PC 2017/09/06
City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Agenda
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California
• Chairperson: Bill Dalati
• Chairperson Pro-Tempore: Michelle Lieberman
• Commissioners: John Armstrong, Jess Carbajal, John Gillespie,
Kimberly Keys, Steve White
• Call To Order - 5:00 p.m.
• Pledge Of Allegiance
• Public Comments
• Public Hearing Items
• Commission Updates
• Discussion
• Adjournment
For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the
agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary.
A copy of the staff report may be obtained at the City of Anaheim Planning and Building
Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff
report is also available on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on
Thursday, August 31, 2017, after 5:00 p.m. Any writings or documents provided to a
majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings
legally exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection in the
Planning and Building Department located at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, California, during regular business hours.
You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following
e-mail address: planningcommission@anaheim.net
09-06-2017
Page 2 of 4
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications,
Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations,
Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 calendar days after Planning Commission
action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written
form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City
Clerk.
The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public
hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City
Clerk of said hearing.
If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council
at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M.
Public Comments
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission or provide public comments on agenda items with the
exception of public hearing items.
09-06-2017
Page 3 of 4
Public Hearing Items
ITEM NO. 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05678
(DEV2013-00072)
Location: 1256 North Magnolia Avenue
Request: A City-initiated request to revoke a previously-
approved conditional use permit for an existing storage
facility which includes a temporary modular office, indoor
and outdoor storage of recreational and commercial
vehicles, automobiles, trucks, trailers, miscellaneous
equipment, and auto repair services.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 21 (Enforcement
Actions by Regulatory Agencies) Categorical Exemption.
This item was continued from the July 10, 2017 Planning
Commission meeting.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Nick Taylor
njtaylor@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 3
VARIANCE NO. 2016-05081
(DEV2016-00133)
Location: 1900 East La Palma Avenue
Request: The applicant requests a variance to permit
fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code
to permit medical offices within an existing office
complex.
Environmental Determination: The Planning
Commission will consider whether to find the project to
be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a
Class 1 (Existing Facilities) Categorical Exemption.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Nick Taylor
njtaylor@anaheim.net
Adjourn to Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:00 p.m.
The scheduled meeting of September 18, 2017 was cancelled
due to a lack of agenda items.
09-06-2017
Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
1:00 p.m. August 30, 2017 (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: SEPTEMBER 6, 2017
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05678
LOCATION: 1256 North Magnolia Avenue (OCRV Storage, Inc.)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The business owner is Mark Loxsom with
OCRV Storage, Inc. The property owner is AVG Partners.
REQUEST: Staff requests a revocation or modification of a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) for an existing indoor/outdoor storage facility that includes a temporary
modular office trailer, indoor and outdoor storage of recreational and commercial
vehicles, automobiles, trucks, trailers, miscellaneous equipment, and auto repair
services.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
the attached resolution approving a modification of Conditional Use Permit No.
2013-05678.
BACKGROUND: This 11.75-acre property consists of two parcels under common
ownership. The northerly parcel (Parcel 1) is 9.63 acres and consists of a 170,000
square foot building, with Wickes Furniture operating in 70,000 square feet and
OCRV occupying the remaining 100,000 square feet for use as indoor storage,
accessory retail and accessory vehicle repair. The outdoor area includes vehicle and
equipment storage, vehicle valet (drop off) area, and a modular office trailer. Parcel
2 is 2.12 acres and developed with a 38,500 square foot building used by OCRV for
additional indoor storage with a portion being sublet for auto repair. Parcel 2 is also
used for outdoor storage of commercial vehicles and equipment by OCRV. The
property is located in the "I" Industrial zone. The General Plan designates Parcel 1
for General Commercial land uses and Parcel 2 for Industrial land uses.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05678
September 6, 2017
Page 2 of 5
AERIAL MAP
In 2013, Mr. Loxsom began operating the vehicle and equipment storage on a portion of the
site. At that time, the Mr. Loxsom was informed of the need to apply for a CUP to retain the
business. Subsequently, an application for a CUP was filed by Mr. Loxsom on July 15, 2013.
Staff worked with Mr. Loxsom since the original submittal to prepare the items needed for a
complete application to present to the Planning Commission.
On April 18, 2016, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-
05678 permitting a temporary modular office trailer and indoor and outdoor storage of
recreational and commercial vehicles, automobiles, trucks, trailers, miscellaneous equipment,
and auto repair services. Condition No. 17 of Resolution 2016-031 (attached) requires a six
month review of the CUP by the Planning Commission as a “Reports and Recommendations”
(R&R) item to determine if the storage facility was operating safely and in compliance with all
conditions of approval. The Commission added this condition because there were many issues
that warranted on-going monitoring, as further described below.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05678
September 6, 2017
Page 3 of 5
On January 9, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted the six month review; this review was
initially required by the Commission as a result of the property’s state of disrepair. The six
month review was also intended to ensure that conditions of approval relating to unpermitted
building improvements and certain aesthetic improvements, including the replacement of
parking lot landscaping, were addressed in a timely manner. While Mr. Loxsom had
satisfactorily addressed the outdoor areas since the April 2016 public hearing, no progress had
been made on the unpermitted building modifications. At that time, Mr. Loxsom agreed to
obtain the necessary building permits within six months and the Planning Commission granted
an extension. The Planning Commission agreed with staff’s recommendation that if Mr.
Loxsom had not obtained the necessary permits after an additional six months, the CUP would
be scheduled for Planning Commission to consider revocation.
Since the Planning Commission approval on April 18, 2016, Planning and Code Enforcement
staff conducted four site inspections to monitor progress, including one inspection with
Building and Safety and Fire staff. Generally, Mr. Loxsom made significant progress toward
compliance with all conditions, with the exception of the following condition:
Condition No. 2: “Within 60 days of the date of approval, the applicant shall submit
plans and complete a Building Code analysis for occupancy changes and any tenant
improvements within the subject building. In addition, the proper building permits
shall be obtained for the modular office building.”
Staff opted to delay the six month Planning Commission review (which should have been
scheduled in October 2016) to allow staff to seek a solution with Mr. Loxsom. From October
2016 to February 2017, Building staff conducted four Investigation Inspections to identify
significant items that needed to be addressed. Items requiring permitting include, but are not
limited to:
Unpermitted openings/structural modifications
Damaged/missing mezzanine safety railing
Expired permit for fire sprinklers
Unpermitted electrical work
Unpermitted spray booth
Unsecured water heater
Unpermitted indoor service bay
Unpermitted/improper storage of paint/sealers/lacquers
Possible inadequate ventilation for indoor storage of vehicles.
Following additional discussions with Building and Safety staff, Mr. Loxsom indicated he
would provide a building plan submittal. Despite a significant amount of time spent by Building
staff to meet with the applicant and conduct research on existing permits, Mr. Loxsom failed to
prepare and submit the necessary plans and documentation. From January to May 2017, Mr.
Loxsom made no measurable progress toward obtaining a building permit. On May 19, 2017,
Mr. Loxsom confirmed in an email that he had no intention of completing the Building Code
analysis for the occupancy changes and obtaining a building permit as required by Condition
No. 2.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05678
September 6, 2017
Page 4 of 5
On July 10, 2017, staff initiated a revocation of the CUP for non-compliance with the conditions
of approval. At the hearing, Mr. Loxsom requested additional time for compliance. The Planning
Commission expressed considerable concern with the lack of compliance with conditions, but
ultimately, continued the hearing to September 6, to allow the Mr. Loxsom additional time to
address the unpermitted repairs and modifications to the building.
DISCUSSION: Since the revocation hearing on July 10, 2017, Building and Fire Department
staff conducted site visits to better assess unpermitted work and safety violations, and to provide
Mr. Loxom with more detailed feedback on these violations. Mr. Loxsom subsequently prepared
and submitted plans to the Building Division for plan check on August 25, 2017. Although the
plan check was not complete at the time this report was prepared, the Building Division
preliminarily reviewed the plans and determined that Mr. Loxsom had made substantial progress
and the submittal appeared to be inclusive of all items requiring a permit. Mr. Loxsom has since
requested that the Planning Commission amend the conditions of approval to allow additional
time to complete the plan check process.
Modification of a CUP: The Planning Commission may revoke or modify any active land use
permit on the basis of evidence and testimony submitted at the hearing, if it finds any of the
following:
1) That the approval was obtained by fraud; or
2) That the use or variance for which such approval is granted is not being exercised
within the time specified in such permit; or
3) That the use or variance for which such approval was granted has ceased to exist or
has been suspended or inoperative for any reason for a period of six (6) consecutive
months or more; or
4) That the permit granted is being, or recently has been, exercised contrary to the terms
or conditions of such approval, or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or
regulation; or
5) That the use or variance for which the approval was granted has been so exercised
as to be detrimental to the public health or safety, or so as to constitute a nuisance;
or
6) That the use or variance for which the approval was granted has not been exercised
and that, based upon additional information or due to changed circumstances, the
facts necessary to support one or more of the required findings for the original
approval of such entitlement, as set forth in this chapter, no longer exist; or
7) That any such modification, including the imposition of any additional conditions,
is reasonably necessary to protect the public peace, health, safety or general welfare,
or necessary to permit reasonable operation under the permit as granted.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05678
September 6, 2017
Page 5 of 5
Given the substantial progress made toward resolving the outstanding permitting issues, staff is
supportive of Mr. Loxsom’s request to amend the conditions to allow additional time to complete
the plan check process. Staff is concerned, however, with the length of time that has passed with
the existing unpermitted and unsafe conditions; therefore, staff recommends that two conditions
be modified relating to the various steps needed to resolve the issues. Failure to comply with any
conditions would result in immediate scheduling of a Planning Commission revocation hearing.
Specifically, staff recommends a modification of the following two conditions:
Within 30 days of the date of this approval, the applicant shall obtain a permit for all
unpermitted work and, if applicable, the building’s change of occupancy.
Within 90 days of the date of this approval, the applicant shall complete all work
specified in the scope of work of the permit, and shall have all necessary inspections
completed, including a final inspection.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the effects
of the proposed project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e., Class 21 –
Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies) which consist of actions by regulatory agencies to
enforce or revoke a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use issued, adopted,
or prescribed by the regulatory agency or enforcement of a law, general rule, standard, or objective,
administered or adopted by the regulatory agency, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15321
of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the proposed project will not cause a significant
effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
CONCLUSION: Due to the progress made by the applicant since the previous revocation
hearing, staff recommends the Planning Commission modify two conditions of approval to allow
additional time for the applicant to complete the plan check process in conjunction with
Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05678.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Nick Taylor David See
Associate Planner Principal Planner
Attachments:
1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution of Modification
2. Original Planning Commission Resolution
3. January 9, 2017 Staff Report
4. July 10, 2017 Staff Report
5. Approved Site Plan
6. Letter of Request
7. Site Inspection Photographs
IWICKES FURNITURE& OCRV STORAGE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
IOFFICES
INORTHGATEDISTRIBUTIONCENTER
IMEDICAL OFFICE
IVOCATIONALSCHOOL
IINDUSTRIAL
BUSINESS PARK
IDELPHI BASEBALL FIELD
IOFFICESIINDUSTRIAL
5 FREEWAY
5 FREEWAY
N M A G N O L I A A V E
W AVONDALE PL
W VIA GON ZALEZ AVE
W. LINCOLN AVE
W. BRO ADWAY
N . M A G N O L I A A V E
. CRESCENT AVE
W.LA PALMA AVE
N . D A L E A V E
S .
