PC 2014/04/21
City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Agenda
Monday, April 21 , 2014
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California
• Chair: Victoria Ramirez
• Chair Pro-Tempore: Harry Persaud
• Commissioners: Peter Agarwal, Paul Bostwick, Mitchell Caldwell
Michelle Lieberman, John Seymour
• Call To Order - 5:00 p.m.
• Pledge Of Allegiance
• Public Comments
• Public Hearing Items
• Commission Updates
• Discussion
• Adjournment
For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the
agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary.
A copy of the staff report may be obtained at the City of Anaheim Planning Department,
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff report is also
available on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Thursday,
April 17, 2014, after 5:00 p.m. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the
Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally
exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection in the
Planning Department located at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim,
California, during regular business hours.
You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following
e-mail address: planningcommission@anaheim.net
04/21/14
Page 2 of 5
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 public comments on agenda items with the
exception of public hearing items.
04/21/14
Page 3 of 5
Public Hearing Items
ITEM NO. 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4126A
(DEV2014-00013)
Location: 1550-1600 South Lewis Street
Request: To amend a conditional use permit in order to
delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time
limitation and to amend a condition of approval to allow
the storage and distribution of construction materials and
related items at an existing tile and storage facility within
a Southern California Edison easement area.
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.
Staff Report
New Correspondence
Request to Withdraw
Project Planner:
Vanessa Norwood
vnorwood@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 3
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2013-123
(DEV2013-00098)
Location: 1204-1206 North Miller Street
Request: To establish a 2-lot industrial subdivision.
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 15
(Minor Land Divisions) Categorical Exemption.
Staff Report
New Correspondence
Project Planner:
David See
dsee@anaheim.net
04/21/14
Page 4 of 5
ITEM NO. 4
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2012-00248
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05597
(DEV2011-00110)
Location: 200-282 North Lemon Street,
107-127 West Lincoln Avenue
and 120 West Cypress Street
Request: To request a zone change to the General
Commercial and Mixed-Use Overlay Zones to construct
a mixed-use project with 220 apartments and 18,000
square feet of retail uses.
Environmental Determination: The Planning
Commission will consider whether a Mitigated Negative
Declaration is appropriate to serve as the
environmental impact determination for this request per
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
guidelines.
This request was continued from the Planning Commission
meeting of October 21, 2013.
Staff Report
New Correspondence
Project Planner:
Scott Koehm
skoehm@anaheim.net
Adjourn to Monday, May 5 , 2014 at 5:00 p.m.
04/21/14
Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
5:30 p.m. April 16, 2014
(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 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.
ITEM NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: APRIL 21, 2014
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4126
(DEV2014-00013)
LOCATION: 1550 – 1660 South Lewis Street (Arizona Tile)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Phillip Schwartze of PRS
Group representing Katella Operating Properties, LLC and the property owner is
Southern California Edison.
REQUEST: The applicant requested approval of an amendment to an existing
conditional use permit to delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation
and amend a condition of approval to permit the storage and distribution of
construction materials and related items at an existing tile storage facility within a
Southern California Edison easement.
DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted a request to withdraw this item because
outdoor storage facilities are now permitted by right in the Industrial (I) zone, when
developed and operated in accordance with Chapter 18.38.200 (Outdoor Storage).
Staff has reviewed the site improvements and operation of this business and
determined that the use is in compliance with the code requirements for an outdoor
storage facility.
Although no Planning Commission action is required for withdrawn applications,
public hearing notices for this project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet
of the project. Therefore, this report was included on the Commission agenda for
public information purposes.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Vanessa Norwood Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Request to Withdraw
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
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 DEPARTMENT
DATE: APRIL 21, 2014
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2013-123
LOCATION: 1202 – 1204 North Miller Street
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant and property owner is Mark
Lewis with Panattoni Development Company, Inc.
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a tentative parcel map to establish a
two lot industrial subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt (Class 15,
Minor Land Divisions) from further environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act and approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 2013-123.
BACKGROUND: The 13.42-acre property is located in the Northeast Area Specific
Plan, Development Area 3 - La Palma Core Area (SP94-1, DA 3) zone. The site is
designated for Industrial land uses by the General Plan. Two industrial buildings are
currently under construction on the subject property. The property is surrounded by
industrial land uses.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide the property to create a two lot
industrial subdivision to allow the future independent sale of the two existing industrial
buildings being constructed on the property. No new development is proposed at this
time. The sizes of the proposed parcels are as follows:
Parcel No. Area
(net acres)
1 6.56
2 6.86
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2013-123
April 21, 2014
Page 2 of 2
ANALYSIS: The purpose of Commission’s consideration of a tentative parcel map is to review
the proposed subdivision of land for consistency with the General Plan and compliance with the
zoning code. The proposed subdivision complies with all of the development standards of the
SP94-1, DA 3 zone, including the maximum floor area ratio, minimum number of parking
spaces, and required access. A recommended condition of approval requires the recordation of a
reciprocal easement agreement for ingress/egress, parking, maintenance and trash pick-up for the
entire property.
CONCLUSION: Staff recommends approval of the requested industrial subdivision because
the request complies with the goals of the General Plan and the property’s zoning.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
David See Jonathan E. Borrego
Senior Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps
2. Tentative Parcel Map Resolution
3. Applicant’s Request Letter
The following attachments were provided to the Planning Commission and are available for
public review at the Planning Department at City Hall or on the City of Anaheim’s web site at
www.anaheim.net/planning.
4. Site Photographs
5. Tentative Parcel Map
SP 94 -1DA2BOEING
SP 94 -1DA2BOEING
SP 94 -1DA3BOEING
SP 94 -1DA2INDUSTRIAL
SP 94 -1DA2BOEING
SP 94 -1DA2INDUSTRIAL
SP 94 -1DA3PANATTONIANAHEIMCONCOURSE
SP 94 -1DA3RETAIL
SP 94 -1DA3RETAIL SP 94-1DA3BUSI
NESS PARKN MI
L
L
ER STN O C E A N C IR
E . M IR A L O M A A V E N.TUS
TIN
AV
EN.KRAEMERBLVDN.
MI
LLER STE. ORANGET HORPE AVE
E . R IV E R D A L E A V E
E .LAPALMAAV E S.RICHFIELDRDE . L A P A L M A A V E
12 04 -12 06 No rth Mil ler St ree t
DE V No. 2013-00098
Su bje ct Property APN : 3 45 -20 1 -27
AT TACHME NT NO. 1
°0 50 10 0
Feet
Ae r ia l Ph o t o :M a y 2 0 1 2
N MI
L
L
ER STN O C E A N C IR
E . M IR A L O M A A V E N.TUS
TIN
AV
EN.KRAEMERBLVDN.
MI
LLER STE. ORANGET HORPE AVE
E . R IV E R D A L E A V E
E .LAPALMAAV E S.RICHFIELDRDE . L A P A L M A A V E
12 04 -12 06 No rth Mil ler St ree t
DE V No. 2013-00098
Su bje ct Property APN : 3 45 -20 1 -27
AT TACHME NT NO. 1
°0 50 10 0
Feet
Ae r ia l Ph o t o :M a y 2 0 1 3
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
- 1 - PC2014-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2013-123 AND
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2013-00098)
(1202 – 1204 NORTH MILLER STREET)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (herein referred to as
the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified petition for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2013-
123 to establish a two lot industrial subdivision (herein referred to as the "Proposed Project") for
that certain real property located at 1202 – 1204 North Miller Street in the City of Anaheim,
County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as
Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property, consisting of approximately 13.42 acres, is developed with
two industrial buildings which are currently under construction. The Property is located in and
subject to the regulations and development standards of the Northeast Area Specific Plan,
Development Area 3 - La Palma Core Area (SP94-1, DA 3) Zone. The Anaheim General Plan
designates the Property for Industrial land uses; and
WHEREAS, this Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on April 21, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been
duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code (herein referred to as the “Code”), to hear and consider evidence for
and against proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 2013-123 to investigate and make findings and
recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning
Commission finds and determines that the proposed project is within that class of projects which
consists of a division of property in an urban area zoned for industrial use into four or fewer
parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances are
required, all services and access to the project site are available, the parcel was not involved in
the division of a larger parcel within the previous two years, and the parcel does not have an
average slope greater than 20 percent at the time of this determination, and that, therefore,
pursuant to Section 15315 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the proposed project
will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt
from the provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing with respect to the request to establish a two lot industrial subdivision, has
determined that Tentative Parcel Map No. 2013-123 should be approved for the following
reasons, does find and determine the following facts:
- 2 - PC2014-***
1. The proposed request to permit the Proposed Project, including its design and
improvements, is consistent with the Industrial land use designation in the Anaheim General Plan
and, more specifically, the Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1 (SP94-1) and with the zoning
and development standards contained in Chapter 18.120 of the Code for the La Palma Core Area
(Development Area 3) of the Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1 (SP94-1); and
2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed Project; and
3. The the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, as no sensitive
environmental habitat has been identified in the vicinity; and
4. The the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems, as no changes are proposed to the existing industrial
buildings which are under construction; and
5. The the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 2013-123, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of
approval described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which
are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property in order to
preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance
with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be
amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing
is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the
modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant
progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation of this
permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit
Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part
thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and
void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of
the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable
City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to
compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or
requirement.
- 3 - PC2014-***
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
April 21, 2014. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60
(“Zoning Provisions - General”) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures
and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIR, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim
City Planning Commission held on April 21, 2014, by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 21st day of April,
2014.
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
- 4 - PC2014-***
- 5 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2013-123
(DEV2013-00098)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF PARCEL MAP
1 A Reciprocal Easement Agreement (REA) for
ingress/egress, parking, maintenance and trash pick-up
will be required as a condition of approval of the
Subdivision application. The REA (i) must run with the
land in perpetuity, (ii) shall inure to the benefit of, and be
enforceable by, the City by any legal or equitable means
against any person or persons in actual possession of the
properties who directly or through any agent violate the
terms hereof; and (iii) shall not be modified,
supplemented or amended without the City's prior
written consent. The REA shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney prior to its execution and
recordation in the Official Records of the County of
Orange. A copy of the recorded covenant shall then be
submitted to the Planning Department. The covenant
shall be referenced in all deeds transferring all or any
part of the interest in the property.
Planning
Department
2 A maintenance covenant shall be submitted to the
Subdivision Section of the Public Works Department for
review and approval by the City Attorney's office. The
covenant shall include provisions for maintenance of
private facilities, including compliance with an approved
Water Quality Management Plan, and a maintenance
exhibit. Maintenance responsibilities shall include
parkway landscaping and irrigation on Miller Street. The
covenant shall be recorded in the Official Records of the
County of Orange concurrently with the final parcel map.
Public
Works-
Development
Services
3 The legal property owner shall execute a Subdivision
Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to
complete the required public improvements at the legal
property owner’s expense. Said agreement shall be
submitted in a form satisfactory to the Public Works
Department (Subdivision Section) and approved by the
City Attorney and City Engineer.
Public
Works-
Development
Services
4 An irrevocable offer of dedication along portions of Miller
Street for future traffic signals is required and needs to be
submitted to the Public Works Department prior to
approval of the Final Parcel Map 2013-123.
Public
Works-
Development
Services
- 6 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
5 The developer shall complete the requirements of the
street improvements including landscaping and irrigation
along the frontage of Miller Street as submitted per
RCP2013-09771.The improvements shall be constructed
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Public
Works-
Development
Services
GENERAL CONDITIONS
6 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 Indemnities to
attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of
the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the
proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made
prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness,
legality or validity of any condition attached thereto.
The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include,
but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded
against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit,
claim or litigation, including without limitation
attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses
incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such
proceeding.
Planning
Department
7 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related
to the processing of this discretionary case application
within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior
to the issuance of building permits for this project,
whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall
result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may
result in the revocation of the approval of this application.
Planning
Department
8 The premises shall be developed substantially in
accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to
and reviewed and approved by the City of Anaheim,
which plan is on file with the Planning Department.
Planning
Department
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2013-123
PANATTONI PROJECT – PHASE 1
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
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. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: APRIL 21, 2014
SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2012-00248 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05597
LOCATION: 200-282 North Lemon Street, 107-127 West Lincoln Avenue and
120 West Cypress Street (AT&T Property)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant and owner is Dustin Smith
representing Equity Residential and the agent is Phillip Schwartze.
REQUEST: The applicant proposes a zone change and conditional use permit to
construct a mixed-use project with 220 apartment units and 18,000 square feet of retail
use.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution, determining that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate
environmental documentation for this request, and approving Reclassification No. 2012-
00248 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-05597.
BACKGROUND: This 4.29 acre site is bounded by Anaheim Boulevard to the east,
Lincoln Avenue to the south, Lemon Street to the west and Cypress Street to the north
and is developed with a vacant AT&T office building and a parking lot. A portion of the
site is zoned General Commercial (C-G) and a portion of the site is zoned Transition (T).
The site is designated for Mixed Use land uses by the General Plan. The surrounding
land uses include single and multiple-family residences, a church and commercial uses
to the north, a retail center to the south, and office buildings to the east and west.
This item was presented to the Planning Commission on October 21, 2013. The hearing
was subsequently continued to provide staff and the applicant with an opportunity to
address concerns raised at this meeting by the public and the Planning Commission.
These concerns included the adequacy of the sound proofing of the project windows
facing Anaheim Boulevard and Lemon Street, the architectural design of the building,
traffic impacts to Lemon Street, and the potential for discovery of cultural resources on
the site relating to a previous Chinese settlement in the area. A detailed discussion of
these concerns is included in the Analysis section of this staff report.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2012-00248
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05597
April 21, 2014
Page 2 of 7
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct a 4-story, 220 unit apartment building with
18,000 square feet of retail space. The project will include 34 studio units, 102 one-bedroom
units and 84 two-bedroom units. Accessory residential uses include a leasing office, fitness
center and clubhouse. The proposed retail area includes a 9,400 square foot space and 8,600
square feet space. The retail spaces are located on the ground floor and oriented to Anaheim
Boulevard. The applicant has indicated that restaurants, small markets and retailers are the
desired tenants.
Parking will be provided in a 4-story garage that would be “wrapped” by the apartment building
on three sides. As a result, the structure would not be readily visible from Lincoln Avenue,
Lemon Street or Anaheim Boulevard. The parking structure would be open on the north side,
facing Cypress Street. The project includes 577 parking spaces. The parking structure will have
488 spaces and there will be 89 surface parking spaces. The surface parking is located on the
north part of the property adjacent to Cypress Street.
Two of the five parcels which comprise the project site are in the Transition (T) Zone, and are
proposed to be rezoned to General Commercial (C-G). The applicant is also requesting a rezone
of all five properties to the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone as a part of the development request.
The project also requires a parcel map to consolidate the five parcels and straighten out the
“scalloped” property lines created by the meandering sidewalks and parkway planters current in
the right-of-way along Lincoln Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard. The parkways would be
updated to current standards. Because this sidewalk/parkway area is owned by the City’s
Redevelopment Successor Agency, the final disposition of these areas must be approved by the
State, at which time the final parcel map may be approved.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the development proposal and offers the following analysis of the required
actions relating to this request:
Reclassification: This request would rezone the parcels presently zoned Transition into the
General Commercial Zone. In addition, the Mixed Use Overlay Zone would be applied to the
entire site. The Mixed Use Overlay zone is a typical implementation zone for properties
designated for Mixed Use land uses in the General Plan. The General Plan encourages the
development of a blend of residential, commercial and office uses in the Downtown Core. The
proposed zoning designations are consistent with the goals of the General Plan; therefore, staff
recommends approval of the zone change request.
Conditional Use Permit: The Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit for mixed use
projects proposed in the Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The purpose for the conditional use permit is
to ensure on-site compatibility of residential and non-residential uses, and compatibility of
mixed-use projects with surrounding uses. The proposed development would be located on a site
that is on the edge of two very different types of neighborhoods. To the south, existing mid-rise
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2012-00248
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05597
April 21, 2014
Page 3 of 7
office buildings and mixed use development create a dense and urban environment. However,
areas north, east and west of the site are characterized by historic single family homes, apartment
buildings and Pearson Park. These uses create a distinct suburban environment. The proposed
project blends the scale of the existing development to the south with residential uses compatible
to those existing north, east and west of the site.
The City has adopted Design Guidelines for the Colony area, which are intended to provide
direction for public projects in the Downtown area. The Code does not include provisions for
design review, nor does it require consistency with these Guidelines, so private development
projects are not required to comply with these Guidelines. Nevertheless, the proposed
architecture does comply with the Guidelines by creating a contemporary adaptation of historic
architecture. The building is of neutral earth tones with a plaster finish, pre-cast concrete store
fronts and brick cladding accents. The massing of the building walls is on separate planes and
includes a varied roofline. The roofline includes a cornice with detailed molding and the
windows are framed with wide white trim. A roof-mounted sign with clock is proposed and is
designed similarly to that which exists on the Broadway Arms apartment complex on Broadway.
The exposed, north-facing parking structure elevation will be designed with metal screens which
will be planted with landscaping.
The apartment building is designed to wrap around the parking structure with the apartments
facing Anaheim Boulevard, Lincoln Avenue and Lemon Street. The retail uses would be located
on the ground floor along Anaheim Boulevard. In order to encourage an active street life, the
Zoning Code requires that ground floor space facing the street be used for commercial purposes.
These requirements may be modified by a conditional use permit. Anaheim Boulevard contains
pedestrian-oriented commercial uses from the Packing District at Santa Ana Street to La Palma
Avenue. This corridor includes many new restaurants, shops and a park designed to be accessed
easily from Anaheim Boulevard by car and on foot. Staff believes that it is appropriate for the
retail spaces in this project to be oriented toward Anaheim Boulevard as this street provides a
link between the new dining and retail businesses in the Packing District and Center Street and
the existing commercial uses on North Anaheim Boulevard.
Staff considered the benefits of orienting the retail space to Lincoln Avenue. Lincoln Avenue is
a six-lane primary arterial highway connecting the 57 and 5 Freeways and is designed to carry
traffic through the city. Typical uses along this portion of Lincoln Avenue from East Street to
Harbor Boulevard include both single and multi-family residential uses, a majority of which do
not have direct access to Lincoln Avenue, commercial development with street-oriented parking
lots, and several small office buildings. The volume of vehicle traffic and noise along Lincoln
Avenue, and the absence of existing pedestrian-oriented development, make Lincoln Avenue less
suitable than Anaheim Boulevard as a setting for retail uses. For these reasons, it is appropriate
that the pedestrian-oriented retail component of this project is located on Anaheim Boulevard
and not on Lincoln Avenue. This orientation is consistent with the intent of the Mixed Use
Overlay Zone as it encourages an active street life while maintaining safe streets. Staff believes
that the project has been designed to provide compatibility between the on-site residential and
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2012-00248
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05597
April 21, 2014
Page 4 of 7
non-residential uses, as well as compatibility with surrounding land uses. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of the conditional use permit.
Parking: The project includes 577 parking spaces with 488 spaces in the parking structure and
89 surface spaces. A parking study prepared by a licensed traffic engineer and reviewed by City
staff identifies a parking demand of 518 parking spaces. Parking requirements in the Mixed Use
Overlay Zone are determined by a Parking Study, rather than by pre-determined Code
requirements. The study prepared for this project is included as Attachment No. 7 to this report.
Developments in mixed use areas typically have a lower parking demand because customers of
the businesses may also live in the project; the project may be located close to transit; or the mix
of uses may have different peak hours of parking demand. In order to substantiate the number of
parking spaces required for the proposed project, the parking study analyzes the observed
parking demand of mixed use projects in Fullerton and Santa Ana, as well as residential only
projects in Irvine, Orange and Anaheim.
The applicant purchased this property from the adjacent property owner, AT&T. Included in the
purchase was an agreement that 67 parking spaces on this property will be shared with AT&T for
employee parking. There are no time or use restrictions on these spaces. In the event that all 67
parking spaces were used by AT&T employees, the parking provided on site would be eight
spaces short of the parking demand identified in the parking study. However, over the past two
years, staff has observed that these spaces are generally not used by AT&T employees and that,
if AT&T employees were to increase their use of these parking spaces, the demand would
typically be during daytime business hours when residential parking demand is low. Based on
the findings of the submitted parking study and field observations, staff believes that the number
of parking spaces proposed is adequate to support the project.
Environmental: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared to evaluate the
environmental impacts of the project and to identify any necessary mitigation measures. The
MND was circulated for a 20-day public review period between January 28, 2013 and February
26, 2013. Mitigation measures have been identified in the MND and included in the draft
resolution attached to this report. With implementation of these measures, project impacts will
be reduced to a level considered less than significant and the MND concluded that there are no
remaining potentially significant adverse impacts related to the project.
Traffic: As part of the project’s environmental review, a traffic study was prepared by IBI
Group. This study analyzed the existing traffic conditions and projected 2015 traffic conditions,
which is the project’s anticipated opening year. Traffic conditions with and without this project
were analyzed. Vehicle trips were assigned based on the Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model. This
model provides a high level of detail within the City of Anaheim, and includes all arterial streets
and many local streets, such as Lemon Street and Sycamore Street. The Anaheim Traffic
Analysis Model does assign some project traffic onto local streets, but not enough to meet any
recognized or established significant impact criteria.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2012-00248
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05597
April 21, 2014
Page 5 of 7
The project does have the potential to create an impact at the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard
and Cypress Street; however, a mitigation measure was developed to reduce this impact to less
than significant levels through installation of a raised median through the intersection prohibiting
left turn and through movements on Cypress Street, while allowing left turns from Anaheim
Boulevard. This measure was subsequently revised to require a “pork chop”-type diverter to
prevent left turns from eastbound Cypress Street to North Anaheim Boulevard, rather than a
raised median. This modification was made in response to community input received following
the October 21, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. This input is further described below. No
other traffic impacts were identified in the traffic study.
Neighborhood Outreach: Prior to the October 2013 Planning Commission meeting, staff met
with the Central District Neighborhood Council on four occasions and discussed the project.
Additionally, staff coordinated three meetings with the applicant and Colony residents to review
and provide comments on the project’s architecture. The applicant made several revisions to the
architecture in response to the input received at these meetings.
Responses to Concerns from October 21, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting: As further
described below, the applicant has addressed the concerns raised by the community and
Commission during the initial public hearing. Community meetings were held on April 8 and
April 15, 2014 to share the applicant’s responses to the issues raised. Following is an overview
of these items:
1. Architecture. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to consider enhancements
to the architecture of the building. In response, the applicant has revised the first floor of
the building by replacing the brick veneer on the storefronts along Anaheim Boulevard
with precast concrete. The first floor building elevation along Lincoln Avenue was also
modified by adding a brick veneer in place of a previous plaster finish. These changes
help differentiate the first floor from the remainder of the building and create a greater
identity for the storefronts.
2. Window Sound Proofing. The project includes a mitigation measure requiring additional
glazing on the windows facing Lincoln Avenue because of the noise associated with the
traffic on this street. The Planning Commission asked the applicant to consider including
windows with similar glazing treatments on Anaheim Boulevard and Lemon Street. The
applicant submitted a noise analysis prepared by an acoustical engineer, which is
provided in Attachment No. 5 to this report. The analysis concluded that windows with
greater soundproofing should be installed on Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim Boulevard and
portions of Lemon Street and Cypress Street. The applicant has agreed to a condition of
approval requiring the installation of the recommended windows in the noise analysis.
Staff believes that the improved soundproofing required by the mitigation measure and
condition of approval will provide the necessary noise attenuation for the project.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2012-00248
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05597
April 21, 2014
Page 6 of 7
3. Archeological/Paleontological Concerns. At the previous hearing, testimony was
provided by the public regarding the possibility of an early Chinese settlement in
Anaheim once located on the project site. Based on a review of the historical records
including inventories of the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register
of Historical Resources, the California Historical Landmarks list, the California Points of
Historical Interest list, the California State Historic Resources Inventory and archival
maps for the County and the City, there was no evidence of previously documented local
historical resources on this site. Nevertheless, in response to the testimony provided at
the Planning Commission meeting, an architectural historian working for the City’s
environmental consultant visited the Anaheim Heritage Center at the Muzeo and
researched historical documents regarding this site. These documents included Sanborn
Fire Insurance Company maps, historical aerial photographs and maps, information
regarding the Chinese settlement provided by the Heritage Center manager, and a
Master’s Thesis prepared in 1993 about the Chinese settlements in Anaheim. The
consultant noted that there is evidence that past Chinese settlements occurred in the area
of the project, but there is no evidence that there are archeological resources on the
project site. The consultant concluded that the proposed environmental mitigation
measures are appropriate and adequate to ensure the protection and preservation of any
artifacts encountered during project construction. The proposed mitigation measure
requires that, if archeological resources are discovered during construction, an
archeological monitor will be provided on the project site. However, in response to the
testimony at the Commission hearing, the applicant has agreed to provide a monitor to be
present during all grading activities regardless of whether archeological resources are
discovered. This additional provision has been included as a condition of approval in the
draft resolution.
4. Traffic. The Planning Commission directed the applicant and staff to look at ways to
eliminate or reduce traffic northbound on Lemon Avenue from the project. The
applicant’s traffic consultant provided three proposals that could achieve this desired
outcome. Concurrently, staff from the Public Works Department was working with
residents from the neighborhood surrounding Pearson Park on traffic calming measures
intended to decrease the “cut-through” traffic in this area from Harbor Boulevard to
Anaheim Boulevard. After holding meetings with area residents, the Public Works
Department decided on a traffic calming plan that includes a diagonal diverter at Lemon
Street and Cypress Street. This improvement would be installed with or without the
proposed project. The diverter will span this intersection from the southwest corner to
the northeast corner which will not allow traffic from the project northbound on Lemon
Street. A temporary diverter will be put in place by the Public Works Department this
summer for a trial period of six months. At the conclusion of the trial period, the
developer will be responsible for the construction of a permanent, decorative diverter at
this location. Final design of the diverter shall be subject to the review and approval of
the City Engineer. Should the design of the diverter not serve its intended purpose
following installation, equivalent traffic calming measures, preventing northbound
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2012-00248
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05597
April 21, 2014
Page 7 of 7
5. vehicular traffic on Lemon Street, may be substituted for the diverter, subject to the
review and approval of the City Engineer.
As described above, a “pork chop”-type diverter is proposed at the intersection of
Cypress Street and Anaheim Boulevard to prevent left turns from eastbound Cypress
Street to North Anaheim Boulevard. This modified mitigation measure has been
included in the conditions of approval.
Community Input: Staff received a comment letter and petitions from residents in opposition to
this project. The letter was prepared by five residents who are active in the historical
preservation efforts of The Anaheim Colony, and the accompanying petition was signed by 178
residents. This letter has been included as Attachment No. 8 to this report. The letter states that
the streets surrounding this property were not designed to accommodate the traffic that will be
generated by the project, that the building is inconsistent with the historical nature of the homes
in the area, and that this location is not suited for residential development and should be
developed with something that is of significant benefit to the community.
CONCLUSION: Staff recommends approval of the requested actions as the proposed
development is consistent with the goals and policies of the Anaheim General Plan and the
development standards of the Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The project is compatible with the
surrounding community and would provide quality housing and retail businesses in the
downtown area. In addition, staff believes that the applicant has effectively addressed the
concerns raised at the initial public hearing. Staff recommends approval of the reclassification
and conditional use permit.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Scott Koehm Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps
2. Development Summary
3. Reclassification Draft Resolution
4. Conditional Use Permit Draft Resolution
The following attachments were provided to the Planning Commission and are available for
public review at the Planning Services Division at City Hall or on the City of Anaheim’s web
site at www.anaheim.net/planning.
5. Responses to Issues Raised at October 21, 2013 Planning Commission Hearing
6. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
7. Parking Study
8. Public Comments Received
9. Development Plans
10. Site Photos
TVACANT
C-GRELIGIOU SUSE
RS-3TRIPLE X
C-GPARKING L OT
C-GAUTOREPAIR/SE RVIC E
RS-3SINGLE FAM ILY RE SIDE NCE
RS-3TRIPLE X
RS-3SFR
RS-3SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SFR
RS-2TRIPLE X
C-GAUTOSALES
C-GRETAIL C-GKRAEM ERBUILDINGOFFICES
C-GAUTO BO DY SH OP
C-GOFFICE S
RM-4PARKPROMENAD EAPTS24 D U
TRELIGIOU SUSE
C-GNIGHT C LU B
C-GPARKING L OT
RM-4VILLAGE CE NT ERAPTS100 DU
C-GOFFICE S
C-GMEDICAL OFFICE
RS-2SINGLEFAMILYRESIDENCE
O-LOFFICE S
RS-3VACANT
RS-3SINGLE FAM ILY RE SIDE NCERS-2SINGLE FAM ILY RE SIDENCE
T A PT S20 D U
TPARKING L OT
C-GRETAIL
C-G (DMU )RETAIL
RM-4 A PT S10 D U
C-GAPTS5 DU
C-GRETAIL
C-G (DMU )CITY H AL L
RS-3SFR
RM-3RETAILRM-4SFR
C-GKRAEM ERBUILDINGAPTS
RS-3DUPLE X
RS-3DUPLE X
RM-4OFFICE S
C-G (DMU )RETAIL
C-G (DMU )RETAIL
W LINCOLN AVES ANAHEI
M BL
VDN ANAHEI
M BLVDE L IN C O L N A V E
S ANAHEI
M BLVDN LEMON STN CLAUDI
NA STW C Y P R E S S S T
W A D E L E S T
E C Y P R E S S S T
E A D E L E S T
E C E N T E R S TN CL
EMENTI
NE STS.
EAST STW .LIN C O L N A V E
E. LA PALMA AVE
E . L IN C O L N A V EN.
EAST STW. LA PALMA AVE
N.
HARBOR BLVDW . B R O A D W A YN.ANAHEI
MBLVDE .B R O A D W A Y
S.MANCHEST
E
R
A
V
E S.
ANAHEI
M BLVDE . B R O A D W A Y
20 0-2 82 No rth Le mo n St ree t107-1 27 W est Lin co ln Av en ueand 12 0 We st Cyp ress S tre et
DE V No. 2011-00110
Su bje ct Property APN : 2 55 -08 1 -04255-0 8 1 -0 6255-0 8 1 -0 5255-0 8 1 -0 3255-0 8 1 -0 2255-0 8 1 -0 1
AT TACHME NT NO. 1
°0 50 10 0
Feet
Ae r ia l Ph o t o :M a y 2 0 1 2
W LINCOLN AVES ANAHEI
M BL
VDN ANAHEI
M BLVDE L IN C O L N A V E
S ANAHEI
M BLVDN LEMON STN CLAUDI
NA STW C Y P R E S S S T
W A D E L E S T
E C Y P R E S S S T
E A D E L E S T
E C E N T E R S TN CL
EMENTI
NE STS.
EAST STW .LIN C O L N A V E
E. LA PALMA AVE
E . L IN C O L N A V EN.
EAST STW. LA PALMA AVE
N.
HARBOR BLVDW . B R O A D W A YN.ANAHEI
MBLVDE .B R O A D W A Y
S.MANCHEST
E
R
A
V
E S.
ANAHEI
M BLVDE . B R O A D W A Y
20 0-2 82 No rth Le mo n St ree t107-1 27 W est Lin co ln Av en ueand 12 0 We st Cyp ress S tre et
DE V No. 2011-00110
Su bje ct Property APN : 2 55 -08 1 -04255-0 8 1 -0 6255-0 8 1 -0 5255-0 8 1 -0 3255-0 8 1 -0 2255-0 8 1 -0 1
AT TACHME NT NO. 1
°0 50 10 0
Feet
Ae r ia l Ph o t o :M a y 2 0 1 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PROJECT SUMMARY
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2012-00248 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05597
Development
Standard
Mixed Use Overlay Zone
Standards
Proposed Project
Site Area 3 acres
4.29 acres
Maximum Density 60 dwelling units/acre 51 dwelling units/acre
Parking Parking requirement determined by
parking study
577 spaces proposed
(67 spaces shared with adjacent
AT&T property)
Setbacks
Anaheim Boulevard
0 feet
Lincoln Avenue
0 feet
Lemon Street
10 feet
Cypress Street
10 feet
Anaheim Boulevard
8 feet to 11 feet
Lincoln Avenue
1 foot to 21 feet
Lemon Street
10 feet
Cypress Street
10 feet
Height 63 feet
59 feet
Recreational-Leisure
Area
42,300 square feet Courtyards 28,650
Fitness Room and Clubhouse 2,600
Balconies and Patios 6,800
Pedestrian Walkways 5,580
Total Square Feet 43,630
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3
- 1 - PC2014-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2012-00248 AND
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE
ZONING MAP OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFLECT SAID
RECLASSIFICATION, AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
(DEV2011-00110)
(200-282 NORTH LEMON STREET, 107-127 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE AND
120 WEST CYPRESS STREET)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition for reclassification, designated as Reclassification
No. 2012-00248, for that certain real property located at 200-282 North Lemon Street, 107-127
West Lincoln Avenue and 120 West Cypress Street, 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"). Reclassification No. 2012-00248 is
proposed in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-05597 to construct a mixed-use
project with 220 apartments and 18,000 square feet of commercial retail uses (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is currently developed with a vacant two-story building
and a parking lot. Most of the Property is located in the C-G (General Commercial) Zone. A
portion of the Property is located in the T (Transition) Zone. The Anaheim General Plan
designates this Property for Mixed Use land uses; and
WHEREAS, the applicant requests to rezone that portion of the Property currently
located in the T (Transition) Zone to the C-G (General Commercial) Zone and to add the Mixed
Use (MU) Overlay Zone for the entire Property, which will apply in addition to and, where
inconsistent with, shall supersede the corresponding regulations of the underlying CG (General
Commercial) Zone; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as
“CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA
Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of
environmental documents for the proposed Project, including Reclassification No. 2012-00248;
and
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's
Local CEQA Procedure Manual, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") was prepared
to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the proposed Project, including
Reclassification No. 2012-00248. The MND was circulated for a 30-day public review period
from January 28, 2013 through February 26, 2013. A complete copy of the MND is on file and
can be viewed in the City's Planning Department and is also available for purchase; and
- 2 - PC2014-***
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's
Local CEQA Procedure Manual, a Mitigation Monitoring Program ("MMP") has been prepared
for the proposed Project and includes mitigation measures that are specific to the proposed
Project. The MMP is attached to a separate resolution adopted by this Planning Commission
concurrently with this Resolution in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-05597;
and
WHEREAS, this Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic
Center in the City of Anaheim on October 21, 2013 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing
having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (herein referred to as the “Code”), to hear and consider
evidence for and against proposed Reclassification No. 2012-00248 and Conditional Use Permit
No. 2012-05597 and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection
therewith. The hearing was continued indefinitely to allow time to address issues raised during
the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic
Center in the City of Anaheim on April 21, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing
having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony concerning
the contents and sufficiency of the MND and for and against the proposed Project and to
investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the Planning Commission did receive
evidence and reports, including any written and verbal comments received during the public
review period concerning the contents and sufficiency of the MND and responses thereto; and
WHEREAS, based upon a review of the proposed Project and the MND, this
Planning Commission finds that (i) the MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of
the City; (ii) it has considered the proposed MND and MMP together with any comments and
responses received during the public review process; (iii) potentially significant impacts of the
proposed Project, including proposed Reclassification No. 2012-00248, have been eliminated or
reduced to a level considered less than significant with the implementation of the mitigation
measures contained in the MMP; and (iv) there is no substantial evidence that the proposed
Project, including proposed Reclassification No. 2012-00248, will have a significant effect on
the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and
study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
1. Reclassification of a portion of the Property from the T (Transition) Zone to
the CG (General Commercial) Zone and the entire Property to the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay
Zone is consistent with the Property’s existing Mixed Use land use designation in the General
Plan.
2. The proposed reclassification of the Property is necessary and/or desirable
for the orderly and proper development of the community and is compatible with the surrounding
properties designated for Mixed Use land uses.
- 3 - PC2014-***
3. The proposed reclassification of the Property does properly relate to the zone
and its permitted uses locally established within and in close proximity to the Property and to the
zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does
hereby unconditionally approve Reclassification No. 2012-00248 to authorize an amendment to
the Zoning Map of the Anaheim Municipal Code to rezone and reclassify the Property into the
C-G (General Commercial) Zone and Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall not constitute a
rezoning of, or a commitment by the City to rezone, the Property; any such rezoning shall require
an ordinance of the City Council, which shall be a legislative act, which may be approved or
denied by the City Council at its sole discretion.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of April 21, 2014.
CHAIR, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City
Planning Commission held on April 21, 2014, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 21st day of April, 2014.
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
- 4 - PC2014-***
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 4
-1- PC2014-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 2012-05597 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2011-00110)
(200-282 NORTH LEMON STREET, 107-127 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE AND
120 WEST CYPRESS STREET)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (hereinafter referred to as
the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-
05597 to construct a mixed-use project with 220 apartments and 18,000 square feet of
commercial retail uses (the “Project”) for certain real property located at 200-282 North Lemon
Street, 107-127 West Lincoln Avenue and 120 West Cypress Street in the City of Anaheim,
County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as
Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property, consisting of approximately 4.29-acres, is developed with a
vacant building and a parking lot. A portion of the Property is located in the T (Transition)
Zone. The remainder of the Property is located in the C-G (General Commercial) Zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-05597 is proposed in conjunction with Reclassification No.
2012-00248, which is a request to rezone or reclassify the entirety of this property into the C-G
(General Commercial) Zone and to add the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone to the Property,
which will apply in addition to and, where inconsistent with, shall supersede the corresponding
regulations of the underlying CG (General Commercial) Zone. The Anaheim General Plan
designates the Property for Mixed Use land uses; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as
“CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA
Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of
environmental documents for the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local
CEQA Procedure Manual, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") was prepared to
evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The MND was circulated
for a 30-day public review period from January 28, 2013 through February 26, 2013. A
complete copy of the MND is on file and can be viewed in the City's Planning Department and is
also available for purchase; and
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local
CEQA Procedure Manual, a Mitigation Monitoring Program ("MMP") has been prepared for the
proposed Project and includes mitigation measures that are specific to the proposed Project. The
MMP is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference; and
-2- PC2014-***
WHEREAS, this Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on October 21, 2013 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been
duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code (herein referred to as the “Code”), to hear and consider evidence for
and against proposed Reclassification No. 2012-00248 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-
05597 and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith. The
hearing was continued indefinitely to allow time to address issues raised during the public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on April 21, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been
duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony concerning the contents
and sufficiency of the MND and for and against the proposed Project and to investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, the Planning Commission did receive evidence and
reports, including any written and verbal comments received during the public review period
concerning the contents and sufficiency of the MND and responses thereto; and
WHEREAS, based upon a review of the Project and the MND, this Planning Commission
finds that (i) the MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City; (ii) it has
considered the proposed MND and MMP together with any comments and responses received
during the public review process; (iii) potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project
have been eliminated or reduced to a level considered less than significant with the
implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the MMP; and (iv) there is no substantial
evidence that the proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing pertaining to the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-05597 to construct
the proposed Project, does find and determine the following facts:
1. The proposed Project is properly one for which a conditional use permit is
authorized by Section 18.32.030.120 (Uses) of the Zoning Code.
2. The proposed Project would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the
growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. The Project complies
with and implements the City’s General Plan and mitigation measures have been included to
reduce or eliminate and potential impacts.
3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the
proposed Project, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety
because the site can accommodate the parking, traffic, and circulation without creating
detrimental effects on adjacent properties.
4. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon
the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the
vehicular circulation is designed to minimize impacts on the surrounding properties.
-3- PC2014-***
5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not
be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because the project
has been designed to minimize impacts on the surrounding properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Anaheim, based upon the foregoing findings and recitals, as follows:
1. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the MND and the MMP and does find
and determine their adequacy to serve as the required environmental documentation for the
proposed Project.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No.
2012-05597, subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 2012-00248, now pending, and
subject to compliance with the conditions of approval described in Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to
the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the
citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval
may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with
conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause
provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the
conditions, (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated
significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
3. 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.
4. The adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's
compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition,
or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of
competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be
deemed null and void.
5. Approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to
the extent that it complies with the Zoning Code of the City of Anaheim and any other applicable
City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to
compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or
requirement.
6. The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this
discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay
all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application.
-4- PC2014-***
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
April 21, 2014. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 of
the Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in
the event of an appeal.
CHAIR, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim
City Planning Commission held on April 21, 2014, by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 21st day of April, 2014.
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-5- PC2014-***
-6- PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-05597 AND
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 310
(DEV2011-00110)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS
1 Per the requirements of the General Permit for Discharges of Storm
Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General
Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ), a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) for the proposed project shall be prepared and include a
sufficient number of erosion control Best Management Practices
(BMPs) are implemented during the construction phase to ensure that
potential erosion issues are adequately addressed. BMPs shall include
the following, or similar, efforts: fiber rolls, street sweeping, sandbag
barriers, straw bale barriers, and storm drain inlet protection. MM
HYD-1
Public
Works,
Development
Services
2 Prior to issuance of the grading permit and right-of-way construction
permit for the storm drain and sewer, whichever occurs first, a Save
Harmless agreement in-lieu of an Encroachment Agreement is
required to be executed, approved by the City and recorded by the
applicant on the property for any storm drains connecting to a City
storm drain.
Public
Works,
Development
Services
3 The applicant shall submit to the Public Works
Department/Development Services for review and approval a Final
Water Quality Management Plan that:
• Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such
as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability,
minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced
or “zero discharge” areas, and conserving natural areas.
• Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as
defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan.
• Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP.
• Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements
for the Treatment Control BMPs.
• Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term
operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs, and
• Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and
maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs.
Public
Works,
Development
Services
4 Per the requirements of the General Permit for Discharges of Storm
Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General
Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ), a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) for the proposed project shall be prepared and include a
sufficient number of erosion control Best Management Practices
Public
Works,
Development
Services
-7- PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
(BMPs) are implemented during the construction phase to ensure that
potential erosion issues are adequately addressed. BMPs shall include
the following, or similar, efforts: fiber rolls, street sweeping, sandbag
barriers, straw bale barriers, and storm drain inlet protection.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL
5 The Developer/Property owner shall acquire in fee (or as approved by
City Engineer) from the legal owner that portion of land that is in
excess outside of the ultimate street right-of-way for Lincoln Avenue
and Anaheim Boulevard for the entire frontage of the project along
these streets. The legal owner shall dedicate to the City of Anaheim
ultimate right-of-way easements fifty five (55) feet in width for road,
public utilities and other public purposes along Lincoln Avenue and
Anaheim Boulevard for the entire frontage of the project along these
streets.
