The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2020/11/0911-09-2020 Page 1 of 5 City of Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Monday, November 9, 2020 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California • Chairperson: Kimberly Keys • Chairperson Pro-Tempore: John Armstrong • Commissioners: Michelle Lieberman, Natalie Meeks, Rosa Mulleady, Dave Vadodaria, Steve White • Call To Order - 5:00 p.m. • Pledge Of Allegiance • Public Hearing Items • Commission Updates • Discussion • Adjournment SPECIAL NOTICE DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act-related provisions of Executive Order N-25-20 issued on March 12, 2020), which allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body. Pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20, please be advised that Planning Commission members will participate in this meeting remotely. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 and given the current health concerns, members of the public can access the meeting live on-line, with audio and limited video, at www.anaheim.net/planning. In addition, members of the public can submit comments electronically for Planning Commission consideration by sending them to planningcommission@anaheim.net or directly to the project planner as indicated on each item below. To ensure distribution to the Planning Commission prior to consideration of the agenda, please submit comments prior to 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. Those comments, as well as any comments received after 3:00 p.m., will be distributed to the Planning Commission members and will be made part of the official public record of the meeting. Public comments submitted after 3 p.m. will be posted to the Planning Commission website the day after the meeting. Personal information such as email addresses, phone numbers and home address will be redacted. Contact the Planning and Building Department at 714-765-5139, the project planner listed below, or planningcommission@anaheim.net with any questions. A copy of the staff report may be obtained on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Thursday, October 22, 2020, 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 by contacting the Building and Planning Department at 714-765-5139 or planningcommission@anaheim.net during regular business hours. 11-09-2020 Page 2 of 5 ACCESSIBILITY: 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, in order to observe and/or offer public comment may request such reasonable modification, accommodation, aid, or service by contacting the Building and Planning Department at 714-765-5139 or planningcommission@anaheim.net, no later than 8:00 a.m. on the day of the scheduled meeting. 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. 11-09-2020 Page 3 of 5 Public Hearing Items ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06080 (DEV2020-00167) Location: 1125 North Magnolia Avenue Request: The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to to allow an adult day care within an existing office building. 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. 2012-05650B VARIANCE NO. 2013-04957B (DEV2020-00169) Location: 1952 West La Palma Avenue Request: The applicant requests approval of the following land use entitlements: (i) to amend a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit to modify plans for an existing baseball field on the Servite High School campus; and (ii) to amend a previously-approved Variance to permit 50-foot high fencing and 60-foot high poles around the existing baseball field where the Transition zone allows a maximum fence height of 8 feet. 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 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). This item was continued from the October 26, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Sophia Tatlyan statlyan@anaheim.net 11-09-2020 Page 4 of 5 ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06069 (DEV2020-00087) Location: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard Request: An appeal of the Planning Director’s approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit to permit paid and unpaid public parking spaces within the existing parking lot of the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. 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). This item was continued from the October 26, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Peter Lange PLange@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06074 (DEV2020-00109) Location: 2232 East Olmstead Way Request: The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to increase the number of residents in an existing transitional housing facility from six residents as permitted by-right to thirteen residents within a single family residence. 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: Joanne Hwang Jhwang@anaheim.net Adjourn to Monday, December 7, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. 11-09-2020 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 11:00 a.m. November 5, 2020 (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: NOVEMBER 9, 2020 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06080 LOCATION: 1125 North Magnolia Avenue APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Daniel Longoria of Innovative Integrated Health, Inc., represented by John Moreland of KTGY Architecture + Planning. The property owner is Anaheim- Magnolia LLC, represented by Bhikhubhai Patel. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to permit an adult day care center within an existing office building. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1, Existing Facilities) and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06080. BACKGROUND: The subject 1.5-acre property is currently developed with a two-story office building, a single-story storage building, and a surface parking lot. The property is located in the “C-G” General Commercial Zone. The General Plan designates this property for Office-Low land uses. Surrounding land uses include a drive-thru restaurant/service station and office building to the south, a medical office and private school to the west, drive-thru restaurant to the north, and an office building to the east across Magnolia Avenue. PROPOSAL: The applicant, Innovative Integrated Health, Inc., requests approval to permit an adult day care center know as Anaheim Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE). The proposed use would be within an existing two-story office building, with ancillary storage in an existing single-story building. PACE would occupy both buildings, with only storage in the single-story building. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06080 November 9, 2020 Page 2 of 4 As described by the applicant, adult day care consists of “comprehensive services that improve the quality of life of the community it serves,” and provides the “day-time social home of older adults and their caregivers, providing world-class medical care to members of all backgrounds.” The PACE program would occupy the approximately 29,000 square foot building plus the 1,900 square foot storage building. The proposed adult day care center would include a common day care area with separate break-out areas for smaller groups, a reheating kitchen, offices, a rehabilitation facility, medical clinic, and exam rooms serving only PACE clients and not the general public. The applicant proposes exterior improvements to include repainting, three new architectural awnings on the north, west, and east elevations of the building, new landscaping, and new gates to secure a portion of the parking area. The new gates would secure the parking area for the passenger vans used by PACE as described below. Site Plan CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06080 November 9, 2020 Page 3 of 4 The program would serve up to 200 patrons at full capacity, and a maximum of 52 employees would be needed to staff the program at full capacity. The proposed hours of operation for patrons are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Staff would remain on-site from 6:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. All PACE participants would be transported to and from their homes via passenger vans operated by the program. The primary vehicular access would be provided by existing entrance/exit driveways on Magnolia Avenue, and the subject site would be served by a total of 79 on-site parking spaces, 19 of which would be used for PACE shuttles/vans. The site can also be accessed from the southwest corner of the property, which includes a reciprocal access easement with the adjoining property to the south. 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. An adult day care center is allowed in the “C-G” General Commercial Zone subject to approval of a CUP to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. The proposed adult day care center would not adversely impact adjoining commercial land uses because all day care services would be provided inside the building, and adequate parking would be provided as described in more detail below. In addition, the applicant submitted a trip generation analysis to City staff, and the analysis concluded that the traffic generated by the business would not impose an undue burden upon the City’s streets, and determined a Traffic Impact Analysis would not be required. For these reasons, staff believes that the proposed use would not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. The proposed adult day care use requires 72 parking spaces (one space per employee and one space per 10 clients). The applicant is proposing to provide 79 on-site parking spaces for day care use proposed at the subject property. Though the project would meet parking Code requirements, staff asked the applicant to prepare a detailed parking analysis to ensure that adequate parking would be provided. The applicant provided a Parking Justification Letter and described that all PACE clients would arrive and leave the facility through PACE passenger vans, which would include a total of 19 vans. The vans would be parked inside the gated area, which would remain open during CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06080 November 9, 2020 Page 4 of 4 business hours; therefore, individual parking spaces for PACE clients are not necessary and the facility is not open to the general public. PACE operates other facilities, and the data contained in the Parking Justification Letter is based on relevant data from another similar facilities. Visitors are limited and only include prospective patrons and families, which is not a common occurrence. Therefore, staff believes that there will be no parking impacts on surrounding properties. Based on these reasons, staff believes that the proposal would not impose an undue burden on the adjacent commercial uses. Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the effects of the proposed conditional use permit are typical of those generated within the Class 1 (Existing Facilities) Categorical Exemption. Class 1 consists 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. The proposed project is a request for approval of an adult day care facility within an existing office building. Pursuant to Section 15300.02 (c) and 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances in respect to the proposed project for which staff would anticipate a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. CONCLUSION: The request to establish an adult day care center within an existing office building would be compatible with the surrounding commercial land uses. Based on the type of full service adult day care being proposed, the project would meet the Code required number of parking spaces. Based on these reasons, staff recommends approval of this request. Prepared by, Submitted by, Nick Taylor, AICP Niki Wetzel, AICP Associate Planner Deputy Planning and Building Director Attachments: 1. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution 2. Letter of Request/CUP Justification 3. Parking Justification Letter 4. Project Plans 5. Site Photographs C-GDEV 2020-00167OFFICES RM-4MAGNOLIAAPARTMENTS100 DU IOFFICES I MEDICAL OFFICE C-GSERVICESTATION C-GRESTAURANT IVOCATIONALSCHOOL BUSINESS PARK IOFFICES IRETAIL RM-4MAGNOLIA PLAZAAPARTMENTS84 DU I INDUSTRIAL C-GRETAIL C-GOFFICES C-GSERVICE STATION C-GOFFICES C-GIMPERIAL THEATER C-GRESTAURANT C-G OFFICES IOFFICES IINDUSTRIAL I INDUSTRIAL C-GSERVICESTATIONC-GRETAILC-GRETAIL C-GRESTAURANT IINDUSTRIAL IOFFICES I BUSINESS PARK IINDUSTRIAL IINDUSTRIAL IINDUSTRIAL IINDUSTRIAL C-GRESTAURANT IOFFICES W LA PALMA AVE N M A G N O L I A A V E W WOODLAND DR N KNOLLWOOD CIR W VIA PALMA W. LA PALMA AVE W. CRESCENT AVE N . M A G N O L I A A V E N . B R O O K H U R S T S T N . D A L E A V E . CRESCENT AVE 1125 North Magnolia Avenue DEV No. 2020-00167 Subject Property APN: 070-762-05 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo:May 2019 W LA PALMA AVE N M A G N O L I A A V E W WOODLAND DR N KNOLLWOOD CIR W VIA PALMA W. LA PALMA AVE W. CRESCENT AVE N . M A G N O L I A A V E N . B R O O K H U R S T S T N . D A L E A V E . CRESCENT AVE 1125 North Magnolia Avenue DEV No. 2020-00167 Subject Property APN: 070-762-05 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo:May 2019 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1 - 1 - PC2020-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06080 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2020-00167) (1125 NORTH MAGNOLIA AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (herein referred to as the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06080 to permit an adult day care facility within an existing office building, at a certain real property located at 1125 North Magnolia Avenue in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property, approximately 1.5-acres in size, is currently developed with an existing two-story office building, one-story storage building, and a surface parking lot. The Property is designated for Office-Low land uses by the Anaheim General Plan. The Property is also located in the "C-G" General Commercial Zone and is subject to the zoning and development standards contained in Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) of the Code; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act-related provisions of Executive Order N-25-20 issued on March 12, 2020), which allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeing to observe and to address the local legislative body; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 the Planning Commission did hold a teleconferencing public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on November 9, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. and notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06080 and to investigate and make findings and recommendation in connection therewith; 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 (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; 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 - PC2020-*** WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines 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; and WHEREAS, this Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing with respect to the request for Conditional Use Permit 2020-06080, does find and determine the following: 1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Code which allows an adult day care facility in the General Commercial (C-G) Zone subject to approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 18.08.030 of the 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, because all day care services would be provided inside the building, and adequate parking would be provided on site. 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 because the proposed use would occupy the existing building without any expansion, and adequate parking and vehicular circulation would be provided on site. 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 because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding streets. 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 in that any potential impacts on the surrounding uses would be minimal; and WHEREAS, this 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 negate from the findings made in this Resolution. This Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. - 3 - PC2020-*** NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to the above findings, this Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06080, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth 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 that portion of the Property for which Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-0608 is applicable 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 any amendment, modification or revocation of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of November 9, 2020. 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 - 4 - PC2020-*** 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 November 9, 2020, 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 November, 2020. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 5 - PC2020-*** - 6 - PC2020-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06080 (DEV2020-00167) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT 1 Prepare and submit a final grading plan showing building footprints, pad elevations (if any), 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 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 2 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 3 The Owner/Developer 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 4 Obtain a Right-of-Way Construction Permit (RCP) from the Development Services Division and post a security for construction of any improvements within street right-of-way. Public Works Department, Development Services Division PRIOR TO THE BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS 5 All site grading shall be completed in accordance with the approved/permitted grading plans. Public Works Department, Development Services Division 6 The Owner/Developer shall install an approved backflow prevention assembly on the water service connection(s) serving the property, behind property line and building setback in accordance with Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division requirements. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division - 7 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 7 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 8 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 GENERAL 9 The Owner shall be responsible for restoring any special surface improvements, other than asphalt paving, within any right-of-way, public utility easement or City easement area including but not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, walls, decorative hardscape or landscaping that becomes damaged during any excavation, repair or replacement of City owned water facilities. Provisions for maintenance of all said special surface improvements shall be included in the recorded Master CC&Rs for the project and the City easement deeds. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division 10 The following minimum horizontal clearances shall be maintained between proposed water main and other facilities: • 10-feet minimum separation (outside wall-to-outside wall) from sanitary sewer mains and laterals • 5-feet minimum separation from all other utilities, including storm drains, gas, and electric • 6-feet minimum separation from curb face • 10-feet minimum separation from structures, footings, and trees. The following minimum clearances shall be provided around all new and existing public water facilities (e.g. water mains, fire hydrants, service laterals, meters, meter boxes, backflow devices, etc.): • 10 feet from structures, footings, walls, stormwater BMPs, power poles, street lights, and trees. • 5 feet from driveways, BCR/ECR of curb returns, and all other utilities (e.g. storm drain, gas, electric, etc.) or above ground facilities. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division - 8 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 11 No public water mains or laterals allowed under parking stalls or parking lots. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division 12 Ongoing during project operations, vehicle deliveries including loading and unloading shall be performed on site. Delivery vehicles shall not block any part of the public right of way. Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division 13 Ongoing during project operations, day care participants pick-up/drop-off by transportation services, including OCTA Access, shall be performed on site. Passengers pick-up/drop-off shall not take place on any part of the public right of way. Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division 14 Ongoing during project operations, vehicle gates shall remain open during business hours. Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division 15 All new landscaping shall be installed in conformance with Chapter 18.46 “Landscape and Screening” of the Anaheim Municipal Code and shall be maintained in perpetuity. Landscaping shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division 16 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the business owner shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. Planning and Building Department, Code Enforcement Division 17 The business shall be operated in accordance with the Letter of Request submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the business operation as described in that document shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial conformance with the Letter of Request and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Planning and Building Department, Planning Services Division - 9 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 18 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 & Building Department, Planning Services Division 19 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 & Building Department, Planning Services Division 20 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. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division October 30, 2020 City of Anaheim, Planning Department 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Re: Conditional Use Permit Justification Letter for the OC Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) Project, Located at the 1125 North Magnolia Street in Anaheim To Whom It May Concern: The applicant, Innovative Integrated Health, Inc, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in conjunction with the development proposal for the OC PACE project, located at 1125 North Magnolia Avenue in the City of Anaheim. The 66,768-square foot project site consists of an existing two-story building, an existing one-story building, and an associated surface parking lot. The existing tenants within the building include medical office and banquet uses. A mix of entertainment, education, fast-food restaurant, and convenience store uses are located within the vicinity of the project site. The OC PACE project is to provide innovative and comprehensive services that improve the quality of life of the communities it serves. The proposed adult day care center will be the day-time social home of older adults and their caregivers, providing world-class medical care to members of all backgrounds. The existing ±28,640-square foot, two-story building is proposed to undergo a complete interior tenant improvement. After permits have been finalized, OC PACE will operate on the entire site. No other tenants will operate on the property. The proposal includes a common day care area, with separate break-out areas for smaller groups, a rehab facility, a medical clinic, a reheating kitchen, offices, and exam rooms. The existing outdoor space located at the rear of the building will be renovated into a garden for the enjoyment of the program’s patrons. Exterior improvements include repainting existing walls and the construction of three new architectural awnings on the north, west, and east elevations of the building. This proposal does not include any additional building square footage on site. The existing 1,854-square foot one-story building will remain and be utilized as storage. No modifications to this building are proposed to occur, except to repaint the building to match the color scheme of the two-story building. The proposed project will incorporate landscape that exceeds City requirements and convert the site into a more aesthetically-pleasing development, help buffer the site from surrounding uses, and to reduce the “heat- island” effect. By incorporating this landscape, the parking lot will be reconfigured, reducing the number of on-site parking spaces from 100 to 79, of which 19 will be used for passenger vans owned or leased by OC PACE to transport patrons to and from the facility. The passenger vans will be an Express Passenger van by Chevrolet or equivalent, with a length of 18 feet, 8 inches and a width of 6 feet, 7.25 inches. As a result, the proposed spaces for passenger vans have a depth of 19 feet and a wider drive aisle than required by the City. The area for the vans will be secured by fencing, where the access will remain open when the first employee arrives and will be locked when the last employee leaves for the day. The project will also remove ATTACHMENT NO. 2 OC PACE IIH Conditional Use Permit Justification Letter October 30, 2020 Page 2 of 3 the existing, legal, non-conforming pylon sign facing Magnolia Avenue and relocate the existing trash enclosure. Staff will be on the site from approximately 6:30 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday. The building will be open to patrons from 8am to 5pm, Monday through Friday. During some weekends, there may be some special events where the building would be open to some program patrons, but hours will generally be during the week. The proposed request includes a request for a maximum of 200 patrons and 52 employees inside of the building at any time. Conditional Use Permit Findings This CUP request seeks to permit an adult day health care use at the subject site. The use meets the following criteria necessary for a recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 18.66.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code: 18.66.060.010 That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code, or is an unlisted use as defined in subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.55.040 (Approval Authority) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Section 18.08.030, Table 8-A of the Anaheim Municipal Code lists the uses permitted, conditionally permitted and prohibited in the General Commercial area (C-G). A Day Care Center is a conditionally permitted use and listed in Table 8-A. 18.66.060.020 That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is located. The proposed day health care facility is consistent with the intent of the General Commercial area. A mix of entertainment, education, fast-food restaurant, and convenience store uses are located within the vicinity of the project site. The adult day health care use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area. 18.66.060.030 That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to health and safety. The proposed facility is an existing building. The remodeled day health care center will not increase or decrease the gross floor area of the existing building. The parking lot will be reconfigured, but is sufficient to provide the parking required for the proposed operation of 200 patrons and 52 employees. Therefore, the size and shape of the proposed site is adequate to allow the full development and will not be detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety of the public. OC PACE IIH Conditional Use Permit Justification Letter October 30, 2020 Page 3 of 3 18.66.060.040 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. A Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) Screening Assessment for the conversion of existing building (medical office) into an adult day health care use has been prepared for the OC PACE project. Based on the project screening results, a full VMT analysis is not necessary since the project does not cause a significant impact. A trip generation assessment has also been prepared, based on the assessment, the number of daily trips will be reduced as compared to the existing medical office building. Therefore, the traffic generated by the proposed uses will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways in the area. 18.66.060.050 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 Anaheim. The proposed adult day health care center will provide social support and medical services to patrons of any background. The proposed project will improve the landscaping on-site and will reduce the traffic generated by the current use. Additionally, the adult day health care center will provide new employment opportunities. The use is consistent and compatible with the intended purpose of the General Commercial land use designation. As such, granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of Anaheim. If you have any questions regarding this Conditional Use Permit request, please contact me at 949.221.6216. Thank you. Sincerely, John Moreland Planning Director KTGY Group Inc. 17911 Von Karman Ave #200, Irvine, CA 92614 949.221.6216 -Page 1- PARKING JUSTIFICATION LETTER Revised 12/2015 Why do I need a parking variance? The Anaheim Municipal code includes regulations on the minimum number of parking spaces required to serve various types of uses or businesses. For example, a typical office building is required to have 4 parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. By contrast, a medical office building is required to have 6 parking spaces for the same 1,000 square feet of floor area. These requirements are based on industry standards. A parking variance is required when the number of parking spaces on a property does not meet the number of parking spaces required by the municipal code. For example, if an industrial building that was originally intended to be used for warehouse with few employees is converted to a church with large congregation, but has peak hours opposite of the surrounding industrial uses, a variance can take these circumstances into account. Date: 09/14/2020 To: City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 From: KTGY Group Inc. 17911 Von Karman Ave #200 Irvine, CA 92614 RE: PARKING JUSTIFCATION LETTER FOR OC PACE LOCATED AT 1125 NORTH MAGNOLIA AVE Introduction The purpose of this parking justification letter is to determine the parking demand for an adult day health care center. The City of Anaheim Municipal Code’s parking ATTACHMENT NO. 3 requirement for the proposed use is 72 stalls based on the attached parking tabulation for the entire property. The property has 60 stalls available. Operational Characteristics The project consists of a common adult day care area, with separate break-out areas for smaller groups, a rehab facility, a medical clinic, a reheating kitchen, offices, and exam room. Other characteristics of the project include: Characteristic Description Total Building Square Footage: 28,640 SF Total Building Square Footage to be used: 28,640 SF No. of Chairs: (restaurants/ churches/schools only) No. of staff and/or students: 52 Max no. of people at the facility at one time 252 Days of Operation: 5 Hours of Operation: 8-5 Peak Hours of Operation: No peak hours. All employees are on one shift and all patrons are all shuttled. Off-site Parking Permit/ Agreement? X No  Yes, see attachment Observed Parking Demand at Other PACE Sites Parking occupation letters have been provided from other PACE sites the client controls, one in Bakersfield and the other in Fresno (see attachments). Pre-COVID, Bakersfield PACE had 40 employees and approximately 10-15 program participants, the daily average number of parking spots occupied by employees, visitors, and program participants is 42. Fresno PACE had 150 employees and approximately 300 program participants, the daily average number of parking spots occupied by employees, visitors and program participants is 130. Location No. of Employees No. of Participants Average Occupied Parking Bakersfield PACE 40 10-15 42 Fresno PACE 150 300 130 Other Circumstances Other circumstances exist at the project site and/or the proposed use that further reduces the parking demand and includes: Circumstance Available? Description Site Served by Public Transportation? Yes All patrons are shuttled by a private shuttle system. 19 parking spaces are reserved for shuttle storage and are not counted towards the on-site parking supply. The site also has access to OCTA local route 33, OCTA route 38 (a high- quality transit route with service every 15 minutes during the peak hour), and LA Metro route 460. Carpool/Vanpool Program Available to Employees? No Bike Racks Available at the Project site? Yes. A bike rack Other Circumstances? No outside visitors. Analysis The required parking based on the City’s code is 72 stalls, of which 52 is required for employees and 20 for patrons, visitors and vendors. OC PACE will provide total of 79 on-site parking spaces, including 19 passenger vans to transport patrons to and from the facility and 60 regular parking stalls. All existing patrons are shuttled by the vans and visitors are generally limits to prospective patrons and some families, which is not a common occurrence. Therefore the 60 parking parking spaces are adequate for employees, patrons, visitors, and vendors. Certification I certify that the above information and statements contained herein, are in all respects true and correct. Respectfully, Signature: ______________________________________ Date:________________________ September 14, 2020 PARKING TABULATION Address Business Name Use Parking Ratio (spaces/1,000 sq. ft) Parking Required 1125 North Magnolia Ave. OC PACE Day Care 200 patrons 1 stall/10 patrons 20 1125 North Magnolia Ave. OC PACE Day Care 52 employees 1 stall/employee 52 1800 HEIGHT STREET • BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305 • PHONE: 661-872-3860 3 September 2020 Nick Taylor Associate Planner Eunice Lee Traffic Engineering City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 RE: Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06080 (DEV2020-00167); 1125 N. Magnolia Ave.; OC PACE Dear Mr. Taylor and Ms. Lee: In reference to the above-referenced CUP, Bakersfield PACE by IIH submits the following information related to the PACE Organization site that it operates in Bakersfield, CA: - The Bakersfield PACE facility is approximately 25,000 square feet - Bakersfield PACE employs 40 individuals - Bakersfield PACE has approximately 10-15 (Currently 0 due to COVID-19) program participants, on average, at the site daily - The daily average number of parking spots occupied by employees, visitors and program participants at our facility is 42 If any further information is required, please do not hesitate to contact me through our OC PACE representatives. Sincerely, Ghanim Marouf COO 3 September 2020 Nick Taylor Associate Planner Eunice Lee Traffic Engineering City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 RE: Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06080 (DEV2020-00167); 1125 N. Magnolia Ave.; OC PACE Dear Mr. Taylor and Ms. Lee: In reference to the above-referenced CUP, Fresno PACE by IIH submits the following information related to the PACE Organization site that it operates in Fresno, CA: -The Fresno PACE facility is approximately 50,000 square feet across 3 buildings. -Fresno PACE employs 150 individuals -Fresno PACE has approximately 300 program participants, on average, at the site daily - The daily average number of parking spots occupied by employees, visitors and program participants at our facility is 130. If any further information is required, please do not hesitate to contact me through our OC PACE representatives. Sincerely, Abe Marouf CEO 2042 KERN STREET • FRESNO, CA 93721 • PHONE: 559-400-6420 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com 1125 N. MAGNOLIA AVE.ANAHEIM, CA 92801 # 2020-0403 OC PACE NOVEMBER 3RD, 2020 ENTITLEMENT PACKAGE 1INNOVATIVE INTEGRATED HEALTH, INC. 1200 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OC PACE ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL TITLE SHEET PROJECT DIRECTORY PROJECT INFORMATION LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: CDPC 3195-C AIRPORT LOOP DRIVE COSTA MESA, CA 92626 JENNIFER FREDERICK (949)399-0870 jfrederick@cdpcinc.com CIVIL ENGINEER: KIMLEY HORN 660 S FIGUEROA STREET, STE 2050 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 MICHAEL CHOI (213)261-4038 michael.choi@kimley-horn.com PROJECT ADDRESS: 1125 N. MAGNOLIA AVE. ANAHEIM, CA 92801 SCOPE OF WORK: PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF ±66,768 SF SITE WHICH INCLUDES PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS, RENOVATION OF EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING (±28,640 SF) AND ONE-STORY BUILDING (±1,854 SF), DEMOLITION OF EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE, CONSTRUCTION OF NEW TRASH ENCLOSURE AND LANDSCAPING UPGRADES. ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 070-762-05 CURRENT ZONING: GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-G) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL A: PARCEL NO. 4, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 79, PAGES 43 AND 44 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL B: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER PARCELS 1,2,5,6, AND 7 OF SAID PARCEL MAP AS DELINEATED IN EXHIBIT “B” IN THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT ENTITLED DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT OF EASEMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 10, 1976 IN BOOK 11991, PAGE 1567 OFFICIAL RECORDS. (NOT PLOTTABLE FROM RECORD - BLANKET OVER EXISTING ROADWAYS OVER ABOVE MENTIONED PARCELS) OWNER/DEVELOPER: INNOVATIVE INTEGRATED HEALTH, INC 1200 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, STE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 DANIEL LONGORIA (512)507-2010 dlongoria@innovativeih.com ARCHITECT/PLANNER: KTGY GROUP, INC. 17911 VON KARMAN AVE, STE 200 IRVINE, CA 92614 JOHN MORELAND (949)221-6216 jmoreland@ktgy.com TITLE SHEET EXISTING SITE PLAN CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN - FIRST FLOOR CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN - SECOND FLOOR CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS CONCEPTUAL RENDERING CONCEPTUAL RENDERING PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN PRELIMINARY WET UTILITY PLAN A.L.T.A./N.S.P.S. LAND TITLE SURVEY CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN LANDSCAPE GALLERY ARCHITECTURAL CIVIL SURVEY LANDSCAPE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C-1 C-2 L-1 L-2 DRAWING INDEX N.T.S. VICINITY MAP PROJECT LOCATION LA PALMA AVE. M A G N O L I A A V E . IN T E R S T A T E 5 F W Y CA. S T A T E R O U T E 9 1 D A L E S T . ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com 1125 N. MAGNOLIA AVE.ANAHEIM, cA 92801 # 2020-0403 OC PACE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2020 ENTITLEMENT PAckAGE 2INNOVATIVE INTEGRATED HEALTH, INC. 1200 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 existing site PlAn sCAle: 1” = 20’ 0 2010 40 (Existing) OFFICE BUILDING First level: ±13,472 SF 2nd Level: ±15,168 SF Total: ±28,640 SF (Existing) BUILDING N.A.P. (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com 1125 N. MAGNOLIA AVE.ANAHEIM, CA 92801 # 2020-0403 OC PACE NOVEMBER 3RD, 2020 ENTITLEMENT PACKAGE 3INNOVATIVE INTEGRATED HEALTH, INC. 1200 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1” = 20’ 0 2010 40 SITE SUMMARY SITE AREA: ±66,768 SF (±1.53 AC)BUILDING AREA: ±28,640 SFSITE COVERAGE: 20.2%*PARKING REQUIRED: 72 STALLS**PARKING PROVIDED: 79 STALLS * BASED ON BUILDING FOOTPRINT (±13,472 SF) ** PARKING REQUIREMENTS 1 STALL/10 PATRONS: (200 PATRONS) 20 STALLS 1 STALL/EMPLOYEE: (52 EMPLOYEES) 52 STALLS TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: 72 STALLS NOTES: 1. SLIDING SECURITY GATES WILL BE OPEN WHEN EMPLOYEES OR PATRONS ARE ON SITE. 2. THE 19 VAN PARKING STALLS ARE INCLUDED THE 79 PARKING STALLS PROVIDED. 3. LOCKABLE PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS GATES SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH KNOX DEVICES AS REQUIRED AND APPROVED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. 4. RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FROM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SHALL BE OBTAINED FOR WORK TO BE PERFORMED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 5. PER 2019 CAGBSC, ONE TWO-BIKE RACK IS PROVIDED NEAR THE NORTH ENTRANCE FOR SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING. ADDITIONALLY, PER THE SAME CODE, A LOCKABLE ENCLOSURE IS PROVIDED IN THE SOUTH ENTRANCE LOBBY TO ACCOMODATE THREE LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING. Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com 1125 N. MAGNOLIA AVE.ANAHEIM, cA 92801 # 2020-0403 OC PACE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2020 ENTITLEMENT PAckAGE 4INNOVATIVE INTEGRATED HEALTH, INC. 1200 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN First leVelSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0” 0 8 164 185'-0" 16'-0" 12'-6" 16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0" 12'-6" 11 2 ' - 0 " 88 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 7' - 0 " 5' - 0 " 4'- 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 4'- 0 " 5' - 0 " 7' - 0 " 7'-6"5'-0" 160'-0" 5'-0"7'-6" 4'-0" STAGING AREA 232 SEATS DR Y F O O D ST O R A G E FOOD SERVICECOORDINATOR 5' - 5 " ( E ) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . ( E ) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . 4' - 6 " 6'-6" 9'- 0 " 11 ' - 3 " HELP DESK NU R S E D E S K WA T E R ST O R A G E CO N T A I N E R ST O R A G E HELP DESK HELP DESK CA B I N E T 5'-0" TRASH TRAY STORAGE 5' - 9 " (N) ELEC. GEAR W/ CONC. PAD FR I D G E / FR E E Z E R (3 ) C H E S T F R E E Z E R ( E ) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . ( E ) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . ( E ) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . UP UP UP shADe struCture Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com 1125 N. MAGNOLIA AVE.ANAHEIM, cA 92801 # 2020-0403 OC PACE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2020 ENTITLEMENT PAckAGE 5INNOVATIVE INTEGRATED HEALTH, INC. 1200 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN seConD leVelSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0” 0 8 164 185'-0" 16'-0" 12'-6" 16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0"16'-0" 12'-6" 11 2 ' - 0 " 88 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 7' - 0 " 5' - 0 " 4'- 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 4'- 0 " 5' - 0 " 7' - 0 " 7'-6"5'-0" 160'-0" 5'-0"7'-6" 2,265 S.F. LO C K E R 4'-0"4'-0" (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . DO W N DO W N SINK (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . DO W N DO W N OPENING OPENING (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (E) C O L . (N) CHASE OPENING (N) CHASEOPENING ( N ) C O L . (N) C O L . Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com 1125 N. MAGNOLIA AVE.ANAHEIM, cA 92801 # 2020-0403 OC PACE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2020 ENTITLEMENT PAckAGE 6INNOVATIVE INTEGRATED HEALTH, INC. 1200 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONSConCePtuAl eleVAtions SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0” 0 8 164 f f f signAge1 signAge1 toWer BeYonD 2 26 62 422 2 1 11 1135 554 41 151555 1 H Hg ge JHH e a aa aaac ccJ Ja adBccc B entrY toWer BeYonD +0’-0” +0’-0”+0’-0” +28’-6” +28’-6” +21’-3” +21’-3” +15’-3” +15’-3” +9’-0” +12’-9” +9’-0” Finish Floor Finish FloorFinish Floor t.o. WAll t.o. WAll B.o. rooF B.o. rooF B.o. oPening B.o. oPening t.o. oPening t.o. CAnoPY t.o. oPening +27’-6” +27’-6” +33’-6” +33’-6” t.o. rooF t.o. rooF t.o. toWer t.o. toWer A EXISTING STUCCO F EXISTING ROOF TILE 1 PAINT: DUNN EDWARDS-DEW380 "WHITE"6 METAL COLOR: KYNAR 500 "AGED BRONZE" B NEW STUCCO G NEW STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 2 PAINT: DUNN EDWARDS-DEC786 "MINER'S DUST" C EXISTING STOREFRONT H PLASTER 3 PAINT: DUNN EDWARDS-DET630 "RENWICK BROWN" D NEW STOREFRONT J METAL CANOPY 4 PAINT: DUNN EDWARDS-DE6357 "BLACK TIE" E ARCHITECTURAL TRIM K METAL PANEL 5 STOREFRONT: ARCADIA-AB4 "MEDIUM BRONZE" MATERIALS FINISHES NOTES: signage configuration and layout are conceptual and shall be a separate submittal. eAst eleVAtion1 north eleVAtion2 n.t.s. key plan 1 2 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com 1125 N. MAGNOLIA AVE.ANAHEIM, cA 92801 # 2020-0403 OC PACE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2020 ENTITLEMENT PAckAGE 7INNOVATIVE INTEGRATED HEALTH, INC. 1200 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONSConCePtuAl eleVAtions SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0” 0 8 164 f 1315 5465aaaddJgc f 242 2 2 1 13 3 15555 HJH H H a aa a adccc entrY toWer BeYonD entrY toWer BeYonD +0’-0” +28’-6” +21’-3” +15’-3” +9’-0” Finish Floor t.o. WAll B.o. rooF B.o. oPening t.o. oPening +27’-6” t.o. rooF +0’-0” +28’-6” +21’-3” +15’-3” +9’-0” Finish Floor t.o. WAll B.o. rooF B.o. oPening t.o. oPening +27’-6” t.o. rooF A EXISTING STUCCO F EXISTING ROOF TILE 1 PAINT: DUNN EDWARDS-DEW380 "WHITE"6 METAL COLOR: KYNAR 500 "AGED BRONZE" B NEW STUCCO G NEW STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 2 PAINT: DUNN EDWARDS-DEC786 "MINER'S DUST" C EXISTING STOREFRONT H PLASTER 3 PAINT: DUNN EDWARDS-DET630 "RENWICK BROWN" D NEW STOREFRONT J METAL CANOPY 4 PAINT: DUNN EDWARDS-DE6357 "BLACK TIE" E ARCHITECTURAL TRIM K METAL PANEL 5 STOREFRONT: ARCADIA-AB4 "MEDIUM BRONZE" MATERIALS FINISHES NOTES: signage configuration and layout are conceptual and shall be a separate submittal. West eleVAtion3 south eleVAtion4 n.t.s. key plan 3 4 Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com 1125 N. MAGNOLIA AVE.ANAHEIM, cA 92801 # 2020-0403 OC PACE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2020 ENTITLEMENT PAckAGE 8INNOVATIVE INTEGRATED HEALTH, INC. 1200 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS VieW FroM northeAst Corner note: signAge ConFigurAtion AnD lAYout Are ConCePtuAl AnD shAll Be A sePArAte suBMittAl. n.t.s. key plan Architecture + Planning 888.456.5849 ktgy.com 1125 N. MAGNOLIA AVE.ANAHEIM, cA 92801 # 2020-0403 OC PACE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2020 ENTITLEMENT PAckAGE 9INNOVATIVE INTEGRATED HEALTH, INC. 1200 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS VieW FroM southWest Corner n.t.s. key plan W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SSSSSS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S SS W W W (100.14 FS) (100.23 FS) (101.31 FS) (96.08 FS) 98.41 TC 97.91 FS (100.41 TC) (99.91 FS) (100.37 TC) (99.87 FS) (100.33 TC) (99.83 FS) (100.48 TC) (99.98 FS) (101.45 TC) (100.95 FS) JOIN (99.44 FS) (96.68 FL) (96.61 FS) JOIN (99.05 FS) JOIN (97.82 FS) JOIN (97.74 FS) JOIN (97.68 FS) JOIN (97.57 FS) JOIN (97.41 FS) JOIN (97.21 FS) JOIN (97.32 FS) JOIN (97.01 FS) JOIN (96.66 FS) JOIN (96.51 FS) JOIN (97.19 FS) JOIN (FFE = 101.44) (FFE = 101.49) (FFE = 101.47) (FFE = 101.41) (FFE = 101.40) (97.21 FS) JOIN (96.98 FL) JOIN (97.83 FS) JOIN (97.70 FS) JOIN (98.79 FS) JOIN 98.73 FS (97.39 FS) JOIN (97.10 FS) JOIN (97.00 FS) JOIN(97.00 FS) JOIN (97.05 FS) JOIN (96.77 FS) JOIN (96.83 FS) JOIN (96.85 FS) JOIN (96.88 FS) JOIN (97.47 FS) JOIN (99.04 FS) JOIN (98.33 FS) JOIN (99.82 FS) JOIN (100.29 FS) JOIN (96.59 FS) JOIN (96.44 FL) JOIN 98.56 TC 98.06 FS 1 0 0 10 1 100 99 101 102 103 (97.90 FS) JOIN 99.11 TC 98.61 FL 97.39 TC 96.89 FL 97.34 TC (96.84 FL) 97.74 TC 97.24 FS 97.19 TC 96.69 FL 96 97 97.40 TC 96.90 FS 97.11 TC 96.61 FS 97.02 TC 96.52 FL 97.93 TC 97.43 FS 97.56 TC 97.06 FS 97.49 TC 96.99 FS 97.90 TC 97.40 FS 97.86 TC 97.36 FS 98.38 TC 97.88 FS (96.82 FS) JOIN 97.67 TC (97.17 FS) 98.16 TC (97.66 FS) (97.81 FS) JOIN (98.49 TC) (97.99 FS) (97.80 FS) JOIN 10 0 98 9898 99 10 1 10 0 98 9 9 10 1 99 98.94 TC 98.44 FL 98.33 TC 97.83 FS 100.76 TC (100.26 FS) (101.06 FS) JOIN 100.57 TC (100.07 FS) 99.74 TC 99.24 FS 101.28 TC 100.78 FS 99.23 TC 98.73 FS 99.08 TC 98.58 FS 99.70 TC 99.20 FS 1.24% 0. 8 4 % 1.58% 1. 1 4 % 100.30 TC (99.80 FS) 98.12 TC 97.62 FL (96.71 FL) JOIN 99.19 TC 98.69 FS 97.72 TC 97.22 FL ( 3 . 1 6 % ) 97.62 TC 97.12 FS 99.19 TC 98.69 FS (99.62 TC) (99.12 FS) 98.21 TC 97.71 FL 97.79 TC 97.29 FS 98.08 TC 97.58 FS 98.40 TC 97.90 FS(1 . 5 3 % ) (1 . 9 6 % ) EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN 10 0 10 1 100 99 98 97 98 97 97 EX. 25' ACCESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT 1 1 1 N M A G N O L I A A V E N U E 98.29 TC 97.79 FL 97.54 TC 97.04 FL 4. 7 2 % 100 4 . 8 3 % 6.0 8 % 100.99 TC 100.49 FS 100.03 TC 100.03 FS 99.70TC 99.70 FS 100.97 TC 100.97 FS (101.31 TC) (100.81 FS) 97.89 TC 97.39 FS (101.51 FS)(101.96 FS) (102.02 FS) 101.12 TC 100.62 FS 100.99 TC 100.99 FS (100.37 FS) JOIN 101.39 FS 101.33 FS 100.24 FS 100.02 FS 99.92 FS 100.00 FS 1.8 8 % 8.31%1.77% 1.76% 7.22%(2.58%) 3.95 % 1 . 4 8 % 0. 4 7 % 3.96% 100.36 FS 98.67 FS 100.19 FS 98.73 FS 98.69 FS 1.24% 0. 8 0 % 4 . 5 3 % 1.79 % 1.62% 2. 2 1 % (96.72 FS) JOIN 97.30 TC 96.80 FS 97.45 TC 96.95 FS 43'10' EXISTING AND ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY 97.33 TC 96.83 FS 97.18 TC 96.68 FS EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN (100.59 FS) JOIN 1 Z Z ZZ Z Z Z ZZ Z ZZZZZZZZZZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZZZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 98.67 TC 98.17 FL 99 98 97 98 97 AN EASEMENT FOR PACIFIC BELL PURPOSES PER ALTA SURVEY DATED JULY 1, 2020 15' BUILDING SETBACK 1 2 1.85% 1.85% (96.22 FL) JOIN 100.54 TC 100.04 FS (2.87%) (100.93 FS)(100.15 FS) (101.42 FS) (101.45 FS) (101.47 FS) (101.39 FS) (101.38 FS) (1.84%)(7.38%) EX. CURB RAMP 4.81% 100.91 FS PR. RAMP PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS PR. RAMP PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS 98.85 TC 98.35 FL 0. 5 0 % 0. 5 0 % (97.64 FL) JOIN (99.49 FS)(101.38 FS) SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR COURTYARD AREA DETAILS PR. RAMP PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS 4.45%4.83% 4.54% 9/14/2020 NORTH PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C-1 GRADING KEYNOTES 1 CONSTRUCT 2' LONGITUDINAL GUTTER. CONSTRUCT CURB RAMP TYPE D CASE 1 PER SPPPWC 111-3. LEGEND PROPERTY LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE CENTER LINE EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED SAW CUT LINE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PER LANDSCAPE PLANS XX XX THE EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE PLAN ARE BASED ON AVAILABLE RECORDS. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FIELD DETERMINE THE LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. REPORT DISCREPANCIES AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH PROPOSED UTILITIES TO ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PIPING. EXISTING UTILITY NOTE 1.PROPOSED PROPOSED CURB AND SITE LAYOUT PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. 2.EXISTING BUILDING FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION AND EXISTING SITE GRADING INFORMATION PER FIELD SURVEY BY CALVADA SURVEYING INC. DATED JULY 1, 2020. 3.EXISTING SITE DRAINAGE PATTERN TO REMAIN. PROPOSED GUTTERS AND CURB CUTS ASSIST IN MAINTAINING EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN. 4.EXISTING BUILDING DOWNSPOUTS DRAIN TO EXISTING LANDSCAPE EAST OF BUILDING. EXISTING ROOF DRAINAGE PATTERN TO REMAIN. 5.CROSS-LOT DRAINAGE AGREEMENT TO BE COORDINATED WITH ADJACENT PARCELS. 6.SEE ALTA SURVEY BY CALVADA SURVEYING INC. DATED JULY 1, 2020 FOR ADDITIONAL EASEMENT AND TITLE REPORT INFORMATION. GENERAL NOTES 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THESE PAVEMENT SECTIONS WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 2.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE R-VALUE OF COMPACTED SUBGRADE TO ENGINEER PRIOR TO PAVEMENT OPERATIONS, IN ORDER TO MAKE ANY NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PAVEMENT SECTION. 3.CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTIONS ARE PER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT DATED JULY 3RD, 2020 PREPARED BY GEOCON WEST, INC. 4.SEE ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN PREPARED BY KTGY DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 FOR FIRE AND TRASH TRUCK LANE DELINEATION. ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT CLASS II CRUSHED MISCELLANEOUS BASE COMPACTED TO 95% MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY BASED ON ASTM D1557-07 TEST METHOD OR CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTED TO 95% OF THE MATERIAL'S ASTM D-1557 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY. SUBGRADE BENEATH ALL PAVEMENTS TO BE SCARIFIED, MOISTURE CONDITIONED, AND COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12". ALL COMPACTION AND DRY DENSITY TESTING IS TO BE PER ASTM D1557-07 TEST METHOD. AUTOMOBILE PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS TRASH TRUCK AND FIRE LANES 3"4" 4"4" 12"12" HATCH DESCRIPTION AREA (SF) ROUTINE MAINTENANCE INCLUDING MILL AND OVERLAY AND REPAVING OR RESURFACING THAT DOES NOT ALTER THE ORIGINAL GRADE LINE OR NATIVE SOIL BELOW SUBGRADE. 21,473 GRADING RELATED TO REQUIRED ADA IMPROVEMENTS THAT PROPOSE RAISING EXISTING GRADES NO MORE THAN 4" AND DO NOT DISTURB NATIVE SOIL BELOW SUBGRADE 14,360 GRADING RELATED TO PROPOSED LANDSCAPE ISLANDS INCLUDING CURB AREA 3,905 2 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SSSSSS S S S S S S S S SS S S S S SS W W W SSSS W W (FFE = 101.44) (FFE = 101.49) (FFE = 101.47) (FFE = 101.41) (FFE = 101.40) EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN N M A G N O L I A A V E N U E (INV = ±89.92) EX. 8" SEWER MAIN EX. SEWER MANHOLE RIM =(±97.78) INV =(±90.95) EX. 8" SEWER MAIN EX. 6" SEWER LATERAL TO BE REUSED EX. 12" WATER MAIN EX. 1" DOMESTIC WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTER TO BE REUSED FOR IRRIGATION EX. WATER LATERAL EX. 4" WATER LATERAL EX. 4" FIRE WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTER TO BE REUSED S1 EX. 1" DOMESTIC WATER METER TO BE REUSED FOR IRRIGATION S2 EX. GREASE INTERCEPTOR TO BE REUSED EX. 6" SEWER LATERAL TO BE REUSED EX. CAPPED WATER LATERAL EX. FIRE HYDRANT S3TG = 99.03 INV = 96.53 (S = . 0 0 5 7 ) EX. 4" SEWER LATERAL TO BE REUSED EX. BUILDING OVERHANG 15' BUILDING SETBACK 43'10' EXISTING AND ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY AN EASEMENT FOR PACIFIC BELL PURPOSES PER ALTA SURVEY DATED JULY 1, 2020 W5 W4 W3 W2 W1 EX. SIGN, (TYP.) EX. STREET LIGHT, (TYP.) EX. EPB, (TYP.) EX. BUILDING COLUMNS, (TYP.) EX. 12" WATER MAIN EX. TELECOM EQUIPMENT PR. TRANSFORMER PAD. SEE MEP PLANS FOR DETAILS. EX. TREE WELL W5 9/14/2020 NORTH PRELIMINARY WET UTILITY PLAN C-2 APPROX. 25' ACCESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PER SEWER IMPROVEMENT PLAN 12438 D1 LEGEND PROPERTY LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE CENTER LINE EASEMENT LINE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PIPE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER PIPE PROPOSED WATER PIPE EXISTING WATER PIPE EXISTING STORM DRAIN PIPE CONTINUATION OF PIPE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED LANDSCAPE THE EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE PLAN ARE BASED ON AVAILABLE RECORDS. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FIELD DETERMINE THE LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. REPORT DISCREPANCIES AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH PROPOSED UTILITIES TO ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PIPING. EXISTING UTILITY NOTE CONNECT TO EXISTING SEWER MAIN CONSTRUCT 4" PVC SEWER LATERAL CONSTRUCT 6" TRASH ENCLOSURE AREA DRAIN SEWER PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PIPING AND APPURTENANCES. REFER TO DRAINAGE PLAN FOR DESIGN INFORMATION. STORM DRAIN SS SS SD W S3 S2 S1 EX. SEWER MANHOLE RIM =(±96.29) INV =(±89.37) EX. 1" WATER LATERAL HOT TAP EXISTING 12" WATER MAIN. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WORK WITH CITY OF ANAHEIM WATER SERVICES. CONSTRUCT 2" DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE LATERAL PER CITY OF ANAHEIM WATER SERVICES STANDARDS. INSTALL 2" DOMESTIC WATER METER PER CITY OF ANAHEIM WATER SERVICES STANDARDS. INSTALL 2" BACKFLOW PREVENTER WITH APPROPRIATE SCREENING PER CITY OF ANAHEIM WATER SERVICES STANDARDS. PROPOSED TEE AT BUILDING POINT OF CONNECTION TO BECOME ONE (1) 3" DOMESTIC SERVICE. SEE MEP PLANS FOR CONTINUATION. IRRIGATION SERVICE POINT OF CONNECTION. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR CONTINUATION. DOMESTIC WATER AND IRRIGATION W3 W2 W1 W4 W5 W W6 E V C H A R G I N G O N L Y E V C H A R G I N G O N L Y L O A D I N G / S T O R A G E S P A C E E V C H A R G I N G O N L Y E V C H A R G I N G O N L Y E V C H A R G I N G O N L Y C L E A N A I R / V A N P O O L / E V C L E A N A I R / V A N P O O L / E V C L E A N A I R / V A N P O O L / E V L O A D I N G / S T O R A G E S P A C E L O A D I N G / S T O R A G E S P A C E L O A D I N G / S T O R A G E S P A C E V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y R A M P D N . RAMPDN. RAMPDN. VAN STORAGEONLY VAN STORAGEONLY V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y PLANT PALETTE Symbol TREES Botanical Name Common Name Majestic Beauty MagnoliaMagnolia grandiflora PALMS Tuscarora Crape MyrtleLagerstroemia i. 'Tuscarora' WUCOLS Mod Mod Queen PalmSyagrus romanzoffiana Mod Goldenrain TreeKoelreuteria paniculata Low 'Majestic Beauty' SHRUBS/ GROUNDCOVERS Rosmarinus o. 'Huntington Carpet' Lavandula 'Meerlo' Muhlenbergia capillaris 'Lenca' Creeping Rosemary Meerlo English Lavender Pink Muhly Salvia gregii 'Flame'Flame Autumn Sage ALL LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION SHALL BE PERMANENTLY MAINTAINED. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL RECEIVE AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL ADHERE TO CITY DESIGN GUIDELINES, CODES AND REGULATIONS. NOTES: Agave sp. 'Moonshine'Moonshine Agave PLANT MATERIAL NOT LISTED MAY BE USED, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY. Aloe species Aloe Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca Dianella revoluta 'Baby Bliss' Baby Bliss Flax Lily Low Low Low Low Low Low Bulbine frutescens 'Hallmark' Stalked Bulbine Low Low Rhamnus californica 'Eve Case' Dwarf Coffeberry Echeveria derenbergii Painted Lady Dodonaea v. 'Purpurea' Hopseed Bush Cordyline australis New Zealand Cabbage Tree Bougainvillea 'Raspberry Ice' Bougainveillea Westringia f. 'Mundi'Mundi Coast Rosemary Low Low Low Low Low Low SCREEN SHRUBS Westringia 'Blue Gem'Blue Gem Coast Rosemary Low Low Lomandra 'Breeze'Dwarf Mat Rush Symbol Botanical Name Common Name WUCOLS Low Western RedbudCercis occidentalis Low Angelina Stonecrop LowSedum rupestre 'Angelina' Blue chalksticks LowSenecio serpens Euphorbia c. 'Tasmarian Tiger' Variegated Spurge Low Tree Stonecrop Low Sedum dendroideum Festuca glauca 'Siskiyou Blue' Siskiyou Blue Fescue Low Coppertone Stonecrop Low Sedum nussbaumerianum EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED Queen PalmSyagrus romanzoffiana Queen PalmSyagrus romanzoffiana Camphor TreeCinnamomum camphora Alder TreeAlnus species EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN LOT AREA 66,768 S.F. LANDSCAPE AREA 11,685 S.F. (17%) LANDSCAPE FRONTAGE 150 L.F. 1 TREE PER 20 L.F. OF FRONTAGE 13 FRONTAGE TREES REQUIRED 14 FRONTAGE TREES PROVIDED PARKING AREA 35,022 S.F. 1 TREE PER 3000 SF OF PARKING/DRIVE ISLES 12 REQUIRED PARKING LOT TREES 12 PARKING LOT TREES PROVIDED 3 ADDITIONAL TREES PROVIDED LANDSCAPE AREA: Lavander Cotton LowSantolina chamacyparissus 'Nana' Helictotrichon_sempervirens Blue Oat Grass Low Macfadyena unguis-cati Cat's Claw Low Mexican Fan PalmWashingtonia robusta- Relocate REGION 3 REGION 3 SIZE 36" Box 24" Box 12' BTH 36" Box 5 Gal. 5 Gal. 5 Gal. 5 Gal. 5 Gal. 5 Gal. 1 Gal. 1 Gal. 5 Gal. 15 Gal. Low 1 Gal. 5 Gal. 1 Gal. Low Low SIZE 5 Gal. 36" Box 1 Gal. 1 Gal. 5 Gal. 1 Gal. 1 Gal. 5 Gal. 5 Gal. 5 Gal. 5 Gal. E V C H A R G I N G O N L Y E V C H A R G I N G O N L Y L O A D I N G / S T O R A G E S P A C E E V C H A R G I N G O N L Y E V C H A R G I N G O N L Y E V C H A R G I N G O N L Y C L E A N A I R / V A N P O O L / E V C L E A N A I R / V A N P O O L / E V C L E A N A I R / V A N P O O L / E V L O A D I N G / S T O R A G E S P A C E L O A D I N G / S T O R A G E S P A C E L O A D I N G / S T O R A G E S P A C E V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y R A M P D N . RAMPDN. RAMPDN. VAN STORAGEONLY VAN STORAGEONLY V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y V A N S T O R A G E O N L Y CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 L-1 CDPC PROJECT NO. 20067 conceptual design & planning company COSTA MESA ATASCADERO SAN JOSE Corporate Office: 3195-C Airport Loop DriveStudio OneCosta Mesa, CA 92626 T: 949.399.0870www.cdpcinc.com NO R T H 0'50'100'25'150' SCALE:1"=50' ALNUS SPECIES ALDER TREE TO BE REMOVED CINNAMOMUN CAMPHORA CAMPHOR TREE TO BE REMOVED SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA QUEEN PALM TO BE RELOCATED CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA CAMPHOR TREES TO BE REMOVED ALNUS SPECIES ALDER TREE TO BE REMOVED EX. MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA STREET TREE FICUS TREES TO BE REMOVED TYPYCAL CALIFORNIA FAN PALMS TO BE REMOVED CALIFORNIA FAN PALM TO BE REMOVED CAMPHOR TREE TO BE REMOVED CAMPHOR TREE TO BE REMOVED CAMPHOR TREES TO BE REMOVED CAMPHOR TREES TO BE REMOVED CALIFORNIA FAN PALMS TO BE REMOVED PATIO SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA QUEEN PALM TO REMAIN EX. STENOCARPUS SINUATUS FIREWHEEL STREET TREE MAIN ENTRY PLAZA MA G N O L I A S T R E E T TRASH RECEPTACLE PER ARCHITECT'S PLANS SHADE STRUCTURE PER ARCHITECT'S PLANS SLIDING SECURITY VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN GATE AND FENCING TO BE 6' HIGH BLACK WROUGHT IRON FENCING WITH 2" DIAMOND VERTICAL RAILS AND TOP SPEARS PROVIDED BY A1 FENCING LOCALLY SOURCED IN ANAHEIM NOTE: LOCKABLE PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS GATES SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH KNOX DEVICES AS REQUIRED AND APPROVED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE STREET LIGHT ADJACENT CARROTWOOD ADJACENT CARROTWOOD UNDERGROUND CHAMBERMAXX INFILTRATION SYSTEM PER CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANS PERIMETER HEDGE PERIMETER HEDGE LANDSCAPE HEDGE AS GRAFFITI DETERRENT LANDSCAPE HEDGE AS GRAFFITI DETERRENT SEATING WITH ATTACHED COVERING RAISED PLANTERS WITH METAL WALL ART ACCENT TREES PLANTER SHELVES PATIO SEATING AND UMBRELLAS ROUND PAVERS ON PEBBLES WALL MOUNTED PLANTER SHELVES PROPERTY LINE PLANTER SHELVES SIDE ENTRY WALKWAY OC PACE EX. ADDRESS NUMBER SIGN EX. ADA ACCESS RAISED POTS 25' ACCESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT EX. SEWER MANHOLE SOFT SEATING AREASWITCH GEAR PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS 25' ACCESS AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT TELEPHONE EASEMENT SWING VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN GATE AND FENCING TO BE 6' HIGH BLACK WROUGHT IRON FENCING WITH 2" DIAMOND VERTICAL RAILS AND TOP SPEARS PROVIDED BY A1 FENCING LOCALLY SOURCED IN ANAHEIM DOUBLE SWING GATE BY A1 FENCING LINE OF SIGHT TRIANGLE. KEEP ALL PLANTING UNDER 2' IN HEIGHT LINE OF SIGHT TRIANGLE. KEEP ALL PLANTING UNDER 2' IN HEIGHT CENTERLINE OF DOOR LC EXISTING AND ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY WATER METER CIVIL TO PROVIDE SEPARATE 1" WATER METER, SERVICE LATERAL AND BACKFLOW FOR NEW IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPLIANCE. EXISTING PERIMETER WALL TO REMAIN ADA PATH OF TRAVEL PER CIVIL PLANS PROPERTY LINE SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING PLANT PALETTE Symbol TREES Botanical Name Common Name Majestic Beauty MagnoliaMagnolia grandiflora PALMS Tuscarora Crape MyrtleLagerstroemia i. 'Tuscarora' WUCOLS Mod Mod Queen PalmSyagrus romanzoffiana Mod Goldenrain TreeKoelreuteria paniculata Low 'Majestic Beauty' SHRUBS/ GROUNDCOVERS Rosmarinus o. 'Huntington Carpet' Lavandula 'Meerlo' Muhlenbergia capillaris 'Lenca' Creeping Rosemary Meerlo English Lavender Pink Muhly Salvia gregii 'Flame'Flame Autumn Sage ALL LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION SHALL BE PERMANENTLY MAINTAINED. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL RECEIVE AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL ADHERE TO CITY DESIGN GUIDELINES, CODES AND REGULATIONS. NOTES: Agave sp. 'Moonshine'Moonshine Agave PLANT MATERIAL NOT LISTED MAY BE USED, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY. Aloe species Aloe Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca Dianella revoluta 'Baby Bliss' Baby Bliss Flax Lily Low Low Low Low Low Low Bulbine frutescens 'Hallmark' Stalked Bulbine Low Low Rhamnus californica 'Eve Case' Dwarf Coffeberry Echeveria derenbergii Painted Lady Dodonaea v. 'Purpurea' Hopseed Bush Cordyline australis New Zealand Cabbage Tree Bougainvillea 'Raspberry Ice' Bougainveillea Westringia f. 'Mundi'Mundi Coast Rosemary Low Low Low Low Low Low SCREEN SHRUBS Westringia 'Blue Gem'Blue Gem Coast Rosemary Low Low Lomandra 'Breeze'Dwarf Mat Rush Symbol Botanical Name Common Name WUCOLS Low Western RedbudCercis occidentalis Low Angelina Stonecrop LowSedum rupestre 'Angelina' Blue chalksticks LowSenecio serpens Euphorbia c. 'Tasmarian Tiger' Variegated Spurge Low Tree Stonecrop Low Sedum dendroideum Festuca glauca 'Siskiyou Blue' Siskiyou Blue Fescue Low Coppertone Stonecrop Low Sedum nussbaumerianum EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED Queen PalmSyagrus romanzoffiana Queen PalmSyagrus romanzoffiana Camphor TreeCinnamomum camphora Alder TreeAlnus species EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN Lavander Cotton LowSantolina chamacyparissus 'Nana' Helictotrichon_sempervirens Blue Oat Grass Low Macfadyena unguis-cati Cat's Claw Low Mexican Fan PalmWashingtonia robusta- Relocate REGION 3 REGION 3 SIZE 36" Box 24" Box 12' BTH 36" Box 5 Gal. 5 Gal. 5 Gal. 5 Gal. 5 Gal. 5 Gal. 1 Gal. 1 Gal. 5 Gal. 15 Gal. Low 1 Gal. 5 Gal. 1 Gal. Low Low SIZE 5 Gal. 36" Box 1 Gal. 1 Gal. 5 Gal. 1 Gal. 1 Gal. 5 Gal. 5 Gal. 5 Gal. 5 Gal. LANDSCAPE GALLERY SEPTEMBER 11, 2020 L-2 CDPC PROJECT NO. 20067 conceptual design & planning company COSTA MESA ATASCADERO SAN JOSE Corporate Office: 3195-C Airport Loop DriveStudio OneCosta Mesa, CA 92626 T: 949.399.0870www.cdpcinc.com NO R T H 0'50'100'25'150' SCALE:1"=50' TREES SHRUBS/ GROUNDCOVERS/ VINES Bulbine frutescens 'Hallmark'Agave sp. 'Moonshine' Moonshine Agave Stalked Bulbine Echeveria derenbergiiPainted Lady Muhlenbergia capillaris Lenca Pink Muhly Helictotrichon sempervirens Blue Oat Grass Lavandula 'Meerlo' Meerlo English Lavander Macfadyena unguis-cati Cat's Claw Salvia gregii 'Flame' Furman's Red Autumn Sage Cottom Lavander Santolina chamacyparissus 'Nana'Westringia 'Wynyabbie Highlight' Variegated Australian Rosemary Dodonea viscosa 'Purpurea' Purple Hopseed Bush Senecio serpens Blue Chalksticks Bougainvillea 'Raspberry Ice' Raspberry Ice Bougainvillea Euphorbia c. 'Tasmarian Tiger' Tasmanian Tiger Spurge Rhamnus californica 'Eve Case' Dwarf Coffeberry Koelreuteria paniculata Goldenrain Tree Tuscarora Crape Myrtle Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud PALMS Hesperaloe parviflora rubra Red Yucca Sedum rupestre 'Angelina' Angelina Stonecrop Syagrus romanzoffiana Queen Palm Lomondra 'Breeze' Dwarf Matt Rush Magnolia grandiflora 'Majestic Beauty' 'Majestic Beauty' Magnolia Rosmarinus 'Hungtington Carpet' Huntington Carpet Rosemary Lagerstroemia 'Tuscarora' Sedum dendroideum Tree Stonecrop Festuca glauca 'Siskiyou Blue' Siskiyou Blue Fescue Dianella revoluta 'Baby Bliss' Baby Bliss Flax Lily Cordyline australis New Zealand Cabbage Tree S S S D SSD C O N T R O L P O I N T S C P # N O R T H I N G E A S T I N G E L E V A T I O N D E S C R I P T I O N LINE TABLELINE #DIRECTIONLENGTH GRAPHIC SCALEFEET S U R V E Y O R O F R E C O R D R O Y E V R U S D N A L D E SNECIL t n o P u D . D o d n a mrA S T A T E O F C A L I F O R NIA L . S . 7 7 8 0 D a t e S i g n e d : 0 7 / 0 6 / 2 0 2 0 B E N C H M A R K B A S I S O F B E A R I N G S U T I L I T Y S T A T E M E N T REVISIONS P R E P A R E D F O R A.L.T.A./ N . S . P . S . L A N D T I T L E S U R V E Y 11 2 5 N . M A G N O L I A A V E . , A N A H E I M , C A 9 2 8 0 1 L E G A L D E S C R I P T I O N “ ” S C H E D U L E B I T E M S S U R V E Y O R ' S C E R T I F I C A T E Z O N I N G R E S T R I C T I O N S P O S S I B L E E N C R O A C H M E N T N O T E S I T E M S C O R R E S P O N D I N G T O T A B L E A I T E M S S U R V E Y O R ' S N O T E S F L O O D N O T E : S I T E I N F O R M A T I O N NO SCALE V I C I N I T Y M A P S i t e LEGEND 11 17 9 15 19 10 Project Broundary x Image View OC PACE IIH Site Photos 12 16 18 2223 21 20 14 13 21 3 8 4 5 6 25 7 24 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 Looking east from south of the property. Looking west from south corner of the property.Looking south east coner of the property. Looking north east coner of the property from northern access road. Looking west from northern access road. Looking west from south of the property.Looking north from east corner of the property.1 4 5 6 7 2 3 Looking north from northern access road.8 Looking south from parking lot and northern access road.10 Looking east from parking lot and northern access road.12 Looking west from parking lot.13 Looking northeast from norther access road.9 Looking southeast from parking lot and northern access road.11 Looking southwest from parking lot.14 Looking northeast from parking lot.15 Looking northeast from parking lot near south entrance path. Looking northeast from south entrance path. Looking northwest from south entrance path. Looking east from parking lot.Looking southeast from parking lot. 19 21 23 16 17 Looking north from parking lot. Looking north from south entrance path. Looking west from south of Evangella University’s parking lot. Looking southwest from south of Evangella University’ parking lot. 18 22 24 25 Looking east from south entrance path.20 200 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. ITEM NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2020 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05650B VARIANCE NO. 2013-04957B LOCATION: 1952 West La Palma Avenue (Servite High School) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Cynthia DeVito representing the property owner, Servite High School. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of an amendment to a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit, which permitted the reorientation of the baseball field, but now proposes to retain the baseball field it its existing location, for Servite High School, and an amendment to a previously-approved Variance to construct 50- foot high fencing, supported by 50 to 60-foot high poles, in the Transition zone which allows a maximum fence height of eight feet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), and approving an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-05650B and Variance No. 2013-04957B. BACKGROUND: The subject 15.32-acre property is developed with the Servite High School campus and includes a property on Keystone Street where four single family homes were demolished to provide for the construction of an aquatics center. The zoning for the property is “T” (Transition) for the main campus and “RS-2” (Single Family Residential) for the property along Keystone Street. The General Plan designates the school property for School land uses and the residentially zoned property for Residential Low Density land uses. The campus is surrounded by single family homes to the north, south, east and west. . 