PC 2015/12/14
City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Agenda
Monday, December 14, 2015
Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California
• Chairman: Michelle Lieberman
• Chairman Pro-Tempore: Mitchell Caldwell
• Commissioners: Paul Bostwick, Bill Dalati, Grant Henninger,
Victoria Ramirez, 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 and Building Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff
report is also available on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on
Thursday, December 10, 2015, after 5:00 p.m. Any writings or documents provided to a
majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection
in the Planning and Building Department located at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, California, during regular business hours.
You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: planningcommission@anaheim.net
12/14/2015 Page 2 of 8
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.
12/14/2015 Page 3 of 8
Public Hearing Items
ITEM NO. 2
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05025 (DEV2015-00043)
Location: 105 East Leatrice Lane
Request: To allow for the construction of a three-unit apartment complex with structural and landscape
setbacks smaller than required by the Zoning Code and
recreational-leisure areas less than required by the
Zoning Code. 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 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) Categorical Exemption.
This item was continued from the November 2, 2015
Planning Commission meeting.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner: Amy Stonich
astonich@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486E (DEV2009-00083E)
Location: 2232 South Harbor Boulevard
Request: For a six-month compliance review of a
conditional use permit for an existing theater, restaurant, and accessory uses and an amendment to the conditions of
approval pertaining to operations.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether a previously-approved Mitigated
Negative Declaration is appropriate to serve as the environmental impact determination for this request per the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines.
This item was continued from the November 16, 2015
Planning Commission meeting.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Elaine Thienprasiddhi ethien@anaheim.net
12/14/2015 Page 4 of 8
ITEM NO. 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05823
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05047
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-00374 (DEV2015-00090)
Location: 2013 East Ball Road
Request: To construct a new coffee shop with a drive
through lane with a reduced front yard setback and less parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code
(Starbucks).
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 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures) Categorical Exemption.
This item was continued from the November 16, 2015
Planning Commission meeting.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner: Ashley Hefner
ahefner@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05819 VARIANCE NO. 2015-05049 (DEV2015-00076)
Location: 5120 East La Palma Avenue, Suite 102
Request: To permit a car rental agency within an existing multi-tenant office and industrial complex with
less parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code.
Environmental Determination: The Planning
Commission will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a
Class 1 (Existing Facilities) Categorical Exemption.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner: Ashley Hefner
ahefner@anaheim.net
12/14/2015 Page 5 of 8
ITEM NO. 6
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05043 (DEV2015-00104)
Location: 558 South Harbor Boulevard
Request: For a variance to permit less parking than required by the Zoning Code to permit an endodontic dental office within an existing two-story office building.
Environmental Determination: The Planning
Commission will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a
Class 1 (Existing Facilities) Categorical Exemption.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner: Lisandro Orozco
lorozco@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 7
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05036 (DEV2015-00097)
Location: 1308 North Patt Street
Request: For a variance to permit less parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code and remove an accessory parking lot for an existing food manufacturing
facility.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a
Class 1 (Existing Facilities) Categorical Exemption.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner: Kevin Clausen
kclausen@anaheim.net
12/14/2015 Page 6 of 8
ITEM NO. 8
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00280
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05787
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17882 (DEV2015-00057)
Location: 1609 and 1615 West Cerritos Avenue
Request: To rezone the property from the Single-Family, Residential (RS-2) zone to the Single–Family, Residential (RS-4) zone and to permit and establish an
11-unit small–lot single family residential 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 32 (In-Fill Development Projects) Categorical
Exemption.
This item was continued from the September 21, 2015,
October 19, 2015, and November 2, 2015 Planning
Commission meetings.
Resolution No. ______
Resolution No. ______
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner: Amy Stonich
astonich@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 9
VARIANCE NO. 2014-04987
FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2014-00003 (DEV2013-00138)
Location: 1560 and 1570 South Harbor Boulevard
Request: To demolish an existing two-story 86-room hotel with restaurant and retail uses and construct a new seven-story, 180-room hotel with a restaurant and retail
uses with smaller interior building and landscape
setbacks, fewer trees in the surface parking lot, and less
parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider if the Final Environmental Impact Report No.
340 is the appropriate environmental document for this
project and that none of the conditions set forth in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact
report or a supplement to Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 340 have occurred.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner: Elaine Thienprasiddhi
ethien@anaheim.net
12/14/2015 Page 7 of 8
ITEM NO. 10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 138A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4075A (DEV2015-00109)
Location: 1557 and 1575 West Mable Street
Request: The applicant requests approval of: (1) an amendment
to Conditional Use Permit No. 138 to permit a new preschool, and
relocate existing K-8 students, within the existing Fairmont Private School campus, and (2) an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4075 to modify a condition of approval related to a time
limitation of the private school use and to permit and retain the existing administrative school offices.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will
consider whether to find the project to be Categorically Exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
and Guidelines as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) Categorical Exemption.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Amy Stonich astonich@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 11
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00499
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00276
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05780
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 17846 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 17992 (DEV2014-00095)
Location: 1110-1116 North Anaheim Boulevard and 115-125 West La Palma Avenue
Request: The following land use entitlements are requested
to permit the development of a mixed use project to include
162-unit attached single family residential units with ground floor commercial space: amend the General Plan land use designation from Open Space to Mixed Use; amend the
General Plan Circulation Element to modify circulation maps;
reclassify the subject properties from the C-G (General Commercial) and I (Industrial) Zones to the MU (Mixed Use Overlay) Zone; a conditional use permit to allow a mixed-use
development with modified development standards; a tentative
tract map to create a 152-unit residential subdivision; and a
tentative tract map to create a 10-unit residential subdivision
with ground floor commercial space.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will
consider whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request
under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Resolution No. ______
Resolution No. ______
Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Scott Koehm skoehm@anaheim.net
12/14/2015 Page 8 of 8
Adjourn to Monday, January 11, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
4:50 p.m. December 9, 2015 (TIME) (DATE)
LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK
SIGNED:
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
The City of Anaheim wishes to make all of its public meetings and hearings accessible to all members
of the public. The City prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof.
Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or
services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification, accommodation,
aid or service by contacting the Planning and Building Department either in person at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, or by telephone at (714) 765-5139, no later than 10:00 a.m.
one business day preceding the scheduled meeting.
La ciudad de Anaheim desea hacer todas sus reuniones y audiencias públicas accesibles a todos los
miembros del público. La Ciudad prohíbe la discriminación por motivos de raza , color u origen
nacional en cualquier programa o actividad que reciba asistencia financiera federal.
Si se solicita, la agenda y los materiales de copia estarán disponible en formatos alternativos
apropiados a las personas con una discapacidad, según lo requiere la Sección 202 del Acta de Americanos con Discapacidades de 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), las normas federales y reglamentos
adoptados en aplicación del mismo. Cualquier persona que requiera una modificación relativa a la discapacidad, incluyendo medios
auxiliares o servicios, con el fin de participar en la reunión pública podrá solicitar dicha modificación, ayuda o servicio poniéndose en contacto con la Oficina de Secretaria de la Ciudad ya sea en persona en el 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, o por teléfono al (714) 765-5139, antes de las
10:00 de la mañana un día habil antes de la reunión programada.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2015
SUBJECT: VARIANCE NO. 2015-05025
LOCATION: 105 East Leatrice Lane
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The property owner and applicant is How
Chin Te of Te Family Investment, LLC. REQUEST: The applicant requests a variance to allow construction of a three-unit
apartment complex with structural and landscape setbacks smaller than required by
the Zoning Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution determining that this request is categorically exempt from
further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and approving
Variance No. 2015-05025. BACKGROUND: This 0.16-acre property is currently vacant and located in the
Multiple Family Residential (RM-4) zone. A four unit apartment complex was
previously located on the property; however, the complex was demolished in 2007
in conjunction with a street widening project on Haster Street. The property, which had an original width of 80 feet, is considered legal non-conforming with respect to minimum lot width due to the street widening. Code requires a minimum lot width
of 70 feet in the RM-4 zone and the lot is now 64 feet wide. The property is
designated for Medium Density Residential land uses by the General Plan.
Surrounding land uses include apartments to the north, south, east and west across Haster Street.
This item was considered by the Planning Commission at its November 2, 2015
meeting. The Commission continued the item to the December 14, 2015 meeting to
provide the applicant with an opportunity to redesign the project to include additional outdoor recreational-leisure area in conformance with the Zoning Code. Plans have been revised by the applicant and the proposed project now conforms to
Code requirements for outdoor recreational-leisure area.
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05025 December 14, 2015 Page 2 of 4
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct a three unit, two-story apartment complex
with three tandem garage parking spaces (six garage spaces total) and one guest parking space adjacent to the garage. The garages would be accessed from the existing public alley along the north property line. This alley is accessed from Haster Street. Each unit would consist of two
bedrooms, two bathrooms, a living room, dining room and kitchen. A patio would be provided
for the ground floor unit, and balconies would be provided for each second floor unit. The proposed building is designed with contemporary-style architecture including gable roof elements, window trim, gray tone colored stucco walls with mauve and rose accent trim. A
three-foot high wrought iron fence is proposed within the front landscape setbacks adjacent to
Haster Street and Leatrice Lane. The front setback area would be planted with artificial turf and
shrubs. A detailed development summary is included as Attachment 4 to this report. Revisions to prior submittal:
The proposed project has been revised based
on comments received from the Planning Commission pertaining to the proposed amount of recreational-leisure area provided.
In response to the Commission’s comments,
the applicant submitted revised plans
showing the expansion of the first floor patio and second floor balconies, resulting in a total of 660 square feet of recreational-leisure area
proposed. This exceeds the minimum Code
requirement of 600 square feet (or 200 square
feet per unit); therefore, a variance from this development standard is no longer required. The unit sizes were slightly reduced in order
to accommodate the expanded patio and
balconies. The expansion of the patio and
balconies will result in a 15-foot wide setback from Haster Street. The previous proposal included a variance to permit a 17-foot
setback; therefore, the applicant requests to
reduce this setback two additional feet.
The landscape plan to the right also shows the proposed artificial turf that will be
incorporated into the project site. Although
these areas cannot be counted as a part of the
Code required recreational-leisure area due to their width and location, they will provide usable private and common outdoor areas that
would be accessible only to residents within
the apartment complex.
Balconies
(upper level)
Patio
(lower level)
5 ft.
15 ft.
15 ft.
10 ft.
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05025 December 14, 2015 Page 3 of 4
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
Before the Planning Commission may approve a variance, it must make a finding of fact that the
evidence presented shows that the following conditions exist:
1) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity;
2) That, because of the special circumstances, shown above, strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under
identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
A variance is required because the project would have smaller front and interior yard setbacks
than required by the Zoning Code. The following table compares the RM-4 development standards to the proposed project:
Standard RM-4 Zone Code Requirements Proposed
Front Yard Setback 15 feet Leatrice Lane and Alley North (Alley) South (Leatrice Lane)
East (Haster Street)
5 feet 15 feet
15-20 feet 15-20 feet* Haster St.
Interior Yard Setback
(along east property line)
15 feet with 5 feet
landscaped
10 feet (partially landscaped)
Parking Spaces 7 spaces 7 spaces
Recreational Leisure Area 600 sq. ft. 660 sq. ft.
* The required setback abutting an arterial highway (Haster Street) shall have an average landscape setback of not less than 20 feet in depth, with a minimum 15 feet permitted; provided, however, that for every foot of building frontage having a setback of less than 20 feet, there shall be a foot of building
frontage having a setback correspondingly greater than 20 feet. A variance is required because a 15-foot setback is proposed for the balconies and ground floor patio. A setback variance is required adjacent to Haster Street because an additional setback greater than 20 feet is not being proposed to compensate for
the setback reduction to 15 feet.
A variance recognizes that there may be individual lots within a zone or tract that, because of size,
irregular shape, or unusual topography cannot be reasonably developed if all the development
standards for the zone are strictly applied. The applicant has submitted a letter of justification
indicating that the small size of the lot, as compared to all other RM-4 zoned properties on Leatrice Lane, makes it difficult to meet all of the development standards while providing
adequate setbacks for the proposed apartment complex. The subject property is 64 feet wide
while nearly all other lots in the immediate vicinity are 76 to 80 feet wide. If this property was of
similar width, staff believes that the developer would be able to develop the site in accordance
with all applicable Code requirements.
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05025 December 14, 2015 Page 4 of 4
Staff believes that the complex is designed in a manner that is sensitive to the adjacent properties by providing reasonable yard areas that are compatible with the neighborhood. With a variance for structural setbacks, the property owner would be allowed to develop his property
in a manner that is compatible with the other apartment complexes in the vicinity. Because this
lot size is smaller than surrounding properties due to the widening of Haster Street, staff believes that there are special circumstances applicable to the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties
under identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the proposed project is within the class of projects (i.e., Class 3 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) which consist of the construction and location of limited
numbers of new, small facilities or structures. Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines provides
examples of projects that qualify for an exemption from the provisions of CEQA, one of which
being the construction of apartments, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units. Since the proposed project consists of the construction of a three-unit apartment complex, the proposed project will not cause a significant effect on the environment
and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the request to construct a three unit apartment complex on this legal non-conforming lot is justified because of the limited size of the lot and therefore, recommends approval of the project. In addition, staff believes that the project is well designed
and will provide a quality living environment for future residents.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Amy Stonich Jonathan E. Borrego
Contract Planner Planning Services Manager
Lilley Planning Group Attachments: 1. Draft Variance Resolution
2. Justification and Request Letter
3. Site, Floor and Elevation Plans 4. Development Summary
RM-4PACIFIC PALMSAPARTMENTS80 UNITS
RM-4FRENCH QUARTERAPARTMENTS152 UNITS
RM-4SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE
RM-4FOURPLEX RM-4FOURPLEX
RM-4 APTSRM-4 APTS RM-4 APTSRM-4 APTS RM-4 APTSRM-4 APTS
RM-4 APTSRM-4 APTS RM-4 APTSRM-4 APTS RM-4 APTSRM-4 APTS
RM-4 APTSRM-4 APTS RM-4 APTSRM-4 APTS RM-4 APTSRM-4 APTS
RM-4 APTS RM-4 APTSRM-4 APTS RM-4 APTSRM-4 APTS
S H A S T E R S T
E LEATRICE LN
E WAKEFIELD AVE
S . H A R B O R B L V D
S . W E S T S T
E. KATELLA AVEW. KATELLA AVE
E. CERRITOS AVE
S.MA
NCHESTER
AVE
E. CHAPMAN AVE
S . S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D
W. DISNEY WAY
105 East Leatrice Lane
DEV No. 2015-00043
Subject Property APN: 137-342-22
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
S H A S T E R S T
E LEATRICE LN
E WAKEFIELD AVE
S . H A R B O R B L V D
S . W E S T S T
E. KATELLA AVEW. KATELLA AVE
E. CERRITOS AVE
S.MA
NCHESTER
AVE
E. CHAPMAN AVE
S . S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D
W. DISNEY WAY
105 East Leatrice Lane
DEV No. 2015-00043
Subject Property APN: 137-342-22
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05025 AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2015-00043) (105 EAST LEATRICE LANE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (hereinafter referred
to as the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified petition for Variance No. 2015-05025 to
permit (i) a 5-foot setback adjacent to the alley where a 15-foot setback is required adjacent to a “Primary” wall, (ii) a 10-foot setback including a 3-foot wide walkway and landscape on the east property line where 15 feet (5-foot landscape) is required, and (iii) patios/balconies to encroach
into the required 20-foot setback adjacent to Haster Street in connection with the proposed
construction of a three-unit apartment complex (herein referred to collectively as the "Proposed
Project") for certain real property located at 105 East Leatrice Lane 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 one parcel, is currently vacant and
undeveloped. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Medium Density Residential land uses. The Property is located in the “RM-4” Multiple Family Residential Zone, meaning that the regulations contained in Chapter 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones) of
the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") shall apply; and
WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Anaheim Civic Center, Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, on November 2, 2015 to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Variance No. 2015—05025 and to
investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith. Notice of said
public hearing was duly given as required by Section 65090 of the California Government Code
and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"). The public hearing was continued by the Planning Commission to December 12, 2015; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA
Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of
environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and
- 2 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the effects of the Proposed Project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e., Class 3 – New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) which consist of the construction and location
of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures. Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines
provides examples of projects that qualify for an exemption from the provisions of CEQA, one of which being the construction of apartments, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units. Since the Proposed Project consists of the proposed construction
of a three-unit apartment complex, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant effect on the
environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, paragraph .0101 of Subsection .010 (Setbacks Abutting a Public Street) of Section 18.06.090 (Structural Setbacks) of Chapter 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones) of
the Code requires the minimum landscaped setback in the Multiple-Family Residential Zones
abutting an arterial highway, such as Haster Street, to be an average "of not less than twenty (20)
feet in depth, with a minimum fifteen (15) feet permitted; provided, however, that for every foot of building frontage having a setback of less than twenty (20) feet, there shall be a foot of building frontage having a setback correspondingly greater than twenty (20) feet" "as measured
from the planned highway right-of-way line, as indicated in the Circulation Element of the
General Plan . . . ."; and
WHEREAS, paragraph .0102 of Subsection .010 (Setbacks Abutting a Public Street) of Section 18.06.090 (Structural Setbacks) of Chapter 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones) of
the Code requires the minimum landscaped setback in the Multiple-Family Residential Zones
abutting a public street other than an arterial highway, such as Leatrice Street, to be a minimum
of fifteen (15) feet "as measured from the planned highway right-of-way line, as indicated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan . . . ."; and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned street setback requirements apply in addition to the
structural setback and yard requirements set forth in paragraph .0201 (Street Setbacks for Non-
Residential and Multiple-Family Residential Lots) of Subsection .020 (Measurements) of Section 18.40.040 (Structural Setbacks and Yards) of Chapter 18.40 (General Development Standards) of the Code, which require "the minimum setbacks for all . . . multiple-family lots and parcels
adjoining [a] . . . public . . . street[] . . . [to] be measured from the closest building to the . . . [t]he
ultimate right-of-way of any adjacent public street or arterial highway . . . ." Because the
Proposed Project does not meet the aforementioned street setback requirements, the applicant has requested a variance therefrom; and
WHEREAS, Subsection .030 (Setbacks Abutting Interior Property Lines) of Section
18.06.090 (Structural Setbacks) of Chapter 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential Zones) of the
Code requires the minimum structural setback for a two-story structure in the Multiple-Family Residential Zones abutting an interior property line to be fifteen (15) feet along the entire length
of the building with a minimum of five (5) feet of said setback landscaped; and
- 3 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing pertaining to the request for Variance No. 2015-05025 to allow structural and
landscape setbacks smaller than required by the Code to permit the future construction of a three-
unit apartment complex, should be approved for the following reasons: SECTIONS NO. 18.06.090.010.0101 AND
18.40.040.020.0201.01
Minimum Landscape Setback Adjacent to an
Arterial Highway.
(20 feet required; 15-20 feet proposed.)
SECTIONS NO. 18.06.090.010.0102 AND
18.40.040.020.0201.01
Minimum Structural Setback Adjacent to a
Public Alley.
(15 feet required; 5 feet proposed)
SECTION NO. 18.06.090.030 Minimum Structural Setback Adjacent to an Interior Property Line.
(15 feet required; 10 feet proposed.)
1. There are special circumstances applicable to the Property due to the small size of
the Property, as compared to all other RM-4 zoned properties on Leatrice Lane. The lot size was reduced when the Property was narrowed significantly in conjunction with a Haster Street widening project. Specifically, the widening of Haster Street left the subject Property in such a
shape that the location of the proposed structure, as designed, requires variances from structural
setback requirements on three sides of the Property.
2. Strict application of the Code would deprive the Property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under the identical zoning classification in the vicinity due to the legal
nonconforming width of the Property, as compared to all other RM-4 zoned properties in the
vicinity. This Property is one of the only parcels within the zoning district which was affected
by the road widening. The subject property is 63 feet wide while nearly all other lots in the immediate vicinity are 76 feet wide. The nonconforming lot size makes it difficult to meet all of the development standards while providing adequate setbacks for the proposed apartment
complex. Therefore, a variance will allow the development of the Property which is consistent
with other multi-unit complexes in the area.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
- 4 - PC2015-***
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Variance No. 2015-05025, 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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 2015. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Section 18.60.130 (Appeals – Planning Commission Decisions) of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of
the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City
Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2015-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim,
do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on December 14, 2015, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of December,
2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 6 - PC2015-***
- 7 - PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B”
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05025
(DEV2015-00043)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
1 The developer shall submit street improvement plans for work within
public right-of-way to the Public Works Department, Development
Services Division and a bond shall be posted to guarantee the construction
of all public works improvements. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services
Division
2 The developer/owner shall submit a set of improvement plans for Public
Utilities Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division review and
Water Engineering approval in determining the conditions necessary for providing water service to the project.
Public Utilities Department,
Water Engineering
Division
3 All back flow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street
setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys.
Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault will have to be brought
up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division outside of the street setback area in a manner fully
screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be
specifically shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and Cross
Connection Control Inspector.
Public Utilities
Department,
Water Engineering
Division
4 All requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or fire lines, as well
as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall be coordinated and permitted through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public
Utilities Department.
Public Utilities Department,
Water Engineering
Division
5 All existing water services and fire services shall conform to current Water Services Standard Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does
not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued use if necessary or
abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line.
Public Utilities
Department,
Water Engineering
Division
6 The developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division an estimate of the Water Engineering maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project.
This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water
system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system
improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with
Public Utilities
Department,
Water Engineering Division
- 8 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations.
7 Individual water service and/or fire line connections will be required for each parcel or residential, commercial, industrial unit per Rule 18 of the City of
Anaheim's Water Rates, Rules and Regulations.
Public Utilities
Department,
Water Engineering Division
8 All fire services 2-inch and smaller shall be metered with a UL listed meter,
Hersey Residential Fire Meter with Translator Register, no equals. Public Utilities Department,
Water Engineering
Division
GENERAL CONDITIONS
9 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its
officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnities”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnities to attack, review, set
aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnities 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 Indemnities and costs of suit,
claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other
costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnities in connection with such proceeding.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services Division
10 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project,
whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in
the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the
approval of this application.
Planning and Building Department,
Planning Services
Division
11 The subject Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department, and
as conditioned herein.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
Project name: 105 Leatrice Apartments
Project address : 105 Leatrice St Anaheim
APN : 137-34-222
RE : DEV2015-00043/ VAR2015-05025
Contact : Te, How Chin ( Andy) 714 5532988
ndt123@Gmail.com
1202 Laster Ave Anaheim
Date : 09-30-15
Project owner have been worked and live in Anaheim over two decades;
Andy felt that he could help the community be creating a good living environment in a hardship
area, like 105 Leatrice St.
Because of the lot configuration and reduced lot size due to street widening; and
in the Anaheim Beatification Artisan zone require 20 feet set back from the street.
We are requesting a few variances from City of Anaheim;
1. 18.06.090 Structural Setbacks –
a. To permit a 5-foot setback adjacent to the alley where a 15-foot setback is required
adjacent to a wall designated as “Primary.
(The neighbors have 0 feet set back)
b. To permit a 10-foot setback including 3-foot wide walkway and landscape on the east
property line where 15 feet (5-feet landscaped) is required.
2. 18.06.080 Allowable encroachments 5 ft into the required setbacks - To permit patios/balconies
to encroach into the required 20-foot setback adjacent to Haster Street.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
11
4
'
47.40'
1
9
.
4
4
'
FI
R
S
T
S
T
O
R
Y
:
U
N
I
T
"
A
"
SE
C
O
N
D
S
T
O
R
Y
:
U
N
I
T
"
B
"
&
"
C
"
LOT COVERAGE : 34' x 94' = 3196 SQ.FT.
LOT SIZE : 64.16 x 114 = 7300 SQ.FT.
3237 / 7300 = 44%
3' x 13'-6" = 41 SQ.FT.
3237 SQ.FT.
PATIO (PRIVATE AREA) 10' x 22'-6" = 225 SQ.FT.
LIVING 15'-0" x 34' = 510 SQ.FT.
28'-6" x 29' = 827 SQ.FT.
PROPOSED NEW TWO-STORY TRIP-PLEX
UNIT "A" (TWO BEDROOMS, TWO BATHS)
TANDEM GARAGE
3-TANDEM GARAGE & ONE GUEST PARKING SPACE
105 E. LEATRICE ST., ANAHEIM, CA. 92802
C/L LEATRICE ST.
PARKING REQ'D FOR EACH UNIT : 2.25 PARKINGS
TOTAL REQ'D PARKINGS FOR THREE UNITS :
3 x 2.25 = 6.75 PARKINGS
TOTAL PARKINGS PROVIDED :
3 x 2 (TANDEM GARAGE) = 6 PARKINGS
1 GUEST PARKING SPACE = 1 PARKINGS
TOTAL = 7 PARKINGS
APN : 137-342-22
ZONING : RM-4
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
105 E. LEATRICE ST.
ANAHEIM, CA. 92802
PROJECT ADDRESS
TE HOW CHIN
OWNER
GENERAL PLAN : R-M
EXIST. LAND USE : VACANT
1202 LASTER AVE.
ANAHEIM, CA. 92802
GUY WIRE
10'-0"20'-0"34'-0"64.12'
64.18'
10
1
.
4
3
'
(E) GARAGE
(E) TWO-STORY BUILDING
(E) TWO-STORY BUILDING
20
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
0
"
3'-0"
12'-0"
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
P
A
C
E
TA
N
D
E
M
G
A
R
A
G
E
UN
I
T
"
A
"
TA
N
D
E
M
G
A
R
A
G
E
UN
I
T
"
B
"
TA
N
D
E
M
G
A
R
A
G
E
UN
I
T
"
C
"
SECOND STOTY
10'-0"
10'-0"
20'-0"34'-0"10'-0"64.12'
43
'
-
6
"
5'-
0
"
4'-
0
"
13
'
-
6
"
20
'
-
0
"
15
'
-
0
"
32
'
-
0
"
3'
-
6
"
3
'
-
6
"
3'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
43
'
-
6
"
5'-
0
"
3'-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
43
'
-
6
"
10
'
-
0
"
32
'
-
0
"
3'-
6
"
10
'
-
0
"
C/L ALLEY
C/
L
H
A
S
T
R
S
T
.
20'-0"
15'-0"
1
1
1
3
4
21
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
5
8
8
9
9
PATIO
6
7
7
7
7
(E
)
C
&
G
(E) C & G
(E) CATCH BASIN
5'-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10
'
x
2
0
'
LEGEND
1 3'-0" HT. WROUGHT IRON
2 6'-0" HT. WROUGHT IRON
3 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
4 CONCRETE PARKING
5 3'-0" CONCRETE WALKWAY
6
7 ARTIFITIAL TURF
8 EXIST. CONCRETE SIDE WALK
9 EXIST. PARKWAY
94
'
-
0
"
5'-0"
TOTAL = 1325 SQ.FT.
STORAGE AREA 2'-0" x 10' = 20 SQ.FT.
20 x 8' = 160 CU.FT.
BALCONY (PRIVATE AREA) 10' x 22'-6" = 225 SQ.FT.
LIVING 15'-0" x 34' = 510 SQ.FT.
28'-6" x 29' = 827 SQ.FT.
UNIT "B" (TWO BEDROOMS, TWO BATHS)
43'-6" x 13' = 566 SQ.FT.
TANDEM GARAGE
BALCONY (PRIVATE AREA) 10' x 21' = 210 SQ.FT.
LIVING 15'-0" x 34' = 510 SQ.FT.
27'-0" x 29' = 783 SQ.FT.
UNIT "C" (TWO BEDROOMS, TWO BATHS)
TANDEM GARAGE
SITE PLAN 1" =10'-0"
105 E. LEATRICE ST., ANAHEIM, CA. 92802
-3' x 4' = - 12 SQ.FT.
TOTAL = 1325 SQ.FT.
-3' x 4' = - 12 SQ.FT.
TOTAL = 1281 SQ.FT.
-3' x 4' = - 12 SQ.FT.
7'
7'
50
'
50
'
7'
ARTIFITIAL TURF
10 COLUMN
5'-0"
5
5
3'-0"
7
5'-0"2'-0"
43'-6" x 10'-6" = 457 SQ.FT.
43'-6" x 10'-6" = 457 SQ.FT.
STORAGE AREA 2'-0" x 10' = 20 SQ.FT.
20 x 8' = 160 CU.FT.
STORAGE AREA 2'-0" x 10' = 20 SQ.FT.
20 x 8' = 160 CU.FT.
TOTAL PRIVATE AREA
225 + 225 + 210 = 660 SQ.FT.
REVISED
SCALE : NOTED
DATE : 11/11/15
DRAWN BY : D.S.
SHEET OF
PR
O
J
E
C
T
OW
N
E
R
TE
L
(
7
1
4
)
5
5
3
-
2
9
8
8
TE
H
O
W
C
H
I
N
PR
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
Y
TE
L
(
7
1
4
)
2
6
0
-
8
5
1
5
FO
U
N
T
A
I
N
V
A
L
L
E
Y
,
C
A
.
9
2
7
0
8
16
5
7
4
S
U
G
A
R
L
O
A
F
S
T
.
DU
N
G
S
A
M
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
T
W
O
S
T
O
R
Y
T
R
I
P
-
P
L
E
X
10
5
E
.
L
E
A
T
R
I
C
E
S
T
.
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
.
9
2
8
0
2
12
0
2
L
A
S
T
E
R
A
V
E
.
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
.
9
2
8
0
2
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
REVISED
SCALE : NOTED
DATE : 11/11/15
DRAWN BY : D.S.
SHEET OF
PR
O
J
E
C
T
OW
N
E
R
TE
L
(
7
1
4
)
5
5
3
-
2
9
8
8
TE
H
O
W
C
H
I
N
PR
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
Y
TE
L
(
7
1
4
)
2
6
0
-
8
5
1
5
FO
U
N
T
A
I
N
V
A
L
L
E
Y
,
C
A
.
9
2
7
0
8
16
5
7
4
S
U
G
A
R
L
O
A
F
S
T
.
DU
N
G
S
A
M
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
T
W
O
S
T
O
R
Y
T
R
I
P
-
P
L
E
X
10
5
E
.
L
E
A
T
R
I
C
E
S
T
.
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
.
9
2
8
0
2
12
0
2
L
A
S
T
E
R
A
V
E
.
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
.
9
2
8
0
2
10'-6"
34'-0"
13'-0"10'-6"
43
'
-
6
"
3'-
6
"
43
'
-
6
"
3'
-
6
"
TA
N
D
E
M
G
A
R
A
G
E
TA
N
D
E
M
G
A
R
A
G
E
TA
N
D
E
M
G
A
R
A
G
E
PATIO
5'-0"34'-0"
STAIRS
FIRST STORY FLOOR PLAN 1/8" =1'-0"
105 E. LEATRICE ST., ANAHEIM, CA. 92802
12
'
X
4
0
'
10
'
X
4
0
'
10
'
X
4
0
'
UN
I
T
"
A
"
UN
I
T
"
B
"
UN
I
T
"
C
"
SECOND STORY
T T T T T T
7'
-
0
"
22
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
SECOND STORY
40
'
-
0
"
C
L
E
A
R
12' CLEAR 10' CLEAR 10' CLEAR
BEDROOM
MASTER
DININGLIVING
ENTRY
BATH
KITCHEN
HALL
BEDROOM
CLOSET
15
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
6
"
43
'
-
6
"
8'-0"12'-0"14'-0"
17'-0"
34'-0"
12'-0"
42
'
-
0
"
43
'
-
6
"
3'
-
6
"
5'-0"34'-0"
15
'
-
0
"
BEDROOM
MASTER
DININGLIVING
ENTRY
BATH
KITCHEN
HALL
MA
S
T
E
R
B
A
T
H
BEDROOM
CLOSET
15
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
6
"
8'-0"12'-0"14'-0"
FIRST STORY
ROOF BELOW 5'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
BEDROOM
MASTER
BATHHALL
BEDROOM
CLOSET
11
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
15
'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
KITCHEN
ENTRY
LIVING DINING
UN
I
T
"
A
"
UN
I
T
"
B
"
UN
I
T
"
C
"
5'-0"
SECOND STORY FLOOR PLAN 1/8" =1'-0"
105 E. LEATRICE ST., ANAHEIM, CA. 92802
BA
L
C
O
N
Y
4'-
0
"
W.I.C.
4'
-
0
"
3'
-
6
"
21
'
-
0
"
5'-0"
W.I.C.W
D
MA
S
T
E
R
B
A
T
H
W
D
M
A
S
T
E
R
B
A
T
H
4'-
0
"
BA
L
C
O
N
Y
A
B
O
V
E
BA
L
C
O
N
Y
ROOF PLAN 1/8" =1'-0"
105 E. LEATRICE ST., ANAHEIM, CA. 92802
4/12
4/
1
2
4/12
4/12
4/12
4/12
4/12
4/12
4/12
4/12
4/12
4/
1
2
4/
1
2
4/
1
2
RI
D
G
E
RI
D
G
E
RIDGE
RIDGE
VAL
L
E
Y
V
A
L
L
E
Y
5'-0"3'-0"5'-0"3'-0"5'-0"1
1
1
2
2
3 3
3
3
3
4 444
4 4
5
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
8
3
8
8
7
7
8
7
8
8
9 9 9
10 10 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
EXTERIOR WINDOWS & DOORS SCHEDULE
3'x2' SL.WI. (BATH)
9 3'-0"x6'-8" DR.
3'-0"x6'-8" ENTRY DR.
5'x4' SL.WI.
3'-0"x6'-8" FR.DR.(TEMPERED)
2'x4' S.H.
3'x3' SL.WI. (BATH)
4'x4' SL.WI.
4'x3' SL.WI.
10 8'x7' ROLL-UP GARAGE DR.W/ AUTOMATIC REMOTE CONTROL
5
5
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
OWENS CORNING / DESERT TAN
SLOPE : 4/12 (TYP)
OVERHANG : 18" (TYP)
W
D
42
'
-
0
"
43
'
-
6
"
3'
-
6
"
5'
-
0
"
NO OVERHANG
5'-0"34'-0"
24
'
-
6
"
15
'
-
0
"
23
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
15
'
-
0
"
4'-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
3'
-
6
"
34'-0"5'-0"
5'-0"
3
2
W.I.C.
2
2
V
A
L
L
E
Y
VA
L
L
E
Y
4/
1
2
4/
1
2
2
3
3
STORAGE
2'-
0
"
STORAGE
22
'
-
6
"
2'-
0
"
STORAGE
15
'
-
0
"
2'-
0
"
REVISED
SCALE : NOTED
DATE : 11/11/15
DRAWN BY : D.S.
SHEET OF
PR
O
J
E
C
T
OW
N
E
R
TE
L
(
7
1
4
)
5
5
3
-
2
9
8
8
TE
H
O
W
C
H
I
N
PR
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
Y
TE
L
(
7
1
4
)
2
6
0
-
8
5
1
5
FO
U
N
T
A
I
N
V
A
L
L
E
Y
,
C
A
.
9
2
7
0
8
16
5
7
4
S
U
G
A
R
L
O
A
F
S
T
.
DU
N
G
S
A
M
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
T
W
O
S
T
O
R
Y
T
R
I
P
-
P
L
E
X
10
5
E
.
L
E
A
T
R
I
C
E
S
T
.
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
.
9
2
8
0
2
12
0
2
L
A
S
T
E
R
A
V
E
.
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
.
9
2
8
0
2
8'
-
0
"
~6
'
-
0
"
8"
~2
3
'
-
8
"
1'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
8'-
0
"
~2
'
-
2
"
8"
~1
0
'
-
1
0
"
21'-0"14'-9"23'-3"5'-0"24'-9"
8'
-
0
"
~6
'
-
0
"
8"
~2
3
'
-
8
"
1'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
8'-
0
"
~2
'
-
2
"
8"
~1
0
'
-
1
0
"
42'-0"5'-0"3'-6"43'-6"
43'-6"3'-6"3'-6"
8'
-
0
"
~6
'
-
0
"
8"
~2
3
'
-
8
"
1'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
8'-
0
"
~2
'
-
2
"
8"
~1
0
'
-
1
0
"
8'
-
0
"
~6
'
-
0
"
8"
~2
3
'
-
8
"
1'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
8'-
0
"
~2
'
-
2
"
8"
~1
0
'
-
1
0
"
5'-0"34'-0"
5'-0"34'-0"
FRONT ELEVATION (WEST) 1/8" =1'-0"
REAR ELEVATION (EAST) 1/8" =1'-0"LEFT ELEVATION (NORTH) 1/8" =1'-0"
RIGHT ELEVATION (SOUTH) 1/8" =1'-0"
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF
3
2
1
4
5 PATIO / BALCONY COLUMN
LA HABRA STUCCO (TYP) / SILVER GRAY OR APPROVED EQUAL
WINDOW / DOOR TRIM
6 ATTIC VENT.
1
22
2
2
2 2
2
5
2
4 4
6
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
(TYP)
3
(TYP)
3
(TYP)
4 4
2
2
2
2
6
4
3
(TYP)
3
(TYP)
2
2
1
6
2
23
(TYP)
1
2
22
1
1
1
4
12
4
12
18" (TYP)
18" (TYP)
WOOD / PAINTED / DARK BROWN OR APPROVED EQUAL
WOOD ACCENT / PAINTED / MADELRA ROSE
3
(TYP)
OWENS CORNING / DESERT TAN
OR APPROVED EQUAL
LA HABRA STUCCO (TYP) / SILVER GRAY OR APPROVED EQUAL
2
3
(TYP)5 5
6
5 5 52
2 2
3
(TYP)
14'-9"
2
REVISED
SCALE : NOTED
DATE : 11/11/15
DRAWN BY : D.S.
SHEET OF
PR
O
J
E
C
T
OW
N
E
R
TE
L
(
7
1
4
)
5
5
3
-
2
9
8
8
TE
H
O
W
C
H
I
N
PR
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
Y
TE
L
(
7
1
4
)
2
6
0
-
8
5
1
5
FO
U
N
T
A
I
N
V
A
L
L
E
Y
,
C
A
.
9
2
7
0
8
16
5
7
4
S
U
G
A
R
L
O
A
F
S
T
.
DU
N
G
S
A
M
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
T
W
O
S
T
O
R
Y
T
R
I
P
-
P
L
E
X
10
5
E
.
L
E
A
T
R
I
C
E
S
T
.
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
.
9
2
8
0
2
12
0
2
L
A
S
T
E
R
A
V
E
.
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
.
9
2
8
0
2
8'
-
0
"
~6
'
-
0
"
8"
~2
3
'
-
8
"
1'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
6'
-
0
"
REAR ELEVATION (EAST) 1/4" =1'-0"
39
'
-
0
"
45' POWER POLE
PRIMARY ARM
5'5'4'6'
FROM PRIMARY CONDUCTOR
10' CLEAR RADIAL
14
'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
IN THIS HATCH AREA
NO STRUCTURE ALLOWED
IN THIS HATCH AREA
NO STRUCTURE ALLOWED
FINISHED GRADE
3'2'
MIN.
105 E. LEATRICE ST., ANAHEIM, CA. 92802
REVISED
SCALE : NOTED
DATE : 11/11/15
DRAWN BY : D.S.
SHEET OF
PR
O
J
E
C
T
OW
N
E
R
TE
L
(
7
1
4
)
5
5
3
-
2
9
8
8
TE
H
O
W
C
H
I
N
PR
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
Y
TE
L
(
7
1
4
)
2
6
0
-
8
5
1
5
FO
U
N
T
A
I
N
V
A
L
L
E
Y
,
C
A
.
9
2
7
0
8
16
5
7
4
S
U
G
A
R
L
O
A
F
S
T
.
DU
N
G
S
A
M
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
T
W
O
S
T
O
R
Y
T
R
I
P
-
P
L
E
X
10
5
E
.
L
E
A
T
R
I
C
E
S
T
.
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
.
9
2
8
0
2
12
0
2
L
A
S
T
E
R
A
V
E
.
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
.
9
2
8
0
2
11
4
'
47.40'
1
9
.
4
4
'
LEATRICE ST.
64.18'
10
1
.
4
3
'
ALLEY
HA
S
T
R
S
T
.
(E
)
C
&
G
(E) C & G
(E) CATCH BASIN
SITE PLAN 1" =10'-0"
105 E. LEATRICE ST., ANAHEIM, CA. 92802
LEGEND
PROPOSED TWO-STORY BUILDING
CONCRETE WALK WAY / DRIVEWAY / PARKIING
ARTIFITIAL TURF
LANDSCAPE TREE
PROJECT SUMMARY
Development Standard RM-4 Standards Proposed Project
Density 36 du/acre max. 18.75 units per acre
Min. Site Area per Dwelling Unit 1,200 square feet 2,433 square feet
Lot Width 70 feet 64 feet (legal non-conforming)
Building Height 40 feet 23 feet, 8 inches
Minimum Floor Area (2 BR Unit) 825 square feet 1,281-1,325 sq ft
Maximum Site Coverage 55% 44%
Recreational Leisure Area 600 sq. ft. minimum 660 sq. ft.
Front Landscape Setback 5 feet minimum 15 feet
Setback - North (Alley) 15 Feet 5 Feet
Setback - South (Leatrice Ave.) 15 Feet 15 Feet
Setback - East (Haster Street) 20 Feet 15-20 Feet
Setback - West (Adjacent to Multi-
Family)
15 Feet with 5 Feet Landscaped 10 feet (7 Feet of Landscape Area
with a 3-ft. walkway)
Parking 7 spaces 2.25 spaces per 2-BR unit 7 spaces (6 tandem garage plus 1 guest)
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. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2015 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486E LOCATION: 2232 South Harbor Boulevard (M3Live)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Musa Madain and the
property owner is P.A. Poon and Son, Inc.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a six-month condition compliance review for an existing theater/banquet facility, as required by its conditional use permit (CUP).
The applicant also requests the following amendments to the business operation to: 1)
allow live musical concerts in the theater; 2) allow the restaurant and banquet room to
operate concurrently with events in the theater; 3) extend the permitted hours of
operation for the restaurant and banquet facility; and, 4) amend a condition of approval pertaining to parking lot lighting.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
the attached resolution, determining that a previously-approved Mitigated Negative
Declaration is the appropriate environmental determination for this request, and approve, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486E.
BACKGROUND: This item was heard at the Planning Commission meeting of November 16, 2015. The Planning Commission continued the item due to non-
payment of fees by the applicant.
In July 2010, a conditional use permit was approved to permit a 43,500 square foot dinner theater venue known as Battle of the Dance. The dinner theater opened for business in February 2011. The dinner theater business struggled shortly after
opening and the operator subsequently began allowing night club and concert
promoters to use the venue in violation of the CUP. This expanded activity resulted
in negative impacts to the surrounding community. Complaints received were generally related to loud music emanating from the building and disruptive customers loitering in the parking lot. There had previously been no issues or
complaints from the residential community when the Battle of the Dance operated
solely as a dinner theater, in compliance with the CUP.
In May 2012, the CUP for Battle of the Dance was amended to allow various
activities accessory to the dinner theatre operations, including private parties,
meetings and banquets, religious assembly, and, sporting and convention events.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486E
December 14, 2015 Page 2 of 6
Additional activities, including public dance hall (nightclub) activities and music concerts were
requested at that time, but denied by the Planning Commission. Battle of the Dance subsequently closed in late 2012 and the building remained vacant until occupied by the current
tenant, M3 Live.
M3 Live opened for business in September 2014 and the first dinner theater show was held on
October 17, 2014. The initial business description for M3 Live included dinner theater shows on Friday and Saturday nights and a restaurant that would operate from Sunday through Thursday.
Prior to its opening, the Commission reviewed revised floor plans for M3Live to convert the
front portion of the building to a restaurant dining area. This area had previously been used as a
large lobby area, including a small stage, when operated as Battle of the Dance. The approved
modification did not include changes to the conditions of approval, and the new (current) operator agreed to abide by all of the pre-existing conditions of the CUP, including a six-month
compliance review to be scheduled before the Planning Commission following the start of
operations.
On May 18, 2015, the Commission considered a six-month compliance review for M3 Live. The compliance review included a request by the applicant to amend the CUP by removing the
requirement to provide dinner in conjunction with theater shows, expanded hours of operation
and revised floor plans. The Commission approved the request, in part, permitting live shows in
the theater without dinner, with the exception of musical concerts; extending the hours of
operation for banquets until midnight on Friday and Saturday nights; and, revising the floor plan for the main dining room. The approved changes to the dining room included relocation of the
bar from the middle of the room to a side wall, but these physical changes have not been
implemented.
PROPOSAL: In addition to the current six-month compliance review, the applicant is
requesting modification to the CUP, as follows:
1. Allow Concerts: The applicant requests the ability to host concert events in the theater. Condition No. 8 of the current Planning Commission resolution (Attachment 2) prohibits concerts to be held in the theater. The current prohibition does not extend to musical
performances held in conjunction with dinner theater shows.
2. Concurrent Uses: The applicant requests that the restaurant be open to the public when
events are held in the theater or the small banquet room. Condition Nos. 11 and 12 currently restrict concurrent events. 3. Extend Permitted Hours of Operation: The applicant proposes to change the hours of
operation for the restaurant. Approved hours are Sunday – Thursday, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m. and Friday/Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to midnight. Proposed hours are 9:00 a.m. to 2 a.m.,
daily. The applicant is further requesting to extend the mid-week operating hours of the banquet facility from 10:00 p.m. to midnight. No changes are proposed to the hours for the theater.
4. Parking Lot Lighting: The applicant requests that, rather than keeping the entire parking
lot lit after business hours, that after hours lighting be focused on the eastern portion of the
site only, behind the building. Condition No. 30 requires that the entire lot be lit during all hours of darkness.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486E
December 14, 2015 Page 3 of 6
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Before the Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the
following conditions exist:
1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this code;
2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or
the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be
located;
3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety;
4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue
burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the
traffic in the area; and
5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the
citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Six Month Review: Per the conditions of approval for this CUP, the business is subject to a six-
month review by the Commission to ensure on-going compliance with the conditions of approval
and to ensure that the venue is being operated without detriment to the surrounding neighborhood.
The CUP also requires Code Enforcement staff to conduct four inspections during the six month review period. Four inspections were conducted during the past six months, as follows: July 18,
2015 in the evening during a concert; September 19, 2015 during a daytime car club event and an
associated concert later that evening; October 8, 2015 during a non-event day; and October 28,
2015 during a non-event day.
Prior to the first Code inspection on July 18, 2015, the applicant made considerable physical
improvements to the property to address noise concerns that have been raised by nearby neighbors
during prior concert events. These improvements include the addition of sound proofing insulation
to the walls, doors and within the attic area of the theater. Following the installation of this sound-proofing, staff visited the venue to conduct a sound-check in order to gauge its effectiveness.
During the inspection, one staff member was stationed in the theater during a concert event to
confirm the decibel level inside the venue and another staff member was stationed inside a
neighboring residence to observe any noise or vibration. Staff observed that, when music in the
theater was held below 95 decibels, no sound was audible, or vibration discernable, off-site.
On September 19, 2015, Planning, Code Enforcement and Police Department staff was on-site at
various times of day and night. The venue was hosting a weekend event hosted by a car club that
included a live concert and other entertainment, including food service. Classic cars were parked
in the parking lot and activities were held within the venue. In the afternoon and evening, staff observed that some music was audible at the front of the venue, facing Harbor Boulevard, but no
noise was heard around the building adjacent to the neighboring properties.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486E
December 14, 2015 Page 4 of 6
During the October 8 inspection on a non-event day, Code Enforcement staff noted that various
conditions of approval had not been complied with, including removal of the metal brackets from
the former exterior murals at the front of the building and lack of painted numbers on the valet
stalls. By the October 28 visit, these items had been remedied. Since the last 6-month compliance review in May 2015, the applicant has demonstrated a good-
faith effort to mitigate impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, particularly with respect to
soundproofing the theater. There have been 35 calls for police service to this location within the
past year which is not atypical for this type of venue. Approximately half of these calls were related to noise complaints received from the neighborhood to the south but many of these calls were received prior to the installation of the additional sound-proofing. There were, however, three
instances in the last six months that the Police Department received complaints regarding the
business operating beyond its the permitted hours of operation. The complaints occurred on
Saturday, May 30, 2015, in which a high school prom event lasted until 1:00 a.m. in violation of the midnight limit; Monday, June 29, 2015, in which a truck was being loaded in the rear parking lot at 1:22 a.m.; and, Sunday, September 13, 2015, in which music was playing beyond the10:30 p.m.
limit and the Police Department confirmed that guests were still in the venue at 11:45 p.m. in
violation of the CUP.
During the past six months, the City has also received complaints that the parking lot lights were off on numerous occasions, mostly during the months of September and October. The current CUP
includes a condition of approval that requires parking lot lighting to be on during all hours of
darkness. Code Enforcement staff checked the lights during early morning hours and, in September,
confirmed that the lights were off on multiple visits. Staff informed the applicant, who claimed that the issue was caused by a faulty relay switch. The switch was repaired, but staff continued to receive complaints. In response to these subsequent complaints, Code Enforcement staff checked
the lights during early morning hours and found them to be on during each visit.
During the public hearing on November 16, there was discussion regarding a recent instance in which the venue operated past the allowed hours. Since that hearing, there was another event that was held past the permitted hours. On Wednesday, November 25, a comedy act operated past the
permitted 10 p.m. closing time and the Police Department verified that there were still patrons on
site when they arrived at 11: 40 p.m.
Requested Operational Changes:
1. Allow Concerts: The applicant requests the ability to host concert events in the theater
without the requirement to serve a meal. Since the last review of the permit, staff’s concerns
with noise and vibration have been addressed. Substantial soundproofing has been installed in the theater and staff has field-verified the effectiveness of these improvements on various occasions. Staff and the applicant have concluded that maintaining tables and table covers
in the theater space promotes sound absorption and the applicant has agreed to keep the
tables in place during concert events. An in-house sound technician is employed by the
owner and is currently responsible for managing operation of the venue’s sound board during all concert events to ensure that volumes are consistently kept a level that will not
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486E
December 14, 2015 Page 5 of 6
disturb the adjacent area. As previously described, staff observed that an interior sound level of up to 95 decibels is acceptable, and the applicant has committed to keeping the sound
levels at or below 85 decibels to ensure non-disturbance. Conditions of approval reflecting
the proposed operations have been included in the draft resolution. Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission approve the applicant's request to allow concerts in the theater subject to the recommended conditions of approval.
2. Concurrent Uses: The applicant requests that the restaurant be allowed to operate when
concurrent events are held in the theater or the small banquet room. Staff has reviewed the
original parking study prepared for the venue and has determined that there would be sufficient parking provided on-site to support up to 175 restaurant patrons if the theater was filled to capacity. Staff believes that sufficient parking is also available to allow the small
banquet room and restaurant to operate concurrently at full capacity. Although not
requested by the applicant, staff does not believe that sufficient parking exists to allow
concurrent operation of all three venue spaces (i.e., restaurant, theater and banquet room). Therefore, staff supports the applicant’s request to allow concurrent events within the restaurant and either the banquet room or theater space.
3. Extend Permitted Hours of Operation: The applicant requests later hours of operation for
the restaurant, which would be changed from 12 midnight until 2 a.m., daily. The applicant further requests that permitted hours for the banquet facility be extended from 10:30 p.m. to midnight, Sunday through Thursday. No changes to theater hours are proposed. The
applicant proposes that no deejay, band or other live entertainment would be allowed in the
facility past midnight in the event that restaurant hours are extended to 2:00 a.m., as
requested.
Staff does not support the applicant’s request to extend the restaurant’s operating hours
beyond 10 p.m. on weeknights or midnight on weekends. Noise associated with the end of an event, including car alarms, music being played from cars, and patrons talking and
loitering in parking areas are inevitable; therefore, the facility should close at an acceptable
hour so as not to affect the peaceful enjoyment of the surrounding homes. Staff is
concerned that extended hours for the restaurant would encourage theater or banquet patrons
to carry their group activities into the restaurant during early morning hours. These groups of patrons would be likely leave the venue at the same time during these extended hours
which significantly increases the likelihood of noise complaints or other disturbances.
Unlike a typical restaurant, this venue includes different elements that make it difficult to
segregate hours of activity. For example, banquets would not be allowed to operate past
midnight but it would be very difficult to enforce this rule if banquet patrons were able to migrate to the restaurant space after hours and continue their celebration. As described
above, during the past six months the business owner has also allowed the business to
operate beyond the allowed time limits in violation of the CUP which demonstrates an
inability to adhere to current time limits.
In order to objectively assess the venue’s current impacts to the surrounding community,
staff recently visited residences that are closest to the subject property to the south and east
in order to solicit opinions on the operations of the business. Of the 20 residences visited, staff spoke with seven residents. The seven residents contacted do not include persons that
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486E
December 14, 2015 Page 6 of 6
have testified at previous Planning Commission hearings. The level of disturbance
expressed by each of the residents varied; some were not bothered at all by the current operations, while others experienced some noise impacts but found them tolerable. Of the
residents that did experience noise, the majority commented that they would be opposed to
extending the venue’s business hours.
4. Parking Lot Lighting: The applicant requests that, rather than keeping the entire parking
lot lit after hours, that lighting be focused on the eastern portion of the site when the
business is closed. According to the applicant, this change is requested as a means to reduce business expenses. Staff is supportive of this request since the front portion of the property is adequately lit by the ambient lighting from street lights and surrounding commercial
properties. Staff has proposed revised language to the conditions of approval requiring that
the eastern half of the parking lot be lit from dusk until 5:30 a.m. to discourage loitering or
criminal activity behind the main building. Correspondence: Staff received the attached email, dated November 11, 2015, opposing the
extended hours due to noise by departing patrons experienced in the parking lot.
Environmental Analysis: Staff has determined that the subject request is within the parameters and assumptions analyzed in the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the original theater venue, since there is no physical change to the building or property and no
increase in the maximum capacity of the business is proposed; therefore, the proposed amendment
to the CUP will not create any additional environmental impacts beyond those analyzed and
addressed by the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program.
CONCLUSION: Staff believes the applicant has made significant improvements in soundproofing
the building and has made significant progress towards ensuring that the business operates in a
manner that is compatible with the surrounding community. Staff supports the applicant’s requested changes, in part, including allowing concerts in the theater, allowing the restaurant to operate concurrently with the theater and modifications to lighting requirements. Staff does not
support the request to extend operating hours on weeknights past 10:00 p.m. or weekends past
midnight, for the reasons described in the report.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Elaine Thienprasiddhi Jonathan E. Borrego
Senior Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments: 1. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution 2. Current Conditional Use Permit Resolution 3. Applicant’s Letter of Request
4. Correspondence in Opposition to the Request
5. Photographs 6. Previously-Approved Site and Floor Plans 7. Previously-Approved Negative Declaration
RM-3CONDOMINIUMS64 DU
SP 92-2DA1PARKING LOT SP 92-2DA1MEDICAL OFFICE
SP 92-2DA1RENT FOR LESS
SP 92-2DA1RESTAURANT
SP 92-2DA1COMFORT INNMAINGATE
SP 92-2DA1RETAIL
SP 92-2DA1BANK
RM-2CONDOMINIUMS95 DU
RM-2CONDOMINIUMS95 DU
RM-2SMOKETREE TOWNHOMES123 DU
RM-3CONDOMINIUMS106 DU
RM-3CONDOMINIUMS106 DU
RM-3CONDOMINIUMS106 DU
RM-3CONDOMINIUMS106 DUSP 92-2 DA1AUTO REPAIR/SERVICE
SP 92-2 DA1QUALITY INNMAINGATE
SP 92-2 DA1JACK IN THE BOXRESTAURANT
RM-3CONDOMINIUMS106 DU
SP 92-2DA1RETAIL C-G4PLEX
SP 92-2 DA1HACIENDA INN& SUITES
RM-4HARBOR CLIFFAPARTMENTS130 UNITS R S -2
S I N G L E F A M I L Y
R E S I D E N C E
R S -2
S I N G L E F A M I L Y
R E S I D E N C E
W S U M M E RF IEL D C IR
S
S CUTTY WAY
W S U M M E R F I E L D C I R
S CUTTY WAY
S
M
I
R
A
C
T
S
W
IL
L
O
W
B
R
O
O
K
L
N
W WILKEN WAY
S M A L L U L D R
S M A D R I D S T
S H A R B O R B L V D
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M
C I T Y O F G A R D E N G R O V E
W. KATELLA AVE
S . W E S T S TS. N I N T H S T
W.ORANGEWOOD AVE
S . H A S T E R S T
E. KATELLA AVE
E. CHAPMAN AVE
E. GENE AUTRY WAY
S
.
L
E
W
I
S
S
T
2232 South Harbor Boulevard
DEV No. 2009-00083E
Subject Property APN: 233-051-08
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
W S U M M E R F I E L D C I R
W S U M M E R F I E L D
C I R
S
W
S
U
M
M
E
R
F
I
E
L
D
C
I
R
S CUTTY WAY
W S U M M E R F I E L D C I R
S CUTTY WAY
S
M
I
R
A
C
T
S
W
IL
L
O
W
B
R
O
O
K
L
N
W WILKEN WAY
S M A L L U L D R
S M A D R I D S T
S H A R B O R B L V D
C I T Y O F A N A H E I M
C I T Y O F G A R D E N G R O V E
W. KATELLA AVE
S . W E S T S TS. N I N T H S T
W.ORANGEWOOD AVE
S . H A S T E R S T
E. KATELLA AVE
E. CHAPMAN AVE
E. GENE AUTRY WAY
S
.
L
E
W
I
S
S
T
2232 South Harbor Boulevard
DEV No. 2009-00083E
Subject Property APN: 233-051-08
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486, AMENDING CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. PC 2015-037 AND DETERMINING THAT A
PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS REQUEST (DEV2009-00083E)
(2232 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD)
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2010, and subject to certain conditions of approval, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (hereinafter referred to as ("Planning Commission"), by its
Resolution No. PC2010-057, did approve Conditional Use Permit 2010-05486 (the "Original
CUP") to permit the conversion of two adjoined vacant commercial buildings located on a legal
non-conforming 4.8-acre site into the “Battle of the Dance” dinner theater, which included enhanced landscaping and wall murals, located at 2232 South Harbor Boulevard, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California (the “Property”), as generally depicted on the
map attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2012, and subject to certain conditions of approval, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC2012-033, approved an amendment to the Original CUP (designated as “Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486B”) to permit additional entertainment
and community assembly uses (including: private parties, meetings and banquets, religious
services, and sporting and convention events) in conjunction with a previously-approved dinner
theater, with or without the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, but denied the request to allow public dances (dance venue), launch parties and music concerts (herein referred to as the "2012 Amendment"); and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2014, and subject to certain conditions of approval, the Planning
Commission, by motion, approved a minor amendment to the Original CUP (designated as “Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486C”) to revise the floor plan for a previously-approved dinner theater, restaurant, and banquet facility to accommodate a full-service restaurant and
dinner theater (herein referred to as the "2014 Amendment"); and
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2015, and subject to certain conditions of approval, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC2015-037, approved an amendment to the CUP (designated as “Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486D”), in part, to change the use from a
dinner theater to a live performance theater, extend the operating hours an additional half hour
for the banquet facility and restaurant, and modify previously-approved floor plans; denying that
portion of the request to extend the hours of operation for the restaurant and the banquet facilities (herein referred to as the "2015 Amendment"); and
- 2 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, the Original CUP, the 2012 Amendment, 2014 Amendment and 2015
Amendment shall be referred to collectively herein as the "CUP". The conditions of approval which were the subject of the Original CUP, as amended and modified by the 2012 Amendment, 2014 Amendment, and 2015 Amendment shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Previous
Conditions of Approval"; and
WHEREAS, this Property is currently developed with a 43,500 square foot building, located within the boundaries of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and within the Commercial Recreation (C-R) District (Development Area 1) of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zone. The
Property is designated for Commercial Recreation land uses in the Anaheim General Plan; and
WHEREAS, one of the conditions of approval which were the subject of the 2015 Amendment (specifically, Condition No. 6) states that the permit be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing six months from May 18, 2015 to ensure on-going
compliance with the conditions of approval and to ensure that the venue is being operated
without detriment to the surrounding neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did receive a verified petition to further amend the CUP (designated as "Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486E") to 1) to allow live musical
concerts in the theater; 2) allow the restaurant to operate concurrently with events in the theater;
3) extend the permitted hours of operation for the restaurant until 2 a.m., daily; 4) amend a
condition pertaining to lighting. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on November 16, 2015 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having
been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60
(Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"), to hear and consider evidence for and against the six-month compliance review, said proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486E, and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith.
The public hearing was continued by the Planning Commission to December 14, 2015; 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, the proposed amendment to the CUP will not create any additional
environmental impacts beyond those analyzed and addressed by the previously approved
Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 158, and is
therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation; 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 an amendment to the CUP, does find and determine the
following facts:
- 3 - PC2015-***
1. The request to amend the CUP to change the operations of the existing live
performance theater, restaurant and banquet facility is within that class of primary uses (i.e., Entertainment Venue and Community and Religious Assembly) subject to a conditional use permit authorized under Section 18.116.070 (Uses – Commercial Recreation (C-R) District
(Development Area 1) of the Code.
2. With the exception of the requested extension of the hours of operation, the request to change the operations of the existing live performance theater will not adversely affect the surrounding land uses and the growth and development of the area, with the implementation of
the conditions of approval.
3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full operation of the proposed uses in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health, safety and general welfare of the public because no expansion to the building is proposed and all activities would be inside
the building.
4. The traffic generated at the site would not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the number of vehicles entering and exiting the site is consistent with traffic impacts associated with the
originally-permitted dinner theater.
5. The granting, in part, of the amendment to the CUP under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine, with
respect to the requested extended hours of operation for the restaurant, that all of the conditions and criteria for fully approving the requested amendment to this conditional use permit are not present for the following reasons:
1. The request to extend hours of operation for the restaurant would allow theater or
banquet patrons to carry their group activities into the restaurant for the later hours. Differing hours for the various uses would be extremely difficult to monitor and enforce. The Police Department has also validated that the business has operated beyond the allowed time limits on
three occasions.
2. Noise associated with the end of an event, including car alarms, music being played from cars, and patrons talking and loitering in parking areas are inevitable; therefore, the facility should close at an acceptable hour so as not to affect the peaceful enjoyment of the
surrounding homes.
3. The Property is adjacent to residential uses to the south and east, which are immediately adjacent to the parking areas for the facility. Closing hours beyond those approved would impact the quiet enjoyment of the neighbors’ properties.
- 4 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, for the reasons
hereinabove stated, does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486E to 1) allow
live musical concerts in the theater; 2) allow the restaurant to operate concurrently with events in the theater; and 3) amend a condition pertaining to lighting; provided, however, that the Planning
Commission does hereby deny that portion of the request to extend the hours of operation for the
restaurant.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486E contingent upon and subject to the conditions of
approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the
"Revised Conditions of Approval").
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, effective upon the effective date of this Resolution, the Revised Conditions of Approval hereby amend the Previous Conditions of Approval and
hereby replace the Previous Conditions of Approval in their entirety. All references to the
conditions of approval for the CUP shall be to the Revised Conditions of Approval attached to
this Resolution as Exhibit B, which shall control and govern the CUP, as amended by
Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486E.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revised Conditions of Approval, as they relate to
the uses permitted under Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486E, 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 those conditions of approval that relate to the uses permitted
under Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486E 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.
- 5 - PC2015-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part
thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of
the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable
City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
December 14, 2015. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 6 - PC2015-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on December 14, 2015, by the following vote of the
members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of December, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 7 - PC2015-***
- 8 - PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B”
AMENDMENT TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486 (CUP2010-05486E) (DEV2009-00083E)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
1 This permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing in six months to ensure on-going compliance with the conditions of approval and to ensure that the venue is being
operated without detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. The
costs associated with this public hearing shall be borne by the
applicant.
Planning and Building Department
2 Hours of operation shall be limited to the following:
Banquets and Restaurant:
• Sunday – Thursday: 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
• Friday/Saturday: 9:00 a.m. to midnight
Theater:
• Sunday – Thursday: 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
• Friday/Saturday: 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m.
Guests must be cleared from the property within 30 minutes of the time limits stated above. Security personnel shall be responsible for
maintaining orderly conduct and prompt exiting from the property.
The disassembly and/or loading of equipment following events shall
cease no later than one hour beyond the time limits stated above.
Planning and Building
Department
Police Department
3 Deejays, bands or any other form or live entertainment shall be limited
to the following:
• Sunday – Thursday: 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
• Friday/Saturday: 9:00 a.m. to midnight
Police Department
4 The maximum sound level within the venue shall be maintained at 85 decibels or less.
5 The tables and table covers shall be maintained in the theater during
events to serve as sound absorption.
6 Ticketed concert or musical events or any concert or musical event
open to the general public shall not be held in any restaurant/banquet
area.
Planning and Building
Department
- 9 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
7 Concurrent events are permitted subject to the following:
• During an event in the theater, up to 175 restaurant patrons
are permitted.
• During an event in the theater, a private event shall not be held in the main dining room.
• During an event in the theater and a private event in the small
banquet room, the restaurant shall not be open to the public.
Planning and Building
Department
8 Events taking place on the same day shall be scheduled a minimum
of two hours apart in order to ensure an adequate number of on-site
parking spaces and adequate traffic flow.
Planning and Building
Department
9 The number of persons admitted shall not exceed 990 guests for
events held within the theatre portion of the venue.
Planning and Building
Department
10 If noise complaints are received, and are validated by City staff, the applicant must cease operation of the noise source until such time
that additional measures are implemented to eliminate the noise.
Planning and Building Department
11 Trash shall not be emptied into outside trash containers between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Planning and Building Department
12 A chain or other barrier/barricade shall be maintained at either end of
the south drive aisle from one hour before to one hour after events to prohibit cars and buses from driving through or parking in this area.
Planning and Building
Department
13 The permitted event or activity shall not create sound levels that
violate any ordinance of the City of Anaheim.
Planning and Building
Department
14 The Parking Management Plan is subject to continuous review by the
Planning and Building Department and Public Works, Traffic and
Transportation Division. The plan shall include measures to ensure
that the parking of vehicles and valet activities do not affect traffic on Harbor Boulevard and do not cause a disturbance to the residential
neighbors.
Planning and Building
Department,
Public Works
Department
15 The business owner shall require that any valet operator review the Parking Management Plan and conditions of approval pertaining to
valet operations and sign an agreement that they will comply with the
requirements.
Planning and Building Department
16 Valet attendants shall park vehicles in the numbered stalls reserved
for valet. Valet attendants shall not rely upon chirping the key fobs to
locate vehicles.
Planning and Building
Department
17 The valet stand shall be located at the west entry, as shown on the approved Parking Management Plan. Public Works Department,
Traffic and
Transportation
Division
- 10 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
18 The ongoing ability for guests to self-park at no charge shall be
clearly posted. Optional valet parking may also be provided.
Planning and Building
Department
Public Works
Department, Traffic
and Transportation Division
19 The parking area immediately behind the building shall be reserved
for employees. Guests are not permitted to park in this area.
Planning and Building
Department
20 No buses are allowed in the parking area on the east side of the
property, or the drive aisle along the south side of the property,
including, but not limited to, buses for tour companies or performers.
Planning and Building
Department
21 Patrons shall be prohibited from parking on the adjacent commercial
property to the south (currently occupied by Bank of America) unless
written authorization to do so is received from the property owner and submitted to the Planning and Building Department.
Planning and Building
Department
22 The same security team for all events shall be provided by the
business owner, utilizing a company approved by the Police
Department. Customers hosting events at the facility are not permitted to employ or provide their own security, except for security
that is in addition to the security team provided by the business
owner.
Police Department
23 The Security Plan is subject to continuous review by the Police
Department, Vice Detail. The plan shall include measures to deter
unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, promote the safe and
orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and to
prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises.
Police Department
24 Any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and
Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without
limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code.
Police Department
25 The eastern portion of the property shall be provided with enough
lighting to illuminate and make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises between dusk and 5:30 a.m.
Police Department
26 All south and east facing doors shall remain closed at all times,
except in case of an emergency. Security guards shall monitor the south and east doors during events to ensure that they remain closed.
Police Department
27 Security personnel shall be responsible for maintaining orderly
conduct and prompt exiting from the property.
Police Department
- 11 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
28 Management shall e-mail a monthly calendar of entertainment/events
to the Vice Detail, attention mmirwin@anaheim.net, prior to the start
of each month. Alternatively, the operator shall consistently maintain
an “Event Calendar” on the website for the business.
Police Department
29 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent
area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted
over within 24 hours of being applied.
Planning and Building
Department
30 Any television or film activity shall be limited to filming, recording
or broadcasting events that are authorized by this conditional use
permit.
Planning and Building
Department
31 As recommended by the updated parking analysis prepared by
Kunzman Associates, Inc. (dated March 7, 2012), events shall
commence no earlier than 9:00 a.m.
Public Works
32 As required by the facility’s Type 47 (On-Sale-General – Eating
Place) Alcohol Beverage Control license, at all times when the
premise is open for business, the premise shall be maintained as a
bona fide restaurant and shall provide a menu containing an
assortment of food normally offered in a restaurant.
Police Department
33 That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a
public premise (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be
operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the Business and Professions Code.
Police Department
34
The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premise shall
be prohibited.
Police Department
35 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type,
including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting
or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays
of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition.
Police Department
36 The business shall not employ or permit any persons to solicit or
encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other
profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. (Section 24200.5
Alcoholic Beverage Control Act)
Police Department
37 Petitioner shall not share any profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person, based upon monies
collected as a door charge, cover charge, or any other form of
admission charge, including minimum drink orders, or the sale of
drinks.
Police Department
- 12 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
38 All employees and patrons shall be clothed in such a way as to not
expose "specified anatomical areas" as explained in the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
Police Department
39 Petitioner(s) shall not require patrons to purchase a minimum number of drinks. Police Department
40 Entertainment is allowed only within the building. No entertainment, including band warm-up and rehearsal, is allowed in the parking lot. Police Department
41 The property shall not be operated as a “Dance Venue”, as defined in
Section 18.92.070 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Police Department
42 No minor under the age of sixteen (16) years shall be allowed to
attend the dance or event, unless accompanied by a parent or
guardian.
Police Department
43 Managers, owners, bar tenders, and wait staff shall call the
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and obtain LEAD
(Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs) Training. The contact
number is (714) 558-4101.
Police Department
44 The business shall not be operated in such a way as to be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare. (Section 4.18.050.0302
Anaheim Municipal Code)
Police Department
45 Any violation of the application, or any attached conditions, shall be
sufficient grounds to revoke the permit. (Section 4.18.110(A)
Anaheim Municipal Code)
Police Department
46 Signs shall be posted on the interior of the south and east facing exit
doors stating “Do Not Open, Except in Emergencies.”
Planning and Building
Department
47 All guest parking spaces that may be used for valet service shall be marked with a number. The 34 parking spaces behind the building
and closest to the south property line shall be marked “Employee.”
Planning and Building Department
48 Signs shall be posted at all exits stating “No alcohol beyond this point.” Police Department
GENERAL
49 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 and Building Department, and as conditioned herein.
Planning and Building
Department
50 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
Planning and Building
Department
- 13 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
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.
51 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the
processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of
the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building
permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application.
Planning and Building
Department
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
2232 S. Harbor Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92802 - 714 299-1170
November 9, 2015
City of Anaheim Planning Department
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, California 92802
M3 Live has been operating for over one year at its present location on a limited scale, with
considerable restrictions via the Conditional Use Permit 2010-05486 currently in place. In the
evermore competitive marketplace of food service and entertainment businesses in the Anaheim
Resort area, the operation has proven that it can handle its patrons effectively and almost invisibly, as well as controlling other management issues in a manner that allows M3 to blend
into the neighborhood nearly seamlessly. Verifiable, reasonable concerns of neighboring
residents have been quickly addressed and resolved to a degree substantially in excess of the City
Zoning Code provisions, as well as the conditions of the CUP. M3 has proven itself capable of
existing in a manner that demonstrates its concern for compliance with its CUP.
In order to be relevant in the Anaheim Resort Climate and to (finally) become profitable, we
must be able to increase our customer capacity, and to do so at greater frequency. We feel it
reasonable to ask for a modest extension of operating hours and the option to conduct multiple
operations contemporaneously.
The following is our proposal:
STATEMENT OF PROPOSED OPERATIONS
THEATER, RESTAURANT & BANQUET HALL
BUSINESS HOURS:
• Theater Hours: 9:00 am to 10:00 pm Sunday through Thursday
9:00 pm to 11:30 pm Friday and Saturday
> All concerts are allowed with or without dinner
(customers can enjoy a meal before the show in the restaurant area)
• >One hour after the show ends guest must cleared from the building. Unless the guest chooses to enjoy the restaurant area.
• Restaurant Hours / When food will be served: Monday through Sunday from 9 am to 2am. (Full Menu will be available until closing)
o During the restaurant hours live music entertainment will be provided during
restaurant hours
o Monday through Sunday live music must end at 12:00 am, restaurant will remain open until 2am.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
• Banquet Hours:
Monday through Sunday from 9 am to 12am. > Food would be served during these hours. > Live entertainment would be allowed during these hours.
It was M3Live intention (and business plan) to concurrently operate multiple events from its first
day of operation, and that is still its desired method of operation.
M3Live does NOT plan or wish to operate as a “Night Club.”
RECENT TENANT IMPROVEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF NEW PROPOSED OPERATIONS:
• Sound proofing of attic area between ceiling and roof to ensure that no sound escapes to
outside.
• Addition of sound proofing to east and south walls that face toward residential areas.
• Addition of sound proof doors on south east exit, ensuring no sound escapes to neighbors.
• Sound proofing of rear east door including a metal frame with additional sound proofing material on outside of door that eliminates any sound from escaping around the doors
edge.
• Our sound engineers have a sound measurement device located at the house mix position
that is monitored during all performances to ensure the audio levels do not exceed 85 decibels inside the building.
• The above was tested during a live concert performance by John Borrego and Elaine.
• Signs have been placed inside the building on all doors located on the east and south
doors facing the residential area reminding guest and employees not to exit and or open the doors during a live concert.
Through substantial soundproofing measures, we have effectively reduced the sound outside the
building walls to that of an MP3 player, and have had no verifiable complaints that sound has
exceeded that permitted by the Zoning Code.
Attached is a list of all the events that have been taken place at M3Live during the last six months of “probation” period. During this time we have not had any fights or any other unlawful
activities at the venue, and have not called (nor been visited by) the police related to any of our
shows or events. We feel that this demonstrates exemplary management.
For the reasons mentioned above, we are asking that the City support my requests stated above.
Very truly yours
Musa Madain
M3Live Bar and Grill
1
Elaine Thienprasiddhi
From:Elle Smith <elleraesmith@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 11, 2015 12:25 PM
To:Elaine Thienprasiddhi
Subject:M3Live Operations 6-Month Review
Hi Elaine,
I am a resident of Smoketree Anaheim in unit 137 and would be directly affected by change to M3Live
Operations were their hours to be extended. My concern would be the parking lot noise from patrons
(especially inebriated, loud, and vulgar ones) and their cars leaving after events that end later than 11p. My mailbox along with other residents in the 2315 building block was broken into and therefore I did not have
opportunity to view the public notice and be apprised of the change proposed for M3Live during this period
review.
In any event, I left a voicemail to express my concern as to departing patrons' noise level in the parking lot adjacent to my unit. Infrequent occasions which has since taken place after the last review in May were
tolerable and did not last beyond an hour at most. However, more frequent instances along with events ending
near midnight or later would present challenge by disturbing me along with nearby residents of our
deserved restful slumber. Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Eloisa R. Smith 2315 S. Mira Court Unit 137
Anaheim, CA 92802
Mobile: 949-680-8987
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
View of west elevation, across Harbor Boulevard
View of north elevation
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Ú
Ú
Ú
.
m
7
ÚÚ.m7ÚÚÚÚ
.
m
7
ÚÚ.m7
BF= 43,500 sq. ft.PROPOSED DINNE
R
T
H
E
A
T
E
R
N
O
R
T
H
V EE
E
P
E
EP
E
EP
EP
E NBPNBPCENTERLINE OF HARBOR BOULEVARDCITY OF ANAHEIMCITY OF GARDEN GROVE
NBP
N
B
P
NBP
N
P
D
E
NBP
GENERAL CIRCULATIONAVAILABILITY LARGE AND SMALL BUSCIRCULATION PLAN TODROP-OFF/ BOARD CUSTOMERSLARGE & SMALL BUSES ENTER ATSOUTH DRIVE APPROACH ANDPROCEED TO DROP-OFF AREABETWEEN 7:00 AND 11:30 AMBUSES THEN LOAD CUSTOMERS &EXIT VIA R.H. TURN ONTO HARBORBLVD. TO ACQUIRE FREEWAY(S)FUNCTION:SYMBOL LEGEND:BIG BUS BACKINGSMALL BUS BACKINGALTERNATIVE ENTRY PLANDURING PERFORMANCEINDEX OF SHEETS:EV1 PASSENGERS DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP PLANEV2 FLOOR PLAN/ SEATING ARRANGEMENT
#
2
4
+
.
#
5
0
1
6
'
&
PASSENGER DR
O
P
-
O
F
F
A
N
D
P
I
C
K
-
U
P
P
L
A
N
E
V
1
/
<
.
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
F
L
O
O
R
S
P
A
C
E
(
M
I
N
O
R
)
O
F
A
N
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
4
3
,
5
0
0
S
.
F
.
D
I
N
N
E
R
T
H
E
A
T
R
E
I
N
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
:
S
I
T
E
D
A
T
A
:
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
D
A
T
A
:
S
P
A
C
E
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
S
P
A
C
E
S
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
U
S
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
T
O
T
A
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
D
A
T
A
:
O
C
C
U
P
A
N
T
L
O
A
D
F
A
C
T
O
R
:
V
I
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
D
E
T
A
I
L
3
D
E
T
A
I
L
4
D
E
T
A
I
L
5
I
N
D
E
S
E
N
G
I
N
C
.
M3 LIVE CONCERT
AND EVENT CENTER
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
N
O
.
6
EXIT
E
X
I
T
E
X
I
T
E
X
I
T
E
X
I
T
E
X
I
T
E
X
I
T
EXIT EXIT EXIT EXIT
E
X
I
T
EXITEXIT EXIT EXITEXIT
#
2
4
+
.
#
5
0
1
6
'
&
/
<
.
FLOOR PLAN
E
V
2
I
N
D
E
S
E
N
G
I
N
C
.
M3 LIVE CONCERT
AND EVENT CENTER
AnaheimPlanningDepartment, CurrentPlanning
200SouthAnaheimBoulevard, Suite162
Anaheim, CA92805
Tel: 714.765.5139
1580MetroDrive
CostaMesa, CA92626
Tel: 714.966.9220Fax: 714.966.9221
E -mail: information@planningcenter.com
Website: www.planningcenter.com
INITIALSTUDYAND
MITIGATED
NEGATIVE
DECLARATIONFOR:
BATTLEOFTHE
DANCEDINNER
THEATER
preparedfor:
CITYOFANAHEIM
Contact:
DellaHerrick
AssociatePlanner
preparedby:
THEPLANNING
CENTER
Contact:
WilliamHalligan, Esq.
VicePresident,
EnvironmentalServices
COA -52.0E
JUNE2010
Cti)
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
TableofContents
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PROJECTLOCATION 1
1.2 PROJECTBACKGROUND 1
1.3 ENVIRONMENTALSETTING 2
1.4 PROJECTDESCRIPTION 2
1.5 EXISTINGZONINGANDGENERALPLAN 3
1.6 CITYACTIONREQUESTED 3
2. ENVIRONMENTALCHECKLIST 21
3. ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS 35
3.1 AESTHETICS 35
3.2 AGRICULTUREANDFORESTRESOURCES 36
3.3 AIRQUALITY 37
3.4 BIOLOGICALRESOURCES 42
3.5 CULTURALRESOURCES 44
3.6 GEOLOGYANDSOILS 45
3.7 GREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONS 47
3.8 HAZARDSANDHAZARDOUSMATERIALS 50
3.9 HYDROLOGYANDWATERQUALITY 53
3.10 LANDUSEANDPLANNING 57
3.11 MINERALRESOURCES 58
3.12 NOISE 59
3.13 POPULATIONANDHOUSING 68
3.14 PUBLICSERVICES 69
3.15 RECREATION 70
3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 71
3.17 UTILITIESANDSERVICESYSTEMS 98
3.18 MANDATORYFINDINGSOFSIGNIFICANCE 102
REFERENCES 105
APPENDICES
4.1 PRINTEDREFERENCES 105
4.2 PERSONALCOMMUNICATIONS 105
4.3 WEBSITES 105
LISTOFPREPARERS 107
CITYOFANAHEIM 107
THEPLANNINGCENTER 107
A. AnaheimResortSpecificPlanAmendmentsandAdjustments
B. AirQualityModeling
C. NoiseStudy
D. TrafficImpactAnalysis
E. WaterConsumptionTableforMedievalTimes
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Pagei
TableofContents
ListofFigures
Figure Page
Figure1 RegionalLocation 5
Figure2 LocalVicinity 7
Figure3 Anaheim. ResortSpecificPlanBoundaries 9
Figure4 AerialPhotographandPhotographLocationKey 11
Figure5 SitePhotographs 13
Figure6 SurroundingLandUses 15
Figure7 ProposedSitePlan 17
Figure8 ProposedFloorPlan 19
Figure9 TrafficStudyArea 73
Figure10 ExistingFridayAverageDailyTrips 75
Figure11 ExistingSaturdayAverageDailyTrips 77
Figure12 ExistingFridayEveningPeakHourTrips 79
Figure13 ExistingSaturdayEveningPeakHourTrips 81
Figure14 FridayPMPeakHourTrips (WithProject) 85
Figure15 SaturdayPMPeakHourTrips (WithProject) 87
Figure16 FridayAverageDailyTrips (WithProject) 89
Figure17 SaturdayAverageDailyTrips (WithProject) 91
Figure18 OnsiteCirculationRecommendations 95
Table Page
Table1 MaximumDailyConstructionEmissions 38
Table2 MaximumDailyOperationalEmissions, Saturday 39
Table3 MaximumDailyOnsiteConstructionEmissions, ScreeningLevelAnalysis 40
Table4 MaximumDailyOnsiteOperationalEmissions, ScreeningLevelAnalysis 41
Table5 Project- GeneratedGHGEmissions, OperationalPhase 49
Table6 Project- GeneratedGHGEmissions, OperationalPhasewithScopingPlan 50
Table7 ExistingTrafficNoiseModeling, 24 -Hour 60
Table8 TrafficNoiseModeling 62
Table9 VibrationSourceLevelsforConstructionEquipmentatNearestStructure,
StructuralDamageAssessment 65
Table10 VibrationLevelsfromConstructionEquipmentatNearestResidences,
VibrationAnnoyance 65
Table11 AverageConstructionNoiseLevels 67
Table12 CriteriaforSignificantTrafficImpacts, CityofAnaheim 71
Table13 ExistingLevelsofServiceintheStudyArea 72
Table14 Project- GeneratedTraffic 83
Table15 OpeningYear (2010) withProjectTrafficContribution 84
Pageii ThePlanningCenter June2010
ListofTables
1
1
1. Introduction
Theprojectapplicant, REPInternational, isproposingbuildingrenovationsandsitemodificationsona
4.8 -acresiteintheCityofAnaheim (theCity). Theproposedproject, theBattleoftheDanceDinnerTheater
project, isanalyzedinthisInitialStudy /MitigatedNegativeDeclaration (IS /MND), inaccordancewiththe
CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct (CEQA), todetermineifapprovaloftheproposedprojectwouldhavea
significantimpactontheenvironment. ThisIS /MNDhasbeenpreparedpursuanttotherequirementsofthe
CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct (CEQA), underPublicResourcesCode21000-21177, oftheStateCEQA
Guidelines (CaliforniaCodeofRegulations, Title14, Division6, Chapter3, Sections15000- 15387) andunder
theguidanceof, theCityofAnaheim. TheCityofAnaheimistheLeadAgencyunderCEQAandis
responsibleforpreparingtheIS /MNDfortheproposedBattleoftheDanceDinnerTheater (proposed
project).
Thepurposeofthisdocumentistoevaluatethedevelopmentoftheproposedproject. Asappropriate, this
documentincorporatesinformationthatwaspresentedintheAnaheimResortSpecificPlan (ARSP)
EnvironmentalImpactReportNo. 313 (EIRNo. 313) andTheCityofAnaheimGeneralPlanandZoningCode
UpdateEnvironmentalImpactReportNo. 330 (EIRNo. 330).
1.1 PROJECTLOCATION
Theprojectisona4.8 -acresiteontheeastsideofHarborBoulevard, southofWilkenWay (2232South
HarborBoulevard) intheARSPintheCityofAnaheim (seeFigure1, RegionalLocation, andFigure2, Local
Vicinity). RegionalaccesstothesiteisprovidedbyInterstate5 (1 -5) viaHarborBoulevard, Orangewood
Avenue, andChapmanAvenue. TheARSPareaispartofthe1,078 -acreAnaheimResort, which
encompassesthreeadoptedspecificplans: theARSP, theDisneylandResortSpecificPlan, andtheHotel
CircleSpecificPlan. ThesethreespecificplansareshowninFigure3, AnaheimResortSpecificPlan
Boundaries. TheGeneralPlanlandusedesignationforthesiteisCommercialRecreation.
1.2 PROJECTBACKGROUND
InSeptember1994, theCityofAnaheimcertifiedtheARSPEIRNo. 313 (StateClearinghouseNo. 91091062)
insupportoftheadoptionoftheARSPNo. 92 -2 (Anaheim1994b, 1994a). ThisEIRevaluatedimpacts
associatedwiththeestablishmentandimplementationoftheARSPandcreatedamitigationmonitoring
program (MMPNo. 0085) inordertomitigateanysuchimpacts. AtthetimetheARSPwasadopted, the
SpecificPlanareaencompassedapproximately549.5acres.
InMay2004, theCityofAnaheimcertifiedTheAnaheimGeneralPlanandZoningCodeUpdateEIRNo. 330
StateClearinghouseNo. 2003041105). TheEIRevaluatedimpactsassociatedwiththecomprehensive
updatetotheCity'sGeneralPlanandZoningCode. Aspartofthisanalysis, EIRNo. 330evaluatedimpacts
relatedtoAmendmentNo. 5totheAnaheimResortSP92 -2, whichwasprocessedconcurrentlywiththe
GeneralPlanandZoningCodeupdate. ThisamendmentexpandedtheARSPareatoinclude26.4 acres
alongHarborBoulevard, southofOrangewoodAvenueandnorthofChapmanAvenue. Theproposed
projectsiteislocatedwithinthisexpansionarea.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page1
1. Introduction
BothEIRNos. 313and330, TheAnaheimResortSpecificPlanEIRandtheGeneralPlanFinalEIR
respectively, andtheirassociatedmitigationmonitoringprograms, areavailableforreviewattheCityof
AnaheimPlanningDepartmentduringnormalbusinesshours.
SincecertificationofEIRNo. 313, proposedmodificationstotheARSPhaveincludedthirteenamendments
andfouradjustments. PleaserefertoAppendixAforadetaileddescriptionofeachoftheseactions.
1.3 ENVIRONMENTALSETTING
1.3.1 ExistingLandUse
The4.8 -acreprojectsiteiscurrentlydevelopedwitha43,500- square -footstructurethatconsistsoftwo
separateabuttedvacantcommercialbuildings, asshowninFigure4, AerialPhotographandPhotograph
LocationKey. ThebuildingswereformerlyoccupiedbyaToys 'RUsstorewhichclosedin2002. Thelarger
ofthetwobuildingsis30,000squarefeetandthesmallerofthetwois13,500squarefeet. Themaximum
heightsofthebuildings, astheycurrentlyexist, rangefrom25feetto30feet. Theremainderofthesiteis
pavedforparking, withfoursmalllandscapingislandsonthewestportionofthesite. Ahedgerowand
sidewalkseparatethesitefromHarborBoulevard. TwodrivewaysoffHarborBoulevardprovidevehicular
accesstotheprojectsite, oneonthesouthsideoftheexistingbuildingandoneonthenorthside. The
existingbuilding, parkinglot, landscaping, anddrivewaysareshowninFigure5, SitePhotographs.
Circulation
AccesstotheprojectsiteisprovidedoffHarborBoulevardtothewest, amajorsix -lanearterialstreet, which
runsnorth -to -southwestoftheprojectsite. HarborintersectswithWilkenWay, atwo -lanestreettothenorth
oftheprojectsite, andwithChapmanAvenue, afour -lanestreettothesouthoftheprojectsite. Thetwo
nearestfreewaysare1 -5, whichrunsnorthwest -to- southeastalittleoveramiletothenortheastoftheproject
site, andSR -22, whichrunseast -to -westaboutamileandahalfsouthofthesite. Theclosestdirectaccess
to1 -5isprovidedviaChapmanAvenue, HarborBoulevard, andOrangewoodAvenue. Theclosestdirect
accesstoSR -22isprovidedviaHarborBoulevard.
1.3.2 SurroundingLandUse
Theareasurroundingtheproposedprojectsiteisurbanizedandbuilt -up. Mostlandusestothenorth, west,
andsoutharecommercialandincludehotels, offices, andrestaurants. Hotelsandrestaurantsareespecially
dominantalongHarborBoulevard, wheretheyservevisitorsoftheAnaheimConventionCenterandthe
DisneylandResort. TheAnaheimConventionCenterisalittleoverhalfamiletothenorthoftheprojectsite
alongHarborBoulevard. TheDisneylandResortliesbeyondthat, alsoonHarborBoulevard. Low- medium-
densityresidentiallanduses, consistingoftwotownhomecommunities, surroundthesiteontheeastand
southeast. PhotographsofthesurroundinglandusesareincludedinFigure6, SurroundingLandUses.
1.4 PROJECTDESCRIPTION
1.4.1 ProposedLandUse
Theproposedprojectwouldconverttwoadjoined, vacantbuildingsintoa950 -seatdinnertheater. The
dinnertheaterwouldprovideguestswiththeaterentertainmentanddining. Onenightlyshowwouldbe
conductedMondaythroughFriday. Saturdayswouldhavetwoeveningshows, andSundayswouldhavetwo
matineeshowsandoneeveningshow. Thehoursofdailyshowsareprovidedbelow. Allfoodwouldbe
preparedandservedonsite.
Page2 ThePlanningCenter June2010
1
1
1
1
1
RemodelingofBuildings
1. Introduction
Thelargerofthetwoexistingstructureswouldberemodeledtohousethemainentry, ticketarea, giftshop,
lounge, bar, kitchen, restrooms, backstageanddressingarea, andthemainoffices, asshowninFigure7,
ProposedSitePlan, andFigure8, ProposedFloorPlan. Thesmallerofthetwostructureswouldbepartially
demolishedandwouldhousethediningandseatingarea. Theroofandwallsofthesmallerbuildingwould
beremoved, buttheexistingslabwouldremain. Newtilt -upwallsandatrussclearspanroofwillreplacethe
existingwallsandroof. Thefacadeofthetwobuildingswouldbechanged, andthemaximumbuildingheight
overthestageareawouldbeincreasedto45feet. Theremainderofthebuildingwouldhaveamaximum
heightof35. feet.
ParkingLotandLandscapingImprovements
Theparkinglotwillberepaved, andchangeswillbemadetoprovidetherequiredlandscapingand
setbacks. Theperimeteroftheparkinglotwillhavea20 -footlandscapingsetbackalongtheeasternproperty
lineand10 -footlandscapingsetbacksalongthenorthernandsouthernpropertylines. Landscapingislands
willalsobeaddedtotheparkinglot. Approximately385parking spaceswouldbeprovided, including15
handicapaccessiblespaces, 50valetspaces, includingparkingareas, forlimousinesandcharterbuses, and
320guestspaces.
Noexcavationactivitieswouldberequiredforthebuildingremodelingorparkinglotandlandscaping
improvements. Allimprovementswouldbemadeabovegroundandthesitewouldnotneedtoberegraded.
DinnerTheaterOperation
Theproposedtheaterwouldholdshowssevendaysaweekandhasaseatingcapacityofapproximately et
950. Theproposedscheduleincludesoneshowat8:00PMMondaythroughFriday, twoshows onSaturday
at5:30PMand8:00PM, andthreeshowsonSundayat1:00PM, 4:00PM, and7:00PM.
Approximately70employeeswillbepresentduringeachshift, includingperformersandotherstaff.
1.4.2 ProjectPhasing
Thesitemodificationsandbuildingremodelingoftheproposedprojectwouldbecompletedin asinglephasein2010.
1.5 EXISTINGZONINGANDGENERALPLAN
TheexistingzoningfortheprojectsiteisARSP (categorizedas "CRCommercialRecreationDistrictand
theGeneralPlanlandusedesignationisCommercialRecreation.
1.6 CITYACTIONREQUESTED
Theproposeddinnertheaterwithmuralsispermittedwithaconditionalusepermitandfinalsiteplan.
Further, theproposedparkinglotlandscapeimprovementstoanonconformingsitearealsopermittedby a
conditionalusepermitintheARSP. ThismustbeapprovedbytheCitytoensurecompliancewiththeARSP
zoning "CR- CommercialRecreationDistrict
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page3
1. Introduction
Thispageintentionallyleftblank
Page4 ThePlanningCenter June2010
1
TSanta-Fe'
Springs La
Mirada
Cerritos
Seal
Beach
l
La
Palma
Cypress
Buena
Park
LaHabra:
Fullerton
SantaAna
Placentia
Orange
Villa
Park
Tustin'IrvineHuntington
Beach
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterinitialStudy
Stanton
GardenGrove
Westminster
Fountain
Valley
1. Introduction
RegionalLocation
Chino
Hills
9e
Anaheim
NOTTOSCALE
ThePlanningCenter Figure1
1. Introduction
Thispageintentionallyleftblank.
Page6 ThePlanningCenter June2010
Katella =Ave
s
0angewood i
Ave
ehapmaniAve
L.ampson:Ave
SiteBoundary
CityBoundary
1
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
i L;.._ 1
GardenGrove
1
Anaheim
1-
LocalVicinity
4E.641 6
1, Introduction
0 2,000
Scale (Feet)
Orange
The
eg Block
at
Orange
ThePlanningCenter Figure2
1. Introduction
Thispageintentionallyleftblank.
Page8 ThePlanningCenter June2010
CITYOFIANAHEIM
BALLRD
CERRITOSA.E
KATELLAAVE
ORANGEWOODAVE
Source: CityofAnaheim2008
AnaheimResortSpecificPlanBoundaries
CITYOFGARDENGROVE
Legend
ODisneyland ResortSpecificPlan (SP92 -1)
OTheAnaheimResortSpecificPlan (SP92 -2)
HotelCircleSpecificPlan (SP93 -1)
TheAnaheimResortSpecificPlanExpansionArea
AmendmentNo. 5toSP92 -2)
TheAnaheimResort
SiteBoundary
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
1. Introduction
1-N
o:w
0 1800
Scale (Feet)
ThePlanningCenter Figure3
1. Introduction
Thispageintentionallyleftblank
Page10 ThePlanningCenter June2010
AerialPhotographandPhotographLocationKey
SiteBoundary
LocationofPhotos
Source: GoogleEarthPro2010
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
1. Introduction
0 140
Scale (Feet)
ThePlanningCenter Figure4
1. Introduction
Thispageintentionallyleftblank
Page12 ThePlanningCenter June2010
MI MN M MI MI all NM all MI is MI MI NM MN
MIN
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
tViewofsitefromnorthwest
lookingsoutheastacross
HarborBoulevard.
Viewofparkinglotand
sitefromthenortheast
lookingsouthwest.
Siteaccessonthesouth,
atintersectionofHotelWay
andHarborBoulevard.
Alsoshowsaccesstoadjacent
commercialstripmallto
thesouthoftheprojectsite.
Onsiteviewoftherearparking
lotfromthesouthsideof
thesite (lookingnortheast).
Showstheresidentialland
useseastoftheprojectsite.
1. Introduction
SitePhotographs
ThePlanningCenter Figure5
1. Introduction
Thispageintentionallyleftblank
Page14 ThePlanningCenter June2010
Autoshoptothenortheastofthe
projectsite.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
1. Introduction
SurroundingLandUses
Commercialrestaurantlandusesto
thenorthoftheprojectsite.
Commercialandhotellanduses
alongHarborBoulevardsouthofthe
projectsite.
ThePlanningCenter Figure6
1. Introduction
Thispageintentionallyleftblank.
Page16 ThePlanningCenter June2010
all r Or MI I r O MN r r— MI MI
Source: FloresDesignGroup2009
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
pl
y, ro' f +..alt' aspr.. s,e' s' ter iek1bwsC -2ff -t -rt-4 +mot -4 -
7I
AX/ W7" ylf'
egrffAkfria#MirOs 7,"
4404W 93,rosp0.7vX"Vor
411' ‘efk-1 1l
rl>
ProposedSitePlan
5704Ab0'
Iy
g' le ';',44$
lit!
