PC 2018/07/09
City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Agenda
Monday, July 9, 2018
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California
• Chairperson: Bill Dalati
• Chairperson Pro-Tempore: Michelle Lieberman
• Commissioners: John Armstrong, Jess Carbajal, John Gillespie,
Kimberly Keys, Steve White
• Call To Order - 5:00 p.m.
• Pledge Of Allegiance
• Appointments
Planning Commission Chairperson and Chairperson Pro-Tempore
• 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 and Building
Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff report is
also available on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Friday, July 6,
2018, 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 and Building Department
located at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, during regular business
hours.
You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following
e-mail address: planningcommission@anaheim.net
07-09-2018
Page 2 of 4
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,
Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 calendar days after Planning Commission
action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written
form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City
Clerk.
The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public
hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City
Clerk of said hearing.
If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council
at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M.
Planning Commission Appointments
Appointment of a Planning Commission Chairperson (Motion)
Appointment of a Planning Commission Chairperson Pro-Tempore (Motion)
Public Comments
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission or provide public comments on agenda items with the
exception of public hearing items.
07-09-2018
Page 3 of 4
Public Hearing Items
ITEM NO. 2
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2018-00142
(DEV2018-00046)
Location: 2222 East Lincoln Avenue
Request: For a Determination of Public Convenience or
Necessity to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-
premises consumption within a new retail store (Target).
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether the proposed action is Categorically
Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional
environmental documentation per California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1
(Existing Facilities).
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Nick Taylor
njtaylor@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05950
VARIANCE NO. 2018-05100
(DEV2017-00090)
Location: 4880 East La Palma Avenue
Request: The following land use entitlements are being
requested: (i) a conditional use permit to demolish an
existing self-storage facility and construct two five-story
self storage buildings, and to allow a floor area ratio higher
than permitted by the Zoning Code; and (ii) a variance to
allow fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning
Code.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168
of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, the
proposed project is within the scope of Program
Environmental Impact Report No. 348, prepared for the
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Nick Taylor
njtaylor@anaheim.net
Adjourn to Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.
07-09-2018
Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
1:00 p.m. July 5, 2018 (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 hearings accessible 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 and Building 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.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JULY 9, 2018
SUBJECT: PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2018-00142
LOCATION: 2222 East Lincoln Avenue (Target)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Jonathan Redberg of
Target Corporation, represent by Beth Aboulafia of Hinman & Carmichael LLP.
The property owner is NMC Anaheim, LLC, represented by Sanford D. Sigal.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Determination of Public Convenience or
Necessity to permit the sales of alcohol for off-site consumption in conjunction with
a new retail store.
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 Public Convenience or
Necessity No. 2018-00142.
BACKGROUND: This 32.65-acre property is developed with a 364,500 square
foot regional shopping center. The property is within the boundaries of the General
Commercial (C-G) zone. The General Plan designates this property for Regional
Commercial land uses. Surrounding uses include apartment complexes to the south
and east, offices and single-family homes across Lincoln Avenue to the north, and
commercial land uses across State College Boulevard to the west.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to sell alcoholic beverages for off-premise
consumption within a new retail store. This type of alcohol sales requires a Type
21 (Off-Sale General) Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license. The 40,553
square foot retail store, which was formerly occupied with a K-Mart store, would
sell various groceries, health, personal care and beauty products, and home goods.
A small portion of the grocery section located near the rear of the store would
contain beer, wine, and distilled spirits. The applicant’s letter of request indicates
that alcohol sales are expected to generate less than three percent of the store’s
gross sales. The store would be open from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., daily.
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2018-00142
July 9, 2018
Page 2 of 3
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Following is staff’s analysis and recommendation.
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity: In the General Commercial zone, off-sale
alcoholic beverages is a permitted accessory use when integrated within a large market over
10,000 square feet. State law limits the issuance of alcoholic beverage licenses when 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 "public convenience or necessity." A Determination of Public
Convenience or Necessity is required in this case because this property is located within a
reporting district with a high crime rate and there is an over-concentration of licenses in the
census tract as described in more detail below.
Census Tract and Police Reporting District Map
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2018-00142
July 9, 2018
Page 3 of 3
The property is located within Census Tract No. 863.04 which has a population of 4,847. Currently
there are five off-sale licenses and in the tract and only two are allowed. This location is within
Police Reporting District No. 1628 which is 90% above the city average in crime. There have been
two calls for service to this location in the past year, but this store is not yet in operation. The 1/4
mile radius surrounding this location is 345% above the city average in crime. The circumstances
that contribute to a higher than average crime rate are that the area includes several motels and has
a high transient population, resulting in primarily petty theft and drug abuse violations.
The ability to sell alcohol would help meet the demands of patrons who are shopping for other
goods and would offer them a one-stop shopping experience with the convenience of eliminating
the need to go to another store to purchase alcoholic beverages. The applicant will implement
measures to discourage loitering and other unwelcome or illegal behavior. This includes use of
security, cameras, placement of the alcoholic beverages at the rear of the store, and requiring
training for employees. The Police Department has recommended conditions of approval that
correspond with these operational proposals. Staff believes the proposed sales of alcoholic
beverages at the store would provide a convenience to meet the needs of the regional population.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the effects
of the proposed project are typical of those generated 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.
CONCLUSION: The proposed sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premise consumption within
the proposed retail store will provide a convenience to regional shoppers, and the applicant will
implement measures to discourage loitering and other unwelcome or illegal behavior on the
property. Staff recommends approval of this request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Nick Taylor David See
Associate Planner Acting Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Draft Public Convenience or Necessity Resolution
2. Letter of Request and Justification
3. Police Department Memorandum
4. Plans
5. Photographs
C-GDEV 2018-0004 2ANAHEIM TOWNSQUARE
C-GFOURPLEX
C-GRETAIL
C-GANAHEIM TOWNSQUARE
C-GANAHEIM TOWNSQUARE
C-GANAHEIMTOWNSQUARE
C-GRETAIL
O-LMEDICALOFFICE
RS-2SFR
TSFR
O-LRETAIL
O-LOFFICE O-LRELIGIOUS USE
O-LDAY CARERS-2SFR
RS-2SFRO-LMEDICALOFFICE
TSFR TSFR
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
C-GTAMPICOMOTEL
C-GRESTAURANT
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SFR
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
R M -4
B A R K L E Y A P A R T M E N T S
1 6 1 D U
RM-4WESTPORT VILLAAPARTMENTS30 DU
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
TAPTS12 DU
TAPTS24 DU
TWESTPORT GARDENSAPTS24 DU
RM-4APTS8 DU
RM-4FOURPLEX
RM-4APTS6 DU
C-GRETAIL
C-GAUTO REPAIR/SERVICE
RM-4APARTMENTS16 DU
RM-4APARTMENTS16 DU
TAPARTMENTS16 DU
TAPARTMENTS8 DU
TAPTS16 DU
RS-2SFR
C-GRETAIL
RS-2SFR
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
E LINCOLN AVE
S S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D
E WARD TER
E WESTPORT DR
S P E R E G R I N E S T
S R E S E D A
S T
S O L A N A W A Y
E PARAD ISE RD
S L O N D O N C T
E. LINCOLN AVE
E. LA PALMA AVE
E. SOUTH ST
S
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
N
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
S . R I O V I S T A S T
E . B R O A D W A Y
S . S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D
N . S U N K I S T S T
N . R I O V I S T A S T
2 0 0 6 E a s t L i n co l n A ve n u e
D E V N o . 2 0 1 8 -0 0 0 4 2
Subject Property APN: 083-051-14
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeria l Ph oto :Ma y 2 01 6
E LINCOLN AVE
S S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D
E WARD TER
E WESTPORT DR
S P E R E G R I N E S T
S R E S E D A
S T
E PURITAN LNS P R I S C I L L A W A Y
S O L A N A W A Y
E PARAD ISE RD
S L O N D O N C T
S C I T A D E L L L N
E. LINCOLN AVE
E. LA PALMA AVE
E. SOUTH ST
S
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
N
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
S . R I O V I S T A S T
E . B R O A D W A Y
S . S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D
N . S U N K I S T S T
N . R I O V I S T A S T
2 0 0 6 E a s t L i n co l n A ve n u e
D E V N o . 2 0 1 8 -0 0 0 4 2
Subject Property APN: 083-051-14
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeria l Ph oto :Ma y 2 01 6
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2018-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2018-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR
NECESSITY NO. 2018-00142 TO PERMIT A TYPE 21 (OFF SALE GENERAL)
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LICENSE AND MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2018-00042)
(2222 EAST LINCOLN AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (hereinafter referred to
as the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified Petition for Public Convenience or Necessity
No. 2018-00142 to permit the sales of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption in conjunction
with a proposed retail store (herein referred to as the "Proposed Project") for certain real property
located at 2222 East Lincoln Avenure in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of
California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein
by this reference (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property, consisting of approximately 32.65 acres, is developed with
a commercial shopping center. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Regional
Commercial land uses. The Property is located within the General Commercial (C-G) Zone and
is, therefore, subject to the zoning and development standards set forth in Section 18.08.030 (Uses)
of Chapter 18.08 of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on July 9, 2018 at 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 said proposed Public Convenience or
Necessity No. 2018-00142, 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 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 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 Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2018-00142, does
find and determine the following facts:
- 2 - PC2018-***
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 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 the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control ("ABC").
2. Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that the ABC shall deny
an application for a 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 23958.4, "undue concentration" means the case in
which the Property is located in an area where any of the following conditions exist:
(a) The Property is located in a Police reporting district that has a 90 percent
greater number of reported crimes, than the average number of “reported
crimes” (as defined in Section 23958.4) 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 Property
is located does not exceed the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population
in the county in which the applicant premises are located.
(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
Property is 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.
5. The Property is located within Census Tract No. 863.04 with a population of 4,847 that
allows for two off-sale ABC licenses. There are presently five off-sale ABC licenses in the tract.
The Property is located in Police Reporting District No. 1628, which has a crime rate that 90
percent above the City-wide average. The Police Department evaluates these requests based on the
crime rate within a one-quarter mile radius of the Property for the subject site. The crime rate
within ¼ mile of this Property is 345% above the City-wide average based upon calls for service.
Since there is an overconcentration of off-sale licenses in the census tract and the property is within
a high crime area, a determination of "public convenience or necessity" is required to be made for
this request.
- 3 - PC2018-***
6. The proposed sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premise consumption within in
conjunction with a large market over 10,000 square feet is a compatible use within the surrounding
area and is consistent the goals of the General Commercial land use designation. In addition, the
ability to sell alcohol would help meet the demands of patrons who are shopping for other goods
and would offer them a one-stop shopping experience with the convenience of eliminating the
need to go to another store to purchase alcoholic beverages.
7. The determination of "Public Convenience or Necessity" can be made based on the
finding that the license requested is consistent with the Planning Commission guideline for such
determinations and further that the granting of the determination of Public Convenience or
Necessity under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the
citizens of the City of Anaheim.
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 Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2018-00142, contingent upon and subject to the
conditions of approval described in Exhibit B attached 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.
- 4 - PC2018-***
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 July 9, 2018. 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.
CHAIRPERSON, 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 July 9, 2018, by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 9th day of July, 2018.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2018-***
EXHIBIT “A”
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2018-00142
(DEV2018-00042)
- 6 - PC2018-***
EXHIBIT “B”
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2018-00142
(DEV2018-00042)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
1 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type,
including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting
or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays
of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior
shall constitute a violation of this condition.
Police Department
2 The area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the
total display area in a building. Police Department
3 No display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside of a
building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. Police Department
4 The possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the
consumption of alcoholic beverages are prohibited on or around these
premises.
Police Department
5 Any Graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent
area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over
within 24 hours of being applied.
Police Department
6 Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to
prevent the loitering of persons around the premises. Police Department
7 There shall be no pay to play amusement machines or video game
devices maintained upon the premises at any time. Police Department
8 The petitioner(s) shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the
area adjacent to the premises over which they have control, as depicted
on the submitted plans.
Police Department
9 Managers / Owners need to call the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control and obtain LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs
Program), RBS, or similar certificate training for themselves and
register employees. The contact number for ABC is 714-558-4101.
Police Department
10 The 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 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.
Police Department
- 7 - PC2018-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
11 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the
processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the
issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits
for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall
result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the
revocation of the approval of this application.
Planning Department
12 The Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the
applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department
and as conditioned herein.
Planning Department
13 The 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 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.
Planning Department
PROJECT REQUEST/DESCRIPTION
TARGET – 2222 East Lincoln Ave., Anaheim 92806
Target Corporation (“Target”) is applying for a conditional use permit to allow the sale of alcoholic
beverages for off-site consumption at the new Target retail store opening in the Anaheim Town Square
Shopping Center in July 2018. Because the store is located in an area that has an “undue concentration”
of off-sale licenses under Section 23958.4 of the Business and Professions Code, Target is also
requesting a determination that public convenience or necessity will be served by the issuance of the
new license.
The addition of a new Target retail store in the Anaheim Town Square Shopping Center will contribute to
the overall vitality of the Center and provide greater shopping opportunities for East Anaheim residents.
The new 40,553 square foot store will occupy a portion of the building space previously occupied by K-
Mart and will employ approximately 60 Target team members. The store hours will be 7 a.m. to
midnight daily, with extended store hours during the holiday season.
The “Anaheim East” Target will be the third small-format Target store to open in Orange County. Two
other small-format Target stores opened last year in Irvine and Orange. The new-format stores are
designed meet the needs of urban shoppers while providing the same type of quality products found in
traditional Target stores. The new Anaheim East Target will offer an assortment of groceries, health,
personal care and beauty products, baby care items, apparel and accessories, home décor items,
electronics products, toys and sporting goods. The store will also have a Starbucks and a CVS pharmacy.
In conjunction with the grocery selections, Target would like to be able to offer customers the ability to
purchase alcoholic beverages. The addition of alcoholic beverages will offer customers a more complete
shopping experience and will provide a convenience to Target’s customers by eliminating the need for
an additional stop. The two other Target stores in Anaheim both sell alcoholic beverages as part of their
grocery offerings and it is a convenience Anaheim Target shoppers expect.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
Justification for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity
Target – 2222 East Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92806
1. What is the primary purpose of your business? Is the sale of alcohol an
essential part of the primary purpose of the business?
Retail sales are the primary purpose of the business. Target stores sell a broad array of
general merchandise and consumables. Alcoholic beverage sales are incidental to the
general retail business, but provide customers with the convenience of one-stop shopping.
The two other Target stores in Anaheim both sell alcoholic beverages; it is product local
residents expect to find at Target.
2. Are there similar businesses or a concentration of alcohol outlets in the
immediate area that already provide alcohol service? If so, how would public
convenience or necessity be served by permitting an additional license within the
census tract?
The only other alcohol outlets in the immediate area that sell beer, wine and distilled spirits are
liquor stores that sell alcoholic beverages as their primary business and a small specialty
market. There are no similar businesses offering the full-range and type of merchandise as
Target.
3. Is there a residential neighborhood or school adjacent to the property for which
you are requesting a public convenience or necessity determination? If so, please
explain how permitting an additional license would not disproportionately impact an
adjacent residential neighborhood or school.
Residential properties are located to the south, behind the Target store, and are separated by
an alley and a concrete wall. The proposed addition of alcoholic beverages sales at the store
will not adversely affect the neighboring residential properties because alcohol sales are
accessory to the retail store operations and there are other compatible commercial uses
surrounding the Target store.
4. What percentage of your business do you anticipate will be alcohol sales?
Alcoholic beverage sales are estimated to be less than 3% of total sales.
5. Does your business cater to a specific need or specialty which is not currently
available in the area?
Target offers convenient one-stop shopping for everyday essentials for nearby residents.
6. Are you proposing any specific operational measures to eliminate or limit any
potential negative consequences from the sale of alcoholic beverages?
All Target sales employees receive training on responsible alcohol beverage sales. In
addition, there are Target security personnel monitoring the store and video surveillance
cameras throughout the store.
7. What type of license are you requesting from ABC? Is it an existing license?
Where is the license being purchased from?
Target is applying for a Type 21 off-sale general license. The Type 21 license was obtained
through the ABC’s annual priority license drawing.
City of Anaheim
INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
To: Nicholas J. Taylor/Planning Department
Case No.: DEV 2018-00046/PCN 2018-00142
Target
2222 E. Lincoln Ave.
Date: May 23, 2018
From: Lieutenant Brian McElhaney
Anaheim Police Department
Vice, Narcotics and Criminal Intelligence Section Commander
Contact: Name: Civilian Investigator Michele Irwin
Phone: 714-765-1461
Email: mmirwin@anaheim.net
The Police Department has reviewed the above case. Please see the following comments and conditions
for more information:
COMMENTS:
The Police Department has received an I.D.C. Route Sheet for DEV 2018-00046/PCN 2018-
00142. The applicant requests to permit beer and wine sales for off-site consumption at a Target
store.
The location is in Census Tract Number 863.04 which has a population of 4,847. This population
allows for 5 on-sale Alcoholic Beverage Control licenses and there are presently 3 licenses in the
tract. It also allows for 2 off-sale licenses and there are presently 5 licenses in the tract.
This location is within Reporting District 1628 which is 90% above the city average in crime.
There have been 2 calls for service to this location in the last year and they consisted of: 1 assault,
and 1 petty theft.
The ¼ mile radius surrounding this location is 345% above the city average in crime.
The calls for service primarily consisted of: 74 petty thefts, 50 drug abuse violations, 29 simple
assaults, and 23 auto burglaries.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The Police Department requests the following conditions be placed on the Conditional Use Permit:
1.
There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any
kind or type, including advertising directed to the
exterior from within, promoting or indicating the
availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of
alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to
the exterior shall constitute a violation of this
condition.
Police Department
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
2.
The area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not
exceed 25% of the total display area in a building. Police Department
3.
No display of alcoholic beverages shall be located
outside of a building or within five (5) feet of any
public entrance to the building.
Police Department
4.
The possession of alcoholic beverages in open
containers and the consumption of alcoholic beverages
are prohibited on or around these premises.
Police Department
5.
Any Graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or
on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee
shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of
being applied.
Police Department
6.
Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in
an effort to prevent the loitering of persons around the
premises.
Police Department
7.
There shall be no pay to play amusement machines or
video game devices maintained upon the premises at
any time.
Police Department
8.
The petitioner(s) shall be responsible for maintaining
free of litter the area adjacent to the premises over
which they have control, as depicted.
Police Department
9.
Managers / Owners need to call the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control and obtain LEAD
(Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs Program),
RBS, or similar certificate training for themselves and
register employees. The contact number for ABC is
714-558-4101.
Police Department
10.
The 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 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.
Police Department
Concur:
Office of Chief of Police
f:\home\mmirwin\ DEV2018-00046 2222 E Lincoln Ave Target.doc
9 6 0 A t l a n t i c A v e n u e
A l a m e d a , C A 9 4 5 0 1
T e l 5 1 0 8 6 5 8 6 6 3
F a x 5 1 0 8 6 5 1 6 1 1
R
1000 NICOLLET MALL
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403
Drawn By
Checked By
Project Number
Proto: N/A Version:N/A Config:N/A
KEYPLAN
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
MBH PROJECT: 52204
8/31/2017 2:44:32 PM
G006
An
a
h
e
i
m
E
a
s
t
,
C
A
AD
D
R
E
S
S
OVERALL SITE PLAN
FROM SHELL
PACKAGE
PERMITTED PER PER
BLD2017-02513
Checker
Author
T-3274
NOT F OR C ON STR U C T ION. JU ST F OR RE F EREN C E. PER BL D 2017 -0 2 513 Date No. Description
TARGET
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
22
0
f
t
18
3
f
t
f\
-d'
sv
I
LI
l'1Ay Wtt92v7d)h- I2JTIOO 1JVJ
[-\ E \-'t \ q\/ \E\
tllfz
9q<tszNZ -o)g Q<k 2.o"Hl-=>Y llJ ni [l
HEN*
IIJt,
:)Ioot
m
oFo'rI
o-oF
;eHqtig*
=PHU3H?r
Q$qBu
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
NO. 5
tlLOOIrv')coo it?!8
E
$
-I__J t_l-,..I
roA)
sq
=
_1, IJ- l lJtvlclr-lr IIEHI-r- \-stutns */$/tn ga_t{=iaaSrsKLro kR€-q->u5sboo\Q(l
.d
x!4|i,^ q
;sEvSiF**
lo{
n8=(4taQrt
I
F
u
sls 3
$;H Hg;s:E n
s$s:S $
FsipE i
"ub:EEadSo$* iS
[$Eiq$F
i:$$s$F65\{aqSiBIFE.*:
UVA310@ .bhSs
l'3 VWt!t,V7d)
"ln
\\1d
'tin @oil
tf)\r
E
D , @si
/$
.lt
$ll
)
vi
fr1aL
,otEilii
d
d\AF/=\ c/ Sf |o) \
\e,/
tva vil1701
-r
r-r rr * '
T I I r ii.\rlt\
B
sO)vF-N(r)COco^iE6C9NN(oo)(n!sEOotLr)
d
(ooo)
(DD
E
IOa
c
u)
Es
coO
E
-s
oE
O
o)
c.)d
CO
N
s(o
@
t-
F.i.t
s
OcoA\
bo
o)+
+
t'oc(Uc
9
+CE
c:
+
Lll
+N
NNb
(tr
a
(5
E-
q)
R
;
@o
=
@o-(tr
c)
g,
6rn
I
c-o
Oc
=ul
N
NN
Oas
LO
rod:.llEU0tNNrJfN-d{.SHI38N : ':iIAOIHN t:ulETIIt1iitr"lelfrtat=t<ib
J
e-_
=),r!:6Pr -
d
\
slqr o-
=
Fz
Io
I ;tr"4I
1
st-
t
seJ#
u,
:F
$A.49
f:---'
Ih
\e\4
7Yr'
iolg$BOvoNn
=l{ c.{i
l.t'{ ?j
Yn,
id,
E
iIei<tzl5teluril6-o-E\-. <.i-i u.,.l e\\o sOciE.(,
(o
F-.
-l lr.izxuJ 0-2iOF
3uY'id6}rvtlsil lt-ryryry': sfiEi iEi
uJlzlu)<o+ tR0 d?k2uHr-=>Y l|J,'i tU
#$N*
-1-
i:.{4t
qqfwr!-XVOS
-!,--?-----f-d
bl
PT
Tf
G
fisoeel1-'.. .. .--'
:-,-
iI
sqFrs
1.r
.t
L o - NORTH VIEW FRONT ENTRANCE TO TARGET (2222 E LINCOLN AVE)
^)J. r NORTH wEsT vIEw oF' TARGET (2222 E. LINCOLN AVE)
4. - NORTH EAST VIEW SHOP UNDER CONST (22268. LINCOLN AVE)
-5. - sourH SIDE vIEw BACK oF TARGET (LoADING DocK)
;-
l-.us,."
S.W. VIEW BACK OF FASHION/GOODWILL (2084.2090 E. LINCOLN AVE)
nI o - S.E. BACK VIEW SHOP U.C. LOADING DOCK Q270-78 E. LINCOLN AVE)
- s.E. vrEw BACK oF sHop UNDER CONST (2226 E. LINCOLN AVE)
9 . r N.E. VIEW DISCOUNT SHOP/INC TA)VOF F (2270-78 E LINCOLN AVE)
L 0. - N.E. vrEw u.s. posr oFFrc n (n20E. LTNC'LN AVE)
1 1. r S.E. VIEW FITNESS CENTER PARKING LOT (22808 LINCOLN AVE)
12. ' NORTH VIEW DISCOUNT SHOP/SHOES (22s0E. LINCOLN AVE)
L 3. - EAST vr'w AUT' .ENTER (2312 E. LTNCOLN AVE)
14. r N'RTH EAST vrEw rHop REST,N (z2s0'. LTNC'LN AVE)
15. - NORTH EAsr vIEw vAc BLDG (2310 E. LTNCOLN AVE)
16. r NORTH VIEW BURGER KING REST'N (22r0E. LINCOLN AVE)
17. -NORTH VIEW FASHION/GOODWILL (2084-2090 E. LTNCOLN AVE)
18.- WEST VIEW JEWEL/SALON/REST'N/OPTIC (2160-2174 E. LINCOLN AVE)
19 . - WEST VIEW SALON/NAILS/OFFICE (2r82-2rs8 E. LINCOLN AVE)
20o - wESr vr'w REST'N/SPA (2190-2198 E. LTNCOLN AVE)
21. ' WEST VIBW REST'N/VAC SHOP (2r0s-2r20 E. LII{COLN AVE)
ti
\:'
22o - NoRTH WEST vIEw KFC REST'N (20268. LINCOLN AVE)
23. r WEST VIEW REST'NA/AC SHOP (2rr4-2r20 E. LINCOLN AvE)
24o- WEST VIEW KARATEIREST'N/SALONIDENTIST (2122-388. LINCOLN AVE)
25. ' WEST VIEW CAR RENTAL/DENTIS T (2r46-2rs6E. LINCOLN AVE)
26.- SOUTH VIEW AUTO PARTS/SHOES/CLOTHING (20ss- T2E.LINCOLN AVE)
27 .- SOUTH VIEW GNC/CLEANERS/SALON/UPS (2034-20s0 E. LINCOLN AVE)
28. - sourH vr'w
''*ERMARKET
(2030 E. LTNC'LN AVE)
29 . ' *EST vr'w BANK (220 srATE ..LLEGE BL)
ttlJ l,ro- WEST VIEW CELL/CAFE/DELI/ICE CREAM (2r2-2r8 STATE COLLEGE BL)
3 1. - NORTH VIEW REST'N/CELLULAR (2008-2016 E. LINCOLN AVE)
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JULY 9, 2018
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05950 AND
VARIANCE NO. 2018-05100
LOCATION: 4880 East La Palma Avenue (Public Storage)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The owner and applicant is Public Storage,
represented by Bryan Miranda.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to
demolish an existing self-storage facility and construct two 5-story self-storage
buildings totaling 393,040 square feet, while exceeding the maximum amount of floor
area ratio (F.A.R.) permitted by the Zoning Code, and to permit a variance to allow
fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution, determining that the proposed project is within the scope of
Program Environmental Impact Report No. 348, prepared for the Anaheim Canyon
Specific Plan, and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05950 and Variance
No. 2018-05100.
BACKGROUND: The 3.5-acre property is developed with an existing 67,939 square
foot self-storage facility. The site has a General Plan designation of “I” Industrial and
is in the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan (ACSP) No. 2015-1, Development Area 1
(Industrial Area – DA 1). Surrounding land uses include industrial land uses to the east
and west, offices to the north across La Palma Avenue, and the Santa Ana River Flood
Control Channel to the south.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to demolish all existing self storage buildings
to allow for the constructiion of a new 5-story, 393,040 square foot self-storage facility.
The facility would consist of two buildings constructed in two phases. Both buildings
would be 196,520 square feet and include an 1,800 square foot leasing office. There
would be 50 parking spaces, plus two loading areas, with one near the primary entrance
for each building. Phase I would include the demolition of three buildings on the east
half of the property. Phase II would include demolition of the remaining buildings on
the west half of the property and the construction of Building 2.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05950 AND VARIANCE NO. 2018-05100
July 9, 2018
Page 2 of 7
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05950 AND VARIANCE NO. 2018-05100
July 9, 2018
Page 3 of 7
As part of the Phase I construction, a new driveway with access on La Palma Avenue would be
constructed near the center of the property frontage. During construction of Building 1, the new
driveway would be used for customer access to the existing units. The existing driveway on La
Palma Avenue, near the northeast corner of the property, would be used for construction access
for Building 1. When Building 1 is near completion, the existing driveway at the northeast corner
would be demolished, and the landscaping in that area completed. Phase II would include
demolition of the remaining buildings on the west half of the property and the construction of
Building 2.
The proposed 5-story buildings are designed with a contemporary architectural style and would
include a plaster finish with orange and earthtone colors, split-face block, faux windows, spandrel
glass, and storefront glass. The drawing below illustrates the proposed elevation of Building 1 as
viewed from La Palma Avenue. A detailed Development Summary is provided as Attachment No.
1 to this report.
The site would be secured by Code compliant wrought iron fencing and electronic vehicular access
gates, which would be open during business hours. The proposed hours for customer access and
the rental office would be from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; and 8:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday.
A seven foot right-of-way dedication would be required along La Palma Avenue. Parkway
landscaping and a sidewalk would be installed within the dedication area before the completion of
Phase 1.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05950 AND VARIANCE NO. 2018-05100
July 9, 2018
Page 4 of 7
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit,
it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions
exist:
1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is
authorized by the Zoning Code;
2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the
growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the
particular area or health and safety;
4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden
upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the
area; and
5) 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 Zoning Code allows self-storage facilities in “DA-1” of the ACSP subject to approval of a
conditional use permit. The purpose of the conditional use permit is to ensure that the self-storage
facility is compatible with surrounding uses, designed with high quality architectural features, and
functions without impacts to surrounding properties. The proposed project would significantly
improve the overall appearance of the property as compared to the existing single-story buildings
with drive-up storage units. Staff anticipates that the proposed project would have a positive
community impact as it would improve the appearance of the site, result in a positive investment
in the area, and meet a strong market demand to provide enclosed, climate-controlled storage units
for the community. Based on these design features and improvements, staff believes that the
proposed use would be compatible with the surrounding area and recommends approval of the
conditional use permit.
Timing: Code requires that the establishment of a use or approved structure shall occur within
one year of the effective date of permit approval, unless a different time period is approved by the
Planning Commission as part of the approval. The applicant is requesting an approval for a period
of six years for the proposed project. Given the large scope of the project split into two phases,
and the inherent complexity of maintaining operation of the existing use during construction, the
applicant requests the flexibility to continue with the project should it be unfeasible to complete
construction within a year from approval. Staff supports this request for a six year approval.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05950 AND VARIANCE NO. 2018-05100
July 9, 2018
Page 5 of 7
City Council Policy No. 7.2: The siting of self-storage facilities is subject to City Council Policy
7.2 for Self-Storage Facilities. The Council Policy specifies that these uses may be permitted in
the “I” Industrial Zone subject to approval of a conditional use permit. The Policy was adopted to
ensure that self-storage facilities were not sited on land that was suitable for more productive land
uses. The policy further states that these facilities are most appropriate for irregularly-shaped
properties which may be constrained by accessibility or visibility, and which may not be suitable
for conventional types of development. Self-storage facilities may be conditionally permitted
provided the use is appropriate and compatible with surrounding land uses, the architecture is of
high quality, and the project is in conformance with all Zoning Code development standards
(including setback and landscaping). The project complies with these Council Policy provisions
(with the exception of irregular lot shape) based on the following elements:
A high quality design of the new building is proposed
The building mass incorporates various architectural elements, utilizing colors and
materials that will complement the area
The project will remove the outdated architectural design that currently exists on the site
The site layout, building height, substantial setback from residential uses, and
architectural design will be compatible with adjacent industrial and office uses
While determining conformance with this Policy, an important consideration is the fact that the
property has an existing self-storage use that was built in 1983. Since the site has already been
operating as a self-storage facility for 35 years, staff believes that continuing the use did not pose
a conflict with the City Council Policy. Further, the proposed site improvements, such as new well
designed buildings, right-of-way dedication and improvement, and new landscaping would be a
significant improvement to the area as compared to the existing conditions.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio: The applicant also requests a new development with a 2.61 F.A.R.
which exceeds the maximum 0.5 F.A.R. allowed by the Zoning Code. The purpose of the F.A.R.
limit is to regulate development intensity to ensure that build-out of the community does not cause
an overburden to the local public infrastructure. The Code stipulates that the maximum F.A.R.
may be exceeded subject to approval of a CUP. The CUP process allows staff to review proposed
F.A.R. deviations on a case-by-case basis. The 3.5-acre lot would limit the amount of floor area
on the site to 76,230 square feet. The new facility would provide 393,040 square feet of floor area,
or a 2.61 F.A.R. of storage and office use. Based on the low intensity of the proposed self-storage
use, staff has determined that impacts to the surrounding infrastructure (traffic, sewer, and storm
drain systems) will not be adversely impacted. Impacts to utilities (water, electricity, and natural
gas) will not result in the same impacts generated from typical industrial businesses with more
intense manufacturing or assembly uses. Staff believes with the recommended conditions of
approval, the proposed use would be compatible with the surrounding area and recommends
approval of the self-storage facility with a F.A.R. which exceeds Code requirements.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05950 AND VARIANCE NO. 2018-05100
July 9, 2018
Page 6 of 7
Variance: Before the Planning Commission may approve the parking variance, it must make a
finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that the following conditions exist:
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;
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;
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 (which property is not expressly
provided as parking for such use under an agreement in compliance with
subsection .030 of Section 18.42.050 (Non-Residential Uses- Shared Parking
Arrangements));
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; 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.
The Zoning Code requires 108 parking spaces for a storage facility of this size and 50 spaces are
proposed. The applicant submitted a parking study prepared by LSA Associates dated March 1,
2018 to justify a deviation in the parking code requirement. Based on parking surveys conducted
at three similar multi-story self storage facilities with indoor storage units, the study concluded
that there would be an actual peak demand of 35 spaces at this facility, resulting in a surplus of 15
spaces. This conclusion is based upon an estimated parking demand of 0.09 spaces per 1,000
square feet of floor area for multi-story self storage facilities; whereas the City’s Code requirement
is 0.27 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Based on this information, staff finds that there would be
adequate parking for the proposed project and supports the parking variance request.
