Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC 2010/03/01
H:\TOOLS\PC Admin\PC Agendas\(030110).doc City of Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Monday, March 1, 2010 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California • Chairman: Panky Romero • Chairman Pro-Tempore: Stephen Faessel • Commissioners: Peter Agarwal, Todd Ament, Kelly Buffa, Joseph Karaki, Victoria Ramirez • Call To Order - 3:30 p.m. • Pledge Of Allegiance • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Commission Updates • Discussion - Commission consideration of new meeting time • Adjournment For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary. A copy of the staff report may be obtained at the City of Anaheim Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff report is also available on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Thursday, February 25, 2010, after 5:00 p.m. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Department located at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, during regular business hours. You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: planningcommission@anaheim.net 03/01/10 Page 2 of 11 Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 3:30 P.M. Public Comments: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. Consent Calendar: 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. Minutes ITEM 1A Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of February 17, 2010. These minutes have been provided to the Planning Commission and are available for review at the Planning Department. Motion Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1820A (DEV2010-00004) Owner: Frederick J. Hanshaw FJ Hanshaw 10921 Westminster Avenue Garden Grove, CA 92843 Applicant: Jeanette Carvajal SWH Corporation - Mimi’s Café 18872 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92612 Location: 1240 North Euclid Street The applicant proposes to amend an existing conditional use permit in order to upgrade an existing Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) license to include distilled spirits for an existing restaurant. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. 2010-004 Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net 03/01/10 Page 3 of 11 ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05464 (DEV2009-00047) Owner: Saeed Z. Rana 3668 Veteran Avenue, #1 Los Angeles, CA 90034 Applicant: Roy Valverde Victory Outreach Anaheim 1520 South Lewis Anaheim, CA 92867 Location: 1520 South Lewis Street The applicant proposes to establish a community and religious assembly hall in an existing industrial building. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. 2010-007 Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net 03/01/10 Page 4 of 11 ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05473 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04808 (DELETED) (DEV2010-00001) Owner: Tim Stull Aspen Properties 2951 East La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 Applicant: Pastor Edward Wiafe Messiah Pentecostal Ministry 322 West Cerritos Avenue Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 1501 North Raymond Avenue The applicant proposes to permit a community and religious assembly hall in an existing industrial/commercial building with fewer parking spaces than required by code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. 2010-008 Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net 03/01/10 Page 5 of 11 ITEM NO. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05477 (DEV2010-00011) Owner: Walter Lin Lin Estate Inc. 1383 Appalachian Claremont, CA 91711 Applicant: Casey Caston Goodwill Industries Orange County 410 North Fairview Road Santa Ana, CA 92703 Location: 464 South Anaheim Hills Road The applicant proposes to establish an attended donation facility in an existing commercial center. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. 2010-009 Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net 03/01/10 Page 6 of 11 ITEM NO. 6 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 99-01 (DAG2010-00001) (DEV2010-00015) Owner: William J. Stone, Senior Vice President Excel Realty Holdings 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92128 Applicant: Ajesh Patel Prospera Hotels 333 City Boulevard West, Suite 1900 Orange, CA 92868 Location: 321 West Katella Avenue The applicant requests an amendment to Development Agreement No. 99-01 amending the date of proposed construction commencement for the hotels and timeshare portion of the Anaheim GardenWalk project. Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Negative Declaration, which was previously-approved, has been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Resolution No. 2010-010 Project Planner: Della Herrick dherrick@anaheim.net 03/01/10 Page 7 of 11 ITEM NO. 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05455 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04807 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2010-00235 (DEV2009-00027) Owner: Bishop Mar Aprim Khamis Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East 18221 North 59th Drive Glendale, AZ 85308 Applicant: Ashur Elkhoury Corcoran Botich Elkhoury Architecture & Planning 20280 Acacia Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: 2510 West Orange Avenue The applicant proposes to convert and expand an existing building currently being used as a pre-school into a church with fewer parking spaces, less parking lot landscaping (deleted) and a front yard setback that is less than required by code. In conjunction with this request, the City has initiated a zoning reclassification of the property from the Transition (T) zone to the RM-3 (Multi-Family Residential) zone. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects). Resolution No. 2010-011 Resolution No. 2010-012 Project Planner: Della Herrick dherrick@anaheim.net 03/01/10 Page 8 of 11 ITEM NO. 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05202B (DEV2009-00097B) Owner: Roger Deitos GAA Architects, Inc. 4 Park Plaza, Suite 120 Irvine, CA 92614 Applicant: Andrew Edwards Ace Anaheim Building, LLC c/o Extron Electronics 1230 East Lewis Street Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 1025 East Ball Road (formerly 1055 East Ball Road) The applicant proposes to modify the hours of operation for a restaurant/entertainment venue and to allow charging of an admission fee for the entertainment venue. Environmental Determination: A previously-approved Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Resolution No. 2010-013 Project Planner: Elaine Thienprasiddhi ethien@anaheim.net 03/01/10 Page 9 of 11 ITEM NO. 9 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2010-00088 (DEV2010-00002) Applicant: City of Anaheim Location: Citywide This is a City-initiated proposal to amend various Chapters of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to front yard fences permitted, noise levels for air conditioning units and pool equipment located in side yards, procedures for processing the termination of permits, and minor corrections pertaining to a code section reference and appeal timeframe. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare environmental documentation per Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code. Motion Project Planner: Elaine Thienprasiddhi ethien@anaheim.net Adjourn to Monday, March 15, 2010 at 3:30 p.m. 03/01/10 Page 10 of 11 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 4:30 p.m. February 24, 2010_ (TIME) (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. RIGHTS OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, 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 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department, (714) 765-5139. Notification 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. 03/01/10 Page 11 of 11 S C H E D U L E 2010 March 15 March 29 April 12 April 26 May 10 May 24 June 7 June 21 July 7 (Wednesday) July 19 August 2 August 16 August 30 September 13 September 27 October 11 October 25 November 8 November 22 December 6 December 20 C-G DEV 2010-00004 RETAIL RM-3 TRIPLEXRM-3 DRESDEN COURT APTS 24 DU C-G MEDICAL OFFICE C-G MEDICAL OFFICE RM-2 CONDOS 30 DU RM-3 DRESDEN PLACE APTS 24 DU C-G RETAIL RM-3 SANDPOINTE COVE APTS 24 DU RM-4 STONE CREEK APARTMENTS 120 DU C-G AUTO DEALERSHIP C-G MEDICAL OFFICE RM-3 DRESDEN PALMS APTS 24 DU||252'||62' RM-3 TRIPLEX RM-3 TRIPLEX RM-3 TRIPLEX RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR C-G MEDICAL OFFICE C-G MEDICAL OFFICE C-G SERVICE STATION C-G RETAIL C-G MEDICAL OFFICE RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR C-G RETAIL ||180'!!!N EUCLID STW ROMNEYA DR W ROMNEYA DRN DRESDEN PLW C H E V Y C H A S E D R N MINTEER STW M EDI CAL C ENTER DR W A R L I N G T O N A V EN MI NTEER ST91 5 W. LA PALMA AVE N. EUCLID STN. BROOKHURST STN. HARBOR BLVD109151240 North Euclid Street DEV2010-00004 Subject Property APN: 073-384-61 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 N EUCLID STW ROMNEYA DR W ROMNEYA DRN DRESDEN PLW C H E V Y C H A S E D R N MINTEER STW M EDI CAL C ENTER DR W A R L I N G T O N A V EN MI NTEER ST91 5 W. LA PALMA AVE N. EUCLID STN. BROOKHURST STN. HARBOR BLVD109151240 North Euclid Street DEV2010-00004 Subject Property APN: 073-384-61 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-004 RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-004 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1820A (DEV2010-00004) (1240 NORTH EUCLID STREET) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1820A, to permit the sales of alcoholic beverage for on- premises consumption within an existing restaurant for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, this property is developed with a commercial center located in the General Commercial (C-G) zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for corridor residential land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on March 1, 2010, at 3:30 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, on April 24, 1978, the Anaheim City Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC78-84, did approve Conditional Use Permit No. 1820 to permit the on-sale of beer and wine in a proposed restaurant. WHEREAS, said Planning 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 with respect to the request for a conditional use permit, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The request to permit the sales of alcoholic beverage for on-premises consumption within an existing restaurant in the General Commercial (C-G) zone is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section 18.08.030.010. (Alcoholic Beverages Sales- On-Sale) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 2. The sales of alcoholic beverage for on-premises consumption within an existing restaurant will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the service of alcoholic beverages is consistent with the operational characteristics for a restaurant business of this type. - 2 - PC2010-004 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety because the proposal will not expand or change the exterior of the existing building. 4. The traffic generated by the request to permit the sales of alcoholic beverage for on-premises consumption within an existing restaurant will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because this use does not intensify existing restaurant business activity. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because the ABC license upgrade to allow the service of distilled spirits is consistent with the existing service of beer and wine which has been determined not to be a detriment to the area. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, 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 City Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 1820A subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this conditional use permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 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 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. - 3 - PC2010-004 THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of March 1, 2010. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on March 1, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of March, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-004 - 5 - PC2010-004 EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1820A (DEV2010-00004) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING GENERAL 1 At all times when the premise is open for business, the premise shall be maintained as a bona fide restaurant and shall provide a menu containing an assortment of foods normally offered in such restaurant Police Department 2 The gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 40 percent of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested. Police Department 3 The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premise shall be prohibited. Police Department 4 There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Police Department 5 The activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties. Police Department 6 The closing hours of operation shall be limited to 12:00 a.m. each day of the week. Police Department 7 The subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premise (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the Business and Professions Code. Police Department 8 There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor minimum drink purchase required. Police Department - 6 - PC2010-004 9 The parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby residences. Police Department 10 The 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 No. 1 (Site Plan), Exhibit No. 2 (Floor Plan) and as conditioned herein. Planning 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. I DEV 2009-00047 INDUSTRIAL SOUTHERN CALIFORNA EDISON CO. EASEMENT I ICE RINK I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I CITY OF ANAHEIM ELEC. SUBSTATION I AUTO DEALERSHIP I CITY OF ANAHEIM ELEC. SUBSTATION I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL ||123'||295'! ! !S LEWIS STE CERRITOS AVE 5 57 E. BALL RD E. KATELLA AVES. LEWIS STS. HARBOR BLVDE. CERRITOS AVE S. SUNKIST STS. ANAHEIM BLVDS. STATE COLLEGE BLVDW. BALL RD W. KATELLA AVE W. DISNEY WAY 109111520 South Lewis Street DEV2009-00047 Subject Property APN: 082-250-86 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 S LEWIS STE CERRITOS AVE 5 57 E. BALL RD E. KATELLA AVES. LEWIS STS. HARBOR BLVDE. CERRITOS AVE S. SUNKIST STS. ANAHEIM BLVDS. STATE COLLEGE BLVDW. BALL RD W. KATELLA AVE W. DISNEY WAY 109111520 South Lewis Street DEV2009-00047 Subject Property APN: 082-250-86 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-007 RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05464 (DEV2009-00047) (1520 SOUTH LEWIS STREET) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05464, to permit a church for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, this property is developed with an industrial building located in the Industrial (I) zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for Industrial land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on March 1, 2010, at 3:30 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 Planning 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 with respect to the request for a conditional use permit, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The request to permit a church in the Industrial (I) zone is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section 18.10.030.010. (Community and Religious Assembly Hall) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 2. The church will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the church functions will be conducted in a manner conducive to the area and will operate entirely within an existing building. In addition, the peak operating hours of the church, as conditioned herein, are off-set from the peak operating hours of the other businesses within this industrial park. 3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the church 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. 4. The traffic generated by the church will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because this use does not exceed or intensify anticipated traffic levels for this area. - 2 - PC2010-007 5. That the existing number of on-site parking spaces is determined to be adequate for the proposed church. Code requires 395 parking spaces and 311 parking spaces exist. Because the church assembly activities occur during evening hours and weekends when industrial businesses in the center are closed, the existing number of parking spaces is adequate for the church. Condition No. 4 of this resolution includes this limitation on the church assembly activities. 6. 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 and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, 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 City Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05464 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this conditional use permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 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 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. - 3 - PC2010-007 THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of March 1, 2010. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on March 1, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of March, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-007 - 5 - PC2010-007 EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2009-05464 (DEV2009-00047) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING GENERAL 1 This church facility shall not include any child day care or pre- school activities, except during church services. Code Enforcement 2 No outdoor uses and/or assembly or outdoor storage shall occur on the property. Code Enforcement 3 No portable signage shall be utilized to advertise the church. Code Enforcement 4 Church services shall be permitted weekdays after 6 p.m. and during anytime on weekends. Incidental church office uses are not subject to the weekday restriction. Code Enforcement 5 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. Code Enforcement 6 Rear entrance doors shall be numbered in the same address numbers or suite number of the business. Minimum height of 4” recommended. Code Enforcement 7 All exterior doors to have adequate security hardware, e.g. deadbolt locks. Code Enforcement 8 File Emergency Listing Card, Form APD-281, with the Police Department, available at the Police Department front counter, or it can be downloaded from the following web site: http://www.anaheim,net/article.asp?id=678. Police Department 9 The 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 No. 1 (Site Plan), Exhibit No. 2 (Floor Plans) and as conditioned herein. Planning 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net ITEM NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: MARCH 1, 2010 FROM: PLANNING SERVICES MANAGER VANESSA NORWOOD, PROJECT PLANNER SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05473 (VARIANCE NO. 2010-04808 DELETED) LOCATION: 1501 North Raymond Avenue APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Pastor Edward Waife of Messiah Pentecostal Ministry and the property owner is Aspen Properties. REQUEST: The applicant proposes to establish a religious and community assembly hall within an existing industrial building. