PC 2015/01/26City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Agenda
Monday, January 26, 2015
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California
Chairman: John Seymour
Chairman Pro-Tempore: Michelle Lieberman
Commissioners:Peter Agarwal, Paul Bostwick, Mitchell Caldwell,
Bill Dalati, Victoria Ramirez
Call To Order -5:00 p.m.
Pledge Of Allegiance
Public Comments
Public Hearing Items
Commission Updates
Discussion
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 websitewww.anaheim.net/planningon Thursday,
January 22, 2015, 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
planningcommission@anaheim.net
e-mail address:
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications,
Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations,
10calendar days
Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 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.
If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to
raisingonly 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.
AnaheimPlanning Commission Agenda -5:00 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.
01/26/15
Page 2of 6
Public Hearing Items
ITEM NO. 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05759 Resolution No. ______
VARIANCE NO. 2014-04985
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00111
(DEV2014-00092)
Location:1001–1037 North Magnolia Avenue and
2610 West La Palma Avenue
Request:
For:1) a conditional use permit for the partial Project Planner:
Gustavo Gonzalez
demolition and reconstruction of an existing shopping center to
ggonzalez@anaheim.net
include a drive-thru pharmacy and drive-thru fast food
restaurant; and, to permit alterations to two legal
nonconforming signs; 2) a Determination of Public
Convenience or Necessity for the sale of alcoholic beverages
at the pharmacy for off-site consumption; and 3) a variance to
allow fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code.
Environmental Determination:The Planning Commission
will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and Guidelinesas a Class2(Replacement or
Reconstruction of Existing Structures)Categorical
Exemption.
Continued fromthe January 12, 2015 Planning Commission
meeting.
ITEM NO. 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05775
Resolution No. ______
(DEV2014-00136)
Location:1671 West Katella Avenue, #122
Request:
To permit a tattoo shop within a commercial center.
Project Planner:
Amy Vazquez
avazquez@anaheim.net
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will
consider whether to find the project to be Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class1(Existing Facilities).
Categorical Exemption.
01/26/15
Page 3of 6
ITEM NO. 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05777Resolution No. ______
VARIANCE NO. 2014-04999
(DEV2014-00140)
Location:4570 East Eisenhower Circle
Request:
To permit a dog daycare and boarding facility Project Planner:
Amy Vazquez
with an outdoor play area with fewer parking spaces
avazquez@anaheim.net
than required by the Zoning Code.
Environmental Determination:The Planning
Commission will consider whether to find the project to
be Categorically Exemptfrom the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelinesas a
Class 1 (Existing Facilities)Categorical Exemption.
ITEM NO. 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05770Resolution No. ______
(DEV2014-00121)
Location:280 North Wilshire Avenue
Request:
To permit the conversion of an elderly Project Planner:
Amy Vazquez
residential care facility into educational housing.
avazquez@anaheim.net
Environmental Determination:The Planning
Commission will consider whether to find the project to
be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelinesas a
Class 1 (Existing Facilities)Categorical Exemption.
01/26/15
Page 4of 6
ITEM NO. 6
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05768Resolution No. ______
(DEV2014-00106)
Location:412 West Carl Karcher Way and
1180 North La Palma Park Way
Request:
Topermit a charter school within an existing Project Planner:
David See
office building and two modular classroom buildings.
dsee@anaheim.net
Environmental Determination:The Planning
Commission will consider whether to find the project to
be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelinesas a
Class1(Existing Facilities)Categorical Exemption.
ITEM NO. 7
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05756 Resolution No. ______
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05001
(DEV2014-00089)
Location:2926 East Miraloma Avenue
Request:
To permit retail automobile sales at an Project Planner:
Scott Koehm
existing automobile wholesale business with fewer
skoehm@anaheim.net
parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code.
Environmental Determination:The Planning
Commission will consider whether to find the project to
be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelinesas a
Class1(Existing Facilities)Categorical Exemption.
Adjourn to Monday, February 9, 2015at 5:00 p.m.
01/26/15
Page 5of 6
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
4:45 p.m.January 21, 2015
(TIME)(DATE)
LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK
SIGNED:
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
The City of Anaheim wishes to make all of its public meetings and hearingsaccessible to all
members of the public. The City prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national
origin in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative
formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in
implementation thereof.
Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary
aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification,
accommodation, aid or service by contacting the Planning Department either in person at 200
South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, or by telephone at (714) 765-5139, no later than
10:00 a.m. one business day preceding the scheduled meeting.
La ciudad de Anaheim desea hacer todas sus reuniones y audiencias públicas accesibles a todos
los miembros del público. La Ciudad prohíbe la discriminación por motivos de raza , color u origen
nacional en cualquier programa o actividad que reciba asistencia financiera federal.
Si se solicita, la agenda y los materiales de copia estarán disponible en formatos alternativos
apropiados a las personas con una discapacidad, según lo requiere la Sección 202 del Acta de
Americanos con Discapacidades de 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), las normas federales y
reglamentos adoptados en aplicación del mismo.
Cualquier persona que requiera una modificación relativa a la discapacidad, incluyendo medios
auxiliares o servicios, con el fin de participar en la reunión pública podrá solicitar dicha
modificación, ayuda o servicio poniéndose en contacto con la Oficina de Secretaria de la Ciudad
ya sea en persona en el 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, o por teléfono al (714)
765-5139, antes de las 10:00 de la mañana un día habil antes de la reunión programada.
01/26/15
Page 6of 6
ITEM NO.2
PLANNING COMMISSIONREPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE:JANUARY 26,2015
SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2014-05759,
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR
NECESSITY NO. 2014-00111, AND VARIANCE NO. 2014-04985
LOCATION:
1001–1037 North Magnolia Avenue and 2610 West La Palma Avenue
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER:
The applicantis Glen Hartigan,representing
Frontier Real Estate Investments,andthe property owner isKathy Watson.
REQUEST:
The applicant requestsapproval of the following: 1) a conditional use
permitto allow the partial demolition and reconstruction of an existing retailcenter
to include a drive-throughpharmacy and drive-throughfast food restaurant; and, to
permit alterations to two legal nonconforming freestanding signs; 2) a Determination
of Public Convenience or Necessity to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages at the
pharmacy for off-premisesconsumption; and,3) a variance to allow fewer parking
spaces than required by the Zoning Code.This hearing was continued from the
January 12, 2015 Planning Commission meetingto allow the applicant time to work
with staff to address various design considerations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
the attached resolution,determining thatthis request is categorically exempt from
further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under Class 2(Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing Structures) of the
State CEQA Guidelines, approvingConditional Use Permit No. 2014-05759,
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2014-00111andVariance
No. 2014-04985.
BACKGROUND:
The approximately 2.76-acre project siteis located south and
west of the southwest corner of Magnolia Avenue and LaPalma Avenue with
frontage on both streets. The siteisdevelopedwithan approximately 31,682 square
footretailshoppingcenter.The property hasfive existing legal nonconforming
freestandingsignsfacing Magnolia Avenue.The siteis located in the General
Commercial (C-G) zone. The General Plan designates the site for Commercial-
Neighborhood Center (C-NC)land uses.The site is bordered by a residential street
to the southwest and apublic alley located along the southerly property line.
Surrounding land uses include multi-family residentialand commercial uses to the
west,commercial uses to the north across La Palma Avenue, commercial and multi-
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
family residentialto the east across Magnolia Avenue, and single-family residential
Anaheim, CA 92805
to the south.
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05759,
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00111,
AND VARIANCE NO. 2014-04985
January 26, 2015
Page 2of 5
PROPOSAL:
The project entails a complete renovation of the existing retailcenter.A small
building near the southern property line and themajority of a larger building at the center of the
site would be demolishedand replaced by anew 14,000 square-footpharmacy with a drive-
through and a 4,425 square-footfast foodrestaurantwith a drive-through.The remaining portion
of the larger building would be renovated intoa new 10,000 square-foot retailbuilding.Once
completed, the retail center wouldcontain a total of 28,425 square feet of retail space,
approximately 3,257 square feet less than the existing retail center.Acontemporary
architectural design is proposed for thenew buildings, which includesslanted rooflines, metal
columns, canopies and panel cladding.
A total of124 parking spaces are proposed to accommodate the parking needs of the retailcenter
which, as further described below, is less than required by the Zoning Code.Access to the site is
proposed to be provided via two driveways along Magnolia Avenue and one driveway along La
Palma Avenue. The 20-foot wide public alley located along the southernproperty line is
proposed to be vacatedand incorporated into the project site. The vacation and sale of the alley
by the City to the property owner is subject to a separate process that is addressed in the
conditions of approval included in the attached conditional use permit resolution. Portions of the
existing block walls along the southernand western property lines wouldbe removed and
replaced with new block walls ranging between six andeight feet in height,completely enclosing
the southwesternportion of the project sitewhere the property interfaces with the adjacent
residential neighborhood.Finally, the applicant is proposing to remove three of the existing
freestanding signsalong Magnolia Avenue whilerestoring and relocating twoof them.A single
monument sign is also proposed along La Palma Avenueandhas been designed to meet Code.
With respect to the operations of theretailcenter, the proposed pharmacy wouldoperate from
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,sevendays a week.The pharmacy is proposing the sale of alcoholic
beveragesfor off-premises consumption.The fast food restaurantwouldoperate24 hours per
day, sevendays a week.A tenant has not been secured for the10,000 square-foot retail building.
ANALYSIS:
The following is staff’s analysis of the project:
Conditional Use Permit:While commercial centers are allowed by right in this zone, drive-
through facilities are permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed
renovationof the existing retailcenter would significantlyimprove the overall appearance of the
property and address a number of community concerns that have been raised by residents in the
adjacent residential neighborhood at community meetings regarding the property maintenance
and the trash and loitering that spillintothe neighborhood due to the lack of separation between
the commercial center andthe neighborhood.Staff anticipates that the proposed remodel,
including the vacation of the alley, will have a positive impact on the quality of life in the
adjacent neighborhood.
Pharmacy and Fast Food Restaurant Drive-throughs:The proposed project has two drive-
through lanes. The drive-throughlane for the fast food restaurant wouldbe located adjacent to
the southernproperty line adjacent to single-family residences.The existing alley is proposed to
be vacated and an eight-foot high block wall and 20-foot wide landscape planter are proposed
along theproperty line.The alley vacation is not anticipated to hinder circulation in the areaand
wouldeliminate current loitering in the alley that has been a concern to the surrounding
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05759,
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00111,
AND VARIANCE NO. 2014-04985
January 26, 2015
Page 3of 5
neighborhood.The ordering intercom for the drive-throughlane will be oriented away from the
adjacent residencesand the pick-up window will be 32 feet from the block wall, thereby
reducing potential noise impacts to nearby homes.The drive-throughlane for the proposed
pharmacybuilding would not be located near any residences and has been designed to allow
vehicles toexit the site via La Palma Avenue.Both drive-through laneshave been designed to
provide adequatevehicle queueing lanes to ensure that on-site circulation and publicstreets will
not be impacted.
Legal Nonconforming Freestanding Signs:The applicant is proposing to restore and maintain
two existing freestandingsignsalong Magnolia Avenue. The signs would be relocated along
Magnolia Avenue from their current locations to accommodate a required three foot right-of-way
dedication and street improvement along Magnolia Avenue, and create a greater distance
between the two signs to create a less cluttered appearance. No other freestanding signs are
proposed along Magnolia Avenue.
The signs are approximately 40feet and 30 feet in overall height and approximately 14 feet and
18 feet in overall width.The Zoning Code requires thatall new freestanding business signs be
limited to low-scale,monument-type signs notexceeding eightfeet in height. However, the code
permits nonconforming signsto continue, provided that any structural change or alteration that
requires a building permit shall be subject to the approval of aconditional use permit.The
existingsigns would notbe increased in height or size and wouldbe restored to resemble their
original character and appearance.Although staff generally does not support the retention of
legal-non conforming pole signs, the signs proposed to be retained possess a uniquegoogie-style
design that would be consistent with proposed architectural elements of the renovatedretail
centerand are reflective of the historical design character of the shopping center.The restoration
and relocation of the signs would also bring the signs closer to conformity with the sign code by
removing them from the public right-of-way and increasing the distance between the signs.
Therefore, staff is supportive of the request.
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity:The sale of alcoholic beverages in drug
stores over 10,000 square feet in size is permitted by right in this zone. However, a
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity is required in this instance because there is an
over-concentration of off-sale licenses in the Census tract.State law limits the issuance of
alcoholic beverage licenses when a license is requested for a property located in a police
reporting district with a crime rate above the City average, or when there is an over-
concentration in the number of ABC licenses within a census tract. However, the law also states
that such restrictions can be waived if the local jurisdiction makes a determination that the
proposed outlet would serve a"public convenience or necessity."
This property is located within Census Tract No.868.01, which has a population of 3,267.One
off-sale license ispermitted based on this population, and currently there are fivelicenses in the
tract, including one license on the project site which wouldno longer be activeatthis sitewith
implementation of the project.The property is within Police Reporting District No. 1517, which
is below the city averagecrime rate. There have been 36calls for service to this location in the
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05759,
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00111,
AND VARIANCE NO. 2014-04985
January 26, 2015
Page 4of 5
past year in response to fivedrunk in publiccalls,twelvedisturbances, threetrespassing, one
brandishing of a firearm, three911 hang ups, fivesuspicious circumstances, twopetty thefts, one
stolen vehicle, twoburglaries, onesuicide attempt and onesex offense.The crime rate within ¼
mile of this property is 72% above the citywide average based upon calls for service.
These calls consisted of 14 simple assaults, 18 petty thefts and 11 vandalisms.
Staff believes the sale of alcohol for off-premises consumptionwould be compatible withthe
surrounding area because the crime rate of the police reporting district is below the city average
and the licensewould replace an existing off-sale licensecurrently operated as a liquor store.
Thecalls for service in the past year are attributed to businesses that will no longer be in
operation at this sitewhich include a bar and liquor store.Further, the pharmacy would represent
the only business on site selling alcohol alcoholic beverages, with alcoholsales representinga
small portionof overall retail sales activity of the store.The pharmacy operatoralso maintains
strict alcohol sales policies and conducts extensive training for its sales clerks.Conditions of
approval to help ensure that the business is operated in a responsible mannerare included as part
of thedraft resolution.Staff does not anticipate that the addition of alcoholsales for off-site
consumption at this location would contribute to an increase in crimein the area.
ParkingVariance:Parking for the project site is required as follows:
UseSizeRatioRequired
Retail24,000sq.ft.5.5 spaces/1,000 sq.ft.132
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-
4,425sq.ft.10spaces/1,000 sq.ft.45
through
Total Spaces Required:177
Total Spaces Provided:127
A parking analysis was prepared by KOA Corporationdated September 2014, to determine the
number of spaces needed for this project. This analysis includes a review of six other similar
pharmacy parking site surveys and an evaluation of the parking supply and demand of the
current proposal.This analysis concludes that 123parking spaces are adequate to meet the
demands of the project.A peer review of the parking analysiswas also conducted by Kunzman
Associates, Inc., one of the City’s on-call traffic engineering consultants. The peer review
concurred with the conclusion of the parking analysis. Based on the conclusions in the parking
analysis and the peer review, staff recommends approval of the parking variance.
Staff has received several telephone calls and one emailcorrespondence (Attachment 7) from the
current tenants of the retail center with concerns and questionsregarding the project. In addition,
staff also received one email correspondence from a concerned resident regarding the existing El
Patio restaurant.Staff has informed the applicant of these inquiries, and the applicant is working
with the property owner to communicate with the tenants regarding their concerns.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05759,
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00111,
AND VARIANCE NO. 2014-04985
January 26, 2015
Page 5of 5
CONCLUSION:
The proposed projectwould represent a significant improvement in the
overall appearance and operation of the center. The renovated commercial center, including the
proposed drive-through lanes, refurbished non-conforming signs, and on-sale beer and wine sales
in the pharmacy, would be compatible with the surrounding residential and commercialuses.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit, determination of public
convenience or necessity, and variance requests.