D A L E
A V EW. LINCOLN AVEW. LINCOLN AVE
1 2 5 6 No r t h Ma g n o lia Av e n u e
D E V N o . 2 0 1 3 -0 0 07 2
Subject Property APN: 071-062-01071-062-03
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Pho to:May 20 16
5 FREEWAY
5 FREEWAY
N M A G N O L I A A V E
W AVONDALE PL
W VIA GON ZALEZ AVE
W. LINCOLN AVE
W. BRO ADWAY
N . M A G N O L I A A V E
. CRESCENT AVE
W.LA PALMA AVE
N . D A L E A V E
S .
D A L E
A V EW. LINCOLN AVEW. LINCOLN AVE
1 2 5 6 No r t h Ma g n o lia Av e n u e
D E V N o . 2 0 1 3 -0 0 07 2
Subject Property APN: 071-062-01071-062-03
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Pho to:May 20 16
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2017-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2017-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM MODIFYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05678
AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2013-00072)
(1256 NORTH MAGNOLIA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim
(the "Planning Commission") adopted Resolution No. PC2016-031 approving Conditional
Use Permit No. 2013-05678 to permit a storage facility to include the following: a temporary
modular office trailer, indoor and outdoor storage of recreational and commercial vehicles,
automobiles, trucks, trailers, miscellaneous equipment, and auto repair services (the "Project")
on that certain real property located at 1256 North Magnolia Avenue in the City of Anaheim,
County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as
Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 11.79 acres in size and is currently
developed with a recreational vehicle storage facility, retail furniture store and warehouse.
The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for General Commercial and Industrial
land uses. The underlying zone of the Property is the "I" Industrial Zone, meaning that the
Property is subject to the zoning and development standards contained in Chapter 18.10
(Industrial Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"); and
WHEREAS, “Outdoor Storage Yards” and “Automotive – Repair and
Modification” are conditionally permitted uses; and “Warehousing and Storage – Enclosed” is
a permitted use within the “I” Industrial Zone; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. PC2016-031 is attached hereto as Exhibit C and is
incorporated herein by this reference. Condition No. 2 of the Project's approval states:
“Within 60 days of the date of approval, the applicant shall submit plans and
complete a Building Code analysis for occupancy changes and any tenant
improvements within the subject building. In addition, the proper building
permits shall be obtained for the modular office building.”
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a six-month
compliance review and found the applicant to be out of compliance with Condition No. 2 but
granted the applicant a six-month extension to comply with Condition No. 2; and
WHEREAS, between October 2016 and February 2017, Building Division staff
conducted four Investigation Inspections to identify outstanding items that needed to be
addressed. Items requiring permitting include, but are not limited to: Unpermitted
openings/structural modifications; Damaged/missing mezzanine safety railing; Expired permit
for fire sprinklers; Unpermitted electrical work; Unpermitted spray booth; Unsecured water
heater; Unpermitted indoor service bay; Unpermitted/improper storage of
paint/sealers/lacquers; potentially inadequate ventilation for indoor storage of vehicles; and
- 2 - PC2017-***
WHEREAS, since the January 2017 Planning Commission meeting, the Project
applicant has made no measurable progress toward obtaining a building permit and satisfying
Condition No. 2. Via electronic mail dated May 19, 2017, the Project applicant confirmed
that he had no intention of completing the Building Code analysis for the occupancy changes
and obtain a building permit as required by Condition No. 2; and
WHEREAS, despite the significant amount of time provided to comply with
Condition No. 2, the Project has not satisfied Condition No. 2; and
WHEREAS, given the potential life safety issues that exist as a result of failure to
comply with Condition No. 2, and the fact that an automotive repair and storage business is
being conducted on the Property, on June 15, 2017, and consistent with the requirements of
the Code, staff notified the Project applicant that a hearing to be held on July 10, 2017, staff
would request that the Planning Commission revoke approving Conditional Use Permit No.
2013-05678 for failure to comply with Condition No. 2 and obtain a building permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic
Center in the City of Anaheim on July 10, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing
having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against revocation of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05678, and to investigate and make findings and
recommendations in connection therewith, and continued the public hearing to September 6,
2017; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic
Center in the City of Anaheim on September 6, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public
hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against a
proposed revocation or modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05678, and to
investigate and make findings and recommendations 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
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 21 –
Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies) which consist of Actions by regulatory
agencies to enforce or revoke a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use
issued, adopted, or prescribed by the regulatory agency or enforcement of a law, general rule,
standard, or objective, administered or adopted by the regulatory agency, and that, therefore,
pursuant to Section 15321 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
- 3 - PC2017-***
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 Proposed project and, specifically, with respect to
the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05678, does find and determine the
following:
1. That the permit granted is being, or recently has been, exercised contrary to
the terms or conditions of such approval, or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or
regulation.
2. That such modification, including the imposition of any additional
conditions, is reasonably necessary to protect the public peace, health, safety or general
welfare, or necessary to permit reasonable operation under the permit as granted.
3. Modification or new conditions are necessary to correct problems or
violations relating to the use and will preserve the integrity and character of the zoning
district, or to secure the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the General Plan.
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 modify Conditional Use Permit No. No. 2013-05678,
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. 2013-05678 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, effective upon the effective date of this
Resolution and the effective date of the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No.
2013-05678, the Revised Conditions of Approval hereby amend the Original Conditions of
Approval in their entirety. All references to the conditions of approval for the Original CUP,
as amended by Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05678, shall be to the Revised Conditions of
Approval attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B, which shall control and govern the Original
CUP, as amended by Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05678; and
- 4 - PC2017-***
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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of September 6, 2017. 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 September 6, 2017 by the following
vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 6th day of September, 2017.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2017-***
- 6 - PC2017-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05678
(DEV2013-00072)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
GENERAL
1 Within 30 days of the date of approval , the applicant shall obtain
a building permit for all unpermitted work and, if applicable, the
building’s change of occupancy.
Planning and Building
Department,
Building Division
2 Within 90 days of the date of this approval, the applicant shall
complete all work specified in the scope of work of the permit, and
shall have all necessary inspections completed, including a final
inspection.
Planning and Building
Department,
Building Division
3 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the business 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 or
discovered by the business owner.
Planning and Building
Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
4 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
5 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 and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
- 7 - PC2017-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
6 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 and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
7 The business premises shall be developed substantially in
accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of
Anaheim by the petitioner, which plans are on file with the
Planning Department, and as conditioned herein.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
8 Any outdoor automotive repair and modification shall not be
permitted on the property.
Planning and Building
Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
9 Inoperable vehicles and/or spare vehicle parts and equipment shall
not be permitted on the property.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
10 Trees along the northern property line shall be permanently
watered and maintained in a healthy condition to adequately
screen the outdoor storage area.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
11 Within 30 days of the vacation of the furniture store, all signs
related to the vacated business shall be removed.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
- 8 - PC2017-***
EXHIBIT “C”
Resolution No. PC2016-031
EX
H
I
B
I
T
"C
"
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
NO
.
2
EX
H
I
B
I
T
"C
"
EX
H
I
B
I
T
"C
"
EX
H
I
B
I
T
"C
"
EX
H
I
B
I
T
"C
"
EX
H
I
B
I
T
"C
"
EX
H
I
B
I
T
"C
"
EX
H
I
B
I
T
"C
"
EX
H
I
B
I
T
"C
"
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 1B
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JANUARY 9, 2017
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05678 – SIX MONTH
COMPLIANCE REVIEW
LOCATION: 1256 North Magnolia Avenue (OCRV Storage, Inc.)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Mark Loxsom with OCRV
Storage, Inc. The property owner is AVG Partners, represented by Peter A. Gilbert.
REQUEST: The applicant requests a six month compliance review of a conditional
use permit to permit and retain an indoor/outdoor storage facility that includes the
following uses: a temporary modular office trailer, indoor and outdoor storage of
recreational and commercial vehicles, automobiles, trucks, trailers, miscellaneous
equipment, and auto repair services.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, by
motion, receive and file the six month review of Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-
05678.
BACKGROUND: This 11.75-acre property consists of two parcels under common
ownership. The northerly parcel (Parcel 1) is 9.63 acres and consists of a 170,000
square foot building, with Wickes Furniture operating in 70,000 square feet and OCRV
occupying the remaining 100,000 square feet for use as indoor storage, accessory retail
and accessory vehicle repair. The outdoor area includes vehicle and equipment storage,
vehicle valet (drop off) area, and a modular office trailer. Parcel 2 is 2.12 acres and
developed with a 38,500 square foot building used by OCRV for additional indoor
storage with a portion being sublet for auto repair. Parcel 2 is also used for outdoor
storage of commercial vehicles and equipment by OCRV. The property is located in the
"I" Industrial zone. The General Plan designates Parcel 1 for General Commercial land
uses and Parcel 2 for Industrial land uses.
In 2013, the applicant began operating the vehicle and equipment storage on a portion
of the site. At that time, the business owner was informed of the need to apply for a
conditional use permit to retain the business and a Code Enforcement case remained
active until such time a Planning Commission decision was rendered.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05678
January 9, 2017
Page 2 of 3
On April 18, 2016, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05678
permitting a temporary modular office trailer and indoor and outdoor storage of recreational and
commercial vehicles, automobiles, trucks, trailers, miscellaneous equipment, and auto repair
services. Condition No. 17 of Resolution 2016-031 (attached), requires a six month review of the
conditional use permit by the Planning Commission as a “Reports and Recommendations” (R&R)
item to determine if the storage facility is operating safely and in compliance with all conditions
of approval. The six month review is largely required as a result of the property’s recent state of
disrepair. Specifically, the six month review is intended to ensure that unpermitted improvements
are brought up to code and that certain aesthetic improvements, including the replacement of
parking lot landscaping, are completed in a timely manner.
AERIAL MAP
PROPOSAL: Pursuant to the conditions of approval for this conditional use permit, the
permitting of the recreational vehicle storage is subject to a six-month review to ensure on-going
compliance with all conditions of approval and to ensure that the storage use is being operated in
a manner that is compatible with the surrounding properties. This six month review was
conducted to monitor progress made toward compliance with all conditions.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05678
January 9, 2017
Page 3 of 3
Since the Planning Commission approval on April 18, 2016, Planning and Code Enforcement
staff has conducted four site inspections to monitor progress, including one inspection with
Building and Safety and Fire staff. Generally, the applicant has made significant progress toward
compliance with all conditions, as evidenced in the photos attached to this report. Specifically,
the applicant has complied with condition numbers 8, 10-13, and 15, relating to cessation of
outdoor auto repair, removal of inoperable vehicles, planting of 24-inch box trees adjacent to the
I-5 freeway on-ramp along the north property line, removal of on-site debris, repair of damaged
lighting, demolition of planters, stacking of firewood, and relocation of the modular office
building.