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental determination for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05473. BACKGROUND: This 3.03 acre property is developed with an industrial building located in the Industrial zone. The General Plan designates this property and properties to the north, south and west for industrial land uses. Properties to the east across Raymond Avenue are in the City of Fullerton. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 4,700 square foot church, Sunday school and related offices. In addition, after- school tutoring services are also proposed for school age children. No changes to the exterior of the building are proposed. A parking variance was advertised prior to staff’s final determination that parking was adequate for the proposed use. Because parking was determined to be sufficient, the variance has been deleted from the request. The proposed hours of church operation are 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., weekdays and 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekends. Weekday office hours of 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. are also proposed. I DEV 2010-00001 INDUSTRIAL I OFFICES I INDUSTRIALRAILROAD I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL ||346'||418'I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I AKUA MOTOR INN I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIALI INDUSTRIALI INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I SERVICE STATION I SELF STORAGE FACILITY I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I VACANT I VACANT I INDUSTRIAL I OFFICES I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL N RAYMOND AVEE ORANGEFAIR LN BURTON ST 91 E. LA PALMA AVE E. ORANGETHORPE AVE N. ACACIA STN. EAST STN. STATE COLLEGE BLVDW. LA PALMA AVE E. COMMERCIAL ST 109131501 North Raymond Avenue DEV2010-00001 Subject Property APN: 267-021-31 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 91 FREEWAY ANAHEIM CITY BOUNDARYFULLERTON CITYBOUNDARY N RAYMOND AVEE ORANGEFAIR L N BURTON ST 91 E. LA PALMA AVE E. ORANGETHORPE AVE N. ACACIA STN. EAST STN. STATE COLLEGE BLVDW. LA PALMA AVE E. COMMERCIAL ST 109131501 North Raymond Avenue DEV2010-00001 Subject Property APN: 267-021-31 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 91 FREEWAY ANAHEIM CITY BOUNDARYFULLERTON CITYBOUNDARY [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-008 RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05473 (DEV2009-00001) (1501 NORTH RAYMOND AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05473, to permit a church for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, this property is developed with an industrial building located in the Industrial (I) zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for Industrial land uses; and WHEREAS, on September 12, 1989, the Anaheim City Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC89R-382, did approve Conditional Use Permit No. 3183 to permit certain industrially-related sales businesses and office uses at 1501 and 1525 North Raymond Avenue in the ML (Limited Industrial) zone and that Condition Nos. 18 (retail sales businesses) and 19 (industrially-related office uses) of said resolution specify the businesses that are permitted; WHEREAS, on October 18, 1996, the Anaheim City Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC96-113, expanded the list of permitted uses to include “wholesale and retail flooring contractor”; WHEREAS, on December 21, 1998, the Anaheim City Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC98-206, did approve Conditional Use Permit No. 3183 to permit add a “commercial Boy Scout supply shop” to the list of uses identified in Condition No. 18 (retail sales businesses) to retain the existing commercial Boy Scout supply shop at 1501 North Raymond Avenue, Suite Q; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on March 1, 2010, at 3:30 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 Planning 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 with respect to the request for a conditional use permit, does find and determine the following facts: - 2 - PC2010-008 1. The request to permit a church in the Industrial (I) zone is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section 18.10.030.010. (Community and Religious Assembly Hall) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 2. The church will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the church functions will be conducted in a manner conducive to the area and will operate entirely within an existing building. 3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the church 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. 4. The traffic generated by the church will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because this use does not exceed or intensify anticipated traffic levels for this area. 5. That the existing number of on-site parking spaces exceeds the code required parking for the existing uses and for the proposed church. Code requires 196 parking spaces and 244 parking spaces exist. In addition, the church assembly activities occur during evening hours and weekends when commercial and industrial businesses in the center are closed. 6. 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 and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, 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 City Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05473 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. - 3 - PC2010-008 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this conditional use permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 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 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 March 1, 2010. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on March 1, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of March, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-008 - 5 - PC2010-008 EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05473 (DEV2010-00001) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING GENERAL 1 This church facility shall not include any child day care or pre- school activities, except during church services. Code Enforcement 2 No outdoor uses and/or assembly or outdoor storage shall occur on the property. Code Enforcement 3 No portable signage shall be utilized to advertise the church. Code Enforcement 4 Church services shall be permitted weekdays after 6 p.m. and during any time on weekends. Incidental church office uses are not subject to this restriction. Code Enforcement 5 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. Code Enforcement 6 Rear entrance doors shall be numbered in the same address numbers or suite number of the business. Minimum height of 4” recommended. Code Enforcement 7 All exterior doors to have adequate security hardware, e.g. deadbolt locks. Code Enforcement 8 File Emergency Listing Card, Form APD-281, with the Police Department, available at the Police Department front counter, or it can be downloaded from the following web site: http://www.anaheim,net/article.asp?id=678. Police Department 9 The 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 No. 1 (Site Plan), Exhibit No. 2 (Floor Plans) and as conditioned herein. Planning ORANGEFAIR LANE 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. E NOHL RANCH RDE CANYON RIM RDS ANAHEIM HILLS RDS ANAHEIM HILLS RDS RANCH VI EW CI RS RANCH VIEW CIRE . N O H L RANCH RD E. CA N Y O N R I M R D E. SAN T A A N A C A N Y O N R D S . F AIR M O N T BLVD . S A N T A A N A C A N Y O N R D 10910464 South Anaheim Hills Road DEV2010-00011 Subject Property APNS: 356-181-06 356-181-07 356-181-08 356-181-18 356-181-19 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 C-G (SC) DEV 2010-00011 RETAIL C-G (SC) SENIOR CITIZEN APARTMENTS 131 DU C-G (SC) SERVICE STATION RM-4 (SC) CONDO 58 DU T (SC) SENIOR CITIZEN APARTMENTS 117 DU RM-4 (SC) CONDO 50 DU O-L (SC) OFFICES C-G (SC) MEDICAL OFFICE ||326'||334'E NOHL RANCH RDE C A N Y O N R IM R D S ANAHEIM HILLS RDE . N O H L RANCH RD E. CA N Y O N R I M R D E. SAN T A A N A C A N Y O N R D S . F AIR M O N T BLVD . S A N T A A N A C A N Y O N R D 10910464 South Anaheim Hills Road DEV2010-00011 Subject Property APNS: 356-181-06 356-181-07 356-181-08 356-181-18 356-181-19 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE.°0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-009 RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 3 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05477 (DEV2010-00011) (464 SOUTH ANAHEIM HILLS ROAD) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05477, to permit an attended donation facility for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, this property is developed with a commercial center located in the General Commercial (C-G) (SC) Scenic Corridor Overlay zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for commercial-neighborhood center land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on March 1, 2010, at 3:30 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 Planning 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 with respect to the request for a conditional use permit, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The request to permit an attended donation facility in the General Commercial (C-G) (SC) Scenic Corridor Overlay zone is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section 18.66.040.030.0301 (Unlisted Uses) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 2. The attended donation facility will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the donation center is separated from adjoining residential land uses by a 300 foot distance and large greenbelt buffer, operates during daylight hours and is consistent and compatible with existing commercial center activities. In addition, the area around the donation facility will be continually monitored and maintained in order to avoid an accumulation of debris. 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety because this use will be located in a large, open alcove area behind an existing commercial center and will not interfere with on-site parking an circulation. - 2 - PC2010-009 4. The traffic generated by the attended donation facility will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because this activity is consistent with commercial center activity anticipated for this center. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because the use is consistent with commercial uses in the area and activities in the center. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05477 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this conditional use permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 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 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. - 3 - PC2010-009 THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of March 1, 2010. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on March 1, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of March, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-009 - 5 - PC2010-009 EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05477 (DEV2010-00011) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING GENERAL 1 Daily hours of operation shall be limited from 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., including site clean-up and trailer drop-off/pick-up. Code Enforcement 2 The site surrounding the donation center shall be kept in a clean and orderly condition at all times. All donated goods shall be placed inside the trailer immediately following the public drop- off and maintained inside the trailer at all times. Removal of all debris or items associated with this use shall occur within 24 hours. Code Enforcement 3 A sign shall placed on the trailer in a prominent location denoting the hours of operation and stating that donated goods may be dropped off only when an attendant is present. The sign shall also provide a contact telephone number to a responsible party. Code Enforcement 4 No temporary or portable signs directed towards traffic on the adjacent public rights of way shall be placed on the property. Code Enforcement 5 The 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 No. 1 (Site Plan) and as conditioned herein. Planning 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. SP 92-1 DEV 2010-00015 GARDENWALK SP 92-1 DA3A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. EASEMENT SP 92-2 DA1 VACANT SP 92-1 DA3A FIRE STATION SP 92-1 DA3A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. EASEMENT SP 92-2 DA1 CASTLE INN & SUITES SP 93-1 HOTEL CIRCLE LA QUINTA INN & SUITES SP 92-2 DA1 INDUSTRIALSP 92-2 DA1 SUPER 8 MOTEL SP 92-2 DA1 RENT-A-CAR SP 93-1 HOTEL CIRCLE WORLDMARK SP 92-1 DA3A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. EASEMENT SP 92-2 DA1 RAMADA PLAZA HOTEL ANAHEIM RESORT SP 92-2 DA1 AMERICA'S BEST VALUE INN & SUITES SP 92-1 DA4 PARKING LOT SP 92-2 DA1 ZABY'S MOTOR LODGE SP 92-1 DA4 PARKING LOT SP 92-1 DA4 PARKING LOT SP 92-2 DA1 ISLANDER INN & SUITES SP 93-1 HOTEL CIRCLE EXTENDED STAY AMERICA SP 92-2 DA1 ANAHEIM RESIDENCE INN W KATELLA AVES HARBOR BLVDW DISNEY WAY S CLEMENTINE STW DISNEY WAY S CLEMENTINE ST5 S. HARBOR BLVDS. LEWIS STW. KATELLA AVE W. ORANGEWOOD AVES. WALNUT STE. KATELLA AVES. ANAHEIM BLVDS. HASTER STE. ORANGEWOOD AVES. CLEMENTINE ST10916321 West Katella Avenue DEV No. 2010-00015 Subject Property APNs: 082-551-02 082-551-07 082-551-06 082-551-10 082-551-08 082-551-01 082-551-04 082-551-09 082-551-03 082-271-09 082-551-11 082-271-10 082-551-06 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 W KATELLA AVES HARBOR BLVDW DISNEY WAY S CLEMENTINE STW DISNEY WAY S CLEMENTINE ST5 S. HARBOR BLVDS. LEWIS STW. KATELLA AVE W. ORANGEWOOD AVES. WALNUT STE. KATELLA AVES. ANAHEIM BLVDS. HASTER STE. ORANGEWOOD AVES. CLEMENTINE ST10916321 West Katella Avenue DEV No. 2010-00015 Subject Property APNs: 082-551-02 082-551-07 082-551-06 082-551-10 082-551-08 082-551-01 082-551-04 082-551-09 082-551-03 082-271-09 082-551-11 082-271-10 082-551-06 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-010 RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THE PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SERVES AS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO 1 TO THE SECOND AMENDMEND AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 99-01 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND ANAHEIM GW II, LLC, GARDENWALK HOTEL I, LLC AND WESTGATE RESORTS ANAHEIM, LLC WHEREAS, Article 2.5 of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of Title 7 (commencing with Section 65864) of the Government Code of the State of California (hereinafter the "Statute") authorizes a city to enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property as provided in said Statute; and WHEREAS, upon request of an applicant, cities are required to establish procedures and requirements by resolution or ordinance for the consideration of development agreements; and WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim (hereinafter the "City") heretofore on November 23, 1982, enacted Ordinance No. 4377 (hereinafter the "Enabling Ordinance") which makes the City subject to the Statute; and WHEREAS, pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65865 of the Statute, the City heretofore on November 23, 1982, adopted Resolution No. 82R-565 (hereinafter the "Procedures Resolution") establishing procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements upon receipt of an application by the City; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2006, the City of Anaheim (“City”) and Anaheim GardenWalk LLC (“Owner”) entered into that Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99-1and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County California on June 2, 2006 as Instrument No. 200600373943 (the “Development Agreement”) with respect to that certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, subsequent to the recordation of the Development Agreement, the interest in the project was sold, transferred, conveyed or assigned to Anaheim GW II, LLC, GardenWalk Hotel I, LLC, and Westgate Resorts Anaheim, LLC (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Owner”); and - 2 - PC2010-010 WHEREAS, on January 25, 2010 , Owner submitted a letter requesting an amendment to the Development Agreement to- to redefine the project description to condense Hotel No. 1, Hotel No. 2 and Hotel No.3 as one (1) project element that consists of two (2) hotels totaling approximately eight hundred sixty-six (866) hotel rooms and that the commencement of the construction of the hotels occur on or before May 26, 2011 and that the time share portion of the project be required to commence on or before March 23, 2019; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on March 1, 2010 at 3:30 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 amendment to Development Agreement 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 and based upon all of the evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine that the amendment to the Development Agreement meets the following standards set forth in the Procedures Resolution: 1. The Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan in that it is in conformance with the General Plan Commercial Recreation land use designation and with the goals, policies and objectives for The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan as set forth in the General Plan. 2. The Project is compatible with the uses authorized in and the regulations prescribed for the applicable zoning district in that the Project is in compliance with the Disneyland Resort Anaheim GardenWalk Overlay requirements. 3. The Project is compatible with the orderly development of property in the surrounding area in that it is in conformance with and implements The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Land Use Plan and the Anaheim GardenWalk Overlay Zone requirements. 4. The Project is not otherwise detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 5. The Development Agreement constitutes a lawful, present exercise of the City’s police power and authority under the Statute, the Enabling Ordinance and the Procedures Resolution. 