Environmental Impact Analysis: A checklist has been prepared for the proposed project pursuant
to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. The checklist
determined that the proposed project is within the scope of Program Environmental Impact Report
(PEIR) No. 348, prepared for the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan (ACSP). PEIR No. 348 addresses
impacts associated with implementation of new development envisioned under the ACSP through
mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) No. 312.
Staff has prepared Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 355 (MMP No. 355) for the proposed project.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05950 AND VARIANCE NO. 2018-05100
July 9, 2018
Page 7 of 7
MMP No. 355 consists of measures from MMRP No. 312. Implementation of MMP No. 355 would
be a conditional of approval for the proposed project and would ensure that all project-related
impacts would be less than significant.
CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the conditions exist for the Planning Commission to make
the required findings to approve this request. The proposed 393,040 square foot, 5-story self-
storage facility is designed in a manner that will provide an architecturally-enhanced, self-storage
facility that is is compatible with surrounding land uses. Staff recommends approval of the
proposed request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Nick Taylor David See
Associate Planner Acting Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Development Summary
2. Draft Conditional Use Permit and Variance Resolution
3. Environmental Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 355
4. Applicant’s Letter of Request
5. LSA Parking Study
6. Site Photographs
7. Complete Plan Set
8. Correspondence
SP 2 015-1DEV 2017-0009 0SELF STORAGE FACILITY
SP 2015-1DA1RELIGIOUS USE
SP 2 015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL SP 2015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL
SP 2015-1DA1OFFICES
SP 2 015-1DA1OFFICES
SP 2 015-1DA1OFFICES
SP 2 015-1DA1OFFICES
SP 2 015-1DA6SANTA ANA RIVER
SP 2015-1DA1SANTA ANA RIVER
SP 2015-1DA1INDUSTRIAL
SP 2015-1DA6SANTA ANA RIVER
E LA PALMA AVE
N
H A N
C O C K
S T
N M A N A S S E R O S T
E. LA PALMA AVE
N
.
L
A
K
E
V
I
E
W
A
V
EE.SA N T A A N A C ANYON RD
E . R I V E R D A L E A V E
E. MIRALOMA AVE
E. ORANGETHORPE AVE
4 8 8 0 E a s t L a Pa lm a A v e n u e
D E V N o . 2 0 1 7 -0 0 0 9 0
Subject Property APN: 346-192-15
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeria l Ph oto :Ma y 2 01 6
E LA PALMA AVE
N
H A N
C O C K
S T
N M A N A S S E R O S T
E. LA PALMA AVE
N
.
L
A
K
E
V
I
E
W
A
V
EE.SA N T A A N A C ANYON RD
E . R I V E R D A L E A V E
E. MIRALOMA AVE
E. ORANGETHORPE AVE
4 8 8 0 E a s t L a Pa lm a A v e n u e
D E V N o . 2 0 1 7 -0 0 0 9 0
Subject Property APN: 346-192-15
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeria l Ph oto :Ma y 2 01 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
Development Standard ACSP DA-1 Zone Standards Proposed Project
Site Area --- 3.5 acres
Floor Area 400 sq. ft. min. 393,040 sq. ft.
Max. Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) 0.5 2.61*
Building Setback (to Arterial)
La Palma
15 ft. 75ft.-9 in.**
Building Height 60 ft. 60 ft.
Parking 108 spaces
plus loading spaces (unspecified)
50 spaces**
Plus 2 loading spaces
*May be increased by CUP
** Variance request
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
- 1 - PC2018-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2018-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05950
AND VARIANCE NO. 2018-05100 AND MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2017-00090)
(4880 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05950 to permit
the construction of a new 5-story self-storage facility, including an increase in the maximum floor
area ratio (F.A.R.) allowed by the Zoning Code, and Variance No. 2018-05100 to permit fewer
parking spaces than allowed by the Zoning Code (collectively, the "Proposed Project") for
premises located at 4880 East La Palma Avenue in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State
of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated
herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 3.5-acres in size and is developed with single-
story self-storage buildings. The Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan designates the
Property for Industrial land uses. The property is located within the Anaheim Canyon Specific
Plan (ACSP) No. 2015-1 "DA-1". As such, the Property is subject to the zoning and development
standards described in Chapter 18.120 (Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan) of the Anaheim Municipal
Code (the “Code”). Self-storage facilities or uses are conditionally permitted within the “DA-1"
subject to special provisions related to such uses set forth in City Council Policy No. 7.2 (Self-
Storage Facilities); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council Policy No. 7.2 (Self-Storage Facilities), self-storage
facilities "are most appropriate for irregularly-shaped properties which may further be constrained
by accessibility or visibility and which may not be suitable for conventional types of development
. . . [and may be conditionally permitted in the "C-G" or "I" Zones] provided there does not appear
to be other viable or strategic uses of the property, the architecture of the facility is of high quality,
the use is appropriate and compatible with its surrounding land uses, and the facility is in
compliance with all Zoning Code Development Standards (including setbacks where possible,
signage and landscaping . . . ."); and
WHEREAS, if approved, Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05950 and Variance No. 2018-
05100 will allow for an increased floor area ratio (2.61 F.A.R.), and reduced parking spaces, as set
forth in Sections 18.120.060 (Floor Area Ratio, Residential Density and Structural Height) and
18.42.040 (Non-residential parking requirements) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as
“CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedure
Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental
documents for the Proposed Project; and
- 2 - PC2018-***
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local
CEQA Procedure Manual, a checklist has been prepared for the proposed project pursuant to
Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. The checklist
determined that the proposed project is within the scope of Program Environmental Impact Report
(PEIR) No. 348, prepared for the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan (ACSP). PEIR No. 348 addresses
impacts associated with implementation of new development envisioned under the ACSP through
mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) No. 312;
and
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local
CEQA Procedure Manual, a Mitigation Monitoring Program ("MMP No. 355") has been prepared
for the Proposed Project and includes of measures from MMRP No. 312 and mitigation measures
that are specific to the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on July 9, 2018 at 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 Code, to hear
and consider evidence and testimony concerning the contents and sufficiency of the MND and for
and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in
connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of a resolution concurrently with, but prior in time to, the
adoption of this Resolution and pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and
the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, this Planning Commission found and determined that
the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the
implementation of the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures attached to that
concurrent Resolution and contained in MMP No. 336, and approved and adopted the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and MMP No. 336; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council Policy No. 7.2 (Self-Storage Facilities), this
Planning Commission hereby finds that there does not appear to be other viable or strategic uses
of the Property, the architecture of the Proposed Project is of high quality, the use is appropriate
and compatible with its surrounding land uses, and, upon approval of Variance No. 2018-05100,
will be in compliance with all Zoning Code Development Standards (including setbacks where
possible, signage and landscaping) of the Code; 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 pertaining to the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05950, and in accordance
with Section 18.10.045 (Floor Area Ratio) of the Code, does find and determine that all of the
following conditions exist:
1. A self-storage facility is an allowable use within the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan
(ACSP) No. 2015-1 Development Area 1 "DA-1" subject to a conditional use permit and special
provisions related to such uses set forth in City Council Policy 7.2 (Self-Storage Facilities); and
- 3 - PC2018-***
2. The proposed request to permit the construction of a self-storage facility with an
increased floor area ratio 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 will improve the aesthetics of the project site, and
would not have an adverse effect on the existing infrastructure in the area nor to adjacent industrial
and office uses;
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 flows, and circulation without creating
detrimental effects on adjacent properties;
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 Project will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the
surrounding streets and adequate parking will be provided to accommodate the future uses;
5. The granting of the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health and
safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because the Proposed Project would significantly
improve the aesthetics and the overall appearance of the surrounding area, and is designed to be
compatible with the other land uses in the area, subject to compliance with the conditions contained
herein;
6. In accordance with Section 18.10.045 (Floor Area Ratio) of the Code, all potential
environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project have been duly analyzed and will be
mitigated pursuant to MMP No. 355;
7. The Proposed Project is the most appropriate use for the Property due to existing
use as a self-storage facility, making the Property suitable for redevelopment with a new self-
storage facility;
8. The architecture of the Proposed Project is of a high quality design with various
architectural elements including a plaster finish, split-face block, show windows, spandrel glass,
and storefront glass;
9. The Proposed Project is appropriate and compatible with its surrounding land uses,
and the facility will be in compliance, upon approval of Variance No. 2018-05100, with all Zoning
Code Development Standards (including setbacks where possible, signage and landscaping); and
- 4 - PC2018-***
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 pertaining to the request for Variance No. 2018-05100 to permit fewer parking spaces than
required by the Zoning Code, does find and determine the following facts:
SECTION NO. 18.42.040.020 Self Storage Facilities.
(108 spaces required; 50 spaces proposed)
1. The variance for the Property, under the conditions imposed, will not cause fewer
off-street parking spaces to be provided for the Property than the number of such spaces necessary
to accommodate all vehicles attributable to all uses at the Property under the normal and reasonably
foreseeable conditions of operation of such uses. A parking study prepared by LSA Associates,
dated March 1, 2018, was submitted in order to analyze the project parking demand. The study
identified factors that would contribute to a parking demand less than required by Code, including
analysis of the actual parking demand of three similar facilities and their lower peak parking
demand. Based on these factors, the study concluded that the actual maximum parking demand
would be 35 spaces, which would be accommodated by 50 on-site parking spaces plus two
oversized loading spaces;
2. The variance for the Property, 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 peak parking
demands of all combined uses on the site;
3. The variance for the Property, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the
demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate
vicinity of the Property because the on-site parking will adequately accommodate peak parking
demands of all uses on the site;
4. The variance for the Property, under the conditions imposed, will not increase
traffic congestion within the because the Property provides adequate ingress and egress points,
which are designed to allow for adequate on-site circulation; and
5. The variance for the Property, under the conditions imposed, will not impede
vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate
vicinity because the Property will provide 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.
- 5 - PC2018-***
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05950 and Variance No. 2018-05100 contingent upon
and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference (“Conditions of Approval").
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Conditions of Approval, as they relate to the uses
permitted under Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05950 and Variance No. 2018-05100 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, (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 Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05950 and Variance
No. 2018-05100 are approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments,
modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters
18.60.190 (Amendment of Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or
Modification of Permits) of the Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval Conditional Use Permit No. 2017-05950 and
Variance No. 2018-05100 constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that they
comply with the Zoning Code of the City of Anaheim and any other applicable City, State and
Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval
of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part
thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and
void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
July 9, 2018. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60
(Procedures) of the Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a resolution of
the City Council in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 6 - PC2018-***
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 July 9, 2018, by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 9th day of July, 2018.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 7 - PC2018-***
- 8 - PC2018-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2017-05950
AND VARIANCE NO. 2018-05100
(DEV2017-00090)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
1 The developer/owner shall submit a set of improvement plans for Public
Utilities Water Engineering review and approval in determining the
conditions necessary for providing water service to the project.
Public Utilities
Department, Water
Engineering Division
2 The legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of
Anaheim a 7 foot easement along the property frontage along La Palma
Avenue for road, public utilities and other public purposes.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services Division
3 Prepare and submit a final grading plan showing building footprints, pad
elevations, finished grades, drainage routes, retaining walls, erosion
control, slope easements and other pertinent information in accordance with
Anaheim Municipal Code and the California Building Code, latest edition.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services Division
4 Prepare and submit a final drainage/hydrology study, including supporting
hydraulic and hydrological data to the City of Anaheim for review and
approval. The study shall confirm or recommend changes to the City's
adopted Master Drainage Plan by identifying off-site and on-site storm
water runoff impacts resulting from build-out of permitted General Plan
land uses. In addition, the study shall identify the project's contribution and
shall provide locations and sizes of catchments and system connection
points and all downstream drainage-mitigating measures including but not
limited to offsite storm drains and interim detention facilities.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services Division
5 The Owner shall obtain the required coverage under California’s General
Permit for Stormwater Discharges associated with Construction Activity by
providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water
Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the
issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services Division
6 The owner shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
The SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and be available for Public
Works Development Services Division review upon request.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services Division
7 Submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the City for review
and approval. The WQMP shall be consistent with the requirements of
Section 7 and Exhibit 7.II of the Orange County Drainage Area
Management Plan (DAMP) for New Development/ Significant
Redevelopment projects. identify potential sources of pollutants during the
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services Division
- 9 - PC2018-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
long-term on-going maintenance and use of the proposed project that could
affect the quality of the stormwater runoff from the project site; define
Source Control, Site Design, and Treatment Control (if applicable) best
management practices (BMPs) to control or eliminate the discharge of
pollutants into the surface water runoff; and provide a monitoring program
to address the long-term implementation of and compliance with the
defined BMPs.
8 Submit a Geotechnical Report to the Public Works Development Services
Division for review and approval. The report shall include any proposed
infiltration features of the WQMP.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services Division
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
9 Provide a certificate, from a Registered Civil Engineer, certifying that the
finished grading has been completed in accordance with the City approved
grading plan.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services Division
10 The developer shall submit street improvement plans and a cost estimate
for review and approval. The developer shall obtain a right-of-way
construction permit, and post a security (Performance and Labor &
Materials Bonds) in an amount approved by the City Engineer and in a form
approved by the City Attorney for the construction of all required public
improvements within the City street right of way of La Palma Avenue.
Improvements shall conform to the applicable City Standards and as
approved by the City Engineer.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services Division
11 A Right-of-Way Construction Permit shall be obtained from the
Development Services Division for all work performed in the public right-
of-way.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services Division
12 The developer shall construct a 12 foot wide sidewalk at ultimate right-of-
way and a 5 foot landscaped public parkway and trees, curb adjacent, per
the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan or as approved by the City Engineer.
The proposed irrigation line and meter shall be connected to the private
main.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services Division
13 The developer shall construct all improvements along the project’s frontage
on La Palma Avenue. The improvements shall include but not limited to
curb and gutter, pavement, driveway, ADA ramps, parkway drains, water
meters removals, sewer and storm drain improvements, etc. as determined
and approved by the City Engineer. The developer’s engineer shall submit
to the City for review and approval an engineering cost estimate for the cost
of the required improvements.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services Division
- 10 - PC2018-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
14 All backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street
setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys.
Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault will have to be
brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division
outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public
streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and
approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector.
Public Utilities
Department, Water
Engineering Division
15 All requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or fire lines, as
well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water
services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall be coordinated and
permitted through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public
Utilities Department.
Public Utilities
Department, Water
Engineering Division
16 All existing water services and fire services shall conform to current Water
Services Standards Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that
does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued use is
necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The
owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon
any water service or fire line.
Public Utilities
Department, Water
Engineering Division
17 The developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Department Water
Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and
maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This
information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water
system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system
improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with
Rule No. 15A.1 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations.
Public Utilities
Department, Water
Engineering Division
18 Prior to approval of permits for improvement plans, the property
owner/developer shall coordinate with Electrical Engineering to establish
electrical service requirements and submit electric system plans, electrical
panel drawings, site plans, elevation plans, and related technical drawings
and specifications.
Public Utilities,
Electrical
Engineering Division
PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS
19 Owner/Developer shall install an approved backflow prevention assembly
on the water service connection(s) serving the property, behind property
line and required building setback in accordance with Public Utilities
Department Water Engineering Division requirements.
Public Utilities
Department, Water
Engineering Division
20 All public improvements shall be constructed by the developer, inspected
and approved by Construction Services prior to the final building and
zoning inspection.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services
Division
- 11 - PC2018-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
21 All remaining fees/deposits required by Public Works department must be
paid in full.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services
Division
22 All required on-site Water Quality Management Plan, sewer, storm drain,
and public right-of-way improvements shall be completed, operational, and
are subject to review and approval by the Public Works inspector.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services
Division
23 Prior to final building and zoning inspection, fire lanes shall be posted with
“No Parking Any Time.” Said information shall be specifically shown on
plans submitted for building permits.
Public Works
Department, Traffic
Engineering Division
24 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall provide to the
City of Anaheim a Public Utilities easement with dimensions as shown on
the approved utility service plan.
Public Utilities,
Electrical Engineering
Division
25 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall submit
payment to the City of Anaheim for service connection fees.
Public Utilities,
Electrical Engineering
Division
GENERAL CONDITIONS
26 Curbs adjacent to the drive aisles shall be painted red to prohibit parallel
parking in the drive aisles. Red curb locations shall be clearly labeled on
building plans.
Public Works
Department, Traffic
Engineering Division
27 Curbs along fire access lanes shall be designated as fire lanes. Fire lanes
shall be clearly labeled on building plans.
Public Works
Department, Traffic
Engineering Division
28 SECURITY MEASURES:
New building shall be equipped with a comprehensive security alarm
system (silent or audible) for the following coverage areas:
o Perimeter of building and access route protection.
o Retail storefront.
Complete a Burglary/Robbery Alarm Permit application, Form APD
516, and return it to the Police Department prior to initial alarm
activation. This form is available at the Police Department front
counter, or it can be downloaded from the following web site:
http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=678
A Closed circuit television (CCTV) security system shall be
installed, with the following coverage areas:
o Lobby Entrance
Police Department
- 12 - PC2018-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
o Interior
o Exterior
o Building perimeter
o Facility Grounds
o Parking lot
o Cashier’s area
If security cameras are not monitored, signs indicating so should be
placed at each camera.
CCTV monitors and recorders should be secured in a separate locked
compartment to prevent theft of, or tampering with, the recording.
With advances in technology, digital and wireless CCTV security
systems are readily available and highly recommended over older
VHS or “Tape” recording systems.
CCTV recordings should be kept for a minimum of 30 days before
being deleted or recorded over.
If used, CCTV videotapes should not be recorded over more than 10
items per tape.
29 ADDRESSING:
Address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily readable
from the street. Number should be illuminated during hours of
darkness.
Rooftop address numbers for the police helicopter shall be added to
each building within the complex. The main structure will have the
street address on La Palma and the other buildings shall have the
letter or number associated with it on their roof. Minimum size 4’ in
height and 2’ in width. The lines of the numbers/letters are to be a
minimum of 6” thick. Numbers should be spaced 12” to 18” apart.
Numbers shall be painted or constructed in a contrasting color to the
roofing material. Numbers shall face the street to which the structure
is addressed in. Numbers are not to be visible from ground level.
Each building shall have clearly marked doors with numbers
corresponding to the alarm zones, if any. The identification of alarm
zone coverage will assist responding police and security units in
faster identification and apprehension of potential suspects, if any.
Each different building shall have its particular building
number/letter clearly displayed on the outside at each end of the
structure.
Police Department
- 13 - PC2018-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
30 DOORS:
All exterior doors to have adequate security hardware, e.g. deadbolt
locks.
Wide-angle peepholes or other viewing device should be installed in
solid doors where natural surveillance is compromised.
The locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and
deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside
doorknob/lever/turn piece.
Overhead roll-up doors shall also be secured on the inside that the lock
cannot be defeated from the outside and shall be secured with a cylinder
lock or padlock from the inside.
Police Department
31 LIGHTING:
Monument signs and addresses shall be well lighted during hours of
darkness.
Adequate lighting of parking lots, passageways, recesses, and grounds
contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient
wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the
presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of
darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all person,
property, and vehicles on-site.
All exterior doors shall have their own light source, which shall
adequately illuminate door areas at all hours to make clearly visible the
presence of any person on or about the premises and provide adequate
illumination for persons exiting the building.
Police Department
32 PARKING LOTS/STRUCTURES:
Minimum recommended lighting level in all parking lots is .5 foot-
candle maintained, measured at the parking surface, with a maximum
to minimum ratio no greater than 15:1.
“No Trespassing 602(k) P.C.” posted at the entrances of parking
lots/structures and located in other appropriate places. Signs must be
at least 2’ x 1’ in overall size, with white background and black 2”
lettering.
All entrances to parking areas shall be posted with appropriate signs
per 22658(a) C.V.C., to assist in removal of vehicles at the property
owners/managers request.
Police Department
33 The following minimum clearances shall be provided around all new and
existing public water facilities (e.g. fire hydrants, service laterals, meters,
meter boxes, backflow devices, etc.):
• 10 feet from structures, footings, walls, stormwater BMPs, power
poles, street lights, and trees.
Public Utilities
Department, Water
Engineering Division
- 14 - PC2018-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
• 5 feet from driveways, BCR/ECR of curb returns, and all other
utilities (e.g. storm drain, gas, electric, etc.) or above ground
facilities.
34 No public water laterals or meters shall be allowed under driveways,
parking stalls, or parking lots. Public Utilities
Department, Water
Engineering Division
35 No required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor
storage.
Planning Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
36 The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the area adjacent to the
premises over which they have control, in an orderly fashion through the
provision of regular maintenance and removal of trash or debris. Any
graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under
the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours
of being applied.
Planning Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
37 Hours of operation shall be restricted to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. Any
proposed changes to the hours of operation shall be subject to approval of
the Planning and Building Director. Adequate signage shall be installed
near vehicular access gates informing the self-storage tenants of the hours
of operation.
Planning Department
38 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing
of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the
final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project,
whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in
the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the
approval of this application.
Planning Department
39 The Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and
which plans are on file with the Planning Department and as conditioned
herein.
Planning Department
40 The 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 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,
Planning Department
- 15 - PC2018-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such
proceeding.
41 Establishment of the use or approved structure as that term is defined by
the Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.60.160, as the same may be
amended from time to time, shall occur within six years of the effective
date of conditional use permit approval.
Planning Department
1
CASE NOS.: Development Project (DEV) No. 2017-00090, Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
No. 2017-05950, and Variance (VAR) No. 2018-05100
PROJECT TITLE: Anaheim Public Storage Project
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., MS 162,
Anaheim, CA 92805
STAFF CONTACT AND PHONE NUMBER: Nicholas Taylor (714) 765-4323
SITE ADDRESS: 4880 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 346-492-15
LOCATION: Parcel at the southern end of Manassero Street and La Palma Avenue (a more detailed Project
site description follows later in the document)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed Project includes the demolition of an existing 67,939 sf self-storage
facility and construction of a new 393,040 sf self-storage facility in its place. The proposed Project would
consolidate the seven existing one-story self-storage buildings on the site into two five-story buildings. Project
implementation would occur in two phases to allow operations to continue during construction. A more
detailed description follows later in this document.
APPLICANT: Brian Ulrich, Director of Site Acquisitions
APPLICANT’S ADDRESS: 701 Western Avenue, Glendale, CA 91210
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial
ZONING: Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan ACSP, also referred to as “Specific Plan,” Industrial Area (DA-1)
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population and Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
CITY OF ANAHEIM
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
2
DETERMINATION:
Based on this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the
Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant
unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.
6/28/2018
Signature of City of Anaheim Representative Date
Nicholas Taylor, Associate Planner (714) 765-4323
Printed Name, Title Phone Number
3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
2) A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section.
3) Response column heading definitions:
a) Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is
made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant
Impact.” The mitigation measures must be described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce
the effect to a less than significant level.
c) Less Than Significant Impact applies where the Project creates no significant impacts, only “Less Than
Significant impacts.”
d) Impacts Analyzed in EIR No. 348 - No New Impact applies where the Project was within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document (Environmental Impact Report [EIR] No. 348), pursuant to
applicable legal standards and effects that were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
e) No Impact applies where a Project does not create an impact in that category. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one proposed (e.g., the project falls outside of a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact”
answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.,
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening
analysis).
4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration (§ 15062(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the Project.
5) Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., the General
Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
6) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
4
Project Description
Regional Setting. The Project site is located in the City of Anaheim (City), which is in the central area of Orange
County. Regionally, Anaheim is south of the Cities of Buena Park, Fullerton, and Placentia; generally west of State
Route 241 (SR-241), the City of Corona, and open space associated with unincorporated areas of Orange County;
north of State Route 22 (SR-22) and the Cities of Stanton, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Orange, and Villa Park; and
east of Interstate 605 (I-605) and the Cities of Cerritos, La Palma, Buena Park, and Cypress.
Regional access to the City of Anaheim is provided via State Route 91 (SR-91), which transects the northern area of
Anaheim in an east-west fashion; State Route 57 (SR-57), which transects the central area of Anaheim in a north-
south fashion; Interstate 5 (I-5), which transects the western portion of Anaheim from the northwest to the
southeast; and State Route 55 (SR-55) and SR-241, which transect the eastern portion of Anaheim in a north-south
fashion.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan: The Project site is located in an area regulated by the Anaheim Canyon Specific
Plan (ACSP, also referred to as the “Specific Plan”) (March 2016). The ACSP is a long-range planning and
regulatory document that the City adopted to guide growth in the Specific Plan area. Overarching goals of the
Specific Plan are to create a successful business environment, help local businesses meet sustainability mandates,
encourage economic development, create a vision supported by private and public stakeholders, and improve the
visual character of the public realm to promote economic growth. The Anaheim City Council adopted the ACSP in
January 2016; and, certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 348 in conjunction with the approval of the
Specific Plan.
The ACSP area is located in the northern area of Anaheim. The ACSP encompasses approximately 2,600 acres,
roughly on the north by Orangethorpe Avenue, on the south by the Santa Ana River, on the east by State Route 90
(SR-90), and on the west by SR-57. The following development areas comprise the Specific Plan: Industrial Area
(DA-1), Recycling Area (DA-2), Transit Oriented Area (DA-3), Local Commercial Area (DA-4), General
Commercial Area (DA-5), and Open Space/Water Area (DA-6). The ACSP also includes a flex area (DA-7), which
combines the zoning and development Standards of both DA-1 and DA-5.
Project Site. The 3.45-acre Project site is comprised of one square-shaped parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN]
346-492-15) located at the intersection of La Palma Avenue and Manassero Street. Refer to Figure 1, Existing Site
Conditions, for an aerial photograph of the Project site.
The Project site is characterized by a Public Storage facility consisting of seven, single-story buildings (including a
caretaker/property manager apartment) totaling 67,587 square feet (sf). Current structures on the site have existed
on the property since 1983. The building façades are white, purple, and orange, consistent with the color scheme
exhibited in the Public Storage logo. Ornamental landscaping along the perimeter of the site and an internal surface
parking lot comprise the remainder of the site. Refer to Figure 2, Photographs of the Existing Site, for illustrations
of Public Storage facilities currently developed on the property.
In its existing condition, vehicular access to the Project site is via an ingress/egress point off East La Palma Avenue.
An existing sidewalk along the northern boundary of the Project site and East La Palma Avenue provides pedestrian
access to the site.
Industrial and commercial uses surround the Project site to the north, east, and west. The site is adjacent to open
space to the south. Specifically, the Project site is surrounded by La Palma Avenue, Orange County Industrial
Plastics, Cornerstone Church and Independence Christian School, and various commercial and industrial uses to the
north; Shazon Industries and AG&M Architectural Granite & Marble to the west; Absolute Technologies to the
east; and the Santa Ana River and the Santa Ana River Trail to the south.
SOURCE Google Earth:
FEET
3401700
N
FIGURE 1
Existing Site Conditions
I:\PUB1704\G\Existing Site Conditions.cdr (3/2/2018)
4880 East La Palma Avenue Public Storage
MA
N
A
S
S
A
R
O
S
T
MA
N
A
S
S
A
R
O
S
T
E. LA PALMA AVEE. LA PALMA AVE
LA
N
D
O
N
D
R
LA
N
D
O
N
D
R
HA
N
C
O
C
K
S
T
HA
N
C
O
C
K
S
T
Project
Site
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
n
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
;
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
D
n
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
n
o
r
t
h
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
C
,
D
,
E
,
F
-
E
.
L
a
P
a
l
m
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
.
Vi
e
w
o
f
n
o
r
t
h
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
f
r
o
m
a
c
r
o
s
s
E
.
L
a
P
a
l
m
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
f
f
i
c
e
a
n
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
’
s
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
(
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
A
w
e
s
t
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
)
.
FIGURE
2
Photographs of the Existing Site
I:
\
P
U
B
1
7
0
4
\
G
\
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
i
t
e
P
h
o
t
o
s
.
c
d
r
(
3
/
2
/
2
0
1
8
)
48
8
0
E
a
s
t
L
a
P
a
l
m
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
7
The Project site is subject to the land use and development standards established in the ACSP. Consistent with the
General Plan, the ACSP designates the Project site for Industrial land use. The project site is within the Industrial
Area (DA-1) of the ACSP, which allows for the development of light and heavy industrial uses and related support
facilities at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5; the Applicant may request an increase in the allowable FAR, subject to
the approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). In addition, DA-1 requires a CUP for self-storage facilities.
Project Proposal. The proposed Project includes the demolition of an existing 67,587 sf self-storage facility and
construction of a new 393,040 sf self-storage facility in its place. The proposed Project would consolidate the seven
existing one-story self-storage buildings on the site into two five-story buildings. Project implementation would
occur in two phases to allow operations to continue during construction.
As shown in Figure 3a, Site Plan - Phase 1 would include the demolition of three of the existing buildings on the
eastern half of the property and construction of the new five-story Building 1 in their place. Building 1 would be
196,520 sf, including an 1,800 sf rental office. The rental office would allow customers to inquire about rental
spaces, pay rent, or purchase packing supplies. The rental office hours would be Monday through Friday from 9:30
a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Saturday and Sunday from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Four of the existing buildings on the western half of the property would remain operational during construction of
Phase 1, and a temporary operations office would be located on the northwestern portion of the property.
Phase 1 also includes the construction of a new driveway accessing East La Palma Avenue near the center of the
property frontage. During construction of Building 1, customers would use the new driveway for access to the
existing units. Construction workers would use the existing driveway to East La Palma Avenue, near the northeast
corner of the property, for construction access to Building 1. When Building 1 is near completion, the Applicant
would close the existing driveway at the northeast corner and install depressed landscaping in that area (refer to the
Landscaping section below, for further detail). Additionally, Phase 1 would include the installation of an
underground modular wetland system at the northwest corner of the Project site.
Phase 2 construction would commence approximately 6 months after the completion of Phase 1. As shown in Figure
3b, Site Plan - Phase 2 includes demolition of the remaining four buildings and construction of the new, five-story
Building 2, along with depressed landscape areas, and site improvements, on the western half of the property.
Building 2 would also be 196,520 sf in size, for a total of 393,040 sf of building space on the site. Phase 2 would
also include the addition of a new wrought iron security gate between the two new buildin gs, which would require
customers to use personal key cards to access the driveway between the entrance lobbies.
A new, locked, trash/recycling enclosure would also be included as part of the Project implementation and would be
located inside Building 1. The trash and recycling bins would only be available for use by Public Storage office
staff, as customers would be required to remove their own debris from the facility. Refer to Figures 3a and 3b for an
illustration of improvements proposed as part of the Project.
Building Design. The new buildings would be developed in a contemporary architectural design, and include
various exterior materials including plaster, split face concrete masonry unit (CMU), show windows, and storefront
glass. Vertical and horizontal lines and color and material changes would serve to visually break up the building
façades. The proposed building would be five-story buildings with a maximum height of 60 feet (ft), consistent with
the maximum height established in the ACSP.
Access. Customers would access the new buildings and their storage spaces through a secured lobby in each
building, using individual key cards. The storage spaces would be accessible from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven
days per week. Following completion of Phase 2, there would be no storage units with direct exterior access.
(E) UTILITY POLE TO REMAIN
EAST LA PALMAAVE
(E) F.H.
(E) F.H.
(E) F.H. TO BE
RELOCATED
(N) TRASH ENCLOSURE
PER CITY STANDARDS
50
'
-
0
"
SC
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
DRIVE LENGTH MIN.
(E) DRIVEWAY TO BE
RELOCATED
22'-7"
(E)
(E) GATE TO
REMAIN
(E) TO
REMAIN
(E) TO
REMAIN
(E) TO
REMAIN
142'-0"8'-0"
30
7
'
-
0
"
82
'
-
0
"
82
'
-
0
"
112'-0"
5'
-
0
"
10'-0"
4'-0"
52
'
-
1
1
"
5'-0"
T
17'-6" RADIUS
FIRE TURN
38' RADIUS FIRE
TURN
34'-0"26'-0"
60'-0"
S
E
C
U
R
I
T
Y
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
C1C1 ADA
C
BCBDBCG
ID SIGN/ DR PANELMENU BOARD PRINTER/FAXCOPIER
BCBC
S
E
C
U
R
I
T
Y
R
A
C
K
C
FP
S
L
A
T
W
A
L
L
(
6
'x
8
'
)
(E) CHAIN LINK FENCE
TO REMAIN
PROPOSED BUILDING 1
5 STORIES
196,520 S.F.
69.3 F.F.
68.1 PAD
DEPRESSED LANDSCAPE AREA
LS LS
LS
SLOPE AND LANDCAPED AREA
EXISTING TO REMAIN
OVERHEAD POWER
LINES
PAVED SIDE YARD
PROPERTY LINE 340.2'
PROPERTY LINE 340.4'
PR
O
P
E
R
TY
L
I
N
E
4
5
3
.
7
'
PR
O
P
E
R
TY
L
I
N
E
4
4
5
.
3
'
WAREHOUSE
WAREHOUSE/ OFFICE
12
'
-
0
"
WA
L
K
W
A
Y
LS5'
15
'
-
0
"
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
5'
75
'
-
9
"
27
'
-
0
"
5'
7'
5'-0" (E) SIDEWALK
7' DEDICATION
(E) F.H.