CT
11C _:.sl
4S1/7YlMfAf/fray¢ Jbatrnfmxoo/aaAN` 4 ON rs
h41S0WARe1 "y
1 `r I fifio-mrG /HSH65"3gri"ii' 5^..v.'
x/o///rq )0e- 47 /fees!/eo /qr
0 90
Scale (Feet)
1. Introduction
r
T
Cy
ThePlanningCenter Figure7
1. Introduction
Thispageintentionallyleftblank
Page18 ThePlanningCenter June2010
EMI OM INN MI MI EIS MO MB Ili IIIIII =I MN NMI NMI
Source: FloresDesignGroup2009
AT-xYar9
4'444',free'ea
4ff
1\
104 ?e, r
a' 4 t _li' 24_D
I
1, 41
77e7.7 k
1
C —11 16C 11
17 -7 40
A
X'
fif43rint.ifaifire
1 14
Ft-- 0 'f. 1.,I t__ I'
401g0t4orI I r if4
f e..X/....7/ 41* ,494M
I
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
404,Pr
rarAciri
fry,g. 97ef• 4 ,040,/-ra /V e4fc•11 -41CVff/frdr0441,0 f6, 5ArW., 72
I
42e isk-k1_ 1 1 111 1_ .1 l. 111 c_ D
c
k!
4/1-1
L A
awe. 4.17Allartio *owoviedeAteMAYJO4W472W 4,
eatF-AryGAYErye-36;3'9y za!
4
ProposedSitePlan
tw/4404
0 90
Scale (Feet)
1. Introduction
et
ThePlanningCenter Figure7
1. Introduction
Thispageintentionallyleftblank.
Page18 ThePlanningCenter June2010
Source: FloresDesignGroup2010
i111i.i.i1•1i® fie ItIIIuei
r
rommassimre IL
ArmyroxXloeq
9• er/xr /.01
seese. 940441
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
1. Introduction
ProposedFloorPlan
0 30
Scale (Feet)1
ThePlanningCenter Figure8
1. Introduction
Thispageintentionallyleftblank.
Page20 ThePlanningCenter June2010
EnvironmentalChecklist
CITYOFANAHEIM
ENVIRONMENTALINFORMATIONFORM
Tobecompletedbyapplicant)
DearApplicant:
TheCityofAnaheimasLeadAgencyisrequiredtocomplywiththeCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct
CEQA). CEQArequirestheCitytoevaluatethepotentialenvironmentalimpactsofyourdevelopmentproject.
Inordertoassistusincompletingthisrequiredenvironmentalreview, pleaseprovideuswiththefollowinginformation:
ProjectAddressorLocation: 2232SouthHarborBoulevard, Anaheim, CA92802
ProjectDescription (describetheentireproject, includingbutnotlimitedtolaterphasesoftheproject,
andanyoff -sitesupportingimprovementsorfeaturesnecessaryforitsimplementation. Attach
additionalsheetsifnecessary):
Theproposedprojectwouldconverttwoadjoined, vacantbuildingsintoa950 -seatdinnertheater. The
proposedtheaterwouldholdshowssevendaysaweekandhasaseatingcapacityofapproximately
950. Theproposedscheduleincludesoneshowat8:00PMMondaysthroughFridays, twoshowson
Saturdaysat5:30PMand8:00PM, andthreeshowsonSundaysat1:00PM, 4:00PM, and7:00PM.
Allfoodwouldbepreparedandservedonsite.
Thelargerofthetwoexistingstructureswouldberemodeledandthesmallerofthetwostructures
wouldbepartiallydemolished. Thetwobuildingswouldbeconjoinedandthemaximumheightwouldbe45feet.
Theparkinglotwillberepavedandchangeswillbemadetothelandscapingandsetbacks. The
perimeteroftheparkinglotwillhavea20 -footlandscapingsetbackalongtheeasternpropertylineand
10 -footlandscapingsetbacksalongthenorthernandsouthernpropertylines. Landscapingislandswill
alsobeaddedtotheparkinglot. Approximately385parkingspaceswouldbeprovided, including15
handicapaccessiblespaces, 50valetspacesforlimousinesandcharterbuses, and320guestspaces.
Assessor'sParcelNumber: 233 -051 -8
4. NameofPropertyOwner: P.A. Poon Son, Inc.
Address: 16841MarinaBayDrive
HuntingtonBeach, CA92649
5. NameofAuthorizedAgent: REPInternationalAndresCibotti
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page21
2. EnvironmentalChecklist
Address: 7380SandLakeRoad, Suite500
Orlando, Florida32819
6. Describetheprojectsiteasitexistsbeforetheproject, includingifthesiteisonfilledlandoronaslope
oftenpercentormoreandprovideinformationonitstopography, soilstability, plantsandanimals, and
anycultural, historicorscenicaspects. Providepicturesofthesiteanddescribeanyexistingstructures
onthesite, andtheircurrentuse. Attachadditionalsheetsifnecessary.
The4.8 -acreprojectsiteiscurrentlydevelopedwitha43,500- square -footstructurewhichconsistsof
twoseparateabuttedvacantcommercialbuildings. TheLargerofthetwobuildingsis30,000squarefeet
andthesmallerofthetwois13,500squarefeet. Themaximumheightsofthebuildingsrangefrom25
feetto30feet. Theremainderofthesiteispavedforparkingwithfoursmalllandscapingislandsonthe
westportionofthesite. AhedgerowandsidewalkseparatethesitefromHarborBoulevard. Two
drivewaysoffHarborBoulevardprovidevehicularaccesstotheprojectsite, oneonthesouthsideof
theexistingbuildingandoneonthenorthside.
7. Otherpublicagencieswhoseapprovalisrequired (e.g., forpermits, financing, participationagreement,
etc.).
OrangeCountyHealthCareAgency
8. Sitesize: 4.8acres
9. Demolitionproposed: No Yes
10. Squarefeetofnewconstruction: 43,500 (remodeled)
11. Numberofon -siteparkingspacesprovided: 385
13. Tentativedevelopmentschedule:
StartDate: August2010
CompletionDate: December2010
Phasing: Theproposedprojectwouldbecompletedinonephaseuponacquisitionofthenecessary
permits.
14. AirportLandUsePlan Istheprojectsitelocatedwithinanairportlanduseplanorwithinthevicinityof
aheliportorhelistopfacility? No
15. IsthepropertycoveredbyapreviouslycertifiedEIR? Yes No
Ifyes, doesthepropertyfitwithintheparameters, assumptionsandtimeframesanalyzedintheEIR?
Yes
16. Arethereanyuniquecharacteristicsrelatingtoyourdevelopment (i.e., excessivenoise, airquality
emissions, trafficgeneration, sensitiveadjacentuses, shade /shadowimpactsonadjacentproperty,
etc.) whichmightresultinsignificantimpacts? Yes No
Ifyes, pleaseexplain:
Page22 ThePlanningCenter June2010
CompleteSections17and18forproposedResidentialprojectsonly:
17. SingleorMultiFamilyUnits?
18. WilltheproposedresidentialhousingdevelopmentmeetanyofthefollowingArticle34restrictions (low
incomehousingdevelopment):
A. Applyforpropertytaxabatement
B. Applyforlong -termgovernmentalfinancing
C Provideinexcessof40% ofthehousing
unitsaslowincomehousingwithrentcontrol
andoccupancyrestrictions.
CompleteSection19forproposedCommercialprojectsonly:
19. A. TypeofCommercialorOffice: Entertainment/Restaurant
2. EnvironmentalChecklist
B. Istheprojectoriented X Regionally, Cityor Neighborhood
C. Anticipatedhoursofoperation: Eachshowwouldbeapproximately1.5hours. Weekday
showsstartat8:00PMandwouldendaround9:30PM. Saturdayshowswouldbeat5:30
PMand8:00PM. Sundayshowswouldbeat1:00PM, 4:00PM, and7:00PM.
Approximately1.5hoursofpreparationbeforeandclean -upaftercanbeassumed.
D. Estimatedemployeespershiftandnumberofshifts: TotalEmployees70
E. Locationofloadingfacilitiesandanticipatedhoursofloading /deliveryoperations: Along
buildingsides. Hoursofloading /deliverywouldbeduringday.
IfusenotResidential, CommercialorOffice, indicatetypeofusebelow:
20. Manufacturing/Warehousing Institutional Other (Specify):
A. Indicatemajorfunction:
B. Anticipatedhoursofoperation:
C. Estimatedemployeespershiftandnumberofshifts:
D. Type, locationandsquarefootageofloadingfacilities:
CompleteSections21, 22, and23todeterminewhetheraWaterAssessmentStudyandPreliminary
Grading /DrainagePlansand /orPreliminaryWaterQualityManagementPlanneedstobesubmittedaspartof
theMitigatedNegativeDeclaration
21. Existingandproposedsquarefeetofallon -siteimpervioussurfaces, includingallpavedareas (Le.,
pavedparkinglotsandwalkwaysareas, buildingfootprint):
ExistingSquareFeet: (Approx) 212,000 ProposedSquareFeet: (Approx): 212,000
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page23
2. Environmental Checklist
22. Water Assessment Does the project include a proposed new development or addition that meets any
of the following criteria for a "Large Scale Development" (as defined by Public Resources Code Section
21151.9):
If yes was checked in any of the above boxes, the project may qualify as a "Large Scale Development"
and you may need to submit a water assessment study which identifies existing water supply
entitlements, water rights, and water service contracts relevant to the water supply for the project
please contact the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division).
23. Water Quality Management Plan Does the project include a proposed new development or addition
that meets any of the following criteria?
If yes was checked in any of the above boxes, preliminary grading /drainage plans and preliminary
Water Quality Management Plans may need to be submitted as part of this Mitigated Negative
Declaration (please contact the City of Anaheim Public Works Department, Development Services
Division).
Please note that upon review of the submitted information, City staff may request additional supporting
documentation to assist in the environmental analysis of your project to ensure compliance with CEQA.
24. Name of preparer:
Address:
Phone No.:
Preparer's signature:
24 The Planning Center
William Halligan, Esq. Relationship to property owner: Consultant
The Planning Center, 580 Metro Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714.966.9220 e
Date: 6 /tom IO
June 2010
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yes No
A Residentialdevelopmentofmorethan500dwellingunits?X
B Proposedshoppingcenterorbusinessestablishmentemploying
morethan1,000personsorhavingmorethan500,000squarefeetof
floorspace?
X
C Officebuildingemployingmorethan1,000personsorhavingmore
than250,000squarefeetoffloorspace?
X
D Hotelormotelhavingmorethan500rooms?
X
X
E Industrialmanufacturingorprocessingplantoccupyingmorethan40
acresorhavingmorethan650,000squarefeetoffloorarea?
X
F Mixeduseprojectthatincludesoneormoreoftheabovelisted
projectsinitems13(a) through13(e)?
X
X
2. Environmental Checklist
22. Water Assessment Does the project include a proposed new development or addition that meets any
of the following criteria for a "Large Scale Development" (as defined by Public Resources Code Section
21151.9):
If yes was checked in any of the above boxes, the project may qualify as a "Large Scale Development"
and you may need to submit a water assessment study which identifies existing water supply
entitlements, water rights, and water service contracts relevant to the water supply for the project
please contact the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division).
23. Water Quality Management Plan Does the project include a proposed new development or addition
that meets any of the following criteria?
If yes was checked in any of the above boxes, preliminary grading /drainage plans and preliminary
Water Quality Management Plans may need to be submitted as part of this Mitigated Negative
Declaration (please contact the City of Anaheim Public Works Department, Development Services
Division).
Please note that upon review of the submitted information, City staff may request additional supporting
documentation to assist in the environmental analysis of your project to ensure compliance with CEQA.
24. Name of preparer:
Address:
Phone No.:
Preparer's signature:
24 The Planning Center
William Halligan, Esq. Relationship to property owner: Consultant
The Planning Center, 580 Metro Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714.966.9220 e
Date: 6 /tom IO
June 2010
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yes No
A Residentialdevelopmentof10unitsormore?X
B Commercialandindustrialdevelopment (buildingsquarefootageand
pavedparkingareas) greaterthan100,000squarefeet?
X
C Automotiverepairshop?X
D Restaurantwherethelandareaoftheprojectsiteis5,000square
feetormore (includingpavedparkingareas)?
X
E Hillsidedevelopmentthatrequiresgradingof10,000squarefeetor
moreofsurfaceareawhereexistingslopesexceed25
X
F Parkinglotthatis5,000squarefeetormoreinareaand /orwhich
includes15ormoreuncoveredparkingspaces?
X
2. EnvironmentalChecklist
22. WaterAssessmentDoestheprojectincludeaproposednewdevelopmentoradditionthatmeetsany
ofthefollowingcriteriafora "LargeScaleDevelopment" (asdefinedbyPublicResourcesCodeSection
21151.9):
Ifyeswascheckedinanyoftheaboveboxes, theprojectmayqualifyasa "LargeScaleDevelopment"
andyoumayneedtosubmitawaterassessmentstudywhichidentifiesexistingwatersupply
entitlements, waterrights, andwaterservicecontractsrelevanttothewatersupplyfortheproject
pleasecontacttheCityofAnaheimPublicUtilitiesDepartment, WaterEngineeringDivision).
23. WaterQualityManagementPlan Doestheprojectincludeaproposednewdevelopmentoraddition
thatmeetsanyofthefollowingcriteria?
Ifyeswascheckedinanyoftheaboveboxes, preliminarygrading /drainageplansandpreliminary
WaterQualityManagementPlansmayneedtobesubmittedaspartofthisMitigatedNegative
Declaration (pleasecontacttheCityofAnaheimPublicWorksDepartment, DevelopmentServices
Division).
Pleasenotethatuponreviewofthesubmittedinformation, Citystaffmayrequestadditionalsupporting
documentationtoassistintheenvironmentalanalysisofyourprojecttoensurecompliancewithCEQA.
24. Nameofpreparer:
Address:
PhoneNo.:
Preparer'ssignature:
24 ThePlanningCenter
WilliamHalligan, Esq. Relationshiptopropertyowner: Consultant
ThePlanningCenter, 580MetroDrive, CostaMesa, CA92626
714.966.9220 e
Date: 6 /tomIO
June2010
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Aesthetic/Visual
BiologicalResources
Hazards HazardousMaterials
MineralResources
PublicServices
Utilities /ServiceSystems
DETERMINATION: (TobecompletedbytheCity)
Onthebasisofthisinitialevaluation:
CityofAnaheim
EnvironmentalChecklistForm
AgriculturalResources
CulturalResources
Hydrology/WaterQuality
Noise
Recreation
MandatoryFindingsofSignificance
a t
tignatureofCityofAnaheimRepresentative Date
f
re. 8c kie IL 1-6,50Ctl.:{ Ionv2ev
PrintedName/Title
2. EnvironmentalChecklist
CASENO: CUP201005486; FinalSitePlanNo. 2010 -00001ADDRESS: 2232SouthHarborBoulevard
ENVIRONMENTALFACTORSPOTENTIALLYAFFECTED:
Theenvironmentalfactorscheckedbelowwouldbepotentiallyaffectedbythisproject, involvingatleastone
impactthatisa "PotentiallySignificantImpact" asindicatedbythechecklistonthefollowingpages.
AirQuality
Geology /Soils
LandUse /Planning
Population /Housing
Transportation/Traffic
IfindthattheproposedprojectCOULDNOThaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment, anda
NegativeDeclarationwillbeprepared.
Ifindthatalthoughtheproposedprojectcouldhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment, therewill
notbeasignificanteffectinthiscasebecauserevisionsintheprojecthavebeenmadebyoragreed
tobytheprojectproponent. AMITIGATEDNEGATIVEDECLARATIONwillbeprepared.
IfindthattheproposedprojectMAYhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment, andan
ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORTisrequired.
IfindthattheproposedprojectMAYhavea "potentiallysignificantimpact" or "potentiallysignificant
unlessmitigatedimpact" ontheenvironment, butatleastoneeffect1) hasbeenadequately
analyzedinanearlierdocumentpursuanttoapplicablelegalstandards, and2) hasbeenaddressed
bymitigationmeasuresbasedontheearlieranalysisasdescribedonattachedsheets. An
ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORTisrequired, butitmustanalyzeonlytheeffectsthatremainto
beaddressed.
Ifindthatalthoughtheproposedprojectcouldhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment, because
allpotentiallysignificanteffects (a) havebeenanalyzedadequatelyinanearlierEIRorNEGATIVE
DECLARATIONpursuanttoapplicablestandards, and (b) havebeenavoidedormitigatedpursuant
tothatearlierEIRorNEGATIVEDECLARATION, includingrevisionsormitigationmeasuresthatare
imposedupontheproposedproject, nothingfurtherisrequired.
6- 0/0
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page25
2. EnvironmentalChecklist
TheCountyofOrangerequiresthattheCitynotifytheCountyofcertainzoningactions. Thefollowing
checklistwilldeterminetheneedfornotification. TheCountywillbenotifiedofany "yes" responsesto
questions1through4:
1. Doesthiszoningactioninvolveadoptionoramendmenttoeither
a) theAnaheimGeneralPlan, (b) aSpecificPlan, or (c) a
Reclassification? Yes No
IFYES, COMPLETETHEFOLLOWING:
2 Doesthiszoningactioninvolvelandlocatedeastofthe
alignmentofWeirCanyonRoad? Yes No
3. Doesthiszoningactioninvolvearesidentialprojectover
99acresor99unitsinsize?
4. Doesthiszoningactioninvolveanonresidentialprojectover
29acresoranonresidentialprojectwithmorethan
99employees?
YesEl No [1
Yes
EVALUATIONOFENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS:
1) Allanswersmusttakeaccountofthewholeactioninvolved, includingoff -siteaswellason -site,
cumulativeaswellasprojectlevel, indirectaswellasdirect, andconstructionaswellasoperational
impacts.
2) Alistof "SupportingInformationSources" mustbeattachedandothersourcesusedorindividuals
contactedshouldbecitedintheNarrativeSummaryforeachsection.
3) ResponseColumnHeadingDefinitions:
4) PotentiallySignificantImpactisappropriateifthereissubstantialevidencethataneffectmaybe
significant. Ifthereareoneormore "PotentiallySignificantImpact" entrieswhenthedeterminationis
made, anEIRisrequired.
5) PotentiallySignificantUnlessMitigationIncorporatedapplieswheretheincorporationofmitigation
measureshasreducedaneffectfrom "PotentiallySignificantImpact" toa "LessThanSignificant
Impact." Themitigationmeasuresmustbedescribed, alongwithabriefexplanationofhowtheyreduce
theeffecttoalessthansignificantlevel.
6) LessThanSignificantImpactapplieswheretheprojectcreatesnosignificantimpacts, onlyLessThan
Significantimpacts.
7) NoImpactapplieswhereaprojectdoesnotcreateanimpactinthatcategory. A "NoImpact" answeris
adequatelysupportedifthereferencedinformationsourcesshowthattheimpactsimplydoesnotapply
toprojectsliketheoneproposed (e.g., theprojectfallsoutsideofafaultrupturezone). A "NoImpact"
answershouldbeexplainedwhereitisbasedonproject- specificfactorsaswellasgeneralstandards
e.g., theprojectwillnotexposesensitivereceptorstopollutants, basedonaproject- specificscreening
analysis).
Page26 ThePlanningCenter June2010
1
No 1
1
2. EnvironmentalChecklist
Earlieranalysesmaybeusedwhere, pursuanttoatiering, programEIR, MasterEIR, orotherCEQA
process, aneffecthasbeenadequatelyanalyzedinanearlierEIR ornegativedeclaration (Section
15062(c)(3)(D)). Inthiscase, abriefdiscussionshouldidentifythefollowing:
9) EarlierAnalysisUsed. Identifyandstatewheretheyareavailableforreview.
10) ImpactsAdequatelyAddressed. Identifywhicheffectsfromthechecklist werewithinthescopeofand
adequatelyanalyzedinanearlierdocumentpursuanttoapplicablelegalstandards, andstatewhether
sucheffectswereaddressedbymitigationmeasuresbasedontheearlieranalysis.
11) MitigationMeasures. Foreffectsthatare "LessthanSignificantwithMitigationMeasuresIncorporated,"describethemitigationmeasureswhichwereincorporatedorrefinedfromtheearlierdocumentandthe
extenttowhichtheyaddresssite- specificconditionsfortheproject.
12) Incorporateintothechecklistanyreferencestoinformationsourcesforpotentialimpacts (e.g., theGeneralPlan, zoningordinance). Referencetoapreviouslyprepared oroutsidedocumentshould,whereappropriate, includeareferencetothepageorpageswherethestatementissubstantiated.
13) Theexplanationofeachissueshouldidentify:
a) Thesignificancecriteriaorthreshold, ifanyusedtoevaluateeachquestion; and
b) Themitigationmeasureidentified, ifany, toreducetheimpacttoTessthansignificant.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page27
reoioofaca1 heCaIiiontDep fl 1 ft oteio
Y a (i p/inuenterylit lanij lieg st a Y 1
forest arbor ea amenmdoderprov nb tProci 4
a) ConvertPrimeFarmland, UniqueFarmland, orFarmlandof
StatewideImportance (Farmland), asshownonthemaps
preparedpursuanttotheFarmlandMappingandMonitoring X
ProgramoftheCaliforniaResourcesAgency, tonon-
agriculturaluse?
b) Conflictwithexistingzoningforagriculturaluse, ora XWilliamsonActcontract?
c) Conflictwithexistingzoningfor, orcauserezoningof,
forestland (asdefinedinPublicResourcesCodesection
12220(g)), timberland (asdefinedbyPublicResources XCodesection4526), ortimberlandzonedTimberland
Production (asdefinedbyGovernmentCodesection
51104(g))?
d) Resultinthelossofforestlandorconversionofforestland Xtonon- forestuse?
e) Involveotherchangesintheexistingenvironmentwhich,
duetotheirlocationornature, couldresultinconversionof X'Farmland, tononagriculturaluseorconversionofforest
landtononforestuse?
fU` afbe nifraa aI e! i.!e jai g to
iD3Tw
a) Conflictwithorobstructimplementationoftheapplicable Xairqualityplan?
b) Violateanyairqualitystandardorcontributesubstantiallyto Xanexistingorprojectedairqualityviolation?
c) Resultinacumulativelyconsiderablenetincreaseofany
criteriapollutantforwhichtheprojectregionisnon-
attainmentunderanapplicablefederalorstateambientair X
qualitystandard (includingreleasingemissionswhich
exceedquantitativethresholdsforozoneprecursors)?
2. Environmental Checklist
Page 28 The Planning Center June 2010
1
1
1
1
1
1
Issues I
Potentially W
LessThan
Significant
LessThan
No
ASHETICS oddtiepro
X
b) SSubstantiallydamagescenicresources, including, butnot
limitedto, trees, rockoutcroppings, andhistoricbuildings XX
c) SSubstantiallydegradetheexistingvisualcharacterorquality
ofthesiteanditssurroundings?
d) CCreateanewsourceofsubstantiallightorglarewhich XX
5 RICUL ORES'T UUR fril`et fining actstBlricult ts s a
en 0
ant`
2. Environmental Checklist
Page 28 The Planning Center June 2010
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study
2. Environmental Checklist
City of Anaheim Page 29
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
LessThan
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d)Exposesensitivereceptorstosubstantialpollutant
concentrations?
e)Createobjectionableodorsaffectingasubstantialnumber
ofpeople?
a)Haveasubstantialadverseeffect, eitherdirectly orthrough
habitatmodifications, onanyspeciesidentifiedasa
candidate, sensitive, orspecialstatusspeciesinlocalor
regionalplans, policies, orregulations, orbytheCalifornia
DepartmentofFishandGameorU.S. FishandWildlife
Service?
X
b)Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonanyriparianhabitator
othersensitivenaturalcommunityidentifiedinlocalor
regionalplans, policies, regulationsorbytheCalifornia
DepartmentofFishandGameorU.S. FishandWildlife
Service?
X
c)Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonfederallyprotected
wetlandsasdefinedbySection404oftheCleanWaterAct
including, butnotlimitedto, marsh, vernalpool, coastal,
etc.) throughdirectremoval, filling, hydrological
interruption, orothermeans?
X
d)Interferesubstantiallywiththemovementofanynative
residentormigratoryfishorwildlifespeciesorwith
establishednativeresidentormigratorywildlifecorridors,
orimpedetheuseofnativewildlifenurserysites?
e)Conflictwithanylocalpoliciesorordinancesprotecting
biologicalresources, suchasatreepreservationpolicyor
ordinance?
X
f ConflictwiththeprovisionsofanadoptedHabitat
ConservationPlan, NaturalCommunityConservationPlan,
orotherapprovedlocal, regional, orstatehabitat
conservationplan?
vo
a)Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofa
historicalresourceasdefinedin §15064.5oftheCEQA
Guidelinesand /oridentifiedontheQualifiedHistoric
StructureslistoftheAnaheimColonyHistoricDistrict
PreservationPlan (July20, 1999)?
X
b)Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceof
anarchaeologicalresourcepursuantto15064.5?
c)Directlyorindirectlydestroyauniquepaleontological
resourceorsiteoruniquegeologicfeature?
d)
a)
Disturbanyhumanremains, includingthoseinterred
outsideofformalcemeteries?
Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverse
effects, includingtheriskofloss, injury, ordeathinvolving:
1
1
1
1
1
Battle of the Dance Dinner Theater Initial Study
2. Environmental Checklist
City of Anaheim Page 29
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
LessThan
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Ruptureofaknownearthquakefault, asdelineatedon
themostrecentAlquist- PrioloEarthquakeFaultZoning
Map, issuedbytheStateGeologistfortheareaor
basedonothersubstantialevidenceofaknownfault?
RefertoDivisionofMinesandGeologySpecial
Publication42.
ii) Strongseismicgroundshaking?X
iii) Seismic- relatedgroundfailure, includingliquefaction?X
iv) Landslides?X
b) Resultinsubstantialsoilerosionorthelossoftopsoil?
c) Belocatedonageologicunitorsoilthatisunstable, orthat
wouldbecomeunstableasaresultoftheproject, and
potentiallyresultinon- oroff-sitelandslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefactionorcollapse?
d) Belocatedonexpansivesoil, asdefinedinTable18 -1 -Bof
theUniformBuildingCode (1994), creatingsubstantialrisks
tolifeorproperty?
e) Havesoilsincapableofadequatelysupportingtheuseof
septictanksoralternativewastewaterdisposalsystems
wheresewersarenotavailableforthedisposalofwaste
water?
x
ito
a) Generategreenhousegasemissions, eitherdirectlyor
indirectly, thatmayhaveasignificantimpactonthe
environment?
X
b) Conflictwithanapplicableplan, policyorregulation
adoptedforthepurposeofreducingtheemissionsof
greenhousegases?
a) Createasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironment
throughtheroutinetransport, use, ordisposalofhazardous
materials?
piftikov
X
X
b) Createasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironment
throughreasonablyforeseeableupsetandaccident
conditionsinvolvingthereleaseofhazardousmaterialsinto
theenvironment?
X
c) Emithazardousemissionsorhandlehazardousoracutely
hazardousmaterials, substances, orwastewithinone-
quartermileofanexistingorproposedschool?
X
d) Belocatedonasitewhichisincludedonalistofhazardous
materialssitescompiledpursuanttoGovemmentCode
Section65962.5and, asaresult, woulditcreatea
significanthazardtothepublicortheenvironment?
X
e) Foraprojectlocatedwithinanairportlanduseplan (Los
AlamitosArmedForcesReserveCenterorFullerton
MunicipalAirport), wouldtheprojectresultinasafety
hazardforpeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectarea?
X
2. EnvironmentalChecklist
Page30 ThePlanningCenter June2010
1
1
1
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
LessThan
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Foraprojectwithinthevicinityofaprivateairstrip, would
theprojectresultinasafetyhazardforpeopleresidingor
workingintheprojectarea?
X
g) Impairimplementationoforphysicallyinterferewithan
adoptedemergencyresponseplanoremergency
evacuationplan?
X
h) Exposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss,
injuryordeathinvolvingwildlandfires, includingwhere
wildlandsareadjacenttourbanizedareasorwhere
residencesareintermixedwithwildlands?
X
UVdlbeprglect
a) Violateanywaterqualitystandardsorwastedischarge
requirements?
H...
b) Substantiallydepletegroundwatersuppliesorinterfere
substantiallywithgroundwaterrechargesuchthatthere
wouldbeanetdeficitinaquifervolumeoraloweringofthe
localgroundwatertablelevel (e.g., theproductionrateof
pre- existingnearbywellswoulddroptoalevelwhichwould
notsupportexistinglandusesorplannedusesforwhich
permitshavebeengranted)?
X
c) Substantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteor
area, includingthroughthealterationofthecourseofa
streamorriver, inamannerwhichwouldresultina
substantialerosionorsiltationon- oroff-site
X
d) Substantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteor
area, includingthroughthealterationofthecourseofa
streamorriver, orsubstantiallyincreasetherateoramount
ofsurfacerunoffinamannerwhichwouldresultinflooding
on- oroff -site?
X
e) Createorcontributerunoffwaterwhichwouldexceedthe
capacityofexistingorplannedstormwaterdrainage
systemsorprovidesubstantialadditionalsourcesof
pollutedrunoff?
f) Otherwisesubstantiallydegradewaterquality?X
g) Placehousingwithina100 -yearfloodhazardareaas
mappedonafederalFloodHazardBoundaryorFlood
InsuranceRateMaporotherfloodhazarddelineationmap?
X
h) Placewithina100 -yearfloodhazardareastructureswhich
wouldimpedeorredirectfloodflows?X
i) Exposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss,
injuryordeathinvolvingflooding, includingfloodingasa
resultofthefailureofaleveeordam?
X
j) Inundationbyseiche, tsunami, ormudflow?X
k) Substantiallydegradewaterqualitybydischargewhich
affectsthebeneficialuses (i.e., swimming, fishing, etc.) of
thereceivingwaters?
X
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2. EnvironmentalChecklist
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page31
a)
Issues
I al or
Physicallydivideanestablishedcommunity?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
LessThan
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
b)Conflictwithanyapplicablelanduseplan, policy, or
regulationofanagencywithjurisdictionovertheproject
including, butnotlimitedtothegeneralplan, specificplan,
localcoastalprogram, orzoningordinance) adoptedforthe
purposeofavoidingormitigatinganenvironmentaleffect?
X
c)Conflictwithanyapplicablehabitatconservationplanor
naturalcommunityconservationplan?
a d -ERAL 1 dw U oul'n er x `4 a L3` L` x
a)Resultinthelossofavailabilityofaknownmineral
resourcethatwouldbeavaluetotheregionandthe
residentsofthestate?
X
b)Resultinthelossofavailabilityofalocallyimportant
mineralresourcerecoverysitedelineatedonalocalgeneral
plan, specificplanorotherlanduseplan?
X
a)Exposureofpersonstoorgenerationofnoiselevelsin
excessofstandardsestablishedinthelocalgeneralplanor
noiseordinance, orapplicablestandardsofotheragencies?
X
b)Exposureofpersonstoorgenerationofexcessive
groundbornevibrationorgroundbornenoiselevels?
c)Asubstantialpermanentincreaseinambientnoiselevelsin
theprojectvicinityabovelevelsexistingwithoutthe
project?
X
d)Asubstantialtemporaryorperiodicincrease
noiselevelsintheprojectvicinityabovelevelsexisting
withouttheproject?
X
e)Foraprojectlocatedwithinanairportlaneuseplan (Los
AlamitosArmedForcesReserveCenteror
MunicipalAirport), wouldtheprojectexposepeople
residingorworkingintheprojectareatoexcessivenoise
levels?
X
f)Foraprojectwithinthevicinityofaprivateairstrip, would
theprojectexposepeopleresidingorworkingintheproject
areatoexcessivenoiselevels?
3
X
a)zInducesubstantialpopulationgrowthin anarea, either
directly (forexample, byproposingnewhomesand
businesses) orindirectly (forexample, throughextensionof
roadsorotherinfrastructure)?
b)Displacesubstantialnumbersofexistinghousing,
necessitatingtheconstructionofreplacementhousing
elsewhere?
X
c)Displacesubstantialnumbersofpeople, necessitatingthe
constructionofreplacementhousingelsewhere?X
2. EnvironmentalChecklist
Page32 ThePlanningCenter June2010
1
1
X
X
X
a) Fireprotection?
b) Policeprotection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Otherpublicfacilities?
a)
a)
Issues
Wouldtheprojectincreasetheuseofexistingneighborhood
andregionalparksorotherrecreationalfacilitiessuchthat
substantialphysicaldeteriorationofthefacilitywouldoccur
orbeaccelerated?
b) Doestheprojectincluderecreationalfacilitiesorrequirethe
constructionorexpansionofrecreationalfacilitieswhich
mighthaveanadversephysicaleffectontheenvironment?
Conflictwithanapplicableplan, ordinanceorpolicy
establishingmeasuresofeffectivenessfortheperformance
ofthecirculationsystem, takingintoaccountallmodesof
transportationincludingmasstransitandnonmotorized
travelandrelevantcomponentsofthecirculationsystem,
includingbutnotlimitedtointersections, streets, highways
andfreeways, pedestrianandbicyclepaths, andmass
transit?
b) Conflictwithanapplicablecongestionmanagement
program, including, butnotlimitedtolevelofservice
standardsandtraveldemandmeasures, orotherstandards
establishedbythecountycongestionmanagementagency
fordesignatedroadsorhighways?
c) Resultinachangeinairtrafficpatterns, includingeitheran
increaseintrafficlevelsorachangeinlocationthatresults
insubstantialsafetyrisks?
d) Substantiallyincreasehazardsduetoadesignfeature (e.g.,
sharpcurvesordangerousintersections) orincompatible
uses (e.g., farmequipment)?
e) Resultininadequateemergencyaccess?
f) Conflictwithadoptedpolicies, plans, orprogramsregarding
publictransit, bicycle, orpedestrianfacilities, orotherwise
decreasetheperformanceorsafetyofsuchfacilities?
g) Resultininadequateparkingcapacity?
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
2. EnvironmentalChecklist
Potentially
Significant
Impact
LessThan
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
CityofAnaheim Page33
Issues
a) Exceedwastewatertreatmentrequirementsofthe
applicableRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
LessThan
Significant
With LessThan
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact
No
impact
b) Requireorresultintheconstructionofnewwaterorwaste
watertreatmentfacilitiesorexpansionofexistingfacilities,
theconstructionofwhichcouldcausesignificant
environmentaleffects?
X
c). Requireorresultintheconstructionofnewstormwater
drainagefacilitiesorexpansionofexistingfacilities, the
constructionofwhichcouldcausesignificant
environmentaleffects?
d) Havesufficientwatersuppliesavailabletoservetheproject
fromexistingentitlementsandresourcesorarenewor
expandedentitlementsneeded?
X
e) Resultinadeterminationbythewastewatertreatment
provider, whichservesormayservetheprojectthatithas
adequatecapacitytoservetheproject'sprojecteddemand
inadditiontotheprovider'sexistingcommitments?
f) Beservedbyalandfillwithsufficientpermittedcapacityto
accommodatetheproject'ssolidwastedisposalneeds?
g) Complywithfederal, state, andlocalstatutesand
regulationsrelatedtosolidwaste?X
h) Resultinaneedfornewsystemsorsupplies, orsubstantial
alterationsrelatedtoelectricity?X
i) Resultinaneedfornewsystemsorsupplies, orsubstantial
alterationsrelatedtonaturalgas?X
j) Resultinaneedfornewsystemsorsupplies, orsubstantial
alterationsrelatedtotelephoneservice?X
k) Resultinaneedfornewsystemsorsupplies, orsubstantial
alterationsrelatedtotelevisionservice /reception?
a) Doestheprojecthavethepotentialtodegradethequalityof
theenvironment, substantiallyreducethehabitatofafishor
wildlifespecies, causeafishorwildlifepopulationtodrop
belowself- sustaininglevels, threatentoeliminateaplantor
animalcommunity, reducethenumberorrestricttherange
ofarareorendangeredplantoranimaloreliminate
importantexamplesofthemajorperiodsofCalifomia
historyorprehistory?
b) Doestheprojecthaveimpactsthatareindividuallylimited,
butcumulativelyconsiderable? "Cumulatively
considerable" meansthattheincrementaleffectsofa
projectareconsiderablewhenviewedinconnectionwith
theeffectsofpastprojects, theeffectsofothercurrent
pro'ects, andtheeffectsofprobablefutureprojects.
c) Doestheprojecthaveenvironmentaleffectswhichwill
causesubstantialadverseeffectsonhumanbeings, either
directlyorindirectly?
X
2. EnvironmentalChecklist
Page34 ThePlanningCenter June2010
1
1
1
1
t
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Section2providedachecklistofenvironmentalimpacts. Thissectionprovidesanevaluationoftheimpact
categoriesandquestionscontainedinthechecklistandidentifiesmitigationmeasures, ifapplicable.
3.1 AESTHETICS
a) Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonascenicvista?
NoImpact. Thesurroundingareadoesnotincludescenicvistasthatwouldbealteredbytheproposed
project. Ascenicvistaisanareaofnaturallandscapingthatiswithintheviewshedofresidentsortravelers.
Theproposedprojectsiteandsurroundingareaaredevelopedandflat. Therearenoscenicvistasthat
wouldbeaffectedbytheproposedproject. Inaddition, theprojectsiteisalreadydevelopedwithtwo
adjoinedbuildingsandaparkinglot. Theproposedprojectwouldmodifytheexistingbuildingswithinthe
existingbuildingfootprint. Themaximumheightofthebuildingwouldbeincreasedbytenfeet, whichwould
notsubstantiallyaffectscenicvistasinthesurroundingarea. Therefore, noprojectrelatedscenicvista
impactsareanticipated.
b) Substantiallydamagescenicresources, including, butnotlimitedto, trees, rockoutcroppings, and
historicbuildingswithinastatescenichighway?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectsitedoesnotcontainscenicresourcesanditisnotwithinthescenic
highwaycorridor. Thesiteisentirelydevelopedwithexistingbuildingsandaparkinglot, whichwillbe
modifiedaspartoftheproposedproject. ThenearestdesignatedscenichighwayisaportionofSR -91,
betweenSR -55andeastoftheCityofAnaheimlimits (Caltrans2007). Thisportionisapproximatelysixmiles
northeastoftheproposedprojectsite. Therefore, noprojectrelatedimpactstoscenicresourcesare
anticipated.
c) Substantiallydegradetheexistingvisualcharacterorqualityofthesiteanditssurroundings?
NoImpact. Thevisualcharacteroftheprojectsiteandsurroundingareaistypicalofanurbancommercial
corridor. However, theexistingbuildingshavebeenvacantforseveralyearsandhavefallenintodisrepair.
Theproposedprojectwouldrenovatetheexistingbuildingssothattheyaremeetingtheexistingcityand
statebuildingcodesandsothattheymaybeusedasadinnertheater. Theparkinglotwouldbemodifiedto
includemorelandscaping. Exteriorchangestothebuildingsincludealterationstothefa9ade. The
improvementstotheprojectsitewouldimprovethevisualcharacteroftheprojectsiteandretaintheexisting
commercialcharacterconsistentwithsurroundinglanduses. Therefore, nonegativeimpactstothevisual
characteroftheareawouldoccur.
d) CreateanewsourceofsubstantialTightorglare, whichwouldadverselyaffectdayornighttime
viewsinthearea?
LessThanSignificantImpactWithMitigationIncorporated. Theprojectsitecontainsavacantcommercial
buildingandparkingTots. Althoughparkinglotlightingisinplace, thislightingisnolongerusedtoTightthe
site. Therearenoothersourcesoflightontheprojectsite. Withtheproposedproject, improvementstothe
parkinglotlightingwouldoccurandsignageonthebuildingmayhavelightedfeatures. Parkinglotlightmay
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page35
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
affectadjacentresidencesifitspillsoutsideoftheprojectsiteboundaryandreachesadjacentproperty.
MitigationMeasure1wouldrequirethatlightingtobedirectedawayorshieldedfromadjacentresidences.
Therefore, withtheincorporatedmitigation, theproposedlightingontheprojectsitewouldnotcause
significantimpactstosurroundingresidences.
MitigationMeasure
1. Priortoissuanceofabuildingpermit, thepropertyowner /developershallsubmitplansthatdetailthe
lightingsystemsforanyparkingfacilitiesadjacenttoresidentialorotherlight- sensitiveuses. The
systemshallbedesignedandmaintainedinsuchamannerastoconcealthelightsourcestothe
extentfeasibletominimizeTightspillageandglaretoadjacentuses. Theplansshallbepreparedand
signedbyalicensedelectricalengineerwithaletterfromtheengineerstatingthat, intheopinionof
theengineer, therequirementhasbeenmet.
3.2 AGRICULTUREANDFORESTRESOURCES
indeterminingwhetherimpactstoagriculturalresourcesaresignificantenvironmentaleffects, leadagencies
mayrefertotheCaliforniaAgriculturalLandEvaluationandSiteAssessmentModel (1997) preparedbythe
CaliforniaDept. ofConservationasanoptionalmodeltouseinassessingimpactsonagricultureand
farmland. Indeterminingwhetherimpactstoforestresources, includingtimberland, aresignificant
environmentaleffects, leadagenciesmayrefertoinformationcompiledbytheCaliforniaDepartmentof
ForestryandFireProtectionregardingthestate'sinventoryofforestland, includingtheForestandRange
AssessmentProjectandtheForestLegacyAssessmentproject; andforestcarbonmeasurement
methodologyprovidedinForestProtocolsadoptedbytheCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard. Wouldtheproject:
a) ConvertPrimeFarmland, UniqueFarmland, orFarmlandof. StatewideImportance (Farmland), as
shownonthemapspreparedpursuanttotheFarmlandMappingandMonitoringProgramofthe
CaliforniaResourcesAgency, tononagriculturaluse?
NoImpact. TheproposedprojectwouldnotconvertPrimeFarmland, UniqueFarmland, orFarmlandof
StatewideImportance (Farmland) intononagriculturaluses. Theexistingbuildingsandparkinglotpreclude
theuseofthesiteforagriculturalpurposesandtherearenoagriculturalzoningorlandusedesignations
onsite. Theproposedprojectwouldmodifytheexistingbuildingsandparkinglot, andnoimpactsto
Farmlandwouldoccur.
b) Conflictwithexistingzoningforagriculturaluse, oraWilliamsonActcontract?
NoImpact. Developmentoftheproposedprojectwouldnotconflictwithagriculturalzoningorwitha
WilliamsonActcontract. ThesiteiscurrentlyzonedastheARSPandtherearenoWilliamsonActcontracts
onthesiteorinitsvicinity (CDC2010a). Therefore, noimpactstoagriculturallandareanticipated.
c) Conflictwithexistingzoningfor, orcauserezoningof, forestland (asdefinedinPublicResources
Codesection12220(g)), timberland (asdefinedbyPublicResourcesCodesection4526), or
timberlandzonedTimberlandProduction (asdefinedbyGovernmentCodesection51104(g))?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotconflictwithexistingzoningforforestland, timberland, or
timberlandzonedasTimberlandProduction. Theprojectsiteisentirelyurbanizedanddevelopedwith
existingbuildingsandaparkinglot. Noportionoftheprojectsiteorthesurroundingareasisforested.
Therefore, noimpactstoforestland, timberland, ortimberlandzonedasTimberlandProductionwouldoccur.
Page36 ThePlanningCenter June2010
1
t
1
1
d) Resultinthelossofforestlandorconversionofforestlandtononforestuse?
NoImpact. Modificationstotheprojectsiteinaccordancewiththeproposedprojectwouldnotresultinthe
lossorconversionofforestland. Thesiteisurbanizedandcurrentlydevelopedwithparkinglotsand
buildings. Theproposedprojectwouldrenovatetheexistingbuildingsandmodifytheparkinglotswith
additionallandscaping. Therefore, projectimplementationwouldnotresultinthelossofforestlandor
conversionofforestlandtonon- forestuse.
e) Involveotherchangesintheexistingenvironmentwhich, duetotheirlocationornature, could
resultinconversionofFarmland, tononagriculturaluseorconversionofforestlandtononforest
use?
NoImpact. TheproposedprojectsiteisinanurbanizedareaoftheCityofAnaheimandthedevelopmentof
theproposedprojectwouldnotcauseanyadditionalchangestotheexistingenvironmentoftheprojectsite
orthesurroundingareas. Therearenoareasofforestoragriculturallandwithinthevicinityoftheproposed
projectthatwouldbeconvertedtononagriculturalornonforestuses. Therefore, noimpactstoforestor
agriculturallandareanticipated.
3.3 AIRQUALITY
TheAirQualitysectionaddressestheimpactsoftheproposedprojectonambientairqualityandthe
exposureofpeople, especiallysensitiveindividuals, tounhealthfulpollutantconcentrations. Theprimaryair
pollutantsofconcernforwhichambientairqualitystandards (AAQS) havebeenestablishedareozone (0
carbonmonoxide (CO), coarseinhalableparticulatematter (Milo), fineinhalableparticulatematter (PM
sulfuroxides (SOoxidesofnitrogen (NO), andlead (Pb). AreasareclassifiedunderthefederalCleanAir
ActasineitherattainmentornonattainmentforeachcriteriapollutantbasedonwhethertheAAQShave
beenachieved. TheSouthCoastAirBasin (SoCAB), whichismanagedbytheSouthCoastAirQuality
ManagementDistrict (SCAQMD), isdesignatedasnonattainmentfor0andPM2.5undertheCaliforniaand
NationalAAQS, andforPM,,, NOandlead (LosAngelesCountyonly) undertheCaliforniaAAQS. This
sectionanalyzesthetypesandquantitiesofairpollutantemissionsthatwouldbegeneratedbythe
constructionandoperationoftheproposedproject. Abackgrounddiscussionontheairqualityregulatory
setting, meteorologicalconditions, existingambientairqualityinthevicinityoftheprojectsite, andairquality
modelingcanbefoundinAppendixAtothisInitialStudy.
Whereavailable, thesignificancecriteriaestablishedbytheapplicableairqualitymanagementorair
pollutioncontroldistrictmaybereliedupontomakethefollowingdeterminations. Wouldtheproject:
a) Conflictwithorobstructimplementationoftheapplicableairqualityplan?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Aconsistencydeterminationplaysanimportantroleinlocalagencyproject
reviewbylinkinglocalplanningandindividualprojectstotheAirQualityManagementPlan (AQMP). Itfulfills
theCEQAgoalofinformingdecisionmakersoftheenvironmentaleffectsoftheprojectunderconsideration
atanearlyenoughstagetoensurethatairqualityconcernsarefullyaddressed. italsoprovidesthelocal
agencywithongoinginformationastowhethertheyarecontributingtocleanairgoalscontainedinthe
AQMP. Therearetwokey,indicatorsofconsistency:
Indicator1:
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Whethertheprojectwouldresultinanincreaseinthefrequencyorseverityofexisting
airqualityviolations, causeorcontributetonewviolations, ordelaytimelyattainment
oftheambientairqualitystandardsorinterimemissionreductionsintheAQMP.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page37
Source'
Pollutants (inpoundsperday)
VOC NO CO SO PM PM2:5
Demolition 1 12 7 1 5 1
FineSiteGrading 3 25 13 0 5 2
BuildingConstruction 4 17 14 0 1 1
ArchitecturalCoating 42 1 1 0 1 1
Paving 4 20 13 1 2 2
MaximumDailyEmissions 50 37 28 1 5 3
SCAQMDRegionalThreshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
ExceedsThreshold?No No No No No No
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Indicator2: WhethertheprojectwouldexceedtheassumptionsintheAQMP. TheAQMPstrategy
is, inpart, basedonprojectionsfromlocalgeneralplans.
TheproposedprojectisnotaregionallysignificantprojectthatwouldwarrantIntergovernmentalReviewby
theSouthernCaliforniaAssociationofGovernments (SCAG). Therefore, theproposedprojectdoesnothave
thepotentialtosubstantiallyaffecthousing, employment, andpopulationprojectionswithinthesouthern
Californiaregion, whichisthebasisoftheAQMPprojections. Furthermore, emissionsgeneratedby
constructionandoperationoftheproposedprojectwouldbelessthanSCAQMDemissionsthresholds, and
wouldnotbeconsideredbySCAQMDtobeasubstantialsourceofairpollutantemissions. Therefore, the
projectwouldnotconflictorobstructimplementationoftheAQMPandimpactsarelessthansignificantin
thisregard.
b) Violateanyairqualitystandardorcontributesubstantiallytoanexistingorprojectedairquality
violation?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Thefollowingdescribesprojectrelatedimpactsfromshort -termconstruction
activitiesandTong -termoperationofthesefacilities.
Short-TermAirQualityImpacts
Constructionactivitieswouldresultinthegenerationofairpollutants. Theseemissionswouldprimarilybe
1) exhaustemissionsfrompoweredconstructionequipment; 2) dustgeneratedbydemolition, grading,
earthmoving, andotherconstructionactivities; 3) motorvehicleemissions; and4) emissionsofvolatile
organiccompoundsfromtheapplicationofasphalt, paints, andcoatings.
ConstructionemissionswereestimatedusingSCAQMD'sURBEMIS2007inventorymodel. Construction
activitiesareestimatedtocommenceinmid -2010andbecompletedwithinfourtosixmonths. Where
specificinformationwasnotavailable, constructionassumptionswerebasedonURBEMIS2007defaults.
ResultsofthemodelingareincludedinTable1. Asshowninthistable, constructionactivitieswouldnot
exceedtheSCAQMDregionalsignificancethresholds. Therefore, airqualityimpactsfromproject- related
constructionactivitieswouldbelessthansignificant.
Table1
MaximumDailyConstructionEmissions
Source: URBEMIS2007, Version9.2.4.
Airqualitymodelingbasedonafour -monthconstructionscheduleandreconstructionofa43,500- square -footbuilding. Assumesapproximately
30,000squarefeetoftheexistingbuildingwouldbedemolishedandreconstructedforthedinnertheater. Wherespecificconstructioninformation
wasnotavailable, constructionassumptionswerebasedonURBEMIS2007defaults.
2FugitivedustemissionsassumeapplicationofRule403, whichincludesquicklyreplacinggroundcoverindisturbedareas, wateringexposed
surfacesatleasttwotimesdaily, implementationofequipmentloading/unloadingprocedurestoreducefugitivedust, managinghaulroaddustby
watertwotimesdaily, andreducingspeedonunpavedroadstolessthan15mph.
3. Assumesoverlapofbuilding, architecturalcoatings, andpavingphases.
Page38 ThePlanningCenter June2010
1
1
MO
StationarySources
VAC
z
1
NO
1
CO
r
2
SO
0
PM,
1
PM25
1
MobileSources 5 6 79 1 16 3
TotalEmissions 6 7 81 1 16 3
SCAQMDRegionalThreshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
ExceedsThreshold?
StationarySources
No
1
No
1
No
1
No
0
No
0
No
0
MobileSources 6 8 73 1 16 3
TotalEmissions 6 8 74 1 16 3
SCAQMDRegionalThreshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
ExceedsThreshold?No No No No No No
1
1
1
1
Long -TermOperationRelatedImpacts
Long -termairpollutantemissionsgeneratedbytheprojectareassociatedwiththenewstationarysources
naturalgasuse, landscapeequipment, etc.) andmobilesources. TheprojectislocatedwithintheAnaheim
Resortarea, approximatelyonemilesoutheastoftheDisneylandResort. Accordingtothetrafficstudy
preparedbyKunzmanAssociates, Inc., approximately20percentoftheproposedprojectpatronswould
arrivebywalking, 15percentwouldarrivebybus (transitbusortourbus),10percentwouldarrivebyhotel
shuttles, and55percentwouldarrivebypassengervehicle. TheBattleoftheDancedinnertheaterwould
haveaseatingcapacityof950seats, 70employees, andhostuptothreeshowsperday. Theproposed
projectwouldresultinamaximumof645averagedailypassengervehicleweekdaytrips (Friday) anda
maximumof1,043averagedailypassengervehicleweekendtrips (Saturday). TheFridaydailyratesreflect
twoshowingsandtheSaturdaydailyratesreflectthreeshowingseventhoughtherewouldbeoneshowon
Friday (andweeknights) andtwoonSaturday. Thisreflectsamoreconservativeestimateandallowsfor
flexibilityinincludingthethreeshowsonSundays. TripsgeneratedbyshuttlebusesandtransitwithinThe
AnaheimResortareaareassumedtobeexistingtripsandthereforearenotincludedaspartoftheemissions
inventoryfortheproject. Becausethemajorityoftripswouldoccuronaweekend, operationalphaseair
pollutantemissionsweremodeledforweekendevents. Table2showsthedailyoperationalemissions
relatedtotheprojectforweekenddinnertheaterevents. Asshown, projectrelatedstationarysourceair
pollutantemissionswouldnotexceedtheSCAQMD'sregionalemissionsthresholdsforoperationalactivities,
andimpactswouldbeTessthansignificant.
Source: URBEMIS2007, Version9.2.4.
Table2
MaximumDailyOperationalEmissions, Saturday
inpoundsperday)
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
c) Resultinacumulativelyconsiderablenetincreaseofanycriteriapollutantforwhichtheproject
regionisnonattainmentunderanapplicablefederalorstateambientairqualitystandard
includingreleasingemissionswhichexceedquantitativethresholdsforozoneprecursors)?
LessThanSignificantImpact. TheSoCABisdesignatedasnonattainmentfor03andPMunderthe
CaliforniaandNationalAAQS, andnonattainmentforPM,,, NO, andlead (LosAngelesCountyonly) under
theCaliforniaAAQS. InaccordancewithSCAQMDmethodology, anyprojectthatdoesnotexceedorcanbe
mitigatedtolessthanthedailythresholdvaluesdoesnotaddsignificantlytoacumulativeimpact (SCAQMD
1993). TheURBEMISmodelingdemonstratesthatconstructionandoperationalactivitieswouldnotresultin
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page39
Source'NO„CO PM,o PMz5
MaximumDailyConstructionEmissions 35 21 5 3
SCAQMDLocalizedThreshold 178 1,217 13 7
ExceedsLocalizedSignificanceThreshold?No No No No
Source. IIRRFMIS2no7versinng_ 24andSCAQMD. LocalizedSianificanceMethodoloay. 2006. October. AppendixA. BasedonLSTsforaproject
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
emissionsinexcessofSCAQMD'sthresholdvalues, andtherefore, theprojectdoesnotaddsignificantlyto
anycumulativeimpact. Nomitigationmeasuresarenecessary.
d) Exposesensitivereceptorstosubstantialpollutantconcentrations?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Theprojectcouldexposesensitivereceptorstoelevatedpollutant
concentrationsifitwouldcauseorcontributesignificantlytoelevatedpollutantconcentrationlevels. Unlike
themass (poundsperday) ofconstructionandoperationalemissionsshowninTables1and2, localized
concentrationsrefertotheamountofpollutantinavolumeofair (ppmorNg /m3) andcanbecorrelatedto
potentialhealtheffects. However, Table1andTable2calculatetheamountofproject- relatedregional
emissionsatwhichlocalizedconcentrations (ppmorpg /mwouldexceedtheambientairqualitystandards
accordingtothesizeoftheprojectsiteanddistancetothenearestsensitivereceptor. Localizedsignificance
thresholds (LSTs) arebasedontheCaliforniaAAQS, whicharethemoststringentAAQSthathavebeen
establishedtoprovideamarginofsafetyintheprotectionofthepublichealthandwelfare. Theyare
designedtoprotectthosesensitivereceptorsmostsusceptibletofurtherrespiratorydistress, suchas
asthmatics, theelderly, veryyoungchildren, peoplealreadyweakenedbyotherdiseaseorillness, and
personsengagedinstrenuousworkorexercise.
ConstructionLSTs
Emissionsgeneratedbyconstructionactivitiesareanticipatedtocausetemporaryincreasesinpollutant
concentrations. Table3showsthemaximumdailyconstructionemissions (poundsperday) generated
duringconstructionactivitiescomparedwiththeSCAQMD'sscreeninglevelLSTs. Sensitivereceptors
surroundingthesiteincluderesidentsadjacenttotheprojectsite. InaccordancewithSCAQMD
methodology, onlyonsitestationarysourcesandmobileequipmentoccurringontheprojectsite, are
includedintheanalysis.
Table3
MaximumDailyOnsiteConstructionEmissions, ScreeningLevelAnalysis
linpoundsperda
siteinSRA17fora4.8 -acresitewithsensitivereceptorslocatedwithin25meters (82feet). Basedononsiteairpollutantemissions.
Notes:
1Airqualitymodelingbasedonconstructionschedule. Wherespecificconstructioninformationwasnotavailable, constructionassumptionswere
basedonURBEMIS2007defaults.
2FugitivedustemissionsassumeapplicationofRule403, wateringexposedsurfacesatleasttwotimesdaily, implementationofequipment
loading/unloadingprocedurestoreducefugitivedust, managinghaulroaddustbywateringtwotimesdaily, andreducingthespeedofonsite
constructionequipmenttolessthan15mph.
Asshowninthistable, maximumdailyemissionswouldnotexceedtheLSTscreeninglevelcriteria.
Therefore, theprojectwouldnotexposesensitivereceptorstosubstantialpollutantconcentrations. Impacts
wouldbeTessthansignificant.
Page40 ThePlanningCenter June2010
1
r
1
1
Source NO CO PM, 2 PMs
StationarySources 1 2 1 1
SCAQMDLocalizedSignificanceThreshold 178 1,217 3 2
ExceedsLocalizedSignificanceThreshold?No No No No
1
1
1
1
OperationalLSTs
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Toestimateconcentrationsofairpollutantsgeneratedbyoperationoftheprojectatnearbyexistingand
proposedsensitivereceptors, theproject'smaximumdailyemissionswerecomparedtotheoperational
LSTs. InaccordancewithSCAQMDmethodology, onlyonsitestationarysourcesareincludedintheanalysis.
Table4showsmaximumdailyoperationalemissionsgeneratedbytheprojectcomparedtotheLST. As
showninthistable, projectemissionswouldnotexceedLSTscreeninglevelcriteriaforCO, N0xPM,,, or
PMBecausetheproject'sstationary- sourceemissionswouldnotexceedtheLSTscreeninglevelcriteria,
noairpollutantconcentrationsfromprojectrelatedoperationalactivitieswouldexceedtheCaliforniaor
federalAAQS, andnosignificantairqualityimpactwouldoccurfromexposureofpersonstosubstantialair
pollutantconcentrations.
Table4
MaximumDailyOnsiteOperationalEmissions, ScreeningLevelAnalysis
inpoundsperda
Source: URBEMIS2007Version9.2.4andSCAQMD, 2006, AppendixA: BasedonLSTsforaprojectsiteinSRA17fora4.8 -acresite
withsensitivereceptorslocatedwithin25meters (82feet). InaccordancewithSCAQMDmethodology, onlyonsitestationary
sourcesandmobileequipmentoccurringontheprojectsiteareincludedintheanalysis.
CarbonMonoxideHotspots
AnimpactisalsopotentiallysignificantifemissionlevelsexceedthestateorfederalAAQS, therebyexposing
receptorstosubstantialpollutantconcentrations. BecauseCOisproducedingreatestquantitiesfromvehicle
combustionanddoesnotreadilydisperseintotheatmosphere, adherencetoambientairqualitystandards
istypicallydemonstratedthroughananalysisoflocalizedCOconcentrations.
AreasofvehiclecongestionhavethepotentialtocreateelevatedconcentrationsofCOcalled "hotspots."
Thesehotspotshavethepotentialtoexceedthestateone -hourstandardof20ppmorthe8 -hourstandardof
9ppm. NotethattheFederallevelsarebasedonone- andeight -hourstandardsof35and9ppm,
respectively. Thus, anexceedanceconditionwilloccurbasedonthestatestandardspriortoexceedanceof
thefederalstandards.
Theprojectwouldgenerateanincreaseinvehicletrafficonlocalroadwaysinthevicinityoftheprojectsite.
Becausetrafficcongestionishighestatintersectionswherevehiclesqueueandaresubjecttoreduced
speeds, thesehotspotsaretypicallyproducedatintersectionlocations. COhotspotshavebeenfoundto
occuronlyatsignalizedintersectionsthatoperateatorbelowlevelofservice (LOS) E (Caltrans1997). All
localintersectionscurrentlyoperateatLOSDorbetterandwillcontinuetooperateatLOSBorbetterwith
theprojectduringthemorningandeveningpeakhours (seeSection3.16, Transportation/Traffic).
Consequently, theprojectwouldnotgenerateanyCOhotspotsorsitesensitivereceptorsproximatetoany
intersectionsthataresubjecttosignificantCOconcentrations. Furthermore, theSoCABisdesignatedas
attainmentforCO. Assuch, theprojectwouldnotexposesensitivereceptorstosubstantialpollutant
concentrations. Nosignificantimpactwouldresultfromthisprojectandnomitigationmeasuresare
necessary.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page41
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
ShuttleBusIdling
Priortoandafterdinnertheaterperformances, hotelshuttlebuseswouldlineupintheloading /unloading
laneattheentrancearea. ShuttlebusesattheprojectsitearesubjecttoCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard
CARB) RuleSection2485, In -UseAirborneToxicControlMeasure (ATOM). TheATCMprohibitsdriversof
dieselfueledcommercialmotorvehiclesfromidlingthevehicles' primarydieselenginesformorethanfive
minutesatanylocation. WithcomplianceofCARBRule2485, idlingemissionsfromshuttlebusesassociated
withtheprojectwouldbeextremelylimitedandwouldnotexposesensitivereceptorstosubstantialpollutant
concentrations.
e) Createobjectionableodorsaffectingasubstantialnumberofpeople?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Potentialodorsresultingfromtheprojectwouldoccurduringthe
constructionphaseandwouldbeassociatedwiththeapplicationofasphaltandpaintandtheemissionof
constructionvehicleexhaust. Nuisanceodorswouldbeconfinedtotheimmediatevicinityoftheconstruction
equipment. Therefore, bythetimesuchemissionsreachanysensitivereceptorsites, theywouldbediluted
towellbelowanylevelofairqualityconcern. Anoccasionalwhiffofdieselexhaustfrompassingequipment
andtrucksaccessingthesitefrompublicroadwaysmayresult. Suchodorsareanadverse, butnot
significant, airqualityimpact. Noobjectionableodorsareanticipatedtoresultfromtheoperationalphaseof
theproposedproject. Cookingodorsassociatedwithdinnerprovidedatthetheaterwouldnotbe
objectionable. Furthermore, odorcomplaintsaresubjecttoSCAQMDRule402, Nuisance, whichrequires
thatodorsnotresultinanuisanceorannoyancetothepublic.. Odorimpactsresultingfromtheproposed
projectarenotconsideredsignificant.
3.4 BIOLOGICALRESOURCES
a) Haveasubstantialadverseeffect, eitherdirectlyorthroughhabitatmodifications, onanyspecies
identifiedasacandidate, sensitive, orspecialstatusspeciesinlocalorregionalplans, policies, or
regulations, orbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameorU.S. FishandWildlifeService?
NoImpact. Therearenosensitivehabitatsorcandidate, sensitive, orspecialstatusspeciesontheproject
site (CityofAnaheim2004; CDFG2003). Theprojectsitecontainstwoadjoinedvacantbuildings, andthe
remainderofthesiteispavedwithaparkinglot. Therearenoareasofopenspacethatwouldsupport
naturalhabitatsorspecieslistedascandidate, sensitive, orspecialstatusbytheCaliforniaDepartmentof
FishandGameorUSFishandWildlifeService. Therearenolocalorregionalplans, policies, orregulations
thatprotecthabitatorspeciesontheprojectsite. Therefore, noimpactstobiologicalresourcesare
anticipated.
b) Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonanyriparianhabitatorothersensitivenaturalcommunity
identifiedinlocalorregionalplans, policies, regulations, orbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFish
andGameorU.S. FishandWildlifeService?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotresultinadverseeffectsonriparianorsensitivenatural
communityhabitats. Theprojectsiteisurbanizedanddevelopedwithaparkinglotandexistingbuildings.
TheonlyareasofopenspacearestripsoflandscapingbythesidewalkalongHarborBoulevardandfour
landscapingislandsonthewesternportionoftheprojectsite. The2004AnaheimGeneralPlandoesnot
identifyanyareasofsensitivebiologicalhabitatontheprojectsite (CityofAnaheim2004). Noproject- related
impactstoriparianorsensitivenaturalcommunityhabitatwouldoccur.
Page42 ThePlanningCenter June2010
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
c) HaveasubstantialadverseeffectonfederallyprotectedwetlandsasdefinedbySection404ofthe
CleanWaterAct (including, butnotlimitedto, marsh, vernalpool, coastal, etc.) throughdirect
removal, filling, hydrologicalinterruption, orothermeans?
NoImpact. Federallyprotectedwetlandswouldnotbeaffectedbydevelopmentoftheproposedproject.
Section404oftheCleanWaterActismeanttoregulatethedredgeandfillactivitiesonwetlandsandwaters
oftheUnitedStates. Theprojectsiteisurbanizedandfullydeveloped; itdoesnotcontainwetlandsorother
aquaticareas. Theproposedsitemodificationsandbuildingrenovationswouldnotdisruptanyexisting
wetlandsandnoimpactswouldoccur.
d) Interferesubstantiallywiththemovementofanynativeresidentormigratoryfishorwildlife
speciesorwithestablishednativeresidentormigratorywildlifecorridors, orimpedetheuseof
nativewildlifenurserysites?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotinterferewiththemovementorestablishedmigratorycorridors
ofnativeresidentormigratoryfishorwildlifespecies. Itwouldalsonotinterferewithanywildlifenursery
sites. ThemajorityofnaturalhabitatandopenspaceintheCityofAnaheimisintheeasternpartoftheCity,
wheretheCity'sboundariesabutChinoHillsStateParkandtheClevelandNationalForest (CityofAnaheim
2004). Theproposedprojectsiteisurbanizedanddevelopedwithparkinglotsand43,500squarefeetof
buildingspace. Therefore, itdoesnotsupportnaturalhabitatthatwouldbeusedbywildlifespecies,
includingformigratoryandnurserypurposes. Noprojectrelatedimpactstonativefishorwildlifemovement,
migratorywildlifecorridors, andnurserysitesareanticipated.
e) Conflictwithanylocalpoliciesorordinancesprotectingbiologicalresources, suchasatree
preservationpolicyorordinance?
NoImpact. Thedevelopmentoftheproposedprojectmayrequiretheremovalofexistingtreesonthe
projectsite. ExistingtreesincludeeucalyptustreesalongHarborBoulevardandthesouthernsiteboundary.
Theproposedsitemodificationstotheparkinglotmayrequiretheremovalofsomeoralloftheseexisting
trees. AlthoughtheCityhasatreeordinancethatstates "nopersonshallcut, trim, prune, plant, remove,
spray, orinanyothermannerinterferewithanystreettreewithintheCityofAnaheimwithoutfirsthaving
securedwrittenpermissionfromtheDirectorofCommunityServicesorhisorherdesignee," theprojectsite
doesnotcontainanytreesincludedontheCity'sofficialtreespecieslist. Nospecifiedtreeswouldbe
impactedandnoimpactswouldoccur; noadditionalanalysisisneeded.
f) ConflictwiththeprovisionsofanadoptedHabitatConservationPlan, NaturalCommunity
ConservationPlan, orotherapprovedlocal, regional, orstatehabitatconservationplan?
NoImpact. TheproposedprojectwouldnotconflictwiththeprovisionsofanadoptedHabitatConservation
Plan (HCP) orNaturalCommunityConservationPlan (NCCP). AportionofeasternAnaheimliesinthe
OrangeCountyCentral -CoastSubregionalNCCP /HCP (CityofAnaheim2004). Thishabitatconservation
planwasdevelopedin1996toprotect37,378acresofhabitatand39specialstatusspeciesincentral
OrangeCounty (USFWS2008). TheproposedprojectsitedoesnotliewithinthisNCCP /HCP. Therefore, the
proposedprojectwouldnotimpactanyadoptedhabitatconservationplansornaturalcommunity
conservationplans.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page43
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
3.5 CULTURALRESOURCES
a) Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofahistoricalresourceasdefinedin
15064.5oftheCEQAGuidelinesand /oridentifiedontheQualifiedHistoricStructureslistofthe
AnaheimColonyHistoricDistrictPreservationPlan (July20, 1999)?
NoImpact. Section15064.5oftheCEQAGuidelinesdefineshistoricresourcesasresourceslistedor
determinedtobeeligibleforlistingbytheStateHistoricalResourcesCommission, alocalregisterof
historicalresources, ortheleadagency. Generallyaresourceisconsideredtobe "historicallysignificant," if
itmeetsoneofthefollowingcriteria:
i) Isassociatedwitheventsthathavemadeasignificantcontributiontothebroadpatternsof
California'shistoryandculturalheritage;
ii) Isassociatedwiththelivesofpersonsimportantinourpast;
iii) Embodiesthedistinctivecharacteristicsofatype, period, regionormethodofconstruction, or
representstheworkofanimportantcreativeindividual, orpossesseshighartisticvalues; or
iv) Hasyielded, ormaybelikelytoyield, informationimportantinprehistoryorhistory.
ExistingbuildingsqualifyashistoricstructuresontheCaliforniahistoricregistryiftheymeettheabove
criteriaandiftheywerebuiltover50yearsago. Theexistingbuildingsontheprojectsitedonotmeetthese
criteriaandwerebuiltafter1960. TheexistingbuildingsarealsonotincludedontheCity'sQualifiedHistoric
StructureslistoftheAnaheimColonyHistoricDistrictPreservationPlan. Theproposedprojectwouldinvolve
theremodelingofthelargerofthetwobuildingsandpartiallydemolishingthesmallerofthetwoTogether
theywouldbeusedfortheproposeddinnertheater. Theproposedmodificationstothetwobuildingswould
notcauseimpactstohistoricresources. Noimpactswouldoccurandnoadditionalanalysisisneeded.
b) Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofanarchaeologicalresourcepursuantto
15064.5?
NoImpact. Theproposedsitemodificationsandbuildingrenovationswouldnotcausesubstantialchanges
toanarchaeologicalresource. Thesitehasalreadybeendisturbedandgradedforcommercialdevelopment.
Sitemodificationsincluderepavingtheparkinglotandtheplacementofadditionallandscapedareas
throughouttheparkinglotandaroundtheexistingbuildings. Thesemodificationsmayrequireveryminimal
groundexcavationinsoilthathasalreadybeenexcavatedandgradedandwouldnotdisturbanyunknown
archaeologicalresources. Buildingrenovationwouldbecompletedwithintheexistingbuildingfootprintand
noadditionalgrounddisturbancewouldoccur. Projectrelatedimpactstoarchaeologicalresourceswould
notoccurandnoadditionalanalysisisrequired.
c) Directlyorindirectlydestroyauniquepaleontologicalresourceorsiteoruniquegeologicfeature?
NoImpact. Theproposedsitemodificationsandbuildingrenovationswouldnotcausesubstantialchanges
topaleontologicalorgeologicalresources. Thesitehasalreadybeendisturbedandgradedforcommercial
development. Therearenoidentifieduniquepaleontologicalorgeologicalresourcesontheprojectsite. Site
modificationsincluderepavingtheparkinglotandtheplacementofadditionallandscapedareasthroughout
theparkinglotandaroundtheexistingbuildings. Thesemodificationsmayrequireveryminimalground
excavationinsoilthathasalreadybeenexcavatedandgradedandwouldnotdisturbanyunknown
paleontologicalorgeologicalresources. Buildingrenovationwouldbecompletedwithintheexistingbuilding
Page44 ThePlanningCenter June2010
3.6 GEOLOGYANDSOILS
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
footprintandnoadditionalgrounddisturbancewouldoccur. Projectrelatedimpactstopaleontological
resourceswouldnotoccurandnoadditionalanalysisisrequired.
d) Disturbanyhumanremains, includingthoseinterredoutsideofformalcemeteries?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectsitehasbeendisturbedandgradedforcommercialdevelopment. Melrose
AbbeyMemorialParkistheclosestcemeterywithburiedhumanremains (GoogleMaps2010). Sincethe
projectsitehasbeenpreviouslydisturbedandgraded, theproposedsitemodificationsandbuilding
renovationswouldnotdisturbareasofthegroundthathavenotpreviouslybeendisturbed. Sinceproject
implementationwouldnotrequiregradingtoanincreaseddepth, itisunlikelythathumanremainswouldbe
found. Therefore, noimpactstohumanremainsareanticipated.
a) Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects, includingtheriskofloss,
injury, ordeathinvolving:
i) Ruptureofaknownearthquakefault, asdelineatedonthemostrecentAlquistPriolo
EarthquakeFaultZoningmap, issuedbytheStateGeologistfortheareaorbasedonother
substantialevidenceofaknownfault? RefertoDivisionofMinesandGeologySpecial
Publication42.
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectsitedoesnotlieonanyactiveorpotentiallyactiveearthquakefaults
CityofAnaheim2004). AlthoughnoAlquistPriolofaultzonesrunthoughtheCityofAnaheim, twomajor
faultzonesareincloseproximitytotheCityboundaries. TheNewport- Inglewoodfaultzonerunspastthe
Cityonthesouthwest, andtheWhittierElsinorefaultzonerunspasttheCityonthenortheast. Potentially
activefaultzones, includingtheNorwalk, ElModerno, andPeraltaHillsfaultzones, alsoruninclose
proximitytotheCity. TheclosestfaulttotheprojectsiteistheElModernoFault. Althoughtheexact
locationofthisfaultisnotknown, itisapproximatelythreetofivemilesnortheastoftheproposedproject
site (CityofAnaheim2004). Noactiveorpotentiallyactivefaultsrunthroughtheproposedprojectsite
andnoimpactswouldoccur.
ii) Strongseismicgroundshaking?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Theprojectsiteisinaseismicallyactiveareaandtheproposedproject
maybesubjecttoseismicgroundshaking. AlthoughtherearenoAlquistPriolofaultzonesrunning
throughtheCityofAnaheim, thereareanumberoffaultssurroundingtheCitythatcouldcauseseismic
groundshakingontheprojectsite (CityofAnaheim2004). Theproposedprojectwouldincludethe
remodelingofexistingbuildings. Aspartofthepartialdemolitionandremodeling, thetwobuildings
wouldbeupdatedtomeetexistingCityandstatebuildingcodesthatprovidebuildingregulationsfor
earthquakesafety. TheCityofAnaheimrequiresthatallnewconstructionandexistingbuildingsmeet
buildingstandardsforearthquakesafetythroughtheprovisionsofSection15.03, BuildingStandard
Codes, andSection15.07, EarthquakeHazardReductioninExistingBuildings, oftheAnaheimmunicipal
code. Section15.07ofthemunicipalcodespecificallyrequiresthatbuildingsnotmeetingearthquake
safetyrequirementsmusteitherbedemolishedoralteredinordertomeetthestandards (Cityof
AnaheimmunicipalcodeSection15.07.050.010).
Title24oftheCaliforniaCodeofRegulations, ortheCaliforniaBuildingCode (CBC), hasprovisionsfor
earthquakesafetybasedonfactorsincludingoccupancytype, thetypesofsoilandrockonsite, andthe
strengthofgroundmotionwithspecifiedprobabilityofoccurringatthesite. Section15.03ofthe
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page45
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
AnaheimmunicipalcodeadoptstheprovisionsoftheCBC (CityofAnaheimMunicipalCodeSection
15.03). Theproposedprojectwouldmeetthebuildingrequirementsthatreducetheimpactsofstrong
seismicgroundshaking, andimpactswouldbeTessthansignificant.
iii) Seismicrelatedgroundfailure, includingliquefaction?
NoImpact. Theproposeddevelopmentwouldnotexposepeopleorstructurestodamagecausedby
seismicrelatedgroundfailure, includingliquefaction. Liquefactiontendstooccurinareaswithhigh
watertables. Saturationofthesoilbywaterwillcausesoilinstability, resultinginliquefactionand
structuraldamage. Seismicactivitymayinduceliquefactionofthegroundbecauseoftheshiftingof
geologicalplatesandchangesingroundstability. Theprojectsiteisnotinanareaidentifiedashavinga
riskforliquefaction, andnoimpactswouldoccur (CityofAnaheim2004).
iv) Landslides?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectsiteisnotsusceptibletolandslides, andtheproposedsite
modificationsandbuildingremodelingwouldnotexposepeopleorstructurestodamagecausedby
landslides. Theproposedprojectsiteandsurroundingareasareflat, reducingthepotentialforonsite
landslidestooccur. Therefore, noimpactsrelatedtolandslidesareanticipated.
b) ResultinsubstantialsoilerosionortheTossoftopsoil?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Substantialsoilerosionorlossoftopsoilwouldnotoccurontheproposed
projectsite. Thesiteiscurrentlydevelopedwithparkinglotsand43,500squarefeetofbuildingspace. The
onlyunpavedareasarestripsoflandscapingandfourlandscapedislandsintheparkinglot. Thereareno
areasofexposedtopsoil. Theproposedsitemodificationsandbuildingremodelingwouldincreasethe
amountoflandscapingintheparkinglot. Structuralchangeswouldbemadetothebuildings. The
modificationswouldnotcreatenewareasofexposedtopsoil, andsoilerosionwouldnotoccur. During
construction, portionsoftopsoilonthesitemaybeexposed. However, theamountofsoilexposedduring
theconstructionphasewouldnotbelargerthananacre (andthereforewouldnotrequireaStormwater
PollutionPreventionPlan) andtotalexposurewouldbetemporary. Theproposedprojectwouldnotcause
anysubstantialsoilerosionandimpactswouldbelessthansignificant.
c) Belocatedonageologicunitorsoilthatisunstable, orthatwouldbecomeunstableasaresultof
theproject, andpotentiallyresultinon- oroff-sitelandslide, lateralspreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, orcollapse?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Theproposedprojectsiteisnotonanunstablegeologicunitorsoilbase.
ThesiteisunderlainwithHolocenealluvium, depositedbetween1,000and10,000yearsago (Cityof
Anaheim2004). Theflatterrain, previousdevelopment, andcompactingoftheprojectsitereducesthe
potentialforlandslides, lateralspreading, orcollapsetooccur. AsidentifiedinSection3.7(c)(iii), thesiteis
notsusceptibletoliquefaction. Subsidencewouldoccurwhenlargeamountsofgroundwaterpumpingor
mineralextractionwouldcausealoweringofelevation. Therearenooilorgaswellsorwaterwellswithinthe
vicinityoftheprojectsite, andriskofsubsidenceislow (CityofAnaheim2004). Therefore, nosignificant
geologicimpactsareanticipated.
Page46 ThePlanningCenter June2010
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
d) Belocatedonexpansivesoil, asdefinedinTable18 -1 -BoftheUniformBuildingCode (1994),
creatingsubstantialriskstolifeorproperty?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Expansivesoilsaredefinedassoilswithclayparticlesthatreacttochanges
inmoisturecontentbyshrinkingwhenconditionsaredryandexpandingwhenconditionsarewet. The
shrinkingandexpansionofthesesoilscancausesubstantialdamagetobuildingfoundationsand
infrastructure. Theprojectsiteisunderlainwithalluviumdeposits, whicharetypicallygravel, silt, sand, and
clay. Morespecifically, thesesoilsareHuenemefinesandyloamanddrainedandMetzloamysand (USDA
1978). Theyaredescribedasnonplastic, meaningtheywouldnotbeexpansive (USDA1978). Priorsite
developmentandcompactionalsoreducetheriskforsoilexpansion. Therefore, impactsrelatedtosoil
expansionwouldbelessthansignificant.
e) Havesoilsincapableofadequatelysupportingtheuseofseptictanksoralternativewastewater
disposalsystemswheresewersarenotavailableforthedisposalofwastewater?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotrequiretheuseofseptictanksoralternativewastewater
systems. Therefore, nosoilimpactsrelatedtoseptictankswouldoccur.
3.7 GREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONS
Thissectionanalyzestheproject'scontributiontoglobalclimatechangeimpactsinCaliforniathroughan
analysisofprojectrelatedgreenhousegas (GHG) emissions. TheprimaryGHGofconcerniscarbondioxide
002), whichconstitutesthemajority (greaterthan99percent) ofprojectrelatedemissions. Pursuantto
Section15064.4, DeterminingtheSignificanceofImpactsfromGreenhouseGasEmissions, oftheCEQA
Guidelines, aleadagencymustconsiderthefollowingwhenassessingthesignificanceofimpactsfromGHG
emissionsontheenvironment:
Theextenttowhichtheprojectmayincrease (orreduce) GHGemissionsascomparedtothe
existingenvironmentalsetting;
Whethertheprojectemissionsexceedathresholdofsignificancethattheleadagencydetermines
appliestotheproject;
Theextenttowhichtheprojectcomplieswithregulationsorrequirementsadoptedtoimplementan
adoptedstatewide, regional, orlocalplanforthereductionormitigationofGHGemissions)
InaccordancewiththeCEQAGuidelines, GHGemissionswerecalculatedforconstructionandoperationof
theproject. Informationonmanufactureofcement, steel, andother "life- cycle" emissionsthatwouldoccur
asaresultoftheprojectisnotavailableandisnotincludedintheanalysis.' Abackgrounddiscussiononthe
regulatorysetting, methodology, andmodelingcanbefoundinAppendixAtothisInitialStudy.
Aplanmustbeadoptedthroughapublicreviewprocessandincludespecificrequirementsthatreduceormitigate
theproject'sincrementalcontributionofGHGemissions. Ifthereissubstantialevidencethatthepossibleeffectsofa
particularprojectarestillcumulativelyconsiderable, notwithstandingcompliancewiththeadoptedregulationsor
requirements, anEIRmustbepreparedfortheproject.
2 LifecycleemissionsaretheGHGemissionsfromrawmaterialproduction, manufacture, distribution, use, and
disposalandincludeallinterveningtransportationemissionscausedbytheproduct'sexistence. Becausethe
amountofmaterialsconsumedduringtheoperationorconstructionoverthelifetimeoftheprojectisnotknown, the
originoftherawmaterialspurchasedisnotknown, andmanufacturinginformationforthoserawmaterialsisalsonot
known, calculationofIifecycleemissionswouldbespeculative.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page47
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
a) Generategreenhousegasemissions, eitherdirectlyorindirectly, thatmayhaveasignificant
impactontheenvironment?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Globalclimatechangeisnotconfinedtoaparticularprojectareaandis
generallyacceptedastheconsequenceofglobalindustrializationoverthelast200years. Atypicalproject,
evenaverylargeonedoesnotgenerateenoughgreenhousegasemissionsonitsowntoinfluenceglobal
climatechangesignificantly; hence, theissueofglobalclimatechangeis, bydefinition, acumulative
environmentalimpact. TheStateofCalifornia, throughitsgovernoranditslegislature, hasestablisheda
comprehensiveframeworkforthesubstantialreductionofGHGemissionsoverthenext40 -plusyears. This
willoccurprimarilythroughtheimplementationofAssemblyBill (AB32) andSenateBill (SB375), whichwill
addressGHGemissionsonastatewidecumulativebasis.
InaccordancewiththeGovernor'sOfficeofPlanningandResearch (OPR) TechnicalAdvisoryandtheCEQA
Guidelines, theanalysisbelowprovidestheconclusionsontheproject- specificimpacttowardsthe
cumulativeimpactofglobalclimatechange. TheTechnicalAdvisoryacknowledges, however, thatinthe
absenceofformallyadoptedsignificancethresholdsformeasuringGHGemissions, localagencieswillhave
tomakesignificancedeterminationsonaproject -by- projectbasis, focusingonwhethertheGHGemissions
fromaprojecthavethepotentialtohaveasignificantimpactonclimatechange. AnnualGHGemissions
fromprojectrelatedmobileandstationarysourcesandforproject- relatedindirectemissionsfrompurchased
energywerecalculatedforconstructionandoperationoftheprojectandevaluatedforthepotentialto
substantiallycontributetoGHGemissionsinCalifornia.
Construction
ConstructionactivitieswouldconsumefuelandresultinthegenerationofGHGemissions. Theprojectwould
generateapproximately92metrictons (MTons) ofGHGemissionsin2010. GHGemissionsgeneratedby
constructionactivitieswouldceaseuponcompletionoftheconstructionphaseoftheproject (approximately
fourtosixmonths) andwouldthereforebeasmallfractionoftotalproject- relatedemissionswhen
consideringthelongevityofoperationemissionsassociatedwiththeproject. Furthermore, becausethe
projectwouldnotexceedtheregionalthresholdsforcriteriapollutantsestablishedbySCAQMD, GHG
emissionsarenotlikelytobeconsideredsubstantialenoughtoresultinasignificantcumulativeimpact
relativetoconstructionactivities. Consequently, theprojectwouldnotsignificantlycontributetothe
cumulativeimpactofglobalclimatechangeduringconstructionactivities.
Operation
OperationemissionsassociatedwiththeproposedprojectwouldincludeGHGemissionsfrom
transportation, energy, wasteuseandtreatment, wastedisposal, andareasources. GHGemissionsfrom
electricityuseareindirectGHGemissionsfromtheenergy (purchasedenergy) thatisproducedoffsite. Area
sourcesareownedorcontrolledbytheproject (e.g., naturalgascombustion, boilers, andfurnaces) and
producedonsite. TheprojectislocatedwithinTheAnaheimResort, approximatelyonemilesoutheastofthe
DisneylandResort. AccordingtothetrafficstudypreparedbyKunzmanAssociates, Inc., approximately20
percentofthepatronswouldarrivebywalking, 15percentwouldarrivebybus (transitbusortourbus); 10
percentwouldarrivebyhotelshuttles; and55percentwouldarrivebypassengervehicle. TheBattleofthe
Dancedinnertheaterwouldhaveaseatingcapacityof950seats, 70employees, andhostuptothreeshows
perday. Theproposedprojectwouldresultinamaximumof645averagedailypassengervehicleweekday
tripsandamaximumof1,043averagedailypassengervehicleweekendtrips. Tripsgeneratedbyshuttle
busesandtransitareassumedtobeexistingtripsandthereforearenotincludedaspartoftheemissions
inventoryfortheproject. Table5showstheGHGemissionsthatwouldbegeneratedfromtheoperational
phaseoftheproject.
Page48 ThePlanningCenter June2010
Source
GHGEmissions
MTons/Year PercentofTotal
Transportation'1,492 79%
Electricity
PurchasedEnergy 247 13%
WaterDemandandTreatment'12 1%
TotalEnergy 259 14%
WasteandRecycling'83 4%
AreaSources'58 3%
TotalallSectors 1,892 100%
1
1
a
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table5
Project- GeneratedGHGEmissions, OperationalPhase
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Source: URBEMIS2007, Version9.2.4.
1shortton (Ton) equals0.9071847
Notes:
URBEMIS2007, Version9.2.4. AssumesCOrepresents99.6percentoftotalCOemissionsfromgasolinewhileCH4, N20, andfluorinatedgases
comprisetheremainingpercentBAAQMD2008). Basedonweekendevents. Becausetherearefewerweekdayevents, theGHGemissions
inventoryprovidesaconservativeinventoryfortheproject.
2COcalculatedusingenergyusagefactorsandemissionratesfromtheUnitedStatesDepartmentofEnergy, EIA, 2003Commercial
BuildingEnergyConsumption, December2006, TableC14; andEIA, UpdatedState -andRegional -LevelGreenhouseGasEmissionFactorsfor
Electricity, May2002.
3CO2eemissionsfromtheenergyintensityofwaterarebasedontheCEC'sCalifornia'sWaterEnergyRelationship (2005) of12,700Kwh /MGfor
SouthemCalifornia.
4COemissionsfromwastegenerationarebasedontheWasteReductionModel (WARM) createdbytheUSEPAandtheCalRecycle'sCalifomia
2008StatewideWasteCharacterizationStudy.
5AssumesCO2represents99.6percentoftotalGHGemissionsfromgasolinewhileCHNandfluorinatedgasescomprisetheremainingpercent
BAAQMD2008).
Asshowninthetable, theprojectwouldgenerateapproximately1,892MTonsofGHGperyear, or1.9
MTonsperservicepopulation. ThetotalGHGemissionsonsitefromtheprojectwouldbenominal. As
describedabove, becausetheprojectcaterstovacationerswithinTheAnaheimResortdistrict, only55
percentofthepatronsofthedinnertheaterwouldarriveviapassengervehicle. Theremainderofpatrons
wouldarrivebyhotel- providedshuttlebuses, transit, orwalking. Inaddition, becausetheprojectwouldnot
exceedtheregionalemissionsthresholdsforcriteriapollutantsestablishedbySCAQMD, GHGemissionsare
nottobeconsideredsubstantialenoughtoresultinasignificantcumulativeimpactrelativetoGHG
emissionsandclimatechangeimpacts. Therefore, theproject'scumulativecontributiontoGHGemissionsis
Tessthansignificant. Nomitigationmeasuresarenecessary.
b) Conflictwithanapplicableplan, policyorregulationadoptedforthepurposeofreducingthe
emissionsofgreenhousegases?
LessThanSignificantImpact. TheCaliforniaAirResourcesBoard (CARB) adoptedtheScopingPlanon
December11, 2008. TheScopingPlanisCalifornia'sGHGreductionstrategytoachievethestate'sGHG
emissionsreductiontargetestablishedbyAssemblyBill (AB) 32, whichis1990levelsbyyear2020.
StatewidestrategiestoreduceGHGemissionsincludetheLowCarbonFuelStandard (LCFS), California
ApplianceEnergyEfficiencyregulations, CaliforniaRenewableEnergyPortfoliostandard, changesinthe
corporateaveragefueleconomy (CAFE) standards, andotherearlyactionmeasureswouldensurethestate
isontargettoachievetheGHGemissionsreductiongoalsofAB32. Theproject'sGHGemissionswouldbe
furtherreducedfromcompliancewiththesestatewidemeasures.
3Servicepopulationisapercapitametricthatincludestotalemployeesandspectators. Forthepurposeofthis
assessment, servicepopulationisbasedonatotalof950seatsand70employees.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page49
Source M
GHGEmissions
MTons/Year PPercentofTotal
Transportation' 11,325 779%
Electricity
PurchasedEnergy 221 13%
WaterDemandandTreatment' 1
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
ThestateofCaliforniarecentlyadoptedthe2008BuildingandEnergyEfficiencyStandards, whichbecame
effectiveonJanuary1, 2010. Becausetheprojectwouldbeconstructedafterthisdate, itwouldbe
constructedtoachievetheseenergyefficiencystandards, whichrequire15percentmoreenergyefficiency
thanthe2005BuildingandEnergyEfficiencyStandards. Inaddition, CARBandtheUnitedStates
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (USEPA) haveadoptednewfuelefficiencystandardsformodelyears2012
through2016. TheScopingPlanalsocallsformorestringentfuelefficiencystandardsmodelyears2016
through2020underPavleyII. Furthermore, asdescribedabove, only55percentofthepatronsofthedinner
theaterwouldarriveviapassengervehicle. Theremainderofpatronswouldarrivebyhotelprovidedshuttle
buses, transit, orwalking. Table6isayear2020emissionsinventoryoftheprojectwithScopingPlan
emission, whichisapproximately11percentlesswithreductionsassociatedwiththeScopingPlan. The
proposedprojectwouldnothavethepotentialtointerferewiththeStateofCalifornia'sabilitytoachieveGHG
reductiongoalsandstrategies.
Table6
Project- GeneratedGHGEmissions, OperationalPhasewithScopingPlan
Source: URBEMIS2007, Version9.2.4.
1shortton (Ton) equals0.9071847metricton (MTon)
Notes:
1Assumesa42.8percentincreaseinfuelefficiencyinpassengervehiclesfrom2009to2020intheCARB2008TechnicalAdvisory. Pavley2would
requireanaveragefleetfueleconomyofnewcarsof43mpgby2020comparedtoanexistingaverageof24.4mpg. BasedonEMFACfleetmix
1976through2020andanaveragefuelefficiencyacrossallmodelyearsof24.0mpgcomparedto21.6mpgwithoutPavley (or11.2% increasein
fuelefficiency).
2Assumesanincreaseinrenewableenergyproductionof21percent. Existingrenewableenergyproductioniscurrently12percentofthestatewide
energysupply, andtheGARBScopingPlangoalis33percent.
3Assumesanincreasein15percentenergyefficiencyfromthe2005to2008BuildingandEnergyEfficiencyStandards (Title24, CalifomiaBuilding
Code).
Assumesa20percentdecreaseinper- capitawateruseinaccordancewiththestatewideDraft20X2020WaterConservationPlan.
3.8 HAZARDSANDHAZARDOUSMATERIALS
a) Createasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironmentthroughtheroutinetransport, useor
disposalofhazardousmaterials?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotinvolvetheroutinetransport, use, or
disposal' ofhazardousmaterials. Theprojectsitecontainstwoadjoinedvacantcommercialbuildings,
surroundedbyapavedparkinglot. TheprevioususeoftheadjoinedbuildingswasaToys "R" Us, whichdid
notinvolvetheuseofhazardousmaterialsthatwouldcontaminatethesite.
4CaliforniaBuildingStandardsCommission. 2008, July17, CaliforniaAdoptsNation'sFirstStatewideGreenBuilding
Code.
Page50 ThePlanningCenter June2010
1
1
1
1
1
1
Operation
Theproposeduseofthesite, adinnertheater, wouldrequireminimaluseofpotentiallyhazardousmaterials,
suchascleaningsolutionsandsolvents, pesticides, andpaints. Theseproductswouldbesimilartotypical
commercialandresidentialproductsandtheirusewouldbeforintendedpurposes, reducinganypotential
impactstolevelsthatarelessthansignificant.
Construction
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Remodelingoftheexistingbuildingswouldrequirepartialdemolitionofthesmallerofthetwobuildings. This
buildingmaycontainlead -basedpaint (LBP) and /orasbestoscontainingmaterial (ACM), bothofwhichare
hazardousmaterials. Duringpartialremovalofthebuilding, LBPandACMsmayneedtobetransportedfrom
theprojectsitetoadisposalsite. Priortodemolition, thebuildingwouldbeassessedforthepresenceofLBP
andACM. RemovalofACMswouldcomplywithstateregulations, includingSCAQMDRule1403. Rule1403
specifiesworkpracticerequirementstolimitasbestosemissionsfrombuildingdemolitionactivities, including
theremovalandassociateddisturbanceofACM. Therequirementsfordemolitionactivitiesincludeasbestos
surveying, notification, ACMremovalproceduresandtimeschedules, ACMhandlingandcleanup
procedures, andstorage, disposal, andlandfillingrequirementsforasbestos- containingwastematerials.
RemovalofLBP, shoulditbefoundinthebuilding, wouldcomplywithOSHARule29CFRPart1926. The
OSHAruleestablishesstandardsforoccupationalhealthandenvironmentalcontrolsforleadexposure. The
standardalsoincludesrequirementsaddressingexposureassessment, methodsofcompliance, respiratory
protection, protectiveclothingandequipment, hygienefacilitiesandpractices, medicalsurveillance, medical
removalprotection, employeeinformationandtraining, signs, recordkeeping, andobservationand
monitoring. Because29CFRPart1926isanexistingfederallaw, complianceismandatory. Furthermore,
Title17, CCR, Division1, Chapter8, identifiesproceduresforaccreditation, certification, andworkpractices
forLBPandleadhazards.
Theremodelingoftheexistingbuildingsandoperationoftheproposeddinnertheaterwouldnotcausethe
routinetransport, use, ordisposalofhazardousmaterials. Operationaluseoftheproposedprojectwould
requireuseofsolutionsandsolventstypicalofcommercialandresidentialuse. Constructionactivitieswould
becompletedincompliancewithstateandfederalregulationsforASMandLBP, reducingpotentialimpacts
tolevelsthatarelessthansignificant. Operationalandconstructionactivityimpactsarelessthansignificant
andnoadditionalanalysisisneeded.
b) Createasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironmentthroughreasonablyforeseeableupset
andaccidentconditionsinvolvingthereleaseofhazardousmaterialsintotheenvironment?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotcausesignificanthazardsrelatedtoupsetor
accidentconditionsresultinginthereleaseofhazardousmaterials. Operationoftheproposedprojectwould
requireminimaluseofpotentiallyhazardousmaterials, suchascleaningsolutionsandsolvents, pesticides,
andpaints. Theseproductswouldbeusedastheyareintendedandthequantitiesusedwouldbesmall.
Theirpotentialforthecreationofasignificantpublichazardthroughtheiraccidentalreleaseislow.