6. The amendment to the Development Agreement is entered into pursuant to and is in compliance with the City’s charter powers and the requirements of Section 65867 of the Statute, the Enabling Ordinance and the Procedures Resolution. WHEREAS, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in conjunction with the Development Agreement is adequate to serve as the required - 3 - PC2010-010 environmental documentation in connection with this request for an amendment to said agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the aforesaid findings and determinations, the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approval Amendment No. 1 to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99-01 to condense Hotel No. 1, Hotel No. 2 and Hotel No.3 as one (1) project element that consists of two (2) hotels totaling approximately eight hundred sixty-six (866) hotel rooms and that the commencement of the construction of the hotels occur on or before May 26, 2011 and that the time share portion of the project be required to commence on or before March 23, 2019. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon Owner's compliance with each and all of the conditions set forth in the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99-01 and any conditions of this Resolution amending said agreement. 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 to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of March 1, 2010. 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. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-010 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on March 1, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of March 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2010-010 RECORDING REQUESTED BY ) AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:) ) City of Anaheim ) 200 South Anaheim Boulevard ) Anaheim, California 92805 ) Attention: City Manager ) This document is exempt from a recording fee pursuant to Government Code Section 6103. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 99-01 By and Between THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, on one hand and ANAHEIM GW II, LLC, GARDENWALK HOTEL I, LLC and WESTGATE RESORTS ANAHEIM LLC, on the other hand 2 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 99-01 This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 99-01 (this “Amendment No. 1”), dated for purposes of identification only as of March 1, 2010 (the “Date of Amendment”), is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF ANAHEIM, a municipal corporation and charter city, (the “City”), on one hand, and ANAHEIM GW II, LLC, a Delaware limited l i ab i l i t y co m p an y, (“Anaheim GW II”), GARDENWALK HOTEL I, LLC, a C al i forn i a limited l i ab i l i t y co m p an y, (“GardenWalk Hotel”), and WESTGATE RESORTS ANAHEIM LLC, a Florida limited liability company (“Westgate Resorts”), on the other hand, (each, an “Individual Developer” and collectively, the “Developer”). RECITALS A.The City and Anaheim GW, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, (the “Original Developer’) entered into that certain Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99-01 dated as of April 11, 2006 and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County California on June 2, 2006 as Instrument No. 2006000373943 (the “Development Agreement”) with respect to that certain real property described in the “Legal Descriptions” which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. B.Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment No. 1, all capitalized terms shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Development Agreement. Copies of the Development Agreement are available as a public record in the office of the City Clerk located at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California. C.The Original Developer assigned the Development Agreement with respect to the Parking Structure No. 1, Retail No. 1 and Vacation Ownership Resort No. 1 to Anaheim GW II pursuant to that certain Partial Assignment of Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99-1 dated as of January 31, 2007 and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County California on February 7, 2007 as Instrument No. 2007000092571. D.The Original Developer assigned, and GardenWalk Hotel assumed, the Development Agreement with respect to the Hotel Property and the Hotels pursuant to that certain Partial Assignment of Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99-1 dated as of July 19, 2007 and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County California on July 19, 2007 as Instrument No. 2007000453402. 3 E.Anaheim GW II assigned the Development Agreement with respect to the Timeshare Parcel and the Vacation Ownership Resort to Westgate Resorts pursuant to that certain Partial Assignment of Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99-1 dated as of February 29, 2008 and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County California on March 6, 2008 as Instrument No. 2008000105443. F.The Development Agreement addresses, among other things, the Developer’s construction of the Project phases, requiring that the Developer commence construction of the various Project Elements within certain time frames. G.The Developer has requested that the City amend the Development Agreement (i) to redefine Hotel No.1, Hotel No. 2 and Hotel No. 3 as one (1) Project Element consisting of two (2) Hotels (hereinafter redefined as Hotels 1 and 2) totaling approximately eight hundred sixty-six (866) Hotel Rooms in the aggregate, (ii) to require the Commencement of Construction of Hotels 1 and 2 to occur on or before May 26, 2011, and (iii) to require the Commencement of Construction of Vacation Ownership No. 1 to occur on or before March 23, 2019. H.The City and the Developer (each, a “Party” and jointly, the “Parties”) intend, in this Amendment No. 1, to amend the Development Agreement as set forth in Recital G hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES, COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1.AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. The Development Agreement is amended as set forth in this Section. 1.1 Definition of Hotel 1. The Definition of Hotel 1, set forth in Section 1.32 of the Development Agreement, is deleted and replaced with the following: 1.32 “Hotels 1 and 2” means those two (2) certain Hotels containing approximately four hundred (400) Hotel Rooms and four hundred sixty-six (466) Hotel Rooms to be constructed as one (1) Project Element by the Developer in accordance with the Existing Approvals in the locations shown on the Site Map. Hotels 1 and 2 shall not be Vacation Ownership Resorts. 1.2 Definition of Hotel 2. The Definition of Hotel 2, set forth in Section 1.33 of the Development Agreement, is deleted and replaced with the following: 1.33 INTENTIONALLY OMITTED. 4 1.3 Definition of Hotel 3. The Definition of Hotel 2, set forth in Section 1.34 of the Development Agreement, is deleted and replaced with the following: 1.34 INTENTIONALLY OMITTED. 1.4 Definition of Project Elements. The Definition of Project Element(s), set forth in Section 1.63 of the Development Agreement, is deleted and replaced with the following: 1.63 “Project Element(s)” means the specific land uses permitted by the Existing Approvals and other accessory uses, infrastructure improvements and private or public facilities contained in the Existing Approvals and as shown on the Site Map as Retail No. 1, Retail No. 2, Parking Structure No. 1, Parking Structure No. 2, Vacation Ownership Resort No. 1, Vacation Ownership Resort No. 2, Hotels 1 and 2, and Hotel 4. 1.5 Site Map. The Site Map, attached to the Development Agreement as Exhibit A, is deleted and replaced with the Site Map attached hereto as Attachment No. 1 and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.6 Development Assurances. The Development Assurances, set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of Section 3.1.1 of the Development Agreement, are deleted and replaced with the following: (c)The Developer shall Commence Construction of Hotels 1 and 2 on or before May 26, 2011 and shall Complete Construction and Open for Business no later than thirty-six (36) months after Commencement of Construction of Hotels 1 and 2. (d)The Developer shall Commence Construction of Vacation Ownership Resort No. 1 on or before March 23, 2019 and shall Complete Construction and Open for Business no later than twenty-four (24) months after Commencement of Construction of Vacation Ownership Resort No. 1. SECTION 2.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. To the extent any of the Conditions of Approval contain any deadlines for the Commencement of Construction of Hotels 1 and 2 or Vacation Ownership Resort No. 1, such deadlines shall be extended to May 26, 2011 and March 23, 2019, respectively. SECTION 3.DEFAULTS. Any Default under the Development Agreement, as amended by this Amendment No. 1, by any Individual Developer shall not affect in any way the rights of any other Individual Developer with respect to the Development Agreement, as amended by this Amendment No. 1. 5 SECTION 4.INTEGRATION. Except as expressly provided to the contrary herein, all provisions of the Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The Development Agreement and this Amendment No. 1 shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the “Agreement”. The Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions of agreement between the Parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. SECTION 5.EFFECTIVE DATE. This Amendment No. 1 shall take effect upon the date the ordinance of the City Council of the City approving this Amendment No. 1 takes effect. 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 AS OF THE RESPECTIVE DATES SET FORTH BELOW. “CITY” CITY OF ANAHEIM, a municipal corporation and charter city Dated: By: CURT L. PRINGLE, Mayor ATTEST: LINDA N. ANDAL, CITY CLERK By: LINDA N. ANDAL APPROVED AS TO FORM: CRISTINA L. TALLEY, CITY ATTORNEY By: JOHN E. WOODHEAD IV Assistant City Attorney (Signatures continued on next page) 7 (Signatures continued from previous page) “DEVELOPER” ANAHEIM GW LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Dated: By: WILLIAM J. STONE Authorized Signatory GARDENWALK HOTEL I, LLC, a California limited liability company By:Prospera Properties III, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Its:Managing Member By:Pacifica Hotels, LLC, a California limited liability company Its:Sole Member and Manager Dated: By: AJESH PATEL Its:Manager Dated: By: WILLIAM O’CONNELL Its:Manager WESTGATE RESORTS ANAHEIM LLC, a Florida limited liability company By:Westgae Resorts, Inc., a Florida corporation Its:Manager By: DAVID A. SIEGAL, President 75982.2 State of California ) ) ss. County of ) On , , before me, (name, title of officer, e.g., Jane D oe, Notary Public") personally appeared (name(s) of signer(s)) Q personally known to me —OR— Q proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity/ies, and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. (Signature of Notary) Capacity claimed by signer:(This section is OPTIONAL.) Q Individual Q Corporate Officer(s): Q Partner(s): Q General Q Limited Q Attorney-in-fact Q Trustee(s) Q Guardian/Conservator Q Other: Signer is representing: (name of person(s) or entity(ies)) Attention Notary: Although the information requested below is OPTIONAL, it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this certificate to an unauthorized document. THIS CERTIFICATE Title or Type of Document: MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE DOCUMENT Number of Pages: Date of Document: DESCRIBED AT RIGHT:Signer(s) Other than Named Above: State of California ) ) ss. County of ) On , , before me, (name, title of officer, e.g., Jane D oe, Notary Public") personally appeared (name(s) of signer(s)) Q personally known to me —OR— Q proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity/ies, and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. (Signature of Notary) Capacity claimed by signer:(This section is OPTIONAL.) Q Individual Q Corporate Officer(s): Q Partner(s): Q General Q Limited Q Attorney-in-fact Q Trustee(s) Q Guardian/Conservator Q Other: Signer is representing: (name of person(s) or entity(ies)) Attention Notary: Although the information requested below is OPTIONAL, it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this certificate to an unauthorized document. THIS CERTIFICATE Title or Type of Document: MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE DOCUMENT Number of Pages: Date of Document: DESCRIBED AT RIGHT:Signer(s) Other than Named Above: Exhibit A - Page 1 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Melodyland Parcels: PARCEL A THE WEST 20 ACRES OF THE NORTHERLY 645.00 FEET OF THE SOUTHERLY 1320.00 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO SAN JUAN CAJON DE SANTA ANA, CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THE WEST 720.00 FEET. ALSO EXCEPT THE NORTH 60.00 FEET. PARCEL B THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO SAN JUAN CAJON DE SANTA ANA, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY REORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 675.00 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE EAST 833.51 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 0° 16’ 30” EAST 675.11 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO ALWYN S. JEWELL AND LUCILLE G. JEWELL, RECORDED OCTOBER 5, 1979 IN BOOK 4912, PAGE 102, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE EAST 486.49 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LAND CONVEYED TO DONALD F. REA BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1958 IN BOOK 4521, PAGE 453, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 675.00 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO REA, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LAND OF REA TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THE WEST 292.00 FEET THEREOF. Exhibit A - Page 2 ALSO EXCEPT THE SOUTH 360.00 FEET THEREOF. Hasenyager Parcel: LOT 3 OF TRACT NO. 333O, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 113, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. Zaby’s Parcel: LOTS 1 AND 2 OF TRACT 3330, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 113, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM BY DEED RECORDED JULY 30, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 97- 0359942, OFFICIAL RECORDS. Berger Parcel: LOTS 4 AND 5 OF TRACT NO. 333O, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 113, PAGES 21 AND 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. Rist Parcel: PARCEL 1: THE WEST 292 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, IN TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO SAN JUAN CAJON DE SANTA ANA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 10, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 675.00 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE EAST 833.51 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER TO THE TRUE POINT OF Exhibit A - Page 3 BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 0° 16’ 30” EAST 675.11 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO ALWYN S. JEWEL AND LUCILLE G. J EWELL, RECORDED OCTOBER 5, 1959 IN BOOK 4912, PAGE 102, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER, 486.49 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LAND CONVEYED TO DONALD F. REA BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1958 IN BOOK 4521, PAGE 543, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO REA, 675.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LAND OF REA TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THEREFROM THE WEST 150 FEET OF THE SOUTH 360 FEET; ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM THE SOUTH 60 FEET INCLUDED WITHIN KATELLA AVENUE, 120 FEET WIDE. Parcel 2 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO SAN JUAN CAJON DE SANTA ANA, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 10 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 675.00 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE EAST 833.51 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 0° 16’ 30” EAST 675.11 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO ALWYN S. JEWELL AND LUCILLE G. JEWELL, RECORDED OCTOBER 5, 1959 IN BOOK 4912, PAGE 102, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER, 486.49 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LAND CONVEYED TO DONALD F. REA, BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1958 IN BOOK 4521, PAGE 543, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO REA, 675.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LAND OF REA TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THEREFROM THE SOUTH 60.00 FEET INCLUDED WITHIN KATELLA AVENUE, 120.00 FEET WIDE. ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM THE NORTH 315 FEET. Exhibit A - Page 4 ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM THE WEST 292 FEET. Ursini Parcel: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 675.00 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE EAST 833.51 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 0° 16’ 30”, EAST 675.11 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO ALWYN S. JEWELL AND LUCILLE G. JEWELL, RECORDED OCTOBER 5, 1959 IN BOOK 4912, PAGE 102 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 0° 16’ 30” WEST, 360.00 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND; THENCE EAST 150.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 0° 16’ 30” EAST, 360.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH SAID EASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO JEWELL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 150.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION OF SAID PROPERTY LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION DATED JANUARY 30, 1998, CASE NO. 782833 OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH WAS RECORDED FEBRUARY 9, 1998 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19980071981 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. City Parcel: THE NORTHERLY 280.35 FEET OF PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 55, PAGE 46 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. Pyrovest Parcels: PARCEL 1: THE EAST 660.00 FEET OF THE WEST 720.