Public
Works,
Development
Services
6 The legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City
of Anaheim an easement for street, public utility and other public
purposes for the widening of Cypress Street and Lemon Street to their
ultimate right-of-way width of 30 feet and 28.75 feet from the street
centerlines, respectively.
Public
Works,
Development
Services
7 A maintenance covenant shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section
and approved by the City Attorney's office. The covenant shall include
provisions for maintenance of private facilities, including compliance
with approved Water Quality Management Plan, and a maintenance
exhibit. Maintenance responsibilities shall include parkway landscaping
and irrigation on Anaheim Blvd, Lincoln Avenue, Lemon Street and
Cypress Street. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the
final map.
Public
Works,
Development
Services
8 Street improvement plans shall be submitted for all required public
works improvements; including traffic signal and related
improvements, striping, storm drain, sewer, landscape and irrigation
improvements, in Lincoln Avenue, Lemon Street, Anaheim Blvd and
Cypress Street to the Public Works Department/Development Services.
A bond shall be posted in an amount approved by the City Engineer
and in a form approved by the City Attorney prior to final map
approval. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final
building and zoning inspections.
Public
Works,
Development
Services
9 The property owner shall execute a Subdivision Agreement, in a form
approved by the City Attorney, to complete the required public
improvements at the legal property owner’s expense. Said agreement
shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Subdivision Section
approved by the City Attorney and City Engineer.
Public
Works,
Development
Services
10 All parcels shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division. Public
Works,
Development
Services
-8- PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
11 All existing structures shall be demolished. The developer shall obtain a
demolition permit from the Building Division.
Public
Works,
Development
Services
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
12 That prior to issuance of building permits, plans shall specifically
indicate that all vehicular ramps and grades conform to all applicable
Engineering Standards.
Public
Works,
Traffic
Engineering
13 That prior to issuance of the a building permit for the parking
structure, plans shall demonstrate that at-grade ducts and overhead
pipes shall not encroach in the parking space areas or required vehicle
clearance areas.
Public
Works,
Traffic
Engineering
14 The final map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of
Anaheim and the Orange County Surveyor and then shall be recorded
in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
Public
Works,
Development
Services
15 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, onsite soil classified as
hazardous waste in California by virtue of having greater than 1,000
mg/kg total lead concentration shall be evaluated and disposed at a
State approved disposal site. MM HAZ-1a
Fire
Department
16 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, shallow soils from the
historical industrial use located in the southeast and southwest
portions of the project site (with the highest density of sampling
locations documenting lead between 80 mg/kg and 1,000 mg/kg) shall
be relocated to underneath the footprint of the future parking structure.
MM HAZ-1b
Public
Works,
Development
Services,
Building
Division and
DTSC
17 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the soils with lead
concentration below 80 mg/kg shall be re-graded and compacted in the
top 5 to 7 feet bgs. MM HAZ-1c
Public
Works,
Development
Services,
Building
Division and
DTSC
18 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, sampling under the footprint
of new residential area(s) shall be conducted to confirm and document
that no residual soil with lead in excess of 80 mg/kg is located under
the foundation of the proposed building locations. MM HAZ-1d
Public
Works,
Development
Services,
Building
Division and
DTSC
19 Double or extra-strength windows and doors with an STC rating of 22
or higher shall be installed in all residential units adjacent to Lincoln
Planning
Department,
-9- PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
Avenue. Interior noise levels must then be checked to ensure interior
noise levels are at or below 45 dB (CNEL). Where it is necessary that
windows be closed in order to achieve the required level, means shall
be provided for ventilation/cooling shall be included to provide a
habitable environment. MM NOI-1
Building
Division
20 Windows shall be installed with glazing ratings as identified in Table 4
found in the letter from Veneklasen Associates dated January 8, 2014.
This letter has been included as an attachment to the staff report.
Planning
Department,
Building
Division
21 Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property
owner/developer shall construct a median diverter on Anaheim
Boulevard at Cypress Street, including all appropriate signage and
striping. This median diverter shall allow left turns in the northbound
and southbound directions of Anaheim Boulevard onto Cypress Street,
but shall prohibit left turns and through movements eastbound and
westbound on Cypress Street. MM TRAN-1
Public
Works,
Traffic
Engineering
22 Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the developer/owner
shall submit to the Public Utilities Water Engineering an estimate of
the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water
demands for the project. This information will be used to confirm the
adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water
demands. In the unlikely event that off-site water system
improvements are required to serve the project, they shall be provided
in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules,
and Regulations. MM USS-1
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
23 Prior to approval of permits for improvement plans, the property
owner/developer shall coordinate with Electrical Engineering to
establish electrical service requirements and submit electric system
plans, electrical panel drawings, site plans, elevation plans, and related
technical drawings and specifications.
Public
Utilities,
Electrical
Engineering
24 That this project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet
and a separate irrigation meter shall· be installed in compliance with
the Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
25 The property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to The City of
Anaheim an easement twenty feet in width for water service mains
and/or an easement for large meters or other public facilities.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
26 Lockable pedestrian and/or vehicular access gates shall be equipped
with Knox devices as required and approved by the Fire Department.
Fire
Department
27 A fire alarm system shall be designed, installed and maintained as
required by the Fire Department.
Fire
Department
-10- PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
28 An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be designed, installed and
maintained as required by the Fire Department.
Fire
Department
29 Fire hydrants shall meet minimum Fire Department Specifications
and Requirements for spacing, distance to structure and available
fire flow.
Fire
Department
30 An all-weather access road as approved by the Fire Department
shall be provided during construction.
Fire
Department
31 An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be designed, installed and
maintained as required by the Fire Department. This item shall be
shown on plans submitted for building permits.
Fire
Department
32 All requests for new water services or fire lines as well as any
modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services
and fire lines shall be coordinated through the Water Engineering
Division of the Public Utilities Department.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
33 All existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current
Water Services Standards Specifications. Any water service and/or
fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if
continued use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no
longer needed. The owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs
to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
34 The owner/developer shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of
Anaheim (i) an easement for all large domestic above-ground water
meters and fire hydrants, including a five (5)-foot wide easement
around the fire hydrant and/or water meter pad. (ii) a twenty (20) foot
wide easement for all water service laterals all to the satisfaction of the
Water Engineering Division. The easements shall be granted on the
Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department's
standard water easement deed. The easement deeds shall include
language that requires the owner to be responsible for restoring any
special surface improvements, other than asphalt paving, including but
not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete,
decorative hardscape, walls or landscaping that becomes damaged
during any excavation, repair or replacement of City owned water
facilities. Provisions for the repair, replacement and maintenance of all
surface improvements other than asphalt paving shall be the
responsibility of the owner.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
35 The developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Department,
Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow
rate and sprinkler demand, and maximum day and peak hour water
demands for the project. This information will be used to determine
the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated
water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to
serve the project shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of
the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
-11- PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
36 Exhibit “B” of this document containing the conditions of approval
and mitigation measures associated with this entitlement shall be
prominently displayed on plans submitted for grading and building
permits.
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
ONGOING DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
37 During project construction, the developer shall require painting
contractors to use only paints and coatings with no more than 100
grams/liter of volatile organic compound (VOC) for exterior
applications and no more than 50 grams/liter of VOC for interior
applications. For a list of low VOC paints, see Website:
www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/paintguide.html. MM AQ-1
Planning
Department,
Building
Division
38 During project construction, the developer shall require painting
contractors to phase paints and coatings applications such that no
more than 2.5 percent of project facilities are under active application
on any one day. This measure results in an estimated 42-day
architectural coatings phase. MM AQ-2
Planning
Department,
Building
Division
39 The applicant/developer shall retain a qualified professional (e.g.,
archaeologist, historian, architect, paleontologist), subject to approval
by the City of Anaheim and this monitor shall be present to ensure that
all earthmoving activities are observed and shall be on site during
all grading activities.
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
40 In the event that buried cultural resources are discovered during
construction, operations shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find
and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether
the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall
make recommendations to the Lead Agency on the measures that shall
be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not
limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in
accordance with §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Cultural
resources could consist of, but are not limited to, stone artifacts, bone,
wood, shell, or features, including hearths, structural remains, or
historic dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered resources found
during construction within the Project Area should be recorded on
appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and
evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria. MM CR-1
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
41 If the resources are determined to be unique historic resources as
defined under §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures
shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead
Agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources
could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green
space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.
MM CR-2
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
42 No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the
Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any
archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be
Planning
Department,
Planning
-12- PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Lead
Agency where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow
future scientific study. MM CR-3
Services
43 In addition, reasonable efforts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse
effects to the property will be taken and the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) and Native American tribes with concerns about the
property, as well as the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(ACHP) will be notified within 48 hours in compliance with 36 CFR
800.13(b)(3). MM CR-4
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
44 Monitoring of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain
paleontological resources by a qualified paleontological monitor is
required under limited conditions. Monitoring must take place once 6
feet of modern grade has been reached during any earthmoving work.
The mitigation measures must be discussed with the Proponent and/or
his contracted representatives during a pre-grade meeting attended by
City staff. Should the City-approved Paleontologist determine that
potential impacts to fossil resources have been reduced to “low” as a
result of the monitoring efforts, the Paleontologist may cease the
monitoring program before earthmoving has concluded. A monitoring
report must be generated and submitted to City staff within one month
after monitoring has concluded.
Based upon the results of this review, areas of concern include any
and all previously undisturbed sediments of Pleistocene Older
alluvium present within the boundaries of the Project Area.
Paleontologic monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils, as they
are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of
sediments likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates
and vertebrates. Monitors must be empowered to temporarily halt or
divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens.
Monitoring may be reduced or eliminated if the potentially
fossiliferous units described herein are determined upon exposure and
examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low
potential to contain fossil resources. MM CR-5
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
45 Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and
permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover
small invertebrates and vertebrates is required. Preparation and
stabilization of all recovered fossils are essential in order to fully
mitigate adverse impacts to the resources. MM CR-6
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
46 Identification and curation of specimens into an established,
accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable
paleontologic storage is required. These procedures are also essential
steps in effective paleontologic mitigation and CEQA compliance.
The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand
prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Mitigation of adverse
impacts to significant paleontologic resources is not complete until
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
-13- PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
such curation into an established museum repository has been fully
completed and documented. MM CR-7
47 Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized
inventory of specimens is required. The report and inventory, when
submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency along with confirmation of
the curation of recovered specimens into an established, accredited
museum repository, will signify completion of the program to mitigate
impacts to paleontologic resources. MM CR-8
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
48 In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human
remains, California State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 dictates that
no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made
the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to CEQA
regulations and Public Resource Code (PRC) §5097.98. All
applicable provisions of the Native American Grave Protection and
Repatriation Act and its regulations found in the Code of Federal
Regulations at 43 CFR 10 shall also apply. MM CR-9
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTION
49 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall provide
to the City of Anaheim a Public Utilities easement with dimensions as
shown on the approved utility service plan.
Public
Utilities,
Electrical
Engineering
50 For the retail portion, complete a Burglary/Robbery Alarm Permit
application, Form APD 516, and return it to the Police Department
prior to initial alarm activation. This form is available at the Police
Department front counter, or it can be downloaded from the following
web site: http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=678
Police
Department
51 Address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily readable from
the street. Main building numbers should be a minimum height of 12”.
Numbers should be illuminated during hours of darkness.
Police
Department
52 On the retail portion, rear entrance doors shall be numbered with the
same address numbers or suite number of the business. Minimum
height of 4” recommended.
Police
Department
53 Rooftop address numbers shall be added for the police helicopter.
Minimum size 4’ in height and 2’ in width. The lines of the numbers
are to be a minimum of 6” thick. Numbers should be spaced 12” to
18” apart. Numbers should be painted or constructed in a contrasting
color to the roofing material. Numbers should face the street to which
the structure is addressed. Numbers are not to be visible from ground
level.
a. Based on the design of this complex, the above described roof
numbers can be applied to the top level of the central parking structure
Police
Department
-14- PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
on a portion of the pavement not covered by any structures or parking
spaces. The size and positioning, as described above, should be
adhered to.
54 All exterior doors shall have their own light source, which shall
adequately illuminate door areas at all hours to make clearly visible
the presence of any person on or about the premises and provide
adequate illumination for persons exiting the building.
Police
Department
55 Minimum lighting level for covered portions of all parking structures
is:
• Horizontal Illumination: 1-footcandle minimum, 5-footcandles
average on the covered decks with a 10:1 maximum to minimum
uniformity ratio.
• Minimum Vertical Illumination: 0.5-footcandles at 5-feet above the
parking surface.
• Entrances: 50-footcandles minimum during the day. This higher
illumination level should be carried approximately 70-feet inside the
garage to allow a transition from bright daylight to a lower internal
level. Natural daylight may be considered in the calculation.
Police
Department
56 Compliance with AMC 6016, the Anaheim Public Safety Radio
System Coverage Ordinance is required. To request a copy of the
ordinance, contact Officer Budds at (714) 765-3859 or
mbudds@anaheim.net. A copy of the ordinance can also be
viewed/download online through the City of Anaheim web site under
“City Records”: http://www.anaheim.net/.
Police
Department
57 All electrically operated gates providing emergency vehicle access
shall include the installation of an electronic access system which
allows for the use of a public safety radio frequency to open the gate.
Police
Department
58 The developer/property owner shall:
• Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project & Site
Specific WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance
with approved plans and specifications.
• Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non-
structural BMPs described in the Project & Site Specific WQMP
• Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved
Project & Site Specific WQMP are available onsite.
• Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and
Maintenance Plan for all structural BMPs.
Public
Works,
Development
Services
59 The property owner/developer shall construct a permanent, decorative
diagonal diverter at the intersection of Lemon Street and Cypress
Street, including all appropriate signage and striping. This diverter
shall only allow northbound and southbound right turns, and
eastbound and westbound left turns. Provisions shall be made in the
design of the diverter to allow for full pedestrian and bicycle
movements. Final design of the diverter shall be subject to the review
and approval of the City Engineer. Should the design of the diverter
Public
Works,
Development
Services
-15- PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
not serve its intended purpose following installation, equivalent traffic
calming measures, preventing northbound vehicular traffic on Lemon
Street, may be substituted for the diverter, subject to the review and
approval of the City Engineer.
ONGOING DURING PROJECT OPERATION
60 The sanitary sewer and storm drains for this development shall be
privately maintained.
Public
Works,
Development
Services
61 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent
area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted
over within 24 hours of being applied.
Police
Department
No additional
demonstration
required
62 The parking lot of the premises shall be equipped with lighting of
sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the
appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot.
Additionally, the position of such lighting shall not disturb the
normal privacy and use of any neighboring uses.
Police
Department
63 All entrances to the parking lot shall be posted with appropriate signs
per 22658(a) C.V.C., to assist in removal of vehicles at the property
owners/managers request.
Police
Department
64 “No Trespassing 602(k) P.C.” signs shall be posted at the entrances of
the parking lot. Signs must be at least 2’ x 1’ in overall size, with
white background and black 2” lettering.
Police
Department
65 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
Department,
Planning
Services
No additional
demonstration
required
66 Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be
granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
No additional
demonstration
required
67 That timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be
amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause
provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original
intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the modification complies
with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has
demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or
approved development.
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
No additional
demonstration
required
68 Approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed
request only to the extent that complies with the Anaheim Municipal
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
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
No additional
demonstration
required
-16- PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
ordinance, regulation or requirement.
69 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and
its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to
individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all
claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack,
review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees
concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or
determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to
determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition
attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to
include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded
against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or
litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs,
liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with
such proceeding.
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
No additional
demonstration
required
January 8, 2014
Equity Residential
26970 Aliso Viejo Parkway, Suite 250
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
Attention: Mr. Dustin Smith
Subject: Uptown Village
Anaheim, California
Exterior Envelope Acoustical Design
VA Project # 4258-006
Dear Mr. Smith:
Veneklasen Associates (VA) has completed our acoustical review of the Uptown Village Development Site
located in Anaheim, California. This report represents the results of our findings.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This study was conducted to determine the impact of the exterior noise sources on the Uptown
Village Residential Development. VA’s scope of work included calculating the exterior noise levels
impacting the site, determining the method required to lower the exterior sound levels to meet the
applicable code requirements and review the planned exterior facade construction (including doors,
windows, walls and roofs) to determine compliance of the interior sound levels with State of California
and the City of Anaheim noise requirements. The results of VA’s analysis are presented in this report.
The project reviewed consists of a 4-story building containing 220 multi-family residential units and
first-floor retail space. The project site is bounded by Anaheim Boulevard to the east, Lincoln Avenue
to the south, Lemon Street to the west, and Cypress Street to the north.
2.0 NOISE CRITERIA
CNEL is the 24-hour equivalent sound pressure level in which the nighttime noise levels, occurring
between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am, are weighted by adding 10 dB of sound level to the measured
hourly average, and 5 dB for the hours between 7pm and 10pm. Since this is a 24 hour metric, single
event noise levels (truck pass-bye, bus, trains, etc.) are smoothed over the time frame meaning that
the single event noise levels are not as prominent in the analysis.
Leq (equivalent continuous sound level) is defined as the steady sound pressure level which, over a
given period of time, has the same total energy as the actual fluctuating noise.
2.1 City of Anaheim Noise Element
The City of Anaheim Noise Standards require that the interior noise levels not exceed 45 CNEL.
If the interior noise level exceeds 45 CNEL with windows open, then a mechanical ventilating system
or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided.
The exterior noise standard for the City of Anaheim is 65 CNEL. This applies to private patios and
balconies greater than 6 feet deep.
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Uptown Village - Exterior Envelope Acoustical Design
January 8, 2014–Page 2
www.veneklasen.com
3.0 EXTERIOR NOISE ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Computer Modeling
VA has utilized the Traffic Noise Model computer software program developed by the FHWA (Federal
Highway Administration) in order to predict vehicular noise levels at various locations. Current traffic
conditions for Lincoln Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard were obtained from the City of Anaheim
website. The current traffic count on Lincoln Avenue is 22,800 ADT and 19,400 ADT on Anaheim
Boulevard. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.
No future traffic counts were available and VA has estimated the growth in traffic using a 1% increase
per year to determine future (year 2023) traffic. The increase in noise level due to traffic by 2023 is
calculated to be about 1 dB.
3.2 Overall Exterior Exposure
Based on the computer model and the project site plan provided by the Client, VA calculated the
existing and future CNEL noise levels at various locations within the project site. To simplify the
analysis and presentation of our results, VA has separated the site into locations based on the sound
exposure and required mitigation. The noise levels reported are worst-case for each location and
some areas will be exposed to a lower noise level due to shielding from building facades and
structures on site. The predicted sound levels at each location, shown in Figure 1, are listed in Table 1.
Table 1 – Future Exterior Noise Levels
Location Future Exterior
Noise Level, CNEL
Zone A 73
Zone B 70
Remaining Units < 60
Figure 1 –Project Site Showing Noise Exposure Zones
Zone A
Zone B
Zone B
Uptown Village - Exterior Envelope Acoustical Design
January 8, 2014–Page 3
www.veneklasen.com
4.0 EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS AT OUTDOOR USE AREAS
The project contains private balconies for some units as well as common outdoor use courtyards. As
described in section 2.1, exterior noise levels at outdoor use areas acceptable up to 65 CNEL. This
applies to private patios and balconies greater than 6 feet deep.
4.1 Common Outdoor Use Areas
The future exterior noise level at the common outdoor courtyards will be less than 65 CNEL. This will
meet the City of Anaheim exterior noise criteria and no mitigation is required.
4.2 Private Balconies
The balconies will be less than 6 feet in depth and are, therefore, exempt from the exterior noise
criteria. No mitigation is required.
5.0 INTERIOR NOISE CALCULATION
VA understands that the exterior wall will consist of stucco or brick veneer on wood studs, a single
layer of gypsum on the interior and batt insulation in the cavity. VA’s calculations include the
exterior wall, but indicate that the interior noise levels are determined by the acoustical performance
of the glazing system.
VA utilized the window and door assemblies (glass, frame and seals) shown in Table 2, below. Th e
transmission loss values were based on typical glazing assemblies. The actual construction and STC
ratings shown may differ for the project, but should be reviewed when submitted.
Table 2 – Example Glazing Assembly Descriptions
Assembly
Rating Thickness Typical Glazing Construction
STC 28 1” dual 1/8” lite, 3/4” airspace, 1/8” lite
STC 33 1” dual 3/16” lite, 11/16” airspace, 1/8” lite
STC 35 1” dual 1/4” laminate, 1/2” airspace, 1/4” laminate
5.3 Interior Average Noise Level (CNEL)
VA calculated the interior level within the residential units given the noise environment and the
exterior façade construction described above. The calculations were based on the floor plans and
elevations provided. The results for each location are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 – Glazing Required to Meet Interior Noise Standards
Location
Future
Exterior Noise
Level, CNEL
Glazing
Rating
Zone A 73 STC 35
Zone B 70 STC 33
Remaining Units < 60 CNEL STC 28*
* Recommended but not required.
Uptown Village - Exterior Envelope Acoustical Design
January 8, 2014–Page 4
www.veneklasen.com
As shown in Table 3, the exterior noise impacts to the remaining units not included in Zones A and B
will be less than 60 CNEL. Standard construction materials and methods will satisfy the noise
requirements and no sound rated assemblies are required. However VA recommends that assemblies
with a minimum rating of STC 28 be specified to maintain a consistent level of acoustical performance.
5.4 Mechanical Ventilation Requirement
Because the windows and doors must be kept closed to meet the noise requirements at some
locations, mechanical ventilation is required. The residential units in Zones A and B will require
mechanical ventilation. The mechanical ventilation shall meet all Code requirements, including the
capability to provide sufficient fresh air exchanges, without depending on open windows or leakage
through windows and doors. The ventilation system shall not compromise the sound insulation
capability of the exterior facade assembly.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
The following is a summary of the conclusions within this report.
Exterior noise levels at the common outdoor courtyards are acceptable.
Balconies are less than 6 feet in depth and are exempt from the noise criteria.
No changes required to the design of the exterior wall construction.
The mitigation recommendations for the glazing systems (windows, sliding doors, and French
doors) and fresh air requirements are shown in Table 4, below.
Table 4 – Suggested Glazing Mitigation and Fresh Air Requirements
Location Glazing
Rating
Mechanical
Ventilation
Zone A STC 35 Required
Zone B STC 33 Required
Remaining Units STC 28* Not Required
* Recommended but not required.
Various noise mitigation methods may be utilized to satisfy the noise criteria described in this
report. Alteration of mitigation methods that deviate from requirements should be reviewed by the
acoustical consultant.
We trust this information is satisfactory. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Veneklasen Associates, Inc.
John LoVerde
Associate Principal
January 17, 2014
Scott Koehm
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Re: Uptown Village Mitigated Negative Declaration and Cultural Resources Associated with Past
Chinese Settlements
Dear Mr. Koehm:
On October 21, 2013, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Uptown Village was presented to the
City of Anaheim Planning Commission. During the public hearing, there was a comment regarding the
adequacy of mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts on archaeological resources and specifically the
adequacy of Mitigation Measure CR-1, which is to stop construction activities in the event that buried cultural
resources are discovered. These construction activities would stop in the immediate vicinity of the
archaeological resources that are found and a qualified archaeologist would be consulted to determine
whether the resource requires further study. The commenter also asked if specific literature at the Anaheim
Heritage Center was reviewed, specifically the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps, historic aerial
photographs and maps, and information about the Chinese settlement in the project area. Furthermore, the
commenter stated that appropriate mitigation was to have an archaeological monitor on the project site during
all grading, excavation, and other similar ground-disturbing activities during construction due to the potential
for archaeological resources from the past Chinese settlements in the area.
As identified on page 57 of the MND, there is reference that there was a blog post by O.C. History Roundup
regarding Anaheim’s Chinatown stating that the project site is located in an area that was previously occupied
by Chinatown. The MND stated that based on a review of the historical records including inventories of the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CR), the California
Historical Landmarks (CHL) list, the California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) list, the California State
Historic Resources Inventory (HRI), and archival maps for the County and the City, there was no evidence of
previously documented local historical resources on the project site.
Based on the comments received during the public hearing on October 21, 2013, Kathleen Crawford, M.A.,
Architectural Historian with FirstCarbon Solutions | Michael Brandman Associates (FCS|MBA), revisited the
Uptown Village project site that is bound by E. Cypress Street to the north, S. Anaheim Boulevard to the east,
W. Lincoln Avenue to the south, and N. Lemon Street to the west. She noted that the project site continued to
have no exposures of soil other than at the location of landscaping areas. Archaeological resources were not
found during the additional site visit on October 21, 2013.
In addition, Ms. Crawford visited the Anaheim Heritage Center @ the Muzeo of the Anaheim Public Library on
December 19, 2013 to review historic archival documents regarding the project site. These documents
included (1) the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps, (2) historic aerial photographs and maps, (3)
information about the Chinese settlement prepared by Jane K. Newell, Heritage Service Manager; and (4) the
Master’s Thesis prepared by Mary Lou Begert in 1993. These documents were reviewed for pertinent
information related to the project site and the potential for historic archaeological deposits at the site. Based
on her review of the documentation, Ms. Crawford noted that there is evidence that past Chinese settlements
occurred in the project area. However, there is no evidence that there are archaeological resources located on
the project site. As stated above, a review of the various historical records was conducted and based on the
review of these records; there was no evidence of previously documented local historical resources on the
project site.
After a review of the available documentation, Ms. Crawford concluded that the proposed mitigation measures
in the MND prepared for the Uptown Village are appropriate and adequate to reduce potential impacts to
archaeological resources in the event that buried archaeological resources are discovered during construction
activities. More specifically, Ms. Crawford concluded that the mitigation measure approach to provide an
archaeological monitor on the project site when, and if, archaeological resources are discovered during
construction activities is appropriate and adequate.
Following is a reiteration of the mitigation measures that are identified on pages 57 and 58 of the MND to
reduce the potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant.
MM CR-1 In the event that buried cultural resources are discovered during construction, operations
shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted
to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall
make recommendations to the Lead Agency on the measures that shall be implemented to
protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and
evaluation of the finds in accordance with §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Cultural
resources could consist of, but are not limited to, stone artifacts, bone, wood, shell, or
features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. Any previously
undiscovered resources found during construction within the Project Area should be recorded
on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for
significance in terms of CEQA criteria.
MM CR-2 If the resources are determined to be unique historic resources as defined under §15064.5
of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and
recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources
could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open
space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.
MM CR-3 No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the
measures to protect these resources. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of
mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the Lead Agency
where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.
MM CR-4 In addition, reasonable efforts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to the property
will be taken and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Native American tribes
with concerns about the property, as well as the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(ACHP) will be notified within 48 hours in compliance with 36 CFR 800.13(b)(3).
If you have any question, please call us at 714.508.4100.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Houlihan, AICP Kathleen Crawford, M.A.
Associate Director, Environmental Services Architectural Historian
FirstCarbon Solutions|MBA FirstCarbon Solutions|MBA
220 Commerce, Suite 200 220 Commerce, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92602 Irvine, CA 92602
Add a diagonal diverter at the intersection of Lemon Street and
Cypress Street to redirect through traffic on Lemon Street.
ANAHEIM-LINCOLN APARTMENTS TRAFFIC STUDY
CITY OF ANAHEIM
PROPOSED PROJECT
TRAFFIC CALMING STRATEGIES
IBI Group
2014
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Uptown Village
City of Anaheim, Orange County, California
Prepared for:
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
714.765.5395
Contact: Scott Koehm, Associate Planner
Prepared by:
Michael Brandman Associates
220 Commerce, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92602
714.508.4100
Contact: Michael Houlihan, AICP, Project Manager
Collin Ramsey, Environmental Planner
January 24, 2012
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents
Michael Brandman Associates iii
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................vii
Section 1: Introduction.........................................................................................................1
1.1 - Purpose...............................................................................................................1
1.2 - Project Location ..................................................................................................1
1.3 - Project Description..............................................................................................1
1.3.1 - Residential Use....................................................................................2
1.3.2 - Retail Use.............................................................................................2
1.3.3 - Onsite Improvements...........................................................................2
1.3.4 - Zoning Change...................................................................................12
1.4 - Intended Uses of this Document.......................................................................12
1.5 - Environmental Setting.......................................................................................12
1.5.1 - Existing Land Use ..............................................................................12
1.5.2 - Surrounding Land Use .......................................................................13
Section 2: Environmental Checklist..................................................................................15
1. Aesthetics......................................................................................................15
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources..............................................................15
3. Air Quality......................................................................................................16
4. Biological Resources.....................................................................................16
5. Cultural Resources........................................................................................17
6. Geology and Soils .........................................................................................17
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..........................................................................18
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................18
9. Hydrology and Water Quality.........................................................................19
10. Land Use and Planning.................................................................................20
11. Mineral Resources.........................................................................................20
12. Noise .............................................................................................................21
13. Population and Housing ................................................................................21
14. Public Services..............................................................................................21
15. Recreation.....................................................................................................22
16. Transportation / Traffic ..................................................................................22
17. Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................23
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance...............................................................23
Section 3: Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.......................................................27
1. Aesthetics......................................................................................................27
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources..............................................................34
3. Air Quality......................................................................................................36
4. Biological Resources.....................................................................................52
5. Cultural Resources........................................................................................55
6. Geology and Soils .........................................................................................61
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..........................................................................65
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................69
9. Hydrology and Water Quality.........................................................................76
10. Land Use and Planning.................................................................................84
11. Mineral Resources.........................................................................................86
12. Noise .............................................................................................................87
13. Population and Housing ..............................................................................104
14. Public Services............................................................................................106
15. Recreation...................................................................................................110
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Table of Contents Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
iv Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
16. Transportation/Traffic ..................................................................................112
17. Utilities and Service Systems......................................................................131
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance.............................................................137
Section 4: References.......................................................................................................145
Section 5: List of Preparers .............................................................................................153
Michael Brandman Associates - Environmental Consultant....................................153
Technical Subconsultants .......................................................................................153
Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Appendix B: Cultural Resources
Appendix C: Geology / Soils
Appendix D: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Appendix E: Hydrology
Appendix F: Noise Analysis
Appendix G: Transportation
Appendix H: Public Services
Appendix I: Utilities and Service Systems
List of Tables
Table 1: CalEEMod Construction Equipment Parameters....................................................41
Table 2: Localized Significance Analysis (Construction).......................................................43
Table 3: Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ..........................................................44
Table 4: SCAQMD Mass Thresholds....................................................................................45
Table 5: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions......................................................................46
Table 6: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Mitigated)....................................................47
Table 7: Operational Emissions............................................................................................47
Table 8: Project Operational Greenhouse Gases (2020)......................................................67
Table 9: Current and Projected Water Demands (AFY)........................................................79
Table 10: Projected Normal Water Supply and Demand (AFY)............................................79
Table 11: Existing Noise Level Measurements.....................................................................87
Table 12: Noise Levels 50 feet from Roadway Centerline....................................................95
Table 13: Interior Noise Levels .............................................................................................96
Table 14: Human Response to Groundborne Vibration........................................................99
Table 15: Vibration Levels Generated by Construction Equipment ....................................100
Table 16: Construction Equipment Noise Levels................................................................102
Table 17: Significant Impact Criteria for Intersections.........................................................114
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents
Michael Brandman Associates v
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Table 18: Related Projects Trip Generation........................................................................116
Table 19: Project Trip Generation Summary.......................................................................117
Table 20: Existing Year 2011 No Project vs. Related Projects vs. With Project -
AM Peak Hour LOS Results..............................................................................118
Table 21: Existing Year 2011 (No Project vs. Related Projects vs. With Project) -
PM Peak Hour LOS Results..............................................................................119
Table 22: Existing Year 2011 (No Project vs. With Project) - Arterial Segment
Level of Service Results....................................................................................121
Table 23: Future Year 2015 (No Project vs. With Project) - AM Peak Hour LOS
Results ..............................................................................................................123
Table 24: Future Year 2015 (No Project vs. With Project) - PM Peak Hour LOS
Results ..............................................................................................................124
Table 25: Future Year 2015 (No Project vs. With Project) - Arterial Segment
Level of Service Results....................................................................................126
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map............................................................................................3
Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map - Topographic Base...................................................................5
Exhibit 3: Local Vicinity Map - Aerial Base..............................................................................7
Exhibit 4: Site Plan..................................................................................................................9
Exhibit 5: Conceptual Design Drawings................................................................................31
Exhibit 6: Noise Meter Locations...........................................................................................89
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Acronyms and Abbreviations
Michael Brandman Associates vii
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ACSD Anaheim City School District
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AFD Anaheim Fire Department
APD Anaheim Police Department
AQMP Air Quality Management District
ARB Air Resources Board
AUHSD Anaheim Union High School District
BMP Best Management Practice
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
C-G General Commercial
CO Carbon Monoxide
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CUP Conditional Use Permit
DD Design Development
DIP Ductile Iron Pipe
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances
DU Dwelling Unit
DWF Dry Weather Flow
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FID Facility Inventory Database
HAZNET Facility and Manifest Database
HHW Household Hazardous Waste
IS Initial Study
IWMD Integrated Waste Management Department
LOS Level of Service
MBA Michael Brandman Associates
MMTCO2e Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MTCO2e Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
MU Mixed Use
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Acronyms and Abbreviations Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
viii Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
OCHCA Orange County Health Care Agency
OCSD Orange County Sanitation District
OCTA Orange County Transportation Agency
OCWD Orange County Water District
OSHA Occupation Safety and Health Administration
PM Particulate Matter
POG Petroleum Oil and Grease
PPM Parts Per Million
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
PRC Public Resources Code
PRG Preliminary Remediation Goals
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SOx Sulfur Oxides
Sq Ft Square Feet
SR State Route
STC Sound Transmission Class
SWEEPS Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
T Transitional
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
TPH-D Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons – Diesel
TPH-G Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons – Gasoline
TSF Thousand Square Feet
UCL Upper Confidence Limit
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UST Underground Storage Tank
V/C Volume to Capacity
VCP Vitrified Clay Pipe
VdB Vibration Velocity
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction
Michael Brandman Associates 1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 - Purpose
The purpose of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is to identify the
potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of a 220-unit mixed-use
residential/commercial development in the City of Anaheim (City). This IS/MND includes
recommended mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to levels that are considered less than
significant. This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Anaheim’s local guidelines for
implementing CEQA.
The purpose of the proposed Uptown Village project (project) is to provide 220 studio, one-bedroom,
and two-bedroom units, along with 18,000 square feet (sq ft) of commercial/retail space, for the
residents of the City of Anaheim. The proposed project would redevelop a highly visible vacant and
blighted property in the center of the City, while helping the City meet its future housing needs goals.
Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Anaheim is the Lead Agency in
the preparation of this IS/MND. The City of Anaheim has primary responsibility for approval or
denial of the proposed project and will ultimately be responsible for project implementation.
The intended use of this IS/MND is to provide adequate environmental analysis related to the actions
that are needed to achieve development of the proposed project. These actions include the approval
of a condition use permit. This IS/MND includes adequate analysis for demolition, construction, and
operational activities associated with the proposed project.
1.2 - Project Location
The proposed Uptown Village project would be located on the northwest corner of South Anaheim
Boulevard and West Lincoln Avenue in the central portion of the City of Anaheim, California
(Exhibit 1). The project site is bound by E. Cypress Street to the north, S. Anaheim Boulevard to the
east, W. Lincoln Avenue to the south, and N. Lemon Street to the west (Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3).
1.3 - Project Description
The proposed Uptown Village project would replace the existing onsite vacant use that includes a
25,000 sq ft two-story structure and surface parking lots with a mixed-use residential and retail
development on 4.29 acres. The development would encompass the entire property and include a
four-story multi-family residential complex with 220 residential units and 18,000 sq ft of
commercial/retail space (Exhibit 4).
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Introduction Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
2 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
1.3.1 - Residential Use
The proposed project would include 220 residential units comprised of studio, one-, and two-bedroom
units, summarized as follows:
• Studio Units: 617 sq ft; 34 total units
• One-Bedroom Units: 723-725 sq ft; 102 total units
• Two bedroom Units: 1,067-1,141 sq ft; 84 total units
Ancillary uses associated with the residential development would include the following
• Leasing Office: 2,370 sq ft
• Fitness Center: 1,190 sq ft
• Clubhouse/Community Room: 1,400 sq ft
• Swimming Pool and Spa Area
1.3.2 - Retail Use
The proposed project would include 18,000 sq ft of first-floor commercial/retail space, summarized as
follows:
• One 8,600 sq ft space
• One 9,400 sq ft space
Although specific retail uses or retail tenants are currently unknown, all retail uses would be required
to comply with the Section 18.32.030.130 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code, which outlines
which uses are permissible and which are conditionally permissible within the Mixed Use (MU)
Overlay Zone (refer to Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning).
1.3.3 - Onsite Improvements
Parking and Circulation
Parking
The site plan provides for 503 spaces, including the 67 parking spaces that would be dedicated for the
adjacent AT&T operations. The proposed project includes a three-level parking garage surface
parking spaces for retail use and guests.
Site Access
Access to the proposed project is proposed via a new driveway on Lemon Street and a new driveway
on Cypress Street.
NORTHMichael Brandman Associates
Orange County
San Bernardino County
Orange County
Los Angeles County
91
1
83
60
91
91
55
57
241
261
241
5
405
405
5
210
Ora
nge C
ounty
Riverside C
ounty
60
605
5
710
10
2
110
22
133
1
Bell
Chino
Upland
Irvine
Orange
Walnut
Pomona
Covina
Anaheim
Compton
Norwalk
Ontario
Monrovia
Commerce
Alhambra
Glendora
Montclair
Claremont
Santa Ana
Fullerton
San Dimas
Costa Mesa
Seal Beach
Long Beach
Chino Hills
Lake Forest
Yorba Linda
Laguna Hills
Garden Grove
Laguna Niguel
Newport Beach
Fountain Valley
Huntington Beach
East Los Angeles
Cleveland NF
Angeles NF
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Prado Flood Control Basin
Santiago Reservoir
00550033 • 03/2012 | 1_regional.mxd
Exhibit 1Regional Location Map
Source: Census 2000 Data, The CaSIL, MBA GIS 2012.
5 0 52.5
Miles
Project Site
TextNOT TO SCALE
CITY OF ANAHEIM • UPTOWN VILLAGEINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Site
00550033 • 03/2012 I 2_local_topo.mxd
Exhibit 2Local Vicinity MapTopographic BaseNORTHMichael Brandman Associates
Source: TOPO! USGS Anaheim, CA (1978) 7.5' DRG.
CITY OF ANAHEIM • UPTOWN VILLAGEINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DELCARATION
2,000 0 2,0001,000
Feet
Project Site
00550033 • 03/2012 I 3_local_aerial.mxd
Exhibit 3Local Vicinity MapAerial BaseNORTHMichael Brandman Associates
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery.
CITY OF ANAHEIM • UPTOWN VILLAGEINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DELCARATION
La Palma AveLa Palma Ave
Lincoln AveLincoln AveAnaheim
B
lvdAnaheim
B
lvd
North StNorth St
La Verne StLa Verne St
Willhelmina StWillhelmina St
Alberta StAlberta St
Sycamore StSycamore St
Adele StAdele StCi
t
ron
S
tCi
t
ron
S
t
Lemon S
tLemon S
t
Santa Ana StSanta Ana St
Water StWater St
South StSouth StOl
ive
S
tOl
ive
S
t Paul
ine
S
tPaul
ine
S
t East
S
tEast
S
t
!"#$5 Harbo
r
B
lvdHarbo
r
B
lvd
1,000 0 1,000500
Feet
Project Site
00550033 • 01/2013 | 4_site_plan.mxd
Exhibit 4Site Plan
Source: Humphreys and Partners Architects, 2012.
CITY OF ANAHEIM • UPTOWN VILLAGEINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Michael Brandman Associates
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction
Michael Brandman Associates 11
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Offsite Circulation Improvements
Cypress Street and Lemon Street, adjacent to the project site, are not constructed to ultimate
standards. Both streets are classified as “Interior Streets,” per the Street and Highway Sections
(Standard Detail No. 160-A) of the City of Anaheim’s Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction. An Interior Street has a public right of way width of 60-feet (or 30-feet to the
centerline from either side of the street).
Cypress Street is currently only 49.5 feet wide (or 24.75 feet to the centerline). Therefore, 5.25 feet
of right-of-way for the project site may have to be dedicated along Cypress Street. Lemon Street has
a public right-of-way of 56 feet, but is only 24.75-feet wide from the centerline of street to the project
site. Therefore, 4 feet of the project site along Lemon Street may have to be dedicated. If either or
both of these streets are widened, there are a number of utilities that would have to be relocated,
including, but not limited to, street lights, pull boxes, underground vaults, and traffic signs. An
existing handicapped ramp located on the southeast corner of Cypress Street and Lemon Street would
require replacement should the corner return be adjusted due to widening of either or both of these
streets.
Stormwater Collection and Treatment
Existing Drainage
In the existing condition, stormwater is conveyed from the project site to both Lemon Street and
Lincoln Avenue before being collected by catch basins. Runoff to Lemon Street is collected by a
catch basin located on the east side of the street just north of Lincoln Avenue, while discharge to
Lincoln Avenue is collected by a catch basin located on the north side of the street just east of Lemon
Street.
From the catch basins, stormwater is conveyed through the local MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System) before discharging into Carbon Creek Channel prior to entering Gilbert Retarding
Basin. Carbon Creek Channel serves as a principle tributary of the San Gabriel River Reach 1. A
portion of the San Gabriel River downstream of the Gilbert Retarding Basin is included on the 303(d)
list of impaired water bodies.
Proposed Drainage
As proposed, stormwater would be collected onsite by roof drains, area drains, and catch basins, and
then directed to one of two Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes located on the northwest and
southwest portion of the project site for pre-treatment prior to infiltration by one of four MaxWell IV
drywells located on the north, northwest, and southwest parts of the site (see the Best Management
Practice [BMP] Exhibit in Appendix E, Hydrology, for the proposed locations of the Treatment
Control BMPs). Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes are pre-treatment devises used for
treatment done through drywells. When incorporated in the design of a stormwater collection system,
they prevent clogging of and preserve the life of drywells by reducing pollutants that affect drywell
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Introduction Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
12 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
performance, specifically debris, refuse, and sediment. The MaxWell IV drywells are designed to
capture and infiltrate the entire first flush, effectively resulting in the eliminations of all pollutants.
In accordance with the Countywide Model Water Quality Management Plan, the proposed Treatment
Control BMPs would be sized to treat either the Stormwater Quality Design Flow or Stormwater
Quality Design Volume. The Stormwater Quality Design Flow is the maximum flow rate of runoff
produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2-inch of rainfall per hour, and the Stormwater Quality Design
Volume is the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th-percentile storm event, as determined
from the local historical rainfall record for the project area.