Constructionactivitiesduringtheremodelingoftheexistingbuildingswouldrequirethepartialdemolitionof
thesmallerofthetwobuildings. ThisbuildingmaycontainLBPandACMandthedemolitionofthisbuilding
maycauseareleaseofthesehazardousmaterials. AsstatedaboveinSection3.8(a), demolitionofbuildings
withLBPandACMmustfollowstateandfederalregulations (SCAQMD'sRule4013andOSHARule29CFR
Part1926). Intheeventthatthebuildingcontainseitherofthesematerials, thepotentialforhazardstooccur
duringanaccidentalreleasewouldbelowwithcompliancewiththeseregulations. Operationaland
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page51
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
constructionactivitieswouldcauseTessthansignificanthazardousmaterialsimpactsandnoadditional
analysisisrequired.
c) Emithazardousemissionsorhandlehazardousoracutelyhazardousmaterials, substances, or
wastewithinonequartermileofanexistingorproposedschool?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Significantlyhazardousmaterials, includinghazardousemissionsand
acutelyhazardousmaterials, substances, orwaste, wouldnotbeemittedwithinaquartermileofanexisting
orproposedschoolbytheproposedproject. Theprojectsiteiswithinaquartermileoftwoexistingschools,
ParkviewElementarySchoolat12272WilkenWay (0.15miletothenorthwest) andEarlWarrenElementary
Schoolat12871EstockDrive (0.25miletothesoutheast) (GoogleMaps2010). Operationoftheproposed
projectwouldnotrequiretheemission, usetransport, ordisposalofhazardousmaterialsotherthantheuse
oftypicalsolutionssuchascleaners, pesticides, andpaints. Remodelingoftheexistingbuildingswould
requirethepartialdemolitionofthesmallerofthetwobuildings, whichmaycontainLBPorACM. Asstated
aboveinSection3.8(a), demolitionofbuildingswithLBPandACMmustfollowstateandfederalregulations
SCAQMD'sRule4013andOSHARule29CFRPart1926). Intheeventthatthebuildingcontainseitherof
thesematerials, thepotentialfortheexposureofschoolcampusestothesehazardousmaterialswouldbe
lowwithcompliancewiththeseregulations. Projectrelatedhazardousmaterialsimpactstoschoolswithina
quartermileoftheprojectsitewouldbelessthansignificantandnoadditionalanalysisisneeded.
d) Belocatedonasitewhichisincludedonalistofhazardousmaterialssitescompiledpursuantto
GovernmentcodeSection65962.5and, asaresult, woulditcreateasignificanthazardtothe
publicortheenvironment?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectsiteisnotincludedonalistofhazardousmaterials. Theprojectsitewas
usedforcommercialretailpurposesanditisnowvacant. Asearchofhazardouswastedatabasesdidnot
identifythesitehazardousmaterialslists (GeoTracker2008; USEPA2009a; USEPA2009b). Atirefacilityat
2201SouthHarborBoulevardwasincludedonboththeFacilityRegistrySystem (FRS) andtheResource
ConservationandRecoveryAct (RCRAInfo) databases. Thisistheclosestfacilitytotheproposedprojectsite
tobeidentifiedonahazardousmaterialslist. Theproposedprojectwouldnotbeimplementedonasitethat
isidentifiedasahazardousmaterialssite, anditwouldnotputthepublicorenvironmentatrisk. Therefore,
noimpactsrelatedtohazardousmaterialsareanticipated.
e) Foraprojectlocatedwithinanairportlanduseplan (LosAlamitosArmedForcesReserveCenter
orFullertonMunicipalAirport), wouldtheprojectresultinasafetyhazardforpeopleresidingor
workingintheprojectarea?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectsiteisnotwithinanairportlanduseplananditisnotwithintwomilesofa
publicuseairport. ThenearestpublicuseairportsareJohnWayneAirportinSantaAna, approximatelyeight
milessoutheastoftheprojectsiteandtheFullertonMunicipalAirport, approximatelysixmilesnorthwestof
theprojectsiteinFullerton. Nosafetyhazardsforpeopleresidingorworkingintheareawouldoccurasa
resultoftheproposedprojectandnoimpactswouldoccur.
f) Foraprojectwithinthevicinityofaprivateairstrip, wouldtheprojectresultinasafetyhazardfor
peopleresidingorworkingintheprojectarea?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectisnotinthevicinityofaprivateuseairstrip. ThenearestairstripistheLos
AlamitosArmyAir. Field, inLosAlamitos, approximatelysevenmilestothewestoftheprojectsite (AirNav
2010). Therefore, theproposedprojectwouldnotplacepeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectareaatrisk
tohazardsrelatedtoprivateairstripsandnoimpactswouldoccur.
Page52 ThePlanningCenter June2010
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
g) Impairimplementationoforphysicallyinterferewithanadoptedemergencyresponseplanor
emergencyevacuationplan?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Noemergencyresponseorevacuationplanswouldbeaffectedbythe
implementationoftheproposedproject. Sincetheprojectsiteisunused, therearecurrentlynoevacuation
plansfortheexistingbuildings. Aspartoftheprojectapprovalprocess, thefinalsiteplanwouldbereviewed
bytheCityofAnaheimFireDepartmentforapprovalofemergencyaccess. Theapprovaloftheproposed
projectisdependentonthefiredepartment'sreviewofthesiteplan. Asthisisarequiredprocessforall
constructionintheCity, impactswouldbelessthansignificantandnoadditionalanalysisisneeded.
h) ExposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofToss, injuryordeathinvolvingwildlandfires,
includingwherewildlandsareadjacenttourbanizedareasorwhereresidencesareintermixed
withwildlands?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectsiteisinaheavilyurbanizedareaandisnotpronetowildlandfires. The
CaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtection (CALFIRE) breaksdownfireseverityzonesintolocal
responsibilityareas (LRA) andstateresponsibilityareas (SRA). LRAsaregovernedbylocalgovernment, and
SRAsaregovernedbystategovernment. ThefirehazardseverityzonesforbothLRAsandSRAsinclude
moderate, high, andveryhighriskzones. PortionsofAnaheimareinLRAsasdefinedbyCALFIRE. The
easternportionoftheCityofAnaheim, wheretheCityabutstheClevelandNationalForestandChinoHills, is
identifiedashavingmoderate, high, andveryhighfirehazardseverityzones (CALFIRE2007b). Thearea
adjacenttotheCityontheeastisalsoinanSRAwithaveryhighfirehazardseverityzoneCALFIRE2007a).
Sincetheprojectsiteisnotinafirehazardseverityzoneandissurroundedbyurbandevelopment, therisk
ofwildlandfiresoccurringonthesiteisverylow. Therefore, peopleandstructureswouldnotbeexposedto
wildlandfirehazardsandnoimpactswouldoccur.
3.9 HYDROLOGYANDWATERQUALITY
a) Violateanywaterqualitystandardsorwastedischargerequirements?
LessThanSignificantImpactWithMitigationIncorporated. UndertheCountyofOrangeNational
PollutionDischargeEliminationSystem (NPDES) permitissuedbytheSantaAnaRegion (SARWQCB), for
stormwaterdischargesfrommunicipalseparatestormsewersystems (MS4), theCityofAnaheimisrequired
toensurethatdischargesfromitsmunicipalstormdrainsystemsdonotcauseorcontributetoexceedances
ofreceivingwaterqualitystandards (designatedbeneficialusesandwaterqualityobjectives) forsurface
watersorgroundwater.
AWaterQualityManagementPlan (WQMP) mustbepreparedforanyprojectthatinvolves "significant
redevelopment" (OrangeCountyPublicWorks2009). Significantredevelopmentisdefinedasprojectsthat
includetheadditionorreplacementof5,000squarefeetormoreofimpervioussurfaceonadevelopedsite.
Theprojectsiteisalmostentirelyimpervious. Astheyarecurrentlyproposed, themodificationstothe
parkinglotandexistingbuildingsarenotexpectedtodisturbmorethan5,000squarefeetofimpervious
surface. ItdoesnottripthetriggerinChapter7ofOrangeCounty'sDrainageAreaManagementPlantobe
considereda "PriorityProject." Therefore, itwouldnotrequiredevelopmentofaWQMP, asitdoesnot
proposetoremoveandreplacemorethan5,000squarefeetofimpervioussurface. However, if, insteadof
overlayingtheparkingtotwithnewasphaltorsimilarmaintenance, theprojectscopechangestoinclude
rehabilitationorexpansionoftheparkinglotorotherimpervioussurfaces (morethan5,000squarefeet), then
theprojectwillbecomea "PriorityProject" andwillneedto.developaWQMP (seeMitigationMeasure2
below).
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page53
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
CoverageundertheGeneralPermitforDischargesofStormWaterAssociatedwithConstructionActivityis
requiredforprojectsthatdisturboneacreormoreofsoil (ConstructionGeneralPermit99- 08 -DWQ,
SARWQCB2009). Theproposedsitemodificationswouldnotdisturbmorethananacreofsoil, anda
SWPPPwouldnotbeneededtoshowcompliancewiththegeneralpermit.
ThefollowingmitigationmeasurehasbeenaddedtomeetconditionsofapprovaloftheCityregardingthe
needforaWQMP. Intheeventthattheprojectdisturbsmorethan5,000squarefeetofimpervioussurface,
therequirementsofthismitigationmeasuremustbefollowed. Withmitigation, projectrelatedwaterquality
impactswouldbelessthansignificantandnofurtheranalysisisrequired.
MitigationMeasure
2. Priortositeconstruction, theamountoftotalimpervioussurfacesquarefootagedisturbancemust
bedeterminedbythepropertyowner /developer. Intheeventthatconstructionactivitiesdisturb
morethan5,000squarefeetofimpervioussurface, orthatanyothercriteriarequiringtheneedfora
WQMParemetasdetailedinSectionXII.B. ofthecurrentSantaAnaRegionalWaterQualityControl
BoardNationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystemMS4Permit (OrderNo. R8- 20090030), a
WQMPmustbeprepared. Thewaterqualitymanagementplan (WQMP) mustidentifyaprogramfor
theimplementationofspecificstructuralandnonstructuralBMPstoaddresswaterqualityissuesso
thatpredictablerunoffiscontrolled. TheWQMPwillidentifythelocationandtypeofstructuralBMPs
that "infiltrate, filter, ortreat" eitherthevolumeorflowrateofstormwaterrunoff. Afinaldetailedsite
planandWQMPmustbeapprovedbytheCityEngineer.
b) Substantiallydepletegroundwatersuppliesorinterferesubstantiallywithgroundwaterrecharge
suchthattherewouldbeanetdeficitinaquifervolumeoraloweringofthelocalgroundwater
tablelevel (e.g., theproductionrateofpre- existingnearbywellswoulddroptoalevelwhichwould
notsupportexistinglandusesorplannedusesforwhichpermitshavebeengranted)?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotlowergroundwaterlevelsthroughthe
depletionofgroundwatersuppliesorbychanginggroundwaterrechargeonsite. Asdescribedinsection
3.17(d) ofthisIS /MND, implementationoftheproposedprojectwoulduseapproximately10.7acre -feet
3,484;260gallonsperyear) ofwaterperyearoftheCity'stotalwatersupply. Approximatelytwothirdsofthis
watercomesfromtheOrangeCountyGroundwaterBasin, andtheremainderisimportedthroughthe
MetropolitanWaterDistrictofSouthernCalifornia (CityofAnaheim2009). Sincethesiteisdeveloped, the
City'sUrbanWaterManagementPlan (UWMP) hasanticipateduseofthesiteforcommercialpurposesand
demonstratedthatadequatesuppliesexisttoservetheproject. Therefore, theprojectwouldnotcreate
demandsontheCity'swatersupplythatcouldresultinimpactstothelocalgroundwatertable.
Localrechargerateswouldincreaseaspartoftheproposedproject. Thesiteisalmostentirelyimpervious
withtheexceptionoffourplantingsonthewesternportionoftheparkinglot. Themajorityofprecipitation
flowsofftheprojectsiteanddoesnotdrainintotheground. Theimplementationoftheproposedproject
wouldincludemorelandscapingintheparkinglotandallowforgreaterinfiltrationofrainwaterintothe
groundwatertable. Therefore, nosignificantimpactstogroundwatersuppliesareanticipated.
c) Substantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteorarea, includingthroughthealteration
ofthecourseofastreamorriver, inamannerwhichwouldresultinasubstantialerosionor
siltationon- oroff -site.
NoImpact. Nochangestothedrainagepatternoftheprojectsitewilloccurwiththeimplementationofthe
proposedproject. Theprojectsiteiscurrentlydevelopedwithaparkinglotandtwovacantcommercial
Page54 ThePlanningCenter June2010
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
buildings. Stormwaterrunoffdrainsfromthepavedparkinglottothesurroundingstreetsanddriveways.
Therearenoopenareaswithnaturalvegetationorexposedsoilandnodrainagecoursessuchasriversor
streamsonorneartheprojectsite. Therefore, theproposedprojectwouldnotalteranyexistingriversor
streamsoralterthedrainagepatternofthearea.
d) Substantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteorarea, includingthroughthealteration
ofthecourseofastreamorriver, orsubstantiallyincreasetherateoramountofsurfacerunoffin
amannerwhichwouldresultinfloodingon- oroff-site?
NoImpact. Nochangestothedrainagepatternoftheprojectsitewilloccurwiththeimplementationofthe
proposedproject. Theprojectsiteiscurrentlydevelopedwithaparkinglotandtwovacantcommercial
buildings. Stormwaterrunoffdrainsfromthepavedparkinglottothesurroundingstreetsanddriveways.
Therearenoopenareaswithnaturalvegetationorexposedsoilandnodrainagecoursessuchasriversor
streamsonorneartheprojectsite. Therefore, theproposedprojectwouldnotalteranyexistingriversor
streamsorsubstantiallyincreaseexistingrunoff.
e), Createorcontributerunoffwaterwhichwouldexceedthecapacityofexistingorplannedstorm
waterdrainagesystemsorprovidesubstantialadditionalsourcesofpollutedrunoff?
LessthanSignificantImpact. Theproposedprojectsiteiscurrentlydevelopedwithtwoadjoinedbuildings
andaparkinglot. Moststormwaterrunoffsheet -flowsacrosstheprojectsite. Stormwaterthatentersthe
surroundingstreetsdrainsfromtheprojectsitetothesouthandthenwest, eventuallyreachingtheEast
GardenGroveWintersburgChannel (OCFCD2004). Theproposedsitemodificationswouldslightlydecrease
theamountofimpervioussurfacebyincreasingtheamountoflandscapingontheprojectsite. Stormwater
flowwouldremainthesameordecreasewiththeadditionofnewlandscapingislandsonthesite. Since
stormwaterfromtheprojectsiteisalreadyenteringtheexistingstormwatersystemandtheproposedsite
modificationswouldnotsignificantlyaltersitedrainage, theexistingstormwatersystemwouldbecapableof
handlingtherunofffromthesiteandnosignificantimpactsareanticipated.
f) Otherwisesubstantiallydegradewaterquality?
NoImpact. Waterqualitywouldnototherwisebedegradedasaresultoftheproposedproject. Underthe
CountyofOrangeNPDESpermitissuedbytheSARWQCB, forstormwaterdischargesfrommunicipal
separatestormsewersystems (MS4), theCityofAnaheimisrequiredtoensurethatdischargesfromits
municipalstormdrainsystemsdonotcauseorcontributetoexceedancesofreceivingwaterquality
standards (designatedbeneficialusesandwaterqualityobjectives) forsurfacewatersorgroundwater.
Therefore, noadditionalimpactstowaterqualitywouldoccurasaresultoftheproposedproject.
g) Placehousingwithina100 -yearfloodhazardareaasmappedonafederalFloodHazardBoundary
orFloodInsuranceRateMaporotherfloodhazarddelineationmap?
NoImpact. Theprojectsiteisnotlocatedina100 -yearfloodzone, andnohousingwouldbeplacedonthe
projectsite. AccordingtotheFederalEmergencyManagementAct's (FEMA) FloodInsuranceRateMaps
FIRM), theprojectsiteisinthe "0.2percentAnnualChanceFloodHazardZone," whichisthesameasthe
500 -yearfloodhazardzonedesignation (FEMA2010). Theproposedprojectwouldnotincludehousingand
itwouldnotplacedevelopmentwithina100 -yearfloodhazardzone. Therefore, noimpactsrelatedtoflood
hazardsareanticipated.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page55
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
h) Placewithina100 -yearfloodhazardareastructureswhichwouldimpedeorredirectfloodflows?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotplacestructuresina100 -yearfloodhazardzone. Accordingto
theFEMAFIRMs, theprojectsiteisinthe "0.2percentAnnualChanceFloodHazardZone," whichisthe
sameasthe500 -yearfloodhazardzonedesignation (FEMA2010). Theproposedprojectwouldnotinclude
thedevelopmentofnewstructures, anditwouldnotcauseredirectionoffloodflowsin100 -yearfloodhazard
zones. Therefore, noimpactsareanticipated.
i) Exposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss, injuryordeathinvolvingflooding,
includingfloodingasaresultofthefailureofaleveeordam?
LessThanSignificantImpact. ThewesternhalfoftheCityofAnaheim, includingtheprojectsite, iswithin
thefloodzoneofthePradoDam (CityofAnaheim2004). PradoDamisapproximately17milesnortheastof
theprojectsitenearthecitiesofChino, Norco, andCoronainRiversideCounty. FailureofthePradoDam
wouldcausefloodingattheprojectsite. TheCityhasincludedanumberofpoliciesinitsgeneralplanto
reducetheimpactsoffloodinghazards. Thesepoliciesinclude:
Evaluatealldevelopmentproposalslocatedinareasthataresubjecttofloodingtominimizethe
exposureoflifeandpropertytopotentialfloodrisks (SafetyElement, Policy3.1 -1).
Provideappropriatelanduseregulationsandsitedevelopmentstandardsforareassubjectto
flooding (SafetyElement, Policy3.1 -2).
Encouragenewdevelopmenttomaintainandenhanceexistingnaturalstreams, asfeasible (Safety
Element, Policy3.1 -3).
ContinuetoparticipateintheNationalFloodInsuranceProgram (SafetyElement, Policy3.1 -4).
ContinuetocomplywiththeCobeyAlquistFloodplainManagementActrequirementsandStateof
CaliforniaModelOrdinance (SafetyElement, Policy3.1 -5).
ContinuetoworkwiththeOrangeCounty. FloodControlDistrictandtheUnitedStatesArmyCorpsof
Engineerstoreceiveandimplementupdatedfloodcontrolmeasuresandinformation (Safety
Element, Policy3.1 -6).
UtilizefloodcontrolmethodsthatareconsistentwithRegionalWaterQualityControlBoardPolicies
andBestManagementPractices (BMPs) (SafetyElement, Policy3.1 -7).
ConstructionintheCityofAnaheimmustalsocomplywithChapter17.28 (FloodHazardReduction) ofthe
City'sMunicipalCode, whichcontainsregulationsfordevelopmentwithinfloodinghazardareasintheCity
CityofAnaheimMunicipalCodeTitle17, LandDevelopmentandResources, Chapter17.28, FloodHazard
Reduction).
CompliancewiththeCity'sgeneralplanpoliciesanddevelopmentregulationsinthemunicipalcodewould
reducefloodhazardimpactsduetodamfailuretolevelsthatarelessthansignificant. Noadditionalanalysis
onfloodinghazardsisnecessary.
Page56 ThePlanningCenter June2010
i)Inundationbyseiche, tsunami, ormudflow?
3. Environmental Analysis
LessThanSignificantImpact. Aseicheisasurfacewavecreatedwhenabodyofwaterisshaken, usually
byearthquakeactivity. Seichesareofconcernrelativetowaterstoragefacilitiesbecauseinundationfroma
seichecanoccurifthewaveoverflowsacontainmentwall, suchasthewallofareservoir, waterstoragetank,
dam, orotherartificialbodyofwater. TheCityofAnaheimGeneralPlanidentifiestheWalnutCanyon
Reservoirtobepotentiallysusceptibletocrackduringrelativelystronggroundshakingandseismicactivity.
TheproposedprojectsiteisnotwithinthefloodhazardzoneoftheWalnutCanyonDam (CityofAnaheim
2004). Inaddition, thepoliciesofthegeneralplananddevelopmentrestrictionsdescribedaboveinsection
3.9(i) reducepotentialfloodingimpactstolevelsthatarelessthansignificant.
Tsunamisarelargeoceanwavescreatedbyanoffshoreseismicevent. TheCaliforniaDepartmentof
Conservation (CDC) hasmappedthetsunamihazardareasalongthecoastofCalifornia. TheCityof
Anaheimisnotcloseenoughtothecoasttoexperiencerisksrelatedtotsunamis (CDC2009). Therefore, no
impactsrelatedtotsunamiswouldoccur.
Mudflowscanbecomehazardswhendevelopedareasareadjacenttoslopedterrainwithexposedsoil.
Heavyrainsmaycausethesoiltoflowintothedevelopedareas, causingdamagetopropertyandriskingthe
livesofresidents. Theprojectareaisinanurbanized, flatarea, wheretherearenoadjacentareasofopen
spaceandlittlepotentialformudflows. Therefore, noimpactsrelatedtomudflowswouldoccurandno
additionalanalysisisrequired.
k) Substantiallydegradewaterqualitybydischargewhichaffectsthebeneficialuses (i.e., swimming,
fishing, etc.) ofthereceivingwaters?
NoImpact. Waterqualitydegradationthatwouldaffectdownstreambeneficialuseswouldnotoccurasa
resultoftheproposedproject. UndertheCountyofOrangeNationalPollutionDischargeEliminationSystem
NPDES) permitissuedbytheSantaAnaRegion (SARWQCB), forstormwaterdischargesfrommunicipal
separatestormsewersystems (MS4), theCityofAnaheimisrequiredtoensurethatdischargesfromits
municipalstormdrainsystemsdonotcauseorcontributetoexceedancesofreceivingwaterquality
standards (designatedbeneficialusesandwaterqualityobjectives) forsurfacewatersorgroundwater.
Therefore, noadditionalimpactstowaterqualitywouldoccurasaresultoftheproposedproject.
3.10 LANDUSEANDPLANNING
a) Physicallydivideanestablishedcommunity?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotphysicallydivideanestablishedcommunity. Theprojectsiteis
designatedasCommercialRecreationintheAnaheimGeneralPlanandisoccupiedbyavacantcommercial
building. Ingeneral, landusesintheareaarecommercial, service, andretail- oriented, andincludehotels,
restaurants, andretailcenters. ThesetypesoflandusesareallconsistentwiththeARSP, whichsupports
thesetypesofresort- andtourism- orienteduses. Lowmediumdensityresidentiallanduses, consistingof
twotownhomecommunities, surroundthesiteontheeastandsoutheast. Theproposedprojectwouldbe
consistentwiththedevelopmentobjectivesoftheARSPanditwouldbedesignedtobecompatiblewiththe
surroundinglanduses. Therefore, nolanduseimpactsrelatedtoestablishedcommunitieswouldoccur.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page57
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
b) Conflictwithanyapplicablelanduseplan, policy, orregulationofanagencywithjurisdictionover
theproject (including, butnotlimitedtothegeneralplan, specificplan, localcoastalprogram, or
zoningordinance) adoptedforthepurposeofavoidingormitigatinganenvironmentaleffect?
NoImpact. TheproposedprojectsiteisintheARSP (No. 92 -2), whichcoversapproximately580acres
between1 -5. andWalnutStreet, includingtheAnaheimConventionCenter (CityofAnaheim2009). The
southernportionofthespecificplancoverscommercialandhotelbusinessesalongHarborBoulevard,
includingtheproposedprojectsiteAllareasunderthespecificplanarezonedasARSP. Underthiszoning,
theprojectsiteiscategorizedas "CR CommercialRecreationDistrict," whichpermitsadinnertheaterby
conditionalusepermitandtheexpansionofnonconformingusesand /orstructuresthatbringstheuse
and /orstructureintogreaterconformitywiththeintentoftheARSP.
TheAnaheimGeneralPlanlandusedesignationforthesiteisCommercialRecreation. Theproposedproject
wouldbeconsistentwiththislandusedesignation.
Therefore, nolanduseimpactstoplans, policies, orregulationsofagencieswithjurisdictionovertheproject
sitewouldoccur.
c) Conflictwithanyapplicablehabitatconservationplanornaturalcommunityconservationplan?
NoImpact. TheproposedprojectwouldnotconflictwiththeprovisionsofanadoptedHCPorNCCP. A
portionofeasternAnaheimliesintheOrangeCountyCentral -CoastSubregionalNCCP /HCP (Cityof
Anaheim2004). Thishabitatconservationplanwasdevelopedin1996toprotect37,378acresofhabitatand
39specialstatusspeciesincentralOrangeCounty (USFWS2008). Theproposedprojectsitedoesnotlie
withinthisNCCP /HCP. Therefore, theproposedprojectwouldnotimpactanyadoptedhabitatconservation
plansornaturalcommunityconservationplans.
3.11 MINERALRESOURCES
a) Resultinthelossofavailabilityofaknownmineralresourcethatwouldbeavaluetotheregion
andtheresidentsofthestate?
NoImpact. TheCaliforniaGeologicalSurveymapsareaswithknownmineralresourceavailabilityaspartof
theMineralResourcesProject. ThiswascreatedafterthepassageoftheSurfaceMiningandReclamation
Actof1975toidentifyandpreventthedevelopmentofareaswithvaluablemineralresources (CDC2010b).
Theproposedprojectsiteisnotidentifiedasamineralresourcezone (CityofAnaheim2004). Areasin
AnaheimwithknownmineralresourcesaregenerallyeastoftheprojectsitealongtheSantaAnaRiver (City
ofAnaheim2004). Theproposedprojectwouldnotresultinthelossofaknownmineralresource, andno
impactstomineralresourcesofregionalorstatewideimportancewouldoccur.
b) Resultinthelossofavailabilityofalocallyimportantmineralresourcerecoverysitedelineatedon
alocalgeneralplan, specificplanorotherlanduseplan?
NoImpact. Asstatedin3.11 (a), therearenoidentifiedmineralresourcezonesonoraroundtheprojectsite.
TheCityhasmineralresourcesgenerallyalongtheSantaAnaRiver, totheeastoftheprojectsite. The
proposedprojectwouldnotresultinthelossofaknownmineralresource, andnoimpactstomineral
resourcesoflocalimportancewouldoccur.
Page58 ThePlanningCenter June2010
1
1
1
3.12 NOISE
ExistingNoiseEnvironment
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Noiseisdefinedasunwantedsound, andisknowntohaveseveraladverseeffectsonpeople, including
hearingloss, speechandsleepinterference, physiologicalresponses, andannoyance. Basedonthese
knownadverseeffectsofnoise, thefederalgovernment, theStateofCalifornia, andtheCityofAnaheim,
undertheCityofAnaheimMunicipalCodeandGeneralPlan, haveestablishedcriteriatoprotectpublic
healthandsafetyandtopreventdisruptionofcertainhumanactivities. Characterizationofnoiseand
vibration, existingregulations, andcalculationsforconstructionnoiseandvibrationlevelscanbefoundin
AppendixCtothisInitialStudy.
TerminologyandNoiseDescriptors
Thefollowingarebriefdefinitionsofterminologyusedinthischapter:
Noise. Soundthatisloud, unpleasant, unexpected, orotherwiseundesirable.
Decibel (dB). Aunitlessmeasureofsoundonalogarithmicscale.
A- WeightedDecibel (dBA). Anoverallfrequency- weightedsoundlevelindecibelsthat
approximatesthefrequencyresponseofthehumanear.
EquivalentContinuousNoiseLevel (LThemeanofthenoiselevelaveragedoverthe
measurementperiod, regardedasanaveragelevel.
Day -NightLevel (LTheenergyaverageoftheA- weightedsoundlevelsoccurringduringa
24 -hourperiod, with10dBaddedtothesoundlevelsoccurringduringtheperiodfrom10:00PMto
7:00AM.
CommunityNoiseEquivalentLevel (CNEL). TheenergyaverageoftheA- weightedsoundlevels
occurringduringa24 -hourperiodwith5dBaddedtothesoundlevelsoccurringduringtheperiod
from7:00PMto10:00PMand10dBaddedtothesoundlevelsoccurringduringtheperiodfrom
10:00PMto7:00AM.
LandCNELvaluesrarelydifferbymorethan1dB. Asamatterofpractice, LandCNELvaluesare
consideredtobeequivalentandaretreatedassuchinthisassessment.
TheprojectsiteislocatedinacommercialareaofAnaheimknownasTheAnaheimResort. Ingeneral,
existingsourcesofnoiseinthevicinityoftheprojectsiteincludenoisefromtrafficonthelocalroadway
networkandstationarysourcesofnoiseassociatedwithcommercial /retaillandusesandtheDisneyland
Resort, locatedonemilenorthofthesite. Toassessthepotentialformobile- sourcenoiseimpacts, itis
necessarytodeterminethenoisecurrentlygeneratedbyvehiclestravelingthroughtheprojectarea. Noise
modelingwasconductedusingtheFederalHighwayAdministration's (FHWA) HighwayTrafficNoise
PredictionModel. ExistingtrafficnoisewasbasedonthetrafficvolumesprovidedbyKunzmanAssociates,
Inc. (2010). Theresultsofthismodelingindicatethataveragenoiselevelsalongroadwayscurrentlyrange
fromapproximately57dBAto75dBACNELascalculatedatadistanceof50feetfromthecenterlineofthe
road. NoiselevelsforexistingconditionsalonganalyzedroadwaysarepresentedinTable7.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page59
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
e/oHarborBoulevard
w/oHarborBoulevard
e/oHarborBoulevard
w/oHarborBoulevard
w/oHarborBoulevard
btwnOrangewoodAvenueandWilkenWay
71.2
74.5
e/oHarborBoulevard
e/oHarborBoulevard
n/oOrangewoodAvenue
btwnWilkenWayandHotelWay
btwnHotelWayandChapmanAvenue
Methodology
Noise
RoadwaySegment
Table7
ExistingTrafficNoiseModeling, 24 -Hour
Friday
74.2
74.3
AverageDailyNoiseLevels
dBACNEL)
Saturday
56.5
57.1
62.1
72.4
72.7
74.0
73.9
74.1
s/oChapmanAvenue 73.9 73.4
Source: FHWAHighwayNoisePredictionModelAveragedailytrafficvolumesandspeedlimitsbasedoninformationobtainedfromtheTrafficAnalysis
preparedbyKunzmanAssociates.
n /o: northof; s /o: southof; e/o: eastof; w /o: westof; btwn: between
Basedonadistanceof50feetfromthecenterlineoftheroadway.
TheanalysisofnoiseimpactsconsidersprojectconstructionandoperationnoiseasdefinedbytheCityof
Anaheim (forstationaryandconstructionnoiseimpacts) andtheFederalTransitAdministration (FTA)
methodology (forconstructionvibrationimpacts). Theproposedprojectwouldhaveasignificantadverse
noiseorgroundbornevibrationimpactsiftheprojectresultsinanyofthefollowing:
Project- relatedconstructionactivitiesoccurringoutsideofthehoursspecified (7:00AMand7:00
PM) underCityMunicipalCode (Chapter6.70).
Operation- relatedstationarysourceswouldgeneratingnoiselevelsthatexceedtheCityofAnaheim
exteriornoisestandardof60dBAforextendedperiodsoftime.
Forasubstantialincreaseinambienttrafficnoiselevels, basedonlandusecompatibilitychartfor
thecommunitynoiseoftheStateofCalifornia, projectrelatedmobilesourceswouldcausean
audiblechangeinnoiselevels. Aminimum3dBchangeinnoiselevelsisnecessaryforhuman
hearingtodiscernachange. ProjectrelatedmobilesourcenoisewouldincreasetheCNELatany
noisesensitivereceptorbyanaudibleamountof3dBAormorewhentheCNELis60dBorgreater
atresidentialareas.
Page60 ThePlanningCenter June2010
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
GroundborneVibration
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Constructionactivitiesresultinvibrationlevelsof78VdBatvibration- sensitiveuses, whichisthe
vibrationlevelthatisbarelyperceptiblebasedontheFTAvibrationcriteriaduringthedaytime.
Constructionactivitiesgeneratevibrationthatisstrongenoughtocausevibrationinducedstructural
damagebasedontheFTA, whichis0.2in /secfortypicalwoodframedbuildingsand0.5in /secfor
reinforcedconcrete, steel, ortimberbuildings.
a) Exposureofpersonstoorgenerationofnoiselevelsinexcessofstandardsestablishedinthe
localgeneralplanornoiseordinance, orapplicablestandardsofotheragencies?
LessThanSignificantImpactWithMitigationIncorporated. Theproposedprojectentailstheconstruction
andoperationofadinnertheater. Thefollowingdescribesprojectrelatedimpactsfromshort -term
constructionactivitiesandlong -termoperationofthisfacility.
Mobile- SourceNoiseImpacts
TheprojectislocatedwithintheAnaheimResortarea, approximatelyonemilesoutheastofDisneyland.
AccordingtothetrafficstudypreparedbyKunzmanAssociates, Inc., approximately20percentofthe
proposedprojectpatronswouldarrivebywalking, 15percentbybus (transitbusortourbus); 10percentby
hotelshuttles; and55percentbypassengervehicle. TheBattleoftheDancedinnertheaterwouldhavea
seatingcapacityof950seats, 70employees, andhostuptothreeshowsperday onweekendsandone
showperdayonweekdays. Theproposedprojectwouldresultinamaximumof645averagedailyand144
peakhourpassengervehicleweekdaytrips (Friday) andamaximumof1,043averagedailyand200peak
hourpassengervehicleweekendtrips (Saturday). Table8showsthetrafficnoiselevelsgenerated onthe
surroundingroadwaysonaweekdayandweekend. Asshown, thedifferenceintrafficnoisefromtheexistingconditionsistheincreaseinnoiseattributabletoprojectrelatedtrafficatbuildout.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page61
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
WeekdayNoiseLevels (dBACNEL)'
Existing
Future
With
Project Increase
71.2 71.2
58.9
62.4 62.4
73.7 73.7
73.5 73.5
74.2 74.3 0.1
74.8 74.9 0.1
74.3 74.4 0.1
73.9 73.9 0
Existing
raare
69.2
69.3
Future
With
Project
57.1
72.4
72.7
74.0
74.5
73.9
74.1
73.4
69.2
69.4
56.5 56.5
58.9 57.1
72.5
72.8
74.5 74.5 74.1
74.5
73.9
74.1
73.4
RoadwaySegment
11700100 'Aar:
e/oHarborBoulevard
w/oHarborBoulevard
ffi'Afti
e/oHarborBoulevard
w/oHarborBoulevard
e/oHarborBoulevard
e/oHarborBoulevard
w/oHarborBoulevard
Table8
TrafficNoiseModeling
WeekendNoiseLevels (dBACNEL)'
Increase
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
s.
0.1
0
0
0
0
n/oOrangewoodAvenue
btwnOrangewoodAvenueandWilkenWay
btwnWilkenandHotelWay
btwnHotelWayandChapmanAvenue
s/oChapmanAvenue
Source: FHWAHighwayNoisePredictionModelAveragedailytrafficvolumesandspeedlimitsbasedoninformationobtainedfromtheTrafficAnalysis
preparedbyKunzmanAssociates.
n /o: northof; s /o: southof; e/o: eastof; w /o: westof; btwn: between
1Basedonadistanceof50feetfromthecenterlineoftheroadway.
Project- relatednoiseimpactsmayoccuriftherearesubstantialnoiseincreases +3dBormore) in
comparisontoWithoutProjectconditionswhenCNELis60dBAorgreaterinthevicinityofnoise- sensitive
landuses. Project- relatedtrafficwouldresultinamaximumnoiseincreaseof0.1dBACNELonOrangewood
AvenuewestofHarborBoulevard (weekdayandweekends), ChapmanAvenueonweekends, andHarbor
BoulevardnorthofOrangewoodAvenueonweekends, andHarborBoulevardbetweenOrangewoodAvenue
andChapmanAvenueonweekdays. Consequently, trafficnoisewouldnotbesubstantial, andexposure of
personstonoiselevelsinexcessofestablishedthresholdsfromprojectrelatedvehicle noisewouldbeless
thansignificant. Nomitigationmeasuresarenecessary.
Stationary- SourceNoiseImpacts
Operationalnonvehicularnoisesourcesattheprojectsiteincludemechanicalequipment andparkinglot
noise. Inaddition, interiornoisegeneratedbyaudioequipmentinthedinnertheaterhasthepotentialto
affecttheexteriornoiseenvironmentifnotproperlydesigned. Noisesensitiveareasincludethemultifamily
residencesborderingthesitetothesouthandsoutheast.
MechanicalEquipment
Heating, ventilation, andairconditioning (HVAC) systemsandothermechanicalsystems wouldbeinstalled
tocomplywiththeCity'smunicipalcoderegulatingnoise. Typicalnoiselevels fromHVACequipmentcan
rangefrom29to68dBALatadistanceof25feet (SSAAcoustics. 2009). Theadjacentnoise- sensitiveland
Page62 ThePlanningCenter June2010
ParkingLot
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
usesarelocatedaminimumof50feetfromthebuildingtothesouthand200feetfromthebuildingtothe
east. Consequently, HVACequipmentwouldbeselectedbasedonitssoundpower (Lratingtoensurethat
noiselevelswouldnotexceed60dBALatadjacentlanduses. Useofsuchequipmentwouldnot
substantiallyelevateaveragedaytimenoiselevelsinthevicinityoftheprojectsite, andnoiseimpactswould
belessthansignificant. Nomitigationmeasuresarenecessary.
Priortoandafterdinnertheaterperformances, hotelshuttlebuseswouldlineupintheloading /unloading
laneattheentrancearea. Shuttlebusescangeneratenoiselevelsofupto68dBAatadistanceof50feet
FHWA1998). However, shuttlebusesattheprojectsitearesubjecttoCARBRuleSection2485, which
prohibitscommercialmotorvehiclesfromidlingtheirprimarydieselenginesformorethanfiveminutesat
anylocation. WithcomplianceofCARBRule2485, idlingfromshuttlebusesassociatedwiththeproject
wouldbeextremelylimited (MitigationMeasure5). Inaddition, shuttlebuseswouldcongregateinthefrontof
thebuilding, adjacenttothewesternpropertylineandawayfromresidentstothesoutheastandeast.
Thereforenoiseassociatedwithshuttlebusidlingislessthansignificant.
NoiseassociatedwithparkingTotsincludescarhorns, noisefrombrakesandtires, automaticlockbeeps,
alarms, radios, doorslams, andconversationsbetweenpeopleusingtheparkinglot. Additionally, noise
levelslevelsingressandegressthroughtheparkinglotwouldalsocontributetothegeneralparkinglotnoise
environment. AccordingtotheCityofAnaheimMunicipalCode, Chapter4.18, Amusementand
EntertainmentPremises RestaurantsandBars, apermitisrequiredforoperationoftheproject. TheCity
requiresasecurityplanforcontrolofpedestrianandvehiculartrafficandaplanforcontrolofnoiseaffecting
nearbyresidences (MitigationMeasure6). Withadherencetothesecurityplantocontrolvehicularand
pedestriantrafficenteringandexitingthedinnertheater, parkinglotnoisewouldbeminimized.
Consequently, impactswouldbeTessthansignificant.
DinnerTheater
Thedinnertheaterwouldincludeliveentertainment /music, withseatingfor950patrons. Thedinnertheater
wouldhostoneshowonweekdaysanduptothreeshowsperdayonweekends. Showswouldstart
betweenthehoursof1:00PMand8:00PMandlastapproximately1.5hours. Therefore, thelastshowwould
endby9:30PM. Noisegeneratedwithinthedinnertheaterasaresultofliveentertainment /musichasthe
potentialtogeneratesubstantiallevelsofnoisethatcanbeaudibleoutsidethebuilding. Inaddition, patrons
intheparkinglothavethepotentialtogeneratenoise (e.g., talking, vehicleidling, etc.) intheeveninghours,
whentheambientnoiseenvironmentislow.
Averageinteriornoiselevelsinentertainmentvenuesrangefrom84to97dBAL (LawrenceandTurrentine
2008). Ifthedoorsareopen, outdoornoiselevelscanbeashighas85dBALHowever, thedinnertheater
wouldbelocatedattherearofthebuilding. Thefoyerofthebuildingseparatesthedinnertheaterfromthe
entryarea. ThefrontentrywaydoorsfaceHarborBoulevardandnottheadjacentnoisesensitivelanduses.
Consequently, thebuildingiscurrentlydesignedtominimizenoiseintrusionstotheadjacentneighborhood.
However, emergencyexitsarelocatedattherearofthebuilding. Thesedoorswouldneedtoremainclosed
topreventnoiseintrusion. Inaddition, thesedoorswouldneedtobesoundinsulatedtoreduceinterior
exteriornoisetransmission. Chapter6.70, SoundPressureLevels, oftheCityofAnaheimMunicipalCode
requiresthatnoisegeneratedforextendedperiodsoftimefromthepremisesnotexceed60dBALatthe
propertyylineoftheaffectedresidences. MitigationMeasures3and4wouldensurethatarchitecturalfeatures
toreducenoiseareincorporatedintotheprojectdesignandthatemergencyexitsremainclosedduringthe
dinnertheatershowstominimizenoiseintrusionintotheadjacentresidentialneighborhoods.
Basedonnoiselevelsfromamedium -dutytruck.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page63
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
MitigationMeasures
3. Thepropertyowner /developershalldesignthebuildingtoreducenoiseintrusionto60dBALor
lessatthepropertyTinetothesatisfactionoftheCityofAnaheim. Emergencydoorsatthebuilding
exteriorshallbedouble- insulatedtopreventinterior- exteriornoisetransmission. Thesedesign
featuresshallbenotedonallbuildingplans.
4. ThemanageroftheBattleoftheDanceshallensurethatemergencydoorslocatedattherearofthe
buildingarekeptclosedatalltimesduringtheoperationofthedinnertheater.
5 WithenforcementbytheCityofAnaheim, theonsitemanagershallmonitorshuttlebusidlingalong
HarborBoulevardtoensuretheyarecompliantwithCARBRuleSection2485, whichprohibits
commercialmotorvehiclesfromidlingtheirprimarydieselenginesformorethanfiveminutesatany
location.
Thepropertyowner /developershalldesignasecurityplanforcontrolofpedestrianandvehicular
trafficandaplanforcontrolofnoiseaffectingnearbyresidences, asrequiredbyCityofAnaheim
MunicipalCode, Chapter4.18, AmusementandEntertainmentPremises RestaurantsandBars.
b) Exposureofpersonstoorgenerationofexcessivegroundbornevibrationorgroundbornenoise
levels?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldgeneratevibrationduringconstructionactivities
fromuseofheavyconstructionequipment. Operationoftheprojectwouldnotgeneratesubstantiallevelsof
vibrationduetothelackofvibration- generatingsourcesandthereforeisnotanalyzedbelow. Construction
activitiescangeneratevaryingdegreesofgroundvibration, dependingontheconstructionprocedures,
constructionequipmentusedandproximitytovibrationsensitiveuses. Operationofconstructionequipment
generatesvibrationsthatspreadthroughthegroundanddiminishinamplitudewithdistancefromthe
source. Vibrationistypicallynoticednearbywhenobjectsinabuildinggeneratenoisefromrattlingwindows
orpictureframes. Itistypicallynotperceptibleoutdoors, and, therefore, impactsarebasedonthedistance
tothenearestbuilding. Theeffectonbuildingsnearaconstructionsitevariesdependingonsoiltype,
groundstrata, andreceptorbuildingconstruction. Thegenerationofvibrationcanrangefromnoperceptible
effectsatthelowestvibrationlevels, tolowrumblingsoundsandperceptiblevibrationsatmoderatelevels, to
slightdamageatthehighestlevels. Groundvibrationsfromconstructionactivitiesrarelyreachlevelsthatcan
damagestructures, buttheycanachievetheaudibleandperceptiblerangesinbuildingsclosetoa
constructionsite.
Theclosestoffsitevibrationsensitivestructurestoconstructionactivityontheprojectsitearethemultifamily
residencesapproximately50feetsouthand200feeteastofthedinnertheaterbuilding. Constructionrelated
vibrationimpactsaredescribedbelow.
Vibration- InducedStructuralDamageforNearestOffsiteStructure
TheFTAhasestablishedvibrationlevelthresholdsthatwouldcausedamagetobuildingstructures. TheFTA
criterionforvibrationinducedstructuraldamageis0.2inchpersecondforthepeakparticlevelocity (PPV)
forwood- framedstructures. AsshowninTable9, projectconstructionactivitieswouldnotresultinPPVlevels
thatexceedtheFTA'scriteriaforvibration- inducedstructuraldamage. Therefore, projectconstruction
activitieswouldnotresultinasignificantvibrationimpact.
Page64 ThePlanningCenter June2010
Location RMSVelocity (in /sec)'
SignificanceThreshold
in /sec)
ExceedsSignificance
Threshold?
ResidentstotheSoutheast'0.003 0.2 No
ResidentstotheEasi 0.001 0.2 No
Location VibrationLevels (VdB)
SignificanceThreshold
VdB)
ExceedsSignificance
Threshold?
ResidentstotheSoutheast 52 78 No
ResidentstotheEast 40 78 No
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
VibrationAnnoyanceforNearestOffsiteResidence
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Table9
VibrationSourceLevelsforConstructionEquipmentatNearestStructure, Structural
DamageAssessment
Source: BasedonmethodologyfromFTA2006.
RMSvelocitycalculatedfromvibrationlevelusingthereferenceofonemicroinch /second.
Notes:
1Vibrationlevelsfromthelistedoff-roadconstructionequipmentareequivalenttovibrationlevelsgeneratedbyasmallbulldozer.
2Atadistanceof50feetfromoff-roadconstructionequipmenttothenearestresidentialstructure.
3Atanaveragedistanceof200feet (centerofconstructionactivitiesonsitetonearestresidences).
Table10liststhemaximumandaveragevibrationsourcelevelsforconstructionequipmentanticipatedtobe
usedattheprojectsitetothenearestoffsitevibrationsensitivestructure. Maximumvibrationisbasedon
constructionequipmentoperatingdirectlyadjacenttothepropertyline. However, constructionactivitiesare
typicallydistributedthroughouttheprojectsite. Therefore, althoughthemaximumvibrationlevelsassociated
withcertainconstructionactivitiescouldbeperceptibleincertaininstances, theirimpactwouldbelimited
becausetheywouldn'toccurfrequentlythroughouttheday, wouldoccurinthedaytimewhenpeopleare
leastsensitivetovibrationlevels, andwouldonlyoccurforaverylimiteddurationwhenequipmentwouldbe
workingincloseproximity. Therefore, constructionvibrationisbasedonaveragevibrationlevels (levelsthat
wouldbeexperiencedbysensitivereceptorsthemajorityofthetime) thatexceedtheFTA'sinfrequentevents
criterionforresidentiallanduses.
Table10
Source: BasedonmethodologyfromFTA2006.
1Vibrationlevelsfromthelistedoff-roadconstructionequipmentareequivalenttovibrationlevelsgeneratedbyasmallbulldozer.
2Atadistanceof50feetfromoff-roadconstructionequipmenttothenearestresidentialstructure.
3Atanaveragedistanceof200feet (centerofconstructionactivitiesonsitetonearestresidences).
TheFTAcriteriaforperceptiblelevelsofvibrationduringthedaytimeis78vibrationvelocitydecibels (VdB)
forresidentialuses. Whileconstructionequipmentcouldbeoperatingascloseas50feettothenearest
residentialstructure, themajorityofheavyconstructionactivitieswouldbeoperatingatgreaterdistances
200feetorfarther). Inaddition, heavyconstructionequipmentwouldonlybeinoperationforashortperiod
duringpavingactivities, especiallyinproximitytosensitiveuses. Averagevibrationlevelswouldnotexceed
theFTAcriteriaforvibrationannoyance. Becauseprojectconstructionactivitieswouldnotgenerateaverage
vibrationlevelsthatexceedtheFTA'svibrationannoyancethreshold, nosignificantvibrationimpactfrom
exposureofpersonstoexcessivelevelsofvibrationwouldoccurduringprojectconstructionactivities.
Therefore, projectdevelopmentimpactsrelatedtovibrationannoyancewouldbelessthansignificantandno
mitigationisrequired.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page65
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
c) Asubstantialpermanentincreaseinambientnoiselevelsintheprojectvicinityabovelevels
existingwithouttheproject?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Asdescribedinsection3.12(a) above, increasesinnoiselevelsrelatedto
theproposedprojectwouldnotsubstantiallyincreasetheexistingnoiseenvironment. Similarly, noisefrom
projecttrafficalonglocalroadwayswouldnotsignificantlyincreasenoiselevelsintheprojectareaandwould
likewisenotresultinasignificantimpact. Therefore, nomitigationmeasuresarenecessary.
d) Asubstantialtemporaryorperiodicincreaseinambientnoiselevelsintheprojectvicinityabove
levelsexistingwithouttheproject?
LessThanSignificantImpactWithMitigationIncorporated. Noiselevelsassociatedwithconstruction
activitieswouldbehigherthantheambientnoiselevelsintheprojectareatoday, butwouldsubsideonce
constructionoftheproposedprojectiscompleted.
ConstructionVehicles
Thetransportofworkersandequipmenttotheconstructionsitewouldincrementallyincreasenoiselevels
alongsiteaccessroadways. Eventhoughtherewouldbearelativelyhighsingle -eventnoiseexposure
potentialwithpassingtrucks (amaximumnoiselevelof86dBAat50feet), theexpectednumberofworkers
andtrucksisminimal (Caltrans1998). Thetrucktripswouldbespreadthroughouttheworkdayandwould
primarilyoccurduringnonpeaktrafficperiods. Theexistingroadwayvolumeswithinthestudyarearange
from33,000to39,000averagedailyvehiculartrips (Kunzman2010). Constructionworkerandvendortrips
wouldbenegligiblecomparedtothevolumesoftrafficcurrentlygenerated. Therefore, theseimpactsareless
thansignificantatnoisesensitivereceptorsalongtheconstructionroutes, andnomitigationmeasuresare
required.
ConstructionEquipment
Noisegeneratedduringconstructionisbasedonthetypeofequipmentused, thelocationoftheequipment
relativetosensitivereceptors, andthetiminganddurationofthenoisegeneratingactivities. Construction
noiselevelsreportedinBoltetal. wereusedtoestimatefutureconstructionnoiselevelsfortheproposed
project. Noiselevelsaretheaveragenoiselevelsforeachconstructionphase. Eachstageinvolvestheuseof
differentkindsofconstructionequipmentandtherefore, hasitsowndistinctnoisecharacteristics.
Thedominantnoisesourcefrommostconstructionequipmentistheengine, andnoiselevelsfrom
constructionactivitiesaredominatedbytheloudestpieceofconstructionequipment. Noiselevelsfrom
project- relatedconstructionactivitieswerecalculatedfromuseofallapplicableconstructionequipmentat
thesametimeataveragedistances (centerofconstructionsitetonearestpropertylineofnearestnoise-
sensitivereceptoroffsite) basedontheconstructionphaseandareshowninTable11.
6CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation. 1998, October. TrafficNoiseAnalysisProtocol.
Page66 ThePlanningCenter June2010
ConstructionPhase ResidencestotheSoutheast ResidencestotheEast
GroundClearing/Demolition 84 72
BuildingConstruction 84 72
FinishingandSiteCleanup 89 77
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Source: Bolt, BeranekandNewman1976, basedonanalysisforIndustrial, ParkingGarage, Religious, AmusementandRecreations, Store, Service
Station.
Averagenoiselevelsarebasedonthedistanceoftheproposedstructuretothepropertyline. Noiselevelsfromconstructionactivitiesdonottakeinto
accountattenuationprovidedbyinterveningstructures.
Thedominantnoisesourcefrommostconstructionequipmentistheengine, andnoiselevelsfrom
constructionactivitiesaredominatedbytheloudestpieceofconstructionequipment. Noiselevelsfrom
projectrelatedconstructionactivitieswerecalculatedfromuseofallapplicableconstructionequipmentat
thesametimetothenearestresidentialpropertyline. Noiselevelsatresidentialpropertiestotheeastand
southeastwouldrangefrom72to89dBALWhilethemagnitudeofnoiseisloudcomparedtotheambient
noiseenvironment, constructionactivitieswouldfluctuatethroughouttheeight -hourworkdayasequipment
wouldnotbeinuseatonelocationforanextendedperiodoftime. Furthermore, constructionactivitieswould
complywiththeAnaheimMunicipalCodethatlimitsthehoursofconstructionfrom7:00AMto7:00PM.
Overall, constructionactivitieswouldberestrictedtotheleastnoisesensitiveportionsoftheday, maximum
noiselevelswouldbeinfrequentthroughouttheworkday, andconstructionnoisewouldconcludeoncethe
exteriorbuildingmodificationsandparkinglotpavementarecompleted (approximatelyfourtosixmonths).
Additionally, implementationofmitigationmeasureswouldfurtherreducenoiselevelsfromconstruction
activities. Therefore, constructionrelatednoiseimpactsarelessthansignificantattheresidenceswith
incorporationofthemitigationmeasuresbelow.
MitigationMeasures
Table11
AverageConstructionNoiseLevels
dBALam
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Constructionactivities, deliveries, andhaultrucksshallberestrictedtothedaytimehoursof7:00AM
to7:00PM, MondaythroughSaturday, andatnotimeonSundayorafederalholidayforthe
durationoftheconstructionperiod.
8. Priortothestartofandforthedurationofconstruction, thecontractorshallproperlymaintainand
tuneallconstructionequipmentinaccordancewiththemanufacturer'srecommendationsto
minimizenoiseemissions.
9. Priortouseofanyconstructionequipment, thecontractorshallfitallequipmentwithproperly
operatingmufflers, airintakesilencers, andengineshroudsnolesseffectivethanasoriginally
equippedbythemanufacturer.
10. Duringconstruction, theconstructioncontractorshallplacestationaryconstructionequipmentand
materialdelivery (loading /unloading) areasaminimumof50feetfromadjacentresidentiallanduses.
11. Theconstructioncontractorshallpostasign, clearlyvisibleonsite, withacontactnameand
telephonenumberofconstructioncontractortorespondintheeventofanoisecomplaint.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page67
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
e) Foraprojectlocatedwithinanairportlanduseplan (LosAlamitosArmedForcesReserveCenter
orFullertonMunicipalAirport), wouldtheprojectexposepeopleresidingorworkingintheproject
areatoexcessivenoiselevels?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectsiteisnotwithinanairportlanduseplananditisnotwithintwomilesofa
publicuseairport. ThenearestpublicuseairportsareJohnWayneAirportinSantaAna, approximatelyeight
milessoutheastoftheprojectsiteandtheFullertonMunicipalAirport, approximatelysixmilesnorthwestof
theprojectsiteinFullerton. Therefore, theproposedprojectwouldnotexposepeopletoexcessivenoise
levels, andnomitigationisrequired.
f) Foraprojectwithinthevicinityofaprivateairstrip, wouldtheprojectexposepeopleresidingor
workingintheprojectareatoexcessivenoiselevels?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectisnotinthevicinityofaprivateuseairstrip. ThenearestairstripistheLos
AlamitosArmyAirField, inLosAlamitos, approximatelysevenmilestothewestoftheprojectsite (AirNav
2010). Therefore, theprojectwouldnotexposepeopletoexcessivenoiselevelsfromaprivateairport, and
nomitigationmeasuresarenecessary.
3.13 POPULATIONANDHOUSING
a) Inducesubstantialpopulationgrowthinanarea, eitherdirectly (forexample, byproposingnew
homesandbusinesses) orindirectly (forexample, throughextensionofroadsorother
infrastructure)?
NoImpact. Substantialpopulationgrowthwouldnotbedirectlyorindirectlyinducedwiththe
implementationoftheproposedproject. Populationgrowthiscausedwhendevelopmentbringsmore
peopletoanareathrougheitherthedevelopmentofnewhousingornewemployment -basedbusinesses
thatprovidenewjobsinanarea. Giventhescopeoftheprojectanditsprojectednumberofemployees (70),
theproposedprojectwouldlikelynotincreasethepopulationinthearea. Itwouldincludesitemodifications
andbuildingremodelingtosupportadinnertheaterthatcaterstoexistingresidentsandtourists. Itwouldnot
includethedevelopmentofhousingand, atfullcapacity, itwouldemploy70peopleduringperformances.
Thisnumberofemployeeswouldnotrequiretheconstructionofadditionalhousingintheprojectvicinityand
wouldnotincreasethelocalpopulation. Therefore, substantialpopulationgrowthwouldnotoccurasaresult
ofthisproject, andnoimpactswouldoccur.
b) Displacesubstantialnumbersofexistinghousing, necessitatingtheconstructionofreplacement
housingelsewhere?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotdisplaceexistinghousingandwillnotrequiretheconstruction
ofreplacementhousing. Theprojectsitecontainsvacantcommercialbuildingsandaparkinglot; itdoesnot
containhousing. Therefore, implementationoftheproposedprojectwouldnotcauseimpactstoexisting
housing.
c) Displacesubstantialnumbersofpeople, necessitatingtheconstructionofreplacementhousing
elsewhere?
NoImpact. Implementationoftheproposedprojectwouldnotdisplacepeopleandwouldnotrequirethe
constructionofreplacementhousing. Vacantcommercialbuildingsandaparkinglotoccupytheprojectsite;
therearenopeoplelivingontheprojectsite. Therefore, peoplewouldnotbedisplacedasaresultofthe
proposedproject, andnoimpactswouldoccur.
Page68 ThePlanningCenter June2010
3.14 PUBLICSERVICES
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Wouldtheprojectresultinsubstantialadversephysicalimpactsassociatedwiththeprovisionofnewor
physicallyalteredgovernmentalfacilities, needforneworphysicallyalteredgovernmentalfacilities, the
constructionofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmentalimpacts, inordertomaintainacceptableservice
ratios, responsetimesorotherperformanceobjectivesforanyofthepublicservices:
a) Fireprotection?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldbringpeopletotheprojectsite, requiring
additionalfireprotectionservices. TheprojectsiteisservedbyAnaheimFireDepartment (AFD). Theclosest
firestationsareStationNo. 3, at1717SouthClementineAvenue, aboutamilenortheastofthesite, andthe
DisneylandResortstation, inDowntownDisney, aboutamilenorthwestofthesite (CityofAnaheim2010a).
Theproposedprojectwouldconvertavacantcommercialbuildingintoadinnertheater, withapproximately
950seats. Thiswouldbringmorepeopleintotheareaduringperformancesattheproposeddinnertheater.
However, basedoncommentsfromtheAFD, theproposedprojectwouldnotberequiredtopayfireservice
impactfeesbecauseitwouldnotaddsquarefootagetotheexistingstructures. Althoughtheproposed
projectwouldbringadditionalpeopleintotheserviceareaofStationNo. 3andtheDisneylandResort
Station, theAFDhasindicatedthatthisincreasewouldnotcausesignificantimpactstofireservices.
b) Policeprotection?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldincreasetheneedforpoliceprotectionservices
intheCityofAnaheim. TheAnaheimPoliceDepartment (APD) hasfourpolicedistrictsintheCity. The
projectsiteisinthesouthdistrict, whichcoversTheAnaheimResortareasouthofBallRoad, EastofEuclid
Avenue, andwestoftheSantaAnaRiver. TheprojectsiteisservedbytheCity'sPoliceDepartment, withthe
closeststationattheDisneylandResort (1520DisneylandDrive), aboutamilenorthoftheprojectsite (City
ofAnaheim2004). Policeservicesmostlikelywouldbeneededonsiteifemergenciesoccurredduring
performances. WiththeexceptionofmatineeperformancesonSundays, thefacilitywouldbeclosedduring
theday. TheAPDreviewsandprovidessafetyrecommendationsforallnewcommercialdevelopmentsinthe
City. TheyalsoparticipateintheStandardizedEmergencyManagementSystem (SEMS) withlocaland
regionalpolicedepartmentstoensureadequatepoliceprotectionissuppliedduringeventsthatdemand
extraresources (CityofAnaheim2004). Therefore, theproposedprojectwouldnothaveeventsthatdemand
extraresources. Additionally, theproposedprojectwouldnotrequiretheconstructionofneworexpanded
policefacilities. Asaresult, nosignificantimpactstopoliceservicesareanticipated.
c) Schools?
Noimpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotincreasetheneedforschoolservices. Developmentprojects
thatincludehousingandincreasethestudentpopulationinaschooldistrictincreasetheneedforschool
services. Sincetheproposedprojectwouldconvertavacantcommercialbuildingintoadinnertheaterand
doesnotincludehousing, itwouldnotincreasetheneedforschoolservices. Noimpactstoschoolservices
wouldoccur, andnoadditionalanalysisisnecessary.
d) Parks?
Noimpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotincreasetheneedforparkservices. Developmentprojectsthat
includehousingandincreasethepopulationincreasetheneedforparkservices. Sincetheproposedproject
wouldconvertavacantcommercialbuildingintoadinnertheateranddoesnotincludehousing, itwouldnot
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page69
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
increasetheneedforparkservices. Noimpactstoparkserviceswouldoccur, andnoadditionalanalysisis
necessary.
e) Otherpublicfacilities
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotincreasetheneedforpublicservices, suchaslibraries.
Developmentprojectsthatincludehousingandincreasethepopulationincreasetheneedforlibrary
services. Sincetheproposedprojectwouldconvertavacantcommercialbuildingintoadinnertheaterand
doesnotincludehousing, itwouldnotincreasetheneedforlibraryservices. Noimpactstolibraryservices
wouldoccur, andnoadditionalanalysisisnecessary.
115 RECREATION
a) Wouldtheprojectincreasetheuseofexistingneighborhoodandregionalparksorother
recreationalfacilities, suchthatsubstantialphysicaldeteriorationofthefacilitywouldoccurorbe
accelerated?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotincreasetheuseofexistingrecreationalfacilitiesandwouldnot
causethedeteriorationofthesefacilities. Developmentprojectsthatincreasethelocalandregional
populationcauseanincreaseintheuseofrecreationalfacilities. Theproposedprojectwouldnotincrease
thelocalorregionalpopulationbecauseitdoesnotincludethedevelopmentofhousing. Theproposed
conversionoftheexistingvacantbuildingsintoadinnertheaterwouldnotcausedeteriorationofexisting
recreationalfacilities, andnoimpactswouldoccur.
b) Doestheprojectincluderecreationalfacilitiesorrequiretheconstructionorexpansionof
recreationalfacilities, whichmighthaveanadversephysicaleffectontheenvironment?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotcreateaneedforexpansionoforconstructionofnew
recreationalfacilities. Developmentprojectsthatincreasethelocalandregionalpopulationcreateaneedfor
expandedornewrecreationalfacilities. Theproposedprojectwouldnotincreasethelocalorregional
populationbecauseitdoesnotincludethedevelopmentofhousing. Theproposedconversionoftheexisting
vacantbuildingsintoadinnertheaterwouldnotcreateaneedforexpansionoforconstructionofnew
recreationalfacilities, andnoimpactswouldoccur.
Page70 ThePlanningCenter June2010
LevelofService FinalV/CRatio Project- RelatedIncreaseinV/C
C 0.7010.800 Equaltoorgreaterthan0.05
D 0.8010.900 Equaltoorgreaterthan0.03
E,F 0.900 Equaltoorgreaterthan0.01
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3.16 TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC
Atrafficimpactanalysis (TIA) waspreparedfortheproposedprojectbyKunzmanAssociatesandisincluded
asAppendixDofthisIS /MND. TheanalysisoftheTIAhasbeenincorporatedintothissectionoftheIS /MND.
ExistingConditions
ExistingRoadwayNetwork
ThetrafficstudyareashowninFigure9, TrafficStudyArea, encompassesthesurroundingstreetnetwork,
includingHarborBoulevard, OrangewoodAvenue, WilkenWay, HotelWay, andChapmanAvenue:
HarborBoulevard: Thisisanorth -to- south, six -laneroadwaywithapproximately33,800to42,300daily
vehiclesonFridaysand30,000to39,000vehiclesonSaturdaysinthestudyarea. Itisclassifiedasamajor
arterialintheCityofAnaheimGeneralPlanCirculationElement.
OrangewoodAvenue: Thisisaneast -to -west, four -laneroadwaywithapproximately18,300to19,900daily
vehiclesonFridaysand11,400to11,900vehiclesonSaturdaysinthestudyarea. Orangewoodhastwo
laneswestofHarborBoulevardandfourlaneseastofHarborBoulevard. Itisclassifiedasasecondary
arterialintheCityofAnaheimGeneralPlanCirculationElement.
WilkenWay: Thisisaneast -to -west, two -laneundividedroadwaywithapproximately1,500to2,400daily
vehiclesonFridaysand1,400to1,600vehiclesonSaturdaysinthestudyarea. Thisstreetisdesignatedas
aninteriorstreet.
HotelWay: Thisisaneast -to -west, four -laneroadwaywithapproximately2,400dailyvehiclesonFridaysand
5,000vehiclesonSaturdaysinthestudyarea. HotelWayisaprivatedrivewayintheCityofGardenGrove.
ChapmanAvenue: Thisisaneast -to -west, four -laneroadwaywithapproximately31,200to32,200daily
vehiclesonFridaysand24,100to25,900vehiclesonSaturdaysinthestudyarea. Itisclassifiedasaprimary
arterialintheCityofAnaheimGeneralPlanCirculationElement.
CityofAnaheimSignificanceThreshold
TheCityofAnaheimhasestablishedthefollowingsignificantimpactthresholdbasedonlevelofservice
LOS) standards. Asignificantimpactwouldoccurwhenaprojectincreasesthevolumetocapacityratioby
0.05ormoreatanintersectionwithanexistingLOSofC, by0.03ormoreatanintersectionwithanexisting
LOSofD, orby0.01atanintersectionwithanexistingLOSofEorF (SeeTable12).
Source: KunzmanAssociates.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
Table12
CriteriaforSignificantTrafficImpacts. CityofAnaheim
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
CityofAnaheim Page71
Intersection'TrafficControl
PeakHourLOS
FridayEvening SaturdayEvening
HarborBoulevardat TrafficSignal 4
1 OrangewoodAvenue TrafficSignal 0.618 -B 0.498 -A
2 WilkenWay TrafficSignal 0.396 -A 0.353 -A
4 HotelWay TrafficSignal 0.452 -A 0.372 -A
5 ChapmanAvenue TrafficSignal 0.640 -B 0.500 -A
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
ExistingTrafficConditions
TheTIAassessedtheexistingtrafficconditionsbycompilingexistingLOSandaveragedailytrip (ADT) data.
TheADTsforstudyroadwaysareshowninFigure10, ExistingFridayAverageDailyTrips, andFigure11,
ExistingSaturdayAverageDailyTrips. TheLOSisbasedontheactualtrafficvolumeatspecifiedintersections
comparedwiththecapacitiesofthoseintersections. TheexistingLOSforstudyareaintersectionsisbased
onmanualFridayeveningpeakhourandSaturdayeveningpeakhourintersectionturningmovementcounts
obtainedinMarch2010. ExistingLOSisshowninTable13, Figure12, ExistingFridayEveningPeakHour
Trips, andFigure13, ExistingSaturdayEveningPeakHourTrips.
Source: KunzmanAssociates2010.
1TheintersectionnumbercorrespondstothenumbersinFigure8.
Table13
ExistingLevelsofServiceintheStudyArea
ProjectGeneratedTraffic
KunzmanAssociatesbasedprojectedtripgenerationontrafficcountstakeninMarch2010atMedieval
TimesinBuenaPark, abusinesswithasimilarrestaurant /entertainmentuseBecauseoftheproject's
locationandtypeofbusiness, modechoicereductionswereappliedtothetrafficgeneration. Onaverage,
clientsarriveatvenuessimilartotheproposedprojectaccordingtothefollowingbreakdown:
20 -25percentbytourbuses (60passengersperbus)
30 -40percentbywalking, taxi, orshuttlesfromareahotels
35 -50percentbycar
Toaccommodatethemodechoicereductions, aconservativereductionwasappliedtothetrafficgeneration.
TheTIAassumesa20percentreductionduetowalking, a5percentreductionduetotransit, a10percent
reductionduetotourbuses, anda10percentreductionduetoshuttles. Itisassumedthat55percentofthe
clientswouldbearrivingbycar. TheassumedreductionsarebasedontheanalysisintheAnaheim
GardenwalkSecondAddendumtothePointeAnaheimInitialStudyandMitigatedNegativeDeclaration,
preparedbyBonTerraConsultinginMarch2006. Alternativemodesoftransportationarealsousedat
MedievalTimes, butnottothedegreethattheyareanticipatedfortheuseattheproposedproject.
Therefore, themodereductionsoftheAnaheimGardenwalkIS /MNDareusedforthisanalysis.
Page72 ThePlanningCenter June2010
1
1
1
1
Source: KunzmanAssociates, Inc. 2010
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
Oran:ewoodAvenue
2D n 4D
v
U
6D
Hotel
Way o4D
60
d
06D
6D
6D
Site
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
WilkenWay
2U
TrafficStudyArea
ChapmanAvenue
4D n 4D
Legend
TrafficSignal
4 ThroughTravelLanes
D Divided
U Undivided
NOTTOSCALE
ThePlanningCenter Figure9
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Thispageintentionallyleftblank.
Page74 ThePlanningCenter June2010
Source: KunzmanAssociates, Inc. 2010
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
ExistingFridayAverageDailyTrips
18,300
32,240
1,500
Hotel
0
36,670
Way
2,420
39,110
OrangewoodAvenue
19,850
42,310
Site
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
WilkenWay
2,410
37,600
ChapmanAvenue
31,160
33,830
Legend
33,830VehiclesPerDay (Rounded
totheNearestTen)
NOTTOSCALE
ThePlanningCenter Figure10
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Thispageintentionallyleftblank
Page76 ThePlanningCenter June2010
Source: KunzmanAssociates, Inc. 2010
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
ExistingSaturdayAverageDailyTrips
11,390
24,060
1,350
33,730
Hotel
Way
4,960
35,160
OrangewoodAvenue
11,900
38,950
35,380
30,010
WilkenWay
1,610
Site
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Cha. manAvenue
25,900
Legend
30,010VehiclesPerDay (Rounded
totheNearestTen)
NOTTOSCALE
ThePlanningCenter Figure11
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Thispageintentionallyleftblank.
Page78 ThePlanningCenter June2010
1401-7
4 -8Z
4 4
4-29
4
1396v
du.omab1*t-161eN
1734
e
44. Ip
gy
16 oo-.
N 71
mI
1
1"I
N
e1351 n1454 a1431 n1364 01455
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Source: KunzmanAssociates, Inc. 2010
ExistingFridayEveningPeakHourTrips
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Oran: ewoodAvenue
NOTTOSCALE
ThePlanningCenter Figure12
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Thispageintentionallyleftblank
Page80 ThePlanningCenter June2010
1330v 1322v
b4
1214
t4
1274v
28 3
svzs44144441144NI, to
rp
osti ID
1
I
A953 1073 a1052 A1016
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ExistingSaturdayEveningPeakHourTrips
Source: KunzmanAssociates, Inc. 2010
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
Hotel
Way
OranewoodAvenue
WilkenWay
Site
1
0 0 0 0 0
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
ChamanAvenue
1202
44- 4
164-4
569-^*
131-4,
a-164E4-501
v4
A1017
NOTTOSCALE
ThePlanningCenter Figure13
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Thispageintentionallyleftblank.
Page82 ThePlanningCenter June2010
TimePeriod TripGenerationRate PeakHourTrafficVolume
Daily
GenerationRate DailyTrafficVolume
rtta000_Ot 0(1 'NI)A3,. ibk u
PeakHourIn 0.11 102
PeakHourOut 0.17 159 1.23 1,127
Subtotal 0.28 261
ModeChoiceReduction
WalkReduction (20 52 234
TransitReduction (5 13 59
TourBuses (10 26 117
Shuttles (10 26 117
Subtotal 117 527
FridayPMPeakHourTotal 144 NA
FridayDailyTotal NA 645
O r I'- 4ato1{,[ ga`ooktro c
r ayj y -3gy ffi4
r
In 0.14 137
Out 0.24 227 2.00 1,898
Total 0.38 364
ModeChoiceReduction
WalkReduction (20 72 380
TransitReduction (5 18 95
TourBuses (10 37 190
Shuttles (10 37 190
Subtotal 164 855
SaturdayPMPeakHourTotal 200 NA
SaturdayDailyTotal NA 1,043
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
AsshowninTable14, theproposedprojectwouldgenerate144tripsduringtheFridayeveningpeakhour,
200tripsduringtheSaturdayeveningpeakhour, 645dailytripsonFriday, and1,043dailytripsonSaturday.
TheFridaydailyratesreflecttwoshowings (forweekdays) andtheSaturdaydailyratesreflectthree
showings (forweekends) eventhoughtherewouldbeoneshowonFriday (andweeknights), twoon
Saturdays, andthreeonSundays. Thisreflectsamoreoverallconservativeestimate.
Source: KunzmanAssociates2010.
Table14
Project- GeneratedTraffic
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
OpeningYearProjectTrafficContribution
Theopeningyearfortheproposedprojectis2010. Tofindtheproject'scontributiontoopeningyeartraffic
conditions, theproject- generatedLOSatareaintersectionsiscombinedwiththeexistingintersectionLOS.
TheresultingservicelevelsarecomparedtotheCity'ssignificancethresholdstodeterminetheproject's
impacts. ThestudyareaintersectionsareprojectedtooperateatLOS8orbetterduringtheFridayand
SaturdayPMpeakhoursforopeningyear2010withprojectconditions.
AsshowninTable15, theprojecttrafficcontributionwouldnotraisetheLOSatstudyareaintersectionsto
levelsthatwouldbesignificant (seeTable12forAnaheim'ssignificancethresholds).
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page83
Intersection
HarborBoulevard (NS) at:PeakHour
Existing OpeningYear (2010) WithProject (withoutmitigation)
Significant?V/C LOS V/C LOS V/CIncrease
1 OrangewoodAvenue (EW)Friday
Saturday
PM
PM 0.498
0.618 B
A 0.513
0.6311 B
A
0.013
0.015
No
No
2 WilkenWay (EW)FridayPM
SaturdayPM
0.396
0.353
A
A
0.405
0.361
A
A
0.009
0.008
No
No
4 HotelWay (EW)FridayPM
SaturdayPM
0.452
0.372
A
A
0.504
0.416
A
A
0.052
0.044
No
No
5 ChapmanAvenue (EW)FridayPM
SaturdayPM
0.640
0.500
B
A
0.649
0.510
B
A
0.009
0.010
No
No
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Table15
OpeningYear (2010) withProjectTrafficContribution
Source: KunzmanAssociates2010.
AllintersectionswouldoperateatLOSAwithandwithouttheprojectexceptfortheintersectionsofChapman
AvenueWITHHarborBoulevardandOrangewoodAvenueWITHHarborBoulevardduringtheFridayPM
peakhours, asshownonTable15andinFigure14, FridayPMPeakHourTrips (withProject). Figures15, 16,
and17showtheSaturdayPMpeakhourtrips, Fridayaveragedailytrips, andSaturdayaveragedailytrips,
respectively.
a) Conflictwithanapplicableplan, ordinanceorpolicyestablishingmeasuresofeffectivenessfor
theperformanceofthecirculationsystem, takingintoaccountallmodesoftransportation
includingmasstransitandnonmotorizedtravelandrelevantcomponentsofthecirculation
system, includingbutnotlimitedtointersections, streets, highwaysandfreeways, pedestrianand
bicyclepaths, andmasstransit?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Project- generatedtrafficwouldnotaffecttheperformanceofthesurrounding
circulationsystem. AsshowninTable12, theCityofAnaheimhasthresholdcriteriaforsignificantimpactsto
existingroadwaylevelsofservice. Peakhourtrafficgeneratedbytheproposedprojectwouldnotworsenthe
existingLOSatintersectionsinthestudyarea (seeTable15) basedontheCity'sstandards. Nointersection
wouldoperateatanunacceptableLOSwithorwithouttheproposedproject. Pedestrianandbicycleaccess
totheprojectsitewouldnotbealteredwiththeimplementationoftheproposedproject. Localmasstransit
routes, includingbusesservingthearea, wouldbeutilizedbyvisitorstotheproposeddinnertheater.
Therefore, nosignificantimpactstoexistingpolicies, plans, orprogramsmeanttomeasuretheeffectiveness
ofacirculationsystemwouldoccur. Allimpactswouldbelessthansignificant, andnomitigationmeasures
arerequired.
b) Conflictwithanapplicablecongestionmanagementprogram, including, butnotlimitedtolevelof
servicestandardsandtraveldemandmeasures, orotherstandardsestablishedbythecounty
congestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways?
NoImpact. TheOrangeCountyCongestionManagementProgram (CMP) identifiesHarborBoulevardasa
primaryarterialinitssystemofdesignatedhighwaysandroadways (OCTA2003). TheLOSatspecified
intersectionsalongHarborBoulevardismonitoredbyOCTA. AsshownintheTIA, theproposedproject
wouldnotchangetheLOSatintersectionsalongHarborBoulevard (seeTable15). Thetrafficgeneratedby
theproposedprojectwouldnotworsenservicestandardsalongHarborBoulevard, andimpactsrelatedto
congestionmanagementwouldbelessthansignificant. Noadditionalanalysisisrequired.
Page84 ThePlanningCenter June2010
1
1
FridayPMPeakHourTrips (WithProject)
Source: KunzmanAssociates, Inc. 2010
44
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
Hotel
Way
29
0m
co
0
s
Oran:ewoodAvenue
e, Mc. 4-0
41144 -o
0-0cA
WilkenW
t8
4
Site
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
l
Cha. manAvenue
at
2-9
Qg
4J
s40
4111
O M
414'
0 _s
0-D
4
NOTTOSCALE
ThePlanningCenter Figure14
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Thispageintentionallyleftblank.
Page86 ThePlanningCenter June2010
SaturdayPMPeakHourTrips (WithProject)
0-
O-0
4
4 -0
a-0
st1
0111E111
Source: KunzmanAssociates, Inc. 2010
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
Hotel
Way
00
m
00
OranewoodAvenue
WilkenWay
Site
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
ChamanAvenue
7w
J. to
es
0-0
0-4.
4_5
4—a
0 4
NOTTOSCALE
ThePlanningCenter Figure15
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Thispageintentionallyleftblank.
Page88 ThePlanningCenter June2010
Source: KunzmanAssociates, inc. 2010
FridayAverageDailyTrips (WithProject)
18,330
32,300
w
0
00
1,510
37,000
Hotel
Way
2,440
39,240
39,280
OrangewoodoidAvenue
19,950
42,610
42,630
Site
37,900
37,890
33,930
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Legend
33,930VehiclesPerDay (Rounded
totheNearestTen)
NOTTOSCALE
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy ThePlanningCenter Figure16
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Thispageintentionallyleftblank.
Page90 ThePlanningCenter June2010
SaturdayAverageDailyTrips (WithProject)
Source: KunzmanAssociates, Inc. 2010
11,440
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
1,360
a
a
0
0
0
34,260
Hotel
Way
4,990
35,370
35,430
OrangewoodAvenue
12,060
39,430
39,470
WilkenWay
1,610
35,860
35,850
30,170
Site
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
ChamanAvenue
24,160 26,110
Legend
30,170VehiclesPerDay (Rounded
totheNearestTen)
NOTTOSCALE
ThePlanningCenter Figure17
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Thispageintentionallyleftblank.
Page92 ThePlanningCenter June2010
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
c) Resultinachangeinairtrafficpatterns, includingeitheranincreaseintrafficlevelsorachangein
locationthatresultsinsubstantialsafetyrisks?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotchangeexistingairtrafficpatterns. Theredevelopmentofthe
projectsiteasadinnertheaterwouldnotincreasetheamountofairtrafficenteringorleavingairports, andit
wouldnotcausechangesinflightpatternsbecauseoftheheightorlocationoftheproposedstructures. No
impactstoairtrafficpatternswouldoccur, andnoadditionalanalysisisrequired.
d) Substantiallyincreasehazardsduetoadesignfeature (e.g., sharpcurvesordangerous
intersections) orincompatibleuses (e.g., farmequipment)?
LessThanSignificantImpactWithMitigationIncorporated. Theuseoftheproposedprojectbyvehicular
trafficmayincreasehazardsbetweenvehiclesandpedestrians. TheentryandexitpointsoffHarbor
Boulevardwouldbecomebusybeforeandafterperformancesatthedinnertheater, andHarborBoulevardis
ahighvolumeroadway. VehiclesenteringandleavingwouldbetryingtoentertrafficonHarborBoulevard
whilepedestriansareusingthesidewalk. Inaddition, thenorthentrance /exitisnotasignalizedintersection,
makingcontroloftrafficmoredifficult. TheTIAhasprovidedrecommendationsforonsitecirculation. Aspart
ofthepermittingprocessfortheproject, apedestrianandvehiclesecurityplanmustalsobeprovidedbythe
propertyowner /developer. TheincorporationoftheseimprovementsandtheadherencetotheCity's
municipalcodewouldreduceimpactsrelatedtohazardousdesignfeaturestolevelsthatarelessthan
significant. Withtheimplementationofthefollowingmitigationmeasures10through19, noadditional
analysiswouldbeneeded.
MitigationMeasures
12. Priortofinalbuildingandzoninginspection, implementthesite- specificcirculationandaccess
recommendationsasshowninFigure18, OnsiteCirculationRecommendations.
13. Priortotheissuanceofabuildingpermit, thepropertyowner /developershallsubmitaParking
ManagementPlantothePlanningDepartmentandCityTrafficandTransportationManagerfor
reviewandapproval.
14. Priortofinalbuildingandzoninginspection, HarborBoulevardfromtheproject'snorthboundaryto
HotelWayshallbeconstructedatitsultimatehalf- sectionwidthincludinglandscaping, raised
median, andparkwayimprovements, ifnecessary.
15. Priortotheissuanceofabuildingpermit, sightdistancesattheprojectaccessesshallbereviewed
andapprovedbytheTrafficEngineerwithrespecttoCityofAnaheimstandards.
16. Priortofinalbuildingandzoninginspection, onsitetrafficsignalingandstripingshallbe
implementedinconjunctionwithdetailedconstructionplansfortheproject.
17. DevelopershallprovideastripedmedianonHarborBoulevardprohibitingleftturnssouthbound.
ThedevelopershallalsoprovidetheCityofAnaheimwiththeirfairshareamountfortheconstruction
offutureraisedmedianonHarborBlvd. Suchamount, shallconsideronlythelinearfootagefronting
thesubjectpropertyandshallbecreditedtowardsTrafficImpactfees.
18. Afterbuildingpermitissuance, asisthecaseforanyroadwaydesign, theCityofAnaheimshould
periodicallyreviewtrafficoperationsinthevicinityoftheprojectoncetheprojectisconstructedto
assurethatthetrafficoperationsaresatisfactory.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page93
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
19. Busparkingspacesshallbeclearlyindicatedonthesiteplanandlocatedawayfromanyresidential
ornoise- sensitiveadjacentlanduses.
e) Resultininadequateemergencyaccess?
LessThanSignificantImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldberequiredtomeettheemergencyaccess
standardsoftheAnaheimFireDepartment. Withtheimplementationoftheproposeddinnertheater,
emergencyaccessroutestotheproposedsitewouldneedtobeidentified. TheCityofAnaheimFire
Departmentmustperformasiteplancheckpriortobuildingpermitting (CityofAnaheim2010b). Asthisisa
requiredprocessforallconstructionintheCity, impactswouldbelessthansignificant, andnoadditional
analysisisneeded.
f) Conflictwithadoptedpolicies, plans, orprogramsregardingpublictransit, bicycle, orpedestrian
facilities, orotherwisedecreasetheperformanceorsafetyofsuchfacilities?
LessThanSignificantImpactWithMitigationIncorporated. Theprojectsiteisservedbyvariouspublic
transitsystemsandwouldbeincludedinCityprogramsfortrafficmanagement. TheOrangeCounty
TransportationAuthority (OCTA) currentlyoperatestwobuslineswithinwalkingdistanceoftheproposed
project. OCTARoute43runsnorth -to -southonHarborBoulevardbetweenthecitiesofCostaMesaandLa
Habra. ThenearestbusstopisatWilkenWay. OCTABravo! servicewillbeintroducedinthenearfuture.
Bravo! isalimited -stopservicethatwillrunconcurrentlywithRoute43. TransfersonRoute43canalsotake
riderstotheAmtrak/MetroStationandtheAnaheimRegionalTransportationIntermodalCenter (ARTIC).
OCTARoute54runsonChapmanAvenue, lessthanaquarterofamilefromthesouth. Route54isaneast
to -westrouterunningbetweenValleyViewBoulevardintheCityofGardenGroveandSantiagoCanyon
CollegeintheCityofOrange. ThenearestbusstopisatHarborBoulevard.
TheprojectsiteisalsoaccessiblebytheAnaheimResortTransit (ART) transportationsystem, whichis
operatedbytheAnaheimTransportationNetwork (ATN) andservesTheAnaheimResortareaandother
portionsofAnaheim, GardenGrove, andOrange. BecausetheproposedprojectisinTheAnaheimResort, it
isrequiredtofinanciallyjoinandparticipateintheATN, whichincludesparticipationintheARTsystem, with
astoponsiteforoneormoreARTroutes. Theattendeesoftheproposeddinnertheaterwouldbeabletouse
thesepublictransitsystems, andimplementationoftheproposedprojectwouldnotimpacttheexistingbus
routes. PedestriansidewalkswouldbemaintainedalongHarborBoulevard, andbicycleuseofHarborand
thesurroundingroadwayswouldnotbealtered.
TheCityofAnaheimadoptedtheTransportationDemandOrdinancein1991toreducevehicletripsand
encouragetheuseofpublictransit. TheproposedprojectisrequiredtocontributetoTransportationDemand
Managementbyimplementingonsitetaxiandshuttlebusloadingzones. MitigationMeasure20outlinesthe
componentstheprojectmustimplement, therebyreducingimpactstolevelsthatarelessthensignificant
withmitigationincorporated.
MitigationMeasures
20. Priortoissuanceofabuildingpermit, thedevelopershallcomplywithOrdinanceNo. 5209and
ResolutionNo91R -89relatingtotheTransportationDemandManagementbyprovidingonsitetaxi
andshuttlebusloadingzonesandbyjoiningandfinanciallyparticipatingintheAnaheim
TransportationNetworkandAnaheimResortTransit (ART). Theprojectshallprovideabusbay
onsiteacceptabletotheCityTrafficandTransportationManagerforARTbusestotransportguests
toandfromhotels, touristattractions, andlocalairports.
Page94 ThePlanningCenter June2010
Signtodirectnorthbound
traffictouseProjectNorth
Accesstoentertheproject
site.
Source: KunzmanAssociates, Inc. 2010
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
OnsiteCirculationRecommendations
Priortoprojectconstruction, theportionofHarborBoulevardalongtheproject's
frontageshallbeconstructedatitsultimatehalfsectionwidthindudinglandscaping,
raisedmedian, andparkwayimprovements, ifnecessary.
Signandstripe
DoNotBlock
Intersection"
Legend
Q ExistingTrafficSignal
StopSign
FullAccessDriveway
RightTurnsIn /OutOnly
AccessDriveway
OneWayOnly
Drop -OffArea
TrafficDirectingPersonnel
NOTTOSCALE
ThePlanningCenter Figure18
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Thispageintentionallyleftblank.
Page96 ThePlanningCenter June2010
g) Resultininadequateparkingcapacity?
MitigationMeasures
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
LessThanSignificantImpactWithMitigationIncorporated. AparkinganalysiswasprovidedintheTIA
preparedbyKunzmanAssociates (AppendixD). Theexistingparkinglotwouldberepavedandrestripedas
partoftheproposedproject. Approximately360parkingspaceswouldbeprovided. Aswiththerestofthe
trafficanalysisintheTIA, MedievalTimeswasusedasamodelforparkingconditionsbecauseithassimilar
operations. ObservationsofFridayandSaturdayshowsatMedievalTimesprovidedtheparkingdemandper
seatattherestaurant. Thisdemandratewasthenappliedtothenumberofseatsattheproposedrestaurant.
Modereductions, whichaccountforthenumberofattendeeswalkingortakingtransit, tourbuses, orshuttles
totheperformances, wereappliedtothetotaldemandsandanoveragefactorof20percentwasapplied,
providingamoreconservativeanalysis. Thefinalparkingdemandresultedin289spacesonFridaynights
and317spacesforSaturdaynights. WeeknightsarenotexpectedtobeasbusyasFridayandSaturday
nights, sooverallparkingdemandisnotexpectedtoexceedthesenumbers. Althoughthesenumbersare
withintheavailablenumberofparkingspaces, theTIAprovidedaparkingmanagementplantoreduce
congestionandcrowdingintheparkinglot. Theincorporationoftheparkingmanagementplan
recommendationsasmitigationmeasures (21through28) wouldreduceparkingimpactstolessthan
significantlevels.
21. TheParkingManagementPlanshallbesubmittedforreviewandapprovalbythePlanning
DepartmentandtheTrafficandTransportationManager. TheParkingManagementPlanshall
includetheParkingLotPlanrequiredinsection18.116.140oftheAnaheimMunicipalCode, and
shallincludedetailedinformationonhowthevaletparkingprogramwilloperatethroughavaletand
accessplan, includingthelocationoftheloadingzoneforvaletservice.
22. Theprojectsiteshallprovidecoderequiredparkingspacesforthehandicapped. Eachspecifically
designatedareashouldbeclearlypaintedandsigned. Signsshallbepostedtoclearlydirectthe
appropriateattendeestothedesignatedhandicappedparkingspaces.
23. Traffic- directingpersonnelshallbeusedtodirectinbounddriverstoemptyparkinglots, empty
parkingsegmentswithinalot, andthentoemptyparkingstalls. Atrafficdirectorshallbepositioned
attheentrancedrivewayofthelottobefillednext. Anothertrafficdirectorshouldbelocatedinthe
emptyparkingsegmenttodirectthedrivertoanemptystall. Asthelotfillstocapacity, thedirectors
inthelotshallcommunicatetothedrivewaydirectortostarttofillthenextlot. Whenaparkinglot
fills, aType1Barricadewithasignplacardreading "LotFull" shallbeplacedacrosstheentrance
driveway.
24. Traffic- directingpersonnelshallhavebrightlycoloredvestssothattheyarehighlyvisibleforthe
attendeesandfortheirsafety. Theyshouldhavewalkie- talkiestoensureefficientcommunication.
Theyshallbetrainedformaximumefficiencyandsafety.
25. Traffic- directingpersonnelshallbeprovidedtoassistdriversleavingthefacility.
26. ValetparkingareasshallbeprovidedonsiteandutilizedinaccordancewiththeParking
ManagementPlan. Theseareasshallbeappropriatelysignedandstriped. Pedestrianconflictsshall
beminimizedasmuchaspossiblebydirectingpedestrianstodesignatedpedestriancrossings.
Duringevents, manualcontrolcouldbenecessaryinthedrop -offareas.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page97
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
27. Afollow -upmonitoringprogramshallbeusedtodeterminetheeffectivenessoftheparking
managementplan. Peakperiodsshallbemonitoredinordertomakechangestotheparking
managementplantoimproveoperatingconditions, ifnecessary.
28. TheCityTrafficEngineershallvisitthesiteoncetheprojectisconstructedandinfulloperationand
verifythatthetrafficoperationsaresatisfactory.
3.17 UTILITIESANDSERVICESYSTEMS
a) ExceedwastewatertreatmentrequirementsoftheapplicableRegionalWaterQualityControl
Board?
NoImpact. Thedevelopmentoftheproposedprojectwouldnotexceedwastewatertreatmentrequirements
oftheSARWQCB. Theexistingbuildingsontheprojectsitearevacantanddonotcurrentlygenerate
wastewater. TheCityofAnaheimcollectswastewaterthroughCity- operatedpipelinesandtrunksewers,
whichconnecttowastewatertreatmentfacilitiesownedandoperatedbytheOrangeCountySanitation
District (OCSD). OCSDhastwotreatmentplants, oneinFountainValleyandoneinHuntingtonBeach.
Wastewaterfromresidential, commercial, andindustrialcustomersistreatedbeforeitiseitherreleasedinto.
thePacificOceanorpumpedbackintothegroundwaterbasinforreuse. OCSDoperatestheGroundwater
ReplenishmentSysteminconnectionwiththeOrangeCountyWaterDistrict. Thisoperationpumpstreated
wastewaterbackintotheOrangeCountyGroundwaterBasinforreuseaspotablewater (OCSD2010).
WastewatergeneratedbytheproposedcommercialprojectwouldenterCity -ownedpipelinesandbetreated
bytheOCSD. ThewastewatergeneratedbytheproposeddinnertheaterwouldnotcauseOCSDtoexceed
wastewatertreatmentrequirementsoftheSARWCQB. Noimpactsrelatedtowastewatertreatment
requirementswouldoccur, andnoadditionalanalysisisneeded.
b) Requireorresultintheconstructionofnewwaterorwastewatertreatmentfacilitiesorexpansion
ofexistingfacilities, theconstructionofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmentaleffects?
LessThanSignificantImpactWithMitigationIncorporated. Theproposedprojectsiteisdevelopedwith
existingsewerandwaterlines, whichconnecttotheCity'swastewatercollectionandwaterconveyance
systems. AlloffsiteCity -ownedwastewaterfacilitiesconnecttothetrunksewersandwastewatertreatment
plantsoftheOrangeCountySanitationDistrict (OCWD). AsewerstudycompletedbytheCity'sPublicWorks
Departmentdeterminedthatwastewaterflowfromtheproposedprojectwouldnotcausenegativeimpactsto
theexistinginfrastructureintheCity (Linker2010). IfdeterminedappropriatebythePublicWorks
Department, theprojectapplicantwouldpaythesewerimpactandimprovementfee, asrequiredforallnew
developmentintheCitybySection10.12.085oftheAnaheimMunicipalCode.
Theexistingonsitewaterpipelinesystemwouldbeusedbytheproposedproject. Asdescribedbelowin
Section3.17(d) ofthisIS /MND, anestimated290,355gallonsofwaterwouldbeusedper bythe
proposedproject. Existingwaterlineswilldeliverwatertotheproposedproject. Theconstructionofany
connectionlinesormodificationstotheexistinginfrastructuremustbecoordinatedbetweentheproject
applicantandtheWaterEngineeringandCrossConnectionControlInspectorasdescribedbelowin
MitigationMeasure31. SincetheproposedprojectiswithintheAnaheimResortArea, awaterfacilitiesfee
mustbepaidbytheapplicant, asdescribedinMitigationMeasure29below. Withtheincorporationof
mitigationmeasures29through31below, impactstoexistingwaterandwastewaterconveyancefacilities
wouldbefessthansignificant.
Page98 ThePlanningCenter June2010
MitigationMeasures
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
29. Priortotheissuanceofabuildingpermit, thepropertyowner /developershallpayAnaheimResort
AreawaterfacilitiesfeesinaccordancewiththeRule15EoftheWaterUtilityRates, Rules, and
Regulations ($0.39persquarefoot).
30. Priortothestartofconstruction, allrequestsfornewwaterserviceorfirelines, aswellasany
modifications, relocations, orabandonmentsofexistingwaterservicesandfirelines, shallbe
coordinatedthroughtheWaterEngineeringDivisionoftheAnaheimPublicUtilitiesDepartment.
31. Priortotheissuanceofthefirstbuildingpermitorgradingpermit, whichevercomesfirst, the
propertyowner /developershallindicateonplanstheinstallationofaseparateirrigationmeterfor
totallandscapedareasexceeding2,500squarefeet.
c) Requireorresultintheconstructionofnewstormwaterdrainagefacilitiesorexpansionof
existingfacilities, theconstructionofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmentaleffects?
Noimpact. Theproposedsitemodificationandbuildingremodelingwouldnotrequiretheexpansionofor
constructionofnewstormwaterdrainagefacilities. Theproposedprojectsiteiscurrentlydevelopedwithtwo
adjoinedbuildingsandaparkinglot. Stormwaterdrainageisnotwelldevelopedontheprojectsite. Most
stormwaterrunoffsheet -flowsacrosstheprojectsite. Stormwaterthatentersthesurroundingstreetsdrains
fromtheprojectsitetothesouthandthenwest, eventuallyreachingtheEastGardenGroveWintersburg
Channel (OCFCD2004). Theproposedsitemodificationswoulddecreasetheamountofimpervioussurface
byincreasingtheamountoflandscapingontheprojectsite. Stormwaterflowwouldremainthesameor
decreasewiththeadditionofnewlandscapingislandsonthesiteSincestormwaterfromtheprojectsiteis
alreadyenteringtheexistingstormwatersystemandtheproposedsitemodificationswouldnotsignificantly
altersitedrainage, stormwaterfacilitieswouldnotneedtobeexpandednornewfacilitiesbuilt. Therefore, no
impactstostormwaterdrainagefacilitiesareanticipated.
d) Havesufficientwatersuppliesavailabletoservetheprojectfromexistingentitlementsand
resources, orareneworexpandedentitlementsneeded?