Prepared by,Submitted by,
Gustavo GonzalezJonathan E. Borrego
Associate PlannerPlanning Services Manager
Attachments:
1.Draft Conditional Use Permit, Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity and
Variance Resolution
2.Letter of Operations and Justifications
3.Parking Analysis and Peer Review
4.Police Memorandum
5.Site Photographs
6.Project Plans
7.Public Comments
C-G
W VIA PALMA
OFFICES
C-G
C-G
RESTAURANT
I
RESTAURANT
MEDICAL OFFICE
C-G
I
RESTAURANT
C-GSERVICE
STATION
SERVICE STATION
C-G
C-G
SERVICE
C-G
RESTAURANT
STATION
RETAILRM-4
MAGNOLIA PLAZA
C-G
APARTMENTS
RETAIL
84 DU
C-G
RETAIL
CONDOMINIUMS
RM-4
40 DU
MAGNOLIA
APARTMENTS
100 DU
PROPOSED
WOODLAND DR
ABANDONMENT
RS-2
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
SINGLEFAMILYRESIDENCE
RS-2
050100
°
Aerial Photo:
May 2014
Feet
APN: 070-191-05
Subject Property
070-191-20
DEV No. 2014-00092
1001-1037 North Magnolia Avenue
2610 West La Palma Avenue
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
W VIA PALMA
WOODLAND DR
050100
°
Aerial Photo:
May 2014
Feet
APN:
070-191-05
Subject Property
070-191-20
DEV No. 2014-00092
1001-1037 North Magnolia Avenue
2610 West La Palma Avenue
[DRAFT]ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVINGCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05759,DETERMININGPUBLIC
CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00111FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
CONTROL LICENSE, APPROVING
VARIANCE NO. 2014-04985,AND
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2014-00092)
(1001-1037 NORTH MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND 2610 WEST LA PALMA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") didreceive a verified petition for(i) Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05759for
the partial demolition and reconstruction of an existing retail center,to include a drive-through
pharmacy,the renovation of the remaining portion of the center, the construction of adrive-
throughfast food restaurantwith drive-through lanes,and to permit the alteration oftwo legal
nonconforming signs, (ii)a determinationof Public Convenience or Necessityto permitthe sale
of beer, wine and distilled spiritsat the pharmacy with a Type 21(Off Sale -General)Alcoholic
Beverage Control ("ABC")licensefor off-premises consumption(herein referred to as "Public
Convenience or Necessity No. 2014-00111"),and(iii)Variance No. 2014-04985to allow fewer
parking spaces than required by the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code")(collectively, the
"Proposed Project") for premises located at 1001-1037 North Magnolia Avenue and 2610 West
La Palma Avenuein the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally
depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit Aand incorporated herein by this reference (the
"Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 2.76-acre in size and isdeveloped with a
retail center containing two retail buildings totaling approximately 31,682 square feet, large
surface parking areas and five existing legal nonconforming pylon signs along Magnolia
Avenue.The Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for
Commercial-Neighborhood Center land uses. The Property is located within the "C-G"General
CommercialZone. As such, the Property is subject to the zoning and development standards
described in Chapter 18.08 (General Commercial Zone) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the Planning
Commission at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on January 12, 2015at 5:00 p.m., which
was continued to January 26, 2015to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against
the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection
therewith; and
WHEREAS, as the “lead agency” under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning
Commission finds and determines that the Proposed Project iswithin that class of projects (i.e.,
Class 2–Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing Structures) which consistsofthe
replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structures will
be located on the same site as the structures replaced and will have substantially the same size,
purpose and capacity as the structures replaced, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section15302of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant
effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically,exempt from the provisions of CEQA;
and
-1-PC2015-***
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 therequest for Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05759, does find
and determine the following facts:
1.The request to permit a drive-through pharmacy and a drive-through fast food
restaurantareallowable uses within the "C-G" Commercial Zone under Subsection .010 of
Section 18.08.030 of the Code provided that a conditional use permit is approved. In addition,
therequest to permit a Type 21(OffSale-General)ABC licenseto permit the sale ofbeer, wine
and distilled spirits at the proposed pharmacy for off-premises consumptionis properly one for
which a conditional use permit is authorized under Subsection .010 of Section18.08.030of the
Code;
2.The proposed conditional use permit to permit the demolition and reconstruction
of a portion of the existing buildings, the renovation of the remainder ofthe existing buildings,
the construction of afast food restaurant building and pharmacy withdrive-through lanes, and
the changes to the landscaping, parking and circulation would 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 Proposed Project entails a complete renovation of the Property which willimprove
the aesthetics of the improvements on the Propertyand the overall appearance of the project site,
and would not have an adverse effect on adjacent residential and commercial uses;
3.The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the
Proposed Projectin a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the health, safety and
general welfare of the public because the Proposed Project would reduce the overall total retail
square-footage of the retail center while significantly improvingthe aesthetics of the Property
and the overall appearance of the project site.Further, the drive-through lanes have been
designed to minimize impacts onto the surrounding uses; and
4.The traffic generated by the Proposed Project would not impose an undue burden
upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the
traffic generated by the Proposed Projectwill not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the
surrounding streets and adequate parking will be provided to accommodate the future uses.
Further, the proposed alley vacation is not anticipated to hinder circulation in the area and will
eliminate a nuisance in the area;and
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 theProposedProjectwould
significantly improve the aesthetics of the buildings and the overall appearance of the project site
is compatible with the surrounding area, subject to compliance with the conditions contained
herein; and
WHEREAS, under and pursuant to Subsection .020 of Section 18.56.060
(Nonconforming Signs) of the Code, the relocation and alterationof two of the existing legal
non-conforming signs, as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file with the
Planning Department, will (a) not increase the height or area of the sign copy for either of the
two signs and will bring the two signs closer into conformity with the Code, (b) improve the
aesthetics of the two signs, and (c) not be detrimental under the conditions imposed to the health
and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Thetwo signs will be restored to resemble
-2-PC2015-***
their original appearance and are proposed to be integrated with the proposed renovations to the
retail center.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of allevidence and reports offered at
said hearing with respect to the request for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity
No. 2014-00111, does find and determine the following facts:
1.On July 11, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95R-134 establishing
procedures and delegating certain responsibilities to the Planning Commission relating to the
determination of "Public Convenience or Necessity" on those certain applications for a liquor
license requiring that such determination be made by the local governing body pursuant to
applicable provisions of the Business and Professions Code, and prior to the issuance of a license
by ABC.
2.Section 23958 of the Business and ProfessionsCode provides that the ABC shall
deny an application for a liquor license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law
enforcement problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an "undue concentration" of
licenses, except when an applicant has demonstrated that "public convenience or necessity"
would be served by the issuance of a license. For purposes of Section 23958, "undue
concentration" means the case in which the premises are located in an area where any of the
following conditions exist:
(a)The premises are located in a crime reporting district that has a lower
number of "reported crimes" (as defined in Section 23958.4) than the
average number of reported crimes as determined from all crime
reporting districts within the City of Anaheim.
(b)As to on-sale retail license applications, the ratio of on-sale retail
licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the
premises are located exceeds the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to
population in the county.
(c)As to off-sale retail license applications, the ratio of off-sale retail
licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the
premises are located exceeds the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to
population in the county.
3.Notwithstanding the existence of the above-referenced conditions, ABC may
issue a license if the Planning Commission determines that the "public convenience or necessity"
would be served by the issuance.
4.Resolution No. 95R-134 authorizes the City of Anaheim Police Department to
make recommendations related to "public convenience or necessity" determinations; and, when
the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption is permitted by the Code, said
recommendations shall take the form of conditions of approval to be imposed on the
determination in order to ensure that the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages does not
adversely affect any adjoining land use or the growth and development of the surrounding area.
-3-PC2015-***
5.The Property is located within Census Tract 868.01with a population of 3,267
that allows for one (1) off-sale ABC license. There are presently five (5) off-sale ABC licenses
in the tract. The Property is located in Police Reporting District No. 1517, which has a crime
rate that is belowthe City-wide average; however, the Police Department evaluates these
requests based on the crime rate within a one-quarter mile radius of the premises for the subject
site. The crime rate within ¼ mile of this Property is 72% above the City-wide average based
upon calls for service. Since there is an over-concentration in the number of ABC licenses
within the census tract, a determination of "public convenience or necessity" is required to be
made for this request.
6.A determination of "public convenience or necessity" can be made based on the
finding that the requested license, under the conditions imposed, will not be detrimental to the
health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because the sales of beer, wine and
distilled spirits at this location will be a small percentage of overall sales for the proposed
pharmacybusiness and an incidental commodity provided by the proposed drugstore.
7.The sale of beer, wine and distilled spiritsis ancillary to the primary business
operationsof the proposed pharmacy businessand would serve as an added convenience to
residents and visitors to the area who choose to shop at this establishment.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request
for VarianceNo. 2014-04985to allow fewer parking spaces than required by the Code in
conjunction with the existing restaurant, including an outdoor patio,should be approved for the
following reasons:
SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010Minimum number of parking spaces.
(177spaces required; 124spaces proposed)
1.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-
street parking spaces to be provided for the alluses on sitethan the number of such spaces
necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such usesunder the normal and reasonably
foreseeable conditions of operation of such uses.A parking analysis was prepared by KOA
Corporation, determining that the proposednumber of parking spaces within the Property is
sufficient to accommodate all future uses on site. A peer review of the parking analysiswas also
conducted by Kunzman Associates, Inc., which concurredwith the conclusion of the analysisof
KOACorporation;
2.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the
demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the Propertybecause the proposed number of parking spaces withinthe Property is sufficient to
accommodate all future uses on site, as determined by the KOA Corporation parking analysis
and the Kunzman Associates, Inc.peer review;
3.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the
demandand competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed use because the proposed number of parking spaces within the Property
is sufficient to accommodate all future uses on site, as determined by the KOA Corporation
parking analysis and the Kunzman Associates, Inc.peer review;
-4-PC2015-***
4.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic
congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use becausethe
project site provides adequate ingress and egress points to the property and are designed to allow
for adequate on-site circulation; and
5.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular
ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed use because the project site has existing ingress or egress access points that are
designed to allow adequate on-site circulation and,therefore,will not impede vehicular ingress
to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the
Property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05759, Determination of Public Convenience or
Necessity No. 2014-00111 and Variance No. 2014-04985, contingent upon and subject to the
conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit Battached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the
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 Code. 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 Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant
progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation 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 Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 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 Code and any other applicable
City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to
compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or
requirement.
-5-PC2015-***
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
January 26, 2015. 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.
CHAIRMANPRO-TEMPORE, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on January 26,2015, by the followingvote of the
members thereof:
AYES:COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS:
th
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 26day of January,
2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-6-PC2015-***
-7-PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05759, DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2014-00111 AND VARIANCE NO. 2014-04985
(DEV2014-00092)
RESPONSIBLE
NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT
WITHIN 30 DAYS OF APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE OR BUILDING PERMIT,
WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST
1
Ownershallinstallanapprovedbackflowpreventionassemblyonthe
waterserviceconnection(s)servingthepropertybehindpropertyine PublicUtiliti
andbuildingsetbackinaccordancewithPublicUtilitiesDepartment WaterEngineering
WaterEngineeringDivision
PRIORTOISSUANCEOFGRADINGPERMITS
2
The legal owner shall submit an application for a Subdivision Map Act
PublicWorks
Certificate of Compliance to the Public WorksDepartment, Development
Development
Services Division. A Certificate of Compliance or Conditional Certificate
Services
of Compliance shall be approved by the City Engineer and recorded in
the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
3
The applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department,
Development Services Division for review and approval a Water Quality
Management Plan that conforms with current Orange County Guidelines
and Requirements as well as the City’s WQMP Review Checklist. Said
WQMP shall:
Address Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as PublicWorks
minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability,
Development
minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced Services
or “zero discharge” areas, and conserving natural areas.
Incorporate applicable Routine Source Control BMPs.
Incorporate Treatment Control BMPs.
Describe the long-term operation and maintenance, identifies the
responsible parties, and funding mechanisms for the Treatment
Control BMPs
4
If the disturbed area is greater than an acre, the applicant shall
demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under California’s General
PublicWorks
Permit for StormwaterDischarges Associated with Construction Activity
Development
by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State
Services
Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent
notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID)
Number. The applicant shall prepare and implement a Storm Water
-8-PC2015-***
RESPONSIBLE
NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the current SWPPP shall
be kept at the project site and be available for City review on request.
5The legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of
Anaheim (a) a 53-foot wide easement for street and public utility
purposes from the centerline of Magnolia Avenue, (b) a 60-foot wide PublicWorks
easement for street and public utility purposes from thecenterline of La Development
Palma Avenueand (c) a 30-foot wide easement for street and public Services
utility purposes from centerline of Felicidad Street. The form of the offer
to dedicate shall be acceptable to the City Engineer.
PRIORTOISSUANCEOFBUILDINGPERMITS
6The detailed landscape and irrigation planssubmitted for planning staff
review and approval shall be revised to reflect the proposed site plan as Panning Division
approved by the Planning Commission.
7Plans shall be submitted with the building permit submittal showingan
eight-foot high block wall,as measured at grade from within the project
site, adjacent to Felicidad Street, the public alley along the south property
line, and the two residential properties. Said block wall shall include Panning Division
openings every three feet along thebase of the wall to allow clinging
vines to grow on the outside of the wall along Felicidad Street and the
public alley along the southerly property line.
8Plans shall be submitted with the building permit submittal showing all
fire lanes posted with “No Parking Any Time.” These improvements Public Works
shall be installed and completed prior to the first final building and Traffic
zoning inspection.
9The developer shall submit to Public Works, Development Services PublicWorks
Division for review and approval of the City Council, the Abandonment Development
application of Public Alley.Services
10The developer shall submit street improvement plans to the Public Works
Department, Development Services Division to improve Magnolia
PublicWorks
Avenue, La Palma Avenueand Felicidad Street, in conformance with
Development
Public Works Standard Detail 160-A. A Right-of-Way Construction
Services
Permit shall be obtained from the Development Services Division for all
work performed in the right-of-way.
11The developer shall post security to guarantee the construction of public
PublicWorks
works improvements in an amount approved by the City Engineer and in
Development
a form approved by the City Attorney.
Services
-9-PC2015-***
RESPONSIBLE
NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT
12That a private water system with separate water service for fire
protection and domestic water shall be provided and shown on plans PublicUtiliti
submitted to the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public WaterEngineering
Utilities Department.
13
Thatallbackflowshall belocatedabovegroundut
thestreetsetbackareainamannerfullyfromall
streetsandalleys.Anybackflowcurrentlyinstalledina
vaultwillhavetobebroughtuptocurrent standards.Anyotherlar
PublicUtiliti
watersystemshallbeinstalledtothetisfactionofth
Water
Engineering
PublicUtilitiesWaterEngineeringDvisionoutside
setbackareainamanneryfromall
streetsandalleys.Saidinformationshallbeshown
pandapprovedbyWater Engineering andCross
Control Inp
14
Thatallrequestsfornewwaterservices, backflowetor
lines,aswellasanyror
PublicUtiliti
existingwatervces,equand
WaterEngineering
firebandpermittedthrough Water
EngineeringintheAnaheimPublicUtilitiese
15
Thatallxistingwaterservicesandfireconform
currentWaterAnywater
and/orfirelinethatdoes notmeetcurrentb
PublicUtiliti
ifcontinueduseifnecessaryorabandonediftheig
WaterEngineering
serviceisnolongerneeded.Thenr/drshallb
responsibleforthetoupgradeortoabandonanywateric
orfirein
16
TheOwnershallirrevocably offerdedicate toheityof
aeim (i)aneasementforalllargedomesticwater
metersnd fireincludingafive(5)-foot wideeasement
aroundthehydrantand/orwatermeterpad.(ii)awenty(20)
footideasement forallwaterservicemainsandservice
alltooftheWaterDivision.The
hbegrantedontheWaterDivision of
Public Utilities
thePublicstandard waterdeed.The
Water Engineering
easement ddshallincludelanguagethattheOwnerto
beresponsibleanyspecialsurfaceother
thanasphaltpavincludingbutnotlimitedtocolored
decorativewallsor
andpingbecomesdamagedduringanyrepair
orreplacement CityownedwaterProvisionsforthe
repair,rplmandofallsurface
-10-PC2015-***
RESPONSIBLE
NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT
otherthanhltpaving shall be the responsibility of the Owner
and included and recorded in the Master CC&R’s for the project.
17
ThattheshallsubmittothePublicUtili
Department WaterDivisionanestimateofthe
fireflowrateandmaximum dayandpeakhour
demandsfortheproject. Thisinformation willbeusedtormiPublic Utilities
Water Engineering
theadequacy ofthewatersystemtoprovidethed
waterAnyoff-site watersystemrequired
servetheprojectshallbedoneinwithRuleNo.
15A.6theWaterUtilityRates,andgul
18
Thatindividualwaterserviceand/orfirelineconnections willbe
Public Utilities
requiredforeachparcelorresidential,mmerciindutunitr
Water Engineering
Rule18oftheCityofAnaheim’sWaterRates,Rulesand
19Therearenoexistingbackflowpreventiondevicesonthewatermr
servingtheproperty. PriortoanyofApplicanth
Public Utilities
contactWaterEngineering CrossConnectionControlto
Water Engineering
requirementsforinstallingbackflowpreventiondevicesatthemeter
rintrnally.
All new water service connections shall for this development shall be
20
Public Utilities
locate on Magnolia Avenue. No new service connections will be
Water Engineering
allowed on La Palma Avenue.
21
Public Utilities
Water Engineering
22
Construction documents shall be submitted to the Building Division for
Building Division
plan review.
PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTION
PublicWorks
23
All required street improvements shall be constructed, subject to review
Development
and approval by the Construction Services inspector.
Services
24
The 20-foot wide public alley right of way at the south end of the
PublicWorks
property shall be abandoned. The legal property owner shall complete
Development
the abandonment application case ABA2014-00288 and request approval
Services
of the City Council.