1.3.4 - Zoning Change
Most of the project site is currently zoned General Commercial (C-G), with the north-central portion
presently zoned Transitional (T). As part of the approval process, the proposed project would require
approval of a zoning change to Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone to allow the residential and
commercial uses on the project site. Section 18.32.030.130 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code
indicates that within the MU Overlay Zone, multiple-family dwellings require a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP). Additionally, certain commercial uses typically found in mixed-use developments
such as restaurants and general retail are permitted uses, while any establishment selling alcohol
require a CUP.
1.4 - Intended Uses of this Document
The Initial Study (IS) prepared for the proposed Uptown Village project would be used by the City of
Anaheim as the supporting documentation for the following potential project approvals.
• Zone Change
• Conditional Use Permit
• Building Permit
• Grading Permit
1.5 - Environmental Setting
1.5.1 - Existing Land Use
The project site currently consists of an approximately 4.29-acre property. Although presently
vacant, the project site has been extensively disturbed and developed. A roughly 25,000 sq ft two-
story building associated with a former AT&T call center operation is located on the southwest
portion of the project site. The balance of the project site has been paved and was used as a parking
lot for the AT&T operation.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction
Michael Brandman Associates 13
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Most of the project site is currently zoned General Commercial (C-G), with the north-central portion
presently zoned Transitional (T). The City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Map designates the
project site as Mixed Use.
1.5.2 - Surrounding Land Use
The surrounding project area consists of a predominantly urbanized setting containing a collection of
residential, commercial, industrial, and mixed land uses. Land uses immediately surrounding the
project site include:
• North: Cypress Street and residential, church, and automotive services/industrial uses
• East: Anaheim Boulevard and office use
• South: Lincoln Boulevard and a commercial shopping center
• West: Lemon Street and an active AT&T operations
• Northwest: 19-acre Pearson Park
Interstate (I) 5 is located approximately 1.5 miles to the west of the project site, State Route (SR) 91
is roughly 1.2 miles to the north, and SR-57 is located almost 2.2 miles to the east. Major landmarks
in the City of Anaheim include the Anaheim City Hall campus, which is approximately one-tenth
mile south of the project site; Disneyland theme park, which occurs roughly 1.5 miles southwest of
the site; and Anaheim Stadium, which is just over 2.8 miles southeast of the site.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist
Michael Brandman Associates 15
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. Aesthetics
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic building within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland,
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forestland, including the
Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Environmental Checklist Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
16 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
3. Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
4. Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, and regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist
Michael Brandman Associates 17
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
5. Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
6. Geology and Soils
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Environmental Checklist Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
18 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist
Michael Brandman Associates 19
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Environmental Checklist Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
20 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
10. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural communities
conservation plan?
11. Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
12. Noise
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist
Michael Brandman Associates 21
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
13. Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
14. Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
15. Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Environmental Checklist Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
22 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
16. Transportation / Traffic
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
17. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist
Michael Brandman Associates 23
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Environmental Checklist Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
24 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards / Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Services Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
As shown above, there are no environmental factors that would have a potential significant impact
after the implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measures.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist
Michael Brandman Associates 25
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further
is required.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 27
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
SECTION 3: DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. Aesthetics
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. The Anaheim General Plan Green Element identifies the Hill and Canyon Area of the
City, as well as the Santa Ana Mountains, as visually important amenities. These visually important
elements are located over five miles east of the project site. In addition, golf courses and the Santa
Ana River are identified as also providing visual relief from the built environment and are important
visual amenities and landmarks. In relation to the project site, the nearest golf course, the Dad Miller
Golf Course (430 North Gilbert Street), is located approximately 2.7 miles to the west, while the
Santa Ana River is located approximately 2.8 miles to the east. Due to the substantial distances
between the aforementioned visual amenities and the relatively consistent flat topography of the
general project area, none of the visual resources identified by the Green Element are visible from the
project site or surrounding land uses. Despite the proposed four-story elevation of the proposed
project, the multi-use residential building would not impede or effect views of scenic vistas, as there
are none visible from the immediate project area. Therefore, no impacts associated with scenic vistas
would occur.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan, SR-91 (Riverside Freeway), between
SR-55 (Costa Mesa Freeway) and Weir Canyon Road is officially designated as a State Scenic
Highway. This segment of SR-91 is located approximately five miles east of the project site. As
such, the project site is not within the viewshed of this portion of SR-91. No other roadways or
highways within the City of Anaheim are designated by the State as Scenic Highways. Therefore, no
impacts associated with State Scenic Highways would occur.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Less Than Significant Impact. In its existing condition, the project site consists of a vacant 25,000
sq ft commercial building and an associated parking lot. The City of Anaheim General Plan currently
designates the project site as “Mixed Use.” Although the project site is presently zoned either
General Commercial (C-G) or Transitional (T), the approval process for the proposed project would
include a zoning change to Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone as well. Additionally, according to the
General Plan Land Use Element, the project site is located within both the Anaheim Colony, which is
bordered by the original boundaries of the City (North, South, East and West Streets), and Downtown
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
28 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
areas of the City. As such, development on the project site must comply with both the 1999 Anaheim
Colony Historic District Preservation Plan and the 2003 Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles and
Design Guidelines, as well as the provision contained within the General Plan and Zoning Code.
Per the General Plan Land Use Element, the City’s Land Use Plan encourages the introduction of
mixed use development into the Downtown core and the transition of older industrial areas to
residential neighborhoods. The Community Design Element includes provisions specifically tailored
to Mixed Use Development, including the following goals and policies:
Goal 8.1
Anaheim’s mixed use areas are attractively designed, pedestrian-friendly, easily
accessible, and contain a proper blend of commercial retail, office, and residential
uses.
Policies:
1) Encourage design flexibility in mixed-use development by allowing both a
vertical and/or horizontal mix of uses.
2) In vertical mixed-use, site retail or office uses on the ground floor, with
residential and/or office uses above.
3) Encourage architecture that divides individual buildings into a base, middle
and top (i.e., second story and higher density residential uses could
incorporate different window treatment, architectural detailing, colors,
balconies, and bays). For two-story buildings, ground floor retail uses should
be distinguished from second story façades, with both containing rich surface
articulation. Rooflines should have a finished look with cornices, parapets or
other finishing details.
4) Locate commercial/retail uses near the sidewalk to provide high visibility
from the street.
5) Design development with the pedestrian in mind by including wide
sidewalks, canopy street trees, sitting areas and clearly defined pedestrian
routes.
6) With large-scale mixed-use development, orient the tallest portions of the
buildings towards the center of the site and ensure that the height of the
buildings at the periphery are compatible with adjacent development.
7) Minimize the visual impact of surface parking by providing either parking
structures, rear- or side-street parking with effective landscape buffering.
8) Segregate residential parking from commercial and office parking.
9) Locate mixed-use development in areas of high visibility and accessibility,
and along streets that balance vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 29
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
10) Strategically locate potentially disruptive retail uses such as nightclubs or
bars to avoid future conflicts with adjacent residential uses.
11) Provide each residential use with its own private space (such as balconies,
patios or terraces) and larger communal spaces such as lobbies, central
gardens or courtyards.
12) Where possible, underground or screen utilities and utility equipment or
locate and size them to be as inconspicuous as possible.
The Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan establishes guidelines for new residential
construction (new commercial or mixed-use construction standards were not addressed) within the
Anaheim Colony area, including the following:
Those considering new residential construction within the District should refer to the
City of Anaheim Residential Design Guidelines. The basic elements of the
guidelines include the following. New houses within the district must assert their
identity in harmony with that of their street and neighborhood.
Site planning new construction in the context of infill projects requires special
attention to four primary issues:
1) The design of infill architecture should be compatible in such elements as
style, height, proportion, and materials of surrounding neighborhoods.
2) The relationship of houses to each other, to the surrounding open spaces, and
to the street.
3) The functional and aesthetic design of open space.
4) The distribution, layout, and character of parking.
Included among these are variables such as circulation, access, security, convenience,
and recreation which provide for full enjoyment of a dwelling.
The Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles and Design Guidelines builds upon the Anaheim Colony
Historic District Preservation Plan, creating architecture guidelines in addition to those design
standards previously established. Guidelines address residential and commercial individually, and
standards associated with mixed use projects are not specifically outlined:
Residential
1) Desired building materials consist primarily of wood, brick, terra cotta, river
rock, stone, and plaster. Stucco over wood detracts from historic character of
homes. Natural materials rather than manufactured substitutes should be
used.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
30 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
2) Front fences along the public street are discouraged because they interrupt
the continuous green space provided by front lawns.
Commercial
1. Uniform parkways with evenly spaced street trees and streetlights provide
visual consistency and are compatible with the historic character of certain
sections of the Colony.
2. In areas transitioning to residential uses, parkways consistent with the
historic scale and design patterns are encouraged.
3. In areas of interface between contrasting land uses or buildings of different
scale, special attention should be given to buffering or softening the impact
of adjacent property uses.
A review of the exterior designs for the proposed project (Exhibit 5) indicates that the project would
be consistent with all applicable provisions contained within the City’s General Plan and Zoning
Code, the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan, and the Anaheim Colony Vision,
Principles and Design Guidelines.
The proposed building façades would include varying surfaces constructed of differing materials,
including substantial use of brick, with a varying, yet complimentary paint scheme. A collection of
architectural details and window designs would be used to divide and distinguish different levels and
sections of the building. The roofline and upper façades of the building would vary and contain
distinctive details and elevations. Overall, the proposed project’s exterior design would be consistent
with the existing applicable provisions in the Anaheim Colony and Downtown areas, as well as with
similar existing developments within the project area.
The proposed project would aesthetically improve upon the existing blighted condition of the project
site by removing a vacant commercial building and an associated parking lot and replacing these uses
with a mixed use development that would help develop and maintain the visual character of Anaheim
Colony and Downtown areas. Therefore, impacts associated with the existing visual character would
be less than significant.
00550033 • 04/2012 | 5_concept_des_draw.cdr
Exhibit 5
Conceptual Design Drawings
Michael Brandman Associates
CITY OF ANAHEIM • UPTOWN VILLAGE
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Source: KHR Associates, 2012.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 33
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The following discusses both light and glare impacts associated with
the proposed project.
Lighting
Section 18.32.130.050 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code establishes exterior lighting standards
for Mixed Use Zones, which states, “Outdoor lighting associated with commercial uses shall not
adversely impact surrounding residential uses, but shall provide sufficient illumination for access and
security purposes. Such lighting shall not blink, flash, oscillate, or be of unusually high intensity or
brightness (Ord. 5920 § 1 (part); June 8, 2004).” All exterior lighting associated with the proposed
project would comply with these provisions. To avoid fugitive light impacts, exterior lighting would
be shielded and directed away from any potentially sensitive receptors, including onsite residential
uses and all offsite uses. Additionally, due to the inclusion of the parking garage within the proposed
building, lighting impacts traditionally associated with parking facilities (e.g., light standards, vehicle
headlights) would be contained within the interior of the building and would not affect nearby
sensitive receptors.
Glare
The proposed project would include a combination of reflective (e.g., windows) and non-reflective
(e.g., bricks) materials along the exterior façades. Glare impacts would be primarily contained to the
use of windows outside of the residential and commercial units. The majority of these windows,
however, would be recessed and may be only partially exposed to sunlight. Glare impacts from the
recessed windows would be less than significant.
The proposed project also includes surface parking areas. These areas may result in nominal glare
associated with windshields and metallic vehicle surfaces. However, glare impacts from vehicles
would be intermittent and would be less than significant,
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
34 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by
the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest
land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;
and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California
Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The project site is located within a predominantly urbanized area. According to
California Department of Conservation’s 2010 Orange County Important Farmland map (California
Department of Conservation 2011), the project site is not located on or adjacent to Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or any other lands identified by the State or the
City for agricultural use. The nearest parcel identified as Unique Farmland occurs approximately
2.35 miles southwest of the project site, along the Union Pacific railroad tracks and Euclid Street.
Due to the relatively large distance between the project site and the closest Unique Farmland,
development of the proposed project would not convert or otherwise impact any agricultural
operations occurring at this location. Therefore, no impacts associated with conversion of Important
Farmland would occur.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The project site is located within a largely urbanized setting. According to the
California Department of Conservation’s 2004 Williamson Act Parcels map (California Department
of Conservation 2004), the project site is not located on or adjacent to lands under a Williamson Act
contract. The closest parcel identified as under a Williamson Act contract occurs approximately 8.75
miles southeast of the project site in the unincorporated area of North Tustin. Due to the large
distance between the project site and the nearest Williamson Act contract parcel, development of the
proposed project would not conflict with these Williamson Act contract lands or otherwise impact
existing zoning for any other agricultural uses. Therefore, no impacts associated with Williamson
Act contract lands and agricultural zoning would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 35
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The project site is located within a predominantly urbanized area. The project site is not
located on or adjacent to forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The
nearest forested area to the project site is the Cleveland National Forest, which occurs approximately
10 miles east of the site. As such, development of the proposed project would not conflict with
existing zoning for or cause rezoning of any forest land or timberland. Therefore, no impacts
associated with forestland and timberland zoning would occur.
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. The project site is located within a largely urban setting. The project site is not located
on or adjacent to forestland. The nearest forested area to the project site is the Cleveland National
Forest, which occurs approximately 10 miles east of the site. As such, development of the proposed
project would not impact forestland. Therefore, no impacts associated with the loss of or conversion
of forest land would occur.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forestland to non-forest use?
No Impact. As previously discussed, the project site is not located on or adjacent to any lands
identified either by the State or by the City of Anaheim as Farmland or forestland. The proposed
project would not include any improvements that, due to their location or nature, would result in
conversion of Farmland or forestland uses. Therefore, no impacts associated with the conversion of
Farmland or forestland would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
36 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
3. Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. According to the 1993 South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Handbook, there are two key indicators of consistency
with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP):
1. Indicator: Whether the project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of
existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely
attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
Project applicability: applicable and assessed below.
2. Indicator: A project would conflict with the AQMP if it will exceed the assumptions in the
AQMP in 2010 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. The
Handbook indicates that key assumptions to use in this analysis are population number and
location and a regional housing needs assessment. The parcel-based land use and growth
assumptions and inputs used in the Regional Transportation Model run by the Southern
California Association of Governments that generated the mobile inventory used by the
SCAQMD for AQMP are not available. Therefore, this indicator is not applicable. Project
applicability: not applicable.
In addition to first indicator, consistency with the AQMP would also be determined based on whether
the proposed project would comply with applicable control measures, rules, and regulations, as
discussed below.
Project’s Contribution to Air Quality Violations
According to the SCAQMD, the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP if the project
would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause
or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim
emission reductions specified in the AQMP.
As discussed in Section 3b), the proposed project could potentially violate an air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. However, implementation of
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce associated impacts to less than significant.
If project emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOX, VOC, PM10, or PM2.5, it
follows that the emissions could contribute to a cumulative exceedance of a pollutant for which the
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 37
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Air Basin is in nonattainment (ozone, nitrogen dioxide, PM10, PM2.5) at a monitoring station in the
Basin. An exceedance of a nonattainment pollutant at a monitoring station would not be consistent
with the goals of the AQMP, which are to achieve attainment of pollutants. As discussed in Section
3c), the proposed project would not exceed the regional significance thresholds. Therefore, the
proposed project would not contribute towards a cumulatively considerable regional air quality
violation impact.
Control Measures
The second indicator of whether the proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the air quality plan is assessing the project’s compliance with the control measures in the 2003 and
the 2007 AQMPs.
The 2003 AQMP contains a number of land use and transportation control measures, including the
following: the District’s Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures; State Control Measures
proposed by the Air Resources Board (ARB); and Transportation Control Measures provided by
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). ARB’s strategy for reducing mobile
source emissions include the following approaches: new engine standards; reduce emissions from in-
use fleet; require clean fuels; support alternative fuels and reduce petroleum dependency; work with
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce emissions from national and State sources; and
pursue long-term advanced technology measures. Transportation control measures provided by
SCAG include those contained in their Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs), the most current
version of which is the 2008 RTP. The RTP contains control measures to reduce emissions from on-
road sources by incorporating strategies such as high occupancy vehicle interventions, transit, and
information-based technology interventions. The proposed project would comply indirectly with the
control measures set by ARB and SCAG.
The primary focus of the 2007 AQMP is to demonstrate attainment of the federal PM2.5 ambient air
quality standard by 2015 and the federal 8-hour ozone standard by 2024, while making expeditious
progress toward attainment of State standards. The proposed strategy, however, does not attain the
previous federal 1-hour ozone standard by 2010 as previously required prior to the recent change in
federal regulations. This is to be accomplished by building upon improvements from the previous
plans and incorporating all feasible control measures while balancing costs and socioeconomic
impacts. The 2007 AQMP indicates that PM2.5 is formed mainly by secondary reactions or sources.
Therefore, instead of reducing fugitive dust, the strategy for reducing PM2.5 focuses on reducing
precursor emissions including SOX, NOX, and VOC.
The Final 2007 AQMP control measures consist of four components. The first component is
SCAQMD’s Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures. The Final 2007 AQMP includes 30
short-term and mid-term stationary and seven mobile source control measures for SCAQMD
implementation. A complete listing of the measures is contained in the 2007 AQMP and includes
measures such as VOC reductions from gasoline transfer and dispensing facilities, further NOX,
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
38 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
reductions from space heaters, localized control program for PM emission hot spots and urban heat
islands, energy efficiency and conservation, etc. Some of the measures will become new rules, while
some will become amendments to existing rules. When the rules pass, the proposed project would be
required to comply with them.
The second component is ARB’s Proposed State Strategy, which includes short- and mid-term control
measures aimed at reducing emissions from sources that are primarily under State jurisdiction,
including on-road and off-road mobile sources, and consumer products. These measures are required
in order to achieve the remaining emission reductions necessary for PM2.5 attainment. ARB’s
strategy includes measures such as improvements to California’s Smog Check Program, expanded
passenger vehicle retirement, cleaner in-use heavy-duty trucks, reductions from port related sources,
cleaner off-road equipment, evaporative and exhaust strategies, pesticide strategies, etc. When these
measures are implemented by ARB, the proposed project would be required to comply with them.
The third component is SCAQMD Staff’s Proposed Policy Options to Supplement ARB’s Control
Strategy. SCAQMD staff believe that a combination of regulatory actions and public funding is the
most effective means of achieving emission reductions. As such, the 2007 Final AQMP proposes
three policy options for the decision makers to consider in achieving additional reductions. The first
option is to incorporate the SCAQMD proposed additional control measures as a menu of selections
further reducing emissions from sources primarily under state and national jurisdiction. The second
option is to have the State fulfill its NOX emission reduction obligations under the 2003 AQMP by
2010 for its short-term defined control measures plus additional reductions needed to meet the NO X
emission target between 2010 and 2014. The third option is based on the same rate of progress under
the first policy option, but relies heavily on public funding assistance to achieve the needed NOX
reductions via accelerated fleet turnover to post-2010 on-road emission standards or the cleanest off-
road engine standards in effect today or after 2010. This strategy does not apply to the proposed
project.
The fourth component consists of Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures provided
by SCAG. Transportation plans within the Air Basin are statutorily required to conform to air quality
plans in the region, as established by the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act and reinforced by other
subsequent applicable acts. The region must demonstrate that its transportation plans and programs
conform to the mandate to meet the federal ambient air quality standards in a timely manner. The
RTP, prepared by SCAG, is developed every 4 years with a 20-year planning horizon to meet the
long-term transportation planning requirements for emission reductions from on-road mobile sources
within the Air Basin. The biennial Regional Transportation Improvement Program requires that the
short-term implementation requirements of the Transportation Conformity Rule are met by SCAG.
The first 2 years of the program are fiscally constrained and demonstrate timely implementation of a
special category of transportation projects called Transportation Control Measures. In general,
Transportation Control Measures are those projects that provide emission reductions from on-road
mobile sources, based on changes in the patterns and modes by which the regional transportation
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 39
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
system is used. Strategies are grouped into three categories: high occupancy vehicle strategy, transit
and systems management, and information-based technology (traveling during a less congested time
of day). SCAG approved the transportation measures in the RTP, which have been included in the
region’s air quality plans. The Transportation Control Measures would be implemented and would
subsequently reduce emissions in the Air Basin.
The proposed project would comply with all applicable rules and regulations.
Applicable SCAQMD rules include:
• SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such
quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or
annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the
comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a
natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
• SCAQMD Rule 403 governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction and operation
activities. The rule requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control
measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond
the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires
implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a
nuisance off site. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard Best
Management Practices, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils,
covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour,
sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when
winds exceed 25 mph, and establishing a permanent ground cover on finished sites.
• SCAQMD Rule 445 prohibits permanently installed wood burning devices into any new
development. A wood burning device means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or pellet-
fueled wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device
burning any solid fuel for aesthetic or space-heating purposes, which has a heat input of less
than one million British thermal units per hour.
• SCAQMD Rule 1108 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of asphalt and limits the
volatile organic compound (VOC) content in asphalt used in the South Coast Air Basin. This
rule would regulate the VOC content of asphalt used during construction. Therefore, all
asphalt used during construction of the project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1108.
• SCAQMD Rule 1113 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of architectural coating and
limits the VOC content in paints and paint solvents. This rule regulates the VOC content of
paints available during construction. Therefore, all paints and solvents used during
construction and operation of the project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
40 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
• SCAQMD Rule 1143 governs the manufacture, sale, and use of paint thinners and solvents
used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment, and other
solvent cleaning operations by limiting their VOC content. This rule regulates the VOC
content of solvents used during construction. Solvents used during the construction phase must
comply with this rule.
• SCAQMD Rule 1415, Reduction of Refrigerant Emissions from Stationary Air Conditioning
Systems. The SCAQMD originally adopted Rule 1415 to reduce ozone-depleting refrigerant
emissions from stationary, non-residential air conditioning (comfort cooling) and refrigeration
systems with full charge capacity of greater than 50 pounds, and using Class I and Class II
refrigerants. Recently, the SCAQMD amended Rule 1415 to include high-global warming
potential refrigerants. Further, the rule now applies only to air conditioning systems with full
charge capacity of greater than 50 pounds of refrigerant.
The incorporation of the SCAQMD Rules listed above as well as the incorporation of Mitigation
Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, impacts associated with the applicable air quality plans would be less than
significant.
MM AQ-1 During project construction, the developer shall require painting contractors to use
only paints and coatings with no more than 100 grams/liter of volatile organic
compound (VOC) for exterior applications and no more than 50 grams/liter of VOC
for interior applications. For a list of low VOC paints, see Website:
www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/paintguide.html.
MM AQ-2 During project construction, the developer shall require painting contractors to phase
paints and coatings applications such that no more than 2.5 percent of project
facilities are under active application on any one day. This measure results in an
estimated 42-day architectural coatings phase.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact. Since criteria pollutants are pollutants with ambient air quality
standards, analysis of this section is related to localized criteria pollutant impacts. Localized impacts
could potentially exceed State or federal standards for ozone, PM10, PM2.5, or carbon monoxide. Two
criteria are used to assess the significance of this section: (1) the localized construction analysis, and
(2) the CO hot spot analysis.
Construction Localized Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD Governing Board adopted a methodology for calculating localized air quality impacts
through localized significance thresholds. Localized significance thresholds represent the maximum
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 41
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
emissions from a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent
applicable State or federal ambient air quality standard. Localized significance thresholds were
developed in recognition of the fact that the criteria pollutants CO, PM10, PM2.5, and NOX, an ozone
precursor, can have local impacts at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, the SMAQMD has
developed localized significance thresholds for each source receptor area for NOX, CO, PM10, and
PM2.5.
The SCAQMD has published their Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance
Thresholds. CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours
and the maximum daily disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment. In order to
compare CalEEMod reported emissions against the localized significance threshold lookup tables, the
CEQA document should contain in its project design features or its mitigation measures the following
parameters:
1) The off-road equipment list (including type of equipment, horsepower, and hours of
operation) assumed for the day of construction activity with maximum emissions.
2) The maximum number of acres disturbed on the peak day.
3) Any emission control devices added onto off-road equipment.
4) Specific dust suppression techniques used on the day of construction activity with maximum
emissions.
The default CalEEmod construction equipment and activities were used in the analysis. No emissions
control devices were added to the equipment. The default equipment list is provided in Table 1.
Table 1: CalEEMod Construction Equipment Parameters
Equipment Units Hours/Day Horsepower
Horsepower-
hours/day
Demolition Phase
Concrete/Industrial Saw 1 8 81 648
Excavators 3 8 157 3,768
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 358 5,728
Total Demolition horsepower hours/day 10,144
Site Preparation Phase
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 358 8,592
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 75 2,400
Total Site Preparation horsepower hours/day 10,992
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
42 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Table 1 (cont.): CalEEMod Construction Equipment Parameters
Equipment Units Hours/Day Horsepower
Horsepower-
hours/day
Site Grading Phase
Excavators 1 8 157 1,256
Graders 1 8 162 1,296
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 358 2,864
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 75 1,800
Total Site Grading horsepower hours/day 7,216
Building Construction Phase
Cranes 1 7 208 1,456
Forklifts 3 8 149 3,576
Generator Sets 1 8 84 672
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 75 1,575
Welders 1 8 46 368
Total Building Construction horsepower hours/day 7,647
Paving Phase
Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6 9 108
Pavers 1 8 89 712
Paving Equipment 2 6 82 984
Rollers 2 6 84 1,008
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 75 600
Total Paving horsepower hours/day 3,412
Notes:
The SCAQMD’s guidance indicates that tractors, graders, and dozers would impact 0.5 acres/8-hr-day and scrapers
would impact 1 acre per 8-hour day.
Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2012.
Construction emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, with the default construction phasing and
equipment list (provided in Table 1), except for the following modifications:
• Demolition assumed removal of a 25,000 sq ft building within the default 20-day demolition
phase;
• Site Preparation Phase was extended from the default of 5 days to 20 days to account for
removal of approximately 4 acres of pavement. At a depth of 1 foot of pavement removed, a
total of 6,453 cubic yards was assumed to require hauling to an offsite facility. Truck haul
capacity was assumed to be 20 cubic yards;
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 43
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
• Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, in particular, restricts the emissions of fugitive dust
from construction projects, incorporated. These measures are accounted for in CalEEMod as
“mitigation” because the model categorizes the measures as “mitigation,” even though they are
technically not mitigation.
The localized assessment methodology limits the emissions in the analysis to those generated from
onsite activities. The onsite emissions during construction are compared with the localized
significance thresholds and are provided in Table 2. Onsite construction emissions are from fugitive
dust during grading and off-road diesel emissions. As provided in Table 2, unmitigated emissions
during construction would not exceed the localized significance thresholds. The proposed project’s
CalEEMod output is provided in Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Table 2: Localized Significance Analysis (Construction)
Onsite Emissions (pounds per day)
Onsite Activity NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 70.71 42.55 3.74 3.50
Site Preparation 79.99 45.35 7.45 5.87
Grading 48.81 31.00 4.01 3.38
Building Construction 34.66 23.45 2.28 2.28
Paving 24.85 16.79 2.07 2.07
Architectural Coatings 2.77 1.92 0.24 0.24
Maximum Daily Emissions 79.99 45.35 7.45 5.87
Localized Significance Threshold 183 1,253 13 7
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
Each of the above activities does not occur at the same time; therefore, the maximum daily emissions represent the
maximum emissions that would occur in one day.
Source of emissions: CalEEMod 2012, Appendix A.
Source of thresholds: South Coast Air Quality Management District 2009, for Source Receptor Area 17, at a distance of
25 meters.
The localized construction analysis demonstrates that the proposed project would not exceed the
localized significance thresholds for CO, PM10, PM2.5, and NOX. Therefore, the project would not
violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation during construction.
Operational Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
The proposed project may be considered significant if a CO hot spot intersection analysis determines
that CO concentrations generated either directly or indirectly by the project cause a localized
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
44 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
violation of the State CO 1-hour standard of 20 ppm, State CO 8-hour standard of 9 ppm, federal CO
1-hour standard of 35 ppm, or federal CO 8-hour standard of 9 ppm.
Localized high levels of carbon monoxide (CO hot spot) are associated with traffic congestion and
idling or slow moving vehicles. To provide a worst-case scenario, CO concentrations are estimated at
project-impacted intersections, where the concentrations would be the greatest. The SCAQMD
recommends that a local CO hot spot analysis be conducted if the intersection meets one of the
following criteria: 1) the intersection is at LOS D or worse and where the project increases the
volume to capacity ratio by 2 percent, or 2) the project degrades LOS at an intersection from C to D.
Using the CALINE4 model, a potential CO hot spot was analyzed at the intersection provided in
Table 3. This intersection was chosen because it is projected to operate at LOS E or worse prior to
the implementation of mitigation. There are several inputs to the CALINE4 model. One input is the
traffic volumes, which is from the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix G) prepared for the proposed
project. The traffic volumes with the proposed project were used for the buildout scenario, as well as
emission factors generated using the EMFAC2007 model for the year 2015.
As provided in Table 3, the estimated 1-hour and 8-hour average CO concentrations at buildout in
combination with background concentrations are below the State and federal standards. No CO hot
spots are anticipated due to emissions generated by project-related traffic in combination with other
anticipated development in the area. Thus, the mobile emissions of CO from the proposed project are
not anticipated to contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation of CO.
Therefore, the project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation during operations.
Table 3: Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
Estimated CO Concentration
(ppm)
Intersection Peak Hour 1 Hour 8 hour
Significant
Impact?
(2) Anaheim Boulevard & Cypress
Street
PM 5.4 3.8 No
Notes:
The 1 hour concentration is the CALINE4 output (see Appendix A for model output) plus the 1 hour background
concentration of 4.91 ppm (calculated by dividing the Anaheim-Pampas Lane ambient monitoring station 8-hour
measurement of 3.44 ppm by 0.7 (persistence factor)).
The 8-hour project increment was calculated by multiplying the 1 hour CALINE4 output by 0.7 (persistence factor), then
adding the 8 hour background concentration of 3.44 ppm (from the Anaheim-Pampas Lane ambient monitoring station).
A significant impact would occur if the estimated CO concentration is over the 1-hour state standard of 20 ppm or the 8-
hour State/federal standard of 9 ppm.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 45
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The non-attainment pollutants of concern
for this section are ozone, nitrogen dioxide, PM10 and PM2.5. Ozone is not emitted directly into the
air, but is a regional pollutant formed by a photochemical reaction in the atmosphere. Ozone
precursors, VOC and NOX, react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight to form ozone.
Therefore, the SCAQMD does not have a recommended ozone threshold, but has regional thresholds
of significance for project-emitted NOX and VOC.
The SCAQMD has determined that a project-level exceedance of the thresholds provided in Table 4
would have significant adverse impact on the air quality in the Air Basin by jeopardizing the Basin’s
attainment of the federal standards. Therefore, projects within the Air Basin with construction or
operational emissions in excess of any of the thresholds provided in Table 4 are considered to have a
significant regional air quality impact.
Table 4: SCAQMD Mass Thresholds
Pollutant Construction Related (lbs/day) Operational Related (lbs/day)
Volatile organic compounds
(VOC) 75 55
Nitrogen oxides (NOX) 100 55
CO 550 550
Sulfur oxides (SOX) 150 150
PM10 (Exhaust) 150 150
PM2.5 (Exhaust) 55 55
Notes:
lbs/day = pounds per day
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2011a.
Construction Analysis
Table 5 summarizes construction-related emissions (without mitigation). For the assumptions used in
generating the emissions, please refer to Section 3b). The information provided in Table 5 indicates
that the SCAQMD regional emission thresholds for VOC could potentially be exceeded during the
architectural coatings phase. Therefore, without mitigation, the construction emissions are considered
to have a potentially significant regional impact.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
46 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Table 5: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions
Emissions (pounds per day)
Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Demolition Onsite 8.86 70.71 42.55 0.07 3.74 3.50
Demolition Offsite 0.44 3.42 3.05 0.00 3.05 0.18
Total Demolition 9.30 74.13 45.60 0.07 6.79 3.68
Site Prep Onsite 9.90 79.99 45.35 0.07 7.45 5.87
Site Prep Offsite 2.02 18.82 12.31 0.03 16.21 0.91
Total Site Prep 11.92 98.81 57.66 0.10 23.66 6.78
Grading Onsite 6.36 48.81 31.00 0.05 4.01 3.38
Grading Offsite 0.11 0.12 1.11 0.00 0.24 0.02
Total Grading 6.47 48.93 32.11 0.05 4.25 3.40
Building Onsite 5.17 34.66 23.45 0.04 2.28 2.28
Building Offsite 2.85 12.56 25.77 0.05 4.89 0.69
Total Building 8.02 47.22 49.22 0.09 7.17 2.97
Paving Onsite 4.06 24.85 16.79 0.03 2.07 2.07
Paving Offsite 0.14 0.14 1.36 0.00 0.32 0.02
Total Paving 4.20 24.99 18.15 0.03 2.39 2.09
Architectural Coating Onsite 380.64 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24
Architectural Coating Offsite 0.34 0.35 3.40 0.01 0.79 0.06
Total Arch 380.98 3.12 5.32 0.01 1.03 0.30
Maximum Daily Emissions 380.98 98.81 57.66 0.10 23.66 6.78
Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? Yes No No No No No
Notes:
The maximum daily emissions refer to the maximum emissions that would occur in one day; it was assumed that the
grading activities do not occur at the same time as the other construction activities; therefore, their emissions are not
summed.
VOC = volatile organic compounds NOX = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide
SOX = sulfur oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter
Source: Appendix A: CalEEMod Output.
Source of thresholds: South Coast Air Quality Management District 2011a.
Mitigation to reduce the VOC content of interior and exterior applications, as well as phasing to
reduce the amount of daily coatings applied, would reduce emissions to less than significant.
Application of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would substantially reduce VOC emissions from
onsite architectural coatings. Mitigated construction emissions are provided in Table 6. Therefore,
with incorporation of Mitigation Measures, construction emissions would have a less than significant
regional impact.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 47
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Table 6: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions (Mitigated)
Emissions (pounds per day)
Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Architectural Coating Onsite 71.89 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24
Architectural Coating Offsite 0.34 0.35 3.40 0.01 0.79 0.06
Maximum Daily Emissions 72.23 3.12 5.32 0.01 1.03 0.30
Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Notes:
The maximum daily emissions refer to the maximum emissions that would occur in one day; it was assumed that the
grading activities do not occur at the same time as the other construction activities; therefore, their emissions are not
summed.
VOC = volatile organic compounds NOX = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide
SOX = sulfur oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter
Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2012 (Appendix A).
Operational Analysis
Operational emissions from sources generated both onsite and offsite as derived from CalEEMod are
provided in Table 7 for the summer season. CalEEMod inputs included the land uses provided in
Section 1.3, Project Description, for the year 2015. As provided in Table 7, the operational emissions
do not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional thresholds and would generate a less than significant regional
impact.
Table 7: Operational Emissions
Summer Emissions (pounds per day)
Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area 11.60 0.22 18.74 0.00 0.37 0.36
Energy 0.08 0.68 0.29 0.00 0.05 0.05
Mobile 12.49 30.28 121.85 0.23 25.13 2.22
Total 24.17 31.18 140.88 0.23 25.55 2.63
Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Notes:
VOC = volatile organic compounds NOX = nitrogen oxides CO = carbon monoxide
SOX = sulfur oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter
Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2012 (Appendix A).
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
48 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial concentrations of asbestos, localized fugitive PM10, localized criteria pollutant
concentrations, carbon monoxide, diesel particulate matter, or hazardous pollutants, as discussed
below.
Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with preexisting
respiratory or cardiovascular illness. For purposes of CEQA, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive
receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24 hours, such as residences,
hospitals, or convalescent facilities. Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the
definition because employees do not typically remain onsite for 24 hours. However, when assessing
the impact of pollutants with 1-hour or 8-hour standards (such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon
monoxide), commercial and/or industrial facilities would be considered sensitive receptors for those
purposes.
The closest sensitive receptors are the existing residences located north of the project site. In
addition, the proposed project would contain new sensitive receptors.
Asbestos
Asbestos is a fibrous mineral which is both naturally occurring in ultramafic rock (a rock type
commonly found in California), and used as a processed component of building materials. Because
asbestos has been proven to cause a number of disabling and fatal diseases, such as asbestosis and
lung cancer, it is strictly regulated either based on its natural widespread occurrence, or in its use as a
building material. The potential source of asbestos exposure for the proposed project is the
demolition of the existing structure.
The proposed project would involve some demolition activities. Thus, the proposed project is
required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation
Activities). Specifically, SCAQMD Rule 1403 requires that a survey be completed for every
structure that would be demolished to determine if the facility contains Regulated Asbestos
Containing Material. In addition, a notification must be made to the SCAQMD at least 10 working
days prior to commencement of demolition/renovation activities. The SCAQMD provides a form to
use for notification. The purpose of the form is to verify compliance with or exemption from the
asbestos notification requirements set forth by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and SCAQMD Rule 1403 require that a
thorough inspection for asbestos be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or
renovated. Inspections must include the collection and microscopic analysis of samples of all
materials that might contain asbestos. Consultants who perform inspections must be certified by Cal-
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 49
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
OSHA, must have taken and passed an EPA-approved building course, and provide a written report
containing the inspection results. If Regulated Asbestos Containing Materials are present, the
applicant must follow the requirements for removal, disposal and administrative requirements
contained in SCAQMD Rule 1403. Compliance with the aforementioned regulations would reduce
the potential for exposure to asbestos containing material to less than significant.
Carbon Monoxide
The screening and analysis for the proposed project’s potential to contribute to a localized exceedance
of State or federal CO standards is contained in Section 3b). As previously discussed, the proposed
project would not significantly contribute to a local violation of the carbon monoxide standards.
Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly contribute to exposure of sensitive receptors
to unacceptable levels of carbon monoxide.
Localized Significance Threshold Analysis
The analysis for the proposed project’s potential to contribute to a localized exceedance of State or
federal NO2, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 standards is contained in Section 3b). As previously discussed, the
proposed project would not significantly contribute to a local violation of the standards. Therefore,
the proposed project would not significantly contribute to exposure of sensitive receptors to
unacceptable levels of NO2, CO, PM10 and PM2.5.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Two scenarios have the potential for exposing sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs).
The first occurs when a project includes a new or modified source of TACs and would be located near
an existing or proposed sensitive receptor. The second scenario involves a residential or other
sensitive receptor development locating near an existing or planned source of TACs. The proposed
project would be considered a sensitive receptor. However, no significant sources of TACs are
located near the project site. The proposed project would generate diesel exhaust, a source of diesel
particulate matter, during project construction, and during operation from truck traffic. However, the
proposed project would not create a significant impact from project construction, and the project is
not considered a “source” site for TACs from project operation, as described below.
Project Construction
Equipment used during construction of the proposed project would emit diesel particulate matter,
which is a carcinogen. However, the diesel particulate matter emissions are short-term in nature.
Determination of risk from diesel particulate matter is considered over a 70-year exposure time.
Guidance published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Health Risk
Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, does not include guidance for health risks from
construction projects addressed in CEQA; risks near construction projects are expected to be included
later when the toxic emissions from construction activities are better understood. Additionally, the
nearest sensitive receptors are located approximately 50 feet from the project site. Therefore,
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
50 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
considering the dispersion of the emissions and the short time frame, exposure to diesel particulate
matter would be considered less than significant.
Project Operations
The ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook contains recommendations that would “help keep
California’s children and other vulnerable populations out of harm’s way with respect to nearby
sources of air pollution,” including recommendations for distances between sensitive receptors and
certain land uses. These recommendations are assessed as follows.
• Heavily traveled roads. ARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 500 feet
of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles
per day. Epidemiological studies indicate that the distance from the roadway and truck traffic
densities were key factors in the correlation of health effects, particularly in children. Roads
assessed in the traffic study are not anticipated to exceed a volume of 30,000 vehicles per day
in the future with project scenario. The highest design capacity of adjacent urban roadways is
56,300 (major arterials). Therefore, adjacent roadways would not generate a significant TACs
impact to the proposed project.
• Distribution centers. ARB also recommends avoiding the siting of new sensitive land uses
within 1,000 feet of a distribution center. There are no distribution centers within one-quarter
mile of the project site.
• Fueling stations. ARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a
large fueling station (a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A
50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. There are no fueling
stations within 300 feet of the project site.
• Dry cleaning operations. ARB recommends avoiding the siting of new sensitive land uses
within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation that uses perchloroethylene. For operations with
two or more machines, ARB recommends a buffer of 500 feet. For operations with three or
more machines, ARB recommends consultation with the local air district. There are no dry
cleaning facilities within 300 feet of the project site.
Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant TACs impact to
sensitive receptors.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health
hazard. People may have different reactions to the same odor. An odor that is offensive to one
person may be acceptable to another (e.g., coffee roaster). An unfamiliar odor is more easily detected
and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. Known as odor fatigue, a person can
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 51
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity
of the odor.
The SCAQMD recommends that odor impacts be addressed in a qualitative manner. Such an analysis
shall determine whether the project would result in excessive nuisance odors, as defined under the
California Code of Regulations and Section 41700 of the California Health and Safety Code, and thus
would constitute a public nuisance related to air quality.
Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted during construction of the proposed project, which are
objectionable to some. However, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site, and thus,
should not reach an objectionable level at the nearest sensitive receptors.
Typical sources of objectionable odors include agricultural operations (e.g., dairies, feedlots, etc.),
landfills, wastewater treatment plants, refineries, and other types of industrial land uses. The
proposed project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors.
However, the proposed project would involve the construction of new sensitive receptors. There are
no typical sources of objectionable odors located within one mile of the project site. Therefore,
impacts associated with the creation of objectionable odors would be less than significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
52 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
4. Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The project site is located within a predominantly urbanized area and consists of a
vacant 25,000 sq ft commercial building, an associated parking lot, and ornamental trees and
landscaping. In its existing condition, the ornamental vegetation does not constitute natural, native
habitat. The highly disturbed nature of the project site and the surrounding urbanized area creates an
unsuitable environment for any plant or wildlife species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species. Due to the previous development of the project site and the complete lack of native
habitat, sensitive plant or wildlife species are not expected to occur on the project site. Therefore, no
impacts associated with candidate, sensitive, or special status species would occur.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities occurs on or adjacent to the
project site. Riparian habitats are associated with rivers, stream, or other natural drainages, while
sensitive natural communities are associated with rare plant communities and/or plant communities
that provide habitat for a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. The project site contains no
river, stream, or similar natural drainages indicative of riparian habitats, and due to the highly
disturbed nature of the project site and the surrounding urbanized area, no rare plant communities or
plant communities that provide habitat for sensitive species occur on the project site. Therefore, no
impacts associated with riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would occur.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. According to United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), wetlands are lands
transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is at or near the surface or
the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or
more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports hydrophytes, (2) the
substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil, and (3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with
water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. None of
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 53
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
these attributes are found on the project site, and as such, wetlands do not occur on the site.