LessThanSignificantImpactWithMitigationIncorporated. Waterissuppliedtotheprojectsitebythe
AnaheimPublicUtilitiesDepartment (APUD), amunicipalwateragencyoftheCityofAnaheim. TheAPUD
dependsentirelyonthe. MetropolitanWaterDistrict (MWD) andwaterfromtheOrangeCountyGroundwater
Basin, whichismanagedbytheOCWD. The2010UWMPfortheCityhasnotyetbeencompleted; themost
recentUWMPwascompletedin2005. TheUWMPisaplanningdocument, requiredbyCalifornia
DepartmentofWaterResources, tomanagewatersupplyanddemandinthestate. Theproposedproject
wouldincreasetheamountofwaterusedontheprojectsite. Sincethecurrentsiteisunused, thereisno
existingdemandforwater.
Implementationoftheproposedprojectwoulduseapproximately10.7acre -feet (3,484,260gallonsofwater
peryear). Thetotalwaterdemandisbasedonwaterdemandofadinnertheater, MedievalTimes, with
similaroperationsintheCityofBuenaPark. Basedonareviewofthebi- monthlywaterconsumption
readingsforthecommercialandfireflowwatermeters, includedasAppendixEtothisIS /MND, Medieval
Timesusesabout580,710gallonsofwaterpermonth (CityofBuenaPark2010). Sincetheproposedproject
wouldbeabouthalfthesizeofMedievalTimes (43,500squarefeetcomparedtoapproximately94,500
squarefeet), thetotalprojectedwaterdemandisreducedbyhalf. Thisestimate, 3,484,260gallonsofwater
peryear, or290,355gallonspermonth, wouldbeslightlyconservativesinceMedievalTimeshasactivities
notfoundintheproposedprojectthatmayincreasewaterdemand. Theseactivitiesincludethecleanupand
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page99
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
careofhorsesusedintheshowandthemaintenanceoflargerareasoflandscapingattheMedievalTimes
site.
Anaheimhasatotalwatersupplyofabout72,000acre -feet, orapproximately23.5billiongallons (Cityof
Anaheim2009). Abouttwo- thirdsofAnaheim'swatersupplycomesfromtheOrangeCountyGroundwater
Basin. TheremaindercomesfromimportedwaterthroughtheMWD (CityofAnaheim2009). BetweenJuly
2009andJune2010, AnaheimmustreducetheamountofwateritdrawsfromtheGroundwaterBasinto62
percent (from69percent). OnApril14, 2009, Anaheim'ssupplyofwaterfromMWDwasalsoreducedby3.7
percent. ToaccommodateforwatershortagesandtoreducetheCity'soveralldemandforwater, theCityset
agoaltoreducewateruseintheCityby4.5percent (or950milliongallons) forthefiscalyearbetweenJuly
2008andJune2009. Itsurpassedthisgoalby22milliongallonsandisworkingtoencourageadditional
conservation, recycling, andwaterreductioneffortstodecreasewaterdemandeffort (CityofAnaheim2009).
Theproposedproject'sprojectedwaterdemandwouldbeabout0.017percentoftheCity'stotalwater
supply. AlthoughthisisnotalargepercentageoftheCity'swatersupply, theproposedprojectwillbe
requiredtoincorporatewaterconservationeffortswhereapplicable, suchasusingdrought- resistant
landscapingandusinglow -flowfaucetsandtoilets. TheCity'sLandscapeWaterEfficiencyOrdinance
Section10.19ofthemunicipalcode) haswaterefficiencyrequirementsfornewpublicandprivateprojects
intheCity. Fornonresidentialprojects, landscapeplanscoveringmorethan2,500squarefeetorthose
otherwiserequiringdiscretionaryapprovalmustincorporatetheprovisionsoftheLandscapeWaterEfficiency
Ordinance (CityofAnaheimMunicipalCode, Section10.19). Theproposedprojectwouldberequiredto
complywiththisordinance. TheimplementationofMitigationMeasures32and33wouldhelpreducewater
demandoftheproposedprojectthroughouttheproject'soperation. Overall, theCitywouldhavesufficient
watersuppliestomeettheneedsoftheproposedproject. Impactswouldbelessthansignificantwiththe
incorporatedmitigationmeasures, andnoadditionalanalysisisneeded.
MitigationMeasures
32. Priortothefinalbuildingandzoninginspectionfortheproject, thepropertyowner /developershall
submitaletterfromalandscapearchitecttotheCitycertifyingthatthelandscapeinstallationand
irrigationsystemshavebeeninstalledasspecifiedintheapprovedlandscapeandirrigationplans.
33. Priortofinalbuildingandzoninginspectionsfortheproject, thepropertyowner /developershall
installonsitepipingwithprojectmainssothatreclaimedwatermaybeusedforlandscapeirrigation
whenitbecomesavailablefromtheOrangeCountySanitationDistrict.
e) Resultinadeterminationbythewastewatertreatmentprovider, whichservesormayservethe
projectthatithasadequatecapacitytoservetheproject'sprojecteddemandinadditiontothe
provider'sexistingcommitments?
NoImpact. Thewastewatergeneratedbytheproposedprojectwouldnotexceedthecapacityofthe
wastewatertreatmentprovider. WastewaterintheCityofAnaheimiscollectedthroughCityfacilitiesandthen
conveyedthroughtrunksewersandchannelsownedandmaintainedbytheOrangeCountySanitation
District. WastewaterfromtheCityistreatedatvariousregionaltreatmentfacilities. Althoughthefacilitieson
theprojectsitearenotcurrentlybeingused, sewerinfrastructureisinplacefromprevioususeofthesite. A
sewerimpactstudywaspreparedbytheAnaheimDepartmentofPublicWorkstodeterminetheproject's
impacttotheCity'ssewersystemandwastewatertreatmentplant. Thestudydeterminedthattheproposed
projectwouldgenerateapproximately12,825gallonsofwastewaterperday, whichwouldadequatelybe
servedbytheCity'sinfrastructureandwouldbetreatedatthewastewatertreatmentplantsthatservetheCity
Page100 ThePlanningCenter Jane2010
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Linker2010). Noimpactstowastewatertreatmentproviderswouldoccur, andnoadditionalanalysisis
needed.
f) Beservedbyalandfillwithsufficientpermittedcapacitytoaccommodatetheproject'ssolidwaste
disposalneeds?
NoImpact. ThesolidwastegeneratedbytheproposedprojectwouldnotcauselandfillsservingtheCityto
exceedtheircapacity. Aprivatecompany, AnaheimDisposal, collectsandmanagessolidwastecollectionin
theCityofAnaheim. Commercial, residential, andindustrialsolidwasteiscollected, sortedforrecyclables,
andsenttolandfillsthroughoutSouthernCalifornia. OrangeCountyownsandoperatesthreeactivelandfills:
theOlindaAlphaSanitaryLandfillat1942NorthValenciaAvenueinBrea; FrankR. BowermanLandfillat
11002BeeCanyonAccessRoadinIrvine; andPrimaDeschechaLandfillat32250LaPataAvenueinSan
JuanCapistrano (CalRecycle2010a). Thesethreelandfillshaveacombinedremainingcapacityof
approximately184millioncubicyards (CalRecycle2010c).
Theprojectsiteisdevelopedwithaparkinglotandvacantcommercialbuildings. Sincethesiteisnotbeing
used, itdoesnotgeneratesolidwaste. Implementationoftheproposedprojectwouldincreasetheamount
ofsolidwasteinneedofdisposal. TheCaliforniaDepartmentofResourcesRecyclingandRecovery
CalRecycle) estimatessolidwastegenerationbyrestaurantstobeabout0.0108tonspersquarefootper
year (CalRecylce2010b). Theproposedprojectwouldbebuiltwithinexistingbuildingshells; noexpansions
ofbuildingspacewouldoccur. Thefinalbuildingsquarefootagewouldnotexceed43,500squarefeet,
resultingin469.8tonsofsolidwasteperyear. Basedonareviewoftheremainingcapacitiesofthelandfills
thatservetheCityofAnaheim, thisamountofsolidwastewouldbewithintheremainingcapacitiesofthe
landfills (CalRecycle2010a). Nosignificantimpactswouldoccurrelatedtosolidwastegenerationandno
additionalanalysisisneeded.
g) Complywithfederal, state, andlocalstatutesandregulationsrelatedtosolidwaste?
NoImpact. Alllocalgovernments, includingtheCityofAnaheim, arerequiredunderAssemblyBill939 (AB
939), theIntegratedWasteManagementActof1989, todevelopsourcereduction, reuse, recycling, and
compostingprogramstoreducetonnageofsolidwastegoingtolandfills. Citiesmustdivertatleast50
percentoftheirsolidwastegenerationintorecycling. In2006, thelatestyearforwhichdataareavailable, 55
percentofsolidwastegeneratedintheCityofAnaheimwasdiverted, sotheCityismeetingitsAB939goal
CalRecycles2010a). Thewastegeneratedbytheproposedprojectwouldbeincorporatedintothewaste
streamofthecity, anddiversionrateswouldnotbealtered. SB939impactswouldnotoccur, andno
additionalanalysisisrequired.
h) Resultinaneedfornewsystemsorsupplies, orsubstantialalterationsrelatedtoelectricity?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotresultinaneedfornewsystemsorsuppliesofelectricity. The
siteisservedbytheAnaheimPublicUtilities. Theexistinginfrastructureintheonsitebuildingswouldbe
updatedtomeetthecriteriaoftheCity'sstandardsandtomeetthedemandsofthedinnertheater. The
dinnertheaterwouldonlybeopenintheeveningsduringtheweekandtheafternoonandeveningonthe
weekend, reducingtheoverallelectricdemand. AnaheimPublicUtilitieswouldbeabletosupplythesiteand
wouldnotneedtobuildnewsystems. Therefore, noimpactswouldoccur, andnoadditionalanalysisis
needed.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page101
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
i) Resultinaneedfornewsystemsorsupplies, orsubstantialalterationsrelatedtonaturalgas?
NoImpact. TheprojectsiteisservedbytheCaliforniaGasCompany (CGS). Sincetheproposedproject
wouldinvolvemodificationstoanexistingstructure, nonewgaslinesorsystemswouldneedtobe
constructed. CGSwouldbeabletoservetheproposedproject, andnoimpactswouldoccur. Noadditional
analysisisrequired.
j) Resultinaneedfornewsystemsorsupplies, orsubstantialalterationsrelatedtotelephone
service?
NoImpact. TheprojectsiteisservedbyAT &Tphoneservice. Sincetheproposedprojectwouldinvolve
modificationstoanexistingstructure, theexistingphonelineswouldbeusedfortheproposedproject. AT &T
wouldbeabletoservetheproposedproject, andnoimpactswouldoccur. Noadditionalanalysisis
required.
k) Resultinaneedfornewsystemsorsupplies, orsubstantialalterationsrelatedtotelevision
service /reception?
NoImpact. Theproposedprojectwouldnotcreateademandfortelevisionservice /reception. Theproposed
projectwouldinvolvetheremodelingofexistingbuildingstocreateadinnertheater. Televisionservicewould
notberequiredfortheproposedproject, andnoimpactswouldoccur. Noadditionalanalysisisrequired.
3.18 MANDATORYFINDINGSOFSIGNIFICANCE
a) Doestheprojecthavethepotentialtodegradethequalityoftheenvironment, substantiallyreduce
thehabitatofafishorwildlifespecies, causeafishorwildlifepopulationtodropbelowself-
sustaininglevels, threatentoeliminateaplantoranimalcommunity, reducethenumberorrestrict
therangeofarareorendangeredplantoranimaloreliminateimportantexamplesofthemajor
periodsofCaliforniahistoryorprehistory?
NoImpact. Theprojectsitedoesnothaveanysensitivebiologicalcommunities, wildlifepopulations, or
recordingsofrareorendangeredspecies. Italsodoesnothaveanyhistoricallysignificantorknown
paleontologicalorarchaeologicalartifacts. Thesitehasbeendevelopedinthepastandcontainsanexisting
vacantcommercialbuildingandparkinglot. Theproposedprojectwouldinvolverepavingoftheparkinglot,
remodelingofthelargerofthetwobuildings, andpartialdemolitionofthesmallerofthetwobuildingsonthe
existingbuildingslab. Sitemodificationsincluderepavingtheparkinglotandtheplacementofadditional
landscapedareasthroughouttheparkinglotandaroundtheexistingbuildings. Thesemodificationsmay
requireveryminimalgroundexcavationinsoilthathasalreadybeenexcavatedandgradedandwouldnot
disturbanyunknownarchaeologicalorpaleontologicalresources. Impactstobiologicalandcultural
resourceswouldnotoccur.
b) Doestheprojecthaveimpactsthatareindividuallylimited, butcumulativelyconsiderable?
Cumulativelyconsiderable" meansthattheincrementaleffectsofaprojectareconsiderable
whenviewedinconnectionwiththeeffectsofpastprojects, theeffectsofothercurrentprojects,
andtheeffectsofprobablefutureprojects.)
LessThanSignificantImpactWithMitigationIncorporated. Theproposedprojectwouldchangetheuse
oftheprojectsitefrom "vacant" toarestaurant/entertainmentuse, therebybringingmorepeopletothe
projectsiteduringbusinessoperation. Thiswouldincreasetheneedforutilities, publicservicessuchasfire
andpolice, traffic, airpollution, noise, andemissionsofgreenhousegasesinthearea. Theinitialstudyhas
Page102 ThePlanningCenter June2010
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
foundtheenvironmentalimpactsinthesecategoriesto. beTessthansignificantorlessthensignificantwith
mitigationonanindividualbasis. Cumulativeimpactsmayoccurinrelationtothesecategorieswhenthese
individualimpactsarecompoundedwithimpactsofsurroundingexistingandproposedlanduses. The
CEQAprocessrequiresallfutureprojectstoevaluatetheirimpactsontheexistingenvironment. TheCityof
Anaheimalsoprovidesguidelinesandmandatoryproceduresforreducingenvironmentalimpactstopublic
services, utilities, traffic, airpollution, noise, andgreenhousegasesthroughitsadoptedgeneralplanand
municipalcode, includingthebuildingcodeandlandusedevelopmentcode. Theincorporationof
guidelinesandadherencetomandatoryregulationsandprocesseswouldreducethecumulative
environmentalimpactsoffutureprojectsintheCitytolessthansignificantlevels.
c) Doestheprojecthaveenvironmentaleffects, whichwillcausesubstantialadverseeffectson
humanbeings, eitherdirectlyorindirectly?
LessThanSignificantImpactWithMitigationIncorporated. Theproposedprojectwouldbringmore
peopletotheprojectsiteduringbusinessoperation, therebyincreasingtraffic, airpollution, andnoiselevels
inthearea. Potentiallysignificantimpactsinthesecategoriescoulddirectlyorindirectlyaffecthumanbeings.
However, airqualityimpactswerefoundtobelessthansignificantonanindividualbasis, andtrafficand
noiseimpactswouldbereducedtolessthansignificantlevelsthroughtheincorporationofmitigation
measures. Therefore, impactstohumanbeingswouldbeTessthansignificantwiththeincorporated
mitigationmeasures.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page103
3. EnvironmentalAnalysis
Thispageintentionallyleftblank
Page104 ThePlanningCenter June2010
4. References
4.1 PRINTEDREFERENCES
CityofAnaheim. 2009, February10. InitialStudyforamAmendmenttotheAnaheimResortSpecificPlan.
Availableat: http: /www.anaheim.net /article.asp ?id =1851. AccessedMarch24, 2010.
CityofAnaheim. 2004, May. CityofAnaheimGeneralPlanandEnvironmentalImpactReport.
CityofBuenaPark, WaterServicesDepartment. April2010. ConsumptionHistoryforMedievalTimesDinner
Theater (2 -28 -06through2- 1 -10).
4.2 PERSONALCOMMUNICATIONS
Linker, Keith. 2010, June. 1. PrincipalCivilEngineer, CityofAnaheimPublicWorksDepartment. Phonecall.
4.3 WEBSITES
AirNay. 2010, March29. AirportInformation. http: /www.airnay.com /airportsAccessedMarch29, 2010.
CaliforniaDepartmentofConservation (CDC). 2010a. IndexofWilliamsonActcontracts (FTPsite).
ftp: /ftp.consrv.ca.gov /pub /dlrp /waAccessedMarch23, 2010.
CDC. 2010b. CaliforniaGeologicalSurvey, MineralResourcesandMineralHazardsMappingProgram.
http: /www.consrv.ca.gov /CGS /minerals /Pages /index.aspx. AccessedMarch30, 2010.
CDC. 2009, March15. TsunamiInundationMapforEmergencyPlanning, OrangeCounty.
http: /www.conservation.ca.gov/ cgs /geologic_hazards /Tsunami /Inundation_Maps /Pages /Statewi
de_Maps.aspx. AccessedMarch30, 2010.
CaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtection (CALFIRE). 2007a, November7. FireHazard
SeverityZonesinSRA, OrangeCounty.
http:/ /www.fire.ca. gov/ fire_ prevention/ fhsz_maps /fhsz_maps_orange.php. AccessedMarch29,
2010.
CALFIRE. 2007b, September17. DraftFireHazardSeverityZonesinLRA, Anaheim.
http: /www.fire.ca.gov/ fire_ prevention /fhsz_maps /fhsz_maps_orange. php.
CaliforniaDepartmentofResourcesRecyclingandRecovery (CalRecycle). 2010a. JurisdictionProfilefor
CityofAnaheim. http: /www.calrecycle.ca.gov /Profiles /Juris /Default.asp.
CalRecylce. 2010b. EstimatedSolidWasteGenerationRatesforServiceEstablishments.
http: /www.calrecycle.ca. govwastechar /wastegenrates /Service. htm
CalRecycle. 2010c. SolidWasteInformationSystem.
http:// www .calrecycle:ca.gov /SWFacilities /Directory/search.aspx. AccessedMay3, 2010.
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page105
4. References
CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation (Caltrans). 2007, December7. CaliforniaScenicHighway
MappingSystem. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm.
CityofAnaheim. 2010a. CityofAnaheimFireDepartment, FireStationLocations.
http: /www.anaheim .net /section.asp ?id =113. AccessedMarch30, 2010.
CityofAnaheim. 2010b. FirePreventionServices. http: /www. anaheim .net /com_dev /ed /fire_prevent/.
AccessedApril6, 2010.
CityofAnaheim. 2009, May. WaterSituationReport.
http: /www. anaheim. netutilitieswaterservices /Suply /SituationRpt.pdf. AccessedApril6, 2010.
FederalEmergencyManagementAct. 2010, March29, 2010. FloodMapViewer.
https: hazards .fema.gov /wps /portal /mapviewer. AccessedMarch29, 2010.
OrangeCountyFloodControlDistrict (OCFCD). 2004. OrangeCountyFloodControlFacilities.
http: /www.ocflood.com /Docs_DM.aspx.
OrangeCountySanitationDistrict (OCSD). 2010. OrangeCountySanitationDistrictFacilities.
http: /www•ocsd.com/ about /general _information /facilities.asp. AccessedMarch25, 2010.
OrangeCountyTransportationAuthority (OCTA). 2003, November. OrangeCountyCongestion
ManagementProgram. http: /www.octa. net /ctfp /Final %20CMP %202003 %20Document.pdf.
AccessedApril6, 2010.
SantaAnaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard (SantaAnaRWQCB). 2009. OrangeCountyMunicipal
NPDESStormWaterPermit.
http: /www.swrcb.ca.gov /rwgcb8 /waterissuesprograms /stormwater /oc_permit.shtml. Accessed
March24, 2010.
StateWaterResourcesControlBoard (SWRCB). 2008. GeoTracker. http: /geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov
UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency (USEPA). 2009a, April10. ResourceConservationand
RecoveryAct. http: /www.epa. govenvirohtml /rcris /rcris_queryjava.html. AccessedMarch29,
2010.
USEPA. 2009b, December10. FacilityRegistrySystem.
http: /www.epa. govenviro /html /fii /fii_queryjava.html. AccessedMarch29, 2010.
UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService (USFWS). 2008. OrangeCountyCentralCoastalNCCP /HCP.
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/HCPs.html. AccessedMarch24, 2010.
Page106 ThePlanningCenter June2010
ListofPreparers
CITYOFANAHEIM
JonathanBorrego
PrincipalPlanner, AnaheimPlanningDepartment, PlanningServicesDivision
DellaHerrick
AssociatePlanner, AnaheimPlanningDepartment, CurrentPlanning
THEPLANNINGCENTER
WilliamHalligan, Esq.
VicePresident, EnvironmentalServices
JamieThomas, LEEDAP
AssociatePlanner
NicoleVermilion
SeniorPlanner
LeahBoyer
AssistantPlanner
JohnVang
AssistantPlanner
BattleoftheDanceDinnerTheaterInitialStudy CityofAnaheim Page107
5. ListofPreparers
Thispageintentionallyleftblank.
Page108 ThePlanningCenter June2010
NEW CORRESPONDENCE
ITEM NO. 3
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2015
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05823
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05047 AND
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-00374 LOCATION: 2013 East Ball Road (Starbucks)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Starbucks Coffee Company; the agent representing the applicant is Kayman Wong with Evergreen
Devco, Inc.; and the property owner is Anaheim B & S Partners, LLC.
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of the following applications: 1) A Conditional Use Permit to construct a coffee shop with a drive-through
lane;
2) A Variance from the setback requirements of the Zoning Code; and 3) An Administrative Adjustment to permit fewer parking spaces than required
by the Zoning Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class
3, New Construction) and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05823,
Variance No. 2015-05047, and Administrative Adjustment No. 2015-00374.
BACKGROUND: This 0.34-acre property is developed with a vacant 3,130 square foot building which was previously occupied by a restaurant. The property is
located in the "C-G" General Commercial Zone and the General Plan designates the
property for Neighborhood Center land uses. Surrounding land uses include a
service station to the west, an In-N-Out Burger restaurant to the north, a shopping center and car wash to the east, and a service station and El Torito restaurant across Ball Road to the south.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05823, VARIANCE NO. 2015-05047,
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-00374 December 14, 2015
Page 2 of 5
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing restaurant and construct a new
890 square foot coffee shop that would include a drive-through lane with vehicular stacking to
accommodate 11 vehicles, a take-out window, and a 100 square foot outdoor patio area. Seating and dining inside the building is not proposed. Vehicular access to the site would be provided by a driveway on Ball Road. The building will feature horizontal wood siding, a metal trellis with
clinging vines, metal cladding, a variation in the horizontal rooflines, and smooth stucco finishes
in earth-tone brown and gray colors (see Attachment 4). A detailed development summary is
included as Attachment 7 to this report.
SITE PLAN
Vehicular access openings would also be maintained to the north and east, providing connections
to adjacent properties. The applicant indicates that these existing driveways will remain open;
however, the applicant does not have reciprocal access agreements with the two adjacent
property owners. The drive through lane and parking lot have been designed to function without
the use of these driveways. However, if the applicant is unable to secure reciprocal access rights for the northerly driveway, trash from the proposed trash enclosure will have to be removed from
the site by utilization of a scout/pull-out truck to take the trash bin to a staging area to be
determined by the City’s trash service provider. In anticipation of this possibility, a condition of
approval is included that will require the owner of the property and the applicant to provide trash
removal in accordance with a circulation plan acceptable to the Public Works Department and the trash service provider.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05823, VARIANCE NO. 2015-05047,
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-00374 December 14, 2015
Page 3 of 5
Proposed hours of operation are 4:00 a.m. to midnight, seven days a week, with three to four
employees at the site during regular business hours. A total of nine parking spaces are proposed
on-site, including one handicap space. The applicant is proposing to install wall signs, on-site directional signs, and a monument sign along Ball Road in compliance with Code requirements.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following
conditions exist:
1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by
this code;
2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area
or health and safety;
4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will
not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
While coffee shops are permitted by right in this zone, a conditional use permit is required to
permit the drive-through lane. The purpose of the conditional use permit is to ensure proper
design and function of the drive-through lane and that vehicular activity does not impact
surrounding properties. The drive-through lane has been designed to minimize the probability of
vehicles queueing onto Ball Road. The drive-through lane would be accessed from the south, adjacent to Ball Road, and then extend along the east property line, and continue to north and
west sides of the building. The drive through lane would be screened from view of the street by
the building and landscaping. Directional signage would be placed at key locations on-site. This
includes a painted “Keep Clear” area at the north end of the site to ensure that cars queuing in the
drive-through lane would not block the northerly driveway opening to the In-N-Out Burger site. A Queuing Study was submitted by the applicant and the study concludes that at least 10
vehicles are able to queue on-site during peak hours between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and the
proposal accommodates up to 11 vehicles on site. The study is included as Attachment 6 to this
report. Based on these design features, staff believes that the proposed use would be compatible
with the surrounding area and recommends approval of the conditional use permit.
Variance: Before the Planning Commission may approve a variance, it must make a finding of
fact that the evidence presented shows that the following conditions exist:
1) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other
property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05823, VARIANCE NO. 2015-05047,
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-00374 December 14, 2015
Page 4 of 5
2) That, because of the special circumstances, shown above, strict application of the
Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under
identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
The Zoning Code allows a coffee shop to be constructed in the C-G Zone by right, but the
applicant is requesting a variance from the setback requirements included in the Zoning Code.
Although the applicant is providing the required 15 feet of landscaping adjacent to Ball Road,
five feet of this landscaping is located in an area that is being dedicated to the City to accommodate the future widening of Ball Road. Therefore, until such time that Ball Road is
widened, the property will maintain the Code required landscaped setback area. Once the street
is widened, the property would maintain a 10-foot wide landscaped front setback area. The
timing of street widening is unknown at this time.
A variance recognizes that there may be individual lots within a zone or tract that, because of
size, irregular shape, or unusual topography cannot be reasonably developed if all the
development standards for the zone are strictly applied. The applicant has submitted a letter of
justification indicating that the small size of the lot, as compared to all other C-G zoned
properties in the vicinity, makes it difficult to meet all of the development standards while providing adequate setbacks for the proposed coffee shop. The subject property has a width of
100 feet and a lot area of 0.34 acres, while all other lots in the immediate vicinity have much
larger lot widths and sizes. If this property was of similar size and width, staff believes that the
developer would be able to develop the site in accordance with all applicable Code requirements.
Staff believes that the restaurant is designed in a manner that is sensitive to the adjacent properties by providing a reasonable front yard setback that is compatible with the area. With a
variance, the property owner would be allowed to develop his property in a manner that is
compatible with the other retail businesses in the vicinity. Because this lot size is smaller than
surrounding properties, and because the lot size will be further reduced due to the future
widening of Ball Road, staff believes that there are special circumstances applicable to the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
Administrative Adjustment: The applicant requests an administrative adjustment to permit fewer
parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code. The Planning Director has review authority over Administrative Adjustments, but may refer any application to the Planning Commission for
review. Since the Conditional Use Permit and Variance must be approved by the Planning
Commission, the Planning Director has referred the Administrative Adjustment to the
Commission to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the project and to make a finding of fact
that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) The adjustment is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Zoning
Code;
2) The same or similar result cannot be achieved by using provisions in the Zoning Code that do not require the adjustment; and
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05823, VARIANCE NO. 2015-05047,
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-00374 December 14, 2015
Page 5 of 5
3) The adjustment will not produce a result that is out of character or
detrimental to the neighborhood.
The proposed project requires 10 parking spaces; however, nine spaces are proposed. Typically,
a deviation of less than 10 percent of Code required parking would be reviewed and
administratively approved by staff. However, when proposed as part of a project requiring a
public hearing, the request is combined with the other entitlements for consideration by the
Commission. Staff is supportive of this minor deviation from the number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Code since the project would be providing 90 percent of the required
parking spaces and the property is located in close proximity to several bus stops, making the use
of public transportation and walking a viable alternative to the use of personal vehicles.
Additionally, the use would primarily serve drive-through and take-out customers, as there
would be no ordering or dining facilities inside the building. Parking spaces are anticipated to be used mostly by employees (with three to four on site at one time) and by customers stopping
briefly to pick up orders at the take-out window.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the
effects of the proposed project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e., 3, New Construction) which consist of the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15303 of Title 14 of
the California Code of Regulations, the proposed project will not cause a significant effect on
the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
CONCLUSION: The proposed drive-through coffee shop is consistent with the goals of the
property’s Neighborhood Center designation which encourages a vibrant mix of commercial uses
to support the shopping and dining needs of the surrounding neighborhood. The drive-through
lane has been designed to minimize impacts to surrounding uses and to ensure proper on- and
off-site traffic flow. Additionally, the number of parking spaces being proposed would be adequate to accommodate this drive-through and take-out coffee shop. Staff recommends
approval of this request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Ashley Hefner Jonathan E. Borrego Contract Planner, RRM Design Group Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Draft Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Administrative Adjustment Resolution
2. Applicant’s Request Letter 3. Applicant’s Operations Letter
4. Plans
5. Photographs
6. Drive-Through Queuing Study 7. Development Summary
C-GSERVICESTATION
C-GIN 'N OUTRESTAURANT
C-GOFFICES
C-GRETAIL
C-GSERVICE STATION
C-GRETAIL
C-GRESTAURANT C-GRESTAURANT
ISERVICESTATION
ITILE STORE
ISERVICE STATION
IRETAIL
C-GRETAIL
RM-4FOURPLEX RM-4FOURPLEX RM-4APTS8 DU
RM-4APTS8 DU
RM-4FOURPLEX RM-4FOURPLEX
RM-4APTS8 DU
E BALL RD
S S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D
E ALMONT AVE
E. BALL RD S . S U N K I S T S T
E. CERRITOS AVE
S
.
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
S
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
S . L E W I S S T
E. HOWELL AVE2013 East Ball Road
DEV No. 2015-00090
Subject Property APN: 253-212-02
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
E BALL RD
S S T A T E C O L L E G E B L V D
E ALMONT AVE
E. BALL RD S . S U N K I S T S T
E. CERRITOS AVE
S
.
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
S
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
S . L E W I S S T
E. HOWELL AVE2013 East Ball Road
DEV No. 2015-00090
Subject Property APN: 253-212-02
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05823, VARIANCE NO. 2015-05047, AND
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-00374 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2015-00090)
(2013 EAST BALL ROAD)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim ("Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05823, Variance No. 2015-05047, and Administrative Adjustment No. 2015-00374 to permit the construction of a
coffee shop with a drive-through lane, a front yard setback less than required by the Anaheim
Municipal Code (“Code”), and fewer parking spaces than required by the Code (herein referred
to collectively as the " Proposed Project") on that certain real property located at 2013 East Ball Road in the City of Anaheim, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 0.34 acres in size and is currently developed
with an existing vacant restaurant. The Property is located in the “C-G” General Commercial Zone and is subject to the zoning and development standards described in Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) of the Code. The Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan
designates the Property for Neighborhood Commercial land uses; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on November 16, 2015 was duly given in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against the Proposed Project. On November 16, 2015, by motion, the Planning
Commission continued the matter to December 14, 2015, at which time the Planning
Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim to hear and
consider evidence for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning Commission
finds and determines that the Proposed Project is within that class of projects which consist of the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures. Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "State CEQA Guidelines") provides
examples of projects that qualify for an exemption from the provisions of CEQA. The one
example that is applicable to the Proposed Project is for "up to four… commercial buildings [such as a restaurant or similar structure] not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites
zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where
all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not
environmentally sensitive." The Proposed Project fits within that example and, therefore,
pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines, will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and
- 2 - PC2015-***
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. 2015-05823, does find and
determine the following facts:
1. A drive-through coffee shop is considered to be a "Restaurant - Drive-Through" use
within the meaning of the Code and is an allowable primary use under subsection .010 of Section
18.08.030 within the "C-G" General Commercial Zone, subject to approval of a conditional use
permit.
2. The Proposed Project will not adversely affect the surrounding land uses, or the
growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the Proposed
Project has been designed to be compatible with surrounding commercial and residential uses
because all traffic flows will be provided from an arterial highway, the one story building will be in scale with the surrounding uses, and a landscape buffer will be provided around the drive-
through lane.
3. The size and shape of the site for the Proposed Project is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety because the Proposed Project has been designed to comply with all Code
requirements (with the exception of the front setback and parking described below), including
interior setbacks, building height, signs, and landscaping.
4. The traffic generated by the Proposed Project will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the
number of vehicles entering and exiting the site is consistent with typical retail businesses that
would be permitted as a matter of right within the C-G (General Commercial) zone.
WHEREAS, paragraphs .0101 and .0102 of Subsection .010 (Setbacks) of Section 18.08.060 (Structural Setbacks) of Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones of the Code require the
minimum landscaped and structural setbacks in the Commercial Zones abutting an arterial
highway, such as Ball Road, to be fifteen (15) feet, "as measured from the ultimate highway
right-of-way line as designated on the Circulation Element of the General Plan". Those setback
requirements apply in addition to the setback and yard requirements set forth in paragraph .0201 (Street Setbacks for Non-Residential and Multiple-Family Residential Lots) of Subsection .020
(Measurements) of Section 18.40.040 (Structural Setbacks and Yards) of Chapter 18.40 (General
Development Standards) of the Code, which require "the minimum setbacks for all non-
residential . . . lots and parcels adjoining [a] . . . public . . . street[] . . . [to] be measured from the
closest building to the . . . [t]he ultimate right-of-way of any adjacent public street or arterial highway . . . ." Because the Proposed Project shows a setback of fifteen (15) feet from the
ultimate right-of-way of Ball Road, the applicant has requested a variance from the setback
requirements; 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 construct a drive-through coffee shop with a front
setback less than required by the Code and fewer parking spaces than required by the Code, has
determined that Variance No. 2014-05047 should be approved for the following reasons:
- 3 - PC2015-***
SECTION NO. 18.08.060.010.0101 Minimum landscaped setback.
(15 feet required; 10 feet proposed)
SECTION NO. 18.08.060.010.0102 Minimum structural setback.
(15 feet required; 10 feet proposed)
SECTION NO. 18.40.040.020.0201 Minimum street setback.
(15 feet required; 10 feet proposed)
1. That there are special circumstances applicable to the Property, including size, shape, location and surroundings, which do not apply to other property under the identical zoning classification in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. The subject property has a width of 100
feet and a lot area of 0.34 acres, while all other C-G zoned lots in the immediate vicinity have
much larger lot widths and sizes. If this property was of similar size and width, the developer
would be able to develop the site in accordance with all applicable Code requirements. 2. That, because of these special circumstances, strict application of the Zoning
Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under the identical zoning
classification in the vicinity because this lot size is smaller than other surrounding C-G zoned
properties in the vicinity. This makes it difficult to meet all of the development standards while providing adequate setbacks for the proposed coffee shop.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request
for Administrative Adjustment No. 2015-00374 should be approved for the following reasons:
SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces. (10 spaces required; 9 spaces proposed)
1. The adjustment is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Code. The
proposed project would comply with all other development standards of the C-G Zone, with the exception of the front setback variance described above. The coffee shop will primarily serve drive-through and take-out customers, as there will be no ordering or dining facilities inside the
building. Parking spaces are anticipated to be used mostly by employees (with three to four on
site at one time) and by customers stopping briefly to pick up orders at the take-out window.
2. The same or similar result cannot be achieved by using provisions in the Zoning Code that do not require the adjustment since the only alternative to processing the adjustment is
to impact the ability to maintain vehicle queueing onsite, and in a manner that does not block
parking spaces;
3. The adjustment will not produce a result that is out of character or detrimental to the neighborhood as the proposed drive-through use is a compatible use in the area.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it.
- 4 - PC2015-***
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Planning Commission does hereby
approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05823, Variance No. 2015-05047, and Administrative
Adjustment No. 2015-00374, 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, (ii) the modification complies with
the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of
the use or approved development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05823, Variance No. 2015-05047, and Administrative Adjustment No. 2015-00374 are approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit
may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment of Permit Approval) and
18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05823, Variance No. 2015-05047, and Administrative Adjustment No. 2015-00374 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and
void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 2015. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a resolution of
the City Council in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2015-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on December 14, 2015, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of December, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 6 - PC2015-***
- 7 - PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05823, VARIANCE NO. 2015-05047,
AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-00374
(DEV2015-00090)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
1 All backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of
the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public
streets. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault
will have to be brought up to current standards. Any other large
water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division outside of the street setback area
in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved
by Water Engineering and Cross Correction Control Inspector.
Public Utilities
Department,
Water Engineering
Division
2 All requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or fire
lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments
of existing water services, backflow equipment, and fire lines,
shall be coordinated and permitted through Water Engineering
Di vision of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department.
Public Utilities
Department,
Water Engineering
Division
3 This is a project with a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square
feet. A Landscape Documentation Package and a Certification of
Completion are required and a separate irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with Chapter 10.19 of Anaheim Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 6160 relating to landscape
water efficiency.
Public Utilities
Department,
Water Engineering Division
4 All existing water services and fire services shall conform to current Water Services Standards Specifications. Any water
service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall
be upgraded if continued use if necessary or abandoned if the
existing service is no longer needed. The owner/developer shall
be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line.
Public Utilities Department,
Water Engineering
Division
5 A plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for
recycling shall be submitted to the Public Works Department,
Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval.
Public Works
Department,
Streets and Sanitation Division
6 Trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location
acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation
Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and
screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or
highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from
graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum
Public Works
Department,
Streets and Sanitation Division
- 8 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or
tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the
plans submitted for building permits.
7 Curbs adjacent to the drive aisles shall be painted red to prohibit
parallel parking in the drive aisles. Red curb locations shall be
clearly labeled on building plans.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services
Division
8 The applicant shall submit to the Public Works
Department/Development Services, for review and approval, a
Water Quality Management Plan, as described in Drainage Area
Management Plan for Orange County. Said WQMP shall:
• Address 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.
• Incorporate applicable Routine Source Control BMPs.
• Incorporate Treatment Control BMPs.
• Describe the long-term operation and maintenance, identifies the responsible parties, and funding mechanisms for the
Treatment Control BMPs.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services Division
9 Any drainage above historical flow routed onto adjacent property must be directed to a recorded private drainage easement.
Applicant must provide a copy of the recorded document (i.e.
letter of acceptance of drainage, in a format acceptable to the City)
to the Engineering Department prior to approval of the Grading
Plan.
Public Works Department,
Development Services
Division
10 Prior to approval of the grading plan all existing structures shall be
demolished. The developer shall obtain a demolition permit from
the Building Division.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services Division
11 Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant shall submit a Final
Drainage Study prepared by a registered professional Civil
Engineer in the State of California. The Study shall be based upon and reference the latest edition of the Orange County
Hydrology Manual the applicable City of Anaheim Master Plan
of Drainage for the project area. All drainage sub-area
boundaries per the Master Plan for Drainage shall be
maintained. The Study shall include: an analysis of 10-, 25- and 100-year storm frequencies; an analysis of all drainage impacts
to the existing storm drain system based upon the ultimate
project build-out condition; and address whether off-site and/ or
on-site drainage improvements (such as detention/ retention
basins or surface runoff reduction) will be required to prevent downstream properties from becoming flooded.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services Division
- 9 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS
12 The building shall be equipped with an alarm system (silent or audible). Police Department
13 Address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily readable
from the street. Numbers should be visible during hours of
darkness.
Police Department
14 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
15 The rear doors of the premises shall be numbered with the same
address numbers or suite number of the business. Minimum height of 4 inches is required.
Police Department
16 All exterior doors to have adequate security hardware, e.g.
deadbolt locks.
Police Department
17 Rooftop address numbers shall be provided for the police
helicopter. Numbers shall be a minimum size of 4 ft. by 2 ft. The
lines of the numbers are to be a minimum of 6 inches thick.
Numbers should be spaced 12 to 18 inches 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. Rooftop numbers are not to be visible from ground
level.
Police Department
18 Prior to Building and Zoning Inspections all required WQMP items shall be inspected and operational. Public Works Department,
Development Services
Division
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
19 If the applicant is unable to secure reciprocal access rights from
the owners of the real property located immediately adjacent and
to the north and east of the subject property allowing the applicant to have access for trash removal, the applicant and the property
owner of the subject property shall enter into a Declaration of
Covenants with the City, in a form satisfactory to the City
Attorney, which shall be recorded in the Official Records of the
County of Orange, to provide trash removal in accordance with a circulation plan acceptable to the Public Works Department and
the trash removal service provider. If, on the other hand, the
applicant is able to obtain access rights from said adjacent
property owners, applicant shall provide evidence of such rights to
the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the City Attorney, which shall be in the form of a document recorded in the Official
Records of the County of Orange.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
- 10 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
20 No required parking area shall be fenced-off or otherwise enclosed
for outdoor storage uses.
Planning Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
21 Adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas,
aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings
shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide
adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and
provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and
vehicles on-site.
Police Department
22 The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the area adjacent to the premises over which they have control, in an
orderly fashion through the provision of regular maintenance and
removal of trash or debris. Any graffiti painted or marked upon
the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the
licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied.
Planning Department, Code Enforcement
Division
23 Ongoing during project operation, should the vehicle queue reach
Ball Road, staff members shall be positioned at the end of the on-site queue area near the Ball Road entrance to direct traffic. This measure shall be implemented for a short timeframe, as needed,
until the queue dissipates.
Public Works
Department,
Traffic Engineering Division
GENERAL CONDITIONS
24 Conditions of approval related to each of the timing milestones
above shall be prominently displayed on plans submitted for
permits. For example, conditions of approval that are required to be
complied with prior to the issuance of building permits shall be provided on plans submitted for building plan check. This
requirement applies to building permits, grading permits, street
improvement plans, water and electrical plans, landscape irrigation
plans, and fire and life safety plans, etc.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
25 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,
Planning Services
Division
26 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
Planning Department,
Planning Services Division
- 11 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
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.
27 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the
applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning
Department and as conditioned herein.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
www.evgre.com
Phoenix,Arizona Glendale,California Denver,Colorado Dallas, Texas
2390 E. Camelback Rd., #410 200 N. Maryland Ave., # 201 1873 S. Bellaire St., #1106 190 Bee Caves Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85016 Glendale, CA 91206 Denver, CO 80222 Lucas, TX 75002
Phone: 877.384.7336 Fax: 602.808.9100
October 19, 2015
Via Email and Overnight
Leticia Mercado
City of Anaheim
Department of Public Works-Operations Division
400 E. Vermont
Anaheim, CA
Re:Operations Letter for 2013 Ball Rd-Starbucks
Dear Ms. Mercado,
As discussed in our meeting on October 13
th our expected delivery times are as follows:
The deliveries occur on a daily basis from 11 pm to 4 am. They occur once a day.
Also, we would like to propose the following language for the scout truck for the trash pickup:
While it is operating on site, Starbucks Corporation will agree to have their trash picked up on site with a
full size trash truck so long as the access to the adjacent property to the north remains open.If ever,
during its operation, that the access to the adjacent property to the north is closed, then Starbucks will
be responsible for the incremental cost of using a scout truck as opposed to a full sized truck.
Sincerely,
Kayman Wong
Evergreen Devco, Inc.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
N
O
.
4
Existing
building
to be
demolished
Commercial complex
to the east
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Existing
building
on right,
In‐N‐Out
to north,
existing
vehicular
access
shown
Existing
grand‐
fathered
billboard
sign‐west
property
line
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
N
O
.
6
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF DRIVE-THROUGH QUEUING DATA COLLECTION
Average
All Sites
Site Average
7:15-7:30 AM 9.3 10.8 8.8 13.4 n/a 10.6
7:30-7:45 AM 12.0 10.0 7.3 12.9 6.25 9.7
7:45-8:00 AM 7.2 11.2 8.1 9.5 n/a 9.0
8:00-8:15 AM 11.5 13.3 7.6 9.7 n/a 10.5
8:15-8:30 AM 11.0 12.6 7.0 9.8 n/a 10.1
8:30–8:45 AM 12.2 14.1 n/a 15.6 n/a 14.0
Site Peak
7:00-7:15 AM 10 16 n/a n/a n/a 13.0
7:15-7:30 AM 12 14 9 n/a n/a 11.7
7:30-7:45 AM 12 10 10 15 11 11.6
7:45-8:00 AM 9 14 10 14 n/a 11.8
8:00-8:15 AM 13 15 11 12 n/a 12.8
8:15-8:30 AM 14 16 11 16 n/a 14.3
8:30–8:45 AM 13 15 n/a 17 n/a 15.0
8:45-9:00 AM 6 14 n/a n/a n/a 10.0
Site 85th %-ile 2
7:15-7:30 AM 9.8 11.4 10 15 n/a 11.6
7:30-7:45 AM 12 10 9 14.95 10.45 11.3
7:45-8:00 AM 8.4 13 9.4 12.65 n/a 10.9
8:00-8:15 AM 12.4 14.3 10 11 n/a 11.9
8:15-8:30 AM 12.3 14 10 12 n/a 12.1
8:30–8:45 AM 13 15 n/a 17 n/a 15.0
1 Source: Third party traffic study. Limited data provided.
2 85th percentile = The queue will be less than the queue shown 85% of the time.
Summary of Starbucks Drive-Thru Queuing Data
Queue Summary Westminster Orange Gardena H. Beach Glendora 1
PROJECT SUMMARY
Development Standard C-G Standards Proposed Project
Site Area None 0.34 acres
Building Height 75 feet or 6 stories max. 18’-6”
Floor Area Ratio* .50 .06
Front Landscape Setback 15 feet min. 10 feet to ultimate right-of-way
Interior Setback None adjacent to commercial uses East: 0 feet to drive through lane West: 5 feet landscaped to drive though lane
North: 5 feet landscaped to drive through lane
Parking 10 spaces 9 spaces**
* May be established or modified by CUP. ** An Administrative Adjustment is required to permit a 10% deviation in the Code requirement.
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 5
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2015 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05819 AND
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05049
LOCATION: 5120 East La Palma Avenue, No. 102 (Avis Car Rental)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Donald A. Pierce with Avis
Budget Group, Inc. and the property owner is Anaheim Hills Enterprises. REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit to permit
and retain a car rental agency within an existing industrial and office complex. The
applicant also requests a variance to allow fewer parking spaces than required by the
Zoning Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from
further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class
1, Existing Facilities), and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05819 and Variance No. 2015-05049.
BACKGROUND: This 6.8-acre property is developed with an industrial and office
complex and is located in the Northeast Area Specific Plan, Development Area 2 -
Expanded Industrial Area (SP94-1, DA2). The intent of this development area is to “provide increased opportunity for the development of a mix of light industrial and
corporate headquarters, research and development uses, with essential support
services at strategic locations.” The property is also located within the Scenic
Corridor Overlay zone. The General Plan designates this property for Low Intensity
Office uses. Surrounding land uses include industrial uses the east and west, an office complex to the north, across La Palma Avenue, and the Santa Ana River to the
south. This application was filed in response to a Code Enforcement violation
regarding this business operating without the proper business license.
The Planning Commission recently approved two conditional use permits and associated parking variances to permit fitness facilities on this property.
Specifically, on July 13, 2015, the Commission approved the 1,100 square foot
Precision Fitness facility in Unit 105 of building 5140 within the complex. On
November 16, 2015 the Commission approved a 2,350 square foot Jiu Jitsu facility
in Unit 119 of building 5100 within the complex.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05819 AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05049
December 14, 2015 Page 2 of 4
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to permit and retain a car rental agency within an existing
1,700 square foot tenant space. No changes to the exterior of the building are proposed. The
office is open seven days a week, except for various holidays. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 9:00 a.m. to noon on Sundays. There are no after hours drop-offs of rental cars, or customers’ personal cars parked overnight on the site. The floor plan shows a lobby area, offices, and a warehouse/garage area in
the rear of the unit. Minimal cleaning of rental cars occurs in the warehouse/garage area,
including vacuuming of the interior and window cleaning. Exterior washing of vehicles is not
conducted on site. No vehicle maintenance work is conducted on site. No hazardous chemicals are used or stored on site. There are typically one to two employees on site during regular business hours. Rental cars are displayed in five parking spaces in front of the business adjacent
to La Palma Avenue. In addition to rental car display spaces in front of the business, rental cars
are also stored in five spaces at the rear of the complex overnight.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission may approve a conditional use
permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the
following conditions exist: 1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is
authorized by this code;
2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow
the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety;
4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue
burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the
traffic in the area; and 5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions
imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the
citizens of the City of Anaheim.
A conditional use permit is required to permit car rental agencies in this zone in order to
determine compatibility with the surrounding area. Staff believes that the proposed use is
compatible with the other industrial and commercial businesses located within this complex. This car rental business has been operating at this location for three years without any Code Enforcement complaints from adjacent businesses. With the conditions imposed, such as
restricting operations to those outlined in the attached letter of request, the continuation of this
use would not impact the operations or opportunities for expansion of other nearby office and
industrial businesses, nor would the use be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05819 AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05049
December 14, 2015 Page 3 of 4
Parking Variance: A variance shall be granted upon a finding by the Planning Commission or
City Council that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
1) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable
to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of
operation of such use;
2) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase
the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in
the immediate vicinity of the proposed use;
3) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase
the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use;
4) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the
proposed use; and
5) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede
vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public
streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use.
The Zoning Code requires that parking demand be calculated by combining the needs of the car rental agency and the industrial, restaurant, fitness, and office uses on the property. The
entire complex requires a total of 479 parking spaces; 12 are required for the car rental agency
and 467 spaces are required for the other uses within the complex. The property contains a
total of 374 Code compliant parking spaces, including 7 handicapped spaces. There are also 124 compact sized spaces on the property; however, these spaces are not Code compliant and cannot be counted in the parking supply. The table below provides a summary of the parking
requirement by land use, and the attached tenant list provides a detailed breakdown of units,
uses, and square footage for all tenant spaces within the complex.
Use
Class
Total Sq. Ft.
by Use Class
Parking Spaces Required
(per 1,000 sq. ft. of GFA)
Total Spaces Required
by Use Class
Avis Auto Rental 1,700 4 12*
Office/Warehouse 47,600 1.55 71.4
Office/Admin. 65,200 4 260.8
Fitness 11,250 5.5 69.0
Medical Office 3,200 6 19.2
Restaurant 1,800 8 14.4
Industrial 3,900 1.55 5.9
Religious Assembly 4,600 Approved by CUP 26.0
TOTAL 139,250 479
* Five additional display spaces for Avis are proposed, resulting in 12 total spaces required for this
business.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05819 AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05049
December 14, 2015 Page 4 of 4
Staff made two recent site visits to the property and observed that there is adequate parking
available on the property to accommodate the existing uses. More specifically, staff conducted
a parking survey on Thursday, November 12, 2015 and observed that a maximum of 143
spaces were occupied on the site at 12:00 p.m. In addition, staff conducted two parking surveys in July associated with the July 13, 2015 Precision Fitness conditional use permit and observed that a maximum of 216 spaces were occupied on the site at that time. The surveys
were conducted on a Monday morning at 11:00 a.m. and a Tuesday afternoon at 4:30 p.m.
Because the car rental agency has only two employees on site at a time, with customers on site for a short period of time, staff believes that the number of parking spaces on site is adequate to accommodate the proposed business and without impact to the surrounding public streets or
properties. The business can also accommodate the five rental car display spaces without any
impacts on the surrounding businesses.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the effects of the proposed project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e.,
Class 1 – Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration
of existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the proposed project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
provisions of CEQA.
CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the conditions exist for Planning Commission to make the required findings to approve this request. The car rental agency is compatible with the industrial, office and commercial uses within the complex. The number of parking spaces
provided is adequate to accommodate the car rental agency based upon staff’s observations of
the site during the peak weekday hours. Staff recommends approval of this request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Ashley Hefner Jonathan E. Borrego
Contract Planner, RRM Design Group Planning Services Manager
Attachments: 1. Draft Conditional Use Permit and Variance Resolution
2. Applicant’s Request Letter
3. Tenant List 4. Site and Floor Plans 5. Site Photographs
SP 94-1 (SC)DA2OFFICES
SP 94-1 (SC)DA2OFFICES SP 94-1 (SC)DA2NBTYMANUFACTURING
SP 94-1 (SC)DA2INDUSTRIAL
SP 94-1 (SC)DA2INDUSTRIALSP 94-1 (SC)DA2INDUSTRIAL
T (SC)SANTA ANA RIVER
T (SC)SANTA ANA RIVER
OFFICE ANDINDUSTRIAL
E LA PALMA AVE
N K E L L O G G D R
E. LA PALMA AVE
N . I M P E R I A L H W Y
N
.
L
A
K
E
V
IE
W
A
VEE.SANTA AN A CANYONRD
E. ORANGETHORPE AVE
E .R I V E R D A L E A V E
S . R I C H F I E L D R D
5120 East La Palma Avenue
DEV No. 2015-00076
Subject Property APN: 346-442-02
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
E LA PALMA AVE
N K E L L O G G D R
E. LA PALMA AVE
N . I M P E R I A L H W Y
N
.
L
A
K
E
V
IE
W
A
VEE.SANTA AN A CANYONRD
E. ORANGETHORPE AVE
E .R I V E R D A L E A V E
S . R I C H F I E L D R D
5120 East La Palma Avenue
DEV No. 2015-00076
Subject Property APN: 346-442-02
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05819 AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05049
AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2015-00076)
(5120 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE, SUITE NO. 102) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve (i) Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-
05819 to permit a car rental agency within an existing office and industrial complex, and (ii)
Variance No. 2015-05049 to allow fewer parking spaces than required by the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") (collectively referred to herein as the "Proposed Project") for premises located at 5120 East La Palma Avenue, Suite 102 in the City of Anaheim, County of
Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 6.8 acres in size and is currently developed with an industrial and office complex. The Property is located in the Expanded
Industrial Area (Development Area 2) of the Northeast Area Specific Plan Area and is subject to
the zoning and development standards of Chapter 18.120 (Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1
(SP 94-1) Zoning and Development Standards) of the Code, combined with the zoning and development standards of the underlying base zone for the Property, which is the "I" Industrial Zone. The Property is also located within the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone, meaning that
the regulations contained in Chapter 18.18 (Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone) of the Code
shall apply to the Property and shall supersede any inconsistent regulations of the "I" Industrial
Zone. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Office-Low land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on December 14, 2015 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having
been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60
(Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05819 and Variance No. 2015-05049, and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, as the "lead agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning Commission finds and determines that the effects of the Proposed Project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e., Class 1 – Existing Facilities) which consist of the
repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities,
involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this
determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and
- 2 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing with respect to the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05819, does find
and determine the following:
1. The proposed request to permit a car rental agency within an existing
industrial and office complex is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized
under the classes of allowable primary uses set forth in Table 10-A (Primary Uses: Industrial
Zone) as "Automotive–Vehicle Sales, Lease & Rental", as referenced in paragraph .0402 of subsection .040 of Section 18.10.030 (Uses) of Chapter 18.10 (Industrial Zone) of the Code.
2. The proposed conditional use permit to permit a car rental agency, as
conditioned herein, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the car rental agency would be located within an existing building surrounded by compatible buildings and uses.
3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the car rental agency in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the
health and safety because the facility would be located within an existing industrial and office building that is surrounded by industrial and office uses.
4. The traffic generated by the car rental agency will not impose an undue
burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area
because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding streets and adequate parking will be provided to accommodate the use.
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 as the proposed
land use will continue to be integrated with the surrounding office and industrial area and would not pose a health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
WHEREAS, the number of off-street parking spaces required under the Code for the
proposed car rental agency, when added to the total number of such parking spaces required by
the Code and the total number of such spaces that exist at the Property, represents a small or de minimis increase. Nevertheless, because the number of parking spaces required by the Code for
all uses, including the Proposed Project, is less than the actual number of parking spaces that
exist, a variance must be approved for the Property; and
WHEREAS, based upon the request letter submitted by the applicant and observations made by staff, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the
request for a variance for less parking than required by the Code should be approved for the
following reasons:
SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces. (479 spaces required; 374 spaces proposed)
- 3 - PC2015-***
1. The variance for the Property, under the conditions imposed, will not cause
fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the Property, including the
proposed car rental agency, than the number of such spaces necessary to
accommodate all vehicles attributable to all uses at the Property under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such uses. With
respect to the other industrial and office complex uses, the observations made by
staff indicate that the number of parking spaces needed and used are less than the
number of spaces that exist, and the parking demand will not exceed the the
minimum number of spaces required by the Code;
2. That the variance for the Property, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets
in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the on-site parking will
adequately accommodate the peak parking demands of all combined uses on the
site;
3. That the variance for the Property, under the conditions imposed, will not
increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private
property in the immediate vicinity of the Property because the on-site parking for
the industrial and office complex, including the proposed car rental agency, will
adequately accommodate peak parking demands of all uses on the site;
4. That the variance for the Property, under the conditions imposed, will not
increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for
the Property because the Property provides adequate ingress and egress points,
which are designed to allow for adequate on-site circulation; and
5. That the variance for the Property, under the conditions imposed, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in
the immediate vicinity of the Property because the Property has existing ingress
or egress access points that are designed to allow adequate on-site circulation
and, therefore, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent
properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the Property.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
- 4 - PC2015-***
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
approve Conditional Use Permit No. No. 2015-05819 and Variance No. 2015-05049, contingent
upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property under Variance No. 2015-05049 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05819 in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the
City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted
in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of
approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition, (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant
progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any amendment, modification or revocation of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part
thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and
void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval
of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to
compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or
requirement.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 2015. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and
may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2015-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on December 14, 2015 by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of December, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 6 - PC2015-***
- 7 - PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05819 AND
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05049
(DEV2015-00076)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
1. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the business owner shall be removed or painted over
within 24 hours of being applied.
Planning and Building Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
2. No after hours drop-off of rental cars, or overnight parking of client’s personal cars, shall be allowed on-site. Planning and Building Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
3. No more than five rental cars may be stored on site at any time and these vehicles shall be stored within the designated parking lot area as shown on the
approved exhibits.
Planning and Building Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
4. No signage shall be applied to any cars in the parking lot associated with the car rental agency. Planning and Building Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
5. No washing, repair, or maintenance of rental cars shall be conducted on-site. Planning and Building Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
6. The business shall be operated in accordance with the Letter of Request submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the business operation
as described in that document shall be subject to review and approval by the
Planning Director to determine substantial conformance with the Letter of Request and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses.
Planning and Building Department,
Planning Services
Division
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
7. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its
officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually
and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
- 8 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
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.
Division
8. The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing
of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the
issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services Division
9. The premises of the car rental agency shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim
by the petitioner, which plans are on file with the Planning Department, and
as conditioned herein.
Planning and Building Department,
Planning Services
Division
Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC.
6 Sylvan Way
Parsippany, NJ 07054
CUP Request – 5120 E. La Palma Ave, Suite 102, Anaheim Hills, CA 92807
The Avis Budget Group proposes that it will operate a Car Rental office at 5120 E La Palma, Suite #102,
Anaheim Hills, CA.
The office will be open 7 days a week, except for various Holiday closures. Office hours will be 8AM to
6PM Monday thru Friday. 9AM to 2PM on Saturday. 9AM to 12 Noon on Sunday. There will be no
afterhours drop off allowed.
The location will handle both the Avis and Budget brands. The car rental fleet is the same.
The location will be allowed 5 non‐exclusive parking spaces by the Landlord.
The location will carry small cars to larger SUV’s for rent, depending on demand.
There will be minimal cleaning done in the garage area of the space. Vacuuming of the interior and
window cleaning. No washing of vehicles will take place.
Signage will be consistent with the Shopping Center’s current signage guidelines.
There will be no Maintenance work done on site on the rental vehicles. No hazardous Chemicals will be
on site.
The location will staffed with 1 ‐2 employee’s depending on business demand.
There will be no signage on any cars in the parking lot.
Avis Budget will install an 8 foot rental counter near the front entrance of the space. There will be no
further build out will be necessary inside the space.
No customer cars will be allowed to park overnight.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ANAHEIM HILLS BUSINESS CENTER
Tenant List
Address Suite #Current Tenant Use Provided by
Property Owner
Staff Determined
Use Class Unit Sq. Ft.
Parking
Space Req.
(spaces/sq. ft.)
Total
Spaces
Required by
Use Class/
Approval
5120 102 Avis Rent A Car Retail Automotive-Lease 1700 4/1000 7
5100 119 GRACIE BARRA Fitness Fitness 2350 CUP 10
5140 105 Precision Fitness Fitness Fitness 1100 5.5/1000 6
5100 117 Pilates Body Pilates Studio Fitness 2300 5.5/1000 13
5100 108 Rock City Retail Fitness 1600 5.5/1000 9
5100 109 Rock City Retail Fitness 1600 5.5/1000 9
5100 110 Rock City Retail Fitness 2300 5.5/1000 13
5100 106 Hydracon Office/Admin Industrial 1600 1.5/1000 2
5120 208 PWB America Office/Admin Industrial 1250 1.5/1000 2
5130 101 Sunrise Sewing Serv Office/Admin Industrial 1050 1.5/1000 2
5100 104 Hands on Wellness Chiropractic Medical Office 1600 6/1000 10
5100 105 Hands on Wellness Chiropractic Medical Office 1600 6/1000 10
5100 101 Theresa Smith Office/Admin Office/Admin 1750 4/1000 7
5100 107 Vickie Daley Office/Admin Office/Admin 1600 4/1000 6
5100 114 Cypress Distr Office/Admin Office/Admin 2300 4/1000 9
5100 115 JUSA Office/Admin Office/Admin 2300 4/1000 9
5100 116 John Metzen Office/Admin Office/Admin 2300 4/1000 9
5100 118 John Metzen Office/Admin Office/Admin 2300 4/1000 9
5100 201 Reliable Hospice Office/Admin Office/Admin 1750 4/1000 7
5100 202 Major League (roofers)Office/Admin Office/Admin 1750 4/1000 7
5100 204 Hands on Wellness Office/Admin Office/Admin 700 4/1000 3
5100 205 Hoss Williams (Structural Engineers)Office/Admin Office/Admin 700 4/1000 3
5100 206 Farmers Insurance Office/Admin Office/Admin 700 4/1000 3
5100 207 Tony Canzone (Farmers Insurance)Office/Admin Office/Admin 700 4/1000 3
5100 208 Luz Delgadillo Office/Admin Office/Admin 700 4/1000 3
5100 213 CMS Hospice Office/Admin Office/Admin 700 4/1000 3
5120 105 Valmax Realty Office/Admin Office/Admin 1700 4/1000 7
5120 201 Premier Sales Office/Admin Office/Admin 1100 4/1000 4
5120 203 Valmax Realty Office/Admin Office/Admin 800 4/1000 3
5120 205 Mark Shipman Office/Admin Office/Admin 1000 4/1000 4
5120 206 Michelle Ghidotti (Law office)Office/Admin Office/Admin 1000 4/1000 4
5120 207 Chad Maddox (Law office)Office/Admin Office/Admin 1100 4/1000 4
5120 209 Diane Weifenbach (Law office)Office/Admin Office/Admin 850 4/1000 3
5130 109 Continental Interiors Office/Admin Office/Admin 1100 4/1000 4
5130 110 Dynamic Engineer Office/Admin Office/Admin 1100 4/1000 4
5130 113 With HOPE Office/Admin Office/Admin 1050 4/1000 4
5130 201 Michelle Ghidotti (Law office)Office/Admin Office/Admin 1100 4/1000 4
5130 202 Zack Westphal Office/Admin Office/Admin 1050 4/1000 4
5130 203 Brian Lubeley Office/Admin Office/Admin 1000 4/1000 4
5130 204 IOSM Office/Admin Office/Admin 1500 4/1000 6
5130 205 Christian Jordan Office/Admin Office/Admin 1100 4/1000 4
5130 206 WS Potter Office/Admin Office/Admin 1100 4/1000 4
5130 208 Doug Ecks Office/Admin Office/Admin 1100 4/1000 4
5130 209 AES Global Office/Admin Office/Admin 1100 4/1000 4
5130 212 South Coast Counsel Office/Admin Office/Admin 1050 4/1000 4
5130 213 RL Caraig Inc Office/Admin Office/Admin 1100 4/1000 4
5140 103 Mike Barnes (Reinbold Gallery)Office/Admin Office/Admin 1200 4/1000 5
5140 203 Chad McLain (Exodus Escape Room)Office/Admin Office/Admin 1800 4/1000 7
5140 207 David Johnson Office/Admin Office/Admin 1900 4/1000 8
5150 106
Mark Rhone (Stonebrook Services
Insurance Agency)Office/Admin Office/Admin 1000 4/1000 4
*Bolded items represent units where staff has determined a different Use Class than that provided by the property owner.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ANAHEIM HILLS BUSINESS CENTER
Tenant List
Address Suite # Current Tenant
Use Provided by
Property Owner
Staff Determined
Use Class Unit Sq. Ft.
Parking
Space Req.
(spaces/sq. ft.)
Total
Spaces
Required by
Use Class/
Approval
5150 108 William Roman Office/Admin Office/Admin 1000 4/1000 4
5150 110 Videotech Office/Admin Office/Admin 1000 4/1000 4
5150 112 J & B Invest Office/Admin Office/Admin 950 4/1000 4
5150 113 Margaret Yaros Office/Admin Office/Admin 950 4/1000 4
5150 114 Laura Milham (Bartending Training)Office/Admin Office/Admin 1000 4/1000 4
5150 201 Steel Distributors (SDI)Office/Admin Office/Admin 1050 4/1000 4
5150 202 Reliable Hospice Office/Admin Office/Admin 950 4/1000 4
5150 203 Yoon Tee Hai Office/Admin Office/Admin 1000 4/1000 4
5150 205 Emeral Tech Office/Admin Office/Admin 1000 4/1000 4
5150 208 Net 1 Funding Office/Admin Office/Admin 1000 4/1000 4
5150 214 Pool Route Pros Office/Admin Office/Admin 1050 4/1000 4
5140 201 Sierra Cybernetics Office/Admin Office/Admin 1500 4/1000 6
5120 103 Linda Ayala Retail Office/Admin 1900 4/1000 8
5120 106 Copytron Printing Retail Office/Admin 1600 4/1000 6
5130 105 Dial-a-Copy Retail Office/Admin 1100 4/1000 4
5100 113 SMC Enterprises Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1600 1.55/1000 2
5130 103 Adam Chaves Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 900 1.55/1000 1
5130 104 Kyle Hanenberg Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1500 1.55/1000 2
5130 107 Nichee Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1100 1.55/1000 2
5130 108 Dennis Anderson Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1100 1.55/1000 2
5130 111 California Pellet Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1100 1.55/1000 2
5130 112 Magellan Solution Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1000 1.55/1000 2
5140 102 Fernando Naidich Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1100 1.55/1000 2
5140 106 David Johnson Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 2000 1.55/1000 3
5140 107 David Johnson (Interior Affairs)Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1800 1.55/1000 3
5150 101 Savvy Interior Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1000 1.55/1000 2
5150 102 Tom Coudayre Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 950 1.55/1000 1
5150 104 VIAA Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 850 1.55/1000 1
5150 107 Beta Diamond Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1000 1.55/1000 2
5150 111 Yoonmo Kang Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 950 1.55/1000 1
5150 211 Yoonmo Kang Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1000 1.55/1000 2
5150 109 Wing Lam Ofiice/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1000 1.55/1000 2
5100 209 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 700 1.55/1000 1
5100 219 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 2350 1.55/1000 4
5120 104 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1900 1.55/1000 3
5120 202 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 2000 1.55/1000 3
5120 204 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1600 1.55/1000 2
5130 102 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1000 1.55/1000 2
5130 106 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1100 1.55/1000 2
5130 207 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1100 1.55/1000 2
5130 210 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1100 1.55/1000 2
5130 211 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1100 1.55/1000 2
5140 101 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1500 1.55/1000 2
5140 104 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1350 1.55/1000 2
5140 202 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1000 1.55/1000 2
5140 206 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1900 1.55/1000 3
5150 105 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1000 1.55/1000 2
5150 204 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1000 1.55/1000 2
5150 206 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1000 1.55/1000 2
5150 207 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1000 1.55/1000 2
5150 209 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1000 1.55/1000 2
*Bolded items represent units where staff has determined a different Use Class than that provided by the property owner.
ANAHEIM HILLS BUSINESS CENTER
Tenant List
Address Suite # Current Tenant
Use Provided by
Property Owner
Staff Determined
Use Class Unit Sq. Ft.
Parking
Space Req.
(spaces/sq. ft.)
Total
Spaces
Required by
Use Class/
Approval
5150 210 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1000 1.55/1000 2
5150 212 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 1000 1.55/1000 2
5150 213 Vacant Office/Warehouse Office/Warehouse 950 1.55/1000 1
5100 111 South Coast Worship Office/Admin Religious Assembly 2300 CUP 0
5100 112 South Coast Worship Office/Admin Religious Assembly 2300 CUP 26
5120 101 Sushi & Teriyaki Restaurant Restaurant 1800 8/1000 14
TOTAL 139,250 463
*Bolded items represent units where staff has determined a different Use Class than that provided by the property owner.
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
11/16/2015
1
Front
Entrance
Interior
Offices
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
11/16/2015
2
Interior
Hallway
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.
S
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
S
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
W W A T E R S T
S
H
E
L
E
N
A
S
T
W. BALL RD
S
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
E. L INC O LN AVE
E. BALL RDS. W A L N U T S T
W . B R O A D WAYW.LINCOLN AVE
S. M
A
N
C
H
E
STE
R AV
E
E . B R O A D W A Y
S
.
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
W .L IN C O L N A V E
W. BROADWAY
558 South Harbor Boulevard
DEV No. 2015-00104
Subject Property APN: 036-211-23
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05043 AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2015-00104) (558 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (hereinafter referred
to as the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified petition for Variance No. 2015-05043 to
permit less parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code for a proposed endodontic dental office (herein referred to as the "Proposed Project") for certain real property located at 558 South Harbor Boulevard 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 one parcel, is currently developed with a two story office building. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Low Density
Residential land uses. The Property is located in the “O-L” Low-Intensity Office, meaning that
the regulations contained in Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code
(the "Code") shall apply; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on December 14, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. and notice of said public hearing
having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Variance No. 2015-05043 and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (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, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the effects of the
Proposed Project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e., Class 1 –
Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing
public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this determination. Since the Proposed Project consists of no expansion or modification of the existing office building, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant
effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA;
and
- 2 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing pertaining to the request for Variance No. 2015-05043 to allow the operation of an
endodontic dental office with fewer parking spaces than required by code, should be approved
for the following reasons:
SECTION NO. 18.42.040 Minimum Number of Parking Spaces.
(27 spaces required: 18 spaces proposed)
1. The Proposed Project will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be
provided for the proposed use than the number of spaces necessary to accommodate an
endodontic dental office on the Property. Based upon a parking analysis submitted by the
applicant, the existing 18 on-site parking spaces can accommodate all vehicles attributable to the
proposed use within the office building under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation each and all of the uses.
2. The requested parking variance will not increase the demand and competition for
parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the Property. A patient log
and a letter of operation were submitted to justify the requested variance. The letter states that there will be a maximum of seven people in the office at any time during regular business hours.
This demand is based on patient logs that were taken for three days at the current location of the
applicant’s endodontic dental office in the City of Garden Grove. This business is a specialized
dental office that schedules a maximum of eight patients per day by appointment only.
3. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the
demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate
vicinity of the Property in that the applicant has provided an analysis of the existing dental office
during peak hours which show that a majority of the parking stalls were not used.
4. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic
congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the Property because the traffic
generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding streets
and adequate parking will be provided to accommodate the use.
5. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular
ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the Property in that assessments taken during peak hours have shown that additional parking
remains available. Therefore, the proposed endodontic dental office will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets and in the immediate vicinity.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
- 3 - PC2015-***
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
approve Variance No. 2015-05043, 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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 2015. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Section 18.60.130 (Appeals – Planning Commission Decisions) of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of
the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City
Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 4 - PC2015-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim,
do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on December 14, 2015, by the following vote
of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of December, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2015-***
- 6 - PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B”
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05043
(DEV2015-00104)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
1 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the business premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the business owner shall be removed or painted over
within 24 hours of being applied or discovered by the business owner.
Planning and Building Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
2 The business shall be operated in accordance with the Letter of Request
submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the business operation, as
described in that document, shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial conformance with the Letter of Request and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. In addition, any
leasing of additional office space within the building shall also be subject to
review and approval of the Planning Director to determine substantial
conformance with this permit.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services Division
GENERAL CONDITIONS
3 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its
officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually
and collectively as “Indemnities”) from any and all claims, actions or
proceedings brought against Indemnities to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnities 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 Indemnities and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation
attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnities
in connection with such proceeding.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
4 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of
this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final
invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this
application.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services Division
5 The subject Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which
plans are on file with the Planning Department, and as conditioned herein.
Planning and Building Department,
Planning Services
Division
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
N
O
.
5
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
ITEM NO. 7
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2015
SUBJECT: VARIANCE NO. 2015-05036
LOCATION: 1308 North Patt Street
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant and property owner are Michael Bridgford and the agent is Joel Kott.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to permit less parking
spaces than required by the Zoning Code and remove an accessory parking lot for an
existing food manufacturing facility. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution determining that this request is categorically exempt from further
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1,
Existing Facilities) and approving Variance No. 2015-05036.
BACKGROUND: The 3.35-acre project site is located in the I (Industrial) zone and
is designated for Industrial land uses by the General Plan. The property is developed
with a 88,670 square foot food manufacturing and distribution plant with 9,520 square
feet of outdoor storage. Surrounding land uses include warehousing and manufacturing to the south and east, a sand and gravel batching facility to the west and
the SR-91 freeway to the north.
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a parking variance to permit less
parking than required by the Zoning Code. Bridgford Foods has manufactured and distributed food products on the subject property since 1945. During a previous
expansion of operations in 1991, the vacant parcels to the south, which are outlined in
blue on the map below, and having the address of 401 East Commercial Street, were
acquired to provide additional parking spaces to accommodate employees and
distribution trucks. According to the applicant, the company downsized operations and stopped direct-to-store deliveries in California, Arizona and Nevada. As of
September 1, 2014, they sold all of their delivery trucks that were kept on site and
reduced the number of staff by 50. The main plant continues to produce deli meats,
sandwiches, pastries and other refrigerated edibles. Currently, the business has a
maximum daily range of 45 to 55 employees due to rotating shifts. The main facility at 1308 North Patt Street contains 67 parking spaces. The applicant proposes to sell or
lease the southerly parcels for a future storage facility and provide all parking for the
business on the northerly parcel. The owner requests a parking variance due to the loss
of these spaces on the southerly parcel.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net
VARIANCE NO. 2015-005036
December 14, 2015 Page 2 of 4
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
The Zoning Code permits food manufacturing by right in the I “Industrial” zone. A parking
variance is being requested by the applicant to permit less parking than required by the Zoning
Code for an existing food manufacturing use. A parking variance shall be granted upon a finding by the Planning Commission or City Council that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist.
1) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause
fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of
operation of such use;
2) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use;
3) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase
the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use;
VARIANCE NO. 2015-005036
December 14, 2015 Page 3 of 4
4) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase
traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use; and
5) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede
vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public
streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. Under the Zoning Code, the existing food manufacturing use requires a total of 150 parking spaces
based on the following parking tabulation:
Land Use Category Parking Ratio (spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.) Existing Square Footage Required Parking
Manufacturing and
Warehousing
1.55 76,170 118.06
Office (10% of building sq. ft.) 1.55 8,867 13.75
Office (above 10% of building sq. ft.) 4 3,683 14.73
Outdoor Storage 0.4 9,520 3.81
Total Spaces Required 150
Total Spaces Provided 67
The applicant is proposing to provide 67 parking spaces. A letter of operation was submitted by
the applicant to justify the requested variance. The letter states that at peak demand, there will be a
maximum of 55 employees on site in addition to an estimated two customers an hour for pick-up during normal business hours on Monday through Friday. A condition of approval has been
included in the draft resolution requiring staff review and approval for any future changes to the
operation, including potential increases in the number of employees.
The applicant indicates that the remainder of the employee vehicles parked on the southerly parcel
at 401 East Commercial Street will be transitioned to the main parcel if the variance is approved.
The property owner intends to sell or lease the vacant parcel to a future outdoor storage tenant in
compliance with the site screening and fencing requirements of the Zoning Code. Because the demand for parking spaces on the main parcel is lower than the number of available spaces, approval of the variance will not negatively impact surrounding sites or streets.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the effects of the proposed project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e.,
Class 1 – Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration
of existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section
15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the proposed project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
provisions of CEQA.
VARIANCE NO. 2015-005036
December 14, 2015 Page 4 of 4
CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the conditions exist for the Planning Commission to make the
required findings to approve this request. The number of parking spaces provided is adequate to accommodate the reduced operations, and the removal of an accessory parking lot, for an existing food manufacturing facility. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested
variance.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Kevin Clausen Quiroz Jonathan E. Borrego
Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments: 1. Draft Variance Resolution
2. Applicant’s Letter of Request 3. Site Photographs
4. Site Plan
C-GRETAIL IINDUSTRIAL IINDUSTRIAL
IINDUSTRIAL
IINDUSTRIAL
IINDUSTRIAL
IINDUSTRIAL
IM C R FURNITURE
IDIVERSIFIEDASPHALTPRODUCTS
IINDUSTRIAL
IINDUSTRIAL
IINDUSTRIAL
IINDUSTRIAL
IINDUSTRIAL
IINDUSTRIAL
91 FREEWAY
E COMMERCIAL ST
N P A T T S T
E COMMERCIAL ST
N O L I V E S T
N P A T T S T
E. LA PALMA AVE
N
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
N . A C A C I A S T
W. LA PALMA AVE
N .
A N A H E I M
B L V D
1308 North Patt Street
DEV No. 2015-00097
Subject Property APN: 267-081-13267-081-01267-081-14
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
91 FREEWAY
E COMMERCIAL ST
N P A T T S T
E COMMERCIAL ST
N O L I V E S T
N P A T T S T
E. LA PALMA AVE
N
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
N . A C A C I A S T
W. LA PALMA AVE
N .
A N A H E I M
B L V D
1308 North Patt Street
DEV No. 2015-00097
Subject Property APN: 267-081-13267-081-01267-081-14
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05036 AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2015-00097) (1308 NORTH PATT STREET)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (hereinafter referred
to as the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified petition for Variance No. 2015-05036 to
permit less parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code for an existing food manufacturing facility (herein referred to collectively as the "Proposed Project") for certain real property located at 1308 North Patt 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 one parcel, is currently developed with a food manufacturing plant. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Industrial land
uses. The Property is located in the “I” Industrial Zone, meaning that the regulations contained
in Chapter 18.10 (Industrial Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") apply to the use
of the Property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on December 14, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. and notice of said public hearing
having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Variance No. 2015-05036 and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (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, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the effects of the
Proposed Project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e., Class 1 –
Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing
public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this determination. Since the Proposed Project consists of no expansion or modification of an existing food manufacturing plant, the Proposed Project will not cause a
significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions
of CEQA; and
- 2 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing pertaining to the request for Variance No. 2015-05036 to permit less parking than
required by Code for an existing food manufacturing facility, should be approved for the
following reasons: SECTION NO. 18.42.040 Minimum Number of Parking Spaces.
(150 spaces required: 67 spaces provided)
1. The existing uses at the Property will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to
be provided for the proposed and existing uses than the number of spaces necessary to
accommodate the business on the Property. Based upon a parking analysis submitted by the
applicant, the existing 67 on-site parking spaces can accommodate all vehicles attributable to the
existing food manufacturing plant under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation.
2. The requested parking variance will not increase the demand and competition for
parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the Property. A parking
analysis prepared by the applicant was submitted to justify the requested variance. The analysis indicated a maximum of 55 employees on site and no more than two customer pick-ups per hour.
3. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the
demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate
vicinity of the Property in that the applicant has provided an written analysis indicating the number of employees and customers will not exceed the number of parking spaces during peak
demand.
4. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic
congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the Property because the 67 on-site parking spaces can accommodate all vehicles attributable to the business operations on
the Property.
5. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the Property in that assessments taken on-site during peak hours have shown that additional
parking remains available. Therefore, the continuation of the existing food manufacturing use
will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets and in
the immediate vicinity.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
- 3 - PC2015-***
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Variance No. 2015-05036, 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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 2015. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Section 18.60.130 (Appeals – Planning Commission Decisions) of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of
the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City
Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 4 - PC2015-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim,
do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on December 14, 2015, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of December,
2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2015-***
- 6 - PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B”
VARIANCE NO. 2015-05036
(DEV2015-00097)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
1 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the business premises or on any
adjacent area under the control of the business owner shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied or discovered by the business owner.
Planning and Building
Department,
Code Enforcement Division
2 The business shall be operated in accordance with the Letter of Request
submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the business
operation, as described in that document, shall be subject to review and
approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial conformance
with the Letter of Request and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
GENERAL CONDITIONS
3 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its
officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to
individually and collectively as “Indemnities”) from any and all claims,
actions or proceedings brought against Indemnities to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnities 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 Indemnities and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses
incurred by Indemnities in connection with such proceeding.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
4 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project,
whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the
issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of
this application.
Planning and Building Department,
Planning Services
Division
5 The subject Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner
and which plans are on file with the Planning Department, and as conditioned herein.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services Division
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
N
O
.
3
FREEZER
FREEZER
SHIPPING
DOCK
MACHINE
ROOM
OUTDOOR
STORAGE
CANOPY
OUTDOOR STORAGE
CANOPY
SHED
OUTDOOR
STORAGE
CANOPY
MANUFACTURING
AND
OFFICES
MANUFACTURING
AND
STORAGE
9
9
15
15
14
5
PA
T
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
91 FREEWAY
COMMERCIAL STREET
PRIVATE
ACCESS
EASEMENT
PRIVATE
ACCESS
EASEMENT
1308 NORTH PATT ST
BRIDGFORD FOODS
MAIN PLANT
401 EAST COMMERCIAL ST
VACATED OUTDOOR STORAGE LOT
(PROPERTY TO BE SOLD OR LEASED)
Use Category Parking Ratio Existing Square
Footage
Required
Parking
Manufacturing and
warehousing
1.55 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 76,170 118.06
Office (10% of building
sq. ft.)
1.55 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 8,867 13.75
Office (above 10% of building sq. ft.) 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 3,683 14.73
Outdoor Storage 0.4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. 9,520 3.81
Total Spaces Required 150
Total Spaces Provided 67
SITE INFORMATION
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 1408 NORTH PATT ST
APN: 267-081-01
APPLICANT: MICHAEL BRIDGFORD
BRIDGFORD FOODS
SCOPE OF WORK: NO NEW CONSTRUCTION.
REQUEST FOR PARKING VARIANCE
TO REDUCE REQUIRED NUMBER OF
SPACES ON SUBJECT PARCEL FOR
EXISTING FOOD MANUFACTURING AND
WAREHOUSE USE.
TRUCK DOCKS
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. 8
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2015
SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00280 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05804 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17882
LOCATION: 1609 and 1615 West Cerritos Avenue APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The property owner is En K. Ha and the
applicant is Jeff Weber, representing Silveroak Corporation.
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of the following applications: 1) A Zoning Reclassification to rezone the property from the “RS-2” Single-
Family Residential zone to the “RS-4” Single-family Residential zone;
2) A Conditional Use Permit to permit an 11-unit, detached, small-lot single-Family residential project, including a deviation from the City’s private street standard pertaining to parkway widths; and
3) A Tentative Tract Map to establish an 11-lot residential subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions determining that this request is categorically exempt from
further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class
32, Infill Development Projects) and approving Reclassification No. 2015-00280,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05804, and Tentative Tract Map No. 17882. BACKGROUND: The 1.93-acre project site consists of two properties and is
currently developed with two single-family homes. The properties are located in the
RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) zone. The properties are designated for Low
Density Residential land uses by the General Plan. Surrounding land uses include single-family homes in the RS-2 zone to the north, south, east and west.
This item was continued from the September 21, October 19, and November 2, 2015
Planning Commission meetings to allow additional time for the developer to address
outstanding issues with the proposed site plan and to provide an opportunity to respond to comments and concerns received from the surrounding community.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00280, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05804 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17882 December 14, 2015 Page 2 of 10 PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to demolish two existing residences and accessory structures and construct 11 detached, small lot single-family residences using the RS-4 (Single-Family
Residential) zone development standards. The net lot sizes (not including the right-of-way) would
range between 5,482 square feet and 6,853 square feet in size. The two-story homes would range
from 2,978 to 3,492 square feet in area. Three different floor plans are proposed, consisting of four and five bedroom units with an option for a sixth bedroom in floor plan three and optional "Outdoor Living" and balcony areas (as shown on the floor plans). The homes would have Traditional,
Tuscan and Italian-style architecture. The designs feature neutral-toned tan, gray, and brown-
colored facades, stucco walls, wood shutters, stone veneer arches, window trim, and tile roofs. Six-
foot high vinyl fencing would separate the private yards for each home and along the north, west, and a portion of the east property line of the project site. A six foot tall split-face concrete block screen wall with precision block accent and precast cap will be constructed along Cerritos Avenue
and the remaining portion of the east property line. A homeowner’s association would oversee
maintenance of the private street, sidewalks, and parkways. A detailed development summary is
included as Attachment 4 to this report.
Proposed Architecture
The applicant proposes to rezone the project site from the RS-2 to the RS-4 zone. The RS-4 zone
allows flexibility in site development standards such as minimum lot size and width. This zone also
allows flexibility in other development standards such as maximum lot coverage, minimum setbacks, and minimum floor area through a conditional use permit in order to achieve high quality
project design, privacy, livability, and compatibility with surrounding uses; however, the project
meets all RS-4 development standards; therefore, no modifications to these standards are being
requested. As proposed, this project meets all applicable Zoning Code requirements.
The following table (Table 1) provides a comparison of the proposed project with the existing RS-2
and the proposed RS-4 site development standards.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00280, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17882 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05804 December 14, 2015 Page 3 of 10
TABLE 1
RS-2 Zone Standard RS-4 Zone Standard Proposed Project
Minimum lot size 7,200 square feet Established by CUP 5,482 to 6,853 square
feet (6,472 sq. ft. average)
Minimum lot width 70 feet Established by CUP 55 to 60 feet wide
Maximum height 35 feet/2-1/2 stories 35 feet/2 stories or 35 feet/3 stories if the
structure is located 55
feet or more from the property line of any
detached single-family
residential use or zone
28’11” to 29’5”
Minimum floor area 1,225 square feet 1,225 square feet*
2,978 to 3,492 square
feet
Maximum lot coverage 40% 50%*
26% - 40%
Front yard setback 25 feet or 25% of the depth of the lot,
whichever is less
10 feet* In order to achieve
good design, the setback may be an average of 10 feet,
with the minimum setback of 5 feet
10 to 29 feet
Side yard setback 5 feet 5 feet from structures to the property line or
zero feet on one side, and 10 feet on the other side, provided a
minimum of 10 feet is maintained between
structures on adjacent
lots*
5 to 14 feet
Rear yard setback 25 feet, except that the depth may be reduced to
10 feet, provided that dwellings or accessory
structures shall not
occupy more than 35% of the required rear
setback
15 feet for two and
three-story structures*
16 to 42 feet (15 feet to
the outdoor living area)
* May be modified by conditional use permit to achieve a high quality project design, privacy, livability, and compatibility with surrounding uses. No modifications are being requested as part of this application.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00280, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17882 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05804 December 14, 2015 Page 4 of 10
Access to the homes would be provided by a new private street accessed from Cerritos Avenue.
One of the units would have a two-car garage and the remaining ten units would provide a three-
car garage (including one tandem space) and a 20-foot long driveway. The 36-foot wide private street (“A” Street) would be improved with 4-foot wide sidewalks and 6-foot wide landscaped
parkways. This street would also accommodate five on-street parking spaces. The hammerhead
portion of the street (“B” Street) would be 28 feet wide with a 4-foot wide sidewalk on the north
side of the street. No on-street parking would be provided on this portion of the street. The City’s
Private Street Standard No. 162 requires a 28-foot street width when no on-street parking is provided. The standard also requires 6-foot wide parkways and 4-foot wide sidewalks on both
sides of a street when the main entrances to the units face the street. The hammerhead portion of
“B” Street would be improved with a 28-foot wide street, a 4-foot wide sidewalk on the north side
of the street, and no parkway; therefore the developer is seeking a deviation from the Standard.
The City Engineer approved the request to allow the reduced parkway width for “B” Street. The applicant’s letter of justification and the City Engineer’s decision letter are included as
Attachments 5 and 6 to this report.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:
Reclassification: The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan is the guide for the City’s
future development. Land use designations are provided in order to define the amount, type, and
nature of future development that is allowed in a given location of the City. It designates the
distribution and location of specific land uses and establishes the permitted densities for each land
use designation. As required by State law, the General Plan must identify land use designations and permitted development intensities. Each of the residential use designations includes a range of
allowable densities. The maximum density defines the maximum number of dwelling units per
gross acre at which development can occur within a given residentially-designated area.
Table LU-2 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan indicates four zones as “Typical Implementing Zones” for the Low Density designation: RH-3, RS-1, RS-2, and RS-3. The current
zoning designation for the subject site is RS-2. The proposed RS-4 zoning designation is not listed
as a “Typical Implementing Zone” for the Low Density Residential designation in this table;
however, there is a provision in the Land Use Element that states: “In addition to the typical zoning designations listed above, other zones may be substituted for the typical implementation
zones, provided that the overall density ranges established by the General Plan are not exceeded.”
The density range for the Low Density Residential designation that applies to the subject site is 0
to 6.5 units per acre. This project is proposed at approximately 5.7 units per acre which is within
the maximum permitted density established by the General Plan. The developer proposes to utilize the RS-4 zone as it provides the flexibility needed to achieve the requested lot sizes and widths
while maintaining the allowable General Plan density. The intent of the RS-4 zone is to provide
for and encourage the development of high-quality residential units on infill lots, in order to
provide additional housing choices and to use land efficiently.
The proposed project would also be in conformance with the Land Use Element of the General
Plan, which includes the following goals:
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00280, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17882 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05804 December 14, 2015 Page 5 of 10
• Goal 2.1: Continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s
diverse housing needs.
• Goal 3.2: Maximize development opportunities along transportation routes. • Goal 6.1: Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in Anaheim through strategic infill
development and revitalization of existing development.
Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit
for small lot residential development in the RS-4 zone, the following findings must be made:
1) The uses within the project are compatible;
2) New buildings or structures related to the project are compatible with the scale, mass, bulk,
and orientation of existing buildings in the surrounding area, provided the existing buildings conform with the provisions of this title;
3) Vehicular and pedestrian access are adequate;
4) The project is consistent with any adopted design guidelines applicable to the parcel or parcels;
5) The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area;
6) 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;
7) The impact upon the surrounding area has been mitigated to the maximum extent
practicable;
8) The project complies with the General Plan and Subdivision Map Act; and
9) The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
The proposed project is consistent with the site development standards of the RS-4 zone
designation. The proposed lot sizes range from 5,482 square feet to 6,853 square feet. Lot
coverage for the project ranges from 26% to 40%; this lot coverage would be compatible with the surrounding RS-2 zoned properties which allow maximum lot coverage of 40%. The rear yard
setbacks range from 16 feet (15 feet to the outdoor living area and balconies) to 42 feet. For
comparison purposes, eight of the eleven lots exceed the required minimum rear setback in the RS-
2 zone. Front yard setbacks range from 10 feet to 29 feet. Driveway lengths in front of the
garages would range between 20 feet and 34 feet. The 10-foot front setback allows for additional architectural relief at the front façade of the homes and allows for varied setbacks which create
visual interest from the street. Side yard setbacks would range between five and ten feet; these
setbacks would be consistent with the five foot setbacks that are allowed for the surrounding RS-2
zoned properties in the area. The two-story height of the proposed homes, at a maximum height of
29 feet 5 inches, is lower than the maximum height of 35 feet or two and a half stories as permitted
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00280, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17882 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05804 December 14, 2015 Page 6 of 10
in the RS-2 zone. While most of the surrounding homes in the area are single-story, there are other
two-story homes in the neighborhood and the Zoning Code would allow any of the surrounding
property owners to add a second story to their home. Based on this analysis, staff believes that the proposed project would be compatible with the surrounding single-family residential uses.
Parking for the proposed project exceeds the City’s parking requirements. The Zoning Code
requires 44 spaces based on four parking spaces per unit and 61 spaces are being proposed for the
entire project site. The project includes ten units with a three car garage (including one tandem space in each garage) and one unit with a two car garage. Nine of the eleven units would provide
two driveway spaces and the remaining two units (Lots 4 and 8) would provide three driveway
spaces. Five on-street parking spaces would be provided along “A” Street.
Staff has also reviewed the proposed development using the City’s adopted “Guidelines for Small-Lot Development.” These guidelines encourage various design features for small-lot residential
projects in the RS-4 zone to promote high quality development. These guidelines have been
applied to other similar small lot, single-family projects in Anaheim, resulting in quality infill
residential development. The guidelines address items such as internal circulation, interface with
adjacent land uses, building massing and articulation, fencing, landscaping, and open space. Staff believes the proposed development incorporates these guidelines into the project based on the
large size of the lots, adequate private yard areas, varied architectural features, and a well-designed
private street (the “A” street portion) which includes on-street parking spaces, sidewalks, and
parkways. The proposed setbacks and other building design features are proposed to help achieve
variation in the streetscape appearance of the residences by allowing the “staggering” of the building footprints. The staggered building layout creates a more visually appealing and varied
streetscape compared to one with a continuous setback distance from the street. In addition,
building facades have been varied through articulation of elements such as contrasting earthtone
colors, articulated bays and dormers, window shutters, varied roof designs, and the use of
enhanced materials such as stone veneers. Separated sidewalks and parkways with street trees have been incorporated along the private streets. With the incorporation of these project features,
staff believes the development is compatible with the surrounding area and recommends approval
of the conditional use permit.
Tentative Tract Map: Before the Planning Commission approves a tentative tract map, the
following findings must be made:
1. The proposed subdivision, including its design and improvements, and with the conditions
imposed herein is consistent with the Low Density Residential land use designation in the Anaheim General Plan and the development standards contained in the “RS-4” Single-Family Residential zone.
2. The site is physically suitable for the type and size of the proposed residential subdivision. 3. The design of the subdivision, with the conditions imposed, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat because no sensitive environmental habitat has been identified on the site.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00280, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17882 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05804 December 14, 2015 Page 7 of 10
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious
public health problems, since any new structures and associated site improvements will be
constructed on the property in compliance with the conditions imposed and other related Code requirements.
5. 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.
The requested 1.93-acre tract map would create 11 residential lots and 4 lettered lots for the street,
sidewalks, and parkways that would be maintained by a homeowners’ association. The proposed
subdivision has a gross density of 5.7 dwelling units per acre. This density is consistent with the
Low Density Residential land use designation which allows up to 6.5 dwelling units per acre. The tract map complies with all applicable zoning regulations and is consistent with the density
allowed under the existing General Plan designation. Planning and Public Works staff have
reviewed the tentative map and it meets all applicable subdivision requirements. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of the proposed Tentative Tract Map.
Public Outreach: City staff and the developer have hosted several outreach meetings with
homeowners residing in the surrounding neighborhood. The following outline provides an
overview of the public outreach meetings that have taken place to date:
September 10, 2015 - The applicant and staff conducted a community meeting at the Brookhurst Community Center. Invitations were sent out by the applicant, and three residents attended the
meeting. These residents offered general comments regarding the proposed development and were
generally supportive of the proposal. Plans were provided to concerned residents and staff spoke
to each of the individuals that were able to attend. Staff was later notified that two other people
attempted to attend the meeting before the meeting start time but were turned away before the applicant arrived at the facility.
In advance of the initially-scheduled September 21, 2015 public hearing date, a Planning
Commission public hearing notice was posted on site and mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project site. However, at the request of the applicant, the hearing was
continued to October 19, 2015.
October 19, 2015 – At the request of the applicant, the Planning Commission public hearing was
continued to November 2, 2015. Although the item was continued, several neighbors from the surrounding community approached staff at the meeting and expressed concern and opposition to
the proposed project. Due to these concerns, staff offered to host an additional community
meeting to share project information and solicit community feedback. This meeting was scheduled
for October 26.
October 26, 2015 – At the request of concerned neighbors, City staff held a community meeting at
City Hall to provide information about the project and to receive comments from the community.
Approximately 19 persons attended the meeting. The project applicant did not attend this meeting,
however, comments received were shared with the applicant who subsequently requested that the
item be continued from the November 2, 2015 Planning Commission meeting to the December 14,
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00280, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17882 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05804 December 14, 2015 Page 8 of 10
2015 meeting. In response to community concerns over project density, the applicant
subsequently revised the proposed plan to reduce the proposed number of units from 12 to 11.
November 19, 2015 – A third community outreach meeting was held at the Brookhurst
Community Center. All interested parties were notified by email and phone to encourage
attendance at the meeting and approximately 30 people attended. The developer attended this
meeting and presented his revised plans to approximately 25 residents from the community. This
revised plan increased the average lot size from 5,710 square feet to 6,853 square feet and decreased the dwelling units per acre calculation from 6.2 units per acre to 5.7 units per acre.
Residents from the surrounding neighborhood continue to express a variety of concerns regarding
the proposed development. The primary concerns, including staff’s response, are summarized
below: 1. Opposition to requested zone change. Area residents have expressed opposition to the
applicant’s requested zone change. These residents would prefer to see the site developed
under the site’s existing RS-2 zoning and development standards. Residents have expressed concerns that the project is too dense and that the requested zone change would result in a development that is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and set a
precedent that could result in other large RS-2 zoned lots to the west along Cerritos
Avenue to develop in a similar manner.