However, the applicant did have a disagreement with Building and Safety staff regarding
Condition No. 2, which requires the applicant to submit plans for a Building Code analysis to
ensure that any prior modifications made to the building were Code compliant and safe. Because
of this disagreement, staff opted to delay the six-month Planning Commission review (which
should have been scheduled in October 2016) to allow staff to seek a solution with the applicant.
Following additional discussions with Building and Safety staff, the applicant has recently made
significant progress toward the Building plan submittal. Building and Safety staff have indicated
that the applicant is close to a complete submittal and that the major Building Code interpretation
issues have been largely resolved.
CONCLUSION: The permitting of the a modular office trailer, indoor and outdoor storage of
recreational and commercial vehicles, automobiles, trucks, trailers, miscellaneous equipment,
and auto repair services has not created a nuisance to existing businesses in the area, nor has it
adversely impacted the surrounding properties. Staff has found the operation of the storage
facility to be substantially in compliance with the conditions of approval, except Condition No.
2, and recommends the Planning Commission receive and file this six month review, allowing
staff to continue to monitor the applicant’s progress toward complete compliance. Should the
applicant fail to receive the necessary permits within the next six months, staff intends to
schedule the application for consideration of possible revocation by the Planning Commission.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Nick Taylor Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Resolution
2. Approved Plans
3. Site Inspection Photographs
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 7
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JULY 10, 2017
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05678
LOCATION: 1256 North Magnolia Avenue (OCRV Storage, Inc.)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The business owner is Mark Loxsom with
OCRV Storage, Inc. The property owner is AVG Partners.
REQUEST: Staff requests revocation of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an
existing indoor/outdoor storage facility that includes a temporary modular office
trailer, indoor and outdoor storage of recreational and commercial vehicles,
automobiles, trucks, trailers, miscellaneous equipment, and auto repair services.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
the attached resolution revoking Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05678.
BACKGROUND: This 11.75-acre property consists of two parcels under common
ownership. The northerly parcel (Parcel 1) is 9.63 acres and consists of a 170,000
square foot building, with Wickes Furniture operating in 70,000 square feet and
OCRV occupying the remaining 100,000 square feet for use as indoor storage,
accessory retail and accessory vehicle repair. The outdoor area includes vehicle and
equipment storage, vehicle valet (drop off) area, and a modular office trailer. Parcel
2 is 2.12 acres and developed with a 38,500 square foot building used by OCRV for
additional indoor storage with a portion being sublet for auto repair. Parcel 2 is also
used for outdoor storage of commercial vehicles and equipment by OCRV. The
property is located in the "I" Industrial zone. The General Plan designates Parcel 1
for General Commercial land uses and Parcel 2 for Industrial land uses.
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05678
July 10, 2017
Page 2 of 5
AERIAL MAP
In 2013, Mr. Loxsom began operating the vehicle and equipment storage on a portion of the site.
At that time, the Mr. Loxsom was informed of the need to apply for a CUP to retain the business.
Subsequently, an application for a CUP was filed by Mr. Loxsom on July 15, 2013. Staff worked
with Mr. Loxsom over the course of several months to prepare the items needed for a complete
application to present to the Planning Commission.
On April 18, 2016, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05678
permitting a temporary modular office trailer and indoor and outdoor storage of recreational and
commercial vehicles, automobiles, trucks, trailers, miscellaneous equipment, and auto repair
services. Condition No. 17 of Resolution 2016-031 (attached) required a six month review of the
conditional use permit by the Planning Commission as a “Reports and Recommendations” (R&R)
item to determine if the storage facility was operating safely and in compliance with all conditions
of approval. The Commission added this condition because there were many issues that warranted
on-going monitoring, as further described below.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05678
July 10, 2017
Page 3 of 5
On January 9, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted the six month review; this review was
initially required by the Commission as a result of the property’s state of disrepair. The six month
review was also intended to ensure that conditions of approval relating to unpermitted building
improvements and certain aesthetic improvements, including the replacement of parking lot
landscaping, were addressed in a timely manner. While Mr. Loxsom had satisfactorily addressed
the outdoor areas since the April 2016 public hearing, no progress had been made on the
unpermitted building modifications. At that time, Mr. Loxsom agreed to obtain the necessary
building permits within six months and the Planning Commission granted an extension. The
Planning Commission agreed with staff’s recommendation that if Mr. Loxsom had not obtained
the necessary permits after an additional six months, the CUP would be scheduled for Planning
Commission to consider revocation.
DISCUSSION: Pursuant to the conditions of approval for this CUP, the permitting of the
recreational vehicle storage is subject to compliance with all conditions of approval to ensure that
the storage use is being operated in a manner that is safe and compatible with the surrounding
properties. Although Mr. Loxsom obtained a building permit for the modular trailer, he has failed
to comply with the Condition No. 2 (see below), which requires the applicant to submit plans for
a Building Code analysis in a timely manner to ensure that any prior modifications made to the
building were Code compliant and safe.
Condition No. 2: “Within 60 days of the date of approval, the applicant shall
submit plans and complete a Building Code analysis for occupancy changes and
any tenant improvements within the subject building. In addition, the proper
building permits shall be obtained for the modular office building.”
Since the Planning Commission approval on April 18, 2016, Planning and Code Enforcement staff
have conducted four site inspections to monitor progress, including one inspection with Building
and Safety and Fire staff. Generally, Mr. Loxsom had made significant progress toward
compliance with all conditions, with the exception of Condition No. 2. Staff opted to delay the
six month Planning Commission review (which should have been scheduled in October 2016) to
allow staff to seek a solution with Mr. Loxsom. From October 2016 to February 2017, Building
staff conducted four Investigation Inspections to identify significant items that needed to be
addressed. Items requiring permitting include, but are not limited to:
Unpermitted openings/structural modifications
Damaged/missing mezzanine safety railing
Expired permit for fire sprinklers
Unpermitted electrical work
Unpermitted spray booth
Unsecured water heater
Unpermitted indoor service bay
Unpermitted/improper storage of paint/sealers/lacquers
Possible inadequate ventilation for indoor storage of vehicles.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05678
July 10, 2017
Page 4 of 5
Following additional discussions with Building and Safety staff, Mr. Loxsom indicated he would
provide a Building plan submittal. Despite a significant amount of time spent by Building staff to
meet with the applicant and conduct research on existing permits, Mr. Loxsom failed to prepare
and submit the necessary plans and documentation. Since the January 2017 Planning Commission
meeting when a compliance review was conducted, Mr. Loxsom has made no measurable progress
toward obtaining a building permit. On May 19, 2017, Mr. Loxsom confirmed in an email that he
had no intention of completing the Building Code analysis for the occupancy changes and
obtaining a building permit as required by Condition No. 2 (Attachment No. 4).
Revocation or Modification of Discretionary Permits: The Planning Commission may revoke or
modify a conditional use permit if it finds that any of the following conditions exist:
1) That the approval was obtained by fraud;
2) That the use or variance for which such approval is granted is not being exercised
within the time specified in such permit;
3) That the use or variance for which such approval was granted has ceased to exist or
has been suspended or inoperative for any reason for a period of six (6) consecutive
months or more;
4) That the permit granted is being, or recently has been, exercised contrary to the terms
or conditions of such approval, or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or
regulation;
5) That the use or variance for which the approval was granted has been so exercised
as to be detrimental to the public health or safety, or so as to constitute a nuisance;
6) That the use or variance for which the approval was granted has not been exercised
and that, based upon additional information or due to changed circumstances, the
facts necessary to support one or more of the required findings for the original
approval of such entitlement, as set forth in this chapter, no longer exist; or
7) That any such modification, including the imposition of any additional conditions,
is reasonably necessary to protect the public peace, health, safety or general welfare,
or necessary to permit reasonable operation under the permit as granted.
A notice of the hearing before the Planning Commission on the proposed revocation was mailed
to Mr. Loxsom and the property owner on June 15, 2017. Following receipt of the notice, Mr.
Loxsom requested a meeting with staff. Building and Planning staff agreed and did meet with Mr.
Loxsom, but given the length time that has passed since Planning Commission approval with no
significant progress made toward obtaining building permits, and the potential life safety issues
that continue to exist as a result, staff is not supportive of any further extensions that would allow
the business to continue to operate while Mr. Loxsom pursues a building permit as required by the
CUP. The Code specifies that if any of the above-referenced findings can made, the Planning
Commission may revoke the CUP. In accordance with Finding No. 4, staff believes that the Mr.
Loxsom has been operating contrary to the conditions of approval since permits have not been
attained in accordance with Condition No. 2 of Resolution 2016-031 and applicable Building
Codes. In accordance with Finding No. 5, staff believes that Mr. Loxsom has created a situation
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05678
July 10, 2017
Page 5 of 5
is that detrimental to public health and safety because modifications made to the building have not
been properly permitted, allowing unsafe conditions to continue to exist. The more significant life
safety issues include, but are not limited to, structural modifications made to the building including
enlarged openings of load-bearing walls with cut rebar, a potential fire hazard resulting from the
unpermitted spray booth, and potentially insufficient ventilation for indoor storage of vehicles with
internal combustion engines. These unpermitted modifications pose a potential danger to Mr.
Loxsom, his employees, and anyone in the existing furniture store located within the building.
Because of these reasons, staff is recommending that the Commission revoke Conditional Use
Permit No. 2013-05678.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the effects
of the proposed project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e., Class 21 –
Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies) which consist of actions by regulatory agencies to
enforce or revoke a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use issued, adopted,
or prescribed by the regulatory agency or enforcement of a law, general rule, standard, or objective,
administered or adopted by the regulatory agency, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15321
of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the proposed project will not cause a significant
effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
CONCLUSION: Staff has found the operation of the storage facility to be out of compliance
with Condition No. 2 of Resolution 2016-031, and recommends the Planning Commission revoke
the CUP. In the event the Commission revokes this permit, staff will continue to pursue compliance
with all building code-related violations on the property through Code Enforcement and/or the
City Attorney’s office as necessary.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Nick Taylor Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution of Revocation
2. Approving Planning Commission Resolution
3. January 9, 2017 Staff Report
4. Mr. Loxsom Email, May 19, 2017
5. Investigation Inspections Correction Notice
6. Approved Site Plan
7. Site Inspection Photographs
8. Notice of Violation
9. Applicant Submitted Progress Report
320.0'
320.0'
1
2
0
.
0
'
TILT UP
C
O
N
C
352.67'
872.16'
CONC.
RAMP
3
9
3
.
0
'
MAGNOLIA AVENUE
SA
N
T
A
A
N
A
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
&
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
F
.
H
.
4
2
4
.