Therefore, no impacts associated with federally protected wetlands would occur.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. The project site is located within a predominantly urbanized area. Due to the highly
disturbed nature of the project site and the surrounding urbanized area, no habitat that could
potentially support significant wildlife species occurs adjacent to the project site, and as such, the site
is not currently used as a wildlife corridor.
Moreover, as a result of both the existing development and the lack of suitable habitat found
throughout the surrounding project area, the project site does not presently serve as a wildlife nursery
site. Therefore, no impacts associated with wildlife corridors and nursery sites would occur.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. Chapter 13.12 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code addresses the
protection, maintenance, removal, and replacement of street trees located within the City’s right-of-
way. While approximately 40 landscape trees would be removed from around the existing onsite
buildings and parking lots, construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to affect street trees
located in the public right-of-way adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site along Anaheim
Boulevard and the southern boundary along Lincoln Avenue. Any street tree necessitating removal
would be removed only after consultation with the Director of Community Services or his or her
designee, as outlined in Chapter 13.12 of the City’s Municipal Code. Any street tree requiring
removal would be replaced according with Section 13.12.060, Street Tree Replacement Plan, of the
Municipal Code. By following the existing City regulations contained with Chapter 13.12, the
proposed project would comply with the City’s street tree policy and associated ordinances.
Therefore, impacts associated with policies and ordinances protecting biological resources would be
less than significant.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact. The project site is not located within the boundary of any Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other approved habitat conservation plan. According
to the City of Anaheim General Plan Green Element, a portion of the City generally south of SR-91
and east of SR-55 falls within the Orange County Central-Coast Sub-regional Natural Communities
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
54 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Conservation Plan (NCCP). This portion of the City is located approximately five miles east of the
project site. Therefore, no impacts associated with conflicts with conservation plans would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 55
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
5. Cultural Resources
The following is based in part on the April 2, 2012 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment prepared
for the proposed project by Michael Brandman Associates (Appendix B).
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Existing Onsite Building
The subject property, the AT&T building, located at 200 N. Lemon Avenue was constructed circa
1956. The property was assessed for historic and architectural significance by Architectural Historian
Kathleen A. Crawford, M.A., in March 2012. Ms. Crawford meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Architectural Historian.
The Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix B) determined that the existing onsite
building is not located in a cohesive neighborhood and is not otherwise associated with any important
historical or cultural events or individuals. Design of the building was the work of a master
architectural firm, Parkinson and Parkinson. The building, however, is not a good example of
Parkinson and Parkinson overall body of work. It is not of a significant design and does not embody
characteristics of a significant type, period, or method of construction. The property also does not
have the potential to yield, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.
The building is not a historic property under Section 106 of the Nation Historic Preservation Act,
because it is not eligible for any of the National Register Criterion. The recommended California
Historical Resource Status Code for the building was determined to be 6Z: Determined ineligible for
National Register, California Register, or Local designation through survey evaluation.
Anaheim Colony Historic District
The proposed project would replace the existing onsite building with a mixed use residential and
retail development. The project site is located within the Anaheim Colony Historic District, which
includes buildings already listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as structures that
have been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register, but have not been formally
designated at this time.
One National Register-listed property, the Samuel Kraemer Building (circa 1925), a former bank
building, is located on Claudina Street within the viewshed of the project site. The proposed design
of the Uptown Village project has borrowed stylistic elements from this historic building, creating a
compatibility of design concepts across the viewshed. The design of the complex borrows window
and façade detailing to create a visual link with a prominent building in the Anaheim Colony Historic
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
56 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
District, displaying a sensitivity to the overall historic character of the neighborhood. In addition, a
small Victorian era church is located on the corner of Claudina Street and Cypress Street within the
viewshed of the project site. The church has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National
Register, but has not been formally designated at this time. The Phase I Cultural Resources
Assessment determined that the church, the Samuel Kraemer Building, or any others historic or
potentially historic property in the surrounding area would be affected by the proposed project.
The neighborhood has undergone steady change for the last one-hundred years as the early Anaheim
Colony community was developed from its original farming/agricultural origins to a more settled
urban area. During the 1910s and 1920s, numerous one- and two-story Craftsman-style homes were
built, new businesses were constructed to serve the growing community, and gradually the farms and
orchards were absorbed into the urban landscape. By 1925, the five-story Samuel Kraemer Building
had been constructed as one of the first “high-rise” commercial buildings in Anaheim. The building
has been a prominent landmark in the city since its construction.
Other mid- and high-rise buildings followed in the subsequent decades while the City of Anaheim’s
core business area expanded, and more residential buildings in the popular styles of the succeeding
decades—Spanish Eclectic, Tudor Revival, Modern Minimal Traditional, Modern Ranch, and other
variants—were constructed to house the City’s growing population. During the last fifty years, with
the construction of Disneyland and various sports/entertainment venues, the City’s building stock was
altered by the addition of new modern style structures. The project area has changed substantially as
numerous residences were removed over the decades to accommodate new commercial and light
industrial uses. The construction of the AT&T buildings on N. Lemon Avenue serve as good
examples of the removal of the early homes from the early decades of the twentieth century to
accommodate new development during the 1950s and early 1960s.
This process has continued as strip malls, large commercial centers, a new City Hall, new banks, and
a wide range of commercial and business uses have changed the viewscape substantially over the last
four decades. The entire setting has been considerably altered with the removal of many of the
historic elements and their replacement with modern style commercial and/or multifamily residential
buildings. The scale of the area has also been altered by the introduction of large-scale buildings with
substantive mass and expansive footprints on the urban landscape.
The proposed project has been designed to incorporate the existing historic elements found in the
surrounding area and to respect the area’s historical heritage. The inclusion of the proposed project in
the neighborhood would not have a significant impact on the historic buildings within the viewshed
due to the extensive alterations that have already substantially altered the viewshed. The changes in
mass and scale already present in the neighborhood would not be affected by the proposed project.
Therefore, impacts associated with both the existing onsite AT& T buildings and the surrounding
Anaheim Colony Historic District would be less than significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 57
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Project Site
In August 2012, a blog post by O.C. History Roundup regarding Anaheim’s Chinatown stated that the
project site is located in an area that was previously occupied by Chinatown. Based on a review of
historical records including inventories of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the
California Register of Historical Resources (CR), the California Historical Landmarks (CHL) list, the
California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) list, the California State Historic Resources Inventory
(HRI), and archival maps for the County and the City, there was no evidence of previously
documented local historical resources on the project site.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Based on an archaeological resources
records search, there are no previously recorded prehistoric sites that are located within 0.5 mile from
the project site. In addition, a pedestrian field survey by an MBA archaeologist found no evidence of
prehistoric resources. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan EIR prepared in 2004, there
was one substantial prehistoric cultural resource site (CA-Ora-303) that was recorded in 1970 and
listed a collection of small rock shelters adjacent to SR-91. The artifact assemblage found at this site
was comprised of manos, hammerstones, choppers, lithic flakes, and some faunal bone. In general,
archaeological sites are often located along creek areas, ridgelines, and vistas. Many of these types of
landforms are located within the Hill and Canyon Area of the City and its Sphere of Influence. The
project site is located outside of the Hill and Canyon Area of the City of Anaheim.
Based on a field survey and records search, the project site has been previously disturbed as a result
of previous development and is unlikely that construction activities would unearth any previously
unknown buried archaeological resources. However, it is always possible that grading, excavation,
and other similar ground-disturbing activities during construction of the proposed project could
potentially uncover buried archaeological resources. To avoid significant impacts, Mitigation
Measures CR-1 through CR-4 shall be implemented in the event that buried cultural resources are
discovered during construction activities.
MM CR-1 In the event that buried cultural resources are discovered during construction,
operations shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified
archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further
study. The qualified archaeologist shall make recommendations to the Lead Agency
on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources,
including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in
accordance with §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Cultural resources could consist
of, but are not limited to, stone artifacts, bone, wood, shell, or features, including
hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered
resources found during construction within the Project Area should be recorded on
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
58 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for
significance in terms of CEQA criteria.
MM CR-2 If the resources are determined to be unique historic resources as defined under
§15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the
monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for
significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in
green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.
MM CR-3 No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency
approves the measures to protect these resources. Any archaeological artifacts
recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution
approved by the Lead Agency where they would be afforded long-term preservation
to allow future scientific study.
MM CR-4 In addition, reasonable efforts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to the
property will be taken and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Native
American tribes with concerns about the property, as well as the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP) will be notified within 48 hours in compliance with 36
CFR 800.13(b)(3).
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Paleontological sites are those areas that
show evidence of pre-human activity. Often they are simply small outcroppings visible on the
surface or sites encountered during ground-disturbing activities. While the sites are important
indications, it is the geologic formations that are the most important since they may contain important
fossils. Because most of the City of Anaheim is built out, there are few areas containing rock
outcroppings. The Hill and Canyon Area contains sedimentary rocks ranging in age from Late
Cretaceous to Middle Miocene. The oldest sedimentary rocks belong to the upper Cretaceous Holz
Shale and the Schulz Ranch Member of the Williams Formation. Other formations of potential
paleontological importance in the area include the Silverado, Santiago, Sespe, and Topanga
Formations. The age of these formations places them in an important time in the evolutionary history
of both terrestrial vertebrate mammals and marine invertebrate species. For this reason, these
formations are considered to have moderate or high paleontological sensitivity.
The project site is located outside of the Hill and Canyon Area of the City of Anaheim and away from
these formations. The project site has been previously disturbed as a result of previous development.
However, the project site is within the ancient floodplain of the Santa Ana River and Pleistocene
deposits can potentially be encountered at depth. As such, impacts to significant paleontological
resources in undisturbed surface or subsurface Pleistocene sediments is considered moderate. To
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 59
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
avoid significant impacts Mitigation Measures CR-5 through CR-8 shall be implemented during the
construction phase of the proposed project.
MM CR-5 Monitoring of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic
resources by a qualified paleontologic monitor is required under limited conditions.
Monitoring must take place once 6 feet of modern grade has been reached during any
earthmoving work. The mitigation measures must be discussed with the Proponent
and/or his contracted representatives during a pre-grade meeting attended by City
staff. Should the City-approved Paleontologist determine that potential impacts to
fossil resources have been reduced to “low” as a result of the monitoring efforts, the
Paleontologist may cease the monitoring program before earthmoving has concluded.
A monitoring report must be generated and submitted to City staff within one month
after monitoring has concluded.
Based upon the results of this review, areas of concern include any and all previously
undisturbed sediments of Pleistocene Older alluvium present within the boundaries of
the Project Area. Paleontologic monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils, as
they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments
likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors
must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of
abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced or eliminated if the
potentially fossiliferous units described herein are determined upon exposure and
examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain
fossil resources.
MM CR-6 Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent
preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and
vertebrates is required. Preparation and stabilization of all recovered fossils are
essential in order to fully mitigate adverse impacts to the resources.
MM CR-7 Identification and curation of specimens into an established, accredited museum
repository with permanent retrievable paleontologic storage is required. These
procedures are also essential steps in effective paleontologic mitigation and CEQA
compliance. The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand
prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Mitigation of adverse impacts to
significant paleontologic resources is not complete until such curation into an
established museum repository has been fully completed and documented.
MM CR-8 Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens
is required. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead
Agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into an
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
60 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
established, accredited museum repository, will signify completion of the program to
mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is not located on or adjacent
to any known burial ground or cemetery. Because the project site has been previously disturbed as a
result of previous development, it is unlikely that construction activities would unearth any previously
unknown buried human remains. However, although unlikely, it is always possible that grading,
excavation, and other similar ground-disturbing activities during construction of the proposed project
could potentially uncover buried human remains. To avoid significant impacts, Mitigation Measure
CR-9 shall be implemented in the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human
remains during construction activities.
MM CR-9 In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains,
California State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance
shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and
disposition pursuant to CEQA regulations and Public Resource Code (PRC)
§5097.98. All applicable provisions of the Native American Grave Protection and
Repatriation Act and its regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 43
CFR 10 shall also apply.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 61
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
6. Geology and Soils
The following is based in part on the October 24, 2011 Updated Geotechnical Exploration Report
prepared for the proposed project by Leighton and Associates (Appendix C).
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
Less Than Significant Impact. As detailed in the Updated Geotechnical Exploration Report
(Appendix C), there are no known active or potentially active faults traversing the project site and the
site is not located within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The principal
seismic hazard that could affect the project site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake
occurring along one of several major active or potentially active faults in Southern California. The
closest mapped active faults that could affect the project site are the Puente Hills Blind Thrust,
Whittier, San Joaquin Blind Thrust, Newport-Inglewood (Los Angeles Basin), and San Jose faults,
which are located approximately 10, 12, 16, 19, and 23 kilometers, respectively, from the site. Other
known regional active faults that could affect the project site include the Chino-Central Avenue
(Elsinore) and Elsinore (Glen-Ivy) fault. The San Andreas Fault System, which is the largest active
fault in California, is approximately 63 kilometers northeast of the project site. As required by the
current California Building Code, the proposed project would incorporate all applicable seismic
design criteria to avoid significant impacts resulting from seismic events. Therefore, impacts
associated with earthquake fault rupture would be less than significant.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the principal seismic hazard that could
affect the project site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along one of several
major active or potentially active faults in Southern California. The closest mapped active faults that
could affect the project site are the Puente Hills Blind Thrust, Whittier, San Joaquin Blind Thrust,
Newport-Inglewood (Los Angeles Basin), and San Jose faults, which are located approximately 10,
12, 16, 19, and 23 kilometers, respectively, from the project site. The proposed project would comply
with all applicable provisions regarding earthquake safety for new construction as contained within
the current California Building Code and the City of Anaheim Municipal Code, including the
following:
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
62 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
City of Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 15.07, Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Buildings
Promotes public safety and welfare by reducing the risk of death or injury that may
result from the effects of earthquakes on unreinforced masonry bearing wall
buildings.
Section 15.03, Building Standard Codes
Prescribes specific regulations for erecting, construction, enlargement, alteration,
repair, improving, removal, conversion, demolition, occupancy, equipment, use,
height, and area of buildings and structures.
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the California Building Code
Contains various specific provisions for earthquake safety (Section 15.03, Building
Standard Codes, of the Anaheim Municipal Code adopts the provisions of the
California Building Code).
The proposed project would be required to meet all applicable aforementioned building requirements,
which are anticipated to reduce potential impacts of strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore,
impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated,
fine-grained granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subjected to high-intensity ground
shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist:
1) Shallow groundwater
2) Low density, fine, clean sandy soils
3) High-intensity ground motion
The project site is not located within a mapped liquefaction hazard zone. Due to absence of shallow
groundwater, potential for liquefaction is considered low and not a significant design consideration.
Therefore, impacts associated with liquefaction would be less than significant impact.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. As detailed in the Updated Geotechnical Exploration Report (Appendix C), the project
site and surrounding area lack significant ground slopes. Thus, the potential for seismically-induced
onsite landslides is considered low and not a significant concern. Moreover, according to the City of
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 63
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Anaheim General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located within an area susceptible to
earthquake-induced landslides. Therefore, no impacts associated with landslides would occur.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Topographically, the project site is
relatively flat and featureless, and as such, would generally not be susceptible to erosion or the loss of
topsoil during construction of the proposed project. Since the proposed project would disturb one or
more acres of soil, the project would be required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for
Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit
Order 2009-0009-DWQ). Construction activities subject to the Construction General Permit includes
clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction
General Permit requires implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that
would include project construction features designed in part to prevent erosion, known as Best
Management Practices (BMPs). Per Mitigation Measure HYD-1 (see Section 3.9, Hydrology and
Water Quality), these erosion prevention efforts would include physical features such as fiber rolls,
street sweeping, sandbag barriers, straw bale barriers, and storm drain inlet protection. Incorporation
of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 during the construction phase would ensure that sufficient numbers of
erosion control BMPs are implemented to reduce potential impacts related to erosion.
Long-Term Operational Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site would primarily contain impervious surfaces that
will prevent erosion, as impervious surfaces are generally not susceptible to the effects of wind and
water erosion. The portions of the project site that consist of pervious surfaces would be landscaped,
which will prevent substantial erosion from occurring. Therefore, impacts associated with erosion
during operational activities would be less than significant.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously described, the project site is not located within a
mapped liquefaction hazard zone. Due to absence of shallow groundwater, potential for liquefaction
is considered low and not a significant design consideration.
Additionally, liquefaction may also cause lateral spreading. For lateral spreading to occur, the
liquefiable zone must be continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along gently sloping
ground toward an unconfined area. However, if lateral containment is present for those zones, then
no significant risk of lateral spreading would exist. Since the liquefaction potential at the project site
is considered low, seismically-induced lateral spreading is not considered a seismic hazard.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
64 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
No significant ground slopes exist on the project site or the surrounding area. Therefore, the potential
for seismically-induced onsite landslides would be considered low.
Therefore, impacts associated with an unstable geological unit or soil would be less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described in the Updated Geotechnical Exploration Report
(Appendix G), laboratory testing of one representative bulk sample within the upper 5 feet of the
existing grade indicates very low expansion potential (per ASTM D 4829) with tested Expansion
Index value of 5. Based on observations during field exploration and laboratory test results,
subsurface soils at shallow depths are anticipated to have very low expansion potential. Therefore,
impacts associated with expansive soil would be less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
No Impact. The proposed project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems. The proposed project would be connected to the existing sewer network.
Therefore, no impacts associated with septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would
occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 65
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The SCAQMD is in the process of preparing recommended
significance thresholds for greenhouse gases for local lead agency consideration (“SCAQMD draft
local agency threshold”); however, the SCAQMD Board has not approved the thresholds as of the
date of this IS/MND (SCAQMD 2010). The current draft thresholds consist of the following tiered
approach:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption
under CEQA.
• Tier 2 consists of determining whether or not the project is consistent with a greenhouse gas
reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local greenhouse gas reduction plan,
it does not have significant greenhouse gas emissions.
• Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent
with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over
30 years and are added to a project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are under
one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant:
- All land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
- Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial: 1,400
MTCO2e per year; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
• Tier 4 has the following options:
- Option 1: Reduce emissions from business as usual by a certain percentage; this
percentage is currently undefined
- Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures
- Option 3, 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and
employees: 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans;
- Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e/SP/year for
plans
• Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold.
To determine whether the proposed project is significant, this project utilizes the SCAQMD draft
local agency tiered threshold. The threshold is as follows:
• Tier 1: The Project is not exempt under CEQA; go to Tier 2.
• Tier 2: There is no greenhouse gas reduction plan applicable to the Project; go to Tier 3.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
66 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
• Tier 3: Project greenhouse gas emissions compared with the threshold: 3,000 MTCO2e per
year.
• Tier 4, option 1: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from business as usual by 28.4 percent.
The California 2020 emissions target is 427 MMTCO2e and the 2020 baseline is 596
MMTCO2e (California Air Resources Board 2011b). Therefore, a 28.4 percent reduction is
required to reduce emissions to the target (see analysis below).
• Tier 4, option 3: 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year.
For purposes of the greenhouse gas significance threshold, Business-as-Usual is defined as pre-AB
32. Business-as-Usual greenhouse gas emissions refer to emissions using protocol and emission
factors from the period of 2004-2006 (prior to the adoption of Assembly Bill 32 and related
greenhouse gas regulations) and does not take into account project design features or mitigation
measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ARB’s Scoping Plan indicates that Business-as-Usual
is “projected emissions in 2020 without any greenhouse gas reduction measures (Business-as-Usual
case). The 2020 Business-as-Usual forecast does not take any credit for reductions from measures
included in this Plan, including the Pavley greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles, full
implementation of the Renewables Portfolio Standard beyond current levels of renewable energy, or
the solar measures” (ARB 2008).
Project Emissions Inventory
This analysis is restricted to greenhouse gases identified by AB 32, which include carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The proposed
project would generate a variety of greenhouse gases during construction and operation, including
several defined by AB 32 such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Construction
The proposed project would emit greenhouse gases from upstream emission sources and direct
sources (combustion of fuels from worker vehicles and construction equipment). For assumptions
used in estimating these emissions, please refer to the Section 3.3, Air Quality. Greenhouse gas
emissions from construction equipment and worker vehicles are shown in Appendix A. . The
greenhouse gas emissions from all phases of construction would equal 1,143.53 MTCO2e. Amortized
over 30 years, construction emissions would equal 38.12 MTCO2e per year.
Operation
Operational or long-term emissions would occur over the life of the proposed project. The
operational emissions for the proposed project are shown in Table 8. For the assumptions and
descriptions for the emission sources, please refer to Section 3.3, Air Quality. As shown in Table 8,
the main source of operational greenhouse gases are from mobile emissions. The ‘with reductions’
calculations used a combination of CalEEMod project design feature reductions and mitigation
measures. In addition, URBEMIS2007 was used in combination with the Bay Area Air Quality
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 67
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Management District’s BGM model to determine the percent reduction in mobile emissions
attributable to implementation of the State’s Pavley Standards and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
Although CalEEMod reportedly accounts for reductions from Pavley Standards starting in 2012, the
mobile emissions output from CalEEMod is higher in year 2020 than the URBEMIS model’s output,
indicating the CalEEMod output does not account for Pavley reductions. Regulatory reductions were
applied prior to applying project design reductions to avoid over-counting emission reductions.
As shown in Table 8, Business-as-Usual emissions would result in nearly 4,500 MTCO2e per year in
2020. However, implementation of State regulation, accounting for project design features and
locational aspects that reduce emissions, and application of regulatory standards (i.e., installation of
low flow bathroom faucet, low flow kitchen faucet, low flow toilet, and low flow shower) would
result in a 33-percent reduction in emissions from the Business-as-Usual scenario. Therefore, the
proposed project’s emissions would be less than the SCAQMD’s draft percent-reduction threshold.
Table 8: Project Operational Greenhouse Gases (2020)
Emissions (MTCO2e per year)
Source Business as
Usual With Reductions Reductions (%)
Area 166 149 10%
Energy 797 797 0%
Mobile 3,249 2,459 44%
Waste 55 45 18%
Water 217 183 16%
Subtotal - Operation 4,484 2,987 33.4%
Subtotal - Construction
(averaged over 30 years)
38.12 38.12 —
Total 4,522 3,025 33.1%
Threshold -- -- 28.4%
Does project exceed threshold? -- -- No
Notes:
MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.
Source of business as usual emissions: CalEEMod, for the year 2020 (Appendix A).
Source of with reductions emissions:
- Mobile: CalEEMod, for the year 2020 (Appendix A)
- URBEMIS and BGM output are provided in Appendix A, a 24.3 percent reduction applied for Pavley and Low
Carbon Fuel Standard. An additional 26 percent was then applied per the CalEEMod output containing the
“mitigated” scenario with project design features incorporated
- Waste reduction of 17.6 percent calculated by assuming 1.5 MMTCO2e reductions in California (from California Air
Resources Board 2011b) off of 8.5 MMTCO2e 2020 emissions (from California Air Resources Board 2010c).
- Indoor water use reductions based on default percent reductions attributable to regulatory standards, as contained
within CalEEMod. Water-Efficient irrigation system reduction also default percent reduction attributable to
regulatory standards. See Appendix A.
Project design and locational features incorporated with the proposed project include:
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
68 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
• Increased Density over the existing use by providing multi-family residential and
commercial/retail uses;
• Increased Diversity, as the proposed project would include a diversity of multi-family
residential units and commercial/retail uses;
• Improved Pedestrian Network on the project site and connecting off-site with the
implementation of the internal walkways between residential and retail uses, as well as
connection to peripheral sidewalks.
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. There is currently no local or regional greenhouse gas reduction plan
applicable to the proposed project. The California State Legislature adopted AB 32 in 2006. AB 32
focuses on reducing greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Pursuant to the
requirements in AB 32, the ARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in 2008,
which outlines actions recommended to obtain that goal. The Scoping Plan calls for an “ambitious
but achievable” reduction in California’s greenhouse gas emissions, cutting approximately 30-percent
from business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020. Although the percent reduction is
calculated as a statewide reduction, and relies on varying levels of reductions from multiple emissions
sectors and sources, the proposed project would achieve a greater than 30 percent reduction.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the general emission reduction goal of
ARB’s Scoping Plan following the incorporation of project design features and regulatory
requirements identified above.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 69
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following is based in part on a August 1, 2011 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
prepared for the proposed project by Apex Companies, LLC; a October 26, 2007 Phase II ESA
prepared by Shaw Environmental, Inc.; and a November 8, 2011 Revised Voluntary Remediation
Action Plan. All of these resources can be found in Appendix D.
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. Hazardous materials are chemicals that could potentially cause harm
during an accidental release or mishap, and are defined as being toxic, corrosive, flammable, reactive,
an irritant or strong sensitizer. Hazardous substances include all chemicals regulated under the
United States Department of Transportation “hazardous materials” regulations and the Environmental
Protection Agency “hazardous waste” regulations. Hazardous wastes require special handling and
disposal because of their potential to damage public health and the environment. The probable
frequency and severity of consequences from the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials is
affected by the type of substance, quantity used or managed, and the nature of the activities and
operations.
The proposed project would involve the use, transport, and/or disposal of relatively small quantities
of commonly used but potentially hazardous materials during construction and operation activities.
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction of the proposed project would likely include the use of potentially hazardous materials
such as vehicle fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. These materials would be used in conjunction
with the operation and maintenance of construction equipment. All potentially hazardous materials
would be used and stored according to manufacturers’ guidelines, as well as according to all
applicable federal, State, and local standards and regulations regarding hazardous materials.
Therefore, impacts associated with the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials
during project construction would be less than significant.
Project Operation
Operation of residential and commercial uses such as those proposed typically involves the use and
storage of small quantities of potentially hazardous materials, including cleaning solvents, paint,
pesticides, and herbicides. However, these materials would be contained, stored, and used according
to manufacturers’ guidelines, as well as according to all applicable federal, State, and local standards
and regulations regarding hazardous materials. Any associated risk would be adequately reduced
through continued compliance with these standards and regulations.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
70 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Household cleaners, many of which are considered household hazard waste (HHW), would likely be
used on the project site during operation of the proposed project. HHW falls under the larger heading
of “Common Waste” as defined by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). When
improperly used, stored, or disposed of, these materials could potentially pose a threat to both humans
and the environment. However, using these materials according to manufacturers’ guidelines, as well
as according to all applicable federal, State, and local standards and regulations regarding hazardous
materials, would reduce associated risk. Specifically, compliance with the mandatory obligations
contained in Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and Chapter 6.95 of the
California Health and Safety Code would result in less than significant impacts to both humans and
the environment. Therefore, impacts associated with the routine use, transport, or disposal of
hazardous materials during project operations would be less than significant.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not involve the use of acutely
hazardous materials or waste, and the limited use of any hazardous materials would be contained,
stored, and used according to manufactures’ guidelines, as well as according to all applicable federal,
State, and local standards and regulations regarding hazardous materials. As previously discussed,
the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials, which would subsequently reduce the potential
for upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Therefore, impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials due to foreseeable upset and
accident condition would be less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are two private schools located within one-quarter mile of the
project site:
• Saint Catherine’s Academy (215 N. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, 92805): Located
approximately 0.23 miles west of the project site.
• Montessori Learning Center (331 N. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, 92805): Located
approximately 0.24 miles northwest of the project site.
Despite the presence of these schools, no substantial effects are anticipated from the proposed project.
As previously discussed, both construction and operation of the proposed project would not generate
acutely hazardous materials or wastes, and the limited use of any hazardous materials would be
contained, stored, and used in according to manufactures’ guidelines, as well as according to all
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 71
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
applicable federal, State, and local standards and regulations regarding hazardous materials. Due to
the nature of the proposed project, less than significant impacts are anticipated due to the residential
and commercial nature of the project. Therefore, impacts associated with emitting or handling
hazardous emissions or materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would be
less than significant.
According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by Apex Companies, LLC
(Appendix D, Hazards and Hazardous Materials), the site of the proposed Heritage School comprises
the city block immediately north of the project site. This property, occupied by residences, churches,
and automotive repair facilities, is listed on the Envirostor database. The Envirostor database
includes facilities investigated by the State of California and includes Superfund, military, and
proposed school facilities. At this time, this property is being evaluated by the California Department
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for suitability as a possible school location. The listing does not
pertain to known releases or remedial activities. Evaluation of property by the DTSC does not
necessarily mean that the subject property is contaminated, only that the DTSC is investigating the
property to validate its suitability as a possible location for a school. Thus, inclusion of this property
on the Envirostor database does not constitute a recognized environmental concern (REC).
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Phase I ESA (Appendix D,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials), the project site is identified on several environmental databases,
including the Haznet and RCRA databases for generation of hazardous waste. However, no
violations were ever reported. The project site is also identified on several underground storage tank
(UST) databases. A 1,000-gallon diesel UST was installed at the project site in 1970, removed in
1992, and granted regulatory closure in 1993. A 2007 Geophysical Survey and Site Investigation
Report did not detect any historical USTs at the project site. Records indicating removal of USTs
associated with the former gasoline station use on the southwestern portion of the project site were
not found. Additionally, the project site is identified on the Orange County Industrial Site database
for lead compounds.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) database identifies the project site as a large
and small quantity hazardous waste generator. Specific wastes generated were not reported, and no
violations were ever reported. In this particular case, inclusion on the RCRA database does not
constitute a REC.
Facility and Manifest database (HAZNET) identifies the project site as having recorded waste
manifest documentation for multiple hazardous wastes generated at the site. The waste materials
included alkaline solution, tank bottom waste, waste oil, aqueous solution, asbestos, and organic
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
72 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
solids. No violations were ever reported regarding the historic hazardous waste handling and disposal
operations at the project site. In this particular case, inclusion on the HAZNET database does not
constitute a REC.
The project site is identified on several underground storage tank (UST) databases, including the
Facility Inventory Database (FID), Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System
(SWEEPS), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) UST database, SWRCB Historical
UST databases, and EDR Historical Auto Stations Database. According to the SWRCB Historical
UST database, one diesel UST was installed in 1970. According to the SWEEPS database, a 1,000-
gallon UST containing “gasohol” was reported. The project site is listed on the EDR Historical Auto
Service Stations database as a gasoline station in 1925 and 1936. No additional information
regarding these listings was provided. The potential for environmental impact associated with the
historical presence of USTs and use of petroleum at the project site is explored in the multiple
historical site-specific environmental investigation reports obtained by Apex Companies, LLC and
summarized in greater detail in the Phase I ESA (Appendix D, Hazards and Hazardous Materials).
As indicated on page 6 of the Environmental Database Search Report (Appendix D, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials Phase I ESA’s Appendix 4), the project site does not appear on any sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The Phase I ESA, however, recommended
additional investigation be performed adjacent to the existing emergency backup generator and diesel
AST, as well as in the areas of concern as identified in 1940 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map.
Shaw Environmental, Inc. was contracted by AT&T, the former owner of the project site, to perform
a soil boring investigation at the property as part of a Phase II ESA (Appendix D, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials). The primary goal of the investigation was to identify whether any potential
contamination concerns existed associated with current and historic property usages. Eleven soil
samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPH-D) by EPA method 8015M
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA method 8260B. The nine samples collected from
the “gas & oil,” “auto washing,” and “auto painting,” areas were further analyzed for TPH-gasoline
(TPH-G) by EPA method 8015M; petroleum oil and grease (POG) by EPA method 5520; and for the
LUFT 5 metals cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc by EPA method 601 0C.
All detected target constituents were compared to EPA Region 9 residential preliminary remediation
goals (PRGs). The PRG levels are considered to be health protective of human exposures and do not
consider impact to groundwater or address ecological concerns.
The concentration of total lead slightly exceeded the California-modified PRG of 200 mg/kg for
residential soils in one soil sample (150 mg/kg in sample 89-4). However, the concentration was well
below the PRG of 800 mg/kg for commercial/industrial soils. No other PRGs were exceeded.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 73
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Elevated concentrations of TOG and TPH-D were also detected in select soil samples. These
constituents lack specific Region 9 PRGs. Based on the overall depth to groundwater and lack of any
volatile constituents, these concentrations would not pose a significant risk to humans or the
environment.
APEX Companies, LLC prepared a Revised Voluntary Remediation Action Plan (Appendix D,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials) for the project site, which was reviewed and found acceptable by
the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) Environmental Health Department provided
considerations outlined in their November 16, 2011 letter (Appendix D, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials) are addressed. As detailed in the Remediation Action Plan, the Applicant proposes the
Voluntary Remedial Action prior to redevelopment of the currently unoccupied project site. The
extensive historical investigations performed by ERM and Shaw Environmental, Inc., as summarized
in the Remediation Action Plan, have documented that the contaminant of concern (COC) for the
project site is lead.
Of the 57 soil samples collected from soils located more than 4 feet below surface, the single highest
detection of lead was 75.4 mg/kg at 6 feet bgs at B23. The average concentration of lead in soil in the
57 soil samples collected from below 4 feet bgs is 12.58 mg/kg. This data supports the conclusion
that lead contamination at the project site is limited to shallow soils 4 feet or less bgs and that no
remediation is required for soils greater than 4 feet bgs.
Only three samples (boring locations ERM SB-20, SB-25, and SB-32) of the 219 soil samples
collected from the top 4 feet across the project site reported lead concentration in excess of 1,000
mg/kg, and are therefore considered a hazardous waste pursuant to California Code of Regulations
(CCR) Title 22. At each of these locations, the high concentration of lead was only detected in a very
small zone.
Apex Companies, LLC conducted a statistical analysis to determine the upper confidence limit (UCL)
of the representative concentration of lead in soil within the top 4 feet at the project site. Apex
Companies, LLC used the Pro- UCL statistical software developed by the EPA. The output from the
Pro-UCL program reports that following removal of the three shallow hot spots eliciting hazardous
waste levels of lead, the remaining average lead concentration in soils within the top 4 feet of surface
is 35.8 mg/kg and the 97.5-percent upper confidence limit (UCL) is 66.19 mg/kg. This is less than
the proposed conservative cleanup objective of 80 mg/kg for lead. Although no further remediation,
excavation, or disposal is required following removal of the three shallow hot spots, the most
conservative screening level for residential uses would still be achieved. Per the Remedial Action
Plan, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1a through HAZ-1d are recommended to reduce impacts related to
potentially contaminated and hazardous onsite soils to less than significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
74 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
MM HAZ-1a Prior to the issuance of a building permit, onsite soil classified as hazardous waste in
California by virtue of having greater than 1,000 mg/kg total lead concentration shall
be evaluated and disposed at a State approved disposal site.
MM HAZ-1b Prior to the issuance of a building permit, shallow soils from the historical industrial
use located in the southeast and southwest portions of the project site (with the
highest density of sampling locations documenting lead between 80 mg/kg and 1,000
mg/kg) shall be relocated to underneath the footprint of the future parking structure.
MM HAZ-1c Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the soils with lead concentration below 80
mg/kg shall be re-graded and compacted in the top 5 to 7 feet bgs.
MM HAZ-1d Prior to the issuance of a building permit, sampling under the footprint of new
residential area(s) shall be conducted to confirm and document that no residual soil
with lead in excess of 80 mg/kg is located under the foundation of the proposed
building locations.
Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1a through HAZ-1d as derived from
the Remediation Action Plan, impacts associated with hazardous materials sites would be less than
significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles
of a public use airport. The nearest public use airport is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, which is
located approximately 4.2 miles northwest of the project site. Additionally, John Wayne Airport is
located approximately 11 miles southeast of the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, no impacts
associated with public use airports would occur.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. No private airstrips are located within the vicinity of the project site. The City of
Anaheim contains only heliports and helistops and does not contain any airstrips (AirNav 2012).
Thus, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area. Therefore, no impacts associated with private airstrips would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 75
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The proposed project includes vehicular and emergency vehicle ingress and egress from
the driveway located along Cypress Street and from the driveway located along Lemon Street.
Compliance with City of Anaheim Fire Department codes, regulations, and conditions would ensure
that the proposed project would not physically interfere with or impair implementation of an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no impacts associated with
emergency response or evacuation plans would occur.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact. The project site is located within an established urban area. As such, the project site and
the surrounding area are not prone to wildland fires. Per Figure S-5 (Fire Protection Areas) of the
City of Anaheim General Plan, the project site is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone or in a Special Protection Area. The project site is surrounded by established urban
development and is located approximately 4.75 miles west of the nearest Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone. Therefore, no impacts associated with wildland fires would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
76 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
The following is based in part on a February 29, 2012 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
prepared for the proposed project by the project engineer, KHR Associates (Appendix E, Hydrology),
as well as an additional letter report authored by the project engineer (Appendix I, Utilities and
Service Systems).
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Project construction would include grading,
excavation, and other earthmoving activities that have the potential to cause erosion effects that
would subsequently degrade water quality and/or violate water quality standards. As a result, the
proposed project must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) MS4 Permit. The NPDES MS4 Permit Program, which is administer in the project
area by the City of Anaheim and County of Orange, issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board, helps control water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into
receiving waters. Project operation must also comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit.
Additionally, since the proposed project would disturb one or more acres of soil, the project would be
required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). Construction activities
subject to the Construction General Permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground
such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires implementation of a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would generally contain a site map(s)
showing the construction perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, storm water collection and
discharge points, general pre- and post-construction topography, drainage patterns across the site, and
adjacent roadways.
The SWPPP must also include project construction features designed to protect against stormwater
runoff, known as Best Management Practices (BMPs). Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a
visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants, should the
BMPs fail; and a sediment monitoring plan, should the site discharge directly into a water body listed
on the 303(d) list for sediment. Section A of the Construction General Permit describes the elements
that must be contained in a SWPPP. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 during the
construction phase would ensure that a sufficient number of erosion control BMPs are implemented
to reduce potential impacts related to erosion.
MM HYD-1 Per the requirements of the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water
Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 77
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
0009-DWQ), a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the proposed
project shall be prepared and include a sufficient number of erosion control Best
Management Practices (BMPs) are implemented during the construction phase to
ensure that potential erosion issues are adequately addressed. BMPs shall include the
following, or similar, efforts: fiber rolls, street sweeping, sandbag barriers, straw bale
barriers, and storm drain inlet protection.
The development, implementation, and participation with both the NPDES General Permit and the
Construction General Permit, including the SWPPP and BMPs, would reduce project construction
effects on water quality to acceptable levels. Therefore, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure
HYD-1, construction impacts associated with water quality standards and wastewater discharge
requirements would be less than significant.
Long-Term Operation Impacts
Less Than Significant Impact. Topographically, the project site is generally flat with the northeast
corner of the site being the highest elevation and the southwest corner of the site being the lowest
elevation. In the existing condition, stormwater flows from the project site to both Lemon Street and
Lincoln Avenue before being collected by catch basins. Runoff to Lemon Street is collected by a
catch basin located on the east side of the street just north of Lincoln Avenue, while discharge to
Lincoln Avenue is collected by a catch basin located on the north side of the street just east of Lemon
Street.
From the catch basins, stormwater is conveyed through the local MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System) before discharging into Carbon Creek Channel prior to entering Gilbert Retarding
Basin. Carbon Creek Channel serves as a principle tributary of the San Gabriel River Reach 1. A
portion of the San Gabriel River downstream of the Gilbert Retarding Basin is included on the 303(d)
list of impaired water bodies. 303(d) listed impairments for the San Gabriel River are coliform
bacteria and pH, while the San Gabriel Estuary is impaired with copper, dioxin, nickel, and dissolved
oxygen. As such, pollutants of concern for the proposed project include suspended solid-sediment,
nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens, pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, and trash and
debris.
Overall, the proposed project would have a net decrease in the quantity of impervious area found on
the project site as compared to the existing condition. Currently, the project site consists of a
commercial building and associated paved parking lot that account for impervious surfaces covering
96-percent of the project site. The proposed project would decrease the impervious surfaces found on
the project site to 85-percent. Stormwater would be collected onsite by roof drains, area drains, and
catch basins, and then directed to one of two Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes located on
the northwest and southwest portion of the project site for pre-treatment prior to infiltration by one of
four MaxWell IV drywells located on the north, northwest, and southwest parts of the site (see the
BMP Exhibit in Appendix E, Hydrology, for the proposed locations of the Treatment Control BMPs).
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
78 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes are pre-treatment devises used for treatment done
through drywells. When incorporated in the design of a stormwater collection system, they prevent
clogging of and preserve the life of drywells by reducing pollutants that affect drywell performance,
specifically debris, refuse, and sediment. The MaxWell IV drywells are designed to capture and
infiltrate the entire first flush, effectively resulting in the eliminations of all pollutants.
In accordance with the Countywide Model Water Quality Management Plan, the proposed Treatment
Control BMPs would be sized to treat either the Stormwater Quality Design Flow or Stormwater
Quality Design Volume. The Stormwater Quality Design Flow is the maximum flow rate of runoff
produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2-inch of rainfall per hour, and the Stormwater Quality Design
Volume is the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th-percentile storm event, as determined
from the local historical rainfall record for the project area. With incorporation of these BMPs, the
design of the proposed project would decrease the runoff volume currently experienced on the project
site, while increasing infiltration and effectively eliminating any downstream impacts.
Therefore, with the incorporation of the proposed Treatment Control BMPs, which include Bio Clean
Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes and MaxWell IV drywells, operation impacts associated with water
quality standards and wastewater discharge requirements would be less than significant.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted?
Groundwater Supplies
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Anaheim receives its water from two main sources: (1)
the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District
(OCWD), and (2) imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(MWD). Groundwater is pumped from 18 active wells located within the City, and imported water is
delivered to the City through seven treated water connections and one untreated connection.
According to the City of Anaheim 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), local groundwater
has been the least expensive and most reliable source of water supply for the City. The City depends
heavily on the groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin each year. Groundwater
supply is projected to account for approximately 65-percent of the City’s total water supply from
2015 through 2035 in normal and single dry years. A lower Basin Production Percentage (BPP) of
62-percent is anticipated for multiple dry years. Based on data from the UWMP, Table 9 and Table
10 illustrate the City’s current and projected water demand, and the projected water supply.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 79
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Table 9: Current and Projected Water Demands (AFY)
Fiscal Year Ending Water Supply Sources
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Metropolitan (Imported) 22,031 25,263 25,671 26,476 27,036 27,106
Groundwater 44,898 46,917 47,674 49,169 50,209 50,339
Recycled Water 220 255 255 255 255
Total 66,929 72,400 73,600 75,900 77,500 77,700
Source: City of Anaheim 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2011.