25
The legal property owner shall provide to the City of Anaheim a 10-foot
PublicWorks
wide Public Utility Easement within the 20foot public alley right of way
Development
abandonment area,as required by the Public Utilities, Electrical
Services
Division.
-11-PC2015-***
RESPONSIBLE
NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT
ON-GOING DURING PROJECT OPERATIONS
26No display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside of a building
Police Department
or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building.
27There 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
Police Department
alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall
constitute a violation of this condition.
28The area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the total
Police Department
display area in a building.
29Sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the
customer is in the building. No alcohol shall be sold, exchanged, or
Police Department
distributed through the drive through window.
30The possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the
consumption of alcoholic beverages are prohibited on or around these
Police Department
premises.
31Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to
Police Department
prevent the loitering ofpersons around the premises.
32There shall be no amusement machines, video game devices or pool
Police Department
tables maintained upon the premises at any time.
33The Petitioner(s) shall post and maintain a professional quality sign
facing the premises parking lot(s) that reads as follows:
NO LOITERING, NO LITTERING
NO DRINKING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES VIOLATORS ARE Police Department
SUBJECT TO ARREST
The sign shall be at least two feet square with two inch block lettering.
The sign shall be in English and Spanish.
34Loitering is prohibited on or around these premises or this area under the
Police Department
control of the licensee(s).
35The parking lot of the premises shall be equipped with lighting of
sufficient power to illuminate andmake easily discernible the appearance
and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Additionally, the
Police Department
position of such lighting shall not disturb the normal privacy and use of
any neighboring residences.
-12-PC2015-***
RESPONSIBLE
NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT
36Managers/Owners needto call the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control and obtain LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs
Police Department
Program) Training for themselves and register employees. The contact
number is 714-558-4101.
37Any Graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent
area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over
Police Department
within 24 hours of being applied.
38Buildings shall be pre-wired for a comprehensive security alarm system
(silent or audible) for the following coverage areas:
Perimeter of building and access route protection.
Police Department
High valued storage areas.
Interior building door to shipping and receiving area.
Perimeter fence and security gating.
39Address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily readable from
Police Department
the street. Number should be illuminated during hours of darkness.
40Rear entrance doors shall be numberedwith the same address numbers or
Police Department
suite number of the business. Minimum height of 4” recommended.
41Rooftop address numbers for the police helicopter. Minimum size 4’ in
height and 2’ in width. The lines of the numbers are to be a minimum of
6” thick. Numbers shall be spaced 12” to 18” apart. Numbers shall be
Police Department
painted or constructed in a contrasting color to the roofing material.
Numbers shall face the street to which the structure is addressed.
Numbers are not to be visible from ground level.
42All exterior doors to have adequate security hardware, e.g. deadbolt
Police Department
locks.
43Wide-angle peepholes or other viewing device shall be installed in solid Police Department
doors where natural surveillance is compromised.
44The locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking Police Department
latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside doorknob/lever/turn
piece.
45Overhead roll-up doors shall also be secured on the inside that the lock Police Department
cannot be defeated from the outside and shall be secured with a cylinder
lock or padlock from the inside.
46Large store/business display windows shall consist of burglary resistant Police Department
glazing or its equivalent that attaches to the frame.
-13-PC2015-***
RESPONSIBLE
NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT
47All glass skylights on the roof of any building shall be provided with:Police Department
Rated burglary resistant glass or glass-like acrylic material or
Security bars of at least ½” round steel, or 1” by ¼” flat steel
material, spaced no more than 5” apart under the skylight and
securely fastened.
Steel grill of at least 1/8” material under the skylightand securely
fastened.
48All hatchway openings on the roof of any building shall be secured as Police Department
follows:
If the hatchway is of wooden material, if shall be covered on the
outside with at least 16-gauge sheet steel or its equivalent
attached with screws.
Outside hinges on all hatchway openings shall be provided with
non-removable pins when using pin-type hinges.
49A Knox box shall be installed at hatchway to allow Police/Fire access to Police Department
interior.
50Exterior roof access ladder shall be relocated within the building’s main Police Department
resident tenant space. Exterior ladders allow easy roof access for
criminals, etc.
51All air duct or air vent openings exceeding 8” x 12” on the rooftop or Police Department
exterior walls of any building shall be secured by covering the same with
either of the following:
Security bars of at least ½” round steel, or 1” by ¼” flat steel
material, spaced no more than 5” apart and securely fastened.
A steel grill of at least 1/8”material and securely fastened or
If the barrier is secured to the outside of the structure, it shall be
secured with galvanized rounded head flush bolts of at least 3/8”
diameter on the outside.
52Monument signs and addresses shall be well lighted during hours of Police Department
darkness.
53Adequate lighting of parking lots, passageways, recesses, and grounds Police Department
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.
54All exterior doors shall have their own light source, which shall Police Department
adequately illuminate door areas at all hours to make clearly visible the
presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate
-14-PC2015-***
RESPONSIBLE
NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT
illumination for persons exiting the building.
55Landscaping shall be of the type and situated in locations to maximize Police Department
observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. Security
planting materials are encouraged along fence and property lines and
under vulnerable windows.
56Trees shall not be planted close enough to the structure to allow easy Police Department
access to the roof, or shall be kept trimmed to make climbing difficult.
57Minimum recommended lighting level in all parking lots is .5 foot-candle Police Department
maintained, measured at the parking surface, with a maximum to
minimum ratio no greater than 15:1.
58“No Trespassing 602(k) P.C.” posted at the entrances of parking Police Department
lots/structures and located in other appropriate places. Signs must be at
least 2’ x 1’ in overall size, with white background and black 2” lettering.
59All entrances to parking areas shall be posted with appropriate signs per Police Department
22658(a) C.V.C., to assist in removal of vehicles at the property
owners/managers request.
GENERAL
60The subject Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
Planning Department,
plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the
Planning Services
applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department, and
Division
as conditioned herein.
61Conditions of approval related to each of the timing milestones above
shall be prominently displayed on plans submitted for permits. For
example, conditions of approval that are required to be complied with
Planning Department,
prior to the issuance of building permits shall be provided on plans
Planning Services
submitted for building plan check. This requirement applies to grading
Division
permits, final maps, street improvement plans, water and electrical plans,
landscape irrigation plans, security plans, parks and trail plans, and fire
and life safety plans, etc.
62The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the
processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the
Planning Department,
issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits
Planning Services
for this project, whichever occurs first.Failure to pay all charges shall
Division
result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the
revocation of the approval of this application.
-15-PC2015-***
RESPONSIBLE
NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT
63The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and
its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to
individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims,
actions or proceedingsbrought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set
aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this
permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or Planning Department,
made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or Planning Services
validity of any condition attached thereto.The Applicant’s Division
indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages,
fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of
suit, claimor litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and
other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in
connection with such proceeding.
-16-PC2015-***
RITE AID CORPORATION
December 4, 2014
Gustavo Gonzales, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Dear Mr. Gonzales:
We are looking forward to working with you on our new store at the SWC N. Magnolia Ave. and La
Palma Ave. In response to your request for a Letter of Operations, below are answers to the
questions that were posed.
Days and hours of operations: Rite Aid is open seven (7) days a week. Proposed store hours will be
7AM to 10 PM. Proposed pharmacy hours are 8AM to 10PM weekdays but the pharmacy would likely
close earlier on Saturday and Sunday, with the exact weekend hours to be determined.
Estimated number of employees: The store will employ approximately 17 employees. Approximately
6 will be working per shift.
Peak hours: Peak times are 5pm to 7pm, Monday through Friday.
Anticipated delivery schedule: Rite Aid receives one large delivery once per week. There are an
additional 10-12 small deliveries per week from individual vendors. Delivery times range from 6AM to
7PM.
Please let me know if there are any further questions.
Thank you,
7UDF\/9HUDVWHJXL
Tracy Verastegui
Senior Real Estate Director
Rite Aid Corporation
Rite Aid Corporation
320 Goddard Way, Suite 125
Irvine, CA 92618
Tel (949) 753-0614 I Fax (949) 585-9264
3800 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 200
Long Beach, California 90806
562-673-8452
richard.gebele@us.mcd.com
December 5, 2014
Gustavo Gonzales, AICP
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
RE: Magnolia and La Palma, Anaheim, CA
Dear Mr. Gonzales:
Please see the answers below relating to our proposed operations at the intersection of
Magnolia and La Palma.
We are proposing to operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
We will employee a total of 45-50 employees at the store. On average, we will have
approximately 10-12 employees working per shift.
Peak business hours are 7-9 AM, 11-2PM, and 5-8PM.
Deliveries vary based upon store volumes. This could result in one daily delivery or one
delivery per every 2 days. These will occur between the hours of 6AM-10PM.
We look forward to working with you on this project. Please let me know if you have any
further questions.
Thank you,
Richard Gebele
Area Real Estate Manager
January 7, 2015
Gustavo Gonzalez
Associate Planner
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
RE: Magnolia & La Palma Shopping Center
1001 North Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801
Justification for Use of Existing Signage
Dear Mr. Gonzalez,
We are proposing to restore and maintain two existing freestanding signs along Magnolia Avenue. The
signs would be relocated along Magnolia Avenue from their current locations to accommodate a
required three foot right-of-way dedication and street improvement along Magnolia Avenue, and create
a greater distance between the two signs to create a less cluttered appearance. No other freestanding
signs are proposed along Magnolia Avenue. The existing signs do not conform to current standards but
we want to keep them, make them safe, and use them for our project.
The code permits nonconforming signs to continue, if certain findings are complied with per the
Municipal Code Section 18.56.030 specifically,
.01 That the proposed modifications to the sign do not increase the height or area of sign copy and
bring the sign closer to conformity with the code. Our sign design does not increase the height or area
of the area of the sign and it will be more structurally sound when installed.
.02 That the changes proposed improves the aesthetics of the sign. Our design elevations show an
exciting improvement to the aesthetics of the sign.
.03 That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be
detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. The restoring of the signs
will update the structural integrity of the signs which will better serve the health and safety of the
citizens of Anaheim.
We are excited to work with the City to preserve some of the unique features of the architecture of the
past on this project. We expect our request and this justification meet with your approval.
Sincerely,
Glen Hartigan
Frontier Real Estate
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Parking Study
For a Proposed Retail Center
In the City of Anaheim
September 2014
Prepared for:
Glen Hartigan
Frontier Real Estate Investments
610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Prepared by:
2141 W. Orangewood Ave
Suite A
Orange, CA 92868
(714) 573-0317
Job No.: JB43111
2141 West Orangewood Avenue, Suite A
Orange, CA 92868
t: 714.573.0317 f: 714.573.9534
www.koacorporation.com
September 26, 2014
Glen Hartigan
Frontier Real Estate Investments
610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949-800-8073
Subject: Parking Study for the Retail Center at the Southwest Corner of Magnolia Street and
La Palma Avenue in the City of Anaheim
Dear Mr. Hartigan:
KOA Corporation is pleased to present the parking study for the proposed retail center located at the southwest
corner of Magnolia Street and La Palma Avenue in the City of Anaheim. The site is currently occupied by
miscellaneous retail stores. Frontier Real Estate Investments proposes to build a retail center with a total of
28,425 square-foot building area, including an existing 10,000 square-foot retail store, a 14,000 sqaure-foot
pharmacy, and a 4,425 square-foot fast-food restaurant. Two access points from the site are proposed along
Magnolia Street and one access point along La Palma Avenue.
This parking study report was prepared to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed parking supply and provide a
parking variance justification if needed. Similar site parking surveys have been conducted at three Walgreen
stores and three CVS stores in Orange County. Shared Parking Analysis was also applied using the Urban Land
,QVWLWXWH·V 8/,
Shared Parking Guide.
It has been a pleasure to provide this study to you and to the City of Anaheim. Please contact us if you require
any additional information, or if you have any questions about the study.
Sincerely,
Min Zhou, P.E.
Principal
J:\Cities\Anaheim\JB43111 AN SWC Magnolia La Palma Pkg Study\Documents\JB43111 AN SWC Parking Study 092614.docx
Table of Contents
A.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
A.2 PROJECT LOCATION ...................................................................................................... 1
A.3 SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 1
A.4 SITE USES .......................................................................................................................... 2
A.5 PARKING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................ 2
A.5 PARKING STUDY ............................................................................................................. 5
A6.1 PPDS ......................................................................................................... 5
HARMACY ARKING EMAND TUDY
A6.2 SPA ............................................................................................................................ 7
HARED ARKING NALYSIS
A6.3 C .................................................................................................................................................... 8
ONCLUSION
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................ A-1
APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................. B-1
Parking Study for a Retail Center
i City of Anaheim
List of Figures
F1²PVM ................................................................................................................... 3
IGURE ROJECT ICINITY AP
F2²PSP ......................................................................................................................... 4
IGURE ROJECT ITE LAN
List of Tables
T1²SU ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
ABLE ITE SES
T2²SSSWSCM ............................................................... 5
ABLE IMILAR ITE URVEY FOR ALGREENS TORE IN OSTA ESA
T3²SSSRW ......................................................................................... 5
ABLE IMILAR ITE URVEY ESULTS FOR ALGREENS
T4²SSSCVSHB .......................................................................... 6
ABLE IMILAR ITE URVEY FOR IN UNTINGTON EACH
T5²SSSCVS ....................................................................................................................... 6
ABLE IMILAR ITE URVEY FOR
6²SPEFO .......................................................................... 8
T
ABLE HARED ARKING VALUATION FOR ULL CCUPANCY
Parking Study for a Retail Center
ii City of Anaheim
A.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this parking study is to request for a parking variance to be granted by the Planning
Commission for a retail center development project in City of Anaheim. The study complies with the
Parking Variance requirements defined by the Anaheim Municipal Code, as well as parking requirements
also defined by the Municipal Code. It provides the evidence that the project complies with the
following:
The variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not cause fewer off street parking spaces
to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to
accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable
conditions of operation of such use;
The variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not increase the demand and for parking
spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use;
The variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not increase the demand and for parking
spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use (which
property is not expressly provided as parking for such use under an agreement in compliance
with subsection 18.42.05.030 (Non5HVLGHQWLDO8VHV²([FHSWLRQ
The variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the
off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use; and
The variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress
from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use.
A.2. PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed retail center is located at the southwest corner of Magnolia Street and La Palma Avenue
in the City of Anaheim. Figure 1 illustrates the project vicinity map. Figure 2 depicts the project site
plan.
A.3. SITE DESCRIPTION
The existing site is occupied by miscellaneous retail stores. For the proposed renovation and
development, the site plan provides for a total of 28,425 square-foot building area, including a 14,000-
square-foot pharmacy with drive-thru, an existing 10,000-square-foot retail store to remain, and a 4,425-
square-foot fast-food restaurant with drive-thru.
Two full access points will be provided along Magnolia Street, and a right-in and right-out access will be
provided along La Palma Avenue. Adequate queuing spaces and circulations are provided for the drive-
thru windows for both the pharmacy and the fast-food restaurant. The pharmacy drive-thru facility
Parking Study for a Retail Center
1 City of Anaheim
provides double stacking lanes. There is a proposed parking supply of 124 parking stalls for the project
site.
A.4. SITE USES
The existing and proposed site uses are listed below in Table 1. On-site circulation with large truck
turning template is shown on the site plan. Adequate emergency access and parking design with
required handicap parking stalls are also shown on the site plan.
7DEOH²6LWH8VHV
Square
Site Use Existing / Proposed Drive-Thru
Footage
Existing No 10,000
Retail Store
Proposed Yes 14,000
Pharmacy
Proposed Yes 4,425
Fast-Food Restaurant
A.5. PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The City of Anaheim Municipal Code defines the nonresidential parking standards on Table 42-A, which
indicates that 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet are required for the first 100,000 square feet of
retail land uses. 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet are required for fast-food restaurants. Based on
the Code, 55 parking spaces are required for the existing retail store, 77 parking spaces are required for
the proposed pharmacy, and 45 parking spaces are required for the proposed fast-food restaurant. A
total of 177 parking spaces are required for the site based on the code.
Municipal Code parking requirements are general for all retail uses, not addressing the specific
characteristic of a pharmacy use with a drive-thru. Therefore, this study documents the parking needs
of the proposed pharmacy use, evaluating similar existing pharmacy uses to determine the appropriate
parking demand rate for a typical pharmacy. This study also includes a shared parking analysis,
considering the shared parking uses of both retail and fast-food restaurant uses.
Parking Study for a Retail Center
2 City of Anaheim
0E4EPQE%ZI
'VIWGIRX%ZI'VIWGIRX%ZI
NOT TO SCALE
J:\Cities\Anaheim\JB43111 AN SWC Magnolia La Palma Pkg Study\Analysis\Figures/JB43111 Figures.ai
Parking Study for a Retail CenterFigure 1
City of Anaheim, CAVicinity Map
J:\Cities\Anaheim\JB43111 AN SWC Magnolia La Palma Pkg Study\Analysis\Figures/JB43111 Figures.ai
Parking Study for a Retail CenterFigure 2
City of Anaheim, CASite Plan
A.6. PARKING STUDY
A.6.1 Pharmacy Parking Demand Study
Two studies are referenced to justify the proposed pharmacy parking demand in Anaheim. Both studies
conducted three similar site surveys. The complete copies of the two studies are included in the
appendix of the report.