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05650B AND VARIANCE NO. 2013-04957B November 9, 2020 Page 2 of 7 A public hearing for this item was held before the Planning Commission on October 26, 2020. The Staff Report and Action Agenda for the item are included as Attachments 2 and 3 to this report respectively. The Planning Commission continued the item to this meeting and requested that the applicant prepare “before and after” view simulations to better characterize the proposed fencing as viewed from Catalpa Avenue and conduct additional public outreach to residents on Catalpa Avenue. In addition, the Planning Commission suggested that the applicant consider proposed fencing modifications to cover home plate from vertical baseball projections and to further extend fencing down the left field (third base) line to the west. Public comments received prior to this public hearing are included as Attachment 4. As of the date of this report, staff has received letters of opposition from three residents living on Catalpa Avenue. Residents have raised concerns regarding the design and effectiveness of the netting and have requested an alternative design be proposed that is less visually obtrusive and more effective. Two residents have indicated a preference to keep the original 30-foot high fence design and add netting over the first home plate, which previously existed before the fencing was removed. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to amend a previously-approved CUP, which permitted the reorientation of the baseball field, to retain the baseball field it its existing location. In addition, the applicant requests a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted fence height of 8 feet in the T Zone to provide for 50-foot high netting with 60-foot high load poles surrounding a portion of the baseball field. The proposed fencing is shown in the diagram below. Importantly, as suggested by the Planning Commission, the applicant has agreed to partially cover home plate and to further extend fencing down the left field in the revised proposal. The applicant now shows fencing extending over home plate (as shown in a detail below) and an additional 75 feet along the left field line, for an overall fencing length of 196 feet. Applicants are currently preparing complete plans for proposed netting extension over home plate and the additional 75 feet along the left filed line. The applicant will provide specific netting measurement over home plate and complete plans at the Planning Commission hearing. Overall, the netting would start behind the left-field foul line, wrap around home plate, and continue behind the entire right-field foul line. The netting would be supported by a total of seven poles ranging from 50 feet to 60 feet in height. Two 60-foot high load poles would be erected behind home base, located 21 feet from the property line abutting single family homes on Catalpa Avenue to the south. Three 50-foot high net poles and one 55-foot high load pole would support the netting behind the right-field foul line, adjacent to the track and field to the east. One 55-foot load pole would support netting along the left-field foul line located approximately 40 feet from single family homes to the south. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05650B AND VARIANCE NO. 2013-04957B November 9, 2020 Page 3 of 7 New proposed fencing showing extension down left field line and netting above home plate 75 foot __Extension . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05650B AND VARIANCE NO. 2013-04957B November 9, 2020 Page 4 of 7 Detail of new canopy netting Servite has clarified that there was, at one time, a cantilevered net over the home plate area that extended from the backstop to just behind home plate. In 2005-06 the net was removed due to its poor condition and complaints from visiting teams that the field was not playable due to the netting extending too far over the plate. There was no cantilever netting in place for 12-13 years. In March 2018, a smaller cantilever net was added to the backstop which is what is depicted in the 2019 aerial photo to the left. Aerial view of netting over home plate (2019) View Simulation: As requested by the Planning Commission, the applicant has prepared a view simulation to better characterize the proposed fencing as viewed from Catalpa Avenue. A “before” image of existing fencing, taken in 2017, and an “after” image of the proposed fencing are shown below. Before Image CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05650B AND VARIANCE NO. 2013-04957B November 9, 2020 Page 5 of 7 After Image Due to time constraints, the applicant was not able to provide a view simulation to show additional fencing now proposed that would partially cover home plate and extend further down the left field line. The proposed additional fencing would extend over home plate from the top-right corner of the fence line as well as extend towards the left side of the image as discussed above. Public Outreach: As requested by the Planning Commission, the applicant conducted additional public outreach prior to this meeting. Servite personnel visited all nine residences to the south of the project site on Catalpa Avenue, plus one additional resident located on the same block. Each resident was presented with an affidavit which acknowledged that the resident received information about the project and included their position on the project with a list of their concerns, if any. These affidavits are included as Attachment 5. Of the ten residents, four support the project, five remain neutral, and one opposes the project. The main concerns identified were: 1) property values; 2) netting removed from the old fence; 3) safety of the fencing near power lines; and 4) weather conditions. With regard to public safety, staff notes that the proposed project has been initially reviewed by the Anaheim Building and Public Utilities Divisions. All netting and poles will be required to obtain necessary building permits and demonstrate that appropriate engineering standards have been implemented to ensure public safety. In addition, the Anaheim Public Utilities Division will require the applicant to adhere to utility easement and clearance requirements. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission may approve an amendment to a conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05650B AND VARIANCE NO. 2013-04957B November 9, 2020 Page 6 of 7 1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this 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 Code requires approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit if a substantial modification to the previously-approved project and/or changes to the approved conditions of approval is proposed. The purpose of the CUP amendment is to ensure that the proposed changes would be compatible with the surrounding uses. The proposed amendment to retain the baseball field in its existing orientation would not have adverse impact on the adjoining land uses since the baseball field orientation is an existing permitted condition. The existing baseball field is accessory to the existing school, and there are no changes proposed to the existing buildings or vehicular access points. No additional traffic would be generated. Staff recommends approval of applicant’s request to amend the conditional use permit. Variance: The Planning Commission may grant the requested variance amendment upon a finding that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; 2) That, because of special circumstances shown above, strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. According the applicant, Servite High School has been responsible for mitigating property damage and personal safety issues relating to baseball activities. The previous 30-foot high chain link fence built behind home plate did not provide sufficient protection to surrounding single family residential properties from damage related to foul balls. Damage to automobiles, windows and roofs have been prevalent. Personal safety is also a motivating factor to increase the height of the existing fence. The safety of students, visitors and faculty utilizing the adjacent track field is also at risk due to the field’s close proximity to the existing baseball field. To address these personal safety issues, Servite High School restricts baseball practices from occurring simultaneously with track and field events; however, off-setting hours is time consuming and an inefficient use of the facility. The applicant hired a fencing company with experience in netting projects at professional baseball stadiums. Based on their professional experience, the fencing company designed netting to prevent injuries to the students and faculty, and to prevent property CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05650B AND VARIANCE NO. 2013-04957B November 9, 2020 Page 7 of 7 damage for the neighbors adjacent to the baseball field. The 30-foot high chain link fence was removed earlier this year in anticipation of a new netting system. The previous 30-foot high chain link fence and score board were visible to surrounding properties, and the proposed higher netting and poles would create a larger visible area. Due to its orientation on the north side of the residential properties, the netting would not block light or cast a shadow on adjacent residential properties. In addition, the netting is designed to allow light to permeate through so as to minimize shadowing over the baseball field. Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the effects of the proposed project are typical of those generated within the Class 3 (New Construction) Categorical Exemption. Class 3 consists of the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, including fences. The proposed project is a request for approval of a variance to permit the construction of 50 to 60-foot high netting around the Servite High School baseball field. As such, the proposed project meets the criteria for a Class 3 categorical exemption. Pursuant to Section 15300.02 (c) and 15303 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances in respect to the proposed project for which staff would anticipate a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. CONCLUSION: The proposed development is consistent with the goals and policies of the Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code. Servite High School is an asset to the community. Supporting academic and sports programs through the proposed baseball field design to minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhood is a benefit. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and variance amendment requests. Prepared by, Submitted by, Sophia Tatlyan Niki Wetzel, AICP Assistant Planner Deputy Planning and Building Director Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Planning Commission Staff Report- October 26, 2020 (report only) 3. Action Agenda of Planning Commission Meeting – October 26, 2020 4. Public Comments Received 5. Neighborhood Outreach Letter and Affidavits 6. Variance Justification 7. Project Plans TDEV 2020-00169(CUP 3745)SERVITEHIGH SCHOOL TPRESCHOOL RM-4LA HACIENDAAPTS9 DU RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SFR RM-3ANAHEIM SHORES CONDOS137 DU RM-2ATTACHED CONDOS64 DU W LA PALMA AVE W CATALPA AVE N F A I R V I E W S T N W I C H I T A S T N C H I P P E W A A V E N K E Y S T O N E S T W DOGWOOD AVE W DOGWOOD AVE W. LA PALMA AVE N . E U C L I D S T N . B R O O K H U R S T S T N . L O A R A S T W. ROMNEYA DR 1952 West La Palma Avenue DEV No. 2020-00169 Subject Property APN: 072-131-12 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo:May 2019 W LA PALMA AVE W CATALPA AVE N F A I R V I E W S T N W I C H I T A S T N C H I P P E W A A V E N K E Y S T O N E S T W DOGWOOD AVE W DOGWOOD AVE W FALMOUTH AVE W. LA PALMA AVE N . E U C L I D S T N . B R O O K H U R S T S T N . L O A R A S T W. ROMNEYA DR 1952 West La Palma Avenue DEV No. 2020-00169 Subject Property APN: 072-131-12 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo:May 2019 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1 - 1 - PC2020-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05650 AND VARIANCE NO. 2013-04957 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2020-00169) (1952 WEST LA PALMA AVENUE) WHEREAS, on March 9, 1967, and subject to certain conditions of approval, the Anaheim Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Planning Commission"), by its Resolution No. PC67-42, did approve Conditional Use Permit No. 922 to permit the expansion of an existing private school on that certain real property located at 1952 West La Palma Avenue in the City of Anaheim, generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, on September 8, 1988, the Anaheim Zoning Administrator, by its Resolution No. ZA88-53, approved Variance No. 3833 to permit an existing patio cover with waiver of minimum structural setback; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 1996, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC96-30, approved Conditional Use Permit No. 3824 to permit a baseball storage room at an existing private high school; and WHEREAS, on November 25, 1996, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC96-119, approved Conditional Use Permit No. 3880 to permit a new 2-story classroom addition and remodel an existing classroom building in conjunction with an existing private school with waivers of maximum structural height and minimum number of parking spaces. On September 23, 2002, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC2002-142, approved an amendment to this permit to construct a new parking lot on two adjoining single family residential zoned lots; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 1999, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC99-181, approved Conditional Use Permit No. 4154 to permit a freestanding electronic readerboard sign in conjunction with an existing private high school; and WHEREAS, on June 26, 2006, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC2006-60, approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05104 to permit two modular classroom buildings in conjunction with the existing private high school. On August 20, 2007, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC2007-101, approved an amendment to this permit to permit an additional modular classroom building; and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2014, and subject to certain conditions of approval, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC2014-018, approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-05104 and Variance No. 2013-04957 (the "Original Project") to retain an existing student enrollment that is higher than permitted under previous entitlements and to expand the existing Servite High School campus to include the demolition of four single family - 2 - PC2020-*** homes, construction of a new aquatics center and parking lot, reorientation of the existing baseball field with 30-foot high fencing and 10-foot high block walls, relocation of the music and weight room buildings, replacement lighting for the track and football field, and consolidation of the five parcels along Keystone Street into the main school campus property and Variance No. 2013-04957 to permit a reduced front yard setback along Keystone Street, fencing that is higher than permitted by the Anaheim Municipal Code (the “Code”), and less parking than required by the Code at the subject Property. The conditions of approval which were the subject of the Original Project shall be referred to herein as the "Previous Conditions of Approval"; and WHEREAS, on May 16, 2016 the Planning Commission by its Resolution, approved an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-05650 and Variance No. 2013-04957, designated as "Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-05650A" and “Variance No. 2013-04957A”, to modify plans for a proposed aquatic center on four residential lots on the west side of the (along Keystone Street) Servite High School campus with a side yard setback less than permitted by the Code at the subject Property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did receive a verified petition to approve an amendment to the Original Project, designated as “Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-2650B” and “Variance No. 2013-04957B” to retain the existing baseball field orientation on the Servite High School campus and to construct 50-foot high fencing, supported by 50 to 60-foot high poles, where the Transition zone allows a maximum fence height of 8 feet; (herein referred to as the "Proposed Project"); and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 15.3 acres in size and is developed with the Servite High School campus. The zoning for the high school campus is “T” Transition for the main campus and “RS-2” Single Family Residential for the aquatic center along Keystone Street. The General Plan designates the school property for School and Low Density Residential land uses. As such, the Property is subject to the zoning and development standards described in Chapters 18.04 (Single Family Residential Zone) and 18.14 (Public and Special Purpose Zones) of the Code; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act-related provisions of Executive Order N-25-20 issued on March 12, 2020), which allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeing to observe and to address the local legislative body; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 the Planning Commission did hold a teleconferencing public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on October 26, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. and notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-05650B, Variance No. 2013-04957B and to investigate and make findings and recommendation in connection therewith and the hearing was continued to the November 9, 2020 meeting; and - 3 - PC2020-*** 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 (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; 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 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Proposed Project is within that class of projects (i.e., Class 3 – New Construction or Conversion of small structures) which consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, 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. 2012-2650B, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The request to permit the Proposed Project is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under subsection .010 of Sections 18.04.030 and 18.14.030 (Educational Institutions–General) of the Code. 2. The proposed Project will not adversely affect the surrounding land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the Proposed Project has been designed to be compatible with surrounding residential uses and conditions of approval have been included herein to reduce or eliminate and potential adverse impacts. 3. The size and shape of the site for the proposed Project 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 because the site can accommodate the parking, traffic, and circulation without creating detrimental effects on adjacent properties. 4. The traffic generated by the Proposed Project will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the vehicular circulation is designed to minimize impacts on the surrounding properties. 5. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-05650B under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing with respect to the request for Variance No. 2013-04957B, does find and determine that the required findings for approval of a variance to allow the 50-foot high fence supported by 50 to 60-foot high poles can be made because: - 4 - PC2020-*** SECTION NO.18.46.110.020.030 Permitted Wall and Fence Height. (8 feet required, 50-60 feet proposed) 1) There are special circumstances applicable to the Property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under the identical zoning classification in the vicinity because unique circumstances apply to the property due to the unique circumstance created by the school’s location amid a residential neighborhood. 2) That, because of the special circumstances identified above, strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. Allowing a taller screening structure will reduce the physical impacts of a baseball diamond on adjacent properties and increase the safety of students, staff, and neighbors. WHEREAS, this 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. This 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, pursuant to the above findings, this Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-2650B and Variance No. 2013-04957B contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth 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 that portion of the Property for which these entitlements are applicable 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 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. - 5 - PC2020-*** 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 November 9, 2020. 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 November 9, 2020, 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 November, 2020. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 6 - PC2020-*** - 7 - PC2020-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05650B AND VARIANCE NO. 2013-04957B (DEV2020-000169) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 1 The owner shall submit detailed lighting plans demonstrating light levels (horizontal and vertical) along adjacent residential property lines. Light levels that exceed 2.0 footcandles at any portion of a residential property line shall trigger the following offers: • Servite High School shall provide an offer to fund blinds, shutters or other means acceptable to the homeowners to block spillover light from entering ballfield-facing windows. This offer shall be made to the homeowners 60 days prior to and payment made at least 30 days prior to the first lighting of the field. A homeowner’s refusal to accept payment shall not be considered Servite’s failure to accomplish this mitigation requirement. Any written documentation pertaining to this mitigation measure shall be provided to the Planning Department. • The mitigation payment shall not exceed $2,000 per impacted residences. • This mitigation applies to the following addresses, or as revised pursuant to the final lighting plans: 930, 924, 920, 914 and 910 N. Keystone and 1939 W. Catalpa Avenue. • After initial completion, each luminaire and shields affixed on the pole shall be situated and adjusted so that lighting levels on residential property lines are minimized and are compliance with the final detailed lighting plans submitted to the City. After the appropriate burn-in time for the lights, Servite High School shall take measurements to confirm these levels have been achieved and submit same to the Planning Department. MM Aesthetics 1 Planning Department 2 Servite High School shall program evening use of the aquatic center and baseball field so that lights are turned off by 7:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m., respectively, consistent with the Event Management Plan. Planning Department 3 Any necessary address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily readable from the street. Numbers should be visible during hours of darkness. Police Department 4 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 Police Department - 8 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT downloaded from the following web site: http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=678 5 The rear doors of the premises shall be numbered with the same address numbers or suite number of the business. Minimum height of 4 inches is recommended. Police Department 6 All exterior doors to have adequate security hardware, e.g. deadbolt locks. Police Department 7 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 8 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 Di vision of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division 9 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 if 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 10 Trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Public Works-Streets and Sanitation Division GENERAL CONDITIONS 11 The maximum school enrollment shall not exceed 950 students. Planning Department - 9 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 12 The school shall be operated in accordance with the two parking studies, prepared by the IBI Group and The Planning Center, and the Parking Management Plan, prepared by the applicant, that were submitted as part of this application. Any changes to these plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial conformance with these documents to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Planning Department 13 Access to the aquatic complex and sports fields shall be from the interior campus only. Planning Department 14 Adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on-site. Police Department 15 No required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage. Planning Department, Code Enforcement Division 16 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 17 All new and/or existing landscaping shall be installed in conformance with Chapter 18.46 “Landscape and Screening” of the Anaheim Municipal Code and shall be maintained in perpetuity. Landscaping shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. Planning Department 18 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 19 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 - 10 - PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 20 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 ITEM NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2020 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05650B VARIANCE NO. 2013-04957B LOCATION: 1952 West La Palma Avenue (Servite High School) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Cynthia DeVito representing the property owner, Servite High School. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of an amendment to a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit to modify the orientation of an existing baseball field at Servite High School, and an amendment to a previously-approved Variance to construct 50-foot high fencing, supported by 50 to 60-foot high poles, in the Transition zone which allows a maximum fence height of eight feet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), and approving an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-05650B and Variance No. 2013-04957B. BACKGROUND: The subject 15.32-acre property is developed with the Servite High School campus and includes four single family residences on Keystone Street which were approved for demolition to provide for construction of an aquatics center in 2014 (as discussed further below). The zoning for the property is “T” (Transition) for the main campus and “RS-2” (Single Family Residential) for four residential properties along Keystone Street. The General Plan designates the school property for School land uses and the four residential properties for Residential Low Density land uses. The campus is surrounded by single family homes on all four sides. PRIOR ZONING ENTITLEMENTS: The following zoning entitlements have been approved for the high school campus: •Conditional Use Permit No. 922: to permit the expansion of an existing private highschool was approved by the Planning Commission in 1967. •Conditional Use Permit No. 3880: to permit a school expansion for a maximum of 850 students with less parking than required by the Anaheim Municipal Code (Code) was approved by the Planning Commission in 1996. This permit was amended in 2002 topermit the construction of a new employee parking lot. •Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05104: to permit three additional modular classroombuildings was approved by the Planning Commission in 2007. ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05650B AND VARIANCE NO. 2013-04957B October 26, 2020 Page 2 of 6 • Conditional Use Permit 2012-05650 and Variance 2013-04957: to permit the reorientation of the existing baseball field, construct a new team room, storage room, concession stand, bleachers and a 30- foot high fence along the right and left field edges, which are the subject of amendment in this entitlement request, was approved by the Planning Commission in 2014. Conditional Use Permit 2012-05650 and Variance 2013-04957 also permitted the demolition of four single family homes and construction/operation of an aquatics center which was subsequently amended in 2016 to allow for a lesser side setback than required by Code. PROPOSAL: The existing baseball field is located in the southwest corner of the property, highlighted in green on the site plan. The baseball diamond is located in the southeast corner of the field, with the baseball mound facing a southeast direction. The applicant proposes to amend the previously-approved CUP, which permitted reorientation of the baseball field, to retain the baseball field it its existing orientation and location. Upon further consideration, plans to reorient the baseball field, and related site plan revisions have been abandoned. The applicant proposes to erect 50-foot high netting surrounding the existing baseball field. The netting would start behind the left-field foul line, wrap around home plate, and continue behind the entire right-field foul line. The netting would be supported by a total of seven poles ranging from 50 feet to 60 feet in height. Two 60-foot high load poles would be erected behind home base, located 21 feet from the property line abutting single family homes to the south. Three 50-foot high net poles and one 55-foot high load pole would support the netting behind the right-field foul line, adjacent to the track and field to the east. One 55-foot load pole would support netting along the left-field foul line located approximately 40 feet from single family homes to the south. Site Plan CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05650B AND VARIANCE NO. 2013-04957B October 26, 2020 Page 3 of 6 The baseball field is typically used from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., June through January, to accommodate practices and general physical education. During the baseball season, from February through April, the field may be used between 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays. No changes to the hours of operation for the baseball field are proposed. The netting would remain in place all year long to protect students and staff utilizing the track and field to the east, as well as the surrounding homes to the south. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission may approve an amendment to 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 this 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; General Simulation CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05650B AND VARIANCE NO. 2013-04957B October 26, 2020 Page 4 of 6 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 Code requires approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit if a substantial modification to the previously-approved project and/or changes to the approved conditions of approval is proposed. The purpose of the conditional use permit amendment is to ensure that the proposed changes would be compatible with the surrounding uses. The proposed amendment to retain the baseball field in its existing orientation would not have adverse impact on the adjoining land uses since the baseball field orientation is an existing permitted condition. The existing baseball field is accessory to the existing school, and there are no changes proposed to the existing buildings or vehicular access points. No additional traffic would be generated. Staff recommends approval of applicant’s request to amend the conditional use permit. Variance: The Planning Commission may grant the requested variance amendment upon a finding that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity; 2) That, because of special circumstances shown above, strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity. According the applicant, Servite High School has been responsible for mitigating property damage and personal safety issues relating to baseball activities. The existing-30 foot high chain link fence does not adequately provide sufficient protection to surrounding single family residential properties from damage related to foul balls. Damage to automobiles, windows and roofs have been prevalent. Personal safety is also a motivating factor to increase the height of the existing fence. The safety of students, visitors and faculty utilizing the adjacent track field is also at risk due to the field’s close proximity to the existing baseball field. To address these personal safety issues, Servite High School restricts baseball practices from occurring simultaneously with track and field events; however, off-setting hours is time consuming and an inefficient use of the facility. The applicant hired a netting company with experience in netting projects at professional baseball stadiums. Based on their professional experience, the fencing company designed netting to prevent injuries to the students and faculty, and to prevent property damage for the neighbors adjacent to the baseball field. The existing 30-foot high chain link fence and score board are currently visible to surrounding properties, and the proposed higher netting and poles would create a larger visible area. Due to its orientation on the north side of the residential properties, the netting would not block light or cast a shadow on adjacent residential properties. In addition, the netting is designed to allow light to permeate through so as to minimize shadowing over the baseball field. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05650B AND VARIANCE NO. 2013-04957B October 26, 2020 Page 5 of 6 Photo Simulation Looking North from Catalpa Avenue The proposed 50 to 60-foot high baseball field fencing and supporting load poles are taller than the eight foot fence height permitted by Code in the Transition Zone. The request to increase the height beyond eight feet is to ensure the protection of individuals and property from stray foul balls hit during games and practices. Staff believes that the findings exist for the granting of the requested fence height variance due to the unique circumstance created by the school’s location amid a residential neighborhood. Allowing taller safety screening would reduce the physical impacts of a baseball diamond on adjacent properties and ensure the safety of students and staff. Due to this unique circumstance, staff recommends approval of the fence variance request. Neighborhood Outreach: The applicant mailed out letters to nine neighbors located on Catalpa Avenue (the neighbors adjacent to the baseball field), informing the residents of the fencing being proposed around the baseball field. The letter provided an overview of the project and included a site plan and a photo simulation. No concerns over the potential visual impact of the fencing was expressed, and one neighbor expressed a concern regarding the efficiency of the proposed netting and indicated that the fencing may not be tall enough to achieve 100% effectiveness. Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the effects of the proposed project are typical of those generated within the Class 3 (New Construction) Categorical Exemption. Class 3 consists of the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, including fences. The proposed project is a request for approval of a variance to permit the construction of 50 to 60-foot high netting around the Servite High School baseball field. As such, the proposed project meets the criteria for a Class 3 categorical exemption. Pursuant to Section 15300.02 (c) and 15303 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances in respect to the proposed project for which staff would anticipate a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05650B AND VARIANCE NO. 2013-04957B October 26, 2020 Page 6 of 6 CONCLUSION: The proposed development is consistent with the goals and policies of the Anaheim General Plan and Zoning Code. Servite High School is an asset to the community. Supporting academic and sports programs through the proposed baseball field design to minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhood is a benefit. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and variance amendment requests. Prepared by, Submitted by, Sophia Tatlyan Niki Wetzel, AICP Assistant Planner Deputy Planning and Building Director Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Site Plan 3. Fence Plan 4. Variance Justification 5. Simulations and Site Photographs TDEV 2020-00169(CUP 3745)SERVITEHIGH SCHOOL TPRESCHOOL RM-4LA HACIENDAAPTS9 DU RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S -2 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SFR RM-3ANAHEIM SHORES CONDOS137 DU RM-2ATTACHED CONDOS64 DU W LA PALMA AVE W CATALPA AVE N F A I R V I E W S T N W I C H I T A S T N C H I P P E W A A V E N K E Y S T O N E S T W DOGWOOD AVE W DOGWOOD AVE W. LA PALMA AVE N . E U C L I D S T N . B R O O K H U R S T S T N . L O A R A S T W. ROMNEYA DR 1952 West La Palma Avenue DEV No. 2020-00169 Subject Property APN: 072-131-12 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo:May 2019 W LA PALMA AVE W CATALPA AVE N F A I R V I E W S T N W I C H I T A S T N C H I P P E W A A V E N K E Y S T O N E S T W DOGWOOD AVE W DOGWOOD AVE W FALMOUTH AVE W. LA PALMA AVE N . E U C L I D S T N . B R O O K H U R S T S T N . L O A R A S T W. ROMNEYA DR 1952 West La Palma Avenue DEV No. 2020-00169 Subject Property APN: 072-131-12 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo:May 2019 Anaheim Planning Commission Action Agenda October 26, 2020 Anaheim City Hall, Council Chambers 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Commissioners Present via Teleconferencing: Chairperson: Kimberly Keys Chairperson Pro-Tempore: John Armstrong Michelle Lieberman, Natalie Meeks, Rosa Mulleady, Dave Vadodaria, Steve White Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present via Teleconferencing: Ted White, Planning and Building Director Wayne Carvalho, Contract Planner Niki Wetzel, Deputy Planning Director Mark Dickinson, Code Enforcement Supervisor Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney Cesar Morales, Associate Engineer Susan Kim, Principal Planner Mike Eskander, Development Services Manager David See, Principal Planner Shawn Azarhoosh, Principal Engineer Irma Huitron, Principal Planner Vincent Tran, Principal Traffic Engineer Sophia Tatlyan, Assistant Planner Eleanor Morris, Secretary Peter Lange, Contract Planner Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 12:15 p.m. on Thursday, October 22, 2020, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber and in the outside display kiosk. •Call to Order – 5:00 p.m.Chairperson Keys presented the 10-day appeal rights for all public hearing items. The appeal period for the public hearing items end on Thursday, November 5, 2020. •Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Armstrong •Public Hearing Items •Commission Updates •Discussion •Adjournment ATTACHMENT NO. 3 OCTOBER 26, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA 10-26-2020 Page 2 of 4 Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06068 (DEV2020-00083) Location: 555 North Euclid Street Request: The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new 2,500 square foot coffee shop with a drive-through lane and outdoor patio. 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 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Resolution No. PC2020-043 (Lieberman / Meeks) Approved, with modification to Condition No. 20, to read as follows: The legal property owner shall voluntarily irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim, for road, public utilities and other public purposes, the right-of-way easements 9-feet along Crescent Avenue. VOTE: 7-0 Chairperson Keys and Commissioners Armstrong, Lieberman, Meeks, Mulleady, Vadodaria and White voted yes. Project Planner: Wayne Carvalho wcarvalho@anaheim.net OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: 30 minutes (5:17 to 5:47 p.m.) OCTOBER 26, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA 10-26-2020 Page 3 of 4 ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05650B VARIANCE NO. 2013-04957B (DEV2020-00169) Location: 1952 West La Palma Avenue Request: The applicant requests approval of the following land use entitlements: (i) to amend a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit to modify plans for an existing baseball field on the Servite High School campus; and (ii) to amend a previously-approved Variance to permit 50-foot high fencing and 60-foot high poles around the existing baseball field where the Transition zone allows a maximum fence height of 8 feet. 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 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Approved a motion for continuance to November 9, 2020, in order for the applicant to provide an accurate rendering of the fence as viewed from the neighbors to the south, allow the applicant to meet with the neighbors and address any visual impact concerns, consider extending the fence along the left field line, study a “roof effect” over home plate, and allow for the consultant of the fencing mpany to attend the meeting in order to address questions raised by the Planning Commission. (Meeks / White) VOTE: 7-0 Chairperson Keys and Commissioners Armstrong, Lieberman, Meeks, Mulleady, Vadodaria and White voted yes. Project Planner: Sophia Tatlyan statlyan@anaheim.net OPPOSITION: A piece of written correspondence and a phone call were received expressing concerns related to the subject request. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 10 minutes (5:48 to 6:58 p.m.) OCTOBER 26, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA 10-26-2020 Page 4 of 4 ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06069 (DEV2020-00087) Location: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard Request: An appeal of the Planning Director’s approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit to permit paid and unpaid public parking spaces within the existing parking lot of the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. 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). Approved continuance of the item to November 9, 2020, as discussed during the public hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Lieberman, seconded by Commissioner Mulleady to uphold the Planning Director’s approval of the Minor CUP, and therefore deny the appeal request. THE MOTION FAILED TO CARRY VOTE: 3-4 Commissioners Lieberman, Mulleady and Vadodaria voted yes. Chairperson Keys and Commissioners Armstrong, Meeks, and White voted no. ---------------------------------------- A second motion was made by Commissioner Armstrong, seconded by Commissioner Meeks to continue the item to November 9, 2020. CONTINUANCE APPROVED VOTE: 6-1 Chairperson Keys and Commissioners Armstrong, Meeks, Mulleady, Vadodaria and White voted yes. Commissioner Lieberman voted no. Project Planner: Peter Lange PLange@anaheim.net OPPOSITION: A piece of written correspondence was received expressing opposition to the subject request. IN SUPPORT: A petition in favor of the Minor Conditional Use Permit was received with approximately 170 signatures. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 47 minutes (6:59 to 8:46 p.m.) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:50 P.M. TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2020 AT 5:00 P.M. From:Austin C. Budnik To:Sophia Tatlyan Subject:Conditional Use Permit NO. 2010-05650B Variance NO. 2013-04957B Image Provided of Net Over Baseball Field That Was Previously Removed Date:Friday, October 30, 2020 3:01:22 PM Good Afternoon Sophia, Per our call I discussed the net that was removed from Servite. I spent some time looking through public social media regarding Servite games and I found an image of the net that was used and removed approximately five years ago. It is seen at the top right hand corner. Unfortunately this is the best that I could find but it is proof that it existed against the claims of the representative from Servite who claimed they had no such thing and is proof of an effective method of containing the foul balls hit by Servite as when this was removed is when we were getting five gallon buckets of balls per season and my neighbors also had an increase in balls landing on and damaging their property. I know my description over the phone was hard to understand so I hope this clarifies for your report a previous effective measure that does not require 60ft poles and a 50ft net. Thank you, Austin Budnik ATTACHMENT NO. 4 From:steven budnik To:Sophia Tatlyan Subject:Permit No. 2012-05650B & No. 2013-04957B Modify baseball field Servite High School Date:Monday, October 26, 2020 11:25:06 AM Ms. Sophia Tatylan, I'm a long time resident neighboring Servite High School in Anaheim. I have dealt with the school on many occasions dealing with baseballs escaping the field and damaging my property, and other's properties. When I first moved into my house 28 years ago, it wasn't that big of an issue. The field had a large fence that hugged around home plate & at the top of that fence had a small net that expanded from corner to corner down the first & third baseline. That helped cover over home plate to deflect or capture foul hit baseballs. Around five years ago they removed that small net, and that is when the issues started with base balls leaving the field started to become a frequent issue and concern. I went to Servite and had notified them off my concerns. They expressed they had been thinking about rotating the field to solve the problem. That never happened and over the next five years, I have accumulated a five gallon bucket of Servite baseballs each year and numerous damage to my property to in which they covered the expense on. Yet, they have never fixed the problem of replacing that small net at the top. I'm very thankful nobody has been injured in this time frame. My concerns now are: * This giant fence they want to put up gives no guarantee that it's going to stop these foul balls from escaping the field. * I don't believe it will be high enough to stop the balls. These foul balls escape the field and travel over my house into the street which would be approximately 250 feet from the home plate, as well as with current height and design it looks unappealing and can be seen from the street which could damage residential property values. * I'm concerned with the height of the fence and how close to the electrical lines. The electrical poles are approximately 30 feet from the new planned fence. The electrical poles are approximately 35 feet and the new fence is suppose to be 50 feet tall. If this fence should ever fall it could come in contact with the electrical lines surrounding my property. * I don't want to deal with a situation in which the fence fails due to inadequate design and considerations and Servite telling me "We put a lot of money in that fence and there is nothing else we can do." as the foul balls continue to strike my and other residents property. All the time, money, and headaches on something that all could have been avoided by just replacing the small net at the top of the existing fence that went over home plate. The real reason they don't want that small net and have gone to such great lengths in modifying this field with a giant fence is just so the catcher at home plate has a potential play on the foul ball. Resident 1929 W. catalpa ave. Steven Budnik From:steven budnik To:Sophia Tatlyan Subject:Re: Permit No. 2012-05650B & No. 2013-04957B Modify baseball field Servite High School Date:Monday, October 26, 2020 6:37:09 PM Sophia Tatlyan The original 30 feet fencing worked with the net at the top running approximately 25 feet running down first and third base line. The reason they don't want that is. It interfered with the ball and didn't allow the catcher a play on the ball. The new net in the picture they provided at 50 feet. Doesn't reflect accordingly to the electrical poles that are 35 feet tall. Their picture displays a net less then the height of the electrical poles. The concern of the poles failing. They had a 70 foot pole today fall at the local Walmart in Anheim der the heavy winds today Also, I have complained about the looks of this pole fence idea and how it will effect the house values. I have talked to the neighbors. Three of them are rents and 2 of them weren't aware of this happening Steven Budnik On Monday, October 26, 2020, 03:37:07 PM PDT, Sophia Tatlyan <statlyan@anaheim.net> wrote: Hi Steven, Thank you for contacting me. Your email has been forwarded to the Planning Commission.The project will be heard at tonight’s meeting (Item#3). If you would like to listen to the meeting today at 5 p.m., please click on link http://anaheim.net/2229/Planning-Commission. Sincerely, Sophia Tatlyan Sophia Tatlyan Assistant Planner Anaheim Planning Department Planning Services Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-5380 Fax (714) 765-5280 E-mail statlyan@anaheim.net **California’s current directive to stay at home, except for essential exceptions, is in effect until further notice.Anaheim City Hall is currently open to the public from 8am-3pm, for a select number of services. The City is following the State’s directive and will continue to provide updates regarding the full reopenings of City Hall, libraries, community centers and other places as they come available. Please be assured that Anaheim staff will continue to provide essential services to our residents and businesses. Please click here or visit https://www.anaheim net/5464/City-Hall-Services-During-Coronavirus for City Hall services in this unique time.** From: steven budnik Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 11:25 AM To: Sophia Tatlyan <STatlyan@anaheim.net>Subject: Permit No. 2012-05650B & No. 2013-04957B Modify baseball field Servite High School Ms. Sophia Tatylan, I'm a long time resident neighboring Servite High School in Anaheim. I have dealt with the school on many occasions dealing with baseballs escaping the field and damaging my property, and other's properties. When I first moved intomy house 28 years ago, it wasn't that big of an issue. The field had a large fence that hugged aroundhome plate & at the top of that fence had a small net that expanded from corner to corner down the first &third baseline. That helped cover over home plate to deflect or capture foul hit baseballs. Around fiveyears ago they removed that small net, and that is when the issues started with base balls leaving thefield started to become a frequent issue and concern. I went to Servite and had notified them off myconcerns. They expressed they had been thinking about rotating the field to solve the problem. Thatnever happened and over the next five years, I have accumulated a five gallon bucket of Servitebaseballs each year and numerous damage to my property to in which they covered the expense on. Yet,they have never fixed the problem of replacing that small net at the top. I'm very thankful nobody hasbeen injured in this time frame. My concerns now are: * This giant fence they want to put up gives no guarantee that it's going to stop these foul balls fromescaping the field. * I don't believe it will be high enough to stop the balls. These foul balls escape the field and travel over my house into the street which would be approximately 250 feet from the home plate, as well as with current height and design it looks unappealing and can be seen from the street which could damage residential property values. * I'm concerned with the height of the fence and how close to the electrical lines. The electrical poles are approximately 30 feet from the new planned fence. The electrical poles are approximately 35 feet and the new fence is suppose to be 50 feet tall. If this fence should ever fall it could come in contact with the electrical lines surrounding my property. * I don't want to deal with a situation in which the fence fails due to inadequate design and considerations and Servite telling me "We put a lot of money in that fence and there is nothing else we can do." as the foul balls continue to strike my and other residents property. All the time, money, and headaches on something that all could have been avoided by just replacing the small net at the top of the existing fence that went over home plate. The real reason they don't want that small net and have gone to such great lengths in modifying this field with a giant fence is just so the catcher at home plate has a potential play on the foul ball. Resident 1929 W. catalpa ave. Steven Budnik From:steven budnik To:Sophia Tatlyan Subject:Re: Permit No. 2012-05650B & No. 2013-04957B Modify baseball field Servite High School Date:Monday, October 26, 2020 6:42:12 PM This was suppose to be an open forum. Yet, I have NO means to voice my concerns and deny Mr. Welches lies !! That net across the top of the 30 foot fence was taken down approximately 5 year ago. I mentioned it to the school numerous times in the l past 5 years. They have did nothing about it. I've lived here 28 years as a resident and never had an issue up till then Steven Budnik On Monday, October 26, 2020, 06:36:01 PM PDT, steven budnik <cabudnik@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Sophia Tatlyan The original 30 feet fencing worked with the net at the top running approximately 25 feet running down first and third base line. The reason they don't want that is. It interfered with the ball and didn't allow the catcher a play on the ball. The new net in the picture they provided at 50 feet. Doesn't reflect accordingly to the electrical poles that are 35 feet tall. Their picture displays a net less then the height of the electrical poles. The concern of the poles failing. They had a 70 foot pole today fall at the local Walmart in Anheim der the heavy winds today Also, I have complained about the looks of this pole fence idea and how it will effect the house values. I have talked to the neighbors. Three of them are rents and 2 of them weren't aware of this happening Steven Budnik On Monday, October 26, 2020, 03:37:07 PM PDT, Sophia Tatlyan <statlyan@anaheim.net> wrote: Hi Steven, Thank you for contacting me. Your email has been forwarded to the Planning Commission. The project will be heard at tonight’s meeting (Item#3). If you would like to listen to themeeting today at 5 p.m., please click on link http://anaheim.net/2229/Planning-Commission . Sincerely, Sophia TatlyanSophia Tatlyan Assistant Planner Anaheim Planning Department │ Planning Services Division200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-5380 Fax (714) 765-5280 E-mail statlyan@anaheim.net **California’s current directive to stay at home, except for essential exceptions, is in effect until further notice. Anaheim City Hall is currently open to the public from 8am-3pm, for a select number of services. The City is following the State’s directive and will continue to provide updates regarding the full reopenings of City Hall, libraries, community centers and other places as they come available. Please be assured that Anaheim staff will continue to provide essential services to our residents and businesses. Please click here or visit https://www.anaheim net/5464/City-Hall-Services-During-Coronavirus for City Hall services in this unique time.** From: steven budnik Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 11:25 AMTo: Sophia Tatlyan <STatlyan@anaheim.net> Subject: Permit No. 2012-05650B & No. 2013-04957B Modify baseball field Servite HighSchool Ms. Sophia Tatylan, I'm a long time resident neighboring Servite High School in Anaheim. I have dealt with the school on many occasions dealing with baseballs escaping the field and damaging my property, and other's properties. When I first moved into my house 28 years ago, it wasn't that big of an issue. The field had a large fence that hugged around home plate & at the top of that fence had a small net that expanded from corner to corner down the first & third baseline. That helped cover over home plate to deflect or capture foul hit baseballs. Around five years ago they removed that small net, and that is when the issues started with base balls leaving the field started to become a frequent issue and concern. I went to Servite and had notified them off my concerns. They expressed they had been thinking about rotating the field to solve the problem. That never happened and over the next five years, I have accumulated a five gallon bucket of Servite baseballs each year and numerous damage to my property to in which they covered the expense on. Yet, they have never fixed the problem of replacing that small net at the top. I'm very thankful nobody has been injured in this time frame. My concerns now are: * This giant fence they want to put up gives no guarantee that it's going to stop these foul balls from escaping the field. * I don't believe it will be high enough to stop the balls. These foul balls escape the field and travel over my house into the street which would be approximately 250 feet from the home plate, as well as with current height and design it looks unappealing and can be seen from the street which could damage residential property values. * I'm concerned with the height of the fence and how close to the electrical lines. The electrical poles are approximately 30 feet from the new planned fence. The electrical poles are approximately 35 feet and the new fence is suppose to be 50 feet tall. If this fence should ever fall it could come in contact with the electrical lines surrounding my property. * I don't want to deal with a situation in which the fence fails due to inadequate design and considerations and Servite telling me "We put a lot of money in that fence and there is nothing else we can do." as the foul balls continue to strike my and other residents property. All the time, money, and headaches on something that all could have been avoided by just replacing the small net at the top of the existing fence that went over home plate. The real reason they don't want that small net and have gone to such great lengths in modifying this field with a giant fence is just so the catcher at home plate has a potential play on the foul ball. Resident 1929 W. catalpa ave. Steven Budnik From:Austin C. Budnik To:Sophia Tatlyan Subject:Regarding the City of Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Open Fourum Date:Monday, October 26, 2020 6:48:27 PM I am attending the meeting virtually and am frustrated as my family has repeatedly discussed the issues of the baseball nets and the net they originally had prevented foul ball plays by the catcher and this is per the faculty of the base ball team. The representative from Servite lied in my opinion as the net ran across over home plate years prior and it was removed which is when the problem escalated. I do not have this representatives name currently as I have to check my records and this is an urgent email as this meeting is on-going but he specially said that this was modified to give it a more professional ball feel and that they would pay for any damages that incurred because of this. I also raised the issue of visual concerns in my email which was unaddressed by you, the planner who received the email, which you failed to report to the commissioners and chairpersons. I am extremely upset as I understand this meeting was to be a virtual format due to covid-19 concerns but if this were represented in person I would be able to express my opinions but I was unable to communicate to any of you at all about my concerns as a resident for this project. Please contact me or my father, Steve Budnik, who has previously contacted you. Austin Budnik From:Edward Herbold To:Sophia Tatlyan Subject:Servite Date:Sunday, November 1, 2020 10:38:13 AM Shopia It appears that Servite has tried to be very Deceitful with the picture of the new baseball field netting. With 60' poles and 50' high netting I feel this will be very obtrusive to look at from my front yard. I think instead of giving Servite permission to proceed you must make them re-think this and come up with a different solution. Ed Herbold 1914 W. Catalpa Ave. September 21, 2020 Dear Neighbor: This letter is to inform you that Servite High School will be performing baseball field modifications in an effort to mitigate safety concerns we have concerning your property. We plan to install a netting system that will extend from the right field fence and continue around home plate and down left field for 180 feet. This system will involve the installation of seven 55 - 60 foot poles around the baseball facility which are used to tie back and hold the netting in place. Previously, our backstop and chain-link fencing around the field stood at approximately 30 feet and did little to protect those that surround the field; both those on campus and our surrounding neighbors. This letter is to advise you, in advance, of essential safety development work in the baseball field area for which we are in the process of obtaining approval from the City of Anaheim. The following is a quick synopsis of the improvement project’s highlights: •Addition of 55 – 60 foot poles with netting on the perimeter of the baseball field. •All work will be contained within the Servite High School baseball field facility. •Benefits include substantial increase in protection to mitigate property damage or personal injury. •West Coast Netting is our contractor for the safety netting and poles. They are the industry’s leading manufacturer of custom netting for sports, amusement, commercial and industrial applications. Their clientele includes the LA Dodgers and LA Angels. •Scheduled project start date is tentatively October 2020 •Work will commence during the hours of 7:00am – 3:00pm and will take approximately 3 weeks to complete •Servite High School is motivated in taking all measures financially possible to protect our students, faculty, spectators and neighbors from rogue balls from the baseball field. A plan of the site and simulation of netting is attached for your information. I thank you in advance for your patience as we implement our baseball field safety improvements. I am hoping you feel good about our plan but, of course, I would appreciate hearing any comments or concerns that you may have so that I may personally address them. We should be complete with our permitting process in the next couple of weeks so if you do have comments or questions, please submit them to me by September 28th . My contact information is below. Sincerely, James M. Welch CPA ‘79 Vice President of Finance & Operations Phone (714) 774-7575 x1117 Email jwelch@servitehs.org ATTACHMENT NO. 5 DATE:ISSUESHEET TITLEPROJECTAny reproduction or distribution for any prupose ot her than authorized by IBI Group is forbidden. Written dimensions shall have preced ence over scaled dimensions.Contractors shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions and conditions on the job and IBI Group shall be informed of any vari ations from the dimensions and conditions shown on the drawing. Shop drawings sha ll be submitted to IBI Group for approval before proceeding with fabrication.SCALE:CHKD' BY:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:SHEET NUMBERPRIME CONSULTANTSUB CONSULTANTSEALCLIENTCOPYRIGHT © 2009 IBI GROUPCOPYRIGHT:ISSUES A 1 BCDE 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6ABCDEibigroup.com1952 West La Palma Avenue Anaheim, California 92801 SUB CONSULTANTS:IBI GROUP 18401 Von Karman Ave. - Suite 110 Irvine CA 92612 tel 949 833 5588 fax 949 833 5511 3D CAMPUS 1 2 6668 EW 09/09/20 A1012SERVITE HIGH SCHOOL OW/TM1952 West La Palma Ave., Anaheim,CA 92801SERVITE HIGH SCHOOL NO. ISSUANCE STATUS DATE 1 1 1 2 2 A E RI A L 2 1 AE R I A L July 24, 2020 City of Anaheim Planning Department Re: Permit # BLD2020-02577 To Whom It May Concern, We are in the midst of applying for a permit (permit # referenced above) that would allow Servite High School to erect a netting system around our baseball field facility. We recently were told by the Planning Department that changes needed to be made that would decrease the height of the original netting design from 50 feet to 30 feet which, in effect, would negate the reasons for this project. Background Over the years, Servite High School has had problems with mitigating property damage and personal safety issues relating to baseball related activities. The existing chain-link fencing, which stood approximately 30 feet and extended from 1st base around to 3rd base, did very little to protect neighborhood property (i.e. automobiles, windows, roofs) from foul balls and virtually nothing to insure personal safety for those inhabiting the adjacent track and main field facilities to the East. There are many foul balls and line drives that find their way on to the track and main field that become inherently deadly because of the speed at which the baseballs travel or the height from which they fall. We consider it to be so dangerous that we do not allow main field or track activities at the same time as baseball games nor do we allow baseball batting practice when the main field or track is in use. Having to manage our facility in this way is extremely tedious and time-consuming not to mention inefficient. With this netting project, it is the school’s intent to mitigate all of the issues mentioned above and to do so with a solution that is effective and not cost prohibitive. Solution We were introduced to a company named West Coast Netting (WCN) who has done major league professional baseball stadium netting projects and has practical industry knowledge. They were made aware of the problems I outlined above and our motivations to get them corrected. After much discussion, they came back with a design that they believe would mitigate a substantial amount of risk involved with our current baseball field layout. Their suggestion was a 50-foot netting rig as outlined in the design that was in fact approved by the Engineering Department. As the experts in this industry, I whole-heartedly accept WCN’s recommendation as being valid and necessary and believe this is what we need to reduce our risk to the lowest level possible. ATTACHMENT NO. 6 Summary Our previous fence height was 30 feet and prove to be ineffective for the most part. We spend anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000 per year to repair neighborhood property and we have had a few personal injuries related to baseball related foul balls. Truth be told, we have been lucky in the personal injury area but as we all know, it only takes one-time and we will have a tragedy. Given the above, I am respectfully requesting that you approve the 50-foot high netting design so that we can actually realize the benefits of safety and reduced liability that this layout has to offer. Original 30-feet is conditioned under Resolution No PC2014-018. Section 18.46.110.030 states maximum fence height from 6feet permitted; now 8to 30 feet high. Respectfully submitted, James M. Welch CPA ‘79 Vice President of Finance & Operations FH FH FH FHFH FH KB KB F I R E L A N E EX I S T I N G BL D G EX I S T I N G BL D G EX I S T I N G BL D G EX I S T I N G BL D G EX I S T I N G BL D G EX I S T I N G BL D G EX I S T I N G CO V ER E D AR E A 30 ' - 0 " 15 ' - 1 0 7 / 8 " 84 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 4 ' - 4 3 / 8 " 2 5 0 ' - 0 " 2 5 2 ' - 0 1 / 4 " PA R K I N G AR E A B - 5 5 S P A C E S 2 S T O R Y EX I ST I N G CR B L D G 18 ' - 8 " 1 2 1 ' - 0 " 3 0 ' - 0 " 3 2 8 ' - 0 " 50 ' - 0 " F E N C E 12 ' - 0 " F E N C E S T A R T S HE R E 16 ' - 0 " F E N C E S T A R T S HE R E 20 ' - 0 " F E N C E S T A R T S HE R E 6' - 0 " H . C . L . F E N C I N G ON L Y 6' - 0 " H . C . L . F E N C I N G WI T H 6 ' H I G H C M U O N NE I G H B O R P R O P E R T Y SI D E S T A R T S H E R E 8' - 0 " H . C . L . F E N C I N G DU G O U T BU L L P E N 1 8 8 ' - 0 " PU L L B A C K P O L E LO A D P O L E S LO A D P O L E LO A D P O L E PU L L B A C K P NE T T I N G P O L E 30 0 ' - 5 1 / 8 " 4 1 ' - 2 5 / 8 " 2 1 ' - 0 " 5 6 ' - 0 " CONTROL JOINT, SEE DETAIL 2B/SP-11EXPANSION JOINT, SEE DETAIL 2A & 2C/SP-11 TOP OF CLEAN-OUT, SEE DETAIL 3/SP-11CJEJTOP OF SLOT DRAIN, SEE DETAIL 3/SP-11 TSD TCO SURGE CHAMBER ACCESS COVER, SEE DETAIL 5/SP-6 SC AHOSE BIBB, SEE DETAIL 7/SP-10 HBACCESSIBLE LIFT, SEE DETAIL 2/SP-8 AL CO LD WATER CWSLOPE DIRECTION TO DRAINSL .WATER LEVEL WLTOP OF DECK TD TO P OF FINISH FLOOR TFFINVERT ELEVATION I.E .POINT OF CONNECTION P.O .C.STORM DRAIN SDTRENCH DRAIN, SEE DETAILTR CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE LANDSCAPE PERMANENT ASPHALT PAVING PAINTED WARNING STRIPES ON ASPHALT PAVING FIRE LANE, PAINTED RED CURB ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL PAINTED PN TGALVANIZEDGVPERMEABLE CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE DECOMPOSED GRANITE - DG PAVERS TYPE I APPROX. SCOPE OF WORK PROPERTY LINEP1P2P3P4P5- I P5- II P A V E R S T Y P E I I P6 P7 FIRE HYDRANT FHFENCE STATION MARK A#AREA DRAIN, SEE CIVIL SHEETS AD CA TCH BASIN, SEE CIVIL SHEETS CB KN OX BOX KB AREAS VAN PROVIDED MIN. REQ.SPACESTABLE 11B-208.2 PARKING SPACES CALCULATION 1 0 2 50 212227 2 NOTE:344 TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PER MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY FOR: SERVITE HIGH SCHOOL.363 TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PROVIDED.DATE:ISSUESHEET TITLEPROJECTAny reproduction or distribution for any prupose other than authorized by IBI Group is forbidden. Written dimensions shall have precedence over scaled dimensions.Contractors shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions and conditions on the job and IBI Group shall be informed of any variations from the dimensions and conditions shown on the drawing. Shop drawings shall be submitted to IBI Group for approval before proceeding with fabrication.SCALE:CHKD' BY:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:SHEET NUMBERPRIME CONSULTANTSUB CONSULTANTSEALCLIENTCOPYRIGHT © 2009 IBI GROUPCOPYRIGHT:ISSUES A 1 BCDE 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6ABCDEibigroup.com1952 West La Palma Avenue Anaheim, California 92801 SUB CONSULTANTS:IBI GROUP 18401 Von Karman Ave. - Suite 110 Irvine CA 92612 tel 949 833 5588 fax 949 833 5511 As indicated CAMPUS SITE PLAN126668EW07/22/14 A1001SERVITE HIGH SCHOOL TM/OW1952 West La Palma Ave., Anaheim,CA 92801SERVITE HIGH SCHOOL A1 0 0 1 Sc a l e : 1 " = 4 0 ' - 0 " 1 00 - S i t e _ P l a n NSITE LEGEND AP P R O X . S C O P E P F W O R K NO.ISSUANCE STATUS DATE ASK REVISIONS 75 ' - 0 " PU L L B A C K P O L E LO A D P O L E ATTACHMENT NO. 7 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 A A B B C C D D 5075 Flightline Drive Kingman, AZ 86401 This structural system and details are proprietary and the exclusive product of WEST COAST Netting, Inc. No part of these drawings shall be reproduced, copied or used without the knowledge and written consent of WEST COAST NETTING, INC. Office (928) 692-1144 Fax (928) 692-1501 Toll Free: (800) 854-5741 www.westcoastnetting.com MARK DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: DATE: SCALE:SIZE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT NO.: DRAWING NO.: SHEET: 3/24/2020 Detail Servite High School 1 / 60 D ECR 2 OF 2 22'-0" 38'-0" 35'-0" 20'-0" 19'-6"17'-0" P2'-6"P2'-6" 60'-0" 55'-0" 20" .5" Wall Steel Pipe 18" .375" Wall Steel Pipe 20" .5" Wall Steel Pipe 24" .5" Wall Steel Pipe Pullback Pole X 2ea.Load Pole X 2ea. 188'-0" 121'-0" 75'-0" 30'-0" Pullback Pole, 60' Pullback Pole, 60' Load Pole, 55' Load Pole, 55' Dugout D u g o u t Netting 50' High X 480' Layout SCALE 1 / 300 Wall Detail NOT TO SCALE 5'-0" OC Hilti EyeboltCable 140'-0" 14'-6" Netting Pole X 3ea. B u l l p e n Batting Cage Netting Pole, 50' 25'-0" 25'-0" 50'-0" 16'-0" 20'-6"18'-0" 18" .5" Wall Steel Pipe 14" .375" Wall Steel Pipe P2'-6" 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 A A B B C C D D 5075 Flightline Drive Kingman, AZ 86401 This structural system and details are proprietary and the exclusive product of WEST COAST Netting, Inc. No part of these drawings shall be reproduced, copied or used without the knowledge and written consent of WEST COAST NETTING, INC. Office (928) 692-1144 Fax (928) 692-1501 Toll Free: (800) 854-5741 www.westcoastnetting.com MARK DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: DATE: SCALE:SIZE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT NO.: DRAWING NO.: SHEET: 9/14/2020 Layout Servite HS Proposed Changes 1 / 200 D ECR 1 OF 1 South East North South Side Elevation 50'-0" 55'-0"60'-0" Dugout Dugout East Side Elevation Batting Cage Bullpen 50'-0" 60'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" Canopy Net 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 A A B B C C D D 5075 Flightline Drive Kingman, AZ 86401 This structural system and details are proprietary and the exclusive product of WEST COAST Netting, Inc. No part of these drawings shall be reproduced, copied or used without the knowledge and written consent of WEST COAST NETTING, INC. Office (928) 692-1144 Fax (928) 692-1501 Toll Free: (800) 854-5741 www.westcoastnetting.com MARK DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT TITLE: SHEET TITLE: DATE: SCALE:SIZE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT NO.: DRAWING NO.: SHEET: 3/24/2020 Isomeric View Servite High School 1 / 200 D ECR 3 OF 3 F om Soph a TatlyanToMagg e Za agozaSubjectW Se vice H gh School o e tDateMonday Novembe 9 2020 9 12 45 AM Sorry I forgot to cc you - ---Original Message-----From Sophia TatlyanSent Monday No ember 9 2020 9 11 AMTo E ly Morr s <Emor is@anaheim net>Cc Da id See <DSee@anaheim net> Niki J. Wetzel <NWe zel@anaheim.net> Ted Wh te <TedWhite@anaheim net>Subject FW Ser ice High School Project Hi E lyPlease see new correspondence below for I em no.3 -Sophia Sophia Ta lyanAss stant PlannerAnahe m Planning Department │ Planning Ser ices Di ision200 South Anaheim Boule ard │ Sui e 162Anahe m CA 92805 O fice (71 ) 765-5380Fax (71 ) 765-5280E-mail statlyan@anaheim net **California’s current directi e to stay at home except for essent al exceptions s in effect until further not ce. Anaheim City Hall is currently open o the public from 8am-3pm for a select number of ser ices. The Ci y is following the State’s directi e and will continue to pro de updates egarding the fu l reopenings of Ci y Hall libraries commun ty centers and other places as they come a ailable. Please be assured hat Anaheims aff wi l cont nue to pro ide essential ser ces o our es dents and businesses. Please click here or sit ht ps /gcc02.safelinks protect on.ou look.com/?u l=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.anaheim.net%2F5 6 %2FCity-Hall-Ser ices-Du ing-Corona i us&amp data=0 %7C01%7CMZa agoza% 0anaheim net%7Cd65566982 95 7a2bc3608d88 d2ab1c%7C7 c3739c502a 9c68d212bbc30f56f22%7C1%7C0%7C637 053876 3779772%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC wL AwMDA LCJQI oiV2luMzIiLCJBTi 6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp sda a=drMLJGYr8HI8pKqENYTmzeWG cD0h%2FJwUHowYxxb1kA%3D&amp reser ed=0for City Hall ser ices in this unique time.