9
5
'
6
(
6
(
2
3
7
.
5
7
'
1
:
6
(
1
(
9
9
9
8
EXITEXIT
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
EXIT
4
Existing planter (typ.)
Existing wall
1
1
2
1
PIVS
9
CONC TILT UP BLDG
38,500 SF.FT.
38,000 SQ. FT. VEHICLE STORAGE
400 SQ. FT. VEHICLE SERVICE
100 SQ. FT. RESTROOM/ UTILITIES
8
Existing sign
Existing sign
175'
4
4
4 4
7
7
9
7
9
7
9
5
9
1
9
Existing wall
8
4
9
9
3
8
3
5 5
8
4
14
5
55
8
8
8813
10
4
12 10
15 6
10
10
10
10
ENCLOSED TURNEL
6
4 4
4
4
10
6
10
4
0
0
.
0
'
6
6
8
8108
14
425'
9
EXIT
11
10
1
10
2 1
2
1014
CONC TILT UP BLDG
170,000 SF.FT.
165,000 SQ. FT. VEHICLE STORAGE
1,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE
1,600 SQ. FT. VEHICLE SERVICE
2,000 SQ. RETAIL/ RETAIL INVENTORY
400 SQ. FT. RESTROOM/ UTILITIES
F
.
H
.
7 13
Planting of new screening trees along North
SURSHUW\OLQHEHWZHHQH[LVWLQJWUHHV´ER[
Tristania conferta (Brisbane box) trees will be
SODQWHGDWDPD[LPXPRI¶RQFHQWHU
A0.1
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SITE PLAN KEYED NOTES
NOTE: ALL SITE CONDITIONS SHOWN ARE EXISTING TO REMAIN EXCEPT
THOSE NOTED IN THE KEYED NOTES BELOW.
MARK DESCRIPTION OF WORK DETAIL
8' PICKET FENCE
20' ROLLING GATE x 8' HIGH KEYPAD ACCESS WITH FIRE DEPT. OVER RIDE
NO LEFT TURN SIGN
VEHICLE DROP OFF / PICK UP AREA
SITE PLAN KEYED NOTES
8' EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE W/ BARBED WIRE
VEHICLE STORAGE YARD
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE STAGING / VEHICLE STORE AREA
PROPOSED SITE PLAN1
CUSTOMER , TENANT EMPLOYER VEHICLE PARKING
PC2
NOTES:
1.TOTAL PARKING = 38 STALLS INCLUDING 1 HANDICAP AND 1 VAN HANDICAP. STRIPING WILL
MEET CITY OF ANAHEIM PARKING STANDARDS . DETAILS 470 AND 436G
VEHICLE CIRCULATION TO MEET FIRE DEPT. STANDARDS
PROPERTY GENERAL NOTES:
1. NO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED.
2. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING PROPERTY OR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS. THE PROPERTY IS
APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY HAVE A TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA OF
APPROXIMATELY 208,500 GROSS SQUARE FEET. EXISTING CONSTRUCTION IS CONCRETE TILT-UP EXTERIOR WALLS AND
WOOD FRAMED ROOF STRUCTURE, FULL FIRE SPRINKLER PROTECTED.
3. ORIGINAL SETBACKS UNKNOWN; NO ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES INCLUDED, ALL YARDS REMAIN AS-IS.
4. NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING PAVED AREAS; UTILITIES OR SIGNAGE.
5. NO CHANGES IN PEDESTRIAN OR VEHICLE ACCESS OR CIRCULATION.
6. NO CHANGES TO FIRE HYDRANTS OR THE STRUCTURES THEY SERVE.
7. NO CHANGES IN THE UTILITIES PROVIDING SERVICE TO THE EXISTING PROPERTY OR STRUCTURES.
8. EXISTING WATER METERS AND BACKFLOW DEVICES ARE LOCATED IN GROUND BOXES OR VAULTS; ELECTRICAL
TRANSFORMERS ARE LOCATED IN PAVED AREAS IN EAST (REAR) YARD; NO SCREENING REQUIRED FOR THESE EXISTING
UTILITY STRUCTURES.
9. EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREAS WILL BE CLEARED,PRUNED AND KEPT IN A WELL MAINTAINED CONDITION. NO NEW
LANDSCAPING OR PLANTINGS WILL BE ADDED
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWESTQUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN , THE RANCHO
LOS COYOTES, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
'/EE/E'dWK/Ed/Ed, t ^d>/E K&^/^ d/KEϲ͕/^dEdd, Z KEEKZd,ϬͲϯϵΖͲϬϬ͟t ^d͕ϭϬϲϬ͘ϰϱ
FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 2 OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO THE
EMERSON ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A MISSOURI CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED JULY 31, 1962 IN
KK<ϲϭϵϳ͕W' ϳϲK&K&&//>Z KZ^͕Z KZ^K&^/KhEdz͕d, E KEd/Eh/E'EKZd,ϬͲϯϵΖͲϬϬ͟t ^d
ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, 192.48 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED APRIL 19, 1955 IN BOOK 3034, PAGE 414 OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS, THENCE
ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND
/^dE ^͗EKZd,ϴϵͲϮϭΖͲϬϬ͟ ^d͕ϯϬ͘ϬϬ& d͖EKZd,ϲͲϮϴΖͲϯϬ͟ ^d͕ϮϬϭ͘ϱϲ& d͕EEKZd,ϱͲϭϬΖͲϯϰ͟ ^d͕
495.10 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE 100.00 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY, DESCRIBED IN THE FIRST PARCEL OF DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 44 PAGE 495 OF DEEDS, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE, SOUTH
ϱϳͲϭϬΖͲϯϱ͟ ^d͕ϰϮϰ͘ϵϱ& dE^Khd,ϱϳͲϭϯΖͲϯϬ͟ ^d͕Ϯϯϳ͘ϱϳ& ddK>/E WZ>> >t/d,E/^dEd
EASTERLY, 658.00 FEET, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 6, BEING THE
NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL NO. 1 AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 43, PAGE 27 OF PARCEL MAPS IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCEL
EK͘ϭ^Khd,ϬͲϯϵΖͲϬϬ͟ ^d͕ϴϳϮ͘ϭϱ& d͕^Khd,ϴϵͲϭϳΖͲϭϱ͟t ^d͕Ϯϲϱ͘ϬϬ& d͕EEKZd,ϬͲϯϵΖͲϬϬ͟t ^d͕ϯϱϮ͘ϲϳ
FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE, CONTINUING ALONG SAID BOUNDARY AND THE WESTERLY
WZK>KE'd/KEd, Z K&^Khd,ϴϵͲϮϭΖͲϬϬ͟t ^dϯϵϯ͘ϬϬ& ddKd, WK/Ed '/EE/E'͘
EXCEPTIONS:
5. ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT RECORDED JANUARY 12, 1968 IN BOOK 8491, PAGE 339, OFFICIAL
RECORDS.
6. 5' WIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT RECORDED APRIL 26, 1972 IN BOOK 10099, PAGE 759, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
13. 7 PARCEL STATE HIGHWAY EASEMENT RECORDED JANUARY 25, 1999 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19990051566,
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
EXIT PATH
1.NORTHERN PARCEL: 9.63 ACRES
1256 N. Magnolia Avenue ( APN 071-062-01)
2.SOUTHERN PARCEL: 2.12 ACRES
1256 N. Magnolia Avenue ( APN 071-062-03)
TRASH ENCLOSURE IF REQUIRE FOR OPERATION
40 YD TRASH BIN
SPECIAL PAVEMENT MEMBRANE EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL STORAGE
DELIVERY VEHICLE PARKING/STAGING
FIRE WOOD, CUTTING, SPLITTING STORAGE AREA
PC2
PC2
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
OC RV Storage, Inc.
14252 Culver Dr., Suite A-138
Irvine, Ca. 92604-0326
949-705-7540
August 25, 2017
David See, Principal Planner
Nicolas J. Taylor, Associate Planner
City of Anaheim — Planning Department
200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP2013-05678; Condition No. 2
1256 North Magnolia Avenue
OCRV Storage, Inc. Request for Additional Time to Complete
Dear David and Nicolas,
OCRV requests additional time beyond September 6, 2017 to obtain a building permit and construct
the improvements requested from the Building and Fire Departments.
We believe if the Building and Fire Department is in general agreement with our code interpretations
and how our design has resolved their concerns, we believe the Plan Check/Release of Permit will
take about one month, therefore, OCRV should have a permit to start construction around the
beginning of October 2017. The scope of work required to resolve the concerns of the Building and
Fire Departments will take about two months of construction and inspections to complete, therefore,
we expect a final inspection around the first of December 2017.
We will keep the Planning Department informed of our progress before each monthly Planning
Commission meeting. Please let us know if this extension is approved and don't hesitate to contact
us with any additional information you may need.
Sincerely,
Mark Loxsom 949-939-2014
Owner, OCRV Storage, Inc.
California Licensed Architect C-15422
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2017
SUBJECT: VARIANCE NO. 2016-05081
LOCATION: 1900 East La Palma Avenue (La Palma Square Medical)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The owner and applicant is The Stetson
Group, Inc., represented by Nishant Niroola.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval a variance to allow fewer
parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code to permit the establishment of
medical offices within an existing office complex.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically
exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental
Quality Act (Class 1, Existing Facilities), and approving Variance No. 2016-05081.
BACKGROUND: This 1.06-acre property is developed with an office building
and is located in the “C-G” General Commercial zone. The General Plan designates
the Property for Office-Low land uses. Surrounding land uses include Sycamore
Junior High School to the west, an apartment complex, church, and private school
to the south, a bank to the east, and commercial and single-family residential land
uses across La Palma Avenue to the north.
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a parking variance to establish a
medical office within an existing 13,486 square foot office complex. The applicant
also proposes to construct a 1,090 square foot addition to the complex. The project
would provide 55 off-street parking spaces where 88 spaces would be required by
the Zoning Code. As described in the applicant’s Letter of Request, the medical
offices would include two tenants: one specializing in imaging and oncology and
the other providing family practice, internal medicine, urgent care, and pediatrics.
VARIANCE NO. 2016-05081
September 6, 2017
Page 2 of 3
Site Plan
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
Parking Variance: A parking variance shall be granted upon a finding by the Planning
Commission or City Council that the evidence presented shows that all of the following
conditions exist:
1) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause
fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the
number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable
to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of
operation of such use;
2) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase
the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in
the immediate vicinity of the proposed use;
3) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase
the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private
property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use;
4) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase
traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the
proposed use; and
5) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede
vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public
streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use.
