06-05-17 MJSP Simply Self Storage 1600 N. Glassell Street
TO: Chair Glasgow and
Members of the Planning Commission
THRU: Anna Pehoushek
Assistant Community Development Director
FROM: Monique Schwartz
Assistant Planner
SUBJECT
PUBLIC HEARING: Major Site Plan Review No. 0871-16 and Design Review No. 4871-16 -
Simply Self Storage, located at 1600 N. Glassell Street.
SUMMARY
The applicant proposes
The applicant proposes to demolish two existing industrial buildings and related accessory structure
in order to construct a 156,654 square foot, three-story, self-storage facility and related site
improvements.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. PC
05-17 approving Major Site Plan Review No. 0871-16 and Design Review No. 4871-16 to demolish
all existing buildings in order to construct a 156,654 square foot, three -story, self-storage facility
and related site improvements located at 1600 N. Glassell Street.
AUTHORIZATION/GUIDELINES
Orange Municipal Code (OMC) Table 17.08.020, and Sections 17.08.020B.2a, 17.10.060.E,
17.10.070.B authorize the Planning Commission to review and take action on the subject
applications. The final determination by the Planning Commission on these applications may be
appealed to the City Council pursuant to the time periods and requirements established in the OMC
for appeals.
Planning Commission
Agenda Item
June 5, 2017
Planning Commission Staff Report
June 5, 2017
Page 2
PUBLIC NOTICE
On April 6, 2017, the City posted the subject site, and sent a Public Hearing Notice to a total of 85
property owners/tenants within a 300-foot radius of the project site and persons specifically
requesting notice for the April 17, 2017 Planning Commission hearing. At the April 17, 2017
meeting, the Planning Commission voted to continue the project to the June 5, 2017 regular
meeting, therefore not requiring a second posting or mailing of Public Hearing Notices. However,
on May 25, 2017, Planning Staff mailed/emailed a courtesy notice to the community members who
provided oral and written communications regarding the project in order to notify them of the June
6, 2017 public hearing.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
At its April 17, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing
and took testimony from three members of the community and the applicant. Because the City
received written and oral communications in opposition of the project immediately prior to the
public hearing, the applicant requested that the Planning Commission continue the item to the June
5, 2017 regular meeting in order to have the opportunity to reach out to the neighboring community
and attempt to resolve the community concerns. Community concerns included:
Noise impacts
Air quality impacts
Traffic Impact Study
Obstruction of view of sunsets and Disneyland fireworks from adjacent residential
neighborhood
Parking
Public Notification
Property values
Types of people who utilize a storage facility
The Planning Commission voted 4-0-1 (Glasgow recused) to continue Major Site Plan Review No.
0871-16 and Design Review No. 4871-16 to the June 5, 2017 Planning Commission meeting.
Subsequent to the April 17, 2017 meeting, the City Planning Division received three (3) additional
telephone calls of opposition on May 8, 2017 and May 16, 2017 from residents who live on
Chestnut Avenue. Their primary concerns included: obstruction of view of Disneyland fireworks,
three-story building height, and property values.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Categorical Exemption: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class
32) because it consists of a project that can be characterized as in-fill development meeting the
Planning Commission Staff Report
June 5, 2017
Page 3
following criteria: (1) the project is consistent with the General Plan designation and all applicable
General Plan policies as well as with applicable Zoning designation and regulations, (2) the
proposed development occurs within City limits on a project site of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses, (3) the project site has no value as habitat for endangered,
rare or threatened species, (4) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects
relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality, and (5) the site can be adequately served by all
required utilities and public services. There is no environmental public review required for a
Categorical Exemption.
ANALYSIS/STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Issue 1: Environmental Effects
In response to neighborhood concerns regarding item no. 4 of Categorical Exem ption Section
15332, Class 32 of the CEQA Guidelines pertaining to potential significant effects relating to
traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality, the applicant has prepared and submitted a Preliminary
Construction Management Plan, Noise Study, Air Quality Impact Analysis, and Water Quality
letter. Below is a summary of conclusions provided by the applicant and the applicant’s
consultants:
Preliminary Construction Management Plan:
The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Construction Management Plan indicating that
construction of the project will last approximately 11 months. Construction equipment, material
staging and parking for construction workers will be located completely within the southern half
of the property. Truck routes are anticipated to come from State Highway 91 to Glassell Street,
including dirt hauling, paving, redimix, and normal material deliveries. Emergency contact
information will be provided when a general contractor is selected and placed under contract.
Noise from equipment will be controlled with mufflers and dust will be controlled by watering
trucks. The construction hours of operation will be in compliance with City Code requirements
and limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No
construction activity will be permitted on Sundays or Federal holidays.
