tong
configuation of the property, approximately 77 feet in width and 301 feet in length, while
properties to the north of identical zoning classification have average widths of 110 feet. This
property's configuration limits the layout of the property to a linear design. Therefore, the
,applicant requests the two (2) foot landscape deviation in orderto create visual interest by
.breaking up the length of the property. As; depicted in the following aerial; the proposed
andscape :waiver would be imperceptible o the property to the`south (scfiool) due to the
constructidn of a new 8-foot high block wall along the. south property Iine.'r Furthermore, there
`'is an existing 20-foot wide landscape setback between the school and the property'line. This
'for configuration creates a special circumstance applicable td the subject property which does
not apply to other multiple-family developments in the immediate vicinity._Therefore, staff
recommends aooroval of this waiver.
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
n~r~r,o~ ~~ Anna
Proposed
Landscape
Waiver
3 - 5 Feet
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
October 16, 2006
Item No.
(a) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape,
topography,;location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned
.properties in`the vicinity; and
(b) That strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the: property of privileges enjoyed
by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicihity.
(18) "The State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, Section 66473.5) makes it mandatory to
include ah all motions approving, or recommending approval of a tract map, a specific finding
that the proposed Subdivision dgether v/ith its design and improvement is consistent with the
City's General Plan. ''
(tg) Further, the law requires that the Commission make any of the following findings when
denying orrecommending denial of a tract map:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plahs.
(b) That the design or improvement ofihe proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable General and .Specific Plans.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
(e) That the design of the subdivision dr the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage. or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or the type pf improvements is likely to cause serious
public health problems.
(g} That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
.easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within
the proposed subdivision."
RECOMMENDATION:
(20) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the evidence
presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public hearing,
the Commission take he following actions::
(a) By motion, approve a CEQA Negative Declaration.
(b) By resolution, approve, Variance No. 2006-04703, in part, (to construct a 5-unit
attached residential condominium subdivision) by denving waiver (b) pertaining to
maximum wall length, rand approvino waiver (a) pertaining to minimum landscape
setback based on the findings contained in the attached resolution.
Page 6
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
.October 16, 2006
Item No.
(c) By motion,. approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17045 to establish a 1-lot, 5-unit attached
.residential condominium subdivision based upon the attached. conditions of approval
and the findings that the design and improvement of the subdivision are consistent
with the General Plan, and the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the
proposed development.
Page 7
[DRAFT]
..RESOLUTION NO. PC2006--"'
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2006-04703 BE GRANTED IN PART
(2248 SOUTH LOARA STREET)
WHEREAS, the. Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Variance
for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as:
ALL THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF
ORANGE, AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA, .BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THE SOUTH 77 FEET OF THE SOUTH ''/~ OF THE WEST Yz OF THE WEST '/~ OF THE
NORTHEAST - Y, OF THE SOUTHWEST'/. OF SECTION 28; TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE
10 WEST, S.B.B.&M.
WHEREAS, the Planning. Commission did. hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on October 16, 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 16.60
"Procedures", to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed'. variance and to investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith;. and
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 proposes waivers of the following to construct five (5) attached single-
family residences:
(a) Section No. 18.06.090.030 Minimum landscape setback.
(S feet required; 3 feet proposed)
(b) Section No. 18.06.090.060 -Maximum permitted wall length.
DELETED.
2. That the above-mentioned waiver (b) is hereby denied because it has been. deleted.
3. That waiver (a) pertaining to minimum landscape setback, is hereby approved on the basis
that there is a special circumstance applicable to the property consisting of its narrow width and long length,
that limits the layout of the property to a linear design; while properties to the north of identical zoning
classification have average widths of 110 feet. This characteristic is unique to this property and does not
apply to other identically zoned property in the vicinity, and the strict application of the Zoning Code would
deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in
the vicinity.
4. .That the requested two (2) foot landscape deviation under waiver (a) creates visual interest
by breaking up the length of the property and the deviation would be imperceptible to the property to the
south (school) due to the construction of a new 6-foot high block wall along the south property line. In
addition the school facilities and the south property tine are separated by a 20-foot wide landscape setback.
The waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by
otherproperty in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
5. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinityand zone in which the property is located.
CR\PC2006-0 -1- PC2006-
6. That "" indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition;. and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition.
CALIFORNIA. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has. reviewed. the proposal; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding
that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the
Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further
finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that
the project. will have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does
hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a
necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health and safety
of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1. That all condominium units shall be assigned a street address on Loara Street, and submitted to the
Building Division for review and approval
2. That roll-up garage doors shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. Said doors shall be
installed and maintained as shown on submitted plans.
3. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street in a manner which may
adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street. Installation of any gates shall conform to
Engineering Standard Plan No. 475 and shall be subject to the review and approval o the City Traffic
and Transportation Manager. Said information shall. be specifically shown on plans submitted#or
building permits.
4. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation manager for review and approval of
wall and fence locations to determine conformance with Engineering Standard No. f 15.
5. That all air-conditioning facilities and other ground-mounted equipment shall be properly shielded from
view and the sound buffered from adjacent residential properties. Said information shall be specifically
shown. on the plans submitted for building. permits.
6. 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 (Le. landscape screening, color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points; etc.) and shall be
subject to the review and approval of the appropriate City departments.