VARIANCE NO. 2016-05081
September 6, 2017
Page 3 of 3
A total of 88 parking spaces are required for the proposed medical office based on the Zoning
Code requirement of six spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area for medical and dental
offices. The applicant is proposing to provide 55 parking spaces, resulting in a parking
deficiency of 33 spaces. The applicant stated that the proposed tenants would generate a
parking demand that is less than the Zoning Code requirement because the tenant operating a
general practice would not use all exam and procedure rooms simultaneously, and the other
tenant would be a medical office facility that specializes radiology and oncology services
only. Staff hired a consultant to prepare a parking study to verify the applicant’s parking
demand estimations. The parking consultant evaluated two existing facilities (in the cities of
Downey and Covina) which include the same tenants as the proposed project: Centerlake
Imaging & Oncology and Mayflower Medical Group. The peak parking demand observed at
the Covina facility was 3.23 spaces per 1,000 square feet and 2.59 per 1,000 square feet for
the Downey facility. Based on these parking ratios, the parking study concluded that the
projected parking demand to be 47 spaces for the proposed project. The consultant also
recommends that a 10 percent overage factor be included in the analysis. This overage factor
would account for overlapping customer visitation to ensure that patients do not have to
travel the entire parking supply to find the last vacant parking space. The result would be a
maximum parking demand of 52 spaces, or a surplus of three spaces. Staff also recommends
a condition of approval that requires Planning Director approval of any change of operation
or tenant that creates a parking demand exceeding the existing parking supply. Therefore,
staff believes that 55 parking spaces would accommodate the proposed medical uses and
recommends approval of the parking variance.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the
effects of the proposed project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e.,
Class 1 – Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor
alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no
expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore,
pursuant to Section 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the proposed
project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically
exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the conditions exist for Planning Commission to make
the required findings to approve this parking variance request. The number of parking spaces
provided would be adequate for the proposed medical uses due to the specialized nature of
the medical businesses and the lower volume of patient visitation as compared to a general
medical office use. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of this request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Nick Taylor David See
Associate Planner Principal Planner
Attachments:
1. Draft Variance Resolution
2. Applicant’s Letter of Request
3. Parking Study
4. Photographs
5. Project Plans
C-GOFFICES
RS-3SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
TSINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RM-4PINEWOOD VILLAGEAPARTMENTS49 DU
C-GOFFICES
C-GMEDICAL OFFICE
TRELIGIOUS USETSYCAMORE JUNIORHIGH SCHOOL
C-GRETAIL
C-GRETAIL
C-GBANK
TPRE-SCHOOLDAYCARE
TSYCAMORE JUNIORHIGH SCHOOL
C-GRETAIL C-GRETAIL
C-GRETAIL
RS-3SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-3SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-3S.F.R.
C-GRETAIL
C-GRETAIL
C-GRETAIL
C-GMEDICAL OFFICE
E LA PALMA AVE
N S T A T E C O L L
E G E B L V D
E S Y C A M O R E S T
E BELMONT AVE
N B
R A
N T F O R D
S T E SANDALWOOD AVE
E. LINCOLN AVE
E. LA PALMA AVE
N
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
N . A C A C I A S T
E . B R O A D W A Y
E .M I R A L O M A A V E
N .P L A C E N T I A A V E
N . S U N K I S T S T
N . R I O V I S T A S T
E .B R O A D W A Y
1 9 0 0 Ea st L a P a lm a Ave n u e
D E V N o . 2 0 1 6 -0 0 13 3
Subject Property APN: 073-190-28
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Pho to:May 20 16
E LA PALMA AVE
N S T A T E C O L L
E G E B L V D
E S Y C A M O R E S T
E BELMONT AVE
N B
R A
N T F O R D
S T E SANDALWOOD AVE
E. LINCOLN AVE
E. LA PALMA AVE
N
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
N . A C A C I A S T
E . B R O A D W A Y
E .M I R A L O M A A V E
N .P L A C E N T I A A V E
N . S U N K I S T S T
N . R I O V I S T A S T
E .B R O A D W A Y
1 9 0 0 Ea st L a P a lm a Ave n u e
D E V N o . 2 0 1 6 -0 0 13 3
Subject Property APN: 073-190-28
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Pho to:May 20 16
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2017-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2017-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2016-05081 AND
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2016-00133)
(1900 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition for Variance No. 2016-05081 to allow fewer parking
spaces than required by Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Zoning Code") to
permit the establishment of medical offices within an existing office complex (collectively referred
to herein as the "Proposed Project") for premises located on certain real property at 1900 East La
Palma Avenue, in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally
depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the
"Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 1.06 acres in size and is currently developed
with a office building. The Property is located in the “C-G” General Commercial zone and is
subject to the zoning and development standards of Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) of the
Zoning Code. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Office Low land uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on September 6, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been
duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures)
of the Zoning Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Variance No. 2016-
05081, and to investigate and make findings and recommendations 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 the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations; herein referred to as the "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 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 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
- 2 - PC2017-***
WHEREAS, Section 18.42.040.010 of the Zoning Code sets forth the minimum non-
residential off-street parking requirements for automobiles and other vehicles based on the type of
use associated with the Property as follows:
SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces.
(88 spaces required; 55 spaces proposed)
WHEREAS, based upon the request letter submitted by the applicant and a parking
study prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc., the Planning Commission does further find and
determine that the request for a variance for less parking than required by the Zoning Code should
be approved for the following reasons:
1. Upon a review of the letter of request submitted by the applicant and the parking
study prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc., that the variance, under the conditions imposed, will
not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of
such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and
reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use due to the specialized nature of the
medical businesses and the lower volume of patient visitation as compared to a general office use.
2. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand
and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed use because the on-site parking will adequately accommodate the peak parking demands
of the proposed medical office facility.
3. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand
and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed use because the on-site parking for the medical office facility will adequately
accommodate peak parking demands of all uses on the site.
4. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase traffic
congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use because the
project site provides adequate ingress and egress points to the property and are designed to allow
for adequate on-site circulation.
5. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not impede vehicular
ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed use because the project site has existing ingress or egress access points that are
designed to allow adequate on-site circulation.
- 3 - PC2017-***
and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
approve Variance No. 2016-05081, 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 the Property under Variance No. 2016-
05081 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 Zoning 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 Zoning 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 Zoning 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 Zoning Code and any other
applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings
as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation
or requirement.
- 4 - PC2017-***
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting
of September 6, 2017. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60
(Procedures) of the Zoning 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 September 6, 2017 by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 6th day of September 2017.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2017-***
- 6 - PC2017-***
EXHIBIT “B”
VARIANCE NO. 2016-05081
(DEV2016-00133)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
1 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
2 The medical offices shall be operated in accordance with the
applicant’s Letter of Request and Parking Study prepared by Kunzman
Associates submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the
business operations as described in those documents shall be subject to
review and approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial
conformance with the original approval and to ensure compatibility
with the surrounding uses.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
3 Sufficient parking for all uses located at the subject property shall be
maintained at all times, so that the uses will not cause any parking
impacts to surrounding uses. Any change of operation or tenant mix
that creates a parking demand exceeding the existing parking supply
shall require prior approval by the Planning and Building Director. The
Director may require a new parking study and/or modification to the
business operations to address parking impacts.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
4 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 and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
- 7 - PC2017-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
5 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 and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
6 The subject Property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the
petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department,
and as conditioned herein.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
October 19, 2016
The Stetson Group
554 E San Bernardino Rd
Suite 200
Covina, CA 91723
City of Anaheim
Planning Department
200 S. Anaheim Blvd, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
To Whom It May Concern:
The Stetson Group, Inc. requests your sincere consideration in granting a parking variance for the
proposed renovation project at 1900 E. La Palma Ave in Anaheim. The property, now 27 years
old, was built in a time of fewer building restrictions and requirements. In recent years, the
building has fallen into partial disuse and has become a regular transient encampment. Our goal
is to fully renovate the building to modernize the interior, beautify the exterior and transform
the location into a fully functional asset to the City of Anaheim. We request your approval in
reducing the parking requirement to accommodate the limitations inherent in the original
property design.
Background:
The Stetson Group, Inc. plans the improvement of an existing commercial building located at
1900 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA, 92805, AIN: 073-190-28 (“subject site”) for the
development of a diagnostic imaging laboratory to be occupied by Centrelake Medical Group,
Inc. dba Centrelake Imaging & Oncology and primary/ pediatrics/ urgent care office to be
occupied by Mayflower Medical Group, Inc.
Centrelake Imaging & Oncology:
Centrelake Imaging & Oncology consists of a network of comprehensive outpatient radiology
located in the Inland Empire and east San Gabriel Valley. The subject site (“Centrelake Anaheim”)
is located approximately 2.5 miles from Anaheim Regional Medical Center (AHMC) and within
the immediate vicinity of a high concentration of medical office buildings. Centrelake Anaheim
complements Centrelake’s existing locations in Ontario, West Covina, Downey, Pomona, Upland
and Covina. Providing comprehensive radiology services, the facility will be located in a newly
improved commercial building housing state-of-the-art modalities, including Vascular &
Interventional Center ("VIC"), magnetic resonance imaging (“MRI”), computed tomography
(“CT”), digital radiography (“X-RAY”), digital mammography, bone density ("DEXA") and
ultrasound equipment. Moreover, the facility will feature a modern clinical floorplan to enhance
workflow and operational efficiency, including patient reception areas, equipment rooms, and
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
administrative space. The laboratory will provide to the community a full range of state-of-the-
art radiology procedures previously unparalleled in the area. The expected completion date of
the project will be Spring 2018.
The proposed diagnostic imaging laboratory cannot be classified as medical space and/or
physician office. Patients are seen here by appointment only at specific intervals and the time
spent by patient on-site is significantly longer in comparison to physician’s office. In comparison
to medical and/or physician offices, the diagnostic imaging laboratory requires considerably
larger size rooms featuring various modalities, multiple electrical and equipment maintenance
rooms, numerous storage areas, and other ancillary spaces for the laboratory to function
efficiently. Additionally, please review current floorplan for additional reference. The current
floorplan comprises three (3) staircases, four (4) luxurious patient reception areas, spacious
procedure and recovery rooms, elevator and large courtyard. These generously appointed areas
occupy a large proportion of the laboratory’s gross area and have minimal impact on parking
requirements. Business hours for the diagnostic imaging laboratory will be 8am-5pm, Monday
through Friday with closure from Noon-1pm for lunch.
The proposed imaging laboratory requires, including both floors, approximately 25 parking every
hour. However, not all modalities will be functioning simultaneously and/or throughout the
business day. The parking allocation expressed above reflects the maximum requirements.
Realistically, we are projecting to serve a maximum of 80 patients in 8 hours. Therefore, per hour
average is approximately 10 patients. With overlapping of waiting patients, the maximum will be
approximately 12 patients per hour.
Our technical, supportive and administrative staff will be 10. Therefore, total parking stall
requirement will be 25. Our current Site Plan features sufficient parking allocation to
accommodate our anticipated patient load.
Mayflower Medical Group, Inc.:
Mayflower Medical Group Inc. is a network of family practice, internal medicine, urgent care and
pediatrics offices serving the comprehensive healthcare needs of adults and seniors in the San
Gabriel Valley. Our team has been providing quality medical care to the surrounding community
for over 20 years. Business hours for this office will be 8am-5pm, Monday through Friday with
closure from Noon-1pm for lunch.