OFFICE
LOBBY
(E) UTILITY POLE TO REMAIN
(E) STREET LIGHT TO REMAIN
(E) WATER METER
(E) WATER
METER
(E) WATER METER
(E) GAS METER
19
'
-
4
"
T
(N) TRANSFORMER
T
DOUBLE STRIPED PARKING
STALLS PER CITY OF ANAHEIM
STD 470
(E) TO
REMAIN
22'-6"
(E)
25'-0"
(E)
9'
-
9
"
LS
12
'
-
0
"
BLDG G
6,990 S.F.
BLDG F
6,992 S.F.
BLDG E
6,996 S.F.
BLDG D
10,481 S.F.
(N) CHAIN LINK 6' FENCE
LS
REMOVE (E) PYLON
SIGN
(E) UTILITY POLE TO REMAIN
(N
)
C
H
A
I
N
L
I
N
K
(E
)
F
E
N
C
E
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
(N) CHAIN LINK 6' FENCE
20'-0"
(N) WROUGHT
IRON SECURITY
GATE
12
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
18'-0"
12
18'-0"
TYP
8'
-
0
"
LOADING
20'-0"
9'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
PROPOSED CURB(E) CURB TO REMAIN
SCOPE OF WORK
(PHASE 1)
17'-6" RADIUS
FIRE TURN
38' RADIUS FIRE
TURN
53
'
-
0
"
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
I
G
H
T
-O
F
-
W
A
Y
60
'
-
0
"
UL
T
I
M
A
T
E
R
I
G
H
-
O
F
-
W
AY
30'-0"
7'X50' LINE OF
SIGHT CLEAR ZONE
20'-0"
TYP
15
'
-
0
"
CITY OF ANAHEIM
EASEMENT
10'-0"
PAINT RED
"NO PARKING"
TO ENSURE
TRASH TRUCK ACCESS
CONVERT (E)
STORAGE UNITS
TO TEMPORARY
OFFICE
PROVIDE GATE KEYPAD
ACCESS TO TRASH
SERVICES, DEVELOPMENT
IS SUBJECT TO A
CONTAINER ACCESS FEE
BILLED DIRECTLY TO
TRASH SERVICES
FIRE AND TRASH TRUCK CIRCULATION
FI
R
E
A
N
D
T
R
A
S
H
T
R
U
C
K
C
I
R
C
U
L
A
TI
O
N
FI
R
E
A
N
D
T
R
A
S
H
T
R
U
C
K
C
I
R
C
U
L
A
TI
O
N
FIRE AND TRASH TRUCK CIRCULATION
TEMP
OFFICE
(E) BACKFLOW
DEVICE TO REMAIN
IN PHASE 1
PROPOSED MODULAR
WETLAND SYSTEM
5'
-
0
"
3 4 5LSLS
18
'
-
0
"
9'-0"
TYP
SLOPE AND LANDCAPED AREA
EXISTING TO REMAIN
PAINT CURB
RED
PAINT CURB
RED
NEW MONUMENT
SIGN
8'-0"9'-0"9'-0"
18
'
-
0
"
DEPRESSED LANDSCAPE AREA
PROPOSED FH
RELOCATION
SOURCE KSP Studio:
FEET
100500
N
FIGURE 3a
Site Plan - Phase 1
I:\PUB1704\G\Site Plan.cdr (4/25/2018)
4880 East La Palma Avenue Public Storage
LEGEND
Phase 1
Area to be Improved as Part of Phase 2
(E) UTILITY POLE TO REMAIN
EAST LA PALMAAVE
(E) F.H.
(E) F.H.
(E) F.H.
50
'
-
0
"
SC
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
DRIVE LENGTH MIN.
(E) GATE TO
REMAIN
142'-0"8'-0"
30
7
'
-
0
"
82
'
-
0
"
82
'
-
0
"
112'-0"10'-0"
4'-0"
52
'
-
1
1
"
5'-0"
3 45
9'-0"
TYP
T
18
'
-
0
"
TY
P
17'-6" RADIUS
FIRE TURN
38' RADIUS FIRE
TURN
34'-0"36'-4"
100'-4"
S
E
C
U
R
I
T
Y
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
C
1
C
1
A
D
A
C
B
C
B
D
B
C
G
ID SIGN/ DR PANELMENU BOARD PRINTER/FAXCOPIER
B
C
B
C
S
E
C
U
R
I
T
Y
R
A
C
K
C
FP
S
L
A
T
W
A
L
L
(
6
'
x
8
'
)
(E) CHAIN LINK FENCE
TO REMAIN
PROPOSED BUILDING 1
5 STORIES
196,520 S.F.
69.3 F.F.
DEPRESSED LANDSCAPE AREA DEPRESSED LANDSCAPE AREA
LS LS
LSLSLS
DEPRESSED LANDSCAPE AREA
SLOPE AND LANDCAPED AREA
EXISTING TO REMAIN
OVERHEAD POWER
LINES
PROPERTY LINE 340.2'
PROPERTY LINE 340.4'
PR
O
P
E
R
TY
L
I
N
E
4
5
3
.
7
'
PR
O
P
E
R
TY
L
I
N
E
4
4
5
.
3
'
WAREHOUSE
WAREHOUSE/ OFFICE
12
'
-
0
"
WA
L
K
W
A
Y
LS5'
15
'
-
0
"
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
5'
15
'
-
0
"
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
75
'
-
9
"
27
'
-
0
"
5'
7'
5'-0" (E) SIDEWALK
7' DEDICATION
OFFICE
LOBBY
(E) UTILITY POLE TO REMAIN
(E) STREET LIGHT TO REMAIN
(E) WATER METER
(E) WATER
METER
(E) WATER METER
(E) GAS METER
(N) TRANSFORMER
DOUBLE STRIPED PARKING
STALLS PER CITY OF ANAHEIM
STD 470
9'
-
9
"
LS
20
'
-
1
"
(N) CHAIN LINK 6' FENCE
LS
45 LSLSLS
9'-0"
TYP
20'-0"
(N) WROUGHT
IRON SECURITY
GATE
(E) UTILITY POLE TO REMAIN
PROPOSED BUILDING 2
5 STORIES
196,520 S.F.
68.8 F.F.
(N) TRASH ENCLOSURE
PER CITY STANDARDS
19
'
-
4
"
T
T
12
9'
-
0
"
TY
P
18'-0"
TYP
LOADING
12
'
-
0
"
20'-0"
12
9'
-
0
"
TY
P
18'-0"
TYP
8'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
18
'
-
0
"
TY
P
27
'
-
0
"
8'-0"
FIRE APPARATUS & TRASH TRUCK
HAMMERHEAD FOR PHASE 2
28'-0"
40
'
-
0
"
40'-0"40'-0"
28
'
-
0
"
17.5' R
58
'
-
6
"
76
'
-
1
1
"
5'-0"
PAVED SIDE YARD
(N) CHAIN LINK 6' FENCE
(N
)
C
H
A
I
N
L
I
N
K
(E
)
F
E
N
C
E
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
PAVED SIDE YARD
(N) CHAIN LINK 6' FENCE
142'-0"8'-0"
DEPRESSED LANDSCAPE AREA
30
'
-
0
"
9'
-
3
"
30
7
'
-
0
"
9'
-
3
"
53
'
-
0
"
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
R
I
G
H
T
-O
F
-
W
A
Y
60
'
-
0
"
UL
T
I
M
A
T
E
R
I
G
H
T
-O
F
-
W
A
Y
30'-0"
7'X50' LINE OF
SIGHT CLEAR ZONE
20'-0"
TYP 20'-0"
TYP
9'
-
0
"
18'-0"
(N) LOCATION FOR
BACKFLOW DEVICE
15
'
-
0
"
CITY OF ANAHEIM
EASEMENT
10'-0"
PAINT RED
"NO PARKING"
TO ENSURE
TRASH TRUCK ACCESS PROVIDE GATE KEYPAD
ACCESS TO TRASH
SERVICES, DEVELOPMENT
IS SUBJECT TO A
CONTAINER ACCESS FEE
BILLED DIRECTLY TO
TRASH SERVICES
PROPOSED MODULAR
WETLAND SYSTEM
12
'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
LOADING
9'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
TY
P
5
PAINT CURB
RED
PAINT CURB
RED
NEW MONUMENT
SIGN
8'-0"9'-0"9'-0"
18
'
-
0
"
20'-0"
CENTERLINE OF STREET
DEPRESSED LANDSCAPE AREA
DEPRESSED LANDSCAPE AREA
SOURCE KSP Studio:
FEET
100500
N
FIGURE 3b
Site Plan - Phase 2
I:\PUB1704\G\Site Plan.cdr (4/24/2018)
4880 East La Palma Avenue Public Storage
LEGEND
Phase 1
Phase 2
10
The proposed Project would provide vehicular access to the site by a driveway on La Palma Avenue, as well as an
internal access road between the two proposed buildings. The proposed Project would also dedicate 7 ft of the
northern portion of the property to the City for right-of-way along La Palma Avenue. As required in the ACSP, the
Applicant would improve this area during Phase 1 of Project construction. An existing chain-link fence along the
eastern and southern boundaries of the site, as well as a new chain-link fence (6 ft in height) along the western
boundary of the site, would ensure that the site remains secure. The proposed Project will limit public access to the
site to the single driveway and sidewalk along the northern portion of the property.
Infrastructure Improvements. Infrastructure improvements included as part of the Project involve the following:
installation of three fire hydrants throughout the site, installation of a sewer line that would traverse the site in a
north-south fashion and connect to the existing sewer line on La Palma Avenue; installation of telecom and
electrical pull-boxes and risers, a gas meter, and a transformer on the northern boundary of the site; and installation
of a storm drainpipe along the southern boundary of the site. Refer to Figure 4, Utility Plan, for details regarding
proposed infrastructure improvements included as part of the Project.
Landscaping and Stormwater Treatment. Landscaping proposed as part of the Project would consist of ornamental
trees scattered throughout the on-site parking lots and ornamental trees and shrubbery along the northern boundary
of the property. As illustrated in Figures 3a and 3b, the Project also proposes the installation of depressed landscape
areas along the northern and southern boundaries of the property. In addition, a modular wetland system would be
located underneath the parking lot at the northern end of the Project site (refer to Figure 5, Proposed Modular
Wetland System).
Stormwater runoff on the Project site would flow to curb and gutters that would direct flow through curb cuts into
the depressed landscape areas located along the northern and southern boundaries of the Project site. Grate inlets
would be located at the bottom of the depressed landscape areas to direct flow to the proposed modular wetland
system. Stormwater would first pass through an advanced pre-treatment chamber comprised of separation and pre-
filter cartridges before entering the biofiltration chamber of the modular wetland system. Flow would then be
discharged into the existing catch basin located on East La Palma Avenue.
Land Use Designations, Required Approvals, and Entitlements. Entitlements for the proposed Project include
approval of a CUP to allow for the operation of a self-storage facility on the site and a floor area ratio (FAR) greater
than 0.5, as well as a variance to allow fewer parking spaces than are required by the City Zoning Code.
Proposed Uses: As previously stated, the subject property is within an area regulated by land use and development
standards established in the ACSP. The Project site is located within the Industrial Area (DA-1) of the ACSP.
Allowable uses within DA-1 include light and heavy industrial uses and related support facilities. Chapter 18.120,
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-1 (SP 2015-1) Zoning and Development Standards, of the City’s
Municipal Code further specifies that self-storage uses are permitted uses in the DA-1 Industrial Area zone, subject
to the approval of a CUP. Approval of the CUP is contingent upon the Planning Commission making the following
findings:
That the proposed use is properly one for which a CUP is authorized by the Anaheim Municipal Code;
That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of
the area in which it is proposed to be located;
That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the
proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety;
FEET
90450
N
FIGURE 4
Utility Plan
I:\PUB1704\G\Utility Plan.cdr (3/15/2018)
4880 East La Palma Avenue Public Storage
SOURCE KSP Studio:
FIGURE
5
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
M
o
d
u
l
a
r
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
I:
\
P
U
B
1
7
0
4
\
G
\
M
o
d
u
l
a
r
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
.
c
d
r
(
3
/
1
6
/
2
0
1
8
)
48
8
0
E
a
s
t
L
a
P
a
l
m
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
SO
U
R
C
E
K
S
P
S
t
u
d
i
o
:
13
That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and
highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
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.
Floor Area Ratio: Following completion of Phase 2, the property would have a FAR of 2.61, which would be
greater than the 0.5 maximum permitted FAR allowed on the property under the ACSP. As specified in the City’s
Municipal Code, an increase in FAR is permitted in DA-1, subject to the approval of a CUP. Approval of the CUP
is contingent upon the Planning Commission making the above findings and the following additional finding:
The proposed use of the structure(s) shall not create a greater impact to infrastructure than impacts
anticipated by the maximum permitted floor area ratio, as analyzed by Environmental Impact Report
No. 348 (EIR No. 348) prepared for the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan, unless such impacts are duly
analyzed and mitigated pursuant to subsequent environmental review.
Parking: In addition, the Applicant is requesting a variance to allow fewer parking spaces than required by the
Zoning Code. According to the City’s Municipal Code, 106 parking spaces (or 0.27/1000 gross square feet) are
required for self-storage facilities. However, according to the 4880 East La Palma Avenue Parking Analysis
(Parking Analysis) (2018b) (Appendix A) (LSA; February 2018), the average parking rate for self-storage facilities
is 0.09 spaces per 1,000 sf. Using this parking rate, the Project yields a parking demand of 36 parking spaces. The
proposed Project would provide a total of 50 parking spaces: 26 parking spaces to be located within the surface
parking lot fronting La Palma Avenue (located outside the security gate) and 24 parking spaces in a central parking
lot in between the two proposed buildings. As such, the Project would require approval of a variance to allow for a
reduced parking rate and parking supply, as compared to the parking rate outlined in the City’s Municipal Code.
Previous Environmental Review and Tiering: The Project site is located in the ACSP; and therefore, is subject to the
requirements and mitigation measures outlined in EIR No. 348, which the Anaheim City Council certified for the
adoption of the ACSP. EIR No. 348 addresses impacts associated with implementation of new development
envisioned under the ACSP through mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) No. 312. This document identifies applicable mitigation measures for this Project from MMRP
No. 312. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure that all Project-related impacts would be less
than significant.
14
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 348-
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic
expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Narrative Summary: No New Impacts.
Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 348. EIR No. 348 analyzed aesthetic impacts related to the implementation of the ACSP.
Refer to EIR No. 348, Section 5.1.3, Aesthetics.
According to EIR No. 348, views of mountain ridgelines, canyons, rolling hills, and intermittent riparian and chaparral
vegetation are visible from various vantage points throughout the ACSP area. However, future development envisioned under
the Specific Plan would not be developed at heights and/or intensities that would result in altered background views in the
Project area. Therefore, impacts associated with the obstruction of a scenic vista were determined to be less than significant.
Similarly, less than significant impacts with respect to scenic resources were identified because future development would
adhere to zoning and development standards in the City’s Municipal Code, including provisions set forth in and enforced by
the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. No mitigation was determined to be required.
Although future development and redevelopment associated with buildout of the ACSP area would change the existing visual
character of individual areas and would emit additional nighttime lighting, EIR No. 348 determined that buildout of the ACSP
area would create a more visually cohesive and appealing environment through adherence with design guidelines, lighting
standards, and building standards established in the ACSP and the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, impacts with respect to
visual character and light and glare were determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation was determined to be
required.
Proposed Project. There are no scenic resources on the Project site nor are there prominent scenic vistas visible from the
property. Although the Project site is located 0.37 mile from SR-91, which is classified as a State Scenic Highway by the
California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Landscape Architecture Program, the Project would not develop the site
with structures that would be of a sufficient height to obstruct scenic views from the freeway.1. Therefore, construction and
implementation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to the degradation of scenic
resources and the obstruction of a scenic vista. No mitigation was determined to be required.
Construction. Construction of the proposed Project would involve on-site demolition, grading, and construction activities that
would be visible to travelers along La Palma Avenue. Construction activities would be short-term in nature and would cease
upon Project completion. Therefore, construction impacts with respect to the visual character of the site would be less than
significant, and no mitigation would be required.
1 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Landscape Architecture Program. California Scenic Highway
Mapping System-Orange County. Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_ livability/scenic_highways/ index.
htm (accessed February 28, 2018).
15
All lighting required during construction activities would be shielded to the extent feasible and would consist of the minimum
lighting necessary for safety and security purposes. Due to its limited scope and short duration, construction lighting would
not substantially impact sensitive natural areas present directly south of the Project site. No mitigation would be required.
Operation. The proposed Project would redevelop the site with two new Public Storage buildings that would exhibit a
contemporary architectural design. The buildings would include various building materials (e.g., plaster, split face CMU,
show windows, and storefront glass), vertical and horizontal lines, and color and material changes that would serve to visually
break up the building façades and provide increased building articulation.
The proposed buildings would be five stories in height, which would represent a four-story increase in height as compared to
existing structures on the site. However, the height and scale of the proposed structures would be generally consistent with
Shaxon Industries Inc. and AG&M Architectural Granite & Marble to the west. Furthermore, the height, density, and setbacks
proposed as part of the Project would comply with the existing height limitations and structural setbacks required by the
ACSP. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would result in an improved visual character on the site and would
ensure visual cohesion with existing adjacent buildings in the Project area.
Lighting included as part of the Project would consist of building façade lighting, parking lot lighting, and security lighting.
The proposed Project would comply with applicable provisions of the ACSP Development Standards with respect to lighting,
which require that lighting be implemented in a manner that avoids detrimental impacts to the public health, safety, and
general welfare. As such, all lighting proposed as part of the Project would be shielded and directed downward to the extent
feasible to ensure the minimization of off-site lighting impacts. Additionally, the Project does not propose the excessive use of
highly reflective materials (e.g., mirrors and glass) that could result in impacts with respect to glare. Therefore, the proposed
Project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to light and glare, and no mitigation would be required.
Conclusion. EIR No. 348 did not identify any mitigation measures with respect to Aesthetics. For the reasons stated above,
the Project would not result in greater impacts than those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 348. Therefore, no
mitigation measures from MMRP No. 312 or any additional measures are required for this Project.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether Impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 348-
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code §
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code § 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
16
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Narrative Summary: No New Impacts.
Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 348. EIR No. 348 discusses potential agricultural impacts related to the implementation of the
ACSP in Chapter 8.0, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant.
Specifically, EIR No. 348 determined that implementation of the ACSP would not result in impacts with respect to
agricultural or forest resources because the Project area is designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the California
Important Farmland Finder, the area is fully developed with industrial and commercial uses, and no areas within the Specific
Plan boundaries are designated or zoned for agricultural or forest uses.
Proposed Project. The Project site is not located in an area containing agricultural or forest uses and there is no unique,
prime or farmland of statewide importance located within the Project area. Furthermore, there are no Williamson Act
contracts within the Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in impacts with respect to agricultural or
forestry resources.
Conclusion. EIR No. 348 did not identify any mitigation measures with respect to Agricultural Resources. For the reasons
stated above, the Project would not result in greater impacts than those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 348.
Therefore, no mitigation measures from MMRP No. 312 or any additional measures are required for this Project.
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 348-
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
Narrative Summary: No New Impacts.
Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 348. EIR No. 348 addressed the air quality impacts associated with implementation of
the ACSP. Refer to EIR No. 348, Section 5.2.3, Air Quality.
Construction. EIR No. 348 concluded that construction activities associated with implementation of the ACSP could exceed
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional thresholds for volatile organic compounds (V OCs) and
nitrous oxide (NOX). NOX is a precursor to the formation of ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and VOCs
17
are a precursor to the formation of O3. As such, EIR No. 348 determined that Specific Plan -related emissions of VOC and
NOX would contribute to the nonattainment designations for O3, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), PM10, and PM2.5 established by the
South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). EIR No. 348 identified the following measures aimed at reducing construction -related air
quality impacts: use of construction equipment that meets the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-
Certified emissions standards (AQ-1); use and maintenance of construction equipment in compliance with manufacturers’
regulations (AQ-2), preparation of dust control plans (AQ-3), and compliance with Rule 1113 regulating use of coatings and
solvents during project construction (AQ-4). Despite the implementation of these measures, EIR No. 348 determined that
construction air quality impacts would remain significant unavoidable.
Construction activities associated with the ACSP were also determined to result in potentially significant impacts related to
the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutant emissions. Therefore, EIR No. 348 required
implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 to reduce construction air quality impacts on sensitive receptors.
Despite the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4, EIR No. 348 determined that construction air
quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to construction air quality impacts.
Operation. Due to the scale and nature of development envisioned under the Specific Plan, emissions of criteria pollutants
resulting from operation of the full buildout of the ACSP were determined to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for VOC,
NOX, carbon monoxide (CO), PM10 and PM2.5. As such EIR No. 348 required implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-5
though AQ-8 to reduce operational air quality emissions. Mitigation Measures AQ -5 through AQ-8, which require the
following: implementation of electric barbeque units in new residential developments (AQ-5); use of Energy Star appliances
in new developments (AQ-6); inclusion of electrical wiring to accommodate electrical vehicles (EVs) in garages for new
residential developments (AQ-7); and installation of EV charging stations as in non -residential developments (AQ-8). EIR
No. 348 also determined that Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3 would be required to reduce vehicular emissions during
operational activities. These measures require the preparation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program
(T-1), participation in clean fuel shuttle programs (T-2), and participation in the Anaheim Transportation Network
(ATN)/Transportation Management Association (T -3) for projects generating 50 or more employees. Despite
implementation of these measures, emissions of VOC and NOX were determined to cumulatively contribute to the
nonattainment designations O3, PM10 and PM2.5, and NO2 established by SCAB. Because implementation of the ACSP could
result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, EIR No. 348 concluded that the ACSP
would result in a significant unavoidable impact related to a conflict with the 2012 AQMP. As such, operational and
cumulative air quality impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
EIR No. 348 also determined that operational activities of the ACSP would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to
substantial CO local concentrations; however, operational activities were determined to potentially expose sensitive receptor s
to substantial toxic air contaminants (TACs) and diesel particulate matter (DPM). Mitigation Measure AQ-9, which requires
that new industrial and warehousing projects prepare health risk assessments (HRAs), and Mitigation Measure AQ-10, which
requires new residential projects prepare HRAs, were identified to reduce impacts associated with the exposure of criteria air
pollutants. Because industrial and commercial uses allowed under the ACSP would release TACs and generate DPM, and
because the nature of those emissions cannot be determined until future individual projects are proposed, impacts were
determined to be significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of applicable mitigation measures. Consequently,
EIR No. 348 also determined that the ACSP’s contribution to health risk impacts related to TAC emissions would also be
cumulatively significant and unavoidable.
The Specific Plan was also determined to result in significant unavoidable air quality impacts associated with the future
development of industrial uses in close proximity to existing residential uses. In addition, EIR No. 348 concluded that
operational activities associated with the ACSP would result in significant unavoidable odor impacts associated with the
development of new industrial uses proposed as part of the Specific Plan.
The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to operational air quality impacts.
Proposed Project.
Construction. Emissions of pollutants would occur during construction of the proposed Project from soil disturbance and
equipment exhaust. Major sources of emissions during construction include: (1) exhaust emissions from construction
equipment and vehicles; and (2) fugitive dust generated by grading activities, construction vehicles, and equipment traveling
over exposed surfaces.
18
Peak daily emissions associated with the on-site construction equipment, on-road haul trucks and vendor trips, and fugitive
dust emissions during each of the construction tasks were calculated as part of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Memorandum for the Public Storage Project (2018a) (Appendix B). Since on-site construction operations must comply with
dust control and other measures prescribed by SCAQMD Rule 403, compliance with dust control rules was assumed in the
analysis. According to the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum for the Public Storage Project (Appendix B),
Project-related construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds or Localized Significance
Thresholds (LSTs), and impacts would be less than significant.
In Summary, because EIR No. 348 concluded that Project-related emissions of VOC and NOX would contribute to the O3, NO2,
PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment designations of the Basin, Project-related construction activities would contribute to the
previously identified significant regional air quality impacts. However, as previously stated, construction emissions associated
with the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds; therefore, the Project would not
contribute to new or worsening impacts than those identified in the Speci fic Plan EIR. No additional mitigation is required, and
the Project would continue to be required to comply with Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ-4 established in EIR No. 348
to further reduce construction emissions. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4, establish procedures to be followed during
construction activities within the ACSP Specific Plan area and would reduce construction air quality emissions to a less than
significant level.
Operation. Long-term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated with stationary sources and mobile sources
involving any Project-related changes. The proposed Project would result in net increases in both stationary- and mobile-
source emissions. The stationary-source emissions would come from area and energy sources.
Air Pollutant Emissions. EIR No. 348 concluded that the ACSP would result in a significant and unavoidable air quality
impact for criteria air pollutants because it would significantly contribute to the nonattainment designations of the Basin.
Based on trip generation rates provided in the Trip Generation Memorandum (2017b) prepared for the proposed Project
(LSA 2018), the Project’s 983 daily trips were accounted for in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum for the
Public Storage Project (Appendix B). Results of this analysis indicate that none of the SCAQMD emission thresholds for
criteria pollutants would be exceeded by Project-related operational emissions. As such, the SCAQMD emission thresholds
would not be exceeded for criteria pollutants by Project-related emissions. Therefore, Project-related long-term air quality
impacts would not result in new or worsening impacts than those identified in the EIR No. 348. Although no additional
mitigation is required to reduce Project-related operational emissions, However, the Project would be required to comply
with Mitigation Measures AQ-6 and AQ-8 (identified in EIR No. 348), which require installation of Energy Star appliances
and EV charging stations. Implementation of these mitigation measures would serve to further reduce operational air quality
emissions to a less than significant level.
CO Hot Spots. EIR No. 348 concluded that CO hot spots are not an environmental impact of concern for the ACSP and
localized air quality impacts related to CO hot spots were identified as less than significant. Similarly, the Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Memorandum for the Public Storage Project (Appendix B) determined that given the extremely low level of
CO concentrations in the Project area and the lack of traffic impacts at any intersections, Project-related vehicles are not
expected to contribute significantly to CO concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards. Therefore, because no
CO hot spot would occur, as identified in EIR No. 348 , there would be no Project-related impacts on CO concentrations.
LST Analysis. EIR No. 348 concluded that an LST analysis can only be conducted at a project -level, and quantification of
LSTs is not applicable for a program-level environmental analysis. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum for
the Public Storage Project (Appendix B) conducted an LST analysis for the Project and ultimately concluded that
operational emission rates would not exceed the LSTs for the school 360 ft (110 m) to the northea st of the Project site.
Therefore, no mitigation is required.
Odors. The proposed Project includes the redevelopment of the site with a larger Public Storage facility; uses and activities on
the site would be the same as in the existing condition. Self-storage facilities do not typically produce objectionable odors that
would substantially affect a substantial number of people. Additionally, there are no sensitive receptors within the vicinity of
the Project site that would be subjected to potential odors. Therefore, impacts related to objectionable odors would be less than
significant, and no mitigation would be required.
AQMP Consistency. EIR No. 348 concluded that the ACSP could potentially exceed the assumptions in the AQMP and would
not be considered consistent with the AQMP. Consequently, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The Project site
land use classification is designated “Industrial” on the City’s General Plan. The proposed Project involves construction and
operation of a public storage facility; therefore it is consistent with the existing zoning classification for the site. Therefore, the
19
proposed Project is consistent with the current regional AQMP and the Project would not result in a new or worsening impact
related to implementation of the AQMP.
Conclusion. The Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4, AQ-6, and AQ-8;
however, the Project would not be required to implement Mitigation Measures AQ -5, AQ-7, or AQ-10 because those
mitigation measures are applicable to proposed residential uses and new development within close proximity to an existing
sensitive use.
The Project would implement applicable mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 312 for the ACSP and the MMRP
created for this Project. For the reasons stated above , the Project would not result in greater impacts than those identified in
the previously certified EIR No. 348.
Mitigation Measures:
AQ-1: Prior to issuance of grading, demolition, or building plans, whichever occurs first, the Property owner/developer
shall provide a note on plans indicating that ongoing, during grading and construction, the construction contractors
will use equipment that meets the following United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-Certified
emissions standards:
All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet the Tier 4 Final
emission standards. Any emissions control device used by the construction contractor shall achieve emissions
reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a
similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB regulations.
AQ-2: Prior to issuance of grading, demolition, or building plans, whichever occurs first, the Property owner/developer
shall provide a list of all construction equipment proposed to be used on the Project site. This list may be provided
on the building plans. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of the
equipment; that the equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers ’
recommendations; and, that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in
compliance with California Air Resources Board’s Rule 2449.
AQ-3: Prior to issuance of grading, demolition, or building plans, whichever occurs first, the Property owner/developer
shall submit a dust control plan that implements the following measures during ground -disturbing activities, in
addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District
Rule 403, to further reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions:
a) Following all grading activities, the construction contractor shall re-establish ground cover on the
construction site through seeding and watering.
b) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets with Rule 1186–compliant,
PM10-efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occ urs
as a result of hauling.
c) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard on
trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and tarp materials with a fabric cover or other cover
that achieves the same amount of protection.
d) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and
disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the construction site and a minimum of three times per
day.
e) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit on-site vehicle speeds on unpaved
roads to no more than 15 miles per hour.
The Building Division shall verify compliance during normal construction site inspections.
AQ-4: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Property owner/developer shall provide a note on plans indicating that:
a) All coatings and solvents will have a volatile organic compound (VOC) content lower than required under
Rule 1113 (i.e., super compliant paints).
b) All architectural coatings shall be applied either by (1) using a high-volume, low pressure spray method
operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge to achieve a 65 percent
application efficiency; or (2) manual application using a paintbrush, hand-roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag,
or sponge, to achieve a 100 percent applicant efficiency.
c) The construction contractor shall also use precoated/natural colored building materials, where feasible.
20
The Building Division shall verify compliance during normal construction site inspections.
AQ-6: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Property owner/developer shall show on plans that all applicant-
provided appliances be Energy Star appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, clot hes washers, and dryers).
Installation of Energy Star appliances shall be verified by the Building Division prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy.
AQ-8: Prior to issuance of building permits for new construction of non-residential development of 100,000 building
square feet or more, the Property owner/developer shall indicate on plans that Level 2 vehicle charging stations
will be provided for public use, and where feasible, the Property owner/developer shall coordinate with the City of
Anaheim to install Level 3 (480 volt or higher) charging stations. The location of the charging station(s) shall be
specified on building plans, and proper installation shall be verified by the Building Division prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 348-
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United
States Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United
States Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by § 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan?
Narrative Summary: No New Impacts.
Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 348. EIR No. 348 addressed potential impacts to biological resources associated with
implementation of the ACSP. Refer to EIR No. 348, Section 5.3.3, Biological Resources.
EIR No. 348 determined that portions of the ACSP area contain sensitive habitat and species, riparian habitat, and wetlands
that could be impacted by project implementation. Additionally, EIR No. 348 determined that construction activities
associated with new development envisioned under the Specific Plan could result in potentially significant impacts to
migratory bird species. T herefore, the following mitigation measures were identified to reduce potentially significant
21
impacts to biological resources: preparation of a biological survey for areas with potential sensitive species and plant
communities (BIO-1), nesting bird surveys for construction activities occurring during the nesting bird season (BIO -2),
submittal of lighting plans for areas adjacent to natural areas (BIO -3), preparation of a jurisdictional delineation for areas
where construction could affect jurisdictional waters (BIO-4), and obtainment of permits from applicable regulatory
agencies. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 was determined to reduce potentially significant
impacts to a less than significant level.
In addition, because the Speci fic Plan area is located within an urbanized area and is not located in an area regulated by an
adopted habitat conservation plan (HCP), natural community conservation plan (NCCP), or other approved conservation
plan, impacts related to potential conflicts with local policies and/or ordinances protecting biological resources were
determined to be less than significant. No mitigation was determined to be required.
Proposed Project.
Construction. In its existing setting, the Project site is developed with self-storage uses and a paved parking lot. Vegetation
on the site includes ornamental shrubbery on the northern boundary of the site (along La Palma Avenue) and trees and
shrubbery along the southern boundary of the site. Mature trees and ornamental landscaping are also present within the Project
vicinity along both sides of La Palma Avenue and along the Santa Ana River Trail south of the site. The proposed Project
would include demolition, grading and site preparation, and construction activities on the sit e that could result in potential
impacts to nesting birds in trees within the Project vicinity. Therefore, the Project would be required to comply with
Mitigation Measure BIO-2, as identified in EIR No. 348. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -2, which requires pre-
construction nesting bird surveys, would ensure that Project-related impacts to migratory bird species would be less than
significant.
Operation. The proposed Project would include the installation of new security, building, and parking lot lighting. Due to the
proximity of the Santa Ana River, new lighting included as part of the Project could potentially impact nearby natural areas
present south of the site. Therefore, the Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure BIO-3, as identified in
EIR No. 348. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, which requires submittal of lighting plans for projects near
natural areas, would ensure that Project-related impacts to natural areas resulting from new lighting would be less than
significant.
Although the Project site is located adjacent to an area identified as having potential sensitive species and plant
communities, as defined on Figure 5.3 -1 of EIR No. 348, the Project site itself is not located in a designated sensitive area.
In addition, the Project does not propose any improvements within an area requiring a jurisdictional delineation nor would
the Project include any improvements affecting riparian or wetland habitat. Therefore, Mitigation Measures BIO -1, BIO-4,
and BIO-5 are not applicable to the Project and are not required to reduce impacts with respect to sensitive species or
habitat.