Staff Response: Although the proposed RS-4 zoning would be unique to this area, the density of proposed development complies with the site’s existing Low Density Residential
General Plan land use designation. A maximum density of 6.5 units/acre is allowed and a
density of 5.7 units/acre is proposed. The proposed project has been thoughtfully designed
in a manner that meets or exceeds all applicable Zoning Code requirements.
2. Concerns over on-site parking. Area residents have expressed concern that there is no
provision for extra guest parking and that parking from this development may spill over
onto Cerritos Avenue.
Staff Response: Parking for the proposed project significantly exceeds the City’s parking requirements. The Zoning Code requires 44 spaces and 61 spaces are proposed on-site.
The project includes three car garages for 10 units, a two car garage for one unit, 24
driveway spaces, and 5 on-street spaces. Staff believes this will provide sufficient parking
for residents and guests within the project site. 3. Missing Sidewalks on Cerritos Avenue: Residents have noted that there are currently no
sidewalks on portions of Cerritos Avenue near the project site. They have also noted that
there is a lot of pedestrian activity in the area due to the proximity of Loara High School, Ball Junior High School and Palm Lane Elementary School. There is concern that the sidewalk segment that would be provided along the project’s frontage is not adequate to address this problem.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00280, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17882 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05804 December 14, 2015 Page 9 of 10
Staff Response: The project applicant is proposing to install full sidewalk and parkway
improvements in front of the project adjacent to Cerritos Avenue. The applicant is also
proposing improvements to the portion of an abandoned water well site along Cerritos Avenue (shown as NAP on the plans) to provide full sidewalk connectivity across the site.
Although the improvements proposed by the project do not address the problem along the
entire stretch of Cerritos Avenue, they do improve it, by providing sidewalk in front of
their property.
As for the rest of Cerritos Avenue, there is an existing sidewalk gap both on the north and
south side of Cerritos Avenue, west of the project. The City of Anaheim Public Works
department successfully secured grant funding for the sidewalk gap closure. The grant will
close the sidewalk gap on the south side of Cerritos Avenue, which will provide a
continuous sidewalk between Euclid Street and Walnut Avenue. The grant will also improve a portion of the sidewalk gap on the north side of Cerritos Avenue, but not all.
Future grant funds will be pursued to close the remaining gap on the north side of Cerritos
Avenue
4. Traffic Concerns: Neighbors have expressed concern that Cerritos Avenue is often congested and that this project would worsen the situation. They have also expressed
concerns that a traffic study was not prepared for this project.
Staff Response: The Public Works Department determined that a traffic study is not
required for the project proposal since it does not meet the minimum threshold of 100 vehicle trips in the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. The City’s Traffic Study Guidelines state that a
traffic study is required when a project’s trip generation is expected to exceed 100 vehicle
trips in the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. The proposed project would generate traffic well below
this threshold and therefore a traffic study is not required. The Public Works Department estimates that the project would generate eight vehicle trips
during the a.m. peak hour and 11 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour. This estimate is
based upon the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, 9th
Edition. The two existing single-family dwelling units on the site would be expected to generate two a.m. peak hour trips and two p.m. peak hour trips, resulting in a net increase
of six a.m. peak hour trips and nine p.m. peak hour trips. The roadway segments in the
vicinity, as well as the nearby intersections, would not be significantly impacted as a result
of the additional trips from the proposed project. Traffic generated by the proposed project
is consistent with the City’s General Plan and would not create a significant traffic impact and is therefore not anticipated to impose undue burden on the local streets and highways.
Generally, the neighboring community’s concerns relate to traffic and parking, an increase
in density, and the project’s compatibility with the existing neighborhood. These concerns
have been shared with the Public Works Traffic Engineering Department and city staff is proposing to schedule a future outreach meeting to discuss these traffic-related issues with
residents in the area. Staff has carefully considered all of these concerns and has discussed
them with the developer. In response, the developer has reduced the proposed number of
units while increasing the project’s average lot sizes.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00280, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17882 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05804 December 14, 2015 Page 10 of 10
Environmental Impact Analysis: The project’s potential environmental impacts have been
evaluated and staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the development qualifies for a Class 32 “Infill Development Projects” exemption allowed under California
Environmental Quality Act. In order to support this determination, staff prepared an
environmental checklist and determined that the project would not result in any significant
effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. In reaching this conclusion, staff
determined that the property is less than five acres in size and is substantially surrounded by urban uses, has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, and can be
adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Based on these findings, the
project does not meet the minimum thresholds that would suggest the potential for the project to
cause a significant effect on the environment.
CONCLUSION: Staff has carefully considered all of the support and opposition from the
surrounding community and believes the proposed project is designed in a manner that will
provide a quality living environment for its future residents and is compatible with the
surrounding residential neighborhood. In addition, the proposed project meets the goals of the
General Plan to continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs. Staff also believes that all community concerns have been
thoroughly analyzed and addressed and, therefore; recommends approval of the proposed
request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Amy Stonich Jonathan E. Borrego
Contract Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments: 1. Draft Reclassification Resolution 2. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution
3. Draft Tentative Tract Map Resolution
4. Development Summary
5. Justification and Request Letter
6. City Engineer’s Street Deviation Approval
7. Environmental Checklist
8. Tentative Tract Map
9. Site Plan, Architectural and Landscape Plans
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2DAY CARE
R S -2
S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E
R S -2
S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE R S -2
S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E
R S -2
S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
S D O R I S P L
S L O A R A S TS A D R I A S T
W HARRIET LN
W LULLABY LN
W BUENA VISTA AVE
W MELLS LN
W CERRITOS AVE
W. BALL RD
W. KATELLA AVE
S . E U C L I D S T
S . W A L N U T S T
S . B R O O K H U R S T S T
S . D I S N E Y L A N D D R
1609 & 1615 West Cerritos Avenue
DEV No. 2015-00057
Subject Property APN: 129-212-31129-212-32
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
S D O R I S P L
S L O A R A S TS A D R I A S T
W HARRIET LN
W LULLABY LN
W BUENA VISTA AVE
W MELLS LN
W CERRITOS AVE
W. BALL RD
W. KATELLA AVE
S . E U C L I D S T
S . W A L N U T S T
S . B R O O K H U R S T S T
S . D I S N E Y L A N D D R
1609 & 1615 West Cerritos Avenue
DEV No. 2015-00057
Subject Property APN: 129-212-31129-212-32
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00280 AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2015-00057)
(1609 AND 1615 WEST CERRITOS AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition for reclassification, designated as Reclassification
No. 2015-00280, for that certain real property located at 1609 and 1615 West Cerritos Avenue in
the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map
attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is currently developed with two single-family
residences and accessory structures and is located in the "RS-2" Single-Family Residential Zone.
The Anaheim General Plan designates this Property for Low Density Residential land uses; and
WHEREAS, the applicant requests to rezone or reclassify the Property from the RS-2" Single-Family Residential Zone to the "RS-4" Single-Family Residential Zone; and
WHEREAS, Reclassification No. 2015-00280 is proposed in conjunction with
Tentative Tract Map No. 17882 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05804 to establish an 11-
lot residential subdivision with four (4) lettered lots to allow for the future development of 11 single-family homes on the Property (collectively referred to herein as the "Proposed Project");
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Anaheim
Civic Center, Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, on September 21, 2015 to hear and consider evidence for and against the Proposed Project, including proposed Reclassification
No. 2015-00280, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05804 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17882,
and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith. Notice of
said public hearing was duly given as required by Section 65090 of the California Government Code and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code (the "Code"). The public hearing was continued by the Planning Commission to
October 19, 2015, at which time, the public hearing was continued again by the Planning
Commission to November 2, 2015. While the public hearing was once again continued by the
Planning Commission on its own motion on November 2, 2015 to December 14, 2015, the City elected to give notice of said continued public hearing, as it did for the initial public hearing, in
accordance with Section 65090 of the California Government Code and with the provisions of
Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as
“CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA
Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of
environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and
- 2 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Proposed
Project is within that class of projects which consist of in-fill development meeting the
conditions described in Section 15332 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations ("CEQA
Guidelines"). Specifically, the Proposed Project (a) is consistent with the applicable General
Plan designation and all applicable General Plan policies, as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations, (b) is no more than five acres in size substantially surrounded by
urban uses, (c) has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, (d) would not
result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and (e) the
Property can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Accordingly,
pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions
of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and
study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
1. Reclassification of the Property from the "RS-2" Single-Family Residential
Zone to the "RS-4" Single-Family Residential Zone is consistent with the Property’s existing
Low Density Residential land use designation in the General Plan. Table LU-2 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan indicates four zones as “Typical Implementing Zones” for the Low
Density designation: “RH-3”, “RS-1”, “RS-2, and “RS-3”. The proposed “RS-4” zoning
designation is not listed as a “Typical Implementing Zone” for the Low Density Residential
designation in this table; however, there is a provision in the Land Use Element that also states:
“In addition to the typical zoning designations listed above, other zones may be substituted for the typical implementation zones, provided that the overall density ranges established by the
General Plan are not exceeded.” The density range for the Low Density Residential designation
that applies to the subject site is 0 to 6.5 units per acre. This project is proposed at 5.7 units per
acre, which is within the maximum permitted density established by 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 adjacent
properties to the north, east and west which are designated for Low Density Residential land uses
and are developed with single family homes.
3. The proposed reclassification of the Property does properly relate to the zone
and its permitted uses locally established in close proximity to the Property and to the zones and
their permitted uses generally established throughout the community.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
- 3 - PC2015-***
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to the above findings, this Planning Commission does hereby approve Reclassification No. 2015-00280 to authorize an
amendment to the Zoning Map of the Anaheim Municipal Code to rezone and reclassify the
Property into the "RS-4" Single-Family Residential Zone and recommends that the City Council
adopt an ordinance reclassifying the Property in accordance with Reclassification No. 2015-
00280.
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 December 14, 2015.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on December 14, 2015, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of December,
2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 4 - PC2015-***
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
- 1 - PC2015 -***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015 -***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05804
AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2015 -00057)
(1609 AND 1615 WEST CERRITOS AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (herein referred to as the
"Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05804 to permit an 11-lot, single family residential subdivision for that certain real
property located at 1609 and 1615 West Cerritos Avenue, in the City of Anaheim, County of
Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is currently developed with two single-family residences and accessory structures and is located in the "RS-2" Single-Family Residential Zone. The Anaheim
General Plan designates this Property for Low Density Residential land uses; and
WHEREAS, all development within the "RS-4" Single-Family Residential Zone is subject to the provisions of Section 18.04.160 (Development in the RS-4 Zone) of Chapter 18.04 (Single-Family Residential Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"), which provides
that all such development is subject to the approval of a conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05804 is proposed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 2015-00280, which is a request to rezone or reclassify the Property from the "RS-2" Single-Family Residential Zone to the "RS-4" Single-Family Residential Zone, and
Tentative Tract Map No. 17882, which would establish an 11-lot, single family subdivision. The
development comprising Reclassification No. 2015 -00280, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-
05804 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17882 shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Proposed Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Anaheim Civic
Center, Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, on September 21, 2015 to hear and
consider evidence for and against the Proposed Project, including proposed Reclassification No. 2015-00280, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05804 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17882 and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith. Notice of said
public hearing was duly given as required by Section 65090 of the California Government Code
and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal
Code (the "Code"). The public hearing was continued by the Planning Commission to October 19, 2015, at which time, the public hearing was continued again by the Planning Commission to November 2, 2015. While the public hearing was once again continued by the Planning
Commission on its own motion on November 2 14, 2015 to December 14, 2015, the City elected
to give notice of said continued public hearing, as it did for the initial public hearing, in
accordance with Section 65090 of the California Government Code and with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code; and
- 2 - PC2015 -***
WHEREAS, by the adoption of a separate resolution concurrently with but prior in time to this Resolution, this Planning Commission has heretofore found and determined, as the “lead agency” under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000
et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Proposed Project is within that class of projects which
consist of in-fill development meeting the conditions described in Section 15332 of Title 14 of
the California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines") and, pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, is 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 permit an 11-lot, single-family residential subdivision with a deviation from the City’s private street standard pertaining to street and parkway widths, does find and determine the following facts on the basis of the plans submitted by the applicant:
1) The uses within the Proposed Project are compatible.
2) New buildings or structures related to the Proposed Project are compatible with the scale, mass, bulk, and orientation of existing buildings in the surrounding area, provided the
existing buildings conform with the provisions of the Zoning Code. The lot sizes and widths
proposed are adequate to ensure quality design that is compatible with the adjacent residential
neighborhood and is not anticipated to adversely affect development of the area. With the modifications of certain standards described herein and under the conditions imposed, the size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the Proposed Project in a
manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health, safety and general welfare of the
public.
3) Vehicular and pedestrian access are adequate in that Public Works Staff determined that a traffic study is not required for the Proposed Project since it does not meet the
minimum threshold of 100 vehicle trips in the a.m. or p.m. peak hours. The City’s Traffic Study
Guidelines state that a traffic study is required when a project’s trips generation is expected to
exceed 100 vehicle trips in the a.m. or p.m. peak hours. The Proposed Project would generate traffic well below this threshold and, therefore, a traffic study was not required. The overall net increase of 9 new homes would not exceed the City’s General Plan which allows a density of up
to 6.5 dwelling units per acre.
4) The Proposed Project is consistent with any adopted design guidelines applicable to the parcel or parcels in that the Proposed Project is consistent with the City’s "Guidelines for Small-Lot Development" in that the proposed development incorporates these guidelines into the
project based on the large size of the lots, adequate private yard areas, varied architectural
features, and a well-designed private street (the “A” street portion) which includes on-street
parking spaces, sidewalks, and parkways. 5) The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area in that the
Proposed Project, with the modifications of certain standards described herein below and under
the conditions imposed, will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located in that the lot sizes and widths proposed are adequate to ensure quality design that is compatible with the adjacent residential
neighborhood and therefore it is not anticipated to adversely affect development of the area.
- 3 - PC2015 -***
6) The Proposed Project has been designed to accommodate the required on- and off-site parking, vehicular circulation, and trash collection and the traffic generated by the Proposed Project will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and
improved to carry the traffic in the area because it will provide a standard street width with on-
street parking, parkways and sidewalks along “A” street and a 25-foot hammerhead with a 4-foot
sidewalk on the north side of “B” Street. A street deviation was requested by the applicant and approved by the City Engineer to allow waiver of the parkway and minimum street width along “B” Street.
7) The impact upon the surrounding area has been mitigated to the maximum extent
practicable in that site development standards proposed for the Proposed Project are consistent with the development standards of the "RS-4" Single-Family Residential Zone and the Low Density General Plan designation.
8) The Proposed Project complies with the General Plan and Subdivision Map Act in
that the City’s General Plan Land Use designation allows up to 6.5 dwelling units per gross acre and the Proposed Project is 13% less than the maximum at 5.7 dwelling units per gross acre. The detached single family small lot subdivision use is compatible with detached single family
residential uses that surround the project site. The Proposed Project is consistent with the site
development standards of the “RS-4” Single-Family Residential Zone; thus, the size and shape of
the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project is compatible with existing and surrounding single family residential land uses in the vicinity of the Property.
9) The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any,
will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. WHEREAS, Section 18.04.160 (Development in the RS-4 Zone) of Chapter 18.04
(Single-Family Residential Zones) of the Code requires the Planning Commission to review
development in the "RS-4" Single-Family Residential Zone using the "Guidelines for Small-Lot
Development" and to make certain additional findings before the Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05804, including the lot areas and widths as shown on
the site plan on file with the City, contingent upon and subject to (1) the adoption by the City
Council of an ordinance reclassifying the Property within the "RS-4" Single-Family Residential Zone in accordance with Reclassification No. 2015-00280, (2) approval of Tentative Tract Map
- 4 - PC2015 -***
No. 17882, now pending, and (3) the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary
prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property 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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
December 14, 2015. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60
(Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2015 -***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on December 14, 2015, by the following vote of the
members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of December,
2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 6 - PC2015 -***
- 7 - PC2015 -***
EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05804
(DEV2015 -00057)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT
1 The project final WQMP shall be submitted for review and approval
and approved by the development services department of public
works.
Public Works,
Development Services
2 The developer/owner shall submit a set of improvement plans for
Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division review and
approval in determining the conditions necessary for providing water
service to the project.
Public Utilities –
Water Engineering
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
3 All individual residential units shall have addressing readily readable
from the street, indicating the address of that unit. All addressing
shall be free from obstruction and either well lit during hours of darkness or of a highly contrasting color to its background.
Police Department
4 All exterior doors shall have adequate security hardware, e.g.
deadbolt locks.
Police Department
5 Wide-angle peepholes or other viewing device shall be designed into
all dwelling-unit front doors and all solid doors where exterior
visibility is compromised.
Police Department
6 Door locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and
deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside
doorknob/lever/turn-piece.
Police Department
7 Landscaping shall be of the type and situated in locations to maximize observation while providing the desired degree of
aesthetics.
Police Department
8 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 (excluding model
homes).
Public Works,
Development Services
9 The developer shall post bonds for improvements in the public right-of-way as approved by the City of Anaheim. Public Works,
Development Services
- 8 - PC2015 -***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
10 Prior to issuance of the grading permit and right-of-way construction
permit for the 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
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF PLANS RELATED TO WATER ENGINEERING
11 All backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the
street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets
and alleys. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault
will have to be brought up to current standards. Any other large water
system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division outside of the street
setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and
alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans and
approved by Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control
Inspector.
Public Utilities Water
Engineering
12 All requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or fire
lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of
existing water services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall be
coordinated and permitted through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department.
Public Utilities Water
Engineering
13 All existing water services and fire services shall conform to current
Water Services Standard Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued use if necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no
longer needed. The owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs
to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line.
Public Utilities Water
Engineering
14 The Owner 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 mains and 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 and included and
recorded in the Master CC&Rs for the project.
Public Utilities Water
Engineering
- 9 - PC2015 -***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
15 The developer/owner shall submit a water system master plan,
including a hydraulic distribution network analysis, for Public
Utilities Water Engineering Division review and approval. The master plan shall demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed on-site water system to meet the project’s water demands and fire protection
requirements.
Public Utilities Water
Engineering
16 The developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project.
This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the
existing water system to provide the estimated water demands. Any
off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations.
Public Utilities Water Engineering
17 Water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Public Utilities
Department Water Engineering Division for approval and a performance bond in the amount approved by the City Engineer and form approved by City Attorney shall be posted with the City of
Anaheim.
Public Utilities Water
Engineering
18 Individual water service and/or fire line connections will be required for each parcel or residential, commercial, industrial unit per Rule 18
of the City of Anaheim’s Water Rates, Rules and Regulations.
Public Utilities Water Engineering
19 The Owner shall be responsible for restoring any special surface improvements, other than asphalt paving, within any right-of-way, public utility easement or City easement area including but not
limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, walls,
decorative hardscape or landscaping that becomes damaged during
any excavation, repair or replacement of City owned water facilities. Provisions for maintenance of all said special surface improvements shall be included in the recorded Master CC&R’s for the project and
the City easement deeds.
Public Utilities Water Engineering
20 Public water mains within the project boundary are required. The developer/owner shall dedicate a minimum of 20-foot wide easement
over said mains to the Water Division.
Public Utilities Water Engineering
21 The following minimum horizontal clearances shall be maintained
between proposed water main and other facilities:
Public Utilities Water
Engineering
22 A 10-foot minimum separation (outside wall-to-outside wall) from
sanitary sewer mains and laterals shall be provided.
Public Utilities Water
Engineering
- 10 - PC2015 -***
23 A 5-foot minimum separation from all other utilities, including storm
drains, gas, and electric shall be provided.
Public Utilities Water
Engineering
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF PLANS RELATED TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
24 Electric system plans, electrical panel drawings, site plans, elevation plans, and related technical drawings and specifications shall be
submitted to the Electrical Engineering Division of the Public
Utilities Department to establish electrical service.
Public Utilities –
Electrical Engineering
PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS
25 Fire lanes shall be posted with “No Parking Any Time.” Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for
building permits.
Fire Department
26 The developer shall submit street improvement plans to the Public
Works department to construct all work in the right of way in
conformance to Public Works standards. Grind and cap existing
pavement in Cerritos Avenue up to the street centerline within the frontage of the parcel. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspection.
Public Works,
Development Services
27 The developer shall construct private streets in conformance with
City of Anaheim standard 162 and the approved deviation from the City Engineer.
Public Works,
Development Services
28 Fire lanes or no parking zones shall be posted with “No Parking Any
Time.” Said information shall be specifically shown on plans
submitted for building permits.
Public Works,
Development Services
29 The proposed “Street A” shall have stop control at Cerritos Avenue.
Building plans shall show a stop sign on the private drive and a stop
bar and legend painted on the street per the latest versions of the City
of Anaheim Engineering Standard Details 434 and 436.
Public Works,
Development Services
30 Vehicle gates shall not be installed across Private Street “A” project
entry without providing a vehicle turnaround area to the satisfaction
of the City Standard Details and the City Engineer.
Public Works,
Development Services
31 All required public improvements shall be completed and operational
and submitted for approval to the Construction Services Division
Inspector.
Public Works,
Development Services
32 All required WQMP improvements shall be operational and verified
by the Construction Services Division Inspector and the
Development Services Division.
Public Works,
Development Services
33 All sidewalks shall be ADA compliant. Public Works,
Development Services
- 11 - PC2015 -***
34 All required street, landscaping, irrigation, sewer and drainage
improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspections and are subject to review and approval by the Construction Services inspector.
Public Works,
Construction Services
35 Vines or other similar planting material shall be planted and
maintained on the block wall adjacent to Cerritos Avenue to soften the wall and discourage graffiti.
Planning Department
GENERAL
36 Conditions of approval related to each of the timing milestones above
shall be prominently displayed on plans submitted for permits. For example, conditions of approval that are required to be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits shall be provided on plans
submitted for building plan check. This requirement applies to grading
permits, final maps, street improvement plans, water and electrical
plans, landscape irrigation plans, security plans, parks and trail plans, and fire and life safety plans, etc.
Planning Department
37 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
38 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the
processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall
result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the
revocation of the approval of this application.
Planning Department
39 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant
and which plans are on file with the Planning Department.
Planning Department
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17882
AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2015-00057)
(1609 AND 1615 WEST CERRITOS AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17882 to
establish an 11-lot residential subdivision for that certain real property located at 1609 and 1615
West Cerritos Avenue, in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the
"Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is currently developed with two single-family
residences and accessory structures and is located in the "RS-2" Single-Family Residential Zone. Tentative Tract Map No. 17882 is proposed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 2015-00280, which is a request to rezone or reclassify the Property from the "RS-2" Single-Family
Residential Zone to the "RS-4" Single-Family Residential Zone, and Conditional Use Permit No.
2015-05804, which is required under Section 18.04.160 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the
"Code") for all development in the "RS-4" Single-Family Residential Zone (herein referred to as "CUP No. 2015-05804"). The Anaheim General Plan designates this Property for Low Density Residential land uses; and
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 17882 is contingent upon adoption by the
City Council of an ordinance reclassifying the Property in accordance with Reclassification No. 2015-00280, which may be approved or denied by the City Council in its sole discretion; and
WHEREAS, the development comprising Tentative Tract Map No. 17882, CUP
No. 2015-05804, and Reclassification No. 2015-00280 shall be referred to herein as the
"Proposed Project"; and WHEREAS, Reclassification No. 2015-00280 is proposed in conjunction with
Tentative Tract Map No. 17882 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05804 to establish an 11-
lot residential subdivision with four (4) lettered lots to allow for the future development of 11
single-family homes on the Property (collectively referred to herein as the "Proposed Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Anaheim
Civic Center, Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, on September 21, 2015 to hear
and consider evidence for and against the Proposed Project, including proposed Reclassification No. 2015-00280, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05804 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17882
and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith. Notice of
said public hearing was duly given as required by Section 65090 of the California Government
Code and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code (the "Code"). The public hearing was continued by the Planning Commission to October 19, 2015, at which time, the public hearing was continued again by the Planning
- 2 - PC2015-***
Commission to November 2, 2015. While the public hearing was once again continued by the
Planning Commission on its own motion on November 2, 2015 to December 14, 2015, the City
elected to give notice of said continued public hearing, as it did for the initial public hearing, in accordance with Section 65090 of the California Government Code and with the provisions of
Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of a separate resolution concurrently with but prior
in time to this Resolution, this Planning Commission has heretofore found and determined, as the “lead agency” under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section
21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), that the Proposed Project is within that class of
projects which consist of in-fill development meeting the conditions described in Section 15332
of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines") and, pursuant to Section
15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, is 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 an 11-lot residential subdivision,
does find and determine the following facts:
1. The proposed subdivision, including its design and improvements, and
with the conditions imposed under CUP No. 2015-05804 is consistent with the Low
Density Residential land use designation in the Anaheim General Plan and, once the City
Council has adopted an ordinance reclassifying the Property in accordance with Reclassification No. 2015-00280, with the zoning and development standards contained
in Chapter 18.04 of the Code pertaining to single-family detached projects within the
"RS-4" Single-Family Residential Zone,.
2. The site is physically suitable for the type and size of the proposed residential subdivision.
3. The design of the subdivision, with the conditions imposed under CUP
No. 2015-05804, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially
and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because no sensitive environmental habitat has been identified on the site.
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems, since any new structures and associated site
improvements will be constructed on the property in compliance with the conditions imposed under CUP No. 2015-05804 and other related Code requirements.
5. 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.
- 3 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does
hereby approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17882, contingent upon (1) the adoption by the City
Council of an ordinance reclassifying the Property within the "RS-4" Single-Family Residential
Zone in accordance with Reclassification No. 2015-00280, (2) the conditions imposed under CUP No. 2015-05804, and (3) 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 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 Anaheim Municipal Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include
any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable
ordinance, regulation or requirement.
- 4 - PC2015-***
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of December 14, 2015. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and
may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on December 14, 2015, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of December, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2015-***
- 6 - PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B”
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17882 (DEV2015-00057)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL
1 All existing structures shall be demolished. The developer shall obtain
a demolition permit from the Building Division. Site demolition shall
be per a rough grading permit from Public Works.
Public Works,
Development Services
2 The project shall dedicate Lots “B”, “C”, and “D” for roadway,
public utility purposes, and other public purposes to the City of
Anaheim.
Public Works,
Development Services
3 The project shall relinquish street access to Cerritos Avenue for Lots
1 and 11, except at Private Street “A”.
Public Works,
Development Services
4 The Project shall dedicate to the City of Anaheim Lot “A” for public utility purposes and emergency access. Public Works,
Development Services
5 The area required for pedestrian access ramps in conformance with
City standards at the intersection of Private Street “A” and Cerritos
Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Public Works,
Development Services
6 Prior to final map approval; Tract Map No. 17882 shall be approved,
in substantial conformance with the Planning Commission resolution
for this project.
Public Works,
Development Services
7 The developer shall submit a request for street names for the private
streets. The street names must be approved by the Planning Division
and placed on the final map.
Public Works,
Development Services
8 The developer shall submit a sewer improvement plan, to the Public
Works department for construction of the private sewer system. The
improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning
inspection. The sanitary sewers for this development shall be privately maintained.
Public Works,
Development Services
9 Prior and as a condition precedent to the approval by the City of the
Final Map for Tract No. 17882 and its recordation with the County
Recorder, the applicant will be required to execute, in recordable form, an unsubordinated Declaration of Covenants in such form as
may be acceptable to the Planning Director, the City Engineer and
City Attorney (or their duly authorized representatives) to ensure that
the private on-site common areas and facilities (including, but not
limited to, private sewer, private street, and private storm drain
Public Works,
Development Services
- 7 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
improvements) and those public improvements that are not accepted by the City for maintenance will be maintained by a Homeowners'
Association. The Declaration of Covenants will also ensure
compliance with approved Water Quality Management Plan and
maintenance of drainage devices, parkway landscaping and irrigation on Cerritos Avenue, the private street name sign and the Private Street. In addition, said Declaration of Covenants shall include a
covenant, rule and regulation prohibiting owners of the lots within
the subdivision from renting, offering to rent, or advertising for rent
the homes located thereon (or any room or rooms or portion thereof) to a person or group of persons for occupancy, dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive
calendar days. The Declaration of Covenants shall be recorded
concurrently with the final map and shall provide the City with a
third party right to enforce the maintenance and repair provisions of the Declaration of Covenants.
10 The legal property owner shall post a security and execute a
Subdivision Agreement to complete the required public
improvements at the legal owner’s expense in an amount approved by the City Engineer and in a form approved by the City Attorney. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Public Works Department,
Subdivision Section for approval by the City Council.
Public Works,
Development Services
11 All lots shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division. The street name for the private street shall be submitted to and
approved by the Building Division.
Planning Department, Building Division
GENERAL
12 Conditions of approval related to each of the timing milestones above shall be prominently displayed on plans submitted for permits. For
example, conditions of approval that are required to be complied with
prior to the issuance of building permits shall be provided on plans
submitted for building plan check. This requirement applies to
grading permits, final maps, street improvement plans, water and electrical plans, landscape irrigation plans, security plans, parks and
trail plans, and fire and life safety plans, etc.
Planning Department Planning Services Division
13 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City
and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all
claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack,
review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees
concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or
determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition
attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to
Planning Department
Planning Services Division
- 8 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
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.
14 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
Planning Services Division
15 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications submitted by the applicant to, and approved by, the City of Anaheim, which plans are on file with the Planning Department.
Planning Department
Planning Services Division
PROJECT SUMMARY
Development Standard RS-4 Standards Proposed Project
Site Area - 1.93 acres
Density 6.5 du/ac max. 5.7 du/ac
Lot Area* Subject to 18.04.160
Established by CUP
5,482-6,853 square feet
Lot Width* Subject to 18.04.160 Established by CUP 55-60 feet
Building Height* 35 feet or 2 stories max. Up to 29 feet 5 ½ inches
Floor Area* 1,225 sq. ft. min. 2,978 - 3,492 sq. ft.
Maximum Site Coverage* 50% max. 26-40%
Front Landscape Setback* 10 feet min. 10-29 feet proposed
Side yard Setback* 5 feet min. 5 feet
Rear yard setback* 15 feet min. 16-42 feet
Parking
4 on-site parking spaces per
unit min. (2 garage spaces and 2 driveway spaces in front of
garage)
10 floor plans with a 3-car
garage (8 with 2 driveway spaces and 2 with 3 driveway
spaces) 1 floor plan with a 2-car
garage. (2 garage spaces and 2 driveway spaces in front of
garage)
5 on-street parking spaces on “A” Street (No parking on “B”
Street)
*May be established or modified by CUP
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Justification Letter for Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map TTM 17882
(A.P. no’s. 129-212-31 & 129-212-32)
1609 & 1615 W. Cerritos Avenue
Silveroak Investment corp.
November 20, 2015
Parcels No.’s 129-212-31 & 129-212-32 have a General Plan Land Use designation of
Low Density. Parcel No. 129-212-31 & 129-212-32 have a zoning designation of RS-2.
Silveroak Investment Corp. is requesting a reclassification of the property from the RS-2
zone to the RS-4 zone. In accordance with the RS-4 Zone requirements, we wish to
include a Conditional Use Permit request to establish comprehensive site design and
setbacks for our proposed eleven (11) single family dwellings development. The
application also includes a filing for a subdivision map Tentative Tract Map 17882 to
subdivide the existing project site into eleven (11) single family lots, four (4) HOA lots
and one private street lot.
Conditional Use Permit- RS-4 Zone
Per Anaheim Municipal Code 18.04.160, all development in the RS-4 Zone shall be
subject to the approval of an application for a conditional use permit approved by the
Planning Commission. Therefore, we respectfully request consideration of this eleven
(11) unit detached single family residential subdivision proposal to include a request for
Planning Commission review and approval of our site plan through a conditional use
permit per Section 18.66 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
In support of this request, the proposed project complies with development standards
specified in Section 18.04.160 related to maximum density of 6.5 du/ac; whereas the
proposed project’s gross density is 5.7 du/ac. The project does not exceed the
maximum lot coverage requirements of the RS-4 Zone. The project has Two (2) floor
plans as follows.
Plan 2- 2,978 SF (first floor- 1,341 SF; second floor 1,637 SF; 2-car garage 421SF;
optional outdoor living 263 SF; porch 59 SF)
Plan 2 Option – 3,244 SF (First floor 1,341; second floor 1,903 SF; 2-car garage 421
SF; optional outdoor living 263; porch 59 SF)
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Plan 3- 3,492 SF (first floor- 1,562 SF; second floor 1,930 SF; 3-car garage 637 SF;
optional outdoor living 233 SF; porch 92 SF)
All building plans do not exceed the 50% maximum building site coverage prescribed
within RS-4 development standards. Plan 2- approximately 26%; Plan 3- approximately
35%; The average lot size is 6,472 sf.
The setbacks are in conformance with the RS-4 setbacks and as established by this
CUP process.
The proposed single family dwelling building height for Plan 2 is 29’ 5 ½”, Plan 3 is 28’
11 ¼”.
The project provides thirty two (32) parking spaces in the garages, twenty four (24) off
street parking spaces and five (5) on street parking spaces for a total of sixty one (61)
parking spaces.
The project does not have an existing storm drain system to connect. The project
proposes to use a Maxwell drywell storm drain / WQMP system which will be installed
onsite in the private street.
The project application also includes a SWMP as required by the Public Works,
Operations Department.
Sewer capacity has been analyzed and sufficient capacity is available for 11 units.
The proposed project will not adversely affect adjoining land uses, as the use is
consistent with the adjacent uses and allowable density for the site. The proposed
project provides a compatible traditional single family residential design and is
compatible and consistent with the adjoining single family units to the east of the site.
The proposed site is large enough and able to accommodate the proposed project
design without negatively affecting the residential area and surrounding areas.
The traffic generated from the proposed development is consistent with existing General
Plan designated uses that would allow up to 6.5 du/ac on the site. Thus, the adjoining
streets are capable of accepting traffic generated from this infill development.
Finally, approval of this conditional use permit with conditions of approval will not harm
the health and safety of the citizens of Anaheim by the very nature that this is a
proposal for a residential project in a residential area that is consistent with surrounding
development and infrastructure.
Tentative Tract Map TTM 17882
This formal filing for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the existing 1.93 acre project
site into eleven (11) single family lots, four (4) landscaped HOA lots, and one private
street lot. Proposed density is 5.7 du/ac.
The project provides off-street parking to satisfy requirements of the municipal code
without any street parking.
The proposed subdivision design and proposed improvements is consistent with the
City’s General Plan for Low Residential designation with density allowance up to 6.5
du/ac.
We believe that the design and improvements, with conditions of approval for site
improvements that the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of
development, that the proposed subdivision map does not conflict with any existing
easements, and that access is restricted to Magnolia Ave. and therefore should be
recommended for approval.
If there are any additional materials or information required, please notify me
immediately. Please contact me directly should you have any questions 949-254-0135.
Respectfully,
Jeff Weber
Silveroak Investment Corp.
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
CITY OF ANAHEIM
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS**
CASE NO.: DEV2015-00057 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00280 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17882
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05787
PROJECT APPLICANT: Jeff Weber
Silveroak Capital Corporation
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92612
jweber@silveroakcapital.com
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1609 & 1615 West Cerritos Avenue
APN(s): 129-21-232 & 129-21-231
PROJECT LOCATION:
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: The 1.93-acre property is currently developed with
two single-family homes and is located in the Single Family Residential (RS-2) zone. The property is
designated for Low Density Residential land uses by the General Plan. Surrounding land uses include single-family homes to the north, west and across Cerritos Avenue, and a day care facility to the east.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request to rezone the property from the Single-Family Residential (RS-2) zone to the Single–Family, Residential (RS-4) zone and to permit and establish an 11-unit
small–lot residential subdivision with modifications to development standards. The applicant
proposes to demolish two existing residences and accessory structures and construct 11 detached
single-family homes. The lot sizes would range between 5,482 square feet and 6,853 square feet. The two-story homes would range from 2,978 to 3,492 square feet in size. Two different floor plans (Plan 2 and 3) are proposed consisting of four and five bedroom units with an optional
sixth bedroom in Plan 3. The homes would have Traditional, Tuscan and Italian-style
architecture. The designs feature neutral-toned tan, gray, and brown-colored facades, stucco
walls, wood shutters, stone veneer arches, window trim, and asphalt shingle roofs. Six foot high vinyl fencing would separate the private yards for each home and along the north and west property line of the project site. A six foot tall split-face concrete block screen wall with
precision block accent and precast cap will be constructed along Cerritos Avenue.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONING: Reclassification from RS-2 to RS-4
INFORMATION DEMONSTRATING THAT THE PROJECT SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 15332 OF TITLE 14 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS:
1. Is the project consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable
general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations?
The proposed RS-4 zone designation and project density are consistent with and would
implement the property’s Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation.
The intent of the RS-4 Zone is to provide for development of high-quality, detached,
single-family residential units on small lots. The proposed zoning designation would be compatible with the existing single-family residential zoning of the residential properties
to the north, south, east and west and would also be in conformance with the Land Use
Element of the General Plan, which includes the following goals:
• Goal 2.1: Continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs.
• Goal 3.1: Pursue land uses along major corridors that enhance the City’s
image and stimulate appropriate development at strategic locations.
• Goal 3.2: Maximize development opportunities along transportation routes.
• Goal 6.1: Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in Anaheim through strategic infill development and revitalization of existing development.
The project would also be consistent with, and would help implement, the Housing Element of
the General Plan which contains various goals and strategies aimed at encouraging the
development of housing to support the City’s existing and future housing needs.
2. Is the proposed development located within the City limits on a project site of no more
than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses?
The 1.93-acre property is located in the City of Anaheim and is currently developed with
two single-family homes in the Single Family Residential (RS-2) zone. Surrounding land uses in all directions consist of single-family homes.
3. Does the project site have value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species?
The project site is currently developed with single family homes and has no habitat value for endangered, rare or threatened species.
4. Would approval of the project result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality?
a. Traffic:
Construction - There would be a temporary minor increase in traffic due to construction
vehicles during the construction phase. However, this impact would be temporary. No
significant impacts would occur.
Operation - The proposed project consists of 11 Single Family Dwelling Units. Based on
Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook 9th Edition, the project
is estimated to generate eight (8) trips during the AM Peak Hour, and 11 trips during the
PM Peak Hour. The two existing single family dwelling units on the site currently
generate two AM Peak Hour trips and two PM Peak Hour trips, resulting in a net increase of 6 AM Peak Hour Trips and 9 PM Peak Hour Trips. The net increase in vehicular trips
would not create a significant traffic impact.
Additionally, the City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines state that a traffic study is
required when a project’s trips generation is expected to exceed 100 vehicle trips in the AM or PM peak hour. The Proposed Project would generate traffic well below this
threshold and therefore a traffic study is not required. Neither roadway segments nor
immediately surrounding intersections would be significantly impacted as a result of the
additional trips from the Proposed Project.
b. Noise:
Construction The Project would generate temporary noise during construction activities.
Equipment used during construction could create noise impacts through the duration of
the construction process. However, these impacts are temporary and would cease upon
completion of construction. Chapter 6.70 of the City’s noise ordinance exempts construction noise between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday Adherence to the City Noise ordinance would result in no significant impacts.
Operation The Project is a single family residential development that, when constructed,
would generate noise impacts consistent with those of surrounding land uses. No
significant impacts would occur.
c. Air Quality:
The Project site is located within SoCAB which is characterized by relatively poor air
quality and is a Federal- and State-designated nonattainment area for O3, PM10 and
PM2.5 (US EPA 2012). SCAQMD has established significance thresholds for both construction and operational activities relative to these criteria pollutants. Based on the
following analysis, implementation of the Project would result in less than significant
impacts relative to the daily significance thresholds for criteria air pollutant construction
emissions established by the SCAQMD.
Construction - The proposal consists of the construction of 11 single-family residences
on a 1.93-acre parcel. General construction activities, such as site preparation, including
demolition of two existing single family homes, grading, and travel by construction
workers can contribute to air pollutants. All construction activities would comply with
SCAQMD Rule 403 (SCAQMD 2005) regarding the control of fugitive dust emissions, and existing City dust suppression practices that minimize dust and other emissions.
Such controls include frequent watering of the site, the covering and/or wetting of trucks
hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials off-site, street sweeping, as needed, to
remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud that would otherwise be carried off
by trucks departing the site, suspending grading and excavation activities in high winds (25 miles per hour [mph] or more) as well as implementation of a traffic control plan to
minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities, etc., that would be
incorporated into the construction plans.
Construction of the Project is conservatively anticipated to last 6 months and construction would be broken into three phases: demolition, grading, and building construction (which
consists of building construction, paving, and architectural coating).
Pollutant emissions resulting from Project construction activities were calculated using
the CalEEMod model. Construction emissions are based on conservative assumptions, which imply a default equipment mix and a worst-case construction schedule. As shown
in Table 1, entitled “Project-Related Construction and Operational Emissions,” the
incremental increase in emissions from Project construction activities fall well below
SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional emissions.
Operation - The Project’s incremental increase in regional emissions resulting from
operation of the Project would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. Mobile source
emission calculations utilize the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rate calculated by
CalEEMod, based on the specific proposed land use and intensity. The daily VMT rate is
based on the number of daily trips for each land use and applied to a commute percentage and an average trip length, both of which are land use specific values derived from
CalEEMod. These values account for variations in trip frequency and length associated
with commuting to and from the Project. Emission factors specific to the buildout year
are projected based on SoCAB-specific fleet turnover rates and the impact of future
emission standards and fuel efficiency standards. The increase in the consumption of
fossil fuels to provide power, heat, and ventilation was considered in the calculations as stationary point source emissions. Future fuel consumption rates are estimated based on
land use specific energy consumption rates. The emission factors used in this analysis
represent a State-wide average of known power producing facilities, utilizing various
technologies and emission control strategies, and do not take into account any unique
emissions profile. At this time, these emission factors are considered conservative and representative. Area source emissions were calculated by CalEEMod and include
emissions from natural gas and landscape fuel combustion, consumer products, and
architectural coatings (future maintenance). As shown in Table 1, the operational
emissions pollutant concentrations resulting from Project operation would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, air quality impacts would be less than significant.
Table 1 Project-Related Construction and Operational Emissions
Mass Daily Thresholds
(pounds per day)
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction Emissions SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
2016 Project Emissions 2.5 14 10 15 1 1 Exceed Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Operational Emissions SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Project Emissions 1 10 4.85 11.66 .83 .24 Exceed Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source of emissions: CalEEMod 2013.2.2 Source of thresholds: SCAQMD Regional emissions refer to the ambient conditions surrounding the site. Therefore,
pollutant emissions associated with construction of the Project would be less than
significant. Operational related impacts are typically associated with emissions
produced from Project-generated vehicle trips. Based on the Project’s anticipated compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and the scale of development, it is anticipated that no significant impacts would occur to existing air quality standards.
d. Water Quality:
Grading and construction associated with site work on the project site would result in temporary disturbance of surface soils, which could potentially result in erosion and sedimentation on site, which are major visible water quality impacts attributable to
construction activities. Any stockpiles of excavated areas would be susceptible to high
rates of erosion from wind and rain and, if not manage properly, could result in increased
sedimentation in local drainage ways. The Project must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 Permit. The NPDES MS4 Permit Program, which is
administered in the project area by the City of Anaheim and County of Orange, issued by
the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), 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.
The contractor would be required to comply with Chapter 10.09 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, which prohibits the active or passive discharge or disposal of soil or
construction debris into the storm drain. Additionally, 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 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 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 the SWPPP. Incorporation of these policies and ordinances and the
requirements contained within would reduce project impacts to less than significant.
5. Can the project site be adequately served by all required utilities and public services?
a. Fire Protection:
The construction of 11 single family homes would result in a small increase of new
residents, which could incrementally increase demands for fire protection services.
However, the increased demand for fire protection services would be considered minimal
and would be met with existing fire resources. Impacts to fire services are anticipated to be adequately funded by an increase in tax revenue, over an extended period of time,
relative to the increase in development intensity. Additional fire personnel and
associated facilities and equipment would be provided through the annual Operating
Budget and Capital Improvement Program review process. Annually, Fire Department
needs would be assessed and budget allocations revised accordingly to ensure that adequate levels of service are maintained throughout the City. Building plans submitted
for new development on the project site would be required to comply with fire safety
requirements. Additionally, development of the project site would not result in the need
for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Impacts to fire services would be
less than significant.
b. Police Protection:
The construction of 11 single family homes would result in a small increase of new
residents, which could incrementally increase demands for police services. Development
of the project site would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. Impacts to police services would be less than significant.
c. Schools
The Proposed Project would include the construction of 11 new single-family residences,
resulting in a small increase of new residents. Based on the student generation rates of 0.406 for elementary students (Grades K-6), 0.144 for junior high school students
(Grades 7-8), and 0.240 for high school students (Grades 9-12) per household provided in
the Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR No. 3301, development of 11 new
housing units would generate approximately 4 elementary students, 2 junior high
students, and 3 high school students. Therefore, the Project would not significantly impact school services. In addition, payment of the appropriate school fees would be
required for all new development in accordance with Senate Bill 50 (SB 50). The
Proposed Project would be conditioned to pay the required fee as mandated by SB 50 to
off-set the impact to school services. Pursuant to SB 50, payment of the school
development fees are considered full mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant.
d. Parks:
The Proposed Project would generate a small increase of new residents that may utilize
recreational facilities in the City. According to the Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code
Update EIR No. 330, the City has a goal of providing at least two acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. In order to help achieve this goal, AMC Section 17.34.010 requires
residential developments to pay a park impact fee prior to the issuance of building
permits in order to offset the increase in demand and use of recreational facilities.
Therefore, no significant impacts would occur.
e. Other Public Facilities:
The Proposed Project would generate a small increase of new residents that may utilize
library facilities in the City. The City of Anaheim Public Library system consists of a
Central Library, eight branches, the Heritage House (former Carnegie Library), and a
BookMobile. The population increase of less than one half of a percent of the total City population would not significantly impact the Public Library system. As a result, impacts
associated with library services and facilities would be less than significant.
f. Wastewater/Sewer:
The Project would be served by the Anaheim Public Works Department for wastewater (Sanitary Sewer) collection service. The Project is located within a developed area and
there is an existing Public wastewater (Sanitary Sewer) main in Cerritos, adjacent to the
Project. The project would be required to connect to this existing wastewater (Sanitary
Sewer) line. The existing wastewater facilities are not identified as deficient in either the
“Existing” or “Build-out” conditions in the latest Combined Central Anaheim Area
1 Table 5.13-14 of the Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR
Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers. Due to the small size of the project, no significant
impacts on existing wastewater infrastructure would occur and the existing facilities
would be adequate to serve the wastewater collection requirements of the Project.
Impacts to wastewater treatment facilities (OCSD) would be less than significant.
g. Storm Water Drainage:
On-site drainage improvements proposed in conjunction with the proposed site work
would be required to meet the City’s and Orange County Flood Control District’s flood
control criteria including design discharges, design/construction standards and maintenance features. All new development projects in the City are also required to
include specific design Best Management Practices to ensure that no stormwater runoff
generated on site would be allowed to leave the site without pre-treatment for urban
pollutants. The internal drainage patterns of the site would be slightly altered by Project
development as the site is developed with 11 single family residences. However, the Project would not alter any drainage pattern in a manner that would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or offsite. The Project would not involve an alteration of the
course of a stream or river. Erosion and siltation impacts potentially resulting from the
project would, for the most part, occur during the Project’s site preparation and
earthmoving phase. Implementation of the NPDES permit requirements, as they apply to the site, would reduce potential erosion, siltation, and water quality impacts. Less than
significant impacts would occur.
h. Water Supplies:
The City of Anaheim receives water from two main sources: the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD),
and 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. The Project includes the development of 11 single family dwelling units. Due to the small size of the project, the supply of local water needed to
support these units is not substantial. Therefore, the production rates of local wells would
not be significantly impacted. Although the Project would result in an increased amount
of impervious surfaces on the site, development would not result in a significant deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. Less than significant impacts to groundwater supplies would occur.
i. Solid Waste Disposal:
Assembly Bill 939 requires local jurisdictions to divert at least 50 percent of their solid
waste into recycling. As of 2012, the City is diverting approximately 65 percent of its waste into recycling. Waste from the City is currently being diverted to the Olinda Alpha
Landfill in the City of Brea and the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in the City of Irvine.
Combined, the two landfills accept approximately 23,500 tons of waste per day, or over
seven million tons annually. The project’s contribution of solid waste would be minimal
and would not significantly impact landfill operations. No significant impacts would
occur.
j. Electricity: k. Natural Gas: l. Telephone Service: m. Television Service:
The Project site is located in a built-out, urban setting. The site and the surrounding
neighborhood are fully served by various utility service providers. There are no anticipated significant service or system upgrades needed to serve the proposed
residential use. Any increase in demand for these services would be considered to be less
than significant.
** Authority: See Public Resources Code Section 21083 and Section 15332 of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations.
DETERMINATION:
I find that the answers given above are adequately supported by the information sources cited following each question and that the effects of the Project are typical of those generated within
that class of projects (i.e., Class 32 – Infill Development Projects) characterized as in-fill
development meeting the conditions of Section 15332 of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations. The Project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Signature of City of Anaheim Representative Date
Amy Stonich, Contract Planner (714) 765-4959 Printed Name, Title Phone Number
ȭ
CERRITOS AVENUE
N.T.S.
RWRW ȭ
STREET 'A'
N.T.S.
DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY
PROPOSED
HOUSE
6" VERTICAL CURB
(TYP.)
PROPOSED
HOUSE
6" VERTICAL CURB
(TYP.)
CURB & GUTTER
SIDEWALK
PROPOSED
HOUSE
CURB & GUTTER
4' SIDEWALK4' SIDEWALK
EXISTINGHOUSE
EASEMENT TO CITY
6' PERIMETER WALL
PARKWAY
LANDSCAPE
ȭ
STREET 'B'
N.T.S.
PROPOSED
HOUSE
6" VERTICAL CURB
(TYP.)
PROPOSED
HOUSE
6" VERTICAL CURB
(TYP.)
4' SIDEWALK
PRIVATE STREET EASEMENTPRIVATE STREET EASEMENT
SILVEROAK INVESTMENT CORP.
19100 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 400
IRVINE, CA 91612
Lot No. Gross S.F Acres Net S.F Acres Plan S.F Lot Coverage %
1 6,721 0.15 6,600 0.15 2,199 33%
2 6,853 0.16 6,716 0.15 2,199 32%
3 6,677 0.15 6,532 0.15 2,199 33%
4 6,545 0.15 6,327 0.15 2,199 34%
5 6,188 0.14 6,188 0.14 2,199 36%
6 5,482 0.13 5,482 0.13 2,199 40%
7 6,167 0.14 6,167 0.14 2,199 36%
8 6,526 0.15 6,377 0.15 2,199 34%
9 6,575 0.15 6,344 0.15 2,199 33%
10 6,706 0.15 6,574 0.15 2,199 33%
11 6,757 0.16 6,683 0.15 1,762 26%
Total 71,197 1.63 69,990 1.61
Average 6,472 0.14 6,363 0.13
Lot A 9,614 0.22
Lot B 1,664 0.04
Lot C 654 0.02
Lot D 800 0.02
Summary of Areas
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
ȭ
CERRITOS AVENUE
N.T.S.
RWRW ȭ
STREET 'A'
N.T.S.
DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY
PROPOSED
HOUSE
6" VERTICAL CURB
(TYP.)
PROPOSED
HOUSE
6" VERTICAL CURB
(TYP.)
CURB & GUTTER
SIDEWALK
PROPOSED
HOUSE
CURB & GUTTER
4' SIDEWALK4' SIDEWALK
EXISTING
HOUSE
EASEMENT TO CITY
6' PERIMETER WALL
PARKWAY
LANDSCAPE
ȭ
STREET 'B'
N.T.S.
PROPOSED
HOUSE
6" VERTICAL CURB
(TYP.)
PROPOSEDHOUSE
6" VERTICAL CURB
(TYP.)
4' SIDEWALK
PRIVATE STREET EASEMENTPRIVATE STREET EASEMENT
SILVEROAK INVESTMENT CORP.
19100 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 400
IRVINE, CA 91612
Lot No. Gross S.F Acres Net S.F Acres Plan S.F Lot Coverage %
1 6,721 0.15 6,600 0.15 2,199 33%
2 6,853 0.16 6,716 0.15 2,199 32%
3 6,677 0.15 6,532 0.15 2,199 33%
4 6,545 0.15 6,327 0.15 2,199 34%
5 6,188 0.14 6,188 0.14 2,199 36%
6 5,482 0.13 5,482 0.13 2,199 40%
7 6,167 0.14 6,167 0.14 2,199 36%
8 6,526 0.15 6,377 0.15 2,199 34%
9 6,575 0.15 6,344 0.15 2,199 33%
10 6,706 0.15 6,574 0.15 2,199 33%
11 6,757 0.16 6,683 0.15 1,762 26%
Total 71,197 1.63 69,990 1.61
Average 6,472 0.14 6,363 0.13
Lot A 9,614 0.22
Lot B 1,664 0.04
Lot C 654 0.02
Lot D 800 0.02
Summary of Areas
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
4
6
.
0
0
'
M
I
N
9 0 . 0 0 ' M I N
F
I
R
S
T
F
L
O
O
R
U
P
1
7
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
2
0
2
2
0
4
X
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
4
1
0
0
1
3
0
X
G
R
E
A
T
R
O
O
M
1
8
6
1
5
1
X
D
I
N
I
N
G
1
6
5
1
0
1
X
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
P
D
R
.
B
A
.
3
VALET
W
A
L
K
-
I
N
P
A
N
T
R
Y
D
.
W
.
O
V
E
N
/
M
I
C
R
O
.
R
E
F
.
E
N
T
R
Y
O
P
T
.
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
L
I
V
I
N
G
1
8
6
1
2
6
X
5
'
-
0
"
3
6
'
-
6
"
4
'
-
6
"
8'-10"51'-10"3'-6"16'-8"
P
O
R
C
H
L
I
N
E
N
7'-8"
18'-0"
1'-6"
S E C O N D
F
L
O
O
R
MASTERBEDROOM1881510X
M
A
S
T
E
R
B
A
T
H
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
2
1
1
6
1
2
0
X
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
3
1
1
1
1
1
0
7
X
BONUS ROOM /OPT. BEDROOM5177132X
B
A
.
2
OPENTOBELOW L
A
U
.
W.D.DN17 R
SEAT
L
I
N
E
N
OPT.BALCONY186126X
W
A
L
K
-
I
N
C
L
O
S
E
T
3
6
L
.
F
.
BENCH
H
I
G
H
W
D
W
H
I
G
H
W
D
W
OPT. SL. GL. DR.
4
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
S
/
B
O
N
U
S
R
O
O
M
/
3
.
5
B
A
T
H
S
2
-
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
T
A
B
L
E
1
S
T
F
L
O
O
R
1
3
4
1
S
Q
.
F
T
.
2
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
1
6
3
7
S
Q
.
F
T
.
T
O
T
A
L
2
,
9
7
8
S
Q
.
F
T
.
2
-
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
4
2
1
S
Q
.
F
T
.
O
P
T
.
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
L
I
V
I
N
G
2
6
3
S
Q
.
F
T
.
P
O
R
C
H
5
9
S
Q
.
F
T
.
N
O
T
E
:
S
Q
U
A
R
E
F
O
O
T
A
G
E
M
A
Y
V
A
R
Y
D
U
E
T
O
M
E
T
H
O
D
O
F
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
BEDROOM 5123130XBEDROOM 5 / BA. 4@ BONUS ROOM BA. 40 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6
9
4
.
1
5
0
5
4
1
1
.
1
0
.
1
5
J
:
\
G
R
O
U
P
1
5
\
6
9
4
1
5
0
5
4
\
5
0
5
4
F
L
R
2
A
.
D
W
G
X
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
E
A
S
T
19100 Von Karman AvenueIrvine, CA 92612(949) 477-9550
P
L
A
N
2
2
,
9
7
8
S
Q
.
F
T
.
F
R
O
N
T
T
R
A
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
LEFTRIGHT REAR
9'-1"9'-1"
8'-0"7'-6"
29'-5 1/2"
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
A
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
P
I
T
C
H
:
6
:
1
2
R
A
K
E
:
1
2
"
E
A
V
E
:
1
2
"
R
O
O
F
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
:
F
L
A
T
T
I
L
E
4
:
1
2
0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6
9
4
.
1
5
0
5
4
1
1
.
1
0
.
1
5
J
:
\
G
R
O
U
P
1
5
\
6
9
4
1
5
0
5
4
\
5
0
5
4
E
L
V
2
.
D
W
G
X
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
E
A
S
T
19100 Von Karman AvenueIrvine, CA 92612(949) 477-9550
P
L
A
N
2
T
R
A
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
F
R
O
N
T
T
U
S
C
A
N
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
LEFTRIGHT REAR
9'-1"9'-1"
8'-0"7'-6"
26'-4 3/4"
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
B
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
P
I
T
C
H
:
4
:
1
2
R
A
K
E
:
6
"
E
A
V
E
:
1
2
"
R
O
O
F
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
:
'
S
'
T
I
L
E
0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6
9
4
.
1
5
0
5
4
1
1
.
1
0
.
1
5
J
:
\
G
R
O
U
P
1
5
\
6
9
4
1
5
0
5
4
\
5
0
5
4
E
L
V
2
.
D
W
G
X
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
E
A
S
T
19100 Von Karman AvenueIrvine, CA 92612(949) 477-9550
P
L
A
N
2
T
U
S
C
A
N
F
R
O
N
T
I
T
A
L
I
A
N
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
LEFTRIGHT
9'-1"9'-1"
8'-0"7'-6"
1'-0"
REAR
27'-4 3/4"
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
C
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
P
I
T
C
H
:
4
:
1
2
R
A
K
E
:
1
8
"
E
A
V
E
:
1
8
"
R
O
O
F
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
:
F
L
A
T
T
I
L
E
0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6
9
4
.
1
5
0
5
4
1
1
.
1
0
.
1
5
J
:
\
G
R
O
U
P
1
5
\
6
9
4
1
5
0
5
4
\
5
0
5
4
E
L
V
2
.
D
W
G
X
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
E
A
S
T
19100 Von Karman AvenueIrvine, CA 92612(949) 477-9550
P
L
A
N
2
I
T
A
L
I
A
N
4
6
.
0
0
'
M
I
N
9 1 . 0 0 ' M I N
F
I
R
S
T
F
L
O
O
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
2
0
2
2
0
4
X
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
4
1
0
0
1
3
0
X
G
R
E
A
T
R
O
O
M
1
8
6
1
5
1
X
D
I
N
I
N
G
1
6
5
1
0
1
X
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
P
D
R
.
B
A
.
3
VALET
W
A
L
K
-
I
N
P
A
N
T
R
Y
D
.
W
.
O
V
E
N
/
M
I
C
R
O
.
R
E
F
.
E
N
T
R
Y
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
L
I
V
I
N
G
1
8
6
1
2
6
X
5
'
-
0
"
3
6
'
-
6
"
4
'
-
6
"
11'-6"51'-10"3'-6"
1'-6"
15'-0"7'-8"
P
O
R
C
H
L
I
N
E
N
U
P
1
7
R
D
.
O
.
S E C O N D
F
L
O
O
R
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
3
1
2
2
1
0
1
0
X
DN17 RLINENBEDROOM 21261010X
W
A
L
K
-
I
N
C
L
O
S
E
T
3
6
L
.
F
.
SUPER BONUSROOM1811292X
M
A
S
T
E
R
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
1
6
5
1
6
8
X
M
A
S
T
E
R
B
A
T
H
S
E
A
T
LAU.
B
A
.
2
OPEN TOBELOW
4
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
S
/
S
U
P
E
R
B
O
N
U
S
R
O
O
M
/
3
.
5
B
A
T
H
S
2
-
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
T
A
B
L
E
1
S
T
F
L
O
O
R
1
,
3
4
1
S
Q
.
F
T
.
2
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
1
,
9
0
3
S
Q
.
F
T
.
T
O
T
A
L
3
,
2
4
4
S
Q
.
F
T
.
2
-
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
4
2
1
S
Q
.
F
T
.
O
P
T
.
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
L
I
V
I
N
G
2
6
3
S
Q
.
F
T
.
P
O
R
C
H
5
9
S
Q
.
F
T
.
N
O
T
E
:
S
Q
U
A
R
E
F
O
O
T
A
G
E
M
A
Y
V
A
R
Y
D
U
E
T
O
M
E
T
H
O
D
O
F
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6
9
4
.
1
5
0
5
4
1
1
.
1
0
.
1
5
J
:
\
G
R
O
U
P
1
5
\
6
9
4
1
5
0
5
4
\
5
0
5
4
F
L
R
2
A
_
O
P
T
I
O
N
.
D
W
G
X
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
E
A
S
T
19100 Von Karman AvenueIrvine, CA 92612(949) 477-9550
P
L
A
N
2
-
O
P
T
I
O
N
3
,
2
4
4
S
Q
.
F
T
.
F
R
O
N
T
T
R
A
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
LEFTRIGHT REAR
9'-1"9'-1"
8'-0"7'-6"
29'-5 1/2"
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
A
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
P
I
T
C
H
:
6
:
1
2
R
A
K
E
:
1
2
"
E
A
V
E
:
1
2
"
R
O
O
F
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
:
F
L
A
T
T
I
L
E
4
:
1
2
0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6
9
4
.
1
5
0
5
4
1
1
.
1
0
.
1
5
J
:
\
G
R
O
U
P
1
5
\
6
9
4
1
5
0
5
4
\
5
0
5
4
E
L
V
2
_
O
P
T
I
O
N
.
D
W
G
X
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
E
A
S
T
19100 Von Karman AvenueIrvine, CA 92612(949) 477-9550
P
L
A
N
2
-
O
P
T
I
O
N
T
R
A
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
F
R
O
N
T
T
U
S
C
A
N
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
LEFTRIGHT REAR
9'-1"9'-1"
8'-0"7'-6"
26'-4 3/4"
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
B
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
P
I
T
C
H
:
4
:
1
2
R
A
K
E
:
6
"
E
A
V
E
:
1
2
"
R
O
O
F
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
:
'
S
'
T
I
L
E
0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6
9
4
.
1
5
0
5
4
1
1
.
1
0
.
1
5
J
:
\
G
R
O
U
P
1
5
\
6
9
4
1
5
0
5
4
\
5
0
5
4
E
L
V
2
_
O
P
T
I
O
N
.
D
W
G
X
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
E
A
S
T
19100 Von Karman AvenueIrvine, CA 92612(949) 477-9550
T
U
S
C
A
N
P
L
A
N
2
-
O
P
T
I
O
N
F
R
O
N
T
I
T
A
L
I
A
N
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
LEFTRIGHT
9'-1"9'-1"
8'-0"7'-6"
1'-0"
REAR
27'-4 3/4"
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
C
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
P
I
T
C
H
:
4
:
1
2
R
A
K
E
:
1
8
"
E
A
V
E
:
1
8
"
R
O
O
F
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
:
F
L
A
T
T
I
L
E
0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6
9
4
.
1
5
0
5
4
1
1
.
1
0
.
1
5
J
:
\
G
R
O
U
P
1
5
\
6
9
4
1
5
0
5
4
\
5
0
5
4
E
L
V
2
_
O
P
T
I
O
N
.
D
W
G
X
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
E
A
S
T
19100 Von Karman AvenueIrvine, CA 92612(949) 477-9550
I
T
A
L
I
A
N
P
L
A
N
2
-
O
P
T
I
O
N
5
5
.
0
0
'
M
I
N
9 1 . 0 0 ' M I N
F
I
R
S
T
F
L
O
O
R
5
'
-
0
"
4
5
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
12'-6"51'-3"18'-6"8'-9"
O
P
T
.
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
L
I
V
I
N
G
1
4
1
0
1
3
0
X
D
I
N
I
N
G
1
7
0
1
1
4
X
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
G
R
E
A
T
R
O
O
M
2
0
0
1
5
3
X
G
A
R
A
G
E
2
0
0
2
0
4
X
G
A
R
A
G
E
1
1
0
1
8
0
X
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
5
1
4
0
1
3
0
X
H
M
C
W
A
L
K
-
I
N
P
A
N
T
R
Y
R
E
F
.
D
.
W
.
O
V
E
N
/
M
I
C
R
O
.
B
A
.
4
P
D
R
.
P
O
R
C
H
E
N
T
R
Y
D
R
O
P
Z
O
N
E
STORAGE
U
P
1
7
R
O
P
T
.
R
E
F
.
L
I
N
E
N
P
A
N
.
D
R
O
P
S E C O N D
F
L
O
O
R
M
A
S
T
E
R
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
1
6
0
1
6
4
X
M
A
S
T
E
R
B
A
T
H
W
A
L
K
-
I
N
C
L
O
S
E
T
4
1
L
.
F
.
BONUS ROOM /OPT. BEDROOM6 W/ BA. 51510160XLAU.BA. 3BEDROOM 41311128X
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
3
1
3
0
1
0
5
X
B
A
.
2
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
2
1
0
8
1
2
8
X
OPENTOBELOW DN17 R
S
E
A
T
L
I
N
E
N
W.D.OPT. FP OPT.BALCONY/SUPERBONUS RM.1511140XOPT. SL. GL. DR.WALK-INCLOSET9 L.F.
O
P
T
.
D
E
S
K
5
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
S
/
4
.
5
B
A
T
H
S
/
B
O
N
U
S
R
O
O
M
3
-
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
F
L
O
O
R
A
R
E
A
T
A
B
L
E
1
S
T
F
L
O
O
R
1
5
6
2
S
Q
.
F
T
.
2
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
1
9
3
0
S
Q
.
F
T
.
T
O
T
A
L
3
4
9
2
S
Q
.
F
T
.
2
-
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
6
3
7
S
Q
.
F
T
.
O
P
T
.
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
L
I
V
I
N
G
2
3
3
S
Q
.
F
T
.
P
O
R
C
H
9
2
S
Q
.
F
T
.
L
O
T
C
O
V
E
R
A
G
E
0
%
N
O
T
E
:
S
Q
U
A
R
E
F
O
O
T
A
G
E
M
A
Y
V
A
R
Y
D
U
E
T
O
M
E
T
H
O
D
O
F
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
BEDROOM 6100122XWALK-INCLOSET11 L.F.OPT. BEDROOM 6 W/ BA. 5@ BONUS ROOM BA. 5DN17 R0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6
9
4
.
1
5
0
5
4
1
1
.
1
0
.
1
5
J
:
\
G
R
O
U
P
1
5
\
6
9
4
1
5
0
5
4
\
5
0
5
4
F
L
R
3
A
.
D
W
G
X
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
E
A
S
T
19100 Von Karman AvenueIrvine, CA 92612(949) 477-9550
P
L
A
N
3
3
,
4
9
2
S
Q
.
F
T
.
F
R
O
N
T
T
R
A
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
LEFTRIGHT REAR
9'-1"9'-1"
8'-0"
1'-1"
7'-6"
28'-11 1/4"
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
A
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
P
I
T
C
H
:
6
:
1
2
U
.
N
.
O
.
R
A
K
E
:
1
2
"
E
A
V
E
:
1
2
"
R
O
O
F
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
:
F
L
A
T
T
I
L
E
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8:12
8
:
1
2
0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6
9
4
.
1
5
0
5
4
1
1
.
1
0
.
1
5
J
:
\
G
R
O
U
P
1
5
\
6
9
4
1
5
0
5
4
\
5
0
5
4
E
L
V
3
.
D
W
G
X
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
E
A
S
T
19100 Von Karman AvenueIrvine, CA 92612(949) 477-9550
P
L
A
N
3
T
R
A
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
O
P
T
I
O
N
A
L
E
N
H
A
N
C
E
M
E
N
T
S
F
R
O
N
T
T
U
S
C
A
N
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
LEFTRIGHT REAR
9'-1"9'-1"
8'-0"
1'-1"
7'-6"
26'-1"
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
B
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
P
I
T
C
H
:
4
:
1
2
R
A
K
E
:
6
"
E
A
V
E
:
1
2
"
R
O
O
F
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
:
'
S
'
T
I
L
E
0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6
9
4
.
1
5
0
5
4
1
1
.
1
0
.
1
5
J
:
\
G
R
O
U
P
1
5
\
6
9
4
1
5
0
5
4
\
5
0
5
4
E
L
V
3
.
D
W
G
X
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
E
A
S
T
19100 Von Karman AvenueIrvine, CA 92612(949) 477-9550
P
L
A
N
3
T
U
S
C
A
N
F
R
O
N
T
I
T
A
L
I
A
N
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
LEFTRIGHT
9'-1"9'-1"
8'-0"
1'-1"
7'-6"
1'-0"
REAR
27'-1"
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
C
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
P
I
T
C
H
:
4
:
1
2
R
A
K
E
:
1
8
"
E
A
V
E
:
1
8
"
R
O
O
F
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
:
F
L
A
T
T
I
L
E
0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6
9
4
.
1
5
0
5
4
1
1
.
1
0
.
1
5
J
:
\
G
R
O
U
P
1
5
\
6
9
4
1
5
0
5
4
\
5
0
5
4
E
L
V
3
.
D
W
G
X
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
E
A
S
T
19100 Von Karman AvenueIrvine, CA 92612(949) 477-9550
P
L
A
N
3
I
T
A
L
I
A
N
F
R
O
N
T
C
R
A
F
T
S
M
A
N
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
LEFTRIGHT REAR
9'-1"9'-1"
8'-0"
1'-1"
7'-6"
26'-1"
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
D
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
P
I
T
C
H
:
4
:
1
2
R
A
K
E
:
6
"
E
A
V
E
:
1
8
"
R
O
O
F
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
:
F
L
A
T
T
I
L
E
0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"0 248SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6
9
4
.
1
5
0
5
4
1
1
.
1
0
.
1
5
J
:
\
G
R
O
U
P
1
5
\
6
9
4
1
5
0
5
4
\
5
0
5
4
E
L
V
3
.
D
W
G
X
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
E
A
S
T
19100 Von Karman AvenueIrvine, CA 92612(949) 477-9550
P
L
A
N
3
C
R
A
F
T
S
M
A
N
CE
R
R
I
T
O
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
R
R
I
T
O
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
'
A
'
S
T
R
E
E
T
'A
'
S
T
R
E
E
T
L
O
T
'
A
'
LO
T
'
B
'
LO
T
'
C
'
LO
T
'
D
'
R.
O
.
W
.
LO
T
1
PL
A
N
3
B
FF
E
1
2
0
.
2
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
6
0
LO
T
3
PL
A
N
3
B
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
4
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
8
0
LO
T
2
PL
A
N
3
A
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
3
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
7
0
LO
T
1
1
PL
A
N
2
A
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
2
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
6
0
LO
T
1
0
PL
A
N
3
C
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
3
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
7
0
LO
T
9
PL
A
N
3
A
FF
E
1
2
0
.
4
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
8
0
(N
.
A
.
P
.
)
LO
T
4
PL
A
N
3
A
FF
E
1
2
0
.
9
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
3
0
LO
T
5
PL
A
N
3
C
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
7
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
1
0
LO
T
6
PL
A
N
3
A
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
6
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
0
0
LO
T
7
PL
A
N
3
B
FF
E
1
2
0
.
6
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
0
0
LO
T
8
PL
A
N
3
C
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
6
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
0
0
DR
I
V
E
S
&
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
W
A
L
K
S
T
O
BE
P
L
A
I
N
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
W
I
T
H
A
ME
D
I
U
M
B
R
O
O
M
F
I
N
I
S
H
&
TR
O
W
E
L
E
D
J
O
I
N
T
S
(
T
Y
P
.
)
EN
T
R
Y
W
A
L
K
S
&
S
T
O
O
P
S
T
O
BE
P
L
A
I
N
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
W
I
T
H
A
ME
D
I
U
M
B
R
O
O
M
F
I
N
I
S
H
&
TR
O
W
E
L
E
D
J
O
I
N
T
S
(
T
Y
P
.
)
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
S
T
O
B
E
P
L
A
I
N
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
W
I
T
H
A
ME
D
I
U
M
B
R
O
O
M
F
I
N
I
S
H
&
TR
O
W
E
L
E
D
J
O
I
N
T
S
(
T
Y
P
.
)
JOB:DRAWN:
D
A
T
E
:
CE
R
R
I
T
O
S
I
I
-
T
R
A
C
T
1
7
8
8
2
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
SI
L
V
E
R
O
A
K
I
N
V
E
S
T
M
E
N
T
C
O
R
P
.
19
1
0
0
V
O
N
K
A
R
M
A
N
A
V
E
.
SUITE 400
IR
V
I
N
E
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
1
6
1
2
1188 PCROBERT MITCHELL & ASSOCIATESPLANNING DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREHARDSCAPE PLAN RAM
N
O
V
E
M
B
E
R
1
1
,
2
0
1
5
0'5'10'15'20'
4
0
'
1"=20'-0"
CE
R
R
I
T
O
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
R
R
I
T
O
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
'
A
'
S
T
R
E
E
T
'A
'
S
T
R
E
E
T
L
O
T
'
A
'
LO
T
'
B
'
LO
T
'
C
'
LO
T
'
D
'
R.
O
.
W
.
LO
T
1
PL
A
N
3
B
FF
E
1
2
0
.
2
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
6
0
LO
T
3
PL
A
N
3
B
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
4
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
8
0
LO
T
2
PL
A
N
3
A
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
3
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
7
0
LO
T
1
1
PL
A
N
2
A
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
2
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
6
0
LO
T
1
0
PL
A
N
3
C
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
3
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
7
0
LO
T
9
PL
A
N
3
A
FF
E
1
2
0
.
4
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
8
0
(N
.
A
.
P
.
)
LO
T
4
PL
A
N
3
A
FF
E
1
2
0
.
9
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
3
0
LO
T
5
PL
A
N
3
C
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
7
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
1
0
LO
T
6
PL
A
N
3
A
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
6
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
0
0
LO
T
7
PL
A
N
3
B
FF
E
1
2
0
.
6
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
0
0
LO
T
8
PL
A
N
3
C
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
6
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
0
0
JOB:DRAWN:
D
A
T
E
:
CE
R
R
I
T
O
S
I
I
-
T
R
A
C
T
1
7
8
8
2
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
SI
L
V
E
R
O
A
K
I
N
V
E
S
T
M
E
N
T
C
O
R
P
.
19
1
0
0
V
O
N
K
A
R
M
A
N
A
V
E
.
SUITE 400
IR
V
I
N
E
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
1
6
1
2
1188 PCROBERT MITCHELL & ASSOCIATESPLANNING DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREFENCE & WALL PLAN RAM
N
O
V
E
M
B
E
R
1
1
,
2
0
1
5
0'5'10'15'20'
4
0
'
1"=20'-0"6'-0" TALL SPLIT FACE CONCRE TE BLOCK SCREEN WALL WITH PRECISION BLOCK ACCENT AND PRECAST CAP ALONG CERRITOS AVENUE (DETAILS 'A' & 'B')24" SQUARE 7'-8" TALL SPL IT FACE CONCRETE BLOCK PILASTER WITH PRE CAST CAP (DETAIL 'C')6 FT. TALL VINYL FENCE AT PROJECT PERIMETER AND PRIVATE YARD AREAS (DETAIL 'D')6'-0" TALL VINYL GATE FOR PR IVATE YARD AREAS (DETAIL 'D')
C
SP
L
I
T
F
A
C
E
M
A
S
O
N
R
Y
P
I
L
A
S
T
E
R
w
/
P
R
E
C
A
S
T
C
A
P
3/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
A
SP
L
I
T
F
A
C
E
S
C
R
E
E
N
W
A
L
L
A
L
O
N
G
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
A
V
E
.
3/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
(C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
I
D
E
)
6
'
-
0
"
M
A
X
.
6
'
-
0
"
M
A
X
.
24
"
FI
N
I
S
H
GR
A
D
E
FI
N
I
S
H
GR
A
D
E
PR
E
C
A
S
T
C
A
P
PR
E
C
A
S
T
C
A
P
8"
x
8
"
x
1
6
"
S
P
L
I
T
F
A
C
E
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
B
L
O
C
K
FA
C
I
N
G
S
T
R
E
E
T
8"
x
8
"
x
1
6
"
S
P
L
I
T
F
A
C
E
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
B
L
O
C
K
B
SP
L
I
T
F
A
C
E
S
C
R
E
E
N
W
A
L
L
A
L
O
N
G
C
E
R
R
I
T
O
S
A
V
E
.
3/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
(PRIVATE YARD SIDE)
6
'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
.
FINISH GRADE
PR
E
C
A
S
T
C
A
P
8"x8"x16" PRECISION CONCRETE BLOCK FACING UNITS JOB:DRAWN:
D
A
T
E
:
CE
R
R
I
T
O
S
I
I
-
T
R
A
C
T
1
7
8
8
2
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
SI
L
V
E
R
O
A
K
I
N
V
E
S
T
M
E
N
T
C
O
R
P
.
19
1
0
0
V
O
N
K
A
R
M
A
N
A
V
E
.
SUITE 400
IR
V
I
N
E
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
1
6
1
2
1188 PCROBERT MITCHELL & ASSOCIATESPLANNING DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
D
IM
A
G
E
S
O
F
V
I
N
Y
L
F
E
N
C
I
N
G
&
G
A
T
E
(N
O
S
C
A
L
E
)
FE
N
C
E
&
W
A
L
L
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
&
I
M
A
G
E
S
RAM
N
O
V
E
M
B
E
R
1
1
,
2
0
1
5
CE
R
R
I
T
O
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
R
R
I
T
O
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
'
A
'
S
T
R
E
E
T
'A
'
S
T
R
E
E
T
L
O
T
'
A
'
LO
T
'
B
'
LO
T
'
C
'
LO
T
'
D
'
R.
O
.
W
.
LO
T
1
PL
A
N
3
B
FF
E
1
2
0
.
2
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
6
0
LO
T
3
PL
A
N
3
B
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
4
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
8
0
LO
T
2
PL
A
N
3
A
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
3
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
7
0
LO
T
1
1
PL
A
N
2
A
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
2
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
6
0
LO
T
1
0
PL
A
N
3
C
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
3
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
7
0
LO
T
9
PL
A
N
3
A
FF
E
1
2
0
.
4
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
8
0
(N
.
A
.
P
.
)
LO
T
4
PL
A
N
3
A
FF
E
1
2
0
.
9
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
3
0
LO
T
5
PL
A
N
3
C
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
7
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
1
0
LO
T
6
PL
A
N
3
A
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
6
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
0
0
LO
T
7
PL
A
N
3
B
FF
E
1
2
0
.
6
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
0
0
LO
T
8
PL
A
N
3
C
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
6
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
0
0
JOB:DRAWN:
D
A
T
E
:
CE
R
R
I
T
O
S
I
I
-
T
R
A
C
T
1
7
8
8
2
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
SI
L
V
E
R
O
A
K
I
N
V
E
S
T
M
E
N
T
C
O
R
P
.
19
1
0
0
V
O
N
K
A
R
M
A
N
A
V
E
.
SUITE 400
IR
V
I
N
E
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
1
6
1
2
1188 PCROBERT MITCHELL & ASSOCIATESPLANNING DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURECONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN RAM
N
O
V
E
M
B
E
R
1
1
,
2
0
1
5
0'5'10'15'20'
4
0
'
1"=20'-0"PLANTING LEGEND CUPANIOPSIS ANACARDIODES MIN. 15 GAL.CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA MIN. 15 GAL.CRAPE MYRTLE MIN. 24" BOX CALLISTEMON CITRINUS MIN. 15 GAL.CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS MIN. 15 GAL.OLEA EUROPEA 'SWAN HILL'MIN. 15 GAL.BRACHYCHITON POPULNEUS MIN. 15 GAL.CONTAINER SHRUBS AND VINES WITH BARK MULCH (TYP.)LAWN FROM SOD "MARATHON ii" BY SOUTHLAND SOD FARMS OR EQUAL (TYP.)GROUNDCOVER IN PARKWAY (TYP.)NOTE:THE WALL FRONTING ONTO CERRITOS AVENUE WILL HAVE 5 GALLON VINES PLANTED AT 15 +/- FEET ON CENTER FOR ITS ENTIRE LENGTH.
CE
R
R
I
T
O
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CE
R
R
I
T
O
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
'
A
'
S
T
R
E
E
T
'A
'
S
T
R
E
E
T
L
O
T
'
A
'
LO
T
'
B
'
LO
T
'
C
'
LO
T
'
D
'
R.
O
.
W
.
LO
T
1
PL
A
N
3
B
FF
E
1
2
0
.
2
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
6
0
LO
T
3
PL
A
N
3
B
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
4
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
8
0
LO
T
2
PL
A
N
3
A
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
3
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
7
0
LO
T
1
1
PL
A
N
2
A
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
2
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
6
0
LO
T
1
0
PL
A
N
3
C
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
3
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
7
0
LO
T
9
PL
A
N
3
A
FF
E
1
2
0
.
4
7
PA
D
1
1
9
.
8
0
(N
.
A
.
P
.
)
LO
T
4
PL
A
N
3
A
FF
E
1
2
0
.
9
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
3
0
LO
T
5
PL
A
N
3
C
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
7
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
1
0
LO
T
6
PL
A
N
3
A
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
6
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
0
0
LO
T
7
PL
A
N
3
B
FF
E
1
2
0
.
6
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
0
0
LO
T
8
PL
A
N
3
C
R
FF
E
1
2
0
.
6
7
PA
D
1
2
0
.
0
0
JOB:DRAWN:
D
A
T
E
:
CE
R
R
I
T
O
S
I
I
-
T
R
A
C
T
1
7
8
8
2
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
SI
L
V
E
R
O
A
K
I
N
V
E
S
T
M
E
N
T
C
O
R
P
.
19
1
0
0
V
O
N
K
A
R
M
A
N
A
V
E
.
SUITE 400
IR
V
I
N
E
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
1
6
1
2
1188 PCROBERT MITCHELL & ASSOCIATESPLANNING DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREMAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY RAM
N
O
V
E
M
B
E
R
1
1
,
2
0
1
5
0'5'10'15'20'
4
0
'
1"=20'-0"MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY PRIVATE STREETS WITHIN LO T 'A', DRIVEWAY APRONS,PRIVATE SIDEWALKS, AND THE PORTION OF THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK ON CERRITOS AVENUE IN THE N.A.P.LOT/PARCEL ON THE SO UTH SIDE OF LOT 12.PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPING ALONG CERRITOS AVENUE WITHIN LOTS 'B', 'C', AND 'D' TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROJECT'S HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.STREET & PUBLIC SIDEWALK WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG CERRITOS AVENUE IS TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.DRIVEWAYS, ENTRY WALKS, AND SERVICE WALKS TO BE MAINTAINED BY EACH INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER.PRIVATE PARKWAY AND FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING TO BE MAINTAINED BY EACH INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER.PRIVATE BACK YARDS TO BE MAINTAINED BY EACH INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER.
ȭ
CERRITOS AVENUE
N.T.S.
RWRW ȭ
STREET 'A'
N.T.S.
DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY
PROPOSED
HOUSE
6" VERTICAL CURB
(TYP.)
PROPOSED
HOUSE
6" VERTICAL CURB
(TYP.)
CURB & GUTTER
SIDEWALK
PROPOSED
HOUSE
CURB & GUTTER
4' SIDEWALK4' SIDEWALK
EXISTINGHOUSE
EASEMENT TO CITY
6' PERIMETER WALL
PARKWAY
LANDSCAPE
ȭ
STREET 'B'
N.T.S.
PROPOSED
HOUSE
6" VERTICAL CURB
(TYP.)
PROPOSED
HOUSE
6" VERTICAL CURB
(TYP.)
4' SIDEWALK
PRIVATE STREET EASEMENTPRIVATE STREET EASEMENT
SILVEROAK INVESTMENT CORP.
19100 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 400
IRVINE, CA 91612
Lot No. Gross S.F Acres Net S.F Acres Plan S.F Lot Coverage %
1 6,721 0.15 6,600 0.15 2,199 33%
2 6,853 0.16 6,716 0.15 2,199 32%
3 6,677 0.15 6,532 0.15 2,199 33%
4 6,545 0.15 6,327 0.15 2,199 34%
5 6,188 0.14 6,188 0.14 2,199 36%
6 5,482 0.13 5,482 0.13 2,199 40%
7 6,167 0.14 6,167 0.14 2,199 36%
8 6,526 0.15 6,377 0.15 2,199 34%
9 6,575 0.15 6,344 0.15 2,199 33%
10 6,706 0.15 6,574 0.15 2,199 33%
11 6,757 0.16 6,683 0.15 1,762 26%
Total 71,197 1.63 69,990 1.61
Average 6,472 0.14 6,363 0.13
Lot A 9,614 0.22
Lot B 1,664 0.04
Lot C 654 0.02
Lot D 800 0.02
Summary of Areas
NEW CORRESPONDENCE
ITEM NO. 8
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 9
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2015
SUBJECT: VARIANCE NO. 2014-04987 AND FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2014-00003
LOCATION: 1560 and 1570 South Harbor Boulevard (Park Vue Inn)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The owner and applicant is Paul Durand with Scalzo Family Partnership. The project is represented by Phil Schwartze with The PRS
Group.
REQUEST: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing hotel with restaurant and
retail uses and construct a new seven-story, 180-room hotel with a restaurant, retail uses and meeting space. The applicant is requesting approval of a final site plan and a
variance to allow smaller interior building and landscape setbacks, fewer trees in the
surface parking lot and fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution, determining that previously-certified Master Environmental
Impact Report No. 313 (MEIR NO. 313) and Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report No. 340 (SEIR No. 340), along with Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313, are
the appropriate environmental documentation for this request, and approving Variance
No. 2014-04987 and Final Site Plan No. 2014-00003.
BACKGROUND: This 2.35-acre property is currently developed with a two-story, 86-
room hotel with accessory uses, which include a 5,163 square foot Cold Stone
Creamery, a 710 square foot gift shop, and an 8,428 square foot IHOP restaurant. The
property is within the boundaries of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (ARSP), in the C-R District (Development Area 1). The General Plan designates this
property for Commercial Recreational land uses.
The project site is bordered on the north and south by hotels; on the east by the United
States Citizenship and Immigration Services office; and, on the west by Disney’s California Adventure, across Harbor Boulevard.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing hotel and freestanding
restaurant to construct a seven-story, 180-room hotel with a 1,806 square foot Cold Stone Creamery, 1,035 square foot gift shop, 7,700 square foot IHOP restaurant and 804 square foot meeting room. Guest amenities would include a breakfast room and
meeting room on the ground floor and a pool deck on the seventh floor. The pool deck
would include a pool, bar, cabanas, and fire pits. The breakfast room, meeting room
and pool deck would be for hotel guests only.
VARIANCE NO. 2014-04987 AND FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2014-00003
December 14, 2015
Page 2 of 6
The IHOP, Cold Stone Creamery and gift shop are proposed within freestanding buildings located at the front of the property. These uses include patio areas facing Harbor Boulevard to encourage pedestrian activity along the street. Vehicle access to the site would be provided from
Harbor Boulevard via a single driveway. Vehicles would enter through an archway flanked by
the restaurant buildings. The hotel is proposed at the rear of the property. A total of 201 parking
spaces would be provided in a surface parking lot to the south of the hotel and one-level of subterranean parking, accessed at the rear of the property. The City Engineer has approved a deviation to the parking dimensions required by Standard Plan No. 471 pertaining to parking
structure design. The approval letter is attached.
The seven-story building would be built at a maximum height of 85 feet, two inches, including all architectural projections. The architectural style is contemporary, highlighting a play in color and massing. The predominant exterior finish is a smooth plaster with green glazing. Clear
anodized aluminum creates long clean lines which accentuate the building’s windows, flat roofs
and major color elements. The building design is culminated by the rooftop pool deck, from
which hotel guests may view the theme parks and surrounding vistas. Proposed landscaping includes several shade, flowering and vertical tree species, as well as a
variety of shrubs and groundcovers. Landscaping within the public parkway would match the
existing landscape design along Harbor Boulevard and include Daylilies and a Boxwood hedge.
Layered landscaping is proposed in the front setback between the patios and the public right of way. Queen Palms and Bird of Paradise are proposed to line the entry driveway. A continuous row of Italian Cypress is proposed along the south property line to serve as a green screen that
would shield the view of blank building wall to the south.
VARIANCE NO. 2014-04987 AND FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2014-00003
December 14, 2015
Page 3 of 6
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Following is staff’s analysis and recommendation for each requested action:
Interior Setback and Parking Lot Tree Variances: A variance shall be granted upon a finding by
the Planning Commission or City Council that the evidence presented shows that all of the
following conditions exist:
1) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other properties under
identical zoning classification in the vicinity;
2) That, because of special circumstances, shown above, strict application of the Zoning
Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
The Code requires a minimum ten foot wide fully-landscaped setback along all interior property
lines. The rear (east) setback complies with this requirement. The north and south setbacks are
deficient. Along the north property line, the restaurant would be set back 5 feet-2 inches and the hotel would be set back between 8 foot-6 inches and 15 feet-3 inches. The landscaped planters along this property line would vary between zero to six feet in width. Along the south property
line, the ice cream shop would be set back 6 feet-8 inches and the hotel would be set back
approximately 60 feet. The landscaped planters in this area would vary between zero to 24 feet.
This proposed variance in building and landscape setback areas is justified due to special circumstances applicable to the property. The parcel is legal-nonconforming with respect to
width; the Code requires a minimum lot width of 175 feet and the subject property has a width of
170 feet. In addition to being constrained by its long and narrow shape, development of the site is
further limited by the property to the south, which is developed with a hotel building immediately adjacent to the property line. These constraints limit the placement of buildings and on-site circulation. These constraints result in a proposed project with setbacks that do not meet Code
requirements. In addition, there are other properties in the vicinity that have similar
characteristics and have been granted approval of similar setback variances. These properties
include the Ramada Maingate hotel, located a few parcels south of the subject property. Staff recommends approval of the requested variances pertaining to setbacks.
The Code requires surface parking lots to be landscaped with a minimum of one tree per five
parking spaces. No trees are proposed within the parking spaces immediately adjacent to the hotel
building. Planting opportunities are limited within this area due to the subterranean garage. In order to provide adequate parking on this narrow site, the subterranean garage extends below a portion of the surface parking area. It is not feasible for trees to grow above the parking garage.
Due to this constraint, the row of parking spaces adjacent to the building is proposed without the
required trees. However, the project includes a greater quantity of trees along the perimeter than
required by the Code. Additionally, the retail building in the front of the property blocks the view of this surface parking area from Harbor Boulevard. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance pertaining to improvement of the surface parking lot.
VARIANCE NO. 2014-04987 AND FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2014-00003
December 14, 2015
Page 4 of 6
Parking Variance: A variance shall be granted upon a finding by the Planning Commission or City Council that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
1) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street
parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces
necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and
reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use;
2) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed use;
3) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and
competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use;
4) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic
congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use; and
5) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular ingress
to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use.
The Code requires 229 parking spaces for the hotel, restaurant, retail and meeting space, based on the following:
Use Parking Ratio Size Required Parking
Hotel 0.8 space/guest room and 0.25 space per employee 180 rooms/25
employees
150
Meeting space 8 spaces/1,000 square feet 804 square feet 6
Full service restaurant 8 spaces/1,000 square feet when accessory to a hotel 7,700 square feet 62
Take out restaurant 5.5 spaces/1,000 square feet 1,806 square feet 10
Retail 1 space/1,000 square feet when accessory to a hotel 1,035 square feet 1
Total 229
A shared parking analysis was prepared by LSA Associates. The analysis considered the peak
parking times for the various uses on-site. The analysis found that the maximum number of
parking spaces required for peak parking periods would be 201 spaces. This is a conservative
amount given that most patrons of the IHOP and Cold Stone Creamery would likely walk from
the subject hotel or other nearby hotels on Harbor Boulevard. The project includes the recommended 201 parking spaces. By providing the recommended amount of parking, the
proposed project would not increase the demand for parking on other properties or cause traffic
congestion in the area. Staff recommends approval of the requested parking variance.
Final Site Plan: The applicant requests approval of a final site plan to construct the hotel and accessory retail uses. Before the Planning Commission may approve the final plans, it must make
a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
VARIANCE NO. 2014-04987 AND FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2014-00003
December 14, 2015
Page 5 of 6
1) The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, the development standards of the applicable zoning district,
and any special area guidelines or policies;
2) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and
enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards;
3) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of
the surrounding neighborhood;
4) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its
occupants, visiting public, and its neighbors, through the appropriate use of materials, texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing and be appropriately maintained; and
5) The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare,
or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The ARSP requires approval of a final site plan for hotels to ensure that the proposed design is appropriate for the site, compatible with surrounding land uses and in compliance with specific
plan requirements. Staff has reviewed the proposal and has determined that, with the exception
of the requested variances pertaining to interior building and landscape setbacks, parking lot
landscaping, and parking, the project complies with all applicable provisions of the ARSP. The proposed hotel project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. Additionally, Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313 includes certain measures to be
complied with prior to approval of the Final Site Plan; these measures have been complied with
as part of the review process. Staff recommends approval of the proposed final site plan.
CEQA Environmental Determination: An initial study and various technical studies were prepared for this project. The initial study concludes that the proposed project is within the
parameters, assumptions and time frames analyzed in the previously-certified Master
Environmental Impact Report No. 313 (MEIR 313) and Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report No. 340 (SEIR 340). MEIR 313 was certified in September 1994 for the ARSP and SEIR 340 was certified in December 2012 for Amendment No. 14 to the ARSP. Staff has prepared Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313 for this project, which includes all applicable mitigation
measures from the mitigation and monitoring program approved in conjunction with SEIR 340.
VARIANCE NO. 2014-04987 AND FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2014-00003
December 14, 2015
Page 6 of 6
CONCLUSION: The proposed hotel project is consistent with the goals and policies of the ARSP. The requested variances are justified and the proposed project would be a well-designed
addition to the Anaheim Resort. The proposed hotel would serve an important need to the area
and represents a significant positive investment in area. Therefore, staff recommends approval
of the requested final site plan and variance. Prepared by, Submitted by,
Elaine Thienprasiddhi Jonathan E. Borrego Senior Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Development Summary 2. Draft Resolution 3. Letter of Request
4. Variance Request Letter
5. Shared Parking Letter
6. Parking Standard Deviation Approval 7. Final Site Plan Memorandum 8. Development Plans
9. Photos
10. Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313
SP 92-1DA3ASOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. EASEMENT
SP 92-2 DA1RAMADA MAINGATE
SP 92-2DA1RAMADA MAINGATE
SP 92-2 DA1ANAHEIM INN
SP 92-2 DA1RESTAURANT
SP 92-2 DA1ANAHEIMDEL SOL INN
SP 92-2 DA1ANAHEIM DESERT INN & SUITES
SP 92-2DA1BEST WESTERNPARK PLACE HOTEL
SP 92-2DA1TROPICANA INN
SP 92-2 DA1CAROUSEL INN & SUITES
SP 92-2 DA1ANAHEIM CAMELOTINN & SUITES
SP 92-2DA1ANAHEIM FAIRFIELD INN BY MARRIOTT
SP 92-1DA1DISNEYLAND
Industrial Building
US Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices
S H A R B O R B L V D
W DISNEY WAY
W. BALL RD
W. KATELLA AVE
S . L E W I S S T
S . H A R B O R B L V D
S . W A L N U T S T
E. BALL RDS
.
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
E. KATELLA AVE
S . N I N T H S T
E. GENE AUTRY WAYS. C L E M E N T I N E S T
1560 & 1570 South Harbor Boulevard
DEV No. 2013-00138
Subject Property APN: 082-211-16082-211-15
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
S H A R B O R B L V D
W DISNEY WAY
W. BALL RD
W. KATELLA AVE
S . L E W I S S T
S . H A R B O R B L V D
S . W A L N U T S T
E. BALL RDS
.
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
E. KATELLA AVE
S . N I N T H S T
E. GENE AUTRY WAYS. C L E M E N T I N E S T
1560 & 1570 South Harbor Boulevard
DEV No. 2013-00138
Subject Property APN: 082-211-16082-211-15
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
Development Standard Proposed Project ARSP Standards
Site Area 2.35 acres ---
Density 180 rooms, plus the retail equivalent of
19 rooms (600 sf of accessory retail area equals one room)
200 rooms maximum
Front Setback 29 feet 26 feet
Front Landscape Tree Density1 1,800 points 989 points minimum
Interior Setbacks 0 to 15 feet2 10 feet minimum
Interior Landscape Tree
Density
9,250 points 8,682 points minimum
Building Height 85 feet, 2 inches 85 feet, 5 inches
Parking 201 spaces3 229 spaces
1 Tree density is calculated by multiplying the size (in square feet) of the landscape area and by a Tree Density Factor (0.3 at this location) to determine a minimum point value. Trees proposed in the landscape area are
assigned a point value based on their size at installation. 2 The applicant requests a variance to permit a smaller setback than required by the Code for the north and south
interior property lines. 3 The applicant requests a variance to permit less parking than required by the Code.