Table 10: Projected Normal Water Supply and Demand (AFY)
Fiscal Year Ending
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Total Demand 72,400 73,600 75,900 77,500 77,700
Groundwater Supply 46,917 47,674 49,169 50,209 50,339
Recycled Water Supply 220 255 255 255 255
Imported Supply 25,263 25,671 26,476 27,036 27,106
Total Supply 72,400 73,600 75,900 77,500 77,700
Source: City of Anaheim 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2011.
Since the proposed project is consistent with the existing City of Anaheim General Plan “Mixed Use”
land use designation, the development of the project would be considered consistent with the City’s
future projected water demand. Therefore, impacts associated with groundwater supplies would be
less than significant.
Groundwater Recharge
Less Than Significant Impact. Overall, the proposed project would have a net decrease in the
quantity of impervious area found on the project site as compared to the existing condition.
Currently, the project site consists of a commercial building and associated paved parking lot that
account for impervious surfaces covering 96 percent of the project site. The proposed project would
decrease the impervious area found on the project site to 85 percent. When compared to the existing
condition, the proposed project would include more landscaped areas, which would account for the
11 percent increase in the amount of pervious surfaces found on the project site. These pervious areas
would allow stormwater to collect and infiltrate into subsurface soils and eventually into the
groundwater basin.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
80 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Stormwater flows from the impervious surfaces would be collected onsite by roof drains, area drains,
and catch basins, and then directed to Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes for pre-treatment
prior to infiltration by MaxWell IV drywells.
With incorporation of these BMPs, the design of the proposed project would decrease the runoff
volume currently experienced on the project site, while increasing infiltration and groundwater
recharge. Therefore, impacts associated with groundwater recharge would be less than significant.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. In the existing condition, stormwater flows from the project site to
both Lemon Street and Lincoln Avenue before being collected by catch basins. Runoff to Lemon
Street is collected by a catch basin located on the east side of the street just north of Lincoln Avenue,
while discharge to Lincoln Avenue is collected by a catch basin located on the north side of the street
just east of Lemon Street.
As proposed, stormwater would be collected onsite by roof drains, area drains, and catch basins, and
then directed to Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes for pre-treatment prior to infiltration by
MaxWell IV drywells.
With incorporation of these BMPs, the design of the proposed project would decrease the runoff
volume currently experienced on the project site, which would subsequently decrease the potential for
on- or off-site erosion or siltation. Therefore, impacts associated with the altering of the existing
drainage pattern and erosion would be less than significant.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, stormwater would be collected onsite by
roof drains, area drains, and catch basins, and then directed to Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle
Boxes for pre-treatment prior to infiltration by MaxWell IV drywells.
In accordance with the Countywide Model Water Quality Management Plan, the proposed Treatment
Control BMPs would be sized to treat either the Stormwater Quality Design Flow or Stormwater
Quality Design Volume. The Stormwater Quality Design Flow is the maximum flow rate of runoff
produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2-inch of rainfall per hour, and the or Stormwater Quality
Design Volume is the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th-percentile storm event, as
determined from the local historical rainfall record for the project area.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 81
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
With incorporation of these BMPs, the design of the proposed project would decrease the runoff
volume currently experienced on the project site, which would subsequently decrease the potential for
onsite or offsite flooding. Therefore, impacts associated with the altering of the existing drainage
pattern and flooding would be less than significant.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact. As proposed, stormwater would be collected onsite by roof drains,
area drains, and catch basins, and then directed to Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes for
pre-treatment prior to infiltration by MaxWell IV drywells. In accordance with the Countywide
Model Water Quality Management Plan, the proposed Treatment Control BMPs would be sized to
treat either the Stormwater Quality Design Flow or Stormwater Quality Design Volume. The
Stormwater Quality Design Flow is the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall
intensity of 0.2-inch of rainfall per hour, and the Stormwater Quality Design Volume is the volume of
runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th-percentile storm event, as determined from the local historical
rainfall record for the project area.
In the existing condition, the Lemon Street catch basin, which connects to a 33-inch reinforced
concrete pipe, and the Lincoln Avenue catch basin, which connects to a 33-inch reinforced concrete
pipe, have been deemed capable of adequately providing drainage from the project site (KHR
Associates 2008). The proposed BMPs, however, would greatly reduce the need for these existing
drainage features, as these features would only be needed during large storm events when stormwater
runoff exceeds the capacity of the Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes and MaxWell IV
drywells.
With incorporation of the Treatment Control BMPs, the design of the proposed project would
decrease the runoff volume currently experienced on the project site, which would subsequently
decrease the potential for polluted runoff to discharge off-site. Therefore, impacts associated with
creating or contributing runoff water would be less than significant.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, with incorporation of the proposed
Treatment Control BMPs, the design of the proposed project would decrease the runoff volume
currently experienced on the project site, while increasing infiltration and effectively eliminating any
downstream or water quality degradation impacts.
The proposed project would have a net decrease in the quantity of impervious area found on the
project site as compared to the existing condition. The proposed project would decrease the
impervious surfaces found on the project site by 11 percent, replacing these areas with landscaped
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
82 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
features that would promote the collection and infiltration of stormwater into subsurface soils and
eventually into the groundwater basin.
As proposed, stormwater would be collected onsite by roof drains, area drains, and catch basins, and
then directed to Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes for pre-treatment prior to infiltration by
MaxWell IV drywells. In accordance with the Countywide Model Water Quality Management Plan,
the proposed Treatment Control BMPs would be sized to treat either the Stormwater Quality Design
Flow or Stormwater Quality Design Volume. The Stormwater Quality Design Flow is the maximum
flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2-inch of rainfall per hour, and the
Stormwater Quality Design Volume is the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th-percentile
storm event, as determined from the local historical rainfall record for the project area. Pollutants
contained within stormwater runoff would be collected and treated by the proposed BMPs. The
proposed BMPs would reduce the proposed project’s effect on downstream water quality (i.e., the
current impaired waters within Reach 1 of the San Gabriel River) In the existing conditions,
pollutants are discharged to the catch basins located along Lemon Street or Lincoln Avenue, enter the
local MS4, and are conveyed downstream to the impaired waters of Reach 1 of the San Gabriel River.
Therefore, with the incorporation of the proposed Treatment Control BMPs, which include Bio Clean
Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes and MaxWell IV drywells, operation impacts associated with the
degradation of water quality would be less than significant.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), the project site and the surrounding area is located within the
Flood Hazard Zone identified by FEMA as “0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard.” As such, the
project site is located within a 500-year floodplain, but outside of a 100-year flood hazard area. The
nearest Flood Hazard Zone “A” (100-year flood hazard area) to the project site is a riprap lined
channel located approximately 1.2 miles northwest of the site. Therefore, although the proposed
project would introduce residential units to the project site, impacts associated with placing
residences within a 100-year flood hazard area would be less than significant.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the project site and the surrounding area is
located within the Flood Hazard Zone identified by FEMA as “0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood
Hazard.” As such, the project site is located within a 500-year floodplain, but outside of a 100-year
flood hazard area. Therefore, although the proposed project would introduce a mixed use building to
the project site, impacts associated with placing structures within a 100-year flood hazard area would
be less than significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 83
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan Safety Element, the
project site and the majority of the City of Anaheim is located within the dam inundation area of
Prado Dam. Prado Dam is located approximately 16 miles east-northeast of the project site, along the
Santa Ana River, west of the City of Corona.
Prado Dam does not have a history of dam failure. The dam is routinely inspected for structural
integrity by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), the Orange County Flood Control District,
and other regional and local agencies. The dam is routinely managed, especially during storm events,
to ensure that water levels are at safe levels. Additionally, the USACE is currently conducting
improvements on the dam and its ancillary facilities to increase capacity and reduce the opportunity
for downstream inundation during major, prolonged storm events. Therefore, impacts associated with
dam inundation would be less than significant.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. Due to its location and topographical characteristics, the project site would not be
susceptible to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Seiche would typically affect a location near a larger
body of water, such as a lake or reservoir. The project site does not occur near any body of water of
significance. The project site is located approximately 12.50 miles northeast from the Pacific Ocean,
which would reduce the potential for tsunami. Based upon the relative flat topography of the project
site and the surrounding area, as well as the lack of adjacent hillsides, the potential for mudflow on
the project site would also be reduced. Therefore, no impacts associated with seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
84 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
10. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the construction of a mixed use,
residential and commercial building. Project construction would occur on the existing development
footprint and would not expand into the surrounding established community. The proposed project
does not include any improvements that would physically extend into the neighboring community.
Following development of the proposed project, the surrounding community, including the adjacent
residential uses to the north, would remain in their existing physical condition. The proposed project
would not add new roadways, walls, fences, drainages, or other physical barriers that would limit
access to and around the neighboring community. Therefore, impacts associated with physical
division of an established community would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is designated under the General Plan as Mixed Use
(MU) that allows a dynamic urban environment that serves as a center of activity for the surrounding
area. The MU designation provides opportunities for an integrated mix of residential, retail, service,
entertainment and office opportunities in a pedestrian-friendly environment. In addition, the MU
designation includes continuous commercial street frontage on the first and perhaps second floors
supported by residential and/or office uses above. The proposed project includes a mixture of
commercial and residential which is consistent with the MU designation.
The proposed project is designated under the Zoning Ordinance as General Commercial and
Transitional. The proposed project includes a proposed change of the Transitional zone to General
Commercial. The Transitional zone is to provide a zone to include land that is used for agriculture
uses, in a transitory or interim use; however, the portion of the project site that is zoned for
Transitional (portion of the site bordering Cypress Street) has not been in agriculture for many years.
Instead, the area designated Transitional zone has been an asphalt and/or concrete parking lot
supporting office and/or automobile dealership for many decades. The change in zoning will not
result in the project causing significant and unavoidable environmental effects as discussed in this
IS/MND. Furthermore, the proposed project includes a MU overlay zone that will allow the proposed
commercial and residential uses on the project site. Section 18.32.030.130 of the City of Anaheim
Municipal Code indicates that within the MU Overlay Zone, multiple-family dwellings require a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Additionally, certain commercial uses typically found in mixed use
developments such as restaurants and general retail are permitted uses, while any establishment
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 85
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
selling alcohol require a CUP. With the required CUP(s), the proposed project would be a permitted
use within the MU Overlay Zone and considered consistent with surrounding land uses.
The project site is located within the Anaheim Colony Historic District, which includes buildings
already listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as structures that have been
determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register, but have not been formally designated at
this time. The City prepared the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan in 1999 and The
Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles and Design Guidelines in 2003. The Plan and the Guidelines
include goals, objectives, and guidelines to preserve and protect historic buildings within the
Anaheim Colony Historic District.
One National Register-listed property, the Samuel Kraemer Building (circa 1925), a former bank
building, is located on Claudina Street within the viewshed of the project site. The planned design of
the proposed project has borrowed stylistic elements from this historic building, creating a
compatibility of design concepts across the viewshed. The design of the complex borrows window
and façade detailing to create a visual link with a prominent building in the Anaheim Colony Historic
District, displaying a sensitivity to the overall historic character of the neighborhood. The proposed
design features of the proposed project’s structures will result in consistency with the Anaheim
Colony Historic District Preservation Plan and The Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles and Design
Guidelines.
Overall, the proposed project will result in less than significant impacts associated with applicable
land use plans, policies, or regulations.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities
conservation plan?
No Impact. The project site is not located within the boundary of any Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other approved habitat conservation plan. According
to the City of Anaheim General Plan Green Element, a portion of the City generally south of SR-91
and east of SR-55 falls within the Orange County Central-Coast Sub-regional Natural Communities
Conservation Plan (NCCP). This portion of the City is located approximately five miles east of the
project site. Therefore, no impacts associated with conflicts with conservation plans would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
86 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
11. Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. According to the County of Orange General Plan Resources Element, mineral resources
within the County are primarily limited to sand, gravel, and aggregate resources occurring in portions
of the Santa Ana River, Santiago Creek, San Juan Creek, and Arroyo Trabuco. No mineral extraction
activities occur on or adjacent to the project site, and no known mineral resources are present on the
site or in the surrounding area. Therefore, no impacts associated with the loss of known mineral
resources would occur.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. As previously discussed, the County of Orange General Plan Resources Element states
that mineral resources within the County, including the general project area, are limited to portions of
the Santa River, Santiago Creek, San Juan Creek, and Arroyo Trabuco. No mineral extraction
activities occur on or adjacent to the project site, and no locally-important mineral resources recovery
site is present on the site or in the surrounding area. Therefore, no impacts associated with the loss of
locally-important mineral resource recovery sites would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 87
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
12. Noise
Noise monitoring was performed using an Extech Model 407780 Type 2 integrating sound level
meters. The Extech meter was programmed in “slow” mode to record the sound pressure level at
1-second intervals in A-weighted form. The sound level meter and microphone was mounted
approximately five feet above the ground and equipped with a windscreen during all measurements.
The sound level meter was calibrated before monitoring using an Extech calibrator, Model 407766.
The noise level measurement equipment meets American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
specifications for sound level meters (S1.4-1983 identified in Chapter 19.68.020.AA).
The noise monitoring locations were selected in order to obtain noise measurements of the current
noise sources impacting the project site and the project vicinity, and to provide a baseline for any
potential noise impacts that may be created by development of the proposed project. The sites are
shown in Exhibit 6. Appendix F, Noise Analysis, includes a photographic index of the study area and
noise level measurement locations.
The noise measurements were recorded between 11:28 hours and 12:54 hours on Monday, March 12,
2012. At the start of the noise monitoring, the temperature was 62°F, the sky was partly cloudy with
calm wind conditions ranging between 0 and 3 mph.
The noise measurements were taken at five (5) locations at the project site. The results of the noise
level measurements are provided below in Table 11.
Table 11: Existing Noise Level Measurements
Site
Location Description Leq LMAX LMIN
Site 1 At the southeast corner of Pearson Park; ~115 feet
northwest of the project site.
58.2 73.2 44.5
Site 2 Just south of the adjacent residential uses
immediately north of the project site, ~50 feet north
of the project site.
57.8 79.1 47.4
Site 3 On the western project site boundary adjacent to the
existing egress/ingress driveway
59.8 74.0 46.1
Site 4 Just outside of the southern project site boundary
adjacent to Lincoln Avenue.
76.8 103.1* 51.1
Site 5 Just outside of the eastern project site boundary
adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard.
68.2 81.2 56.9
* High maximum due to a passing emergency vehicle.
Refer to Appendix F for calculation tables.
Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2012.
Would the project result in:
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
88 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Anaheim General Plan and
Municipal Code contains standards that regulate the exposure of persons to or the generation of
excessive noise levels. The General Plan Noise Element includes the following Goals and Policies
regarding noise that are applicable to the proposed project:
Goal 1.1
Protect sensitive land uses from excessive noise through diligent planning and
regulation.
Policies:
1) Update City regulations to adopt Land Use Compatibility for Community
Noise Exposure and California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards as
appropriate.
2) Continue to enforce acceptable noise standards consistent with health and
quality of life goals and employ effective techniques of noise abatement
through such means as a noise ordinance, building codes, and subdivision
and zoning regulations.
3) Consider the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise environment
when preparing, revising or reviewing development proposals.
4) Require mitigation where sensitive uses are to be placed along transportation
routes to ensure that noise levels are minimized through appropriate means of
mitigation thereby maintaining quality of life standards.
5) Encourage proper site planning and architecture to reduce noise impacts.
6) Discourage the siting of sensitive uses in areas in excess of 65 dBA CNEL
without appropriate mitigation.
7) Require that site-specific noise studies be conducted by a qualified acoustic
consultant utilizing acceptable methodologies while reviewing the
development of sensitive land uses or development that has the potential to
impact sensitive land uses.
00550033 • 03/2012 | 6_noise_meter_loc.mxd
Exhibit 6Noise Meter LocationsNORTHMichael Brandman Associates
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery. MBA Field Survey and GIS Data, 2012.
CITY OF ANAHEIM • UPTOWN VILLAGEINITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Cypress St Cypress St
Lincoln Ave Lincoln Ave
Anahe
im
B
lvd
Anahe
im
B
lvd
Lemon
S
t
Lemon
S
t
1 2
5
4
3
140 0 14070
Feet
Legend
Project Boundary
Noise Meter Locations
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 91
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Goal 2.1
Encourage the reduction of noise from transportation-related noise sources such as
motor vehicles, aircraft operations, and railroad movements.
Policies
2) Employ noise mitigation practices, as necessary, when designing future
streets and highways, and when improvements occur along existing road
segments. Mitigation measures should emphasize the establishment of
natural buffers or setbacks between the arterial roadways and adjoining
noise-sensitive areas.
3) Require that development generating increased traffic and subsequent
increases in the ambient noise level adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses
provide appropriate mitigation measures.
Goal 3.1
Protect residents from the effects of “spill over” or nuisance noise emanating from
the City’s activity centers.
Policies
1) Discourage new projects located in commercial or entertainment areas from
exceeding stationary-source noise standards at the property line of proximate
residential or commercial uses, as appropriate.
3) Enforce standards to regulate noise from construction activities. Particular
emphasis shall be placed on the restriction of the hours in which work other
than emergency work may occur. Discourage construction on weekends or
holidays except in the case of construction proximate to schools where these
operations could disturb the classroom environment.
4) Require that construction equipment operate with mufflers and intake
silencers no less effective than originally equipped.
5) Encourage the use of portable noise barriers for heavy equipment operations
performed within 100 feet of existing residences or make applicant provide
evidence as to why the use of such barriers is infeasible.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
92 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
In addition to the Noise Element, the City of Anaheim Municipal Code contains the following
ordinances regarding noise that are applicable to the proposed project:
Chapter 6.70 Sound Pressure Levels
Section 6.70.010 Established
Sound produced in excess of the sound pressure levels permitted herein are hereby
determined to be objectionable and constitute an infringement upon the right and
quiet enjoyment of property in this City.
No person shall within the City create any sound radiated for extended periods from
any premises which produces a sound pressure level at any point on the property line
in excess of sixty decibels (Re 0.0002 Microbar) read on the A-scale of a sound level
meter. Readings shall be taken in accordance with the instrument manufacturer’s
instructions, using the slowest meter response.
The sound level measuring microphone shall be placed at any point on the property
line, but not closer than three (3) feet from any wall and not less than three (3) feet
above the ground, where the above listed maximum sound pressure level shall apply.
At any point the measured level shall be the average of not less than three (3)
readings taken at two (2) minute intervals. To have valid readings, the levels must be
five (5) decibels or more above the levels prevailing at the same point when the
source’s of the alleged objectionable sound are not operating.
Sound pressure levels shall be measured with a sound level meter manufactured
according to American Standard S1.4-1961 published by the American Standards
Association, Inc., New York City, New York.
Traffic sounds sound created by emergency activities and sound created by
governmental units or their contractors shall be exempt from the applications of this
chapter. Sound created by construction or building repair of any premises within the
City shall be exempt from the applications of this chapter during the hours of 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Additional work hours may be permitted if deemed necessary by
the Director of Public Works or Building Official. (Ord. 2526 § 1 (part); June 18,
1968; Ord. 3400 § 1; February 11, 1975: Ord. 6020 § 1; April 25, 2006.)
Chapter 18.32 Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone
Section 18.32.130 Compatibility Standards
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 93
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
.020 Restriction on Activities) Commercial uses shall be designed and operated, and
hours of operation limited, where appropriate, so that neighboring residents are not
exposed to offensive noise, especially from traffic, trash collection, routine deliveries
or late night activity. No use shall produce continual loading or unloading of heavy
trucks at the site between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m.
.030 Noise Standards) Residential portions of the project shall be designed to limit
the interior noise caused by the commercial and parking portions of the project, to a
maximum of forty-five (45) db CNEL on an annual basis in any habitable room with
windows closed. Proper design may include, but shall not be limited to, building
orientation, double or extra-strength windows, wall and ceiling insulation, and
orientation and insulation of vents. Where it is necessary that windows be closed in
order to achieve the required level, means shall be provided for ventilation/cooling to
provide a habitable environment.
.040 Vibrations and Odors) No use, activity or process shall produce continual
vibrations or noxious odors that are perceptible, without instruments, by the average
person at the property lines of the site, or within the interior of residential units on the
site.
An increase of 3 dBA is considered barely perceivable to most healthy ears. Typically, an increase of
5 dBA or greater is considered one of significance, as such an increase is considered readily
perceptible. According to the City of Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR’s Noise
Section 5.10.3, Thresholds of Significance:
Mobile-source noise (i.e., vehicle noise) is preempted from local regulation, but is still
subject to CEQA. Here, a change of 5 dBA would denote a significant impact if their
resultant noise level were to remain within the objectives of the General Plan (e.g., 65 dBA
(CNEL) at a residential location), or 3 dBA if the resultant level were to meet or exceed the
objectives of the General Plan (Caltrans defines a noise increase as substantial when the
predicted noise levels with the project would exceed existing noise levels by 12 dBA Leq.).
Also note that an impact is only potentially significant if it affects a receptor. An increase in
noise in an uninhabited location would not denote a significant impact.
Long-Term Vehicular Noise
The Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix G) prepared for the proposed project determined which
roadways are likely to be affected by vehicles accessing the proposed project. Average daily traffic
(ADT) volumes for those roadways under various scenarios were calculated and off-site noise levels
were calculated along roadway segments in the project study area for the following scenarios:
existing conditions; existing plus project conditions; year 2015 conditions with project, and year 2015
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
94 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
conditions without project. Table 12 shows the traffic noise levels generated on the surrounding
roadways within the project study area. As shown, the difference in traffic noise from the existing
conditions is the increase in noise attributable to project-related traffic at buildout.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Michael Brandman Associates 95 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc Table 12: Noise Levels 50 feet from Roadway Centerline Existing (2011) Existing Plus Project 2015 E + P 2015 w/o Project 2015 + Project Road Segment ADT dB CNEL ADT Total Project-Specific Increase ADT dB CNEL ADT Total Project-Specific Increase Anaheim Boulevard South of La Palma Avenue 17,421 70.1 17,791 70.2 0.1 18,128 70.3 19,378 70.6 0.3 South of Sycamore Street 18,777 70.4 19,187 70.5 0.1 19,539 70.6 20,829 70.9 0.3 South of Cypress Street 19,604 70.6 20,574 70.8 0.2 20,400 70.8 22,250 71.2 0.4 South of Lincoln Avenue 19,455 70.6 19,965 70.7 0.1 20,245 70.8 24,275 71.6 0.8 South of Broadway 19,784 70.7 20,244 70.8 0.1 20,587 70.8 24,567 71.6 0.8 Cypress Street East of Lemon Street 889 57.2 2,339 61.4 4.2 925 57.4 2,375 61.5 4.1 Lemon Street South of Cypress Street 2,047 60.8 2,877 62.3 1.5 2,130 61.0 2,960 62.4 1.4 Harbor Boulevard South of Lincoln Avenue 25,442 71.8 25,562 71.8 0.0 26,475 71.9 26,595 71.9 0.0 Lincoln Avenue East of Harbor Boulevard 25,433 71.8 26,243 71.9 0.1 26,466 71.9 29,036 72.3 0.4 East of Clementine Street 23,960 71.5 24,770 71.6 0.1 24,933 71.7 27,503 72.1 0.4 East of Lemon Street 22,865 71.3 23,095 71.3 0.0 23,793 71.5 25,783 71.8 0.3 East of Anaheim Boulevard 22,366 71.2 22,826 71.3 0.1 23,274 71.4 24,614 71.6 0.2 West of Olive Street 20,638 70.8 21,098 70.9 0.1 21,476 71.0 22,816 71.3 0.3 Notes: * The uniform distance of 50 feet allows for direct comparisons of potential increases or decreases in noise levels based upon various traffic scenarios; however, at this distance, no specific noise standard necessarily applies. Refer to Appendix F for calculation tables. Source: Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Noise Model, Version 2.5, 2012
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
96 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
A maximum noise increase of 4.2 dBA due to project-related traffic would occur along the segment
of Cypress Street, east of Lemon Street (see Appendix F, Noise Analysis, for calculation table). Per
the City of Anaheim General Plan Noise Element, a change of 5 dBA would denote a significant
impact. Since the increase in noise levels for the existing plus project conditions and the year 2015
with project conditions over the existing conditions is less than this 5 dBA threshold of significance, a
significant impact associated with off-site vehicular noise would not occur.
Future (year 2015 conditions with project ) noise impacts related to vehicular traffic were modeled
using a version of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-108), as modified for CNEL and the “Calveno” energy curves. Site-specific
information is entered, such as roadway traffic volumes, roadway active width, source-to-receiver
distances, travel speed, noise source and receiver heights, and the percentages of automobiles,
medium trucks, and heavy trucks that the traffic is made up of throughout the day, amongst other
variables. Interior noise levels are determined by reducing the level of noise impacting a building’s
facade, by the attenuation properties provided by that building’s construction materials.
Because detailed architectural plans were not available for analysis at the time this study was
prepared, typical assumptions have been applied. The typical structural attenuation of residential
buildings is approximately 20 dBA. Typical commercial/industrial building practices provide a
minimum of approximately 25 dBA of noise attenuation.
Table 13: Interior Noise Levels
Road Location
Distance to
Receiver
from
Centerline of
Road (feet)
Calculated
Exterior
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Estimated
Interior
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Exterior 90 53.3 —
First floor façade 90 54.6 34.6
Second floor façade 90 54.5 34.5
Third floor façade 90 54.4 34.4
Cypress Street
Fourth floor façade 90 54.2 34.2
Exterior 44 57.3 —
First floor façade 44 57.3 37.3
Second floor façade 44 57.1 37.1
Third floor façade 44 56.9 36.9
Lemon Street
Fourth floor façade 44 56.6 36.6
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 97
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Table 13 (cont.): Interior Noise Levels
Road Location
Distance to
Receiver
from
Centerline of
Road (feet)
Calculated
Exterior
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Estimated
Interior
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Exterior 69 66.7 —
First floor façade 69 66.7 46.7
Second floor façade 69 66.6 46.6
Third floor façade 69 66.5 46.5
Lincoln Avenue
Fourth floor façade 69 66.4 46.4
South Anaheim Boulevard Exterior of retail building 74 65.9 40.9
Notes:
Refer to Appendix F for calculation tables.
Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2012.
Table 13 shows that the first floor façade of the building adjacent to Lincoln Avenue will be exposed
to a noise level of 66.7 dBA, in excess of the 65 dBA residential standard. The floors above are also
exposed to exterior levels higher than 65 dBA. As a result, interior noise levels would exceed the 45
dBA (CNEL) interior standard established by the State of California Interior and Exterior Noise
Standards, as shown on Table N-3 in the Noise Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan.
According to the Goal 1.1, Policy 4 contained in the Noise Element, mitigation is required where
sensitive uses are placed along transportation routes to ensure that noise levels are minimized through
appropriate means of mitigation, thereby maintaining quality of life standards. Exterior noise
mitigation, such as walls or berms are not permitted at this location. To reduce the interior noise
impacts to the acceptable level of 45 dBA (CNEL) or below, windows and doors with a Sound
Transmission Class (STC) rating of 22 or higher will need to be incorporated into the construction of
units adjacent to Lincoln Avenue. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 shall be implemented during
construction of the project. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, a significant impact
associated with interior noise levels would not occur. Standard construction practices will be
sufficient to reduce interior noise levels to less than 45 dBA for units along Cypress Street and Lemon
Street. Interior noise levels within the commercial uses adjacent to south Anaheim Boulevard will be
well below the interior noise standard of 50 dBA for commercial uses.
MM NOI-1 Double or extra-strength windows and doors with an STC rating of 22 or higher shall
be installed in all residential units adjacent to Lincoln Avenue. Interior noise levels
must then be checked to ensure interior noise levels are at or below 45 dB (CNEL).
Where it is necessary that windows be closed in order to achieve the required level,
means shall be provided for ventilation/cooling shall be included to provide a
habitable environment.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
98 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Long-Term Stationary Noise
Residential Uses
The proposed project is a mixed use residential and commercial use. The residential portion would
not be considered a substantial source of stationary noise. The proposed project would also include
facilities such as a pool, clubhouse, and fitness center that would be centrally located within the
building. The proposed buildings would shield the adjacent land uses from the minimal noise
generated by residents using these amenities. Therefore, stationary noise levels from the proposed
residential uses would be less than significant.
Commercial/Retail Uses
Commercial/retail uses are proposed for the eastern portion of the project site. The bulk of the
residential portion would be shielded from activities at the commercial/retail uses by the three-story
parking garage structure proposed for the middle of the project site. The one-bedroom, one-bathroom
residential unit proposed for the southeastern edge of the residential portion would not be shielded by
the parking garage. However, this particular residential unit would be nearest to the rear of the 9,800
sq ft commercial/retail space proposed for the southeastern corner of the building, with the retail
structure itself shielding this specific residential unit from the activities closer to the center of the
commercial/retail uses. Therefore, stationary noise levels from the proposed commercial/retail uses
would be less than significant.
Parking Garage and Exterior Parking Lot
The predominant noise sources associated with parking garage activities include car doors slamming;
cars starting; cars accelerating away from the parking stalls; car alarms being activated; brake squeal;
and suspension squeal when vehicles pass over speed bumps. Activities at the parking structure
would be sporadic in nature, occurring throughout the day with the highest concentration of activities
during the peak morning and afternoon periods. Parking garage activities would generate an average
hourly noise level of 57 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. This is less than the 65 dBA residential
standard. Therefore, stationary noise levels from the proposed parking garage would be less than
significant.
An uncovered exterior parking lot is also proposed along the northern portion of the project site and
would involve similar activities and generate similar noise impacts (approximately 57 dBA) as the
parking garage. The noise associated with parking structure/lot activities would be overshadowed by
the traffic noise along Cypress Street and is slightly lower than the noise levels already experienced
by residents in this area (57.8 dBA Leq and 79.1 dBA Lmax). Therefore, stationary noise levels from
the proposed exterior parking lot would be less than significant.
Short-Term Stationary Noise
As discussed in Section 12d), short-term construction noise impacts would be less than significant
because construction noise is exempt from the City of Anaheim Municipal Code and noise levels
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 99
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
would not exceed the OSHA standard. Although construction noise levels are anticipated to be less
than significant, the following conditions of approval would further reduce construction noise levels.
• All construction equipment shall use available noise suppression devices and properly
maintained mufflers. All internal combustion engines used in the project area shall be
equipped with the type of muffler recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. In addition, all
equipment shall be maintained in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by
faulty or poorly maintained engine, drive train, and other components.
• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise
is directed away from sensitive noise receptors and as far as possible from the boundary of the
residential use.
• The construction contractor shall post a sign, clearly visible onsite, with a contact name and
telephone number of the owner’s authorized representative to respond in the event of a noise
complaint.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. The human response to vibration greatly depends on whether the
source is continuous or transient. Continuous sources of vibration include certain construction
activities, while transient sources include large vehicle movements. Generally, thresholds of
perception and agitation are higher for continuous sources.
Table 14 illustrates the human response to both continuous and transient sources of groundborne
vibration.
Table 14: Human Response to Groundborne Vibration
Peak Particle Velocity (inches/second)
Continuous Transient Human Response
0.40 2.00 Severe
0.10 0.90 Strongly perceptible
0.04 0.25 Distinctly perceptible
0.01 0.04 Barely perceptible
Source: California Department of Transportation, 2004.
Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower.
These continuous vibrations are not noticeable to humans whose threshold of perception is around 65
VdB. Offsite sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
100 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely produce
perceptible groundborne noise or vibration (Table 15). Acceptable vibration levels for an office
environment would be 84 VdB, while levels for a residential use would be 78 VdB.
Table 15: Vibration Levels Generated by Construction Equipment
Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
(inches/second) at 25 feet
Approximate Vibration Level
(LV) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range)
0.644 (typical)
112
104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range
0.170 typical
105
93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill
(slurry wall)
0.008 in soil
0.017 in rock
66
75
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006.
While long-term operations of the proposed project would not generate excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels, short-term construction activities could potentially introduce
groundborne vibration to the project site and the surrounding area. Specialty construction equipment
such as pile drivers or large earthmovers, as well as specific construction activities such as well
drilling, can be a continuous source of excessive groundborne vibration.
Construction of the proposed project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers,
which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The primary source of
vibration during project construction would likely be from a bulldozer (tractor), which would
generate 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet with an approximate vibration level of 87 VdB. The
vibration from the bulldozer would be intermittent and not a source of continual vibration.
The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include the residential uses located north of the site,
approximately 52 feet from the northern project boundary. The bulldozer, however, would primarily
be used during demolition of the existing onsite building, and would operate on average
approximately 220 feet from the closest sensitive receptor. It is anticipated that vibration levels
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 101
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
generated by a bulldozer and experienced at the nearest offsite structure would be less than 50 VdB,
well below the acceptable level of 78 VdB for residential (sensitive) uses during the day.
While grading and earthmoving activities would occur on the project site, the use of pile drivers, large
earthmovers, and other construction equipment and activities associated with groundborne vibration
are not expected to occur. Demolition of the existing onsite building would not require the use of
blasting, wrecking ball, or other groundborne vibration-generating equipment. Therefore, impacts
associated with excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels would be less than
significant.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As previously described in Section 12a),
increases in long-term noise levels related to the proposed project could be significant. However,
Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is recommended to reduce noise levels on proposed residential uses along
Lincoln Avenue to less than significant. Less than significant long-term noise impacts on uses in the
project vicinity would occur as described in Section 12a).
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Anaheim’s Noise Ordinance regulates the timing of
construction activities. No construction shall be permitted outside of the hours specified in Chapter
6.70 of the City’s Municipal Code. The City restricts construction activities to the daytime hours of
7:00 AM and 7:00 PM.
The potential for construction noise to become objectionable depends on the magnitude of noise
generated by the construction equipment, the frequency of noise sources during the construction day,
and total duration of construction activities. Construction activities would comply with the City of
Anaheim Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction. Overall, construction activities
would be restricted to the least noise-sensitive portions of the day, maximum noise levels would be
infrequent throughout the workday, and construction noise would conclude once the proposed project
is completed.
The nearest existing residential uses to the project site include the residential uses located north of the
site, approximately 52 feet from the northern project boundary. The backyards (useable space) of
these residential uses are separated from Cypress Street and the project site by an existing 5-foot
block wall, which would further reduce noise levels.
Grading is considered the noisiest phase of construction. As such, the anticipated grading equipment
was modeled. Modeling for construction-related noise was performed using the U.S. Department of
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
102 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Transportation Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model
(RCNM). The RCNM is the FHWA national model used for the prediction of construction-related
noise and to determine compliance with noise limits for a variety of types of construction projects of
varying complexity. The RCNM includes an extensive compilation of built-in reference noise levels
for dozens of types of construction-related equipment based on manufacturer and actual monitored
sources. The results from RCNM analysis are shown in Table 16 below.
Table 16: Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment
Description
Noise Level
(Lmax dBA) at 50
feet
Distance to
Receptor
(feet)
Maximum
Noise Level
(Lmax dBA)
at
Receptor1
Average
Noise Level
(Leq dBA)
at
Receptor1, 2
Grader 85 220 72.1 68.2
Excavator 80.7 220 67.8 63.9
Dozer 81.7 220 68.8 64.8
Tractor 84 220 71.1 67.2
Notes:
1 Noise levels are based on an average distance, which would be from the center of the
project site to the edge of the residential property line.
2 Represents the noise level averaged over the time the equipment is operated (not a 24-
hr average level, such as CNEL or Ldn), if the equipment was continually used.
Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (Appendix F).
Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of
full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Therefore, noise
levels fluctuate during construction activities. Although there would be a relatively high single event
noise exposure potential, resulting in potential short-term intermittent annoyances, the effect in long-
term ambient noise levels would be small when averaged over longer time (24 hours for CNEL). As
shown by the ambient noise level measurements in Table 11, the maximum noise levels in the project
vicinity can be as high as 103.1 dBA (Lmax), or 81.2 dBA (Lmax) without emergency vehicles. The
results shown in Table 16 show that construction equipment would generate maximum noise levels of
72.1 dBA (Lmax) at 220 feet. Although the nearest existing residential uses to the project site are
located approximately 52 feet from the northern project boundary, the majority of grading activities
would occur towards the central portion of the site, at an average distance of 220 feet from these
sensitive receptors. Noise generated from construction equipment would be transitory, intermittent,
and not a source of continuous noise. As mentioned previously, Section 6.70.010 of the City of
Anaheim Municipal Code states, “Sound created by construction or building repair of any premises
within the City shall be exempt from the applications of this chapter during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m.”
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 103
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
While exempt from local statutes, since some construction activities could still result in higher noise
levels, a noise threshold utilizing the Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) agency
limits of noise exposure is used. Identifying a significance threshold using an OSHA standard is
considered conservative. The OSHA standard is limiting noise exposure of workers to 90 dB or less
over 8 continuous hours, or 105 dB or less over 1 continuous hour. For the purpose of analyzing
potential noise impacts using the OSHA-established noise threshold, onsite construction noise levels
that could expose residents or workers to more than 90 dB for over 8 continuous hours, or more than
105 dB for over 1 continuous hour are considered a significant noise impact. As shown in Table 17,
noise levels attributed to the onsite use of construction equipment would not exceed 85 dBA (Lmax) at
50 feet. As previously addressed, these noise levels would fluctuate during the workday. However,
construction noise would not exceed either the OSHA-established eight or one hour noise threshold.
Therefore, based on proceeding analysis, impacts associated with construction noise would be less
than significant. The conditions of approval identified in Section 12a) above would further reduce
construction noise levels.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles
of a public use airport. The nearest public use airport is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, which is
located approximately 4.2 miles northwest of the project site. Additionally, John Wayne Airport, is
located approximately 11 miles southeast of the project site. Any coincidental air traffic above the
project site would occur at a higher elevation that would not generate substantial noise levels on the
site. Therefore, no impacts associated with public use airports would occur.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. No private airstrips are located within the vicinity of the project site. The City of
Anaheim contains only heliports and helistops and does not contain any airstrips. As previously
discussed, any coincidental air traffic above the project site would occur at a higher elevation that
would not generate substantial noise levels on the site. Therefore, no impacts associated with private
airstrips would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
104 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
13. Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element provides a
blueprint for the future development of the City. The Land Use Element identifies 16,449 acres of
residential land uses, including 614 acres of mixed use land uses, and a projected 131,385 total
dwelling units housing 404,263 persons at buildout. According to Table LU-5 on page LU-40 of the
Land Use Element, this buildout population projection is based upon a factor of 3.3 persons per
household in residential areas, and 1.5 persons per household in mixed use areas.
Using the factor of 1.5 persons per household in mixed use areas, as identified in the Land Use
Element, the proposed project would provide housing for approximately 330 residents (220 total units
multiplied by 1.5 persons per household results in 330 people).
Figure 2-1 on page 2-3 of the City of Anaheim General Plan Housing Element indicates that, at the
time of publication, the City anticipated an additional 15,450 new residents between 2010 and 2020.
Based on 330 residents, the number of new residents generated by the proposed project would
represent approximately two-percent of the 15,450 new residents already expected by the City.
According to the City of Anaheim General Plan, a total of 131,385 dwelling units are anticipated
within the City’s planning areas at buildout. As of 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that 104,237
residential units exist in the City, leaving a remaining capacity of 27,148 new dwelling units. The
proposed project would include 220 new residential units, which would help the City meet its need
for dwelling units at buildout.
The City of Anaheim General Plan Housing Element provides an overview of existing housing needs
in the City. In particular, the Housing Element identifies general reasons that help further explain the
City’s future housing needs, including needs resulting from overcrowding and needs resulting from
population growth and demolition of the existing housing stock. The Housing Element acknowledges
that the City’s current availability of two-bedroom units and larger fails to meet existing needs to
accommodate larger families. The proposed project would include a balanced mix of studio units,
one-bedroom units, and two-bedroom units that would meet the needs of both individuals and
families, while potentially offering an alternative to families currently experiencing overcrowding.
Additionally, based upon the U.S. Energy Information Agency’s metric of 945 sq ft of floor space per
retail/service employee, the 18,000 sq ft of proposed commercial/retail space would generate
approximately 19 employees. It is anticipated that the majority of these employment opportunities
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 105
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
would be filled by residents of the proposed project or by local residents. The roughly 19 employees
estimated to operate the first-floor retail operations would represent a nominal percentage of the City
of Anaheim’s total population and would not represent a substantial increase in total population.
Moreover, as previously discussed, the City’s General Plan has anticipated and accounted for an
increase in population.
Therefore, based upon the above, impacts associated with population growth would be less than
significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. In its existing condition, the project site consists of a vacant 25,000 sq ft commercial
building and an associated parking lot. Currently, no residential uses occur on the project site.
Additionally, no element of the proposed project would conflict with any of the surrounding
residential uses. As a result, the proposed project would not displace any numbers of existing
housing. Therefore, no impacts associated with the displacement of existing housing would occur.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact. As previously discussed, no residential uses currently occur on the project site, and the
proposed project would not displace any number of existing housing. As such, the proposed project
would not displace any numbers of people. Therefore, no impacts associated with the displacement
of people would occur.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
106 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
14. Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Anaheim Fire Department (AFD) provides fire protection
services in the City of Anaheim. The AFD operates 12 fire stations comprised of 10 engine
companies and five truck companies, and employees 227 firefighters, six battalion chiefs, and various
other support staff. The Department is responsible for all fire, rescue, and medical aid calls in the
City. In addition to these responsibilities, the Department is also charged with maintaining both a
Type I Haz Mat Response unit and an Urban Search and Rescue Team. Downtown Station No. 1
(500 E. Broadway) is the closest fire station to the project site, located approximately 0.6 miles via
local roads from the site. Downtown Station No. 1 houses Paramedic Engine 1, Engine 21, and Truck
1. The second nearest fire station to the project site is Stadium Station No. 7 (2222 E. Ball Road),
which is located roughly 2.75 miles via local roads from the site (City of Anaheim 2012a).
The AFD maintains a response time goal that requires the first engine company to respond within five
minutes to 90-percent of all incidents, and eight minutes to the remaining 10-percent. The AFD also
requires a maximum of 10 minutes for the first truck company to respond to 100-percent of all
incidents (City of Anaheim 2012a). In an email correspondence (Appendix H, Public Services) dated
April 5, 2012, Rusty Coffelt, Deputy Chief of Support Services with the AFD provided information
that stated that in 2010, the average total travel time for incidents was five minutes, eighteen seconds
for all calls.
Based on the relatively short distance between the project site and Downtown Station No. 1, engine
and truck companies would be able to respond to the site within AFD’s response time goal.