Walgreens Parking Study in Costa Mesa, conducted by KOA Corporation, 2011
CVS Pharmacy Parking Study in Huntington Beach, by Rick Engineering, 2008
KOA conducted a parking variance study for a new Walgreens Pharmacy store in City of Costa Mesa in
2011. In order to accurately forecast the parking demand for the proposed pharmacy, KOA surveyed
three Walgreens stores on a typical weekday (Thursday) and a Saturday between 11:00 am and 9:00 pm
in 2011. Table 2 lists the three similar sites, their locations, and square footages. Table 3 lists the
parking survey results. As indicated, the highest parking rate for a pharmacy is 2.5 spaces per thousand
square feet. A 15% turn-over rate has been applied for conservative parking demand purposes. The
15% turn-over rate is to ensure that the parking lot will never be so full that vehicles cannot find a
parking space. It also allows a factor of safety for unusual peak parking demands for special events.
7DEOH²6LPLODU6LWH6XUYH\IRU:DOJUHHQVLQ&RVWD0HVD
Similar Survey Date and Time Square
Location City County
Sites Period Footage
Huntington August 11, 2011, Thur.
4935 Warner Ave Orange 13,871
1
Beach August 13, 2011, Sat.
August 11, 2011, Thur.
1301 E. 17th St Santa Ana Orange 14,490
2
August 13, 2011, Sat.
August 11, 2011, Thur.
1715 N. Bristol St. Santa Ana Orange 11,560
3
August 13, 2011, Sat.
7DEOH²6LPLODU6LWH6XUYH\5HVXOWVIRU:DOJUHHQV
Max. of Parking
#
Parking Max. Adjusted
Square Observed Spaces
Supply Occupancy Demand*
Footage Demand Required Per
(#) Rate (#)
(#) 1,000 s.f.
4935 Warner Ave 13,871 64 19 30% 22 1.6
1301 E. 17th St 14,490 72 32 44% 37 2.5
1715 N. Bristol 11,560 55 23 42% 26 2.3
Note: * Adjusted Demand = Maximum Observed Parking Demand X (1+Turnover Factor). Turnover factor is 15% in this study.
Parking Study for a Retail Center
5 City of Anaheim
Rick Engineering Company also conducted a parking study for a proposed CVS Pharmacy in the City of
Huntington Beach in 2008. They surveyed three similar CVS sites in Orange County. The surveys were
conducted on a typical Monday and Tuesday from the hours of 4PM to 8PM. Table 4 lists the similar
sites, their locations and square footages. Table 5 lists the survey results. As indicated, the highest
parking demand is 2.6 spaces per thousand square feet. Again, a 15% turn-over rate has been applied.
7DEOH²6LPLODU6LWH6XUYH\IRU&96LQ+XQWLQJWRQ%HDFK
Similar Survey Date and Time Square
Location City County
Sites Period Footage
Huntington September 22, 2008 Mon.
18872 Beach Blvd Orange 12,281
1
Beach September 23, 2008 Tues.
September 22, 2008 Mon.
102 N. Main St. Santa Ana Orange 14,768
2
September 23, 2008 Tues.
7065 La Palma
September 22, 2008 Mon.
Buena Park Orange 14,768
3
Ave. September 23, 2008 Tues.
7DEOH²6LPLODU6LWH6XUYH\5HVXOWVIRU&96
Max. of Parking
#
Parking Max. Adjusted
Square Observed Spaces
Supply Occupancy Demand*
Footage Demand Required Per
(#) Rate (#)
(#) 1,000 s.f.
18872 Beach Blvd 12,281 54 24 44% 28 2.3
102 N. Main St. 14,768 73 33 45% 38 2.6
7065 La Palma Ave. 14,768 71 14 20% 16 1.1
Note: * Adjusted Demand = Maximum Observed Parking Demand X (1+Turnover Factor). Turnover factor is 15% in this study.
Based on the above 6 referenced parking surveys, the highest peak parking demand with a 15% turn-
over rate was found to be 2.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet for a pharmacy use. This is a conservative
parking rate to be used for a typical pharmacy. The ITE Parking Generation book also indicates that the
parking rate for a pharmacy with drive-thru is between 1.65 to 3.75 vehicles per 1,000 square foot.
Applying this rate to this project site, the parking requirement of the 14,000 square foot pharmacy
would be 37 spaces instead of 77 spaces using the general retail rate. This would bring the total parking
requirement for the project down from 177 spaces to 137 spaces.
The next section of the report includes a discussion on how the ULI sharing parking methodology was
applied to further evaluate the actual parking demand of the proposed site.
Parking Study for a Retail Center
6 City of Anaheim
A.6.2 Shared Parking Analysis
The concept of shared parking is to use a parking space to serve two or more land uses without conflict.
Conventional regulations require that each land use type provides enough parking to serve its own peak
demand, leaving unused parking spaces during the off-peak periods. A shared parking strategy permits
parking spaces to be available for multiple uses. It is more efficient when the land uses considered have
very different peaking characteristics. The proposed retail center has a mixture of retail and restaurant
uses that could therefore share the parking supply.
The shared parking concept is comprehensively doFXPHQWHGLQWKH8UEDQ/DQG,QVWLWXWH·V 8/,
Shared
Parking guide, and it is considered scientifically valid and acceptable by the traffic engineering community.
This study utilizes a number of findings and concepts published in the ULI guide for the parking analysis.
Shared Parking provides a matrix of percentages that can used to predict parking demand for specific
uses during any hour in proportion to their peak parking requirements. This publication also includes
the results of studies of parking demand by time of day for uses that commonly occur within a mixed-
use development, and shows what percentage of eaFKFRPSRQHQWZLOOQHHGWRXVHWKHVLWH·VSDUNLQJ
VXSSO\DWDJLYHQWLPHSHULRG8/,·V6KDUHG3DUNLQg publication addresses two VSHFLILFPHWULFV´1RQ
&DSWLYH0DUNHW)DFWRUVµDQGWKH´7LPHRI'D\)DFWRUVµ
Non-Captive Market Factor reductions can be applied to optimize parking supply at the development, as
patrons of one facility may also visit other facilities within the same trip. For example, a person working
at the pharmacy may also go to the fast-food restaurant to eat or visit the adjacent retail store for
shopping. In the base calculations, visiting three different uses would equate to requiring three parking
spaces, but in this case only requires one parking space. The ULI Shared Parking guide indicates that
restaurant uses can experience up to 50% internal capture, and retail uses can experience up to 10%
internal capture, when the two uses are paired within a development site
The ULI Time-of-Day Factors were considered to forecast peak parking demand throughout the day for
the proposed land uses. Restaurants typically will be busiest during lunch and dinner hours,
Modal adjustments for patrons that may walk, take the bus, carpool, or bike to the development may
also help reduce parking demand. To be conservative, however, this modal factor was not used to
further reduce the required parking requirement.
Table 6 shows the base rate from A.6.1 in conjunction with ULI Shared Parking principles to estimate
the parking demand for the proposed project.
Based on the shared parking analysis, all of the proposed uses will require 123 parking spaces, which is a
reduction of fourteen parking spaces required by the base ratio of 137 spaces.
Parking Study for a Retail Center
7 City of Anaheim
7DEOH²6KDUHG3DUNLQJ(YDOXDWLRQIRU)XOO2FFXSDQF\
Weekdays
MonthlyTimeofDay
Unadjusted
LandUse
ModalNonCaptiveSharedUse
22
Variation
Variation
1
AdjustmentMarketTotal
BaseRatios
(December)(1:00pm)
Customer29100%100%98%90%26
Pharmacy
Employee7100%100%100%100%7
Customer44100%100%98%90%39
Retail
Employee11100%100%100%100%11
FastFoodCustomer37100%100%98%90%33
RestaurantEmployee7100%100%100%100%7
dŽƚĂů137123
Note:
1CalcualtedusingresultsfromA6.1
ŶĚ
2RecommendedfactorsforlandusesduringweekendasidentifiedintheUrbanLandInstitue(ULI)^ŚĂƌĞĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ͕Ϯ ĚŝƚŝŽŶŐƵŝĚĞ͘
Based on the shared parking analysis shown in Table 6, the proposed project will need to provide a total
of 123 parking spaces to accommodate full occupancy of the site. The current parking supply of 124
parking spaces is adequate to accommodate the parking demand.
A.6.3 Conclusion
Frontier Real Estate Investments is proposing a retail center with a total of 28,425 square-foot building
area, including an existing 10,000 square-foot retail store, a 14,000 square-foot pharmacy, and a 4,425
square-foot fast-food restaurant. The project proposes a total of 124 parking stalls. The Anaheim
Municipal Code defines the nonresidential parking standards on Table 42-A. Based on the parking code,
a total of 177 spaces are needed for the project site. A total of 123 parking stalls are needed based on
the similar site surveys and shared parking analysis.
In conclusion, the proposed number of parking spaces indicated on the site plan for the proposed
project will be adequate for the expected demand.
Parking Study for a Retail Center
8 City of Anaheim
APPPENDIX AA
Parkking Studdy
For aa Proposeed Walgrreens Store
Inn the Cityy of Costta Mesa
Parking Studyy for a Retail CCenter
A-1 City of Anaheim
XL7XVIIX
XL7XVIIX
XL7XVIIX
4VSNIGX7MXI
7YTIVMSV%ZIRYI
'SWXE1IWE'%
2SXXS7GEPI
. @@.& '1C;EPKVIIR4OK@%REP]WMW@*MKYVIW@.& C*MKYVIWEM
'MX]SJ'SWXE1IWE*MKYVI
4EVOMRK7XYH]JSVE4VSTSWIH;EPKVIIRW7XSVI4VSNIGX:MGMRMX]1ET
APPPENDIX BB
Riick Engineering Coompany
Parking Study Reeport
Parking Studyy for a Retail CCenter
B-1 City of Anaheim
November17,2014
Mr.GustavoGonzalez,AssociatePlanner
CITYOFANAHEIM
200SouthAnaheimBoulevard
Anaheim,CA92805
DearMr.Gonzalez:
INTRODUCTION
ThefirmofKunzmanAssociates,Inc.ispleasedtoprovidethistechnicalmemorandumpeerreviewof
theMagnolia/LaPalmaShoppingCenterprojectintheCityofAnaheim.TheParkingStudyfora
ProposedRetailCenterintheCityofAnaheimwaspreparedbyKOACorporation(September26,2014).
TheprojectsiteislocatedatthesouthwestcornerofMagnoliaStreetandLaPalmaAvenueintheCityof
Anaheim.Theparkingstudywaspreparedtoevaluatetheadequacyoftheproposedparkingsupplyand
provideaparkingvariancejustificationifneeded.Similarsiteparkingsurveyswereconductedatthree
WalgreensstoresandthreeCVSstoresinOrangeCounty.Theparkingstudygenerallyfollowsstandard
practicefortheCityofAnaheim.
PARKINGVARIANCES
TheprojectcomplieswiththeCityofAnaheimSection18.42.110ParkingVariancesasfollows:
Condition
.0101Thatthevariance,undertheconditionsimposed,ifany,willnotcausefeweroffstreetparking
spacestobeprovidedfortheproposedusethanthenumberofsuchspacesnecessaryto
accommodateallvehiclesattributabletosuchuseunderthenormalandreasonablyforeseeable
conditionsofoperationofsuchuse;
Evidence
TheparkingstudyutilizestheCityofAnaheimparkingcoderequirementsfortheretailstore(55
parkingspacesrequired)andfastfoodrestaurant(45parkingspacesrequired).Thepharmacy
parkingspacesarebaseduponparkingsurveysat6similarpharmacieslocatedinOrange
County.Thesimilarpharmacyparkingsurveysgeneratedaneedfor2.6parkingspacesper
thousandsquarefeetor37parkingspacesfortheproposedpharmacy.Thiscalculatedto137
parkingspacesrequiredfortheprojectsite.
1111 Town & Country Road, Suite 34
Orange, California 92868(714) 973-8383
www.traffic-engineer.com
Mr.GustavoGonzalez,AssociatePlanner
CITYOFANAHEIM
November17,2014
Inaddition,theUrbanLandInstitute,SharedParking,2ndEdition,2005,methodologywasused
intheparkingstudytosharetheparkingsupplybetweenthemixtureofretailandrestaurant
landuses.Thesharedparkingcalculatedaneedfor123parkingspacesfortheshoppingcenter.
Atotalof124parkingspacesareplannedontheprojectsiteplan.
Condition
.0102Thatthevariance,undertheconditionsimposed,ifany,willnotincreasethedemandand
competitionforparkingspacesuponthepublicstreetsintheimmediatevicinityoftheproposed
use;
Evidence
Theprojectsiteisprojectedtoprovidesufficientonsiteparkingspacestomeettheproposed
demand(seeCondition.0101).Inaddition,MagnoliaAvenueandLaPalmaAvenuearesigned
for"NoParkingAnyTime"adjacenttotheprojectsite.
Condition
.0103Thatthevariance,undertheconditionsimposed,ifany,willnotincreasethedemandand
competitionforparkingspacesuponadjacentprivatepropertyintheimmediatevicinityofthe
proposeduse(whichpropertyisnotexpresslyprovidedasparkingforsuchuseunderan
agreementincompliancewithsubsection18.42.05.030(NonResidentialUsesʹException);
Evidence
Theprojectsiteisprojectedtoprovidesufficientonsiteparkingspacestomeettheproposed
demand(seeCondition.0101).
Condition
.0104Thatthevariance,undertheconditionsimposed,ifany,willnotincreasetrafficcongestion
withintheoffstreetparkingareasorlotsprovidedfortheproposeduse;and
Evidence
Thecirculationwithintheparkingareasontheproposedsiteplanprovidedwithintheparking
studyappearstoallowrelativelyfreeflowofvehiculartrafficwithnoconstrictions.
Condition
.0105Thatthevariance,undertheconditionsimposed,ifany,willnotimpedevehicularingresstoor
egressfromadjacentpropertiesuponthepublicstreetsintheimmediatevicinityofthe
proposeduse.
Evidence
Theexistingshoppingcentercurrentlyprovides2drivewaystoLaPalmaAvenueand4
drivewaystoMagnoliaAvenue.Theproposedsiteplanprovidedwithintheparkingstudyis
proposedtoprovide1drivewaytoLaPalmaAvenueand2drivewaystoMagnoliaAvenue.The
proposedprojectdoesnotappeartoimpedevehicularingresstooregressfromadjacent
properties.
www.traffic-engineer.com
2
Mr.GustaavoGonzalez,,AssociatePlanner
CITYOFAANAHEIM
Novembeer17,2014
CONCLUSSION
BaseduponthepeerreviewoftheeParkingStuudyforaProposedRetailCenterintheCityofAnaaheim
preparedbyKOACorpporation(Sepptember26,22014),theprrojectsiteisprojectedtoprovideadeqquate
parkingatttheproposeedshoppingccenter.
Ithasbeeenapleasureetoserveyouurneedsontthisproject.Shouldyouhhaveanyquesstionsorifwwecan
beoffurtherassistance,pleasedonnothesitatettocallat(7144)9738383.
Respectfuullysubmittedd,
KUNZMANNASSOCIATES,INC.KUNZMAANASSOCIATEES,INC.
CarlBallard,LEEDGAWilliamKKunzman,P.E.
PrincipalAAssociatePrincipal
#5930
www.traaffic-engineer.com
3
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
CUP2014-05759, PCN2014-00111, VR2014-04985 Attachment 5
1001-1037 North Magnolia Avenue, 2610 West La Palma Avenue
CUP2014-05759, PCN2014-00111, VR2014-04985 Attachment 5
1001-1037 North Magnolia Avenue, 2610 West La Palma Avenue
CUP2014-05759, PCN2014-00111, VR2014-04985 Attachment 5
1001-1037 North Magnolia Avenue, 2610 West La Palma Avenue
CUP2014-05759, PCN2014-00111, VR2014-04985 Attachment 5
1001-1037 North Magnolia Avenue, 2610 West La Palma Avenue
CUP2014-05759, PCN2014-00111, VR2014-04985 Attachment 5
1001-1037 North Magnolia Avenue, 2610 West La Palma Avenue
CUP2014-05759, PCN2014-00111, VR2014-04985 Attachment 5
1001-1037 North Magnolia Avenue, 2610 West La Palma Avenue
CUP2014-05759, PCN2014-00111, VR2014-04985 Attachment 5
1001-1037 North Magnolia Avenue, 2610 West La Palma Avenue
CUP2014-05759, PCN2014-00111, VR2014-04985 Attachment 5
1001-1037 North Magnolia Avenue, 2610 West La Palma Avenue
CUP2014-05759, PCN2014-00111, VR2014-04985 Attachment 5
1001-1037 North Magnolia Avenue, 2610 West La Palma Avenue
CUP2014-05759, PCN2014-00111, VR2014-04985 Attachment 5
1001-1037 North Magnolia Avenue, 2610 West La Palma Avenue
"V" SIGN
McDonald’s
McDonald’s
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
ITEM NO. 2
NEW CORRESPONDENCE
ITEM NO.3
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE:JANUARY 26, 2015
SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05775
LOCATION:
1671 West Katella Avenue(Cali Culture Tattoo)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER
:The applicant is Sebastian Roman Molina
and the property owner is Abdul Aziz.
REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permitto
establish a tattoo shopwithin an existing commercial center.
RECOMMENDATION
:Staff recommends that the PlanningCommission approve
the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from
further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class
1,Existing Facilities), and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05775.
BACKGROUND:
This 0.8-acre project site is developed with a14-unit, 13,800
square foot commercial center. The property is located in theGeneral Commercial
(C-G)zone and the General Plan designates this property for General Commercial
land uses. The property is surrounded by single-family residences tothenorthand
east,commercial uses to the west,and commercial uses to the south,across Katella
Avenue.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to open a428square foot tattoo shopin an
existingcommercial center that is currently occupied by a variety of commercial and
office uses.No changes to the exterior of the building are proposed.Hours of
operation would be 10:00a.m. to 8:00p.m., Monday through Thursday, 8:00a.m. to
10:00p.m. Friday and Saturday and 11:00a.m. to 6:00p.m. on Sunday.The business
would employ three tattoo artists and a body piercing technician. Most services would
be scheduled by appointment, but limited walk-in customers would also be accepted.
ANALYSIS:
A conditional use permit is required fortattoo shopsin this zone in order
to determine compatibility with the surrounding area.Tattoo shops are also regulated
and inspectedby the Orange County Health Departmentin order to protect the health of
the customers and tattoo practitioners.There is a significant distance between the tattoo
shop and the residential neighborhood to the north and the shop would be closed by
10:00p.m., so staff believes that the proposed use will be compatible with the
surroundingbusinessesand residences.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05775
January 26, 2015
Page 2of 2
Staff is awarethat a medical marijuana dispensary is operating within the commercial center.The
property owner has been informed that the use is illegal.City staff has initiated enforcement action
that will lead to closure of this facility. The City Attorney’s office has advised that the Commission
should evaluate the merits of the proposed use independently from the enforcement actions
underway regarding the medical marijuana dispensary. Therefore, the presence of the dispensary
does not change staff’s recommendation regarding the appropriateness and compatibility of the
proposed tattoo establishment.
Parking:The ZoningCode states requires that parking requirementsbe calculated by combining
the needs of the tattoo shopand thecommercialuseson the property. The tattooshop and the
commercial businessesrequirea total of 58parking spaces.The property contains a total of 60
parking spaces;therefore, the parking provided for the combined uses complieswith the City’s
requirements.
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes that theproposed tattoo shopis compatiblewith the adjacent uses
and annual inspections conducted by the Orange County Health Department would ensure the
business operates in compliance with health and safety standards.Staff recommends approval of
this request.
Prepared by,Submitted by,
Amy VazquezJonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner, Lilley Planning GroupPlanning Services Manager
Attachments:
1.Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution
2.Applicant’s Letter of Request
3.Photographs
4.Site Plan
5.Floor Plan
C-G
WESTVIEW
VOCATIONAL
SERVICES
RS-2
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
C-G
RS-2
MEDICAL
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
OFFICE
C-G
RS-2
RS-2
MEDICAL
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
OFFICE
C-G
RETAIL
C-G
RETAIL
C-G
RETAIL
C-G
RETAIL
C-G
C-G
RETAIL
C-G
RETAIL
RETAIL
C-G
RETAIL
C-G
C-G
SHOPPING CENTER
SHOPPING CENTER
C-G
SHOPPING CENTER
050100
°
Aerial Photo:
May 2014
Feet
Subject Property
APN: 129-392-21
DEV No. 2014-00136
1671 West Katella Avenue, #122
050100
°
Aerial Photo:
May 2014
Feet
Subject PropertyAPN:
129-392-21
DEV No. 2014-00136
1671 West Katella Avenue, #122
[DRAFT]ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05775
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2014-00136)
(1671 WEST KATELLA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition toapprove Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05775
to permit atattooshopwithin premises located within an existing commercial center(referred to
herein as the "Proposed Project") at 1671 West Katella Avenuein the City of Anaheim, County
of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit Aand
incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 0.8acres in size and is currently
developed with a commercial center. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for
General Commercial land uses. TheProperty is located in the “C-G”General Commercial Zone.
As such, the Property is subject to the zoning and development standards described in Chapter
18.08(CommercialZones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code(the "Code"); and
WHEREAS, as the "lead agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning
Commission finds and determines that the Proposed Project is within that class of projects (i.e.,
Class 1 –Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of
existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section
15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Proposed Project will not cause a
significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions
of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2015, the Planning Commission did hold a public
hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim, notice of said public hearing having been
duly given in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear
and consider evidence for and against proposed ConditionalUse Permit No. 2014-05775and to
investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
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 tattoo shop within a commercial center, does find and
determine the following facts:
1.The proposed request to permit a tattoo shopwithin an existing commercial
centeris properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under the classes of
allowable uses set forth in Table 8-A as "Personal Services-Restricted", as referenced in
paragraph .0402 of subsection.040 ofSection No. 18.08.030 of the Code.
-1-PC2015-***
2.The proposed conditional use permit to permit a tattoo shop, as conditioned
herein, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the
area in which it is proposed to be located because the building is surrounded by compatible
buildings and uses; and, the tattoo shopwould be located within an existing building with no
adverse effects to adjoining land uses.
3.The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the tattoo shopin a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health
and safety because the facility would be located within an existing commercial centerthat is
surrounded by other commercial and residentialuses.
4.The traffic generated by the tattoo shopwill not impose an undue burden upon
the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic
generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding streets
and adequate parking will be provided to accommodate the use.
5.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 as the proposed
land use will continue to be integrated with the surrounding commercialarea and would not pose
a health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does
hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05775,contingentupon and subject to the
conditions of approval described in Exhibit Battached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the
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 Code. 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 Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant
progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation
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 Planning Commission does hereby find
and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated uponapplicant'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, andany 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
Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include
any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable
ordinance, regulation or requirement.
-2-PC2015-***
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at thePlanning Commission
meeting of January 26, 2015. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Chapter 18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be
replaced by a City Council Resolution in the eventof an appeal.
CHAIRMANPRO-TEMPORE, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on January 26, 2015, by the followingvote of the
members thereof:
AYES:COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 26thday of
January, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-3-PC2015-***
-4-PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05775
(DEV2014-00136)
RESPONSIBLE
NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
Each tattoo technician shall obtain and retain a City of Anaheim
1Planning Department,
Business License. Said license shall be visibly displayed at all
Planning Services Division
times.
2The business shall be operated in accordance with the Letter of Planning Department,
Request submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the Planning Services Division
business operation as described inthat document shall be subject to
review and approval by the Planning Director to determine
substantial conformance with the Letter of Request and to ensure
compatibility with the surrounding uses.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
3The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the
processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of
Planning Department,
the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building
Planning Services Division
permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all
charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or
may result in the revocation of the approval of this application.
4The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City
and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively
Planning Department,
referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any
Planning Services Division
and all claims, actions or proceedingsbrought against Indemnitees
to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the
Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts
or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to
determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition
attached thereto.The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to
include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded
against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or
litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other
costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in
connection with such proceeding.
5The Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with Planning Department,
plans and specifications submitted to the Cityof Anaheim by the
Planning Services Division
applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department
and as conditioned herein.
-5-PC2015-***
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
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 REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE:JANUARY 26, 2015
SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05777AND
VARIANCE NO. 2014-04999
LOCATION:
4570 Eisenhower Circle (Dogtopia)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER:
The applicants are Larry and Sherry Hartjoy
with Furry Kids Kamp Corporation.The agentrepresenting the applicant isPhil
Schwartzewith The PRS Groupandtheproperty owner isLakeview Business Park.
REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permitto
establish a dog daycare and boarding facility with an outdoor play area. The applicant
is also requesting approval of a variance to allowfewer parking spaces than required
by the Zoning Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1,
Existing Facilities) and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05777and
Variance No. 2014-04999.
BACKGROUND:
This 0.6-acre property is developed with an industrial building.It
is located in the Northeast Area Specific Plan, Development Area 2 -Expanded
Industrial (SP94-1, DA2) and the Scenic Corridor(SC)Overlay zone. The General
Plan designates this property for Industrialland uses.The property is surrounded by
industrial and office uses in all directions.
PROPOSAL:
The applicantproposes to open an 11,390 square foot dog daycare and
boarding facility with an outdoor play area. The facility would be developed to
accommodate approximately 60 dogs. No expansion or exterior changes to the building
are proposed; however,two outdoor play areas would be installedalong the east side of
the building.The play area would be improved with synthetic canine grass andenclosed
with an eight foot high vinyl privacy fence. The floor plan indicates five indoor play
rooms, offices, grooming facilitiesand boarding areas.
Operating hours would be 7:00a.m. to 7:00p.m. Monday through Friday, 10:00a.m. to
5:00p.m. on Saturday and 11:00a.m. to 2:00p.m. on Sunday. The dogs would be
constantly monitored during business hours to ensure safety and noise control.
Overnight boarding would also be available and monitored by webcams. There would
be a maximum of five employeeson site duringeach shift.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05777AND VARIANCE NO. 2014-04999
January 26, 2015
Page 2of 3
ANALYSIS
: The following is staff’s analysis of the project:
Dog Daycare and Boarding:Dog daycare and boarding was not anticipated in the SP 94-1, DA 2
zoneand was therefore not expressly listed as a permitted use. However, the Zoning Code
authorizes the Planning Director to determine that a use that is similar to, and compatible with, the
uses that are permitted or conditionally permitted in the particular zone,shall be deemed a use
which may be conditionally permitted in the particular zoneas an Unlisted Use.The conditional
use permit is required to determine compatibility with surrounding land uses.Of primary concern
with the operation of a dog daycare and boarding facility are potential impacts on adjacent
properties from noise and odor relating to the keeping of dogs. An eight-foot high vinyl privacy
fence would be installed to reducenoise,and provide security and screening from the adjacent
industrial businesses. In addition, the dogs would be constantly monitored by trained employees
while the dogs are outside. Conditionsof approval pertaining to dog waste and clean up to ensure a
sanitary and odor free environmentare included in the attached resolution. Staff believes that with
the proposed conditions of approval,the dog daycare and boarding facilityiscompatible with the
surrounding industrial and office uses.
Parking Variance:The Zoning Code requires 46parking spaces for the dog daycare and boarding
facilitybased on four spaces per 1,000 square feet of the gross floor area.Tenparking spaceswould
be provided.A parking justification letter was submitted by the applicant indicating that the nature
of the business is dog daycare, where customers remain at the facility for an average of five minutes.
Research from other Dogtopia facilities and observations at asimilar dog day care facility located on
Daly Streetin Anaheim indicate that there are no more than three customersdropping off or picking
up dogs at one time.Staff has conducted field observations and verified the availability of adequate
parking during peak drop-off and pick-up hours at this existing facility.There would be a maximum
of five employees on-site at any one time, leaving five spaces available forcustomers.In addition,
the applicant is proposing a valet service during peak morning and evening hours to ensure adequate
parking for employees andcustomers.The parking ratio for day care centers for children is one
space per employee, one space per 10 children and one space for loading. If this parking ratio were
applied to this business, the requirement would be 12 spaces, which is close to the number of spaces
provided. Based upon thefindings of the parking analysisand staff observations,staffrecommends
approval of the parking varianceas the parking spaces available on-site are adequate to
accommodate the parking demand.In addition, staff anticipates consideration ofan amendment to
the parking requirements for animal grooming and boarding facilities as a future follow-up item that
would be considered by the Commission.
A letter of opposition was submitted by an adjacent business owner expressing concerns regarding
the lack of parking in the area, traffic and the potential for barkingnoise and odors(Attachment No.
6).Conditions of approval pertaining to immediate waste collection and the staff monitoring of the
outdoor play area are recommended to alleviate any odor or noise impacts. Staff believes the
operational characteristics of this dog daycare facility would ensure that on-site parking is adequate
to accommodate the parking demands of this business.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05777AND VARIANCE NO. 2014-04999
January 26, 2015
Page 3of 3
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes that the requestto permit a dog daycare and boarding facility is
compatiblewith the adjacent businessesand the surrounding area.There is adequate parking to
accommodate the proposed businessbased on the operationalinformation provided by the
applicantand observations of parking demand at a similar dog daycare business. Staff
recommends approval of the conditional use permit and the parking variance.
Prepared by,Submitted by,
Amy VazquezJonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner, Lilley Planning GroupPlanning Services Manager
Attachments:
1.Draft Conditional Use Permit and Variance Resolution
2.Letter of Requestand Parking Justification Letter
3.Photographs
4.Site and Floor Plan
5.Partial Site Plan (Outdoor Play Area)
6.Letter of Opposition
SP 94-1 (SC)
(
DA2
D
INDUSTRIAL
O.C
(SC)
DA2
SINGLE FAMILY
SP 94-1 (SC)
SP 94-1 (SC)
RESIDENCE
DA2
DA2
OFFICES
OFFICES
SP 94-1 (SC)
DA2
OFFICES
SP 94-1 (SC)
SP 94-1 (SC)
DA2
DA2
OFFICES
LAKEVIEW
BUSINESS
CENTER
SP 94-1 (SC)
DA2
OFFICES
SP 94-1 (SC)
DA2
OFFICES
SP 94-1 (SC)
DA2
OFFICES
050100
°
Aerial Photo:
May 2014
Feet
Subject Property
APN: 346-301-05
DEV No. 2014-00140
4570 East Eisenhower Circle
050100
°
Aerial Photo:
May 2014
Feet
Subject PropertyAPN:
346-301-05
DEV No. 2014-00140
4570 East Eisenhower Circle
[DRAFT]ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05777AND
VARIANCE NO. 2014-04999AND
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2014-00140)
(4570EAST EISENHOWER CIRCLE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition toapprove (i) Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-
05777to permit a dog daycare and boarding facility with an outdoor play area,and (ii) Variance
No. 2014-04999to allow fewer parking spaces than required by the Anaheim Municipal Code
(the "Code") (collectively referred to herein as the "Proposed Project") for premises located at
that certain real property at 4570 Eisenhowerin the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of
California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit Aand incorporated
herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 0.6acres in size and is currently
developed with an industrial building. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for
Industrialland uses. The Property is located in the Expanded Industrial Area (Development
Area 2) of the Northeast Area Specific Plan Areaand is subject to the zoning and development
standards of Chapter 18.120 (Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1 (SP94-1) Zoning and
Development Standards) of the Code, combined with the zoning and development standards of
the underlying base zone for the Property, which is the "I" Industrial Zone. Unless otherwise
indicated in Chapter 18.120 of the Code, the standards of the “I”IndustrialZone contained in
Chapter 18.10 (IndustrialZone) of the Code shall apply to the Property. The Property is also
located within the Scenic Corridor (SC) OverlayZone, meaning that the regulations contained in
Chapter 18.18 (Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone) of the Code shall apply in addition to, and
where inconsistent with,shall supersede any regulations of the "I" Industrial Zone;and
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project is a use not expressly authorized or permitted
in the Expanded Industrial Area (Development Area 2) of the Northeast Area Specific Plan Area
or the “I” Industrial Zone and is also notauthorized or mentioned in any zone throughout the
City. Pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Planning Director by Section 18.66.040
(Approval Authority) of Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Code and, specifically,
paragraph .0201of Subsection .020 (Unlisted Uses Permitted), the Planning Directorhas found
and determined that the Proposed Project does not fit into an existing use class,as provided in
subsection .020 (Inclusion of Specific Uses) of Section 18.36.020(Classification of Uses), but
may be authorized by conditional use permit until such time as the Code is amended to include
such a use;and
-1-PC2015-***
WHEREAS, as the "lead agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning
Commission finds and determines that the Proposed Project is within that class of projects (i.e.,
Class 1 –Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of
existingpublic or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section
15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Proposed Project will not cause a
significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions
of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2015, the Planning Commission did hold a public
hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim, notice of said public hearing having been
duly given in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear
and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05777 and
Variance No. 2014-04999, and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in
connection therewith; and
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 atsaid hearing with respect to Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05777to permit a dog
daycare and boarding facility with an outdoor play area within an industrial building, does find
and determine the following:
1. Pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Planning Director by Section
18.66.040 (Approval Authority) of Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Code and,
specifically, paragraph .0201 of Subsection .020 (Unlisted Uses Permitted), the Planning
Director has found and determined that the Proposed Project does not fit into an existing use
class, as provided in subsection .020 (Inclusion of Specific Uses) of Section 18.36.020
(Classification of Uses), but may be authorized by conditional use permit until such time as the
Code is amended to include such a use; and
2.The proposed conditional use permit to permit a dog daycare and boarding
facility, as conditioned herein, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth
and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the building is
surrounded by compatible buildings and uses; and
3.The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the dog daycare and boarding facilityin a manner not detrimental to the
particular area or to the health and safety because the facility would be located within an existing
industrial buildingthat is surrounded by other industrial and officeuses.