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 585.00 FEET Exhibit A - Page 5 OF THE SOUTH 1260 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO SAN JUAN CAJON DE SANTA ANA, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: BEGINNING AT A POINT SOUTH 0° 13’ 22” EAST 15.03 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY SAID POINT BEING ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF HARBOR BOULEVARD 120 FEET WIDE; THENCE SOUTH 0° 13’ 22” EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE 100.08 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 54’ 30” EAST PARALLEL TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL 111.34 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0° 13’ 22” WEST, PARALLEL TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF HARBOR BOULEVARD 30.75 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 54’ 38” EAST 38.66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0° 13’ 22” WEST 84.36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF FREEDMAN WAY, 60.00 FEET WIDE; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FREEDMAN WAY, SOUTH 89° 54’ 30” WEST 134.97 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90° 07’ 52” A LENGTH OF 23.60 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION. PARCEL 2: BEGINNING AT A POINT SOUTH 0° 13’ 22” EAST 15.03 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY SAID POINT BEING ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF HARBOR BOULEVARD 120 FEET WIDE; THENCE SOUTH 0° 13’ 22” EAST ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE 100.08 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 54’ 30” EAST PARALLEL TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL 111.34 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0° 13’ 22” WEST, PARALLEL TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF HARBOR BOULEVARD 30.75 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 54’ 38” EAST 38.66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0° 13’ 22” WEST 84.36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF FREEDMAN WAY, 60.00 FEET WIDE; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FREEDMAN WAY, SOUTH 89° 54’ 30” WEST 134.97 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90° 07’ 52” A LENGTH OF 23.60 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION. Attachment No. 1 - Page 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SITE MAP (To be attached) ©2008 Morris Architects 5Combined Site Plan 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. T DEV 2009-00027 PRESCHOOL RM-4 APARTMENTS 16 DU T SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RM-4 VILLA LA QUINTA APARTMENTS 54 DU RM-4 VILLA SAN GIORGIO APARTMENTS 26 DU RM-3 THE EVERGREENS APARTMENTS 24 DU RM-4 CINNAMON CREEK APARTMENTS 39 DU RS-3 SFR RM-3 STANFORD APARTMENTS 14 DU T SFR RS-2 SFR T RELIGIOUS USE RM-4 WEBSTER PINES APARTMENTS 20 DU T NURSERY T PRIVATE SCHOOL RM-3 ATRIUM GARDEN APARTMENTS 51 DU RM-4 APTS 10 DU RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR T RELIGIOUS USE RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RM-4 APTS 12 DU RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR ||151'||451' RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR W ORANGE AVE S VELARE STS GAIN STS BAKER STS WEBSTER AVEW KEYS LN S HAMPTON STW GRIVEY AVE W THERESA AVE W ROVEN AVE W CLEARBROOK LN W BERYL AVE W HALFMOON DR W. BALL RD W. BROADWAY S. DALE AVES. MAGNOLIA AVES. BROOKHURST STW. LINCOLN AVE W. LINCOLN AVE 108822510 West Orange Avenue DEV2009-00027 Subject Property APN: 127-181-01 127-181-02 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 W ORANGE AVE S VELARE STS GAIN STS BAKER STS WEBSTER AVEW KEYS LN S HAMPTON STW GRIVEY AVE W THERESA AVE W ROVEN AVE W CLEARBROOK LN W BERYL AVE W HALFMOON DR W. BALL RD W. BROADWAY S. DALE AVES. MAGNOLIA AVES. BROOKHURST STW. LINCOLN AVE W. LINCOLN AVE 108822510 West Orange Avenue DEV2009-00027 Subject Property APN: 127-181-01 127-181-02 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-011 RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05455 AND VARIANCE NO. 2010-04807 (DEV2009-00027) (2510 WEST ORANGE AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05455, to permit a church pursuant to Code Section No. 18.60.180 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, this property is currently developed with a pre-school facility, located in the Transition (T) Zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Residential Low-Medium land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on March 1, 2010, at 3:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional 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. The proposed church use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section No. 18.14.030.0402. 2. The proposed church will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because church functions will operate within an expanded existing building and the times and days of church activities are limited; 3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the church is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; 4. The traffic generated by the proposed church use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. 5. That parking for the church is determined to be adequate as the use of the sanctuary and use of the fellowship hall would not occur at the same time. Condition Nos. 25 and 26 of this resolution includes this limitation on the church assembly activities. - 2 - PC2010-011 6. 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 and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area. WHEREAS, the Planning 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 with respect to the request for a variance, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The applicant requests a variance from the following Code Section to provide less parking than required by Code: (a) SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces (Table 42-A) (80 spaces required; 43 spaces proposed) 2. The above-mentioned variance, under the conditions imposed, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for such use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to the proposal under the normal and reasonably foreseeable operation of the use. The parking justification letter submitted by the applicants indicates that the maximum demand for all combined uses would be 40 spaces for special events including weddings and the 43 spaces proposed are an adequate parking supply to accommodate the church use. 3. The parking variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity because the proposed project will not increase or compete for on-street parking and as indicated in the aforementioned parking justification letter, the proposed parking would be adequate to accommodate both the proposed peak parking demands. 4. The variance will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use since all parking is contained on-site and will not encroach into other surrounding properties. 5. The variance will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas provided for the proposed use as indicated in the parking justification letter because the supply of parking spaces is adequate for the proposed uses and there are two driveways for adequate egress and ingress. 6. The applicant requests a variance from the following Code Sections to provide a smaller front yard landscape setback area and less parking lot landscaping than required by Code: (a) SECTION NO. 18.14.100.010 (15-foot wide landscaped planter required; Minimum front yard setback 10 to 20 foot wide planter proposed adjacent to Orange Avenue) - 3 - PC2010-011 (b) SECTION NO. 18.46.060.0102 (deleted) Minimum Parking Lot Landscaping The above-mentioned variance is hereby approved because there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, location and due to the retention of the existing building which limits the area available for parking, and required landscaping. Although a 15 foot landscape setback is not provided along the entire property frontage, the 10 to 20 foot wide landscape setback proposed is substantially more than currently exists on the site and is also consistent with the adjoining properties to the west and east which have a landscaped setback of approximately 15 feet. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 32 (Infill Development) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated does hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05435 to permit a church on property located at 2510 West Orange Avenue and Variance No. 2010-04807 to permit fewer parking spaces and a front yard setback that is less than required by code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 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 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 the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of March 1, 2010. 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. - 4 - PC2010-011 CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on March 1, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of March, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2010-011 - 6 - PC2010-011 EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05455 AND VARIANCE NO. 2010-04807 (DEV2009-00027) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 1 The existing driveway shall be removed and shall be replaced with standard curb and gutter, sidewalk and landscape. The developer shall obtain a right-of-way construction permit from the Development Services Division. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspections. Public Works Development Services 2 The legal property owner shall submit a lot line adjustment to merge two existing parcels into one legal parcel. The Lot Line Adjustment shall be approved by the City Surveyor and recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder prior to issuance of a building permit. Public Works Development Services 3 The legal property owner shall submit an application for a Certificate of Compliance for the 2 existing parcels. The Certificate of Compliance shall be approved by the City Surveyor and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder prior to approval of the lot line adjustment. Public Works Development Services 4 That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback in a manner fully screened from all public street and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector before submittal for Building Permits. Water Engineering 5 A fee of $524.70 is required for the remaining Water Assessment Fees to Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Water Engineering 6 Rooftop address numbers for the police helicopter shall be shown on plans submitted for building permit. Minimum size 4’ in height and 2’ in width. The lines of the numbers are to be a minimum of 6” thick. Numbers should be spaced 12” to 18” apart. Numbers should be painted or constructed in a contrasting color to the roofing material. Numbers should face the street to which the structure is addressed. Numbers are not to be visible from the ground level. Police - 7 - PC2010-011 7 The lights from the proposed church will not directly illuminate adjacent residential land uses. The lighting plans shall be included with the plans submitted for building permit. The lighting shall be directed, positioned, and shielded in such a manner that it eliminates direct light spillover onto adjacent properties at the ground level. The light standards shall be a maximum height of 12 feet. Minimum recommended lighting level in all parking lots in 0.5 foot-candle maintained, measured at the parking surface, with a maximum to minimum ratio no greater than 15:1. Police 8 Prior to approval of permits for improvement plans, the property owner/developer shall coordinate with Electrical Engineering to establish electrical service requirements and submit electric system plans, electrical panel drawings, site plans, elevation plans, and related technical drawings and specifications. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering 9 Fire lanes shall be posted with “No Parking Any Time.” Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Public Works Traffic/Transportation Services PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 10 All request for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Water Engineering 11 This project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with Chapter 10.19 of Anaheim Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 5349 regarding water conservation Water Engineering PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTION 12 Final building and zoning inspection for the addition shall be granted after the construction of City sewer lines in the area is completed Public Works Development Services GENERAL 13 The church shall be equipped with an alarm system (silent or audible). Police Department 14 Complete a Burglary/Robbery Alarm Permit application, Form APD 516, and return it to the Police Department prior to initial alarm activation. This form is available at the Police Department front counter, or it can be downloaded from the following web site: http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=678 Police Department - 8 - PC2010-011 15 Address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily readable from the street. Numbers should be illuminated during hours of darkness. Police Department 16 All exterior doors to have adequate security hardware, e.g. deadbolt locks. The locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside doorknob/lever/turn piece. Police Department 17 Adequate lighting of parking lots, 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 on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all person, property, and vehicles on-site. Police Department 18 All exterior doors shall have their own light source, which shall adequately illuminate door areas at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the building Police Department 19 No Trespassing 602(k) P.C.” posted at the entrances of parking lots/structures and located in other appropriate places. Signs must be at least 2’x1’ in overall size, with white background and black 2” lettering. Police Department 20 All entrances to parking areas shall be posted with appropriate signs per 22658(a) C.V.C., to assist in removal of vehicles at the property owners/managers request. Police Department 21 File Emergency Listing Card, Form APD-281, with the Police Department, available at the Police Department front counter, or it can be downloaded from the following web site: http://www.anaheim,net/article.asp?id=678. Police Department 22 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall provide to the City of Anaheim a Public Utilities easement with dimensions as shown on the approved utility service plan. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering 23 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall submit payment to the City of Anaheim for service connection fees. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering 24 On-going during project operation, no required parking areas shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. Public Works Traffic/Transportation Services - 9 - PC2010-011 25 Use of the Fellowship Hall and Sanctuary shall not occur at the same time. Planning 26 Hours of operation shall be as follows: • Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Clergy only services • Sunday from10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. – Sunday Mass • Monday or Wednesday from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. – Bible Study • Friday from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. – Family Fellowship Saturday for special events (weddings, funerals, etc) 4:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. Planning [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3 - 1 - PC2010-012 RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2010-00235 (DEV2009-00027) (2510 WEST ORANGE AVENUE) WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.76.030, the Anaheim Planning Director has initiated a Reclassification for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, this property is in the Transition (T) zone with a General Plan land use designation of Low-Medium Density Residential; and WHEREAS, this is a City-initiated request to reclassify the property from the Transition (T) zone to the RM-3 (Residential Multi-Family) zone, consistent with the property’s General Plan land use designation of the Low-Medium Density Residential; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on March 1, 2010 at 3:30 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. Reclassification of the subject property from the Transition (T) zone to the RM-3 (Residential Multi Family) zone would be consistent with the property’s existing Low - Medium Density Residential land use designation on the General Plan. 2. The proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community and is consistent with properties to the south, which are designated for multi-family land uses and also zoned RM-3. 3. 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 and their permitted uses generally established throughout the community. - 2 - PC2010-012 WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 32 (Infill Development) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby unconditionally approve the subject Reclassification to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map of the Anaheim Municipal Code to exclude the above-described property from the Transition (T) zone and to incorporate said described property into RM-3 Residential Multi- Family zone. 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. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of March 1, 2010. __________________________________________________ CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: ___________________________________________________________ SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on March 1, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of March 2010. ___________________________________________________________ SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 3 - PC2010-012 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. I DEV 2009-00097B INDUSTRIAL I RETAIL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL RM-4 CONDOS 134 DU RS-3 SFR RS-3 SFR RS-3 SFR RS-3 SFR RS-3 SFR RS-3 SFR ||444'||328' ' E BALL RDS EAST STS LEWIS STE B E L L A V E E C L I F P A R K W A Y S DOVER CIRS CLIFPARK CIRS CLIFPARK CIR5 E. BALL RD S. SUNKIST STS. ANAHEIM BLVDE. CERRITOS AVE S. HARBOR BLVDS. EAST STS. STATE COLLEGE BLVDW. BALL RD 109121025 East Ball Road DEV2009-00097B Subject Property APN: 234-101-30 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 E BALL RD S EAST STS LEWIS STE B E L L A V E E C L I F P A R K W A Y S DOVER CIRS CLIFPARK CIRS CLIFPARK CIR5 E. BALL RD S. SUNKIST STS. ANAHEIM BLVDE. CERRITOS AVE S. HARBOR BLVDS. EAST STS. STATE COLLEGE BLVDW. BALL RD 109121025 East Ball Road DEV2009-00097B Subject Property APN: 234-101-30 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-013 RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ARE THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05202B WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for an amendment to previously approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05202 to modify the hours of operation for a restaurant and entertainment venue and to allow charging of admission for entertainment on certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, on May 14, 2007, the Anaheim City Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC2007-47, did approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05202 to construct a five-story office and training building with waivers of minimum landscape setback and minimum number of parking spaces; and WHEREAS, on May 27, 2009, the Anaheim City Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC2009-057, did approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2007- 05202 to permit a seven-story office and training building with a height exceeding 100 feet and to permit a restaurant with outdoor dining with the sales of alcoholic beverages, with fewer parking spaces than required by code and a greater floor area ratio than allowed by code; and WHEREAS, the property is currently developed with a parking lot located in the Industrial (I) zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Industrial land uses; and WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on March 1, 2010, at 3:30 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 amendment to conditional use permit and variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning 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 with respect to the request to amend a conditional use permit, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That modification of a condition of approval pertaining to hours of operation is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.60.190.030 (Amendment of Permit Approval – Major Amendments) and the charging of admission for entry to a restaurant/entertainment - 2 - PC2010-013 venue for which a conditional use permit is required is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.10.030.010 (Recreation – Commercial Indoor). 