Conclusion. The Project would implement the following applicable mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 312 for the
ACSP and the MMRP created for this Project. For the reasons stated above, the Project would not result in greater impacts
to Biological Resources than those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 348.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO-2: Prior to issuance of demolition, grading or building permits, whichever occurs first, construction activity is set to
occur during nesting season (typically between February 1 and July 1), the property owner/developer shall be
required to conduct nesting bird surveys in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
requirements, and submit said surveys to the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Such surveys shall identify
avoidance measures to protect active nests.
BIO-3: Prior to issuance of building permits, for projects with new lighting located adjacent to natural areas, the property
owner/developer shall submit a lighting plan indicating that the proposed lighting has been designed to prevent
artificial lighting from reflecting into adjacent natural areas.
22
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 348-
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5 and/or identified on the Anaheim Citywide
Historic Preservation Plan?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Narrative Summary: No New Impacts
Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 348. EIR No. 348 determined that implementation of the ACSP would not result in impacts
with respect to cultural resources. Refer to EIR No. 348, Chapter 8.0, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant.
Specifically, EIR No. 348 determined that because no designated historical resources exist within the ACSP area and because
the Specific Plan area is fully built out and has previously been disturbed, construction and implementation of the Specific
Plan would not result in impacts to historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources. EIR No. 348 also concluded that
the Specific Plan would not impact human remains because there is no evidence of human remains in the ACSP area and
because future projects would be required to adhere to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, which
establishes procedures to be followed in the unlikely discovery of human remains.
Proposed Project.
Construction and Operation. The Project site is currently developed with a self-storage use and is entirely paved with the
exception of ornamental landscaping fronting La Palma Avenue. According to EIR No. 348, no known cultural resources are
located on or in the vicinity of the site. Additionally, buildings on the property are not listed as historic on the City local
inventory of historic structures.2 Similarly, the Project site is not located in any of the City’s local historic districts or National
Register of Historic Places (National Register) Districts.3 In the unlikely event that construction of the proposed Project
resulted in the discovery of unknown human remains, the Applicant would be required to comply with Section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code, which establishes procedures to be followed in the unlikely discovery of human remains.
Therefore, construction and implementation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts with respect
to cultural resources, and no mitigation would be required.
Conclusion. EIR No. 348 did not identify any mitigation measures with respect to Cultural Resources. For the reasons stated
above, the Project would not result in greater impacts than those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 348.
Therefore, no mitigation measures from MMRP No. 312 or any additional measures are required f or this Project.
2 City of Anaheim. City of Anaheim List of Historic Structures. June 14, 2016.
3 National Register of Historic Places, Digital Archive on NPGallery (accessed March 13, 2018).
National Park Service. Spreadsheets of National Register of Historic Places a nd National Historic Landmarks (accessed
March 13, 2018).
23
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 348-
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-
B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Narrative Summary: No New Impacts.
Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 348. EIR No. 348 analyzed the geotechnical and soils impacts related to the implementation
of the ACSP. Refer to EIR No. 348, Section 5.4.3, Geology and Soils.
EIR No. 348 identified active and potentially active faults in the region that could result in seismic -related impacts to future
development projects associated with the buildout of the ACSP. However, EIR No. 348 concluded that seismic -related
impacts would be less than significant with implementation of project-specific measures to be identified at the time future
projects are proposed. Additionally, adherence to applicable requirements listed in the Anaheim Municipal Code and the
California Building Code (CBC) were determined to further minimize seismic -related impacts, and no mitigation was
determined to be required.
EIR No. 348 also determined that impacts with respect to liquefaction would be less than significant because future
developments would be required to comply with regulations established in the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act (SHMA).
SHMA requires agencies to only approve projects within seismic hazard zones following a site -specific investigation to
determine if hazards are present, and, if so, with the inclusion of appropriate mitigation to reduce potential hazards. Impacts
associated with lateral spreading, settlement, subsidence, and collapse were also determined to be less than significant
following site-specific investigations occurring as part of future developments. No mitigation was determined to be required.
As noted in EIR No. 348, the ACSP area has a minimal potential for landslides, ground lurching, and erosion due to the high
24
amount of urban development, relatively flat elevations, and low amount of bare ground. However, future demolition and
construction activities were determined to potentially result in increased erosion and loss of topsoil. As such, adherence with
local and State codes pertaining to erosion control and grading (i.e., compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System [NPDES] permit and the subsequent development of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan s
[SWPPP]), were determined to reduce impacts related to erosion and loss of soil to a less than significant level. No
mitigation was determined to be required.
EIR No. 348 also concluded that because the Project area contains a low-to-moderate potential for expansive soils,
compliance with the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code (e.g., Title 17, Land Development Resources) would reduce
potential impacts to life and/or property to a less than significant level. No mitigation was determined to be required.
No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems were proposed as part of the ACSP. Therefore, EIR No. 348
determined that no impacts with respect to soil conditions that would not adequately support septic tanks would occur.
Proposed Project. The discussion and analysis provided in this section is based on the Geotechnical Engineering
Exploration and Analysis for the Proposed Public Storage Redevelopment at 4880 E ast La Palma Avenue, City of Anaheim,
California (Geotechnical Investigation) prepared by Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. (November 22, 2017; Appendix C).
Construction and Operation. As with all of Southern California, the property is subject to strong ground motion resulting
from nearby faults. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the closest fault to the Project site is the Elsinore Fault
located 3.49 miles from the site; and the Project site is not within an Alquist Priolo Fault Hazard Zone. Therefore, the
proposed Project would not expose people or structures to adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake
fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no mitigation would be required.
Although the Project site is not located within a designated fault zone, ground shaking generated by fault movement
could impact the proposed Project. Consistent with the findings of EIR No. 348 , Project-specific recommendations have
been identified in the Geotechnical Investigation to be incorporated into the design and construction of the Project to ensure
that impacts related to ground shaking would not be significant. Additionally, the Project would adhere to applicable
requirements listed in the Anaheim Municipal Code and the most current California Building Code, which stipulate
appropriate design provisions that shall be implemented during Project design and construction. Therefore, impacts
related to ground shaking would be less than significant, and no mitigation wo uld be required.
According to the Geotechnical Investigation, there is a low potential for landslides on the Project site because the property is
not within a designated Landslide Hazard Zone, is generally level, and is not located near an unstable slope. Additionally,
the Geotechnical Investigation found that the site has a very low potential for lateral spread. Therefore, no impacts with
respect to landslides and lateral spread would occur, and no mitigation would be required.
Despite the fact that the potential for landslides on the site was determined to be low, the Geotechnical Investigation
determined that the subject property is located within an area potentially subject to impacts with respect to liquefaction. A s
such, the Project would adhere to the design specifications outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation to ensure that potential
impacts with respect to liquefaction would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.
During construction of the proposed Project, soil would be exposed and there would be increased potential for soil erosion
and siltation compared to existing conditions. As discussed in more detail in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, the
proposed Project would obtain coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land
Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-0014-DWG and 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES No.
CAS000002) (Construction General Permit), coverage under the Construction General Permit requires preparation of a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs),
including Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs to reduce soil erosion. Compliance with the requirements of the
Construction General Permit would ensure that erosion impacts during construction would be less than significant and no
mitigation would be required.
The Geotechnical Investigation also concluded that soils on the Project site have no expansion potential. Therefore, no
impacts with respect to expansive soils would occur, and no mitigation would be required.
No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems were proposed as part of the Project. Therefore, no impacts with
25
respect to soil conditions that would not adequately support septic tanks would occur, and no mitigation would be required.
Conclusion. EIR No. 348 did not identify any mitigation measures with respect to Geology. For the reasons stated above,
the Project would not result in greater impacts than those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 348. Therefore, no
mitigation measures from MMRP No. 312 or any additional measures are required for this Project .
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 348-
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Narrative Summary: No New Impact s.
Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 348. EIR No. 348 analyzed the potential impacts from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
related to the implementation of the ACSP. Refer to EIR No. 348, Section 5.5.3.
EIR No. 348 determined that implementation of the Specific Plan would not conflict with applicable regulations and policies
adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions because the Specific Plan would comply with federal, State, and local
laws regulating GHG emissions.
Although, the GHG analysis included as part of EIR No. 348 found that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in
the reduction of GHG emissions per capita from 7.27 metric tons of CO2-equivalent per year (MT CO2e/yr) to 6.37 MT
CO2e/yr, potential GHG impacts were identified as a result of buildout of the Specific Plan. It should be noted that
construction GHG emissions associated with future development occurring under the Specific Plan were amortized over
30 years and were added to the overall inventory of operational GHG emissions. EIR No. 348 ultimately determined that the
magnitude of GHG emissions associated with implementation of the Specific Plan would exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds for
GHGs due to the size and scale of the Specific Plan and the nature of planned uses under the ACSP (i.e., commercial and
industrial uses). Although Mitigations Measures AQ -5 through AQ-8 and Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3 would be
incorporated to reduce impacts related to GHG emissions, EIR No. 348 ultimately concluded that GHG emissions associated
with the ACSP would remain cumulatively considerable, significant, and unavoidable.
The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to GHG impacts.
Proposed Project.
Construction and Operation. Although EIR. No. 348 did not analyze GHG emissions from construction as a part of the
programmatic level analysis, EIR No. 348. concluded that implementation of the ACSP’s cumulative contribution to the
long-term GHG emissions in the State would be considered significant and unavoidable.
According to the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum for the Public Storage Project (2018a) (Appendix B), the
total net annual GHG emissions (including amortized construction emissions4) from the Project would be 1,404 MT
4 Per the SCAQMD guidance,4 the total construction emissions are amortized over 30 years (an estimate of the life of the
Project), added to operational emissions, and compared to the applicable GHG significance threshold. Amortized
construction GHG emissions have been added to the operational GHG emissions.
26
CO2e/yr. As such, annual GHG emissions would be below the applicable screening threshold of 3,000 MT CO 2e/yr for
commercial projects. The proposed Project would not impede or interfere with achieving the State’s emission reduction
objectives in AB 32 (and EO S-03-05). Therefore, the project would not result in new or worsening GHG impacts than those
analyzed in EIR No. 348, and no additional mitigation is required. However, t he Project would be required to comply with
Mitigation Measures AQ-6 and AQ-8 (established in EIR No. 348), which would serve to further reduce operational GHG
impacts to a less than significant level (refer to Section III, Air Quality, and Section XVI, Transportation/Traffic, for fur ther
discussion related to the applicability of air quality- and transportation-related mitigation measures). Therefore, Project-
related GHG impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion. The Project would implement applicable GHG mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 312 for the ACSP
and the MMRP for the proposed Project. For the reasons stated above, the Project would not result in greater impacts than
those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 348.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 348-
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
(Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton
Municipal Airport), would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
heliport or helistop, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with,
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
27
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Narrative Summary: No New Impacts.
Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 348. EIR No. 348 analyzed the hazards and hazardous materials impacts related to the
implementation of the ACSP. Refer to EIR No. 348, Section 5.6.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
EIR No. 348 determined that impacts with respect to hazardous materials would be less than significant because implementation
of the ACSP would not result in additional use of hazardous materials and because future projects would be required to comply
with regulations governing hazardous materials and waste management. Additionally, while the Specific Plan area includes
facilities that are located on listed hazardous materials sites, EIR No. 348 determined that impacts would be less than significant
with adherence to federal, State, and local regulations. No mitigation was determined to be required.
The ACSP is not within the vicinity of a public or private airport, nor is the Specific Plan area located within the jurisdic tion
of an Airport Land Use Plan. Therefore, EIR No. 348 concluded that implementation of the ACSP would not result in impacts
related to hazards associated with an existing airport or conflicts with an Airport Land Use Plan. No mitigation was
determined to be required.
EIR No. 348 also determined that because the ACSP area is already developed and because future developments would be
reviewed by the Anaheim Fire Department, impacts with respect to the exposure of structures to wildland fires and potential
conflicts with an adopted emergency response and/or evacuation plan would be less than significant. No mitigation was
determined to be required.
Proposed Project.
Construction. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would use a limited amount of hazardous and
flammable substances/oils (e.g., fuels, lubricants, and solvents) typical during heavy equipment operation for site grading and
construction. The amount of hazardous chemicals present during construction is limited and would be in compliance with
existing government regulations. Therefore, construction activities associated with the proposed Project would result in less
than significant impacts with respect to hazardous materials. No mitigation would be required.
Operation. The proposed Project would redevelop the subject property with a self-storage use that would be similar to the
existing self-storage facility on the site. Self-storage uses do not typically use, store, dispose, or transport large volumes of
hazardous materials. While small quantities of hazardous materials in the form of cleaning solvents, fertilizers, and pesticides
may be used during Project operations, materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with applicable
regulations. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous materials and substances and impacts with respect to the emission
or handling of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of an existing school5 would be less than significant, and no mitigation
would be required.
An Environmental Database Report (EDR) (August 2017a, Appendix D) was prepared for the Project site. One Facility and
Manifest Data (California Hazardous Waste Information System [CA HAZNET]) site was listed at the Project site. A
“hazardous waste manifest” is the shipping document that travels with hazardous waste from the point of generation, through
transportation, to the final treatment, and disposal facility. Wastes transported from the site as part of the documented Manifest
Data included acidic liquids (e.g., battery acid), latex waste, and hydrocarbon solvents (e.g., benzene, hexane, and Stoddard).
These substances were transported from the site to a transfer station for disposal in 1997. No violations or releases of
hazardous substances were found and reported at the Project site. Based on the type of database and the current status of the
Project site (i.e., developed as a public storage facility since 1983), this property is not considered to be a Recognized
Environmental Concern (REC). In addition, the Project site is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5
of the Government Code. Therefore, the Project would not result in development on a property listed as a hazardous materials
site. Impacts would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
The Project site is not within the vicinity of a public or private airport, nor is the property located within the jurisdiction of a n
5 Independence Christian School is the closest school to the site and is located directly northeast of the site across La
Palma Avenue.
28
Airport Land Use Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in hazards associated with an
existing airport nor would the Project result in impacts related to conflicts with an Airport Land Use Plan. No mitigation
would be required.
Implementation of the proposed Project does not include any significant roadway changes that would adversely affect any
emergency response or evacuation plan. Additionally, the Anaheim Fire and Rescue Department will review building plans
for the proposed Project to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Therefore, impacts with respect to the impairment
of an emergency response or evacuation plan would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
The Project site is not located within an area designated as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone by California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).6 Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No mitigation would be required.
Conclusion. EIR No. 348 did not identify any mitigation measures with respect to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. For the
reasons stated above, the Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR
No. 348. Therefore, no mitigation measures from MMRP No. 312 or any additional measures are required for this Project.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Analyzed
in EIR
No. 348 -
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
6 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Anaheim.
October 2011. Website: http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/orange/c30_Anaheim_vhfhsz.pdf
(accessed November 21, 2017).
29
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Expose persons or structures to risk of inundation by
seiche or mudflow?
k) Substantially degrade water quality by contributing
pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or
equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance
(including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials
handling, or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or
other outdoor work areas?
l) Substantially degrade water quality by discharge which
affects the beneficial uses (i.e., swimming, fishing, etc.)
of the receiving or downstream waters?
Narrative Summary: No New Impacts.
Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 348. EIR No. 348 analyzed hydrology and water quality impacts related to the
implementation of the ACSP. Refer to EIR No. 348, Section 5.7.3, Hydrology and Water Quality.
According to EIR No. 348, implementation of the ACSP would result in short-term construction-related and long-term
operational water quality impacts associated with the increase in impervious surfaces resulting from new development under
the Specific Plan. However, compliance with the standard requirements (NPDES requirements, Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board [RWQCB] requirements, and applicable City and County regulations) would reduce these impacts to a
less than significant level. No mitigation was determined to be required.
Although the Specific Plan would result in an increase in impervious area, EIR No. 348 determined that impacts to storm
drain facilities would be less than significant because new development projects under the Specific Plan would be required to
construct adequately sized storm drain systems to convey runoff to existing storm drain facilities and would be required to
prove that existing facilities could accommodate runoff. No mitigation was determined to be required.
Impacts with respect to groundwater during project construction were determined to be less than significant in EIR No. 348
due to the depth of groundwater (18 ft to 115 ft below ground surface [bgs]) in the Specific Plan area. EIR No. 348 also
concluded that no direct impacts to the underlying groundwater resources would occur as a result of Specific Plan buildout;
however, indirect impacts associated with reduced groundwater infiltration may occur as a result of increased impervious area
associated with new development in the Specific Plan area and an increased demand for water, which could increase
groundwater pumping. However, compliance with applicable regulations pertaining to groundwater would ensure that no
overdraft of local groundwater resources would occur and would ensure that impacts with respect to groundwater would be
less than significant. No mitigation was determined to be required.
As identified in EIR No. 348, implementation of the ACSP project would not introduce new development in any 100-year
flood hazard area. Therefore, flooding safety impacts were determined to be less than significant. Impacts with respect to lo ss,
injury, or death as a result of dam failure were also determined to be less than significant due to the low probabilit y of dam
failure and the length of time required for released water to reach the Specific Plan area. No mitigation was determined to be
required.
EIR No. 348 concluded that due to the location of the Specific Plan area in an urbanized area of the City and the relatively flat
nature of the area, no impacts with respect to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur as a result of buildout
30
under the Specific Plan.
Proposed Project. In its existing condition, the Project site is developed with a self-storage use and primarily consists of
impervious area. The Project proposes to redevelop the Project site with a larger self-storage facility; uses and activities on the
site would be the same as in the existing condition.
During construction, the total disturbed area would be approximately 3.45 acres. Because greater than 1 acre of soil would be
disturbed, the proposed Project is subject to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board’s National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land
Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-0014-DWG and 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES No.
CAS000002) (Construction General Permit). However, projects that disturb between 1 and 5 acres can be eligible for a Small
Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver, which would exempt the Project from coverage under the Construction General
Permit. To obtain a waiver, a project needs to demonstrate that there would be no adverse water quality impacts because
construction activities would only occur when there is a low erosivity potential (i.e., the rainfall erosivity value in the R evised
Universal Soil Loss Equation [R value] for the Project is less than 5). Based on a construction start date of December 1, 2018,
and an end date of March 31, 2021, the R factor for the Project would be 128. Therefore, the Project would not qualify for a
waiver and the Project would be required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. The Construction
General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of Construction BMPs. Construction BMPs would
include Erosion Control, Sediment Control, and Good Housekeeping BMPs to reduce erosion and sedimentation and prevent
spills. Compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit would ensure that water quality impacts during
construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
According to the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP; DRC Engineering, Inc. [DRC], February 2018) and the
Hydrology Report (DRC, April 2018) prepared for the Project, in the existing condition, 3.32 acres of the Project site are
impervious. The Project would decrease impervious surface area on the Project site by approximately 0.23 acre (to 3.09 acre),
which should decrease runoff from the site during a storm event. However, according to the Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) and Hydrology Report, modeling conducted for the Project showed that post-development runoff would increase
compared to existing conditions. However, the modeling did not account for the increase in pervious surface areas between
the existing and proposed conditions, which should slow stormwater flow generated on the Project site rather than increase it.
Because the proposed Project would increase the pervious area and the stormwater would be accommodated by the depressed
landscape areas and modular wetland system, no hydrologic impacts to downstream receiving water hydrology would occur.
The Project would comply with the requirements of the North Orange County MS4 Permit. The Project also includes
installation of on-site storm drain systems that would connect to the existing storm drain system in La Palma Avenue, which
eventually discharges to the Santa Ana River. The Project also includes installation of a modular wetland biofiltration system
connected to the existing catch basin on East La Palma Avenue to treat stormwater runoff from the Project site. Compliance
with the requirements of the North Orange County MS4 Permit and implementation of BMPs would ensure that water quality
impacts during operation would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
According to the Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis (November 2017) prepared for the Project, groundwater
was encountered at depths of approximately 24 to 25 ft bgs during subsurface explorations. Historic high groundwater
elevation was approximately 10 ft bgs. However, groundwater fluctuations, localized zones of perched waters, and rise in
solid moisture content are anticipated during and after the rainy season and from landscape irrigation. Because the Project site
is susceptible to shallow perched water conditions, groundwater may be encountered during construction. If groundwater is
encountered during excavation activities, groundwater dewatering may be required. Dewatered groundwater would be
released to the storm drain system, which eventually discharges into downstream receiving waters. Groundwater may contain
high levels of total dissolved solids, salinity, nitrates, and other constituents that could be introduced to downstream surface
waters. Any groundwater dewatering during excavation would be conduc ted in accordance with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s
General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an
Insignificant (De Minimus) Threat to Water Quality (Order No. R8-2015-0004, NPDES No. CAG998001). This permit
requires testing and treatment (as necessary) of groundwater prior to release to ensure the discharge complies with the effluent
limitations specified in the permit. With compliance with the groundwater dewatering permit, water quality impacts from
groundwater dewatering would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No 06059C0152J
(December 3, 2009), the Project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain. Therefore, the Project would not introduce
new development in a 100-year flood hazard area.
The project site is located within the Prado Dam inundation zone and an area protected from flooding by a levee. The
31
proposed self-storage facility would replace an existing self-storage facility and would require a similar number of employees
as are currently employed at the existing self-storage facility. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose additional
structures or people to risk of flooding from failure of a dam or levee. Additionally, there is the low probability of dam failure
or levee failure. Impacts with respect to loss, injury, or death as a result of levee or dam failure would be less than significant,
and no mitigation is required.
The Project site is located within an urbanized area of the City, is relatively flat, is not located near a large open body of water
such as a lake or reservoir, and is not adjacent to the Pacific Ocean or within a tsunami inundation area; therefore, no impacts
with respect to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur.
No New Impact. EIR No. 348 did not identify any mitigation measures with respect to Hydrology and Water Quality. For the
reasons stated above, the Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR
No. 348. Therefore, no mitigation measures from MMRP No. 312 or any additional measures are required for this Project.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 348-
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan?
Narrative Summary: No New Impacts.
Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 348. EIR No. 348 analyzed the land use impacts related to the implementation of the ACSP.
Refer to EIR No. 348, Section 5.8.3, Land Use and Planning.
EIR No. 348 determined that build out of ACSP would not result in the division of an established community because the
Specific Plan area is located in a developed area of northern Anaheim and because the Specific Plan would allow for
redevelopment of existing co mmercial and industrial uses on parcels currently developed with similar uses. EIR No. 348 also
determined that the ACSP would not conflict with an adopted HCP or NCCP due to the developed nature of the Specific
Plan area and because the area is not part of any HCP or NCCP. No mitigation was determined to be required.
EIR No. 348 identified a less than significant impact with respect to potential conflicts between the ACSP and applicable
planning documents. Specifically, EIR No. 348 included an extensive analysis demonstrating the ACSP’s consistency with
the respective goals and policies established in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, the 2008 Southern California
Association of Governments [SCAG] Regional Comprehensive Plan, SCAG’s 2012 –2035 Regional Transportation Plan, and
Orange County’s Sustainable Communities Strategy. No mitigation was determined to be required.
Proposed Project.
Construction and Operation. Construction of the proposed Project would result in the demolition of the existing self-storage
facility and construction and operation of a larger self-storage facility; uses and activities on the site would be the same as in
the existing condition. The Project site is located in an urban, built -out area. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project
would not result in changes or modifications to any adjacent land uses that would physically divide an established
community. No mitigation would be required.
The Project would be consistent with the Industrial General Plan land use designation, Industrial (DA -1) zoning
classification, and applicable provisions and standards set forth in the ACSP. Although the Project would require a variance
32
to allow fewer spaces than required by the Zoning Code and a CUP to allow for the proposed increase in FAR and operation
of the self-storage use on the site, approval of the variance and CUP would ensure Project consistency with the City’s
Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to conflicts with
applicable plans regulating land use and development on the Project site, and no mitigat ion would be required.
The Project site is not located within an area regulated by an adopted HCP or NCCP. Therefore, construction and operation
of the proposed Project would not result in potential conflicts with an HCP or NCCP, and no mitigation would be required.
Conclusion. EIR No. 348 did not identify any mitigation measures with respect to Land Use and Planning. For the reasons
stated above, the Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 348.
Therefore, no mitigation measures from MMRP No. 312 or any additional measures are required for this Project.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 348-
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Narrative Summary: No New Impact s.
Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 348. EIR No. 348 analyzed the mineral resource impacts related to the implementation of the
ACSP. Refer to EIR No. 348, Section 5.9.3, Mineral Resources.
Although portions of the Specific Plan area are designated Mineral Resource Zone 2, (i.e., current information indicates that
significant mineral deposits are present or there is a high likelihood of their presence), EIR No. 348 concluded that these
areas are already developed and the practical value of mineral resources is limited. Further, existing quarry, sand, gravel, or
clay pits in the Specific Plan area would be allowed to operate under the ACSP, and displacement of these uses would not be
required. Therefore, EIR No. 348 concluded that implementation of the ACSP would result in less than significant impacts
with respect to the loss of availability of a locally or regionally significant mineral resource. No mitigation was determined to
be required.
Proposed Project.
Construction and Operation. Construction of the proposed Project would result in the demolition of the existing self-storage
facility and construction and operation of a larger self-storage facility; uses and activities on the site would be the same as in
the existing condition. According to the Mineral Resource Map included as Figure 5.9-1 in EIR No. 348, there are no known
mineral resources on the Project site nor is the site zoned for mining activities. Therefore, construction and operation of the
proposed Project would not result in impacts with respect to mineral resources, and no mitigation would be required.
Conclusion. EIR No. 348 did not identify any mitigation measures with respect to Mineral Resources. For the reasons
stated above , the Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 348.
Therefore, no mitigation measures from MMRP No. 312 or any additional measures are required for this Project.
XII. NOISE -- Would the Project result in:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 348-
No New
Impact
No
Impact
33
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
(Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton
Municipal Airport), would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
heliport or helistop, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Narrative Summary: No New Impacts.
Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 348. EIR No. 348 analyzed the noise impacts related to the implementation of the ACSP.
Refer to EIR No. 348, Section 5.10.3, Noise.
Construction. EIR No. 348 determined that construction activities associated with future development envisioned under the
ACSP would result in potentially significantly noise impacts. As such, Mitigation Measure N-1, which requires
implementation of noise -reducing measures to be implemented during construction activities, and Mitigation Measure N-2,
which requires preparation of a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise impacts associated with new
projects requiring pile driving or blasting, were determined to be required. Despite the implementation of these measures, EI R
No. 348 concluded that construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Operation. EIR No. 348 identified a less than significant impact with respect to the exposure of future residents and/or
workers to airport-related noise due to the distance of the Specific Plan area from the nearest airport (i.e., Fullerton Municipal
Airport, approximately 5.5 miles to the northwest).
EIR No. 348 identified significant unavoidable vibration impacts associated with the development of new heavy industrial
uses and new sensitive uses in areas adjacent to the rail line that traverses through the Specific Plan area . As such, EIR No.
348 required implementation of Mitigation Measures N -3 and N-4, which require an acoustic analysis for projects involving
new vibration-sensitive land uses within 200 ft of any rail line and/or new industrial uses within 200 ft of any existing
residential use or transit-oriented areas (D-3 zoning classification). Implementation of Mitigation Measures N-3 and N-4
were determined to reduce operational vibration impacts to a less than significant level.
While EIR No. 348 also determined that development associated with the ACSP would not cause a substantial noise
increase related to traffic on local roadways in the City, potential noise impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors
to elevated noise levels from transportation (e.g., vehicular traffic and rail noise) and stationary (e.g., loading docks, industrial
and/or manufacturing operations, and landscaping activities) sources were identified. As such, EIR No. 348 required
implementation of Mitigation Measure N-5, which requires preparation of an acoustical report for new development proposed
in the Specific Plan area. Despite implementation of Mitigation Measure N-5, EIR No. 348 concluded that buildout of the
ACSP would create long-term land use compatibility issues related to noise and would expose receptors to noise levels
in excess of established standards, thereby resulting in potentially significant impacts.
Proposed Project.
Construction. Construction of the proposed Project would result in the demolition of the existing self-storage facility and
construction of a larger self-storage facility. Temporary noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors (including Independence
Christian School located directly northeast of the site across La Palma Avenue) could occur during Project construction as a
34
result of the following: (1) increased noise levels on nearby roadways resulting from the transport of workers and materials
to and from the site, and (2) increased noise levels generated as a result of demolition, site preparation, grading, and
construction activities. Although construction would result in temporary increases in the ambient noise environment, the
Project would comply with Section 6.70.010 of the City’s Municipal Code, which exempts construction noise between the
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (Mitigation Measure N -1, as identified in EIR No. 348). Mitigation Measure N -1 also
requires that all combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with maintained mufflers, all stationary
equipment and stockpiles are located as far as possible from nearby noise -sensitive uses, and all construction traffic is
limited to haul routes established by the City. Therefore, because construction activities associated with the proposed Project
would be temporary in nature and would cease upon completion of the Project, and because the project would be required to
implement Mitigation Measure N-1, potential construction noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors would be less than
significant.
The proposed Project does not include any pile driving or blasting activities during Project construction activities. Therefo re,
Mitigation Measure N-2, as identified in EIR No. 348, which requires an acoustical analysis for projects requiring pile
driving or blasting activities, would not be applicable to the proposed Project.
Operation. Uses and activities that would occur on the site during Project operation would be the same as t hose that occur in
the existing condition. The proposed Project is located in an urban area and is surrounded by commercial, industrial, and
religious uses to the north, west, and east. There are no sensitive noise receptors within the Project vicinity.
As described further in Section XVI, Transportation/Traffic, the proposed Project would not result in a significant increase
in traffic. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels on surrounding
roadways. Operation of the proposed self-storage use would be similar to existing noise levels generated at the site.
However, given the nature of the Project as a self-storage use, operational activities would not produce substantial levels of
vibration or noise. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to
noise and vibration, and no mitigation would be required.
The proposed Project does not include the development of any new vibration -sensitive land uses or new residential uses that
could be impacted by railroad, roadway, aircraft, helicopter, stationary, or construction noise. Therefore, Mitigation
Measures NOI-2 through NOI-5, which require Project -specific acoustical analyses are not applicable and are not required
to reduce operational noise impacts.
Conclusion. The Project would implement applicable mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 312 for the ACSP and the
MMRP created for this Project. For the reasons stated above, the Project would not result in greater impacts with respect to
Noise than those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 348.
Mitigation Measure:
N-1: Ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for
requiring the construction contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise:
Construction activity is limited to the daytime hours between 7 AM to 7 PM, as prescribed in the City Municipal
Code.
All internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained
mufflers.
Stationary equipment such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby
noise-sensitive uses.
Stockpiling is located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
Construction traffic shall be limited to the haul routes established by the City of Anaheim.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 348-
No New
Impact
No
Impact
35
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Narrative Summary: No New Impacts.
Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 348. EIR No. 348 analyzed the population and housing impacts related to the implementation
of the ACSP. Refer to EIR No. 348, Section 5.11.3, Population and Housing.
EIR No. 348 determined that buildout of the ACSP would increase population, employment, and housing in the Specific Plan
area. The ASCP would induce population growth directly by allowing for the future development of residential uses and
indirectly by allowing for the future development of non-residential uses in the Specific Plan area. Specifically, the ACSP
would allow for a 2,607-unit increase in dwelling units and a corresponding increase in 7,821 residents.7 Employment growth
was determined to be facilitated by the increase of over 19 million sf of non-residential space in the ACSP area. Specifically,
EIR No. 348 determined that implementation of the ACSP would add approximately 38,720 jobs in the City and surrounding
areas. Although the Specific Plan would result in population, employment, and housing growth, EIR No. 348 determined that
impacts with respect to the inducement of substantial population growth in the area would be less than significant, and no
mitigation was determined to be required.
In addition, EIR No. 348 determined that the Specific Plan area would serve as a regional job center that would facilitate
future job growth at strategic points along rail, transit systems, and freeway corridors. Consequently, EIR No. 348 determined
that the Specific Plan would be consistent with SCAG policies that aim to better coordinate infrastructure development with
projected population, housing, and employment growth. Impacts with respect to the displacement of housing or people were
also determined to be less than significant because implementation of the Specific Plan would not cause existing uses to move
or relocate. Therefore no existing housing or people would be displaced, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere. No mitigation was determined to be required.
Proposed Project.
Construction and Operation. In its existing setting, the Project site includes a caretaker apartment, which houses an on-site
employee who provides management and maintenance services on the property. This building would be demolished as part of
the Project and no replacement apartment would be constructed in its place. Because the existing caretaker apartment is a
function of the existing self-storage use on the property, demolition of this structure would not result in the displacement of
people or housing necessitating replacement housing elsewhere in the City, and no mitigation would be required.
Construction of the proposed Project would result in the demolition of the existing self-storage facility and construction and
operation of a larger self-storage facility; uses and activities on the site would be the same as in the existing condition. Project
implementation would not result in a significant increase in employees on the site because operation of the proposed self-
storage facility would require a similar number of employees as are currently employed at the existing self-storage facility.
Additionally, the proposed Project would not induce population growth through the extension of roads or other infrastructure.
Therefore, potential impacts related to the substantial inducement of population growth in the Project area would be less than
significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Conclusion. EIR No. 348 did not identify any mitigation measures with respect to Population and Housing. For the reasons
stated above , the Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 348.
Therefore, no mitigation measures from MMRP No. 312 or any additional measures are required for this Project.
7 Increase in population assumes 3 residents per unit. 2,607 units * 3 persons per unit = 7,821 persons.
36
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 348-
No New
Impact
No
Impact
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Narrative Summary: No New Impacts.
Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 348. EIR No. 348 analyzed the impacts to public services (i.e., fire protection, police
protection, school services, and other public facilities) related to implementation of the ACSP. Refer to EIR No. 348, Section
5.12, Public Services.
Fire Protection. EIR No. 348 determined that the Specific Plan-related increase in population, density, and usage would
increase the demand for emergency medical services, ambulance transportation, and rescue operations provided by the City
of Anaheim Fire and Rescue (AF&R). Consequently, EIR No. 348 also determined that implementation of the Specific Plan
would impact the AF&R’s ability to meet the response time goals, would increase the demand for other operational sections,
and would require additional resources to maintain or improve response times and fire protection services within the ACSP
area.
An increase in tax reve nue, over an extended period of time, relative to the increase in development intensity, and funds
allocated to the AF&R through the annual Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program review process were
determined to adequately fund and offset costs associated with the Specific Plan’s demand for a dditional fire personnel,
associated facilities, and equipment. In addition, new development occurring under the Specific Plan would be r equired to
comply with applicable fire and building codes to further reduce impacts to fire protection services. Therefore, EIR No. 348
concluded that impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant, and no mitigation was determined to be
required.
Police Protection. EIR No. 348 determined that implementation of the ACSP would add to the number of service calls
received and to the number of patrol staff necessary to service the ACSP area. Specifically, buildout of the Specific Plan
would generate an additional 4,037 calls for service per year, and would require 12 additional sworn officers, an additional
4,800 sf police facility, 11 additional police vehicles, 6 additional full -time civilian staff, 3 additional part-time civilian staff,
and more than $60,000 in funds for new equipment.
Impacts to police services were determined to be less than significant because new and/or improved police facilities would
be adequately funded by an increase in tax revenue, over an extended period of time, relative to the increase in development
intensity, and through funds allocated to the Anaheim Police Department through the annual Operating Budget and Capital
Improvement Program review process. In addition, new development occurring under the Specific Plan would be required to
comply with the principles of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) prepared by the Anaheim Police
Department to further reduce impacts with respect to police services. Therefore, EIR No. 348 concluded that impacts to
police protection would be less than significant, and no mitigation was determined to be required.
School Facilities. EIR No. 348 determined that implementation of the ACSP would generate new students within the
Placentia Yorba Linda Unified School District (PYLUSD) boundaries and increase the demand for school facilities for
PYLUSD. Although existing school facilities are not adequate to serve the ACSP buildout, EIR No. 348 concluded that
impacts to school facilities would be less than significant following the payment of development impact fees pursuant to
Senate Bill 50. Payment of these fees would fully mitigate Specific Plan-related impacts with respect to school facilities. As
37
such, no mitigation was determined to be required.
Other Public Facilities. EIR No. 348 determined that the increase in population occurring as a result of buildout of the
Specific Plan would result in an increased d emand for library services. However, these impacts were determined to be less
than significant because required improvements to libraries would be adequately funded by an increase in tax revenue, over
an extended period of time, relative to the increase in development intensity. Additional library space and materia l
acquisition would be provided through the annual Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program review process.
Therefore, EIR No. 348 concluded that impacts to libraries would be less than significant, and no mitigation was determined
to be required.
EIR No. 348 also determined that the increase in population as a result of implementation of the ACSP would increase the
demand for daycare centers and childcare facilities in the ACSP area. Since daycare facilities would be permitted within all
Development Areas in the ACSP (except for DA-6 Open Space/Water Area), EIR No. 348 determined that implementation
of the ACSP would not result in any adverse impact to local daycare facilities. No mitigation was determined to be required.
Proposed Project.
Construction and Operation. Construction of the proposed Project would result in the demolition of the existing self-storage
facility and construction and operation of a larger self-storage facility; uses and activities on the site would be the same as in
the existing condition. Although construction of the proposed Project may temporarily increase employment, jobs provided
by Project construction would be temporary and would cease upon Project completion. Therefore, construction activities
associated with the proposed Project would not result in the substantial inducement of growth in the Project area.
As discussed in Section XIII, Population and Housing, Project implementation would not result in an increase in population
because the Project does not include the development of any housing units. Additionally, the Project would not result in
substantial employment growth in the Project vicinity because operation of the proposed Project would require a similar
number of employees as are currently employed at the existing self-storage facility. Therefore, the Project would not result in
an increased demand for library, school, or daycare facilities, and no mitigation would be required.
Operation of the Project would require similar levels of fire and police protection services as the existing condition. Therefore,
impacts to fire and police services as a result of population growth would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be
required.
Conclusion. EIR No. 348 did not identify any mitigation measures with respect to Public Services that were identified in
MMRP No. 312 for the ACSP. For the reasons stated above , the Project would not result in any impacts beyond those
identified in the previously certified EIR No. 348. Therefore, no mitigation measures from MMRP No. 312 or any additional
measures are required for this Project.
XV. RECREATION -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 348-
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Narrative Summary: No New Impacts.
38
Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 348. EIR No. 348 analyzed recreation impacts related to the implementation of the ACSP.
Refer to EIR No. 348, Section 5.11.3, Recreation.
EIR No. 348 determined that because the City does not meet the parkland standard of 2 acres per 1,000 residents, the increase
in residential dwelling units (i.e., 2,607 units) and additional employees (i.e., 38,720 jobs) occurring as a result
implementation of the Specific Plan area would create an additional demand for recreational facilities. This increase in
demand for recreational facilities was also determined to likely accelerate the normal wear and tear on existing park facilities.
EIR No. 348 determined that implementation of the ACSP would provide increased recreational opportunities. Specifically,
the ACSP would encourage the creation of bicycle and pedestrian trials that link Anaheim Canyon to surrounding
neighborhoods and the Santa Ana Trail system. The ACSP would also provide options for additional parks, open space, and
recreation facilities for area workers and residents through identifying potential open space improvements, including the Basin
Turf Conversion, the Metrolink Station Connection, and the Waterway Trail Connection. Furthermore, new residential uses
would be required to provide recreational areas and pay park impact fees, in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code.
Therefore, EIR No. 348 determined that impacts related to recreation would be less than significant, and no mitigation was
determined to be required.
Proposed Project.
Construction. Construction of the proposed Project would occur within the site boundaries and would not result in impacts to
parks or recreational facilities in the Project vicinity. Therefore, construction impacts with respect to parks and recreatio nal
facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Operation. The proposed Project involves the redevelopment of the Project site with an improved self-storage use that would
be similar to the self-storage use currently on the site. The Project does not involve the creation of any parks or recreational
facilities on the Site. Additionally, the proposed Project does not include the development of new housing that would increase
the demand for recreational parks or facilities. As discussed in Section XIII, Population and Housing, the Project is not
anticipated to result in substantial employment growth in the area. Although it is possible that employees may use parks in the
City during lunch breaks or after-work hours, the proposed Project would not significantly increase the number of on-site
employees so park usage would occur at the same rate and in the same manner as that which occurs in the existing condition.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not increase the use of parks or contribute to substantial physical
deterioration of parks or recreational facilities. No mitigation would be required.
Conclusion. EIR No. 348 did not identify any mitigation measures with respect to Recreation. For the reasons stated above,
the Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 348. Therefore, no
mitigation measures from MMRP No. 312 or any additional measures ar e required for this Project.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 348-
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into account
all modes of transportation including mass transit and
non-motorized travel and relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
39
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
those results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,
or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
Narrative Summary: No New Impacts.
Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 348. EIR No. 348 analyzed the transportation and traffic impacts related to the
implementation of the ACSP. Refer to EIR No. 348, Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic.
As evaluated in EIR No. 348, implementation of the ACSP would result in significant impacts at 26 signalized and 3
unsignalized intersections in the City of Anaheim, 3 arterial segments, and 3 freeway ramp intersections in the Existing Plus
Project 2013 scenario. EIR. No. 348 also determined that implementation of the ACSP would result in impacts at 12
signalized study area intersections in the City of Anaheim, 1 signalized study area intersection in the City of Orange, 1
signalized study area intersection in the City of Placentia, 1 unsignalized intersection under the jurisdiction of Caltrans
(Kraemer Boulevard/SR-91 eastbound ramps), and 6 arterial segments in the Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout Plus
Project scenario.
EIR No. 348 also analyzed impacts with respect to freeway facilities in the Specific Plan area. Results of this analysis
identified significant impacts at the SR-91 Westbound Lakeview Avenue Off-Ramp in the Existing 2013 Plus Project
scenario and significant impacts at the SR-57 Southbound Orangethorpe Avenue On-Ramp in the Forecast Year 2040
General Plan Buildout Plus Project scenario. Impacts to these intersections were determined to be significant and unavoidable
because the freeway ramps are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans; therefore, the City could not guarantee the implementation
of recommended improvements.
Due to the identification of potentially significant impacts at the above-referenced intersections and segments, physical
capacity improvements (e.g., additional lanes, modified lane configurations) and operational improvements (e.g., signal
phasing) were considered for the impacted intersections. EIR No. 348 also required the implementation of Mitigation
Measures T-1 through T-8, which require the following: preparation of a comprehensive Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program (T-1), participation in a clean fuel shuttle program (T-2), participation in the Anaheim
Transportation Network/Transportation Management Association (T-3), payment of traffic impact fees (T-4), preparation of a
traffic improvement phasing analysis (T-5), implementation of traffic improvements (T-6 and T-7), and coordination with
jurisdictions with impacted intersections (T-8). Despite the implementation of recommended improvements and mitigation
measures, impacts were ultimately determined to be significant and unavoidable.
The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to these traffic impacts.
While EIR No. 348 identified significant unavoidable impacts under both the Existing 2013 Plus Project Forecast Year and
the 2040 General Plan Buildout Plus Project scenarios, no impacts on intersections identified in the Orange County
Transportation Authority’s (OCTA) 2015 Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) or applicable plans
regulating transportation (i.e., the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [RTP/SCS]) were
40
identified.
Impacts with respect to hazardous conditions related to air traffic patterns were determined to be less than significant due
to the distance of the Specific Plan area to the nearest airport (i.e., the Fullerton Municipal Airport, which is approximately
5.5 miles to the northwest). Less than significant impacts were also identified with respect to hazardous design features
because the Specific Plan would incorporate Complete Street strategies, would not include any inherently hazardous
design features, and would implement design features aimed at reducing potential hazards associated with increased
pedestrian and bicycle traffic resulting from new residential uses near the Anaheim Metrolink station. Furthermore,
impacts with respect to inadequate emergency access were also determined to be less than significant because future
individual projects would be required to provide appropriate fire and emergency access. No mitigation was determined to
be required.
Proposed Project.
Construction. As discussed further below, Project buildout would generate approximately 813 net new daily trips. It is
anticipated that vehicle trips generated on a daily basis throughout each p hase of construction (e.g., trips associated with
construction workers and delivery of construction materials) would be fewer than vehicle trips generated at Project
buildout. In addition, most construction vehicle trips occur outside the peak hours. As su ch, it is reasonable to conclude
that traffic impacts related to construction of the proposed Project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would
be required.
The proposed Project may require temporary lane closures on La Palma Avenue during c onstruction activities. Temporary
lane closures would be implemented consistent with the recommendations of the Caltrans’ California Joint Utility Traffic
Control Manual (2014). Among other things, the manual recommends early coordination with affected age ncies to ensure
that emergency vehicle access is maintained. In this manner, officials could plan and respond appropriately in the event
emergency vehicles would be required to access La Palma Avenue. Therefore, impacts to emergency access during
construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Operation. The following discussion is based on the findings and analysis included in the Trip Generation Memorandum
for the Proposed Public Storage Facility Project at 4880 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim California (Trip Generation
Memorandum; August 24, 2017b (Appendix F).
The purpose of the Trip Generation Memorandum (August 2017b) was to determine whether or not trip generation
associated with Project implementation would require a more detailed traffic analysis based on the City’s Criteria for
Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. These guidelines require a traffic impact analysis for a project that would: (1) create
100 or more trips in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, (2) contribute 51 or more peak-hour trips to any CMP-monitored
intersection, (3) generate 1,600 daily trips if located on the CMP highway system, or (4) generate 2,400 daily trips if
adjacent to the CMP highway system.
The results of the Trip Generation Memorandum found that that the proposed Project is expected to generate 813 net new
daily trips8 with 46 net new trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 84 net new trips during the p.m. peak hour.
Based on the City’s Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, the Project is anticipated to result in a net increase
of less than 100 trips in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, which is below the threshold for requiring a Traffic Impact Analysis.
Thus, no further analysis with respect to transportation and traffic is required, and impacts to intersections and roadway
segments within the Project are anticipated to be less than significant. Although the proposed Project would result in less
than significant traffic impacts, the Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure T -4, as identified in EIR
No. 348. Mitigation Measure T -4 requires the Applicant to pay all applicable transportation fees to the City in effect at the
time of issuance of the building permit.
Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts at roadway segments and intersections
within the study area because the Project would not generate a significant number of trips to and from the site.
Consequently, the Project is not anticipated to conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures
of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including the OCTA’s 2015 Orange County Congestion
8 The existing self-storage facility on the site generates approximately 170 daily trips, which when subtracted from the
983 trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed Project, would result in a net increase in 813 daily trips over
existing conditions.
41
Management Program.
Impacts with respect to hazardous conditions related to air traffic patterns would also be less than significant because there
are no airports located within the vicinity of the Project site. Furthermore, the Project would not include any design
features or introduce any new land uses that would result in hazardous conditions on the site.
Emergency access to the Project site would be provided via the driveway off La Palma Avenue. The final site plan would
be required to comply with all Anaheim Fire and Rescue Department standards with respect to emergency access.
Therefore, impacts with respect to emergency access would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
The proposed Project would not result in the introduction of new land uses to the site that would generate an increased
demand for alternative modes of transportation nor would the Project include any changes to alternative modes of mobility.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
Conclusion. The proposed Project would implement applicable mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 312 for the
Specific Plan and the MMRP for the proposed Project. For the reasons stated above, the proposed Project would not result
in any impacts with respect to Traffic beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 348.
Mitigation Measure:
T-4: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay all
applicable transportation impact fees to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in
effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City -authorized improvements provided by the
property owner/developer; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 348-
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities (including sewer (waste
water) collection facilities) or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project (including large-scale developments as defined by
Public Resources Code § 21151.9 and described in
Question No. 20 of the City’s Environmental Information
Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
42
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations related to electricity?
i) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations related to natural gas?
j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations related to telephone service?
k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations related to television service/
reception?
Narrative Summary: No New Impacts.
Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 348. EIR No. 348 analyzed utilities and service systems impacts related to the
implementation of the ACSP. Refer to EIR No. 348, Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems.
Wastewater Collection and Treatment. EIR No. 348 determined that implementation of the ACSP would result in the
generation of 4.74 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater for treatment, which would represent an increase of 0.71
mgd from the “No Project” scenario of 4.03 mgd. Sewer flows from the Specific Plan area would be conveyed to Orange
County Sanitation Districts (OCSD) Plant No. 1, which receives wastewater from six major truck sewer pipes and provides
advanced primary and secondary treatment. EIR No. 348 identified a combined maximum secondary treatment capacity of
Plants No. 1 and No. 2 of 332 mgd, with an average daily influent of 199 mgd. The additional 0.71 mgd generated as a result
of Specific Plan buildout was determined to represent a 0.36 percent increase to the average daily influent of 199 mgd. This
increase was determined occur incrementally over a 20-year period. As such, EIR No. 348 determined that buildout of the
Specific Plan would not require construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, EIR No. 349
concluded that because new development under the ACSP would be required to comply with regulations set by the State
Water Resources Control Board, implementation of the ACSP would not result in a discharge of untreated or partially treated
wastewater.
As discussed in EIR No. 348, a sewer capacity study found that all sewer lines within the ACSP Area under the existing
conditions operated at acceptable levels and would continue to operate at acceptable levels at General Plan buildout
conditions. EIR No. 348 found that implementation of the ACSP would result in a total sewer generation of 4.74 mgd under
buildout conditions. The Specific Plan-related increase in wastewater would result in a total of 48 deficient sewer segments.
However, because future projects occurring under the Specific Plan would be required to prepare project -specific analyses
during final design to evaluate sewer capacities (Mitigation Measure USS -1) and would also be required to pay capital
facilities fee charges to OCSD (Mitigation Measure USS-2), impacts were determined to be less than significant.
Furthermore, impacts were also determined to be less than significant because future street improvement plans occurring
within the Specific Plan area would be required t o coordinate with OCSD to ensure that backflow prevention devices are
installed to prevent surcharge flow from entering private properties (Mitigation Measure USS-3). As such, impacts with
respect to wastewater were determined to be less than significant.
Water Supply and Distribution Systems. As described further in EIR No. 348, Anaheim Canyon receives its water supply via
an extensive network of delivery lines, which are fed from the City’s Linda Vista water supply center. The Linda Vista
facility consists of groundwater wells, pumping facilities (with backup power), and a 4 -million-gallon storage reservoir.
According to EIR No. 348, several transmission mains in the Linda Vista Pump Station and Reservoir complex were found to
be deficient based on ultimate maximum day conditions. The required improvements are anticipated to be completed as part of
the City’s annual Capital Improvement Program in future years, which is included in the overall master plans for the area. The
necessary improvements to the existing water system would ensure that the Linda Vista facility can continue to meet current
and future potable water and fire flow demands within ACSP boundaries without significant environmental impacts. In
addition, projects in the ACSP area would be required to install separate irrigation services, when applicable, to accommodate
recycled water supply in the future.
EIR No. 348 also determined that buildout of the ACSP would increase the projected water use within the ACSP area to 5,200
43
acre-feet per year (afy) over the next 20 years, which would represent a 61 percent increase over the existing conditions. The
Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Specific Plan ultimately determined that adequate water supply would be available
to meet the additional water demand resulting from buildout of the Specific Plan. Additionally, EIR No. 348 determined that
any additional water supply needed to meet the additional water demand from implementation of the ACSP would be sourced
from groundwater in the area. In addition, EIR No. 348 determined that the reliability of future water supplies to the region
would be ensured through continued implementation of the Orange County Water District (OCWD) Groundwater
Management Plan, OCWD’s Long Term Facilities Plan, local agency programs, and the combined efforts and programs
among member and cooperative agencies of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Therefore, EIR No. 348
concluded that a sufficient and reliable water supply would be provided upon ACSP buildout. Impacts with respect to water
supply would be less than significant, and no mitigation was determined to be required.
Solid Waste. EIR No. 348 determined that implementation of the ACSP would increase the solid waste demand by an
additional 289.69 tons per day. The Olinda Alpha Landfill, which serves the Specific Plan area, was determined to have a
remaining of 2,000 tons per day. Therefore, buildout of the ACSP area was determined to be adequately served by the
Olinda Alpha Landfill. In addition, new development occurring under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with
commercial recycling programs and waste reduction goals established by the City and required by Assembly Bill 939 and
Assembly Bill 431. Moreover, the ACSP contains D A-2 Recycling Area, which is an area that encourages a specific location
for waste recycling and material recovery uses and facilities, which would likely benefit the overall collection and handling
of solid waste locally and regionally. Therefore, EIR No. 348 determined that implementation of the Specific Plan would
result in less than significant impacts related to solid waste, and no mitigation was determined to be required.
Other Utilities. According to EIR No. 348, development that would occur as a result of implementation of the ACSP would
result in an electrical demand of 180 mega volt amps (MVA), which would represent an increase in 70 MVAs as compared
to existing conditions. As such, the Specific Plan-related demand for electrical services was determined to exceed the
capacity of existing facilities. Specifically, it was determined that buildout of the ACSP area would require installation of
transformers, circuit breakers, cabling, and control/monitoring systems for the substation currently instal led within the
Specific Plan area. However, because future projects occurring under the Specific Plan would be required to comply with
2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and because the impacts related to the required electrical improvements have
been approved under a separate plan, EIR No. 348 determined that implementation of the ACSP would not result in a
significant impact related to electricity. No mitigation was determined to be required.
EIR No. 348 also determined that development that would occur as a result of implementation of the ACSP would increase
the natural gas demand. Although the ACSP implementation would create additional demands on natural gas supplies and
distribution infrastructure, the increased demands were projected to be within the service capabilities of Southern California
Gas. Therefore, impacts with respect to the Specific Plan-related demand for natural gas were determined to be less than
significant, and no mitigation was determined to be required.
Proposed Project.
Construction. Construction of the proposed Project would result in the demolition of the existing self -storage facility and
construction and operation of a larger self-storage facility; uses and activities on the site would be the same as in the existing
condition.
During construction, wastewater generation would be less than the demand during operation of the proposed Project.
However, short-term demand for water may occur during construction activities on site. Water demand for soil watering
(fugitive dust control), cleanup, masonry, painting, and other activities would be temporary and would cease at Project build
out. Any water use during construction would be limited in quantity; therefore, water supply is available to meet the
incremental increase in demand from the proposed Project during construction. Therefore, the Project would not necessitate
new or expanded water entitlements. For the reasons stated above, the Anaheim Public Utilities Department would be able to
accommodate the increased demand for water.9
Additionally, a short-term demand for solid waste facilities would occur during Project construction due to the large amount
of construction debris associated with demolishing the seven on-site buildings. Specifically, it is estimated that the proposed
Project would result in approximately 182 tons of one-time construction waste based upon a generation rate of 3.89 pounds per
square foot.10 In accordance with Assembly Bill 939, the Project would divert at least 50 percent of construction waste from
9 Philip Bogdanoff (Water Planning & Resources Manager Public Utilities Dept., Water Engineering Division) on April 23,
2018.
10 Franklin Associates. 1998. Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United
44
landfills through various waste reduction and recycling practices. Therefore, construction impacts with respect to solid waste
would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Operation. As discussed in Section XIII, Population and Housing, Project implementation would not result in a net increase
in population or employment because operation of the proposed self-storage facility does not include the development of any
residential uses and because the Project would require a similar number of employees as are currently employed at the existing
self-storage facility. As such, the proposed Project would not generate new employees or activities on the site that would
result in a significant increase in the demand for water or solid waste disposal services. Therefore, impacts with respect to
water and solid waste would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Operation of the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in the demand for wastewater treatment
services, as implementation of the Project would not result in a significant increase in water demand. Therefore, the Project
would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities
beyond what was anticipated in EIR No. 348. While the Project is not anticipated to significantly increase wastewater
generation from the Project site, the Project would be required to submit plants to the City Engineer illustrating that the
Project is not exacerbating existing deficient sewer facilities (Mitigation Measure USS -1, as identified in EIR No. 348). The
Project would also be required to install a sanitary sewer line on the site that would connect to the existing sewer lateral in
La Palma Avenue (Mitigation Measure USS -2, as identified in EIR No. 348) (also refer to Figure 4, Utility Plan). Therefore,
impacts with respect to wastewater, water, and solid waste would be less than significant.
Although the Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures USS -1 and USS-2, the Project does not propose
any street improvement plans that encompass areas where OCSD would be upsizing trunk lines. Therefore, Mitigation
Measure USS-3 identified in EIR No. 348 would not be applicable to the proposed Project.
As described above, the proposed Project would result in the demolition of the existing self -storage facility and construction
and operation of a larger self-storage facility; uses and activities on the site would be the same as in the existing condition.
The Project would increase the demand in electricity and natural gas as compared to existing conditions. However, given the
nature of the Project as a self-storage use and that demand for natural gas and electricity would be limited to lighting,
heating, air conditioning, ventilation requirements, and other incidental issues, it is estimated that the proposed Project
would demand less electricity and natural gas than a typical industrial development, which would operate heavy machinery
and industrial equipment. In addition, the proposed Project would comply with current California Green Building practices
which are more stringent than what was assumed in EIR No. 348 . Therefore, the proposed Project would not exceed the
electricity and natural gas assumptions used in the analysis in EIR No. 348. Impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation would be required.
Conclusion. The Project would implement applicable mitigation measures set forth in MMRP No. 312 for the ACSP and the
MMRP created for this Project. For the reasons stated above, the Project would not result in greater impacts with respect to
Utilities and Service Systems than those identified in the previously certified EIR No. 348.
Mitigation Measures:
USS-1: Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, or building permits, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer
shall submit plans to the City Engineer for review. The City Engineer shall review the location of each project to
determine if it is an area served by potentially deficient sewer facilities, as identified in the latest updated sewer
study for the ACSP. If the Project will increase sewer flows beyond those programmed in the appropriate master
plan sewer study for the area or if the Project currently discharges to an existing deficient sewer system or will
create a deficiency in an existing sewer line, the property owner/developer shall perform additional sewer analysis
using flow, wet-weather data, and other information specific for the Project to determine the surcharge levels for
final design. The property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation of the impact to adequately
serve the area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s Office, which could include additional
related fees, construction, or a combination.
USS-2: Prior to approval of sanitary sewer connections for each development project, the property owner/developer shall
be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as required by the Cit y Engineer, to prevent the sewer surcharge
in the public system from back-flowing into below-grade structures of the proposed development based upon the
latest updated sewer study for the ACSP. Where requested by the City Engineer, sewer improvements shall be
constructed with larger than recommended diameter to maintain the surcharge levels within the pipe, and the
States, USEPA Report No. EPA530-R-98-010.
45
inverted elevation of sewer laterals shall be located above the hydraulic grade line elevation of the surcharge levels
when the inverted elevation of sewer laterals are above the pipe crown.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE --
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed
in EIR
No. 348-
No New
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have Impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Narrative Summary: No New Impacts.
Cumulative Impacts analyzed in EIR No. 348.
Aesthetics. Even with the increased development intensity, EIR No. 348 determined that an orderly visual appearance would
be achieved and the Specific Plan would not degrade the existing quality of the Project area. Furthermore, the incremental
increase in lighting levels due to increased development under the Specific Plan was determined to result in less than
significant cumulative lighting impacts.
Air Quality. EIR. No. 348 determined that because the SCAB is designated as nonattainment for several air pollutants,
construction and operational emissions associated with implementation of the Specific Plan would result in cumulatively
considerable air quality impacts despite the implementation of required mitigation measure s. Similarly, EIR No. 348
determined that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in cumulatively significant health risks related to TAC
emissions due to the development of new industrial uses, which would contribute to existing levels of cancer health risks.
Biological Resources. The Specific Plan area is located within an area subject to the provisions of the Orange County
HCP/NCCP, which itself requires the implementation of mitigation measures for future projects proposed on covered
habitats and with potential impacts to identified sensitive species. Therefore, EIR No. 348 determined that biological impacts
associated with construction and implementation of the Specific Plan would not be cumulatively considerable.
Geology and Soils. EIR No. 348 determined that impacts related to geology and soils on the site would be reduced to a level
below significance with compliance of applicable regulations and standards. Therefore, EIR No. 348 determined that
geologic impacts associated with construction and implementation of the Specific Plan would not be cumulatively
considerable.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Because GHG emissions associated with construction and implementation of the Specific Plan
would be cumulatively considerable, EIR No. 348 determined that the Specific Plan’s contribution to global climate change
impacts would be cumulatively considerable.
46
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Although a number of facilities in the Project vicinity were listed on hazardous
materials sites, EIR No. 348 determined that they would not result in a significant impact on the environment considering
their distances from the Specific Plan Project area and the topography. Additionally, EIR No. 348 determined that because
the Specific Plan would encourage green and sustainable business practices to be located within the Specific Plan area, the
Specific Plan-related contribution of hazardous materials use and hazardous waste disposal would be minimal. Furthermore,
EIR No. 348 determined that compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the cumulative impact of hazardous
materials release or emissions from the Specific Plan would be less than signif icant.
Hydrology and Water Quality. Although construction and implementation of the Specific Plan were determined to
potentially result in cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts, EIR No. 348 ultimately concluded that compliance
with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s requirements would reduce such impacts to a level below significance. Additionally, with
payment of applicable fees to OCWD to replenish and protect groundwater resources, EIR No. 348 determined that the
Specific Plan would result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to groundwater. Furthermore, EIR No.
348 determined that compliance with local, State, and federal regulations to minimize storm water runoff from individual
projects in conjunction with the City’s drainage master planning program and capital improvements would reduce
potentially significant cumulative impacts with respect to storm water runoff and storm drain infrastructure to a less than
significant level. For the reasons stated above, EIR No. 348 determined that co nstruction and implementation of the Specific
Plan would not result in hydrology and water quality impacts that would be cumulatively considerable.
Land Use and Planning. EIR No. 348 determined that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in c umulatively
considerable land use impacts because the Specific Plan would be consistent with applicable plans, programs, policies, and
regulations of the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), the RTP/SCS,
and the HCP/NCCP and because new development envisioned under the Specific Plan would be supported by necessary
infrastructure. Furthermore, less than significant cumulative land use impacts were identified because future individual
projects in the Specific Plan area would be subject to compliance with the Specific Plan and other applicable plans,
programs, and policies regulating land use in the area.
Mineral Resources. Although several areas within the Specific Plan area have historically been used for the ex traction of
mineral resources, many of these areas are closed out and the value of the mineral resources is limited. Therefore, EIR No.
348 determined that construction and implementation of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant cumulativ e
impacts with respect to the elimination of existing quarries or other mineral resource productions in the Specific Plan area.
Population and Housing. EIR No. 348 determined that the Specific Plan-related increase in population, housing,
employment would not be cumulatively considerable because the Specific Plan would be consistent with regional growth
policies that support sustainable growth.
Public Services. EIR No. 348 determined that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant
impacts to school facilities with compliance with Senate Bill 50, which requires the payment of fees to applicable school
districts to fully mitigate school impacts associated with new development projects. Cumulative police and fire impacts were
also determined to be less than significant because additional fire and police facilities and equipment required to serve future
developments under the Specific Plan would be provided through the annual Operating Budget and Capital Improvement
Program review process and because development impact fees may be required for future developments in the Specific Plan
area. Similarly, library impacts were not determined to be cumulatively considerable because the provision of added
facilities and materials would be funded through increased tax revenue associated with implementation of the Specific Plan.
Recreation. Although the Specific Plan would add to the citywide and r egional demand for parks and recreation
opportunities, the Specific Plan would be required to pay park impact fees to mitigate impacts with respect to parks and
recreational facilities. Therefore, EIR No. 348 determined that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in
cumulatively considerable parks and recreation impacts.
Transportation and Traffic. EIR No. 348 determined that implementation of the Specific Plan would increase traffic
volumes on roadways and State facilities in the Specific Pl an area. Although improvements were identified to reduce
potential impacts to these facilities, not all recommended improvements were determined to be feasible. Additionally,
several deficient facilities are located within the jurisdictions of Caltrans, where the City does not have the authority to
implement recommended improvements. Therefore, EIR No. 348 concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would
result in cumulative considerable traffic impacts to local and State facilities.
Utilities and Service Systems. Although the Specific Plan would result in an increased flow to the sewer system, resulting in
some deficient sewer segments, EIR No. 348 determined that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in
cumulatively considerable impacts to sewer facilities because individual projects would be required to pay fees to OCSD to
47
install new and upgrade existing sewer lines and facilities. EIR No. 348 also concluded that implementation of the Specific
Plan would result in less than significant cumulative impacts to the existing and projected water supply because the total
water supplies available to the City would meet the projected demand of the Specific Plan and other projects in the City’s
water service area. Moreover, cumulative impacts with respect to solid waste were determined to be less than significant
because there is adequate availability in area landfills to accommodate the projected increase in solid waste generated as a
result of Specific Plan implementation. Last, EIR. No. 348 determined that the Specific Plan would not result in
cumulatively considerable impacts to electrical and natural gas services because future development in the area would be
required to fund the necessary utility improvements to serve new development pro jects.
Proposed Project. The proposed Project involves the redevelopment of the property with a self-storage use that would be
similar to the existing self-storage use on the site. No structures proposed for demolition as part of the Project are historic
resources. Although the Project site is located within an urban area and does not contain any known biological or cultural
resources in its existing condition, Project construction activities may result in potential impacts to nesting birds. As suc h,
the proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO -2, as identified in EIR No. 348, to reduce
potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant
impacts with respect to the potential degradation of the quality of the environment, including the substantial reduction in the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, the substantial reduction in fish or wildlife population levels, substantial risks that would
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, the reduction in the number of rare or endangered plants or animals, or
elimination of important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
The Project would rely on and can be accommodated by the existing road system, public parks, public services, and utilities.
The proposed Project would not result in or contribute to a significant biological or cultural impact. I mpacts related to the
proposed Project are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels with incorporation of Mitigation
Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4, AQ-8, BIO-2 and BIO-3, N-1, T-4, and USS-1 and USS-2. Therefore, the proposed Project’s
contribution to any significant cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
The proposed Project would be consistent with the existing ACSP land use designation and zoning classifications for the
site. Based on the Project Description and the preceding responses, construction and implementation of the proposed Project
would not cause substantial adverse effects to human beings because all potentially significant impacts of the Project can be
mitigated to a less than significant leve l.
Conclusion. The proposed Project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified EIR
No. 348. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in the MMRP created for this Project and from the
MMRP for EIR No. 348 for the ACSP.
48
References
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Anaheim.
October 2011. Website: http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/orange/c30_Anaheim_vhfhsz.pdf
(accessed November 21, 2017).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2014. California Joint Utility Traffic Control Manual.
———. Landscape Architecture Program. California Scenic Highway Mapping System-Orange County. Website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed February 28, 2018).
City of Anaheim. 2015a. Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 348. SCH No.
2013101087. May 2015.
———. 2015b. Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan. Final Environmental Impact Report No. 348 . SCH No. 2013101087. August
2015.