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
-1- PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING THAT THE PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 340 SERVES AS THE APPROPRIATE
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING
VARIANCE NO. 2014-04987 AND FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2014-00003 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2013-00138)
(1560 AND 1570 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (hereinafter referred to as the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified Petition for Variance No. 2014-04987 and Final Site Plan No. 2014-00003 to permit the demolition of an existing hotel and retail and
restaurant uses and to permit the construction of a seven-story, 180-room hotel with a restaurant
and retail uses with smaller interior building and landscape setbacks, fewer trees in the surface
parking lot and fewer parking spaces than required by the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") (collectively referred to herein as the "Proposed Project") for certain real property located at 1560 and 1570 South Harbor Boulevard 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 2.35 acres, is developed with an 86-room hotel with accessory restaurant and retail spaces. The Anaheim General Plan designates
the Property for Commercial Recreation land uses. The Property is located within the
boundaries of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and within Development Area 1the Commercial
Recreation (C-R) District (Development Area 1) of the the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area and is, therefore, subject to the zoning and development standards set forth in Section 18.116.070 (Uses – Commercial Recreation (C-R) District (Development Area 1)) of Chapter 18.116
(Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2) Zoning and Development Standards) of the
Code; and
WHEREAS, on September 20, 1994, the City Council adopted the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to provide a long-range comprehensive plan for future development of
approximately 549.5 acres surrounding The Disneyland Resort and Hotel Circle. The Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan includes zoning and development standards, design guidelines, a streetscape
program, and a public facilities plan, intended to maximize the area’s potential, guide future development, and ensure a balance between growth and infrastructure. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan permits the development of hotel, convention, retail, and other visitor-serving uses
as well as the infrastructure improvements that are needed to support future development; and
WHEREAS, in support of the adoption of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, the City Council certified Master Environmental Impact Report (“MEIR No. 313”) by the adoption on September 20, 1994 of its Resolution No. 94R-234; and
-2- PC2015-***
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2012-158, the City Council certified Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report No. 2008-00340 ("Final EIR No. 340") (which Final EIR No. 340
included mitigation measures, a water supply assessment, a statement of overriding
considerations and findings thereto), which reevaluated all of the environmental changes that had occurred in and around the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area since its adoption in 1994 and
contained an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of various entitlements and actions
referenced therein, including, inter alia, entitlements permitting the maximum build-out of the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, including an increase of up to 406,359 square feet of convention
center space,180,000 square feet of commercial development, 900 hotel rooms, and 40,000 square feet of hotel meeting/ballroom space; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on December 14, 2015 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been
duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed Variance No. 2014-04987 and
Final Site Plan No. 2014-00003 to investigate and make findings and recommendations in
connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as
“CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA
Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to paragraph .0204 (Environmental Review) of Subsection .020
(Final Site Plan Review and Approval) of Section 18.116.040 (Methods and Procedures for
Specific Plan Implementation) of Chapter 18.116 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2) Zoning and Development Standards) of the Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds
and determines that, in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local
CEQA Procedure Manual, the approvals required under CEQA for the Proposed Project have
been made pursuant to the prior certification of MEIR No. 313 and Final EIR No. 340, prior
approvals of related resolutions and ordinances, and the prior filing of a notice of determination; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further finds and determines that Final EIR No.
340 will serve as the appropriate environmental documentation in connection with the Proposed
Project and that none of the conditions set forth in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact report or a supplement
to Final EIR No. 340 have occurred; specifically:
a. There have not been any substantial changes in the project analyzed in Final EIR
No. 340 that require major revisions of Final EIR No. 340 because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects;
-3- PC2015-***
b. There have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances
under which the Proposed Project is undertaken that require major revisions of Final EIR No.
340 due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
c. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time Final EIR No.
340 was certified as complete was adopted, that shows any of the following: (a) the Proposed
Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in Final EIR No. 340; (b) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in Final
EIR No. 340; (c) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in
fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Proposed
Project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or (d)
mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in Final EIR No. 340 would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission has reviewed and
considered Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313 ("MMP No. 313"), incorporated herein by this reference, which was prepared for the Proposed Project and includes mitigation measures
specific to the Proposed Project, and, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, finds and
determines that, with the imposition of identified mitigation measures, the Proposed Project will
not result in any new significant impacts to the environment and 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 with respect to the request to construct a seven-story, 180-room hotel with a
restaurant and retail uses with smaller interior building and landscape setbacks, fewer trees in the surface parking lot and fewer parking spaces than required by the Code, has determined that Variance No. 2014-04987 should be approved for the following reasons:
SECTION NO. 18.116.090.030 Minimum fully landscaped interior setback. (10 feet required; 0 to 15 feet proposed)
1. That there are special circumstances applicable to the Property, including size,
shape, location and surroundings, which do not apply to other property under the identical zoning
classification in the vicinity of the proposed Project. The property is long and narrow and the property to the south is developed with a hotel building immediately adjacent to the property
line. These existing constraints limit the placement of buildings and, in order to provide adequate
site circulation, require encroaching into the setbacks. The Project complies with the setback
requirement along the east interior property line; however, this is not feasible along the north and
south interior property lines due to the minimum widths for fire access and passenger drop off areas required for hotel developments.
-4- PC2015-***
2. That, because of these special circumstances, strict application of the Zoning
Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under the identical zoning
classification in the vicinity due to the limited developable area, specifically the narrow width of
the property. There are other properties in the vicinity that have similar characteristics and have been granted approval of setback waivers.
SECTION NO. 18.116.140.090.0901 Required Improvement of Parking Areas -
Minimum Number of Trees.
(1 tree required every 5 parking spaces; none proposed for 21 parking spaces)
1. That there are special circumstances applicable to the Property, including size,
shape, location and surroundings, which do not apply to other property under the identical zoning
classification in the vicinity of the proposed Project. The property is long and narrow and, in order to provide adequate parking on the site, the subterranean garage extends beyond the line of the building and below a portion of the surface parking area. It is not feasible for trees to grow
above the parking garage, so the row of parking spaces adjacent to the building is proposed
without the required trees every five spaces.
2. That, because of these special circumstances, strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under the identical zoning
classification in the vicinity due to the limited developable area, specifically the narrow width of
portions of the property. The narrowness of the parcel presents constrains on the parking garage
that are unique to the situation. The project, however, includes a greater quantity of trees along the perimeter than are required by the Code. Additionally, the surface parking area is not visible from the public right-of-way due to the retail buildings blocking the view.
SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces.
(229 spaces required; 201 spaces proposed)
1. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces
necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably
foreseeable conditions of operation of such use. A parking study was prepared by LSA
Associates which determined that, based on the non-conflicting peak hoursfor the hotel and restaurants, shared peak parking demand is projected to be 201 parking spaces; and
2. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the
demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed use because parking is not permited on public streets. The maximum parking
demand is not anticipated to exceed the parking supply; therefore, will not increase competition for parking spaces on public streets; and
3. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the
demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate
vicinity. The parking study demonstrated that there is adequate on site parking to meet the
demands of the existing and proposed uses, such that parking should not impact other properties; and
-5- PC2015-***
4. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic
congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use since parking
demand is not anticipated to exceed the parking supply. Parking demand is primarily due to hotel
patrons and does not require the same turnover of parking spaces as a typical restaurant or retail parking lot. Additionally, the project site does not contain perpendicular rows and aisles that
would be potential sources of congestion; and
5. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular
ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed use because the proposed project will eliminate one of the two existing driveways on Harbor Boulevard. Additionally, the project includes a long driveway throat of approximately 150 feet. This distance is sufficient to contain potential queueing within the property without
interference to traffic on Harbor Boulevard; therefore, would not impede vehicular ingress or
egress form adjacent properties onto the public streets.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for a Final Site Plan should be approved for the following reasons:
1. Subject to compliance with the conditions of approval attached to this Resolution
as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference, the Final Site Plan, including its design
and layout, complies with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. SP92-2 and is consistent with the zoning and development standards of said Specific Plan, as described in Chapter 18.116 of
the Code, with the exception of the variance described herein as Variance No. 2014-04987.
2. The design and layout of the Proposed Project will not interfere with the use and
enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards.
3. The architectural design of the Proposed Project is compatible with the character of
the surrounding hotels and development located within the land area of the Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan.
4. The design of the Proposed Project will provide a desirable environment for its
occupants, the visiting public, and its neighbors, through the appropriate use of materials, texture
and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing and be appropriately maintained.
5. The Proposed Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare,
or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity of the Proposed Project.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it; and
-6- PC2015-***
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
approve Variance No. 2014-04987 and Final Site Plan No. 2014-00003, contingent upon and
subject to the conditions of approval, which are described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference. Said conditions 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. 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 the Planning Commission has reviewed and
considered Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 313 ("MMP"), which is attached
hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference, and was prepared for the Proposed Project and includes mitigation measures specific to the Proposed Project, and, in accordance
with the requirements of CEQA, finds and determines that, with the imposition of identified
mitigation measures, the Proposed Project will not result in any new significant impacts to the
environment and there is no substantial evidence that the Proposed Project will have a significant
effect on the environment.
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.
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.
-7- PC2015-***
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
December 14, 2015. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60
(Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-8- PC2015-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on December 14, 2015, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of December, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
-9- PC2015-***
-10- PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B”
VARIANCE NO. 2014-04987 AND FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2014-00003
(DEV2013-00138)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMITS
1 MM 5.2-4: Prior to issuance of each grading permit (for Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permit (for Demolition Plan), the property
owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Import/Export plans. The plans
shall include identification of offsite locations for materials export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may include
recycling of materials onsite, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in
the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill, with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property owner/developer shall offer
recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in construction of other projects, if not all can be reused on the project site.
Planning and Building
2 MM 5.3-1: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, grading permit, or
building permit, whichever occurs first, a survey for active raptor nests shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist and submitted to the Planning and Building Department 30 days prior to commencement of any demolition or construction
activities during the raptor nesting season (February 1 to June 30) and within 500 feet of a fan palm, juniper, or canary island pine. Should an active nest be
identified, restrictions defined by a qualified Biologist will be placed on
construction activities in the vicinity of any active nest observed until the nest is no longer active, as determined by a qualified Biologist. These restrictions may include a 300- to 500-foot buffer zone designated around a nest to allow
construction to proceed while minimizing disturbance to the active nest. Once the nest is no longer active, construction can proceed within the buffer zone.
Planning and Building
3 MM 5.3-2: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, grading permit, or
building permit, whichever occurs first, a letter detailing the proposed schedule for
vegetation removal activities shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department, verifying that removal shall take place between August 1 and
February 28 to avoid the bird nesting season. This would ensure that no active
nests would be disturbed. If this is not feasible, then a qualified Biologist shall inspect any trees which would be impacted prior to demolition, grading or
construction activities to ensure no nesting birds are present. If a nest is present,
then appropriate minimization measures shall be developed by the Biologist.
Planning and Building
4 MM 5.7-4: Prior to issuance of the first grading or demolition permit, whichever
occurs first the property owner/developer shall submit a plan for review and
approval by the Fire Department which details procedures that will be taken if previously unknown USTs, or other unknown hazardous material or waste, is
discovered onsite.
Fire
-11- PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT
5 MM 5.4-1: Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the property owner/developer
shall submit a letter identifying the certified archaeologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented:
a. The archaeologist must be present at the pre-grading conference in order to
establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant
artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be
significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage.
b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be
donated to an appropriate educational or research institution.
c. Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of
the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area.
d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be
submitted.
Public Works
6 MM 5.4-2: Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter identifying the certified paleontologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented:
a. The paleontologist must be present at the pre-grading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the
sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils if potentially significant
paleontological resources are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and found to be significant, the paleontological observer shall determine appropriate
actions in cooperation with the property owner/developer for exploration
and/or salvage.
b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be
donated to an appropriate educational or research institution.
c. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading
operations when the paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area.
Public Works
7 MM 5.5-6: Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, Building
Services Division geologic and geotechnical investigations in areas of potential seismic or geologic hazards and provide a note on plans that all grading operations will be conducted in conformance with the recommendations contained in the
applicable geotechnical investigation.
Planning and Building
8 MM 5.8-1: Prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit a Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan (MDRMP) for review and approval by the Public
Works Department, Development Services Division and Orange County (OC)
Public Works
-12- PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
Public Works/OC Engineering. The Master Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following items: a. Backbone storm drain layout and pipe size, including supporting hydrology
and hydraulic calculations for storms up to and including the 100-year storm; and,
b. A delineation of the improvements to be implemented for control of project-
generated drainage and runoff.
9 MM 5.8-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for sites that disturb more than one (1) acre of soil, the property owner/developer shall obtain coverage under the
NPDES Statewide Industrial Stormwater Permit for General Construction
Activities from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence of attainment shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division.
Public Works
10 MM 5.12-6: Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit an emergency fire access plan to the Fire Department for review and approval to ensure that service to the site is in accordance with Fire Department service requirements.
Fire
11 MM 5.14-3: Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the
first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-of-way
adjacent to their property as shown in the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan.
Public Works
12 MM 5.14-5: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department a
plan to coordinate rideshare services for construction employees with the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) for review and a approval and shall implement
ATN recommendations to the extent feasible.
Public Works
13 MM 5.14-19: Prior to the approval of the final subdivision map or issuance of
building permits, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall pay the identified fair-share responsibility as determined by the City as set forth in
MM 5.14-15. The City shall allocate the property owner/developer’s fair-share
contribution to traffic mitigation programs that result in improved traffic flow on the impacted mainline and ramp locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable
to Caltrans and the City.
Public Works
14 MM 5.16-1: Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading
or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall participate in the City’s Master Plan of Sewers and related Infrastructure
Improvement (Fee) Program to assist in mitigating existing and future sanitary
sewer system deficiencies as follows:
The property owner/developer shall submit a report for review and approval of the
City Engineer to assist in determining the following:
a. If the development/redevelopment (1) does not discharge into a sewer system that is currently deficient or will become deficient because of that discharge
and/or (2) does not increase flows or change points of discharge, then the property owner’s/developer’s responsibility shall be limited to participation in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program.
Public Works
-13- PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
b. If the development/redevelopment (1) discharges into a sewer system that is currently deficient or will become deficient because of that discharge and/or (2) increases flows or changes points of discharge, then the property
owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney of the impact prior to approval of a
final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit whichever
occurs first, pursuant to the improvements identified in the South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as recommended by the South Central Area
Sewer Deficiency Study, prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final building and zoning inspections for the
building/structure, whichever comes first. Additionally, the property
owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, as determined by the City Engineer, which may include fees, credits,
reimbursements, or a combination thereof. As part of guaranteeing the
mitigation of impacts for the sanitary sewer system, the property owner/developer shall submit a sanitary sewer system improvement phasing
plan for the project to the City Engineer for review and approval which shall
contain, at a minimum, (1) a layout of the complete system, (2) all facility sizes, including support calculations, (3) construction phasing, and
(4) construction estimates.
The study shall determine the impact of the project sewer flows for total build out of the project and identify local deficiencies for each project component (i.e., each
hotel).
15 MM 5.18-1: Prior to approval of a final subdivision map, or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall participate in the City’s Master Plan of Storm Drains and related Infrastructure
Improvement (Fee) Program to assist in mitigating existing and future storm drainage system deficiencies as follows:
The property owner/developer shall submit a report for review and approval by the
City Engineer to assist with determining the following:
a. If the specific development/redevelopment does not increase or redirect
current or historic storm water quantities/flows, then the property
owner/developer’s responsibility shall be limited to participation in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to provide storm drainage facilities
in 10- and 25-year storm frequencies and to protect properties/structures for a
100-year storm frequency.
b. If the specific development/redevelopment increases or redirects the current or
historic storm water quantity/flow, then the property owner/developer shall be
required to guarantee mitigation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s office of the impact prior to approval of a final subdivision
map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, pursuant to the improvements identified in the Master Plan of Drainage for the South Central Area. The property owner/developer shall be required to install
the storm drainage facilities as recommended by the Master Plan of Drainage
for the South Central Area to provide storm drainage facilities for 10- and 25-year storm frequencies and to protect properties/structures for a 100-year
Public Works
-14- PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
storm frequency prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final building and zoning inspection for the building/structure, whichever occurs first. Additionally, the property owner/developer shall
participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program as determined by the City Engineer which could include fees, credits, reimbursements, or a
combination thereof. As part of guaranteeing the mitigation of impacts on the
storm drainage system, a storm drainage system improvement phasing plan for the project shall be submitted by the property owner/developer to the City Engineer for review and approval and shall contain, at a minimum, (1) a
layout of the complete system; (2) all facility sizes, including support calculations; (3) construction phasing; and, (4) construction estimates.
16 MM 5.19-5: Prior to issuance of each grading and building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the Planning Director or Planning Services
Manager for approval a Construction Waste Management Plan that, at a minimum, specifies that at least 75 percent of non-hazardous construction and demolition
debris shall be recycled or salvaged and identifies the materials to be diverted
from disposal and whether the materials will be sorted on site or co-mingled.
Planning and Building
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
17 MM 5.14-14: Prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval,
whichever occurs first, security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, completion guarantee, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the
City Engineer shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements, such as
curbs and gutters, sidewalks, water facilities, street grading and pavement, sewer and drainage facilities and other appurtenant work, as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with the specifications on file in the office of the City
Engineer, as may be modified by the City Engineer. Installation of said improvements shall occur prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Public Works
ONGOING DURING PROJECT DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
18 MM 5.5-5: Ongoing during grading activities, the property owner/developer shall implement standard practices for all applicable codes and ordinances to prevent
erosion to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department, Building
Services Division.
Planning and Building
19 MM 5.7-6: Ongoing during project demolition and construction, in the event that hazardous waste, including asbestos, is discovered during site preparation or
construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that the identified
hazardous waste and/or hazardous material are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law
(Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5), and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22.
Fire
20 MM 5.7-3: Ongoing during remediation, all remediation activities of surface or subsurface contamination not related to USTs, conducted on behalf of the property
owner/developer, shall be overseen by the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). Information on subsurface contamination from USTs shall be provided to the Public Utilities Department, Environmental Services Division. Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) with a copy to Planning
Fire Department
Public Utilities
-15- PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
& Building.
Note: Per a memo dated October 22, 2014 from the Public Utilities Department, as of July 1, 2014, the Environmental Services Division of the Public Utilities Department is no longer responsible for overseeing the cleanup of new UST cases, and the responsibility has been delegated to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). However,
the Anaheim Fire Department will still be responsible for overseeing the removal of USTs. (amended February 26, 2015).
Department
Planning & Building
PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF BUILDING MATERIALS ON A BUILDING SITE
21 MM 5.12-13: Prior to the placement of building materials on a building site, an all-weather road shall be provided from the roadway system to and on the
construction site and for fire hydrants at all times, as required by the Fire
Department. Such routes shall be paved or, subject to the approval of the Fire Department, shall otherwise provide adequate emergency access. Every building
constructed must be accessible to Fire Department apparatus. The width and
radius of the driving surface must meet the requirements of Section 10.204 of the Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
Fire
PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF BUILDING MATERIALS ON A BUILDING SITE
22 MM 5.12-5: Prior to commencement of structural framing on each parcel or lot, onsite fire hydrants shall be installed and charged by the property owner/developer
as required and approved by the Fire Department.
Fire
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
23 MM 5.1-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, all plumbing or other similar
pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be shown on plans as fully screened from view of adjacent public rights-of-way and from adjacent
properties by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials. A note
indicating that these improvements will be installed prior to final building and zoning inspections shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building
permits.
Planning and Building
24 MM 5.1-11: Prior to issuance of each building permits, unless records indicate
previous payment, a fee for street tree purposes shall be paid or cause to be paid to the City of Anaheim based on the length of street frontage in an amount as
established by City Council resolution or credit against the fee given for City authorized improvements installed by the property owner/developer.
Planning and Building
25 MM 5.1-12: Prior to issuance of each building permit, all air conditioning facilities and other roof and ground-mounted equipment shall be shown on plans
as shielded from public view and the sound buffered to comply with City of Anaheim noise ordinances from any adjacent residential or transient-occupied properties. A note indicating that these improvements shall be installed prior to
final building and zoning inspections shall be specifically shown on the plans
submitted for building permits.
Planning and Building
26 MM 5.2-2: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence that low emission paints and coatings are
utilized in the design and construction of buildings, in compliance with SCAQMD
regulations. The information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. The property owner/developer shall submit an architectural coating
Planning and Building
-16- PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
schedule and calculations demonstrating that VOC emissions from architectural coating operations would not exceed 75 pounds per day averaged over biweekly periods. The calculations shall show, for each coating, the surface area to be
coated, gallons (or liters) of coating per unit surface area, and VOC content per gallon (or liter). The property owner/developer shall also implement the following
to limit emissions from architectural coatings and asphalt usage:
a. Use non-solvent-based coatings on buildings, wherever appropriate;
b. Use solvent-based coatings, where they are necessary.
27 MM 5.2-6: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall implement, and demonstrate to the City, measures that are
being taken to reduce operation-related air quality impacts. These measures may include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load through use
of automated time clocks or occupant sensors.
b. Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances.
c. Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and in building design, such as appropriate passive solar design.
d. Use drought-resistant landscaping wherever feasible to reduce energy used in
pumping and transporting water.
e. To the extent feasible, provide daycare opportunities for employees or
participate in a joint development daycare center
f. Install facilities for electric vehicle recharging, unless it is demonstrated that the technology for these facilities or availability of the equipment current at the time makes this installation infeasible.
Planning and Building
28 MM 5.5-1: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division for review and approval, detailed foundation design information for the subject building(s), prepared by a civil engineer, based on
recommendations by a geotechnical engineer.
Planning and Building
29 MM 5.5-2: Prior to issuance of each foundation permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a report prepared by a geotechnical engineer to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division for review and
approval, which shall investigate the subject foundation excavations to determine if soft layers are present immediately beneath the footing site and to ensure that
compressibility does not underlie the footing.
Planning and Building
30 MM 5.5-3: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans to the Planning Department, Building Services Division for review and approval showing that the proposed structure has been
analyzed for earthquake loading and designed according to the most recent seismic
standards in the California Building Code adopted by the City of Anaheim.
Planning and Building
31 MM 5.8-6: Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall provide written evidence that all storm drain, sewer, and street improvement
plans shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Public Works
32 MM 5.10-3: Prior to issuance of each building permit, for structures that are
adjacent to noise-sensitive areas such as residences, the property owner/developer
Planning and Building
-17- PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
shall ensure that all mechanical ventilation units are shown on plans and installed in compliance with Sound Pressure Level Ordinance.
33 MM 5.10-5: Prior to issuance of each building permit, a note shall be provided on building plans indicating that during construction, the property owner/developer
shall install and maintain specially designed construction barriers at the project perimeter areas. The construction sound barriers shall be a minimum height of 8 feet with a minimum surface weight of 1.25 pounds per square foot or a minimum
Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25. The structure shall be a continuous barrier. Gates and other entry doors shall be constructed with suitable mullions,
astragals, seals, or other design techniques to minimize sound leakage when in the
closed position. Access doors should be self closing where feasible. Vision ports are permissible providing they are filled with an acceptable solid vision product.
Planning and Building
34 MM 5.10-9: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall present plans and calculations to the Planning Department,
Building Division to demonstrate that noise levels would be less than 65 dBA CNEL for outdoor use areas (including dining patios, pools, playgrounds, or outdoor gathering areas). This requirement can be accomplished through shielding
areas behind buildings or the construction of a noise barrier.
Planning and Building
35 MM 5.10-10: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall present plans and calculations to the Planning and Building Department, Building Division to demonstrate that noise levels from planned
mechanical ventilation equipment, loading docks, trash compactors, and other proposed on-site noise sources are designed to meet the City’s 60 dBA Sound
Pressure Levels standard at the property line, and not create a noise increase
greater than 5 dBA over existing ambient noise at the nearest noise sensitive receptor, whichever is more restrictive.
Planning and Building
36 MM 5.10-12: Prior to issuance of each building permit if pile driving and blasting
is anticipated during construction, a noise and vibration analysis must be prepared
and submitted to the Planning and Building Department, Building Division, to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities.
Planning and Building
37 MM 5.12-2: Prior to the issuance of each building permit for a parking structure,
the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Police Department for
review and approval indicating the provision of closed circuit television monitoring and recording or other substitute security measures as may be
approved by the Police Department. Said measures shall be implemented prior to
final building and zoning inspections.
Police
38 MM 5.12-4: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the project design shall include parking lots and parking structures with controlled access points to limit
ingress and egress if determined to be necessary by the Police Department, and
shall be subject to the review and approval of the Police Department.
Police
39 MM 5.12-7: Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior to the final building and zoning inspection, plans shall indicate that all buildings,
exclusive of parking structures, shall have sprinklers installed by the property
owner/developer in accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said sprinklers shall be installed prior to each final building and zoning inspection.
Fire
40 MM 5.12-8: Prior to issuance of each building permit, plans shall be submitted to
ensure that development is in accordance with the City of Anaheim Fire
Fire
-18- PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
Department Standards, including:
a. Overhead clearance shall not be less than 14 feet for the full width of access roads.
b. Bridges and underground structures to be used for Fire Department access shall be designed to support Fire Department vehicles weighing 75,000
pounds.
c. All underground tunnels shall have sprinklers. Water supplies are required at all entrances. Standpipes shall also be provided when determined to be necessary by the Fire Department.
d. Adequate off-site public fire hydrants contiguous to the Specific Plan area and onsite private fire hydrants shall be provided by the property owner/developer.
The precise number, types, and locations of the hydrants shall be determined
during building permit review. Hydrants are to be a maximum of 400 feet apart.
e. A minimum residual water pressure of 20 psi shall remain in the water system.
Flow rates for public parking facilities shall be set at 1,000 to 1,500 gpm.
41 MM 5.12-9: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement recorded against the property with
the City of Anaheim to pay or cause to be paid their fair share of the funding to
accommodate the following, which will serve the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area:
a. One additional fire truck company.
b. One additional paramedic company.
c. Modifications to existing fire stations to accommodate the additional fire
units, additional manpower, equipment and facilities.
d. A vehicle equipped with specialty tools and equipment to enable the Fire Department to provide heavy search and rescue response capability.
e. A medical triage vehicle/trailer, equipped with sufficient trauma dressings, medical supplies, stretchers, etc., to handle 1,000 injured persons, and an appropriate storage facility.
The determination of the allocable share of costs attributable to the property owner/developer shall be based on an apportionment of the costs of such
equipment/facilities among property owners/developers in the Hotel Circle
Specific Plan Area, the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Area and the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area or the otherwise defined service area, as applicable,
depending on the area served.
Note: To implement this mitigation measure, the City has adopted the Fire
Protection Facilities and Paramedic Services Impact Fee Program. Compliance with
this Program by the property owner/developer (per Ordinance No. 5496 and Resolution No. 95R-73 dated May 16, 1995) shall satisfy the requirements of this
Mitigation Measure, or the City may enter into alternative financing arrangements.
Fire
-19- PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
42 MM 5.12-11: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a Construction Fire Protection Plan to the Fire Department for review and approval detailing accessibility of emergency fire
equipment, fire hydrant location, and any other construction features required by the Fire Marshal. The property owner/developer shall be responsible for securing
facilities acceptable to the Fire Department and hydrants shall be operational with
required fire flow.
Fire
43 MM 5.12-14: Prior to approval of building plans, the property owner/developer shall provide written evidence to the satisfaction of the Fire Department that all
lockable pedestrian and/or vehicular access gates shall be equipped with “knox
box” devices as required and approved by the Fire Department.
Fire
44 MM 5.12-17: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide proof of compliance with Government Code
Section 53080 (Schools).
Planning and Building
45 MM 5.12-19: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property
owner/developer shall comply with the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 17.08.385, Public Library Facilities Services Areas – Payment of Fees Required.
Planning and Building
46 MM 5.14-2: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay the appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment
Fees and Transportation Impact and Improvement Fees to the City of Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of
issuance of the building permit with credit given for City-authorized
improvements provided by the property owner/developer. The property owner shall also participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts, which have been established.
Public Works
47 MM 5.14-6: Prior to the issuance of each building permit for a hotel development
that exceeds 100 rooms per gross acre within the Commercial Recreation (C-R) District (Development Area 1) within the Convention Center (CC) Medium density category, the property owner shall record a covenant on the property
requiring that ongoing during project implementation, the property owner/developer shall implement TDM measures sufficient to reduce the actual
trip generation from the development to no more than the trips assumed by the
City’s traffic model. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office.
Public Works
48 MM 5.14-12: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the location of any
proposed gates across a driveway shall be subject to the review and approval of
the City Engineer. Gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic on the adjacent
public streets. Installation of any gates shall conform to the current version of
Engineering Standard Detail No. 475.
Public Works
49 MM 5.14-13: Prior to the issuance of building permits, plans shall show that all driveways shall be constructed with a minimum fifteen (15) foot radius curb
returns as required by the City Engineer, unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
Public Works
50 MM 5.15-2: Prior to issuance of each building permit, all water supply planning for the project will be closely coordinated with, and be subject to the review and
final approval of, the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division and
Fire Department.
Public Utilities
-20- PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
51 MM 5.15-3: Prior to issuance of each building permit, water pressure greater than 80 pounds per square inch (psi) shall be reduced to 80 psi or less by means of pressure reducing valves installed at the property owner/developer’s service.
Planning and Building
52 MM 5.15-4: Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan which shall be prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect. The irrigation plan shall specify methods for monitoring the irrigation system. The system shall ensure
that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils, that the application of fertilizers and pesticides do not exceed appropriate levels of frequencies, and
that surface runoff and overwatering is minimized. The landscaping and irrigation
plans shall include water-conserving features such as low flow irrigation heads, automatic irrigation scheduling equipment, flow sensing controls, rain sensors, soil moisture sensors, and other water-conserving equipment. The landscaping and
irrigation plans shall indicate that separate irrigation lines for recycled water shall be constructed and recycled water will be used when it becomes available. All
irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with
recycled water.
Planning and Building
53 MM 5.15-6: Prior to issuance of each building permit, unless records indicate previous payment, the appropriate fees for Primary Mains, Secondary Mains and
Fire Protection Service shall be paid to the Public Utilities Department, Water
Engineering Division in accordance with Rule 15A, and Rule 20 of the Public Utilities Department Water Rates, Rules and Regulations.
Public Utilities
54 MM 5.17-1: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/develop
shall consult with the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department, Business and
Community Programs Division, in order to review energy efficient measures to incorporate into the project design. Prior to the final building and zoning
inspection, the property owner developer shall implement these energy efficient
measures which may include the following: a. High-efficiency air-conditioning systems with EMS (computer) control
b. Variable air volume (VAV) distribution
c. Outside air (100%) economizer cycle
d. Staged compressors or variable speed drives to flow varying thermal loads
e. Isolated HVAC zone control by floors/separable activity areas
f. Specification of premium-efficiency electric motors (i.e., compressor motors, air-handling units, and fan-coil units)
g. Use of occupancy sensors in appropriate spaces
h. Use of compact fluorescent lamps
i. Use of cold cathode fluorescent lamps
j. Use of light emitting diode (LED) or equivalent energy-efficient lighting for outdoor lighting
k. Use of Energy Star® exit lighting or exit signage.
l. Use of T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts where applications of standard fluorescent fixtures are identified
Public Utilities
-21- PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
m. Use of lighting power controllers in association with metal-halide or high-pressure sodium (high intensity discharge) lamps for outdoor lighting and parking lots
n. Consideration of thermal energy storage air-conditioning for spaces or facilities that may require air-conditioning during summer, day-peak periods.
o. For swimming pools and spas, incorporate solar heating, automatic covers,
and efficient pumps and motors, as feasible.
p. Consideration for participation in Advantage Services Programs such as:
i. New construction design review, in which the City cost-shares
engineering for up to $10,000 for design of energy efficient buildings and systems
ii. New Construction – cash incentives ($300 to $400 per kW reduction in
load) for efficiency that exceeds Title 24 requirements
Green Building Program – offers accelerated plan approval, financial incentives,
waived plan check fees and free technical assistance.
55 MM 5.17-3: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans and calculations to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department, Building Division, to demonstrate that the
energy efficiency of each building will exceed the Title 24 Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings current at the time of application by at least 10 percent.
Planning and Building
56 MM 5.18-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City shall require that
building plans indicate that new developments will minimize stormwater and
urban runoff into drainage facilities by incorporating design features such as detention basins, on-site water features, and other strategies.
Public Works
57 MM 5.19-1: Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior to
final building and zoning Inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit
project plans to the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, as
administered by the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange and City of
Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans. Prior to final building and zoning inspection, implementation of said plan shall commence and shall remain in full
effect. Waste management mitigation measures that shall be taken to reduce solid waste generation include, but are not limited to: a. Detailing the location and design of on-site recycling facilities.
b. Providing on-site recycling receptacles to encourage recycling.
c. Complying with all Federal, State and City regulation for hazardous material disposal.
d. Participating in the City of Anaheim’s “Recycle Anaheim” program or other substitute program as may be developed by the City.
In order to meet the requirements of the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989
(AB 939), the property owner/developer shall implement numerous solid waste reduction programs, as required by the Public Works Department, including, but
not limited to:
Public Works
-22- PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
a. Facilitating recycling by providing chutes or convenient locations for sorting and recycling bins.
b. Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially in retail areas) by providing
adequate space and centralized locations for collection and storing.
c. Facilitating glass recycling (especially from restaurants) by providing
adequate space for sorting and storing.
d. Providing trash compactors for non-recyclable materials whenever feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and the number of trips required for collection.
e. Prohibiting curbside pick-up.
58 MM 5.19-3: Prior to issuance of building permits, plans shall show that trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the City of Anaheim Department of Public Works, Operations Division. On an ongoing
basis, trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department.
Public Works
59 MM 5.19-4: Prior to issuance of each building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall demonstrate that the plans include provisions for the
installation of trash and recycle receptacles near all benches and near high traffic areas such as plazas, transit stops and retail and dining establishments.
Public Works
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF WATER PLANS
60 MM 5.12-15: Prior to approval of on-site water plans, unless each commercial building is initially connected to separate fire services, an unsubordinated
covenant satisfactory to the City Attorney’s Office shall be recorded prohibiting
any individual sale of buildings until separate fire services are installed in the building(s) subject to the sale.
Fire
61 MM 5.12-16: Prior to approval of water improvement plans, the water supply
system shall be designed by the property owner/developer to provide sufficient
fire flow pressure and storage for the proposed land use and fire protection services in accordance with Fire Department requirements.
Fire
ONGOING DURING CONSTRUCTION
62 MM 5.2-3: Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall implement measures to reduce construction-related air quality impacts. These
measures shall include, but are not limited to:
a. Normal wetting procedures (at least twice daily) or other dust palliative
measures shall be followed during earth-moving operations to minimize
fugitive dust emissions, in compliance with the City of Anaheim Municipal Code including application of chemical soil stabilizers to exposed soils after
grading is completed and replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly
as practicable.
b. For projects where there is excavation for subterranean facilities (such as
parking) on-site haul roads shall be watered at least every two hours or the
on-site haul roads shall be paved.
c. Enclosing, covering, watering twice daily, or applying approved soil binders,
according to manufacturer’s specification, to exposed piles.
Planning and Building
-23- PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
d. Roadways adjacent to the project shall be swept and cleared of any spilled export materials at least twice a day to assist in minimizing fugitive dust; and, haul routes shall be cleared as needed if spills of materials exported from the
project site occur.
e. Where practicable, heavy duty construction equipment shall be kept onsite
when not in operation to minimize exhaust emissions associated with vehicles
repetitiously entering and exiting the project site.
f. Trucks importing or exporting soil material and/or debris shall be covered prior to entering public streets.
g. Taking preventive measures to ensure that trucks do not carry dirt on tires onto public streets, including treating onsite roads and staging areas.
h. Preventing trucks from idling for longer than 2 minutes.
i. Manually irrigate or activate irrigation systems necessary to water and maintain the vegetation as soon as planting is completed.
j. Reduce Traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per hour or
less.
k. Suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gust)
exceed 25 miles per hour and during first and second stage smog alerts.
l. Comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which states that no dust impacts offsite are sufficient to be called a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts
visible emissions from construction.
m. Use low emission mobile construction equipment (e.g., tractors, scrapers, dozers, etc.) where practicable.
n. Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than temporary power generators, where practicable.
o. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them properly tuned.
p. Use low sulfur fuel for equipment, to the extent practicable.
63 MM 5.10-1: Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that all internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers.
Planning and Building
64 MM 5.10-6: Ongoing during construction and project operation, pressure washing
operations for purposes of building repair and maintenance due to graffiti or other aesthetical considerations shall be limited to daytime hours of operation between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM.
Planning and Building
65 MM 5.10-7: Ongoing during construction and project operation, sweeping
operations in the parking facilities and private on-site roadways shall be performed utilizing sweeping/scrubbing equipment which operate at a level measured not greater than 60 dBA at the nearest adjacent property line.
Planning and Building
66 MM 5.14-7: Ongoing during construction, if the Anaheim Police Department or
the Anaheim Traffic Management Center (TMC) personnel are required to provide temporary traffic control services, the property owner/developer shall reimburse
the City, on a fair-share basis, if applicable, for reasonable costs associated with
Police
Public Works
-24- PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
such services.
PRIOR TO EACH FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTION
67 MM 5.1-5: Prior to final building and zoning inspections, private streets within the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area shall have street lights installed which are compatible with the design standards used for the public streets as determined by the Public Utilities Department.
Public Utilities
68 MM 5.1-6: Prior to final building and zoning inspections, root and sidewalk
barriers shall be provided for trees within seven feet of public sidewalks.
Planning and Building
69 MM 5.1-7 and 5.8-4: Prior to final building and zoning inspections, the property
owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department a letter
from a licensed landscape architect certifying that all landscaping and irrigation systems have been installed in accordance with landscaping plans approved in
connection with the Final Site Plan.
Planning and Building
70 MM 5.5-4: Prior to the final building and zoning inspection for a hotel/motel, the
property owner/developer shall submit an earthquake emergency response plan for review and approval by the Fire Department. The plan shall require posted notices
in all hotel rooms on earthquake safety procedures and incorporate ongoing
earthquake training for hotel staff to the satisfaction of the Fire Department.
Fire
71 MM 5.8-5: Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall install piping on-site with project water mains so that
reclaimed water may be used for landscape irrigation, if and when it becomes
available.
Public Utilities
72 MM 5.12-10: Prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall place emergency telephone service numbers in prominent
locations as approved by the Fire Department.
Fire
73 MM 5.14-4: Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property owner
shall join and financially participate in a clean fuel shuttle program such as the Anaheim Resort Transit system, and shall participate in the Anaheim
Transportation Network in conjunction with the on-going operation of the project.
The property owner shall also record a covenant on the property that requires participation in these programs ongoing during project operation. The form of the
covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation.
Public Works
74 MM 5.14-8: Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property owner
shall record a covenant on the property requiring that ongoing during project implementation, the property owner/developer shall implement and administer a
comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for all employees. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office. Objectives of the TDM program shall be:
a. Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests.
b. Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce project-
generated trips.
c. Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin, and Average Vehicle Ridership.
Public Works
75 MM 5.14-9: Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property
owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department
Public Works
-25- PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
for review and approval a menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing and future employees’ commute options, and incentives for hotel patrons’ transportation options. These options may include, but are not limited to, the list
below. The property owner shall also record a covenant on the property requiring that the approved TDM strategies and elements be implemented ongoing during
project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City
Attorney’s Office prior to recordation. a. On-site services. Provide, as feasible and permitted, on-site services such as the food, retail, and other services.
b. Ridesharing. Develop a commuter listing of all employee members for the purpose of providing a “matching” of employees with other employees who
live in the same geographic areas and who could rideshare.
c. Vanpooling. Develop a commuter listing of all employees for the purpose of matching numbers of employees who live in geographic proximity to one
another and could comprise a vanpool or participate in the existing vanpool
programs.
d. Transit Pass. Promote Orange County Transportation Authority (including
commuter rail) passes through financial assistance and on-site sales to
encourage employees to use the various transit and bus services from throughout the region.
e. Shuttle Service. Generate a commuter listing of all employees living in proximity to the project, and offer a local shuttle program to encourage employees to travel to work by means other than the automobile. When
appropriate, event shuttle service shall also be made available for guests.
f. Bicycling. Develop a Bicycling Program to offer a bicycling alternative to employees. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers should be provided as
part of this program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area should be provided to inform potential bicyclists of these options.
g. Guaranteed Ride Home Program. Develop a program to provide employees
who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or other vehicle, in the
event of emergencies during the work shift.
h. Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. Promote an incentive program for ridesharing and other alternative transportation modes to put highest
priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips.
i. Work Shifts. Stagger work shifts.
j. Compressed Work Week. Develop a “compressed work week” program,
which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts as an option for employees.
k. Telecommuting. Explore the possibility of a “telecommuting” program that
would link some employees via electronic means (e.g., computer with
modem).
l. Parking Management. Develop a parking management program that provides
incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single-
-26- PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
occupant auto to travel to work.
m. Access. Provide preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles.
n. Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. Offer employees
financial incentives for ridesharing or using public transportation. Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to $65 per month per employee
contributions to employees who vanpool or use public transit including
commuter rail and/or express bus pools.
o. Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Offer employees financial incentives for bicycling to work.
p. Special “Premium” for the Participation and Promotion of Trip Reduction. Offer ticket/passes to special events, vacations, etc. to employees who recruit
other employees for vanpool, carpool, or other trip reduction programs.
q. Incentive Programs. Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes so as to put highest priority on reduction of
longest commute trips.
76 MM 5.14-21: Prior to the final building and zoning Inspection every property
owner and/or lessee shall designate an on-site contact that will be responsible for coordinating with the ATN and implementing all trip mitigation measures. The
on-site coordinator shall be the one point of contact representing the project with
the ATN. The TDM requirements shall be included in the lease or other agreement with all of the project participants.
Public Works
77 MM 5.15-7: Prior to final building and zoning inspections, a separate water meter
shall be installed for landscape water on all projects where the landscape area
exceeds 2,500 square feet in accordance with Ordinance No. 6160.
Planning and Building
78 MM 5.17-2: Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer shall install an underground electrical service from the Public
Utilities Distribution System. The Underground Service will be installed in
accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical Specifications for Underground Systems. Electrical Service Fees and other
applicable fees will be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates,
Regulations and Electrical Specifications for Underground Systems.
Public Utilities
ONGOING
79 MM 5.1-3: Ongoing, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for the removal of any on-site graffiti within 24 hours of its application. Planning and Building
80 MM 5.1-8: Ongoing, all on-site non-Public Realm landscaping and irrigation
systems, and Public Realm landscaping and irrigation systems, within area in which dedication has not been accepted by the City, shall be maintained by the
property owner/developer, in compliance with City standards.
Planning and Building
81 MM 5.1-9: Ongoing, any tree planted within the Setback Realm shall be replaced
in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead.
Planning and Building
82 MM 5.1-10: Ongoing, a licensed arborist shall be hired by the property owner/developer to be responsible for all tree trimming. Planning and Building
-27- PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
83 MM 5.2-1: Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall implement measures to reduce emissions to the extent practical, schedule goods movements for off-peak traffic hours, and use clean fuel for vehicles and other
equipment, as practicable.
Planning and Building
84 MM 5.8-3: Ongoing during project operations, the property owner/developer shall provide for the following: cleaning of all paved areas not maintained by the City of Anaheim on a monthly basis, including, but not limited to, private streets and
parking lots. The use of water to clean streets, paved areas, parking lots, and other areas and flushing the debris and sediment down the storm drains shall be
prohibited.
Planning and Building
85 MM 5.12-3: Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall
provide private security on the premises to maintain adequate security for the entire project subject to review and approval of the Police Department. The use of security
patrols and electronic security devices (i.e., video monitors) should be considered to
reduce the potential for criminal activity in the area.
Police
86 MM 5.15-9: Ongoing, 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, staff shall recommend to City Council to trigger application of the 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.
Public Utilities
87 MM 5.19-2: Ongoing during project operation, the following practices shall be implemented, as feasible, by the property owner/developer:
a. Usage of recycled paper products for stationary, letterhead, and packaging.
b. Recovery of materials such as aluminum and cardboard.
c. Collection of office paper for recycling.
d. Collection of polystyrene (foam) cups for recycling.
e. Collection of glass, plastics, kitchen grease, laser printer toner cartridges, oil,
batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery.
Public Works
November 25, 2015
The Park Vue Hotel is proposing to demolish the existing 2-story 86-room hotel, the IHOP
Restaurant and the Cold Stone Creamery on the existing 2.35 ac site and construct the following:
• A new 7-story 180 room boutique hotel which includes the following accessory uses: a 1,166 s.f. Sky Lounge, a 2,545 s.f. Breakfast/Dining room and a 804 s.f. meeting room.
• A new 7,700 s.f. IHOP restaurant building.
• A new 2,841 s.f. Cold Stone Creamery and Gift Shop building
The plan also includes 201 parking stalls provided on site: 82 surface stalls, 119 parking
spaces located in an underground parking garage.
The site will also include new landscaping and signage for the hotel.
31103 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite D-2260
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Corporate Tax I.D. # 33-0375339
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
JUSTIFICATION FOR PARK VUE HOTEL
1570 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD
We are proposing to demolish an existing 2-story 86-room hotel with a restaurant and retail uses
and construct a new 7-story 180-room hotel with a restaurant and retail uses. We are requesting
the following waivers of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and have attached a site plan
indicating the areas where we are not meeting code:
Section 18.116.090 .020 and Table 116-G Minimum Required Building and Landscape Setbacks
Code requires a minimum 10 foot building setback along all interior property lines. We are
proposing setbacks of 0 foot (for trash enclosure) 3 foot 6 inches to 6 foot for the restaurant
building and 10 foot setback for the hotel building with the exception of a portion of the hotel
building (38 feet) where the hotel building setback is7 foot 6 inches along the north property.
Along the south property line we are proposing a building setback of 6 foot 6 inches building
setback for the restaurant and retail building. There is no building located along the east
property line and we are proposing a 10 foot fully landscaped setback.
Section 18.116.090 .030 Setbacks – Interior.
Code requires a minimum 10 foot fully landscaped setback along all interior property lines. We
are proposing to have a 0 to 10 foot landscaped setback along the north property line, a 10-foot
fully landscaped setback along the east property line and a 0 to 5 foot fully landscaped setback
along the south property line.
There are special physical characteristic of the property that justify the requested waivers. Along
the north property line the adjacent property to the north has an existing restaurant building
located on the property line with a parking lot area along the rest of the property. On the south
property line the existing hotel to the south is also built on the property line. Due to these
constrains and the long narrow lot, the shape of this parcel limits the placement of buildings on
the site in conformance with all code requirements, however constructing a new hotel building
and restaurant brings the site into greater conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan by
providing enhanced building elevations where there are existing blank wall elevations and
upgraded landscape that exceeds the required tree density calculations of the Anaheim Resort
Specific Plan code requirements and provides a greater building and landscape setback then
currently exists on the site. The current hotel building abuts the property line of both the south
and east property lines and the existing restaurant building abuts the north property line.
There are other properties in the vicinity that have the same characteristics of a parcel that is a
long and narrow and as they have redeveloped their property they have requested waivers of
interior building setback and landscaping. For example the Ramada Maingate hotel at 1650
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
South Harbor Boulevard which was approved requested to demolish 24 existing motel rooms
and construct 37 new motel rooms including the addition of approximately 800 square feet of
retail space where granted waivers of setbacks that were less than required by Code and fewer
parking spaces than required by Code.
Sections 18.116.140.90 and 0901 Required Improvement of parking areas requires the
following:
.090 Required Improvement of Parking Areas. All parking areas shall be improved in
compliance with Section 18.42.090 (Parking Lot Improvements and Landscaping); provided
further that all portions of vehicular parking lots not used for parking stalls or circulation shall be
planted, irrigated and maintained in accordance with the standards listed below.
.0901 Minimum Number of Trees. Surface parking lots shall be landscaped and maintained with a minimum of one (1) twenty-four (24) inch box tree per each five (5) parking spaces, which trees shall be equally spaced. Trees shall have a spreading canopy that is sufficient to
cover at least thirty percent (30%) of the parking surface with the tree canopy within five (5)
years of installation. Tree wells shall be designed with decorative paving and/or landscaped with
shrubs and/or ground cover.
Code requires that all surface parking lots provide 1 tree per every five (5) parking spaces. The
plans indicate that there are 82 surface parking spaces which would require 16 trees. We are
proposing to have 12 trees 4 less trees than required by code.
There are special physical characteristic of the property that justify the requested waivers. The
long narrow lot, the shape of this parcel limits the placement of buildings and parking on the site
in conformance with all code requirements. In order to meet the required parking spaces, an
underground parking area is proposed. The 4 missing trees are located in the surface parking
area along the east side of the property and that parking area is located directly above the
underground parking area (see attached exhibit for location). No trees can be planted in the area
above the parking garage as there is no way to irrigate them. The purpose of the number of trees
and landscaping is to screen the parking area from public view. This parking area is located to
the rear of the property and the parking lot will not be visible from the public right-of-way.
Further the proposed landscaping on-site will screen any views into this area.
We believe that there are special circumstances as stated above that would justify the requested
waivers and strict application of the zoning code would deprive this property of privileges
enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity as noted above.
11/10/15 «P:\LSK1501\Shared Parking Letter.rev.docx»
L S A A S S OC IA T ES , INC .
20 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE 200
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614
949.553.0666 TEL
949.553.8076 FAX
BERKELEY
CARLSBAD
FRESNO
PALM SPRINGS
PT. RICHMOND
RIVERSIDE
ROCKLIN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING | ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES | DESIGN
November 10, 2015
Elaine Thienprasiddhi
Associate Planner
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Subject: Park Vue Inn Shared Parking Analysis
Dear Ms. Thienprasiddhi:
LSA Associates Inc. (LSA) is pleased to submit this analysis of shared parking at the Park Vue Inn.
The Park Vue Inn is an existing 86-room motel located at 1570 South Harbor Boulevard in the City of
Anaheim (City). Two pad buildings are located on the same parcel as the motel: one pad building
houses a full-service restaurant (International House of Pancakes), and the other pad building houses
a take-out food service (Coldstone) and a gift shop. The site currently has 132 parking spaces. Due to
the site’s prominent location along a high-volume pedestrian corridor within the Anaheim Resort,
walking is the primary travel mode for trips to either of the two pad buildings. As such, this parking
analysis presents a conservative approach because the majority of restaurant patrons do not park a
vehicle on site.
The project proposes to demolish all existing buildings and construct a new 180-room hotel above a
parking structure in addition to reconstructing two pad buildings to replace the existing businesses in-
kind. The full-service restaurant is proposed to be 7,700 square feet (sf). A 2,841 sf building would
accommodate the 1,806 sf take-out restaurant and 1,035 sf gift shop. A total of 201 parking spaces
will be provided within the parking structure and surface parking lot.
When seeking a variance from the parking requirements established by Anaheim Municipal Code
(AMC) Section 18.42.40, the City requires that the following five findings be made. This letter
provides data to support these findings.
• That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street parking
spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to
accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable
conditions of operation of such use;
• That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and
competition for parking spaces upon public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use;
• That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and
competition for parking spaces upon adjacent property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
use (which property is not expressly provided as parking for such use under an agreement in
compliance with subsection .030 of Section 18.42.050 [Non-Residential Uses-Shared Parking
Arrangements]);
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
11/10/15 «P:\LSK1501\Shared Parking Letter.rev.docx» 2
L S A A S S OC IA T ES , INC .
• That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within
the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use; and
• That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular ingress or
egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
use.
Parking Demand
The project parcel is located within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. AMC Section 18.116.140.120
states that the off-street parking requirements found in AMC Section 18.42.040 apply within the
boundaries of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. The off-street parking requirements established in
AMC Section 18.42.040 state that hotels must provide 0.8 space/guest room, 8 spaces/thousand
square feet (TSF) of banquet/meeting space, and 0.25 space/employee in guest room areas. A full-
service restaurant integrated into a planned development complex would require 8 spaces/TSF. Take-
out restaurants integrated into a planned development require 5.5 spaces/TSF. Retail stores within
planned developments require 1 space/TSF. Table A presents the off-street parking spaces required
per the AMC. As Table A shows, straight application of the AMC would require 229 parking spaces.
The project proposes to provide 201 parking spaces, which is a 12.2 percent reduction.
Table A: Municipal Code Parking Requirements
Land Use
Parking Space Rates per Anaheim
Municipal Code §18.42.040
Project Parking Requirements
Size Unit
Required
Parking Spaces
Hotel – Room 0.8 space/guest room 180 Room 144
Hotel – Employee 0.25 space/employee 25 Employee 6
Hotel – Meeting Space 8 spaces/TSF of banquet/meeting space 0.804 TSF 6
Restaurant – Full Service (integrated) 8 spaces/TSF 7.700 TSF 62
Restaurant – Take-Out (integrated) 5.5 spaces/TSF 1.806 TSF 10
Retail Sales (integrated) 1 space/TSF 1.035 TSF 1
TOTAL 229
TSF = thousand square feet
Shared Parking
Because of different hours of operation and different offsetting parking activities, not all uses at the
site require their full allotment of parking spaces at the same time. LSA used methodologies found in
Shared Parking, Second Edition (Urban Land Institute 2005) to identify the daily variations in
parking demand for each of the site’s land uses. The time-of-day factors found in Shared Parking are
based on empirical studies and results from multiple parking accumulation counts. A detailed table
outlining the shared parking analysis (Table B) is provided as an attachment to this report. The
variation in parking needs reflects uses that are not fully utilized at the same time. For example, the
Urban Land Institute’s research has indicated that hotels experience an average of 65 percent of their
peak usage at 12:00 p.m., which is also when restaurants typically experience their peak demand.
Table B identifies that peak parking demand for the site would occur at 8:00 p.m. At that time, 194
vehicles would be forecast to park on site. The 201 parking spaces provided on-site would
accommodate this anticipated maximum demand. However, while a typical family restaurant may
11/10/15 «P:\LSK1501\Shared Parking Letter.rev.docx» 3
L S A A S S OC IA T ES , INC .
experience 50 to 60 percent of its peak demand in the morning hours, this location is anecdotally
known to be busy during the breakfast hours before Disneyland opens for business. It should be noted
that if the estimate of parking demand for the full-service restaurant were manually adjusted to
100 percent between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., the maximum parking demand would be
forecast at 201 vehicles. The 201 parking spaces provided on-site would still accommodate this
demand.
A similar analysis was prepared for Saturday (Table C, attached). Weekend time-of-day factors found
in Shared Parking were used for this analysis. These time-of-day factors predict that parking demand
would peak at 8:00 p.m., when 188 vehicles would be parked on site. Again, if the estimate of parking
demand for the full-service restaurant were manually adjusted to 100 percent between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., the maximum parking demand would be forecast at 201 vehicles. Therefore,
the proposed parking supply would satisfy weekend demand as well.
Findings
That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces
to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all
vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of
operation of such use.
The analysis presented in this letter identified that standard Urban Land Institute (ULI) shared
parking methodology forecasts the maximum parking demand to be 194 parking spaces. However,
reasonably foreseeable conditions specific to this site predict a maximum parking demand for 201
parking spaces. The project will construct 201 parking spaces and will not cause fewer off-street
parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of spaces necessary to
accommodate all parked vehicles attributable to the project.
That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition
for parking spaces upon public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use.
Within the immediate vicinity of the project, parking is not permitted on public streets. The analysis
presented in this letter identified that maximum parking demand is not anticipated to exceed the
parking supply. Therefore, the project will not increase competition for parking spaces on public
streets.
That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition
for parking spaces upon adjacent property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use (which
property is not expressly provided as parking for such use under an agreement in compliance with
subsection .030 of Section 18.42.050 [Non-Residential Uses-Shared Parking Arrangements]).
The analysis presented in this letter identified that the maximum parking demand is not anticipated to
exceed the parking supply. In addition, both adjacent properties exercise control over parking in the
form of either gated access or a parking attendant at the entrance to the parking lot. Therefore, it is not
anticipated that the proposed project would increase demand and competition for parking spaces on
adjacent properties.
11/10/15 «P:\LSK1501\Shared Parking Letter.rev.docx» 4
L S A A S S OC IA T ES , INC .
That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the
off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use.
The analysis presented in this letter identified that the maximum parking demand is not anticipated to
exceed the parking supply. Furthermore, this analysis presented a conservative approach because the
majority of existing restaurant patrons do not park on site. Parking demand is primarily due to hotel
patrons and does not require the same turnover of parking spaces as a typical restaurant or retail
parking lot. Additionally, the project site does not contain perpendicular rows and aisles that would be
potential sources of congestion. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to increase traffic
congestion within the off-street parking areas for the proposed use.
That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular ingress or egress
from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use.
The proposed project will eliminate one of the two existing driveways on Harbor Boulevard. In
addition, the project includes a long driveway throat of approximately 150 feet. This distance is
sufficient to contain potential queueing within the property without interference to traffic on Harbor
Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to impede vehicular ingress or egress from
adjacent properties onto the public streets.
Conclusion
LSA examined parking at the Park Vue Inn. Based on the variable parking demand for each of the
site’s uses, a maximum parking demand of 201 spaces is anticipated. This parking demand could be
accommodated within the 201 parking spaces provided on site. The analysis of shared parking
appears to support a 12.2 percent reduction in the off-street parking requirement. As a result, this
project would satisfy the City’s findings for a parking variance.
Sincerely,
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ken Wilhelm
Principal
cc: Paul Durand, Scalzo Hospitality
Scott von Kaenel, Lee & Sakahara Architects, Inc.
Attachments: Table B: Weekday Time-of-Day Parking Requirements for Park Vue Inn
Table C: Saturday Time-of-Day Parking Requirements for Park Vue Inn
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
Ta
b
l
e
B
:
W
e
e
k
d
a
y
T
i
m
e
-
o
f
-
D
a
y
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
P
a
r
k
V
u
e
I
n
n
6:
0
0
a
.
m
.
7
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
8
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
9
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
1
0
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
1
1
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
1
2
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
1
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
2
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
3
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
4
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
5
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
6
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
7
:
0
0
p
.
m.
8
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
9
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
1
0
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
1
1
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
Ho
t
e
l
-
L
e
i
s
u
r
e
G
u
e
s
t
9
5
%
9
5
%
9
0
%
8
0
%
7
0
%
7
0
%
6
5
%
6
5
%
7
0
%
7
0
%
7
5
%
8
0
%
8
5
%
8
5
%
9
0
%
9
5
%
9
5
%
1
0
0
%
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
5
%
3
0
%
9
0
%
9
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
9
0
%
7
0
%
4
0
%
2
0
%
2
0
%
2
0
%
2
0
%
1
0
%
Co
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
/
B
a
n
q
u
e
t
0
%
0
%
3
0
%
6
0
%
6
0
%
6
0
%
6
5
%
6
5
%
6
5
%
6
5
%
6
5
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
5
0
%
0
%
Fa
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
2
5
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
8
5
%
9
0
%
1
0
0
%
9
0
%
5
0
%
4
5
%
4
5
%
7
5
%
8
0
%
8
0
%
8
0
%
6
0
%
5
5
%
5
0
%
50
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
7
5
%
7
5
%
9
5
%
9
5
%
9
5
%
9
5
%
8
0
%
6
5
%
6
5
%
Fa
s
t
F
o
o
d
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
5
%
1
0
%
2
0
%
3
0
%
5
5
%
8
5
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
9
0
%
6
0
%
5
5
%
6
0
%
8
5
%
8
0
%
5
0
%
3
0
%
2
0
%
1
0
%
15
%
2
0
%
3
0
%
4
0
%
7
5
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
9
5
%
7
0
%
6
0
%
7
0
%
9
0
%
9
0
%
6
0
%
4
0
%
3
0
%
2
0
%
Re
t
a
i
l
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
1
%
5
%
1
5
%
3
5
%
6
5
%
8
5
%
9
5
%
1
0
0
%
9
5
%
9
0
%
9
0
%
9
5
%
9
5
%
9
5
%
8
0
%
5
0
%
3
0
%
1
0
%
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
1
0
%
1
5
%
4
0
%
7
5
%
8
5
%
9
5
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
9
5
%
9
5
%
9
5
%
9
0
%
7
5
%
4
0
%
1
5
%
To
t
a
l
D
e
m
a
n
d
2
Ho
t
e
l
-
R
o
o
m
1
4
4
1
3
7
1
3
7
1
3
0
1
1
5
1
0
1
1
0
1
9
4
9
4
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
8
1
1
5
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
3
0
1
3
7
1
3
7
1
4
4
Ho
t
e
l
-
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
6
02
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
Ho
t
e
l
-
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
S
p
a
c
e
6
00
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
3
0
IH
O
P
(
F
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
)
6
2
1
8
6
2
6
2
6
2
5
4
5
6
6
2
5
6
3
5
3
0
3
0
4
8
5
1
5
1
5
1
3
9
3
5
3
2
Co
l
d
s
t
o
n
e
(
F
a
s
t
F
o
o
d
)
1
0
11
2
3
6
9
1
0
1
0
9
6
6
6
9
8
5
3
2
1
Gi
f
t
S
h
o
p
1
00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
15
5
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
9
0
1
7
1
1
7
7
1
7
7
1
7
1
1
5
7
1
4
9
1
5
5
1
8
1
1
9
1
1
9
0
1
9
4
1
8
7
1
7
9
1
7
8
1 T
i
m
e
-
o
f
-
D
a
y
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
d
f
r
o
m
Sh
a
r
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
S
e
c
o
n
d
E
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
U
r
b
a
n
L
a
n
d
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
,
2
0
0
5
w
i
t
h
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
h
o
u
r
s
o
f
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
s
i
t
e
.
2 P
a
r
k
i
n
g
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
p
e
r
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
C
o
d
e
1
8
.
4
2
.
0
4
0
Ta
b
l
e
C
:
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
T
i
m
e
-
o
f
-
D
a
y
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
P
a
r
k
V
u
e
I
n
n
6:
0
0
a
.
m
.
7
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
8
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
9
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
1
0
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
1
1
:
0
0
a
.
m
.
1
2
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
1
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
2
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
3
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
4
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
5
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
6
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
7
:
0
0
p
.
m.
8
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
9
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
1
0
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
1
1
:
0
0
p
.
m
.
Ho
t
e
l
-
L
e
i
s
u
r
e
G
u
e
s
t
9
5
%
9
5
%
9
0
%
8
0
%
7
0
%
7
0
%
6
5
%
6
5
%
7
0
%
7
0
%
7
5
%
8
0
%
8
5
%
8
5
%
9
0
%
9
5
%
9
5
%
1
0
0
%
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
5
%
3
0
%
9
0
%
9
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
9
0
%
7
5
%
6
0
%
5
5
%
5
5
%
5
5
%
4
5
%
4
5
%
Co
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
/
B
a
n
q
u
e
t
0
%
0
%
3
0
%
6
0
%
6
0
%
6
0
%
6
5
%
6
5
%
6
5
%
6
5
%
6
5
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
5
0
%
0
%
Fa
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
1
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
9
0
%
9
0
%
1
0
0
%
8
5
%
6
5
%
4
0
%
4
5
%
6
0
%
7
0
%
7
0
%
6
5
%
3
0
%
2
5
%
1
5
%
50
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
7
5
%
7
5
%
9
5
%
9
5
%
9
5
%
9
5
%
8
0
%
6
5
%
6
5
%
Fa
s
t
F
o
o
d
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
5
%
1
0
%
2
0
%
3
0
%
5
5
%
8
5
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
9
0
%
6
0
%
5
5
%
6
0
%
8
5
%
8
0
%
5
0
%
3
0
%
2
0
%
1
0
%
15
%
2
0
%
3
0
%
4
0
%
7
5
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
9
5
%
7
0
%
6
0
%
7
0
%
9
0
%
9
0
%
6
0
%
4
0
%
3
0
%
2
0
%
Re
t
a
i
l
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
1
%
5
%
1
0
%
3
0
%
5
0
%
6
5
%
8
0
%
9
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
9
5
%
9
0
%
8
0
%
7
5
%
6
5
%
5
0
%
3
5
%
1
5
%
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
1
0
%
1
5
%
4
0
%
7
5
%
8
5
%
9
5
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
9
5
%
8
5
%
8
0
%
7
5
%
6
5
%
4
5
%
1
5
%
To
t
a
l
D
e
m
a
n
d
2
Ho
t
e
l
-
R
o
o
m
1
4
4
1
3
7
1
3
7
1
3
0
1
1
5
1
0
1
1
0
1
9
4
9
4
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
8
1
1
5
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
3
0
1
3
7
1
3
7
1
4
4
Ho
t
e
l
-
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
6
02
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
Ho
t
e
l
-
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
S
p
a
c
e
6
00
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
3
0
IH
O
P
(
F
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
)
6
2
1
0
6
2
6
2
6
2
5
6
5
6
6
2
5
4
4
3
2
8
3
0
4
0
4
5
4
5
4
3
2
3
1
9
1
4
Co
l
d
s
t
o
n
e
(
F
a
s
t
F
o
o
d
)
1
0
11
2
3
6
9
1
0
1
0
9
6
6
6
9
8
5
3
2
1
Gi
f
t
S
h
o
p
1
00
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
14
8
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
9
0
1
7
4
1
7
7
1
7
6
1
6
9
1
6
5
1
4
6
1
5
5
1
7
4
1
8
7
1
8
7
1
8
8
1
7
3
1
6
4
1
6
2
1 T
i
m
e
-
o
f
-
D
a
y
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
d
f
r
o
m
Sh
a
r
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
S
e
c
o
n
d
E
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
U
r
b
a
n
L
a
n
d
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
,
2
0
0
5
w
i
t
h
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
h
o
u
r
s
o
f
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
s
i
t
e
.
2 P
a
r
k
i
n
g
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
p
e
r
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
C
o
d
e
1
8
.
4
2
.
0
4
0
Ti
m
e
o
f
D
a
y
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
1
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
Ti
m
e
o
f
D
a
y
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
To
t
a
l
To
t
a
l
Ti
m
e
o
f
D
a
y
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
Pa
r
k
V
u
e
I
n
n
S
h
a
r
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
Ti
m
e
o
f
D
a
y
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
1
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
Pa
r
k
V
u
e
I
n
n
S
h
a
r
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
P:
\
L
S
K
1
5
0
1
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
2
.
x
l
s
\
T
i
m
e
o
f
D
a
y
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
0
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
5
)
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Planning Services Division
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, California 92805 TEL: 714.765.5139 FAX: 714.765.5280
To: File DEV2013-00138
From: Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Senior Planner
Date: November 25, 2015 RE: Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313, Compliance with Measure
Required Prior to Final Site Plan Approval
Staff has verified that the applicant has complied with all mitigation measures that are required to be fulfilled prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, as follows:
MM 5.12-12: Prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan and prior to the
issuance of each building permit, plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Fire Department as being in conformance with the Uniform Fire Code. MM 5.1-14: Prior to Final Site Plan approval, plans shall show that no
shuttle/bus/vehicular drop-off areas shall be permitted in hotel/motel or vacation
resort front setback area.
MM 5.1-13: Prior to Final Site Plan approval, plans shall show that the rear
elevations of buildings visible from off-site areas shall be architecturally accented
to portray a finished look.
MM 5.1-4: Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the location and configuration of all lighting fixtures including ground-mounted lighting fixtures utilized to accent
buildings, landscape elements, or to illuminate pedestrian areas shall be shown on
all Final Site Plans. All proposed surface parking area lighting fixtures shall be
down-lighted with a maximum height of 12 feet adjacent to any residential
properties. All lighting fixtures shall be shielded to direct lighting toward the area to be illuminated and away from adjacent residential property lines.
MM 5.1-1: Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner/developer shall
submit a shade and shadow analysis to the Planning and Building Department for
review and approval demonstrating that the proposed structure(s) would avoid creating significant shade and shadow impacts on adjacent land uses to the
maximum extent feasible. A significant shade and shadow impact would occur
when outdoor active areas (e.g., outdoor eating areas, hotel/motel swimming
pools, and residential front and back yards) or structures that include sensitive
uses (e.g., residences) have windows that normally receive sunlight are covered by shadows for more than 50 percent of the sunlight hours.
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
File DEV2013-00138
November 25, 2015
Page 2 of 2
MM 5.10-2: Prior to approval of each final site plan, the property owner/developer shall submit a
noise study prepared by a certified acoustical engineer to the satisfaction of the Building
Division Manager identifying whether noise attenuation is required and defining the attenuation
measures and specific performance requirements, if warranted, to comply with the Uniform Building Code and Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. Ultimate noise attenuation requirements, if
any, shall depend on the final location of such buildings and noise-sensitive uses inside and
surrounding the buildings. Attenuation measures shall be implemented by the property
owner/developer prior to final building and zoning inspections.
MM 5.4-3: Prior to approval of a final site plan for properties that contain a structure over 45
years old, property owners/developers shall submit to the Planning and Building Department,
Planning Services Division, documentation to verify the presence/absence of historic resources.
On properties where resources are identified, such documentation shall provide a detailed
mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified specialist.
MM 5.12-1: Prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan and issuance of each building permit,
the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Police Department for review and
approval for safety, accessibility, crime prevention, and security provisions during both the construction and operative phases for the purpose of incorporating safety measures in the project
design including the concept of crime prevention through environmental design (e.g., building
design, circulation, site planning, and lighting of parking structures and parking areas).
MM 5.15-5: Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan and building permits, plans shall specifically show that the water meter and backflow equipment and any other large water system equipment
will be installed to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering
Division, aboveground and behind the building setback line in a manner fully screened from all
public streets and alleys and in accordance with Ordinance No. 4156. Prior to the final building
and zoning inspections, the water meter and backflow equipment and any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department, Water
Engineering Division, in accordance with the Final Site Plan and the building permit plans.
LEE & SAKAHARA ARCHITECTS, INC
P
A
R
K
V
U
E
I
N
N
-
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
SC
A
L
Z
O
H
O
S
P
I
T
A
L
I
T
Y
A-1
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
A-1
A
C
I
R
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
A-2
H
O
T
E
L
-
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
L
E
V
E
L
A-3
H
O
T
E
L
-
1
S
T
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
A-4
H
O
T
E
L
-
2
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
A-5
H
O
T
E
L
-
3
R
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
A-6
H
O
T
E
L
-
4
T
H
&
5
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
A-7
H
O
T
E
L
-
6
T
H
&
7
T
H
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
A-8
H
O
T
E
L
-
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
A-9
H
O
T
E
L
-
U
N
I
T
P
L
A
N
S
A-1
0
H
O
T
E
L
-
S
O
U
T
H
&
W
E
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
A-1
1
H
O
T
E
L
-
N
O
R
T
H
&
E
A
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
A-1
2
H
O
T
E
L
-
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
SH
E
E
T
I
N
D
E
X
:
A-13
R
E
S
T
A
U
R
A
N
T
/
R
E
T
A
I
L
-
1
S
T
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
&
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
A-14
R
E
S
T
A
U
R
A
N
T
/
R
E
T
A
I
L
-
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
A-15
R
E
S
T
A
U
R
A
N
T
/
R
E
T
A
I
L
-
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
A-16
S
U
N
S
T
U
D
Y
A-17
S
U
N
S
T
U
D
Y
A-18
I
S
O
M
E
T
R
I
C
A-19
I
S
O
M
E
T
R
I
C
C-01
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
C-02
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
U
A
L
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
P
L
A
N
L-1
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
P
L
A
N
T
I
N
G
P
L
A
N
L-2
P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
E-1
S
I
T
E
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
P
H
O
T
O
M
E
T
R
I
C
P
L
A
N
E-2
G
A
R
A
G
E
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
P
H
O
T
O
M
E
T
R
I
C
P
L
A
N
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
65 18
15
2
2
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
IH
O
P
R
E
S
T
A
U
R
A
N
T
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
CO
L
D
S
T
O
N
E
/
G
I
F
T
S
H
O
P
5% RAMP DOWN
SU
R
F
A
C
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
(8
2
S
P
A
C
E
S
)
PAR
K
I
N
G
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
B
E
L
O
W
S
O
U
T
H
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
RIG
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
69
'
-
0
"
SE
T
B
A
C
K
26
'
-
0
"
1
1
7
'
-
3
"
84'
-
8
"
285
'
-
0
"
78'-10"
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
18'
-
0
"
1
7
'
-
2
"
36'
-
6
"
61
'
-
4
"
4'-10"18'-0"28'-0"18'-0"
1
0
'
-
0
"
DROP-OFF ZONE (SINGLE LANE)PORTE COCHERE
CO
V
E
R
E
D
P
E
R
G
O
L
A
SIDEWALK
FU
T
U
R
E
RIG
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
26'
-
0
"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5'-0
"
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
/
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
10'-0" LANDSCAPE SETBACK
5'-
0
"
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
/
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
6
'
-
0
"
1
8
'
-
0
"
2
4
'
-
0
"
1
6
'
-
5
"
2
7
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
0
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
0
"
9
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
6
"
2
5
'
-
0
"
1
4
'
-
6
"
6
'
-
0
"
1
8
'
-
0
"
2
6
'
-
0
"
1
8
'
-
0
"
2
'
-
1
1
"
9
'
-
6
"
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
LANDSCAPE AREA
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
LA LA
LA
LA
SID
E
W
A
L
K
ENTRYRAMP DOWN TO PARKING STRUCTURE
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
1
8
0
R
O
O
M
S
7-S
T
O
R
Y
H
O
T
E
L
W/
(
1
-
S
T
O
R
Y
B
E
L
O
W
G
R
A
D
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
)
8'-0" 18'-0"28'-0"18'-0" 5'-0" 9'-4"5'-0"
1
7
'
-
7
"
16'-6"28'-0"18'-0"PARKING STRUCTURE BELOW
TR
A
S
H
SER
V
I
C
E
DE
L
I
V
E
R
Y
/
LO
A
D
I
N
G
DEL
I
V
E
R
Y
/
LO
A
D
I
N
G
TT
LA
LA
TURN AROUND
AFD
T
U
R
N
I
N
G
R
A
D
I
U
S
I:
R
-
2
5
'
-
0
"
O
:
R
-
4
5
'
-
0
"
VFENCE
PA
T
I
O
PA
T
I
O
FENCE
AN
A
H
E
I
M
R
E
S
O
R
T
MO
N
U
M
E
N
T
S
I
G
N
PE
R
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
ST
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
5
FE
A
T
U
R
E
PAV
I
N
G
FEATURE PAVING
RE
S
O
R
T
B
U
S
DR
O
P
O
F
F
/
LO
A
D
I
N
G
Z
O
N
E
V
LA
45'
-
0
"
8'-0
"
8
'
-
0
"
8
'
-
0
"
66
0
'
-
9
"
T
LA
LA
TYP
6
'
-
0
"
10'-0" 6'-0"3'-6"
LA
LA
F
I
R
E
H
Y
D
R
A
N
T
LA
L
A
LA
1
7
0
'
-
5
"
20'
-
0
"
25
'
-
0
"
30'
-
0
"
LA
5
TR
A
S
H
2
8
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
8
'
-
0
"
1
6
'
-
0
"
13'-8"R 1 7 '-6 "R 1 7 '-6 "24'-9"LALA LANDSCAPE AREA
LA
8'-0"55'-7"
LIN
E
O
F
S
I
G
H
T
T
R
I
A
N
G
L
E
LIN
E
O
F
S
I
G
H
T
T
R
I
A
N
G
L
E
WA
L
L
M
O
U
N
T
F
D
C
8
'
-
6
"
1
1
'
-
0
"
1
5
'
-
3
"
15'-3"
GR
E
A
S
E
IN
T
E
R
C
E
P
T
O
R
ACCESS STAIR
5
'
-
2
"
1
6
'
-
0
"
2
8
'
-
0
"
1
6
'
-
0
"
6
0
'
-
0
"
6
'
-
8
"
3'-0
"
14'-0"14'-0"40'-0"
2
7
'
-
6
"
33'-5"
LA
5
LA
5
LA
5
LA
5
9
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
9
'
-
0
"
9'-0"
8
'
-
0
"
9
'
-
0
"
4 3
TY
P
6'-0
"
LA
TY
P
8'-6
"
5%5%5%10'-0"11'-3"TYP 8'-6"8'-6"6'-5"8'-0"2'-0"
2
'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
KEE
P
R
I
G
H
T
SIG
N
55
2
S
F
65
9
S
F
10'-0"TYP 8'-6"
SH
O
R
T
T
E
R
M
B
I
C
Y
C
L
E
R
A
C
K
LO
N
G
T
E
R
M
B
I
C
Y
C
L
E
R
A
C
K
NO
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
I
G
N
SID
E
W
A
L
K
PAR
K
W
A
Y
SID
E
W
A
L
K
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
E
R
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
ST
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
1
1
6
B
U
S
S
T
O
P
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
9
0
F
E
E
T
F
R
O
M
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
2
0
'
-
0
"
R18'-0"R 1 8 '-0 "
PA
R
K
W
A
Y
PR
O
P
W
A
T
E
R
M
E
T
E
R
&
R
P
P
PR
O
P
F
D
C
&
D
C
D
A
20'
L
I
G
H
T
P
O
L
E
T
Y
P
.
12
'
L
I
G
H
T
P
O
L
E
F
I
R
E
H
Y
D
R
A
N
T
LA
PR
O
J
E
C
T
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
:
1S
T
F
L
O
O
R
:
2N
D
F
L
O
O
R
:
3R
D
F
L
O
O
R
:
4T
H
F
L
O
O
R
:
5T
H
F
L
O
O
R
:
6T
H
F
L
O
O
R
:
7T
H
F
L
O
O
R
:
PO
O
L
D
E
C
K
:
TO
T
A
L
:
GR
O
S
S
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
51,892 S.F.26,264 S.F.20,998 S.F.22,335 S.F.22,335 S.F.22,335 S.F.22,335 S.F.15,611 S.F.6,837 S.F.210,942 S.F.
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
H
O
T
E
L
BUILDING AREA:
GU
E
S
T
R
O
O
M
S
:
HO
T
E
L
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
R
O
O
M
(
P
U
B
L
I
C
U
S
E
)
:
GU
E
S
T
R
O
O
M
E
M
P
L
O
Y
E
E
S
:
IH
O
P
R
E
S
T
A
U
R
A
N
T
&
P
A
T
I
O
:
CO
L
D
S
T
O
N
E
&
P
A
T
I
O
:
GIF
T
S
H
O
P
:
TO
T
A
L
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
:
PA
R
K
I
N
G
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
:
SU
R
P
L
U
S
/
S
H
O
R
T
A
G
E
14
4
S
T
A
L
L
S
6 S
T
A
L
L
S
6 S
T
A
L
L
S
62
S
T
A
L
L
S
10
S
T
A
L
L
S
1 S
T
A
L
L
S
22
9
S
T
A
L
L
S
20
1
S
T
A
L
L
S
-2
8
S
T
A
L
L
S
12
.
2
%
S
T
A
L
L
S
PA
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
:
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
:
ST
A
N
D
A
R
D
:
8
'
-
6
"
x
1
9
'
-
0
"
AC
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
:
9
'
-
0
"
x
1
9
'
-
0
"
SU
B
-
T
O
T
A
L
:
SU
R
F
A
C
E
:
ST
A
N
D
A
R
D
:
8
'
-
6
"
x
1
8
'
-
0
"
AC
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
:
9
'
-
0
"
x
1
8
'
-
0
"
SU
B
-
T
O
T
A
L
:
ST
A
N
D
A
R
D
T
O
T
A
L
:
AC
C
E
S
S
I
B
L
E
T
O
T
A
L
TO
T
A
L
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
:
116 STALLS 3 STALLS 119 STALLS 77 STALLS 5 STALLS 82 STALLS 193 STALLS 8 STALLS 201 STALLS
PA
R
K
I
N
G
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
18
0
x
.
8
S
T
A
L
L
S
P
E
R
R
O
O
M
=
80
4
x
1
/
1
2
5
=
25
x
.
2
5
=
7,7
0
0
x
1
/
1
2
5
=
1,8
0
6
x
1
/
1
8
2
=
1,0
3
5
x
1
/
1
0
0
0
=
SIT
E
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
:
1
5
6
0
&
1
5
7
0
S
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
.
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
9
2
8
0
2
SIT
E
A
R
E
A
:
1
0
2
,
3
6
8
S
.
F
.
(
2
.
3
5
A
C
R
E
S
)
AP
N
:
0
8
2
-
2
1
1
-
1
4
,
1
6
ZO
N
E
/
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
P
L
A
N
:
S
P
-
2
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
R
E
S
O
R
T
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
P
L
A
N
-
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
C
O
R
E
EX
I
S
I
T
I
N
G
S
I
T
E
U
S
E
:
2
-
S
T
O
R
Y
8
6
R
O
O
M
H
O
T
E
L
,
R
E
S
T
A
U
R
A
N
T
,
R
E
T
A
I
L
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
I
T
E
U
S
E
:
7
-
S
T
O
R
Y
1
8
0
R
O
O
M
H
O
T
E
L
,
R
E
S
T
A
U
R
A
N
T
,
R
E
T
A
I
L
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
:
HO
T
E
L
:
2
1
0
,
9
4
2
S
.
F
.
IH
O
P
R
E
S
T
A
U
R
A
N
T
&
P
A
T
I
O
:
7
,
7
0
0
S
.
F
.
CO
L
D
S
T
O
N
E
/
G
I
F
T
S
H
O
P
&
P
A
T
I
O
:
2
,
8
4
1
S
.
F
.
TO
T
A
L
:
2
2
1
,
4
8
3
S
.
F
.
OC
C
U
P
A
N
Y
:
HO
T
E
L
:
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
G
R
O
U
P
R
-
1
IH
O
P
:
A
S
S
E
M
B
L
Y
G
R
O
U
P
A
-
2
CO
L
D
S
T
O
N
E
/
G
I
F
T
S
H
O
P
:
M
E
R
C
A
N
T
I
L
E
G
R
O
U
P
M
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
T
Y
P
E
:
HO
T
E
L
:
T
Y
P
E
1
B
S
P
R
I
N
K
L
E
R
E
D
IH
O
P
:
T
Y
P
E
V
B
S
P
R
I
N
K
L
E
R
E
D
CO
L
D
S
T
O
N
E
/
G
I
F
T
S
H
O
P
:
T
Y
P
E
V
B
S
P
R
I
N
K
L
E
R
E
D
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
H
E
I
G
H
T
:
HO
T
E
L
:
8
5
'
-
2
"
IH
O
P
:
2
8
'
-
0
"
CO
L
D
S
T
O
N
E
/
G
I
F
T
S
H
O
P
:
2
2
'
-
0
"
HO
T
E
L
R
O
O
M
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
:
L
O
W
-
M
E
D
I
U
M
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(
7
5
R
O
O
M
S
/
G
R
O
S
S
A
C
.
O
R
/
P
A
R
C
E
L
)
SIT
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
HO
T
E
L
P
A
R
C
E
L
:
I-H
O
P
P
A
R
C
E
L
:
TO
T
A
L
:
DE
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
IH
O
P
R
E
S
T
A
U
R
A
N
T
&
P
A
T
I
O
:
CO
L
D
S
T
O
N
E
/
G
I
F
T
S
H
O
P
&
P
A
T
I
O
:
ME
E
T
I
N
G
R
O
O
M
:
TO
T
A
L
R
O
O
M
D
E
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
:
NE
T
A
L
L
O
W
A
B
L
E
R
O
O
M
:
AC
T
U
A
L
R
O
O
M
C
O
U
N
T
:
12
5
.
2
5
R
O
O
M
S
75
R
O
O
M
S
20
0
.
2
5
R
O
O
M
S
12
.
8
3
R
O
O
M
S
4.7
4
R
O
O
M
S
1.3
4
R
O
O
M
S
18
.
9
1
R
O
O
M
S
18
1
.
3
4
R
O
O
M
S
18
0
R
O
O
M
S
HO
T
E
L
R
O
O
M
T
A
B
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
1.6
7
A
C
x
7
5
R
O
O
M
S
P
E
R
A
C
=
x 7
5
R
O
O
M
S
P
E
R
P
A
R
C
E
L
=
7,7
0
0
S
.
F
.
/
6
0
0
=
2,8
4
1
S
.
F
.
/
6
0
0
=
80
4
S
.
F
.
/
6
0
0
=
20
0
.
2
5
-
1
8
.
9
1
=
ADA PATH OF TRAVEL FIRE LANE VAN ACCESSIBLE STALL TRANSFORMER LANDSCAPE AREA PROPERTY LINEPLAN LEGEND V T LA SCALE:NTSVICINITY MAP PROJECT LOCATION S. HARBOR BLVDDISNEYLANDDOWNTOWNDISNEYCALIFORNIAADVENTUREDISNEY WAY W KATELLA AVE DISNEYLAND DR S. CLEMENTINE STANAHEIM BLVDI-5 F R E E W A YS.M A N C H E S T E RA V E LEE & SAKAHARA ARCHITECTS, INC 16842 Von Karman Ave., Suite 125 Irvine, CA 92606
(
9
4
9
)
2
6
1
-
1
1
0
0
-
49
9
S
I
M
M
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
K
1
1
,
O
S
C
E
O
L
A
,
W
I
5
4
0
2
0
PA
R
K
V
U
E
I
N
N
SC
A
L
Z
O
H
O
S
P
I
T
A
L
I
T
Y
SITE PLAN A-1 15008 11/05/2015
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
2
0
'
-
0
"
SIT
E
P
L
A
N
PLAN NORTH
10'
0'
2
0
'
4
0
'
S
O
U
T
H
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
1
8
0
R
O
O
M
S
7-
S
T
O
R
Y
H
O
T
E
L
W/
(
1
-
S
T
O
R
Y
B
E
L
O
W
G
R
A
D
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
)
RAMP DOWN TO PARKING STRUCTURE5%5%5%
HAM
M
E
R
HEA
D
SA
N
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
TR
U
C
K
20
'
-
0
"
25'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
AF
D
T
U
R
N
I
N
G
R
A
D
I
U
S
I: R
-
2
5
'
-
0
"
O
:
R
-
4
5
'
-
0
"
FIR
E
T
R
U
C
K
L
A
N
E
23'
S
H
U
T
T
L
E
BU
S
T
U
R
N
I
N
G
TE
M
P
L
A
T
E
SUV TURNING TEMPLATE
AD
A
P
A
T
H
O
F
T
R
A
V
E
L
ADA PATH OF TRAVEL
2
0
'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
IH
O
P
R
E
S
T
A
U
R
A
N
T
FF
=
1
4
0
.
4
5
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
CO
L
D
S
T
O
N
E
/ G
I
F
T
S
H
O
P
FF
=
1
3
9
.
6
0
5% RAMP DOWN
SU
R
F
A
C
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
(82
S
P
A
C
E
S
)
RIG
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
69'
-
0
"
SE
T
B
A
C
K
26'
-
0
"
1
1
7
'
-
3
"
84
'
-
8
"
28
5
'
-
0
"
78'-10"
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROPERTY LINE
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
18
'
-
0
"
1
7
'
-
2
"
36
'
-
6
"
61'
-
4
"
4'-10"18'-0"
2
8
'
-
0
"
1
8
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
DROP-OFF ZONE (SINGLE LANE)PORTE COCHERE
CO
V
E
R
E
D
P
E
R
G
O
L
A
SIDEWALK
FU
T
U
R
E
RIG
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
26
'
-
0
"
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5'-0
"
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
/
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
10'-0" LANDSCAPE SETBACK 5'-0" LANDSCAPE / BUILDING SETBACK
6
'
-
0
"
1
8
'
-
0
"
2
4
'
-
0
"
1
6
'
-
5
"
2
7
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
0
"
8
'
-
6
"
8
'
-
0
"
9
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
6
"
2
5
'
-
0
"
1
4
'
-
6
"
6
'
-
0
"
1
8
'
-
0
"
2
6
'
-
0
"
1
8
'
-
0
"
2
'
-
1
1
"
9
'
-
6
"
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
A
R
E
A
LANDSCAPE AREA LA LA
LA
LA
SID
E
W
A
L
K
ENTRY
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
1
8
0
R
O
O
M
S
7-
S
T
O
R
Y
H
O
T
E
L
W/
(
1
-
S
T
O
R
Y
B
E
L
O
W
G
R
A
D
E
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
)
FF
=
1
4
1
.
7
0
8'-0" 18'-0"28'-0"18'-0" 5'-0" 9'-4"5'-0"
1
8
'
-
0
"
16'-6"28'-0"18'-0"PARKING STRUCTURE BELOW
TR
A
S
H
SE
R
V
I
C
E
DEL
I
V
E
R
Y
/
LO
A
D
I
N
G
DE
L
I
V
E
R
Y
/
LO
A
D
I
N
G
TT
LA
LA
TURN AROUND
AF
D
T
U
R
N
I
N
G
R
A
D
I
U
S
I: R
-
2
5
'
-
0
"
O
:
R
-
4
5
'
-
0
"
V6' TALL FENCE
PAT
I
O PA
T
I
O
6' TALL FENCE
AN
A
H
E
I
M
R
E
S
O
R
T
MO
N
U
M
E
N
T
S
I
G
N
PE
R
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
ST
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
5
RES
O
R
T
B
U
S
DR
O
P
O
F
F
/
LO
A
D
I
N
G
Z
O
N
E
V
45
'
-
0
"
8'-0
"
8
'
-
0
"
8
'
-
0
"
T
LA
LA
TYP 6'-0"10'-0" 6'-0"3'-6"
LA
LA
F
I
R
E
H
Y
D
R
A
N
T
LA
L
A
LA
1
7
0
'
-
5
"
LA
TR
A
S
H
28'-0" 10'-0" 18'-0" 16'-0"13'-8"R 1 7 '-6 "R 1 7 '-6"24'-9"LALA LANDSCAPE AREA
LA
55'-7"
LIN
E
O
F
S
I
G
H
T
T
R
I
A
N
G
L
E
LIN
E
O
F
S
I
G
H
T
T
R
I
A
N
G
L
E
8'-6"
1
1
'
-
0
"
1
5
'
-
3
"
15'-3"ACCESS STAIR
5
'
-
2
"
1
6
'
-
0
"
2
8
'
-
0
"
1
6
'
-
0
"
6
0
'
-
0
"
6
'
-
8
"
2
7
'
-
6
"
LA
9
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
9
'
-
0
"
9'-0"
8
'
-
0
"
9
'
-
0
"
TYP
6'-
0
"
LA
10'-0"11'-3"TYP 8'-6"8'-6"6'-5"8'-0"2'-0"
2
'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
552
S
F
659
S
F
10'-0"TYP 8'-6"
SH
O
R
T
T
E
R
M
B
I
C
Y
C
L
E
R
A
C
K
LO
N
G
T
E
R
M
B
I
C
Y
C
L
E
R
A
C
K
NO
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
I
G
N
SID
E
W
A
L
K
PA
R
K
W
A
Y
SID
E
W
A
L
K
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
E
R
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
ST
A
N
D
A
R
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
1
1
6
B
U
S
S
T
O
P
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
9
0
F
E
E
T
F
R
O
M
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
R18'-0"
R 1 8 '-0 "
PA
R
K
W
A
Y
PR
O
P
W
A
T
E
R
M
E
T
E
R
&
R
P
P
PR
O
P
F
D
C
&
D
C
D
A
TY
P
8'-6
"
8'-0"
3
3
'
-
5
"
2
0
'
-
0
"
20
'
-
0
"
20'
-
0
"
1
4
'
-
2
"
R
5
0
'
-
0
"
8' T
A
L
L
T
R
A
S
H
EN
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
AD
A
P
A
T
H
O
F
T
R
A
V
E
L
WAL
L
M
O
U
N
T
F
D
C
14'-0"14'-0"40'-0"
20
'
L
I
G
H
T
P
O
L
E
T
Y
P
.
20'
20'
20'
20'
20'12'
20
'
20
'
20
'
12'
12
'
12
'
12'
12
'
12'
12'
12'
12
'
12'12'12'12'12'12'12'12'12'
12
'
137.56 140.70141.2
13
9
.
5
0
13
8
.
7
5
LA
LA
LA
LA
F
I
R
E
H
Y
D
R
A
N
T
LA
LAN
D
S
C
A
P
E
KE
E
P
R
I
G
H
T
SIG
N
EX
I
T
EXITPL
PL
PLVRAMP UP TO SURFACE PARKING 5%5%5%SUV TURNING TEMPLATE
AD
A
P
A
T
H
O
F
T
R
A
V
E
L
AA
S
H
T
O
M
2
0
1
1
TU
R
N
I
N
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
AAS
H
T
O
M
2
0
1
1
TU
R
N
I
N
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
(11
9
S
P
A
C
E
S
)
BUILDING OUTLINE ABOVE
EX
I
T
19'-0" TYP 26'-3" 19'-0" TYP 19'-0" TYP 26'-3"19'-6"19'-0" TYP
4
'
-
1
1
"
2'-9"2 BAY W/ HC2'-9"1 BAY4'-5"
4
'
-
3
"
1
B
A
Y
19'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
2
6
'
-
6
"
1
9
'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
1
0
'
-
0
"
2'-
1
0
"
2A
B
A
Y
2'-1
0
"
26'-6"2"9'-0"2"
PL
PL
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
A
B
O
V
E
V
4
B
A
Y
1
5
'
-
0
"
1
1
6
'
-
0
"
1
1
'
-
0
"
1
3
1
'
-
0
"
2
8
'
-
5
"
15'
-
0
"
380'-2"395'-2"10'-0"19'-6" TYP
2
6
'
-
6
"
1
9
'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
19'-0"26'-3"2'-9"3 BAY 2'-9"5% RAMP DOWN FOWALL12'-0"FO WALL12'-0"3 BAY 2 BAY 3 BAY
1
"
2"
3
B
A
Y
2
"
6"
3
B
A
Y
6
"
1"
3
B
A
Y
2
"
1'-0
"
3
B
A
Y
6
"
FO
W
A
L
L
13
'
-
8
"
3 BAY
3 B
A
Y
3 B
A
Y
11
"
3 B
A
Y
1'-4
"
1 B
A
Y
1'-
4
"
1
'
-
6
"
T
Y
P
19'
-
0
"
T
Y
P
2"
1
'
-
3
"
1
B
A
Y
1
'
-
6
"
3
B
A
Y
2
"
3
B
A
Y
2
"
F
O
W
A
L
L
1
2
'
-
0
"
2'-1
0
"
2A
B
A
Y
2'-10"
2'-1
0
"
2A
B
A
Y
2'-1
0
"
2'-1
0
"
2A
B
A
Y
2'-1
0
"
2'-1
0
"
2A
B
A
Y
2'-1
0
"
1'-9
"
2 B
A
Y
1'-
8
"
2'-1
0
"
2A
B
A
Y
2'-1
0
"
3 B
A
Y
2'-1
0
"
2A
B
A
Y
2'-1
0
"
2'-1
0
"
2A
B
A
Y
2'-10"
2'-
1
0
"
2A
B
A
Y
2'-
1
0
"
1'-9
"
2 B
A
Y
1'-
8
"
1'-5"
2
B
A
Y
W
/
H
C
3
'
-
6
"
4 BAY3 BAY1 BAY 9'-2"3 BAY 4 BAY 3 BAY1'-0"3 BAY 9"9'-2"1 BAY 2"19'-0" TYPFO WALL10'-5"FO WALL12'-10"FOWALL11'-5"
F
O
W
A
L
L
1
0
'
-
3
"
F
O
W
A
L
L
1
3
'
-
5
"
FO
W
A
L
L
12
'
-
0
"
F
O
W
A
L
L
1
2
'
-
0
"
FO WALL13'-5"
1'-6
"
T
Y
P
1'-6" TYP1'-6" TYP 1'-6" TYP 5'-9" TYP 2"
3
B
A
Y
2
"
2"
3
B
A
Y
2
"
2"
3
B
A
Y
2
"
2"
3
B
A
Y
2
"
2"
3
B
A
Y
2
"
2"
3
B
A
Y
2
"
8'-6
"
TY
P
9'-0
"
2'-1
0
"
TY
P
9'-0
"
8
"
8
"
8
"
5
'
-
8
"
4
"
4
'
-
0
"
4
"
1
'
-
8
"
3
'
-
1
0
"
4
'
-
4
"
7
'
-
8
"
CM
U
C
O
L
U
M
N
PRE
C
A
S
T
C
O
N
C
.
C
A
P
SIM
P
S
O
N
C
B
6
6
W
/
B
A
S
E
PLA
T
E
&
F
A
C
T
O
R
Y
G
R
A
Y
PAI
N
T
F
I
N
I
S
H
,
T
Y
P
(2
)
8
X
8
R
S
P
O
S
T
S
2 X
8
R
S
B
E
A
M
4 X
8
@
1
6
"
O
.