** - ---Original Message-----From Alberto Manci laSent Sunday No ember 8 2020 10 5 PMTo Soph a Tatlyan <STatlyan@anaheim net>Cc josem8086@gmail.comSubject Ser ice H gh School Pro ect Good e ening We were wr ting to ad ise hat we are opposed o the p oposed project by Ser ite High School. We are concerned residen s that li e in the ne ghborhood ight behind Ser ite High School and we do not want them to be appro ed o complete their proposed pro ect as it would nega i ely impact all of us n this neighborhood We are located a Anaheim CA 92801. That you for your attention to this mat er and your consideration of our ote against this project. K ndest Regards Alber o & No a Mancillas Sent from my iPad ITEM NO. 3 NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Sophia Tatlyan To:Elly Morris Cc:Maggie Zaragoza; David See; Niki J. Wetzel; Ted White Subject:FW: Baseball Fence Date:Monday, November 9, 2020 9:13:12 AM Hi Elly, Please see new correspondence below for Item no.3 –Sophia Sophia Tatlyan Assistant Planner Anaheim Planning Department │ Planning Services Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-5380 Fax (714) 765-5280 E-mail statlyan@anaheim.net **California’s current directive to stay at home, except for essential exceptions, is in effect until further notice. Anaheim City Hall is currently open to the public from 8am-3pm, for a select number of services. The City isfollowing the State’s directive and will continue to provide updates regarding the full reopenings of City Hall, libraries, community centers and other places as they come available. Please be assured that Anaheim staff will continue to provide essential services to our residents and businesses. Please click here or visit https://www.anaheim.net/5464/City-Hall-Services-During-Coronavirus for City Hall services in this unique time.** From: Edward Herbold Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 5:35 PM To: Sophia Tatlyan <STatlyan@anaheim.net> Subject: Baseball Fence Shopia As a follow up on my previous e-mail, I don't understand why no one living on the South side of Catalpa Ave. was contacted by Servite High. We are the one which face the Ball Field and will have to Look at this Proposed Eye Sore for the rest of my Life. I have lived in my home for over 40 years and I am afraid of what impact this will have on our property values. Please find another solution, like moving the ball field to another location. Consider rotating the field. It appears Servite didn't put much thought into this project, Poor Planning!!! Ed Herbold 1914 W. Catalpa. From:Sophia Tatlyan To:Elly Morris Cc:David See; Maggie Zaragoza Subject:FW: Rebuttal to Steve Budnik"s Email Date:Monday, November 9, 2020 2:06:05 PM Hi Elly, Please add the correspondence below to Item no. 3, (DEV2020-00169). Thank you. Sophia Sophia Tatlyan Assistant Planner Anaheim Planning Department │ Planning Services Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-5380 Fax (714) 765-5280 E-mail statlyan@anaheim.net **California’s current directive to stay at home, except for essential exceptions, is in effect until further notice. Anaheim City Hall is currently open to the public from 8am-3pm, for a select number of services. The City isfollowing the State’s directive and will continue to provide updates regarding the full reopenings of City Hall, libraries, community centers and other places as they come available. Please be assured that Anaheim staff will continue to provide essential services to our residents and businesses. Please click here or visit https://www.anaheim.net/5464/City-Hall-Services-During-Coronavirus for City Hall services in this unique time.** From: Jim Welch <jwelch@servitehs.org> Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 12:24 PM To: Sophia Tatlyan <STatlyan@anaheim.net> Cc: Sean Brennan <sbrennan@prconstruction.net>; Cynthia Devito <cdevito@prconstruction.net> Subject: Rebuttal to Steve Budnik's Email Hi Sophia, I wanted to address of few points that Mr. Budnik outlined in his letter. First, Mr. Budnik’s facts about the chronology of netting behind home plate are incorrect. Itried to explain this to him when Robby Robertson & myself met with him in person on November 2nd but instead was met with accusations of being a liar. Therefore, I will reiteratewhat I have said in past emails and that is the cantilevered netting that was behind home platewas initially removed somewhere around 2006. The next time there was a net behind homeplate was in March of 2018. We paid approximately $6,400 to West Coast Netting for that netto be installed and it remained behind home plate until July 2020 when the old chain-linkfence was demolished. I have to further point out that even after the cantilever net wasinstalled in March 2018, Mr. Budnik allegedly sustained damage to two automobiles which werepaired in February 2020 further negating his argument that the cantilever net was “enough”to protect surrounding homes. I asked Robby Robertson, our Director of Facilities, to contactyou separately so that he too is on record and provides more corroborating evidence as to what actually is true regarding netting behind home plate. I also spoke with Jim Carter, who was theVice President of Operations from 2005 to 2018, and he too agrees with my dates. Second, in accordance with Planning Department guidance, we contacted every neighbor that has a property line adjacent to the South side of Servite High School’s campus. We wereinformed that we did not have to contact anyone else and therefore we did not. I did try and relay the requirements of Servite High School to contact neighbors to Mr. Budnik when met on November 2nd but he would not hear what I was saying and again insinuated that I was lying. It was obvious to me at that point that I was not going to heard by Mr. Budnik. Third, Mr. Budnik points out that we have already demolished the 30-foot backstop and built a3 foot retaining wall in preparation of the netting system. He is correct. The 30-foot chain-link fence and backstop poles had to come down because they were beginning to rust, decay andposed a safety hazard. The chain-link fence and metal poles were built in 1974 so you can imagine the deterioration that has taken place over that past 46 years. The backstop wascoming down no matter what the netting configuration turns out to be. As for turning the field per the original approved variance, I don’t think he realizes that he would be in more perilgiven he would be at the end of what would be the right-field line with only a 30 foot net protecting the same homes that are currently on the left-field line. It should be noted, no matterhow we configure the field, homes will be affected in some manner whether they be on Catalpa to the South or Keystone to the West. Lastly, we have been straightforward and honest in our dealings with our neighbors, the Cityof Anaheim and the Commission. It is of paramount importance to Servite High School to mitigate as much risk to all those involved as practically as we can. The PlanningCommission’s approval of our variance request will help start us on that path in providing a safer environment that surrounds our current baseball field facility. Thank you, James M. Welch CPA '79 Vice President of Finance & Operations Servite High School From:Sophia Tatlyan To:Elly Morris Cc:David See; Niki J. Wetzel; Ted White; Maggie Zaragoza Subject:FW: Servite Net Date:Saturday, November 7, 2020 9:19:28 PM Hi Elly, Please add to the correspondence for Item 3. (DEV2020-00169). -Sophia Sophia Tatlyan Assistant Planner Anaheim Planning Department │ Planning Services Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-5380 Fax (714) 765-5280 E-mail statlyan@anaheim.net **California’s current directive to stay at home, except for essential exceptions, is in effect until further notice. Anaheim City Hall is currently open to the public from 8am-3pm, for a select number of services. The City isfollowing the State’s directive and will continue to provide updates regarding the full reopenings of City Hall, libraries, community centers and other places as they come available. Please be assured that Anaheim staff will continue to provide essential services to our residents and businesses. Please click here or visit https://www.anaheim.net/5464/City-Hall-Services-During-Coronavirus for City Hall services in this unique time.** From: Mark Henson < Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 2:23 PM To: Sophia Tatlyan <STatlyan@anaheim.net> Subject: Servite Net Hello, I live at 1905 w catalpa ave, I have seen the new concept for the net and I amfundamentally against that visual atrocity Mark Henson Owner/Operator Cerberus Data & Security ITEM NO. 3 NEW CORRESPONDENCE From:Sophia Tatlyan To:Elly Morris Cc:David See; Niki J. Wetzel; Ted White; Maggie Zaragoza Subject:FW: Baseball Field Servite Date:Saturday, November 7, 2020 9:16:36 PM Hi Elly, Please add to the correspondence for Item 3. (DEV2020-00169). -Sophia Sophia Tatlyan Assistant Planner Anaheim Planning Department │ Planning Services Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-5380 Fax (714) 765-5280 E-mail statlyan@anaheim.net **California’s current directive to stay at home, except for essential exceptions, is in effect until further notice. Anaheim City Hall is currently open to the public from 8am-3pm, for a select number of services. The City isfollowing the State’s directive and will continue to provide updates regarding the full reopenings of City Hall, libraries, community centers and other places as they come available. Please be assured that Anaheim staff will continue to provide essential services to our residents and businesses. Please click here or visit https://www.anaheim.net/5464/City-Hall-Services-During-Coronavirus for City Hall services in this unique time.** From: Nickie Cerda Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 5:02 PM To: Sophia Tatlyan <STatlyan@anaheim.net> Subject: Baseball Field Servite To whom it may concern: Although I am just renting my house and it was told to me that my thoughts probably wouldn’t matter, I wanted to send an email in regards to the baseball field net that Servitehigh school is planning to construct behind the role of houses that I live in. According to thepictures and diagrams I have seen is going to be very obtrusive and quite an eyesore. Iwondered if there is a possible our alternative to this giant net? Is there a possibility ofrelocating the field to a different area? Is there a possibility of a lower net in heighth butadding a net on top? Just some thoughts that I had and hoping that we can come up with aresolution that is great for everyone and not just the Servite high school. Sincerely, Nickie Cerda Anaheim Ca ITEM NO. 3 NEW CORRESPONDENCE F om Sophia Ta lyanToE ly Mo sCcDav d See Niki J Wetzel Ted Whi e Magg e Za agozaSubjectW Baseball ieldDateSa u day Novembe 7 2020 9 17 52 M Hi E lyPlease add to he correspondence for Item 3. (DEV2020-00169).-Sophia Sophia TatlyanAssis ant PlannerAnaheim Plann ng Department │ Planning Ser ices Di ision200 Sou h Anahe m Boule ard │ Su te 162Anaheim CA 92805 Office (71 ) 765-5380Fax (71 ) 765-5280E-ma l statlyan@anaheim.net **California’s cur ent di ecti e o s ay at home except for essential excep ions is in effect until further not ce. Anaheim C ty Hall s currently open o the public from 8am 3pm for a select number of ser ices. The City s following the State’s directi e and will continue to pro ide updates regarding the full reopenings of City Hall lib ar es community centers and other places as hey come a ailable. Please be assured hatAnaheim staff wi l con inue to pro de essen ial ser ices to our residents and businesses. Please cl ck here or isit h tps //gcc02.safelinks protection.outlook.com/?url=h tps%3A%2F%2Fwww.anaheim.ne %2F5 6 %2FCi y-Hall-Ser ices-Dur ng-Corona irus&amp data=0 %7C01%7CMZaragoza% 0anaheim.net%7Cacff81f b1 7 cc063eb08d883a5a257%7C7 c3739c502a 9c68d212bbc30f56f22%7C1%7C0%7C637 0 09 708626187%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWI oiMC wL AwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBT I6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp sdata=gAtnHjlzmhEYAH rPR6j1LqdapmweXWXtBEmmwse6g0%3D&amp reser ed=0for City Hall ser ices n h s unique time.** - ---Original Message-----From Ronald BesaSent Sa urday No ember 2020 3 15 PMTo Soph a Tatlyan <STatlyan@anahe m.ne >Subject Baseball Field To whom it may concern Im the owner of house# 1939 W Ca alpa A e. Anahe m 92801. Instead of your net proposal why can’t the baseball rotate on the other side? Th s way you w ll ha e less complaints from the neighbo s regarding balls h tting the houses especially m ne. RegardsRonald Besas Sent from my iPhone From:Sophia Tatlyan To:Elly MorrisCc:Niki J. Wetzel; Ted White; David See; Maggie ZaragozaSubject:FW: Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-05650B and Variance No. 2013-04957B Correspondence UpdateDate:Saturday, November 7, 2020 9:15:57 PMAttachments:Servite Fence Neighborhood Respones and Signatures.pdf Hi Elly, Please add to the correspondence for Item 3 (DEV2020-00169) -Sophia Sophia Tatlyan Assistant Planner Anaheim Planning Department │ Planning Services Division 200 South Anaheim Boulevard │ Suite 162Anaheim, CA 92805 Office (714) 765-5380 Fax (714) 765-5280 E-mail statlyan@anaheim.net **California’s current directive to stay at home, except for essential exceptions, is in effect until further notice. Anaheim City Hall is currently open to the public from 8am-3pm, for a select number ofservices. The City is following the State’s directive and will continue to provide updates regarding the full reopenings of City Hall, libraries, community centers and other places as they come available.Please be assured that Anaheim staff will continue to provide essential services to our residents and businesses. Please click here or visit https://www.anaheim.net/5464/City-Hall-Services-During-Coronavirus for City Hall services in this unique time.** From: steven budnik Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 8:33 PM To: John Armstrong <jarmst2534@aol com>; Kimberly Keys <kimberly keys614@gmail com>; Michelle Lieberman <mlieberman92805@gmail com>; natalieameeks@gmail com; Rmulleady@aol com; dhiruhv@gmail com; Steve White <awhitste@pacbell net>; Sophia Tatlyan <STatlyan@anaheim net> Subject: Conditional Use Permit No 2012-05650B and Variance No 2013-04957B Correspondence Update Good Evening City of Anaheim Planning Commission, First and foremost, I would like to address the affidavits that were provided by Mr. James Welch, Vice President of Finance & Operations of Servite High School. When Mr. Welch came to myfamily’s door, he provided some misinformation to me. For example, he stated that the net was torn down when the fence was removed and was up for the duration of the last five years, whichcontradicts the statement in Sophia Tatlyan Staff Report on Page 4 of 7 which states that the cantilever netting was removed 12-13 years ago and that the smaller netting was added from March 2018 forward. I can argue these are wrong and have photos from their social media to prove it, but at the very least Mr. Welch is not sticking to what was in the report during the time hewas obtaining signatures. I know because it is within my backyard and I have watched the Servite games from my backyard during their latest seasons and can attest that this is in fact incorrecton Mr. Welch’s statement and leads me to fear he could have lied to or presented incorrect information to my fellow neighbors when he spoke to them for signatures of the affidavits. Secondly, I went around my neighborhood prior to Mr. Welch collecting his affidavits and talked to them showing them the example that was originally given by Servite and telling them howthe image was dimensionally inconsistent with what Servite was planning to build, as was previously a concern in the last meeting. In doing so, I found out that a large number of the neighborson my street had never heard anything from Servite. Servite only contacted the neighbors whose property line touches theirs. I fail to understand how Servite claimed to have sent certified mailand so few people were ever aware of what was happening. Servite never contacted neighbors across the street who would be looking at that fence whenever they were in their front yard forthe rest of the time they are living in their house. The city of Anaheim felt they were important and sent them notices, but they had no clue what the notice was about, and Servite disregardedthem and felt they were irrelevant in matters that would affect them and never informed them of anything. Attached are their responses and signatures in PDF format. Out of the 16 neighbors on our street impacted by the fence, 3 said they were certain they had received the initial notice from Servite. 11 said they were certain they had received the notice from the City of Anaheim days prior to the initial meeting 0 said they were in support of the fence. 15 said they were not in support of the fence. *** Any neighbors who marked N/A replied that as stating they did not care either way if it was built or could not remember if a notice was delivered. *** Below is a street view with the first four digits of the address labeled. To emphasize my previous point, the houses boxed in red were never contacted or made aware by Servite. I have marked where I am certain renters reside and am unaware if Servite contacted the true property owners in their community outreach. One of the renters I communicated with statedthat Mr. Welch did not ask for the contact information of the property owner. Personally, I find it very underhanded by Servite to not communicate to the rest of the residents across the street and this was because, according to Mr. Welch, “They don’t get balls in theiryard”, which isn’t even accurate as two neighbors directly across from my house do get baseballs in their front yard. These residents across the street will have this atrocious looking fence intheir front yard view. It impacts them, their property aesthetics, and by extension their property value. Lastly, I am frustrated as I went into my backyard and saw what Servite's baseball field currently looks like. Images are below. ITEM NO. 3 NEW CORRESPONDENCE They have already torn down the fence, which is why the image from the old fence is from google street view and not from their field, and have torn down almost everything that was originallythere and started rebuilding. I find it absolutely ridiculous that replacing their previous chain link fence with this massive net is cheaper than rotating the field when they already tore everythingdown and started new construction. The current cinder block wall is brand new and constructed recently. I partially feel Servite is adamant and underhanded in this process of getting approvalfor their new fence because they have already invested money into tearing down and redoing their field before they got city approval for their new fence. It could be easily rotated in its current state and I would not mind the 50 foot net with two 60 foot supporting pole fence Servite is proposing if they rotate the field 180 degrees and keep itaway from my property line and power lines. This would also stop residents from dealing with the noise and music played by Servite during their games and practices, but that is a much lesserconcern and hardly as intrusive as this net would be. This way residents only have to deal with a 20ft home-run fence and the odds of a baseball exceeding beyond that is minuscule comparedto the odds of the foul balls climbing over 50 feet which is easily done. Servite has already received permission to rotate the field and I do not see how rotating the field is more expensive then completely tearing down their current field and rebuilding itcompletely from the ground up. Thank you for your time and consideration,Steven Budnik naheim CA Were you notified by Servite Were you notified by the City of Are you in support ofServite Highschool? Anaheim Highschool's New Pr Yes . No Yes No Yes 1905 I X >c 1908 1911 l X �A Nk· -1914 -1917 -1920 -1923 I I X1924 I I >< 1929 -1930 l �fM-I 6 !�\ZA IN[�-1933 I �1 (t\ t\n 1936 -1939 -1942 - 1945 I I 1 I �CI I I1946 }( �� ATTACHMENT NO. 3 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net ITEM NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2020 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06069 LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard (Anaheim Indoor Marketplace) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Michael Lederer. The property owner is Lederer-Anaheim LTD. REQUEST: To consider an appeal of the Planning Director’s approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) to permit paid and unpaid parking spaces within the existing parking lot of the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1, Existing Facilities), and uphold the Planning Director’s approval of Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06069. BACKGROUND: The 14-acre site is developed with a 136,525 square foot retail shopping center named the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace (AIM) which has been operating since 1990. The property is designated by the General Plan as General Commercial and is within the “C-G” General Commercial Zone. The property is surrounded by industrial properties to the north and east, the former American Sports Center and industrial uses to the south across Cerritos Avenue, and retail uses and a mobile home park to the west across Anaheim Boulevard. The AIM is occupied with general retail, dining, automotive retail sales, automotive servicing, an indoor entertainment area including a taping studio and stage for concerts, an indoor and outdoor recreational facility with arcade recreational devices, and a recreational hockey rink and soccer field. The site contains approximately 1,170 parking spaces. Access to the site consists of two driveways, approximately thirty five feet wide, along Anaheim Boulevard and one 35-foot wide driveway along Cerritos Avenue. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06069 November 9, 2020 Page 2 of 6 A public hearing for this item was held by the Planning Commission on October 26, 2020. The Staff Report and Action Agenda from that meeting are included as Attachments 2 and 3 respectively. After receiving testimony from the applicant and appellant, the Planning Commission continued the item to the November 9, 2020 meeting to allow staff to provide more information related to public comments that were received from the community, the MCUP approval letter, how City staff processes outdoor Special Event Permits (SEP’s), and Code Enforcement violations pertaining to parking and the number of outdoor events that have occurred on the property. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests to designate 624 parking spaces of the existing 1,170 parking spaces for nonpaid and paid parking as overflow from neighboring businesses and future residents in the Avanti condominium project across Anaheim Boulevard (currently under construction). The Anaheim Municipal Code (Code) requires 546 parking spaces and 1,170 parking spaces are provided, resulting in a surplus of 624 parking spaces. The applicant is not proposing to designate a certain area of the parking lot for paid parking only; however, signs would be posted and a parking attendant would be on premises during the hours of operation to would direct patrons to either the non-paid or paid parking spaces depending on the business of the driver. A parking fee would not be collected for patrons visiting the AIM, including customers who are attending special events, but a parking fee would be collected for persons who are conducting business offsite or residents who live nearby. Site Plan CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06069 November 9, 2020 Page 3 of 6 MCUP PROCESSING AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: The application for this project was submitted on May 1, 2020. After working with the applicant to complete the application, staff duly noticed the MCUP application to all property owners within a 500 foot radius of the site, as well as to all vendors within the AIM. Staff received written correspondence from 18 community members, both AIM vendors and neighboring residents, dated from June 25, 2020 to July 6, 2020, pertaining to the subject MCUP request as provided in Attachment 9. The correspondence included concerns that areas of the AIM parking lot were being reserved specifically for the American Sports Center, that there was a lack of sufficient parking when special events were being held onsite, drive aisles and fire lanes were being blocked, and that parking spaces were being rented out at the same time as onsite special events. PRIOR CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS: Based on the community input received during the MCUP noticing period, staff researched current and prior Code Enforcement violations and coordinated with Code Enforcement staff on any open or prior cases pertaining to parking or circulation citations. Staff found that there were three prior Code Enforcement violations pertaining to renting onsite parking spaces; however, these violations were resolved, and the violations were closed. Staff did not identify any Code Enforcement violations (prior or current) which pertained to special event permit violations or onsite circulation impacts. Past violations generally pertained to the condition of the parking lot, businesses operating without business licenses, mobile vendors operating in the parking lot (i.e. food truck vendors), automobile sales in the parking lot without the proper permits, and temporary signage which did not comply with the signage requirements in the Code. APPROVAL AND APPEAL: Because there was little evidence of past parking violations at the property, the Planning Director’s designee approved the MCUP on July 6, 2020. The approval letter is included as Attachment No. 6 to this report. Staff subsequently received a letter of appeal from a community member on July 14, 2020 (Attachment 7), which fell within the 10 day appeal period. The appeal stated that if 624 parking spaces were intended for both nonpaid and paid parking, then the remaining 546 parking spaces would not be sufficient for the administrative staff, vendors and customers of the AIM. The letter of appeal identified that interior areas of the AIM had been modified and that the existing uses, such as the soccer field, banquet facility, and retail car dealer, require a higher parking demand. The letter further states that the American Sports Center, the medical center, and construction crews who are working on a neighboring hotel project have been using the AIM parking lot for overflow parking and that AIM management has been charging parking fees without a permit. In addition, the appellant also expressed concerns regarding the driveways and fire lanes being blocked and that various special events are being held throughout the year, such as carnivals, festivals, and fairs, which takeaway a certain number of parking spaces that were intended to be used for AIM vendors and customers. Because an appeal of the Planning Director’s decision was received, the item was noticed and scheduled for review by the Planning Commission as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code (Code). FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Before the Planning Commission may approve an appeal of a minor 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 this code; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06069 November 9, 2020 Page 4 of 6 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 property has a Zoning Classification of “C-G” General Commercial, and the Code permits the establishment of an “Automotive-Public Parking” lot through the processing of a MCUP. The property is developed with a 136,525 square foot retail shopping center which has multiple commercial uses consisting of retail, dining, recreational, and automotive sales and service, all of which were entitled under separate CUP’s or were permitted by right. The parking for each use was calculated separately through individual use permits in the past, but the Code currently requires a parking ratio of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for a “Large Commercial Center.” The Code requires 546 parking spaces and the AIM has 1,170 onsite parking spaces, resulting in a surplus of 624 spaces. Although the request is to designate the 624 surplus parking spaces as both nonpaid and paid parking, staff is recommending that a maximum of 604 parking spaces be designated for paid and nonpaid parking because 20 spaces are currently designated for automobile sales as permitted under a CUP that was approved by the Planning Commission in 2011. Per the operational plan provided by the applicant, the parking spaces would not be marked specifically for either paid or unpaid parking; rather, there would be parking attendants onsite who would direct the driver to a specific parking space based on the intended business of that driver. The site also contains different uses which may operate at different hours of the day which would reduce the chance that the parking lot would be filled to capacity at any one point of time. As long as the applicant adequately manages the operation of the AIM parking lot, staff does not believe that there would be any parking-related impacts pertaining to access or circulation throughout the site or any impacts to the neighboring community. The Code Enforcement Division received a complaint from a community member pertaining to renting parking spaces without the appropriate permits; however that case has been closed. Prior to the most recent violation, City records indicate that no parking-related complaints were received by Code Enforcement staff. Special Event Permits: Approval of a SEP is required for occasional onsite events including, but not limited to, carnivals, circuses, outdoor sales, or holiday season events. The Code permits four SEP’s for general outdoor events such as outdoor sales and holiday season events; however, four additional permits are allowed for circuses and carnivals on properties with an area of 12 acres or more. Because the AIM property has an area of 14 acres, a total of eight permits are allowed per year (four SEP’s and four circuses/carnivals). During the review of the SEP, the number of parking spaces required to accommodate temporary structures and parking for event patrons would be evaluated to determine whether the AIM would have adequate parking during the event, and proposed circulation routes would also be evaluated to ensure that circulation throughout the site would not be impacted. To ensure that occasional onsite events would not adversely impact CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06069 November 9, 2020 Page 5 of 6 parking for AIM vendors and customers, staff has included the following conditions of approval in the draft resolution:  A minimum of 546 parking spaces shall be provided for Anaheim Indoor Marketplace employees, vendors, and customers at all times. A surplus of 604 parking spaces may be used for paid or unpaid parking for surrounding businesses and residents.  The property owner shall obtain a Special Event Permit (SEP) for any temporary outdoor event proposed on the property. The SEP application shall specify the number of onsite parking spaces being occupied by the event (for both temporary structures and event patrons), the number of surplus spaces available for surrounding businesses and residents, and the number of parking spaces remaining for the employees, vendors, and AIM customers (which shall not be less than 546 spaces). Applicant’s Response Letter: On November 3, 2020, the applicant provided a response letter to the comments which were raised during the October 26, 2020 Planning Commission hearing (Attachment 10). The letter identifies that charging a parking fee to drivers who are not intending to visit the AIM would defray common area maintenance and security charges which would otherwise be paid by the vendors. The letter requests the flexibility of not designating areas of the parking lot for paid parking and nonpaid parking; but rather, have a parking attendant collect a fee from drivers going offsite to conduct business. The letter further states that, per Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.38,095, up to four special events are allowed per year, for a period of nine days each and, not counting special events, and up to four carnivals or circuses per year as the site exceeds 12 acres. Based on the applicant’s letter, the site has not exceeded the allowed eight events per year allowance (i.e. four special events and four carnivals or circuses). Finally, the applicant identifies that the vendors who signed the petition, which was presented during the October 26, 2020 Planning Commission, were not pressured to sign the petition document which was drafted to support the requested paid parking application. Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the effects of the proposed project are Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The proposed project is to designate 624 of the 1,170 existing parking spaces as both paid and nonpaid parking at the AIM, although staff is recommending that only 604 of the surplus parking spaces be designated for paid and nonpaid parking. The Project scope will not result in the removal or addition of parking spaces nor will the site be altered. Pursuant to Section 15300.2 (c) and 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances in respect to the proposed project for which staff would anticipate a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the request to permit both paid and unpaid parking spaces for businesses and residents surrounding the AIM property would not result in an impact on either the parking supply or circulation on the site. Based on the stated justification, staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director’s approval of Minor Conditional Use Permit 2020-06069. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06069 November 9, 2020 Page 6 of 6 Prepared by, Submitted by, Peter Lange Niki Wetzel, AICP Contract Planner Deputy Planning and Building Director Attachments: 1. Draft CUP Resolution 2. Planning Commission Staff Report – October 26, 2020 (report only) 3. Action Agenda of Planning Commission Meeting – October 26, 2020 4. Site Plan 5. Project Description 6. Minor Conditional Use Permit Approval Letter 7. Appeal Letter 8. Site Photos 9. Correspondence from the Community 10. Applicant’s Response Letter 11. MCUP Petition C-G (SABC)DEV 2020-00087ANAHEIM MARKETPLACEINDOOR SWAP MEET C-G (SABC)OFFICES I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL I (SABC)RETAIL I (SABC)OFFICES RM-3.5 (SABC)ANAHEIM BUSINESS PARK I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL I (SABC)RELIGIOUS USE I (SABC)RELIGIOUS USE I (SABC) INDUSTRIAL I (SABC) INDUSTRIAL I (SABC) INDUSTRIAL I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL C-G (SABC)RESTAURANT I (SABC) INDUSTRIAL I (SABC) INDUSTRIAL T (SABC)RETAIL T (MHP)GOLDEN SKIESMOBILE HOME PARK C-G (SABC)AUTO DEALERSHIP S A N A H E I M B L V D E CERRITOS AVE E PALAIS RD W CERRITOS AVE E E. BALL RD S . L E W I S S T W. BALL RD E. KATELLA AVE S . A N A H E I M B L V D E. CERRITOS AVE S . H A R B O R B L V D W. KATELLA AVE E. GENE AUTRY WAY S . D I S N E Y L A N D D R S .S U N K I S T S T S . C L E M E N T I N E S T 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard DEV No. 2020-00087 Subject Property APN: 082-130-16 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo:May 2019 S A N A H E I M B L V D E CERRITOS AVE E PALAIS RD W CERRITOS AVE E E. BALL RD S . L E W I S S T W. BALL RD E. KATELLA AVE S . A N A H E I M B L V D E. CERRITOS AVE S . H A R B O R B L V D W. KATELLA AVE E. GENE AUTRY WAY S . D I S N E Y L A N D D R S .S U N K I S T S T S . C L E M E N T I N E S T 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard DEV No. 2020-00087 Subject Property APN: 082-130-16 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo:May 2019 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1 -1- PC2020-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND ADOPTING MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06069 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2020-00087) (1440 SOUTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim ("Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06069 to permit paid and unpaid parking spaces within the existing parking lot of the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace (AIM) (herein referred to as the "Proposed Project") on that certain real property located at 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard in the City of Anaheim, 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 14 acres in size and is currently developed with a 133,200 square foot commercial building for an indoor retail marketplace. The Property is located in the “C-G” General Commercial Zone and is subject to the zoning and development standards described in Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) of the Code. The Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for General Commercial land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Building Director’s designee approved the Project on July 6, 2020; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2020, a letter of appeal was submitted to the Planning Department expressing concerns pertaining to the amount of onsite parking and onsite circulation issues; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 (superseding the Brown Act-related provisions of Executive Order N-25-20 issued on March 12, 2020), which allows a local legislative body to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeing to observe and to address the local legislative body; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 the Planning Commission did hold a teleconferencing public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on October 26, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. and continued to November 9, 2020; notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06069 and to investigate and make findings and recommendation in connection therewith; 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 (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; 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- PC2020-*** WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines 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 operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features. The project proposes to designate existing parking spaces as bath paid and nonpaid parking at the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace (AIM). The Project will not result in the removal or addition of parking spaces nor will the site be altered and as such, the project will not cause a significant effect on the environment pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06069, does find and determine the following: 1. The Proposed Project is an allowable use within the "C-G" Commercial Zone under subsection .010 of Section 18.08.030.010 (Uses) of Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) of the Code, subject to approval of a minor conditional use permit and the zoning and development standards of the "C-G" General Commercial Zone. 2. The Proposed Project complies with the provisions of the “C-G” General Commercial zone and Chapter 18.08.070 of the AMC and, under the conditions imposed would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is located because the number of parking spaces provided onsite would continue to support all of the commercial land uses of the commercial retail center. 3. The size and shape of the site for the Proposed Project is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety. 4. The traffic generated by the Proposed Project will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area in that the project scope does not involve any improvements which could increase traffic as the project would be to designate existing surplus parking spaces as both nonpaid and paid parking. The project would not result in any changes to the parking layout or footprint of the commercial building; therefore, no onsite parking or circulation impacts would impact the neighboring area. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim since the proposed use will not result in the removal or expansion of existing parking spaces. Therefore, the health and safety of the neighboring community will not be impacted by the Proposed Project. WHEREAS, this 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. This Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. -3- PC2020-*** NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to the above findings, this Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06069, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth 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 that portion of the Property for which Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06069 is applicable 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 any amendment, modification or revocation of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of November 9, 2020. 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 -4- PC2020-*** 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 November 9, 2020, 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 November, 2020. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM -5- PC2020-*** EXHIBIT “A” DEV NO. 2020-00087 -6- PC2020-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06069 (DEV2020-00087) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT GENERAL CONDITIONS 1 Overnight parking may be allowed for a maximum of 72 hours to provide temporary overflow parking for the neighboring businesses and residents. The paid parking shall operate in accordance with the Letter of Operation submitted as part of the application. Any changes to the operation described in the Letter of Operation shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Building Director to determine substantial conformance with said letter and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Planning Services Division 2 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. Minimum recommended lighting level in parking lots is .5 foot-candle maintained, measured at the parking surface, with a maximum to minimum ratio no greater than 15:1. Planning Services Division 3 The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the areas in 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 Services Division 4 All new and/or existing landscaping shall be installed in conformance with Chapter 18.46 “Landscape and Screening” of the Anaheim Municipal Code and shall be maintained in perpetuity. Landscaping shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. Planning Services Division 5 A minimum of 546 parking spaces shall be provided for Anaheim Indoor Marketplace employees, vendors, and customers at all times. A surplus of 604 parking spaces may be used for paid or unpaid parking for surrounding businesses and residents. Planning Services Division -7- PC2020-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT 6 The property owner shall obtain a Special Event Permit (SEP) for any temporary outdoor event proposed on the property. The SEP application shall specify the number of onsite parking spaces being occupied by the event (for both temporary structures and event patrons), the number of surplus spaces available for surrounding businesses and residents, and the number of parking spaces remaining for the employees, vendors, and AIM customers (which shall not be less than 546 spaces). Planning Services Division 7 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 Services Division 8 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 Services Division 9 The subject Property shall be developed, used and maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Services Division, and as conditioned herein. Planning Services Division 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net ITEM NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2020 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06069 LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Michael Lederer. The property owner is Lederer-Anaheim LTD. REQUEST: To consider an appeal of the Planning Director’s approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) to permit paid and unpaid parking spaces within the existing parking lot of the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1, Existing Facilities), and uphold the Planning Director’s approval of Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2020-06069. BACKGROUND: The 14-acre site is developed with a 136,525 square foot retail shopping center named the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace (AIM) which has been operating since 1990. The property is designated by the General Plan as General Commercial and is within the “C-G” General Commercial Zone. The property is surrounded by industrial properties to the north and east, the former American Sports Center and industrial uses to the south across Cerritos Avenue, and retail uses and a mobile home park to the west across Anaheim Boulevard. The AIM is occupied with general retail, dining, automotive retail sales, automotive servicing, an indoor entertainment area including a taping studio and stage for concerts, an indoor and outdoor recreational facility with arcade recreational devices, and a recreational hockey rink and soccer field. The site contains approximately 1,170 parking spaces. Access to the site consists of two driveways, approximately thirty five feet wide, along Anaheim Boulevard and one 35-foot wide driveway along Cerritos Avenue. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests to designate 624 parking spaces of the existing 1,170 parking spaces for nonpaid and paid parking as overflow from neighboring businesses and future residents in the Avanti condominium project across Anaheim Boulevard (currently under construction). The AMC requires 546 parking spaces and 1,170 parking spaces are provided, resulting in a surplus of 624 parking spaces. The applicant is not proposing to designate a certain area of the parking lot for paid parking only; however, signs would be posted and a parking attendant would be on premises ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06069 October 26, 2020 Page 2 of 4 during the hours of operation to would direct patrons to either the non paid or paid parking spaces depending on the business of the driver. A parking fee would not be collected for patrons visiting the AIM, including customers who are attending special events, but a parking fee would be collected for persons who are conducting business offsite or residents who live nearby. APPEAL: The proposed MCUP was evaluated by staff and duly noticed to property owners and tenants within a 500 foot radius of the property. At the completion of the review process, the Planning Director’s designee made the findings to approve the MCUP and issued an administrative approval letter on July 6, 2020. Staff subsequently received a letter of appeal from a community member on July 14, 2020, which fell within the 10 day appeal period. The appeal stated that if 624 parking spaces were intended for both nonpaid and paid parking, then the remaining 546 parking spaces would not be sufficient for the administrative staff, vendors and customers of the AIM. The letter of appeal identified that interior areas of the AIM had been modified and that the existing uses, such as the soccer field, banquet facility, and retail car dealer, require a higher parking demand. The letter further states that the American Sports Center, the medical center, and construction crews who are working on a neighboring hotel project have been using the AIM parking lot for overflow parking and that AIM management has been charging parking fees without a permit. In addition, the appellant also expressed concerns regarding the driveways and fire lanes being blocked and that various special events are being held throughout the year, such as carnivals, festivals, and fairs, which takeaway a certain number of parking spaces that were intended to be used for AIM vendors and customers. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06069 October 26, 2020 Page 3 of 4 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Before the Planning Commission may approve an appeal of a minor 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 this 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 property has a Zoning Classification of “C-G” General Commercial, and the Anaheim Municipal Code (Code) permits the establishment of an “Automotive-Public Parking” lot through the processing of a MCUP. The property is developed with a 136,525 square foot retail shopping center which has multiple commercial uses consisting of retail, dining, recreational, and automotive sales and service, all of which were entitled under separate Conditional Use Permits or were permitted by right. The parking for each use was calculated separately through individual use permits in the past, but the Code currently requires a parking ratio of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for a “Large Commercial Center.” The Code requires 546 parking spaces and the AIM has 1,170 onsite parking spaces, resulting in a surplus of 624 spaces. Per the operational plan provided by the applicant, the parking spaces would not be marked specifically for either paid or unpaid parking; rather, there would be parking attendants onsite who would direct the driver to a specific parking space based on the intended business of that driver. The site also contains different uses which may operate at different hours of the day which would reduce the chance that the parking lot would be filled to capacity at any one point of time. As long as the applicant adequately manages the operation of the AIM parking lot, staff does not believe that there would be any parking-related impacts pertaining to access or circulation throughout the site or any impacts to the neighboring community. The Code Enforcement Division received a complaint from a community member pertaining to renting parking spaces without the appropriate permits. Through the processing of this request, the current violation pertaining to renting parking spaces would be resolved pending the outcome of this MCUP request. Prior to this current violation, City records indicate that no parking-related complaints were received by Code Enforcement staff. Approval of a Special Event Permit is required for occasional onsite events including, but not limited to, carnivals, circuses, or holiday season events. During the review of the Special Event Permit, the number of parking spaces required to accommodate temporary structures and parking for event patrons would be evaluated to determine whether the AIM would have adequate parking during the event, and proposed circulation routes would also be evaluated to ensure that circulation CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06069 October 26, 2020 Page 4 of 4 throughout the site would not be impacted. To ensure that occasional onsite events would not adversely impact parking for AIM vendors and customers, staff has included the following conditions of approval in the draft resolution:  A minimum of 546 parking spaces shall be provided for Anaheim Indoor Marketplace employees, vendors, and customers at all times. Any surplus parking spaces (i.e., above 546 parking spaces) may be used for paid or unpaid parking for surrounding businesses and residents.  The property owner shall obtain a Special Event Permit (SEP) for any temporary outdoor event proposed on the property. The SEP application shall specify the number of onsite parking spaces being occupied by the event (for both temporary structures and event patrons), the number of surplus spaces available for surrounding businesses and residents, and the number of parking spaces remaining for the employees, vendors, and AIM customers (which shall not be less than 546 spaces). Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the effects of the proposed project are Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The proposed Project is to designate 624 of the 1,170 existing parking spaces as both paid and nonpaid parking at the AIM. The Project scope will not result in the removal or addition of parking spaces nor will the site be altered. Pursuant to Section 15300.2 (c) and 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances in respect to the proposed project for which staff would anticipate a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the request to permit both paid and unpaid parking spaces for businesses and residents surrounding the AIM property would not result in an impact on either the parking supply or circulation on the site. Based on the stated justification, staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director’s approval of Minor Conditional Use Permit 2020-06069. Prepared by, Submitted by, Peter Lange Niki Wetzel, AICP Contract Planner Deputy Planning and Building Director Attachments: 1. Draft CUP Resolution 2. Site Plan 3. Project Description 4. Letter of Appeal 5. Site Photos C-G (SABC)DEV 2020-00087ANAHEIM MARKETPLACEINDOOR SWAP MEET C-G (SABC)OFFICES I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL I (SABC)RETAIL I (SABC)OFFICES RM-3.5 (SABC)ANAHEIM BUSINESS PARK I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL I (SABC)RELIGIOUS USE I (SABC)RELIGIOUS USE I (SABC) INDUSTRIAL I (SABC) INDUSTRIAL I (SABC) INDUSTRIAL I (SABC)INDUSTRIAL C-G (SABC)RESTAURANT I (SABC) INDUSTRIAL I (SABC) INDUSTRIAL T (SABC)RETAIL T (MHP)GOLDEN SKIESMOBILE HOME PARK C-G (SABC)AUTO DEALERSHIP S A N A H E I M B L V D E CERRITOS AVE E PALAIS RD W CERRITOS AVE E E. BALL RD S . L E W I S S T W. BALL RD E. KATELLA AVE S . A N A H E I M B L V D E. CERRITOS AVE S . H A R B O R B L V D W. KATELLA AVE E. GENE AUTRY WAY S . D I S N E Y L A N D D R S .S U N K I S T S T S . C L E M E N T I N E S T 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard DEV No. 2020-00087 Subject Property APN: 082-130-16 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo:May 2019 S A N A H E I M B L V D E CERRITOS AVE E PALAIS RD W CERRITOS AVE E E. BALL RD S . L E W I S S T W. BALL RD E. KATELLA AVE S . A N A H E I M B L V D E. CERRITOS AVE S . H A R B O R B L V D W. KATELLA AVE E. GENE AUTRY WAY S . D I S N E Y L A N D D R S .S U N K I S T S T S . C L E M E N T I N E S T 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard DEV No. 2020-00087 Subject Property APN: 082-130-16 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo:May 2019 Anaheim Planning Commission Action Agenda October 26, 2020 Anaheim City Hall, Council Chambers 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Commissioners Present via Teleconferencing: Chairperson: Kimberly Keys Chairperson Pro-Tempore: John Armstrong Michelle Lieberman, Natalie Meeks, Rosa Mulleady, Dave Vadodaria, Steve White Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present via Teleconferencing: Ted White, Planning and Building Director Wayne Carvalho, Contract Planner Niki Wetzel, Deputy Planning Director Mark Dickinson, Code Enforcement Supervisor Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney Cesar Morales, Associate Engineer Susan Kim, Principal Planner Mike Eskander, Development Services Manager David See, Principal Planner Shawn Azarhoosh, Principal Engineer Irma Huitron, Principal Planner Vincent Tran, Principal Traffic Engineer Sophia Tatlyan, Assistant Planner Eleanor Morris, Secretary Peter Lange, Contract Planner Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 12:15 p.m. on Thursday, October 22, 2020, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber and in the outside display kiosk. •Call to Order – 5:00 p.m.Chairperson Keys presented the 10-day appeal rights for all public hearing items. The appeal period for the public hearing items end on Thursday, November 5, 2020. •Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Armstrong •Public Hearing Items •Commission Updates •Discussion •Adjournment ATTACHMENT NO. 3 OCTOBER 26, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA 10-26-2020 Page 2 of 4 Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06068 (DEV2020-00083) Location: 555 North Euclid Street Request: The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new 2,500 square foot coffee shop with a drive-through lane and outdoor patio. 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 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Resolution No. PC2020-043 (Lieberman / Meeks) Approved, with modification to Condition No. 20, to read as follows: The legal property owner shall voluntarily irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim, for road, public utilities and other public purposes, the right-of-way easements 9-feet along Crescent Avenue. VOTE: 7-0 Chairperson Keys and Commissioners Armstrong, Lieberman, Meeks, Mulleady, Vadodaria and White voted yes. Project Planner: Wayne Carvalho wcarvalho@anaheim.net OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: 30 minutes (5:17 to 5:47 p.m.) OCTOBER 26, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA 10-26-2020 Page 3 of 4 ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05650B VARIANCE NO. 2013-04957B (DEV2020-00169) Location: 1952 West La Palma Avenue Request: The applicant requests approval of the following land use entitlements: (i) to amend a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit to modify plans for an existing baseball field on the Servite High School campus; and (ii) to amend a previously-approved Variance to permit 50-foot high fencing and 60-foot high poles around the existing baseball field where the Transition zone allows a maximum fence height of 8 feet. 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 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Approved a motion for continuance to November 9, 2020, in order for the applicant to provide an accurate rendering of the fence as viewed from the neighbors to the south, allow the applicant to meet with the neighbors and address any visual impact concerns, consider extending the fence along the left field line, study a “roof effect” over home plate, and allow for the consultant of the fencing mpany to attend the meeting in order to address questions raised by the Planning Commission. (Meeks / White) VOTE: 7-0 Chairperson Keys and Commissioners Armstrong, Lieberman, Meeks, Mulleady, Vadodaria and White voted yes. Project Planner: Sophia Tatlyan statlyan@anaheim.net OPPOSITION: A piece of written correspondence and a phone call were received expressing concerns related to the subject request. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 10 minutes (5:48 to 6:58 p.m.) OCTOBER 26, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA 10-26-2020 Page 4 of 4 ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2020-06069 (DEV2020-00087) Location: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard Request: An appeal of the Planning Director’s approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit to permit paid and unpaid public parking spaces within the existing parking lot of the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. 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). Approved continuance of the item to November 9, 2020, as discussed during the public hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Lieberman, seconded by Commissioner Mulleady to uphold the Planning Director’s approval of the Minor CUP, and therefore deny the appeal request. THE MOTION FAILED TO CARRY VOTE: 3-4 Commissioners Lieberman, Mulleady and Vadodaria voted yes. Chairperson Keys and Commissioners Armstrong, Meeks, and White voted no. ---------------------------------------- A second motion was made by Commissioner Armstrong, seconded by Commissioner Meeks to continue the item to November 9, 2020. CONTINUANCE APPROVED VOTE: 6-1 Chairperson Keys and Commissioners Armstrong, Meeks, Mulleady, Vadodaria and White voted yes. Commissioner Lieberman voted no. Project Planner: Peter Lange PLange@anaheim.net OPPOSITION: A piece of written correspondence was received expressing opposition to the subject request. IN SUPPORT: A petition in favor of the Minor Conditional Use Permit was received with approximately 170 signatures. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 47 minutes (6:59 to 8:46 p.m.) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:50 P.M. TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2020 AT 5:00 P.M. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ' ' I''I I'''' ss·�· I' 'I''I I''I I'' I''I ' '' I''I I '' I'' I''I I '''' '' I''I I'' I' ' f I''r-b ''I ' '' ' '· -, 14'10 5. ANAHEIM BL VV EXISTING RESTAURANT ZONE 11CL11 COMMERCIAL l l EXISTING PARKING LOT NO CHANGE 160'-0" ½ f 250•-o· P ROPE RIT Y P ,lo,lelilrf LIME CA51NET5i_ !54 STALLS SI STALLS !54 STALLS SI STALLS f-- t- SI STALLS SI STALLS t- t- 51 STALLS <I& STALLS f-- t- !50 STALLS ,4'I srALl,5 t- t- <l'I STAU.S '4'1 S1AIJ,S t- t- <l'I STAU.S <l'I STAU.,5 f-- f-- <l'I STALLS jl5 STALLS :l5 STAU.S :l5 STAU.S 29 s'rAl..l'.s :l5 STAU.S _, r------7I II I ) 25• 1. a I t;il 22:1·--1· _ _,-"\ , 21 STALLS _ ... _ _._ ... .__.__ � Q;/GAj< P�li5 --'--..... _ ..... _ _, __ ._ -... -V -- -- -- ------ ---�--1 ,r I,� ,-1 � ==-p� I le5' �'\� .•• --1111aEG ---l -----tei L----------------,,1=...., ....}S'._JJ: I i --' !I I I I ,i! •. I o,J-1 !I D 1: lo,Jo,,i I IL.,-,!l''f-, � � I � -IPJ-11 I"'!!! I I NN 'I �mRE 18 ,,.,., I!1PMTS ,--�.-----,-"""'" I' i""""' 5TOla: i 1 5fGlll!Ei ; .ii 11 ,_ -� I ..... (E/ SOCCER PLAY�II I I I I I .-----, ' 2 I r=,· I 50' ili...;r 4'/00GG<R.... �., I ,.,.,,.,.,./ ,--- w z � ( I � -I \, -4'1-�E .1 ili?'hl0' '½'. I ,_ � .. w.. <>.. PRO.E;T "( "'-l14 I� 1; ½ �lJ� � �I / / / .... ' • ''"" NORTH ENTRY ....... PROPERTY INFORMATION: 14 ,... �a..._�AP.N., 401-412-22 - -LEGAL DESCRIPTION, TRACT 2"122 LOT 61 EXISTING RETAIL BUILDING 199,200 SQ. FT FULLY SPRINKLERED ENTRY � 11 / � � ....,.,, / � I ., �g � li! � ' � 2e,•i�! ... !,---I - I Pi--H-H--Siq1-11• L! - -2e' H-I � 20's-' { Iii Hi6ifl -I GRQ55-1',,....-• BM. ', itu :z -------"-� 100'� --= I I I I I JI I l I ----j� �!}-i: "' I-I -' ¥l D! ... IR I I :w I I 10 I ' i D!' 'D.. � .1''' / 50lJ'Tl! re.r RESTROOMS r �t= I LN I 11 STALLS I< STAU.S 1q STAU.S lq STAU.S 20 STAU.S CERRITOS v� ENTRY •2 v .... v .... O□ AVENUE t=! -� I---.. ENTRY II� •s � �22 ST/ILLS 22 $T,OUS 22 pT"¥-5 22 ST/ILLS 22 ,STAl,LS '' !��1! !;i:j 1 l 11- ---,----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 I I I \ 5 T E F 1- A N 1"=40'-0" !TABULATION:! AREAS: TOTAL EXISTING INDOOR BUILDING INDOOR RESTAURANT AND EATING AREA OUTDOOR EATING AREA NET AREAS: RETAIL 133,200-7,688 INDOOR & OUTDOOR RESTAURANT PARKING REQUIRED: 133,200 SQ. FT. 7,688 SQ. FT. 3,316 SQ. FT. = 125,521 SQ. FT. = 11,004 SQ. FT. = 502 STALLS = 44 STALLS 546 STALLS RETAIL: 125,521 / 1,000 x 4 RESTAURANT: 11,004/1,000 x 4 TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING PARKING PROVIDED: 1,170 STALLS BALL 1W � SITE CERRITOS ST. � VICINITY MAP REVISIONS DATE w () <( 0....I> a.....I LI)I- Ill ow ::E co� - SJ0:: w <( J: <(::E <( ()::E � �w ·w" J: Cl) J: 0:: <( O<( w z "'"z z <( "It <( 5 � WW c2 () <( <( 0....1>Cl a. --' LO z 1- I l l o-w '<:: coI-,� "" N<( .... - a, w 0:: w <( Cl) <( J: " ::E <( '-' 1-() w -, 0:: ::E z � 0 -<( -Ow ·w0 J: Cl) J: I-<( O<( :::J z "It z 0 <( � <( a. �,,,,� .,jj1•!�'E.O ARc.":--� .. .. ,,,,�,�,.,,,,,,,"4,�'7_1,-,;::-:;.. . ,�1• r".'. 8-........ ,-.�-:. ... .t'':l'' 0�€:""---;..�.,;;. fl "o<?' -x�.,,_ 1 � ,,,; -� ·� �...., ,:, -1 I,:: �(!) ,ol � !*i No. C 16997 �i*�. I� '%_ i � � � I ,:-" .,._ .,,-.. .,, � �:c-· Q .... �. ... � o,... �<,S).-:-1:.·· 09-30-'t,,�,,-l �'l' � <( z I w co w (9 0::: 0 w (9 1,, -:.-;,.t r;,,,,,,,,,,,,11,,1fCJl':'i,, 1'' �.::-•, .. ,,, OF' CA\.\ ,,,, 6� IO ,,,,,,,,,11,111111 ':,, \ lfir11our -.iE-1 ��WI <t (!)II-LL 'z f-w�0 ID W1-"t::>-W CX) ::'2:Ulllz!:::: M =iw....J<C :r:: � l:::�<C>-� I-0) C'\J (J)U�IT'<( 0 r,,... Z o:::(..') .,...-LO -<CQ'.'z� u ;:j;:1:0;;- � O QI-Wl'--r:: QJ -��UJ Q. CX)N - " : (I) I-1--c 0 ~ x-z -,r U...O)<( �QLLOrfLL I-Q<(LL @�0 1--=iz Io Eu □o_o I- _ Cl lL�Wo:::U) -W<( iU Ct:0oo;.2{!)-<J.)WW[Y :5 I Z I-coc_o_l-Z o::: Z (..') (J)Q VJ Cw �w O:::w�o_ I'\ ••(.')o_O::'.U ..., Ust_,,. =oz0 <( CO ·o >-�w cw "-'"' EZ-a:ic1-_,. w C\I <((/) o::t:: LL a. I I c....::::i o_a::: 0 C\J W :::'2:....J....J LL � <( LO I'-O�::ia::: ...... LO uw:r:: >-...... -U (/J LL-rn """ <Cw lfl1-� oIZ:::::J o_ •-z I-0 LL W ...__..-a:::u <Cw';;: X (IJ��Qw " � � z -ma:::o -W::::,<(W 3:u o__o__L_ -<( 5 LL Q;l �Ct'.OCl::::r:: wzo..0 w lfl<CI, Ct'. Ullflwa:::O..I, I lfl LL 2=2::::J3:� PROJECT NO: 110:302 CAD DWG FILE: G,I DRAWN BY: 6'B CHECKED BY: G,B DRAWING SCALE: 05-l"l-lB SHEET TITLE: SITE PLAN SHEET SP 1 OF 2 EXCESS PARKING : 642 STALLS ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Anaheim Indoor Marketplace – Public Parking Lot Letter of Request BACKGROUND The Anaheim Indoor Marketplace (Marketplace), located at 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd, opened in 1990 and has grown to become Orange County’s largest indoor swap meet. The 136,525 sq. ft. facility is home to over 200 specialty shops ranging from electronics to jewelry. The Marketplace also offers restaurants, dance classes, arena soccer, and special events in a family-friendly environment. The commercial shopping center provides a surplus of parking with 1,170 parking spaces available to their tenants and customers. As a member of the Anaheim community, the property owner has offered the Marketplace parking lot for various City and charitable uses, including, but not limited to: 1.Parking for City of Anaheim street and intersection widening projects, including a request from the City to allow Turner Construction to utilize 400 of the excess available parking spaces for several months. 2.Staging for an Anaheim Police Department homeless outreach event. 3.Permitting the Orange County Transit Authority vehicles to park on the lot during wait times. 4.Permitting food banks to stage weekly food distribution to low-income families. Over the last few years, the property owner has seen an increase in use of the Marketplace parking lot by visitors of adjacent businesses and on-going events. As this unauthorized parking use has continued to grow, the property owner sought to ensure ample and easily accessible parking for his Marketplace tenants and patrons, while also recognizing an opportunity to provide a needed service to the adjacent businesses that have limited or inconveniently located parking. As such, the property owner began charging non-customers a fee to utilize the excess parking spaces. This allows the property owner to dictate the location of overflow parking, as well as monitor parking lot use to ensure his tenants and customers have available and convenient parking. Parking demand by non-Marketplace customers is expected to increase as the nearby residential and hotel projects near completion. Currently, construction workers for these projects park without authorization on the Marketplace parking lot. Existing Operations Marketplace Hours: Wednesday - Monday: Open 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Tuesday: Closed ATTACHMENT NO. 5 P a g e | 2 2400 E. Katella, Suite 800|Anaheim|CA|www.sagecrestplanning.com Security: The Marketplace has a modern surveillance system, which includes over 100 video cameras. In addition, six (6) security guards patrol the interior and exterior of the facility, including the parking lot. PROJECT REQUEST The property owner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the conversion of the excess parking available at his commercial shopping center for use as a public parking lot. The existing 136,525 sq. ft. commercial shopping center currently provides 1,170 parking spaces, while the Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) only requires 546 parking spaces for the mix of commercial uses located at the site, resulting in an excess of 624 parking spaces. Proposed Public Parking Lot Operations In order to manage the parking supply as a result of non-customers utilizing the Marketplace parking lot, and to offer what is clearly a much needed service to surrounding businesses and community, the applicant proposes to charge a fee for parking at the commercial shopping center. Patrons of the Marketplace will continue to park free of charge, but the 624 excess parking spaces will be made available to paid parking. This will provide much desired nearby parking for the various surrounding uses while allowing the property owner to ensure ample parking for his tenants and customers. The Marketplace anticipates that most parking patrons will utilize the lot for daytime parking only, such as visitors to the nearby sports center. However, overnight parking would be permitted for up to 72 hours. An overnight parking pass must be purchased in advance and posted on the vehicle’s dashboard. Vehicles parking overnight would need to vacate the premises by 10 AM the day their pass expires. For example, a vehicle that purchases a three-night pass would arrive on Friday and vacate the premises by 10 AM Monday. Signage will be posted to identify the areas available for public parking and a parking fee will be collected by an attendant. Security guards will patrol the parking lot. The parking revenue will allow the owner to offset the immense security expense already incurred by the need to place additional guards on the lot to protect the spaces from being occupied by unauthorized persons. PARKING ANALYSIS The AMC requires large commercial retail centers to provide 4 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area (AMC Chapter 18.42.040, Table 42-A). Restaurant uses within retails centers are also parked at four (4) parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area so long as 40% or less of the gross floor area is devoted to restaurant uses. In total, the Marketplace has 136,525 sq. ft. of gross floor area, which includes 133,200 sq. ft. of interior space. Restaurant uses range from grab-and-go snack vendors to sit-down restaurants and occupy 11,004 sq. ft. (or 8% of gross floor P a g e | 3 2400 E. Katella, Suite 800|Anaheim|CA|www.sagecrestplanning.com area) within the Marketplace, far less than the 40% threshold. Therefore, the ratio of four (4) parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. is applicable to the shopping center in determining the parking requirement. Using this metric, it was determined that the commercial shopping center requires 546 parking spaces and the commercial shopping center provides 1,170 parking spaces, resulting in an excess of 624 parking spaces. Type of Use Size Code Requirement Required Parking Retail Uses 125,521 sq. ft. 