4.The traffic generated by the dog daycarefacilitywill not impose an undue
burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area
because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the
surrounding streets and adequate parking will be provided to accommodate the use.
-2-PC2015-***
5.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 as the proposed
land use will be integrated with the surrounding industrial uses and would not pose a health or
safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the
request for VarianceNo. 2014-04999toallowless parking than required by the Code in
conjunction with the proposed dog daycareand boardingfacilityshould be approved for the
following reasons:
SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010Minimum number of parking spaces.
(46 spaces required; 10spaces proposed)
1.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer
off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces
necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably
foreseeable conditions of operation of such use. Aparking justification letter was prepared by
the applicant, determining that the current number of parking spaces within the Propertyis
sufficient to accommodate the dog daycare and boarding facility;
2.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the
demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed use because the on-site parking will adequately accommodate the peak parking
demands of the proposed dog daycare and boarding facility;
3.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the
demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed use because the on-site parking for the dog daycare centerwill
adequately accommodate peak parking demands of all uses on the site;
4.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase
traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use
because the project site provides adequate ingress and egress points to the Propertyand are
designed to allow for adequate on-site circulation; and
5.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede
vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed use because the project site has existing ingress or egress access points
that are designed to allow adequate on-site circulation and therefore will not impede vehicular
ingress toor egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the dog daycare and boarding facility.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findingsafter due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
-3-PC2015-***
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does
hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05777 and Variance No. 2014-04999,
contingentupon and subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit Battached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite
to the proposed use of the 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 Code. 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 Code and (iii) the
applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved
development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation
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 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
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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of January 26, 2015Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Chapter 18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be
replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMANPRO-TEMPORE, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-4-PC2015-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on January 26, 2015, by the followingvote of the
members thereof:
AYES:COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS:
th
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 26day of
January, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-5-PC2015-***
-6-PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05777
AND VARIANCE NO. 2014-04999
(DEV2014-00140)
RESPONSIBLE
NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
1The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the area Planning Department,
adjacent to the premises over which they have control, in an
Code Enforcement
orderly fashion through the provision of regular
maintenance and removal of trash or debris.
2The applicant shall ensure that all animal excrement is Planning Department,
collected immediately and disposed of properly.Planning Services Division
3The outdoor play area shall be monitored at all times to Planning Department,
ensure safety and noise control.Planning Services Division
4No required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise Planning Department,
enclosed for outdoor storage.
Code Enforcement
5The business shall be operated in accordance with the Letter
Planning Department,
of Request and Parking Justification Letter submitted as part
Planning Services Division
of this application. Any changes to the business operation
as described in that document shall be subject to review and
approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial
conformance with the Letter of Request and Parking
Justification Letter and to ensure compatibility with the
surrounding uses.
6Any Graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any
Police Department
adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be
removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
7The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to
the processing of this discretionary case application within
Planning Department,
30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the
Planning Services Division
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 may result in the
revocation of the approval of this application.
-7-PC2015-***
RESPONSIBLE
NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT
8The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless
the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents
Planning Department,
(collectively referred to individually and collectively as
Planning Services Division
“Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or
proceedingsbrought against Indemnitees to attack, review,
set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees
concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or
determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or
to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any
condition attached thereto.The Applicant’s indemnification
is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees
and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees
and costs ofsuit, claim or litigation, including without
limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and
expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such
proceeding.
9The Property shall be developed substantially in accordance Planning Department,
with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Planning Services Division
Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with
the Planning Department and as conditioned herein.
-8-PC2015-***
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
DOGTOPIA 4570 EISHENHOWER CIRCLE
DOGTOPIA 4570 EISHENHOWER CIRCLE
DOGTOPIA 4570 EISHENHOWER CIRCLE
DOGTOPIA 4570 EISHENHOWER CIRCLE
FUTURE
PLAYROOM
FUTURE
PLAYROOM
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
From:Don Briscoe
To:Amy K. Vazquez
Subject:dog daycare and boarding facility
Date:Wednesday, January 21, 2015 2:54:25 PM
Attachments:letter.pdf
hi amy,
I am emailing you in regards to the proposed dog daycare facility next to my property. I do not want
to see this facility approved. I do not think that up to 60 dogs being cared for next to my business is
a good idea. I do not want to have to put up with the barking, traffic, lack of parking or smell. don’t
get me wrong I like dogs, I have one. according to a letter (attached) I received the parking lot will
be converted into a 4000 sq ft outside play area. parking is barely sufficient as it is. I have attached a
few photos for you to see how the parking is around here. in addition, I am sure you are aware of
the bridge being constructed and the one end of eisenhower being permanently closed off once
complete this will only add to the traffic.
per the anaheim municipal code a conditional use permit may be awarded upon a finding that:
1. the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses.
2. the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate.
3. the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and
highways.
the proposed dog day care facility does not comply with the three requirements listed above.
thanks,
don briscoe
4562 eisenhower cir
714 448 9014
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.5
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE:JANUARY 26, 2015
SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05770
LOCATION:
280 North Wilshire Avenue (Cambridge Educational Housing)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER
:The applicant is Anizio Silva with
Cambridge Educational Housing.The agent representing the applicant is Ha Nguyen
with Win Nguyen Design Group and the property owner is Xin Wei Lin with
Cambridge Educational Housing, LLC.
REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permitto
convert an elderly residential care facility into educational housingfor international
students.
RECOMMENDATION
:Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
the attached resolution, determining thatthis request is categorically exempt from
further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class
1,Existing Facilities), and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05770.
BACKGROUND:
This 0.7-acre project site is developed with a12,034square foot,
25 bedroomelderly residential care facility. The property is located in theGeneral
Commercial (C-G)zone and the General Plan designates this property forLow
Density Office land uses.The property is surrounded by single-family residences to
thenorth,condominiums to the east, office uses to the west andthe Interstate 5
Freeway to thesouth across WilshireAvenue.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing to convert a vacant elderly care facility to
educational housing for international students. The Cambridge Institute of
International Education is acompany with partnerships with over 200 schools in the
United States. This location would provide housing for approximately 40 students that
would attend Servite High School and Cornelia Connelly High School in Anaheim, St.
John Bosco High School in Bellflower and Junipero Serra High School in Gardena.
Therewould also be three to five residential assistantsthat would be on-site at all
times.
The floor plan indicates the educationalhousing facility wouldinclude 21 student
bedrooms, four employee bedrooms, offices, a kitchen, a dining room, an indoor
recreation room and a courtyard.No exterior changes to the existing building are
proposed.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05770
January 26, 2015
Page 2of 2
Transportation would beprovided for the students by three vans operated by the Cambridge
Institute. The pick-up and drop-off area would belocated withinthree designated carpool van
parking spaces near the entrance of the building. Students would not be allowed to own cars or
bicycles while residing at this facility.
ANALYSIS:
Educationalhousingisnot an anticipated use in the City of Anaheim and was
therefore not listed in the Zoning Code as a permitted use. The Zoning Code provides for the
consideration of a conditional use permit for uses that are not expressly listed when the Planning
Director has determined the use to be compatible with the particular zone. There are single family
residences located to the north and condominiums located to the east of the project site. Staff
believes that the educationalhousing would blend in seamlessly with theadjacentresidential uses
since there are no outdoor activities proposed and transportation would be provided for the students.
The office uses to the west would not be impacted by the educational housing since the students
would be attending school and after-school activities during regular business hours. The letter of
operation also indicates that the facility would bestrictly monitored by live-in staff members who
are trained in international education and residential services.
Parking:Although educational housing is an unlisted use, the Zoning Code includes a parking ratio
for room and boardfacilities.The Code requires the parkingbe calculated by combining one space
per bedroom, one space per employee and one space for visitors. Therefore, the educational
housing facility would require a total of 30 parking spaces and 38 are provided.Since the students
are not allowed to own vehicles while residing at this facility, staff determined that this parking
ratio is appropriate for this use. A condition of approval has been included in the draft resolution
which requires the business to operate in accordance with the applicant’s Letter of Request
submitted as partof this application.Therefore, the parking provided complieswith the City’s
requirements.
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes that the proposed educational housingis compatible with the
adjacentoffice and residentialuses in the surrounding area and the number of parking spaces
provided exceeds the Code requirements. Staff recommends approval of this request.
Prepared by,Submitted by,
Amy VazquezJonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner, Lilley Planning GroupPlanning Services Manager
Attachments:
1.Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution
2.Applicant’s Letter of Request
3.Photographs
4.Site Plan
5.Floor Plan
RS-1
RM-4
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
NE TREE
APTS
24 DU
RM-4
RS-1
IRE CREST
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
APTS
32 DU
RS-1
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
S
C-G
C-G
OFFICES
RM-4
RETIREMENT
CONDOS
FACILITY
163 DU
RM-4
PARK WILSHIRE
APTS
77 DU
C-G
ACANT
C-G
VACANT
050100
°
Aerial Photo:
May 2014
Feet
Subject Property
APN: 255-011-04
DEV No. 2014-00121
280 North Wilshire Avenue
050100
°
Aerial Photo:
May 2014
Feet
Subject PropertyAPN:
255-011-04
DEV No. 2014-00121
280 North Wilshire Avenue
[DRAFT]ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05770
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2014-00121)
(280 NORTH WILSHIRE AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05770
to convert an elderly residential care facility into educational housing (referred to herein as the
"Proposed Project") for that certain real property located at 280 North Wilshire Avenue in the
City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map
attached hereto as Exhibit Aand incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 0.7 acre in size and is currently
developed with an elderly residential care facility. The Anaheim General Plan designates the
Property for Commercial land uses. The Property is located in the “C-G” General Commercial
Zone. As such, the Property is subject to the zoning and development standards described in
Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"); and
WHEREAS, as the "lead agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning
Commission finds and determines that the Proposed Project is within that class of projects (i.e.,
Class 1 –Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of
existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section
15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Proposed Project will not cause a
significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions
of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project is a use not expressly authorized or permitted
in the “C-G” General Commercial Zone and is also not authorized or mentioned in any zone
throughout the City. Pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Planning Director by Section
18.66.040 (Approval Authority) of Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Code and,
specifically, paragraph .0201 of Subsection .020 (Unlisted Uses Permitted), the Planning
Director has found and determined that the Proposed Project does not fit into an existing use
class,as provided in subsection .020 (Inclusion of Specific Uses) of Section 18.36.020
(Classification of Uses), but may be authorized by conditional use permit until such time as the
Code is amended to include such a use; and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2015, the Planning Commission did hold a public
hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim, notice of said public hearing having been
duly given in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear
and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05770 and to
investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
-1-PC2015-***
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 saidhearing with respect to Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05770to permit the
conversion of the improvements located on the Property from an elderly care facility to
educational housing does find and determine the following facts:
1.Pursuant to the authority conferred upon the Planning Director by Section
18.66.040 (Approval Authority) of Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Code and,
specifically, paragraph .0201 of Subsection .020 (Unlisted UsesPermitted), the Planning
Director has found and determined that the Proposed Project does not fit into an existing use
class, as provided in subsection .020 (Inclusion of Specific Uses) of Section 18.36.020
(Classification of Uses), but may be authorized by conditional use permit until such time as the
Code is amended to include such a use.
2.The proposed conditional use permit to allow educational housing, as
conditioned herein, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the building is surrounded
by compatible buildings and uses.
3.The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the educational housing facility in a manner not detrimental to the particular area
or to the health and safety because the facility would be located within a property that is
surrounded by other office and residential uses.
4.The traffic generated by the educational housing facility will not impose an
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the
area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic
on the surrounding streets and adequate parking will be provided to accommodate the use since
the students would not be driving at any time.
5.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 as the proposed
land use will continue to be integrated with the surrounding area and would not pose a health or
safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does
hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05770, contingent upon and subject to the
conditions of approval described in Exhibit Battached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the
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 Code. 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 Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant
progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
-2-PC2015-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation
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 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
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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of January 26, 2015. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Chapter 18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be
replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMANPRO-TEMPORE, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-3-PC2015-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM)
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on January 26, 2015, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES:COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 26th day of
January, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-4-PC2015-***
-5-PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05770
(DEV2014-00121)
RESPONSIBLE
NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
1The student housing facility shall be operated in accordance Planning Department,
with the Letter of Request submitted as part of this application. Planning Services Division
Any changes to the business operation as described in that
document shall be subject to review and approval by the
Planning Director to determine substantial conformance with
the Letter of Request and to ensure compatibility with the
surrounding uses.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
2The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the
processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days
Planning Department,
of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of
Planning Services Division
building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure
to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of
required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval
of this application.
3The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
City and its officials, officers, employees and agents
Planning Department,
(collectively referred to individually and collectively as
Planning Services Division
“Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or
proceedingsbrought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set
aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning
this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations
taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the
reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached
thereto.The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include,
but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded
against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or
litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other
costs, liabilitiesand expenses incurred by Indemnitees in
connection with such proceeding.
4The Property shall be developed substantially in accordance Planning Department,
with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim Planning Services Division
by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning
Department and as conditioned herein.
-6-PC2015-***
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
The Cambridge Institute of International Education
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805
Re: Brief in support of an Educational Housing Facility for High School
Students at 280 N. Wilshire Avenue, Anaheim, CA.
To Whom It May Concern:
The Cambridge Institute of International Education is an international education
consulting company that has partnership with over 200 schools throughout the
United States. We help international students, primarily from China; attend
mission-driven, private American high schools. In addition to improving global
connectedness by introducing young students to American ideals and
philosophies, our business stimulates local American economies by generating
new expenditures, investments and tourism from families overseas.
The Cambridge Institute is a well-regarded company and we’re proud to be
recognized by the Council on Standards for International Education Travel (CSIET)
for meeting their high expectations in regards to providing quality facilitation of
international education relationships.
We at The Cambridge Institute are seeking to run a dormitory/boardinghouse
(Educational Housing Facility) on a property located at 280 N. Wilshire Avenue, a
commercial property located within General Commercial area, currently
structure been used as Elderly Residential Care Facility. This property would
house international students (primarily from China) as well as local high school
students from the United States. The property is under an agreement to purchase.
There are no proposed changes to the “Lot” configuration, only minor or none to
the structure of the inside of the property.
We are partners with the following schools in the area:
1025 Main St, Floor 3, Waltham, MA 02451
www.thecambridgeinstitute.org
Servite High School in Anaheim, Cornelia Connelly High School in Anaheim, St.
John Bosco High School in Bellflower and Junipero Serra High School in Gardena.
We will have 3 minivans on site owned and operated by our own staff members;
these vans will bring and return these students to and from the schools and any
after school activity from Monday to Sunday. The vans will be available 24/7 as
the service of the staff and students.
The pickup and drop off will be in our own parking convenient and secured
located within the property at Wilshire Avenue.
These kids are not allowed to drive nor ride bikes while they are under our
supervision, therefore we don’t have the need of bike racks. However, if this is a
requirement, we will happy to install one on site.
Cambridge is a for-profit educational corporation which is partnering with a local
private high schools located throughout south California. This partnership seeks
to create a residence for 40+ students and 3-5 on site residence
assistants/directors.
We are ready to comply with all requirements to make a safe housing facility, as
well to improve the neighborhood. This dormitory is going to be a quiet housing
with international high school students and will be under supervision at all times
by live-in staff educated and trained in the areas of international education and
residential services. We will also provide transportation from the Housing Facility
to the school on the daily basis.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter and please do not hesitate to
contact us with any questions or concerns. I can be reached
at Asilva@thecambridgeinstitute.org or by phone at 857 200-7296.
Sincerely,
Anizio Silva, R.E. Project Manager
Cambridge Institute of International Education
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
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.6
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE:JANUARY26, 2015
SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05768
LOCATION:
412 WestCarl Karcher Way and 1180 NorthLa Palma Park Way
(GOALS Academy)
APPLICANT/PROPERTYOWNER
:The property owner is Rod O’Connor; the
applicant is David Wilk with GOALS;and the agent representing the applicant is
Christopher Ward with CWA architects.
REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permittopermit a charter
school within an existing office building and two modular classroom buildings.
RECOMMENDATION
:Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from
further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class
1,Existing Facilities), and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05768.