C
.
(2
)
4
X
1
2
R
S
W
/
3
/
4
"
GA
L
V
.
L
A
G
B
O
L
T
S
AN
D
W
A
S
H
E
R
S
STO
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
1 1
/
2
"
x
1
"
F
L
A
T
BA
R
W
I
R
A
I
L
1 1
/
2
"
S
Q
U
A
R
E
B
A
R
W.I
.
P
O
S
T
B
E
Y
O
N
D
5/8
"
S
Q
U
A
R
E
B
A
R
W.I
.
B
A
L
U
S
T
E
R
S
WI
S
Q
U
A
R
E
P
O
S
T
BA
S
E
C
O
L
L
A
R
1 1
/
4
"
x
1
"
F
L
A
T
BA
R
W
.
I
.
R
A
I
L
3
"
3
'
-
6
"
WI
S
Q
U
A
R
E
P
O
S
T
BA
S
E
C
O
L
L
A
R
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
B
A
R
R
I
E
R
OV
E
R
5
/
8
"
D
E
N
S
G
L
A
S
S
5/8
"
G
Y
P
S
U
M
B
O
A
R
D
OV
E
R
M
E
T
A
L
S
T
U
D
FR
A
M
I
N
G
@
1
6
"
O
.
C
.
BA
T
T
I
N
S
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
5/8
"
G
Y
P
S
U
M
B
O
A
R
D
1
"
1/2
"
1-1
/
2
"
E
I
F
S
IN
S
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
BAT
T
I
N
S
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
SH
I
M
A
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
SEA
L
A
N
T
ALU
M
S
I
L
L
STO
N
E
W
I
N
D
O
W
SIL
L
ALU
M
H
O
R
I
Z
.
M
U
L
L
I
O
N
WH
E
N
O
C
C
U
R
S
ALU
M
H
E
A
D
SEA
L
A
N
T
GA
L
V
.
M
E
T
A
L
F
L
A
S
H
I
N
G
EIF
S
O
V
E
R
5
/
8
"
EXT
E
R
I
O
R
S
H
E
A
T
H
I
N
G
CA
U
L
K
I
N
G
EIF
S
O
V
E
R
5
/
8
"
EXT
E
R
I
O
R
S
H
E
A
T
H
I
N
G
DU
A
L
G
L
A
Z
I
N
G
ALU
M
S
I
L
L
P
A
N
S
E
T
I
N
F
U
L
L
BED
O
F
S
E
A
L
A
N
T
W
I
T
H
SAD
D
L
E
F
L
A
S
H
I
N
G
A
T
J
A
M
B
S
TO
F
A
C
E
O
F
M
U
L
L
I
O
N
1/2
"
@
N
A
R
R
O
W
E
S
T
D
I
S
T
A
N
C
E
J-M
O
L
D
LEE & SAKAHARA ARCHITECTS, INC 16842 Von Karman Ave., Suite 125 Irvine, CA 92606
(
9
4
9
)
2
6
1
-
1
1
0
0
-
49
9
S
I
M
M
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
K
1
1
,
O
S
C
E
O
L
A
,
W
I
5
4
0
2
0
PA
R
K
V
U
E
I
N
N
SC
A
L
Z
O
H
O
S
P
I
T
A
L
I
T
Y
CIRCULATION PLAN A-1A 15008 11/05/2015
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
2
0
'
-
0
"
SIT
E
P
L
A
N
PLAN NORTH
10'
0'
2
0
'
4
0
'
PLAN NORTH
10'
0'
2
0
'
4
0
'
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
2
0
'
-
0
"
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
P
L
A
N
SC
A
L
E
:
1
/
4
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
TR
E
L
L
I
S
D
E
T
A
I
L
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
BA
L
C
O
N
Y
D
E
T
A
I
L
SC
A
L
E
:
3
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
TY
P
.
E
I
F
S
R
E
V
E
A
L
SC
A
L
E
:
3
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
TY
P
.
W
I
N
D
O
W
D
E
T
A
I
L
1ST FLOOR 0' - 0"ROOF 75' - 4"2ND FLOOR 15' - 0"3RD FLOOR 24' - 8"4TH FLOOR 34' - 4"5TH FLOOR 44' - 0"6TH FLOOR 53' - 8"7TH FLOOR 63' - 4"POOL DECK 64' - 4"PARAPET 82' - 0"
SIT
E
H
E
I
G
H
T
L
I
M
I
T
82'-0"6'-8"11'-0"1'-0"9'-8"9'-8"9'-8"9'-8"9'-8"15'-0"EIFS-5 ALUM-1
ALU
M
-
1
EIFS-3
EIF
S
-
3
EIF
S
-
1
EIF
S
-
2
EIF
S
-
4
EIF
S
-
5
EIF
S
-
1
ALU
M
-
1
EIF
S
-
1
EIF
S
-
5
13'-6"85'-2"
GL-
1
GL-1 EIFS-5EIFS-1
EIF
S
-
3
3
'
-
8
"
8
1
'
-
9
"
8
5
'
-
5
"
S
I
T
E
H
E
I
G
H
T
L
I
M
I
T
98'-8" SITE HEIGHT LIMIT
1S
T
F
L
O
O
R
0' -
0
"
RO
O
F
75'
-
4
"
2N
D
F
L
O
O
R
15'
-
0
"
3R
D
F
L
O
O
R
24'
-
8
"
4TH
F
L
O
O
R
34'
-
4
"
5TH
F
L
O
O
R
44'
-
0
"
6TH
F
L
O
O
R
53'
-
8
"
7TH
F
L
O
O
R
63'
-
4
"
PO
O
L
D
E
C
K
64'
-
4
"
PA
R
A
P
E
T
82'
-
0
"
8
5
'
-
2
"
8
5
'
-
2
"
8
2
'
-
0
"
6
'
-
8
"
1
1
'
-
0
"
1
'
-
0
"
9
'
-
8
"
9
'
-
8
"
9
'
-
8
"
9
'
-
8
"
9
'
-
8
"
1
5
'
-
0
"
EIF
S
-
2
ALU
M
-
1
EIF
S
-
3
GL-
1
EIF
S
-
1
6
'
-
8
"
EIF
S
-
4
ALU
M
-
1
EIF
S
-
2
EIF
S
-
4
EIF
S
-
5
EIF
S
-
5
EIF
S
-
4
GL-
1
ALU
M
-
1
EIF
S
-
1
WEST ELEV SOUTH ELEVATIONMATERIAL LEGENDS EIFS-1
C
O
L
O
R
L
I
F
E
C
L
W
1
0
3
7
W
"
S
T
O
N
E
Y
P
L
A
I
N
"
EIFS-2
C
O
L
O
R
L
I
F
E
C
L
1
7
4
6
A
"
C
A
N
O
L
A
"
EIFS-3
C
O
L
O
R
L
I
F
E
C
L
V
1
1
1
7
N
"
T
R
O
J
A
N
"
EIFS-4, PT-4
C
O
L
O
R
L
I
F
E
C
L
2
2
7
6
A
"
B
A
Y
O
F
M
A
N
Y
"
EIFS-5, PT-5
C
O
L
O
R
L
I
F
E
C
L
V
1
1
3
2
N
"
G
R
A
S
P
"
ALUM-1 CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM GL-1
P
I
L
K
I
N
G
T
O
N
"
E
V
E
R
G
R
E
E
N
"
NOTE:
A
L
L
S
I
G
N
A
G
E
I
S
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
T
O
S
E
P
A
R
A
T
E
REVIEW / PERMITING LEE & SAKAHARA ARCHITECTS, INC 16842 Von Karman Ave., Suite 125 Irvine, CA 92606
(
9
4
9
)
2
6
1
-
1
1
0
0
-
49
9
S
I
M
M
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
K
1
1
,
O
S
C
E
O
L
A
,
W
I
5
4
0
2
0
PA
R
K
V
U
E
I
N
N
SC
A
L
Z
O
H
O
S
P
I
T
A
L
I
T
Y
HOTEL - SOUTH & WEST ELEVATIONS A-10 15008 11/05/2015
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
SC
A
L
E
:
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
SO
U
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
SC
A
L
E
:
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
WE
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
0'
8'
16
'
24
'
32'
0'
8'
16
'
24
'
32'
1S
T
F
L
O
O
R
0' - 0"ROOF 75' - 4"
2N
D
F
L
O
O
R
15' - 0"
3R
D
F
L
O
O
R
24' - 8"
4T
H
F
L
O
O
R
34' - 4"
5T
H
F
L
O
O
R
44' - 0"
6T
H
F
L
O
O
R
53' - 8"
7T
H
F
L
O
O
R
63' - 4"
PO
O
L
D
E
C
K
64' - 4"
PA
R
A
P
E
T
82' - 0"
K-1
CO
R
R
CO
R
R
K-1
K-1
K-1
A
D
A
CO
R
R
K-1 K-1
CO
R
R
K-1 K-1
CO
R
R
K-1 K-1
CO
R
R
K-1
CO
R
R
COR
R
LA
U
N
D
R
Y
LIN
T
R
O
O
M
PA
R
K
I
N
G
PAR
K
I
N
G
PAV
I
L
L
I
O
N
COR
R
COR
R
8
2
'
-
0
"
6
'
-
8
"
1
1
'
-
0
"
1
'
-
0
"
9
'
-
8
"
9
'
-
8
"
9
'
-
8
"
9
'
-
8
"
9
'
-
8
"
1
5
'
-
0
"
SIT
E
H
E
I
G
H
T
L
I
M
I
T
1ST FLOOR 0' - 0"ROOF 75' - 4"2ND FLOOR 15' - 0"3RD FLOOR 24' - 8"4TH FLOOR 34' - 4"5TH FLOOR 44' - 0"6TH FLOOR 53' - 8"7TH FLOOR 63' - 4"POOL DECK 64' - 4"PARAPET 82' - 0"DQ-2 ADA CORR MECH DQ-2 CORR MECH DQ-2 CORR MECH DQ-2 CORR MECH DQ-2 CORR MECH STAGINGLINEN STORAGE LAUNDRYHOUSE-KEEPING OFFICELAUNDRYCORRSTOR PARKINGPOOLEQUIP6'-8"11'-0"1'-0"9'-8"9'-8"9'-8"9'-8"9'-8"15'-0"82'-0"
1S
T
F
L
O
O
R
0' -
0
"
RO
O
F
75
'
-
4
"
2N
D
F
L
O
O
R
15
'
-
0
"
3R
D
F
L
O
O
R
24
'
-
8
"
4TH
F
L
O
O
R
34
'
-
4
"
5TH
F
L
O
O
R
44
'
-
0
"
6TH
F
L
O
O
R
53
'
-
8
"
7TH
F
L
O
O
R
63
'
-
4
"
PO
O
L
D
E
C
K
64
'
-
4
"
PA
R
A
P
E
T
82
'
-
0
"
COR
R
K-1
DQS
-
1
DQ-
1
COR
R
DQS
-
1
DQS
-
1
COR
R
DQ-
1
DQ-
1
COR
R
DQS
-
1
DQS
-
1
COR
R
DQ-
1
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
LOU
N
G
E
TO
I
L
E
T
DIN
I
N
G
PAR
K
I
N
G
MEC
H
TO
W
E
L
/
VEN
D
I
N
G
6
'
-
8
"
1
1
'
-
0
"
1
'
-
0
"
9
'
-
8
"
9
'
-
8
"
9
'
-
8
"
9
'
-
8
"
9
'
-
8
"
1
5
'
-
0
"
8
2
'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
O
O
R
0' -
0
"
RO
O
F
75'
-
4
"
2N
D
F
L
O
O
R
15'
-
0
"
3R
D
F
L
O
O
R
24'
-
8
"
4TH
F
L
O
O
R
34'
-
4
"
5TH
F
L
O
O
R
44'
-
0
"
6TH
F
L
O
O
R
53'
-
8
"
7TH
F
L
O
O
R
63'
-
4
"
PO
O
L
D
E
C
K
64'
-
4
"
PA
R
A
P
E
T
82'
-
0
"
ELE
V
LO
B
B
Y
ELE
V
VES
T
I
B
U
L
E
COR
R
DQ
S
-
2
COR
R
DQ
S
-
2
A
D
A
ELE
V
LO
B
B
Y
ELE
V
VES
T
I
B
U
L
E
COR
R
DQ
S
-
2
ELE
V
LO
B
B
Y
ELE
V
VES
T
I
B
U
L
E
COR
R
DQ
S
-
2
DQ
S
-
2
A
D
A
COR
R
ELE
V
VES
T
I
B
U
L
E
ELE
V
LO
B
B
Y
ELE
V
LO
B
B
Y
ELE
V
VES
T
I
B
U
L
E
COR
R
FAU
X
BA
L
C
O
N
Y
ELE
V
LO
B
B
Y
ELE
V
VE
S
T
I
B
U
L
E
COR
R
LO
B
B
Y
EN
T
R
Y
VES
T
I
B
U
L
E
ELE
V
LO
B
B
Y
PAR
K
I
N
G
6
'
-
8
"
1
1
'
-
0
"
1
'
-
0
"
9
'
-
8
"
9
'
-
8
"
9
'
-
8
"
9
'
-
8
"
9
'
-
8
"
1
5
'
-
0
"
8
2
'
-
0
"
ELE
V
LO
B
B
Y
1ST FLOOR 0' - 0"ROOF 75' - 4"2ND FLOOR 15' - 0"3RD FLOOR 24' - 8"4TH FLOOR 34' - 4"5TH FLOOR 44' - 0"6TH FLOOR 53' - 8"7TH FLOOR 63' - 4"POOL DECK 64' - 4"PARAPET 82' - 0"DQ-1 K-1 DQ-1 STAIR 1 PARKING STOR STORDQ-2 DQ-1 K-1 DQ-1 DQ-1 K-1 DQ-1 DQ-2 ADA DQ-2 ADA DQ-1 K-1 DQ-1 DQ-1 K-1 DQ-1 DQ-2 DQ-2 DQ-1 K-1 DQ-1 PARKING STAIR 16'-8"11'-0"1'-0"9'-8"9'-8"9'-8"9'-8"9'-8"15'-0"82'-0"SD-ASD-B
S
D
-
C
S
D
-
D
S
D
-
E
SD-A SD-B
S
D
-
C
S
D
-
D
S
D
-
E
LEE & SAKAHARA ARCHITECTS, INC 16842 Von Karman Ave., Suite 125 Irvine, CA 92606
(
9
4
9
)
2
6
1
-
1
1
0
0
-
49
9
S
I
M
M
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
K
1
1
,
O
S
C
E
O
L
A
,
W
I
5
4
0
2
0
PA
R
K
V
U
E
I
N
N
SC
A
L
Z
O
H
O
S
P
I
T
A
L
I
T
Y
HOTEL - BUILDING SECTIONS A-12 15008 11/05/2015
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
SC
A
L
E
:
1
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
D
-
A
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"BUILDING SECTION SD-B
SC
A
L
E
:
1
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
D
-
C
SC
A
L
E
:
1
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
D
-
D
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"BUILDING SECTION SD-E
0'
8
'
1
6
'
32'
0'
8
'
1
6
'
32'
0'
8
'
1
6
'
32'
0'
8
'
1
6
'
32'
0'
8
'
1
6
'
32'
SD
-
H
SD-F SD-H SD-F
SD
-
G
S
D
-
G
SD
-
J
S
D
-
J
1ST FLOOR (R)0' - 0"ROOF (R)15' - 0"
1S
T
F
L
O
O
R
(
R
)
0' -
0
"
RO
O
F
(
R
)
15'
-
0
"
1ST FLOOR (R)0' - 0"ROOF (R)15' - 0"
1S
T
F
L
O
O
R
(
R
)
0' -
0
"
RO
O
F
(
R
)
15
'
-
0
"
LEE & SAKAHARA ARCHITECTS, INC 16842 Von Karman Ave., Suite 125 Irvine, CA 92606
(
9
4
9
)
2
6
1
-
1
1
0
0
-
49
9
S
I
M
M
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
K
1
1
,
O
S
C
E
O
L
A
,
W
I
5
4
0
2
0
PA
R
K
V
U
E
I
N
N
SC
A
L
Z
O
H
O
S
P
I
T
A
L
I
T
Y
RESTAURANT / RETAIL - SECTIONS A-15 15008 11/05/2015
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
SC
A
L
E
:
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
D
-
F
SC
A
L
E
:
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
D
-
G
SC
A
L
E
:
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
D
-
H
SC
A
L
E
:
3
/
3
2
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
D
-
J
0'
8'
16'
24'
32'
0'
8'
16
'
24
'
32'
0'
8'
16
'
24
'
32'
0'
8'
16
'
24'
32'
BE
S
T
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
P
L
U
S
PAR
K
P
L
A
C
E
I
N
N
&
M
I
N
I
S
U
I
T
E
S
3-S
T
O
R
Y
CA
P
T
A
I
N
K
I
D
D
'
S
DES
E
R
T
I
N
N
&
S
U
I
T
E
S
(
5
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
S
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
EA
S
T
S
H
U
T
T
L
E
AR
E
A
(4
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
(3
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
BE
S
T
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
P
L
U
S
PA
R
K
P
L
A
C
E
I
N
N
&
M
I
N
I
S
U
I
T
E
S
3-S
T
O
R
Y
CA
P
T
A
I
N
K
I
D
D
'
S
DE
S
E
R
T
I
N
N
&
S
U
I
T
E
S
(
5
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
S
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
EA
S
T
S
H
U
T
T
L
E
AR
E
A
(4-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
(3-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
BEST WESTERN PLUS PARK PLACE INN & MINI SUITES 3-STORY CAPTAIN KIDD'S DESERT INN & SUITES (5-STORY)S. HARBOR BLVDEAST SHUTTLE AREA (4-STORY)(3-STORY)
BE
S
T
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
P
L
U
S
PAR
K
P
L
A
C
E
I
N
N
&
M
I
N
I
S
U
I
T
E
S
3-S
T
O
R
Y
CA
P
T
A
I
N
K
I
D
D
'
S
DES
E
R
T
I
N
N
&
S
U
I
T
E
S
(
5
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
S
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
EA
S
T
S
H
U
T
T
L
E
AR
E
A
(4
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
(3
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
BE
S
T
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
P
L
U
S
PA
R
K
P
L
A
C
E
I
N
N
&
M
I
N
I
S
U
I
T
E
S
3-S
T
O
R
Y
CA
P
T
A
I
N
K
I
D
D
'
S
DE
S
E
R
T
I
N
N
&
S
U
I
T
E
S
(
5
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
S
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
EA
S
T
S
H
U
T
T
L
E
AR
E
A
(4-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
(3-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
BEST WESTERN PLUS PARK PLACE INN & MINI SUITES 3-STORY CAPTAIN KIDD'S DESERT INN & SUITES (5-STORY)S. HARBOR BLVDEAST SHUTTLE AREA (4-STORY)(3-STORY)LEE & SAKAHARA ARCHITECTS, INC 16842 Von Karman Ave., Suite 125 Irvine, CA 92606
(
9
4
9
)
2
6
1
-
1
1
0
0
-
49
9
S
I
M
M
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
K
1
1
,
O
S
C
E
O
L
A
,
W
I
5
4
0
2
0
PA
R
K
V
U
E
I
N
N
SC
A
L
Z
O
H
O
S
P
I
T
A
L
I
T
Y
SUN STUDY A-16 15008 11/05/2015
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
8
0
'
-
0
"
VE
R
N
A
L
E
Q
U
I
N
O
X
M
A
R
C
H
2
1
,
2
0
1
5
A
T
9
A
M
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
8
0
'
-
0
"
VE
R
N
A
L
E
Q
U
I
N
O
X
M
A
R
C
H
2
1
,
2
0
1
5
A
T
1
2
P
M
SCALE: 1" = 80'-0"VERNAL EQUINOX MARCH 21, AT 5PM
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
8
0
'
-
0
"
SU
M
M
E
R
S
O
L
S
T
I
C
E
J
U
N
E
2
1
,
2
0
1
5
A
T
9
A
M
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
8
0
'
-
0
"
SU
M
M
E
R
S
O
L
S
T
I
C
E
J
U
N
E
2
1
,
2
0
1
5
A
T
1
2
P
M
SCALE: 1" = 80'-0"SUMMER SOLSTICE JUNE 21, 2015 AT 5PM
0'
4
0
'
8
0
'
160
'
0'
4
0
'
8
0
'
160
'
0'
4
0
'
8
0
'
160
'
0'
4
0
'
8
0
'
160'
0'
4
0
'
8
0
'
160
'
0'
4
0
'
8
0
'
160'
BE
S
T
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
P
L
U
S
PAR
K
P
L
A
C
E
I
N
N
&
M
I
N
I
S
U
I
T
E
S
3-S
T
O
R
Y
CA
P
T
A
I
N
K
I
D
D
'
S
DES
E
R
T
I
N
N
&
S
U
I
T
E
S
(
5
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
S
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
EAS
T
S
H
U
T
T
L
E
ARE
A
(4
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
(3
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
BE
S
T
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
P
L
U
S
PAR
K
P
L
A
C
E
I
N
N
&
M
I
N
I
S
U
I
T
E
S
3-S
T
O
R
Y
CA
P
T
A
I
N
K
I
D
D
'
S
DES
E
R
T
I
N
N
&
S
U
I
T
E
S
(
5
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
S
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
EA
S
T
S
H
U
T
T
L
E
AR
E
A
(4
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
(3-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
BEST WESTERN PLUS PARK PLACE INN & MINI SUITES 3-STORY CAPTAIN KIDD'S DESERT INN & SUITES (5-STORY)S. HARBOR BLVDEAST SHUTTLE AREA (4-STORY)(3-STORY)
BE
S
T
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
P
L
U
S
PAR
K
P
L
A
C
E
I
N
N
&
M
I
N
I
S
U
I
T
E
S
3-S
T
O
R
Y
CA
P
T
A
I
N
K
I
D
D
'
S
DES
E
R
T
I
N
N
&
S
U
I
T
E
S
(
5
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
S
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
EAS
T
S
H
U
T
T
L
E
ARE
A
(4
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
(3
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
BE
S
T
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
P
L
U
S
PAR
K
P
L
A
C
E
I
N
N
&
M
I
N
I
S
U
I
T
E
S
3-S
T
O
R
Y
CA
P
T
A
I
N
K
I
D
D
'
S
DES
E
R
T
I
N
N
&
S
U
I
T
E
S
(
5
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
S
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
EA
S
T
S
H
U
T
T
L
E
AR
E
A
(4
-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
(3-
S
T
O
R
Y
)
BEST WESTERN PLUS PARK PLACE INN & MINI SUITES 3-STORY CAPTAIN KIDD'S DESERT INN & SUITES (5-STORY)S. HARBOR BLVDEAST SHUTTLE AREA (4-STORY)(3-STORY)LEE & SAKAHARA ARCHITECTS, INC 16842 Von Karman Ave., Suite 125 Irvine, CA 92606
(
9
4
9
)
2
6
1
-
1
1
0
0
-
49
9
S
I
M
M
O
N
D
R
I
V
E
K
1
1
,
O
S
C
E
O
L
A
,
W
I
5
4
0
2
0
PA
R
K
V
U
E
I
N
N
SC
A
L
Z
O
H
O
S
P
I
T
A
L
I
T
Y
SUN STUDY A-17 15008 11/05/2015
AN
A
H
E
I
M
,
C
A
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
8
0
'
-
0
"
AU
T
U
M
N
A
L
E
Q
U
I
N
O
X
S
E
T
.
2
1
,
2
0
1
5
A
T
9
A
M
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
8
0
'
-
0
"
AU
T
U
M
N
A
L
E
Q
U
I
N
O
X
S
E
P
T
2
1
,
2
0
1
5
A
T
1
2
P
M
SCALE: 1" = 80'-0"AUTUMNAL EQUINOX SEPT 21, 2015 AT 5PM
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
8
0
'
-
0
"
WIN
T
E
R
S
O
L
S
T
I
C
E
D
E
C
.
2
1
,
2
0
1
5
A
T
9
A
M
SC
A
L
E
:
1
"
=
8
0
'
-
0
"
WIN
T
E
R
S
O
L
S
T
I
C
E
D
E
C
2
1
,
2
0
1
5
A
T
1
2
P
M
SCALE: 1" = 80'-0"WINTER SOLSTICE DEC. 21, 2015 AT 4PM
0'
4
0
'
8
0
'
160
'
0'
4
0
'
8
0
'
160
'
0'
4
0
'
8
0
'
160
'
0'
4
0
'
8
0
'
160'
0'
4
0
'
8
0
'
160
'
0'
4
0
'
8
0
'
160'
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
- 1-
CITY OF ANAHEIM
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CASE NOS.: Final Site Plan No. 2014-00003, Variance No. 2014-04987, Development Project No. 2013-
00138
SITE ADDRESS: 1560 and 1570 S. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92802
APNs: 082-21-115 and 082-21-116
LOCATION: West side of Harbor Boulevard, approximately 620 feet north of Disney Way
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.
Aesthetic / Visual Agricultural & Forestry 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 / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the City)
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 measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.
November 25, 2015
Signature of City of Anaheim Representative Date
Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Senior Planner (714) 765-4568
Printed Name, Title Phone Number
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
- 2-
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as
well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
2) A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section.
3) Response column heading definitions:
a) Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant
Impact”. The mitigation measures must be described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce
the effect to a less than significant level.
c) Less Than Significant Impact applies where the Project creates no significant impacts, only “Less Than
Significant impacts”.
d) No Impact applies where a Project does not create an impact in that category. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one proposed (e.g., the project falls outside of a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact”
answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration (§ 15062(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated”, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the Project.
5) Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., the General Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 6) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
- 3-
Project Setting
The project site is located at 1560 and 1570 S. Harbor Boulevard in the City of Anaheim. The 2.35-acre project site is comprised of two parcels which are currently developed with a two-story, 86-room hotel, and
IHOP restaurant, Cold-Stone Creamery restaurant and accessory retail space. The parcel is located within the
Commercial Recreation (CR) District of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SP 92-2) Zone. The
General Plan designates this property for Commercial Recreation land use. Surrounding properties to the north, east and south are also designated for Commercial Recreation land use
by the Anaheim General Plan. Captain Kidd’s Restaurant and the Best Western Hotel are located to the
north; The Desert Inn and Suites is located to the south; and an office building is to the east. The Disneyland Theme Park is located to the west, across Harbor Boulevard and is within the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1 (SP92-1) Zone.
The subject property, in its existing condition, is shown in Figure 1- Existing Conditions on Page 4.
- 4-
- 5-
Project Description
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 86- room hotel, restaurant and retail spaces and construct a new 180-room, seven-story hotel toward the rear of the property and 10,541 square feet of restaurant and
retail space at the front of the property, adjacent to Harbor Boulevard. The project includes a single driveway
on Harbor Boulevard and an entry canopy between the two restaurant buildings leading to the hotel guest
drop off area and surface parking lot. At the rear of the site, a ramp down to one level of subterranean parking is proposed. The proposal includes a total of 201 parking spaces to be shared by hotel guests and restaurant and retail patrons. A variance is requested to provide for a total of 201 parking spaces rather than
the 229 parking spaces that are required. The shared parking analysis demonstrates that there is enough
parking on-site as the peak times of the hotel and restaurant do not overlap. The shared parking peak is 201 parking spaces from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00a.m.
Redevelopment of the property requires that the project comply with all of the requirements of the Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan, including provision of an 8-foot wide parkway behind the sidewalk to be planted with
Queen Palms, a Japanese Boxwood hedge and Daylilies. A variance is requested to allow narrower landscape and building setbacks than required by the Code along the north and south property lines. Landscaping within these areas will comply with the required tree quantities, as if the full landscape area
were being provided. The outdoor dining areas for the restaurants will encroach into the front setback area.
Since the project site is located within the Central Core area, this type of pedestrian-oriented activation of the street is encouraged.
Signage for the project would include one monument sign that would advertise the hotel and property
tenants. Two walls signs are proposed for the hotel building, with an additional sign on the entry arch. Signs
for the IHOP and Cold Stone are proposed on their respective tenant spaces, facing Harbor Boulevard The subject property was reclassified to the CR District of the SP 92-2 Zone in September 1994, concurrent
with the adoption of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (ARSP) and the certification of Master
Environmental Impact Report No. 313 (MEIR No. 313). This master environmental impact report has
served as the environmental documentation for projects that are implemented in accordance with the ARSP. The analysis in MEIR No. 313 was recently supplemented by the certification of Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report No. 340 (SEIR No. 340), adopted in December, 2012.
Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (adopted in conjunction
with the certification of SEIR No. 340). Applicable mitigation measures will be applied to this project and
impacts would be less than significant.
Entitlements for this project include Final Site Plan No. 2014-00003 to determine compliance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and Variance No. 2014-04987 to allow interior building and landscape
setbacks that are smaller than required, fewer trees on the surface parking lot than are required and fewer
parking spaces than required by the Code.
- 6-
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Impact
Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340
No New
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the aesthetic impacts related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.1.
According to SEIR No. 340, the ARSP area does not contain any scenic resources, nor are any scenic vistas visible from the ARSP area; therefore, no impact would occur. Future development and redevelopment associated with buildout of the ARSP
area would change the existing visual character of individual areas; however, buildout of the ARSP area would create a more visually cohesive and appealing environment and impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the
recommended mitigation program.
The proposed project would not impact any scenic vistas or degrade the existing visual character of the surrounding area.
The architecture would blend in with the existing adjacent buildings and enhance The Anaheim Resort with an aesthetically pleasing structure. The new structure would be taller than the existing structure, but would be in compliance with the height
limitations and structural setbacks required by the specific plan.
A shade/shadow analysis was prepared to evaluate any potential impacts that the taller hotel structure may have on
neighboring properties. The project would not negatively affect the shade/shadows on the adjacent hotel structures or developments in either the summer or winter months.
The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313, created for this project from
Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2). Applicable mitigation measures will be applied to this project and impacts would be less than significant.
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether Impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
Impacts analyzed
in SEIR No. 340
No New Impact
No
Impact
- 7-
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code §
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code § 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Narrative Summary: No Impact (a – e). The project area is not located in an area with agricultural or forest uses. There is no unique, prime or farmland of statewide importance located within the project area. There are no Williamson Act contracts
within the project area. No impacts would occur.
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
Impacts
analyzed in SEIR No. 340
No New
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
- 8-
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 addressed the air quality
impacts associated with implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.2.
SEIR No. 340 concluded that, with implementation of all identified mitigation measures, mass emissions resulting from construction-related activities would be less than significant. However, because of uncertainties in the timing and magnitude
of emissions for possible projects, it was concluded that cumulative emissions from construction would be significant and unavoidable. It was also concluded that local concentrations of particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less
(PM10) and fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) CEQA significance thresholds for short-term periods when excavation would occur
near sensitive receptors; the impact would be significant and unavoidable. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to this potential impact.
Emissions of criteria pollutants resulting from operation of the full buildout of the ARSP would exceed the SCAQMD applicable thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), PM10, and
PM2.5. Operation would result in direct and cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to these potential impacts. Because implementation of the
ARSP could result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, SEIR No. 340 concluded that the ARSP could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2007 AQMP, thereby resulting in a significant and
unavoidable impact. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to this potential impact.
Construction and operation of the ARSP would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant toxic air contaminants (TACs); would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial CO local concentrations; and would not create objectionable
odors. These impacts would be less than significant.
The ARSP permits development of up to 75 hotel rooms per acre on the project site, or the equivalent of 600 square feet of
visitor serving uses per hotel room. Therefore, the air quality analysis in SEIR No. 340 analyzed the operational impacts of the development of up to approximately 200 hotel rooms on the 2.35 acre property. The applicant proposes to demolish the
existing 86-room hotel, restaurant and retail spaces and construct a 180-room, seven-story hotel with 10,541 square feet of restaurant and retail space. As a result, the proposed project falls under the maximum amount of development analyzed in
SEIR No. 340.
The proposed project would not result in any construction or operational impacts beyond those identified in the previously
certified SEIR No. 340. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2). Applicable mitigation measures will be applied to this project and impacts would be less than significant.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
Impacts analyzed in SEIR
No. 340
No New
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
- 9-
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by § 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 addressed the potential impacts
to biological resources associated with implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.3.
SEIR No. 340 identified that the ARSP area is located within an urbanized area of the City with no Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species as listed in local regional plans, policies, or regulations, or as designated by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife1 (CDFW) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Further, SEIR No. 340 concluded that the ARSP area does not function as a migratory corridor or a native wildlife nursery site and no impact would
occur.
The proposed project site and surrounding areas are urbanized and no significant plant or animal resources are located on or
within the immediate vicinity. There are no wetlands or wildlife corridors or nurseries on or in the vicinity of the site. In addition, the site is not located within a designated HCP or NCCP area.
The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313, created for this project from
Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2). Applicable mitigation measures will be applied to this project and impacts would be less than significant.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
Impacts analyzed in SEIR
No. 340
No New
Impact
No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5 and/or identified on the Anaheim Citywide Historic Preservation Plan.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5?
1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife is previously known, and referred to in SEIR No. 340, as the California Department of Fish and Game.
- 10-
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 addressed the potential
impacts to cultural resources associated with implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.4.
According to SEIR No. 340, no designated historical resources exist within the ARSP area. Further, no resources are anticipated to be discovered in the ARSP area. SEIR No. 340 concluded that there is no evidence of human remains in the
ARSP area and that adherence to Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code and California Health and Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code would ensure that a significant impact would not occur.
The proposed project site is urbanized and no known cultural resources are located on or in the vicinity of the site. There are no historic structures on the site. In addition, there are no known archaeological or paleontological resources. And there are
no known burial sites on the proposed project site.
The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any
impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No.
92-2). Applicable mitigation measures will be applied to this project and impacts would be less than significant.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340
No New Impact
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
- 11-
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the geotechnical and soils impacts related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section
4.3.5.
SEIR No. 340 identified active and potentially active faults in the region that could result in seismic-related impacts to future
development projects associated with the buildout of the ARSP. Seismic events along these faults have the potential to result in strong ground motion. SEIR No. 340 concluded that potential impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be
reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of project specific mitigation measures (if required); conformance with the applicable requirements listed in the Anaheim Municipal Code; and with conformance to the
California Building Code.
As noted in SEIR No. 340, the ARSP area is located in a relatively flat area with minimal potential for erosion impacts due
to the high amount of urban development and low amount of bare ground. However, during demolition and construction activities when areas are exposed to erosion and loss of topsoil, adherence to the following would ensure that impacts would
be less than significant: local and State codes and requirements for erosion control and grading; compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the subsequent development of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any
impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No.
92-2). Project impacts would be less than significant.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340
No New Impact
No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
- 12-
Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340
analyzed the potential impacts from greenhouse gas emissions related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.6.
SEIR No. 340 concluded that although the proposed project would not conflict with applicable regulations and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and although feasible mitigation measures would be
incorporated into the proposed project, the magnitude of the increase in GHG emissions would remain cumulatively considerable and the impact to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. The Anaheim City Council adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to these potential impacts.
The ARSP permits development of up to 75 hotel rooms per acre on the project site, or the equivalent of 600 square feet of
visitor serving uses per hotel room. Therefore, the air quality analysis in SEIR No. 340 analyzed the operational impacts of the development of up to approximately 200 hotel rooms on the 2.35 acre property. The applicant proposes to demolish the
existing 86-room hotel, restaurant and retail spaces and construct a 180-room, seven-story hotel with 10,541 square feet of restaurant and retail space. As a result, the proposed project falls under the maximum amount of development analyzed in
SEIR No. 340.
The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any
impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No.
92-2). Project impacts would be less than significant.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340
No New Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton
Municipal Airport), would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
- 13-
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?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the hazards and hazardous materials impacts related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No.
340, Section 4.3.7.
According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP would have the potential to disturb lead-based paints (LBP) and asbestos-
containing materials (ACM) depending on the age of existing structures in the ARSP area. The existing building on the site that is to be demolished was constructed in 1961. With implementation of mitigation, including compliance with the State of
California Hazardous Substances Control Law, potential impacts related to hazardous material on or near the ARSP area would be reduced to less than significant levels.
The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313, created for this project from
Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2). Project impacts would be less than significant.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340
No New
Impact
No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
- 14-
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Expose persons or structures to risk of inundation by
seiche or mudflow?
k) Substantially degrade water quality by contributing pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or
equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials
handling, or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas?
l) Substantially degrade water quality by discharge which
affects the beneficial uses (i.e., swimming, fishing, etc.) of the receiving or downstream waters?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the hydrology and
water quality impacts related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.8.
According to SEIR No. 340, implementation of the ARSP project would result in short-term construction-related and long-term operational water quality impacts. However, implementation of mitigation measures and compliance with the standard
requirements reduces these impacts. Although direct impacts to the underlying groundwater resources would not occur, indirect impacts associated with the anticipated increase in long-term demand for domestic water, landscape irrigation, and
maintenance activities would be significant. Implementation of the proposed mitigation would reduce demand for groundwater resources.
As identified in SEIR No. 340, implementation of the ARSP project would result in site-specific changes to drainage patterns on development sites, but would not adversely impact regional hydrology or drainage flows in the surrounding area.
It was found that potential increases in impervious surfaces could increase runoff rates and volumes, while reducing potential for soil erosion. Additionally, the ARSP project has the potential to increase runoff volumes and rates to exacerbate
existing deficiencies, potentially leading to localized street flooding.
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Park Vue Inn was prepared for the proposed project. Under
proposed conditions, runoff will generally follow the same southwestern direction as existing conditions. First flush flows will be directed via 8” proposed storm drain lines towards an infiltration gallery in the center portion of the project site on
the western side for infiltration. First flush flows near the western portion of the site will flow towards porous pavement areas or will be considered self-treating. High flows will bypass the BMPs and discharge to an existing public storm drain
on Harbor Boulevard and ultimately drain to the Bolsa Chica Channel and Huntington Harbor.
The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any
impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No.
92-2). Project impacts would be less than significant.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the Project:
- 15-
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed in SEIR No. 340
No New
Impact
No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the land use impacts
related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.9.
SEIR No. 340 concluded that the build out of ARSP would be consistent with the respective
goals and policies of local and regional regulatory and planning documents. Specifically, the ARSP build out was found to be consistent with and supportive of the three key principles set forth in the 2012–2035 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: mobility, economy, and sustainability. Additionally, SEIR No. 340 provided a consistency analysis with all relevant goals and policies identified in the City of Anaheim General Plan.
The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. No impacts would occur.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
Impacts
analyzed in SEIR
No. 340
No New
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project area is not located in an area with active mining operations. According to
the California Department of Mines and Geology, there are no mineral resources or mining operations located within the project area. No impacts would occur.
XII. NOISE -- Would the Project result in:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Impact
Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340
No New Impact
No Impact
- 16-
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
(Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
heliport or helistop, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the noise impacts related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.10.
SEIR No. 340 determined that construction activities associated with the ARSP have the potential to significantly impact noise-sensitive receptors. In addition, construction in the ARSP area would have the potential to cause vibration levels that
would be noticeable for short periods.
Development associated with the ARSP would create long-term land use compatibility issues related to noise and would
expose receptors to noise levels in excess of established standards, thereby resulting in potentially significant impacts. However, it was determined that adherence to the standard requirements and implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures would reduce long-term, operational impacts.
The ARSP permits development of up to 75 hotel rooms per acre on the project site, or the equivalent of 600 square feet of
visitor serving uses per hotel room. Therefore, the air quality analysis in SEIR No. 340 analyzed the operational impacts of the development of up to approximately 200 hotel rooms on the 2.35 acre property. The applicant proposes to demolish the
existing 86-room hotel, restaurant and retail spaces and construct a 180-room, seven-story hotel with 10,541 square feet of restaurant and retail space. As a result, the proposed project falls under the maximum amount of development analyzed in
SEIR No. 340.
The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any
impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No.
92-2). Project impacts would be less than significant.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
Impacts analyzed
in SEIR No. 340
No New Impact
No
Impact
- 17-
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No impact. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the population and housing
impacts related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.11.
There is no housing located on the proposed project site. In addition, no housing or people would be displaced due to project
construction. The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR
No. 340. No new impacts would occur.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical Impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Impact
Impacts analyzed
in SEIR No. 340
No New Impact
No Impact
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the impacts on public services related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.12.
SEIR No. 340 determined development of the project area would have a substantial demand for fire and police protection services and would indirectly result in the demand for school services, parks, and libraries.
The ARSP permits development of up to 75 hotel rooms per acre on the project site, or the equivalent of 600 square feet of visitor serving uses per hotel room. Therefore, the air quality analysis in SEIR No. 340 analyzed the operational impacts of
the development of up to approximately 200 hotel rooms on the 2.35 acre property. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 86-room hotel, restaurant and retail spaces and construct a 180-room, seven-story hotel with 10,541 square feet of
restaurant and retail space. As a result, the proposed project falls under the maximum amount of development analyzed in SEIR No. 340 and, thus, would not exceed the maximum amount of public services analyzed.
The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313, created for this project from
Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2). Project impacts would be less than significant.
XV. RECREATION -- Would the Project:
- 18-
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Impact
Impacts
analyzed in SEIR No. 340
No New
Impact
No Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the impacts to recreation and recreational facilities related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to
SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.13.
No new housing would be constructed that would increase the demand for recreational parks or facilities as a result of the
proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. No new impacts would occur.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
Impacts
analyzed in SEIR
No. 340
No New Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account
all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
those results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
- 19-
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the transportation and traffic impacts related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section
4.3.14.
As evaluated in SEIR No. 340, traffic impacts associated with buildout of the ARSP would result in significant impacts at 21
area intersections, 1 arterial segment, and 3 freeway ramp termini intersections. However, after implementation of the identified mitigation measures, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels for all but nine intersections
(Euclid Street/Katella Avenue, Disneyland Drive/Ball Road, Disneyland Drive/West Street/Katella Avenue, Harbor Boulevard/Ball Road, Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Street/Katella Avenue, State College Boulevard/Katella Avenue, State
College Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue, State College Boulevard/The City Drive/Chapman Avenue, Orangewood Avenue/State Route [SR] 57 Southbound Ramps) and 1 ramp termini intersection (Orangewood Avenue/SR-57 Southbound
Ramps). It was identified that these intersections would remain significant and unavoidable because of the infeasibility of mitigation measures due to high project cost or the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to
preserve existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional considerations. The Anaheim City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to these potential deficiencies. Additionally, SEIR No. 340 indicated
no impacts would occur on intersections identified in the Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Orange County.
The proposal includes a total of 201 parking spaces to be shared by hotel guests and restaurant patrons. Variance 2014-
04987 is requested to provide for a total of 201 parking spaces rather than the 229 required spaces (Hotel: 156; Restaurant: 73). The parking study demonstrates that there is enough parking on-site as the peak times of the hotel and restaurant do not
overlap. The shared parking peak is 201 parking spaces from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. In addition, this project will not create more than 100 additional peak hour trips, as compared to the existing hotel; therefore additional traffic analysis was not necessary.
The ARSP permits development of up to 75 hotel rooms per acre on the project site, or the equivalent of 600 square feet of visitor serving uses per hotel room. Therefore, the air quality analysis in SEIR No. 340 analyzed the operational impacts of
the development of up to approximately 200 hotel rooms on the 2.35 acre property. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 86-room hotel, restaurant and retail spaces and construct a 180-room, seven-story hotel with 10,541 square feet of
restaurant and retail space. As a result, the proposed project falls under the maximum amount of development analyzed in SEIR No. 340.
The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313, created for this project from
Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2). Project impacts would be less than significant.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the Project:
Environmental Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
Impacts analyzed in SEIR
No. 340
No New
Impact
No Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities (including sewer (waste water) collection facilities) or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
- 20-
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project (including large-scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code § 21151.9 and described in
Question No. 20 of the City’s Environmental Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity?
i) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations related to natural gas?
j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service?
k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations related to television service/reception?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the impacts to utilities
and service systems related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Refer to SEIR No. 340, Section 4.3.15.
SEIR No. 340 identified that buildout of the ARSP would exceed capacities of existing water facilities; however, the projected water demand associated with buildout of the ARSP would be accommodated through existing and projected
supplies.
According to SEIR No. 340, the wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) would not be exceeded by buildout of the ARSP. SEIR No. 340 identified that buildout of the ARSP would increase sewage flows in existing sewer lines and trunks serving the area, resulting in several sewer lines becoming
deficient; however, this impact would be mitigated to less than significant level. Additionally, it was determined that build out of the ARSP evaluated in SEIR No. 340 would increase sewage flows by approximately 323,656 gallons per day (gpd)
in the PR District and 2.1 million gallons per day (mgd) in the C-R District and that these increases in sewage flow would be accommodated by available capacity at Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Treatment Plant No. 1.
According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP area would result in an increased demand for electricity. Compliance
with the standard requirements and implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would reduce anticipated demand through conservation efforts. It is expected that the existing electrical distribution system and future planned improvements
would adequately accommodate the anticipated demand.
According to SEIR No. 340, buildout of the ARSP has the potential to worsen several existing deficiencies in the City’s storm drain system. However, participation in the City’s Master Plan of Storm Drains and related Infrastructure
Improvement (Fee) Program would assist in mitigating existing and future storm drainage system deficiencies.
According to SEIR No. 340, Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) indicated that natural gas service to the ARSP can
be provided from an existing gas main that is accessible from various locations in the ARSP area. The service would be provided in accordance with the SCGC’s policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities
Commission.
- 21-
Buildout of the ARSP would generate an estimated 109,514 pounds of solid waste per day or approximately 19,986 tons of
solid waste annually. Buildout of the ARSP would add approximately 19,986 tons of solid waste annually to existing solid waste facilities and capacity, which would impact the landfill system. However, the buildout of the ARSP could be
accommodated within the permitted capacity of the County’s landfill capacity. In addition, once the Alpha Olinda Landfill closes in 2021, capacity would exist for buildout of the ARSP in the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill.
AT&T would serve the ARSP area. According to SEIR No. 340, it was determined that AT&T can provide telephone, digital cable, and high-speed internet services and that the ARSP area can be served by Time Warner Cable with the existing
cable resources available to the site.
The ARSP permits development of up to 75 hotel rooms per acre on the project site, or the equivalent of 600 square feet of
visitor serving uses per hotel room. Therefore, the air quality analysis in SEIR No. 340 analyzed the operational impacts of the development of up to approximately 200 hotel rooms on the 2.35 acre property. The applicant proposes to demolish the
existing 86-room hotel, restaurant and retail spaces and construct a 180-room, seven-story hotel with 10,541 square feet of restaurant and retail space. As a result, the proposed project falls under the maximum amount of development analyzed in
SEIR No. 340 and therefore, would not exceed the maximum demand for utilities and service systems previously analyzed.
The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any
impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No.
92-2). Project impacts would be less than significant.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE --
Environmental Issues
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact
Impacts analyzed
in SEIR No. 340
No New Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have Impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Narrative Summary: Impacts analyzed in SEIR No. 340/No new impacts. SEIR No. 340 analyzed the project’s impacts
related to the implementation of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2.
The proposed project would not result in any impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified SEIR No. 340. Any
impacts are addressed by mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 313, created for this project from Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 85C (SEIR No. 340 for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2). Project impacts would be less than significant.
- 22-
References
Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act. 2006. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm.
Accessed on March 11, 2015. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). CEQA & Climate Change. January 2008. California Department of Conservation (DOC). Agricultural Preserves 2010 Status Report, Williamson Act Parcels, Orange County, California. Available at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/stats_reports/Documents/2010%20Williamson%20Act%20Status%20Report.pdf
DOC. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Map for Orange County. 2010.
DOC. Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Orange 7.5-Minute Quadrangle. April 15, 1998.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan for the County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregion. 1996. Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans/Orange-Coastal. Accessed on March 11, 2015. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Cortese List. Available at: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. Accessed March 11, 2015. California Department of Transportation. Eligible (E) and Officially Designated (OD) [Scenic Highway] Routes.
Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm. Accessed on March 11, 2015.
California Geologic Survey. Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in
California. September 11, 2008.
City of Anaheim (Anaheim). 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011.
Anaheim. Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan. April 2013. Anaheim. Citywide Historic Preservation Plan. May 2010. Available at: http://www.anaheim.net/planning/aRT/PlanCouncil-May2010.pdf. Accessed on March 11, 2015. Anaheim. General Plan Circulation Element
Green Element: Mineral Resource Map
Noise Element. Pg. N-9
Safety Element: Dam Inundation Map
Anaheim. General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report No. 330. May 25, 2004.
Anaheim. Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Anaheim. Municipal Code. 1974; updated as recently as February 2013. Anaheim. Sewer Capacity Map. LN Civil Engineers, Inc, Priority Project Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Project Name: Panera Bread Bakery. September 9, 2014
Orange County Public Works. Drainage Area Management Plan. 2003.
Orange County Transportation Authority. Orange County Congestion Management Plan. 2011.
- 23-
Senate Bill 375: Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008. 2008. Available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_375_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf. Accessed on March 11, 2015. Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/2007-air-quality-management-plan . Accessed on March 11, 2015.
SCAQMD. Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. Amended June 3, 2005. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4 . Accessed on March 11, 2015.
State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate
Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. June 19, 2008. Pg. 4. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Federal Water Pollution Control Act (known as the Clean
Water Act). November 27, 2002.
24
Terms and Definitions
1. Property Owner/Developer − Scalzo Family Partnership
2. Environmental Equivalent/Timing − Any mitigation measure and timing thereof, subject to the approval of the City, which will have the same or superior result and will have the same or superior effect on the environment. The Planning and Building Department, in conjunction with any
appropriate agencies or City departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed “environmental equivalent timing” and, if determined
necessary, may refer said determination to the Planning Commission. Any costs associated with information required in order to make a
determination of environmental equivalency/timing shall be borne by the property owner/developer. Staff time for reviews will be charged on a time and materials basis at the rate in the City’s adopted Fee Schedule.
3. Timing − This is the point where a mitigation measure must be monitored for compliance. In the case where multiple action items are indicated,
it is the first point where compliance associated with the mitigation measure must be monitored. Once the initial action item has been complied
with, no additional monitoring pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan will occur, as routine City practices and procedures will ensure that the intent of the measure has been complied with. For example, if the timing is “to be shown on approved building plans” subsequent to issuance of the building permit consistent with the approved plans will be final building and zoning inspections pursuant to the building permit to ensure
compliance.
4. Responsibility for Monitoring − Shall mean that compliance with the subject mitigation measure(s) shall be reviewed and determined adequate
by all departments listed for each mitigation measure. Outside public agency review is limited to those public agencies specified in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan which have permit authority in conjunction with the mitigation measure.
5. Ongoing Mitigation Measures − The mitigation measures that are designated to occur on an ongoing basis as part of this Mitigation Monitoring
Plan will be monitored in the form of an annual letter from the property owner/developer in January of each year demonstrating how compliance
with the subject measure(s) has been achieved. When compliance with a measure has been demonstrated for a period of one year, monitoring of the measure will be deemed to be satisfied and no further monitoring will occur. For measures that are to be monitored “Ongoing During Construction,” the annual letter will review those measures only while construction is occurring; monitoring will be discontinued after
construction is complete. A final annual letter will be provided at the close of construction.
6. Building Permit − For purposes of this Mitigation Monitoring Plan, a building permit shall be defined as any permit issued for construction of a
new building or structural expansion or modification of any existing building, but shall not include any permits required for interior tenant improvements or minor additions to an existing structure or building.
PARK VUE INN
DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987 UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
25
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
AESTHETICS
MM 5.1-1 Prior to final site plan
approval
Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner/developer shall submit a
shade and shadow analysis to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval demonstrating that the proposed structure(s) would avoid creating significant shade and shadow impacts on adjacent land uses to
the maximum extent feasible. A significant shade and shadow impact would occur when outdoor active areas (e.g., outdoor eating areas, hotel/motel
swimming pools, and residential front and back yards) or structures that
include sensitive uses (e.g., residences) have windows that normally receive sunlight are covered by shadows for more than 50 percent of the sunlight
hours.
Planning and
Building Department
MM 5.1-2 Prior to issuance of
building permits
Prior to issuance of building permits, all plumbing or other similar pipes and
fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be shown on plans as fully screened from view of adjacent public rights-of-way and from adjacent
properties by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials. A
note indicating that these improvements will be installed prior to final building and zoning inspections shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for
building permits.
Planning and
Building Department
MM 5.1-3 Ongoing Ongoing, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for the removal of
any on-site graffiti within 24 hours of its application.
Planning and
Building Department
MM 5.1-4 Prior to Final Site Plan approval Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the location and configuration of all lighting fixtures including ground-mounted lighting fixtures utilized to
accent buildings, landscape elements, or to illuminate pedestrian areas shall
be shown on all Final Site Plans. All proposed surface parking area lighting fixtures shall be down-lighted with a maximum height of 12 feet adjacent to
any residential properties. All lighting fixtures shall be shielded to direct
lighting toward the area to be illuminated and away from adjacent residential property lines.
Planning and Building Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
26
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
MM 5.1-5 Prior to final building and
zoning inspections
Prior to final building and zoning inspections, private streets within the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area shall have street lights installed which are compatible with the design standards used for the public streets as
determined by the Public Utilities Department.
Public Utilities
Department
MM 5.1-6 Prior to final building and
zoning inspections
Prior to final building and zoning inspections, root and sidewalk barriers
shall be provided for trees within seven feet of public sidewalks.
Planning and
Building Department
MM 5.1-7 Prior to final building and zoning inspections Prior to final building and zoning inspections, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department a letter from a licensed landscape architect certifying that all landscaping and irrigation systems have
been installed in accordance with landscaping plans approved in connection with the Final Site Plan.
Planning and Building Department
MM 5.1-8 Ongoing Ongoing, all on-site non-Public Realm landscaping and irrigation systems, and Public Realm landscaping and irrigation systems, within area in which
dedication has not been accepted by the City, shall be maintained by the property owner/developer, in compliance with City standards.
Planning and Building Department
MM 5.1-9 Ongoing Ongoing, any tree planted within the Setback Realm shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or
dead.
Planning and Building Department
MM 5.1-10 Ongoing Ongoing, a licensed arborist shall be hired by the property owner/developer to be responsible for all tree trimming. Planning and Building Department
MM 5.1-11 Prior to issuance of each building permits Prior to issuance of each building permits, unless records indicate previous payment, a fee for street tree purposes shall be paid or cause to be paid to the
City of Anaheim based on the length of street frontage in an amount as established by City Council resolution or credit against the fee given for City authorized improvements installed by the property owner/developer.
Planning and Building Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
27
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
MM 5.1-12 Prior to issuance of each
building permit
Prior to issuance of each building permit, all air conditioning facilities and
other roof and ground-mounted equipment shall be shown on plans as shielded from public view and the sound buffered to comply with City of
Anaheim noise ordinances from any adjacent residential or transient-
occupied properties. A note indicating that these improvements shall be installed prior to final building and zoning inspections shall be specifically
shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
Planning and
Building Department
MM 5.1-13 Prior to Final Site Plan
approval
Prior to Final Site Plan approval, plans shall show that the rear elevations of
buildings visible from off-site areas shall be architecturally accented to portray a finished look.
Planning and
Building Department
MM 5.1-14 Prior to Final Site Plan
approval
Prior to Final Site Plan approval, plans shall show that no
shuttle/bus/vehicular drop-off areas shall be permitted in hotel/motel or
vacation resort front setback area.
Planning and
Building Department
AIR QUALITY
MM 5.2-1 Ongoing during project operation Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall implement measures to reduce emissions to the extent practical, schedule goods movements for off-peak traffic hours, and use clean fuel for vehicles
and other equipment, as practicable.
Planning and Building Department
MM 5.2-2 Prior to the issuance of each building permit Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit evidence that low emission paints and coatings are utilized in the design and construction of buildings, in compliance with SCAQMD
regulations. The information shall be denoted on the project plans and specifications. The property owner/developer shall submit an architectural
coating schedule and calculations demonstrating that VOC emissions from
architectural coating operations would not exceed 75 pounds per day averaged over biweekly periods. The calculations shall show, for each
coating, the surface area to be coated, gallons (or liters) of coating per unit
surface area, and VOC content per gallon (or liter). The property owner/developer shall also implement the following to limit emissions from
Planning and Building Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
28
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
architectural coatings and asphalt usage:
a. Use non-solvent-based coatings on buildings, wherever appropriate;
b. Use solvent-based coatings, where they are necessary.
MM 5.2-3 Ongoing during construction Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall implement measures to reduce construction-related air quality impacts. These measures
shall include, but are not limited to:
a. Normal wetting procedures (at least twice daily) or other dust palliative
measures shall be followed during earth-moving operations to
minimize fugitive dust emissions, in compliance with the City of Anaheim Municipal Code including application of chemical soil
stabilizers to exposed soils after grading is completed and replacing
ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as practicable.
b. For projects where there is excavation for subterranean facilities (such
as parking) on-site haul roads shall be watered at least every two hours
or the on-site haul roads shall be paved.
c. Enclosing, covering, watering twice daily, or applying approved soil
binders, according to manufacturer’s specification, to exposed piles.
d. Roadways adjacent to the project shall be swept and cleared of any spilled export materials at least twice a day to assist in minimizing
fugitive dust; and, haul routes shall be cleared as needed if spills of
materials exported from the project site occur.
e. Where practicable, heavy duty construction equipment shall be kept
onsite when not in operation to minimize exhaust emissions associated with vehicles repetitiously entering and exiting the project site.
f. Trucks importing or exporting soil material and/or debris shall be
covered prior to entering public streets.
g. Taking preventive measures to ensure that trucks do not carry dirt on
Planning and Building Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
29
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
tires onto public streets, including treating onsite roads and staging
areas.
h. Preventing trucks from idling for longer than 2 minutes.
i. Manually irrigate or activate irrigation systems necessary to water and
maintain the vegetation as soon as planting is completed.
j. Reduce Traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per
hour or less.
k. Suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gust) exceed 25 miles per hour and during first and second stage smog
alerts.
l. Comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which states that no dust impacts offsite are sufficient to be called a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403,
which restricts visible emissions from construction.
m. Use low emission mobile construction equipment (e.g., tractors, scrapers, dozers, etc.) where practicable.
n. Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean-fuel
generators rather than temporary power generators, where practicable.
o. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them properly
tuned.
p. Use low sulfur fuel for equipment, to the extent practicable.
MM 5.2-4 Prior to issuance of each grading permit (for
Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permit (for
Demolition Plan)
Prior to issuance of each grading permit (for Import/Export Plan) and prior to issuance of demolition permit (for Demolition Plan), the property
owner/developer shall submit Demolition and Import/Export plans. The plans shall include identification of offsite locations for materials export from the project and options for disposal of excess material. These options may
include recycling of materials onsite, sale to a soil broker or contractor, sale to a project in the vicinity or transport to an environmentally cleared landfill,
Planning and Building Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
30
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
with attempts made to move it within Orange County. The property
owner/developer shall offer recyclable building materials, such as asphalt or concrete for sale or removal by private firms or public agencies for use in
construction of other projects, if not all can be reused on the project site.
MM 5.2-5 Prior to the issuance of
each building permit
Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer
shall comply with all SCAQMD offset regulations and implementation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and Best Available Retrofit
Control Technology (BARCT) for any new or modified stationary source.
Copies of permits shall be given to the Planning and Building Department.
Planning and
Building Department
MM 5.2-6 Prior to the issuance of each building permit Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall implement, and demonstrate to the City, measures that are being taken
to reduce operation-related air quality impacts. These measures may include,
but are not limited to the following:
a. Improve thermal integrity of structures and reduced thermal load
through use of automated time clocks or occupant sensors.
b. Incorporate efficient heating and other appliances.
c. Incorporate energy conservation measures in site orientation and in
building design, such as appropriate passive solar design.
d. Use drought-resistant landscaping wherever feasible to reduce energy used in pumping and transporting water.
e. To the extent feasible, provide daycare opportunities for employees or participate in a joint development daycare center
f. Install facilities for electric vehicle recharging, unless it is
demonstrated that the technology for these facilities or availability of
the equipment current at the time makes this installation infeasible.
Planning and Building Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
31
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM 5.3-1 Prior to the issuance of a
demolition permit, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first
Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, grading permit, or building
permit, whichever occurs first, a survey for active raptor nests shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist and submitted to the Planning and Building Department 30 days prior to commencement of any demolition or
construction activities during the raptor nesting season (February 1 to June 30) and within 500 feet of a fan palm, juniper, or canary island pine. Should
an active nest be identified, restrictions defined by a qualified Biologist will
be placed on construction activities in the vicinity of any active nest observed until the nest is no longer active, as determined by a qualified Biologist.
These restrictions may include a 300- to 500-foot buffer zone designated
around a nest to allow construction to proceed while minimizing disturbance to the active nest. Once the nest is no longer active, construction can proceed
within the buffer zone.
Planning and
Building Department
MM 5.3-2 Prior to the issuance of a
demolition permit, grading permit, or building permit,
whichever occurs first
Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, grading permit, or building
permit, whichever occurs first, a letter detailing the proposed schedule for vegetation removal activities shall be submitted to the Planning and Building
Department, verifying that removal shall take place between August 1 and
February 28 to avoid the bird nesting season. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed. If this is not feasible, then a qualified Biologist
shall inspect any trees which would be impacted prior to demolition, grading or construction activities to ensure no nesting birds are present. If a nest is present, then appropriate minimization measures shall be developed by the
Biologist.
Planning and
Building Department
CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM 5.4-1 Prior to issuance of each
grading permit
Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the property owner/developer shall
submit a letter identifying the certified archaeologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented:
a. The archaeologist must be present at the pre-grading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting
Planning and
Building Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
32
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts
if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological
observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the
property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage.
b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will
be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution.
c. Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered
during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not
present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area.
d. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final
report will be submitted.
MM 5.4-2 Prior to issuance of each grading permit Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a letter identifying the certified paleontologist that has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented:
a. The paleontologist must be present at the pre-grading conference in
order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils if
potentially significant paleontological resources are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and found to be significant, the paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the
property owner/developer for exploration and/or salvage.
b. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will
be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution.
Planning and Building Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
33
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
c. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the
direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not
present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can
survey the area.
MM 5.4-3 Prior to approval of a final site plan for properties that
contain a structure over 45
years old
Prior to approval of a final site plan for properties that contain a structure over 45 years old, property owners/developers shall submit to the Planning
and Building Department, Planning Services Division, documentation to
verify the presence/absence of historic resources. On properties where resources are identified, such documentation shall provide a detailed
mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ
preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified specialist.
Planning and Building Department
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
MM 5.5-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division
for review and approval, detailed foundation design information for the
subject building(s), prepared by a civil engineer, based on recommendations by a geotechnical engineer.
Planning and Building Department
MM 5.5-2 Prior to issuance of each
foundation permit
Prior to issuance of each foundation permit, the property owner/developer
shall submit a report prepared by a geotechnical engineer to the Planning and
Building Department, Building Services Division for review and approval, which shall investigate the subject foundation excavations to determine if soft
layers are present immediately beneath the footing site and to ensure that
compressibility does not underlie the footing.
Planning and
Building Department
MM 5.5-3 Prior to issuance of each building permit Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Planning Department, Building Services Division for
review and approval showing that the proposed structure has been analyzed
for earthquake loading and designed according to the most recent seismic standards in the California Building Code adopted by the City of Anaheim.
Planning and Building Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
34
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
MM 5.5-4 Prior to the final building
and zoning inspection for a hotel/motel
Prior to the final building and zoning inspection for a hotel/motel, the
property owner/developer shall submit an earthquake emergency response plan for review and approval by the Fire Department. The plan shall require
posted notices in all hotel rooms on earthquake safety procedures and
incorporate ongoing earthquake training for hotel staff to the satisfaction of the Fire Department.
Fire Department
MM 5.5-5 Ongoing during grading
activities
Ongoing during grading activities, the property owner/developer shall
implement standard practices for all applicable codes and ordinances to
prevent erosion to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department, Building Services Division.
Planning and
Building Department
MM 5.5-6 Prior to issuance of
building or grading permits
Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the property owner/developer
shall submit to the Planning and Building Department, Building Services
Division geologic and geotechnical investigations in areas of potential seismic or geologic hazards and provide a note on plans that all grading
operations will be conducted in conformance with the recommendations
contained in the applicable geotechnical investigation.
Planning and
Building Department
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MM 5.7-3 Ongoing during remediation all remediation
activities of surface or
subsurface contamination not related to USTs
Ongoing during remediation all remediation activities of surface or subsurface contamination not related to USTs, conducted on behalf of the
property owner/developer, shall be overseen by the Orange County Health
Care Agency (OCHCA). Information on subsurface contamination from USTs shall be provided to the Public Utilities Department, Environmental
Services Division. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SARWQCB) with a copy to Planning & Building.
Note: Per a memo dated October 22, 2014 from the Public Utilities
Department, as of July 1, 2014, the Environmental Services Division of the Public Utilities Department is no longer responsible for overseeing the
cleanup of new UST cases, and the responsibility has been delegated to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). However,
Fire Department
Public Utilities
Department Planning & Building
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
35
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
the Anaheim Fire Department will still be responsible for overseeing the
removal of USTs. (amended February 26, 2015).
MM 5.7-6 Ongoing during project demolition and construction
Ongoing during project demolition and construction, in the event that hazardous waste, including asbestos, is discovered during site preparation or construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that the identified
hazardous waste and/or hazardous material are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control
Law (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5), and according to the
requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22.
Fire Department
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
MM 5.8-1 Prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit, whichever occurs
first
Prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall submit a Master Drainage and Runoff Management Plan (MDRMP) for review and approval by the Public
Works Department, Development Services Division and Orange County (OC) Public Works/OC Engineering. The Master Plan shall include, but not be
limited to, the following items:
a. Backbone storm drain layout and pipe size, including supporting hydrology and hydraulic calculations for storms up to and including
the 100-year storm; and,
b. A delineation of the improvements to be implemented for control of project-generated drainage and runoff.
Public Works Department
MM 5.8-2 Prior to issuance of a
grading permit for sites
that disturb more than one (1) acre of soil
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for sites that disturb more than one (1)
acre of soil, the property owner/developer shall obtain coverage under the
NPDES Statewide Industrial Stormwater Permit for General Construction Activities from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence of
attainment shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department,
Building Services Division.
Planning and
Building Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
36
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
MM 5.8-3 Ongoing during project
operations
Ongoing during project operations, the property owner/developer shall
provide for the following: cleaning of all paved areas not maintained by the City of Anaheim on a monthly basis, including, but not limited to, private
streets and parking lots. The use of water to clean streets, paved areas,
parking lots, and other areas and flushing the debris and sediment down the storm drains shall be prohibited.
Planning and
Building Department
MM 5.8-4 Prior to each final building
and zoning inspection
Prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the property
owner/developer shall submit a letter from a licensed landscape architect to
the City certifying that the landscape installation and irrigation systems have been installed as specified in the approved landscaping and irrigation plans.
Planning and
Building Department
MM 5.8-5 Prior to final building and
zoning inspection
Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer
shall install piping on-site with project water mains so that reclaimed water
may be used for landscape irrigation, if and when it becomes available.
Public Utilities
Department
MM 5.8-6 Prior to issuance of building permits Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall provide written evidence that all storm drain, sewer, and street improvement
plans shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Public Works Department
NOISE
5.10-1 Ongoing during construction, Ongoing during construction, the property owner/developer shall ensure that all internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers.
Planning and Building Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
37
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
5.10-2 Prior to approval of each
final site plan
Prior to approval of each final site plan, the property owner/developer shall
submit a noise study prepared by a certified acoustical engineer to the satisfaction of the Building Division Manager identifying whether noise
attenuation is required and defining the attenuation measures and specific
performance requirements, if warranted, to comply with the Uniform Building Code and Sound Pressure Level Ordinance. Ultimate noise
attenuation requirements, if any, shall depend on the final location of such
buildings and noise-sensitive uses inside and surrounding the buildings. Attenuation measures shall be implemented by the property owner/developer
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Planning and
Building Department
5.10-3 Prior to issuance of each
building permit
Prior to issuance of each building permit, for structures that are adjacent to
noise-sensitive areas such as residences, the property owner/developer shall ensure that all mechanical ventilation units are shown on plans and installed
in compliance with Sound Pressure Level Ordinance.
Planning and
Building Department
5.10-5 Prior to issuance of each
building permit
Prior to issuance of each building permit, a note shall be provided on building
plans indicating that during construction, the property owner/developer shall install and maintain specially designed construction barriers at the project
perimeter areas. The construction sound barriers shall be a minimum height
of 8 feet with a minimum surface weight of 1.25 pounds per square foot or a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25. The structure shall
be a continuous barrier. Gates and other entry doors shall be constructed with suitable mullions, astragals, seals, or other design techniques to minimize sound leakage when in the closed position. Access doors should be self
closing where feasible. Vision ports are permissible providing they are filled
with an acceptable solid vision product.
Planning and
Building Department
5.10-6 Ongoing during construction and project
operation
Ongoing during construction and project operation, pressure washing operations for purposes of building repair and maintenance due to graffiti or
other aesthetical considerations shall be limited to daytime hours of operation
between 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM.
Planning and Building Department
5.10-7 Ongoing during Ongoing during construction and project operation, sweeping operations in Planning and
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
38
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
construction and project
operation
the parking facilities and private on-site roadways shall be performed
utilizing sweeping/scrubbing equipment which operate at a level measured not greater than 60 dBA at the nearest adjacent property line.
Building Department
5.10-9 Prior to issuance of each building permit Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall present plans and calculations to the Planning Department, Building Division
to demonstrate that noise levels would be less than 65 dBA CNEL for outdoor use areas (including dining patios, pools, playgrounds, or outdoor gathering
areas). This requirement can be accomplished through shielding areas behind
buildings or the construction of a noise barrier.
Planning and Building Department
5.10-10 Prior to issuance of each building permit Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall present plans and calculations to the Planning and Building Department,
Building Division to demonstrate that noise levels from planned mechanical
ventilation equipment, loading docks, trash compactors, and other proposed on-site noise sources are designed to meet the City’s 60 dBA Sound Pressure
Levels standard at the property line, and not create a noise increase greater
than 5 dBA over existing ambient noise at the nearest noise sensitive receptor, whichever is more restrictive.
Planning and Building Department
5.10-12 Prior to issuance of each
building permit if pile
driving and blasting is anticipated during
construction
Prior to issuance of each building permit if pile driving and blasting is
anticipated during construction, a noise and vibration analysis must be
prepared and submitted to the Planning and Building Department, Building Division, to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related
to these activities.
Planning and
Building Department
PUBLIC SERVICES
5.12-1 Prior to the approval of
each Final Site Plan and issuance of each building
permit
Prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan and issuance of each building
permit, the property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Police Department for review and approval for safety, accessibility, crime
prevention, and security provisions during both the construction and operative
phases for the purpose of incorporating safety measures in the project design including the concept of crime prevention through environmental design (e.g.,
building design, circulation, site planning, and lighting of parking structures
Police Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
39
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
and parking areas).
5.12-2 Prior to the issuance of
each building permit for a parking structure
Prior to the issuance of each building permit for a parking structure, the
property owner/developer shall submit plans to the Police Department for review and approval indicating the provision of closed circuit television monitoring and recording or other substitute security measures as may be
approved by the Police Department. Said measures shall be implemented prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Police Department
5.12-3 Ongoing during project operation Ongoing during project operation, the property owner/developer shall provide private security on the premises to maintain adequate security for the entire
project subject to review and approval of the Police Department. The use of security patrols and electronic security devices (i.e., video monitors) should
be considered to reduce the potential for criminal activity in the area.
Police Department
5.12-4 Prior to issuance of each
building permit
Prior to issuance of each building permit, the project design shall include
parking lots and parking structures with controlled access points to limit ingress and egress if determined to be necessary by the Police Department,
and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Police Department.
Police Department
5.12-5 Prior to commencement of
structural framing on each parcel or lot
Prior to commencement of structural framing on each parcel or lot, onsite fire
hydrants shall be installed and charged by the property owner/developer as required and approved by the Fire Department.
Fire Department
5.12-6 Prior to issuance of each grading permit Prior to issuance of each grading permit, the property owner/developer shall submit an emergency fire access plan to the Fire Department for review and
approval to ensure that service to the site is in accordance with Fire Department service requirements.
Fire Department
5.12-7 Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be
implemented prior to the final building and zoning
inspection
Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior to the final building and zoning inspection, plans shall indicate that all buildings,
exclusive of parking structures, shall have sprinklers installed by the property owner/developer in accordance with the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said
sprinklers shall be installed prior to each final building and zoning inspection.
Fire Department
5.12-8 Prior to issuance of each Prior to issuance of each building permit, plans shall be submitted to ensure Fire Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
40
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
building permit that development is in accordance with the City of Anaheim Fire Department
Standards, including:
a. Overhead clearance shall not be less than 14 feet for the full width of
access roads.
b. Bridges and underground structures to be used for Fire Department access shall be designed to support Fire Department vehicles weighing
75,000 pounds.
c. All underground tunnels shall have sprinklers. Water supplies are required at all entrances. Standpipes shall also be provided when
determined to be necessary by the Fire Department.
d. Adequate off-site public fire hydrants contiguous to the Specific Plan area and onsite private fire hydrants shall be provided by the property
owner/developer. The precise number, types, and locations of the hydrants shall be determined during building permit review. Hydrants are to be a maximum of 400 feet apart.
e. A minimum residual water pressure of 20 psi shall remain in the water
system. Flow rates for public parking facilities shall be set at 1,000 to 1,500 gpm.
5.12-9 Prior to issuance of the
first building permit
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer
shall enter into an agreement recorded against the property with the City of
Anaheim to pay or cause to be paid their fair share of the funding to accommodate the following, which will serve the Anaheim Resort Specific
Plan area:
a. One additional fire truck company.
b. One additional paramedic company.
c. Modifications to existing fire stations to accommodate the additional fire units, additional manpower, equipment and facilities.
Fire Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
41
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
d. A vehicle equipped with specialty tools and equipment to enable the
Fire Department to provide heavy search and rescue response capability.
e. A medical triage vehicle/trailer, equipped with sufficient trauma
dressings, medical supplies, stretchers, etc., to handle 1,000 injured persons, and an appropriate storage facility.
The determination of the allocable share of costs attributable to the property
owner/developer shall be based on an apportionment of the costs of such equipment/facilities among property owners/developers in the Hotel Circle
Specific Plan Area, the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Area and the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area or the otherwise defined service area, as applicable, depending on the area served.
Note: To implement this mitigation measure, the City has adopted the Fire Protection Facilities and Paramedic Services Impact Fee Program. Compliance
with this Program by the property owner/developer (per Ordinance No. 5496
and Resolution No. 95R-73 dated May 16, 1995) shall satisfy the requirements of this Mitigation Measure, or the City may enter into alternative financing
arrangements.
5.12-10 Prior to each final building
and zoning inspection
Prior to each final building and zoning inspection, the property
owner/developer shall place emergency telephone service numbers in prominent locations as approved by the Fire Department.
Fire Department
5.12-11 Prior to issuance of each
building permit
Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall
submit a Construction Fire Protection Plan to the Fire Department for review
and approval detailing accessibility of emergency fire equipment, fire hydrant location, and any other construction features required by the Fire Marshal.
The property owner/developer shall be responsible for securing facilities acceptable to the Fire Department and hydrants shall be operational with required fire flow.
Fire Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
42
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
5.12-12 Prior to the approval of
each Final Site Plan and prior to the issuance of
each building permit
Prior to the approval of each Final Site Plan and prior to the issuance of each
building permit, plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department as being in conformance with the Uniform Fire Code.
Fire Department
5.12-13 Prior to the placement of
building materials on a building site
Prior to the placement of building materials on a building site, an all-weather
road shall be provided from the roadway system to and on the construction site and for fire hydrants at all times, as required by the Fire Department.
Such routes shall be paved or, subject to the approval of the Fire Department,
shall otherwise provide adequate emergency access. Every building constructed must be accessible to Fire Department apparatus. The width and
radius of the driving surface must meet the requirements of Section 10.204 of
the Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
Fire Department
5.12-14 Prior to approval of building plans Prior to approval of building plans, the property owner/developer shall provide written evidence to the satisfaction of the Fire Department that all
lockable pedestrian and/or vehicular access gates shall be equipped with
“knox box” devices as required and approved by the Fire Department.
Fire Department
5.12-15 Prior to approval of on-site water plans Prior to approval of on-site water plans, unless each commercial building is initially connected to separate fire services, an unsubordinated covenant
satisfactory to the City Attorney’s Office shall be recorded prohibiting any
individual sale of buildings until separate fire services are installed in the building(s) subject to the sale.
Fire Department
5.12-16 Prior to approval of water
improvement plans
Prior to approval of water improvement plans, the water supply system shall
be designed by the property owner/developer to provide sufficient fire flow
pressure and storage for the proposed land use and fire protection services in accordance with Fire Department requirements.
Fire Department
5.12-17 Prior to issuance of each
building permit
Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall
provide proof of compliance with Government Code Section 53080
(Schools).
Planning and
Building Department
5.12-19 Prior to the issuance of a Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall Planning and
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
43
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
building permit comply with the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 17.08.385, Public Library
Facilities Services Areas – Payment of Fees Required.
Building Department
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
5.14-2 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building
Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer shall pay the appropriate Traffic Signal Assessment Fees and Transportation Impact and Improvement Fees to the City of Anaheim in
amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit with credit given for City-authorized improvements provided by the property owner/developer. The property owner
shall also participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts, which have been established.
Public Works Department
5.14-3 Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map
or issuance of the first building permit, whichever
occurs first
Prior to approval of the first final subdivision map or issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall
irrevocably offer for dedication (with subordination of easements), including necessary construction easements, the ultimate arterial highway right(s)-of-
way adjacent to their property as shown in the Circulation Element of the
Anaheim General Plan.
Public Works Department
5.14-4 Prior to the final building and zoning inspection Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property owner shall join and financially participate in a clean fuel shuttle program such as the
Anaheim Resort Transit system, and shall participate in the Anaheim
Transportation Network in conjunction with the on-going operation of the project. The property owner shall also record a covenant on the property that
requires participation in these programs ongoing during project operation.
The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to recordation.
Public Works Department
5.14-5 Prior to the issuance of
grading permits
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the property owner/developer shall
provide to the City of Anaheim Public Works Department a plan to
coordinate rideshare services for construction employees with the Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN) for review and a approval and shall
implement ATN recommendations to the extent feasible.
Public Works
Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
44
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
5.14-6 Prior to the issuance of
each building permit for a hotel development that
exceeds 100 rooms per
gross acre within the Commercial Recreation
District within the
Convention Center Medium density category
Prior to the issuance of each building permit for a hotel development that
exceeds 100 rooms per gross acre within the Commercial Recreation (C-R) District (Development Area 1) within the Convention Center (CC) Medium
density category, the property owner shall record a covenant on the property
requiring that ongoing during project implementation, the property owner/developer shall implement TDM measures sufficient to reduce the
actual trip generation from the development to no more than the trips
assumed by the City’s traffic model. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office.
Public Works
Department
5.14-7 Ongoing during
construction
Ongoing during construction, if the Anaheim Police Department or the
Anaheim Traffic Management Center (TMC) personnel are required to
provide temporary traffic control services, the property owner/developer shall reimburse the City, on a fair-share basis, if applicable, for reasonable costs
associated with such services.
Police Department
Public Works Department
5.14-8 Prior to the final building
and zoning inspection, the property owner shall
record a covenant on the
property requiring that ongoing during project
implementation
Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property owner shall
record a covenant on the property requiring that ongoing during project implementation, the property owner/developer shall implement and
administer a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program for all employees. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office. Objectives of the TDM program shall be:
a. Increase ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes by guests.
b. Provide a menu of commute alternatives for employees to reduce
project-generated trips.
c. Conduct an annual commuter survey to ascertain trip generation, trip origin, and Average Vehicle Ridership.
Public Works
Department
5.14-9 Prior to the final building
and zoning inspection
Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property
owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public Works
Public Works
Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
45
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
Department for review and approval a menu of TDM program strategies and
elements for both existing and future employees’ commute options, and incentives for hotel patrons’ transportation options. These options may
include, but are not limited to, the list below. The property owner shall also
record a covenant on the property requiring that the approved TDM strategies and elements be implemented ongoing during project operation. The form of
the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney’s Office prior to
recordation.
a. On-site services. Provide, as feasible and permitted, on-site services
such as the food, retail, and other services.
b. Ridesharing. Develop a commuter listing of all employee members for the purpose of providing a “matching” of employees with other
employees who live in the same geographic areas and who could rideshare.
c. Vanpooling. Develop a commuter listing of all employees for the
purpose of matching numbers of employees who live in geographic
proximity to one another and could comprise a vanpool or participate in the existing vanpool programs.
d. Transit Pass. Promote Orange County Transportation Authority (including commuter rail) passes through financial assistance and on-site sales to encourage employees to use the various transit and bus
services from throughout the region.
e. Shuttle Service. Generate a commuter listing of all employees living in
proximity to the project, and offer a local shuttle program to encourage
employees to travel to work by means other than the automobile. When appropriate, event shuttle service shall also be made available for
guests.
f. Bicycling. Develop a Bicycling Program to offer a bicycling
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
46
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
alternative to employees. Secure bicycle racks, lockers, and showers
should be provided as part of this program. Maps of bicycle routes throughout the area should be provided to inform potential bicyclists of
these options.
g. Guaranteed Ride Home Program. Develop a program to provide employees who rideshare, or use transit or other means of commuting
to work, with a prearranged ride home in a taxi, rental car, shuttle, or
other vehicle, in the event of emergencies during the work shift.
h. Target Reduction of Longest Commute Trip. Promote an incentive
program for ridesharing and other alternative transportation modes to
put highest priority on reduction of longest employee commute trips.
i. Work Shifts. Stagger work shifts.
j. Compressed Work Week. Develop a “compressed work week” program, which provides for fewer work days but longer daily shifts as an option for employees.
k. Telecommuting. Explore the possibility of a “telecommuting” program
that would link some employees via electronic means (e.g., computer with modem).
l. Parking Management. Develop a parking management program that provides incentives to those who rideshare or use transit means other than single-occupant auto to travel to work.
m. Access. Provide preferential access to high occupancy vehicles and shuttles.
n. Financial Incentive for Ridesharing and/or Public Transit. Offer
employees financial incentives for ridesharing or using public transportation. Currently, federal law provides tax-free status for up to
$65 per month per employee contributions to employees who vanpool
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
47
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
or use public transit including commuter rail and/or express bus pools.
o. Financial Incentive for Bicycling. Offer employees financial incentives for bicycling to work.
p. Special “Premium” for the Participation and Promotion of Trip
Reduction. Offer ticket/passes to special events, vacations, etc. to employees who recruit other employees for vanpool, carpool, or other
trip reduction programs.
q. Incentive Programs. Design incentive programs for carpooling and other alternative transportation modes so as to put highest priority on
reduction of longest commute trips.
5.14-12 Prior to the issuance of the
first building permit
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the location of any proposed
gates across a driveway shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private
street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic on the
adjacent public streets. Installation of any gates shall conform to the current version of Engineering Standard Detail No. 475.
Public Works
Department
5.14-13 Prior to the issuance of
building permits
Prior to the issuance of building permits, plans shall show that all driveways
shall be constructed with a minimum fifteen (15) foot radius curb returns as
required by the City Engineer, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Public Works
Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
48
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
5.14-14 Prior to the issuance of
building permits or final map approval, whichever
occurs first
Prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever
occurs first, security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, completion guarantee, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to
the City Engineer shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory
completion of all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements, such
as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, water facilities, street grading and pavement,
sewer and drainage facilities and other appurtenant work, as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with the specifications on file in the office of
the City Engineer, as may be modified by the City Engineer. Installation of
said improvements shall occur prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Public Works
Department
5.14-19 Prior to the approval of the final subdivision map or
issuance of building
permits, whichever occurs first
Prior to the approval of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall pay the
identified fair-share responsibility as determined by the City as set forth in
MM 5.14-15. The City shall allocate the property owner/developer’s fair-share contribution to traffic mitigation programs that result in improved
traffic flow on the impacted mainline and ramp locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to Caltrans and the City.
Public Works Department
5.14-21 Prior to the first final building and zoning
Inspection
Prior to the first final building and zoning Inspection every property owner and/or lessee shall designate an on-site contact that will be responsible for
coordinating with the ATN and implementing all trip mitigation measures. The on-site coordinator shall be the one point of contact representing the project with the ATN. The TDM requirements shall be included in the lease
or other agreement with all of the project participants.
Public Works Department
WATER SUPPLY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
5.15-2 Prior to issuance of each
building permit
Prior to issuance of each building permit, all water supply planning for the
project will be closely coordinated with, and be subject to the review and final approval of, the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering
Division and Fire Department.
Public Utilities
Department
Fire Department
5.15-3 Prior to issuance of each Prior to issuance of each building permit, water pressure greater than 80 Planning and
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
49
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
building permit pounds per square inch (psi) shall be reduced to 80 psi or less by means of
pressure reducing valves installed at the property owner/developer’s service.
Building Department
5.15-4 Prior to the issuance of each building permit Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan which shall be prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect. The irrigation plan shall specify
methods for monitoring the irrigation system. The system shall ensure that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils, that the application
of fertilizers and pesticides do not exceed appropriate levels of frequencies,
and that surface runoff and overwatering is minimized. The landscaping and irrigation plans shall include water-conserving features such as low flow
irrigation heads, automatic irrigation scheduling equipment, flow sensing
controls, rain sensors, soil moisture sensors, and other water-conserving equipment. The landscaping and irrigation plans shall indicate that separate
irrigation lines for recycled water shall be constructed and recycled water will
be used when it becomes available. All irrigation systems shall be designed so that they will function properly with recycled water.
Planning and Building Department
5.15-5 Prior to approval of the
Final Site Plan and
building permits
Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan and building permits, plans shall
specifically show that the water meter and backflow equipment and any other
large water system equipment will be installed to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division, aboveground and behind
the building setback line in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys and in accordance with Ordinance No. 4156. Prior to the final building and zoning inspections, the water meter and backflow equipment and
any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction
of the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division, in accordance with the Final Site Plan and the building permit plans.
Public Utilities
Department
5.15-6 Prior to issuance of each
building permit, unless
records indicate previous payment
Prior to issuance of each building permit, unless records indicate previous
payment, the appropriate fees for Primary Mains, Secondary Mains and Fire
Protection Service shall be paid to the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division in accordance with Rule 15A, and Rule 20 of the Public
Public Utilities
Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
50
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
Utilities Department Water Rates, Rules and Regulations.
5.15-7 Prior to final building and
zoning inspections
Prior to final building and zoning inspections, a separate water meter shall be
installed for landscape water on all projects where the landscape area exceeds 2,500 square feet in accordance with Ordinance No. 6160.
Planning and
Building Department
5.15-9 Ongoing Ongoing, 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, staff shall recommend to City Council to trigger application of the
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.
Public Utilities Department
SEWER
5.16-1 Prior to approval of a final
subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever
occurs first
Prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or
building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall participate in the City’s Master Plan of Sewers and related Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to assist in mitigating existing and future
sanitary sewer system deficiencies as follows:
The property owner/developer shall submit a report for review and approval
of the City Engineer to assist in determining the following:
a. If the development/redevelopment (1) does not discharge into a sewer system that is currently deficient or will become deficient because of
that discharge and/or (2) does not increase flows or change points of
discharge, then the property owner’s/developer’s responsibility shall be limited to participation in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee)
Program.
b. If the development/redevelopment (1) discharges into a sewer system that is currently deficient or will become deficient because of that
discharge and/or (2) increases flows or changes points of discharge,
Public Works
Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
51
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
then the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee
mitigation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney of the impact prior to approval of a final subdivision map or
issuance of a grading or building permit whichever occurs first,
pursuant to the improvements identified in the South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study. The property owner/developer shall be
required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as recommended by the
South Central Area Sewer Deficiency Study, prior to acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final building and
zoning inspections for the building/structure, whichever comes first.
Additionally, the property owner/developer shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program, as determined by the City
Engineer, which may include fees, credits, reimbursements, or a combination thereof. As part of guaranteeing the mitigation of impacts for the sanitary sewer system, the property owner/developer shall
submit a sanitary sewer system improvement phasing plan for the
project to the City Engineer for review and approval which shall contain, at a minimum, (1) a layout of the complete system, (2) all
facility sizes, including support calculations, (3) construction phasing, and (4) construction estimates.
The study shall determine the impact of the project sewer flows for total
build out of the project and identify local deficiencies for each project component (i.e., each hotel).
ELECTRICITY
5.17-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/develop shall consult with the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department, Business and
Community Programs Division, in order to review energy efficient measures to incorporate into the project design. Prior to the final building and zoning inspection, the property owner developer shall implement these energy
efficient measures which may include the following:
Public Utilities Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
52
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
a. High-efficiency air-conditioning systems with EMS (computer) control
b. Variable air volume (VAV) distribution
c. Outside air (100%) economizer cycle
d. Staged compressors or variable speed drives to flow varying thermal
loads
e. Isolated HVAC zone control by floors/separable activity areas
f. Specification of premium-efficiency electric motors (i.e., compressor
motors, air-handling units, and fan-coil units)
g. Use of occupancy sensors in appropriate spaces
h. Use of compact fluorescent lamps
i. Use of cold cathode fluorescent lamps
j. Use of light emitting diode (LED) or equivalent energy-efficient
lighting for outdoor lighting
k. Use of Energy Star® exit lighting or exit signage.
l. Use of T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts where applications of standard
fluorescent fixtures are identified
m. Use of lighting power controllers in association with metal-halide or high-pressure sodium (high intensity discharge) lamps for outdoor
lighting and parking lots
n. Consideration of thermal energy storage air-conditioning for spaces or facilities that may require air-conditioning during summer, day-peak
periods.
o. For swimming pools and spas, incorporate solar heating, automatic
covers, and efficient pumps and motors, as feasible.
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
53
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
p. Consideration for participation in Advantage Services Programs
such as:
a. New construction design review, in which the City cost-shares
engineering for up to $10,000 for design of energy efficient
buildings and systems
b. New Construction – cash incentives ($300 to $400 per kW
reduction in load) for efficiency that exceeds Title 24 requirements
c. Green Building Program – offers accelerated plan approval, financial incentives, waived plan check fees and free technical
assistance.
5.17-2 Prior to final building and
zoning inspection
Prior to final building and zoning inspection, the property owner/developer
shall install an underground electrical service from the Public Utilities Distribution System. The Underground Service will be installed in
accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates, Regulations and Electrical
Specifications for Underground Systems. Electrical Service Fees and other applicable fees will be assessed in accordance with the Electric Rules, Rates,
Regulations and Electrical Specifications for Underground Systems.
Public Utilities
Department
5.17-3 Prior to issuance of each
building permit
Prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/developer shall
submit plans and calculations to the City of Anaheim Planning and Building Department, Building Division, to demonstrate that the energy efficiency of
each building will exceed the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings current at the time of application by at least 10 percent.
Planning and
Building Department
STORM WATER
5.18-1 Prior to approval of a final
subdivision map, or
issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever
occurs first
Prior to approval of a final subdivision map, or issuance of a grading or
building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall
participate in the City’s Master Plan of Storm Drains and related Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to assist in mitigating existing and
Public Works
Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
54
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
future storm drainage system deficiencies as follows:
The property owner/developer shall submit a report for review and approval by the City Engineer to assist with determining the following:
a. If the specific development/redevelopment does not increase or
redirect current or historic storm water quantities/flows, then the property owner/developer’s responsibility shall be limited to
participation in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program to
provide storm drainage facilities in 10- and 25-year storm frequencies and to protect properties/structures for a 100-year storm frequency.
b. If the specific development/redevelopment increases or redirects the
current or historic storm water quantity/flow, then the property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s office of the impact prior to approval of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, pursuant to the
improvements identified in the Master Plan of Drainage for the South
Central Area. The property owner/developer shall be required to install the storm drainage facilities as recommended by the Master Plan of
Drainage for the South Central Area to provide storm drainage facilities for 10- and 25-year storm frequencies and to protect properties/structures for a 100-year storm frequency prior to
acceptance for maintenance of public improvements by the City or final building and zoning inspection for the building/structure,
whichever occurs first. Additionally, the property owner/developer
shall participate in the Infrastructure Improvement (Fee) Program as determined by the City Engineer which could include fees, credits,
reimbursements, or a combination thereof. As part of guaranteeing the
mitigation of impacts on the storm drainage system, a storm drainage system improvement phasing plan for the project shall be submitted by
the property owner/developer to the City Engineer for review and
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
55
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
approval and shall contain, at a minimum, (1) a layout of the complete
system; (2) all facility sizes, including support calculations; (3) construction phasing; and, (4) construction estimates.
5.18-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City shall require that building plans indicate that new developments will minimize stormwater and urban
runoff into drainage facilities by incorporating design features such as detention basins, on-site water features, and other strategies.
Planning and Building Department
OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES
5.19-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be
implemented prior to final building and zoning Inspection
Prior to issuance of each building permit; to be implemented prior to final building and zoning Inspection, the property owner/developer shall submit
project plans to the Public Works Department for review and approval to ensure that the plans comply with AB 939, the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989, as administered by the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange and
City of Anaheim Integrated Waste Management Plans. Prior to final building and zoning inspection, implementation of said plan shall commence and shall
remain in full effect. Waste management mitigation measures that shall be
Public Works Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
56
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
taken to reduce solid waste generation include, but are not limited to:
a. Detailing the location and design of on-site recycling facilities.
b. Providing on-site recycling receptacles to encourage recycling.
c. Complying with all Federal, State and City regulation for hazardous
material disposal.
d. Participating in the City of Anaheim’s “Recycle Anaheim” program or
other substitute program as may be developed by the City.
In order to meet the requirements of the Solid Waste Reduction Act of 1989 (AB 939), the property owner/developer shall implement numerous solid
waste reduction programs, as required by the Public Works Department,
including, but not limited to:
a. Facilitating recycling by providing chutes or convenient locations for
sorting and recycling bins.
b. Facilitating cardboard recycling (especially in retail areas) by providing adequate space and centralized locations for collection and
storing.
c. Facilitating glass recycling (especially from restaurants) by providing adequate space for sorting and storing.
d. Providing trash compactors for non-recyclable materials whenever feasible to reduce the total volume of solid waste and the number of trips required for collection.
e. Prohibiting curbside pick-up.
5.19-2 Ongoing during project operation Ongoing during project operation, the following practices shall be implemented, as feasible, by the property owner/developer:
Public Works Department
PARK VUE INN DEV2013-00138, FSP2014-00003, VAR2014-04987
UPDATED AND MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 85C
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 313
57
Mitigation Measure Number Timing Measure Department Responsible for Monitoring Completion
a. Usage of recycled paper products for stationary, letterhead, and
packaging.
b. Recovery of materials such as aluminum and cardboard.
c. Collection of office paper for recycling.
d. Collection of polystyrene (foam) cups for recycling.
e. Collection of glass, plastics, kitchen grease, laser printer toner
cartridges, oil, batteries, and scrap metal for recycling or recovery.
5.19-3 Prior to issuance of
building permits
Prior to issuance of building permits, plans shall show that trash storage areas
shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the City of Anaheim Department of Public Works, Operations Division. On an ongoing
basis, trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in accordance with
approved plans on file with said Department.
Public Works
Department
5.19-4 Prior to issuance of each building permit, Prior to issuance of each building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall demonstrate that the plans include provisions for the installation of trash and
recycle receptacles near all benches and near high traffic areas such as plazas,
transit stops and retail and dining establishments.
Public Works Department
5.19-5 Prior to issuance of each grading and building
permit
Prior to issuance of each grading and building permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit to the Planning Director or Planning Services
Manager for approval a Construction Waste Management Plan that, at
a minimum, specifies that at least 75 percent of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris shall be recycled or salvaged and identifies the
materials to be diverted from disposal and whether the materials will be
sorted on site or co-mingled.
Planning and Building Department
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. 10
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2015
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 138A AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4075A LOCATION: 1557 and 1575 West Mable Street
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The property owner is Holt Family Trust and the applicant is Chad Jackson of Fairmont Private Schools.
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of:
(1) An amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 138 to permit a new preschool, and relocate existing K-8 students within the existing Fairmont Private School campus; and
(2) An amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4075 to modify a condition of
approval related to a time limitation of the private school use and to permit and retain the existing administrative school offices.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
the attached resolution determining that this request is categorically exempt from
further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1, Existing Facilities) and approving Conditional Use Permit 138A and Conditional Use Permit 4075A.