———. 2016a. Anaheim Canyon Adopted General Plan Land Use Map. March 30. 2016.
———. 2016b. Anaheim Canyon Adopted Zoning Map. March 30. 2016.
———. 2016c. Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan (ACSP). March.
———. 2016d. City of Anaheim List of Historic Structures. June 14, 2016.
DRC Engineering, Inc. 2018. Hydrology Report. April.
———. 2018. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). February.
EDR Radius Map. 2017. Existing Public Storage Site. 4880 La Palma Avenue. An aheim, CA, 92807. Inquiry No.
5033707.2s. August 28, 2017.
Franklin Associates. 1998. Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States,
USEPA Report No. EPA530-R-98-010.
Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. 2017. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis for the Proposed Public
Storage Redevelopment at 4880 East La Palma Avenu e, City of Anaheim, California. November 22, 2017.
LSA. 2017a. Summary of Environmental Database Report for the Existing Public Storage Redevelopment located at 4880
East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, Orange County California. August 30, 2017.
———. 2017b. Trip Generation Memorandum for the Proposed Public Storage Facility Project at 4880 East La Palma
Avenue, Anaheim California. August 24, 2017.
———. 2018a. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Memorandum for the Public Storage Facility Project in the City of
Anaheim, California. April 23, 2018.
———. 2018b. 4880 East La Palma Avenue Parking Analysis. February.
National Park Service. Spreadsheets of National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmarks (accessed
March 13, 2018).
Orange County Transportation Authority. 2015. Orange County Congestion Management Program.
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312 FOR
PUBLIC STORAGE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 355
ANAHEIM CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
49
Project Description – As illustrated by Figures 3a and 3b, the proposed Project involves demolition of an existing 67,939 square foot (sf) self-
storage facility and construction of a new 393,040 sf self-storage facility in its place. Construction would occur in two phases: Phase 1 would
include the demolition of the three existing buildings on the eastern half of the property, the construction of a new driveway off East La Palma
Avenue, and construction of Building 1 (totaling 196,520 sf with an 1,800 sf office). Phase 2 would include the demolition of the remaining four
buildings, construction of Building 2 (totaling 196,520 sf), and installation of bioretention areas and site improvements on the western half of the
property. The Project also includes the following approvals:
• Certify the streamlined review checklist that was prepared pursuant to Section 15183.3 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines to determine whether the Project would have any significant effects that the City of Anaheim (City), as Lead Agency,
did not previously disclose in Environmental Impact Report No. 348 (EIR No. 348) pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section
21094.5.
• Adopt Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 355
• Submit a Development Review Application to approve the following:
o A Conditional Use Permit to permit a self‐storage facility with a Floor Area Ratio greater than allowed by the City Zoning Code;
and
o A parking variance to allow fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code.
1. Applicant – Public Storage
2. Environmental Equivalent/Timing – Any Mitigation Measure and timing thereof, subject to the approval of the City, which will have the
same or superior result and will have the same or superior effect on the environment. The Planning Department, in conjunction with any
appropriate agencies or City departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed “environmental equivalent/timing” and, if determined
necessary, may refer said determination to the Planning Commission. Any costs associated with information required in order t o make a
determination of environmental equivalency/timing shall be borne by the Applicant. Staff time for reviews will be charged on a time and
materials basis at the rate in the City’s adopted fee schedule.
3. Timing – This is the point where a mitigation measure must be monitored for compliance. In the case where multiple action items are
indicated, it is the first point where compliance associated with the mitigation measure must be monitored. Once the initial action item has
been complied with, no additional monitoring pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan will occur because routine City pract ices and
procedures will ensure that the intent of the measure has been complied with. For example, if the timing is “to be shown on approved building
plans” subsequent to issuance of the building permit consistent with the approved plans will be final building and zoning ins pections pursuant
to the building permit to ensure compliance.
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312 FOR
PUBLIC STORAGE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 355
ANAHEIM CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
50
4. Responsibility for Monitoring – Shall mean that compliance with the subject mitigation measure(s) shall be reviewed and determined
adequate by all departments listed for each mitigation measure.
5. Ongoing Mitigation Measures – The mitigation measures that are designated to occur on an ongoing basis as part of this mitigation
monitoring program will be monitored in the form of an annual letter from the Applicant in January of each year stating how compliance with
the subject measures(s) has been achieved. When compliance with a measure has been demonstrated for a period of one year, monitoring of
the measure will be deemed to be satisfied and no further monitoring will occur. For measures that are to be monitored “Ongoi ng During
Construction,” the annual letter will review those measures only whi le construction is occurring. Monitoring will be discontinued after
construction is completed.
6. Building Permit – For purposes of this mitigation monitoring program, a building permit shall be defined as any permit issued for
construction of a new building or structural expansion or modification of any existing building but shall not include any permits required for
interior tenant improvements or minor additions to an existing structure or building.
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312 FOR
PUBLIC STORAGE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 355
ANAHEIM CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
51
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Number Measure Timing Responsible for Monitoring Completion
Air Quality
AQ-1 Prior to issuance of grading, demolition, or building plans,
whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall
provide a note on plans indicating that ongoing, during
grading and construction, the construction contractors will
use equipment that meets the following United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-Certified
emissions standards:
All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater
than 50 horsepower shall meet the Tier 4 Final emission
standards. Any emissions control device used by the
construction contractor shall achieve emissions reductions
that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4
diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized
engine, as defined by CARB regulations.
Prior to the issuance
of grading,
demolition, or
building plans
Planning and Building
Department/Building Division
AQ-2 Prior to issuance of grading, demolition, or building plans,
whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall
provide a list of all construction equipment proposed to be
used on the Project site. This list may be provided on the
building plans. The construction equipment list shall state
the makes, models, and numbers of the equipment; that the
equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in
accordance with the manufacturers’ recommendations; and,
that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is
restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with
California Air Resources Board’s Rule 2449.
Prior to issuance of
grading, demolition,
or building plans,
whichever occurs
first.
Planning and Building
Department/Building Division
AQ-3 Prior to issuance of grading, demolition, or building plans,
whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall
submit a dust control plan that implements the following
measures during ground-disturbing activities, in addition to
the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under
SCAQMD Rule 403, to further reduce PM10 and PM2.5
emissions:
a) Following all grading activities, the construction
contractor shall re-establish ground cover on the
construction site through seeding and watering.
Prior to issuance of
grading, demolition,
or building plans,
whichever occurs
first.
Planning and Building
Department/Building Division
.
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312 FOR
PUBLIC STORAGE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 355
ANAHEIM CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
52
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Number Measure Timing Responsible for Monitoring Completion
b) During all construction activities, the construction
contractor shall sweep streets with Rule 1186–
compliant, PM10-efficient vacuum units on a daily
basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public
thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.
c) During all construction activities, the construction
contractor shall maintain a minimum 24-inch
freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other
loose materials and tarp materials with a fabric
cover or other cover that achieves the same amount
of protection.
d) During all construction activities, the construction
contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and
disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on
the construction site and a minimum of three times
per day.
e) During all construction activities, the construction
contractor shall limit on-site vehicle speeds on
unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour.
The Building Division shall verify compliance during
normal construction site inspections.
AQ-4 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/
developer shall provide a note on plans indicating that:
a) All coatings and solvents will have a volatile
organic compound (VOC) content lower than
required under Rule 1113 (i.e., super compliant
paints).
b) All architectural coatings shall be applied either by
(1) using a high-volume, low pressure spray method
operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10
pounds per square inch gauge to achieve a 65
percent application efficiency; or (2) manual
application using a paintbrush, hand-roller, trowel,
spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to achieve a
100 percent applicant efficiency.
Prior to issuance of a
building permit.
Planning and Building
Department/Building Division
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312 FOR
PUBLIC STORAGE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 355
ANAHEIM CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
53
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Number Measure Timing Responsible for Monitoring Completion
c) The construction contractor shall also use
precoated/natural colored building materials, where
feasible.
The Building Division shall verify compliance during
normal construction site inspections.
AQ-6 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/
developer shall show on plans that all applicant-provided
appliances be Energy Star appliances (dishwashers,
refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of
Energy Star appliances shall be verified by the Building
Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Prior to issuance of a
building permit.
Planning and Building
Department/Building Division
AQ-8 Prior to issuance of building permits for new construction of
non-residential development of 100,000 building square feet
or more, the property owner/developer shall indicate on
plans that Level 2 vehicle charging stations will be provided
for public use, and where feasible, the property owner/
developer shall coordinate with the City of Anaheim to
install Level 3 (480 volt or higher) charging stations. The
location of the charging station(s) shall be specified on
building plans, and proper installation shall be verified by
the Building Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
new construction of
nonresidential
development of
100,000 building
square feet or more.
Planning and Building
Department/Building Division
Biological Resources
BIO-2 Prior to issuance of demolition, grading or building permits,
whichever occurs first, construction activity is set to occur
during nesting season (typically between February 1 and
July 1), the property owner/developer shall be required to
conduct nesting bird surveys in accordance with the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements,
and submit said surveys to the City of Anaheim Planning
Department. Such surveys shall identify avoidance measures
to protect active nests.
Prior to issuance of
demolition, grading or
building permits,
whichever occurs
first.
Planning and Building
Department/Planning Services
Division
BIO-3 Prior to issuance of building permits, for projects with new
lighting located adjacent to natural areas, the property
owner/developer shall submit a lighting plan indicating that
the proposed lighting has been designed to prevent artificial
lighting from reflecting into adjacent natural areas.
Prior to issuance
building permits.
Planning and Building
Department/Building Division
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312 FOR
PUBLIC STORAGE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 355
ANAHEIM CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
54
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Number Measure Timing Responsible for Monitoring Completion
GREENHOUSE GAS
See Air Quality Mitigation Measures AQ-6 and AQ-8.
NOISE
N-1 Ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction, the
property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring
the construction contractors to implement the following
measures to limit construction-related noise:
Construction activity is limited to the daytime hours
between 7 AM to 7 PM, as prescribed in the City
Municipal Code.
All internal combustion engines on construction
equipment and trucks are fitted with properly
maintained mufflers.
Stationary equipment such as generators and air
compressors shall be located as far as feasible from
nearby noise-sensitive uses.
Stockpiling is located as far as feasible from nearby
noise-sensitive receptors.
Construction traffic shall be limited to the haul routes
established by the City of Anaheim.
Ongoing during
grading, demolition,
and construction.
Planning and Building
Department/Building Division
Transportation/Traffic
T-4 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each
building, the property owner/developer shall pay all
applicable transportation impact fees to the City of Anaheim
in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in
effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with
credit given for City-authorized improvements provided by
the property owner/developer; and participate in all
applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which have
been established.
Prior to issuance of
the first building
permit for each
building.
Public Works Department/
Traffic and Transportation
Division
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312 FOR
PUBLIC STORAGE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 355
ANAHEIM CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
55
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Number Measure Timing Responsible for Monitoring Completion
Utilities and Service Systems
USS-1 Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, or building
permits, whichever occurs first, the property owner/
developer shall submit plans to the City Engineer for
review. The City Engineer shall review the location of each
project to determine if it is an area served by potentially
deficient sewer facilities, as identified in the latest updated
sewer study for the ACSP. If the Project will increase sewer
flows beyond those programmed in the appropriate master
plan sewer study for the area or if the Project currently
discharges to an existing deficient sewer system or will
create a deficiency in an existing sewer line, the property
owner/developer shall perform additional sewer analysis
using flow, wet-weather data, and other information specific
for the Project to determine the surcharge levels for final
design. The property owner/developer shall be required to
guarantee mitigation of the impact to adequately serve the
area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City
Attorney’s Office, which could include additional related
fees, construction, or a combination.
Prior to issuance of
demolition, grading,
or building permits,
whichever occurs
first.
Public Works Department/
Engineering Division
City Attorney’s Office
USS-2 Prior to approval of sanitary sewer connections for each
development project, the property owner/developer shall be
required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as required
by the City Engineer, to prevent the sewer surcharge in the
public system from back-flowing into below-grade
structures of the proposed development based upon the
latest updated sewer study for the ACSP. Where requested
by the City Engineer, sewer improvements shall be
constructed with larger than recommended diameter to
maintain the surcharge levels within the pipe, and the
inverted elevation of sewer laterals shall be located above
the hydraulic grade line elevation of the surcharge levels
when the inverted elevation of sewer laterals are above the
pipe crown.
Prior to approval of
sanitary sewer
connections for each
development project.
Public Works Department/
Engineering Division
May 30, 2018
Mr. Nick Taylor, Associate Planner
Planning & Building Department
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Boulevard
1st Floor
Anaheim, CA 92805
Re: CUP 2017-05950, VAR 2018-05100 (DEV2017-00090)
Public Storage Anaheim Redevelopment Project
4880 E. La Palma Ave.
Anaheim, CA 92807
Dear Mr. Taylor,
Please see Attachment 1 for a revised Project Description. Minor changes have been made to the rental
office and customer access hours, as well as gate security procedures.
This letter also serves as a request to allow six years in the CUP resolution to “Establish the Use or
Structure” as outlined in Anaheim Code Section 18.60.160. Because of the size of the project and two
phases of construction, more time is required to complete the project. Following is a very preliminary
schedule:
Spring 2020 Start construction Phase I
Spring 2021 Complete Phase I
Fall 2022 Start construction Phase II
Fall 2023 Complete Phase II
Last week a link was forwarded to staff to download the updated Environmental Checklist in support of
the Conditional Use Permit application and Variance for the above referenced project.
We look forward to being able to schedule a hearing soon. If you have any questions or need further
information, please do not hesitate to contact me at rose@bacinskiassoc.com or 760-757-7673.
Sincerely,
Rose Bacinski
President, Bacinski & Associates, Inc.
Enclosure: Attachment 1: Revised Project Description
cc: Brian Ulrich, Public Storage
Bryan Miranda, Public Storage
Shab Vakili, KSP Studio
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Public Storage Anaheim
2
Attachment 1
Public Storage Anaheim Redevelopment Project
Project Description
May 30, 2018
The proposed project is redevelopment of an existing, three and one-half acre Public Storage facility
built in 1983. The existing facility is well maintained and managed, and provides self-storage
services, primarily to the residents and businesses of Anaheim. Public Storage will continue to own
and operate this property for the long term and is interested in a significant reinvestment in this
location that would modernize and improve the self-storage product offering.
The site is located within the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Development Area DA-1 and is
designated Industrial (I-L) in the City of Anaheim’s General Plan. The surrounding uses are
generally industrial and include electronics manufacturing west of the Public Storage property,
machine parts manufacturing to the east, and the Santa Ana River to the south.
The proposed project consists of two, five story, self-storage buildings built in two Phases. Building 1
is 196,520 SF, including an 1,800 SF rental office, and Building 2 is 196,520 SF, for a total project
area of 393,040 SF. All the of the existing seven, single story, drive-up self-storage buildings, rental
office, and manager’s apartment, consisting of a total of 67,587 SF, will be demolished.
Customers will access the new buildings and their storage spaces through a secured lobby in each
building, using an individual key code. At completion of the project, all the storage units will be
internally accessed and climate controlled, to better serve customers in Anaheim.
Customers will visit the rental office to inquire about rental space, pay rent, or purchase packing
supplies such as boxes or tape. The proposed rental office and customer access hours are Monday
through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
One to four employees per shift will staff the facility. Based on market conditions, the office and
facility hours may be revised after opening. A manager’s apartment will not be included in the new
buildings.
Phase I includes demolition of three of the existing buildings on the east half of the property and
construction of the new five story Building 1 in their place. Four of the existing buildings on the west
half of the property will remain operational during construction of Phase I. A temporary office will be
located on the west portion of the property until the new rental office opens when Building 1 is
complete.
As part of Phase I construction, a new driveway accessing East La Palma Avenue will be
constructed near the center of the property frontage. During construction of Building 1, the new
driveway will be used for customer access to the existing units. The existing driveway to East La
Palma Avenue, near the northeast corner of the property, will be used for construction access for
Building 1.
When Building 1 is near completion, the existing driveway at the northeast corner will be closed, and
the landscaping in that area completed.
Phase II construction will commence approximately six to eighteen months after the completion of
Phase I. Phase II includes demolition of the remaining four buildings and construction of the new,
five story Building 2 along with site improvements on the west half of the property. Public Storage
Public Storage Anaheim
3
plans to complete Phase II, however if market conditions change, it is a possibility that Phase II may
not be built.
All new site improvements will be constructed, including increased landscaping along the north and
south property lines. A new wrought iron security gate will be installed between the two new
buildings. This gate will always be open during operating hours. Twelve parking spaces will be
provided adjacent to each of the customer access lobbies at both Building 1 and Building 2. The
rental office and twenty-six parking spaces will be located outside the security gate.
A new, locked, trash/recycling enclosure will be located within Building 1. The trash and recycling
bins are only available to Public Storage office staff. Customers are required to remove their own
debris from the facility.
The new buildings have a contemporary architectural design and will include various exterior
materials, including plaster, split face CMU, show windows, spandrel glass and storefront glass.
Vertical and horizontal lines, and color and material changes will visually break up the building
facades.
We believe this redevelopment will provide several near-term and long-term benefits to the
community including improving aesthetics in the neighborhood, providing construction jobs and
increasing property tax revenues to the City.
Self-storage requires very little in the way of public services, creates no school impacts, and would
not affect the jobs/housing ratio of the City. The design and use are appropriate for this property,
are complimentary to the neighborhood and adjoining uses and are consistent with the vision of the
General and Specific Plans.
Public Storage has experienced significant growing demand for storage services in the community.
With the residential and commercial projects currently being contemplated and processed at the City
of Anaheim, we anticipate the demand will continue to increase. Public Storage believes they are
best suited to meet this increased need with this proposed modern, safe and secure storage facility.
BERKELEY
CARLSBAD
FRESNO
IRVINE
LOS ANGELES
PALM SPRINGS
POINT RICHMOND
RIVERSIDE
ROSEVILLE
SAN LUIS OBISPO
20 Executive Park, Suite 200, Irvine, California 92614 949.553.0666 www.lsa.net
March 1, 2018
Brian Ulrich
Director, Site Acquisitions
Public Storage
2200 East McFadden Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Subject: 4880 East La Palma Avenue Parking Analysis
Dear Mr. Ulrich:
LSA is pleased to submit this analysis of parking for the expansion of the Public Storage location at
4880 East La Palma Avenue (project) in Anaheim. The proposed project will demolish the existing 67,939-
square-foot (sf) single-story storage facility and construct a 393,040-gross-square-foot (gsf) storage
facility within two climate-controlled buildings in two phases. Access to the site is provided through a
driveway on the north side of the site that connects to La Palma Avenue. Figure 1 (attached) illustrates
the project site plan. As shown on Figure 1, the project proposes to provide 50 passenger vehicle parking
spaces and 2 truck loading spaces.
The off-street parking requirements in Anaheim are specified in Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC)
Section 18.42.040. As shown in Table A, the AMC requirement for the project is 108 parking spaces.
However, the site was designed based on the knowledge that Public Storage has gained over 45 years of
operation. Further, the project is constructing multilevel indoor storage rather than traditional drive-up
units. This parking study will (1) investigate the parking demand for self-storage facilities based on local
and nationwide data, (2) establish parking demand for multilevel indoor storage, and (3) provide the
findings necessary for a parking variance.
Table A: Municipal Code Parking Requirements
Land Use Parking Space Rates per Anaheim
Municipal Code Section 18.42.040
Project Parking Requirements
Size Unit
Required
Parking
Spaces
Self-Storage Facilities 0.27 space per 1,000 square feet of
building GFA or 5 spaces, whichever results
in a greater number of spaces, plus
adequate loading and unloading areas as
required by the Planning Services Manager
or his/her designee
393.040 TSF 106
Total 106
GFA = gross floor area
TSF = thousand square feet
Parking Generation – Published Survey Data
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation, 4th Edition, provides information
based on four decades of research. Survey data is provided for Land Use 151: Mini-Warehouse, which
covers self-storage facilities. The fitted curve equation has a high coefficient of variation (R2=0.86), which
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
3/1/18 «P:\PUB1704\Parking Study\Parking Letter3b.docx» 2
indicates precision in the prediction of parking demand. LSA applied the ITE fitted curve equation and
determined that the project’s parking demand would be 32 vehicles based on ITE data.
Parking Generation – Multilevel Indoor Public Storage Surveys
In order to determine parking demand for multilevel indoor storage units, LSA had parking accumulation
data collected (attached) at the following three Public Storage locations in or near Orange County:
• Irvine: 16452 Construction Circle
• Orange: 1040 North Main Street
• Long Beach: 4295 Outer Traffic Circle
The location in Irvine is located near the Tustin Legacy and West Park (Irvine) residential neighborhoods.
The facility has a three-story building with 171,000 sf of gross floor area with no drive-up units. Parking is
provided in 27 spaces with no gate. Public Storage believes this facility to be the most similar to the
proposed project given the type of facility and potential customer profile.
The location in Orange has a four-story building with 125,000 sf of gross floor area and drive-up units.
Eight marked parking stalls and a loading area with unmarked space for six vehicles are located near the
entrance to the multi-story building and before the gate. On-street parking is also convenient to the
multi-story building. In addition to surveying parking demand in the off-street parking spaces, data
collection included the observation of pedestrian destinations. Parking demand for the multilevel
building was isolated by subtracting vehicles from the count if the driver’s destination was observed to
be the drive-up units. Similarly, vehicles were added to the count if a driver parked on street and was
destined for the multilevel building.
The location in Long Beach has a four-story building with 92,000 sf of gross floor area and no drive-up
units. Twelve parking spaces are provided with no gate. On-street parking is convenient to the site and
the site is within walking distance of residential and non-residential land uses. As at the Orange site,
parking surveys included the observation of driver destination. Parking demand for the self-storage
facility was isolated by adding vehicles that parked on street for the self-storage use and subtracting
vehicles that parked on site for another purpose.
Parking demand was surveyed every half hour at all three sites on a typical weekday and a non-holiday
Saturday during operating hours. Table B displays the observed parking demand. At all three sites, the
highest observed parking demand occurred on Saturday. Table C calculates the empirical parking rate
based on the highest observed parking demand.
As Table C shows, the peak parking demand observed on the surveyed Saturday at the Orange site was
much higher than those at the other two sites. On the surveyed Saturday, a total of 17 vehicles were
observed parked for the multi-story building at noon. LSA performed a spot survey the following
Saturday at noon and observed 9 vehicles. This would result in a rate of 0.07 spaces per 1,000 sf, which
would be similar to the other two surveyed sites. However, LSA used the higher observed parking
demand when calculating the average parking rate.
Table C shows that the average parking rate for the three surveyed self-storage facilities is 0.09 spaces
per 1,000 sf. Applying this average parking rate to the proposed project yields a projected parking
demand for 35 parking spaces.
3/1/18 «P:\PUB1704\Parking Study\Parking Letter3b.docx» 3
Table B: Self Storage Surveyed Parking Demand
Irvine (171,000 sf) Orange (125,000 sf) Long Beach
(92,000 sf)
Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend
8:00 AM — 1 — 4 — 0
8:30 AM — 0 — 5 — 4
9:00 AM — 0 — 7 — 4
9:30 AM — 2 — 7 — 7
10:00 AM 4 3 5 9 0 5
10:30 AM 5 5 6 9 0 2
11:00 AM 3 5 4 12 3 2
11:30 AM 4 4 4 12 3 2
12:00 PM 3 5 5 17 3 6
12:30 PM 2 9 7 14 4 2
1:00 PM 2 2 8 13 5 3
1:30 PM 3 7 8 16 3 2
2:00 PM 2 8 9 7 2 3
2:30 PM 2 5 7 5 2 5
3:00 PM 3 3 9 6 4 6
3:30 PM 3 3 8 10 1 7
4:00 PM 3 6 9 7 3 2
4:30 PM 3 4 10 7 1 4
5:00 PM 4 8 10 6 3 2
5:30 PM 2 5 9 4 4 1
6:00 PM 1 5 6 4 2 1
6:30 PM 0 5 1 3 0 0
7:00 PM 1 3 4 1 1 0
7:30 PM 0 2 5 1 0 0
8:00 PM 0 0 4 2 0 0
8:30 PM 0 0 3 1 0 0
9:00 PM 0 0 1 1 0 0
Note: Bolded text indicates the highest observed parking demand for a site.
sf = square feet
Table C: Self Storage Observed Parking Rates
Location
Parking Observation
Size Peak
Demand
Parking Rate
(spaces per 1,000 sf)
Irvine 171,000 sf 9 0.05
Orange 125,000 sf 17 0.14
Long Beach 92,000 sf 7 0.08
Average 0.09
sf = square feet
For both the nationwide survey data of self-storage facilities and the observed local data for multilevel
self-storage, the anticipated future parking demand is less than the proposed parking supply of
50 passenger vehicles and 2 truck-loading spaces.
3/1/18 «P:\PUB1704\Parking Study\Parking Letter3b.docx» 4
Phase 1
In the existing condition the site consists of single story, drive-up self-storage units. The site has nine
striped parking spaces, but most customers park in front of their unit when visiting the site. At the
completion of Phase 1, approximately half (36,258 sf) of the single story, drive-up self-storage units will
be demolished and replaced with approximately half (196,520 sf) of the proposed multilevel self-storage
space. Phase 1 will construct 24 striped parking spaces. Parking in front of the drive-up units will still be
possible for the portion of the site that is not changing. Based on the parking rate calculated for
multilevel self-storage, the Phase 1 multilevel building would require 18 parking spaces (196,520 sf x 0.09
spaces/1,000 sf = 17.7 spaces), which is less than the 24 parking spaces provided. Based on the AMC
parking requirement for self-storage, the remaining drive-up units would require 9 parking spaces
(31,681 sf x 0.27 spaces/1,000 sf = 8.6 spaces). These nine vehicles would continue to park in front of the
drive-up unit being accessed.
Findings
AMC Section 18.42.110 stipulates that the following findings are necessary for the City of Anaheim (City)
Planning Commission or City Council to grant a variance from the AMC parking requirements. Based on
LSA’s evaluation of the project, LSA believes the following conditions exist.
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.
The analysis presented in this letter identified that nationwide ITE parking rates would predict a
maximum parking demand for 32 spaces and that local surveys of multilevel self-storage facilities would
predict parking demand for 35 parking spaces. The project proposes parking for 50 passenger vehicles
and 2 loading spaces for trucks, which would exceed the anticipated parking demand. Therefore, the
project will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the
number of spaces necessary to accommodate all parked vehicles attributable to the project.
That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition
for parking spaces upon public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use.
Parking is not permitted on public streets in the immediate vicinity of the project. The analysis presented
in this letter identified that maximum parking demand is not anticipated to exceed the parking supply.
Therefore, the project will not increase competition for parking spaces on public streets.
That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition
for parking spaces upon adjacent 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 .030 of Section 18.42.050 [Non-Residential Uses-Shared Parking Arrangements]).
The analysis presented in this letter identified that the maximum parking demand is not anticipated to
exceed the parking supply. Further, the purpose of trips to self-storage facilities is to deposit or retrieve
items from storage. Parking spaces on adjacent properties are not convenient for this purpose.
Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to increase demand and competition for parking
spaces on adjacent properties.
P ARKING A NALYSIS
F EBRUARY 2018
4088 E AST L A P ALMA A VENUE
A NAHEIM , C ALIFORNIA
P:\PUB1704\Parking Study\Parking Letter3b.docx «03/01/18»
ATTACHMENT A
FIGURE 1: SITE PLAN
EAST LA PALMA AVE
77
'
-
0
"
20'-0"
20'-0"
TREES O.C.
142'-0"
LOADING
8'-0"
30
7
'
-
0
"
82
'
-
0
"
12
82
'
-
0
"
112'-0"
24'-0"
26
'
-
0
"
142'-0"
LOADING
30
7
'
-
0
"
82
'
-
0
"
12
82
'
-
0
"
112'-0"
5 5 4
FIRE APPARATUS HAMMERHEAD
FOR PHASE 2
50
'
-
0
"
SC
E
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
8'-0"
7'
-
0
"
10'-0"
4'-0"
453
9'-0"
19
'
-
0
"
TYP.
TY
P
.
9'
-
3
"
17'-6" RADIUS
FIRE TURN
38' RADIUS
FIRE TURN
(E) UTILITY POLE (E) F.H.
(E) F.H.
(E) F.H.
(N) TRASH ENCLOSURE
DRIVE LENGTH MIN. REQ'D
FOR COMMERCIAL USE
(E) GATE TO
REMAIN
28'-0"
52
'
-
1
1
"
58
'
-
5
"
5'-0"5'-0"
T
40
'
-
0
"
40'-0"40'-0"
28
'
-
0
"
17.5' R
(E) DRIVEWAY TO BE
REMOVED AFTER PHASE
2 CONSTRUCTION
36'-4"
SEC
U
R
I
T
Y
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
C1 C1ADA
C
B C B D B C G
I
D
S
I
G
N
/
D
R
P
A
N
E
L
M
E
N
U
B
O
A
R
D
PRINTER/FAX
COPIER
B C B C
SECU
R
I
T
Y
R
A
C
K
C
F
P
SLA
T
W
A
L
L
(
6
'
x
8
'
)
LO
B
B
Y
ST
A
I
R
S
UP
FIRE
RISER
RM
ELECTRICAL
ROOM
(E) CHAIN LINK FENCING
TO REMAIN
NEW CHAIN LINK
FENCE
(N
)
C
H
A
I
N
L
I
N
K
(E
)
F
E
N
C
E
NEW CHAIN LINK 6'
FENCE
PROPOSED BUILDING 1
5 STORIES
196,520 S.F.
PROPOSED BUILDING 2
5 STORIES
196,520 S.F.
LANDSCAPE
(E) CHAIN LINK FENCE
TO REMAIN
BIO-RETENTION
BASIN
BIO-RETENTION
BASIN
BIO-RETENTION
BASIN
LS LS
LS LS
BIO-RETENTION POND BIO-RETENTION POND
SLOPE AND LANDCAPED AREA
OVERHEAD POWER
LINES
PAVED SIDE YARD
(N) CHAIN LINK 6' FENCE
PAVED SIDE YARD
(N) CHAIN LINK 6' FENCE
(N) WROUGHT
IRON SECURITY
GATE
LS LS LS LS LS LS
PROPERTY LINE 340.2'
PROPERTY LINE 340.4'
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
4
5
3
.
7
'
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
4
4
5
.