7, That final landscape plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and
approval. Said plans shall specify plant types; sizes, quantity and locations, and shall show
landscaped pockets between the garage doors, a minimum of one (1) tree within the rear yard of each
unit, and a layered landscape concept consisting of trees, shrubs and groundcover in the setback
adjacent to Loara Street. All trees shall be minimum twenty-four inch (24") box sized. Any decision
made by the Planning Department regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission
as a Reports and Recommendations item. All trees shall be properly and professionally maintained by
the property owner to ensure mature, healthy growth. Such information shalt be specifically shown on
the plans submitted for building permits.
8. That-any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed,
damaged, diseased andlor dead.
9. _ That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape
maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time
or discovery.
-2- PC2006-
10. That all plumbing or other similar pipe fixtures located on the exterior of the buildings shall be fully
screened by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials. Said information shall be
specifically shown on the plans submitted far building permits.
11. That this Variance is granted subject to the approval and recordation of Tentative Tract Map No.
17045, now pending,
12. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense. That
landscape andlor hardscape screening of all pad-mounted equipment shall be required and: shall be
shown on plans submitted for building permits.
13. That no required parking shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses..
14. That the owner shall be responsible for the relocation/removal of any traffic signal equipment or any
other related equipment in the. event that street widening or the new driveway entry conflict with
existing equipment.
15. That a written Solid. Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department,
Streets and Sanitation Division. Said program shall include information on the following: a detailed
scaled site plan showing the storage and collection areas for automated trash barrels for each unit.
16. That all backflow equipment shalt be located above ground outside of the street setback area in a
manner fully screened from ail public streets. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault
shall be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to
the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside of the street
setback areas in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be
shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection .Control Inspector before
submittal for building. permits.
17. That since this project has a common landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate
irrigation meter shall be installed and shall comply with City Ordinance No. 5349 and Chapter 10.19 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said information shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits.
18. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or
abandonment of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water Engineering
Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department.
19. That water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Water Engineering Division for approval and a
performance bond in the amount approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney shall be posted with
the City of Anaheim. That the water improvement plans shall indicate a minimum clearance of five (5)
feet from the water main to the curb and gutter and a minimum clearance of ten (10) feet from the
water main to the sewer line.
20. That prior to application for water meters, fire line or submitting the water improvement plans for
approval, the developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Water Engineering Division an
estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the
project. This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to
provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the
project shall occur in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and
Regulations.
21. That a 20 foot easement is required for public mains in the property or 5 feet around any water
facilities. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
-3- PC2006-
22. That final detailed elevation plans including colors and materials shall be submitted to the Planning
Services Division for review and approval. Any decision by staff regarding said plans. maybe appealed
to the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item.
23. That all grading shall conform to requirements of Chapter 17.04 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. A
grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works, Development Services Division for
review and approval
24. That a driveway approach shall be reconstructed to be in conformance with Public Works Standard
Detail 114-A. The beginning of transition from curb shall be located a minimum of lfoot from the
property line. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
25. That prior to the issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department,
Development Services Division, for review and approval a Water Quality Management Plan that:
• Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as minimizing impervious areas,
maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or "zero
discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas,
• Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area
Management Plan.
• Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP.
• Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs.
• Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment
Control BMPs, and
• Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment
Control BMPs.
26. That prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall:
• Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and.
installed in conformance with approved .plans and specifications.
• Demonstrate that. the applicant is prepared to implement all. non-structural BMPs described in the
.Project WQMP
• Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available
onsite.
• Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural.
BMPs.
27. That since the site is located within a liquefaction zone on a Seismic Hazard Map issued by the State
of California Divisions of Mines and Geology (DMG), the developer must submit a geotechnical report
that meets the requirements fora "Screening Investigation for Liquefaction Potential" as identified in
DMG special publication 117 "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California"
prior to grading plan approval. Please note that if the findings of the screening investigation cannot
demonstrate the absence of liquefaction hazards, then the comprehensive quantitative evaluation must
be conducted to develop mitigation recommendations to effectively reduce the hazard to an acceptable
level.
-4- PC2006-
28. That the developer shall submit street improvement plans to the Public Works Department,
...Development Services Division to improve Loara Street in conformance with Public Works Standard
Detail 160-A. The parkway landscaping strip and sidewalk shall be constructed with the parkway
irrigation connected to the on-site irrigation system and maintained by the property owner. A bond for
the requirements shall be posted in an amounted approved by the City Engineer and a form approved
by the City Attorney prior to final map approval. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final
building and zoning inspections.
29. That a Right of Way Construction Permit shall be obtained from the Development Services Division for
all work performed in the right-of-way. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final building
and zoning inspections.
30. The a cross lot drainage agreement for stormwater runoff shall be provided. Provisions on the plans
shall be made so that runoff on the north side of the property draining west is not impeded. by walls.
31. That prior to issuance of the first building permit, excluding model homes, the final map shall be
submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and the Orange County Surveyor and then shall be
recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder (Subdivision Map Act, Section 66499.40).
32. That the property owner shalt submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 964
(to permit a rest home for the ambulatory aged) to the Planning Services Division.
33. That final fencing plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval.
The fencing plan shall incorporate a six (6) foot high decorative block watt along the north, east, and
south. property lines and clinging vines adjacent.to all block walls. Any decision made by the Planning
Services Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a ".Reports and
Recommendation" item.
34. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning
.Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5, and as conditioned herein.
35. That prior to approval of a grading plan, Condition Nos. 25, 27 and 30, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with.
36. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22,
24, 28, 31, 32, and 33, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to
complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim
Municipal.
37. That prior to final building and zoning inspections,. Condition Nos. 12, 14, 26, 28, 29, and 34, above-
mentioned, shall be complied with.
38. 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
development.
39. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it
complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal
regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
-5- PC2006-