BACKGROUND:
This 0.64-acre property is developed with a10,590square foot,
one storycommercial building. The property is located in theMultiple Family
Residential (RM-4)zone. The General Plan designates this property for Parks land
uses. The property is surrounded by the GOALS facility to the east, avocational
school to the north (across Carl Karcher Way), a neighborhood shopping center to the
west, and La Palma Park to the south,across La Palma Parkway.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to operate
a charter school for elementary school studentswithin an existing one story
commercial building.The program would be licensed by the State of California and
would provide an alternative to the traditional school setting for students. As
described in the applicant’s letter of request, the owner and operator of the school,
GOALS Academy, would operate in conjunction with the existing GOALS facility to
the east. GOALS is a non-profit organization which provides free youth development
programs for low-income youths in the Anaheim area. The organization provides free
facility access, bus transportation, academic programs, a recreation center, career
development programs, sports camps, nutritional education, and various fitness
programs.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05768
January26, 2015
Page 2of 3
The floor plan indicates that the school would include a science room, technology room, art room,
offices, storage, restrooms, andseven classrooms. The applicant also proposes to install two,897
square foot modular buildings for additional classroomspace, for a total of nine classrooms on the
th
property.The charter school would accommodate up to 210 students for Kindergarten through 6
grades. No changes are proposed to the exterior of the building.The easterly parking lot would be
reconfigured to include 13 parking spaces and a drop-off area.The facility would have up to ten
employees, including seventeachers,when the school is expected to be at full capacity in 2018.
Proposed school hours are from 9:00a.m. to 6:00p.m.According to the applicant, approximately
half of the studentswould arrive at the school at 8:15 a.m. and the otherhalf would arrive at 9:00
a.m.In addition, half of the students would depart at 3:00p.m. and the other half would depart at
6:00p.m.,after participating in after school activities at the adjacent GOALS facility.
Three separate student pick-up/drop-off areaswould be provided for the school:inthe main parking
lot driveway along Carl Karcher Way;along the westside of Homer Street (in front of the GOALS
facility);and,along the north side of La Palma Parkway. GOALS employees would be present at all
three pick-up/drop-off locations during the morning and afternoon peak hours in order to safely
monitor pedestrian and vehicular traffic around the site. The school would provide all parents with
written materials regarding pedestrian safety.The school would also require mandatory meetings
with parents and students to explain their drop off safety procedures.A condition of approval has
been included in the draft resolution which requires the business to operate in accordance with the
“School Parking,Drop-Off, and Pick-Up Operations and Safety Plan” submitted as part of this
application.
ANALYSIS:
Educational Institutions are permitted at this location, subject to approval of a
conditional use permit to determine compatibility with surrounding land uses. The applicant chose
this particular location due to its close proximity to the existing GOALS facility to the east. The
applicant proposes to stagger the morning and afternoon schedule and provide three drop-off areas to
minimize traffic congestiononthe surrounding streets.The school willblend in with the adjacent
GOALS facility and would not have an adverse impact onthe surrounding commercial uses. A
condition of approval has been included in the draft resolution to ensure that the school does not use
the City-owned La Palma Park for parking and recreational activities without obtaining prior
approval from the City.
The parking requirement for the schoolis 17spaces; this requirement is based upon one space per
classroom, one space per non-office employee, and one space for office use. The applicant
proposes 13on-site spaces and four additional spaces on the adjacent GOALS property for
employee parking.Additionally, the applicant indicates that approximately half of the students will
utilize public transportation or walk to the site rather than being transported by vehicle.Because 17
spaces would be provided on the two contiguous properties, and because approximately half of the
students would not be transported to the site by vehicle, there will be more than adequate parking
provided for the use.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05768
January26, 2015
Page 3of 3
CONCLUSION:
Staff supports the proposed charter school based on the described operations,
which would blend in with the adjacent GOALS facility. The school would be compatible with the
land uses in the surrounding area and parking is adequate to accommodate the proposed use. Staff
recommends approval of this request.
Prepared by,Submitted by,
David SeeJonathan E. Borrego
Senior PlannerPlanning Services Manager
Attachments:
1.Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution
2.Applicant’s Letter of Request
3.Photographs
4.Site and Floor Plans
C-G
C-G
VACANT
PRESCHOOL
C-G
AUTO
DEALERSHIP
C-G
I
AUTO
INDUSTRIAL
REPAIR/
SERVICE
C-G
BUSINESS
C-G
SCHOOL
CARL'S JR.
C-G
SERVICE
STATION
C-G
RM-4
PALM MOTOR LODGE
PR
MEDICAL OFFICE
PR
SPORTS
VACANT
C-G
FIELD
RETAILRM-4
OFFICES
C-G
MEDICAL OFFICE
C-G
C-G
CHURCH
C-G
RETAIL
RM-4
HALFWAY
PARKING LOT
HOUSE
RM-4
TRIPLEX
PR
VACANT
C-G
CROWN MOTEL
RS-2
MILY RESIDENCE
C-G
VACANT
C-
VACA
RS-2
AMILY RESIDENCE
T
LA PALMA PARK
& STADIUM
C-G
050100
°
Aerial Photo:
May 2014
Feet
Subject Property
APN: 267-131-04
DEV No. 2014-00106
412 West Carl Karcher Way
1180 North La Palma Park Way
050100
°
Aerial Photo:
May 2014
Feet
Subject PropertyAPN:
267-131-04
DEV No. 2014-00106
412 West Carl Karcher Way
1180 North La Palma Park Way
[DRAFT]ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2014-05768 AND
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2014-00106)
(412 WEST CARL KARCHER WAY AND 1180 NORTH LA PALMA PARKWAY)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05768
to permit a charter school within an existing office building and two modular classroom buildings
(referred to herein as the "Proposed Project") for that certain real property located at412 West
Carl Karcher Way and 1180 North La Palma Park Wayin the City of Anaheim, County of
Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit Aand
incorporated herein by this reference (the"Property"); and
WHEREAS,the Property is approximately 0.64 acres in size and is currently developed
with a 10,590 square foot, one story commercial building. The Anaheim General Plan
designates the Property for Parks land uses. The Property is located in the “RM-4” Multiple
Family Residential Zone. As such, the Property is subjectto the zoning and development
standards described in Chapter 18.06(Multiple Family Residential Zones) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code (the "Code")and is a permitted use within the "RM-4" Multiple Family
Residential Zone subject to approval of a conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”) and the State of California
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with
Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "State
CEQA Guidelines"), the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of
environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Proposed Project is
within that class of projects (i.e., Class 1 –Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair,
maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities,
involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this
determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301of the State CEQA Guidelines, the
Proposed Project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on January 26, 2015at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been
duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against the
Proposed Projectand to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection
therewith; and
-1-PC2015-***
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, does find and determine the following factswith respect to Conditional Use Permit
No. 2014-05768:
1.Therequest to permit the Proposed Project is an allowable use within the RM-4
Multiple Family Residential Zone underSubsection .010 of Section18.06.030of the Code
provided that a conditional use permit is approved; and
2.The Proposed Projectwould not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the
growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. The Proposed Project
will operate in conjunction withthe adjacent GOALS facility to the eastand willnot have an
adverse impact to the surrounding commercial uses; and
3.The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the
Proposed Project, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety
because the site can accommodate the parking, traffic,trash collection,and circulation without
creating detrimental effects on adjacent properties; and
4.The traffic generated by the Proposed Projectwill not impose an undue burden
upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the
Proposed Projecthas been designed with three separate drop-off areas so as to minimize traffic
congestion on the surrounding streets; and
5.The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05768under 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, subject to compliance
with the conditions contained herein.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission, for the reasons
hereinabove stated, that Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05768 ishereby approved, contingent
upon and subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit Battached hereto, are hereby
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property under Conditional Use
Permit No. 2014-05768in 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 Code. 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, (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated
significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
-2-PC2015-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation of this
permit may be processedin accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit
Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 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 thisapplication constitutes approval of
the proposed request only to the extent that itcomplies with the Codeand 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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
January 26, 2015. 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.
CHAIRMANPRO-TEMPORE, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-3-PC2015-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on January 26, 2015, by the followingvote of the
members thereof:
AYES:COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS:
th
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 26day of January,
2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-4-PC2015-***
-5-PC2015-***
EXHIBIT“B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05768
(DEV2014-00106)
RESPONSIBLE
NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
1All backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street Public Utilities,
setback area inamanner fully screened from all public streetsand alleys.Water Engineering
Any backflow assemblies currentlyinstalled in a vault will have to be
brought up tocurrent standards. Any other large water systemequipment
shall be installed to the satisfaction ofthe Water Engineering Division
outside of thestreet setback area in a manner fully screenedfrom all public
streets and alleys. Saidinformation shall be specifically shown on plans
and approved by Water Engineering and CrossConnection Control
Inspector.
2A building permit shall be obtained from the Building Division for all Planning Department,
interior and exterior building improvements.Planning and
Building Divisions
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
3The business shall be operated in accordance with the Letter of Request Planning Department,
submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the business Planning Services
operation as described in that document shall be subject to review and and Code
approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial conformance Enforcement
with the Letter of Request and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding Divisions
uses.
4The business shall be operated in accordance with the “School Parking, PlanningDepartment
Drop-Off, and Pick-Up Operations and Safety Plan” submitted as part of
Public Works
this application. Any changes to the operationsas described in that
Department, Traffic
document shall be subject to review and approval by the Planningand
Engineering Division
Public WorksDepartment Directorsto determine substantial conformance
with that document and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses.
5The number of students in attendance at the school shall not exceed 210Planning Department,
persons.Code Enforcement
Division
-6-PC2015-***
RESPONSIBLE
NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT
GENERAL
6The business shall not use La Palma Park for school-related parking and/or Community Services
recreational activities without prior approval fromthe Director of the Department
Community Services Department.
7The subject Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with Planning Department,
plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant Planning Services
and which plans are on file with the Planning Department, and as Division
conditioned herein.
8Any Graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area Planning Department,
under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within Code Enforcement
24 hours of being applied.Division
9Trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable Public Works
to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in Department, Streets
accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage and Sanitation
areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily Division
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. Said information shall be specifically shown on the
plans submitted for building permits.
10Vehicle gates shall not be installed across the project driveway or accessPublic Works, Traffic
roads without providing a vehicle turnaround area.Any proposed gates shall Engineering
be reviewed and approved by the Public Works, Traffic Engineering
Division.
11Conditions of approval related to each of the timing milestones above shall Planning Department,
be prominently displayed on plans submitted for permits. For example, Planning Services
conditions of approval that are required to be complied with prior to the Division
issuance of building permits shall be provided onplans submitted for
building plan check. This requirement applies to grading permits, final
maps, street improvement plans, water and electrical plans, landscape
irrigation plans, security plans, parks and trail plans, and fire and life safety
plans, etc.
12The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing Planning Department,
of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the Planning Services
final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, Division
whichever occurs first.Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in
the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the
approval of this application.
-7-PC2015-***
RESPONSIBLE
NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT
13The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its Planning Department,
officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to Planning Services
individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, Division
actions or proceedingsbrought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set
aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit
or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made
prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or
validity of any condition attached thereto.The Applicant’s
indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees
and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit,
claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other
costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with
such proceeding.
-8-PC2015-***
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
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.7
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE:JANUARY26, 2015
SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05756AND
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05001
LOCATION:
2926 East Miraloma Avenue(AaeroSweet Corporation)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER
:The applicant and property owner is Aaero
Sweet Corporation, and the agent representing the property owner is David Lopez.
REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting aconditional use permittoallow retail sales
of automobiles at an existing wholesale automobile sales business.The applicant is
also requesting approval of a variance to allow fewer parking spaces than required by
the Zoning Code.
RECOMMENDATION
:Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from
further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class
1,Existing Facilities), and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05756and
Variance No. 2015-05001.
BACKGROUND:
This 0.86-acre property is developed with awholesale automobile
business. The property is located in theNortheast Area Specific Plan, Development
Area 1–Industrial Area(SP94-1, DA1). The General Plan designates this property for
Industrialland uses. The property is surrounded by industrial uses on all sides.
The AaeroSweet Company operates a wholesale automobile business at this location
where vehicles are purchased from private parties and then resoldto automobile
auctions in Southern California.After the vehicles are delivered to this location they
are inspected for any damage to the frames and cleaned in preparation for auction.
They are then delivered to the auction locations for sale. No automobile repair is
conducted at this location. There is also an administrative office on the property.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing to modify their business operations to
includeretail sales of automobilesin order tosell vehicles to local credit unionsfor
sale to their customers.The applicant indicates that these types of transactionsrequire
a retail sales license from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Two display
spaces would be reservedfor the display of vehicles as requiredby the DMV.No
physical changes are proposedto the remainder of the propertywhich contains parking
for employees,vehicle inspection and storage areas.The letter of operation states that
these retail sales would comprise a small portion of their business.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05756 AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05001
January26, 2015
Page 2of3
ANALYSIS:
The following is staff’s analysis of the requested entitlements.
Conditional Use Permit:The Zoning Code permits retail automobile sales in this zone subject to
approval of a conditional use permit. The purpose for the retail salesrequestis not to establish a
traditional vehicles sales and display lot, but ratherto allow AaeroSweet to partner with an area
credit union to provide vehicles for sale to credit union customers. In order to sell vehicles to the
credit union, the DMV has required AaeroSweet to obtain a retail license. The primary natureof
the business will remain wholesaling to the auto auctions and will not change with the additionof
retail sales.Two display spaces are required by the DMV;however,the applicant has indicated in
their letter of operation that they will not put advertisements on the vehicles or use promotional
items such as balloons or banners.The business is also proposing to reduce the amount of vehicles
that come to the site. Currently all of the purchased vehicles are brought to the site for an
inspection before being transported to the auction houses. Aaero Sweet’s ownerwill be changing
their business model to ship a large amount of vehicles directly to the auction houses where the
inspections will be performed. This will reduce the number of vehicle deliveries and the number of
vehicles stored on site. Staff has included conditions of approval that limit the location of vehicle
storage and loading/unloading areas. Staff has also included a condition requiring the business to
report back to the Planning Commission in six months demonstrating how they have complied with
the conditions of approval and that there have been no impacts associated with the business
operations. This will be presented as a Reports and Recommendations item and will not be
scheduled as a public hearing.
The land uses surrounding this businessare all industrial in nature. Because the retail component is
for sales to a credit union and not for the general public, the addition of retail sales will not create
any impacts and will not cause the business to be incompatible with the adjacent uses.
The parking requirement for the automobile sales businessis 36spaces and 14spaces are proposed.
The two display spaces would not count as required parking spaces. The business has over 20
employees but most of the employees travel throughout California as purchasers attending auto
auctions and do not work at the property. Because this is a wholesale business and the retail sales
component will be business to business and not advertised to the public, customer parking is not
needed. Adequate parking is provided on site as on average less than 14 employees work at this
location every day. Therefore, staff believes that the additionof retail salesto the wholesale auto
businesswould continue to becompatible with the surrounding land uses.
Staff received threeletters of opposition from nearby business owners. These letters state that
Aaero Sweet employees park on Red Gum rather than on the business property, that vehicle
inventory is also parked on Red Gum, and that delivery vehicles use the center left turn lane on
Miraloma for parking before delivering vehicles to the property. Staff discussed these concerns
with the applicant and as provided in the letter of operation the applicant is proposing a change in
the business model to reduce the number of deliveries and vehicles stored on the property and to
ensure that the required number of parking spaces isavailable on site for employee parking. Based
uponthis proposed change,staff believes that this will alleviate the use of on-street parking and the
need for delivery vehicles to park in the street. The applicant has stated that these changes will be
effective immediately.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05756 AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05001
January26, 2015
Page 3of3
CONCLUSION:
As conditioned, the proposed conditional use permit will becompatible with the
surrounding land uses and the parking willbe adequate to accommodate the proposed use.The
parkingvariance can be justified because of the number ofparking spaces will accommodate the
number of employees on at the business.Additionally, the applicant is proposing changes to the
business operations to reduce the number of vehicles stored on-site and the number of deliveries
made to this location. For these reasonsstaff recommends approval of this request.
Prepared by,Submitted by,
G. Scott KoehmJonathan E. Borrego
Associate PlannerPlanning Services Manager
Attachments:
1.Draft Conditional Use Permit and Variance Resolution
2.Applicant’s Letter of Request/Justification
3.Photographs
4.Site Plan
5.Correspondence Received
SP 94-1
SP 94-1
DA1
DA1
SP 94-1
INDUSTRIAL
OFFICES
DA1
INDUSTRIAL
SP 94-1
DA1
MIRALOMA - RED GUM
BUSINESS PARK
94-1
DA1
A - RED GUM
ESS PARK
SP 94-1
DA1
BUSINESS PARK
SP 94-1
DA1
BUSINESS PARK
SP 94-1
DA1
SP 94-1
INDUSTRIAL
SP 94-1
SP 94-1
DA1
DA1
DA1
INDUSTRIAL
INDUSTRIAL
RELIGIOUS USE
SP 94-1
DA1
INDUSTRIAL
SP 94-1
DA1
INDUSTRIAL
SP 94-1
DA1
INDUSTRIAL
050100
°
Aerial Photo:
May 2014
Feet
Subject Property
APN: 344-331-04
DEV No. 2014-00089
2926 East Miraloma Avenue
050100
°
Aerial Photo:
May 2014
Feet
Subject PropertyAPN:
344-331-04
DEV No. 2014-00089
2926 East Miraloma Avenue
[DRAFT]ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONOF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2014-05756AND
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05001AND MAKINGCERTAIN FINDINGS
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2014-00089)
(2926 EAST MIRALOMA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (hereinafter referred to
as the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified petition for (a) Conditional Use Permit No.