As proposed, the primary care/ pediatrics/ urgent care requires, including both floors
approximately 27 parking every hour. However, not all exam and procedure rooms will be
functioning simultaneously and/or throughout the business day. The parking allocation
expressed reflects the maximum requirements. Realistically, we are projecting to serve a
maximum of 110 patients in 8 hours. Therefore, per hour average is approximately 14 patients.
With overlapping of waiting patients, the maximum will be approximately 16 patients per hour.
Our technical, supportive and administrative staff will be 11. Therefore, total parking stall
requirement will be 27. Our current Site Plan features sufficient parking allocation to
accommodate our anticipated patient load.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the hourly parking needs, we have concluded Centrelake Imaging & Oncology, Inc. will
require a maximum of 25 parking spaces per hour. Mayflower Medical Group, Inc. will utilize 27
parking stalls per hour. The building requirement will be 52 parking spaces per hour.
We appreciate your time in considering this request and assisting us in enhancing the quality of
the existing structure, improving resident access to critically needed medical services and
becoming a part of the Anaheim community. Please do not hesitate to contact us for any
questions/clarifications on this project. We look forward to working closely with the City of
Anaheim in making this project a reality.
Sincerely,
Shan Niroola
Vice President
The Stetson Group
(714) 752-3433
shan@thestetsongroup.com
1111 Town & Country Road, Suite 34 (714) 973-8383 5005 La Mart Drive, Suite 201
Orange, California 92868 www.traffic-engineer.com Riverside, California 92507
May 15, 2017
Mr. Nick Taylor, Associate Planner
CITY OF ANAHEIM
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Dear Mr. Taylor:
INTRODUCTION
The firm of Kunzman Associates, Inc. is pleased to provide this parking study and trip generation memo
for the proposed Centrelake – Mayflower project located at 1900 East La Palma Avenue in the City of
Anaheim.
This report summarizes our methodology, analysis, and findings. Although this is a technical report,
every effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. To assist the reader with those
terms unique to transportation engineering, a glossary of terms is provided within Appendix A.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located at 1900 East La Palma Avenue in the City of Anaheim. The site is currently
developed with two 2-story buildings totaling 14,576.5 square feet. Figure 1 shows the project location
map. Based on discussions with the applicant, the proposed square footage remains unchanged at
14,756.5 square feet.
The existing two 2-story buildings totaling 14,576.5 square feet are proposed to be occupied by medical
offices, an imaging lab, and supportive offices. The project site will provide 55 on-site parking spaces.
Figure 2 illustrates the project site plan.
PARKING CODE
Based on the City of Anaheim Parking Code requirements, the facility should provide a total of 88
parking spaces (14,576.5 square feet / 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet = 87.5 parking spaces).
To create a parking rate specific to this unique land use, parking counts of two similar existing facilities
were conducted. The developer of the proposed project also developed and operates the two similar
facilities. The similar facilities house the exact same uses as the proposed facility. They are currently
being operated by the same Figures 3 and 4 show the existing Covina facility and Figures 5 and 6 show
the existing Downey facility that were counted.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Mr. Nick Taylor, Associate Planner
CITY OF ANAHEIM
May 15, 2017
www.traffic-engineer.com
2
The Covina facility is located at 1433 North Hollenbeck Avenue in the City of Covina. The total square
footage of the Covina facility is currently 16,105 square feet. This facility was fully occupied and in full
operation during the time of the data collection. The Covina facility was counted on March 15, 2017
(Wednesday) from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. The peak parking demand was 52 occupied parking spaces
between 3:30 PM and 3:45 PM (see Table 1).
The Downey facility is located at 10226 Lakewood Boulevard in the City of Downey. The total square
footage of the Downey facility is currently 11,950 square feet. This facility was fully occupied and in full
operation during the time of the data collection. The Downey facility was counted on March 14, 2017
(Tuesday) from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. The peak parking demand was 31 occupied parking spaces
between 10:30 AM and 10:45 AM (see Table 2).
The peak parking demand for the Covina facility is 3.23 occupied parking spaces per 1,000 square feet.
The peak parking demand for the Downey facility is 2.59 occupied parking spaces per 1,000 square feet.
For purposes of this parking analysis, the maximum peak parking demand of 3.23 occupied parking
spaces per 1,000 square feet has been utilized (see Table 3).
PARKING DEMAND
As indicated in Table 4, the expected peak parking demand is 47.1 occupied parking spaces based on the
developed parking rate for the proposed unique land uses for the project site. However, a ten (10)
percent overage is recommended to assure there is adequate parking. A ten (10) percent overage factor
is included as a factor of safety and to assure that a patron desiring to park does not have to travel the
entire parking supply to find the last vacant parking space. This is a recommended practice in the traffic
engineering community. The total maximum likely parking demand of 52 (47.1 X 1.10 = 51.8) parking
spaces will allow for parking on-site and provide sufficient parking for the proposed land uses based
upon the calculated parking code for this land use.
TRIP GENERATION
The trips generated by the project are determined by multiplying an appropriate trip generation rates by
the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates are predicated on the assumption that energy costs, the
availability of roadway capacity, the availability of vehicles to drive, and life styles remain similar to what
are known today. A major change in these variables may affect trip generation rates.
Trip generation rates were determined for daily traffic, morning peak hour inbound and outbound
traffic, and evening peak hour inbound and outbound traffic for the proposed land uses. These trip
generation rates were calculated by conducting 24-hour vehicle counts at two similar existing facilities
conducted in March of 2017 and calculating each similar facilities trip generation rates individually. For
the proposed project, the highest morning peak hour, evening peak hour, and daily rates were utilized
to produce the maximum likely trip generation for the proposed site. By multiplying the trip generation
rates by the land use quantities, the traffic volumes are determined.
Mr. Nick Taylor, Associate Planner
CITY OF ANAHEIM
May 15, 2017
www.traffic-engineer.com
3
Tables 5 and 6 contain the 24-hour vehicle counts conducted at the two similar existing facilities. Table
7 exhibits the trip generation rates, project peak hour volumes, and project daily traffic volumes for the
proposed project land uses. For the proposed project, the highest morning peak hour, evening peak
hour, and daily rates were utilized to produce the maximum likely trip generation for the proposed site.
The proposed project is projected to generate a total of approximately 395 daily vehicle trips, 34 of
which will occur during the morning peak hour and 9 of which will occur during the evening peak hour
(see Table 7).
Table 8 contains the existing 24-hour vehicle count conducted at the Anaheim project site. Table 9
exhibits the existing Anaheim project site morning and evening peak hour volumes and project daily
traffic volumes. The existing Anaheim project site currently generates a total of approximately 202 daily
vehicle trips, 11 of which will occur during the morning peak hour and 29 of which will occur during the
evening peak hour (see Table 9).
TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
Trip generation comparison calculations are located in Table 9. The difference in vehicle trips are
calculated and shown.
The proposed project land uses are projected to generate approximately 193 more daily vehicle trips
(395 - 202 = 193), 23 more of which will occur during the morning peak hour (34 - 11 = 23), and 20 less
of which will occur during the evening peak hour (9 - 29 = -20).
CONCLUSIONS
1. The project site is located at 1900 East La Palma Avenue in the City of Anaheim.
2. The project site is currently occupied and generating vehicular trips.
3. The existing two 2-story buildings totaling 14,576.5 square feet are proposed to be utilized by
medical offices, an imaging lab, and supportive offices. The square footage is to remain
unchanged.
4. The project site will provide 55 on-site parking spaces.
5. Based on the City of Anaheim Parking Code requirements, the facility should provide a total of 88
parking spaces.
6. The total maximum likely parking demand of 52 parking spaces will allow for parking on-site and
provide sufficient parking for the proposed land uses upon the calculated parking code for this
land use.
Mr. Nick Taylor, Associate Planner
CITY OF ANAHEIM
May 15, 2017
www.traffic-engineer.com
4
7. The proposed project is projected to generate a total of approximately 395 daily vehicle trips, 34
of which will occur during the morning peak hour and 9 of which will occur during the evening
peak hour.
8. The existing Anaheim project site currently generates a total of approximately 202 daily vehicle
trips, 11 of which will occur during the morning peak hour and 29 of which will occur during the
evening peak hour.
9. The proposed project land uses are projected to generate approximately 193 more daily vehicle
trips, 23 more of which will occur during the morning peak hour, and 20 less of which will occur
during the evening peak hour.
It has been a pleasure to service your needs on this project. Should you have any questions or if we can
be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call at (714) 973-8383.
Sincerely,
KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES , INC. KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Robert Kunzman William Kunzman, P.E.