As such, the AFD would be able to maintain its response time goals without construction of new or
expansion of existing AFD facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with fire protection services and
facilities would be less than significant.
b) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Anaheim Police Department (APD) provides police protection
services in the City of Anaheim. The APD operates out of its Headquarters (425 S. Harbor
Boulevard), East Station (8201 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road), and West Station (320 S. Beach
Boulevard), and employees 400 sworn officers and a support staff of over 173. The Department is
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 107
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
responsible for patrol, investigations, traffic enforcement, traffic control, vice and narcotics
enforcement, airborne patrol, crime suppression, community policing, tourist-oriented policing, and
detention facilities (City of Anaheim 2012b).
In a written correspondence (Appendix H, Public Services) dated March 28, 2012, Lieutenant Jarret
Young of the APD states the APD has a response time goal of eight minutes to any Priority 1 Calls.
The approximate average response time of patrol units to Priority 1 emergency calls throughout the
jurisdiction is an average of 6.1 minutes. The response times for non-emergency Priority 2 and
Priority 3 calls are an average of 8.6 minutes and 19.2 minutes, respectively (City of Anaheim
2012b). The APD does not currently have a service ratio based on population of a particular service
area.
According to the written correspondence, the APD would not need to expand existing or construct
new facilities to maintain acceptable response times or other performance objectives. Therefore,
impacts associated with police protection services and facilities would be less than significant.
c) Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Anaheim City School District (ACSD) provides elementary
school services (Kindergarten through Sixth Grade) for students in the project area. The ACSD is
comprised of 24 schools located throughout a greater portion of the City (Anaheim City School
District 2012). The ACSD’s 2010-2030 Facilities Master Plan indicates that after peaking at 22,426
enrolled students during the 2001-2002 school year, enrollment currently sits at 19,274 students for
the 2011-2012 school year. The ACSD currently has capacity for 22,425 students, which represents a
3,151-seat surplus (Anaheim City School District 2011). Franklin Elementary (521 W. Water Street)
is the closest ACSD school to the project site, located approximately 0.66 miles southwest of the site.
The Anaheim Union High School District (AUHSD) provides intermediate school services (Seventh
and Eighth Grades) and high school services (Ninth through Twelfth Grades) for students in the
project area. The AUHSD is comprised of 20 schools located throughout the central and western
portions of the City (Anaheim Union High School District 2012). The California Department of
Education indicates that enrollment sat at 33,049 students for the 2010-2011 school year (California
Department of Education 2010). Sycamore Junior High School (1801 E. Sycamore Street) and
Anaheim High School (811 W. Lincoln Avenue) are the closest AUHSD schools to the project site,
located approximately 1.25 miles northeast and roughly 0.55 miles west, respectively, of the site.
Using the student generation rate found in ACSD’s 2008 Fee Justification Report for New Residential
and Commercial/Industrial Development, multifamily residential uses generate elementary school
students at 0.3609 students per dwelling unit. At 220 residential units, the proposed project could
generate approximately 80 elementary school students. Additionally, to determine the amount of
intermediate school and high school students that the proposed project would produce, student
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
108 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
generation rates found in the Public Services and Facilities section of the City of Anaheim General
Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR were used. According to these generation rates, multifamily
residential uses produce intermediate school students at 0.013 students per dwelling unit and high
school students at 0.032 students per unit. At 220 residential units, the proposed project would
generate approximately three intermediate school students and roughly seven high school students.
In an email correspondence (Appendix H, Public Services) dated March 26, 2012, Tom Rizzuti,
Director of Facilities and Planning with the ACSD stated that the ACSD continues to be
overcrowded, with five schools currently on a multi-track year round calendar and over 200 portable
classrooms presently in use. The correspondence concluded that while the project in and of itself may
or may not create the need for additional school facilities, when coupled with other residential
projects throughout the ACSD’s enrollment boundary, the combined projects would exacerbate the
need for additional facilities and result in potentially significant impact to the ACSD.
While the proposed project would generate a more modest amount of intermediate and high school
students when compared with elementary students, the AUHSD is also currently experiencing the
effects of overcrowding and aging facilities. Similarly, the project in and of itself may or may not
create the need for additional school facilities, and when coupled with other similar projects that
would also generate new students, would result in potentially significant impacts to the AUHSD.
Per SB 50 (also know as Proposition 1A and codified as Government Code Section 65995), school
districts are permitted to levy development fees to support school construction necessitated by that
development and receive a 50-percent match from State bond money. According to Table 3-17 on
page 3-37 of the City of Anaheim General Plan Housing Element, the Applicant would be accessed a
School Facilities fee of $2.63 per sq ft. These fees would help facilitate construction of new and the
improvement and modernization of existing facilities. These fees would assist in offsetting any of the
potentially significant effects due to the proposed project’s contribution to an increase in student
populations. Therefore, based upon the mandatory fair share payment of School Facilities fees,
impacts associated with school services and facilities would be less than significant.
d) Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include 220 residential units that would
house approximately 330 residents. At least a portion of these residents are anticipated to patronize
the various existing pocket, neighborhood, and community parks, as well as nature centers and
specialized recreational facilities operated by the City of Anaheim. The closest park to the project
site is the 19-acre Pearson Park, which is located immediately to the northwest of the site and
provides a wide range of passive and active recreational opportunities. Other parks occur in the
project area, including the 0.2-acre Colony Park, the 3.0-acre George Washington Park, and the
Downtown Community Center.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 109
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
The 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) authorizes the City of Anaheim
to require developers to pay fees as a means of ensuring adequate provision of parkland. According
to Table 3-17 on page 3-37 of the City of Anaheim General Plan Housing Element, the Applicant
would be accessed a In-Lieu Park Facilities fee based on the number of dwelling units. These fees
would help offset any effects due to the proposed project’s contribution to an increase in population
and a subsequent increase in park patronage. Therefore, based upon the proceeding, impacts
associated with park services and facilities would be less than significant.
e) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include 220 residential units that would
house approximately 330 residents. At least a portion of these residents are anticipated to patronize
local library branches operated by the City of Anaheim.
The City of Anaheim Public Library system consists of a Central Library, five branches, the Heritage
House (former Carnegie Library), and a Bookmobile. The Central Library (500 W. Broadway) is the
closest library facility to the project site and is the largest library in the Anaheim Public Library
system. According to the Public Services and Facilities section of the City of Anaheim General
Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR, there are approximately 330,000 people in the Anaheim Public
Library system.
The proposed project is projected to add approximately 330 residents, which represents roughly 0.1-
percent of the existing Anaheim residents that are served by the Anaheim Public Library system. The
proposed project’s additional population is considered nominal, and therefore, impacts associated to
library services and facilities would be less than significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
110 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
15. Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant. As discussed previously in Section 3.14, Public Services, Threshold d), at
least a portion of the proposed project’s residents are anticipated to patronize the various existing
pocket, neighborhood, and community parks, as well as nature centers and specialized recreational
facilities operated by the City of Anaheim. The closest park to the project site is the 19-acre Pearson
Park, which is located immediately to the northwest of the site and provides a wide range of passive
and active recreational opportunities. Other parks occur in the project area, including the 0.2-acre
Colony Park, the 3.0-acre George Washington Park, and the Downtown Community Center.
The 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) authorizes the City of Anaheim
to require developers to pay fees as a means of ensuring adequate provision of parkland. According
to Table 3-17 on page 3-37 of the City of Anaheim General Plan Housing Element, the Applicant
would be accessed a In-Lieu Park Facilities fee based on the number of dwelling units. These fees
would help offset any effects due to the proposed project’s contribution to an increase in population
and a subsequent increase in park patronage. Additionally, these fees, in part, would go towards the
maintenance of existing recreational facilities to prevent physical deterioration. Therefore, impacts
associated with the increased use of existing recreational facilities would be less than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include several private recreational
facilities, including fitness center, clubhouse/community room, and swimming pool and spa area.
Use of these recreational facilities would be limited to residents and their guests, and operation and
maintenance would be the sole responsibility of the Applicant. The environmental effects of
construction and operation of these facilities are analyzed within this IS/MND as part of the overall
proposed project.
As previously addressed, at least a portion of the proposed project’s residents are anticipated to
patronize the various existing pocket, neighborhood, and community parks, as well as nature centers
and specialized recreational facilities operated by the City of Anaheim. In an effort to offset any
effects due to the proposed project’s contribution to an increase in population and a subsequent
increase in park patronage, the Applicant would be accessed an In-Lieu Park Facilities fee, as
regulated by the City, based on the number of dwelling units. These fees, in part, would go towards
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities and the mitigating of their potential physical
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 111
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
effect on the environment. Therefore, impacts associated with the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities would be less than significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
112 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
16. Transportation/Traffic
The following analysis summarizes the Traffic Impact Analysis report prepared for the proposed
project and included as Appendix G of this IS/MND, which provides a detailed analysis and a
description of the forecasting methodology used.
Study Area
The proposed project is located at the northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue
within the Downtown Anaheim area. The project site is bounded by Cypress Street to the north,
Lincoln Avenue to the south, Lemon Street to the west, and Anaheim Boulevard to the east. The
study area is generally bounded by La Palma Avenue to the north, South Street to the south, East
Street to the east, and the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) Freeway to the west. Twelve existing study
intersections and 13 existing roadway segments were approved by the City of Anaheim for analysis.
The study intersections are:
1. Anaheim Boulevard and Sycamore Street
2. Anaheim Boulevard and Cypress Street
3. Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue
4. Anaheim Boulevard and Broadway
5. Anaheim Boulevard and Santa Ana Street
6. Lemon Street and Cypress Street
7. Harbor Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue
8. Clementine Street and Lincoln Avenue
9. Lemon Street and Lincoln Avenue
10. Olive Street and Lincoln Avenue
11. East Street and Lincoln Avenue
12. Harbor Boulevard and Broadway
The roadway segments are:
1. Anaheim Boulevard south of La Palma Avenue
2. Anaheim Boulevard south of Sycamore Street
3. Anaheim Boulevard south of Cypress Street
4. Anaheim Boulevard south of Lincoln Avenue
5. Anaheim Boulevard south of Broadway
6. Cypress Street east of Lemon Street
7. Lemon Street south of Cypress Street
8. Harbor Boulevard south of Lincoln Avenue
9. Lincoln Avenue east of Harbor Boulevard
10. Lincoln Avenue east of Clementine Street
11. Lincoln Avenue east of Lemon Street
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 113
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
12. Lincoln Avenue east of Anaheim Boulevard
13. Lincoln Avenue east of Olive Street
Existing Setting
The roadway network within the study area consists of arterial roadways and local streets that form a
grid system. Selected arterials that are located in the vicinity of the project site are below.
Lincoln Avenue: Lincoln Avenue is a six-lane Primary Arterial divided by a landscaped median that
travels east and west through the study area. Bicycle lanes are not provided on Lincoln Avenue
within the study area and on-street parking is not permitted. The corridor is a vital link through
downtown Anaheim and is served by Orange County Transportation Agency (OCTA) bus route 42.
Anaheim Boulevard: Anaheim Boulevard is a north-south roadway designated as a Primary Arterial
in the City of Anaheim Circulation Element. The roadway consists of two lanes in each direction
with a landscaped median. There is currently no striping provided for bicycle lanes along Anaheim
Boulevard. On-street parking is permitted in some segments along the roadway within the vicinity of
the study area.
Harbor Boulevard: Harbor Boulevard is designated as a Major Arterial in the City’s Circulation
Element and provides north-south connection within the study area. The roadway consists of two
lanes in each direction with a landscaped median. There is currently no striping provided for bicycle
lanes. On-street parking is not permitted along the roadway within the vicinity of the study area.
Clementine Street: Clementine Street is a roadway providing north and south connection between
Santa Ana Street to the south and Lincoln Avenue to the north. The roadway consists of one lane in
each direction, a landscaped median, and left-turn pockets at intersections.
Lemon Street: Lemon Street is a two-lane undivided roadway that travels north and south through
the study area. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway in the residential portions
along the roadway.
Olive Street: Olive Street is designated as a Collector Street in the City’s Circulation Element and
provides north-south connection within the study area. The roadway consists of one-lane in each
direction, and is divided by freight railroad tracks south of Santa Ana Street. The roadway is
undivided north of Santa Ana Street.
East Street: East Street is designated as a Secondary Arterial in the City’s Circulation Element and
travels north and south through the study area.
Sycamore Street: Sycamore Street is a two-lane undivided roadway that travels east and west
through the study area. The City of Anaheim Circulation Element classifies Sycamore Street as a
Collector Street.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
114 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Cypress Street: Cypress Street is a two-lane undivided roadway that travels east and west through
the study area.
Broadway: Broadway is a four-lane undivided roadway that travels east and west through the study
area. The City of Anaheim Circulation Element classifies Broadway as a Secondary Arterial. A
landscaped median is provided between Lemon Street and Harbor Boulevard. On-street parking is
generally not permitted except along a few segments that are striped green for short-term parking.
Santa Ana Street: Santa Ana Street is a two-lane undivided roadway that travels east and west
through the study area. Freight railroad track serves as a center divider west of Olive Street. The
City of Anaheim Circulation Element classifies Sycamore Street as a Collector Street.
Impact Criteria and Thresholds
The significance of project-generated traffic impacts at intersections is determined by calculating the
projected volume-to-capacity (V/C) change from the no project conditions to with project conditions.
A project’s traffic impact is considered to be significant if the change in capacity relative to the level
of service (LOS) meets or exceeds the thresholds contained in Table 17. For the purpose of this
analysis, a significant impact occurs at an unsignalized intersection when there is a decrease in LOS
by one level or more for locations operating at LOS D, E, or F.
Table 17: Significant Impact Criteria for Intersections
Level of
Service Final V/C Ratio Project-Related Increase in V/C
C >0.700 to 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.05
D >0.800 to 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.03
E, F >0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.01
Source: City of Anaheim,, 2004.
For arterial roadway segments in the project area, the criteria for the City of Anaheim involves the
use of average daily traffic (ADT) volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. The minimum level of service for
an arterial segment is LOS C (V/C not to exceed 0.80) as adopted by the City of Anaheim for the
study area circulation system.
The City of Anaheim uses a two-step process to evaluate arterial segment performance. An initial
arterial daily ADT V/C analysis provides a general assessment of overall system performance. Where
potential for deficiencies are identified through this screening, the system performance is further
evaluated and measured on the ability to serve peak hour traffic demands and throughput at the
adjacent intersections. Arterial segments that are found to operate deficiently under both daily and
peak hour conditions are identified as candidates for mitigation improvements.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 115
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
A project is deemed to have a significant impact if the project results in deterioration of the daily
level of service LOS D or worse, and continues to show deficiency under peak hour analysis
conditions. A significant impact is also deemed to occur if a project causes an increase in the daily
V/C value of 0.01 or greater if the segment currently operates at LOS E or F under daily without
project conditions; and the segment continues to show deficiency under peak hour analysis
conditions.
Related Projects
To account for planned projects within the study area, the City of Anaheim has identified six related
projects located in the vicinity of the study area. The related projects included in this study are
described in Table 18. The related projects are expected to generate approximately 8,806 daily trips,
including 765 AM peak hour trips and 789 PM peak hour trips. The geographic distribution and the
traffic assignment for the related projects were incorporated into the base Year 2011 traffic volumes.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Michael Brandman Associates 116 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc Table 18: Related Projects Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Project Land Use Size Unit Daily In Out Total In Out Total 1 Colony Park 410 - 418 E. Santa Ana Street Multi-Family Residential 62 DU 1,244 20 76 96 78 42 121 2 Colony Park 518 - 538 S. Anaheim Boulevard Multi-Family Residential 36 DU 209 3 13 16 13 6 19 3 Colony Park 407 - 425 S. Anaheim Boulevard Multi-Family Residential 52 DU 302 4 19 23 18 9 27 4 Restaurant/Brewery 336 - 338 S. Anaheim Boulevard Restaurant/ Brewery 7.825 TSF 995 47 43 90 51 36 87 5 Packard House 440 S. Anaheim Boulevard Retail/Restaurant Development 42.766 TSF 3,714 175 162 336 192 134 326 6 Residential Development 700 E. South Street Multi-Family Residential 93 DU 618 9 38 47 37 20 58 Total Trip Generation 8,806 339 426 765 479 309 789 Notes: DU - dwelling unit TSF - thousand square feet Source: City of Anaheim, 2012.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 117
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Ambient Traffic Growth
Ambient traffic growth was estimated by applying an annual growth rate of 1 percent to the Existing
(Year 2011) traffic counts over four years. The Future Year 2015 No Project condition includes
ambient traffic growth and related project trips.
Project Traffic Generation
The vehicle trips generated by the proposed project were estimated. Table 19 summarizes the
breakdown of trips generated by each proposed land use, including the size of each land use and the
applicable rates. The proposed project would result in a net total of approximately 2,301 new daily
trips, including 241 new AM peak hour trips and 231 new PM peak hour trips.
Table 19: Project Trip Generation Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE
Code Land Use Size Unit ADT In Out Total In Out Total
220 Apartment 220 DU 1,463 22 90 112 88 48 136
814 Specialty Retail 18.9 TSF 838 62 67 129 53 42 95
Total Trip Generation 2,301 84 157 241 141 90 231
Notes:
DU - dwelling unit TSF - thousand square feet
Source: ITE Trip Generation, 8th Edition.
Existing Year 2011 Traffic Conditions
For project area intersections, a summary of the AM peak hour level of service analysis results for the
Existing No Project, Existing Plus Related Projects, and Existing Plus Related Plus Project is
provided in Table 20. The PM peak hour results are presented in Table 21. As shown in Table 20
and Table 21, all study intersections in the project area are operating at LOS C or better for all
scenarios with the exception of the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Cypress Street during the
PM peak hour. Without the project, this intersection is operating at LOS D in the PM peak hour. The
addition of the project will cause the intersection to worsen to LOS E. Therefore, the project will
create a significant impact at the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Cypress Street during the
PM peak hour. To reduce this project impact, Mitigation Measure TRAN-1 is provided in Section 16
a) below.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Michael Brandman Associates 118 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc Table 20: Existing Year 2011 No Project vs. Related Projects vs. With Project - AM Peak Hour LOS Results Existing Year 2011 Existing Year 2011 + Related Projects Existing Year 2011+ Related Projects + Project Intersection Signal Control V/C LOS V/C LOS Change in V/C V/C LOS Change in V/C Project Impact 1 Anaheim Boulevard & Sycamore Street Signalized 0.332 A 0.341 A 0.009 0.351 A 0.019 No 2 Anaheim Boulevard & Cypress Street 2-Way Stop 20.3 s C 21.5 s C 1.2 s 28.7 s C 8.4 s No 3 Anaheim Boulevard & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.533 A 0.576 A 0.043 0.591 A 0.058 No 4 Anaheim Boulevard & Broadway Signalized 0.480 A 0.508 A 0.028 0.519 A 0.039 No 5 Anaheim Boulevard & Santa Ana Street Signalized 0.520 A 0.567 A 0.047 0.577 A 0.057 No 6 Lemon Street & Cypress Street 4-Way Stop 7.3 s A 7.3 s A 0.0 s 7.4 s A 0.1 s No 7 Harbor Boulevard & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.679 B 0.696 B 0.017 0.709 C 0.030 No 8 Clementine Street & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.305 A 0.315 A 0.010 0.320 A 0.015 No 9 Lemon Street & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.349 A 0.361 A 0.012 0.406 A 0.057 No 10 Olive Street & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.362 A 0.389 A 0.027 0.398 A 0.036 No 11 East Street & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.611 B 0.620 B 0.009 0.618 B 0.007 No 12 Harbor Boulevard & Broadway Signalized 0.575 A 0.575 A 0.000 0.578 A 0.003 No
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Michael Brandman Associates 119 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc Table 21: Existing Year 2011 (No Project vs. Related Projects vs. With Project) - PM Peak Hour LOS Results Existing Year 2011 Existing Year 2011 + Related Projects Existing Year 2011 + Related Projects + Project Intersection Signal Control V/C LOS V/C LOS Change in V/C V/C LOS Change in V/C Project Impact 1 Anaheim Boulevard & Sycamore Street Signalized 0.414 A 0.421 A 0.007 0.428 A 0.014 No 2 Anaheim Boulevard & Cypress Street 2-Way Stop 40.8 s D 44.5 s D 3.7 s 66.0 s E 25.2 s YES 3 Anaheim Boulevard & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.601 B 0.607 B 0.006 0.632 B 0.031 No 4 Anaheim Boulevard & Broadway Signalized 0.571 A 0.610 B 0.039 0.616 B 0.045 No 5 Anaheim Boulevard & Santa Ana Street Signalized 0.518 A 0.596 A 0.078 0.605 B 0.087 No 6 Lemon Street & Cypress Street 4-Way Stop 7.8 s A 7.8 s A 0.0 s 7.8 s A 0.0 s No 7 Harbor Boulevard & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.750 C 0.763 C 0.013 0.772 C 0.022 No 8 Clementine Street & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.324 A 0.337 A 0.013 0.346 A 0.022 No 9 Lemon Street & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.372 A 0.381 A 0.009 0.424 A 0.052 No 10 Olive Street & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.391 A 0.409 A 0.018 0.414 A 0.023 No 11 East Street & Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.741 C 0.750 C 0.009 0.755 C 0.014 No 12 Harbor Boulevard & Broadway Signalized 0.639 B 0.639 B 0.000 0.641 B 0.002 No Notes: s = Stop Sign controlled intersection. Source: IBI Group, Traffic Impact Analysis, 2012.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
120 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
For roadway segments, a summary of the average daily traffic (ADT) volume to capacity (V/C) ratios
and level of service (LOS) results for the Existing Year 2011 condition is provided in Table 22. The
analysis is based on the traffic counts collected in November 2011 and February 2012. All arterial
segments currently operate at an acceptable level of service in the Existing Year 2011 conditions.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Michael Brandman Associates 121 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc Table 22: Existing Year 2011 (No Project vs. With Project) - Arterial Segment Level of Service Results Existing Year 2011 No Project Existing Year 2011 With Project Street Segment Mid-Block Lanes Capacity ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Changes to V/C Impact Anaheim Boulevard South of La Palma Avenue 4D 37,500 17,421 0.465 A 17,791 0.474 A 0.010 No Anaheim Boulevard South of Sycamore Street 4D 37,500 18,777 0.501 A 19,187 0.512 A 0.011 No Anaheim Boulevard South of Cypress Street 4D 37,500 19,604 0.523 A 20,574 0.549 A 0.026 No Anaheim Boulevard South of Lincoln Avenue 4D 37,500 19,455 0.519 A 19,965 0.532 A 0.014 No Anaheim Boulevard South of Broadway 4D 37,500 19,784 0.528 A 20,244 0.540 A 0.012 No Cypress Street East of Lemon Street 2U 12,500 889 0.071 A 2,339 0.187 A 0.116 No Lemon Street South of Cypress Street 2U 12,500 2,047 0.164 A 2,877 0.230 A 0.066 No Harbor Boulevard South of Lincoln Avenue 4D 37,500 25,442 0.678 B 25,562 0.682 B 0.003 No Lincoln Avenue East of Harbor Boulevard 6D 56,300 25,433 0.452 A 26,243 0.466 A 0.014 No Lincoln Avenue East of Clementine Street 6D 56,300 23,960 0.426 A 24,770 0.440 A 0.014 No Lincoln Avenue East of Lemon Street 6D 56,300 22,865 0.406 A 23,095 0.410 A 0.004 No
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Michael Brandman Associates 122 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc Table 22 (cont.): Existing Year 2011 (No Project vs. With Project) - Arterial Segment Level of Service Results Existing Year 2011 No Project Existing Year 2011 With Project Street Segment Mid-Block Lanes Capacity ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Changes to V/C Impact Lincoln Avenue East of Anaheim Boulevard 6D 56,300 22,366 0.397 A 22,826 0.405 A 0.008 No Lincoln Avenue East of Olive Street 6D 56,300 20,638 0.367 A 21,098 0.375 A 0.008 No Source: IBI Group, Traffic Impact Analysis, 2012.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 123
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Opening Year 2015 Analysis
This section summarizes the traffic analysis level of service results for study intersections and arterial
segments in the Future Year 2015 conditions. For project area intersections, a summary of the AM
peak hour level of service analysis results for the Existing No Project, Existing Plus Related Projects,
and Existing Plus Related Plus Project is provided in Table 23. The PM peak hour results are
presented in Table 24.
Table 23: Future Year 2015 (No Project vs. With Project) - AM Peak Hour LOS Results
Future Year
2015 No
Project
Future Year
2015 With
Project
Intersection
Signal
Control V/C LOS V/C LOS
Change
in V/C
Project
Impact
1 Anaheim Boulevard &
Sycamore Street Signalized 0.351 A 0.357 A 0.006 No
2 Anaheim Boulevard &
Cypress Street 2-Way Stop 23.1 s C 27.8 s C 4.7 s No
3 Anaheim Boulevard &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.560 A 0.567 A 0.007 No
4 Anaheim Boulevard &
Broadway Signalized 0.502 A 0.508 A 0.006 No
5 Anaheim Boulevard &
Santa Ana Street Signalized 0.544 A 0.549 A 0.005 No
6 Lemon Street &
Cypress Street 4-Way Stop 7.6 s A 7.8 s A 0.2 s No
7 Harbor Boulevard &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.712 C 0.721 C 0.009 No
8 Clementine Street &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.317 A 0.318 A 0.001 No
9 Lemon Street &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.385 A 0.410 A 0.025 No
10 Olive Street &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.381 A 0.386 A 0.005 No
11 East Street &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.636 B 0.631 B -0.005 No
12 Harbor Boulevard &
Broadway Signalized 0.587 A 0.588 A 0.001 No
Notes:
s = Stop Sign controlled intersection.
Source: IBI Group, Traffic Impact Analysis, 2012.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
124 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Table 24: Future Year 2015 (No Project vs. With Project) - PM Peak Hour LOS Results
Future Year
2015 No
Project
Future Year
2015 With
Project
Intersection
Signal
Control V/C LOS V/C LOS
Change
in V/C
Project
Impact
1 Anaheim Boulevard &
Sycamore Street Signalized 0.437 A 0.444 A 0.007 No
2 Anaheim Boulevard &
Cypress Street 2-Way Stop 51.0 s D 79.1 s E 28.1 s Yes
3 Anaheim Boulevard &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.629 B 0.654 B 0.025 No
4 Anaheim Boulevard &
Broadway Signalized 0.630 B 0.637 B 0.007 No
5 Anaheim Boulevard &
Santa Ana Street Signalized 0.614 B 0.623 B 0.009 No
6 Lemon Street &
Cypress Street 4-Way Stop 7.8 s A 7.9 s A 0.1 s No
7 Harbor Boulevard &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.791 C 0.800 C 0.009 No
8 Clementine Street &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.347 A 0.356 A 0.009 No
9 Lemon Street &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.393 A 0.436 A 0.043 No
10 Olive Street &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.424 A 0.429 A 0.005 No
11 East Street &
Lincoln Avenue Signalized 0.777 C 0.783 C 0.006 No
12 Harbor Boulevard &
Broadway Signalized 0.662 B 0.664 B 0.002 No
Notes:
s = Stop Sign controlled intersection.
Source: IBI Group, Traffic Impact Analysis, 2012.
As shown in Table 23 and Table 24, all study intersections in the project area are operating at LOS C
or better, with the exception of the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Cypress Street during the
PM peak hour. Without the project, this intersection is operating at LOS D in the PM peak hour. The
addition of the project will cause the intersection to worsen to LOS E in the PM peak hour.
Therefore, the project will create a significant impact at the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and
Cypress Street during the PM peak hour. To reduce this potential project impact, Mitigation Measure
TRAN-1 is provided in Section 16 a) below.
For project-area roadway segments, a summary of the average daily traffic (ADT) volume to capacity
(V/C) ratios and level of service (LOS) results for the Future Year 2015 condition is provided in
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 125
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Table 25. The analysis is based on the traffic counts collected in November 2011 and February 2012.
All arterial segments are projected to operate at an acceptable level of service in the Future Year 2015
conditions.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Michael Brandman Associates 126 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc Table 25: Future Year 2015 (No Project vs. With Project) - Arterial Segment Level of Service Results Future Year 2015 No Project Future Year 2015 With Project Street Segment Mid-Block Lanes Capacity ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Changes to V/C Impact Anaheim Boulevard South of La Palma Avenue 4D 37,500 18,128 0.483 A 19,378 0.517 A 0.033 No Anaheim Boulevard South of Sycamore Street 4D 37,500 19,539 0.521 A 20,829 0.555 A 0.034 No Anaheim Boulevard South of Cypress Street 4D 37,500 20,400 0.544 A 22,250 0.593 A 0.049 No Anaheim Boulevard South of Lincoln Avenue 4D 37,500 20,245 0.540 A 24,275 0.647 B 0.107 No Anaheim Boulevard South of Broadway 4D 37,500 20,587 0.549 A 24,567 0.655 B 0.106 No Cypress Street East of Lemon Street 2U 12,500 925 0.074 A 2,375 0.190 A 0.116 No Lemon Street South of Cypress Street 2U 12,500 2,130 0.170 A 2,960 0.237 A 0.066 No Harbor Boulevard South of Lincoln Avenue 4D 37,500 26,475 0.706 C 26,595 0.709 C 0.003 No Lincoln Avenue East of Harbor Boulevard 6D 56,300 26,466 0.470 A 29,036 0.516 A 0.046 No Lincoln Avenue East of Clementine Street 6D 56,300 24,933 0.443 A 27,503 0.489 A 0.046 No Lincoln Avenue East of Lemon Street 6D 56,300 23,793 0.423 A 25,783 0.458 A 0.035 No
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Michael Brandman Associates 127 H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc Table 25 (cont.): Future Year 2015 (No Project vs. With Project) - Arterial Segment Level of Service Results Future Year 2015 No Project Future Year 2015 With Project Street Segment Mid-Block Lanes Capacity ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Changes to V/C Impact Lincoln Avenue East of Anaheim Boulevard 6D 56,300 23,274 0.413 A 24,614 0.437 A 0.024 No Lincoln Avenue East of Olive Street 6D 56,300 21,476 0.381 A 22,816 0.405 A 0.024 No Source: IBI Group, Traffic Impact Analysis, 2012.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
128 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Site Access
Vehicle access to the project site would be provided at two access driveways; one driveway would be
located on Cypress Street (Driveway 1) and a second driveway would be located on Lemon Street
(Driveway 2). The two driveways are proposed to be unsignalized. Driveway 1 would serve as the
main access point, feeding directly into the proposed parking structure. Driveway 2, located along
Lemon Street, serves as the secondary access point, with more direct access to the surface parking
spaces. A detailed analysis of site access is provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis, located in
Appendix G. The two access driveways are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of LOS A or
better during the AM and PM peak hours for the Existing Year 2011 and the Future Year 2015 for
both the No Project and With Project conditions.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The potential impacts to the circulation
system have been identified in the analysis provided above. The proposed project would have less
than significant impacts to pedestrian, bicycle paths, and mass transit in the project area. Project area
roadway segments would operate at acceptable LOS for both the Existing Year 2011 and the Opening
Year 2015 scenarios with and without the proposed project. All project area intersections would
operate at acceptable levels of service for the Existing Year 2011 and the Opening Year 2015 AM and
PM peak hour scenarios with the exception of the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Cypress
Street. This intersection is forecasted to operate at LOS E with the proposed project for the PM peak
hour in the Existing Year 2011 and in the Opening Year 2015 scenario, which is a significant impact
to this intersection. Converting the intersection to a signalized intersection would mitigate this
impact. However, due to the location of this intersection, adding a signal may not be feasible and
would be inconsistent with the Downtown Anaheim Guide to Development. One option would be to
redirect traffic by allowing only right-turn movements on the east and west legs. Accordingly,
Mitigation Measure TRAN-1 has been identified to reduce this impact to less than significant.
MM TRAN-1 Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall
construct a median diverter on Anaheim Boulevard at Cypress Street, including all
appropriate signage and striping. This median diverter shall allow left turns in the
northbound and southbound directions of Anaheim Boulevard onto Cypress Street,
but shall prohibit left turns and through movements eastbound and westbound on
Cypress Street.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 129
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAN-1, the potential impact would be reduced to
less than significant. In both the Existing 2011 scenario and the Future Year 2015 scenario, the With
Project condition in the PM peak hour would be LOS E before mitigation. Following the
implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAN-1, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS
B in the PM peak hour for both Existing 2011 and Future Year 2015 scenarios.
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited
to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Less Than Significant Impact. The intersections within the City of Anaheim that are subject to the
County’s Congestion Management Program are indicated in the City’s General Plan Circulation
Element. Based on a review of the Circulation Element, none of the project area’s intersections are
included in the Congestion Management Program. Therefore, impacts associated with the Congestion
Management Program would be less than significant.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The proposed project would consist of a 4-story multi-family residential building and
related facilities. The structures would be consistent with the heights of nearby structures and would
not affect air traffic patterns. The relatively small scale of the development would ensure that the
proposed project would not generate a substantial increase in traffic levels for air traffic. Therefore,
no impact associated with air traffic patterns would occur.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact. The proposed project would include the installation of two access driveways, and would
require the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAN-1, which would prohibit left turns at the
intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Cypress Street. The site plan for the proposed project will be
reviewed by City Staff to ensure that no traffic safety hazards would be generated by the proposed
project, including the location of the access driveways. The restrictions on left-turn movements
outlined in Mitigation Measure TRAN-1 would not result in an increase in traffic hazards associated
with the intersection. Therefore, no impacts associated with hazardous design features would occur.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described above, the proposed project’s access driveways are
expected to operate at acceptable levels of service. The proposed project plans will be reviewed by
City Staff to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided to the project site based on the City’s
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
130 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
design requirements. Therefore, impacts associated with inadequate emergency access would be less
than significant.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not include any roadway improvements
that would affect existing public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities or would otherwise decrease
the performance or safety of such facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with
adopted policies, plans, or program related to public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.
Therefore, impacts associated with policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 131
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
17. Utilities and Service Systems
The following is based in part on a February 29, 2012 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
prepared for the proposed project by the project engineer, KHR Associates (Appendix E, Hydrology),
as well as a June 25, 2012 sewer study letter report authored by the City of Anaheim Department of
Public Works (Appendix I, Utilities and Service Systems).
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the
generation of wastewater. As described in Section 17b, the proposed project will generate
approximately 36,120 gallons per day (0.04 million gallons per day [mgd]). The existing Orange
County Sanitation District (OCSD) wastewater facilities that serve the project site currently have a
surplus capacity of approximately 220 mgd. This surplus capacity is required to be in accordance
with the wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The addition of wastewater by the proposed project would not exceed the wastewater treatment
requirements of the OCSD facilities. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would
result in less than significant impacts to wastewater treatment requirements.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Water Facilities
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Existing water mains in the streets adjacent
to and currently serving the project site include an 18-inch ductile iron pipe (DIP) water line in
Lincoln Avenue, a 16-inch and 10-inch DIP in Anaheim Boulevard, a 12-inch DIP line in Cypress
Street, and a 12-inch DIP line in Lemon Street. The project will be required to connect to existing
water lines located in the arterial streets. During the building permitting process, the fire flow
requirements and the commercial water demands will be submitted and the capacity of the existing
water distribution system to supply the peak flow rate will be checked. This information will be used
to verify the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water demands for fire
flow. In the unlikely event that any off-site improvements are needed to serve the project, potential
significant impacts may occur. These off-site improvements shall be provided in accordance with
Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations and implemented as a condition of
approval for the project to reduce the potential impact. All requests for new water services or fire
lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonment of existing water services and fire
lines, will be coordinated through the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities
Department
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
132 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
MM USS-1 Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the developer/owner shall submit to the
Public Utilities Water Engineering an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and
maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This information will be
used to confirm the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated
water demands. In the unlikely event that off-site water system improvements are
required to serve the project, they shall be provided in accordance with Rule No.
15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Less Than Significant Impact. Wastewater in the City of Anaheim is collected by gravity sewers
owned, operated, and maintained by the City. Existing sewer lines in the streets adjacent to the
project site include a 15-inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP) in Lincoln Avenue, a 12-inch VCP in
Anaheim Boulevard, a 15-inch VCP in Lemon Street, and a sewer line of unknown size in Cypress
Street. According to the City’s Public Works Department, these existing facilities would be adequate
to serve the wastewater collection requirements of the proposed project. No further sewer studies
would be required and the proposed project would only be required to pay a sewer impact fee.
The wastewater is then transported by trunk sewers to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD)
Plant 1 located in the City of Fountain Valley and/or Plant 2 located in the City of Huntington Beach.
Plant 1 and Plant 2 provide primary and secondary treatment for an average dry weather flow (DWF)
of 83 and 147 million gallons of wastewater per day (mgd), respectively. Plant 1 has a design
capacity of 174 mgd, while Plant 2 has a design capacity of 276 mgd. Both wastewater treatment
plants have design capacities that exceed their current utilization, with Plant 1 presently having a 91
mgd surplus capacity and Plant 2 having a 129 surplus capacity. Combined, both Plant 1 and Plant 2
currently have a 220 mgd combined surplus capacity.
The proposed Project would include uses that would generate effluent requiring wastewater treatment
at OCSD Plant 1 and/or Plant 2. Residential dwellings within a building of five units or more
produce 156 gpd of wastewater, while commercial/store uses generate 100 gpd/1000 sq ft (Los
Angeles County Sanitation Districts, ND). Based upon the proposed project’s 220 residential units
and 18,000 sq ft of commercial/retail spaces, the project would generate approximately 36,120
gallons of wastewater per day (34,320 gpd for residential plus 1,800 gpd for commercial/retail).
Compared to the roughly 230 mgd of wastewater that OCSD Plant 1 and Plant 2 currently treat, as
well as their approximately 220 mgd combined surplus capacity, the proposed project’s contribution
of wastewater would be nominal and could be treated at these existing wastewater treatment facilities
without the construction of new or the expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, impacts associated
with wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 133
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the proposed project would include two
Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes and four MaxWell IV drywells. In the existing
condition, the Lemon Street catch basin, which connects to a 33-inch reinforced concrete pipe, and
the Lincoln Avenue catch basin, which connects to a 33-inch reinforced concrete pipe, have been
deemed capable of adequately providing drainage from the project site (KHR Associates 2008). The
proposed BMPs, however, would greatly reduce the need for these existing drainage features, as these
features would only be needed during large storm events when stormwater runoff exceeds the
capacity of the Bio Clean Nutrient Separating Baffle Boxes and MaxWell IV drywells. Construction
of these Treatment Control BMPs would occur concurrently on the project site with construction of
the proposed project, whose environmental effects are analyzed in this IS/MND. No additional
environmental impacts, above those already examined in this IS/MND, are anticipated. Therefore,
impacts associated with the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities would be less than
significant.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Anaheim receives its water from two main sources: (1)
the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the OCWD, and (2) imported water
from the MWD. Groundwater is pumped from 18 active wells located within the City, and imported
water is delivered to the City through seven treated water connections and one untreated connection.
In addition to groundwater supplies, the City of Anaheim uses imported water from MWD to
supplement its water supplies. Per Table 3-2 on page 3-6 of the UWMP, MWD forecasts to have a
surplus ranging from approximately 1.48 million afy to roughly 2.1 million afy during average year
conditions during 2015 through 2035. These imported water supplies would supplement the
groundwater supplies that are used by the City and the proposed project, further reducing the project’s
groundwater use.
As previously discussed in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project is
consistent with the existing City of Anaheim General Plan “Mixed Use” land use designation, and as
such, the development of the would be considered consistent with the City’s future projected water
demand. Therefore, impacts associated with sufficient water supplies being available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources are considered less than significant.
While less than significant impacts on available water supplies have been identified, the following
conditions of approval will be incorporated into the project to ensure that water conservation
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
134 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
measures are incorporated into the design of the proposed project so that water supplies remain
reliable into the future.
• Prior to issuance of each building permit (to be implemented prior to final building and zoning
inspections, and continuing on an on-going basis during project operation), the property owner/
developer shall submit to the Public Utilities Department plans for review and approval which
shall ensure that water conservation measures are incorporated. Among the water conservation
measures to be shown on the plans and implemented by the property owner/developer, to the
extent applicable include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Use of low-flow sprinkler heads in irrigation systems.
- Use of waterway recirculation systems.
- Low-flow fittings, fixtures, and equipment, including low flush toilets and urinals.
- Use of self-closing valves on drinking valves.
- Use of efficient irrigation systems such as drip irrigation and automatic systems which use
moisture sensors.
- Use of low-flow shower heads in hotels.
- Water efficient ice-machines, dishwashers, clothes washers and other water-using
appliances.
- Use of irrigation systems primarily at night when evaporation rates are lowest.
- Provide information to the public in conspicuous places regarding water conservation.
- Use of water conserving landscape plant materials wherever feasible.
• The City shall continue to collaborate with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWD), its member agencies, and the Orange County Water District (OCWD) to
ensure that available water supplies meet anticipated demand. If it is forecasted that water
demand exceeds available supplies, the City shall trigger application of its Water Conservation
Ordinance (Anaheim Municipal Code, §10.18), as prescribed, to require mandatory
conservation measures as authorized by Sections 10.18.070 through 10.18.090, as appropriate.
• Prior to issuance of each building permit the property owner/developer shall submit an
irrigation plan in which all irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function
properly with reclaimed water, once a system is available.
• Prior to issuance of the first building permit, Applicant shall contact Water Engineering for
reclaimed water system requirements and specific water conservation measures to be
incorporated into the building and landscape construction plans.
• Prior to issuance of building permit, submitted landscape plans shall demonstrate compliance
with the City of Anaheim adopted Landscape Water Efficiency Guidelines. This ordinance is
in compliance with the State of California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (AB 325).
• Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the
property owner/developer shall indicate on plans installation of a separate irrigation meter
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 135
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
when the total landscaped area exceeds 2,500 square feet. (City of Anaheim Water
Conservation Measures.)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, both OCSD wastewater treatment facilities
that would serve the proposed project have design capacities that exceed their current utilization, with
Plant 1 in the City of Fountain Valley presently having a 91 mgd surplus capacity and Plant 2 in the
City of Huntington Beach having a 129 surplus capacity. Combined, both Plant 1 and Plant 2
currently have a 220 mgd combined surplus capacity.
The proposed Project would include uses that would generate effluent requiring wastewater treatment
at OCSD Plant 1 and/or Plant 2. Residential dwellings within a building of five units or more
produce 156 gpd of wastewater, while commercial/store uses generate 100 gpd/1000 sq ft. Based
upon the proposed project’s 220 residential units and 18,000 sq ft of commercial/retail spaces, the
project would generate approximately 36,120 gallons of wastewater per day (34,320 gpd for
residential plus 1,800 gpd for commercial/retail). Compared to the roughly 230 mgd of wastewater
that OCSD Plant 1 and Plant 2 currently treat, as well as their approximately 220 mgd combined
surplus capacity, the proposed project’s contribution of wastewater would be nominal and could be
treated at these existing wastewater treatment facilities without the construction of new or expansion
existing facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with wastewater treatment capacity would be less
than significant.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s
solid waste disposal needs?