Noise Study:
The applicant’s consultant, Urban Crossroads has prepared and submitted a Noise Study,
concluding that the findings of significance for potential off-site traffic noise, operational noise,
construction noise and construction vibration before and after incorporation of project design
features are less than significant and no mitigation features are required.
Planning Commission Staff Report
June 5, 2017
Page 4
Air Quality Impact Analysis:
The applicant’s consultant, Urban Crossroads has prepared and submitted an Air Quality Impact
Analysis, concluding that construction source emissions and operational source emissions would
be less than significant and no mitigation features are required.
Water Quality Letter:
The applicant’s consultant, Blue Peak Engineering has prepared and submitted a letter
concluding that with compliance with Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management
Practices (BMP’s) in addition to site design measures and source controls to reduce pollutants in
storm water discharges, the project will not generate any significant water quality impacts.
In addition, the City Transportation Analyst has concluded that based on project trip generation, trip
distribution, and analyzation of nearby intersections, it was determined that this project generates a
number of trips that is below the predetermined threshold for requiring a traffic study.
Based on the information provided by the applicant, applicant’s consultants, and City
Transportation Analyst, Staff has concluded that there are no significant impacts relating to traffic,
noise, air quality and water quality. The applicant’s submitted documentation is available from
Staff upon request.
Issue 2: View Protection
The Orange Municipal Code does not define what constitutes a view, nor does it have a view
protection Ordinance that would provide additional protection to property owners for preservation
of such view. While construction of the project represents a physical change in the area, the project
does not violate any City development standards, including, but not limited to building height,
building setbacks, floor area ratio, landscaping, and parking. The subject site is located more than
100 feet from residentially zoned properties, which allows for a maximum building height of 45 feet
within the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zone. The proposed building height ranges between 37 to 41
feet tall, as measured to the top of the building parapet, which is 4 to 8 feet below the height
limitation. The highest portion of the building (41 feet tall) wraps around the northeast corner,
while the remaining majority of the building is 37 feet tall.
Issue 3: Parking
Table 17.34.060.B of the Orange Municipal Code requires a total of 4 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet
of office gross floor area, or 3 spaces, whichever is greater for a mini-storage warehouse. A mini
storage warehouse is defined as “a structure containing separate storage spaces of varying sizes,
leased or rented on an individual basis”. The combination office/retail store floor area on the
ground floor of the proposed building is 1,247 square feet. Staff used the general retail parking rate
of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for calculating the parking, which required a
total of six (6) parking spaces for the proposed use. The site has been configured to accommodate
Planning Commission Staff Report
June 5, 2017
Page 5
five (5) parking spaces on the north side and 14 parking spaces on the south side of the building, for
a total of 19 parking spaces. The project has a surplus of 13 parking spaces, which exceeds the
City’s parking requirement. In addition, the applicant has submitted a Preliminary Construction
Management Plan which indicates that construction equipment, material staging and parking for the
construction workers will be located completely within the southern half of the property.
It is not anticipated that with a surplus of 13 parking spaces, and appropriate construction
management procedures that the project will create an adverse impact on parking within the area.
Issue 4: Public Notification
On April 6, 2017, 10 days prior to the April 17, 2017 Public Hearing, the City posted the project site
and three (3) public places (City Hall, Orange Police Department, Orange Public Library), and sent
a Public Hearing Notice to a total of 85 property owners/tenants, as shown on the latest equalized
assessment roll, within a three hundred (300) foot radius of the project site and persons specifically
requesting notice for the April 17, 2017 Planning Commission hearing. Public notification for this
project was consistent with State Law and Orange Municipal Code Section 17.08.040.
In summary, the proposed storage facility use is consistent with the zoning and the site
improvements comply with City development standards. Based on the information provided by the
applicant, applicant’s consultants, and City Transportation Analyst, Staff has concluded that there
are no significant impacts relating to traffic, noise, air quality and water quality. Therefore, Staff
continues to recommend approval of the proposed project, consistent with the Design Review
Committee recommendation to the Planning Commission, and subject to the Conditions of
Approval within Resolution No. PC 05-17, included as Attachment 1 to this Staff Report.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachments to Report:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 05-17
2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 17, 2017
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 17, 2017
4. Public Correspondence Received
Exhibits:
A. Submitted Plans (date stamped March 17, 2017)
B. Material Board (to be provided at meeting)
Planning Commission Staff Report
June 5, 2017
Page 6
cc: KSP Studio
Attn: Amelia Anan
23 Orchard Road
Lake Forest, CA 92630
SS Orange Glassell, LLC
Attn: Brandon Dickens
7505 W. Sand Lake
Orlando, FL 32819
N:\CDD\PLNG\Applications\Major Site Plan\MJSP 0871 Simply Self Storage\PC\Staff Report 6.5.17.doc