Principal Associate Principal
JN 6833
Percent
Provided Occupied Occupied
8:00 AM to 8:15 AM 94 8 9%
8:15 AM to 8:30 AM 94 8 9%
8:30 AM to 8:45 AM 94 15 16%
8:45 AM to 9:00 AM 94 19 20%
9:00 AM to 9:15 AM 94 29 31%
9:15 AM to 9:30 AM 94 30 32%
9:30 AM to 9:45 AM 94 30 32%
9:45 AM to 10:00 AM 94 34 36%
10:00 AM to 10:15 AM 94 35 37%
10:15 AM to 10:30 AM 94 37 39%
10:30 AM to 10:45 AM 94 41 44%
10:45 AM to 11:00 AM 94 41 44%
11:00 AM to 11:15 AM 94 42 45%
11:15 AM to 11:30 AM 94 40 43%
11:30 AM to 11:45 AM 94 42 45%
11:45 AM to 12:00 PM 94 46 49%
12:00 PM to 12:15 PM 94 41 44%
12:15 PM to 12:30 PM 94 40 43%
12:30 PM to 12:45 PM 94 35 37%
12:45 PM to 1:00 PM 94 30 32%
1:00 PM to 1:15 PM 94 29 31%
1:15 PM to 1:30 PM 94 32 34%
1:30 PM to 1:45 PM 94 33 35%
1:45 PM to 2:00 PM 94 32 34%
2:00 PM to 2:15 PM 94 37 39%
2:15 PM to 2:30 PM 94 36 38%
2:30 PM to 2:45 PM 94 39 41%
2:45 PM to 3:00 PM 94 40 43%
3:00 PM to 3:15 PM 94 42 45%
3:15 PM to 3:30 PM 94 51 54%
3:30 PM to 3:45 PM 94 52 55%
3:45 PM to 4:00 PM 94 40 43%
4:00 PM to 4:15 PM 94 44 47%
4:15 PM to 4:30 PM 94 39 41%
4:30 PM to 4:45 PM 94 34 36%
4:45 PM to 5:00 PM 94 30 32%
94 52 55%
Time Period
Number of Parking Spaces
Maximum
City of Covina Facility Parking Count
Table 1
1433 North Hollenbeck Avenue
Wednesday March 15, 2017
5
Percent
Provided Occupied Occupied
8:00 AM to 8:15 AM 42 14 33%
8:15 AM to 8:30 AM 42 17 40%
8:30 AM to 8:45 AM 42 23 55%
8:45 AM to 9:00 AM 42 22 52%
9:00 AM to 9:15 AM 42 25 60%
9:15 AM to 9:30 AM 42 25 60%
9:30 AM to 9:45 AM 42 23 55%
9:45 AM to 10:00 AM 42 26 62%
10:00 AM to 10:15 AM 42 29 69%
10:15 AM to 10:30 AM 42 29 69%
10:30 AM to 10:45 AM 42 31 74%
10:45 AM to 11:00 AM 42 27 64%
11:00 AM to 11:15 AM 42 29 69%
11:15 AM to 11:30 AM 42 27 64%
11:30 AM to 11:45 AM 42 25 60%
11:45 AM to 12:00 PM 42 20 48%
12:00 PM to 12:15 PM 42 25 60%
12:15 PM to 12:30 PM 42 25 60%
12:30 PM to 12:45 PM 42 24 57%
12:45 PM to 1:00 PM 42 17 40%
1:00 PM to 1:15 PM 42 19 45%
1:15 PM to 1:30 PM 42 21 50%
1:30 PM to 1:45 PM 42 17 40%
1:45 PM to 2:00 PM 42 20 48%
2:00 PM to 2:15 PM 42 23 55%
2:15 PM to 2:30 PM 42 23 55%
2:30 PM to 2:45 PM 42 25 60%
2:45 PM to 3:00 PM 42 23 55%
3:00 PM to 3:15 PM 42 24 57%
3:15 PM to 3:30 PM 42 24 57%
3:30 PM to 3:45 PM 42 25 60%
3:45 PM to 4:00 PM 42 23 55%
4:00 PM to 4:15 PM 42 21 50%
4:15 PM to 4:30 PM 42 18 43%
4:30 PM to 4:45 PM 42 17 40%
4:45 PM to 5:00 PM 42 12 29%
42 31 74%
Table 2
City of Downey Facility Parking Count
Time Period
Number of Parking Spaces
Maximum
10226 Lakewood Boulevard
Tuesday March 14, 2017
6
Square Parking Demand Per
Footage Provided Maximum Occupied Thousand Square Feet
Existing City of Covina
1 16.105 94 52 3.23
Existing City of Downey2 11.950 42 31 2.59
Square Parking Demand Per
Footage Provided Maximum Occupied Thousand Square Feet
Proposed City of Anaheim 14.5765 55 47.1 3.23
1 See Table 1.
2 See Table 2.
Table 3
Project Parking Demand
Parking Count Maximums and Parking Code Calculations
Site
Number of Parking Spaces
Parking Demand
Number of Parking Spaces
Site
7
Descriptor Number of Parking Spaces
Parking Spaces Required for Project1 47.1
Overage Factor (10%) 4.7
Total Maximum Likely Parking Demand 52
Total Parking Spaces Provided 55
Table 4
Peak Parking Demand Summary
1 See Table 3.
8
Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Entering Exiting
Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound
0:00 to 0:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 to 12:15 1 1 7 7 8 8
0:15 to 0:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:15 to 12:30 0 0 1 10 1 10
0:30 to 0:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:30 to 12:45 0 0 3 3 3 3
0:45 to 1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:45 to 13:00 1 2 3 4 4 6
1:00 to 1:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:00 to 13:15 0 3 1 2 1 5
1:15 to 1:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:15 to 13:30 0 2 1 5 1 7
1:30 to 1:45 0 0 1 0 1 0 13:30 to 13:45 0 2 0 2 0 4
1:45 to 2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:45 to 14:00 0 1 0 1 0 2
2:00 to 2:15 0 0 2 0 2 0 14:00 to 14:15 1 5 0 1 1 6
2:15 to 2:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:15 to 14:30 0 1 1 1 1 2
2:30 to 2:45 0 0 1 0 1 0 14:30 to 14:45 0 1 0 1 0 2
2:45 to 3:00 0 0 1 0 1 0 14:45 to 15:00 1 0 0 2 1 2
3:00 to 3:15 0 0 2 1 2 1 15:00 to 15:15 0 0 0 3 0 3
3:15 to 3:30 0 0 8 0 8 0 15:15 to 15:30 0 1 1 0 1 1
3:30 to 3:45 0 0 6 0 6 0 15:30 to 15:45 1 1 0 0 1 1
3:45 to 4:00 0 0 8 3 8 3 15:45 to 16:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 to 4:15 0 0 3 2 3 2 16:00 to 16:15 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 to 4:30 0 0 2 5 2 5 16:15 to 16:30 0 1 0 0 0 1
4:30 to 4:45 0 0 5 1 5 1 16:30 to 16:45 2 1 0 0 2 1
4:45 to 5:00 0 0 1 3 1 3 16:45 to 17:00 0 1 0 0 0 1
5:00 to 5:15 0 0 6 1 6 1 17:00 to 17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 to 5:30 0 0 5 4 5 4 17:15 to 17:30 1 1 0 0 1 1
5:30 to 5:45 0 1 7 4 7 5 17:30 to 17:45 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 to 6:00 0 0 5 4 5 4 17:45 to 18:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:00 to 6:15 0 0 4 8 4 8 18:00 to 18:15 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:15 to 6:30 0 0 3 3 3 3 18:15 to 18:30 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:30 to 6:45 1 0 5 5 6 5 18:30 to 18:45 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:45 to 7:00 0 0 4 4 4 4 18:45 to 19:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 to 7:15 1 0 0 9 1 9 19:00 to 19:15 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 to 7:30 2 1 4 5 6 6 19:15 to 19:30 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 to 7:45 0 0 0 1 0 1 19:30 to 19:45 0 1 0 0 0 1
7:45 to 8:00 2 2 8 1 10 3 19:45 to 20:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 to 8:15 0 1 7 3 7 4 20:00 to 20:15 0 1 0 0 0 1
8:15 to 8:30 1 1 5 0 6 1 20:15 to 20:30 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 to 8:45 0 1 3 2 3 3 20:30 to 20:45 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 to 9:00 1 0 8 1 9 1 20:45 to 21:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:00 to 9:15 1 1 5 4 6 5 21:00 to 21:15 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:15 to 9:30 0 0 5 5 5 5 21:15 to 21:30 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:30 to 9:45 1 2 2 4 3 6 21:30 to 21:45 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:45 to 10:00 0 0 5 4 5 4 21:45 to 22:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 to 10:15 0 1 9 4 9 5 22:00 to 22:15 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:15 to 10:30 0 1 3 5 3 6 22:15 to 22:30 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:30 to 10:45 0 1 9 10 9 11 22:30 to 22:45 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:45 to 11:00 2 0 6 5 8 5 22:45 to 23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 to 11:15 0 0 2 3 2 3 23:00 to 23:15 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:15 to 11:30 0 0 7 8 7 8 23:15 to 23:30 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:30 to 11:45 1 0 7 9 8 9 23:30 to 23:45 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:45 to 12:00 0 0 5 6 5 6 23:45 to 0:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 5
Peak Hour
Peak Period
North Driveway South Driveway Total
Entering Exiting
TotalNorth Driveway South Driveway
Time Period Entering Exiting Time Period
Tuesday March 14, 2017
1433 North Hollenbeck Avenue
City of Covina Facility Access Count
9
Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Entering Exiting
Eastbound Westbound Westbound Eastbound Eastbound Westbound Westbound Eastbound
0:00 to 0:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 to 12:15 1 2 1 1 2 3
0:15 to 0:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:15 to 12:30 0 0 1 1 1 1
0:30 to 0:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:30 to 12:45 1 3 3 0 4 3
0:45 to 1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:45 to 13:00 2 0 2 2 4 2
1:00 to 1:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:00 to 13:15 0 0 1 1 1 1
1:15 to 1:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:15 to 13:30 1 0 1 0 2 0
1:30 to 1:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:30 to 13:45 1 4 1 0 2 4
1:45 to 2:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:45 to 14:00 0 4 7 1 7 5
2:00 to 2:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:00 to 14:15 2 0 0 1 2 1
2:15 to 2:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:15 to 14:30 0 1 0 0 0 1
2:30 to 2:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:30 to 14:45 0 1 2 3 2 4
2:45 to 3:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:45 to 15:00 0 1 1 0 1 1
3:00 to 3:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:00 to 15:15 0 2 1 3 1 5
3:15 to 3:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:15 to 15:30 1 1 0 2 1 3
3:30 to 3:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:30 to 15:45 1 3 2 4 3 7
3:45 to 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 15:45 to 16:00 1 4 0 1 1 5
4:00 to 4:15 0 0 1 0 1 0 16:00 to 16:15 0 1 0 4 0 5
4:15 to 4:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:15 to 16:30 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 to 4:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:30 to 16:45 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 to 5:00 0 2 1 0 1 2 16:45 to 17:00 0 0 2 0 2 0
5:00 to 5:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:00 to 17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 to 5:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:15 to 17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 to 5:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:30 to 17:45 0 0 1 1 1 1
5:45 to 6:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:45 to 18:00 0 0 1 0 1 0
6:00 to 6:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 18:00 to 18:15 0 4 1 0 1 4
6:15 to 6:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 18:15 to 18:30 1 0 1 1 2 1
6:30 to 6:45 3 0 0 1 3 1 18:30 to 18:45 0 0 2 0 2 0
6:45 to 7:00 1 0 7 1 8 1 18:45 to 19:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 to 7:15 4 1 6 1 10 2 19:00 to 19:15 0 2 2 0 2 2
7:15 to 7:30 2 0 2 0 4 0 19:15 to 19:30 0 2 0 0 0 2
7:30 to 7:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 19:30 to 19:45 0 0 1 0 1 0
7:45 to 8:00 1 0 0 0 1 0 19:45 to 20:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 to 8:15 1 2 1 0 2 2 20:00 to 20:15 0 0 1 1 1 1
8:15 to 8:30 2 0 2 2 4 2 20:15 to 20:30 0 2 0 0 0 2
8:30 to 8:45 2 1 1 0 3 1 20:30 to 20:45 0 0 1 0 1 0
8:45 to 9:00 1 0 4 2 5 2 20:45 to 21:00 0 0 1 1 1 1
9:00 to 9:15 0 3 3 1 3 4 21:00 to 21:15 0 0 0 3 0 3
9:15 to 9:30 2 2 0 1 2 3 21:15 to 21:30 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:30 to 9:45 2 2 0 2 2 4 21:30 to 21:45 0 0 1 1 1 1
9:45 to 10:00 3 0 0 1 3 1 21:45 to 22:00 0 1 0 0 0 1
10:00 to 10:15 0 0 0 1 0 1 22:00 to 22:15 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:15 to 10:30 0 0 0 1 0 1 22:15 to 22:30 0 0 0 1 0 1
10:30 to 10:45 2 4 0 1 2 5 22:30 to 22:45 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:45 to 11:00 2 0 2 0 4 0 22:45 to 23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:00 to 11:15 1 2 0 2 1 4 23:00 to 23:15 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:15 to 11:30 2 1 1 2 3 3 23:15 to 23:30 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:30 to 11:45 2 4 0 2 2 6 23:30 to 23:45 0 0 0 0 0 0
11:45 to 12:00 3 2 2 1 5 3 23:45 to 0:00 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tuesday March 14, 2017