3
'
WAREHOUSE
WAREHOUSE/ OFFICE
PARKWAY/ SIDEWALK
TO BE COMPLETED
AFTER PHASE II
CONSTRUCTION
12
'
-
0
"
WA
L
K
W
A
Y
5'LS
19
'
-
0
"
5'
15
'
-
0
"
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
SE
T
B
AC
K
26
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
5
"
5'
7'
5'-0" (E) SIDEWALK
7' DEDICATION FOR SIDEWALK
EXPANSION/ BIKE PATH
LS 30
'
-
0
"
75
'
-
9
"
(N) LOCATION FOR BACKFLOW
DEVICE
(E) F.H. TO
BE RELOCATED
SOURCE KSP Studio:
FEET
100500
N
FIGURE 1
4880 East La Palma Avenue Public Storage
Site Plan
I:\PUB1704\G\Site Plan.cdr (11/20/2017)
P ARKING A NALYSIS
F EBRUARY 2018
4088 E AST L A P ALMA A VENUE
A NAHEIM , C ALIFORNIA
P:\PUB1704\Parking Study\Parking Letter3b.docx «03/01/18»
ATTACHMENT B
PARKING DATA
Location:16452 Construction Circle Date:10/28/2017
City:Irvine Day:Saturday
Inventory 22 1 1 3 2 29
8:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 1 3%
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
9:30 AM 2 0 0 0 0 2 7%
10:00 AM 3 0 0 0 0 3 10%
10:30 AM 4 0 0 0 1 5 17%
11:00 AM 4 0 0 0 1 5 17%
11:30 AM 4 0 0 0 0 4 14%
12:00 PM 5 0 0 0 0 5 17%
12:30 PM 8 0 0 0 1 9 31%
1:00 PM 2 0 0 0 0 2 7%
1:30 PM 5 0 0 0 2 7 24%
2:00 PM 6 0 0 0 2 8 28%
2:30 PM 5 0 0 0 0 5 17%
3:00 PM 3 0 0 0 0 3 10%
3:30 PM 2 0 0 0 1 3 10%
4:00 PM 5 0 0 0 1 6 21%
4:30 PM 4 0 0 0 0 4 14%
5:00 PM 5 0 1 0 2 8 28%
5:30 PM 4 0 0 0 1 5 17%
6:00 PM 3 0 1 0 1 5 17%
6:30 PM 3 0 1 0 1 5 17%
7:00 PM 3 0 0 0 0 3 10%
7:30 PM 2 0 0 0 0 2 7%
8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
8:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
9:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Totals 83 0 3 0 14 100
Occupancy
Percentage
Parking Study
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Time Grand Total
Re
g
u
l
a
r
HC
HC
V
a
n
Cl
e
a
n
A
i
r
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Lo
a
d
i
n
g
Zo
n
e
Location:16452 Construction Circle Date:11/2/2017
City:Irvine Day:Thursday
Inventory 22 1 1 3 2 29
10:00 AM 3 0 1 0 0 4 14%
10:30 AM 3 0 1 0 1 5 17%
11:00 AM 3 0 0 0 0 3 10%
11:30 AM 2 0 0 0 2 4 14%
12:00 PM 3 0 0 0 0 3 10%
12:30 PM 2 0 0 0 0 2 7%
1:00 PM 2 0 0 0 0 2 7%
1:30 PM 3 0 0 0 0 3 10%
2:00 PM 2 0 0 0 0 2 7%
2:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1 2 7%
3:00 PM 2 0 0 0 1 3 10%
3:30 PM 2 0 0 0 1 3 10%
4:00 PM 2 0 0 0 1 3 10%
4:30 PM 2 0 0 0 1 3 10%
5:00 PM 3 0 0 0 1 4 14%
5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1 2 7%
6:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 3%
6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
7:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 3%
7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
8:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
9:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Totals 38 0 2 0 10 50
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Parking Study
Time
Re
g
u
l
a
r
HC
HC
V
a
n
Cl
e
a
n
A
i
r
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Lo
a
d
i
n
g
Zo
n
e
Grand Total Occupancy
Percentage
Location:1040 N Main St Date:10/28/2017
City:Orange Day:Saturday
Inventory 7 6 1 14
8:00 AM 2 2 0 0 4 29%
8:30 AM 3 2 0 0 5 36%
9:00 AM 5 2 0 0 7 50%
9:30 AM 4 3 0 0 7 50%
10:00 AM 6 3 0 0 9 64%
10:30 AM 6 3 0 0 9 64%
11:00 AM 7 5 0 0 12 86%
11:30 AM 8 4 0 0 12 86%
12:00 PM 7 6 1 3 17 121%
12:30 PM 9 5 0 0 14 100%
1:00 PM 8 5 0 0 13 93%
1:30 PM 8 6 0 2 16 114%
2:00 PM 7 0 0 0 7 50%
2:30 PM 5 0 0 0 5 36%
3:00 PM 4 2 0 0 6 43%
3:30 PM 6 4 0 0 10 71%
4:00 PM 5 2 0 0 7 50%
4:30 PM 4 3 0 0 7 50%
5:00 PM 4 2 0 0 6 43%
5:30 PM 3 1 0 0 4 29%
6:00 PM 2 2 0 0 4 29%
6:30 PM 2 1 0 0 3 21%
7:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 7%
7:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1 7%
8:00 PM 2 0 0 0 2 14%
8:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1 7%
9:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 7%
Totals 121 63 1 5 190
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Parking Study
Time
Re
g
u
l
a
r
(M
a
r
k
e
d
)
Un
m
a
r
k
e
d
HC
Il
l
e
g
a
l
Grand Total Occupancy
Percentage
Location:1040 N Main St Date:11/2/2017
City:Orange Day:Thursday
Inventory 7 6 1 14
10:00 AM 3 2 0 0 5 36%
10:30 AM 4 2 0 0 6 43%
11:00 AM 3 1 0 0 4 29%
11:30 AM 3 1 0 0 4 29%
12:00 PM 3 2 0 0 5 36%
12:30 PM 4 3 0 0 7 50%
1:00 PM 4 4 0 0 8 57%
1:30 PM 5 3 0 0 8 57%
2:00 PM 5 4 0 0 9 64%
2:30 PM 4 3 0 0 7 50%
3:00 PM 6 3 0 0 9 64%
3:30 PM 4 4 0 0 8 57%
4:00 PM 5 4 0 0 9 64%
4:30 PM 7 3 0 0 10 71%
5:00 PM 6 4 0 0 10 71%
5:30 PM 6 3 0 0 9 64%
6:00 PM 3 3 0 0 6 43%
6:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1 7%
7:00 PM 3 1 0 0 4 29%
7:30 PM 3 2 0 0 5 36%
8:00 PM 2 2 0 0 4 29%
8:30 PM 3 0 0 0 3 21%
9:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 7%
Totals 88 54 0 0 142
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Parking Study
Time
Re
g
u
l
a
r
(M
a
r
k
e
d
)
Un
m
a
r
k
e
d
HC
Il
l
e
g
a
l
Grand Total Occupancy
Percentage
Location:4295 Outer Traffic Circle Date:10/28/2017
City:Long Beach Day:Saturday
Inventory 12 1 13
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0%
8:30 AM 4 0 4 31%
9:00 AM 4 0 4 31%
9:30 AM 7 0 7 54%
10:00 AM 5 0 5 38%
10:30 AM 2 0 2 15%
11:00 AM 2 0 2 15%
11:30 AM 2 0 2 15%
12:00 PM 6 0 6 46%
12:30 PM 2 0 2 15%
1:00 PM 3 0 3 23%
1:30 PM 2 0 2 15%
2:00 PM 3 0 3 23%
2:30 PM 5 0 5 38%
3:00 PM 6 0 6 46%
3:30 PM 7 0 7 54%
4:00 PM 2 0 2 15%
4:30 PM 4 0 4 31%
5:00 PM 2 0 2 15%
5:30 PM 1 0 1 8%
6:00 PM 1 0 1 8%
6:30 PM 0 0 0 0%
7:00 PM 0 0 0 0%
7:30 PM 0 0 0 0%
8:00 PM 0 0 0 0%
8:30 PM 0 0 0 0%
9:00 PM 0 0 0 0%
Totals 70 0 70
Occupancy
Percentage
Parking Study
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Time Grand Total
Re
g
u
l
a
r
HC
V
a
n
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
Location:4295 Outer Traffic Circle Date:11/2/2017
City:Long Beach Day:Thursday
Inventory 13 1 14
10:00 AM 0 0 0 0%
10:30 AM 0 0 0 0%
11:00 AM 3 0 3 21%
11:30 AM 3 0 3 21%
12:00 PM 3 0 3 21%
12:30 PM 4 0 4 29%
1:00 PM 5 0 5 36%
1:30 PM 3 0 3 21%
2:00 PM 2 0 2 14%
2:30 PM 2 0 2 14%
3:00 PM 4 0 4 29%
3:30 PM 1 0 1 7%
4:00 PM 3 0 3 21%
4:30 PM 1 0 1 7%
5:00 PM 3 0 3 21%
5:30 PM 4 0 4 29%
6:00 PM 2 0 2 14%
6:30 PM 0 0 0 0%
7:00 PM 1 0 1 7%
7:30 PM 0 0 0 0%
8:00 PM 0 0 0 0%
8:30 PM 0 0 0 0%
9:00 PM 0 0 0 0%
Totals 44 0 44
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Parking Study
Time
Re
g
u
l
a
r
HC
V
a
n
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
Grand Total Occupancy
Percentage
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
1. COVER SHEET
V
I
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
SHEET INDEX
A
P
H
A
S
E
D
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
F
O
R
P
U
B
L
I
C
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
K
E
Y
M
A
P
S
H
E
E
T
1
N
O
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
2. CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN - PHASE 16. BUILDING 1 CONCEPTUAL FIRST FLOOR PLAN - PHAS
E
1
7. BUILDING 1 CONCEPTUAL SECOND FLOOR PLAN - PH
A
S
E
1
P
H
A
S
E
1
2
3
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
R
O
A
D
,
S
U
I
T
E
2
0
0
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
T
9
4
9
.
3
8
0
.
3
9
7
0
F
9
4
9
.
3
8
0
.
3
7
7
1
S
T
U
D
I
O
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
4
8
8
0
E
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
,
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
C
O
V
E
R
S
H
E
E
T
0
4
.
2
3
.
1
8
8. BUILDING 1 CONCEPTUAL THIRD FLOOR PLAN - PHA
S
E
1
9. BUILDING 1 CONCEPTUAL FOURTH FLOOR PLAN - PH
A
S
E
1
10. BUILDING 1 CONCEPTUAL FIFTH FLOOR PLAN - PHAS
E
1
11. BUILDING 1 CONCEPTUAL ROOF PLAN - PHASE 112. PHASE 1 - CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS 3. CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN - PHASE 14. CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN - PHASE 1
E
.
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
N. MANASSERO ST.
S
I
T
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
5. CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN - PHASE 1
1
7
.
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
F
I
R
S
T
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
-
P
H
A
S
E
2
1
8
.
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
S
E
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
-
P
H
A
S
E
2
1
9
.
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
T
H
I
R
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
-
P
H
A
S
E
2
2
0
.
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
F
O
U
R
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
-
P
H
A
S
E
2
2
1
.
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
F
I
F
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
-
P
H
A
S
E
2
2
2
.
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
-
P
H
A
S
E
2
2
3
.
P
H
A
S
E
2
-
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
1
4
.
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
-
P
H
A
S
E
2
1
5
.
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
P
L
A
N
-
P
H
A
S
E
2
1
6
.
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
-
P
H
A
S
E
2
2
4
.
P
H
A
S
E
1
&
2
-
L
I
N
E
O
F
S
I
G
H
T
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
KSP STUDIOARCHITECT OF RECORD: SHABNAM VAKILILICENSE NO: C-2629823 ORCHARD RD. SUITE 200LAKE FOREST, CA 92630TEL: (949) 380-3970 XT.324 LICENSED ARCHITECT
D
R
C
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
,
I
N
C
.
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
O
F
R
E
C
O
R
D
:
C
H
R
I
S
T
O
P
H
E
R
M
C
K
E
E
L
I
C
E
N
S
E
N
O
:
7
4
4
1
4
1
6
0
S
.
O
L
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
D
.
S
U
I
T
E
2
1
0
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
9
2
8
0
8
T
E
L
:
(
7
1
4
)
6
8
5
-
6
8
6
0
L
I
C
E
N
S
E
D
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
13. CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN - PHASE 2
2
5
.
A
L
T
A
S
U
R
V
E
Y
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
N
O
.
7
(
E
)
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
P
O
L
E
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
E
A
S
T
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
(
E
)
F
.
H
.
T
O
B
E
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
(E) F.H.
(
E
)
F
.
H
.
T
O
B
E
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
(
N
)
T
R
A
S
H
E
N
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
50'-0"
SCE EASEMENT
D
R
I
V
E
L
E
N
G
T
H
M
I
N
.
(
E
)
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
T
O
B
E
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
2
2
'
-
7
"
(
E
)
(
E
)
G
A
T
E
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
(E) TOREMAIN(E
)
T
O
RE
M
A
I
N
(
E
)
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
1
4
2
'
-
0
"
8
'
-
0
"
307'-0"
82'-0"82'-0"
1
1
2
'
-
0
"
5'-0"
1
0
'
-
0
"
4
'
-
0
"
52'-11"
5
'
-
0
"
T
(
N
)
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
1
7
'
-
6
"
R
A
D
I
U
S
F
I
R
E
T
U
R
N
3
8
'
R
A
D
I
U
S
F
I
R
E
T
U
R
N
3
4
'
-
0
"
2
6
'
-
0
"
6
0
'
-
0
"
S
E
C
U
R
I
T
Y
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
C1
C1
AD
A
C
B
C
B
D
B
C
G
I
D
S
I
G
N
/
D
R
P
A
N
E
L
M
E
N
U
B
O
A
R
D
P
R
I
N
T
E
R
/
F
A
X
C
O
P
I
E
R
B
C
B
C
S
E
C
U
R
I
T
Y
R
A
C
K
C
FP
S
L
A
T
W
A
L
L
(
6
'
x
8
'
)
(
E
)
C
H
A
I
N
L
I
N
K
F
E
N
C
E
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
1
5
S
T
O
R
I
E
S
1
9
6
,
5
2
0
S
.
F
.
6
9
.
3
F
.
F
.
6
8
.
1
P
A
D
D
E
P
R
E
S
S
E
D
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
L
S
L
S
L
S
S
L
O
P
E
A
N
D
L
A
N
D
C
A
P
E
D
A
R
E
A
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
O
V
E
R
H
E
A
D
P
O
W
E
R
L
I
N
E
S
P
A
V
E
D
S
I
D
E
Y
A
R
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
3
4
0
.
2
'
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
3
4
0
.
4
'
PROPERTY LINE 453.7'
PROPERTY LINE 445.3'
WAREHOUSE
W
A
R
E
H
O
U
S
E
/
O
F
F
I
C
E
12'-0"
WALKWAY
L
S
5'15'-0"
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
5'
75'-9"
27'-0"
5'7'
5
'
-
0
"
(
E
)
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
7
'
D
E
D
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
(
E
)
F
.
H
.
O
F
F
I
C
E
L
O
B
B
Y
(
E
)
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
P
O
L
E
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
(
E
)
S
T
R
E
E
T
L
I
G
H
T
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
(
E
)
P
U
L
L
B
O
X
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
F
I
R
E
H
Y
R
A
N
T
(
E
)
W
A
T
E
R
M
E
T
E
R
(
E
)
G
A
S
M
E
T
E
R
19'-4"
T
(
N
)
T
R
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
T
D
O
U
B
L
E
S
T
R
I
P
E
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
S
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
S
T
D
4
7
0
(
E
)
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
2
2
'
-
6
"
(
E
)
25'-0"(E)
9'-9"
L
S
12'-0"
BLDG G6,990 S.F.BL
D
G
F
6,99
2
S
.
F
.
B
L
D
G
E
6
,
9
9
6
S
.
F
.
B
L
D
G
D
1
0
,
4
8
1
S
.
F
.
(N) CHAIN LINK 6' FENCE
L
S
R
E
M
O
V
E
(
E
)
P
Y
L
O
N
S
I
G
N
(
E
)
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
P
O
L
E
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
(N) CHAIN LINK (E) FENCE TO REMAIN
(
N
)
C
H
A
I
N
L
I
N
K
6
'
F
E
N
C
E
2
0
'
-
0
"
(
N
)
W
R
O
U
G
H
T
I
R
O
N
S
E
C
U
R
I
T
Y
G
A
T
E
12'-0"12'-0"
1
8
'
-
0
"
1
2
1
8
'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
8'-0"
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
2
0
'
-
0
"
9'-0"
30'-0"
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
C
U
R
B
(
E
)
C
U
R
B
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
S
C
O
P
E
O
F
W
O
R
K
(
P
H
A
S
E
1
)
1
7
'
-
6
"
R
A
D
I
U
S
F
I
R
E
T
U
R
N
3
8
'
R
A
D
I
U
S
F
I
R
E
T
U
R
N
53'-0"EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY60'-0"ULTIMATE RIGH-OF-WAY
3
0
'
-
0
"
7
'
X
5
0
'
L
I
N
E
O
F
S
I
G
H
T
C
L
E
A
R
Z
O
N
E
2
0
'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
15'-0"CITY OF ANAHEIMEASEMENT 10'-0"
P
A
I
N
T
R
E
D
"
N
O
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
"
T
O
E
N
S
U
R
E
T
R
A
S
H
T
R
U
C
K
A
C
C
E
S
S
C
O
N
V
E
R
T
(
E
)
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
T
O
T
E
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
O
F
F
I
C
E
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
G
A
T
E
K
E
Y
P
A
D
A
C
C
E
S
S
T
O
T
R
A
S
H
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
,
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
I
S
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
T
O
A
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
A
C
C
E
S
S
F
E
E
B
I
L
L
E
D
D
I
R
E
C
T
L
Y
T
O
T
R
A
S
H
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
F
I
R
E
A
N
D
T
R
A
S
H
T
R
U
C
K
C
I
R
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
FIRE AND TRASH TRUCK CIRCULATION
FIRE AND TRASH TRUCK CIRCULATION
F
I
R
E
A
N
D
T
R
A
S
H
T
R
U
C
K
C
I
R
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
T
E
M
P
O
F
F
I
C
E
(E) FIRE BACKFLOWDEVICE TO BEREMOVED IN PHASE 1 PROPOSED MODULARWETLAND SYSTEM
5'-0"
3
4
5
L
S
L
S
18'-0"
9
'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
S
L
O
P
E
A
N
D
L
A
N
D
C
A
P
E
D
A
R
E
A
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
P
A
I
N
T
C
U
R
B
R
E
D
P
A
I
N
T
C
U
R
B
R
E
D
N
E
W
M
O
N
U
M
E
N
T
S
I
G
N
8
'
-
0
"
9
'
-
0
"
9
'
-
0
"
18'-0"
C
E
N
T
E
R
L
I
N
E
O
F
S
T
R
E
E
T
D
E
P
R
E
S
S
E
D
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
F
H
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
PROPOSED FIREBACKFLOW 10'-0"
2
3
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
R
O
A
D
,
S
U
I
T
E
2
0
0
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
T
9
4
9
.
3
8
0
.
3
9
7
0
F
9
4
9
.
3
8
0
.
3
7
7
1
S
T
U
D
I
O
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
4
8
8
0
E
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
,
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
-
P
H
A
S
E
1
K
S
P
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
2
0
3
8
7
0
6
.
1
1
.
1
8
2
0
'
s
c
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
2
0
'
-
0
"
4
0
'
0
N
O
R
T
H
S
H
E
E
T
2
NORTHNORTH
9 1
S T U D I O
architecture + engineering4880 E LA PALMA AVE, ANAHEIM , CA 06.19.2018
SHEET 3
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN PHASE 1
NORTHNORTH
E
A
S
T
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
SECURITY MONITOR
C
1
C
1
A
D
A
C
B
C
B
D
B
C
G
I
D
S
I
G
N
/
D
R
P
A
N
E
L
M
E
N
U
B
O
A
R
D
P
R
I
N
T
E
R
/
F
A
X
C
O
P
I
E
R
B
C
B
C
E
A
S
T
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
S
E
C
U
R
I
T
Y
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
C1
C1
AD
A
C
B
C
B
D
B
C
G
I
D
S
I
G
N
/
D
R
P
A
N
E
L
M
E
N
U
B
O
A
R
D
P
R
I
N
T
E
R
/
F
A
X
C
O
P
I
E
R
B
C
B
C
S
E
C
U
R
I
T
Y
R
A
C
K
C
FP
S
L
A
T
W
A
L
L
(
6
'
x
8
'
)
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
S
E
E
P
H
A
S
E
2
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
53'-0"60'-0"
2
1
'
-
0
"
PROPERTY LINE 453.7'
PROPERTY LINE 445.3'
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
S
E
E
P
H
A
S
E
2
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
S
T
R
E
E
T
C
E
N
T
E
R
L
I
N
E
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY
D
E
P
R
E
S
S
E
D
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
1
G
a
l
L
a
n
t
a
n
a
'
N
e
w
G
o
l
d
'
Y
e
l
l
o
w
L
a
n
t
a
n
a
G
R
O
U
N
D
C
O
V
E
R
-
A
P
P
R
O
X
.
+
/
-
5
8
6
s
.
f
.
4
8
"
O
.
C
.
1
G
a
l
R
o
s
m
a
r
i
n
u
s
o
.
'
H
u
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
C
a
r
p
e
t
'
6
'
O
.
C
.
1
G
a
l
B
a
c
c
h
a
r
i
s
p
.
'
T
w
i
n
P
e
a
k
s
'
D
w
a
r
f
C
o
y
o
t
e
B
u
s
h
T
R
E
E
S
L
L
L
Q
T
Y
S
I
Z
E
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
S
Y
M
B
O
L
S
H
R
U
B
S
B
O
T
A
N
I
C
A
L
/
C
O
M
M
O
N
N
A
M
E
B
O
T
A
N
I
C
A
L
/
C
O
M
M
O
N
N
A
M
E
S
Y
M
B
O
L
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G
L
E
G
E
N
D
S
-
P
H
A
S
E
1
W
U
C
O
L
S
S
I
Z
E
Q
T
Y
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
W
U
C
O
L
S
S
P
A
C
I
N
G
S
I
Z
E
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
S
Y
M
B
O
L
B
O
T
A
N
I
C
A
L
/
C
O
M
M
O
N
N
A
M
E
W
U
C
O
L
S
L
P
r
o
s
t
r
a
t
e
R
o
s
e
m
a
r
y
1
G
a
l
3
0
"
O
.
C
.
R
o
s
a
'
F
l
o
w
e
r
C
a
r
p
e
t
'
-
R
e
d
R
e
d
F
l
o
w
e
r
C
a
r
p
e
t
R
o
s
e
1
2
"
O
.
C
.
4
"
P
o
t
s
S
e
n
e
c
i
o
m
a
n
d
r
a
l
i
s
c
a
e
M
B
l
u
e
F
i
n
g
e
r
s
C
a
l
l
i
s
t
e
m
o
n
'
L
i
t
t
l
e
J
o
h
n
'
D
w
a
r
f
B
o
t
t
l
e
B
r
u
s
h
5
G
a
l
L
1
9
H
e
s
p
e
r
a
l
o
e
p
a
r
v
i
f
l
o
r
a
R
e
d
Y
u
c
c
a
5
G
a
l
2
0
L
5
G
a
l
4
9
M
L
i
g
u
s
t
r
u
m
t
e
x
a
n
u
m
T
e
x
a
s
P
r
i
v
e
t
P
l
a
t
n
a
u
s
a
c
e
r
f
o
l
i
a
'
B
l
o
o
d
g
o
o
d
'
B
l
o
o
d
g
o
o
d
L
o
n
d
o
n
P
l
a
n
e
T
r
e
e
L
4
2
4
"
B
o
x
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
2
4
"
B
o
x
A
f
r
i
c
a
n
S
u
m
a
c
R
h
u
s
l
a
n
c
e
a
5
L
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
1
G
a
l
J
u
n
c
u
s
p
a
t
e
n
s
'
E
l
k
s
B
l
u
e
'
E
l
k
s
B
l
u
e
R
u
s
h
D
E
P
R
E
S
S
E
D
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
-
A
P
P
R
O
X
.
+
/
-
8
6
0
S
.
F
.
1
8
"
O
.
C
.
1
G
a
l
C
a
r
e
x
d
i
v
u
l
s
a
B
e
r
k
e
l
e
y
S
e
d
g
e
L
L
S
I
Z
E
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
S
Y
M
B
O
L
B
O
T
A
N
I
C
A
L
/
C
O
M
M
O
N
N
A
M
E
W
U
C
O
L
S
1
G
a
l
C
a
l
a
m
a
g
r
o
s
t
i
s
a
c
u
t
i
f
l
o
r
a
'
K
a
r
l
F
o
e
r
s
t
e
r
'
F
e
a
t
h
e
r
R
e
e
d
G
r
a
s
s
L
5
G
a
l
9
6
M
R
a
p
h
i
o
l
e
p
i
s
i
.
'
C
l
a
r
a
'
T
e
x
a
s
P
r
i
v
e
t
1
G
a
l
1
2
L
3
0
'
O
.
C
.
1
G
a
l
C
a
r
i
s
s
a
t
u
t
t
l
e
i
T
u
t
t
l
e
N
a
t
a
l
P
l
u
m
L
S
P
A
C
I
N
G
/
Q
T
Y
2
6
8
5
S
P
E
C
I
M
E
N
T
R
E
E
N
O
T
E
:
N
o
s
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
t
r
e
e
s
t
o
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
s
i
t
e
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
N
O
T
E
S
:
1
.
A
l
l
T
r
e
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
5
'
o
f
h
a
r
d
s
c
a
p
e
t
o
h
a
v
e
a
1
2
"
d
e
e
p
l
i
n
e
a
r
r
o
o
t
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
.
S
e
e
P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
h
e
e
t
.
.
2
.
A
l
l
p
l
a
n
t
e
r
a
r
e
a
s
t
o
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
a
3
"
l
a
y
e
r
o
f
s
h
r
e
d
d
e
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
m
u
l
c
h
.
3
.
A
l
l
b
a
c
k
f
l
o
w
s
a
n
d
a
b
o
v
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
t
o
b
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
5
'
f
r
o
m
h
a
r
d
s
c
a
p
e
o
n
f
l
a
t
a
r
e
a
.
A
l
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
t
o
b
e
s
c
r
e
e
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
s
t
r
a
p
-
l
e
a
f
p
l
a
n
t
s
.
4
.
T
a
l
l
s
h
r
u
b
s
a
r
e
t
o
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
t
s
c
r
e
e
n
w
a
l
l
s
f
o
r
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
g
r
a
f
f
i
t
i
.
5
.
S
o
i
l
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
n
o
g
r
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
8
5
%
o
n
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
r
e
a
s
.
6
.
A
l
l
f
i
n
i
s
h
g
r
a
d
e
s
t
o
b
e
1
1
2
"
b
e
l
o
w
f
i
n
i
s
h
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
p
a
v
i
n
g
.
7
.
A
g
r
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
l
s
o
i
l
t
e
s
t
i
n
g
r
e
p
o
r
t
t
o
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
p
l
a
n
s
.
8
.
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
a
d
h
e
r
e
t
o
t
h
e
m
a
n
d
a
t
e
d
m
o
d
e
l
w
a
t
e
r
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
.
9
.
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
a
d
h
e
r
e
t
o
t
h
e
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
N
o
.
2
0
1
5
-
1
(
s
p
2
0
1
5
-
1
)
z
o
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
P
e
r
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
p
l
a
n
N
o
.
2
0
1
5
-
1
(
s
p
2
0
1
5
-
1
)
z
o
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
t
r
e
e
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
1
t
r
e
e
p
e
r
3
,
0
0
0
s
.
f
.
o
f
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
.
T
O
T
A
L
S
I
T
E
A
R
E
A
P
H
A
S
E
1
&
2
-
4
3
,
4
9
5
S
.
F
.
/
3
,
0
0
0
S
.
F
.
=
1
5
T
R
E
E
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
1
8
T
R
E
E
S
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
+
3
T
R
E
E
S
S
U
R
P
L
U
S
2
3
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
R
O
A
D
,
S
U
I
T
E
2
0
0
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
T
9
4
9
.
3
8
0
.
3
9
7
0
F
9
4
9
.
3
8
0
.
3
7
7
1
S
T
U
D
I
O
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
4
8
8
0
E
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
,
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
-
S
C
H
E
M
E
C
(
P
H
A
S
E
1
)
K
S
P
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
2
0
3
8
7
0
6
.
1
1
.
1
8
2
0
'
s
c
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
2
0
'
-
0
"
4
0
'
0
N
O
R
T
H
S
H
E
E
T
5
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
A
B
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
CDEFGHJKL AB
M
M
N
N
1
4
1
4
1
5
1
5
1
6
1
6
1
7
1
7
1
8
1
8
1
9
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
O
O
P
P
3
2
3
2
SE
C
U
R
I
T
Y
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
C1 C1ADA
C
B C B D B C G
I
D
S
I
G
N
/
D
R
P
A
N
E
L
M
E
N
U
B
O
A
R
D
P
R
I
N
T
E
R
/
F
A
X
C
O
P
I
E
R
B C B C
O
F
F
I
C
E
L
O
B
B
Y
S
T
A
I
R
1
U
P
F
I
R
E
R
I
S
E
R
SE
C
U
R
I
T
Y
R
A
C
K
C
F
P
SL
A
T
W
A
L
L
(
6
'
x
8
'
)
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
R
O
O
M
3
0
7
'
-
0
"
142'-0"
8
2
'
-
0
"
S
T
A
I
R
2
S
T
A
I
R
3
U
P
U
P
95'-0"
49'-10"
4
9
'
-
1
0
"
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
2
2
3
'
-
5
"
DISTANCE TO EXIT193'-9"
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
1
5
4
'
-
3
"
U
N
I
S
E
X
U
N
I
S
E
X
E
L
E
V
1
E
L
E
V
2
E
L
E
V
3
H
A
L
L
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
F
I
R
S
T
F
L
O
O
R
3
9
,
3
0
4
S
.
F
.
J
A
N
C
L
O
S
E
T
E
L
E
V
M
A
C
H
I
N
E
R
M
E
M
R
P
S
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
O
F
F
I
C
E
O
F
F
I
C
E
O
F
F
I
C
E
4'-0"
5'-0"
13'-0"
CMU TRASHENCLOSURE8'-0"
1
6
'
-
0
"
1
4
3
'
-
0
"
82'-0"11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
6
'
-
0
"
142'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"11'-0"11'-0"
13'-0"
16'-0"8'-0"5'-0"ACCESSIBLE WALK 5'-0"ACCESSIBLE WALKSLAB TO MEET FINISHED GRADE.IF SLAB DOES NOT MEETFINISHED GRADE, PROVIDE RAMPSLOPED AT 14" PER FT. MAXIMUM(2) 3 YD TRASH CONTAINERS.LOWER ENDS OF LIDS TO FACEEACH OTHER FOR EASE OFLIFTING LID FOR DEPOSITLOWER ENDLOWER ENDCMU TRASH ENCLOSURE , FULLYSPRINKLERED 6" WIDE x 4" HIGH CONCRETE CURBW/ 2" x 2"x 3/16" ANGLE CURBGUARD METAL GATES, ALL HARDWARE TO BECORROSION RESISTANT
S
T
E
E
L
G
A
T
E
W
/
S
T
E
E
L
C
H
A
N
N
E
L
F
R
A
M
E
-
M
I
T
R
E
&
W
E
L
D
A
L
L
C
O
R
N
E
R
S
&
E
D
G
E
S
;
W
E
L
D
M
E
T
A
L
D
E
C
K
I
N
G
T
O
F
R
A
M
E
;
G
R
I
N
D
S
M
O
O
T
H
A
L
L
E
D
G
E
S
;
P
R
I
M
E
&
P
A
I
N
T
W
/
S
E
M
I
-
G
L
O
S
S
P
A
I
N
T
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
C
M
U
;
B
A
R
W
E
L
D
E
D
T
O
I
N
S
I
D
E
O
F
A
L
L
D
O
O
R
S
S
E
E
C
I
T
Y
O
F
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
T
R
A
S
H
E
N
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
MIN. 4" CONCRETE SLAB
B
O
T
T
O
M
O
F
D
O
O
R
S
H
O
U
L
D
B
E
H
I
G
H
E
N
O
U
G
H
T
O
P
A
S
S
C
L
E
A
R
A
B
O
V
E
A
N
Y
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
C
U
R
B
TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN
T
R
A
S
H
E
N
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
E
E
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
P
H
A
S
E
1
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
1
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
F
O
R
T
R
A
S
H
E
N
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
E
E
C
I
T
Y
O
F
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
F
O
R
L
A
T
C
H
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
H
E
E
T
6
S
T
U
D
I
O
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
4
8
8
0
E
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
,
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
K
S
P
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
2
0
3
8
7
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
1
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
F
I
R
S
T
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
0
2
.
2
0
.
1
8
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
0
1
2
'
6
'
2
4
'
3
'
s
c
a
l
e
:
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
A
B
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
CDEFGHJKL AB
M
M
N
N
1
4
1
4
1
5
1
5
1
6
1
6
1
7
1
7
1
8
1
8
1
9
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
O
O
P
P
3
2
3
2
L
O
B
B
Y
S
T
A
I
R
1
3
0
7
'
-
0
"
142'-0"
8
2
'
-
0
"
1
4
3
'
-
0
"
82'-0"
S
T
A
I
R
2
S
T
A
I
R
3
D
N
95'-0"
10'-0"39'-10"
3
9
'
-
1
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
2
2
3
'
-
5
"
DISTANCE TO EXIT193'-9"
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
1
5
4
'
-
3
"
E
L
E
V
1
E
L
E
V
2
E
L
E
V
3
H
A
L
L
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
S
E
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
3
9
,
3
0
4
S
.
F
.
D
I
S
P
L
A
Y
D
N
D
N
S
H
E
E
T
7
S
T
U
D
I
O
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
4
8
8
0
E
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
,
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
N
O
R
T
H
K
S
P
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
2
0
3
8
7
N
O
R
T
H
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
1
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
S
E
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
0
2
.
2
0
.
1
8
0
1
2
'
6
'
2
4
'
3
'
s
c
a
l
e
:
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
A
B
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
CDEFGHJKL AB
M
M
N
N
1
4
1
4
1
5
1
5
1
6
1
6
1
7
1
7
1
8
1
8
1
9
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
O
O
P
P
3
2
3
2
L
O
B
B
Y
S
T
A
I
R
1
3
0
7
'
-
0
"
142'-0"
8
2
'
-
0
"
1
4
3
'
-
0
"
82'-0"
S
T
A
I
R
2
S
T
A
I
R
3
D
N
95'-0"
10'-0"39'-10"
3
9
'
-
1
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
2
2
3
'
-
5
"
DISTANCE TO EXIT193'-9"
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
1
5
4
'
-
3
"
E
L
E
V
1
E
L
E
V
2
E
L
E
V
3
H
A
L
L
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
T
H
I
R
D
F
L
O
O
R
3
9
,
3
0
4
S
.
F
.
D
I
S
P
L
A
Y
U
N
I
S
E
X
D
N
D
N
S
H
E
E
T
8
S
T
U
D
I
O
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
4
8
8
0
E
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
,
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
K
S
P
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
2
0
3
8
7
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
1
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
T
H
I
R
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
0
2
.
2
0
.
1
8
0
1
2
'
6
'
2
4
'
3
'
s
c
a
l
e
:
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
A
B
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
CDEFGHJKL AB
M
M
N
N
1
4
1
4
1
5
1
5
1
6
1
6
1
7
1
7
1
8
1
8
1
9
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
O
O
P
P
3
2
3
2
L
O
B
B
Y
S
T
A
I
R
1
3
0
7
'
-
0
"
142'-0"
8
2
'
-
0
"
1
4
3
'
-
0
"
82'-0"
S
T
A
I
R
2
S
T
A
I
R
3
D
N
95'-0"
10'-0"39'-10"
3
9
'
-
1
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
2
2
3
'
-
5
"
DISTANCE TO EXIT193'-9"
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
1
5
4
'
-
3
"
E
L
E
V
1
E
L
E
V
2
E
L
E
V
3
H
A
L
L
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
F
O
U
R
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
3
9
,
3
0
4
S
.