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area 502 parking spaces Restaurant Uses 11,004 sq. ft. (8% of GFA) 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. (less than 40% of gross floor area) 44 parking spaces Total Required 546 parking spaces Total Provided 1,170 parking spaces Total Excess 624 excess parking spaces City of Anaheim PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net July 6, 2020 via email at lreimer@sagecrestplanning.com Laurel Reimer, AICP Sage Crest Planning 2400 E. Katella Avenue, Suite 800 Anaheim CA 92806 Re: MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP2020-06069 (DEV2020- 00087) 1440 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim CA Dear Ms. Reimer, I am pleased to inform you that Minor Conditional Use Permit No. CUP2020-06069 (DEV2020-00087) to designate 624 parking spaces from non-paid to paid parking located at 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard is hereby approved. The project was found to be consistent with the requirements outlined in Chapter 18.66 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) and will be subject to the conditions and restrictions set forth in this letter. If there are elements of this approval that you are concerned about, please contact me as soon as possible. This decision will become final unless, pursuant to Chapter 18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC), a timely appeal is filed with the Planning Department by the end of business day on July 16, 2020. I will contact you in the event this decision is appealed by a concerned person. Peter Lange, Contract Planner, will continue to be your project manager for any questions you may have during the remainder of the process. Please feel free to contact him at (714) 765-4671 or plange@anaheim.net if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, David See Principal Planner c: Lederer-Anaheim LTD ATTACHMENT NO. 6 Minor Conditional Use Permit CUP2020-06069 (DEV2020-00087) July 6, 2020 Page 2 of 6 FINDINGS The Planning Director has made the Code required findings as listed and explained below: 1. The proposed use is properly one of which a minor conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code. The Anaheim Marketplace (Project site) has a Zoning Classification of General Commercial (C-G) and the AMC permits the establishment of an automotive-public parking lot through the processing of a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP). The Project site (Anaheim Marketplace) is a 136,525 square foot shopping center which contains both retail (125,521 square feet) and restaurants (11,004 square feet) uses and is subject to the following parking requirements:  Large commercial retail center parking category which requires four (4) spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area of a retail center; and,  Restaurants within retail centers with 40 percent or less of gross floor area devoted to restaurant use which requires four (4) spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Per the parking requirements outlined above, the 125,521 square foot retail component of the Anaheim Marketplace is required 502 parking spaces and the 11,004 square foot restaurant component is required 44 parking spaces and in result, 546 parking spaces is required and 1,170 parking spaces are provided on-site. The applicant proposes to designate 624 of the existing 1,170 parking spaces from unpaid to paid parking spaces to provide overflow parking for the neighboring businesses which may have a limited number of on-site parking spaces. The applicant is not proposing to designate a certain area of the parking for paid parking only; however, signs will be posted and a parking attendant will be on premises during the hours of operation for the Anaheim Marketplace and will direct patrons to either the non-paid or paid parking spaces depending on the business of the driver. The proposed request will not conflict with the provisions outlined in the Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC) as the site contains an existing surplus of parking spaces and the establishment of a parking lot is permitted through the processing of a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP). 2. 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. The proposed Project will not impact adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area. Specifically, the applicant proposes to designate 624 existing parking spaces within the Anaheim Marketplace from nonpaid to paid parking spaces to provide additional parking for the neighboring businesses. The scope of work will not result in any Minor Conditional Use Permit CUP2020-06069 (DEV2020-00087) July 6, 2020 Page 3 of 6 alterations to the existing parking layout and signs and parking attendants will be on-site to direct drivers to either the nonpaid parking spaces (for patrons of the Anaheim Marketplace) or to the paid parking spaces (for persons who will conduct business off- site). 3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety. The Project proposes to designate 624 of the of the 1,170 parking spaces of the Anaheim Marketplace from nonpaid to paid parking spaces to provide additional overflow parking for the neighboring businesses. The layout and footprint of the Anaheim Marketplace will not be altered as part of the Project scope and in result, the proposed Project will not be detrimental to the surrounding area or health and safety of the surrounding area as no construction is proposed. 4. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. Traffic surrounding the Anaheim Marketplace will not increase due to the approval of the requested MCUP. The footprint of the Anaheim Marketplace will not increase as part of the Project scope; therefore, the Project will not result in a significant increase in traffic that would otherwise impact the neighboring streets and highways. 5. 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 granting of MCUP No. 2020-06069 under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. The applicant proposes to designate 624 of the 1,170 parking spaces of the Anaheim Marketplace as paid parking. The Project will not result in interior or exterior improvements to the existing buildings and structures of the site. The application request, as proposed, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the neighboring community. Minor Conditional Use Permit CUP2020-06069 (DEV2020-00087) July 6, 2020 Page 4 of 6 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL This MCUP 2020-06069 (DEV2020-00087), for the property located at 1440 S. Anaheim Boulevard, s subject to the following conditions: GENERAL No. Conditions of Approval Responsible for Monitoring 1 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 Services Division 2 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 Services Division 3 The subject Property shall be developed, used and maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Services Division, and as conditioned herein. Planning Services Division 4 Overnight parking may be allowed for a maximum of 72 hours to provide temporary overflow parking for the neighboring businesses and residents. The paid parking shall operate in accordance with the Letter of Operation submitted as part of the application. Any changes to the operation described in the Letter of Operation shall be subject to review and approval by Planning Services Division Minor Conditional Use Permit CUP2020-06069 (DEV2020-00087) July 6, 2020 Page 5 of 6 the Planning and Building Director to determine substantial conformance with said letter and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Minor Conditional Use Permit CUP2020-06069 (DEV2020-00087) July 6, 2020 Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 Kitchen/Restaurant Ordering Area and Indoor Seating Additional Indoor Seating ATTACHMENT NO. 8 Typical Store Typical Store Outdoor Area (Tented and Gated) Outdoor Area (Facing Building) Soccer Fields (Adjacent to Patio) Parking Lot (Facing AIM) Parking Lot (Facing Adjacent Property to the West) Adjacent Property (Facing Northwest) Adjacent Property (Facing North) Adjacent Property (Facing East) Adjacent Property (Facing South) Adjacent Property (Facing South) Adjacent Property (Facing Southwest) Adjacent Property (Facing West) Adjacent Property (Facing West) Adjacent Property (Facing West) 1 Peter Lange From:Peter Lange Sent:Monday, July 06, 2020 10:49 AM To:Laurel Reimer Subject:FW: Anaheim Market Place -----Original Message----- From: Peter Lange Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 10:41 AM To: sherida Arias Baluja Subject: RE: Anaheim Market Place Hi Sherida, Thank you for your comment regarding the Anaheim Marketplace MCUP. To clarify the intent of the application, the applicant proposes to designate 624 of the 1,170 existing parking spaces from nonpaid to paid parking to provide parking overflow parking for the neighboring businesses. A parking fee will only be charged for someone who parks at the site and will be conducting business offsite. If someone is conducting business at the AIM, then a parking fee will not be charged and they will have access to any of the existing 1,170 existing parking spaces. Based on the parking requirements outlined in the Anaheim Municipal Code, the applicant is required to provide 546 parking spaces and the site is providing 1,170 parking spaces. From a required parking perspective, the applicant is meeting the City’s parking requirement. Hopefully this makes sense. Please let me know if you require further clarification. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: sherida Arias Baluja Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2020 5:05 PM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: Anaheim Market Place Hi Peter Lange, I received the letter for “Notice of application Minor conditional use permit to permit paid public parking spaces within the existing parking lot of Anaheim Indoor Marketplace located at 1440 S Anaheim Boulevard”. Prior to COVID-19 management has been reserving a large portion of parking for the sports center located across the street, for which it has been charging $15- $30 per vehicle. This has often caused many of our customers to complain they find it hard to come shop with us due to them not being able to find parking space. We are kindly and respectfully asking that we be taken into account as this would affect about 200 small businesses that are currently struggling to survive through COVID-19. We want to comment that us vendors are not in agreement to permit paid public parking spaces. We are approximately 200 small business owners and parking is just enough for our customers who come in to shop with us. We hope you ATTACHMENT NO. 9 2 take us into account and that if management gets approval to charge for parking this would only further negatively affect all the small business owners. Thank you, Sherida’s Closet H-22 1 Peter Lange From:Wendy Bocardo Sent:Monday, July 06, 2020 3:37 PM To:Peter Lange Subject:Re: Minor Conditional permit 1440 S. Anaheim Good afternoon, I am a vendor at the indoor swapmeet. I wanted to give my input on this project. I do not agree with this project , I believe this will affect us vendors and our customers. There are times when there is not enough parking for everyone and customers say they get frustrated and leave. This affects everyone’s business. 1 Peter Lange From:Peter Lange Sent:Monday, July 06, 2020 10:48 AM To:Laurel Reimer Subject:FW: Comment on Minor Conditional Use Permit (DEV2020-0087) From: Peter Lange Sent: Monday, July 06, 2020 10:34 AM To: Hui-Min Chang Subject: RE: Comment on Minor Conditional Use Permit (DEV2020-0087) Thank you for your comment regarding the Anaheim Marketplace MCUP. To clarify the intent of the application, the applicant proposes to designate 624 of the 1,170 existing parking spaces from nonpaid to paid parking to provide parking overflow parking for the neighboring businesses. A parking fee will only be charged for someone who parks at the site and will be conducting business offsite. If someone is conducting business at the AIM, then a parking fee will not be charged and they will have access to any of the existing 1,170 existing parking spaces. Based on the parking requirements outlined in the Anaheim Municipal Code, the applicant is required to provide 546 parking spaces and the site is providing 1,170 parking spaces. From a required parking perspective, the applicant is meeting the City’s parking requirement. The Project will not add or take away any existing parking spaces. Hopefully this makes sense. Please let me know if you require further clarification. Thanks. From: Hui-Min Chang Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2020 9:23 PM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: Comment on Minor Conditional Use Permit (DEV2020-0087) Dear Mr. Peter Lange, I am opposed to granting a minor conditional use permit to the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace (File No. DEV2020-00087/CUP2020-06065). As a vendor and tenant of the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace, granting this permit would severely and negatively impact my business. For many years, the indoor marketplace has been renting public parking spaces to the nearby sports center on Saturdays and Sundays. This has caused a decrease in the number of customers. I consistently receive customer complaints about a lack of weekend parking in the plaza (when the parking lot is rented out). For the 200+ tenants of the marketplace that pay rent, this is extremely unfair. Our rental contract implies implicitly that the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace will be provide parking to be available to Marketplace customers- NOT a neighboring sports center. Please take our small businesses into account and deny the minor conditional use permit. 2 Sincerely, Am e es - - -7 7 4) - 1 Peter Lange From:Siraj Chariwala Sent:Monday, July 06, 2020 1:34 PM To:Peter Lange Subject:Re: Public Parking Space Hi sir I just spoke with Mr Michel and he explain Me so I m agree with him.Sorry to miss understood. Thanks Siraj Chariwala Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Monday, July 6, 2020, 12:02 PM, Siraj Chariwala wrote: Hi sir Thanks for ur answer.but this parking problem always in weekend and they sold before market place open and there is no control how many place they sale So I hope they don’t sale more then you approve Than you Siraj Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Monday, July 6, 2020, 10:35 AM, Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> wrote: Thank you for your comment regarding the Anaheim Marketplace MCUP. To clarify the intent of the application, the applicant proposes to designate 624 of the 1,170 existing parking spaces from nonpaid to paid parking to provide parking overflow parking for the neighboring businesses. A parking fee will only be charged for someone who parks at the site and will be conducting business offsite. If someone is conducting business at the AIM, then a parking fee will not be charged and they will have access to any of the existing 1,170 existing parking spaces. Based on the parking requirements outlined in the Anaheim Municipal Code, the applicant is required to provide 546 parking spaces and the site is providing 1,170 parking spaces. From a required parking perspective, the applicant is meeting the City’s parking requirement. The Project will not add or take away any existing parking spaces. Hopefully this makes sense. Please let me know if you require further clarification. 2 Thanks. From: Siraj Chariwala Sent: Friday, July 03, 2020 9:42 PM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: Public Parking Space Hi Mr. Lange, I received the letter of "Notice of application minor conditional use permit to permit paid parking spaces within the existing parking lot of Anaheim Indoor Marketplace located at 1440 S Anaheim Boulevard. Management has been reserving a large portion of parking for the sports center located across the street. This has often caused many of our customers to complain they find it hard to come shop with us due to them not being able to find parking space. We are kindly and respectfully asking that we are taken into account as this would affect about 200 small businesses that are currently struggling to survive through COVID-19. We want to comment that us vendors are not in agreement to permit paid public parking spaces. We are approximately 200 small business owners and parking is just enough for our customers who come in to shop with us. We hope you take us into account and that if management gets approval to charge for parking this would only further negatively affect all the small business owners. Thank You Siraj Chariwala 1 Peter Lange From:Peter Lange Sent:Monday, July 06, 2020 10:49 AM To:Laurel Reimer Subject:FW: notice of application -----Original Message----- From: Peter Lange Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 12:31 PM To: ? john Subject: RE: notice of application Hi John, Thank you for your comment regarding the Anaheim Marketplace MCUP. To clarify the intent of the application, the applicant proposes to designate 624 of the 1,170 existing parking spaces from nonpaid to paid parking to provide parking overflow parking for the neighboring businesses. A parking fee will only be charged for someone who parks at the site and will be conducting business offsite. If someone is conducting business at the AIM, then a parking fee will not be charged and they will have access to any of the existing 1,170 existing parking spaces. Based on the parking requirements outlined in the Anaheim Municipal Code, the applicant is required to provide 546 parking spaces and the site is providing 1,170 parking spaces. From a required parking perspective, the applicant is meeting the City’s parking requirement. Hopefully this makes sense. Please let me know if you require further clarification. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: ? john Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 12:18 PM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: notice of application hi Mr peter lange. my name is john chung, have business at anaheim marketplace (1440s anaheim bl #A-1) sorry for my poor english i got notice about parkinglot open to public.all our vendors worry that losing parking space. more than 200 spaces business need prople parking space for vendors and there employee and customers but owner does not care us. marketplace sells parking lot to sports center and college students already. 2 several times a year carnival,circus .... we need parkinglot,we do not want share to public,we pay a lots of rent fee. please do not allow it. thanks. 1 Peter Lange From:? john Sent:Monday, July 06, 2020 4:30 PM To:Peter Lange peter plange i met owner of marketplace and i undstood,forget about what i sad. 1 Peter Lange From:Randal Cormier Sent:Thursday, June 25, 2020 1:51 PM To:Peter Lange Subject:Permit file DEV2020-00087/CUP2020-06065 Dear Peter Lange, I’m a resident across the street from the Market Place. I have one problem with parking at the Market Place, on Anaheim Blvd. going North I enter the left hand turn lane to turn on Midway Drive. On occasion traffic going into the Market place (traveling South on Anaheim Blvd.) will back up into the left hand turn lane causing very dangerous traffic. One solution is to put a Small left hand turn island on Anaheim Blvd. Other solutions would be to change the entrance to the Market place, or something to prevent more traffic caused by making this a Paid parking Lot. Attached is a photo and a diagram of how traffic is building up on that street. 2 Sent from my Randal G. Cormier 1 Peter Lange From:D J Sent:Monday, July 06, 2020 6:25 PM To:Peter Lange Subject:Re: re Minor Conditional Use Permit Notice (File No. DEV2020-00087/CUP2020-06065) Mr. Lange, Thank you for that additional information, I appreciate it. I would like to submit a comment though I do understand that I am past the deadline. As a small business owner at Anaheim Marketplace for over ten years, I have seen first hand how the building owners profit at the business owners' expense. There have been countless times when customers at my store run quickly into my store, grab a single item, purchase it, and leave. While this may not seem like an important issue, the fact that they cannot look around the store means that my store's potential for good business is diminished, and I know that my store is not alone in dealing with this issue. The problem is that the building managers rent out more than half of the parking space, leaving very little parking space for customers, especially when you consider that there are hundreds of business owners and employees that need to park next to the building as well. As an alternative, a profit-sharing model would be one that is more equitable and helps address the direct and negative impact this has on the business owners at Anaheim Marketplace. Thank you for your consideration, I appreciate it. -DJ On Tuesday, June 30, 2020, 04:39:45 PM EDT, Peter Lange <plange@anaheim.net> wrote: Hi DJ, The application that you received a notice for is regarding the conversion of existing parking spaces from non- paid to paid parking at the Anaheim Marketplace. The marketplace has 1,170 parking spaces and the applicant proposes to designate 624 of the parking spaces as paid parking. The intent of designating a certain portion of the existing parking as paid parking would be neighboring businesses tend to use the property for overflow parking for their own businesses. Per the applicant’s proposal, a fee will only be charged to the driver if they are conducting business offsite and if they are conducting business at the Anaheim Marketplace, then no fee will be charged to park. Please let me know if you require further clarification. 2 Thanks. From: D J Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 7:29 PM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: re Minor Conditional Use Permit Notice (File No. DEV2020-00087/CUP2020-06065) Good evening Mr. Lange, I am requesting more information on the subject-titled permit notice and the project itself. I received notice of this permit but the notice does not contain any information about what the project is. Please forward information about this permit and project to me through this email address. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to reach out. Thank you very much for your time. -DJ 1 Peter Lange From:Olga Gutierrez Sent:Sunday, July 05, 2020 5:14 PM To:Peter Lange Subject:Proyect for public parking We do not agree with this proyect, since we have been paying rent for over 20 years. Doing business as G & A AUTO ACCESSORIES Suite B-00 and ever since they starting selling the parking spaces, we have lost many customers and our business has suffer a significant loss. 1 Peter Lange From:Peter Lange Sent:Monday, July 06, 2020 10:49 AM To:Laurel Reimer Subject:FW: From: Peter Lange Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 10:34 AM To: Keren Hernandez Subject: RE: Hi Keren, Thank you for your comment regarding the Anaheim Marketplace MCUP. To clarify the intent of the application, the applicant proposes to designate 624 of the 1,170 existing parking spaces from nonpaid to paid parking to provide parking overflow parking for the neighboring businesses. A parking fee will only be charged for someone who parks at the site and will be conducting business offsite. If someone is conducting business at the AIM, then a parking fee will not be charged and they will have access to any of the existing 1,170 existing parking spaces. Based on the parking requirements outlined in the Anaheim Municipal Code, the applicant is required to provide 546 parking spaces and the site is providing 1,170 parking spaces. From a required parking perspective, the applicant is meeting the City’s parking requirement. Hopefully this makes sense. Please let me know if you require further clarification. Thanks. Peter Lange Contract Planner Planning and Building Department Planning Services City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Phone (714) 765-4671 Email plange@anaheim.net From: Keren Hernandez Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 9:15 AM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: Good morning Mr. Peter Lange I read the notice of application for paid public parking within the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. I am a vendor at the location and I am not in agreement with this project as the parking space is already limited to over 200 vendors not including customers. The owners of the Market Place not only rent spaces to the hundreds of 2 vendors but are now trying to profit off of parking space that should be reserved for customers! The amount of parking space that will be left if this permit is passed will not be enough. This project will greatly effect more than 200 vendors sales and livelihood. I ask you to please seriously take this into consideration and not approve this application. Thank you for your understanding. 1 Peter Lange From:Peter Lange Sent:Monday, July 06, 2020 10:50 AM To:Laurel Reimer Subject:FW: file no.: DEV 2020-00087 From: Peter Lange Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2020 3:27 PM To: ghhwang113 Subject: RE: file no.: DEV 2020-00087 Hello, To clarify the intent of the Project scope, the applicant proposes to designate 624 of the existing 1,170 parking spaces from nonpaid to paid parking. If you are conducting business within the Anaheim Marketplace, then you will not be charged a fee to park. The incorporation of paid parking spaces will be for surrounding businesses to utilize the parking lot in the off chance that the parking lot is full. The number of parking spaces will not change and patrons of the Anaheim Marketplace will have access to the existing parking spaces without being charged a fee. Thanks. Peter Lange Contract Planner Planning and Building Department Planning Services City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Phone (714) 765-4671 Email plange@anaheim.net I just realized I did not address the second public comment in my reply. The Anaheim Indoor Marketplace owner’s primary reason for offering the excess parking as paid parking is to help protect the existing vendors. AIM has had issues with non-patrons parking on site. Having parking staff present helps to prevent the lot from being overrun by patrons of surrounding businesses, and charging for parking pays for the cost of the parking staff. Charging for parking also deters non-patrons from using the AIM lot unless they really need to. There have been times when surrounding businesses do need extra parking, and AIM is happy to provide that as long as they have control over where and how those non- patrons utilize their lot. From: ghhwang113 Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 11:56 AM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: Re: file no.: DEV 2020-00087 2 I am store owner of Anaheim swapmeet. I'm absolutely against it for the following. 1) Through the use of parking lots for the surrounding buildings, existing customers cannot park in the swapmeet parking lot. 2)Because of excessive parking fees, Customers don't like to use parking lots. As a result, the business of merchants are greatly affected. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note8, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone 1 Peter Lange From:ghhwang113 Sent:Monday, July 06, 2020 2:42 PM To:Peter Lange Subject:RE file No:DEV 2020 - 00087 Thank you for your reply and fully understand. I got enough explanation from Anaheim swapmeet about this project. So, I decided to support this project. From now on, I will work together on everything. Thank you again. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note8, an AT&T 5G Evolution capable smartphone 1 Peter Lange From:woo k Sent:Monday, July 06, 2020 3:55 PM To:Peter Lange Subject:Regarding Minor Conditional Use Permit of Anaheim Indoor Market Place Dear Peter Lange, My name is Mike H, I am one of the store owners located inside the Anaheim Indoor Market Place. I have been running my business for last 25 years. Over the last 3 years, our business has been damaged by crowded parking during weekends. This is due to our landlord renting out the parking space to nearby sports complex (American Sports Centers). Every Saturdays and Sundays we would get users of the sports complex taking almost 50% of the parking space. This severely impairs normal customers of Anaheim marketplace to park and exist the area. Also it creates a dangerous traffic jam inside the parking area that sometimes it takes 15 to 20 minutes to get out of the parking area. This situation impacts over 100 plus small store owners that is located inside the Anaheim Market Place. Every weekends you will see entry and exit lanes completely filled with jammed cars unable to move. This is a major safety concern if emergency or police vehicles can not enter or exit the parking lot in a timely fashion. Currently due to Covid19 the traffic is very low for our customers and also for Sports complex but if you allow conditional use in the future you will compound the unsafe situation that we had for last 3 years. Please do not allow the conditional use of parking space. Please help our 100 plus small business owners to overcome this difficult time and regain our normal business activity. Our revenue has drastically went down after American Sports Centers started using the parking space. If you have any questions or need to take a survey from other store owners please feel free to email me, thank you. Sincerely Mike H Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 Peter Lange From:Peter Lange Sent:Monday, July 06, 2020 10:48 AM To:Laurel Reimer Subject:FW: Dev2020-00087/cup2020-06065 From: Peter Lange Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 4:28 PM To: Little Sunshines Boutique Subject: RE: Dev2020-00087/cup2020-06065 The decision on the MCUP isn’t final or approved. After the public comment period concludes on July 6, 2020, then the Planning Director will make a final determination on whether to grant the requested MCUP. Unless an appeal is filed within ten (10) calendar days from the date of the Planning Director’s decision. From: Little Sunshines Boutique Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 2:53 PM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: Re: Dev2020-00087/cup2020-06065 Yes, it does but why sent out a letter asking if we have any comments if the decision where made already On Thu, Jul 2, 2020, 2:50 PM Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> wrote: That’s ok. I’m here to answer questions. So as part of the application process, the applicant needs to identify a certain number of parking spaces that could be used as paid parking in addition to being nonpaid parking spaces for patrons or customers of the AIM. These particular spaces will not be marked or reserved exclusively as paid parking and the property owner will have a parking attendant on hand to either collect a fee (non-business drivers) or allow employees and customers of the AIM to park in the parking lot without being charged a fee. Does that make more sense? From: Little Sunshines Boutique Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 1:11 PM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: Re: Dev2020-00087/cup2020-06065 Sorry if I'm not understanding. Then why will they have a permit for 624 paid parking? I understand we will not pay for parking or our customers but there will be a shortness of parking for our customers and ourseIfs specially Saturday and sunday. Can you please call me 7147249858 thank you 2 On Thu, Jul 2, 2020, 1:04 PM Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> wrote: Actually you, your staff, and customers will have access to all 1,170 parking spaces instead of just 546 parking spaces. The applicant will not be reserving any parking space specifically for paid parking. If your customers, staff, or yourself are onsite to conduct business in the marketplace, then you will have any spot in the parking lot to utilize and pay no fee. From: Little Sunshines Boutique Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 12:57 PM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: Re: Dev2020-00087/cup2020-06065 Thank you for the information. The reason I bring out the fair and car shows and more events is because they are held in the parking lot. Anaheim indoor rents parking for cars and events. If we have 1170 parking spaces we will be down to 546 spaces we are 200 vendors with usually 1 employee that's cuts it down to 146 parking spots for customers. We are all small businesses trying to survive this epidemic. If parking is over crowded people will not wanna hassles to find parking please help all our small businesses grown not fail. On Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 1:40 PM Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> wrote: Hello, The application that you received a notice for is regarding the conversion of existing parking spaces from non-paid to paid parking at the Anaheim Marketplace. The marketplace has 1,170 parking spaces and the applicant proposes to designate 624 of the parking spaces as paid parking. The intent of designating a certain portion of the existing parking as paid parking would be neighboring businesses tend to use the property for overflow parking for their own businesses. Per the applicant’s proposal, a fee will only be charged to the driver if they are conducting business offsite and if they are conducting business at the Anaheim Marketplace, then no fee will be charged to park. Please let me know if you require further clarification. From: Little Sunshines Boutique Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 11:12 PM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: Dev2020-00087/cup2020-06065 3 Good evening, I would like to know more information regarding the project for parking at the Anaheim indoor swatmet. I'm a vendor with two locations here. The parking has been a problem for our business especially during the weekends. At times parking is rented for carnivals/fair and sport center plus car shows at the same time. Parking is so crazy even for us vendors waiting a long time to fine parking while it's been rented out for $15 to $35 dollars depending the shortage of parking. Thank you for your time 1 Peter Lange From:Keith Maxwell <kmaxwell@anaheimrvpark.com> Sent:Thursday, June 25, 2020 12:33 PM To:Peter Lange Cc:Daniela Armas Subject:DEV-2020-00087 Hello Peter Lange, My name is Keith Maxwell at Anaheim RV Park, 200 W Midway. The park was recently informed of the parking project at Anaheim Marketplace. My sense is this is a good first step to the parking struggles in the area. Wondering a few things: Will the immediate locals be able to overnight park there? Do you anticipate a monthly fee for locals? Who will manage the parking lot? Do you anticipate expanding resident permit parking on Midway Drive and Palm between Anaheim Blvd and the 5 freeway? I am eager to see how this project works out. Could someday the Marketplace parking be a multilevel structure that could hold a magnatude larger number of cars? Look forward to your reply. Best of luck and wishes for the project. Best regards, Keith Get Outlook for Android 1 Peter Lange From:Peter Lange Sent:Monday, July 06, 2020 10:47 AM To:Laurel Reimer Subject:FW: DEV2020-00087/CUP2020-06065 From: Peter Lange Sent: Monday, July 06, 2020 10:35 AM To: romina kim Subject: RE: DEV2020-00087/CUP2020-06065 Thank you for your comment regarding the Anaheim Marketplace MCUP. To clarify the intent of the application, the applicant proposes to designate 624 of the 1,170 existing parking spaces from nonpaid to paid parking to provide parking overflow parking for the neighboring businesses. A parking fee will only be charged for someone who parks at the site and will be conducting business offsite. If someone is conducting business at the AIM, then a parking fee will not be charged and they will have access to any of the existing 1,170 existing parking spaces. Based on the parking requirements outlined in the Anaheim Municipal Code, the applicant is required to provide 546 parking spaces and the site is providing 1,170 parking spaces. From a required parking perspective, the applicant is meeting the City’s parking requirement. The Project will not add or take away any existing parking spaces. Hopefully this makes sense. Please let me know if you require further clarification. Thanks. From: romina kim Sent: Friday, July 03, 2020 11:30 AM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: DEV2020-00087/CUP2020-06065 Hello, I am writing this e-mail regarding the parking lot planning for 1440 S Anaheim Blvd. DEV2020-00087/CUP2020-06065. We are vendors at Anaheim Market Place and we are in extreme difficulty trying to keep up with the monthly lease of space at the indoors MKT Place already. Since years back, the lot owner has been charging parking fees to the sports center users and any customers that come in without knowledge and blocked all entrances but one, therefore leaving no choice for people to leave or pay any amount of $20 to $30. Now, we know that this is the only indoor swap-meet that is surviving if barely in So Cal. So, we ask you that in order to prevent the business owners from closing any more stores and to help the current owners from loosing customers, to not grant this permit. It will only benefit the lot owner currently, but in the long run, it will mean the mkt place we take pride in, will no longer have prosperity or even exist. 