10226 Lakewood Boulevard
City of Downey Facility Access Count
Table 6
Peak Period
Peak Hour
Time Period
West Driveway East Driveway Total
Entering ExitingTime Period
Total
Entering Exiting
West Driveway East Driveway
10
Footage Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
Existing City of Covina
1 16.105 23 14 37 3 3 6 436
Existing City of Downey2 11.950 14 7 21 2 5 7 238
Footage Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
Existing City of Covina 16.105 1.43 0.87 2.30 0.19 0.19 0.38 27.07
Existing City of Downey 11.950 1.17 0.59 1.76 0.17 0.42 0.59 19.92
1.000 1.43 0.87 2.30 0.19 0.42 0.61 27.07
Footage Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
Proposed City of Anaheim 14.5765 21 13 34 3 6 9 395
1 See Table 5.
2 See Table 6.
Table 7
Project Trip Generation
Site
Site
Trip Generation Rates
Trip Generation Counts
Daily
Morning Evening
Square
Square
Peak Hour
Peak Hour
Morning Evening
Daily
Maximum
Trips Generated
Site
Square
Peak Hour
Daily
Morning Evening
11
Entering Exiting Entering Exiting
0:00 to 0:15 0 0 12:00 to 12:15 2 8
0:15 to 0:30 1 1 12:15 to 12:30 3 2
0:30 to 0:45 0 0 12:30 to 12:45 1 0
0:45 to 1:00 0 0 12:45 to 13:00 0 0
1:00 to 1:15 0 0 13:00 to 13:15 3 2
1:15 to 1:30 0 0 13:15 to 13:30 0 1
1:30 to 1:45 0 0 13:30 to 13:45 4 1
1:45 to 2:00 0 0 13:45 to 14:00 2 1
2:00 to 2:15 0 0 14:00 to 14:15 2 1
2:15 to 2:30 1 1 14:15 to 14:30 1 0
2:30 to 2:45 0 0 14:30 to 14:45 2 3
2:45 to 3:00 0 0 14:45 to 15:00 0 1
3:00 to 3:15 0 0 15:00 to 15:15 2 1
3:15 to 3:30 0 0 15:15 to 15:30 1 2
3:30 to 3:45 0 0 15:30 to 15:45 1 4
3:45 to 4:00 0 0 15:45 to 16:00 4 2
4:00 to 4:15 1 1 16:00 to 16:15 7 5
4:15 to 4:30 1 0 16:15 to 16:30 0 6
4:30 to 4:45 1 0 16:30 to 16:45 1 6
4:45 to 5:00 0 1 16:45 to 17:00 0 4
5:00 to 5:15 0 0 17:00 to 17:15 1 0
5:15 to 5:30 2 0 17:15 to 17:30 1 1
5:30 to 5:45 0 0 17:30 to 17:45 1 2
5:45 to 6:00 0 0 17:45 to 18:00 0 1
6:00 to 6:15 0 0 18:00 to 18:15 2 2
6:15 to 6:30 0 0 18:15 to 18:30 0 0
6:30 to 6:45 1 0 18:30 to 18:45 2 0
6:45 to 7:00 1 0 18:45 to 19:00 0 0
7:00 to 7:15 2 2 19:00 to 19:15 1 1
7:15 to 7:30 1 0 19:15 to 19:30 1 2
7:30 to 7:45 3 1 19:30 to 19:45 0 2
7:45 to 8:00 2 0 19:45 to 20:00 0 0
8:00 to 8:15 1 0 20:00 to 20:15 0 0
8:15 to 8:30 0 0 20:15 to 20:30 0 2
8:30 to 8:45 2 1 20:30 to 20:45 1 1
8:45 to 9:00 2 1 20:45 to 21:00 0 2
9:00 to 9:15 2 0 21:00 to 21:15 0 0
9:15 to 9:30 0 1 21:15 to 21:30 0 0
9:30 to 9:45 4 1 21:30 to 21:45 0 0
9:45 to 10:00 3 4 21:45 to 22:00 0 0
10:00 to 10:15 3 1 22:00 to 22:15 0 0
10:15 to 10:30 1 2 22:15 to 22:30 0 0
10:30 to 10:45 4 6 22:30 to 22:45 0 0
10:45 to 11:00 1 1 22:45 to 23:00 0 0
11:00 to 11:15 3 3 23:00 to 23:15 0 0
11:15 to 11:30 4 1 23:15 to 23:30 0 0
11:30 to 11:45 2 3 23:30 to 23:45 0 0
11:45 to 12:00 6 3 23:45 to 0:00 0 0
1900 East La Palma Avenue
City of Anaheim Facility Access Count
Time Period
Main Driveway
Table 8
Peak Hour
Peak Period
Time Period
Main Driveway
Tuesday March 14, 2017
12
Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
8 3 11 8 21 29 202
Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
21 13 34 3 6 9 395
Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
+13 +10 +23 -5 -15 -20 +193
1 See Table 8.
2 See Table 7.
Peak Hour
Daily
Morning Evening
Morning Evening
Table 9
Project Trip Generation Comparison
Difference
Existing1
Peak Hour
Daily
Proposed2
Peak Hour
Daily
Morning Evening
13
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS
GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS
COMMON ABBREVIATIONS
AC: Acres
ADT: Average Daily Traffic
Caltrans: California Department of Transportation
DU: Dwelling Unit
ICU: Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS: Level of Service
TSF: Thousand Square Feet
V/C: Volume/Capacity
VMT: Vehicle Miles Traveled
TERMS
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: The total volume during a year divided by the number of
days in a year. Usually only weekdays are included.
BANDWIDTH: The number of seconds of green time available for through traffic in a
signal progression.
BOTTLENECK: A constriction along a travelway that limits the amount of traffic that
can proceed downstream from its location.
CAPACITY: The maximum number of vehicles that can be reasonably expected to pass
over a given section of a lane or a roadway in a given time period.
CHANNELIZATION: The separation or regulation of conflicting traffic movements into
definite paths of travel by the use of pavement markings, raised islands, or other
suitable means to facilitate the safe and orderly movements of both vehicles and
pedestrians.
CLEARANCE INTERVAL: Nearly same as yellow time. If there is an all red interval after
the end of a yellow, then that is also added into the clearance interval.
CORDON: An imaginary line around an area across which vehicles, persons, or other
items are counted (in and out).
CYCLE LENGTH: The time period in seconds required for one complete signal cycle.
CUL-DE-SAC STREET: A local street open at one end only, and with special provisions
for turning around.
DAILY CAPACITY: The daily volume of traffic that will result in a volume during the
peak hour equal to the capacity of the roadway.
DELAY: The time consumed while traffic is impeded in its movement by some element
over which it has no control, usually expressed in seconds per vehicle.
DEMAND RESPONSIVE SIGNAL: Same as traffic-actuated signal.
DENSITY: The number of vehicles occupying in a unit length of the through traffic
lanes of a roadway at any given instant. Usually expressed in vehicles per mile.
DETECTOR: A device that responds to a physical stimulus and transmits a resulting
impulse to the signal controller.
DESIGN SPEED: A speed selected for purposes of design. Features of a highway, such
as curvature, superelevation, and sight distance (upon which the safe operation of
vehicles is dependent) are correlated to design speed.
DIRECTIONAL SPLIT: The percent of traffic in the peak direction at any point in time.
DIVERSION: The rerouting of peak hour traffic to avoid congestion.
FORCED FLOW: Opposite of free flow.
FREE FLOW: Volumes are well below capacity. Vehicles can maneuver freely and
travel is unimpeded by other traffic.
GAP: Time or distance between successive vehicles in a traffic stream, rear bumper to
front bumper.
HEADWAY: Time or distance spacing between successive vehicles in a traffic stream,
front bumper to front bumper.
INTERCONNECTED SIGNAL SYSTEM: A number of intersections that are connected to
achieve signal progression.
LEVEL OF SERVICE: A qualitative measure of a number of factors, which include speed
and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort
and convenience, and operating costs.
LOOP DETECTOR: A vehicle detector consisting of a loop of wire embedded in the
roadway, energized by alternating current and producing an output circuit closure
when passed over by a vehicle.
MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE GAP: Smallest time headway between successive vehicles in
a traffic stream into which another vehicle is willing and able to cross or merge.
MULTI-MODAL: More than one mode; such as automobile, bus transit, rail rapid
transit, and bicycle transportation modes.
OFFSET: The time interval in seconds between the beginning of green at one
intersection and the beginning of green at an adjacent intersection.
PLATOON: A closely grouped component of traffic that is composed of several
vehicles moving, or standing ready to move, with clear spaces ahead and behind.
ORIGIN-DESTINATION SURVEY: A survey to determine the point of origin and the
point of destination for a given vehicle trip.
PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENTS (PCE): One car is one Passenger Car Equivalent. A
truck is equal to 2 or 3 Passenger Car Equivalents in that a truck requires longer to
start, goes slower, and accelerates slower. Loaded trucks have a higher Passenger Car
Equivalent than empty trucks.
PEAK HOUR: The 60 consecutive minutes with the highest number of vehicles.
PRETIMED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal that directs traffic to stop and go on a
predetermined time schedule without regard to traffic conditions. Also, fixed time
signal.
PROGRESSION: A term used to describe the progressive movement of traffic through
several signalized intersections.
SCREEN-LINE: An imaginary line or physical feature across which all trips are counted,
normally to verify the validity of mathematical traffic models.
SIGNAL CYCLE: The time period in seconds required for one complete sequence of
signal indications.
SIGNAL PHASE: The part of the signal cycle allocated to one or more traffic
movements.
STARTING DELAY: The delay experienced in initiating the movement of queued traffic
from a stop to an average running speed through a signalized intersection.
TRAFFIC-ACTUATED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal that directs traffic to stop and go
in accordance with the demands of traffic, as registered by the actuation of detectors.
TRIP: The movement of a person or vehicle from one location (origin) to another
(destination). For example, from home to store to home is two trips, not one.
TRIP-END: One end of a trip at either the origin or destination (i.e., each trip has two
trip-ends). A trip-end occurs when a person, object, or message is transferred to or
from a vehicle.
TRIP GENERATION RATE: The quantity of trips produced and/or attracted by a specific
land use stated in terms of units such as per dwelling, per acre, and per 1,000 square
feet of floor space.
TRUCK: A vehicle having dual tires on one or more axles, or having more than two
axles.
UNBALANCED FLOW: Heavier traffic flow in one direction than the other. On a daily
basis, most facilities have balanced flow. During the peak hours, flow is seldom
balanced in an urban area.
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL: A measure of the amount of usage of a section of
highway, obtained by multiplying the average daily traffic by length of facility in miles.
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
N
O
.
5
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.