2. That the proposed hours of operation and admission charge would not adversely affect the adjoining industrial land uses, nearby residential neighborhood and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because security measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police that would deter unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. Additionally, the restaurant and entertainment venue would be oriented away from the residential neighborhood. 3. 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 nor to the health, safety and general welfare of the public because all parking needed for the proposed uses would be provided on the subject property and adjacent property to the north through a reciprocal parking agreement. 4. That the traffic generated by the office and restaurant uses would not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area based on the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Garland Associates, dated February 2009. WHEREAS, the previously approved Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated May 2009 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this request. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated, does hereby approve the proposed amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05202 and amend, in their entirety, the conditions of approval adopted in connection with Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2009-057, as described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. 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. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that except as amended herein, Planning Commission Resolution Nos. PC2007-47 and PC2009-057, remain in full force and effect. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be - 3 - PC2010-013 processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that 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 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 March 1, 2010. 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 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-013 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on March 1, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of March, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2010-013 - 6 - PC2010-013 EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05202B NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Mitigation Measures from the Mitigated Negative Declaration are identified by the measure number in parenthesis following the condition.) RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 1 The property owner shall dedicate to the City of Anaheim corner cut-off dedications at Ball Road/East Street and Ball Road/Lewis Street. Public Works – Development Services 2 An unsubordinated restricted covenant providing reciprocal access and parking shall be made with the property located at 1001 East Ball Road for a minimum of 304 parking spaces. This covenant shall be approved by Planning Services Manager in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, and shall be recorded with the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the covenant shall then be submitted to the Planning Services Manager. Said covenant shall be referenced in all deeds transferring all or any part of the interest in the applicable properties. Planning 3 Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate that all driveways shall be constructed with ten (10) foot radius curb returns in conformance with Engineering Standard No. 115 and subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. Public Works – Development Services 4 Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate that gates shall not be installed across the driveway 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 of the City Engineer and the Planning Services Manager. Public Works – Traffic/ Planning 5 Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, and 470 pertaining to parking standards and driveway location and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Public Works – Traffic - 7 - PC2010-013 6 If the project requires street widening or modification of any driveways, improvement plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Traffic Division, showing the removal or relocation of any traffic signal equipment or any other item related to the traffic signal as required by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Public Works – Traffic 7 Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate conformance with Engineering Standard No. 115 pertaining to sight distance visibility for the sign or the wall/fence locations and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Public Works – Traffic 8 Plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Detail No. 473 pertaining to driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. Public Works – Development Services 9 Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate that no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for storage uses. Public Works – Traffic 10 Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate 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 Streets and Sanitation Manager. Public Works – Streets and Sanitation 11 Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate that trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Streets and Sanitation Manager and in accordance with approved plans on file with the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Planning Public Works – Streets and Sanitation 12 A plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Streets and Sanitation Manager for review and approval. Public Works – Streets and Sanitation - 8 - PC2010-013 13 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.). Planning 14 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 the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Utilities – Water Engineering 15 All existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Services Standards Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line. Utilities – Water Engineering 16 All backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the front setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. 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 Public Utilities General Manager outside of the front setback area in a manner fully screened from all public street and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector. Utilities – Water Engineering 17 Since this project has landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation meter shall be installed and comply with City Ordinance No. 5349 and Chapter 10.19 of Anaheim Municipal Code. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.(USS-2) Utilities – Water Engineering 18 Any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the property owner/developer’s expense. Landscape and/or hardscape screening of all pad mounted equipment shall be required and shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. Utilities – Electrical Engineering - 9 - PC2010-013 19 Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate that, prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and approved by the Fire Marshall. Fire 20 Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate that, during construction, an all-weather access road as approved by the Fire Marshall shall be provided during construction. Fire 21 Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate that emergency vehicular access shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Fire Department Specifications and Requirements. Fire 22 Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate that an automatic fire sprinkler alarm system shall be designed, installed and maintained as required by the Fire Marshall. Fire 23 Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate that a fire alarm system shall be designed, installed and maintained as required by the Fire Marshall. Fire 24 Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate that all air conditioning apparatus and other roof and ground- mounted equipment shall be properly shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent residential properties and the public right-of-way. Planning 25 Final landscape and fencing plans for the subject property shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director. Said plans shall show minimum 24-inch and 36- inch box size trees, shrubs, groundcover, and clinging vines to be planted in layers and shall also show decorative hardscape treatment within the central courtyard area. The landscape material selected shall be appropriate to the width of either the parkway or the planter area. Any decision made by the Planning Director regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission. All 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. Planning 26 Final landscape plans shall include specifications and a note showing replacement trees at a 2:1 ratio with a balanced mix of palm and broad canopy trees of 24-inch and 36 inch sizes. The intent of this mitigation measure is Planning - 10 - PC2010-013 to provide a screening canopy between the building and both arterial streets to buffer views of the building from surrounding areas. In addition, the Landscape Plans shall identify special treatments and specifications for the landscape setback area along the east and south sides of the Project site including a swale and/or hedge which include berms, low shrubs, and/or benches with decorative 3-foot high planter walls to visually screen parking areas from the street and adjacent residences to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.( AE-1) 27 Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate the use of special exterior building treatments for the proposed structure to ensure appropriate materials are incorporated to reduce light and glare from the Project to the greatest extent feasible including the use of spandrel glass windows not exceeding 21 percent of the building façade and non -glare finishes. (AE-2) Planning 28 The property owner/developer shall provide a traffic control plan for review and approval by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. This plan shall describe in detail, safe detours around the Project construction site and provide temporary traffic control (i.e., flag person) during demolition debris transport and other construction related truck hauling activities per the W.A.T.C.H. Manual. Plans submitted for building permits shall include a note requiring this plan to be implemented by the property owner/developer throughout construction of the project.(AQ-1) Public Works - Traffic 29 Plans submitted for building permits shall include a note on the plan requiring that during construction, onsite temporary construction power shall be provided for electric construction tools to eliminate the need for diesel and gasoline powered electric generators.(AQ-2) Planning Building 30 Plans submitted for building permits shall include a note that during construction, zero-Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) content paints (assumes no more than 100 grams/liter of VOC) shall be used at the maximum extent feasible. All paints shall be applied using either high volume, low pressure (HVLP) spray equipment or by hand application. (AQ-3) Planning Building - 11 - PC2010-013 31 Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate that adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and ground contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of a minimum one foot candle to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles onsite. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for approval by the Chief of Police. Police 32 Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate 4- foot high address numbers displayed flat on the roof of the building in a color that contrasts with the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the streets or adjacent properties. Said numbers shall be painted prior to final building and zoning inspections. Police 33 The project shall provide for accessible truck deliveries on-site. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Public Works – Traffic 34 Building and parking lot lighting shall be decorative. Additionally, lighting fixtures shall be down-lighted and direct away from residential properties to protect the residential integrity of the area. Said information shall be specifically shown o the plans submitted for building permits. Planning 35 All plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be fully screened by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Planning 36 Plans submitted for building permits shall include a note that while the project is under construction, the site will be screened with a temporary fence to visually screen the construction areas from the adjacent streets and residences. Planning - 12 - PC2010-013 37 Landscape plans shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Anaheim adopted Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance is in compliance with the State of California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (AB325).( USS-1) Planning Utilities – Resource Efficiency 38 Existing sewer deficiencies are identified in City sewers on East Street and Ball Road adjacent to this property. Provided that the sewer connection is made to the manhole at the intersection of Lewis Street and Ball Road or at a downstream location from this point, improvements need not be made relative to these existing deficiencies as a result of this development. The owner/developer shall verify through a sewer study that no additional deficiencies are created based upon the completion of this development. Public Works – Development Services PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT 39 The property owner/developer shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan to the Public Works Department Development Services Division for review and approval that: (a) 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. (b) Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan. (c) Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP. (d) Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs. (e) Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs, and (f) Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. Public Works – Development Services 40 The property owner/developer’s contractor shall verify that if the commencement of construction coincides with the nesting season for Migratory Birds (between early Planning Building - 13 - PC2010-013 February and August, but can vary slightly from year to year) immediately prior to demolition, grading or any related construction-phase activities, the contractor shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct a breeding bird survey to identify any potential nesting activities and shall forward the results of the survey to the City of Anaheim Building Official. The survey shall recommend appropriate measures to be implemented during construction.(BIO-1) 41 The property owner/developer shall submit a letter to the Department of Public Works, Development Services Division, and the Planning Department, identifying the certified archaeologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: (a) The archaeologist must be present at the pre-grading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage. (b) Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. (c) Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. (d) A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City to when the final report will be submitted (CR-1) Planning Public Works – Development Services 42 A licensed Environmental Engineer who is qualified to test and determine if paint or other materials used in the existing parking lot contain significant levels of lead shall develop a remediation plan for lead if necessary: a) Lead painted components and/or lead-containing materials should not be sawed, abraded, burned, crushed, or ground into mulch. Planning Building Fire - 14 - PC2010-013 b) Lead abatement work, including preparation of lead- painted surfaces for new paint, removal of lead paint, or demolition of lead-painted materials, should only be performed by a lead abatement contractor utilizing supervisor(s) and workers with the appropriate California Department of Health Services (DHS) certification and training. c) California Regulations classify lead waste, including soil, demolition debris, and waste from lead abatement projects, as hazardous waste if: 1. The results of a Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) test indicate 1,000 parts per million (ppm) or more lead; or 2. The results of a California Waste Extraction Test (WET) exceed the Soluble Threshold Limit (STLC) for lead of 5 ppm. d) Hazardous wastes must be disposed of at a hazardous waste landfill and must be hauled under a proper manifest by a licensed hazardous waste transporter. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, HSC 25157.8 (from AB 2784, Strom-Martin, 1998), mandates that lead wastes with a TTLC result greater than 350 ppm be disposed of at a Class 1 hazardous waste landfill, or at other landfills that have specific permits to accept these wastes. However, a hazardous waste manifest and a registered hazardous waste transporter are not needed if the only hazard is that the waste contains lead at greater than 350 ppm, but less than 1,000 ppm (mg/kg). e) Prior to issuance of permits, TTLC and STLC tests should be run for each lead waste stream. Running these tests requires collection and analysis of bulk samples of each separate waste (e.g. paint chips, a chunk of painted wood trim, a chunk of painted concrete, or a chunk of ceramic tile). (HM-1) ONGOING DURING CONSTRUCTION 43 Ongoing during grading and any activity that disrupts the existing surfaces within the Project area, the contractor shall hire a qualified Environmental Engineer to conduct soil borings around the identified suspected contaminated sites to determine the extent of contamination and to provide appropriate mediation, including the need to relocate monitoring wells, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall. If contamination is discovered during the construction phase, remedial action shall be carried out Planning Building Fire - 15 - PC2010-013 pursuant to Mitigation Measure HM-4. (HM-2) 44 Ongoing during the construction phase of the Project, the contractor shall implement the following hazardous materials management practices as routine. The implementation of these measures shall be field verified by the City of Anaheim Building Official or his/her designee during site inspections: 1. Posting a list of chemicals to be used during construction on site; 2. Having a spill prevention plan on site, 3. Locking hazardous and other flammable materials in a fire-rated cabinet, if stored on site, 4. Using an offsite cement mixer to transport cement to the site, 5. Storing materials used for construction in an inactive form until they are ready to be used, 6. Storing gasoline in a drum with double walls or if using a drum with one wall, having a spill protection dyke, 7. Covering storm drains to prevent spills from entering the storm drains, 8. Having fire extinguishers on site at all times, 9. Mandating that workers who handle hazardous materials use gloves and other protective gear including a charcoal respirator, 10. Having a Spill Prevention Plan on site, 11. Following City guidelines for traffic striping, and 12. Following the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the site.(HM-3) Planning Building Fire 45 If subsurface contamination is found during construction, the contractor shall hire a qualified Environmental Engineer to prepare a remediation report pursuant to all Federal, state and local ordinances, which documents the type of contamination and the appropriate method for remediation. The contractor shall carryout the appropriate remediation to the satisfaction of the City of Anaheim Building Official and Fire Marshall. (HM-4) Planning Building Fire PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTION 46 The property owner/developer shall: (a) Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Public Works – Development Services - 16 - PC2010-013 (b) Demonstrate that the property owner/developer is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP. (c) Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available onsite. (d) Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural BMPs. 47 ADA compliant curb access ramps with truncated domes shall be constructed at Ball Road/East Street and Ball Road Lewis Street in conformance with Public Works Standard Detail 111-2. Public Works – Development Services 48 The subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the property owner/developer and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 (Site Plan), 2 (Shared Parking Exhibit), 3 (Conceptual Grading Plan), 4 (Conceptual Landscape Plan), 5 through 8 (Floor Plans), 9 through 10 (Elevations) and 11 (Building Sections), and as conditioned herein. Planning GENERAL/ONGOING DURING PROJECT OPERATION 49 The training facilities shall be operated as a part of the business which occupies the building and shall not be used for public uses. If at any time the operational characteristics of the training facility changes, a detailed description of the operational changes shall be submitted for review by the City’s Traffic and Parking Consultant to determine if the changes would cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided than the number of spaces provided on site. If it is determined the expected demand is greater than the spaces provided on site, an application for modification of the conditional use permit shall be submitted to the Planning Services Division for approval by the Planning Commission. Planning 50 Hours of operation for the restaurant to be open to the public shall be limited to: Monday - Friday: 4 p.m. to 2 a.m. Saturday, Sunday: 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. Planning Code Enforcement - 17 - PC2010-013 51 The easterly driveway shall be closed nightly beginning at 10 p.m. in a manner that is satisfactory to the Traffic and Transportation Manager. Traffic and Transporation Planning Code Enforcement 52 All trash generated from this office building shall be properly contained in trash bins located within approved trash enclosures. The number of bins shall be adequate and the trash pick-up shall be as frequent as necessary to ensure the sanitary handling and timely removal of refuse from the property. The Community Preservation Manager or Streets and Sanitation Manager shall determine the need for additional bins or additional pick- up. All costs for increasing the number of bins or frequency of pick-up shall be paid by the business owner. Code Enforcement Public Works – Streets and Sanitation 53 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. Code Enforcement 54 The permitted event or activity shall not create sound levels that violate any ordinance of the City of Anaheim. (Section 4.16.100.010 Anaheim Municipal Code) Police/ Code Enforcement 55 Security measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police that would deter unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. Police/ Code Enforcement 56 Any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code. (Section 4.16.070 Anaheim Municipal Code) Police/ Code Enforcement 57 Anytime the premises are providing entertainment, the petitioner(s) shall provide uniformed security personnel. Police/ Code Enforcement - 18 - PC2010-013 58 The number of persons attending the event shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Fire Marshall. Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted in a conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit from the room. Fire/ Code Enforcement 59 The doors shall remain closed at all times that entertainment is permitted, except during times of entry or exit, emergencies and deliveries. (Section 4.18.110 Anaheim Municipal Code) Police/ Code Enforcement 60 The business shall not be operated in such a way as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Police/ Code Enforcement 61 All entertainers and employees shall be clothed in such a way as to not expose "specified anatomical areas" as described in Section 7.16.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Police/ Code Enforcement 62 The business shall not employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. (Section 24200.5 Alcoholic Beverage Control Act). Police/ Code Enforcement 63 The floor space provided for dancing shall be free of any furniture or partitions and maintained in a smooth and safe condition. Police/ Code Enforcement 64 Any violation of the conditional use permit application, or any attached conditions, shall be sufficient grounds to revoke the permit. Police/ Code Enforcement 65 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. Police/ Code Enforcement 66 There shall be no requirement to purchase a minimum number of drinks. Police/ Code Enforcement - 19 - PC2010-013 67 At all times when the premise is open for business, the premise shall be maintained as a bona fide restaurant and shall provide a menu containing an assortment of foods normally offered in such restaurant. Police/ Code Enforcement 68 Signs shall be posted at all exits of the premises of the prohibition of alcoholic beverages from leaving the confines of the establishment. Police/ Code Enforcement 69 Alcoholic beverages cannot be included in the price of admission. Police/ Code Enforcement 70 There shall be no amusement machines or video game devices maintained upon the premises at any time without obtaining the proper permits from the City of Anaheim. Police/ Code Enforcement 71 There shall be no bottle service or similar service allowed in the nightclub. An employee must be responsible for mixing and dispensing of all drinks. Except for beer, no bottle shall remain in the possession of the patron. Police/ Code Enforcement 72 The smoking patio shall include a 6 foot high wall or fence that would preclude patrons from passing a drink to the outside of the patio. Police/ Planning 73 The owner/operator shall obtain appropriate permits for entertainment from the Business License Division. Planning/ Code Enforcement 74 The easterly parking lot shall be limited to parking for employees of the office building and the restaurant in order to limit congregating along the east side of the property after the restaurant closes. Planning Code Enforcement MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 05/27/09 Page 7 of 26 ITEM NO. 4 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05202 (TRACKING NO. CUP2008-05371) AND VARIANCE NO. 2009-04784* Owner:The Andrew C. Edward Trust 1230 South Lewis Street Anaheim, CA 92805 Applicant:Roger Deitos GAA Architects 4 Park Plaza, Suite 120 Irvine, CA 92614 Location: 1055 East Ball Road The applicant proposes to modify a previously- approved permit to construct a 7-story office building with a height exceeding 100 feet and to permit a restaurant with outdoor dining and a public dance hall** with the sales of alcoholic beverages with fewer parking spaces than required by code and a greater floor area ratio than allowed by code. Environmental Determination: An Addendum to a previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration has been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). * A Request for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2008-00052 was advertised for this project. It is no longer required and has been withdrawn. ** The public dance hall component was originally advertised as a nightclub. Resolution No. PC2009-057 ------------------------------------------------------- Motion to adopt a resolution approving the office and training facility only.(Agarwal/Faessel) Motion Failed VOTE: 2-4 Commissioners Agarwal and Faessel voted yes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Buffa, Eastman, and Romero voted no. Commissioner Ramirez was absent. ------------------------------------------------------- Motion to adopt a resolution approving all requested actions except the public dance hall, with modifications to Condition Nos. 8 and 38 and the addition of new conditions pertaining to a driveway and limitations on the hours of operation. (Buffa/Faessel) Motion Approved VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Eastman, Faessel and Romero voted yes. Commissioner Ramirez was absent. Project Planner: Elaine Thienprasiddhi ethien@anaheim.net Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated May 27, 2009, along with a visual presentation. She recommended Condition Nos. 8 and 38 be revised as follows: x Condition No. 8 – Plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Detail No. 473 pertaining to driveway locations. The subject property shall be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 05/27/09 Page 8 of 26 x Condition No. 38 – Existing sewer deficiencies are identified in City sewers on East Street and Ball Road adjacent to this property, provided that the sewer connection is made to the manhole at the intersection of Lewis Street and Ball Road or at a downstream location from this point improvements need not be made relative to these existing deficiencies as a result of this development. The owner/developer shall verify through a sewer study that no additional deficiencies are created based upon the completion of this development. Ms. Thienprasiddhi also stated that staff received two phone calls from residents concerned about potential late night traffic on East Street from the restaurant and dance hall guests. To address this, staff recommended that a condition of approval be added to require the easterly driveway to be closed nightly beginning at 10:00 p.m. in a manner satisfactory to the City Transportation Manager. She stated the applicant has agreed to this additional condition. Commissioner Buffa asked staff to explain the revisions to the sewer condition. Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer, responded there was an existing sewer deficiency on Ball Road which would be addressed by a City improvement project. The applicant could connect their project sewer lines to the sewer lines at the intersection of Lewis Street and Ball Road based on the volume of sewage that was considered at the time the project was originally approved. If the applicant wanted to connect their sewer lines to the east of the intersection, then they would have to provide additional improvements. This same requirement would apply to a sewer connection to East Street. To the west of the intersection of Lewis Street and Ball Road, a City project would provide additional capacity; however, the applicant would need to submit a sewer study to determine if the increased size of the proposed project would cause any additional deficiencies and require additional improvements. Commissioner Buffa said this building would presumably create more demand for sewer treatment or pipe sizing because it is a larger building. She asked if the applicant would be asked to share in the cost of the improvement. She also asked if upsizing of the pipes would be required to support this proposal or would the City’s improvement project accommodate this growth. Mr. Garcia responded the City’s sewer project accounted for the size of the previous proposal. A sewer study would be needed to determine if the addition of the two floors of office space would cause impacts to the sewer line and require additional improvements. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Roger Deitos, GAA Architects, 4 Park Plaza, Suite 120, Irvine, CA, applicant, stated the main differences between this proposal and the previously approved plan was the additional two floors of office area, the proposed restaurant with outdoor seating and an entertainment venue which would be located on the west side of the ground floor. The theme of the restaurant would be upscale, catering to the demands of the “rancher” community, tourists, and overflow of local sporting events and conventions. Live entertainment would be provided by mainly local bands, major music artists, and disc jockeys on selected nights. During the day, the restaurant would only cater to employees and those using the training facilities. Commissioner Faessel asked if the project would be designed for LEED certification. MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 05/27/09 Page 9 of 26 Mr. Deitos responded the project is not currently slated to be a LEED certified building. Commissioner Faessel asked if energy efficient improvements would be incorporated into the building design. Mr. Deitos responded yes. Commissioner Faessel asked why a restaurant was being incorporated into the building. Mr. Deitos responded the restaurant would provide in-house catering for employees in the building. This catering has previously been outsourced. This use would also reduce traffic since employees using the training facilities would not need to leave the facility for meals. The entertainment venue for the steakhouse was requested by the owner of Extron who wanted to have an upscale country music establishment to serve the community. Commissioner Agarwal stated he was concerned about the incidental sales of wine for off-site consumption and asked the applicant to explain this use. Mr. Deitos stated that high quality bottled wine, similar to types of wines available in wine cellars, would be sold to patrons of the restaurant. Other types of alcohol would not be sold for off-site consumption. Commissioner Agarwal asked if wine would only be sold to patrons dining in the restaurant. Mr. Deitos responded yes. Commissioner Romero stated when he was talking to the property owner about this building; he had suggested that a restaurant be incorporated into the building. He supported this use. Larry Tomlinson, Ridgeview Park Condominiums, 1155 South Dover Circle, Anaheim, stated he opposed the project. He stated the following concerns: he had received the notice about this hearing only the Friday before this meeting; a 100-foot building would be highly visible from his neighborhood; he opposed the bar; he believed the traffic at the East Street and Ball Road intersection was already congested and adding a left turn lane would add more traffic and create more of a negative impact; he was concerned that customers of the site would park in the residential neighborhood; he had talked with several of the neighborhood residents and all were opposed to this project; and, he believed the building was too big for the site. Chairman Karaki asked if the speaker had received notice of this project when it was originally proposed. Mr. Tomlinson responded that he had not received a notice of the previous hearing. Ailene Dewas, 1123 South Clifpark Circle, Anaheim, stated she lived across the street from this property and she opposed the project. She did not receive a notice of the previous hearing. She received the notice for this hearing the previous day. She believed that Extron has been a good neighbor. She thought a five-story building would have been okay and would be a positive effect to MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 05/27/09 Page 10 of 26 the neighborhood. She stated she opposed the restaurant and bar and stated the following concerns: she believed there would be negative impacts on the neighborhood since the outdoor dining area would be open until 2:00 a.m.; there would be smokers and intoxicated customers talking in the parking lot; she was concerned about potential crime being brought to the neighborhood because of the dance facility including drug use and other crimes associated with customers congregating in the parking lot; and, she believed this use would significantly impact the quality of the neighborhood and asked that these impacts be taken into consideration. Charles Wilson, 1237 East Bell Avenue, Anaheim, stated he opposed this project. He stated the following concerns: this use would negatively impact the neighborhood; the building was too tall and would obstruct views; there was not enough parking; and, this use would cause an inconvenience to the neighbors. He also stated he did not receive a notice for the previous public hearing on this building. Jesus Diaz, 1140 South Clifpark Circle, Anaheim, stated he was opposed to this project and had not received a notice for the previous public hearing. He was concerned that parking would become an issue if this project was approved. He was on the homeowner’s association board and had been approached by several neighbors who also opposed this project. Dedric Rogers, 2333 Cotner Avenue, Los Angeles, representing the owners of 1201 East Ball Road, an industrial building immediately to the east of the proposed project, stated they were opposed to this project. They were concerned their property would become an overflow parking area for the proposed project and that after hour criminal activity would increase. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing. Mr. Deitos requested permission to address the neighbors’ concerns. Chairman Karaki reopened the public hearing. Mr. Deitos, said the parking demands for the facility would be from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and there was a shared agreement with the property to the north to allow adequate parking for office related uses. He said 527 parking spaces were required for the office related use; however, in the evening, when only the restaurant and entertainment venue were open, 284 parking spaces were required. They would provide 210 on-site parking spaces. The parking area on the east side of the property would be for employees only and the driveway to East Street would be closed off after 10:00 p.m. The Police Department required that on-site security be provided. As for noise concerns, all entertainment would take place in an enclosed area with soundproof walls, the doors would remain closed and the business would comply with the City’s noise ordinance. Chairman Karaki asked if music would be played outside the building. He also asked Mr. Deitos to elaborate on the steakhouse restaurant. Mr. Deitos responded that music would only be played inside the building. He said the western side of the building would include the steakhouse and entertainment venue. The north side of the building would be occupied by the restaurant and kitchen area. There would be two doors serving the patio area, which would be enclosed by gates and soundproof plexiglass. The entertainment venue would be on the south side of the building in a controlled vestibule lobby area with doors leading to the entertainment venue. West of that, on the furthest most western portion of the building, there would be an enclosed smoking area. He said they would comply with the sound attenuation conditions and requirements. MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 05/27/09 Page 11 of 26 Chairman Karaki asked the applicant to confirm this would be an upscale restaurant with entertainment, not a bar. He asked if music from the entertainment venue would be audible in the restaurant area. Mr. Deitos responded this would be a steakhouse/entertainment venue. He said that music from the entertainment area would not be audible in the restaurant area. He also stated there would be a perimeter fence surrounding the site with controlled access. This would make it difficult for anyone parking on the street to access the property. Commissioner Faessel asked the applicant to describe the outdoor seating area. He understood it would have a six-foot plexiglass wall and be accessed from the inside of the building. He asked if music would be played in the outdoor seating area. Mr. Deitos said there would only be controlled background music in the outdoor seating area, not music from the entertainment venue. Commissioner Faessel asked how many tables would be in this area. Mr. Deitos responded they proposed to allow seating for approximately 100 plus patrons. Commissioner Faessel asked if this would accommodate appropriately 20 to 25 tables. Mr. Deitos responded yes. Commissioner Buffa asked if they had contemplated removing the wrought iron fencing between the two parking lots so it would seem like one parking lot. Mr. Deitos responded there would be an access point between the two properties through the center of the site. If required, there could also be another access point in the eastern portion of the site through an access gate. He said approximately 100 parking stalls on the northerly site were required for the restaurant and entertainment venue and that would be accommodated by the first two rows of parking spaces located closest to the subject property. During the daytime hours, 317 spaces would be required for the office building. Commissioner Agarwal asked if soundproofing would be provided in the entertainment area and whether patrons sitting in the patio area could hear the inside entertainment music. Mr. Deitos said a lobby, bar area and restrooms would separate the restaurant and entertainment venue which would attenuate noise between the two areas. Sound traveling to the outside of the building would be minimized by design and soundproofing of the exterior facade of the building. They would also have a study performed to determine if additional soundproofing would be required to meet the City’s noise ordinance. Commissioner Buffa asked what percentage of the two additional floors would be used for offices and what would be used for training purposes. MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 05/27/09 Page 12 of 26 Mr. Deitos responded the training area would remain approximately the same as the previous proposal. The additional floors would be used for office space. Commissioner Buffa stated staff calculated the parking requirement for this building based upon a parking ratio of 2.4 spaces per 1000 square feet to address the mix of training and office uses. She asked staff why an office or industrial parking ratio was not used for the new office square footage. She also asked staff to describe the parking requirement for office and restaurant uses. Ms. Thienprasiddhi said a 2.4 parking ratio was used to determine the number of parking spaces for this project. This ratio was from the original parking study that determined the appropriate parking ratio for the mix of office and training uses. The original parking study was based on parking counts at the existing facility. The same ratio was used for this proposal to be consistent with the original parking study. She also stated that the code required 3 spaces per 1000 square feet for office use. The Code also required 15 spaces per 1000 square feet for a freestanding restaurant and 8 spaces per 1000 square feet for restaurants integrated in a center. Staff used a ratio of 15 spaces per 1000 square feet for this restaurant including the outdoor dining area. Commissioner Buffa stated she understood staff’s explanation, but did not necessarily agree with the methodology. Mr. Deitos stated the parking ratio was 2.4 per thousand plus a ten percent buffer. Commissioner Buffa asked staff to describe the total parking demand for the existing building and the seven story building combined. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded 795 parking spaces were required and 808 spaces would be provided, for a surplus of 13 spaces. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing. He asked staff to provide a definition of a floor area ratio for the benefit of the audience. Ms. Thienprasiddhi explained floor area ratio is the total gross square footage of each floor of the building divided by the square footage of the land. Commissioner Faessel asked staff to describe the zoning requirements addressing line-of-sight issues for buildings adjacent to residential properties. He stated the plans show that the top two stories of the building has been stepped back in height. He also stated that Commission was provided with isometric drawings showing views of the building from across the street on East Street. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded there were two standards applicable to line of sight. The submitted elevation plan shows the roof-mounted equipment on the office building would not be visible from a point six feet above the ground across the street from the subject property. She also stated the Code required the maximum height of office buildings located within 200 feet of a residential property line to be limited to one half the distance between the building and the property line. The submitted plans show the building complied with this requirement. Commissioner Eastman thanked the residents for attending the meeting and apologized on behalf of the City and the Planning Commission for them not being notified of the public hearing at which the MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 05/27/09 Page 13 of 26 five story building was approved. She also commented the owner/developer should have met with the residents to advise them of this project and answer their questions. She stated it was her impression that the company owner was responsible and would do everything in his power to not cause negative impacts to the neighborhood. She understood the concerns of the residents and hoped they had been addressed. She stated her support of the project. Commissioner Romero stated he was supportive of this project. He believed the concerns expressed about potential negative activities associated with this project would not be condoned by the owner or the Police Department. He believed this would be a good addition to the City. Commissioner Buffa stated she was concerned that the wrought iron fence between the two sites would create a significant barrier and not be conducive to shared parking. She stated that people would probably park in the parking lot closest to East Street because they would not understand there was an opening in the fence. She stated she did not object to the height of the building since the height exceeded the code by only four feet. She was concerned with the restaurant and dance hall being open until 2:00 a.m., seven days a week which would be a tremendous burden on the neighborhood. Although the facility was designed for the noise to travel away from the residences, the noise created by patrons would be a disturbance and would not be appropriate this close to residences. She stated a concern that the dance hall would operate similar to the House of Blues and did not believe this would be compatible with a residential neighborhood. She was in favor of the building, but not in favor of the dance hall. Commissioner Agarwal suggested dividing the motion into two - one for the building and the other for the restaurant. Chairman Karaki stated his office used to be located in this area and believed this project would be a benefit to the area. He stated the applicant, at the Commission’s request, had willingly revised the project elevation to include additional enhancements. He stated that restaurant projects were concentrated in the Katella area. He believed this project would alleviate some of the traffic from heading to Katella and provide some convenience to the residents. He stated he supported this project based upon all of the information submitted for this project, including the noise, traffic and parking studies. Commissioner Eastman stated she was disappointed the owner was not proposing a LEED certified building and encouraged the applicant to reconsider this decision because it would be a long-term benefit for the building and area. Mr. Amstrup addressed Commissioner Agarwal’s question regarding a split motion and described potential motions to address approval of all, part or none of the project actions. Commissioner Agarwal offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel, to adopt a resolution approving the office and training facility without the restaurant or dance hall. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced the motion failed with two yes votes and four no votes. Commissioners Agarwal and Faessel voted yes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Buffa, Eastman and Romero voted no. Commissioner Ramirez was absent. MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 05/27/09 Page 14 of 26 Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel, to adopt a resolution approving an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05202 for the requested actions except the public dance hall; and approving Variance 2009-04784 with amendments to Conditions of Approval Nos. 8 and 38 as read into the record by staff; the addition of a new condition pertaining to the easterly driveway; and limiting the hours of operation to 12:00 a.m. on Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings and 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Wednesday. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, announced the resolution passed with six yes votes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Eastman, Faessel and Romero voted yes. Commissioner Ramirez was absent. OPPOSITION:5 persons spoke in opposition to the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 18, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME: 73 minutes (3:03 to 4:16) STREETHASTERHARBORBLVD.AVENUE STREETBROOKHURSTKNOTTSTREETBEACHBOULEVARDMAGNOLIAAVENUECHAPMAN AVENUE STREETEUCLIDKATELLA EASTSTREETORANGETHORPE AVENUE AVENUE LA PALMA LINCOLN AVENUE BALL ROAD BLVD.ST.FAIRMONTBLVD.KRAEMERBLVD.AVENUETUSTINLAKEVIEWAVENUEROADROADCANYONROADCANYONCANYONCOLLEGESTREETBROOKHURSTKNOTTSTREETBEACHBOULEVARDMAGNOLIAAVENUESTREETEUCLIDHARBORBLVD.BLVD.ST.COLLEGEWEIRGYPSUMCOALIMPERIALHIGHWAYSERRANOAVENUEJAMBOREEROAD5 5 91 91 57 57 55 24191 ´ ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ´ 10914 DEV2010-00002 Citywide ATTACHMENT NO. 2 City Standard for Fences in Front Setback Brea Solid fences, walls and hedges in a required front yard shall not exceed a height of thirty (30) inches. Open work fences (not less than ninety percent (90%) open) in a required front yard shall not exceed a height of four and one-half (4½) feet. Costa Mesa Three (3) feet in the first ten (10) feet of the property. Six (6) feet in the remainder of the front setback. Fullerton Three (3) feet within front yard setback area. The Director of Development Services may approve a non-view obscuring fence up to six (6) feet in height. Orange Three and one-half (3 ½) feet. San Juan Capistrano Solid fences shall not exceed a height of three (3) feet in any required front yard. However, the Planning Director, upon an application, may approve fences in front yards up to five (5) feet in height if all of the following requirements are met: (A) The portion of the fence above three (3) feet is of open vertical bar construction (for example, wrought iron) with a minimum spacing of three (3) inches between vertical elements; and (B) The City Engineer confirms that the proposed fence allows adequate sight distance for vehicles using driveways and/or street intersections. Yorba Linda In the required front yard area, the height shall be limited to three and one-half (3 ½) feet. The Community Development Director may administratively approve a deviation of ten percent (10%) or less. A deviation of eleven percent (11%) to twenty percent (20%) over the prescribed standards may be approved subject to the granting of an administrative adjustment. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2010-00088) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 That . Table 4-J (Permitted Encroachments for Accessory Uses/Structures: Single-Family Residential Zones) of subsection .040 of Section 18.04.100 of Chapter 18.04 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended to read as shown in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2 That . Table 46-B (Permitted Fences and Walls) of subsection .030 of Section 18.46.110 of Chapter 18.46 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended to read as shown in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3 That subsection.060 of Section 18.46.110 of Chapter 18.46 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, revised and amended as follows: . .060 Front Yards. Fences, walls, hedges and berms located in a front yard shall comply with the additional provisions of this subsection. Except as otherwise provided in Section 18.46.100.040 (All vegetation), the maximum height of any fence, wall, hedge or berm, shall not exceed three (3) feet within any required front yard setback area or street side setback on a reverse corner lot or reverse building frontage on a normal corner lot. .0601 Notwithstanding the foregoing, fences constructed of wrought iron or other similar types of decorative open-work metal fences, excluding chain link, may be permitted to a maximum height of four (4) feet; provided that (i) the solid portion of the fence does not constitute more than twenty percent (20%) of the total surface area, including pilasters, (ii) the fence does not obstruct any vehicular or pedestrian line-of-sight, subject to approval by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, and (iii) the property is not located within a designated historic district as approved by the City Council. Pilasters and light fixtures in conjunction with a front yard fence or wall are permitted to a maximum height of four (4) feet at a minimum distance of eight (8) feet on center, subject to review and approval for line-of-sight visibility. 2 .06023 On properties developed with single-family or multiple-family residential uses, hedges greater than three (3) feet in height shall be permitted except for areas within seven (7) feet of the adjacent public right-of-way. Hedges higher than three (3) feet and within seven (7) feet of the adjacent public right-of-way may be approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager if he or she determines that they do not impact line-of-sight visibility. 