2 We truly believe that the community in Anaheim and beyond will be affected by the decisions outcome. Thank you for taking your time to read this e-mail. Best Regards, Y.S. 1 Peter Lange From:Reata Kulcsar Sent:Friday, July 10, 2020 4:14 PM To:Peter Lange Cc:Reata Kulcsar Subject:Re: oppose - minor CUP application - paid parking AnaheimMarketplace- 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd He does mark off the parking. He reserves parking for different groups. He blocks entrances to the parking lot too. So that everyone has to use specific driveways to enter causing back up and queuing in the street. He rents and leases the parking simultaneously. Do you specifically prohibit other uses on days he plans to charge for parking to others? Also he has predatory pricing. He lowers the price of parking at the marketplace compared to the sports complex. He’ll charge $15 or $20 per space when the sport complex charges $25. Filling up the market place parking faster. What mechanism do you have in place that limits the number of spaces he provides for off site businesses? The building owner also holds his own outdoor music events and rent tents/spaces outside which further limits the available parking. Surely he is not allowed to rent out most/all the parking....Who enforces this? He charges for parking, he hosts outdoor events (carnivals, health fairs, concerts, etc) and blocks available aisles/ parking spaces, he ropes/ blocks off parking for other groups, he leases parking spaces out to the medical center and nearby construction projects. This occurs simultaneously. Here’s a few pics. 2 3 4 5 Is he allowed to do this? Sent from my iPhone On Jul 10, 2020, at 1:56 PM, Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> wrote: Hi Reata, The property complies with the parking requirements outlined in the Anaheim Municipal Code (AMC). The property owner will not be marking off a portion of the parking lot for paid parking as they want the opportunity to provide as much parking for the workers and customers of the AIM as possible. If the property owner chooses to allow neighboring businesses to utilize the parking lot as well, then that is more of a private property matter and the site contains a large surplus of parking spaces (based on the code requirement). Thanks. -Peter From: Reata Kulcsar Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2020 4:52 PM 6 To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: Re: oppose - minor CUP application - paid parking AnaheimMarketplace- 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd I should also point out that the business next door is a sports complex and the have games that start early in the day. Things are calm now because of Covid but prior to Covid it was crazy. The market place doesn't open until 10 am but the customers peak period is from 12:30 - 6 pm. By the time costumers show up, they've leased out most spaces to the business next door. On Thursday, July 9, 2020, 4:46:45 PM PDT, Reata Kulcsar wrote: Thank you for being so responsive today. The main problem is that there is not enough parking spaces on the weekends. There are 400 vendors/stores within the complex and when you include their employees, it’s like 600 cars just for store owners/workers. Customers always complain that there is no parking and they leave due to a lack of parking. I know the intent is not to charge customers, but they still do. If you check the code enforcement records or maybe fire department records you will see the store owners have complained about people parking in fire zones due to insufficient parking. The problem is exasperated when they lease other parts of the parking area, they have carnivals, etc. and they lease parking to the contractors across the street. Allowing them to legally do this will cause lasting effects to each of individual store owners. I have pictures that show illegal parking in the red zones due to over capacity. The store owners are afraid to say anything because they fear retaliation. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Peter Lange Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 4:12 PM To: Reata Kulcsar Subject: RE: oppose - minor CUP application - paid parking AnaheimMarketplace- 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd 7 Hi Reata, May I ask the reason you would like to appeal the decision? To clarify the intent of the application, the applicant proposes to designate 624 of the 1,170 existing parking spaces from nonpaid to paid parking to provide parking overflow parking for the neighboring businesses. A parking fee will only be charged for someone who parks at the site and will be conducting business offsite. If someone is conducting business at the AIM, then a parking fee will not be charged and they will have access to any of the existing 1,170 existing parking spaces. Based on the parking requirements outlined in the Anaheim Municipal Code, the applicant is required to provide 546 parking spaces and the site is providing 1,170 parking spaces. From a required parking perspective, the applicant is meeting the City’s parking requirement. The Project will not add or take away any existing parking spaces. To appeal the decision, a written letter would be needed that describes why the Planning decision should be appealed. From there, a public hearing would need to be scheduled and Staff would present the Project before the Planning Commission for discretionary determination (i.e. approval or denial). The Planning Commission may want to hear from the person who is appealing the decision as well, all though I am not sure if they would ask for names. Staff has looked at the parking provided onsite and it meets AMC requirements. If the applicant chooses to require a parking fee for a number of spaces, that would become a private property matter. Hopefully this makes sense. Please let me know if you require further clarification. Thanks. From: Reata Kulcsar Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2020 3:35 PM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: RE: oppose - minor CUP application - paid parking AnaheimMarketplace- 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd Okay, thank you for the update. I will submit a letter to appeal the decision. Is there a specific form or template that I need to use for the appeal? Sent from Mail for Windows 10 8 From: Peter Lange Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 2:51 PM To: Reata Kulcsar Subject: RE: oppose - minor CUP application - paid parking AnaheimMarketplace- 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd Hi Reata, Drafting a letter is up to you at this point but as you mentioned, the public comment period has been completed. Staff has recommended approval of the MCUP; however, the decision appeal window is still open and will not conclude until the end of day on July 16, 2020. After July 16, 2020, the decision will become final. From: Reata Kulcsar Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2020 2:32 PM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: RE: oppose - minor CUP application - paid parking Anaheim Marketplace- 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd Sorry for the confusion. I haven’t prepared the letter yet, but I can provide one today, if you allow. At the very least, I hope my email will show that I oppose the CUP application. Has a decision been made on the application? Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Peter Lange Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 1:21 PM To: Reata Kulcsar Subject: RE: oppose - minor CUP application - paid parking Anaheim Marketplace- 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd Hi Reata, 9 I apologize if I don’t completely understand, but are you sending a letter? Your email indicates as such but I didn’t see one. Thanks. From: Reata Kulcsar Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2020 1:03 PM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: oppose - minor CUP application - paid parking Anaheim Marketplace - 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd Mr. Lange, I am in receipt of a Notice of Application dated June 22, 2020 for a minor conditional use permit to permit paid public parking spaces within the existing parking lot of the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace located at 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd. DEV2020-00087/ CUP 2020-06065 I just received the notice but it appears that the deadline to submit comments has already passed (it was a few days ago). I oppose the request and I would like an opportunity to provide comments on why I oppose this CUP request. May I supplement this opposion letter/notice and provide reasons for my opposion. Please note, that due to fear of retaliation by the building owner, I want to remain ananoumous in public communications. You may contact me, however, via phone at Reata Kulcsar Sent from Mail for Windows 10 10 1 Peter Lange From:Casa De Nutricion Sent:Monday, July 06, 2020 4:49 PM To:Peter Lange Subject:Re: “Permit to permit paid public parking spaces at Anaheim Indoor Marketplace- 1440 S Anaheim Boulevard”. Hi Peter, I would like to retract my email regarding parking. I agree with parking being made public for neighboring businesses. Thank you, Janneth Miranda On Jul 2, 2020, at 1:27 PM, Casa De Nutricion wrote: Hi Peter, Thank you for the clarification. I would like to say that first of all we've been dealing with management already reserving paid parking for neighboring businesses pre COVID-19 and we have been tight on parking spaces for our customers. Due to the contract we've signed we haven't been able to change that. Now if management applies to reserve paid parking with the city it's simply doing one thing differently, and that is that it is asking the city for permission. Furthermore, us as vendors with just 1 vehicle per business comes close to 200. On top of that we have a car dealership business which also takes up parking space to display their vehicles. Our concerns are that paid parking has been happening without management applying and it was affecting our business due to customers constantly complaining about not finding parking. Thank you, Janneth Miranda On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 1:09 PM Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> wrote: Hi Janneth, Thank you for your comment regarding the Anaheim Marketplace MCUP. To clarify the intent of the application, the applicant proposes to designate 624 of the 1,170 existing parking spaces from nonpaid to paid parking to provide parking overflow parking for the neighboring businesses. A parking fee will only be charged for someone who parks at the site and will be conducting business offsite. If someone is conducting business at the AIM, then a parking fee will not be charged and they will have access to any of the existing 1,170 existing parking spaces. Based on the parking requirements outlined in the Anaheim Municipal Code, the applicant is required to provide 546 parking spaces and the site is providing 1,170 parking 2 spaces. From a required parking perspective, the applicant is meeting the City’s parking requirement. The applicant will not be reserving a portion of the parking lot specifically for paid parking. Hopefully this makes sense. Please let me know if you require further clarification. Thanks. From: Casa De Nutricion Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 12:47 PM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: “Permit to permit paid public parking spaces at Anaheim Indoor Marketplace- 1440 S Anaheim Boulevard”. Hi Peter Lange, I received the letter for “Notice of application Minor conditional use permit to permit paid public parking spaces within the existing parking lot of Anaheim Indoor Marketplace located at 1440 S Anaheim Boulevard”. Prior to COVID-19 management has been reserving a large portion of parking for the sports center located across the street, for which it has been charging $15- $30 per vehicle. This has often caused many of our customers to complain they find it hard to come shop with us due to them not being able to find parking space. We are kindly and respectfully asking that we be taken into account as this would affect about 200 small businesses that are currently struggling to survive through COVID-19. We want to comment that us vendors are not in agreement to permit paid public parking spaces. We are approximately 200 small business owners and parking is just enough for our customers who come in to shop with us. We hope you take us into account and that if management gets approval to charge for parking this would only further negatively affect all the small business owners. 3 Thank you, Janneth Miranda Casa De Nutricion 1440 S Anaheim Blvd #D-8 Anaheim CA 92804 1 Peter Lange From:Peter Lange Sent:Monday, July 06, 2020 10:48 AM To:Laurel Reimer Subject:FW: -----Original Message----- From: Peter Lange Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 2:27 PM To: Jesus Valencia Subject: RE: Thank you for your comment regarding the Anaheim Marketplace MCUP. To clarify the intent of the application, the applicant proposes to designate 624 of the 1,170 existing parking spaces from nonpaid to paid parking to provide parking overflow parking for the neighboring businesses. A parking fee will only be charged for someone who parks at the site and will be conducting business offsite. If someone is conducting business at the AIM, then a parking fee will not be charged and they will have access to any of the existing 1,170 existing parking spaces. Based on the parking requirements outlined in the Anaheim Municipal Code, the applicant is required to provide 546 parking spaces and the site is providing 1,170 parking spaces. From a required parking perspective, the applicant is meeting the City’s parking requirement. The Project will not add or take away any existing parking spaces. Hopefully this makes sense. Please let me know if you require further clarification. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Jesus Valencia Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 2:17 PM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: I’m the owner of space D-26 and E-25 I disagree with renting the parking since it would affect all of us space owners. Enviado desde mi iPhone From:Joe Haddad To:Planning Commission Subject:Planning commission commment 10/26/20: Regarding item no.4- mcup-1440 s. Anaheim Blvd. Date:Monday, October 26, 2020 2:53:11 PM Regarding item no.4- mcup-1440 s. Anaheim Blvd. Joe Haddad vendor (G-22, H-21, H-23) at AIM from 1995 to 2017 Employee for vendor at AIM (G-22, H-21 and H-23) from 2017 to 2020 I support the appeal of the of the minor CUP. The lack of parking at this establishment has been ongoing for many years. When we voice concerns to the AIM management we areignored and the issues persisted. AIM management, specifically Michael Lederer, verbally harassed us and sent us emails and letters with false accusations to intimidate us to rescind the appeal letter or else he wouldterminate our business at AIM. After the re-submittal of the appeal on Aug 3rd 2020, we received a notice terminating our lease. Theletter was dated Aug 5th and it stated “Management may, in its sole discretion and without limitation, terminate this permit and the license by written notice to Vendor (i) effective upon28 days of such termination is without cause.” In addition, I was advised via email by AIM management I would not be allowed on AIM property and that I would be trespassing. All ofwhich was done in retaliation for our involvement with the appeal letter. Please do not approve the CUP permit application because this establishment does not have enough parking to accommodate the demand and multiple uses on the site. The parkinganalysis is flawed and does not take into consideration all uses at the site. A parking demand study is needed and they did not conduct one. Thank you, Joe Haddad From:Sami Nashawaty To:Planning Commission Subject:Fw: regarding item no-mcup- s anaHEIM BLVD Date:Monday, October 26, 2020 8:00:25 PM Depot Insurance Services Inc Mailing P O box 8466 Anaheim CA 92812 Location 1250 N Euclid St Anaheim Ca 92801 Office 714-254-0001 Fax : 877-333-8118 email info@depotins.com CA LIC OE89964 Since 1984 Sami Nashawaty Dental PPO any dentist with Choice plans only click here Dental PPO any dentist with Choice plans only click here https://spiritdental.com/index.php? option=com_scoreboard&view=scoreboard&agent=001C000000uQPkWIAW Vision plans click here https://www.IndividualBrokerVision.com/Enroll/MbrEnroll.aspx?AgtCode=VSP12173 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE (HIPAA Compliance): This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Sami Nashawaty <sami@depotins.com> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 7:59 PM To: planingcommission@anaheim.net <planingcommission@anaheim.net> Subject: Fw: regarding item no-mcup- s anaHEIM BLVD Depot Insurance Services Inc Mailing P O box 8466 Anaheim CA 92812 Location 1250 N Euclid St Anaheim Ca 92801 Office 714-254-0001 Fax : 877-333-8118 email info@depotins.com CA LIC OE89964 Since 1984 Sami Nashawaty Dental PPO any dentist with Choice plans only click here Dental PPO any dentist with Choice plans only click here https://spiritdental.com/index.php? option=com_scoreboard&view=scoreboard&agent=001C000000uQPkWIAW Vision plans click here https://www.IndividualBrokerVision.com/Enroll/MbrEnroll.aspx? AgtCode=VSP12173 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE (HIPAA Compliance): This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Sami Nashawaty Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 4:18 PM To: planningcomission@anaheim.net <planningcomission@anaheim.net> Subject: regarding item no-mcup- s anaHEIM BLVD Hi my name is sami nashawaty vendor for over years insidw the anaheim marketplace unit f12 I support the appeal of the minor cup. The lack of parking at this establishment has been ongoing for many years. when we voice concerns to Managers at the indoor marketplace we are always ignored. Depot Insurance Services Inc Mailing P O box 8466 Anaheim CA 92812 Location 1250 N Euclid St Anaheim Ca 92801 Office 714-254-0001 Fax : 877-333-8118 email info@depotins.com CA LIC OE89964 Since 1984 Sami Nashawaty Dental PPO any dentist with Choice plans only click here Dental PPO any dentist with Choice plans only click here https://spiritdental.com/index.php? option=com_scoreboard&view=scoreboard&agent=001C000000uQPkWIAW Vision plans click here https://www.IndividualBrokerVision.com/Enroll/MbrEnroll.aspx?AgtCode=VSP12173 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE (HIPAA Compliance): This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 1 Peter Lange From:Peter Lange Sent:Thursday, July 09, 2020 2:25 PM To:Michael Solis Subject:RE: Letter Hi Michael, That’s perfect. Thanks for sending the letter to my attention. From: Michael Solis <MSolis@anaheim.net> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2020 2:18 PM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: Letter Afternoon Peter, We received today this letter addressed to you. I didn’t know what to do with it, I hope you don’t mind me emailing it to you. Thanks, Michael 1 Peter Lange From:Ricardo Acosta Sent:Monday, July 06, 2020 6:35 PM To:Peter Lange Subject:Re: Monteros Furniture Thank you Peyer, that make sense and once it meets Municipal code there's a fair amount for retail buyers for the market place I am for it. What I would ask please is that there is in area designated that we were understand what area is for the overflow parking that way there is no misunderstanding,. Maria On Thu, Jul 2, 2020, 1:06 PM Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> wrote: Hi Maria, Thank you for your comment regarding the Anaheim Marketplace MCUP. To clarify the intent of the application, the applicant proposes to designate 624 of the 1,170 existing parking spaces from nonpaid to paid parking to provide parking overflow parking for the neighboring businesses. A parking fee will only be charged for someone who parks at the site and will be conducting business offsite. If someone is conducting business at the AIM, then a parking fee will not be charged and they will have access to any of the existing 1,170 existing parking spaces. Based on the parking requirements outlined in the Anaheim Municipal Code, the applicant is required to provide 546 parking spaces and the site is providing 1,170 parking spaces. From a required parking perspective, the applicant is meeting the City’s parking requirement. Hopefully this makes sense. Please let me know if you require further clarification. Thanks. From: Ricardo Acosta Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 12:47 PM To: Peter Lange <PLange@anaheim.net> Subject: Monteros Furniture Hello my name is Maria and I'm the owner here at montero's furniture. I am writing this matter to oppose on the parking rental for the Anaheim indoor marketplace. what we've seen in the past is when management rents the parking my customers are not able to come to the store and I lose sales. We have been doing much better in sales since the parking lot has been available just for us. so please do not let the landlord have 624 parking spaces to read. thank you Planning Commission and Planning Staff-r2_110320.doc ~~ 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 ~ (714) 999-0888 ~ Fax (714) 999-0885 ~~~ November 3, 2020 Planning Commission and Planning Staff Re: Anaheim Indoor Marketplace, 1440 S. Anaheim Blvd. DEV2020-00087/ CUP 2020-06065______________ Gentlepersons, There were several questions raised at the last hearing that we believe need to be clarified and distinguished from our request specific to our conditional use permit. It should be clear that we are requesting to utilize excess parking spaces for paid parking, that by the city’s own zoning code are not required by our primary use. It was not our intention, and never was, to rent parking spaces as a business. However, over the decades of operating the Marketplace, we have experienced frequent use of our parking lot without permission. This has added significant security and maintenance costs not directly related to our business. In order to defray these costs, and not pass them on to our vendors as CAM (Common Area Maintenance) charges, we decided to charge non-customers for parking, and actively manage the lot to protect our vendors and property. The Marketplace and all surrounding businesses charge for parking, and have done so since the inception of the American Sports Center in 2008. The City was aware of this activity, as code enforcement opened and then closed a case pertaining to the rental of spaces many years ago. Only recently did the Marketplace receive its first and only citation for the rental of parking, and immediately aimed to cure the deficiency through this minor CUP application. Neither the Marketplace, nor any of the surrounding businesses had a CUP to rent excess parking. Most importantly, the Marketplace has been operating in the exact manner that it is now proposing to operate under this CUP, and, in doing so, has not had any parking complaints related to a shortage of parking, as no such shortage exists. Paid Parking – To restate the staff report, the City’s code requires 546 spaces for the combined uses on the property, and we are requesting to use the balance of 624 spaces for paid parking. City staff has conditioned the CUP to require that we maintain 546 spaces at all times, ATTACHMENT NO. 10 Planning Commission and Planning Staff-r2_110320.doc ANAHEIM INDOOR MARKETPLACE ~~~ 1440 So. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 ~ (714) 999-0888 ~ Fax (714) 999-0885 ~~~ November 3, 2020 Planning Commission and Planning Staff Page Two even during special events. We concur with these conditions because we already operate the rental of parking spaces in this manner. It is important to note that while the Marketplace would be permitted to rent the 624 excess spaces at one time, it has never rented its entire allowable surplus, as it actively protects its vendors and their business. Paid Parking Location – There was a discussion at the last meeting with regard to designating a specific location on the lot for paid parking. This seems to make sense, but having flexibility on where the paid parking is located is necessary to efficiently manage the parking lot. For example, when the Anaheim Sports Center was active, the best place for paid parking was the southwest corner of the lot, near the Anaheim Blvd./Cerritos Ave. crosswalk. However, a business adjacent to the southeast corner periodically utilizes a limited number of spaces. In this case it wouldn’t make sense to utilize spaces located at the opposite end of the parking lot, as those persons parking would have to walk the length of multiple football fields to get to and from their vehicles, which would also add unnecessary pedestrian foot traffic on the lot. This is why flexibility is needed. Non-Marketplace customers, such as Sports Center patrons and construction workers, typically arrive to park onsite hours prior to the Marketplace’s opening, so there is no confusion as to where these users should park, especially as they are directed to their spaces by security guards. Our parking operation has become extremely efficient since it began in 2008. Vendor Opposition – Certain vendors wrote letters to Mr. Lange in opposition to our initial request. These are the letters that were not circulated prior to the last Planning Commission Meeting. Management respects all of its vendor’s opinions, and in fact Management did meet with a few of the letter writers to understand why they opposed this CUP application that Management believes is fundamental to the Marketplace’s success. We were advised that some letters were retracted once the vendors understood that we were applying for a use for which we already exercised in practice, and that nothing was going to change in the parking lot. All of the authors are still operating at the Marketplace happily, regardless of whether or not they rescinded their submittal to Mr. Lange. Of course, not a single vendor was in trouble with Management, as the appellant alleged. If any Vendor was truly unhappy with Management and our policies, they would have simply not renewed their License, and moved to another Marketplace in the area. Please note, that our parking lot operations have been the same for 12 years. It’s important to note that most of the opposition letters follow the same template, which was probably Planning Commission and Planning Staff-r2_110320.doc ANAHEIM INDOOR MARKETPLACE ~~~ 1440 So. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 ~ (714) 999-0888 ~ Fax (714) 999-0885 ~~~ November 3, 2020 Planning Commission and Planning Staff Page Three distributed by the appellant to other vendors, and taken in total, they represent a very small percentage of the more than 200 vendors in the Marketplace. The vast majority of our vendors support our application. It should also be noted that neither Ms. Kulcsar nor Mr. Haddad, who falsely claims to have been retaliated upon, originally submitted letters of opposition, as parking is not their true issue with the Marketplace. Special Events – Although not directly related to our request, there was some confusion about the history of Special Events on the property on how they have impacted parking. It is important to note that Special Event Permits are “ministerial” permits under the City’s zoning code. For our property, the code allows up to four special events per year, for a period of nine days each. In addition, the code also allows up to four carnivals or circuses per year on the Marketplace property since the site exceeds 12 acres, and in fact the Marketplace is situated on 14.77 acres. See the excerpts below from the Anaheim Municipal Code section 18.38.095 specifically pertaining to carnivals and circuses: “.030 Maximum Number of Annual Permits. No more than two (2) permits for a carnival or circus shall be issued for any project site during any calendar year; except that up to four (4) permits for a carnival or circus may be issued for commercially zoned properties which are a minimum of twelve (12) acres and that are not directly adjacent to residentially zoned properties or residential uses. .040 Prohibited Carnivals or Circuses. Under no circumstances shall a permit be issued for a carnival or circus on the same project site for which the maximum number of permits for special events, as defined in Section 18.92.220 (“S” Words, Terms and Phrases), has already been issued during the same calendar year. The limitation contained in this section shall not apply to commercially zoned properties which are a minimum of twelve (12) acres and that are not directly adjacent to residentially zoned properties or residential uses.” Planning Commission and Planning Staff-r2_110320.doc ANAHEIM INDOOR MARKETPLACE ~~~ 1440 So. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 ~ (714) 999-0888 ~ Fax (714) 999-0885 ~~~ November 3, 2020 Planning Commission and Planning Staff Page Four Historically, the Marketplace has not used the eight events authorized by the code (4 special events, 4 carnivals/circuses). Here is the event calendar for the past four years: Event 2017 2018 2019 2020 Circus Jan 27 - Feb 6 Jan 11-22 N/A N/A Spring Carnival March 2 - 5 March 1- 4 Feb 28 - Mar 3 (Rained out) March 7 - 10 March 4 - 7 Fall Carnival Sep 15 - Sep 18 Oct 18 - 21 Sep 5 - 8 Cancelled Circus Oct 13 - 23 Sep 21 - Oct 1 Nov 4 -15 N/A Management always obtains the appropriate approvals to conduct these events per the Code and any suggestion by the appellant to the contrary is not based on facts. These events are not a profit center for the Marketplace and are intended to drive business into the Marketplace to benefit its vendors, and they appreciate our efforts to enhance their businesses. Lastly, there was mention of a car club event on our lot. We do not directly sponsor any car events, but there have been occasions where a car club or “cars for coffee” type of gathering will occur in our parking lot, and we obviously are delighted and allow them since they bring business into the Marketplace for our vendors. Petition – The appellant mentioned that vendors felt “pressured” to sign the petition we submitted prior to the last hearing. There is no factual basis for this, and in fact, we experienced quite the opposite response in that most vendors rushed to support Management. Most of our vendors have been with us for years, and signed it because they recognize that all of Management’s efforts are geared towards improving their individual businesses. Marketplace Management sent their marketing staff to explain the petition to the vendors that signed. It was also mentioned that many of the Marketplace vendors don’t speak English, which is far from accurate, as most do, and these statements by the appellant would be quite insulting to those vendors. The few vendors who do not speak English well, speak to management via a translator. Planning Commission and Planning Staff-r2_110320.doc ANAHEIM INDOOR MARKETPLACE ~~~ 1440 So. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 ~ (714) 999-0888 ~ Fax (714) 999-0885 ~~~ November 3, 2020 Planning Commission and Planning Staff Page Five Code Enforcement History – There has been no history of code enforcement complaints pertaining to parking and/or special event issues. This is fact, based on city public records available for any member of the public to review. Any Anaheim business that has been operating for 30 years will likely have some history of complaints. However, your staff has confirmed no such history of parking and special event issues for the Marketplace. We have always obtained the appropriate permits to conduct our special events. City records do confirm this. It should be clear that the appellant has misled staff and the Planning Commission throughout this appeal process. She has made many derogatory, baseless, and meritless claims, regarding the Marketplace, its Management, and its owners, in an effort to damage their good name, and generate unnecessary expenditures. The motivation for the appeal has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is only “parking.” Management recently learned that Reata Kulcsar is a proxy for her family member, Mr. Haddad, a prior tenant, and lodged this appeal with the intent of leveraging the owners of the Marketplace to either allow him back into the Marketplace as a vendor, or pay him money to drop the appeal, both of which he has already asked of Management in an extortive manner. This appeal is an arbitrary and capricious use of the appeal process intended to harm the Marketplace and its’ reputation. If the appellant were to succeed with her appeal, it would only harm the vendors for which Ms. Kulcsar alleges she is trying to protect, as they would be responsible for the funds required to operate the parking lot through additional CAM charges. In conclusion, we urge the Commission to uphold the findings and recommendations of its’ Staff, and the original administrative approval of the Planning Director, and deny this appeal, as there is no question regarding the adequacy of parking on the Marketplace lot. ML/hb Very truly yours, ANAHEIM INDOOR MARKETPLACE ATTACHMENT NO. 11