F
.
D
I
S
P
L
A
Y
D
N
D
N
S
H
E
E
T
9
S
T
U
D
I
O
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
4
8
8
0
E
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
,
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
K
S
P
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
2
0
3
8
7
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
1
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
F
O
U
R
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
0
2
.
2
0
.
1
8
0
1
2
'
6
'
2
4
'
3
'
s
c
a
l
e
:
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
A
B
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
CDEFGHJKL AB
M
M
N
N
1
4
1
4
1
5
1
5
1
6
1
6
1
7
1
7
1
8
1
8
1
9
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
O
O
P
P
3
2
3
2
L
O
B
B
Y
S
T
A
I
R
1
D
N
3
0
7
'
-
0
"
142'-0"
8
2
'
-
0
"
1
4
3
'
-
0
"
82'-0"
S
T
A
I
R
2
S
T
A
I
R
3
D
N
D
N
95'-0"
50'-0"
5
0
'
-
0
"
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
2
2
3
'
-
5
"
DISTANCE TO EXIT193'-9"
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
1
5
4
'
-
3
"
E
L
E
V
1
E
L
E
V
2
E
L
E
V
3
H
A
L
L
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
F
I
F
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
3
9
,
3
0
4
S
.
F
.
U
N
I
S
E
X
S
H
E
E
T
1
0
S
T
U
D
I
O
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
4
8
8
0
E
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
,
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
K
S
P
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
2
0
3
8
7
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
1
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
F
I
F
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
0
2
.
2
0
.
1
8
0
1
2
'
6
'
2
4
'
3
'
s
c
a
l
e
:
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
A
B
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
CDEFGHJKL AB
M
M
N
N
1
4
1
4
1
5
1
5
1
6
1
6
1
7
1
7
1
8
1
8
1
9
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
O
O
P
P
3
2
3
2
3
0
7
'
-
0
"
142'-0"
8
2
'
-
0
"
1
4
3
'
-
0
"
82'-0"
S
T
A
I
R
2
B
E
L
O
W
95'-0"
50'-0"
5
0
'
-
0
"
R
I
D
G
E
1/4" PER FT
SLOPE
1/4" PER FT
SLOPE
1/4" PER FT
SLOPE
1/4" PER FT
SLOPE
57'-4"T.O. PARAPET57'-4"T.O. PARAPET
5
7
'
-
4
"
T
.
O
.
P
A
R
A
P
E
T
6
0
'
-
0
"
T
.
O
.
P
A
R
A
P
E
T
SLOPE
S
T
A
I
R
B
E
L
O
W
E
L
E
V
A
T
O
R
P
E
N
T
H
O
U
S
E
R
O
O
F
S
C
R
E
E
N
,
T
Y
P
R
O
O
F
S
C
R
E
E
N
,
T
Y
P
SLOPE
S
T
A
I
R
1
R
O
O
F
A
C
C
E
S
S
D
N
4
8
8
0
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
F
L
A
T
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
N
U
M
B
E
R
S
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
E
D
I
N
A
C
O
N
T
R
A
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
L
O
R
T
O
T
H
E
R
O
O
F
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
,
N
U
M
B
E
R
S
T
O
B
E
4
F
T
I
N
H
E
I
G
H
T
A
N
D
2
F
T
I
N
W
I
D
T
H
,
N
U
M
B
E
R
S
T
O
B
E
S
P
A
C
E
D
1
2
-
1
8
I
N
C
H
E
S
A
P
A
R
T
A
N
D
T
O
C
O
N
S
I
S
T
O
F
6
I
N
C
H
T
H
I
C
K
S
O
L
I
D
L
I
N
E
S
6
3
'
-
4
"
T
.
O
.
R
O
O
F
A
C
C
E
S
S
5
9
'
-
4
"
T
.
O
.
E
L
E
V
A
T
O
R
P
E
N
T
H
O
U
S
E
S
H
E
E
T
1
1
S
T
U
D
I
O
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
4
8
8
0
E
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
,
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
K
S
P
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
2
0
3
8
7
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
1
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
0
2
.
2
0
.
1
8
0
1
2
'
6
'
2
4
'
3
'
s
c
a
l
e
:
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
(
E
)
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
P
O
L
E
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
E
A
S
T
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
(
E
)
F
.
H
.
T
O
B
E
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
(E) F.H.
(
E
)
F
.
H
.
T
O
B
E
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
50'-0"
SCE EASEMENT
D
R
I
V
E
L
E
N
G
T
H
M
I
N
.
(
E
)
G
A
T
E
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
1
4
2
'
-
0
"
8
'
-
0
"
307'-0"
82'-0"
82'-0"
1
1
2
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
4
'
-
0
"
52'-11"
5
'
-
0
"
3
4
5
9
'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
T
18'-0"
TYP
(
N
)
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
E
D
D
U
R
I
N
G
P
H
A
S
E
I
1
7
'
-
6
"
R
A
D
I
U
S
F
I
R
E
T
U
R
N
3
8
'
R
A
D
I
U
S
F
I
R
E
T
U
R
N
3
4
'
-
0
"
3
6
'
-
4
"
1
0
0
'
-
4
"
S
E
C
U
R
I
T
Y
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
C1
C1
AD
A
C
B
C
B
D
B
C
G
I
D
S
I
G
N
/
D
R
P
A
N
E
L
M
E
N
U
B
O
A
R
D
P
R
I
N
T
E
R
/
F
A
X
C
O
P
I
E
R
B
C
B
C
S
E
C
U
R
I
T
Y
R
A
C
K
C
FP
S
L
A
T
W
A
L
L
(
6
'
x
8
'
)
(
E
)
C
H
A
I
N
L
I
N
K
F
E
N
C
E
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
1
5
S
T
O
R
I
E
S
1
9
6
,
5
2
0
S
.
F
.
6
9
.
3
F
.
F
.
6
8
.
1
P
A
D
DEPRESSED LANDSCAP
E
A
R
E
A
D
E
P
R
E
S
S
E
D
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
LS
L
S
L
S
L
S
L
S
DEPRESSED LANDSCAP
E
A
R
E
A
SLOPE AND LANDCAPE
D
A
R
E
A
EXISTING TO REM
A
I
N
O
V
E
R
H
E
A
D
P
O
W
E
R
L
I
N
E
S
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
3
4
0
.
2
'
PROPERTY LINE 340.4'PROPERTY LINE 453.7'
PROPERTY LINE 445.3'
WAREHOUSE
W
A
R
E
H
O
U
S
E
/
O
F
F
I
C
E
12'-0"
WALKWAY
L
S
5'15'-0"
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
5'15'-0"
LANDSCAPE
SETBACK
75'-9"
27'-0"
5'7'
5
'
-
0
"
(
E
)
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
7
'
D
E
D
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
F
I
C
E
L
O
B
B
Y
(E) UTILITY POLE TO
R
E
M
A
I
N
(E) STREET LIGHT T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
(
E
)
P
U
L
L
B
O
X
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
F
I
R
E
H
Y
D
R
A
N
T
(
E
)
W
A
T
E
R
M
E
T
E
R
(
E
)
G
A
S
M
E
T
E
R
(
N
)
T
R
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
D
O
U
B
L
E
S
T
R
I
P
E
D
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
S
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
O
F
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
S
T
D
4
7
0
9'-9"
L
S
20'-1"
(N) CHAIN LINK 6' FENCE
L
S
4
5
L
S
L
S
LS 9'-0"TYP
2
0
'
-
0
"
(
N
)
W
R
O
U
G
H
T
I
R
O
N
S
E
C
U
R
I
T
Y
G
A
T
E
(
E
)
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
P
O
L
E
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
PROPOSED BUILDING 25 STORIES196,520 S.F.68.8 F.F.67.6 PAD
(
N
)
T
R
A
S
H
E
N
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
19'-4"
T
T
1
2
9'-0"
TYP
1
8
'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
12'-0"
2
0
'
-
0
"
1
2
9'-0"
TYP
1
8
'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
8'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
18'-0"TYP 27'-0"8'-0"
F
I
R
E
A
P
P
A
R
A
T
U
S
&
T
R
A
S
H
T
R
U
C
K
H
A
M
M
E
R
H
E
A
D
F
O
R
P
H
A
S
E
2
2
8
'
-
0
"
40'-0"
4
0
'
-
0
"
4
0
'
-
0
"
28'-0"
1
7
.
5
'
R
58'-6"76'-11"5'-0"PAVED SIDE YARD(N) CHAIN LINK 6' FENCE
(N) CHAIN LINK (E) FENCE TO REMAIN
P
A
V
E
D
S
I
D
E
Y
A
R
D
(
N
)
C
H
A
I
N
L
I
N
K
6
'
F
E
N
C
E
142'-0"8'-0"
D
E
P
R
E
S
S
E
D
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
30'-0"
9'-3"307'-0"
9'-3"
53'-0"EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY60'-0"ULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY
3
0
'
-
0
"
7
'
X
5
0
'
L
I
N
E
O
F
S
I
G
H
T
C
L
E
A
R
Z
O
N
E
2
0
'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
2
0
'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
9'-0"
1
8
'
-
0
"
LOCATION FORBACKFLOW DEVICE 15'-0"CITY OF ANAHEIMEASEMENT 10'-0"
P
A
I
N
T
R
E
D
"
N
O
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
"
T
O
E
N
S
U
R
E
T
R
A
S
H
T
R
U
C
K
A
C
C
E
S
S
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
G
A
T
E
K
E
Y
P
A
D
A
C
C
E
S
S
T
O
T
R
A
S
H
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
,
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
I
S
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
T
O
A
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
A
C
C
E
S
S
F
E
E
B
I
L
L
E
D
D
I
R
E
C
T
L
Y
T
O
T
R
A
S
H
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
PROPOSED MODULARWETLAND SYSTEM
12'-0"8'-0"
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
9'-0"5'-0"
TYP
5
P
A
I
N
T
C
U
R
B
R
E
D
P
A
I
N
T
C
U
R
B
R
E
D
N
E
W
M
O
N
U
M
E
N
T
S
I
G
N
8
'
-
0
"
9
'
-
0
"
9
'
-
0
"
18'-0"
2
0
'
-
0
"
CENTERLINE OF STR
E
E
T
D
E
P
R
E
S
S
E
D
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
D
E
P
R
E
S
S
E
D
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
F
H
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
10'-0"
2
3
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
R
O
A
D
,
S
U
I
T
E
2
0
0
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
T
9
4
9
.
3
8
0
.
3
9
7
0
F
9
4
9
.
3
8
0
.
3
7
7
1
S
T
U
D
I
O
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
4
8
8
0
E
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
,
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
-
P
H
A
S
E
2
K
S
P
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
2
0
3
8
7
0
6
.
1
1
.
1
8
2
5
'
s
c
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
2
0
'
-
0
"
5
0
'
0
N
O
R
T
H
S
H
E
E
T
1
3
NORTHNORTH
9 1
SHEET 14
S T U D I O
architecture + engineering4880 E LA PALMA AVE, ANAHEIM , CA 06.19.2018
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN PHASE 2
NORTHNORTH
SECURITY MONITOR
C
1
C
1
A
D
A
C
B
C
B
D
B
C
G
I
D
S
I
G
N
/
D
R
P
A
N
E
L
M
E
N
U
B
O
A
R
D
P
R
I
N
T
E
R
/
F
A
X
C
O
P
I
E
R
B
C
B
C
E
A
S
T
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
S
E
C
U
R
I
T
Y
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
C1
C1
AD
A
C
B
C
B
D
B
C
G
I
D
S
I
G
N
/
D
R
P
A
N
E
L
M
E
N
U
B
O
A
R
D
P
R
I
N
T
E
R
/
F
A
X
C
O
P
I
E
R
B
C
B
C
S
E
C
U
R
I
T
Y
R
A
C
K
C
FP
S
L
A
T
W
A
L
L
(
6
'
x
8
'
)
LOBBY
STAIR 1
UP
FIRE RISER
RM
ELECTRICAL
ROOM
STAIR 3UP
STAIR 2
UP ELEV 1
ELEV 2ELEV 3
UNISEXUNISEX
DISTANCE TO EXIT155'-8"
DISTANCE TO EXIT
138'-9"
DI
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
75
'
-
0
"
DISTANCE TO EXIT 79'-5"
DISTANCE TO EXIT
118'-6"
FIRST FLOOR39,304 S.F.HALL, TYPSTORAGE UNITS, TYP STORAGE UNITS, TYP
F
I
R
E
A
P
P
A
R
A
T
U
S
&
T
R
A
S
H
T
R
U
C
K
H
A
M
M
E
R
H
E
A
D
F
O
R
P
H
A
S
E
2
2
8
'
-
0
"
40'-0"
4
0
'
-
0
"
4
0
'
-
0
"
28'-0"
1
7
.
5
'
R
DEPR
E
S
S
E
D
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
EXISTINGPLANTING TO REMAIN PROPERTY LINE 453.7'
PROPERTY LINE 445.3'
53'-0"60'-0"
2
0
'
-
0
"
S
E
E
P
H
A
S
E
1
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
S
E
E
P
H
A
S
E
1
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
S
E
E
P
H
A
S
E
1
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
STREET CENTERLINEEXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAYULTIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY
1
G
a
l
L
a
n
t
a
n
a
'
N
e
w
G
o
l
d
'
Y
e
l
l
o
w
L
a
n
t
a
n
a
G
R
O
U
N
D
C
O
V
E
R
-
A
P
P
R
O
X
.
+
/
-
6
9
0
s
.
f
.
4
8
"
O
.
C
.
1
G
a
l
R
o
s
m
a
r
i
n
u
s
o
.
'
H
u
n
t
i
n
g
t
o
n
C
a
r
p
e
t
'
6
'
O
.
C
.
1
G
a
l
B
a
c
c
h
a
r
i
s
p
.
'
T
w
i
n
P
e
a
k
s
'
D
w
a
r
f
C
o
y
o
t
e
B
u
s
h
T
R
E
E
S
L
L
L
Q
T
Y
S
I
Z
E
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
S
Y
M
B
O
L
S
H
R
U
B
S
B
O
T
A
N
I
C
A
L
/
C
O
M
M
O
N
N
A
M
E
B
O
T
A
N
I
C
A
L
/
C
O
M
M
O
N
N
A
M
E
S
Y
M
B
O
L
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G
L
E
G
E
N
D
S
-
P
H
A
S
E
2
W
U
C
O
L
S
S
I
Z
E
Q
T
Y
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
W
U
C
O
L
S
S
P
A
C
I
N
G
S
I
Z
E
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
S
Y
M
B
O
L
B
O
T
A
N
I
C
A
L
/
C
O
M
M
O
N
N
A
M
E
W
U
C
O
L
S
L
P
r
o
s
t
r
a
t
e
R
o
s
e
m
a
r
y
1
G
a
l
3
0
"
O
.
C
.
R
o
s
a
'
F
l
o
w
e
r
C
a
r
p
e
t
'
-
R
e
d
R
e
d
F
l
o
w
e
r
C
a
r
p
e
t
R
o
s
e
1
2
"
O
.
C
.
4
"
P
o
t
s
S
e
n
e
c
i
o
m
a
n
d
r
a
l
i
s
c
a
e
M
B
l
u
e
F
i
n
g
e
r
s
C
a
l
l
i
s
t
e
m
o
n
'
L
i
t
t
l
e
J
o
h
n
'
D
w
a
r
f
B
o
t
t
l
e
B
r
u
s
h
5
G
a
l
L
H
e
s
p
e
r
a
l
o
e
p
a
r
v
i
f
l
o
r
a
R
e
d
Y
u
c
c
a
5
G
a
l
L
5
G
a
l
5
3
M
L
i
g
u
s
t
r
u
m
t
e
x
a
n
u
m
T
e
x
a
s
P
r
i
v
e
t
P
l
a
t
a
n
u
s
a
c
e
r
f
o
l
i
a
'
B
l
o
o
d
g
o
o
d
'
B
l
o
o
d
g
o
o
d
L
o
n
d
o
n
P
l
a
n
e
T
r
e
e
L
4
2
4
"
B
o
x
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
2
4
"
B
o
x
A
f
r
i
c
a
n
S
u
m
a
c
R
h
u
s
l
a
n
c
e
a
5
L
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
1
G
a
l
J
u
n
c
u
s
p
a
t
e
n
s
'
E
l
k
s
B
l
u
e
'
E
l
k
s
B
l
u
e
R
u
s
h
D
E
P
R
E
S
S
E
D
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
-
A
P
P
R
O
X
.
+
/
-
3
,
9
0
0
s
.
f
.
1
8
"
O
.
C
.
1
G
a
l
C
a
r
e
x
d
i
v
u
l
s
a
B
e
r
k
e
l
e
y
S
e
d
g
e
L
L
S
P
A
C
I
N
G
/
Q
T
Y
S
I
Z
E
R
E
M
A
R
K
S
S
Y
M
B
O
L
B
O
T
A
N
I
C
A
L
/
C
O
M
M
O
N
N
A
M
E
W
U
C
O
L
S
1
G
a
l
C
a
l
a
m
a
g
r
o
s
t
i
s
a
c
u
t
i
f
l
o
r
a
'
K
a
r
l
F
o
e
r
s
t
e
r
'
F
e
a
t
h
e
r
R
e
e
d
G
r
a
s
s
L
3
0
'
O
.
C
.
1
G
a
l
C
a
r
i
s
s
a
t
u
t
t
l
e
i
T
u
t
t
l
e
N
a
t
a
l
P
l
u
m
L
4
0
1
6
1
1
1
2
1
6
1
1
G
a
l
5
G
a
l
4
2
M
R
a
p
h
i
o
l
e
p
i
s
i
.
'
C
l
a
r
a
'
T
e
x
a
s
P
r
i
v
e
t
L
S
P
E
C
I
M
E
N
T
R
E
E
N
O
T
E
:
N
o
s
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
t
r
e
e
s
t
o
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
s
i
t
e
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
N
O
T
E
S
:
1
.
A
l
l
T
r
e
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
5
'
o
f
h
a
r
d
s
c
a
p
e
t
o
h
a
v
e
a
1
2
"
d
e
e
p
l
i
n
e
a
r
r
o
o
t
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
.
2
.
A
l
l
p
l
a
n
t
e
r
a
r
e
a
s
t
o
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
a
3
"
l
a
y
e
r
o
f
s
h
r
e
d
d
e
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
m
u
l
c
h
.
3
.
A
l
l
b
a
c
k
f
l
o
w
s
a
n
d
a
b
o
v
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
t
o
b
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
5
'
f
r
o
m
h
a
r
d
s
c
a
p
e
o
n
f
l
a
t
a
r
e
a
.
A
l
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
t
o
b
e
s
c
r
e
e
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
s
t
r
a
p
-
l
e
a
f
p
l
a
n
t
s
.
4
.
T
a
l
l
s
h
r
u
b
s
o
r
v
i
n
e
s
a
r
e
t
o
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
t
s
c
r
e
e
n
w
a
l
l
s
f
o
r
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
g
r
a
f
f
i
t
i
.
5
.
S
o
i
l
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
n
o
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
8
5
%
o
n
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
r
e
a
s
.
6
.
A
l
l
f
i
n
i
s
h
g
r
a
d
e
s
t
o
b
e
1
1
2
"
b
e
l
o
w
f
i
n
i
s
h
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
p
a
v
i
n
g
.
7
.
A
g
r
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
l
s
o
i
l
t
e
s
t
i
n
g
r
e
p
o
r
t
t
o
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
p
l
a
n
s
.
8
.
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
a
d
h
e
r
e
t
o
t
h
e
m
a
n
d
a
t
e
d
m
o
d
e
l
w
a
t
e
r
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
.
9
.
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
a
d
h
e
r
e
t
o
t
h
e
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
C
a
n
y
o
n
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
N
o
.
2
0
1
5
-
1
(
s
p
2
0
1
5
-
1
)
z
o
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
P
e
r
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
p
l
a
n
N
o
.
2
0
1
5
-
1
(
s
p
2
0
1
5
-
1
)
z
o
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
t
r
e
e
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
1
t
r
e
e
p
e
r
3
,
0
0
0
s
.
f
.
o
f
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
.
T
O
T
A
L
S
I
T
E
A
R
E
A
P
H
A
S
E
1
&
2
-
4
3
,
4
9
5
S
.
F
.
/
3
,
0
0
0
S
.
F
.
=
1
5
T
R
E
E
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
1
8
T
R
E
E
S
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
+
3
T
R
E
E
S
S
U
R
P
L
U
S
2
3
O
R
C
H
A
R
D
R
O
A
D
,
S
U
I
T
E
2
0
0
L
A
K
E
F
O
R
E
S
T
,
C
A
9
2
6
3
0
T
9
4
9
.
3
8
0
.
3
9
7
0
F
9
4
9
.
3
8
0
.
3
7
7
1
S
T
U
D
I
O
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
4
8
8
0
E
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
,
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
-
S
C
H
E
M
E
C
(
P
H
A
S
E
2
)
K
S
P
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
2
0
3
8
7
0
6
.
1
1
.
1
8
2
5
'
s
c
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
2
5
'
-
0
"
5
0
'
0
N
O
R
T
H
S
H
E
E
T
1
6
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
A
B
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
CDEFGHJKL AB
M
M
N
N
1
4
1
4
1
5
1
5
1
6
1
6
1
7
1
7
1
8
1
8
1
9
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
O
O
P
P
3
2
3
2
L
O
B
B
Y
S
T
A
I
R
1
U
P
F
I
R
E
R
I
S
E
R
R
M
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
R
O
O
M
S
T
A
I
R
3
U
P
S
T
A
I
R
2
U
P
E
L
E
V
1
E
L
E
V
2
E
L
E
V
3
U
N
I
S
E
X
U
N
I
S
E
X
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
1
5
5
'
-
8
"
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
1
3
8
'
-
9
"
DISTANCE TO EXIT
75'-0"
DISTANCE TO EXIT
79'-5"
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
1
1
8
'
-
6
"
F
I
R
S
T
F
L
O
O
R
3
9
,
3
0
4
S
.
F
.
3
0
7
'
-
0
"
142'-0"
95'-0"49'-10"
4
9
'
-
1
0
"
2
6
0
'
-
0
"
142'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"11'-0"
8
2
'
-
0
"
1
4
3
'
-
0
"
82'-0"
3
0
1
'
-
0
"
H
A
L
L
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
6
'
-
0
"
11'-0"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
S
H
E
E
T
1
7
S
T
U
D
I
O
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
4
8
8
0
E
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
,
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
K
S
P
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
2
0
3
8
7
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
F
I
R
S
T
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
0
2
.
2
0
.
1
8
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
0
1
2
'
6
'
2
4
'
3
'
s
c
a
l
e
:
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
A
B
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
CDEFGHJKL AB
M
M
N
N
1
4
1
4
1
5
1
5
1
6
1
6
1
7
1
7
1
8
1
8
1
9
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
O
O
P
P
3
2
3
2
L
O
B
B
Y
S
T
A
I
R
1
D
N
D
I
S
P
L
A
Y
S
T
A
I
R
3
S
T
A
I
R
2
E
L
E
V
1
E
L
E
V
2
E
L
E
V
3
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
1
3
8
'
-
9
"
DISTANCE TO EXIT
75'-0"
DISTANCE TO EXIT
79'-5"
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
1
1
8
'
-
6
"
S
E
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
3
9
,
3
0
4
S
.
F
.
3
0
7
'
-
0
"
142'-0"
95'-0"10'-0"39'-10"
3
9
'
-
1
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
2
6
0
'
-
0
"
2
9
6
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"6'-0"142'-0"11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"11'-0"
8
2
'
-
0
"
1
4
3
'
-
0
"
82'-0"
3
0
1
'
-
0
"
10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
8
1
8
"
9
'
-
3
7
8
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
1
'
-
0
"
H
A
L
L
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
D
N
D
N
DISTANCE TO EXIT192'-5"
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
1
5
5
'
-
8
"
S
H
E
E
T
1
8
S
T
U
D
I
O
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
4
8
8
0
E
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
,
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
K
S
P
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
2
0
3
8
7
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
S
E
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
0
2
.
2
0
.
1
8
0
1
2
'
6
'
2
4
'
3
'
s
c
a
l
e
:
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
A
B
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
CDEFGHJKL AB
M
M
N
N
1
4
1
4
1
5
1
5
1
6
1
6
1
7
1
7
1
8
1
8
1
9
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
O
O
P
P
3
2
3
2
L
O
B
B
Y
S
T
A
I
R
1
D
N
D
I
S
P
L
A
Y
S
T
A
I
R
3
S
T
A
I
R
2
E
L
E
V
1
E
L
E
V
2
E
L
E
V
3
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
1
3
8
'
-
9
"
DISTANCE TO EXIT
75'-0"
DISTANCE TO EXIT
79'-5"
T
H
I
R
D
F
L
O
O
R
3
9
,
3
0
4
S
.
F
.
3
0
7
'
-
0
"
142'-0"
95'-0"10'-0"39'-10"
3
9
'
-
1
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
2
6
0
'
-
0
"
1
1
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"6'-0"142'-0"11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"11'-0"
8
2
'
-
0
"
1
4
3
'
-
0
"
82'-0"6'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
8
1
8
"
9
'
-
3
7
8
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
1
'
-
0
"
H
A
L
L
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
D
N
D
N
DISTANCE TO EXIT192'-5"
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
1
5
5
'
-
8
"
U
N
I
S
E
X
S
H
E
E
T
1
9
S
T
U
D
I
O
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
4
8
8
0
E
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
,
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
K
S
P
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
2
0
3
8
7
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
T
H
I
R
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
0
2
.
2
0
.
1
8
0
1
2
'
6
'
2
4
'
3
'
s
c
a
l
e
:
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
A
B
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
CDEFGHJKL AB
M
M
N
N
1
4
1
4
1
5
1
5
1
6
1
6
1
7
1
7
1
8
1
8
1
9
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
O
O
P
P
3
2
3
2
L
O
B
B
Y
S
T
A
I
R
1
D
N
D
I
S
P
L
A
Y
S
T
A
I
R
3
S
T
A
I
R
2
E
L
E
V
1
E
L
E
V
2
E
L
E
V
3
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
1
3
8
'
-
9
"
DISTANCE TO EXIT
75'-0"
DISTANCE TO EXIT
79'-5"
F
O
U
R
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
3
9
,
3
0
4
S
.
F
.
3
0
7
'
-
0
"
142'-0"
95'-0"10'-0"39'-10"
3
9
'
-
1
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
2
6
0
'
-
0
"
1
1
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"6'-0"142'-0"11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"11'-0"
8
2
'
-
0
"
1
4
3
'
-
0
"
82'-0"6'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
8
1
8
"
9
'
-
3
7
8
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
1
'
-
0
"
H
A
L
L
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
D
N
D
N
DISTANCE TO EXIT192'-5"
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
1
5
5
'
-
8
"
S
H
E
E
T
2
0
S
T
U
D
I
O
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
4
8
8
0
E
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
,
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
K
S
P
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
2
0
3
8
7
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
F
O
U
R
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
0
2
.
2
0
.
1
8
0
1
2
'
6
'
2
4
'
3
'
s
c
a
l
e
:
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
A
B
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
CDEFGHJKL AB
M
M
N
N
1
4
1
4
1
5
1
5
1
6
1
6
1
7
1
7
1
8
1
8
1
9
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
O
O
P
P
3
2
3
2
L
O
B
B
Y
S
T
A
I
R
1
D
N
4
9
'
-
1
0
"
S
T
A
I
R
3
S
T
A
I
R
2
E
L
E
V
1
E
L
E
V
2
E
L
E
V
3
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
1
3
8
'
-
9
"
DISTANCE TO EXIT
75'-0"
DISTANCE TO EXIT
79'-5"
F
I
F
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
3
9
,
3
0
4
S
.
F
.
3
0
7
'
-
0
"
142'-0"
95'-0"49'-10"
2
6
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
1
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"6'-0"142'-0"11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"11'-0"
8
2
'
-
0
"
1
4
3
'
-
0
"
82'-0"6'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
8
1
8
"
9
'
-
3
7
8
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
1
'
-
0
"
H
A
L
L
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
U
N
I
T
S
,
T
Y
P
D
N
D
N
DISTANCE TO EXIT192'-5"
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
T
O
E
X
I
T
1
5
5
'
-
8
"
S
H
E
E
T
2
1
S
T
U
D
I
O
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
4
8
8
0
E
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
,
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
K
S
P
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
2
0
3
8
7
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
F
I
F
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
0
2
.
2
0
.
1
8
0
1
2
'
6
'
2
4
'
3
'
s
c
a
l
e
:
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
A
B
123456
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
CDEFGHJKL AB
M
M
N
N
1
4
1
4
1
5
1
5
1
6
1
6
1
7
1
7
1
8
1
8
1
9
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
O
O
P
P
3
2
3
2
5
0
'
-
0
"
S
T
A
I
R
3
R
O
O
F
A
C
C
E
S
S
3
0
7
'
-
0
"
142'-0"
95'-0"50'-0"
2
6
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
1
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"6'-0"142'-0"11'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"11'-0"
8
2
'
-
0
"
1
4
3
'
-
0
"
82'-0"6'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
8
1
8
"
9
'
-
3
7
8
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
1
'
-
0
"
D
N
S
T
A
I
R
2
B
E
L
O
W
RI
D
G
E
1/4" PER FT
SLOPE
1/4" PER FT
SLOPE
1/4" PER FT
SLOPE
1/4" PER FT
SLOPE
57'-4"T.O. PARAPET 57'-4"T.O. PARAPET
5
7
'
-
4
"
T
.
O
.
P
A
R
A
P
E
T
6
0
'
-
0
"
T
.
O
.
P
A
R
A
P
E
T
SLOPE
S
T
A
I
R
B
E
L
O
W
E
L
E
V
A
T
O
R
P
E
N
T
H
O
U
S
E
R
O
O
F
S
C
R
E
E
N
,
T
Y
P
R
O
O
F
S
C
R
E
E
N
,
T
Y
P
SLOPE
4
8
8
0
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
F
L
A
T
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
N
U
M
B
E
R
S
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
E
D
I
N
A
C
O
N
T
R
A
S
T
I
N
G
C
O
L
O
R
T
O
T
H
E
R
O
O
F
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
,
N
U
M
B
E
R
S
T
O
B
E
4
F
T
I
N
H
E
I
G
H
T
A
N
D
2
F
T
I
N
W
I
D
T
H
,
N
U
M
B
E
R
S
T
O
B
E
S
P
A
C
E
D
1
2
-
1
8
I
N
C
H
E
S
A
P
A
R
T
A
N
D
T
O
C
O
N
S
I
S
T
O
F
6
I
N
C
H
T
H
I
C
K
S
O
L
I
D
L
I
N
E
S
6
3
'
-
4
"
T
.
O
.
R
O
O
F
A
C
C
E
S
S
5
9
'
-
4
"
T
.
O
.
E
L
E
V
A
T
O
R
P
E
N
T
H
O
U
S
E
S
H
E
E
T
2
2
S
T
U
D
I
O
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
4
8
8
0
E
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
,
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
K
S
P
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
2
0
3
8
7
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
0
2
.
2
0
.
1
8
0
1
2
'
6
'
2
4
'
3
'
s
c
a
l
e
:
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
N
O
R
T
H
N
O
R
T
H
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
B
-
B
P
/
L
0
'
-
0
"
A
F
F
3
2
'
-
0
"
A
F
F
1
0
'
-
8
"
A
F
F
2
1
'
-
4
"
A
F
F
(
6
8
.
5
'
)
4
2
'
-
8
"
A
F
F
5
3
'
-
4
"
A
F
F
5
7
'
-
4
"
A
F
F
5
7
'
-
4
"
A
F
F
R
O
O
F
T
O
P
U
N
I
T
S
&
R
O
O
F
S
C
R
E
E
N
R
O
O
F
A
C
C
E
S
S
(
B
E
Y
O
N
D
)
R
O
O
F
A
C
C
E
S
S
(
B
E
Y
O
N
D
)
P
/
L
L
I
N
E
O
F
S
I
G
H
T
F
R
O
M
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
R
O
O
F
S
C
R
E
E
N
(
B
E
Y
O
N
D
)
S
W
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
S
W
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
F
.
F
.
E
.
=
6
8
.
8
'
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
1
F
.
F
.
E
.
=
6
9
.
3
'
P
/
L
R
/
W
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
2
F
.
F
.
E
.
=
6
8
.
8
'
0
'
-
0
"
A
F
F
3
2
'
-
0
"
A
F
F
1
0
'
-
8
"
A
F
F
2
1
'
-
4
"
A
F
F
(
E
)
R
/
W
L
S
57'-4" AFFT.O.P.
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
-
A
(
6
8
.
5
'
)
4
2
'
-
8
"
A
F
F
5
3
'
-
4
"
A
F
F
5
7
'
-
4
"
A
F
F
5
7
'
-
4
"
A
F
F
S
W
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
I
O
R
E
T
E
N
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
F
I
N
I
S
H
E
D
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S
W
PROPOSEDBIORETENTIONPROPOSEDFIN. SURFACE
L
I
N
E
O
F
S
I
G
H
T
F
R
O
M
E
.
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
R
O
O
F
T
O
P
U
N
I
T
S
&
R
O
O
F
S
C
R
E
E
N
,
T
Y
P
S
H
E
E
T
2
4
S
T
U
D
I
O
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
4
8
8
0
E
L
A
P
A
L
M
A
A
V
E
,
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
0
2
.
2
0
.
1
8
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.