Less Than Significant Impact. Before commencing construction of the proposed project, the 25,000
sq ft commercial building and associated parking lot would require demolition, with all non-
hazardous demolition debris transported to the appropriate landfill facility by Republic Services .
Following collection, the non-hazardous demolition materials would be sorted for recyclables and
disposed of at either the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department’s (IWMD)
Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill, Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, or Prima Deschecha Landfill.
Collectively, these landfill facilities encompasses 2,820 acres, including 1,653 permitted acres for
disposal. These facilities are permitted to accept a combined maximum of 23,500 tons of waste per
day, and have a combined remaining capacity of 185 million cubic yards (CalRecycle 2012).
Any hazardous or potentially hazardous materials, including asbestos containing materials (ACMs) or
contaminated soils, found either within the existing building or on the project site would be removed,
transported, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Refer to the
Remedial Action Plan (Appendix I, Utilities and Service Systems) completed for the proposed project
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
136 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
for further information regarding demolition, removal, transporting, and disposal of hazardous or
potentially hazardous materials.
According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle),
multifamily residential land uses generate an estimated 1.17 tons of waste per dwelling unit per year
(CalRecycle 2010b), while commercial retail land uses create an estimated 0.0024 tons of waste per
square foot per year (CalRecycle 2011). Using these measures, the proposed project’s 220 residential
units would generate approximately 257.4 tons of waste per year, while the project’s 18,000 sq ft of
retail commercial space would create 43.2 tons per year. With Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill, Frank
R. Bowerman Landfill, or Prima Deschecha Landfill permitted to accept a maximum 23,500 tons of
waste per day, or over seven million tons annually, the proposed project’s estimated contribution of
300.6 tons per year would be considered nominal. Therefore, impacts associated with solid waste
would be less than significant.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be required to comply will all federal,
State, and local agency regulations regarding solid waste. IWMD is required to obtain permits to
maintain operations at their three active landfills. These permits include, but are not limited to, a
solid waste facilities permit, waste discharge permit, a stormwater discharge permit, and various
permits to construct and operate gas management systems. As part of standard procedure, IWMD
evaluates new projects within its jurisdiction for compliance with CEQA and all applicable statutes
and regulations, ensuring that any potential impact or inconsistency is satisfactorily mitigated and
resolved.
Additionally, under AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, the City of Anaheim is
required to develop source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting programs to reduce the
amount of solid waste entering landfills. Local jurisdictions are mandated to divert at least 50-percent
of their solid waste generation into recycling. As of 2010, City of Anaheim is diverting
approximately 50-percent of the solid waste that its residents and businesses generate (CalRecycle
2010a). The City of Anaheim continues to exceed the minimum solid waste diversion rate of 50
percent by achieving a 63 percent diversion rate in the last reporting period of 2010. As such, the
City is meeting its AB 939 goal. Waste generated by the proposed project would enter the City’s
waste stream but would not substantial affect diversion rates, as the project’s waste generation would
represent a nominal percentage of the waste created within the City. Therefore, potential impacts
associated with solid waste statutes and regulations would be less than significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 137
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As previously discussed in Section 3.4,
Biological Resources, the ornamental trees and landscaping currently found on the project site lacks
any cohesiveness and does not constitute natural, native habitat. The highly disturbed nature of the
project site and the surrounding urbanized area creates an unsuitable environment for any plant or
wildlife species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Due to the previous
development of the project site and the complete lack of native habitat, sensitive plant or wildlife
species are not expected to occur on the project site. Therefore, no impacts associated with candidate,
sensitive, or special status species would occur.
Additionally, per Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, although the existing onsite 25,000 sq ft building
was the work of master architectural firm Parkinson and Parkinson, It is not of a significant design
and does not embody characteristics of a significant type, period, or method of construction. The
property also does not have the potential to yield, or may be likely to yield, information important to
prehistory or history. The building is not a historic property under Section 106 of the Nation Historic
Preservation Act, because it is not eligible for any of the National Register Criterion. It also has been
determined ineligible for National Register, California Register, or Local designation through survey
evaluation.
The proposed project has been designed to incorporate the existing historic elements found in the
surrounding Anaheim Colony Historic District and to respect the area’s historical heritage. The
inclusion of the proposed project in the neighborhood would not have a significant impact on the
historic buildings within the viewshed due to the extensive alterations that have already substantially
altered the viewshed. The changes in mass and scale already present in the neighborhood would not
be affected by the proposed project.
Furthermore, due to the previous development activity that has occurred on the project site, surface
and subsurface soils have been graded, excavated, and otherwise disturbed. As such, the probability
of discovery of a significant archeological or prehistorical resource is small. However, the project
site is within the ancient floodplain of the Santa Ana River and Pleistocene deposits can potentially be
encountered at depth. Thus, impacts to significant paleontological resources in undisturbed surface or
subsurface Pleistocene sediments is considered moderate. Mitigation Measures CULT-1 through
CULT-9 would be necessary to prevent impacts should any currently unknown historical or
prehistorical resource be unearthed during construction activities.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
138 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. In the general vicinity of the project site,
there are six related projects. All six related projects are located south and southeast of the project
site and located from 0.25 mile to 0.8 mile from the project site. The related projects are identified in
Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic in this Initial Study and include a combined total of 243 multiple
family residential units and 50,591 sq ft of retail and restaurant uses.
Following is a brief discussion of the potential for the proposed project in combination with the
related projects to result in cumulative environmental impacts.
Aesthetics
The proposed project is located along South Anaheim Boulevard as well as some of the related
projects. Development along the South Anaheim Boulevard corridor will be viewed by motorists
traveling along South Anaheim Boulevard. Because this area is within the Anaheim Colony Historic
District, visual character of the new development is important. Cumulatively, the combined visual
effect of the development of the proposed project and related project could result in significant visual
impacts. However, since the proposed project has borrowed stylistic elements from a nearby historic
building, the elements create a compatibility of design concepts across the viewshed. The design of
the complex borrows window and façade detailing to create a visual link with a prominent building in
the Anaheim Colony Historic District displays a sensitivity to the overall historic character of the
neighborhood. Therefore, the project’s contribution to a potential cumulatively visual effect within
the Anaheim Colony Historic District is considered to be less than cumulatively considerable and
thereby less than cumulatively significant.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The proposed project and related project are not located on existing agriculture or forestry land and
therefore, there would be no cumulative effect on these resources.
Air Quality
A discussion of cumulative air quality impacts is provided in Section 3.3 in this Initial Study. As
stated, the proposed project could result in significant emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) during construction activities and could contribute to the cumulative increase in VOCs.
Since the proposed project includes mitigation measures to reduce VOCs to less than the threshold,
the project’s contribution of cumulative VOCs is considered less than cumulatively considerable,
thereby less than cumulatively significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 139
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Cultural Resources
The implementation of the proposed project and related project could result in impacts on historical
resources due to the location of the projects being located within the Anaheim Colony Historic
District. As discussed above, the proposed project includes design concepts to reduce the project’s
contribution to historical impacts to less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less than
cumulatively significant.
The proposed project and related projects could result in impacts to cultural, paleontological, and
human remain resources. The proposed project includes mitigation measures to reduce its effect on
these resources to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to impacts on
these resources is considered less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less than cumulatively
significant.
Geology and Soils
The implementation of the proposed project and related projects are located in an area of seismic
activity; however, the required building codes are adequate to reduce potential geology and soil
impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative geology
and soil impacts is considered less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less than cumulatively
significant.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction and operation of the proposed project and related projects will increase greenhouse gas
emissions. This increase will contribute to the overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions within
the South Coast Air Basin. The proposed project’s generation of greenhouse gas emissions is less
than the screening threshold, and is considered less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less than
cumulatively significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed project and the related project could result in an increase in impacts associated with
hazardous materials. The project site includes contaminated soils classified as hazardous materials.
As described in Section 3.8d of this Initial Study, mitigation measures that require the removal of the
onsite contaminated soils will need to be implemented to reduce the project’s potential impact
associated with contaminated soils. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will
reduce the project’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts to less than cumulatively
considerable, thereby less than cumulatively significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed project and related projects are expected to cumulatively increase the conveyance of
stormwater to the existing storm drain system. The project includes best management practices that
will decrease the runoff volume currently experienced on the project site, while increasing infiltration
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
140 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
with four drywells and an increase of permeable surfaces on the project site. The project’s
contribution of stormwater to the existing storm drain system is less than cumulatively considerable,
thereby less than cumulatively significant.
Short-term construction activities associated with the proposed project and the related projects have
the potential to result in significant impacts to water quality. As required by existing regulations, the
proposed project will be identifying BMPs as part of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). These BMPs will include straw bales and vehicle tires wash down areas to reduce water
quality impacts during construction activities. The implementation of the BMPs will reduce the
project’s contribution to potential significant cumulative impacts to less than cumulatively
considerable, thereby less than cumulatively significant.
Long-term operational activities associated with the proposed project and the related projects have the
potential to result in significant impacts to water quality. The proposed project includes roof drains,
area drains, and catch basins to capture stormwater and direct the stormwater to Bio Clean Nutrient
Separating Baffle Boxes for pre-treatment prior to infiltration by the MaxWell IV drywells. The
implementation of these design features will reduce the project’s potential contribution to long-term
water quality impacts to less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less than cumulatively
significant.
Land Use and Planning
The implementation of the proposed project and related projects could result in impacts associated
with land use plans, policies, or regulations. The proposed project will be consistent with the General
Plan Land Use Plan; however, the project will require modifications to the Zoning Ordinance to
accommodate the proposed mixed use project. In addition, the project design features allow the
project to be consistent with the goals, objectives, and guidelines of the Anaheim Colony Historic
District Preservation Plan and The Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles and Design Guidelines. As
discussed in Section 3.10b of this Initial Study, the proposed design features associated with the
project will result in the project to be consistent with the applicable land use plans, policies, and
regulations. The proposed project’s contribution to potential cumulative land use impacts is
considered less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less than cumulatively significant.
Mineral Resources
The proposed project and related project are not located on existing mineral resource areas and
therefore, there would be no cumulative effect on mineral resources
Noise
Based on the distance of the nearest related project to the project site (i.e., 0.25 mile), noise levels
from construction activities at the related project sites are not expected to contribute to construction
noise levels on land uses immediately surrounding the project site.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 141
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Cumulative long-term operation noise impacts were evaluated and discussed in Section 3.12a in this
Initial Study. The evaluation of offsite vehicular noise levels included the proposed project, the
addition of the related projects, as well as the inclusion of a growth rate. As discussed, long-term
cumulative noise impacts off the project site would result in less than significant noise impacts.
Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative vehicular noise levels off the project site would be
less than cumulatively considerable.
Cumulative noise levels would result in potential noise impacts on the proposed multiple family
residential uses on the project site. The cumulative noise levels will require the implementation of
noise attenuation design features for the residential units facing Lincoln Avenue to reduce indoor
noise levels to the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. With the implementation of the
proposed noise attenuation features, the project’s contribution to cumulative vehicular noise impacts
on the project site would be less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less than cumulatively
significant.
Population and Housing
The proposed project and related project will increase the population and housing within the City.
The increase in housing will be less than 500 multiple family residences and less than 1,000 people.
This increase in housing would be a small fraction of the 27,148 residential units projected to be
remaining to be developed within the City. The cumulative increase in population and housing within
the project vicinity would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. Therefore, the project’s
contribution to an impact on population and housing is considered less than cumulatively
considerably, thereby less than cumulatively significant.
Public Services
The proposed project and related project will increase the population and housing within the City.
The increase in housing will be less than 500 multiple family residences and less than 1,000 people.
Both the proposed project and related projects are located in the vicinity of the Downtown area, and
therefore, would be able to be served in accordance with the response time goals of objectives of the
police and fire departments. Therefore, the proposed project and related projects would result in a
less than significant cumulative environmental impact associated with police and fire because no new
or physically altered police or fire structural facilities would be required.
The proposed project and related project could result in cumulative impacts to school and park
facilities; however, these potential impacts would be less than significant due to the regulated
development fees that are required of new development for schools and parks. Therefore, the
implementation of the project would result in less than cumulatively considerable impacts on schools
and parks.
The proposed project and related projects could result in cumulative impacts to library services;
however, these potential impacts would be less than significant due to the nominal increase of
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
142 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
projected population of approximately 0.3 percent of City residents served by the Anaheim Public
Library system. Therefore, the proposed project’s potential contribution to the Central Library’s
service population is considered less than cumulatively considerable.
Recreation
Implementation of the proposed project and related project could result in approximately 1,000
additional residents that could increase the use of existing park facilities. This cumulative increase in
park use would be less than significant due to the regulated development fees that are required for
new development for parks. Therefore, the project’s contribution to an impact on park and
recreational facilities is considered less than cumulatively considerably, thereby less than
cumulatively significant.
Transportation/Traffic
Cumulative long-term traffic volumes were evaluated and discussed in Section 16 in this Initial
Study. The analysis included vehicle trips generated by the proposed project and related projects. As
discussed, cumulative traffic levels could result in the South Anaheim Boulevard/Cypress Street
intersection operating at a level of service of LOS E which is considered a significant impact. The
project includes Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 to reduce the potential significant impact to less than
significant. All other analyzed intersections or roadway segments would experience less than
significant impacts due to cumulative traffic volumes. Therefore, with the project mitigation, the
proposed project’s contribution to cumulative traffic impacts is considered less than cumulatively
considerable, thereby less than cumulatively significant.
Utilities and Service Systems
The implementation of the proposed project and related project will result in the generation of
wastewater and storm water and result in the demand for water. The proposed project will not
contribute to a need for sewer, storm water, or water distribution facilities in addition to those that
will be constructed with the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would result in
impacts to distribution facilities that are considered less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less
than cumulatively significant.
In addition, the proposed project and related projects will increase the generation of wastewater and
therefore contribution to total flow at the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) wastewater
facilities. However, given that the OCSD have a surplus capacity of approximately 220 million
gallons per day, the additional wastewater generated by the approximately 500 cumulative residential
units and additional commercial uses would be nominal and would not exceed the OCSD’s surplus
capacity. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution of wastewater to the OCSD’s treatment
facilities is considered to be less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less than cumulatively
significant.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Michael Brandman Associates 143
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Finally, the proposed project and related projects will increase the generation of solid waste to the
Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD) landfill facilities. These
facilities are permitted to accept over seven million tons annually. Although the proposed project and
related projects will increase the generation of solid waste, the amount of solid waste is considered
nominal and would represent a less than significant effect on the existing IWMD landfill facilities.
Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution of solid waste to the IWMD landfill facilities is
considered to be less than cumulatively considerable, thereby less than cumulatively significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed throughout Section 3.3,
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation, of this IS, with the incorporation of previously identified
Mitigation Measures, all environmental impacts associated with construction and/or operation of the
proposed project would be less than significant, and therefore would not have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or indirectly, on human beings.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration References
Michael Brandman Associates 145
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
SECTION 4: REFERENCES
AirNav, LLC. 2012. Airport Search Results. Website: http://www.airnav.com/cgi-bin/airport-
search. Accessed January 2012.
Anaheim, City of. 2012a. Anaheim Fire Department Website. Website:
http://www.anaheim.net/sectionnew.asp?id=73. Accessed March 2012.
Anaheim, City of. 2012b. Anaheim Police Department Website. Website:
http://www.anaheim.net/section.asp?id=124. Accessed March 2012.
Anaheim, City of. 2011(Updated). City of Anaheim Municipal Code. November 15 (Updated).
Anaheim, City of. 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June.
Anaheim, City of. 2004. City of Anaheim General Plan. May.
Anaheim, City of. 2004. City of Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR. May.
Anaheim, City of. 2003. The Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles and Design Guidelines. April 3.
http://www.anaheim.net/departmentfolders/planning/ColonyDesignGuidelines.pdf
Anaheim, City of. 1999. Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan.
http://www.anaheim.net/com_dev/ed/pdf/HistoricPreservationPlan.PDF.
Anaheim City School District. 2012. Anaheim City School District Website. Website:
http://www.acsd.k12.ca.us/. Accessed March 2012.
Anaheim City School District. 2011. 2010-2030 Facilities Master Plan.
Anaheim Union High School District. 2012. Anaheim Union High School District Website.
Website: http://www.auhsd.us/. Accessed March 2012.
CalEEMod. California Emissions Estimator Model. Version 2011.1.1. Website:
http://caleemod.com/. Accessed April 2011.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures. August 2010. Website: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf. Accessed
December 2011.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2009. Health Risk Assessments for Proposed
Land Use Projects. Website: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-
content/uploads/downloads/2010/05/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. Accessed
December 2011.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2008. CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating
and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act. Website: http://www.capcoa.org/. Accessed December 2011.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
References Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
146 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
California Air Resources Board. 2012. Historical Air Quality, Top 4 Summary. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. Accessed April 2012.
California Air Resources Board. 2011a. Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/sp_measures_implementation_timeline.pdf. Accessed
December 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2011b. Area Designation Maps / State and National. 2011 State
Area Designations. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed
December 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2010a. Ambient Air Quality Standards. September 8. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2010b (Updated). Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data - 2000 to 2008.
May 12 (Updated). Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. Accessed
December 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2010c. Greenhouse Gas Inventory - 2020 Forecast. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm. Accessed December 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2010d. Off-road Emissions Inventory. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/offroad/offroad.htm. Accessed February 2012.
California Air Resources Board. 2009. Vinyl Chloride. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/vc/vc.htm. Accessed December 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2008a. Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change.
December. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm. Accessed
December 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2008b. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal Recommended
Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the
California Environmental Quality Act. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/localgov/ceqa/meetings/102708/prelimdraftproposal102408.pdf.
Accessed December 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2007. Staff Report. California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Level and
2020 Emissions Limit. November 16, 2007. Website:
www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/staff_report_1990_level.pdf. Accessed December
18, 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2005. California Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality
and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm. Accessed December 2011.
California Air Resources Board. 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions
from Diesel-fueled Engines and Vehicles. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration References
Michael Brandman Associates 147
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
California Air Resources Board. 1998. Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant.
Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov\regact\regup98.htm#diesltac. Accessed December 2011.
California Climate Change Center. 2006. Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California:
A Summary Report from the California Climate Change Center. July. Website:
http://www.scc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/climate_change/assessing_risks.pdf. Accessed
December 2011.
California Department of Conservation. 2011. Orange County Important Farmland 2010 map.
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/ora10.pdf.
California Department of Conservation. 2004. Williamson Act Parcels map.
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Map%20and%20PDF/Orange/orange_2004.jpg.
California Department of Education. 2010. District and Student Enrollment by Grade: Anaheim
Union High School District. October 22. Website:
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Enrollment/GradeEnr.aspx?cChoice=DistEnrGr2&cYear=201
0-11&cSelect=3066431--
ANAHEIM%20UNION%20HIGH&TheCounty=&cLevel=District&cTopic=Enrollment&m
yTimeFrame=S&cType=ALL&cGender=B. Accessed March 2012.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. Orange County FHSZ Map.
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/fhsz_maps_orange.php.
California Department of Public Health. 2010. California Indoor Radon Levels, Sorted by Zip Code.
May . Website:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/healthinfo/environhealth/Documents/Radon/CaliforniaRadonDatabas
e.pdf. Accessed April 2012.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2012. .Active Landfill
Profiles.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Profiles/Facility/Landfill/LFProfile1.asp?COID=30&FACID=3
0-AB-0035. Accessed April 2012.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2011. Estimated Solid
Waste Generation Rates for Commercial Establishments.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/Commercial.htm. Accessed April
2012.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2010a.
Diversion/Disposal Rate Report for Anaheim.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/tools/mars/JurDrDtl.asp?Flag=1&Ju=15&YR=2010
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2010b. Estimated Solid
Waste Generation Rates for Residential Developments.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/Residential.htm. Accessed April
2012.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
References Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
148 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
California Department of Water Resources. 2008. Managing an Uncertain Future, Climate Change
Adaptation Strategies for California’s Water. September. Website:
http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/ClimateChangeWhitePaper.pdf. Accessed
December 2011.
California Environmental Health Tracking Program. 2011. Traffic Linkage Service Demonstration.
Website: http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tool.jsp. Accessed December 2011.
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment. Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust. Website:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/pdf/diesel4-02.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Website:
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/. Accessed December 2011.
California Public Utilities Commission. 2011. Large IOU RPS Procurement Data 2003-2010.
Website (1): http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/; Website(2):
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B5AF672B-ABB6-4B0F-8F52-
AF78D4701677/0/CaliforniaRPSProcurementSummary20032010.xls. Accessed August
2011.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. FIRM Map: Anaheim, California
(06059C0133J). December 3.
http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?ROT=0&O_X=10644&O_Y=7762&O_ZM=
0.116908&O_SX=877&O_SY=605&O_DPI=400&O_TH=21568846&O_EN=21607889&O
_PG=1&O_MP=1&CT=0&DI=0&WD=14400&HT=10350&JX=1016&JY=665&MPT=0&
MPS=0&ACT=0&KEY=21426169&ITEM=1&ZOOM_FIT.x=1. Accessed April 2012.
Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model, Version 1.1.
Federal Highway Administration. 2004. Traffic Noise Model, Version 2.5.
Golden State Water Company. 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan - West Orange. August.
Governor is Office of Planning and Research. 2008. CEQA AND CLIMATE CHANGE:
Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.
Website: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/june08-ceqa.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
IBI Group. 2012. Traffic Impact Analysis. March 1.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007a. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Website:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. Accessed December
2011.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Website:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html. Accessed December
2011.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration References
Michael Brandman Associates 149
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.
Website: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.pdf. Accessed
December 2011.
KHR Associates. 2012. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. February 29.
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. ND. Table 1: Loading for Each Class of Land Use.
Website: http://www.lacsd.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3531. Accessed April
2012.
National Toxicology Program. 2011a. Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition; U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. June 10, 2011. Benzene. Website:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Benzene.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2011.
National Toxicology Program. 2011b. Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition; U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Diesel Exhaust Particles. Website:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/DieselExhaustParticulates.pdf. Accessed
December 22, 2011.
Office of the California Attorney General. 2010. Addressing Climate Change at the Project Level.
January 6. Website: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf.
Accessed December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2011a. Air Quality Significance Thresholds. March.
Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2011b. Historical Data by Year. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/historicaldata.htm. Accessed February 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2011c. Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook.
March 10. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html. Accessed December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011d. Fact Sheet for Applying
CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/LST/CalEEModguidance.pdf. Accessed December
2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2011e. Table 1, Meteorological Sites. June 8.
Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/metdata/AERMOD_Table1.html. Accessed December
2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2011f. AQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD.
August 23. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/metdata/AERMOD_ModelingGuidance.html. Accessed
December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2010. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Threshold Stakeholder
Working Group Meeting #15. September 28. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/2010/sept28mtg/ghgmtg15-web.pdf. Accessed
December 2011.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
References Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
150 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2009. Final Localized Significance Threshold
Methodology, Appendix C. October 21, 2009. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/handbook/LST/LST.html. Accessed December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008a. Final Localized Significance Threshold
Methodology. June. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/handbook/LST/Method_final.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008b. Board Meeting Date: December 5, 2008,
Agenda 31, Interim CEQA/GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and
Plans. December. Website: http:// www.aqmd.gov/hb/2008/December/081231a.htm.
Accessed December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008c. Draft Guidance Document - Interim CEQA
Greenhouse (GHG) Significance Threshold Document. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/attachments/2008/December/081231.exe. Accessed September
2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008d. Mates III Final Report. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/matesIII/MATESIIIFinalReportSept2008.html. Accessed July
2011
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008e. EMFAC 2007 (v2.3) Emission Factors (On-
Road). Heavy-Heavy Duty On-road Vehicles (Scenario Years 2007-2026). Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/onroad/onroad.html. Accessed December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2007a. Odor Detection, Mitigation and Control
Technology Forum and Roundtable Discussion. Website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/conferencesworkshops/OdorForum/OdorForumSummary.pdf.
Accessed April 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2007b. Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan.
Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/index.html. Accessed December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003. Final 2003 Air Quality Management Plan.
Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/AQMD03AQMP.htm. Accessed December 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2000. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the
South Coast Air Basin (MATES-II). Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/matesiidf/matestoc.htm.
Accessed July 2011.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. CEQA Handbook. Available at SCAQMD,
21865 Copley Dr, Diamond Bar, California, 91765.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2010. National Greenhouse Gas
Inventory Data for the Period 1990-2008. Website:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/sbi/eng/18.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
University of California, Davis. 1997. Prepared for California Department of Transportation. 1997.
Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. Website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/air/pages/coprot.htm. Accessed December 2011.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration References
Michael Brandman Associates 151
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
U.S. Census Bureau. 2012 (Updated). State and County Quick Facts: Anaheim, California. January
31 (Updates). Website: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0602000.html. Accessed
March 2012.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology
Program. 2011a. Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition: Benzene. June 10. Website:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Benzene.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology
Program. 2011a. Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition: Diesel Exhaust Particles. June
10. Website: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/DieselExhaustParticulates.pdf.
Accessed December 2011.
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. 2005. Carbon Dioxide. September. Website:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0103.html. Accessed December 2011.
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 2003. Safety and Health
Topics: Methane. Website:
http://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_250700.html. Accessed December
2011.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2001 (Updated). Retail and Service Buildings: How Many
Employees Are There? January 3 (Updated). Website:
http://www.eia.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/cbecs/pbawebsite/retailserv/retserv_howmanye
mpl.htm. Accessed March 2012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011a. Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria
Pollutants as of August 30, 2011. Website: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/.
Accessed December 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011b. Sources of Indoor Air Pollution - Organic Gases,
Volatile Organic Compounds. Website: http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html. Accessed
December 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011c. 2011 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report,
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2009, EPA 430-R-11-005.
Website: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. Accessed
December 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Technology Transfer Network, Air Toxics Website,
Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Website:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hapindex.html. Accessed December 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009a. Ozone and your Health, EPA-456/F-09-001.
Website: http://www.epa.gov/airnow/ozone-c.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009b. Fact Sheet, Proposed Revisions to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide. July 22. Website:
http://www.epa.gov/air/nitrogenoxides/pdfs/20090722fs.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
References Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
152 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009c. A Citizen’s Guide to Radon, the Guide to Protecting
Yourself and your Family from Radon, EPA 402/K-09/001. June. Website:
http://www.epa.gov/radon/pdfs/citizensguide.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009d. Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
in the Construction Sector. February. Website: http://www.epa.gov/sectors/pdf/construction-
sector-report.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Particle Pollution and your Health, EPA-452/F-03-
001. Website: http://epa.gov/pm/pdfs/pm-color.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Technology Transfer Network, Air Toxics Website,
Benzene. 2000. Website: http;//www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/benzene.html. Accessed April
2011.
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration List of Preparers
Michael Brandman Associates 153
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
SECTION 5: LIST OF PREPARERS
Michael Brandman Associates - Environmental Consultant
220 Commerce, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92602
Phone: 714.508.4100
Fax: 714.508.4110
Project Director ..................................................................................................Thomas F. Holm, AICP
Project Manager ...............................................................................................Michael Houlihan, AICP
Environmental Planner......................................................Collin Ramsey, MS, LEED Green Associate
Environmental Analyst............................................ Margaret Partridge, AICP, LEED Green Associate
Senior Editor / Publications..........................................................................................Sandra L. Tomlin
GIS/Graphics..............................................................................................................Karlee McKracken
Reprographics......................................................................................................................José Morelos
Executive Assistant ................................................................................................. Daphne Ott de Vries
Technical Subconsultants
Geology and Soils.....................................................................................Leighton and Associates, Inc.
41715 Enterprise Circle North
Temecula, CA 92590
Phone: 951.296.0530
Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................Apex Companies, LLC
6185 Cornerstone Court East, Suite 110
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: 858.558.1120
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..............................................................Shaw Environmental, Inc.
4005 Port Chicago Highway
Concord, CA 94520
Phone: 925.288.9898
Hydrology and Water Quality/Utilities and Service Systems ...................................KHR Associates
4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: 949.756.6440
City of Anaheim - Uptown Village
List of Preparers Initial Study <and Mitigated Negative Declaration>
154 Michael Brandman Associates
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0055\00550033\IS-MND\00550033 Uptown Village IS-MND 01-24-2013.doc
Traffic and Transportation ...................................................................................................IBI Group
18401 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 110
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: 949.833.5588
Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................................CH2MHILL
6 Hutton Centre Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Phone: 714.429.2000
DRAFT - FINAL
Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Apartments
Parking Demand Study
Equity Residential
City of Anaheim, California
Prepared for
City of Anaheim
Planning Department
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
July, 2013
Prepared by
IBI Group
18401 Von Karman Ave, Suite 110
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 833-5588
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Apartments – Parking Study DRAFT - FINAL
- ii -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... II
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ III
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. IV
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Project Location .............................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Site Description .............................................................................................................. 5
1.3 Nearby Transit ................................................................................................................ 5
2 PARKING REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................. 11
2.1 Parking Requirement .................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Parking Supply ............................................................................................................. 11
3 SIMILAR SITE PARKING COUNTS ........................................................................................ 12
3.1 Mixed-Use Residential and Retail Survey Sites ........................................................... 12
3.2 Residential Only Survey Sites ....................................................................................... 15
4 COMPARISON TO RATES PUBLISHED IN OTHER PARKING MANUALS ......................... 17
4.1 Parking Demand Generation – ITE Parking Generation Manual .................................. 17
4.2 Shared Parking Analysis – ULI Shared Parking ........................................................... 18
5 METHODOLOGY OF STUDY ................................................................................................. 19
6 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 21
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................ 22
A. Parking Counts – Survey Site #1 ......................................................................................... 22
B. Parking Counts – Survey Site #2 ......................................................................................... 22
C. Parking Counts – Survey Site #3 ........................................................................................ 22
D. Parking Counts – Survey Site #4 ........................................................................................ 22
E. Parking Counts – Survey Site #5 ......................................................................................... 22
F. Parking Counts – Survey Site #6 ......................................................................................... 22
G. Platinum Vista and Platinum Gateway Parking Ratios ....................................................... 22
H. Parking Agreement ............................................................................................................. 22
Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Apartments – Parking Study DRAFT - FINAL
- iii -
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Project Location .............................................................................................................. 7
Figure 1.2 Zoning Map ..................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 1.3 Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 1.4 Transit Routes............................................................................................................... 10
Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Apartments – Parking Study DRAFT - FINAL
- iv -
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Existing Transit Service in Vicinity of Project Site ............................................................ 6
Table 3-1 Peak Hour Parking Demand at Survey Site #1 .............................................................. 12
Table 3-2 Peak Hour Parking Demand at Survey Site #2 .............................................................. 13
Table 3-3 Average Peak Hour Parking Demand ........................................................................... 14
Table 3-4 Average Peak Hour Parking Demand – Adjusted ......................................................... 14
Table 3-5 Average Peak Hour Parking Demand ........................................................................... 15
Table 3-6 Existing Transit Service in Vicinity of Project Site .......................................................... 16
Table 4-1 ITE Parking Generation - Weekday ............................................................................... 17
Table 4-2 Shared Use Parking Analysis ........................................................................................ 18
Table 5-1 Average Peak Hour Parking Demand - Residential ...................................................... 19
Table 5-2 Average Peak Hour Parking Demand - Retail ............................................................... 20
Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Apartments – Parking Study DRAFT - FINAL
5
1 Introduction
This report documents the results of a parking demand study prepared for a mixed-use residential
and retail development located at the northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue in
the City of Anaheim. The purpose of this parking demand study is to estimate the forecast parking
demand that would be generated by a proposed mixed-use residential and retail development. The
objective is to establish a minimum parking requirement for the proposed project.
The study work scope was developed in conjunction with and approved by the City of Anaheim. All
assumptions and methodologies are consistent with the City of Anaheim guidelines for a parking
demand study.
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project is located at the northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue
within Downtown Anaheim. The project site is bounded by Cypress Street to the north, Lincoln
Avenue to the south, Lemon Street to the west, and Anaheim Boulevard to the east. The project
location is illustrated in Figure 1.1.
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION
The existing site consists of a vacant single story building and surface parking spaces. Access to the
site is provided via a driveway on Lemon Street and one driveway on Cypress Street. Land uses
immediately adjacent to the project site include Pearson Park, Freedom Bible Church, and the
Uptown Center to the north, the Anaheim Towne Center to the south, Pacific Western Bank to the
east, and the AT&T office building to the west. Per the City of Anaheim Land Use Map, the project
site is located within the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone, consisting of commercial, residential, parks, and
institutional uses. Figure 1.2 provides an illustration of the existing zoning map.
The proposed project would replace the existing use with a mixed-use residential and retail
development. The development would encompass the entire lot and include a four-story apartment
complex with 220 residential units and 18,900 square feet of retail space. The unit mix for the
proposed project is 34 studios, 102 1-bedroom units and 84 2-bedroom units, or approximately 60%
studios/1-bedroom units and 40% 2-bedroom units. A three-level parking garage with 488 parking
spaces is proposed, along with 89 surface parking spaces. Access to 420 of the 488 parking spaces
within the parking structure will be gated and reserved for residents only. Sixty-eight of the parking
structure spaces will be open to the public, and combined with the 89 surface parking spaces for
shared parking between AT&T service vehicles, retail use, and residential spaces. Access to the
proposed project is proposed via a new driveway on Lemon Street and a new driveway on Cypress
Street. The site plan is illustrated in Figure 1.3.
1.3 NEARBY TRANSIT
Nearby transit is provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority. There are currently three
OCTA bus routes that have bus stops within one-quarter mile of the proposed project and provide
connections to various locations throughout Orange County. The close proximity of frequent transit
service may increase the chance residents, guests, or retail customers use public transportation to
travel to or from the proposed project site. Table 1-1 summarizes each route, including major
destinations and frequency. Figure 1.4 illustrates the bus routes and bus stops.
Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Apartments – Parking Study DRAFT - FINAL
6
Table 1-1 Existing Transit Service in Vicinity of Project Site
Route Description Service
Peak
Period
Headways
(minutes)
Stop
42
Seal Beach – Orange
via Seal Beach Blvd./Los Alamitos
Blvd./Lincoln Ave.
M-F 4:00-12:00 am
Sat-Sun 5:30 am-
9:00 pm
M-F 10
Sat-Sun
30
Lincoln
Ave/Harbor
Blvd
43 Fullerton – Costa Mesa
via Harbor Blvd.
M-F 4:00 am-2:00
am
Sat-Sun 4:00 am-
1:30 am
M-F 10
Sat-Sun
10
Harbor
Blvd/Lincoln
Ave
47 Fullerton – Newport Beach
via Anaheim Blvd./Fairview St.
M-F 4:00 am-11:30
pm
Sat-Sun 5:00 am-
11:00 pm
M-F 10
Sat-Sun
30
Anaheim
Blvd/Lincoln
Ave
Source: The Orange County Transportation Authority
ANAHEIM-LINCOLN APARTMENTS PARKING DEMAND STUDY
CITY OF ANAHEIM IBI GROUP July 2013
Lincoln Ave
Broadway
Santa Ana St
La Palm
a
A
v
e
East StOlive StAnaheim BlvdLemon StHarbor BlvdWest StSouth St
Sycamore St
Cypress St
North St
Water St
5
Project
Site
FIGURE 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
FIGURE 1.2 ZONING MAP
ANAHEIM-LINCOLN APARTMENTS PARKING DEMAND STUDY
CITY OF ANAHEIM IBI GROUP July 2013
Project
Site
FIGURE 1.3 SITE PLAN
ANAHEIM-LINCOLN APARTMENTS PARKING DEMAND STUDY ANALYSIS
CITY OF ANAHEIM IBI GROUP July 2013
Project
Site
ANAHEIM-LINCOLN APARTMENTS PARKING DEMAND STUDY
CITY OF ANAHEIM IBI GROUP July 2013
Lincoln Ave
Broadway
Santa Ana St
La Palm
a
A
v
e
East StOlive StAnaheim BlvdLemon StHarbor BlvdWest StSouth St
Sycamore St
Cypress St
North St
Water St
5
Project
Site
FIGURE 1.4 TRANSIT ROUTES
Legend
Bus Route
Bus Stop
47
38
43
42
Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Apartments – Parking Study DRAFT - FINAL
11
2 Parking Requirements
2.1 PARKING REQUIREMENT
The study area is located within Downtown Anaheim and in the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone. Per the
City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 18, the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone encourages mixed use
development projects that combine residential with non-residential uses, including office, retail,
business services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities as a
means to create an active street life, enhance the vitality of businesses, and reduce the need for
automobile travel. Due to variations in parking demand and needs of each planned mixed-use
development, the City’s standard minimum parking requirements do not apply to this zone. Per the
City’s Municipal Code Section for Mixed-Use Overlay Zone, a parking demand study must be
prepared and approved by the City.
2.2 PARKING SUPPLY
The proposed project includes plans for a 488 space parking structure and an additional 89 space
surface parking lot, for a total of 577 parking spaces. Per the project site plan, 420 spaces are
reserved for residents in the parking structure and 157 spaces are open for retail customers and
guests between the ground floor of the parking structure and the surface parking lot.
The project developer is also proposing to reserve a parking space to be allocated to a car sharing
program such as ZipCar. The provision of a carshare vehicle on site is intended to encourage
residents in the community to reduce their automobile usage and potentially their need for ownership
of a first or second vehicle. If a carshare provider chooses to establish a location onsite, as part of
the leasing process new residents in the project would be informed of the carshare program and
provided with information on how to sign-up to participate in the service.
Additionally, a parking agreement with AT&T is attached to the project site. This agreement
designates that the developer of the project site provide for the non-exclusive use of up to 67 parking
spaces by AT&T. This agreement results in a shared parking condition, where AT&T vehicles would
have equal access to the surface parking facilities as would retail customers and residential guests.
Based on the usage of parking spaces on the existing site by AT&T over the last 12 months, it is
anticipated that AT&T would only use a portion of their parking space allocation on a limited basis.
Because the agreement stipulates that AT&T use of the parking stalls is on a non-exclusive basis, the
67 parking spaces would be available for first-come, first-served shared use with retail customers and
guests throughout the day. The parking agreement with AT&T is provided in Appendix C.
Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Apartments – Parking Study DRAFT - FINAL
12
3 Similar Site Parking Counts
As noted in the previous section, the City of Anaheim Zoning Code requires a parking demand study
to determine the minimum parking requirement for a mixed-use residential and retail development
located in the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone. To identify a recommended minimum parking ratio, similar
site parking surveys were conducted to determine the typical parking demand generated by mixed-
use residential apartment and retail developments and residential apartment developments in Orange
County.
3.1 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AND RETAIL SURVEY SITES
Two mixed-use residential apartment and retail developments in Orange County were selected to
conduct parking surveys. The survey sites were selected based on their similarities to the project
site, including close proximity to retail, commercial, and businesses; and were approved by the City.
Surveys were conducted on a Tuesday and Saturday between 5:00 AM – 9:00 AM, 11:00 AM – 3:00
PM, and 6:00 PM – 10:00 PM to capture the peak parking demand generated by residential and retail
uses at the two similar sites.
3.1.1 Survey Site #1
The first survey site is located in Fullerton, California and consists of an 183-unit apartment complex
with approximately 1,553 square feet of retail space located on the ground floor and 20,221 square
feet of retail space located adjacent to the apartment complex. The unit mix for this complex is 129 1-
bedroom units and 54 2-bedroom units. There are a total of 406 parking spaces provided on-site.
Retail parking (183 parking spaces) is provided on the ground level of a parking structure that is
accessible by the public. The ground level parking spaces are open for 24-hour residential parking
and 2 hour retail parking. Due to its location in Downtown Fullerton, the ground level parking spaces
are also open for 2 hour parking by the general public. Residential parking spaces (223 parking
spaces) are located in an underground structure accessible only by residents.
The peak parking demand per dwelling unit and per 1,000 square feet of retail space is summarized
in Table 3-1. There are 183 units available, and 174 are currently occupied. Of the 21,774 square
feet of retail space available,18,501 square feet are currently leased out. The following table
identifies the peak parking demand observed for residential and retail uses. A rate per dwelling unit
and per 1,000 square feet of retail space is provided as well.
Table 3-1 Peak Hour Parking Demand at Survey Site #1
Residential Tuesday Saturday Retail Tuesday Saturday
Peak Hour 5:00 AM 5:00 AM Peak Hour 12:00 PM 1:00 PM
Dwelling Units Occupied 174 174 Retail Space Occupied 18.5 18.5
Peak Hour Parking Demand 191 191 Peak Hour Parking Demand 173 111
Peak Hour Parking
Demand per Dwelling Unit 1.10 1.10 Peak Hour Parking
Demand per 1,000 SF 9.35 6.00
The peak hour parking rate for residential is 1.10 spaces per dwelling unit on a Saturday and 1.10
spaces per dwelling unit on a Tuesday. The peak hour parking rate for retail is 6.00 per 1,000 square
feet of retail space on a Saturday and 9.35 per 1,000 square feet of retail space on a Tuesday. It
should be noted that the peak parking rate for retail includes parking from the general public, and may
not reflect only the parking generated by the ground floor retail space attached to the apartment
Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Apartments – Parking Study DRAFT - FINAL
13
complex and the adjacent retail building. In this case, the demand for retail parking shown in Table 3-
1 is likely higher than if the parking facility did not allow general public parking.
3.1.2 Survey Site #2
Survey site #2 is located in Santa Ana, California and consists of a 250-unit apartment complex with
approximately 18,000 square feet of retail space located on the ground floor. The unit mix for this
complex is 105 1-bedroom units and 145 2 to 3 bedroom units. There are a total of 782 parking
spaces provided on-site. Retail parking (329 parking spaces) is provided on the ground level of a
parking structure that is accessible by the public. These spaces are for leasing office parking (2
hours), retail customer (2 hours), restaurant customer (2 hours), resident guest (24 hours), Double
Tree Hotel staff (24 hours), and resident reserved (72 hours). A Double Tree Hotel is located on the
same lot as the apartment complex, with its own underground parking structure. Hotel staff are
permitted to park in the retail parking provided by the apartment complex. However, a majority of
hotel staff either take transit, or park in the Double Tree Hotel underground structure. Residential
parking spaces (453 parking spaces) are located in an underground structure accessible only by
residents.