0.602 In the RH-1 Zone, fences constructed of wrought iron or other similar types of decorative open-work metal fences, excluding chain link, may be permitted to a maximum height of six (6) feet, provided that (i) the solid portion of the fence does not constitute more than twenty percent (20%) of the total surface area, and (ii) the fence does not obstruct any vehicular or pedestrian line-of-sight, subject to approval by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Pilaster caps, light fixtures and other similar decorative features and vehicular or pedestrian access gates in conjunction with a front yard fence or wall may be permitted up to a maximum height of eight (8) feet; provided that the fence does not obstruct any vehicular or pedestrian line- of-sight, subject to approval by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. .06034 In all zones, except the “RM-1" Zone, lots developed with single-family residences and abutting either a major highway, a scenic expressway, or a primary arterial highway, as designated on the General Plan, shall be permitted to have fences or walls not to exceed eight (8) feet in height subject to the approval of an administrative review as set forth in Chapter 18.62 (Administrative Reviews). The administrative review shall be subject to the following additional requirements. .01 Walls, fences and screen type planting exceeding three (3) feet in height at street intersections shall be subject to review and approval by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for line-of-sight visibility. .02 A ten (10) foot-wide landscaped area shall be provided between the fence or wall and the public right-of-way. SECTION 4 . That Section 18.56.020 of Chapter 18.56 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, revised and amended as follows: 18.56.020 NONCONFORMING LOTS. A legally established lot, as of record on the effective date of this chapter, that does not conform to the current size, width, or depth requirements of the applicable zone may be used and developed, except where a particular use has a specified minimum lot size that is larger than the 3 size of the subject lot. The lot shall be used and developed according to all other applicable zoning regulations unless the Planning Director determines that the standards should be modified because of the substandard size of the lot, pursuant to subsection 18.60.020.040 18.62.040.050 (Modifications Related to NonconformitiesFindings) in Chapter 18.60Chapter 18.62 (ProceduresAdministrative Reviews). SECTION 5 . That Section 18.60.210 of Chapter 18.60 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, revised and amended as follows: 18.60.210 TERMINATION OF PERMITS. The Planning Commission, or the Zoning Administrator when he or she is the approval authority, may terminate any permit that is no longer in use. .010 Initiation. The process to terminate any permit that is no longer in use may be initiated by the property owner, or by the Planning Commission on its own initiative or at the request of city staff. .020 NotificationTermination Initiated by Property Owner . .0201 Request. The property owner may initiate the termination of a permit that is no longer in use by submitting a request in writing to the Planning Department. .0202 Planning Director Action. The Planning Director, or designee, shall prepare and mail to the property owner a formal written notice of the action approving or denying the request within ten (10) days after the receipt of a request in writing. .030 Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator ActionTerminations Initiated by Planning Commission or City Staff . .0301 Notification. If the process to terminate any petition that is no longer in use is initiated by the Planning Commission or at the request of city staff, the property owner and the permittee if different from the property owner, shall be notified personally or through the U.S. Postal Service at least ten (10) days prior to any action being taken. If the property owner protests the termination or fails to reply prior to action being taken, the proposed action shall be considered a revocation and shall be processesed pursuant to Section 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits); provided, however, that a permittee who does not continue to legally occupy the property shall not have the authority to affect the termination. .0302 Planning Commission Action. The action to terminate shall be placed on the agenda of a regularly scheduled Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator meeting. SECTION 6 . 4 That Section 18.62.080 of Chapter 18.62 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, revised and amended as follows: 18.62.080 WAYFINDING SIGN PROGRAM PERMITS. This section sets forth the procedures for processing an application for a Wayfinding Sign Program Permit, when such a permit is allowed pursuant Section 18.44.185 (Residential Wayfinding Signs) of Chapter 18.44 (Signs). .010 Application. An application, on a form approved by the Planning Director, for a Wayfinding Sign Program Permit shall be filed with the Planning Department. .020 Criteria. The criteria for approval of a wayfinding sign program permit are set forth in Section 18.44.185 (Residential Wayfinding Signs) of Chapter 18.44 (Signs). .030 Issuance or Denial of Permit. If the Planning Director determines that all provisions of Section 18.44.185 (Residential Wayfinding Signs) of Chapter 18.44 (Signs) and the provisions of this section are, or will be, complied with, and that all other necessary permits have or will be obtained, a permit shall be issued; otherwise, the application shall be denied. .040 Revocation of Permit. Any violation of the provisions set forth in Section 18.44.185 (Residential Wayfinding Signs) may be considered cause to revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this section. .050 Permit Fee. A fee may be charged per Chapter 18.80 (Fees). .060 Decision. The decision of the Planning Director is final, unless appealed to the Planning Commission within fifteen ten (1510) days after the date the decision is made. SECTION 7 . SEVERABILITY The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance of the Code, hereby adopted, be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the Council that it would have passed all other portions of this ordinance independent of the elimination here from of any such portion as may be declared invalid. SECTION 8 . SAVINGS CLAUSE Neither the adoption of this ordinance nor the repeal of any other ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any license or penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. The provisions of this ordinance, insofar as they are substantially the same as ordinance provisions previously adopted by the City relating to the same subject matter, shall be construed as restatements and continuations, and not as new enactments. 5 SECTION 9 . PENALTY It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this ordinance. Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this ordinance or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person, firm or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each day during any portion of which any violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm or corporation, and shall be punishable therefore as provided for in this ordinance. THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Anaheim held on the ____ day of ______________, 2010, and thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the ____ day of ______________, 2010, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY OF ANAHEIM By: __________________________________ MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST:______________________________________ CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM EXHIBIT “A” Table 4-J PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS FOR ACCESSORY USES/STRUCTURES: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES RH- RS- 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 Accessory Use/Structure Permitted Encroachment Special Provisions Air Conditioning Units Front N N N N N N N Noise level must be less than 50 dB(A), measured at the lot line *A minimum clearance of 3 feet must be maintained on at least one side yard. Side Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Rear Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Arbor/Trellis (freestanding) Front Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Maximum 8 feet high and constructed of fire-reistant materials approved by the Building Division. Otherwise, a 4-foot setback is required from any adjacent property line. Encroachments facing adjacent public or Side Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rear Y Y Y Y Y Y Y private streets and alleys, or adjacent to vacant lots, shall be planted and maintained with clinging vines in order to deter graffiti. Amateur Radio Towers Front N N N N N N N Must comply with setbacks and 18.38.040 Side N N N N N N N Rear N N N N N N N Awnings Front Maximum 4 feet Must be permanently attached to the building and properly maintained. Must be at least 4 feet from any property line. Side Maximum 2 feet Rear Maximum 4 feet Balconies (covered or uncovered) Front Maximum 30 inches *Must be at least 10 feet from the rear property line. Side N N N N N N N Rear Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Table 4-J PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS FOR ACCESSORY USES/STRUCTURES: SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES RH- RS- 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 Accessory Use/Structure Permitted Encroachment Special Provisions Barbeques (built-in, permanent) Front N N N N N N N Maximum 5 feet high. *A minimum clearance of 3 feet must be maintained on at least one side yard. Side Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Rear Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Basketball Courts Front N N N N N N N Side Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rear Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Carports/Porte Cocheres Front N N N N N N N Design features must complement main house. No side or rear setback required for walls that have no openings and are constructed with fire resistant materials approved by the Building Division. Encroachments facing adjacent public or private streets and alleys, or adjacent to vacant lots, shall be Side Minimum 5 feet to property line Rear Minimum 5 feet to property line planted and maintained with clinging vines in order to deter graffiti. Chimneys Front Maximum 30 inches *A minimum clearance of 3 feet must be maintained on at least one side yard. Side *Maximum 20 inches Rear Maximum 30 inches Fencing/Walls Front Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Must comply with 18.46.110 of Chapter 18.46. Side Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rear Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Eaves/Roof Overhang, Cornices, Belt Courses, Sills and Buttresses Front Maximum 30 inches Must not be closer than 4 feet to the property line. Side Maximum 20 inches Rear Maximum 30 inches Fire Pits/Outdoor Fireplaces Front N N N N N N N *A minimum clearance of 3 feet must be maintained on at least one side yard. Side Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Rear Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Table 4-J PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS FOR ACCESSORY USES/STRUCTURES: SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES RH- RS- 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 Accessory Use/Structure Permitted Encroachment Special Provisions Flag Poles Front Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Maximum height is same as underlying zone. *Minimum 10 feet from front property line. **No closer than 5 feet to side or rear property line. Side Y** Y** Y** Y** Y** Y** Y** Rear Y** Y** Y** Y** Y** Y** Y** Fountains and Sculptures Front Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* *Minimum 10 feet from front property line, except minimum 5 feet from front property line in RS-3 and RS-4 Zones. **Maximum 6 feet high. Side Y** Y** Y** Y** Y** Y** Y** Rear Y** Y** Y** Y** Y** Y** Y** Garages (detached) Front N N N N N N N Amount of encroachment shall not exceed 450 square feet. Must be located no closer than 4 feet to property line unless constructed with fire resistant Side N N Y Y Y Y Y Rear N N Y Y Y Y Y materials approved by the Building Division. Encroachments facing adjacent public or private streets and alleys, or adjacent to vacant lots, shall be planted and maintained with clinging vines in order to deter graffiti. Gazebos Front N N N N N N N Maximum 10 feet high. *Setback shall be determined by applicable Building Code requirements. Side Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Rear Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Greenhouses (detached) Front N N N N N N N Maximum 8 feet high. Encroachments facing adjacent public or private streets and alleys, or adjacent to vacant lots, shall be planted and maintained with clinging vines in order to deter graffiti. *Setback shall be determined by Side Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Rear Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* applicable Building Code requirements. Guard Railings (where required for safety by City Codes) Front Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Side Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rear Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Light Fixtures (for tennis or sports courts) Front N N N N N N N Maximum 22 feet high. Must be hooded to prevent excessive glare onto adjacent property. Side Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rear Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Table 4-J PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS FOR ACCESSORY USES/STRUCTURES: SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES RH- RS- 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 Accessory Use/Structure Permitted Encroachment Special Provisions Parking (Open) Front N* N* N* N* N* N* N* *Except as provided in Chapter 18.42. **Provided parking is screened from public right-of-way. Side Y** Y** Y** Y** Y** Y** Y** Rear Y** Y** Y** Y** Y** Y** Y** Patio Front N N N N N N N Maximum 10 feet high. Covers/Canopies Side Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* *Setback shall be determined by applicable Building Code requirements. Rear Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Pilasters/Light Fixtures (freestanding) Front Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Maximum 7 feet high decorative freestanding light fixtures and maximum 6.5 feet high for pilasters only, no closer than 8 feet on center. For pilasters/light fixtures in conjunction w/fence or wall see § 18.46.110.060.0601. Side Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rear Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Play Equipment Front N N N N N N N Maximum 10 feet high and no closer than 5 feet to rear property line. Side N N N N N N N Rear Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Pool Cabanas (detached/semi- enclosed) Front N N N N N N N Maximum 10 feet high. *Setback shall be determined by applicable Building Code requirements. Side Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Rear Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Pool Equipment Front N N N N N N N Decibel level must be less than 50 dB(A), measured at the lot line. *A minimum clearance Side Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Rear Y Y Y Y Y Y Y of 3 feet must be maintained on at least one side yard. Table 4-J PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS FOR ACCESSORY USES/STRUCTURES: SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES RH- RS- 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 Accessory Use/Structure Permitted Encroachment Special Provisions Pool Rock Formations/ Waterfalls Front N N N N N N N Maximum 8 feet high. Must be finished if back is visible to public right-of-way or single-family residential property. Side Minimum of 3 feet from side property line Rear Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Pool Slides Front N N N N N N N Maximum 8 feet high. Side Minimum 5 feet to any property line Rear Minimum 5 feet to any property line Pools/Spas Front N N N N N N N Side Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rear Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Porches and At-grade Decks (uncovered) Front 7' 7' 7' 7' 7' 3' 3' Uncovered only. If attached to a residence, decks can be no closer than 4 feet to property line unless constructed with fire resistant materials approved by the Building Division. Side Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rear Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Satellite Dishes (freestanding, over 2 feet in diameter) Front N N N N N N N Side N N N N N N N Rear Minimum 5 feet to rear property line Table 4-J PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS FOR ACCESSORY USES/STRUCTURES: SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES RH- RS- 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 Accessory Use/Structure Permitted Encroachment Special Provisions Sheds (detached, pre- fabricated, without utilities) Front N N N N N N N Maximum 120 square feet. Maximum 8 feet high. Encroachments facing adjacent public or private streets and alleys, or adjacent to vacant lots, shall be Side Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rear Y Y Y Y Y Y Y planted and maintained with clinging vines in order to deter graffiti. Tennis Courts/ Sport Courts Front N N N N N N N Only 1 court per lot is allowed. Side Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rear Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Trees, Shrubs, Flowers, Plants Front Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Side Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rear Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Workshops (detached) Front N N N N N N N Maximum 10 feet high. Maximum 120 square feet. Workshops in excess of 120 square feet are subject to compliance with § 18.04.100.010.0105. *Setback shall be determined by applicable Building Code requirements. Side Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Rear Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* Y* EXHIBIT “B” Table 46-B Permitted Fences and Walls Zones Single-Family Residential Multiple- Family Residential Commercial Industrial Public and Special- Purpose Special Provisions Within Required Front or Street Setbacks Maximum Height 3-4 feet*, except as provided herein 3 to 6 feet in the RH- 1 Zone, except as provided herein 3-4 feet*, except as provided herein 3 feet, except as provided herein 3 feet to 6 feet**, except as provided herein 3 feet, except as provided herein *Subject to § 18.46.110.060 (Front Yards) and 18.46.110.070 (Corner Lots – Special Provisions) **3 feet in min. landscaped setback, 6 feet decorative and landscaped wrought iron at back of min. landscaped setback; see also § 18.46.110.060 (Front Yards) Material Limitations No barbed wire or chain link No barbed wire or chain link No barbed wire or chain link No barbed wire where visible to public right-of- way (excl. alleys) or non- No barbed wire or chain link industrial property Within Vacant Lots & Construction Sites Maximum 6 feet chain link permitted Maximum 6 feet chain link permitted Maximum 8 feet chain link permitted Maximum 8 feet chain link permitted Maximum 8 feet chain link permitted Subject to § 18.46.110.050.0501 (Permitted Use of Chain Link Fencing) Abutting arterial highways or scenic expressways Maximum 8 feet N/A N/A N/A N/A Subject to § 18.46.110.060 (Front Yards) and Chapter 18.62 (Administrative Reviews) Table 46-B Permitted Fences and Walls Zones Single- Family Residential Multiple- Family Residential Commercial Industrial Public and Special- Purpose Special Provisions Within Required Side, Rear, or Interior Setbacks All fencing permitted within required front or street setback also allowed in side, rear or interior setbacks in all zones Additional Fencing: Maximum Height 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet 8 feet, if residence abuts non-residential use Permitted Material No barbed wire No chain link, if visible to public right- of-way other than alley No barbed wire or chain link No barbed wire or chain link No barbed wire visible to public right-of- way No barbed wire Tennis, Paddleball, etc. 10 feet chain link, but not in front yard and street side of reverse corner lot 10 feet chain link, but not in street setback 10 feet chain link, but not in street setback None 10 feet chain link, but not in street setback Abutting arterial highways or scenic expressways Maximum 8 feet Maximum 8 feet Maximum 8 feet Maximum 8 feet Maximum 8 feet Abutting Public Alleys 6-8 feet 6-8 feet 6-8 feet 6-8 feet 6-8 feet Subject to § 18.46.110.080 Notes on Table 46-B: 1. Properties with a resolution of intent to a zone other than residential shall not be treated as residential. 2. Properties zoned “T,” that are not developed with a residential use, shall not be treated as residential.