2014-05756topermit retail sales of automobiles at an existing wholesale automobile business,
and(b) Variance No. 2015-05001to permit fewer off-street parking spaces than required by the
Zoning Code(herein referred to collectively as the "Proposed Project") for premises known as
2926 East Miraloma Avenue in the Cityof Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, the
boundaries of which commercial center aregenerally depicted on the map attached hereto as
Exhibit Aand incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property, consistingof approximately 0.86acres, is developed with an
office building and storage areas for awholesale automobile business.The Anaheim General
Plan designates the Property for Industrialland uses. The Property is located in the Industrial
Area (Development Area 1) of the Northeast Area Specific PlanArea andis subject to the zoning
and development standards contained in Section18.120.050of the Anaheim Municipal Code
(the "Code"), combined with the zoning and development standards of the underlying basezone
for the Property, which is the "I" Industrial Zone. Unless otherwise indicated in Section
18.120.050of the Code, the standards of the “I”IndustrialZone contained in Chapter 18.10
(IndustrialZone) of the Code shall apply to the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on January 26, 2015at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having
been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60
(Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional
Use Permit No. 2014-05756and Variance No. 2015-05001, and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, asthe "lead agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning
Commission finds and determines that the Proposed Project is within that class of projects (i.e.,
Class 1 –Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of
existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section
15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Proposed Project will not cause a
significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions
of CEQA; and
-1-PC2015-***
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 Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05756, does find
and determine the following facts:
1.The request for a conditional use permit forretail sales of automobiles at an
existing wholesale automobile businessis properly one for which a conditional use permit is
authorizedunder paragraph .0547 of Subsection .050 (Conditional Uses and Structures) of
Section 18.120.050 [Land Use and Development Standards –Industrial Area (Development Area
1)] of the Code, subject to a conditional use permit.
2.The conditional use permit, under the conditions imposed, will not adversely
affect the surrounding land uses and the growth and development of the area because the
Property is developedwith a wholesale automobile businessand is surrounded by other
industrialuses.
3.The size and shape of the Property is adequate to allow the full operation of the
proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health, safety and
general welfare.
4.The traffic generated by the use would not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because automobile
salesis within a class of uses already anticipated and analyzed for traffic generation on these
streets and highways.
5.The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05756under 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, based upon the parking justification letter submitted by the applicant,
the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for VarianceNo.
2015-05001to permitless parking than required by the Code should be approved for the
following reasons:
SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010Minimum number of parking spaces.
(36spaces required; 14spaces proposed)
1.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not cause fewer off-street
parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to
accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable
conditions of operation of such use.A justification letter was prepared by the applicant,
determining that the current number of parking spacesat the businessis sufficient to
accommodate the uses on the site,including the retail sales;
2.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and
competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
use because the on-site parking will adequately accommodate the parking demands of the
automobile sales business;
-2-PC2015-***
3.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and
competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed use because the on-site parking for the automobile sales businesswill adequately
accommodate peak parking demands;
4.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase traffic
congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use because the
project site provides adequate ingress and egress points to the property and are designed to allow
for adequate on-site circulationthat will accommodate the proposed use; and
5.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not impede vehicular
ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed use because the project site has existing ingress or egress access points that are
designed to allow adequate on-site circulation that will accommodate the proposed use and,
therefore, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public
streets in the immediate vicinity of the business; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution.The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission, for the
reasons hereinabove stated, that Conditional Use Permit No. 2014-05756and Variance No.
2015-05001are hereby approved, contingent upon and subject to theconditions of approval
described in Exhibit Battached hereto, are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the
proposed use of the Property underConditional Use Permit No. 2014-05756and Variance No.
2015-05001in 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 Code. 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, (ii)
the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant
progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any amendment, modification or revocation 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 Code.
-3-PC2015-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 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 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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of January26, 2015. 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.
CHAIRMANPRO-TEMPORE, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commissionof the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheimheld on January 26, 2015, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES:COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS:
th
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 26day of January, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-4-PC2015-***
-5-PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014-05756AND
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05001
(DEV2014-00089)
RESPONSIBLE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT
NO.
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
1.
Vehicles shall only be stored in vehicle storage areas identified on Planning Department,
the site plan. Vehicles may not be parked or stored in any
Code Enforcement
driveway,unmarked parking space, or vehicle pathwayas
Division
indicated on the site plan. Vehicles may not be affixed with signs
or used for advertising purposes.
2.
All vehicle deliveries including loading and unloading shall be Public Works
performed on site.No loading or unloading of vehicles shall occur Department,
in the public right of way. Delivery vehicles shall not block any
Traffic Engineering
part of the public right of way.
Divisions
3.
The seven parking spaces on the north side of the office building Planning Department,
shall be used for Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) vehicle
Code Enforcement
displayandcustomersor employees only, as designated on the site
Division
plan. No vehicle storage shall be allowed in this
customer/employee parking area.
4.
Vehicle display spaces must be provided on the propertyin Planning Department,
accordance with all DMV requirements or specifications.
Code Enforcement
Additional display spaces shall not be permitted.
Division
5.
The business shall be subject to a six (6) month review Planning Department,
commencing from the date of this resolution. Planning Department
Planning Services
staff will report back to the Planning Commission as a “Reports
Division
and Recommendations” (R&R) item on the status of the operation
to ensure no impacts have been created associated with the
business operations.The applicant/business owner shall provide a
letter to the Planning Commission demonstrating compliance with
all conditions of approval. The owner shall pay for the cost of
processing this R&R item.
6.
The property shall be permanently maintainedin an orderly fashion Planning Department,
through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance and
Code Enforcement
removal of trash or debris.
Division
-6-PC2015-***
RESPONSIBLE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DEPARTMENT
NO.
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
7.
The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Planning Department,
City and its officials, officers, employees and agents Planning Services
(collectively referred to individually and collectively as Division
“Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedings
brought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or
any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or
made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness,
legality or validity of any condition attached thereto.The
Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be
limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or
incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation,
including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs,
liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection
with such proceeding.
8.
The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the Planning Department,
processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of Planning Services
the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of Division
building permits for this project, whichever occurs first.Failure
to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required
permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this
application.
9.
The subject Property shall be developed substantially in Planning Department,
accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City Planning Services
of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with Division
the Planning Department, and as conditioned herein.
-7-PC2015-***
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
1/20/2015
City of Anaheim,
The Aaero Sweet Corporation has been doing business in Anaheim for
more than twenty five years buying and selling used cars.
Our current need is to obtain a Conditional Use Permit simply allowing
us to conduct retail used car transactions at our current location. Based
on the Anaheim planning department research on our physical address
this property does indeed qualify for our requested Conditional Use
Permit.
We expect to retail a small amount of used vehicles at this location
strictly through an Internet referral affiliation with the Altura Credit
Union located in Riverside which has offices throughout Southern
California. The Altura Credit Union has entrusted us to service their
credit union members used car needs for more than fifteen years. We
service this account by providing credit union member’s late model
used vehicles (when requested) and we also accommodate these
members by purchasing their used vehicle when they buy or lease a
brand new vehicle. We pay more than a dealer trade-in price which
keeps us in good standing with both the Altura Credit Union and its
members. It is imperative to the Aaero Sweet Corporation that we
preserve this account as it is the largest one we have.
We do not anticipate advertising any of our used vehicles to the open
public as our main business is wholesaling used vehicles through a
Manheim owned auto auction. We also will never place advertising
stickers on any used vehicles for sale or have any promotional items
such as balloons or banners. This location will at no time look like a
traditional retail used car lot.
What the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is requiring of us is that
we have two designated parking spots with two separate signs stating
“For Display Only” which means no employee or customer parking in
these areas.
Our location of 2926 East Miraloma Anaheim, CA 92806 is slightly less
than one acre of land which provides us a huge amount of parking for
employees. Since we purchase our used vehicles direct from
consumers, we accommodate them by going to their home or office to
complete the transaction so customers very rarely come to our location
and consume parking spots.
Designating two parking spots per the DMV requirements will not in
any way force additional employees to park on the street.
Since 2013, the automotive industry has experienced a huge amount of
growth primarily due to consumer confidence and the ability to obtain
financing for a new or used vehicle. Because of the massive growth of
the industry itself we have also experienced record years in both 2013
and 2014. Since this growth is expected again in 2015 we are changing
our business model where we will be shipping a very large amount of
our used vehicles we purchase direct to a Manheim auto auction
located in Anaheim, Fontana, or Riverside.
Currently, we have been purchasing used vehicles throughout the
entire region of Southern California and ship them all to our current
location for a “frame inspection” and possible detail of the vehicle
before they are then sent to one of these three auto auctions. Because
of our increase in volume we have decided to ship the majority of the
used vehicles we purchase direct to one of these auto auctions and
have made arrangements with them to do a frame inspection as part of
what they call a Manheim Condition Report (CR). We have also decided
to have the auto auction detail any of our vehicles if in fact they need
to be detailed. This change in company procedure is effective
immediately.
We are 100% confident the change in our business model will in fact be
a permanent one and we expect at some point 100% of our vehicles will
be shipped direct to a Manheim auction unless there is a special need
to come to our physical address. This change in our business model will
indeed alleviate any future parking issues on our property or on the City
of Anaheim streets as well as ensure all of our neighbors they will have
no issues with parking overflow.
There are no health and safety issues with this proposal and there is no
burden on traffic on Miraloma Avenue or our cross street Red Gum.
We respectfully ask consideration from the City of Anaheim for this
Conditional Use Permit as it is part of the growth of our company as
well as retention of our employees.
Sincerely,
Derek Emery
Chief Executive Officer
Aaero Sweet Corporation
2926 E Miraloma Ave
Anaheim, CA92805
From: David A. Lopez
LOPEZ architects AIA
714 -720 9427
January 16, 2014
Re: Parking Variance
To whom it may concern,
Upon review of the site and the use of the business Aero Sweet Corporation, daily ongoing no
more than 12 to 14 employees and customers park on site at any time. The remainder of the
site is used for storage, picking up, and dropping offvehicles fromthe auction and vehicle
inspections. And at no time is any surrounding business or street parking used.
We are proposing 14 parking spaces for employee and customer parking (and as a whole Aaero
Sweet Corporation has very little to no customer required parking) as well as 2 DMV required
display spaces. Our total proposed parking is 16 spaces which we feel is more than adequate.
Thank you
David A. Lopez
ATTACHMENT
LEGEND
EXIST OFFICE BUILDING: 3267 SQ. FT
VEHICLE STOR. 5645 SQ. FT.
PARKING REQ:
EXIST OFFICE REQ
EXIST VEHICLE STORAGE
AUTO SALES
DISPLAY
TOTAL SPACES REQ.
TOTAL SPACES
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
From:Don Dormeyer
To:Scott Koehm
Subject:RE: Conditional use permit 2014-05756 (dev2014-00089 2926 East Miraloma
Date:Monday, January 19, 2015 12:30:53 PM
Hi Scott
CityofAnaheim,PlanningDepartment
RE:Conditionalusepermit2014-05756(dev2014-000892926EastMiraloma
NO! PLEASENO!
WhenImovedmybusinesstothecornerofMiralomaandRedGumIwasREQUIREDto
provideaspecificnumberofparkingspacesforemployeesandcustomers.AtthetimeI
thoughttherequirednumberofparkingspaceswasexcessive,buttimehasshownthatit
wasaboutright.
OccasionallyafilmproductionhereusesmanyofmyprivatespacesforverylargeGripand
Lightingtrucksorvehicletransportsduringproduction,andweareshortafewofmy
privateparkingspacesforcars.Youwouldthinkthiswouldnotbeanyproblemwithstreet
parkingavailableallalongRedGumStreet.HoweveritisaveryBIGPROBLEMbecause
theparkingonRedGumStreetisfilledbeyondcapacityfromearlymorninguntilmid
afternoon.
Iamtoldbymanyneighborsthathavebeenherelongerthanme,thatthisiscausedby
automotiverelatedbusinessesthatrefusetoallowtheirownemployeestoparkontheir
premisesbecausetheyuserequiredemployeeandcustomerparkingspacesforinventory.
Inadditiontousinguptheirlegallyrequiredparking,thisINVENTORYSTORAGE
sometimesoverflowsonRedGumStreetfurtherreducingtheamountofpublicparkingin
thearea. Thereare,inreality,NOparkingspacesavailablealongRedGumstreet
weekdays,anymore.
SeemstomethattheparkingspacesrequiredforINVENTORYshouldbeinadditionto
parkingforemployeesandcustomers,notinsteadof,justbecausetheinventoryhaswheels.
It'sstillinventory.
OnebusinessshouldNOTbeallowedtohogallthepublicparkingattheexpenseofallthe
otherareabusinesses.
Thishasbecomesuchaproblemthatithasalreadycreatedaresentfulenvironmentinthe
neighborhood,withsignspostedateveryotherbusinessthreateningtowingofany
unauthorizedvehiclesandtheneedforotherbusinessestospendtimecheckingwhois
parkedontheirpremisesandcustomerspaces,intheirprivateparkinglots.
Whenmybusinesshasanoccasionalparkingoverflowforaday,Imakearrangementswith
otherneighboringbusinessesintheareatoUSEandPAYthemfortheuseoftheirprivate
lotparkingbecausethereisNOAVAILABLESTREETPARKINGforMYcustomers.
ToallowANYexceptionintheparkingrequirementforonebusiness,willonlymakethe
problemworseforeveryotherbusinessandtheircustomers.Theparkingrequirements
shouldbeenforcedthesameforeveryone,andtheconstantuseofparkingspacesfor
inventoryinsteadofemployeesandcustomersshouldbestopped.Myinventoryisstored
insidemybuildingoronmypremises,notdisplacingmylegallyrequiredparkingspaces.
Ifthelegallyrequirednumberofbusinessparkingspacesisallowedtoregularlyand
intentionallybe displacedbyinventoryorotheroccupyinguse,thenthelegalrequirement
foraspecificnumberofparkingspaceisirrelevant,andtheplanningdepartment'seffortsat
intelligentplanningwillbeworthless.
Pleasedonotmakethisintolerablesituationworse.
Ifmybusinessbeginstooverflowandnegativelyaffectmyneighbors,Iwillmovetoa
biggermoresuitablelocationnotimposeonmyneighborstosubsidizemybusinessneeds.
.
DonDormeyerPresident
VisualSupportInc
DBARedGumCreativeCampus
2983E.Miraloma
Anaheim CA 92606.
Don Dormeyer
Red Gum Creative Campus
2983 E. Miraloma
Anaheim, CA 92806
Don@RedGumCreativeCampus.com
www.RedGumCreativeCampus.com
From:Bill Mathy
To:Scott Koehm
Subject:permit 2014-05756
Date:Monday, January 19, 2015 11:53:38 AM
Hello Scott,
I am against the request for this company to obtain a retail automobile sales permit. My business is
directly across the street and I have been at this location for 8+ years.
As it stands now, their trucks, car carriers, etc. continually park in the center lane on Miraloma and
make it difficult for eastbound cars to turn left into our business park throughout the normal work day.
Plus their trucks cut through our business park many times weekly for convenience. Additionally the
noise pollution from car alarms is disruptive to my business and annoying. There are plenty of retail
auto business locations in North Orange county. Let them find a suitable retail location for this
segment of their business. For example, I noticed an available lot near Orangethorpe and the 57
freeway. Miraloma avenue is geared towards industrial businesses, not retail activity.
Please take this into consideration when making your decision.
THANK YOU,
Bill Mathy
PRESIDENT
Related Visual, Inc.
2941 E. MIRALOMA AVE., SUITE 3
Anaheim, CA 92806
www.relatedvisual.com
(714) 535-1414
(714) 630-3518 FAX
"Providing AV Sales and Rentals since 1985"
*Projector Lamps
*LCD/DLP Projectors
* Projection Screens
*Portable Sound Systems
*Microphones & more
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
From:John Davis
To:Scott Koehm
Cc:sherri@ciprealestate.com
Subject:Condittional Use Permit No. 2014-05756 (DEV2014-00089)
Date:Wednesday, January 21, 2015 10:39:44 AM
Mr. Koehm,
I am a tenet at 2941 E. Miraloma Ave suites 6 and 7. The above mentioned proposed permit would
create additional parking problems to the current problems we have at this time. No parking is
allowed on Miraloma, in front of the propose business, and the parking on Red Gum is packed at
this time. The only other parking available is in front of my building facing Miraloma directly across
from the proposed business. My property management company has been dealing with people
parking in assigned spot for quite a while.
I feel that retail sales business in this location would add much more congestion and increase the
possibility of infringement on our assigned parking.
John Davis
ITEM NO. 7
NEW CORRESPONDENCE
ITEM NO. 7
NEW CORRESPONDENCE