The peak parking demand generated by this site is summarized in Table 3-2. There are currently 225
units that are occupied, and 13,000 square feet of retail space leased out. The following table
identifies the peak parking demand for residential and retail uses. A rate per dwelling unit and per
1,000 square feet of retail space is provided as well.
Table 3-2 Peak Hour Parking Demand at Survey Site #2
Residential Tuesday Saturday Retail Tuesday Saturday
Peak Hour 6:00 AM 5:00 AM Peak Hour 10:00 PM 2:00 PM
Dwelling Units Occupied 225 225 Retail Space Occupied 13 13.0
Peak Hour Parking Demand 212 208 Peak Hour Parking Demand 167(1) 181(1)
Peak Hour Parking
Demand per Dwelling Unit 0.94 0.92 Peak Hour Parking
Demand per 1,000 SF 12.85 13.92
Note: (1) – The ground level retail parking area is intended for retail customers, guests, and the Double Tree Hotel staff
members. However, due to the high number of overnight parking in the retail parking area, there is the potential that residents
and guests park here as well.
The peak hour parking rate for residential is 0.92 per dwelling unit on a Saturday and 0.94 on a
Tuesday. The peak hour parking rate for retail is 13.92 per 1,000 square feet of retail space on a
Saturday and 12.85 per 1,000 square feet of retail space on a Tuesday. It should be noted that the
peak parking rate for retail includes parking from the employees of the Double Tree Hotel and
potentially residents as well; and may not reflect only the parking generated by the ground floor retail
space attached to the apartment complex.
Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Apartments – Parking Study DRAFT - FINAL
14
3.1.3 Average Peak Hour Parking Demand
Based on the data collected from the two survey sites, the average peak hour parking demand per
dwelling unit is 1.01 on a Saturday and 1.02 on a Tuesday. The average park hour parking demand
per 1,000 square feet of retail space is 9.96 on a Saturday and 11.10 on a Tuesday. The combined
average peak hour parking demand from the two survey sites is summarized in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3 Average Peak Hour Parking Demand
Residential Tuesday Saturday Retail Tuesday Saturday
Peak Hour Parking Demand per
Dwelling Unit (Site #1) 1.10 1.10 Peak Hour Parking
Demand per 1,000 SF 9.35 6.00
Peak Hour Parking Demand per
Dwelling Unit (Site #2) 0.94 0.92 Peak Hour Parking
Demand per 1,000 SF 12.85 13.92
Peak Hour Parking Demand per
Dwelling Unit (Average) 1.02 1.01
Peak Hour Parking
Demand per 1,000 SF
(Average)
11.10 9.96
Both of these selected case studies possess unique location characteristics that create differences
when compared to the proposed project condition. For example, Site #1 is located within one-half
mile of the Fullerton Transportation Center. Site #2 is located within a dense employment center with
thousands of jobs located within walking distance. To account for these conditions, a factor should
be applied to include anticipated residential parking demand for a similar project not located adjacent
to rail transit or significant employment.
A study recently conducted by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) titled Parking
Strategies for Smart Growth recommends reductions in parking requirements of 10% for
developments located within close proximity to transit (rail or BRT) and 10% reductions for
developments with mixed-use and local serving retail. Applying these recommended rates would
result in a 20% increase in the parking rate for Site #1 and a 10% increase in the parking rate for Site
#2. Table 3-4 provides a summary with the revised rates.
Table 3-4 Average Peak Hour Parking Demand – Adjusted
Residential Tuesday Saturday Retail Tuesday Saturday
Peak Hour Parking Demand per
Dwelling Unit (Site #1) 1.32 1.32 Peak Hour Parking
Demand per 1,000 SF 11.22 7.20
Peak Hour Parking Demand per
Dwelling Unit (Site #2) 1.04 1.02 Peak Hour Parking
Demand per 1,000 SF 14.14 15.31
Peak Hour Parking Demand per
Dwelling Unit (Average) 1.18 1.17
Peak Hour Parking
Demand per 1,000 SF
(Average)
12.68 11.26
Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Apartments – Parking Study DRAFT - FINAL
15
3.2 RESIDENTIAL ONLY SURVEY SITES
IBI Group also conducted parking surveys at three residential only apartment developments in
Orange County. The three survey sites include:
Survey Site #3, Irvine, CA – 279-unit apartment complex that is currently 93.9% occupied
(262 units). This apartment complex provides 600 parking spaces in a gated parking
structure. This corresponds to a parking supply ratio of 2.15 spaces per unit. The unit mix for
this complex is 2 studio units, 162 1-bedroom units; and 115 2-bedroom units. This apartment
is not located near mass transit.
Survey Site #4, Irvine, CA – 403-unit apartment complex that is currently 96.8% occupied
(390 units). This apartment complex provides 643 parking spaces in a gated parking
structure. This corresponds to a parking supply ratio of 1.60 spaces per unit. The unit mix for
this complex is 326 1-bedroom units; and 77 2-bedroom units. This apartment is not located
near mass transit.
Survey Site #5, Orange, CA – 460-unit apartment complex that is currently 95.2% occupied
(440 units). This apartment provides 784 parking spaces in a gated parking structure and
gated surface parking lot. This corresponds to a parking supply ratio of 1.70 spaces per unit.
The unit mix for this complex is 256 1-bedroom units; and 204 2-bedroom units. This
apartment is located within 1 mile of the Anaheim Metrolink Station.
Survey Site #6, Anaheim, CA – 162-unit apartment complex that is currently 95.1% occupied
(154 units). This apartment complex provides 385 parking spaces in a gated parking
structure and surface parking lot. This corresponds to a parking supply ratio of 2.37 spaces
per unit. The unit mix for this complex is 70 1-bedroom units and 92 2-bedroom units.
Surveys were conducted on a Tuesday and Saturday between 6:00 PM – 1:00 AM to capture the
peak parking demand generated by residential uses at the two similar sites. The peak hour
parking rates from the three sites are summarized in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5 Average Peak Hour Parking Demand
Survey Site Units
Occupied
Weekday Weekend
Peak Hour
Parking
Demand
(spaces)
Rate
(spaces/unit)
Peak Hour
Parking
Demand
(spaces)
Rate
(spaces/unit)
Survey Site #3 262 354 1.35 356 1.36
Survey Site #4 390 504 1.29 443 1.14
Survey Site #5 440 616 1.40 547 1.24
Survey Site #6 154 238 1.55 260 1.69
Average 312 428 1.40 402 1.36
These additional four survey sites are all located near employment centers in the cities of
Anaheim, Irvine and Orange. Bus services are provided by the Irvine Shuttle (iShuttle) and
OCTA local bus routes. A summary of the transit routes and frequency for the additional survey
sites is provided in Table 3-6. Transit routes and frequency are much lower at these additional
survey sites compared to the previous two similar survey sites.
Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Apartments – Parking Study DRAFT - FINAL
16
Table 3-6 Existing Transit Service in Vicinity of Project Site
Route Description Service
Peak Period
Headways
(minutes)
Stops
Survey Site #3
86 Costa Mesa to Mission Viejo
via Alton Pkwy/Jeronimo Rd
M-F 6:00 am -
9:30 pm
M-F 60
Kelvin Ave/
Jamboree Rd
Survey Site #4
iShuttle
Route B – Tustin Metrolink
Station to Irvine Business
Complex
M-F 5:30-9:30
am; 1:30-8:00 pm M-F 30 Alton Ave/
Jamboree Rd
Survey Site #5
54 Garden Grove to Orange
via Chapman Ave
M-F 4:30 am-
11:30 pm
Sat-Sun 6:00 am-
10:00 pm
M-F 30
Sat-Sun 30
Chapman Ave/
Renaissance
Source: The Orange County Transportation Authority
Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Apartments – Parking Study DRAFT - FINAL
17
4 Comparison to Rates Published in Other Parking
Manuals
4.1 PARKING DEMAND GENERATION – ITE PARKING GENERATION MANUAL
For comparison, rates from the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition were used to calculate
parking demand generated from the proposed project. The ITE Parking Generation Manual provides
averages, ranges, and statistical quality values of parking demand generated by various land uses.
The typical parking demand generated by a low/mid-rise apartment development and retail
development are summarized in Table 4-1.
It should be noted that the actual use for the retail spaces has not been determined. For the purposes
of this study, it has been assumed that the retail space would be allocated to general retail/strip
commercial shopping center use.
Table 4-1 ITE Parking Generation - Weekday
Use Classification Unit Quantity ITE Rate
(Spaces/Unit)
Peak Parking
Generation
Residential DU 220 1.23 271
General Retail/Strip Commercial Shopping
Center TSF 18.90 4.10 77
Apartment Leasing Center TSF 2.00 n/a 5*
Total 353
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 4th Edition
Quantities: DU = dwelling units. TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Note: It is assumed that the apartment leasing center would be allocated 5 parking spaces for employees and visitors
The ITE parking generation forecast for a low/mid-rise apartment development of this size is 271
spaces. Of this demand, 33 spaces are assumed to be guest parking that would occur outside of the
access controlled portion of the parking garage. 67 spaces are designated for use by AT&T through
an existing parking agreement. The peak parking generation for the retail portion of the development
is 77 spaces, with an additional five parking stalls allocated to the leasing center. The estimated
parking demand generation for the proposed project based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual is
353 spaces if all uses had the same peak hours (420 spaces if all spaces shared with AT&T are in
use). This demand is split between the access controlled residential parking in the structure and the
open guest/retail parking in the structure and surface parking lot. To provide an understanding of
parking demand throughout the day and at particular times of day, particularly for the 157 open
parking spaces available to retail customers and guests, a shared parking analysis is necessary as a
supplement to this forecast.
Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Apartments – Parking Study DRAFT - FINAL
18
4.2 SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS – ULI SHARED PARKING
A shared parking analysis was conducted to look at the potential benefits of shared parking between
the proposed mixed-uses. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking, 2nd Edition was
referenced for this analysis. A summary of the shared parking analysis is provided in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2 Shared Use Parking Analysis
Land Use RS
Guest Retail Leasing
Center AT&T
Unit DU TSF Cars Spaces
Quantity 220 18.90 5.00 67
Rate 0.15 4.10 1.00 1 Total
Required Parking 33 77 5 67 182
Time of Day RS
Guest Retail Leasing
Center AT&T RS
Guest Retail Leasing
Center AT&T Total
6:00 AM 0% 1% 0% 100% 0 1 0 67 68
7:00 AM 10% 5% 0% 100% 3 4 0 67 74
8:00 AM 20% 15% 100% 100% 7 12 5 67 90
9:00 AM 20% 35% 100% 100% 7 27 5 67 106
10:00 AM 20% 65% 100% 100% 7 50 5 67 129
11:00 AM 20% 85% 100% 100% 7 66 5 67 144
12:00 PM 20% 95% 75% 100% 7 74 4 67 151
1:00 PM 20% 100% 100% 100% 7 77 5 67 156
2:00 PM 20% 95% 100% 100% 7 74 5 67 152
3:00 PM 20% 90% 100% 100% 7 70 5 67 148
4:00 PM 20% 90% 100% 100% 7 70 5 67 148
5:00 PM 40% 95% 100% 100% 13 74 5 67 159
6:00 PM 60% 95% 100% 100% 20 74 5 67 165
7:00 PM 100% 95% 75% 100% 33 74 4 67 177
8:00 PM 100% 80% 75% 100% 33 62 4 67 166
9:00 PM 100% 50% 0% 100% 33 39 0 67 139
10:00 PM 100% 30% 0% 100% 33 23 0 67 123
11:00 PM 80% 10% 0% 100% 26 8 0 67 101
12:00 AM 50% 0% 0% 100% 17 0 0 67 84
Shared Peak Parking Demand 177 @ 7:00 PM
Unadjusted Peak Parking Requirement 182
Parking Adjustment due to Shared Parking 5 3%
Source: ULI Shared Parking, 2nd Edition and ITE Parking Generation Manual, 3rd Edition
As noted above, to provide an understanding of parking demand throughout the day, particularly for
the 157 open parking spaces available to retail customers and guests, a shared parking analysis is
necessary as a supplement to this forecast. The forecast parking demand for the retail, residential
guest, per the ITE parking generation rates would be 110 spaces. With the addition of the 67 AT&T
parking spaces and 5 employee parking spaces, the total forecast demand would be 182 parking
spaces. Using the ULI shared parking methodology, the shared peak parking demand for all uses
(residential guest, retail customers, AT&T, and employee) combined is 177 spaces at 7:00 p.m. This
is equivalent to a 3% shared parking reduction to the total peak parking demand, or five parking
spaces.
Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Apartments – Parking Study DRAFT - FINAL
19
5 Methodology of Study
Typical parking studies involve identifying the minimum number of parking spaces required pursuant
to the City’s Zoning Code or utilizing the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking
Generation Manual to determine parking demand generated by a specific land use. This parking
study is unique, as the proposed project is located in the City’s Mixed-Use Overlay Zone and requires
a parking demand study to be conducted to establish the parking requirement for the use.
To determine an appropriate minimum parking ratio for the proposed project, the methodology used
for this study was a simplified version of the ITE Parking Generation Manual’s methodology for
determining parking demand generation. Two sites similar to the proposed project were identified.
The sites had similar components to the proposed project, including a similar mix of uses,
surrounding uses, and ratio of units to retail space. Parking occupancy surveys were conducted to
collect data on parking demand generated by the similar sites. The parking surveys were conducted
on a weekday and weekend during the AM, Midday, and PM peak periods to capture the typical peak
demand from residential uses and retail uses.
To supplement the two survey sites, four additional residential-only apartment developments in
Orange County were also surveyed. Based on the data collected from the six survey sites, the
average peak hour parking demand per dwelling unit is 1.32 on a weekday and 1.29 on a Saturday.
The average park hour parking demand per 1,000 square feet of retail space is 11.10 on a weekday
and 16.70 on a Tuesday. Per the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition, the typical parking
demand is 1.23 spaces per unit. The typical parking demand for retail space is 4.10 spaces per
1,000 square feet of retail space. A summary of these rates is provided in Table 5-1 for residential
and Table 5-2 for retail.
Table 5-1 Average Peak Hour Parking Demand – Residential
Survey Site Total
Units Unit Mix
Units
Occupi
ed
Weekday Weekend
Peak
Hour
Parking
Demand
(spaces)
Rate
(spaces/
unit)
Peak
Hour
Parking
Demand
(spaces)
Rate
(spaces/
unit)
Survey Site #1 183 1 BR:129
2 BR: 54 174 191 1.32 191 1.32
Survey Site #2 250 1 BR: 105
2-3 BR: 145 225 212 1.04 208 1.02
Survey Site #3 279 1 BR: 164
2 BR: 115 262 354 1.35 356 1.36
Survey Site #4 403 1 BR: 326
2 BR: 77 390 504 1.29 443 1.14
Survey Site #5 460 1 BR: 256
2 BR: 204 440 616 1.40 547 1.24
Survey Site #6 162 1 BR: 70
2 BR: 92 154 238 1.55 260 1.69
Average 290 274 353 1.32 334 1.29
Note: (*) Rate reflects adjusted rate to factor in transit and mixed use – 20% increase for Site #1 and 10% increase for Site
#2
The proposed project is reserving 420 spaces for the 220 residential dwelling units in the parking
structure and 157 spaces for retail customers and guests in the garage and adjacent surface parking
lot. Based on the similar site surveys and recommended parking ratios in the ITE Parking Manual,
the proposed project is providing parking spaces at a ratio higher than peak parking demand
generated by similar sites in Orange County and the rate anticipated for the project.
Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Apartments – Parking Study DRAFT - FINAL
21
6 Conclusions
The proposed project consists of a mixed-use 220 unit multi-family residential and 18,900 square feet
retail development located on the northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue. The
project is located within the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone and would replace an existing vacant building.
A parking demand study was conducted to examine the minimum parking requirements needed for
the proposed project and determine whether the project provides sufficient parking spaces to meet
this demand. The project is located within the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone and requires a parking
demand study to be prepared to establish the minimum parking requirement. The project site plan
provides for 577 spaces, which was derived using the parking rates identified in the Platinum Triangle
Mixed-Use Overlay Zone, an area that has similar allowable uses.
Study summary and findings include:
To establish a minimum parking rate for the proposed project, similar site parking surveys
were conducted at five sites located in Anaheim, Fullerton, Santa Ana, Irvine, and Orange,
California. Two of the sites have comparable residential dwelling units and retail space as
the proposed project, while the additional four survey sites are residential only developments.
All properties, including the proposed project possess similar unit mix of about 55% to 60% 1-
bedroom and studio units, which typically have lower parking demands.
The average observed peak hour parking rates from the six sites is 1.27 spaces per dwelling
unit on a weekday and 1.24 spaces per dwelling unit on a Saturday – unadjusted. The
average peak hour parking rates for retail is 11.10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail on a
weekday and 9.96 spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail space on a Saturday – unadjusted.
These rates are comparable to the rates identified in the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 4th
Edition.
Additionally, when accounting for proximity to rail transit and employment, the anticipated
peak parking demand rate is estimated to be 1.32 spaces per dwelling unit on a weekday and
1.29 spaces per dwelling unit on a weekend.
The survey results suggest that the proposed project is providing parking spaces at a higher
rate than peak parking demand generated by similar sites. The proposed project is providing
1.91 parking spaces per dwelling unit, while adjusted peak parking demand averages 1.32
spaces per dwelling units on a weekday and 1.29 spaces per dwelling unit on a weekend.
This ratio for residential parking is sufficient to meet demand.
The City of Anaheim recently approved two apartment developments that are providing
parking spaces based on a ratio of 1.86 parking spaces per dwelling unit and 1.74 parking
spaces per dwelling unit1.
1 Recently approved apartment development parking ratios provided in the Appendix.
Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue Apartments – Parking Study DRAFT - FINAL
22
Appendix
A. PARKING COUNTS – SURVEY SITE #1
B. PARKING COUNTS – SURVEY SITE #2
C. PARKING COUNTS – SURVEY SITE #3
D. PARKING COUNTS – SURVEY SITE #4
E. PARKING COUNTS – SURVEY SITE #5
F. PARKING COUNTS – SURVEY SITE #6
G. PLATINUM VISTA AND PLATINUM GATEWAY PARKING RATIOS
H. PARKING AGREEMENT
Survey Site #1 - Fullerton, CA
Date
Location/
Capacity
Time Spaces
Occupied % Occupied Spaces
Occupied % Occupied Spaces
Occupied % Occupied Spaces
Occupied % Occupied
AM Peak Period
5:00 AM 191 86%77 42% 191 86%62 34%
6:00 AM 189 85% 80 44% 170 76% 69 38%
7:00 AM 191 86% 83 45% 125 56% 86 47%
8:00 AM 175 78% 101 55% 104 47% 147 80%
9:00 AM 171 77% 103 56% 100 45% 158 86%
Midday Peak Period
11:00 AM 160 72% 49 27% 102 46% 163 89%
12:00 PM 148 66% 111 61% 101 45% 173 95%
1:00 PM 138 62% 111 61%94 42% 169 92%
2:00 PM 139 62% 103 56% 90 40% 157 86%
3:00 PM 137 61% 86 47% 88 39% 139 76%
PM Peak Period
6:00 PM 133 60% 85 46% 135 61% 102 56%
7:00 PM 132 59% 111 61% 149 67% 101 55%
8:00 PM 133 60% 110 60% 151 68% 88 48%
9:00 PM 137 61% 107 58% 159 71% 78 43%
10:00 PM 140 63% 109 60% 173 78% 76 42%
Peak Occupancy 5:00 AM 86% 1:00 PM 61% 5:00 AM 86% 12:00 PM 95%
Saturday, September 1, 2012 Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Residential
223 spaces
Retail
183 spaces
Residential
223 spaces
Retail
183 spaces
Survey Site #2 - Santa Ana, CA
Date
Location/
Capacity
Time Spaces
Occupied % Occupied Spaces
Occupied % Occupied Spaces
Occupied % Occupied Spaces
Occupied % Occupied
AM Peak Period
5:00 AM 208 46%168 51% 206 45% 163 50%
6:00 AM 206 45% 171 52% 212 47%158 48%
7:00 AM 193 43% 162 49% 188 42% 138 42%
8:00 AM 182 40% 170 52% 138 30% 130 40%
9:00 AM 167 37% 168 51% 115 25% 142 43%
Midday Peak Period
11:00 AM 148 33% 160 49% 97 21% 139 42%
12:00 PM 133 29% 160 49% 85 19% 153 47%
1:00 PM 132 29% 168 51% 91 20% 153 47%
2:00 PM 133 29% 181 55%90 20% 153 47%
3:00 PM 137 30% 157 48% 92 20% 150 46%
PM Peak Period
6:00 PM 148 33% 151 46% 141 31% 137 42%
7:00 PM 153 34% 151 46% 156 34% 142 43%
8:00 PM 161 36% 143 43% 164 36% 149 45%
9:00 PM 171 38% 148 45% 190 42% 159 48%
10:00 PM 181 40% 142 43% 197 43% 167 51%
Peak Occupancy 5:00 AM 46% 2:00 PM 55% 6:00 AM 47% 10:00 PM 51%
Saturday, September 8, 2012 Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Retail
329 spaces
Residential
453 spaces
Retail
329 spaces
Residential
453 spaces
Survey Site #3 - Irvine, CA
PARKING STUDY
SPACES LOCATION TYPE 500PM 600PM 700PM 800PM 900PM 10PM 11PM 12PM
548 UNMARKED 147 164 203 247 285 295 315 320
11 HANDICAP 34234457
33 GUEST 8 7 7 10 12 12 14 20
8 FUTURE RES 44688877
X ILLEGAL 1 1 1
600 TOTAL VEHICLES PARKED 162 180 218 268 309 320 342 354
100% PERCENTAGE OCCUPIED 27.00% 30.00% 36.33% 44.67% 51.50% 53.33% 57.00% 59.00%
PARKING STUDY
SPACES LOCATION TYPE 500PM 600PM 700PM 800PM 900PM 10PM 11PM 12PM
548 UNMARKED 301 247 249 264 278 290 299 309
11 HANDICAP 44444468
33 GUEST 24 27 28 27 31 30 29 28
8 FUTURE RES 78888888
X ILLEGAL 1
600 TOTAL VEHICLES PARKED 337 286 289 303 321 332 342 353
100% PERCENTAGE OCCUPIED 56.17% 47.67% 48.17% 50.50% 53.50% 55.33% 57.00% 58.83%
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Survey Site #4 - Irvine, CA
PARKING STUDY
SPACES LOCATION TYPE 500PM 600PM 700PM 800PM 900PM 10PM 11PM 12PM
519 Garage UNMARKED 172 241 256 284 324 347 378 397
12 Street A 58777998
9 B69889998
6 Office/lease 06665556
69 Outside A 47 49 52 54 57 56 59 60
28 B 2822232324222525
643 TOTAL VEHICLES PARKED 258 335 352 382 426 448 485 504
100% PERCENTAGE OCCUPIED 40.12% 52.10% 54.74% 59.41% 66.25% 69.67% 75.43% 78.38%
PARKING STUDY
SPACES LOCATION TYPE 500PM 600PM 700PM 800PM 900PM 10PM 11PM 12PM
519 Garage UNMARKED 245 230 231 251 267 291 309 325
12 Street A 12 11 10 10 10 11 11 11
9 B89989898
6 Office/lease 15665666
69 Outside A 55 56 62 65 68 69 66 64
28 B 2625252724242628
643 TOTAL VEHICLES PARKED 347 336 343 367 383 409 427 442
100% PERCENTAGE OCCUPIED 53.97% 52.26% 53.34% 57.08% 59.56% 63.61% 66.41% 68.74%
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Survey Site #5 - Orange, CA
PARKING STUDY
SPACES LOCATION TYPE 600PM 700PM 800PM 900PM 10PM 11PM 12PM 1AM
154 Outside 86 83 93 96 101 115 118 120
585 Garage 295 289 328 366 409 428 449 454
45 Unassigned Garage/guest 29 32 35 40 42 41 41 42
784 TOTAL VEHICLES PARKED 410 404 456 502 552 584 608 616
100% PERCENTAGE OCCUPIED 52.30% 51.53% 58.16% 64.03% 70.41% 74.49% 77.55% 78.57%
PARKING STUDY
SPACES LOCATION TYPE 600PM 700PM 800PM 900PM 10PM 11PM 12PM 1AM
154 Outside 85 97 101 99 103 100 104 106
585 Garage 305 308 324 338 355 381 392 396
45 Unassigned Garage/guest 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
784 TOTAL VEHICLES PARKED 435 450 470 482 503 526 541 547
100% PERCENTAGE OCCUPIED 55.48% 57.40% 59.95% 61.48% 64.16% 67.09% 69.01% 69.77%
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Survey Site #6 ‐ Anaheim, CA
PARKING STUDY
SPACES LOCATION TYPE 600PM 700PM 800PM 900PM 10PM 11PM 12PM 1AM
20 Outside 1 unassigned 10 12 13 15 18 17 17 17
338 Garage assigned 148 187 195 185 201 204 208 209
27 Outside 2 unassigned 4 12 17 13 14 15 13 13
385 TOTAL VEHICLES PARKED 162 211 225 213 233 236 238 239
100% PERCENTAGE OCCUPIED 42.08% 54.81% 58.44% 55.32% 60.52% 61.30% 61.82% 62.08%
PARKING STUDY
SPACES LOCATION TYPE 600PM 700PM 800PM 900PM 10PM 11PM 12PM 1AM
20 Outside 1 unassigned 20 19 20 19 18 18 18 18
338 Garage assigned 114 184 188 196 204 203 209 223
27 Outside 2 unassigned 23 26 24 23 21 18 18 19
385 TOTAL VEHICLES PARKED 157 229 232 238 243 239 245 260
100% PERCENTAGE OCCUPIED 40.78% 59.48% 60.26% 61.82% 63.12% 62.08% 63.64% 67.53%
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Parking Summary:11/28/2012
Number
Unit of Stalls/Unit Stalls Req'd
Type Units
STUDIO 30 1.25 38
1 BR 153 1.50 230
2 BR 159 2.00 318
3 BR 8 2.50 20
Total 350 1.73 606
Total Required 606
Total Provided 610 1.74
Accessible Stalls:
Dwelling Units 350 2%7 =7 Req'd
Geust Stalls 88 5%4.4 =5 Req'd
Accessible Van Parking
Parking Provided:
Units Per Residential HC
Level Parking Stalls
Street Parking 4 0
Surface Parking 0 4 2
Subterranen Parking 0 48 0
Parking Structure - 1st Level 68 76 3
Req'd Accessible
1 per 6 H/C stalls
Parking Provided
PLATINUM VISTA
NOTE: OF THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, (0.25) SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE
RESERVED AND CLEARLY MARKED FOR GUEST PARKING PER 18.42.0202
=10 H/C + 2 H/C van stalls
2nd Level 70 90 3
3rd Level 72 91 2
4th Level 71 92 1
5th level 69 92 1
6th level 84
7th level 17
Total Provided 350 598 12
TOTAL 610
Parking Summary:11/28/2012
Number
Unit of Stalls/Unit Stalls Req'd
Type Units
STUDIO 8 1.25 10
1 BR 191 1.50 287
2 BR 152 2.00 304
3 BR 39 2.50 98
4 BR (3 BR + LOFT)9 3.50 32
Total 399 1.83 731
Total Required 731
Total Provided 741 1.86
Accessible Stalls:
Dwelling Units 399 2%7.98 =8 Req'd
Guest Stalls 100 5%5 =5 Req'd
Accessible Van Parking
Parking Provided:
Units Per Residential HC
Level Parking Stalls
Street Parking 21
Surface Parking 4 2
Parking Structure - 1st Level 108 112 3
2nd Level 86 119 3
3rd Level 115 119 3
4th Level 90 120 2
5th level 124
6th level 109
Total Provided 399 728 13
TOTAL 741
Req'd Accessible
1 per 6 H/C stalls
Parking Provided
PLATINUM GATEWAY
NOTE: OF THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, (0.25) SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE
RESERVED AND CLEARLY MARKED FOR GUEST PARKING PER 18.42.0202
=10 H/C + 3 H/C van stalls
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
Rickey M. Warner
Senior Vice President
Lic. 00645389
CBRE, Inc.
Brokerage Services
Commercial Properties
Broker Lic. 00409987
December 13, 2011
Mr. CJ Amstrup
Planning Services Manager
City of Anaheim, City Hall
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
1st Floor, Planning Dept.
Anaheim, CA 92805
RE: Equity Residential, November 7, 2011 Development Plan
S. Anaheim Blvd and Lincoln Ave.
Dear Mr. Amstrup,
CBRE and/or its employees have for many years been intimately involved in
participating in Anaheim’s growth from a rural community to a regional economic powerhouse.
Today, CBRE is a major industry player that represents a significant portion of the Real Estate
market in Central Orange County.
Part and parcel to the evolution of any City, past development that has become
economically obsolescent must be re-evaluated and planned for new and different uses for the
long term benefit and healthy growth of any city. CBRE is currently involved with one such
“evolution” and represents AT&T in the sale and re-use of the 4 1/2 acre site located at the
southwest corner of South Anaheim Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue in central Anaheim.
CBRE has worked diligently for almost 5 years seeking a qualified developer to
purchase and re-entitle the site for new development. Our marketing effort over these years was
hampered by the severe impact of the most recent economic downturn and the rapid change in
the real estate market. The result of our effort eventually produced a viable plan by Equity
Residential (“EQR”) to purchase the property and develop a high quality residential project that
we believe will encourage further investment in the immediate area. EQR’s most recent plan of
November 7, 2011 is the result of years of planning and is a thoughtful response to the current
marketplace and the needs of the community.
We at CBRE look forward to Anaheim approving this project and of our continued
involvement in Anaheim’s’ future.
Sincerely Yours,
1100 W Town & Country Rd, Suite 1200
O r ange, CA 92868
714 371 9250 Tel
714 371 9333 Fax
rick.warner@cbre.com
www.cbre.com
Michael Johsz
AT&T Services Inc.
Corporate Real Estate
1452 Edinger
Room 2210
Tustin, CA 92780
T: 714.259.3133
F: 714.247.0034
mj2161@att.com
December 9, 2011
Mr. Scott Koehm
City of Anaheim
Anaheim Planning Department
200 South Anaheim Blvd, Suite 162
Anaheim, Ca 92805
Re: AT&T site- Lincoln Avenue at Anaheim Blvd
Dear Mr. Koehm:
We have had the opportunity to review the draft site plan and architectural elevations for the
proposed Equity Residential mixed use project being proposed at the northwest corner of Lincoln
Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard.
AT&T would like to express support for the proposed development. As one of the largest
employers in downtown Anaheim, providing housing choices for a wide array of residents and
the labor force critical to sustaining the economy that cannot find reasonably priced housing or
cannot locate within an appropriate commuting distance of jobs is important and a key
component to smart growth in the future.
Sincerely,
Mike Johsz
AT&T Services, Inc.
Regional Manager Corporate Real Estate
From:Bill Taormina
To:Scott Koehm
Subject:STRONG SUPPORT OF EQUITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT LINCOLN AND ANAHEIM BLVD
Date:Saturday, October 12, 2013 9:37:34 AM
Dear Scott
This email shall serve as my STRONG SUPPORT of the residential apartment project that is being
proposed by EQUITY RESIDENTIAL for the northwest corner of Lincoln and Anaheim Boulevard. This is
an excellent project that has been well-planned and will be a great asset to a community. We need
more people living in downtown Anaheim! This project will bring a fresh new set of residents and
customers to the many small businesses surrounding this property.
Thank you,
Bill Taormina
From:Sheri Vander Dussen
To:Scott Koehm ; CJ Amstrup
Subject:Fwd: Strong support of Equity Residential Project at NWC Anaheim Blvd and Lincoln
Date:Saturday, October 12, 2013 4:22:47 PM
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bill Taormina <bill@mycleancity.net >Date: October 12, 2013 at 10:00:14 AM PDTTo: "svanderdussen@anaheim.net " <svanderdussen@anaheim.net >Subject: Strong support of Equity Residential Project at NWCAnaheim Blvd and Lincoln
Dear Ms. Van Derdussen,
This email shall serve as my strong support of the project proposed by
Equity Residential for the north-west corner of Anaheim Boulevard and
Lincoln. This is an excellent project that has been well-planned and will
serve as a major asset to our community.
Sadly, some local residents have chosen to oppose this project for
reasons that simply make no sense. We need more people, more
customers, and more excitement in our downtown Anaheim core area.
This project will bring life back to an area that has been under-utilized for
over fifty years.
Please advise all members of our Planning Commission to APPROVE THIS
PROJECT AS SUBMITTED for the good of Anaheim's future. We are
fortunate to have a multi-billion dollar real estate firm like Equity
Residential take an interest in our city, let's welcome them to Anaheim
with a unanimous vote of APPROVAL!
Thank you,
Bill Taormina
714-308-0220
From:Sheri Vander Dussen
To:CJ Amstrup; Scott Koehm
Subject:FW: While it is certainly less desirable to live in the Anaheim Colony than Old Towne Orange ....
Date:Thursday, October 10, 2013 3:16:23 PM
FYI
From: Olesen, Keith [mailto:kolesen@componentscenter.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 3:05 PM
To: MotherColony@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Sheri Vander Dussen
Subject: While it is certainly less desirable to live in the Anaheim Colony than Old Towne Orange ....
That line is part of a realtor’s description of a house that’s for sale in the
colony. Actually it’s the beginning of the blurb they wrote about the Tucker’s
old house on Zeyn (Zeyn and Sycamore) that appeared today.
The reason it really jumped out at me when I read it today maybe even more
so than it normally would, is the fact that I, along with many of you, got
notices in the mail recently about the upcoming Planning Commission
meeting regarding the project being proposed for the former AT&T site
bordered by Anaheim Blvd, Lincoln, Lemon, and Cypress. A large number of
people in this email group are familiar with the site and the project and I
know a significant number have spent time meeting with the city planning
department, the developer, city leaders, and anyone else in any way connected
to or interested in the project.
Without going into all the details, most of which have been discussed on this
email group before, let’s just say it’s not exactly what residents anywhere near
the project would like to see built in their neighborhood. At least not any with
whom I’ve spoken about it. Briefly, it’s a 4 story, 220 unit square stucco
apartment box. It’s being called a “mixed use” project, which is the General
Plan designation for the property, however location of the retail component
location along Anaheim Blvd instead of the more logical and appropriate
location along the southern boundary of the project along Lincoln Ave is one
of the major contention with people. Add that to the ingress and egress for the
project being focused along Cypress and you have a project, without even
getting into the Irvine-esque-Platinum Triangle-pseudo architecture, that not
only doesn’t compliment or improve the surrounding neighborhood, but in fact
has a strong negative impact on it. It is a very good example of why someone
selling an historic home in the area may be tempted to preface their
advertisement for it by saying something like “while it is certainly less
desirable to live in the Anaheim Colony than Old Towne Orange…”.
Residents met with the developer on several occasions. Ideas, suggestions, and
pretty much anything contributed by them for the most part fell on deaf ears.
It’s now up to our elected and appointed officials to do what they are elected
or appointed to do: Look out for the best interests of the community. They can
do so by denying this project and demanding that a quality, compatible
project, that will add to and not detract from the community, be brought to
them. No one is against development. We’re against projects like this one.
There is no “plus-side” to this project (unless of course you are Equity
Residential, the developer of this load). This is the last parcel of any
significant size in the downtown area left to be developed. It is, as the Mayor,
several city council members, and many other people have referred to it,
literally the intersection of “Main Street, Anaheim and Main Street,
Anaheim.” This parcel and the community deserve better. I would urge all
residents, but particularly anyone who lives anywhere near this proposed
project, to voice your objections to the planning commission. To have it
included in their packet for their meeting it should be done and submitted to
the planning department before the end of business tomorrow, Friday, October
11.
Thanks
Keith
PS: I’ve copied Sheri Vander Dussen, the head of Anaheim’s Planning
Department on this email so that it and any comments others might want to
make can be included in the Planning Commissions information on this
project.
From:Maurice Turner
To:CJ Amstrup; Scott Koehm
Cc:Sheri Vander Dussen
Subject:In Opposition To The Proposed Development By Equity Residential
Date:Monday, October 14, 2013 3:36:24 PM
Please consider this as my statement of opposition to the Equity Residential proposed development. I
am in agreement with the letter below that has been signed by many of my fellow Colony neighbors. I
request that this message be included in the information presented to the Planning Commissioners.
Thank you
- Maurice Turner
To Chair and Members of the Planning Commission,
The historic preservation community--Anaheim Colony Historic District, 5 Points Historic District, Palm
Historic District, Hoskins Historic District, and City Wide Historic Contributors- -are STRONGLY opposed
to the Equity Residential apartment project. The development, planned for the former AT&T building site
located at Lincoln Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard, is wholly unsuitable and inappropriately sited to be
compatible with the surrounding historic neighborhood, which was primarily built out in the early 1900s.
Residential street patterns and neighborhoods in early Anaheim were laid out
differently than post-1950s developments, designed for less vehicular usage, and with smaller lot sizes,
narrower streets, single car detached garages with alley access and
houses oriented to the street. These characteristics were part of a deliberate design strategy
to encourage residents to use their front yards and porches, to permit them to walk
safely to local businesses and community events and to interact with their
neighbors and neighborhood. Increased street traffic that solely enters and exits our
neighborhoods, a direct consequence of the planned Equity Residential apartment project, is
counterproductive to the fabric and design of our community, and will sap the vitality from our streets,
creating public spaces and sidewalks where nobody walks, and destroying the pedestrian life and safety
that our community currently enjoys and deeply values.
The proposed, oversized and dense Equity Residential development (with four-story apartment
buildings) is inconsistent with the design of our existing neighborhoods and makes no attempt to
connect with the historical nature of the century old homes and neighborhoods of the downtown area.
This project provides no added value to our neighborhoods and to the contrary, provides nothing more
than 220 additional households to the downtown area, thousands of vehicular trips through our historic
residential neighborhoods, and increases in noise and pollution.
It is important to stress that this project is being planned for the last land parcel of significant size to be
developed in the downtown area. As many concerned residents and city leaders have pointed out,
including Anaheim' s Mayor Tait, this is the intersection of "Main Street and Main Street" and as such
should be a project of real significance and benefit to the community. This apartment project is NOT.
The physical appearance of the project has changed very little from the developer' s initial plan, despite
input from several deeply rooted members of the community. By its very design and layout, the project
is detrimental to the surrounding neighborhoods. It is a Platinum Triangle/Irvine- style project and is not
compatible in any way with our historic neighborhood. It is another high density rental project consisting
of a square stucco box whose only contributions to the Anaheim Colony Historic District are negative -
noise, traffic, overcrowding
and visual pollution.
City Planning staff is to be commended for informing us of this proposed development, however, at the
Central District Neighborhood Council meetings, the presentations regarding this project were made
without the developer being present and often without updated specifics. There have been repeated
delays and obstacles in obtaining current information from the developer and staff, especially with
regard to some of the primary issues/complaints voiced by the community, namely the parking study,
the location of the retail components of this project and the concentration of traffic being directed into
the historic residential neighborhoods rather than on to and off the existing major traffic artery that is
Lincoln Avenue.
It is our recommendation that this project be DENIED and not be brought back to the Planning
Commission until such time as:
1. The orientation of the housing and retail aspects of the project, including ingress and egress for the
development, can be changed to permit Lincoln Avenue or another reasonable and acceptable
alternative to be the primary entrance and exit for residents, visitors, and retail uses (several
alternatives have already been proposed by concerned residents, but have not received serious
consideration) ;
2. Community meetings are held to allow impacted residents of the adjacent neighborhoods the
opportunity to provide input to the development and have that input incorporated into the project' s
design;
3. The retail portion of the development is thoughtfully planned to ensure its success; and
4. The massing of the development is reworked to minimize its looming, visual impact on the street and
the surrounding historic neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Barbara Gonzalez
Dinah Torgerson
Celeste Clary
Keith Olesen
Phyllis Mueller
From:helen myers
To:Pagarwal7@hotmail.com; cabpb@earthlink.net; mtc@howardroofing.com; Mlieberman92805@gmail.com;
itps194@yahoo.com ; Ramirez.victoria@gmail.com; seymour.j@sbcglobal.net
Cc:Sheri Vander Dussen ; Scott Koehm; CJ Amstrup
Subject:The proposed building on the Anaheim Blvd/Lincoln corner
Date:Friday, October 11, 2013 12:25:51 PM
Hello Planning Commissioners,
Lonny and Helen Myers join with our neighbors in asking that you reject the current proposed plans
for the property at Anaheim Blvd & Lincoln. As most of you already know, the area already has
issues with traffic and density, so adding another few hundred units with the accompanying cars will
be incredibly destructive to our community. Please advise the developer to come up with a better
plan for the property.
Sincerely,
Lonny & Helen Myers
417 S Citron St.
From:ibcomwiz@aol.com
To:Scott Koehm
Cc:CnJRomero@aol.com
Subject:Zone Change for Old ATT Building
Date:Tuesday, October 08, 2013 4:07:06 PM
Mr. Koehm,
Having lived at 521 N. Zeyn for 22 years and being part of the crew that cleaned up Pearson Park.
Also some involvement in traffic calming of Sycamore, I feel that adding another 440 cars (apt owners
(2 cars each apt) and business patrons)) would be too much for Lincoln and Anaheim Blvd..
Plus the fact that there is a lot of foot traffic from Anaheim High School on Lincoln, Lemon and
Sycamore St.
The idea of this many apt (condos) is in my opinion unrealistic. As it stands now there is a lot of
vehicles traveling to and fro on Lemon St.
Just the thought of adding this many more cars is asking for trouble.
Who is going to be responsible for the wear and tear to the streets, sidewalks?
Respectfully,
Jimmie Romero
714-423-9134
DATE: AUGUST 19, 2013
TO: CITY COUNCIL/ CITY MANAGER
FROM: CULTURAL AND HERITAGE COMMISSION
SUBJECT: SUPPORT FOR ACQUIRING DOWNTOWN PROPERTIES
I am writing on behalf of the Anaheim Cultural and Heritage Commission to express our support
for acquiring the former AT&T parking lot and the AT&T buildings, if they become available
for purchase, to be developed for cultural and arts purposes.
The Report on Cultural Facilities in the City of Anaheim, prepared by this commission, identifies
the extreme need for additional performing arts venues. These properties would be an exciting
addition to our newly developing downtown. The many new residents coming to live in and
enjoy our downtown and historic districts will add to our current population and build a strong
base of support for future facilities. The heart of art located in the heart of our downtown sounds
like a formula for success.
We ask that you direct city staff to monitor these properties and move forward with purchasing
them when possible for development as cultural venues.
Sincerely,
Chris Maya, Chair
Cultural and Heritage Commission
c: T. Lowe
L. Smith
ATTACHMENT NO. 10