BACKGROUND: The Fairmont Private School campus consists of eight
contiguous parcels located on both sides of Mable Street and the north side of Broadway. The campus is developed with school classrooms, administrative offices, auditorium, gymnasium, sports field, cafeteria and storage and maintenance
facilities. The 1.3-acre property at 1557 West Mable Street is developed with offices
and classrooms. The 0.88-acre property at 1575 West Mable Street is developed
with a 14,775 square foot administrative office building. These properties are located in the Industrial (I) zone and are designated for Industrial land uses by the General Plan. Surrounding land uses include industrial uses to the north and east,
single family homes to the south, across Broadway, and a public school to the west,
across Loara Street.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 138A AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4075A DECEMBER 14, 2015 Page 2 of 5
Conditional Use Permit No. 138 was approved in 1961 to permit the establishment of a private
school at 1557 West Mable Street. This permit was amended in 1988 (Conditional Use Permit No. 2994) to permit an expansion of the private school with waivers of minimum structural setback and minimum number of parking spaces. Conditional Use Permit No. 4075 was
approved in 1999 to permit the conversion of an existing 14,775 square foot industrial building
into a private elementary and junior high school at 1575 West Mable Street with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces; this permit was approved for 20 years and will expire in 2019. Fairmont Private Schools maintain two other campuses in Anaheim and an additional
campus in the City of Santa Ana. The attached table (Attachment No. 5) provides the
entitlement history of all eight parcels on Mable Street and Broadway. The map below shows
the boundaries of the school campus and the location of the two properties where the two entitlements are being requested.
Location Map
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of the following entitlements:
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 138: The applicant requests to allow a preschool
facility at the 1557 West Mable Street campus. With the closure of Fairmont’s preschool facility
at 121 South Citron Street, the applicant proposes to establish a new preschool facility on Mable
Street and enroll 32 new preschool students at this location. The applicant proposes to utilize the first floor of an existing building located at the north side of the campus for preschool
classrooms. Based on State law, preschool students may only occupy the first floor. The two-
story building currently houses kindergarten (K) through 8th grade students. The K-8 students
would be relocated to existing classrooms at the southeast portion of the property in existing
Proposed Preschool Location
(1557 W. Mable St.)
Existing Administrative
Offices (1575 W. Mable St.)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 138A AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4075A DECEMBER 14, 2015 Page 3 of 5
classrooms. An existing playground and covered dining area would be enclosed with a new 3-
foot high fence; this fence would provide a separation between preschool students with the K-8 students. With the exception of the fence, no new construction is proposed as part of this application. Student pick-up and drop-off will continue to operate as previously-approved for
Fairmont Private School. Specifically, the preschool students will be pick-up and dropped-off
within a designated loading area on the north side Mable Street directly in front of the facility. The school is currently limited to a maximum of 695 students. School hours are 8:00 a.m. to
3:00 p.m. with students arriving as early as 7:00 a.m. and leaving as late as 5:45 p.m. due to
before and after-school programs. The campus office hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Fairmont Private School currently has 475 K-8 students on the Mable Street campus and, although they are permitted for up to 695 students, they do not anticipate the enrollment to exceed 540 students in the next several years, including the added preschool enrollment. The
applicant’s intent is to allow flexibility in the overall student body enrollment to accommodate
preschool through 8th grade students.
The site plan below shows the location of the proposed preschool in the existing classrooms, fenced playground, restrooms, and the new location of the K-8 classrooms.
Proposed Site Plan
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4075: The applicant also requests to modify a
condition of approval related to the time limitation of the private school use at 1575 West Mable
Street. The original entitlement permitted the conversion of an existing 14,775 square foot
Administrative
Offices
STUDENTS TO BE
RELOCATED TO THESE
CLASSROOMS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 138A AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4075A DECEMBER 14, 2015 Page 4 of 5
industrial building into a private elementary and junior high school. Subsequent amendments
eliminated the classrooms in the building, increased the warehouse area, and permitted administrative offices for the school. The applicant requests to delete a condition of approval which would terminate the use of the building for school purposes on March 1, 2019, or
concurrently with the lease of the property. This property was has been purchased by the school
subsequent to the condition of approval; therefore, no lease terms currently exist on the property. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Before the Planning Commission grants a conditional use permit or amends an existing conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all
of the following conditions exist:
1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is
authorized by this code, or is an unlisted use as defined in subsection .030
(Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority);
2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or
the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety;
4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the
traffic in the area; and
5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the
citizens of the City of Anaheim.
An amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 138 is required to allow the enrollment of preschool students at the 1557 West Mable Street facility and relocate the existing K-8 grade students to another building on the same property. An amendment to Conditional Use Permit
No. 4075 is also required to modify a condition of approval related to a time limitation for the
administrative offices at the 1575 West Mable Street facility.
Adjoining uses to the north and east include warehouses, light manufacturing, metal fabrication, and general building contractors. Uses to the west include office and warehousing for lighting
products and Loara Elementary School. Uses to the south include wholesale plumbing products,
tutoring services, light manufacturing, and wholesale beauty supplies. This school has been
operating at this location for many years without impacting adjacent properties. The property is well maintained and there are no pending Code Enforcement violations. The primary nature of the school will not change as a result of the new preschool facility or the continued use of the
administrative office building. No new construction is proposed except for a 3-foot high fence
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 138A AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4075A DECEMBER 14, 2015 Page 5 of 5
around the preschool yard area. The proposal to include an additional 32 preschool students to
the campus will not exceed the permitted 695 students on the overall campus. The preschool students will be housed on the first floor of an existing two-story building with an enclosed yard and eating area to separate them from other students and the surrounding light industrial uses.
Therefore, this request will not adversely affect adjoining land uses or growth and development
of the area. Overall, the proposal to include preschool students and eliminate the time limits and use of the administrative offices will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of Anaheim.
Environmental Impact Analysis: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine
that the effects of the Proposed Project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e., Class 1 – Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no
expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this determination, in that the proposal
includes the inclusion of preschool students at an existing campus and amendment of a condition
to allow administrative offices in an existing building. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 138 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 4075 to allow preschool students at the Fairmont Private School campus, and to modify a condition of approval related to a time limitation of the private school use, would not have an impact on adjacent properties. The primary nature of the school will not change
as a result of the requested modifications and the additional preschool students will not exceed the
permitted 695 students on the overall campus. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the
requested amendments. Prepared by, Submitted by,
Amy Stonich Jonathan E. Borrego Contract Planner Planning Services Manager Lilley Planning Group
Attachments:
1. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution
2. Letter of Operation 3. Site Plans
4. Site Photos
5. Entitlement History Original and Resolution No. 138 and 4075
IINDUSTRIAL
IINDUSTRIAL IINDUSTRIAL IINDUSTRIAL
IINDUSTRIAL
IINDUSTRIAL
IINDUSTRIALIINDUSTRIALIINDUSTRIAL
C-GRETAIL
I
I N D U S T R I A L
T S F R
T
L O A R A
E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L
R M -4
C H A U M O N T V I L L A S
A P A R T M E N T S
6 0 D U
RS-3SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-3SINGLE FAMILYRESIDENCE
RS-3SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-3SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
25011406
25011306
25011401 25012409
25012410
2501130725011308
03605104
S S O N Y A S T
S G I L M A R S T
S L O A R A S T
W ELM AVE
W EMBASSY ST
W MABLE ST
W BROADWAY
W. LINCOLN AVE
W. BROADWAY
W. BALL RD
S . E U C L I D S T
N . E U C L I D S T
S . W A L N U T S T
N
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
S. M
AN
C
H
E
STER AVE
N . L O A R A S T
S
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
S
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
1557 & 1575 West Mable Street
DEV No. 2015-00109
Subject Property APN: 250-114-01250-124-10250-113-06036-051-04250-113-08250-114-06250-124-09250-113-07
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
S S O N Y A S T
S G I L M A R S T
S L O A R A S T
W ELM AVE
W EMBASSY ST
W MABLE ST
W BROADWAY
W. LINCOLN AVE
W. BROADWAY
W. BALL RD
S . E U C L I D S T
N . E U C L I D S T
S . W A L N U T S T
N
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
S. M
AN
C
H
E
STER AVE
N . L O A R A S T
S
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
S
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D
1557 & 1575 West Mable Street
DEV No. 2015-00109
Subject Property APN: 250-114-01250-124-10250-113-06036-051-04250-113-08250-114-06250-124-09250-113-07
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 138 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4075 AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2015-00109) (1557-1575 WEST MABLE STREET)
WHEREAS, on July 18, 1961, and subject to certain conditions of approval, the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim (hereinafter referred to as ("Planning Commission"), by its
Resolution No. 7, did approve Conditional Use Permit No. 138 (the "Original CUP 138") to permit the establishment of a private school, located at 1557 West Mable Street in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California (the “1557 Property”), as generally depicted on
the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, on April 11,1988, and subject to certain conditions of approval, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC88-99, approved an amendment to Original CUP 138 (designated as “Conditional Use Permit No. 2994”) to permit an expansion to the private school
with waivers of minimum structural setback and minimum number of parking spaces (herein
referred to as the "1988 Amendment"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did receive a verified petition to further amend Original CUP 138 (designated as "Conditional Use Permit No. 138A") to permit a new preschool
and relocate the existing Kindergarten through eighth grade students within the existing
Fairmont Private School campus located at 1557 West Mable Street; and
WHEREAS, on August 10, 1999, and subject to certain conditions of approval, the City Council, by its Resolution No. 99R-175, did approve Conditional Use Permit No. 4075 (the
"Original CUP 4075") to permit the conversion of an existing 14,775 square foot industrial
building into a private elementary and junior high school with waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces for a period of 20 years, to expire on March 1, 2019, for the property at 1575 West Mable Street in the City of Anaheim (the “1575 Property”), which is also generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did receive a verified petition to amend Original
CUP 4075 (designated as "Conditional Use Permit No. 4075A”) to modify a condition of approval related to a time limitation of the private school use and to permit and retain the existing administrative school offices located at the 1575 Property; and
WHEREAS, the 1557 Property and the 1575 Property are collectively referred to herein
as the "Properties" and, together, consist of approximately 6.15-acres and includes eight parcels (Assessor's Parcels Nos. 036-051-04, 250-113-06, 250-113-07, 250-113-08, 250-114-01, 250-114-06, 250-124-09 and 250-124-10). The Properties are currently developed with school
classrooms, administrative offices, auditorium, gymnasium, cafeteria and storage and
maintenance facilities. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Properties for “I” Industrial
land uses. The Property is located in the “I” Industrial Zone and is subject to the zoning and
- 2 - PC2015-***
development standards of Chapter 18.10 of the Zoning Code (the "Code"). "Educational Institutions" are permitted uses in the Industrial Zone, subject to a conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, this Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on December 14, 2015, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having
been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 138A and Conditional Use Permit No. 4075A and to investigate and make
findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (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, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the effects of the
Proposed Project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e., Class 1 –
Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 of the
CEQA Guidelines, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant effect on the environment
and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing with respect to the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 138A and Conditional
Use Permit No. 4075A, does find and determine the following:
1. An amendment to the conditional use permit is required to allow modification to conditions which did not previously allow the enrollment of preschool students because it limited
the enrollment to K-8th grade students. A conditional use permit is also required for amendment
to conditions of approval to modify the condition (No. 17 of PC2000-76) which terminates the
use of the building on March 1, 2019, or concurrently with the lease of the property. 2. The adjoining uses to the north and east are industrial uses including
warehousing, light manufacturing and metal fabrication, and general building contractors. Uses
to the west include office and warehousing for lighting products and Loara Elementary school.
Uses to the south include wholesale plumbing products, tutoring services, light manufacturing, and wholesale beauty supplies. The school has been in existence since 1961. The school maintains safe enclosures and separation from the surrounding uses. The proposal to include 32
preschool students is not anticipated to expand the enrollment to more than 540 students over the
next several years. The preschool students will be housed on the first floor of an existing two-
story building with an enclosed yard and eating area to separate them from other students. Therefore, it will not adversely affect adjoining land uses or growth and development of the area.
Further, since the proposal is to utilize the existing facilities, the size and shape of the site
proposed is adequate to allow full development of the proposed use in a safe manner.
- 3 - PC2015-***
3. The proposal includes the modification of the enrollment to include preschool students and to remove the time limits for the administrative building. No new construction is proposed except for a new 3-foot high fence. The size and shape of the site proposed for the use
has been utilized since 1961 and is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use,
in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety.
4. The proposal will maintain fewer students than the allowable student body enrollment and is therefore, in conformance with the existing parking waiver and traffic analysis
that was previously prepared for the school, no additional traffic is anticipated based on this
proposal and therefore will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed
to carry traffic in the area. 5. Overall, the proposal to include preschool students and eliminate the time limits
on the administrative offices will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of
Anaheim.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 138A, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which
are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property under
Conditional Use Permit No. 138A in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of the City of Anaheim. The conditions of approval attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B hereby amend the conditions of approval which were the subject of Original CUP 138.
Except as specifically amended by the conditions of approval attached to this Resolution as
Exhibit B, the conditions of approval of Original CUP 138 shall remain in full force and effect.
To the extent that there is any conflict or inconsistency between the conditions of approval
attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B and the conditions of approval of Original CUP 138, the conditions of approval attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B shall control and govern. Except
as expressly modified in this Resolution, the conditions of approval and entitlements of Original
CUP 138 shall remain in full force and effect.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, with respect to Conditional Use Permit No. 138A, extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance
with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be
amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing
is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition, (ii) the modification
complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
- 4 - PC2015-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that condition No. 17 of Original CUP 4075, as set forth in City Council Resolution No. 99R-175, is hereby deleted in its entirety. Except as expressly modified in this Resolution, the conditions of approval and entitlements of Original
CUP 4075 shall remain in full force and effect.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any amendment, modification or revocation of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part
thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and
void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval
of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to
compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or
requirement.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 2015. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and
may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2015-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on December 14, 2015 by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of December, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 6 - PC2015-***
- 7 - PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 138A AND 4075A
(DEV2015-00109)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
1. The school shall be operated in accordance with the Letter of
Request submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the operation, as described in that document, shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial
conformance with the Letter of Request and to ensure compatibility
with the surrounding uses.
Planning and Building
Department
2. No required parking area shall be fenced-off or otherwise enclosed
for outdoor storage uses.
Planning and Building
Department,
Code Enforcement Division
3. Enrollment shall not exceed six hundred ninety five (695) students consisting of preschool through eighth grade. Planning and Building Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
4. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the business premises or on any
adjacent area under the control of the business owner shall be
removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied or
discovered by the business owner.
Planning and Building
Department,
Code Enforcement
Division
GENERAL CONDITIONS
5. All leases and subleases relating to all or any part of the subject
Property shall expressly reference and be subject to all of the
operational conditions of this conditional use permit.
Planning and Building
Department,
Code Enforcement Division
- 8 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
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 Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts
or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to
determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition
attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or
litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other
costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection
with such proceeding.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
7. The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the
processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the
issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all
charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or
may result in the revocation of the approval of this application.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services Division
8. The subject Property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by
the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department, and as conditioned herein.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services Division
Jf:AIRMONT
private schools Inspiring minds.Empowering dreams:"
11-16-2015
Chad Jackson
Fairmont Private Schools
1575 W.MableSt.
Anaheim CA 92802
Senior Planner/City of Anaheim
200S.Anaheim Blvd Suite 162
Anaheim CA 92805
Purpose ofthis Application
Fairmont Private Schools is requesting an amendment to the current CUP 3596 for the purpose of
consolidating32 preschool students from our CitronStreet Campusto our Mable Street Campus. The
current approved use allows for upto 695 K-8 students withassociated staff. Itwould be the desire of
Fairmont to have the flexibility to grow or shrink the preschool and other grades on the campus as the
market dictates within the existing CUP approved maximum student count of 695 and associated staff
count.
Location and Existing Use
The proposed use is located in existing classroom buildingson the 1557 W. Mable St. Fairmont Private
SchoolsCampus. Thiscampus iscomposed ofseveral buildings including administrative offices,
classrooms,library,auditorium,gym,cafeteria,restrooms,storage and maintenance.
Operations
The preschoolers would use existingclassrooms 13and 14 located on the North side of W. Mable St. A
new fenced playground will be located adjacent to the preschool classrooms.No other physical
improvements are planned. Restroom facilities are adjacent to the classrooms and will be closed to
other students when in use by preschoolers as per social services requirements.Preschool facilities will
be fullycontained on the North side of Mable St. and students will never need to cross Mable to the
South side of the street.Two (2)teachers and two aids will be added,however students and staff
numbers will be within the already approved maximum allowed by the existing CUP.The preschool
hours of operation will be 7 AM to 6 PM,Monday through Friday. Drop off willbe between 7:45 AM and
8:15 PM.Pick up will be between 3 PMand 3:30 PM.Pick up and drop off willbe from the W. Mable St.
main entrance.
BUSINESS OFFICE
Six campus locations in Anaheim.
Anaheim Hills and North Tustin.
1575 W.Mable Street I Anaheim.CA 92802
T 714.765.6300 I F 714.234.2794
www.fairmontschools.com
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
Other Permits
Fairmontwill separately applyfor and complywithcountyand state permits and requirements
associated with this use.
If you needadditional information please contactChad Jackson at ciackson@fairmontschools.com or
714 234-2716.
Regards,
Chad/Jackson
Director ofOperations
Fairmont Private Schools
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 11
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2015
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00499
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00276 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05780 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17846 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17992
LOCATION: 1110-1116 North Anaheim Boulevard and 115-125 West La Palma Avenue.
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Ed Galigher representing
Integral Communities and the owners are Jim Liberio representing J&JL LLC, Tom
Lamb representing 1110 Anaheim LLC, Chris Granger representing Wheel Estate Partners LLC, and the City of Anaheim.
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of the following applications:
1) A General Plan Amendment to amend the land use designation of a portion of the property from Open Space to Mixed Use and to amend
the General Plan Circulation Element to modify traffic circulation
exhibits;
2) A Reclassification, or rezoning, of the property to establish the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone;
3) A Conditional Use Permit to allow a mixed-use development with
modified development standards;
4) A Tentative Tract Map to create a 152-unit residential subdivision
and a Tentative Tract Map to create a 10-unit residential subdivision
with ground floor commercial space. Both Tentative Tract Maps are
for condominium purposes.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolutions, determining that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the
appropriate environmental documentation for this request along with Mitigation
Monitoring Plan No. 325, and recommending that the City Council approve General
Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499, Reclassification No. 2015-00276, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780, and Tentative Tract Map Nos. 17846 and 17992.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00499, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00276,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05780, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 17846 AND 17992
December 14, 2015 Page 2 of 10
BACKGROUND: This 7-acre site is located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and
La Palma Avenue and is developed with six industrial buildings that total 67,054 square feet.
Existing businesses on the site include a shipping company, a food truck company, an automotive
shop/garage, and a multi-tenant retail/commercial/light industrial use. The project site also contains one acre of public right-of-way which is owned by the City of Anaheim as the Successor
to the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency. This property includes parking and landscaped lawn
area, a westbound right turn lane at the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard, and a triangular traffic
island. The site is in the “CG” General Commercial and “I” Industrial zones and is designated for
Mixed Use and Open Space land uses by the General Plan. Surrounding land uses include a towing storage yard to the north, a trucking company and landscaping contractor to the east, a
retail store and La Palma Park to the west across Anaheim Boulevard, and auto repair businesses
and single-family residences to the south across La Palma Avenue.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct a mixed-use project consisting of 162 single-family attached units and 922 square feet of commercial space. The residential buildings would be 3-stories in height and include 104 townhome units, 54 duplex units, and four corner flats.
The residences would range in size from 1,450 to 2,542 square feet and include two or three-car
garages and surface parking. A total of 446 parking spaces are required for this project and 447
spaces are proposed (333 spaces in garages, 114 uncovered surface spaces). The buildings are proposed to be 40 feet in height with a 50-foot height for the four units on the corner of La Palma Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard. As depicted in the renderings, below, the units are designed
with Traditional, Colonial, and Cape Cod architectural styles. The project would also provide a
common recreational area consisting of a 484 square foot recreation room and swimming pool.
A detailed development summary is included as Attachment 1 to this report.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00499, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00276, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05780, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 17846 AND 17992
December 14, 2015 Page 3 of 10
The commercial space is proposed on the ground floor at the corner of Anaheim Boulevard and
La Palma Avenue and is anticipated to occupied by a coffee shop or deli/bakery use. Residential units are proposed above the commercial use.
The project is proposed to be developed in two phases. The first phase would consist of the
majority of the development and include 152 residential units and the pool and recreation center.
The second phase would consist of 10 units and the commercial space at the corner of Anaheim Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. Access to the development would be provided by two driveways; one on La Palma Avenue at the east end of the property and one on Anaheim
Boulevard at the north end of the property.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00499, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00276, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05780, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 17846 AND 17992
December 14, 2015 Page 4 of 10
ANALYSIS: Following is staff’s analysis and recommendation for each requested action:
General Plan Amendment: The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan is the guide for the
City’s future development. It designates the distribution and location of specific land uses and
addresses the permitted densities for each land use designation. The applicant is requesting a
General Plan Amendment to redesignate the 0.21-acre City-owned property at the corner of Anaheim Boulevard and La Palma Avenue from Open Space to Mixed Use land uses. The General Plan Amendment is only needed to redesignate this former Redevelopment Agency
owned parcel and the proposed abandoned right-of-way as the remainder of the site is currently
designated for Mixed Use land uses. The balance of the site is presently designated for Mixed
Use development and the requested General Plan Amendment would achieve a consistent designation for the entire project site. An amendment is also proposed to the Circulation Element to modify maps to remove the diagonal right turn road connector from westbound La
Palma Avenue to northbound Anaheim Boulevard. This segment was deleted from the Master
Plan of Arterial Highways in 1992; however, it was inadvertently included in the General Plan
Update in 2004. City staff identified this map error in the process of reviewing of this
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00499, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00276, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05780, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 17846 AND 17992
December 14, 2015 Page 5 of 10
development proposal, and this amendment will correct the circulation map by removing this
road segment in conjunction with this application.
Before the Planning Commission may approve a General Plan Amendment, it must make a
finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
1) The proposed amendment maintains the internal consistency of the General Plan;
2) The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City;
3) The proposed amendment would maintain the balance of land uses within the City; and
4) If the amendment is to the General Plan Land Use Map, the subject property is physically
suitable to accommodate the proposed modification, including but not limited to, access,
physical constraints, topography, provision of utilities, and compatibility with surrounding land uses.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan also provides the following goals which would be
supported by the development of this project:
o Goal 1.1: Preserve and enhance the quality and character of Anaheim’s mosaic of
unique neighborhoods.
o Goal 2.1: Continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the
City’s diverse housing needs.
o Goal 3.1: Pursue land uses along major corridors that enhance the City’s image and
stimulate appropriate development at strategic locations.
o Goal 3.2: Maximize development opportunities along transportation routes.
o Goal 4.1: Promote development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to
surrounding land uses.
o Goal 6.1: Enhance the quality of life and economic vitality in Anaheim through strategic infill development and revitalization of existing development.
Areas designated as Mixed-Use are designed to function differently from the typical patterns of
individual, segregated uses. Uses and activities are designed together in an integrated fashion to
create an urban environment that serves as the center of activity for the surrounding area. The density of the proposed project is 23 units to the acre and the Mixed Use designation permits up
to 100 units to the acre. This designation provides opportunities for an integrated mix of
residential and retail in a pedestrian-friendly environment. Continuous commercial street
frontage on the first and, perhaps, second floors, supported by residential and/or office uses
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00499, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00276, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05780, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 17846 AND 17992
December 14, 2015 Page 6 of 10
above, is the typical pattern of vertically mixed land use. This proposal includes a small amount
of commercial space located at the corner of Anaheim Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. This commercial use would complement the new residences as well as the growing number of
pedestrians visiting the dog park across the street at La Palma Park. The proposed amendment to
the General Plan supports several General Plan policies intended to provide a variety of quality
housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs; therefore, staff recommends
approval of the General Plan Amendment.
Reclassification: The project site is located in the “CG” General Commercial and “I” Industrial
zones. A reclassification, or rezoning, to establish the “MU (Mixed-Use Overlay) zone to the
property’s underlying zoning is requested in order to develop attached single-family homes and a
commercial use. The intent of the MU Overlay Zone is to produce healthy, safe and attractive neighborhoods within the City, consistent with the policy direction in the Anaheim General
Plan. The proposed zoning designation would be compatible with the surrounding light
industrial uses and provide an appropriate transition from the nearby single-family detached
residences to the south across La Palma Avenue, as well as implement the property’s existing
and proposed Mixed Use land use designation; therefore, staff recommends approval of the rezoning request.
Conditional Use Permit: Because of the unique and dynamic nature of mixed-use developments,
the Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit for all mixed-use projects. The Code also
provides for the modification of development standards with a conditional use permit in the MU Overlay zone. The applicant is requesting modifications from the MU Overlay zone including
setbacks, location of ground floor units, minimum floor area for non-residential uses, and
minimum density. Before the Planning Commission may approve the conditional use permit, it
must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions
exist:
1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this code;
2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety;
4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will
not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00499, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00276, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05780, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 17846 AND 17992
December 14, 2015 Page 7 of 10
In order to encourage an active street life and promote walkability, ground floor uses facing the
street are required to be used for commercial uses under the MU Overlay Zone; however, this requirement may be modified by conditional use permit. The applicant wishes to modify this
standard by proposing residential uses along La Palma Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard with a
commercial use located only at the corner of these two streets. The ground floor residential units
will be above the street grade and include low walls for enclosed patios. The grade difference
and patio separation will provide for an alternative entrance and exit to the residence other than the garage and will serve to provide pedestrian activity to the adjacent park and nearby
commercial and retail on Anaheim Boulevard.
The minimum density for mixed-use project is 36 dwelling units per acre. The Code also allows
a decrease in density subject to a conditional use permit. This project is proposed at 23 dwelling units to the acre. Staff believes that this density is appropriate as it provides a compatible
transition from the low density single-family residential properties to the south and the adjacent
industrial properties to the north and east. Additionally, this property is not located in a
pedestrian-oriented downtown area and there is not a broad mix of uses near this property to
stimulate high density development.
The minimum building setbacks for mixed-use projects may be modified in connection with a
conditional use permit when it is determined that the modifications promote increased pedestrian
activity, provide for a unified street frontage, ensure privacy and light for residential uses,
provide for public spaces, and promote compatibility with existing development. The applicant is requesting to modify interior setbacks along the north and east property lines, street setbacks
adjacent to La Palma Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard, and minimum setbacks between
buildings. The project would be developed with the following setback ranges:
Setback Area Proposed Setbacks Required Setbacks*
Anaheim Blvd./
La Palma Ave.
0 – 20 ft. 15 ft. in the C-G zone
50 ft. in the I zone
Interior property line to the north 5 - 48 ft. None
Interior property line to the east 10 - 13 ft. None
Between buildings 40 ft. 10 - 20 ft.
* The underlying “General Commercial” and “Industrial” zone setback requirements are
applied for all developments in the MU Overlay zone.
The intent of the setback requirements is to ensure that adequate separation and landscaping is
provided between adjacent uses and structures. The Mixed-Use zone refers back to the
underlying General Commercial and Industrial zones for setback requirements. Staff believes
that the request for a deviation in the street setbacks will bring the residences closer to the public
streets further encouraging pedestrian activity to the local park and commercial uses, similar to the recent residential projects on South Anaheim Boulevard. Staff believes this project would be
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00499, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00276, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05780, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 17846 AND 17992
December 14, 2015 Page 8 of 10
compatible with the adjacent light industrial uses because they are less intense uses, such as a
storage yard and landscaping contractor business, and are not noise/sound/odor generating uses that typically would be disruptive to adjacent residences.
The setbacks required between the buildings are intended to ensure privacy and light for
residential uses, provide for public spaces, and promote compatibility with existing development.
The applicant has designed the community with an east/west paseo for pedestrians and provided functional recreation spaces in between the buildings. Typically areas between buildings of this
type include walkways and minimal landscape that serves aesthetic purposes only. The interior
corridors in this project include outdoor lounge areas, fire pits, enhanced landscaping and some
of the second floor units have balconies that extend over these areas. These enhancements
increase the viability of the areas and promote active areas where passive uses typically occur. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit and
setback modification request.
Tentative Tract Map: Before the Planning Commission may approve the tentative tract maps, it
must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
1) That the proposed subdivision of the Property, including its design and improvements, is
consistent with the General Plan of the City of Anaheim, and more particularly with the
"Mixed Use" land use designation proposed as part of General Plan Amendment No.
2015-00499, now pending.
2) That the proposed subdivision of the Property, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map Nos. 17846 and 17992, including their design and improvements, is consistent with
the zoning and development standards of the "MU" Mixed Use Overlay Zone proposed
as Reclassification No. 2015-00276, and the regulations contained in Chapter 18.32
Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone of the Code.
3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed project.
4) That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map Nos.
17846 and 17992, 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.
5) That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map Nos. 17846 and 17992, or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health
problems.
6) That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map Nos.
17846 and 17992, 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.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00499, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00276, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05780, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 17846 AND 17992
December 14, 2015 Page 9 of 10
The project includes two tentative tract maps to accommodate two project phases. Tentative
Tract Map No. 17846 is for 152 condominium units and Tentative Tract Map No. 17992 is for 10 condominium units and the commercial unit. The smaller of the maps includes 0.42 acres
located at the corner of Anaheim Boulevard and La Palma Avenue, and the larger map
encompasses the remainder of the property. The purpose for the two maps is because a
portion of the proposed project area was previously owned by the City’s former
Redevelopment Agency and, following the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency, is now owned by the City of Anaheim, as the Successor Agency to the Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency. This portion is at the corner of Anaheim Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. The State
Department of Finance ("DOF") must first approve the Successor Agency's Long Range
Property Management Plan ("LRPMP") before the Successor Agency can convey any of its
real property to either the City or to any private party. This restriction will be somewhat relaxed beginning January 1, 2016 although DOF approval would still be required absent an
approved LRPMP. Staff of the Successor Agency cannot estimate when the DOF might
approve the Successor Agency's LRPMP or approve any other particular transfer after January
1, 2016. Because of the uncertainty involving timing of DOF's approvals, the applicant
proposes two project phases, under two separate tract maps, to enable them to move forward with the first development phase of the project. This design includes creating a separate map
of the Successor Agency property, which contains the 10 condominium units and the
commercial area. This design will allow the applicant to move forward with the grading and
construction of the first phase and proceed with the second phase after the DOF approves the
LRPMP. Without separating this area from the project, the applicant could wait several months or longer to begin construction activities on phase two. Conditions of approval have
been included in each of the resolutions for the tentative tract maps that require the applicant to
enter into an agreement with the Successor Agency that will allow the applicant access to the
Successor Agency parcels. A condition is also included that will allow the City to exercise an
option that will require the applicant to purchase the Successor Agency parcels at fair market value upon availability from the DOF. If the Successor Agency is unable to convey the
property to the City, the phase one portion of the project is designed to be successful and stand
alone as a 152-unit project.
The proposed density of 23 dwelling units per acre is permitted under the Mixed Use land use
designation which allows up to 100 dwelling units per acre. The tract map complies with all applicable regulations and is consistent with the density allowed under the proposed General
Plan designation. In addition, the project is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and will not conflict with easements acquired by the public. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of both tentative tract map requests.
Environmental Impact Analysis: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project and to identify
necessary mitigation. The IS/MND was posted at the County Clerk and circulated to public
agencies and interested parties on November 19, 2015, for a 20-day comment period. No
comment letters were received in response to this circulation. Mitigation measures have been identified in the IS/MND and are included in the draft resolutions and Mitigation Monitoring
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00499, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00276, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05780, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 17846 AND 17992
December 14, 2015 Page 10 of 10
Program No. 325 attached to this report. With implementation of these measures, project
impacts will be reduced to a level considered less than significant and the IS/MND concluded that there are no remaining potentially significant adverse impacts related to the project.
CONCLUSION: Staff has carefully considered and reviewed this proposal and believes the
proposed project is designed in a manner that will provide a quality living environment for its
future residents and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. In addition, the proposed project meets the goal to continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities to address
the City’s diverse housing needs. Staff recommends approval of the proposed request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
G. Scott Koehm Jonathan E. Borrego
Senior Planner Planning Services Manager
Attachments: 1. Development Summary
2. Draft General Plan Amendment Resolution
3. Draft Reclassification Resolution
4. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution 5. Draft Tentative Tract Map No. 17846 Resolution
6. Draft Tentative Tract Map No. 17992 Resolution
7. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Resolution
8. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is available at:
http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/10024 9. Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 325
10. Applicant’s Letter of Operation
11. Site Photographs
12. Complete Plan Set
C-GRETAIL
IINDUSTRIAL IVACANT
IINDUSTRIAL
C-GINDUSTRIAL
IINDUSTRIAL
R M -4SFRRM-42PLE X
R S -3DUPLE X
R
S
-
3
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
TLA PALMA PARK& STADIUM
C -GRETA I L
C -GRETA I L
C -GMEDIC A L
O F F I C E
C -GAUT O
R E P A I R /
S E R V I C E
C -GRETA I L
R M -3RETA I L
R M -3
D U P L E X C -GAUT O
R E P A I R /
S E R V I C E
C -GSING L E
F A M I L Y
R E S I D E N C E
R M -3OFFIC E S
R M -3
M E D O F F .
R M -3
A P T S 9 D U
R M -3
A P T S 5 D U
IINDUSTRIAL
C-G RETAILRM-4RETAIL
C-G RETAIL
C-GCOLUMBUS CLUB OF ANAHEIM
T TRIPLEX
C-G RETAIL
C-GRETAIL
N
C
L
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
N
Z
E
Y
N
S
T
N
L
E
M
O
N
S
T
N LA PALMA PARK WAY
E LA PALMA AVEW LA PALMA AVE N
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
N A N A H E I M B L V D
N A N A H E I M B L V D
N
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
W. LA PALMA AVE E. LA PALMA AVE N . A C A C I A S T
E. LIN COLN AV E
N
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D1110-1116 North Anaheim Boulevard &115-125 West La Palma Avenue
DEV No. 2014-00095
Subject Property
APN: 267-151-02267-152-07267-151-11267-152-04267-151-09267-151-08267-151-06267-151-01267-151-10267-152-05267-152-06
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
N
C
L
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
N
Z
E
Y
N
S
T
N
L
E
M
O
N
S
T
N LA PALMA PARK WAY
E LA PALMA AVEW LA PALMA AVE N
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
N A N A H E I M B L V D
N A N A H E I M B L V D
N
.
E
A
S
T
S
T
W. LA PALMA AVE E. LA PALMA AVE N . A C A C I A S T
E. LIN COLN AV E
N
.
H
A
R
B
O
R
B
L
V
D1110-1116 North Anaheim Boulevard &115-125 West La Palma Avenue
DEV No. 2014-00095
Subject Property
APN: 267-151-02267-152-07267-151-11267-152-04267-151-09267-151-08267-151-06267-151-01267-151-10267-152-05267-152-06
°0 50 100
Feet
Aerial Photo:May 2014
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
Development Standard Proposed Project MU Overlay Standards
Site Area 7 acres 3 acres
Density 23 du/ac 36 du/ac min.*
Floor Area 1,450 – 2,307 square feet 550 – 1,000 sq. ft. minimum
Street Setback 0 – 20 feet 15 - 50*
Interior Property Lines
Setback
5 - 10 feet 20 feet*
Setbacks Between Buildings 10 - 20 feet 40 feet*
Building Height 40 – 50 feet 75 feet
Parking 447 spaces 446 spaces
Recreation-Leisure Area 32,200 square feet 67,688 square feet
*May be modified by CUP
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVE AND ADOPT
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00499
(DEV2014-00095)
(1110-1116 NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD AND
115-125 WEST LA PALMA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition for an amendment to the Land Use Element and
Circulation Element of the General Plan ("General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499") for
certain real property commonly known as 1110-1116 North Anaheim Boulevard and 115-125 West La Palma Avenue in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as
generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this
reference (the "Property"), for the purpose of allowing the applicant to construct 162 single-
family attached condominium units and 922 square feet of commercial space (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 7 acres in size and is located, in part, in the "I" Industrial Zone, which is a zone under the Zoning Code that “provide[s] for and
encourage[s] the development of industrial uses and their related facilities, recognize[s] the
unique and valuable existing industrial land resources, and encourage[s] industrial employment
opportunities within the City”, and, in part, in the “CG” General Commercial Zone, which is a zone under the Zoning Code that "allow[s] a variety of land uses including some identified for the Neighborhood Center Commercial Zone . . .". The Property is designated on the Land Use
Element of the General Plan for "Mixed Use" and “Open Space” uses; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499 proposes to (1) amend "Figure LU-4: Land Use Plan” of the Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan to re-designate those portions of the Property designated as "Open Space" to "Mixed Use" land uses so
that the entirety of the Property will be designated for "Mixed Use" land uses, and (2) Figures C-
1, C-5, and C-6 of the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan to remove the right turn
road connector from westbound La Palma Avenue to northbound Anaheim Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499 is proposed in
conjunction with a request (i) to establish the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone on the Property,
which will define the allowable land uses and property development standards for the Property in
accordance with Chapter 18.32 (Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the
Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"), , which reclassification is designated as "Reclassification No. 2015-00276", (ii) for approval of a conditional use permit to permit a 162-
unit, attached single-family mixed-use project and 922 square feet of commercial space with
modified development standards, which is designated as "Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-
05780", (iii) for approval of a tentative tract map to permit a 152-lot single-family attached
residential subdivision of a portion of the Property, which is designated as "Tentative Tract Map No. 17846", and (iv) for approval of a tentative tract map to permit a 10-lot single-family
- 2 - PC2015-***
attached residential subdivision with 922 square feet of commercial space for a portion of the
Property, which is designated as "Tentative Tract Map No. 17992". General Plan Amendment
No. 2015-00499, Reclassification No. 2015-00276, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780,
Tentative Tract Map No. 17846, Tentative Tract Map No. 17992, and the Project shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Proposed Project"; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as
“CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA
Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of
environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance
with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual to evaluate the
physical environmental impacts of the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation Monitoring Plan has been prepared for the Proposed Project and includes mitigation measures
that are specific to the Proposed Project (herein referred to as "MMP No. 325"). A complete
copy of MMP No. 325 is on file and can be viewed in the Planning Services Division of the City;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Anaheim
Civic Center, Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, on December 14, 2015, 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 the Anaheim Municipal Code, to consider the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and to hear and consider evidence for and against the Proposed Project and related actions, and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of a resolution concurrently with, but prior in time
to, the adoption of this Resolution and pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA
Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, this Planning Commission found and determined and recommended that the City Council also find and determine that the Proposed
Project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the implementation of
the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures attached to that concurrent Resolution
and contained in MMP No. 325 and that the City Council approve and adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and MMP No. 325; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due consideration, inspection,
investigation and study made by itself, and after due consideration of, and based upon, all
evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does hereby find:
- 3 - PC2015-***
1. That proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499 maintains the
internal consistency of the General Plan, as the proposed modifications to the General Plan are
consistent with Goals 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1 and 6.1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to preserve and enhance the quality and character of Anaheim’s mosaic of unique
neighborhoods, to continue to provide a variety of quality housing opportunities, to address the
City’s diverse housing needs, and to promote development that integrates with and minimizes
impacts to surrounding neighborhoods.
2. That proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499 would not be
detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that the
proposed amendment to the Anaheim General Plan would result in residential development
opportunities.
3. That proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499 would maintain the
balance of land uses within the City because the proposed amendment would provide quality
housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs and would be consistent with
the existing Mixed Use designation for the adjacent property to the north.
4. That the Property to be re-designated by proposed General Plan Amendment
No. 2015-00499 is physically suitable to accommodate the proposed modification, including but
not limited to, access, physical constraints, topography, provision of utilities, and compatibility
with surrounding land uses because the project is designed to integrate into the surrounding
neighborhood. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the aforesaid findings
and determinations, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of
the City of Anaheim approve and adopt General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499 in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit B, contingent upon and subject to the adoption of an ordinance
establishing the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone on the Property, in accordance with Reclassification No. 2015-00276, now pending.
- 4 - PC2015-***
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of December 14, 2015. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on December 14, 2015, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of December, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “A”
§¨5
§¨5 |57
|91
|91
|57
|55
B E A C H
B O U L E V A R D
M A G N O L I A
A V E N U E
K N O T T
A V E N U E
B R O O K H U R S T
S T R E E T
E U C L I D
S T R E E T
H A S T E R
S T R E E T
K R A E M E R
B L V D .
T U S T I N
A V E N U E
LA PALMAAVENUE
LINCOLNAVENUE
BALLROAD
KATELLAAVENUE
CHAPMANAVENUE
S T .
C O L L E G E
B L V D .
H A R B O R
B L V D .
B E A C H
B O U L E V A R D
W E S T
S T R E E T
M A G N O L I A
A V E N U E
K N O T T
A V E N U E
ORANGETHORPEAVENUE
B R O O K H U R S T
S T R E E T
E U C L I D
S T R E E T
H A R B O R
B L V D .
E A S T
S T R E E T
S T . C O L L E G E
B O U L E V A R D
W E S T E R N
A V E N U E
W E S T E R N
A V E N U E
D A L E
A V E N U E
D A L E
A V E N U E
G I L B E R T
S T R E E T
CRESCENTAVENUE
ORANGEAVENUE
CERRITOSAVENUE
ORANGEWOODAVENUE
N I N T H
S T R E E T
L E W I S
S T R E E T
A C A C I A
S T R E E T
A N A H E I M
B O U L E V A R D
G I L B E R T
S T R E E T
N U T W O O D
S T R E E T
B L U E G U M
S T R E E T
B L U E G U M
S T R E E T
T U S T I N
A V E N U E
G L A S S E L L
S T R E E T
BROADWAY
!
General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499Vicinity Location MapFigure 1
3619
.
Subject Property Location!
LA PALMA AVE
A N A H E I M B L V D
Industrial
Residential-Low
Residential-LowMedium
Residential-LowMedium Residential-Low
Parks
MixedUse
3619
N
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation: Open Space
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation: Mixed Use
General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499Land Use Element - Figure LU-4: Land Use Plan
Exhibit A
LA PALMA AVE
A N A H E I M B L V D
Residential - Low
Parks
Residential- LowMediumResidential -Low Medium
MixedUse
Industrial
N
3619
ProposedLand Use Designation
M I L L S D R
L
E
M
O
N
S
T
D
I
C
K
E
L
S
T
L A V E R N E S T
C
L
E
M
E
N
T
I
N
E
S
T
Z
E
Y
N
S
T
L A V E R N E S T
LA PALMA PARK WAY
E
M
I
L
Y
S
T
P A T T S T
K E M P S T
CARL KARCHER WAY
C
L
A
U
D
I
N
A
S
T
P A T T S T
LA PALMA AVE
A N A H E I M B L V D
A
N
A
H
E
I
M
B
L
V
D
Residential- Low
Parks
Residential- LowMedium
Residential- LowMedium
MixedUse
Industrial
Residential- Medium
BY RESOLUTION NO. ______________________________OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ___________ Date
_________________________________________________Commission Chairman
_________________________________________________Commission Secretary
BY RESOLUTION NUMBER NO. ______________________OF THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL ____________________ Date_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
APPROVEDDISAPPROVED
APPROVEDDISAPPROVED
0 200 400100
Feet
G.P. AMENDMENT 2015-00499
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF ANAHEIMDecember 14, 2015o
LA PALMA AVE
A N A H E I M B L V D
3619
N
Existing General Plan Planned Roadway Network Figure C-1
Proposed General Plan Planned Roadway Network Figure C-1
General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499Circulation Element - Figure C-1: Planned Roadway Network
Exhibit A
LA PALMA AVE
A N A H E I M B L V D
N
Secondary ArterialPrimary Arterial
Secondary ArterialPrimary Arterial
LA PALMA AVE
A N A H E I M B L V D
3619
N
Existing General Plan Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities Figure C-5
Proposed General Plan Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities Figure C-5
General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499Circulation Element - Figure C-5: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
Exhibit A
LA PALMA AVE
A N A H E I M B L V D
N
Proposed 2nd PriorityClass II Bikeway
Proposed 2nd PriorityClass II Bikeway
LA PALMA AVE
A N A H E I M B L V D
3619
N
Existing General Plan Truck Routes Figure C-6
Proposed General Plan Truck Routes Figure C-6
General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499Circulation Element - Figure C-6: Truck Routes
Exhibit A
LA PALMA AVE
A N A H E I M B L V D
N
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00276
(DEV2014-00095)
(1110-1116 NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD AND 115-125 WEST LA PALMA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition to rezone or reclassify that certain real property located at 1110-1116 North Anaheim Boulevard and 115-125 West La Palma Avenue in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached
hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property") by establishing
the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay) Zone on the Property, which will define the allowable land uses
and property development standards for the Property in accordance with Chapter 18.32 (Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") and
which reclassification is designated as "Reclassification No. 2015-00276". Reclassification No.
2015-00276 is proposed in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780, Tentative Tract Map No. 17846, and Tentative Tract
Map No. 17992, now pending, all of which, if approved, will allow the applicant to construct 162 single-family attached condominium units and 922 square feet of commercial space (herein
referred to as the “Project”). Reclassification No. 2015-00276 is proposed in conjunction with
General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780, Tentative
Tract Map No. 17846, and Tentative Tract Map No. 17992, together with the Project, shall be
referred to herein collectively as the "Proposed Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 7 acres in size and is located, in part,
in the "I" Industrial Zone, which is a zone under the Zoning Code that “provide[s] for and
encourage[s] the development of industrial uses and their related facilities, recognize[s] the
unique and valuable existing industrial land resources, and encourage[s] industrial employment opportunities within the City”, and, in part, in the “CG” General Commercial Zone, which is a
zone under the Zoning Code that "allow[s] a variety of land uses including some identified for
the Neighborhood Center Commercial Zone". The Property is designated on the Land Use
Element of the General Plan for "Mixed Use" and “Open Space” 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; and
- 2 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's
Local CEQA Procedure Manual, a Mitigation Monitoring Plan ("MMP No. 325") has been
prepared for the Proposed Project and includes mitigation measures that are specific to the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic
Center in the City of Anaheim on December 14, 2015 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 (the "Code"), to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings and
recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of a resolution concurrently with, but prior in time to, the adoption of this Resolution and pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, this Planning Commission found and
determined and recommended that the City Council also find and determine that the Proposed
Project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the implementation of
the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures attached to that concurrent Resolution and contained in MMP No. 325 and that the City Council approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMP No. 325; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due consideration, 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 the Property into the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone is
consistent with the existing Mixed Use land use designation on a portion of the Property, and
also as proposed for a portion of the Property by General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499, now pending;
2. The proposed reclassification of the Property is necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the Property and is compatible with the surrounding
land uses.
3. The proposed reclassification of the Property does properly relate to the zone
and permitted uses established in close proximity to the Property and to the zones and their
permitted uses generally established throughout the community.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
- 3 - PC2015-***
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, on the basis of the above findings
and determinations, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council
approve Reclassification No. 2015-0026 to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map of the Anaheim Municipal Code to rezone and reclassify the Property into the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone and recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance reclassifying the
Property in accordance with Reclassification No. 2015-00276, contingent upon and subject to the
approval and adoption by the City Council of proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2015-
00499, now pending. 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 December 14, 2015.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on December 14, 2015, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of December,
2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 4 - PC2015-***
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 4
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVE AND ADOPT
PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05780 (DEV2014-00095)
(1110-1116 NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD AND
115-125 WEST LA PALMA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition for (i) Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780 to
construct 162 single-family attached condominium units and 922 square feet of commercial
space (the "Project") with modified development standards for that certain real property located
at 1110-1116 North Anaheim Boulevard and 115-125 West La Palma Avenue in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 7 acres in size and is located in the "I"
Industrial Zone, which is a zone under the Zoning Code that “provide[s] for and encourage[s] the
development of industrial uses and their related facilities, recognize[s] the unique and valuable existing industrial land resources, and encourage[s] industrial employment opportunities within
the City”, and also in the “CG” General Commercial Zone, which is a zone under the Zoning
Code that "allow[s] a variety of land uses including some identified for the Neighborhood
Center Commercial Zone". The Property is designated on the Land Use Element of the General
Plan for "Mixed Use" and “Open Space” uses; and
WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780 is proposed in conjunction
with (i) a request to amend "Figure LU-4: Land Use Plan” of the Land Use Element of the
Anaheim General Plan to re-designate those portions of the Property designated thereon as
"Open Space" to "Mixed Use" land uses so that the entirety of the Property will be designated for "Mixed Use" land uses, and to amend Figures C-1, C-5, and C-6 of the Circulation Element to
remove the right-turn road connector from westbound La Palma Avenue to northbound Anaheim
Boulevard, which amendment to the General Plan is designated as "General Plan Amendment
No. 2015-00499", (ii) a request to establish the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone on the Property,
which will define the allowable land uses and property development standards for the Property in accordance with Chapter 18.32 (Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the
Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"), which reclassification is designated as "Reclassification
No. 2015-00276", (iii) a request for approval of a tentative tract map to permit a 152-lot single-
family attached residential subdivision of a portion of the Property, which is designated as
"Tentative Tract Map No. 17846", and (iv) for approval of a tentative tract map to permit a 10-lot single-family attached residential subdivision of a portion of the Property, including 922 square
feet of commercial space of the Property, which is designated as "Tentative Tract Map No.
17992". General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499, Reclassification No. 2015-00276,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780, Tentative Tract Map No. 17846, Tentative Tract Map
No. 17992 and the Project shall be referred to herein collectively as the “Proposed Project”; and
- 2 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, all mixed-use development within the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay
Zone is subject to the approval by the Planning Commission of a conditional use permit pursuant
to Subsection .120 of Section 18.32.030 (Uses). Pursuant to subsection .070 of Section
18.32.030 (Uses) of Chapter 18.32 (Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Code, the ground floor of units facing the street are required to be used for commercial uses, which may include the non-residential portion of live/work units; provided, however, that this
requirement may be modified by conditional use permit. If approved, Conditional Use Permit
No. 2015-05780 will permit all but one of the ground floor units facing the streets to be
residential; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18.32.040 (Site Area and Floor Ratio) of Chapter
18.32 (Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone), the minimum density of a mixed use project must be 36
units to the acre, or as determined by conditional use permit. If approved, Conditional Use
Permit No. 2015-05780 will permit a density of 23 units to the acre; and WHEREAS, pursuant to subsection .020 of Section 18.32.070 (Building
Setbacks) of Chapter 18.32 (Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone), the setbacks may be determined
by conditional use permit. If approved, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780 will establish
the minimum setback requirements for streets, interior property lines and between buildings; 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; and
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's
Local CEQA Procedure Manual, a Mitigation Monitoring Plan ("MMP No. 325") has been prepared for the Proposed Project and includes mitigation measures that are specific to the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic
Center in the City of Anaheim on December 14, 2015 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed
Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
- 3 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, by the adoption of a resolution concurrently with, but prior in time
to, the adoption of this Resolution and pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA
Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, this Planning Commission found and
determined and recommended that the City Council also find and determine that the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the implementation of the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures attached to that concurrent Resolution
and contained in MMP No. 325 and that the City Council approve and adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and MMP No. 325; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection .120 of Section 18.32.030 (Uses) of Chapter 18.32 (Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone), the Planning Commission, after due consideration,
inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of
all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, including the plans submitted by the applicant,
does hereby find and determine the following facts with respect to Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780:
1. That the proposed Project is properly one for which a conditional use permit is
authorized by this Code;
2. That the proposed uses will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the uses is adequate to allow
the full development of the proposed uses, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety;
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed uses will not impose an undue
burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the
area; and 5. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed,
if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of
Anaheim.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
- 4 - PC2015-***
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the aforesaid findings and determinations, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Anaheim approve and adopt Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780,
contingent upon and subject to: (1) the adoption by the City Council of (i) a resolution approving
and adopting General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499, (ii) an ordinance authorizing an
amendment to the Zoning Map to establish the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone on the Property under Reclassification No. 2015-00276, (iii) a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 17846, and (iv) a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 17992 all of which entitlements
are now pending; (2) the mitigation measures set forth in MMP No. 325, and (3) the conditions
of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference,
which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property 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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of December 14, 2015. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and
may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2015-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on December 14, 2015, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of December, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 6 - PC2015-***
- 7 - PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05780
(DEV2014-00095)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT
1 AQ-1 The construction contractor(s) shall use equipment that meets the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Certified Tier 3
off-road emissions standards for off-road diesel-powered construction
equipment greater than 50 horsepower utilized for demolition activities.
Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as
defined by California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations. Prior to
construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all construction
management plans clearly show the requirement for EPA Tier 3 or higher emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower used for demolition activities. During construction, the construction
contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the
project site for verification by the Building Division Official or their
designee. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s
recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure that all
nonessential idling of all construction equipment is restricted to five
minutes or less, in compliance with CARB’s Rule 2449.
Planning Department, Planning Services
Division
2 HAZ-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project
applicant/developer shall ensure that all soil sample results from ASTM
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Phase II
Assessment, La Palma Project, dated December 17, 2014, from Haley & Aldrich, are submitted to the appropriate agency (i.e., Orange County
Health Care Agency, Department of Toxic Substances and Control, or the
Regional Water Quality Board) for review and coordination. With their
oversight additional environmental site assessment would be completed
and a determination shall be made as to whether a cleanup is required. Cleanup activities would be consistent with all applicable State and local
rules, regulations, and laws. A cleanup would not be considered
complete until confirmatory samples of soil and/or groundwater reveal
levels of contamination below the standards established by the oversight
agency. In conjunction with the additional site assessment, a risk assessment may be prepared for the site to determine that there are no
human or environmental risks associated with leaving contamination
below specific levels in place. Construction in the impacted area shall
not proceed until a “no further action” clearance letter or similar
determination is issued by the oversight agency and provided to the City of Anaheim, or until a land use covenant is implemented.
Anaheim Fire & Rescue;
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
- 8 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
3 PALEO-1 Prior to the beginning of ground disturbances, the project
applicant/developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor
ground-disturbing activities that occur in older Quaternary deposits, which could occur five feet below ground surface. Before ground-disturbing activities begin, a qualified paleontologist shall prepare a
monitoring plan, specifying the frequency, duration, and methods of
monitoring. The paleontologist shall train construction workers
regarding types of paleontological resources that could be identified in the project site sediments. Sediment samples shall be collected and processed to determine the small fossil potential in the project site, and
any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an
accredited and permanent scientific institution.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services
Division;
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
4 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. The sanitary sewer and storm drains for this development shall be privately maintained.
Public Works Department,
Development Services
Division
5 The applicant shall submit to the Public Works Development Services
Division for review and approval a Water Quality Management Plan that conforms with current Orange County Guidelines and Requirements as well as the City’s WQMP Review Checklist.
Public Works
Department, Development Services
Division
6 That the developer/owner shall submit a set of improvement plans for
Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division review and approval in determining the conditions necessary for providing water
service to the project.
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering Division
7 Prior to final map approval and prior to issuance of a grading permit, the portions of public right-of-way including “Old Anaheim Blvd” “New Anaheim Blvd” and “Zeyn” within the tentative tract map boundary shall
be abandoned. The legal property owner shall submit an abandonment
application to Public Works for review. The abandonment will be subject
to approval by the Anaheim City Council.
Public Works Department, Development Services
Division
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
8 TRANS-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall pay an appropriate fair share to install a traffic
signal at the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Carl Karcher Way. The fair share shall not exceed 60 percent of the total improvement cost,
as identified in the Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue
Development Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr and Peers, July 2015.
The City of Anaheim shall identify the timing and funding mechanism
for the full traffic signal improvement at the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Carl Karcher Way.
Public Works
Department, Traffic and
Transportation Division
- 9 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
9 TRANS-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall pay an appropriate fair share to add a northbound
through lane at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. The fair share shall not exceed 9 percent of the total improvement cost, as identified in the Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma
Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr and Peers,
August 2015. The City of Anaheim shall identify the timing and funding
mechanism for the full traffic signal improvement at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue.
Public Works
Department, Traffic and
Transportation Division
10 TRANS-3 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project
owner/developer shall coordinate with Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) and the City of Anaheim to relocate the bus stops on the north and south sides of La Palma Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard East and Anaheim Boulevard West, if deemed necessary. The
City of Anaheim and OCTA will identify the timing, specifications, and
funding mechanism for this improvement.
Public Works
Department, Traffic and
Transportation Division
11 That curbs adjacent to the drive aisles shall be painted red to prohibit
parallel parking in the drive aisles. Red curb locations shall be clearly
labeled on building plans.
Public Works
Department, Traffic and
Transportation Division
12 Plans shall be submitted showing stop control for the northwestern internal intersection. A stop sign shall be installed and stop legend shall
be painted on the driveway in the northbound direction at the east/west
drive prior to final building and zoning inspection. Subject property
shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said
plans.
Public Works Department, Traffic and
Transportation Division
13 Street improvement plans shall be submitted for all traffic related
improvements adjacent to the project site to the Public Works
Department, Development Services Division for review and approval. These plans will show both sides of all streets adjacent to the property, including all driveways and utility installations, traffic signal
modifications, signing and striping. All improvements shall be installed
and completed prior to the first final building and zoning inspection.
Public Works
Department, Traffic and
Transportation Division
14 A bond shall be posted for all traffic related street improvements,
including, but not limited to, traffic signals, directional signage, striping,
and median islands as required for said project. All improvements
identified as required for the project opening shall be completed prior to
final building and zoning inspection.
Public Works
Department, Traffic and
Transportation Division
15 Prior to issuance of building permits, except model homes, all final maps
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
Department,
Development Services
Division
16 Street improvement plans shall be submitted for the required vehicle sign
bridge mitigation measure, as described in the Traffic Impact Analysis.
Two sign bridges shall be provided, one on the northbound and one on
the southbound Anaheim Blvd approaches to La Palma Ave. The sign bridge shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Public Works
Department, Traffic and
Transportation Division
- 10 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
17 The applicable Citywide Traffic Impact Fee or Fair Share Contribution,
whichever is greater, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount
established by the City Council Ordinance/Resolution at the issuance of a building permit. The Fair Share Contribution shall be based off the approved Traffic Impact Study. This fee will be used to fund traffic and
transportation improvements within the area impacted by this project.
Public Works
Department, Traffic and
Transportation Division
18 That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and
alleys. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault will have
to be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system
equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by Water
Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector.
Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division
19 That all requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or fire
lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of
existing water services, backflow equipment, and fire lines, shall be
coordinated and permitted through Water Engineering Division of the
Anaheim Public Utilities Department.
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering Division
20 All existing water services and fire services shall conform to current
Water Services Standard Specifications. Any water service and/or fire
line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued
use if necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to
abandon any water service or fire line.
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering Division
21 The Owner 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 mains and 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 and included and recorded in the Master CC & Rs for the project.
Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division
22 That the developer/owner shall submit a water system master plan,
including a hydraulic distribution network analysis, for Public Utilities
Water Engineering Division review and approval. The master plan shall
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering Division
- 11 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed on-site water system to meet
the project's water demands and fire protection requirements.
23 That the developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate
and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This
information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water
system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and
Regulations.
Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division
24 That water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Public Utilities Department Water Engineering Division for approval and a performance
bond in the amount approved by the City Engineer and form approved by
City Attorney shall be posted with the City of Anaheim.
Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division
PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS
25 Fire lanes shall be posted with “No Parking Any Time.” Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building
permits.
Public Works
Department, Traffic and
Transportation Division
26 All required site WQMP items shall be inspected and operational. Public Works Department,
Development Services
Division
27 All required public improvements shall be constructed prior to final building and zoning inspections. Public Works Department,
Development Services
Division
ON-GOING DURING PROJECT GRADING, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS
28 HAZ-2 Ongoing during project demolition and construction, in the event
of hazardous waste, including asbestos containing material, is discovered
during site preparation or construction, the project applicant/developer shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous material are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State
of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety
Code, Division, 20, Chapter 6.5), and according to the requirements of
the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22.
Southern California Air
Quality Management
District;
Public Works Department
29 Gates shall not be installed across any of the private streets. Public Works
Department, Traffic and
Transportation Division
30 The Owner shall be responsible for restoring any special surface
improvements, other than asphalt paving, within any right-of-way,
public utility easement or City easement area including but not limited to
colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, walls, decorative hardscape or landscaping that becomes damaged during any excavation,
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering Division
- 12 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
repair or replacement of City owned water facilities. Provisions for
maintenance of all said special surface improvements shall be included in
the recorded Master C, C & R's for the project
GENERAL
31 A minimum of two connections to public water mains and water looping
inside the project are required. Public Utilities, Water
Engineering Division
32 The following minimum horizontal clearances shall be maintained
between proposed water main and other facilities:
• 10-feet minimum separation (outside wall-to-outside wall) from sanitary sewer mains and laterals • 5-feet minimum separation from all other utilities, including
storm drains, gas, and electric
• 6-feet minimum separation from curb face
Public Utilities, Water
Engineering Division
33 No public water main or public water facilities shall be installed in
private alleys or paseo areas. Public Utilities, Water
Engineering Division
34 No public water mains or laterals allowed under parking stalls or parking
lots. Public Utilities, Water
Engineering Division
35 All fire services 2-inch and smaller shall be metered with a UL listed meter, Hersey Residential Fire Meter with Translator Register, no equals. Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division
36 The subject Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department, and
as conditioned herein.
Planning Department,
Planning Services Division
37 Conditions of approval related to each of the timing milestones above shall be prominently displayed on plans submitted for permits. For
example, conditions of approval that are required to be complied with
prior to the issuance of building permits shall be provided on plans
submitted for building plan check. This requirement applies to grading permits, final maps, street improvement plans, water and electrical plans, landscape irrigation plans, security plans, parks and trail plans, and fire
and life safety plans, etc.
Planning Department, Planning Services
Division
- 13 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE
DEPARTMENT
38 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the
processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the
issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the
revocation of the approval of this application.
Planning Department,
Planning Services
Division
39 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 Division
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 5
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17846
(DEV2014-00095) (1110-1116 NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD AND
115-125 WEST LA PALMA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the “Planning
Commission”) did receive a verified petition for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17846 to construct 162 single-family attached condominium units and 922 square feet of commercial
space (the "Project") on a portion of that certain real property located at 1110-1116 North
Anaheim Boulevard and 115-125 West La Palma Avenue in the City of Anaheim, County of
Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 7 acres in size and is located in the "I"
Industrial Zone, which is a zone under the Zoning Code that “provide[s] for and encourage[s] the
development of industrial uses and their related facilities, recognize[s] the unique and valuable
existing industrial land resources, and encourage[s] industrial employment opportunities within the City”, and also in the “CG” General Commercial Zone, which is a zone under the Zoning
Code that "allow[s] a variety of land uses including some identified for the Neighborhood
Center Commercial Zone". The Property is designated on the Land Use Element of the General
Plan for "Mixed Use" and “Open Space” uses; and
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 17846 is proposed in conjunction with a
request (i) a request to amend "Figure LU-4: Land Use Plan” of the Land Use Element of the
Anaheim General Plan to re-designate those portions of the Property designated thereon as
"Open Space" to "Mixed Use" land uses so that the entirety of the Property will be designated for
"Mixed Use" land uses, and to amend Figures C-1, C-5, and C-6 of the Circulation Element to remove the right-turn road connector from westbound La Palma Avenue to northbound Anaheim
Boulevard, which amendment to the General Plan is designated as "General Plan Amendment
No. 2015-00499", (ii) a request to establish the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone on the Property,
which will define the allowable land uses and property development standards for the Property in accordance with Chapter 18.32 (Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"), which reclassification is designated as "Reclassification
No. 2015-00276", and (iii) a request for approval of a tentative tract map to permit a 10-lot
single-family attached residential subdivision with 922 square feet of commercial space on a
portion of the Property, which is designated as "Tentative Tract Map No. 17992". General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499, Reclassification No. 2015-00276, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780, Tentative Tract Map No. 17846, Tentative Tract Map No. 17992, and the Project
shall be referred to herein collectively as the “Proposed Project”; and
- 2 - PC2015-***
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; and
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's
Local CEQA Procedure Manual, a Mitigation Monitoring Plan ("MMP No. 325") has been prepared for the Proposed Project and includes mitigation measures that are specific to the
Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic
Center in the City of Anaheim on December 14, 2015 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed
Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of a resolution concurrently with, but prior in time to, the adoption of this Resolution and pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA
Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, this Planning Commission found and
determined and recommended that the City Council also find and determine that the Proposed
Project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the implementation of
the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures attached to that concurrent Resolution and contained in MMP No. 325 and that the City Council approve and adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and MMP No. 325; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due consideration, 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 to approve Tentative Tract
Map No. 17846, does find and determine and recommends that the City Council so find and
determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed subdivision of a portion of the Property, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17846, including its design and improvements, is consistent
with the General Plan of the City of Anaheim, and more particularly with the "Mixed Use" land
use designation proposed as part of General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499, now pending.
2. That the proposed subdivision of a portion of the Property, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17846, including its design and improvements, is consistent
with the zoning and development standards of the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone proposed as
Reclassification No. 2015-00276, now pending.
- 3 - PC2015-***
3. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of that portion of
the Proposed Project within the boundaries of proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17846.
4. That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map
No. 17846, 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.
5. That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map
No. 17846, or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6. That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map
No. 17846, 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.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the aforesaid findings and determinations, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of
the City of Anaheim approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17846, contingent upon and subject to:
(1) the adoption by the City Council of (i) a resolution approving and adopting General Plan
Amendment No. 2015-00499; (ii) an ordinance authorizing an amendment to the Zoning Map to
establish the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone on the Property under Reclassification No. 2015-00276, and (iii) a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780, all of which
entitlements are now pending; (2) the mitigation measures set forth in MMP No. 325; and (3) the
conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the
Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete said 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 the Planning Commission does hereby find
and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's
compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of
competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be
deemed null and void.
- 4 - PC2015-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes
approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other
applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation
or requirement.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of December 14, 2015. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Section 17.08.104 of the Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City
Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the 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 December 14, 2015, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of
December, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2015-***
- 6 - PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B”
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17846
(DEV2014-00095)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP
1 The Developer 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 La Palma Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard for the
entire frontage of the project along these streets. Then, the legal owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim ultimate right-of-way easements as required by the traffic study and/or City Standard 160-A
for road, public utilities and other public purposes along La Palma Avenue
and Anaheim Boulevard for the entire frontage of the project along these
streets.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services
Division
2 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 and La Palma Avenue. The maintenance
covenant for Tentative Tract Map 17846 shall include provisions for
annexation of Tentative Tract Map 17992 maintenance obligations into its CC&R’s . The covenants shall be recorded concurrently with their
respective final map.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services Division
3 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 La Palma
Avenue and Anaheim Blvd 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
Department,
Development Services
Division
4 The portions of public right-of-way including “Old Anaheim Blvd” “New
Anaheim Blvd” and “Zeyn” within the tentative tract map boundary shall
be abandoned. The legal property owner shall submit an abandonment
application to Public Works for review. The abandonment will be subject to approval by the Anaheim City Council.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services
Division
5 The property owner shall reserve, on the maps, reciprocal access rights to
all private streets, reciprocal access to, connectivity to, and use of all public and private utilities and temporary construction easements within
the boundaries of both maps.
Public Works
Department, Development Services
Division
- 7 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
6 The property owner and City shall execute a Put Option, Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) with provisions acceptable to the Director of
Public Works; this Agreement will require the developer to purchase
certain remnant parcels “subject to certain governmental approvals” upon
the City’s exercise of the option. The Agreement is subject to approval by
the Anaheim City Council.
Public Works Department, Development Services
Division
7 Prior to City’s execution of a Put Option, Purchase Agreement and prior to
issuance of a grading permit for work to be done on land under the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim, as Successor Agency to the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (“Successor Agency”), the property owner and
Successor Agency shall execute a Right of Entry allowing entry upon the
Successor Agency’s property adjacent to the project site with provisions
acceptable to Successor Agency’s Executive Director.
Public Works
Department, Development Services Division
8 The preliminary precise alignment shall be finalized and approved by the
City Engineer. Public Works
Department,
Development Services Division
9 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 to the Public Works Department; Subdivision Section
approved by the City Attorney and City Engineer and then shall be
recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
Public Works
Department, Development Services
Division
10 All parcels shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division. Public Works
Department,
Development Services Division
11 All existing structures shall be demolished. The developer shall obtain a
demolition permit from the Building Division. Public Works
Department, Development Services
Division
- 8 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
GENERAL
12 The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its
officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to
individually and collectively as “Indemnities”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnities to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnities 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 Indemnities and costs of suit,
claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other
costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnities in connection with
such proceeding.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services Division
13 Conditions of approval related to each of the timing milestones above shall
be prominently displayed on plans submitted for permits. For example,
conditions of approval that are required to be complied with prior to the
issuance of building permits shall be provided on plans submitted for building plan check. This requirement applies to grading permits, final
maps, street improvement plans, water and electrical plans, landscape
irrigation plans, security plans, parks and trail plans, and fire and life
safety plans, etc.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
14 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the
processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the
issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for
this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
15 The subject Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant
and which plans are on file with the Planning Department, and as
conditioned herein.
Planning and Building Department,
Planning Services
Division
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 6
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17992
(DEV2014-00095) (1110-1116 NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD AND
115-125 WEST LA PALMA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the “Planning
Commission”) did receive a verified petition for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17992 to construct 162 single-family attached condominium units and 922 square feet of commercial
space (the "Project") for that certain real property located at 1110-1116 North Anaheim
Boulevard and 115-125 West La Palma Avenue in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State
of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated
herein by this reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 17992 is proposed in conjunction with a
request (i) a request to amend "Figure LU-4: Land Use Plan” of the Land Use Element of the
Anaheim General Plan to re-designate those portions of the Property designated as "Open Space"
to "Mixed Use" land uses so that the entirety of the Property will be designated for "Mixed Use" land uses, and to amend Figures C-1, C-5, and C-6 of the Circulation Element to remove the
right turn road connector from westbound La Palma Avenue to northbound Anaheim Boulevard,
which amendment to the General Plan is designated as "General Plan Amendment No. 2015-
00499", (ii) a request to rezone or reclassify the Property from the "I" Industrial and “C-G”
General Commercial Zones to the Mixed Use "MU" Overlay Zone, which reclassification is designated as "Reclassification No. 2015-00276", and (iii) for approval of a tentative tract map to
permit a 152-lot single-family attached residential subdivision, which is designated as "Tentative
Tract Map No. 17846". General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499, Reclassification No. 2015-
00276, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780, Tentative Tract Map No. 17846, Tentative
Tract Map No. 17992, and the Project shall be referred to herein collectively as the “Proposed Project”; and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 7 acres in size and is located in the "I"
Industrial Zone, which is a zone under the Zoning Code that “is to provide for and encourage the development of industrial uses and their related facilities, recognize the unique and valuable existing industrial land resources, and encourage industrial employment opportunities within the
City”, and also in the “CG” General Commercial Zone, which is a zone under the Zoning Code
that "is to allow a variety of land uses including some identified for the Neighborhood Center
Commercial Zone". The Property is designated on the Land Use Element of the General Plan for "Mixed Use" and “Open Space” 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
- 2 - PC2015-***
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; and
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's
Local CEQA Procedure Manual, a Mitigation Monitoring Plan ("MMP No. 325") has been
prepared for the Proposed Project and includes mitigation measures that are specific to the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic
Center in the City of Anaheim on December 14, 2015 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing
having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed
Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of a resolution concurrently with, but prior in time
to, the adoption of this Resolution and pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, this Planning Commission found and
determined and recommended that the City Council also find and determine that the Proposed
Project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the implementation of
the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures attached to that concurrent Resolution
and contained in MMP No. 325 and that the City Council approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMP No. 325; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due consideration, 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 to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17846, does find and determine and recommends that the City Council so find and
determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed subdivision of the Property, as shown on proposed Tentative
Tract Map No. 17992, including its design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Anaheim, and more particularly with the "Mixed Use" land use designation
proposed as part of General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499, now pending.
2. That the proposed subdivision of the Property, as shown on proposed Tentative
Tract Map No. 17992, including its design and improvements, is consistent with the zoning and development standards of the "MU" Mixed Use Overlay Zone proposed as Reclassification No.
2015-00276.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the Proposed
Project.
4. That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17992, 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.
- 3 - PC2015-***
5. That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map
No. 17992, or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
6. That the design of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map
No. 17992, 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.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the aforesaid findings
and determinations, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Anaheim approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17992, contingent upon and subject to:
(1) the adoption by the City Council of (i) a resolution approving and adopting General Plan
Amendment No. 2015-00499; (ii) an ordinance authorizing an amendment to the Zoning Map to
rezone and reclassify the Property to the "MU" Mixed Use Overlay Zone under Reclassification
No. 2015-00276, (iii) a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780, and (iv) a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 17846 all of which entitlements are now pending;
(2) the mitigation measures set forth in MMP No. 325; and (3) the conditions of approval set
forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete said 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 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.
- 4 - PC2015-***
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of December 14, 2015. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Section 17.08.104 of the Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the 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 December 14, 2015, by the following vote of the members
thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of
December, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 5 - PC2015-***
- 6 - PC2015-***
EXHIBIT “B”
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17992
(DEV2014-00095)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP
1 The Developer 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 La Palma Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard for the
entire frontage of the project along these streets. Then, the legal owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim ultimate right-of-way easements as required by the traffic study and/or City Standard 160-A
for road, public utilities and other public purposes along La Palma Avenue
and Anaheim Boulevard for the entire frontage of the project along these
streets.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services
Division
2 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 and La Palma Avenue. The maintenance
covenant for Tentative Tract Map 17846 shall include provisions for
annexation of Tentative Tract Map 17992 maintenance obligations into its CC&R’s . The covenants shall be recorded concurrently with their
respective final map.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services Division
3 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 La Palma
Avenue and Anaheim Blvd 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
Department,
Development Services
Division
4 The portions of public right-of-way including “Old Anaheim Blvd” “New
Anaheim Blvd” and “Zeyn” within the tentative tract map boundary shall
be abandoned. The legal property owner shall submit an abandonment
application to Public Works for review. The abandonment will be subject to approval by the Anaheim City Council.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services
Division
5 The property owner shall reserve, on the maps, reciprocal access rights to
all private streets, reciprocal access to, connectivity to, and use of all public and private utilities and temporary construction easements within
the boundaries of both maps.
Public Works
Department, Development Services
Division
- 7 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
6 The property owner and City shall execute a Put Option, Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) with provisions acceptable to the Director of
Public Works; this Agreement will require the developer to purchase
certain remnant parcels “subject to certain governmental approvals” upon
the City’s exercise of the option. The Agreement is subject to approval by
the Anaheim City Council.
Public Works Department, Development Services
Division
7 Prior to City’s execution of a Put Option, Purchase Agreement and prior to
issuance of a grading permit for work to be done on land under the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim, as Successor Agency to the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (“Successor Agency”), the property owner and
Successor Agency shall execute a Right of Entry allowing entry upon the
Successor Agency’s property adjacent to the project site with provisions
acceptable to Successor Agency’s Executive Director.
Public Works
Department, Development Services Division
8 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 to the Public Works Department; Subdivision Section approved by the City Attorney and City Engineer and then shall be
recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
Public Works
Department,
Development Services Division
9 All parcels shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division. Public Works
Department,
Development Services
Division
10 All existing structures shall be demolished. The developer shall obtain a
demolition permit from the Building Division. Public Works
Department,
Development Services Division
GENERAL
11 The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its
officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to
individually and collectively as “Indemnities”) from any and all claims,
actions or proceedings brought against Indemnities to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnities 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 Indemnities and costs of suit,
claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other
costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnities in connection with
such proceeding.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services
Division
- 8 - PC2015-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
12 Conditions of approval related to each of the timing milestones above shall be prominently displayed on plans submitted for permits. For example,
conditions of approval that are required to be complied with prior to the
issuance of building permits shall be provided on plans submitted for
building plan check. This requirement applies to grading permits, final
maps, street improvement plans, water and electrical plans, landscape irrigation plans, security plans, parks and trail plans, and fire and life
safety plans, etc.
Planning and Building Department,
Planning Services
Division
13 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for
this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result
in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the
revocation of the approval of this application.
Planning and Building Department,
Planning Services
Division
14 The subject Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant
and which plans are on file with the Planning Department, and as conditioned herein.
Planning and Building
Department,
Planning Services Division
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 7
- 1 - PC2015-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVE AND ADOPT
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPOSED
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00499, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00276,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05780, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17846 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17992 (DEV2014-00095)
(1110-1116 NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD AND
115-125 WEST LA PALMA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition for an amendment to the Land Use Element of the
General Plan ("General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499"), Reclassification No. 2015-00276,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780, Tentative Tract Map No. 17846, and Tentative Tract
Map No. 17992 for certain real property commonly known as 1110-1116 North Anaheim Boulevard and 115-125 West La Palma Avenue in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated
herein by this reference (the "Property"), for the purpose of allowing the applicant to construct
162 single-family attached condominium units and 922 square feet of commercial space (the
"Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 7 acres in size and is located, in part,
in the "I" Industrial Zone, which is a zone under the Zoning Code that “provide[s] for and
encourage[s] the development of industrial uses and their related facilities, recognize[s] the
unique and valuable existing industrial land resources, and encourage[s] industrial employment opportunities within the City”, and, in part, in the “CG” General Commercial Zone, which is a
zone under the Zoning Code that "allow[s] a variety of land uses, including some identified for
the Neighborhood Center Commercial Zone . . .". The Property is designated on the Land Use
Element of the General Plan for "Mixed Use" and “Open Space” uses; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499 proposes to amend (1)
"Figure LU-4: Land Use Plan” of the Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan to re-
designate those portions of the Property designated as "Open Space" to "Mixed Use" land uses so
that the entirety of the Property will be designated for "Mixed Use" land uses, and (2) Figures C-
1, C-5, and C-6 of the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan to remove the right-turn road connector from westbound La Palma Avenue to northbound Anaheim Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, Reclassification No. 2015-00276 proposes to establish the Mixed
Use (MU) Overlay Zone on the Property, which will define the allowable land uses and property
development standards for the Property in accordance with Chapter 18.32 (Mixed Use (MU)
Overlay Zone) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"); and
- 2 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, all mixed-use development within the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay
Zone is subject to the approval by the Planning Commission of a conditional use permit pursuant
to Subsection .120 of Section 18.32.030 (Uses). Pursuant to subsection .070 of Section
18.32.030 (Uses), the proposed ground floor units facing the street are required to be used for commercial uses, which may include the non-residential portion of live/work units; provided, however, that this requirement may be modified by conditional use permit. If approved,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780 will permit all but one of the ground floor units at the
corner of La Palma Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard to be residential; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18.32.040 (Site Area and Floor Ratio), the minimum density of a mixed use project must be 36 units to the acre or as otherwise determined
by conditional use permit. If approved, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780 will permit a
density of 23 units to the acre; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to subsection .020 of Section 18.32.070 (Building Setbacks), the setbacks may be determined by conditional use permit. If approved, Conditional
Use Permit No. 2015-05780 will modify the minimum setback requirements for streets, interior
property lines and between buildings; and
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 17846 proposes to permit the construction of a portion of the Project in accordance with the design and improvements of the subdivision, as
shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17846; and
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 17992 proposes to permit the construction of a portion of the Project in accordance with the design and improvements of the subdivision, as shown on proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17992; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499, Reclassification No.
2015-00276, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780, Tentative Tract Map No. 17846, Tentative Tract Map No. 17992 and the Project shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Proposed Project"; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA
Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of
environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance
with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual to evaluate the
physical environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration
was circulated for a 20-day public/responsible agency review on November 20, 2015 and was also made available for review on the City's website at www.anaheim.net. A complete copy of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file and can be viewed in the Planning and Building
Department of the City located on the First Floor at 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, California.
Copies of said document are also available for purchase; and
- 3 - PC2015-***
WHEREAS, the City gave notice of its intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration to (a) the public pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, (b)
those individuals and organizations, if any, that previously submitted written requests for notice
pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, (c) responsible and trustee and other agencies with jurisdiction over resources that will be affected by the Proposed Project pursuant to Section 15073(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, and (d) the Clerk of the County of Orange
pursuant to Section 15072(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation Monitoring Plan has been prepared for the Proposed Project and includes mitigation measures that are specific to the Proposed Project (herein referred to as "MMP No. 325"). A complete
copy of MMP No. 325 is on file and can be viewed in the Planning and Building Department of
the City; and
WHEREAS, the City intends and desires to use the Mitigated Negative Declaration as the environmental documentation required by CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines
and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual for the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Anaheim Civic Center, Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, on December 14, 2015, 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 the Code, to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and to hear and
consider evidence for and against the Proposed Project and related actions, and to investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, based upon a thorough review of the Proposed Project and the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, including MMP No. 325 and the comments received to date and
the responses prepared, staff finds that the Proposed Project will have a less than significant
impact upon the environment with the implementation of the conditions of approval and the mitigation measures attached to this Resolution and contained in MMP No. 325; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based upon a thorough review of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and related documents and the evidence received concerning the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, does find and determine as follows:
1. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA
Procedure Manual and, together with MMP No. 325, serves as the appropriate environmental
documentation for the Proposed Project;
2. That the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (including the Initial Study and any
comments received during the public review period) prior to acting upon the Proposed Project; and
- 4 - PC2015-***
3. Based upon the record before it (including the Initial Study and any
comments received), the Planning Commission finds that the Proposed Project will have a less
than significant impact upon the environment with the implementation of the mitigation
measures contained in MMP No. 325 and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission and the City of Anaheim.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts,
that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly
declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due
consideration of all evidence presented to it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission,
pursuant to the above findings and based upon a thorough review of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the evidence received to date, does hereby recommend that the City Council
carefully review and consider the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (including the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period) prior to acting upon the Proposed Project and find and determine as follows:
1. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the
requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Procedure
Manual and, together with MMP No. 325, serves as the appropriate environmental documentation for the Proposed Project;
2. Based upon the record before it (including the Initial Study and any comments
received), that the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact upon the
environment with the implementation of the mitigation measures contained in MMP No. 325 and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council;
3. That the City Council approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
MMP No. 325; and 4. Authorize and direct City staff to file with the Clerk of the County of Orange a
Notice of Determination in accordance with Section 15075(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
- 5 - PC2015-***
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of December 14, 2015. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on December 14, 2015, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of
December, 2015.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
- 6 - PC2015-***
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Due to the large file size of the documents the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
are available on the City’s website at: http://www.anaheim.net/DocumentCenter/View/10024
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR
LA PALMA VILLAGE MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 325
CEQA Action: Mitigated Negative Declaration
1. Project Description –
General Plan Amendment to change a portion of the project site’s land use designation from Open Space to Mixed Use; the remainder of the project site is already designated for Mixed Use. A General Plan Amendment to revise circulation maps in the Circulation
Element to reflect the new street alignment for La Palma Avenue. (GPA2015-00499)
Reclassification of the project site to add the Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone to the project site’s existing Commercial General (CG)
and Industrial (I) zones (RCL2015-00276).
Conditional Use Permit to allow a mixed-use project with single-family attached residential units and modification of development standards (CUP2015-05780).
Tentative Tract Map No. 17846 to establish a single residential lot with 152 condominium units.
Tentative Tract Map No. 17992 to establish a single residential lot with 10 condominium units.
2. Applicant – Integral Communities, LLC, 888 San Clemente, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660
3. Environmental Equivalent/Timing – Any Mitigation Measure and timing thereof, subject to the approval of the City, which will have the
same or superior result and will have the same or superior effect on the environment. The Planning Department, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or City departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed “environmental equivalent/timing” and, if determined necessary, may refer said determination to the Planning Commission. Any costs associated with information required in order to make a
determination of environmental equivalency/timing shall be borne by the property owner/developer. Staff time for reviews will be charged on a time and materials basis at the rate in the City’s adopted fee schedule.
4. Timing – This is the point where a mitigation measure must be monitored for compliance. In the case where multiple action items are
indicated, it is the first point where compliance associated with the mitigation measure must be monitored. Once the initial action item has been complied with, no additional monitoring pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring Program will occur because routine City practices and
procedures will ensure that the intent of the measure has been complied with. For example, if the timing is “to be shown on approved building plans” subsequent to issuance of the building permit consistent with the approved plans will be final building and zoning inspections pursuant
to the building permit to ensure compliance.
5. Responsibility for Monitoring – Shall mean that compliance with the subject mitigation measure(s) shall be reviewed and determined adequate by all departments listed for each mitigation measure.
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
6. Ongoing Mitigation Measures – The mitigation measures that are designated to occur on an ongoing basis as part of this mitigation monitoring program will be monitored in the form of an annual letter from the property owner/developer in January of each year stating how
compliance with the subject measures(s) has been achieved. When compliance with a measure has been demonstrated for a period of one year, monitoring of the measure will be deemed to be satisfied and no further monitoring will occur. For measures that are to be monitored
“Ongoing During Construction,” the annual letter will review those measures only while construction is occurring. Monitoring will be discontinued after construction is completed.
Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion
AIR QUALITY
Prior to the issuance of grading, demolition or building plans, whichever occurs first, and during construction.
AQ-1 The construction contractor(s) shall use equipment that meets the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Certified Tier 3 off-road emissions standards for off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower utilized for demolition activities. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations. Prior to construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all construction management plans clearly show the requirement for EPA Tier 3 or higher emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower used for demolition activities. During construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the Building Division Official or their designee. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of all construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less, in compliance with CARB’s Rule 2449.
Planning Department
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Prior to issuance of grading permits. HAZ-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant/developer shall ensure that all soil sample results from ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Phase II Assessment, La Palma Project, dated December 17, 2014, from Haley & Aldrich, are submitted to the appropriate agency (i.e., Orange County Health Care Agency, Department of Toxic Substances and Control, or the Regional Water Quality Board) for review and coordination. With their oversight additional environmental site assessment would be completed and a determination shall be made as to whether a cleanup is required. Cleanup activities would be consistent with all applicable State and local rules, regulations, and laws. A cleanup would not be considered complete until confirmatory samples of soil and/or groundwater reveal levels of contamination below the standards established by the oversight agency. In conjunction with the additional site assessment, a risk assessment may be prepared for the site to determine that there are no human or environmental risks associated with leaving contamination below specific levels in place. Construction in the impacted area shall not proceed until a “no further action” clearance letter or similar determination is issued by the oversight agency and provided to the City of Anaheim, or until a land use covenant is implemented.
Anaheim Fire & Rescue; Planning Department
Ongoing during project demolition and construction.
HAZ-2 Ongoing during project demolition and construction, in the event of hazardous waste, including asbestos containing material, is discovered during site preparation or construction, the project applicant/developer shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous material are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code, Division, 20, Chapter 6.5), and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22.
Southern California Air Quality Management District; Public Works Department
Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
In conjunction with grading permit and ongoing during ground-disturbing activities.
PALEO-1 Prior to the beginning of ground disturbances, the project applicant/developer shall retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor ground-disturbing activities that occur in older Quaternary deposits, which could occur five feet below ground surface. Before ground-disturbing activities begin, a qualified paleontologist shall prepare a monitoring plan, specifying the frequency, duration, and methods of monitoring. The paleontologist shall train construction workers regarding types of paleontological resources that could be identified in the project site sediments. Sediment samples shall be collected and processed to determine the small fossil potential in the project site, and any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution.
Public Works Department;
Planning Department
NOISE
Prior to issuance of building permits N-1 The applicant/developer shall seek a minor deviation from the City’s exterior noise compatibility standards (i.e., 65 dBA CNEL) since the provisions of Municipal Code Section 18.050.090.060 are satisfied.
Planning Department
Prior to issuance of building permits for each residential structure
N-2 Prior to issuance of building permits for each residential structure within the development, a detailed acoustical study based on architectural plans shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant and submitted to the City’s Planning Department, Building Division. The study will demonstrate that all residential units will meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards for habitable rooms (i.e., bedrooms, living rooms, dens, kitchens) despite exterior noise from traffic. The report shall evaluate the effects of the precise building placement and design materials used for construction. It shall describe and quantify the noise sources impacting the buildings, the amount of outdoor to indoor noise reduction provided by the structure, and any upgrades required to meet the interior noise standard. This standard must be achieved with the windows closed in conjunction with a fresh air mechanical ventilation or air conditioning system, and it may require upgraded construction methods and materials. The measures described in the report shall be incorporated into the architectural plans for the buildings and implemented with building construction.
Planning Department, Building Division
Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Monitoring Completion
Prior to approval of final site plan N-3 The following enhanced building construction methods and materials must be employed to achieve an exterior-to-interior noise reduction of at least 26 dB for proposed units adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard (west) and La Palma Avenue. a) Air conditioning or mechanical ventilation
b) Double-paned glass
c) Solid-core doors with weather stripping and seals d) Stucco or brick veneer exterior walls or wood siding w/one-half-inch-thick Fiberboard underlayer e) Glass portions of windows/doors not to exceed 20 percent of the wall assembly f) Exterior vents facing the traffic noise sources shall be acoustically baffled
g) The exterior wall assemblies as a whole (but including windows, doors, wall construction materials, and insulation) shall have a demonstrated STC rating of 30 STC or greater. Achieving this objective for exterior walls may entail the use of double interior walls or the attachment of interior sheetrock via resilient channels.
Public Works Department;
Planning Department, Building Division
TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC
Prior to issuance of building permits TRANS-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall pay an appropriate fair share to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Carl Karcher Way. The fair share shall not exceed 60 percent of the total improvement cost, as identified in the Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr and Peers, July 2015. The City of Anaheim shall identify the timing and funding mechanism for the full traffic signal improvement at the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Carl Karcher Way.
Public Works Department;
Planning Department
Prior to issuance of building permits TRANS-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall pay an appropriate fair share to add a northbound through lane at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. The fair share shall not exceed 9 percent of the total improvement cost, as identified in the Anaheim Boulevard & La Palma Avenue Development Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr and Peers, August 2015. The City of Anaheim shall identify the timing and funding mechanism for the full traffic signal improvement at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue.
Public Works Department; Planning Department
Prior to issuance of building permits TRANS-3 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project owner/developer shall coordinate with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the City of Anaheim to relocate the bus stops on the north and south sides of La Palma Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard East and Anaheim Boulevard West, if deemed necessary. The City of Anaheim and OCTA will identify the timing, specifications, and funding mechanism for this improvement.
Public Works Department; Planning Department; Orange County Transportation Authority
LA PALMA VILLAGE PROJECT DESCRIPTION La Palma Village is a proposed subdivision of approximately 7 acres in Anaheim located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Blvd. and La Palma Ave. It is currently occupied by a catering company, an automotive business, and various retail tenants. The proposed development includes approximately 6.3 acres of privately owned land and .87 acres of land publicly owned. Of the .87 acres of publicly owned land, the City owns approximately .64 ac., and .23 ac. is owned by the Successor Agency (formerly the RDA). Because of the Successor Agency property is not currently available for sale, La Palma Village will be entitled as two separate subdivisions. The primary subdivision consists of 152 residential units; 98 townhouses ranging in square footage from 1450-1774 and 54 paired homes (duplexes) ranging in square footage from 1900-2307. The accompanying subdivision containing the Successor Agency property consists of 10 residential units; 6 additional townhouses and 4 condominium flats ranging in square footage from 1415-1954, and 922 square feet of retail. Ultimately, when the Successor Agency property is purchased, the subdivision will be a completed 163-unit planned community; 162 residential and one retail. (See attached site plans). As part of the La Palma Village development, the intersection of La Palma Ave. and Anaheim Blvd. will be completely reconstructed to provide a more viable, efficient, and practical intersection, which will significantly improve traffic flow. Privately maintained streets serve the new community, which connect to La Palma Ave. and Anaheim Blvd. Inside the community is a private recreation center, which includes a meeting center and pool. A professional homeowners association will manage all these improvements, as well as the landscaped common areas. Entitlement of the Property will include approval of two Tentative Tract Maps and Final Site Plans, a Conditional Use Permit, a Zoning Change and a General Plan Change for the existing open space.
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 12
GAS
ELECT
TV
F.R.
Garage
20'-0" x 20'-0"
Garage
10'-10" x 36'-2"
10'-0" x 12'-2"
Entry
UP
UP
Entry
STORAGE
PwdrOffice/Den
10'-8"
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE
41
'
-
0
"
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE22'-10"
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE
15'-2"
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE10'-0"
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE
20
'
-
6
"
12
'
-
1
0
"
3'-
8
"
1
'
-
0
"
9'-10"
PLAN 1 SUMMARY:
-GARAGE: 2 CARS TANDEM
-1ST. FLOOR: 71 S.F.
-2ND. FLOOR: 1,379 S.F.
-TOTAL: 1,450 S.F.
-BALCONY: 128 S.F.
PLAN 2 SUMMARY:
-GARAGE: 2 CARS STANDARD
-1ST. FLOOR: 270 S.F.
-2ND. FLOOR: 1,225 S.F.
-TOTAL: 1,495 S.F.
-BALCONY: 128 S.F.
-GARAGE: 400 S.F. -GARAGE: 362 S.F.
Optional
DN
Br 2
10'-0" x 10'-0"
Bath
2
Living
Kitchen/Dining
Island
W/D
Common Wall
Or Open Rail
REF
SINK
DW
Closet
Walk-In
Mstr
Bath
LINEN
Mstr Br
13'-6" x 13'-0"
PANTRY
14'-6" x 8'-8"
16'-4" x 13'-4"
12'-2" x 12'-4"
Deck
15'-4" x 13'-6"
26
'
-
4
"
36'-2"
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE
13
'
-
8
"
36
'
-
4
"
3'
-
8
"
5'
-
4
"
14'-10"
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE20'-4"
RANGE/
OVEN
Br 2
10'-6" x 11'-4"
DN
KitchenLivingDining
Mstr
Bath
Common Wall
Or Open Rail
W
Walk-In
Closet
LinenMstr Br
13'-4" x 12'-8"
Office
REF
SINK DW
PANTRY
D
Bath
2
10'-6" x 14'-2"10'-3" x 14'-2"
13'-8" x 17'-10"
Deck
14'-6" x 8'-8"
26
'
-
4
"
36'-2"
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE
13
'
-
8
"
36
'
-
4
"
3'
-
8
"
5'
-
4
"
14'-10"
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE20'-4"
RANGE/
OVEN
LA PALMA
UA JOB # 14-066
DATE: 07/01/15
UA " ARCH " PRODUCT
PLAN 1 & PLAN 2
FIRST LEVEL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SECOND LEVEL PLAN 2- FLAT
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
THIRD LEVEL PLAN 1-FLAT
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
0 2 4 8 12
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
Garage
20'-10" x 20'-0"
Entry UP
Office/Den
17'-2" x 13'-8"
37
'
-
1
0
"
21'-6"
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE
37
'
-
4
"
1
'
-
0
"
4'-4"4'-0"13'-2"
PLAN 3 SUMMARY:
-GARAGE: 2 CARS STANDARD
-1ST. FLOOR: 284 S.F.
-2ND. FLOOR: 632 S.F.
-TOTAL: 1,688 S.F.
-BALCONY: 89 S.F.
-GARAGE: 417 S.F.
-3RD. FLOOR: 772 S.F.
Kitchen
DiningLiving
DN
UP
Pwdr
REF
DW
SINK
PANTRY
9'-4" x 10'-0"11'-6" x 12'-0"
15'-6" x 14'-0"
Deck
11'-6" x 7'-8"
1'-
6
"
37
'
-
4
"
12'-2"
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE 9'-4"
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE
5'-8"4'-0"11'-10"
29
'
-
1
0
"
2'-
6
"
6'
-
6
"
RANGE/
OVEN
W D
Mstr Br
11'-9" x 12'-6"
Br 3
10'-6" x 10'-0"
Br 2
10'-0" x 10'-4"
DN
Walk-InCloset
Bath
2
MstrBath
Linen
37
'
-
1
0
"
12'-2"
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE 9'-4"
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE
3'-
6
"
35
'
-
4
"
1'
-
0
"
5'-4"4'-0"12'-2"
LA PALMA
UA JOB # 14-066
DATE: 07/01/15
UA " ARCH " PRODUCT
PLAN 3
PLAN 3 - FIRST LEVEL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
PLAN 3 - SECOND LEVEL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
PLAN 3 - THIRD LEVEL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
0 2 4 8 12
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Garage
20'-10" x 20'-0"
EntryUP 9'-4" x 10'-3"
Br 3
Bath
3
33
'
-
4
"
2'
-
6
"
38
'
-
1
0
"
3'-
0
"
21'-6"
4'-4"13'-3"3'-11"
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE
PLAN 4 SUMMARY:
-GARAGE: 2 CARS STANDARD
-1ST. FLOOR: 295 S.F.
-2ND. FLOOR: 653 S.F.
-TOTAL: 1,774 S.F.
-BALCONY: 92 S.F.
-GARAGE: 428 S.F.
-3RD. FLOOR: 826 S.F.
DN
UP
Dining
Pwdr SINKDW
REF
PANTRY
Kitchen
Living
14'-8" x 11'-3"
17'-2" x 9'-4"
17'-2" x 9'-6"
Deck
11'-10" x 7'-8"
36
'
-
4
"
2'
-
6
"
38
'
-
1
0
"
30
'
-
1
0
"
5'
-
6
"
21'-6"
9'-4"12'-2"
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE
RANGE/
OVEN
W
D
Mstr Br
11'-9" x 15'-2"
Br 2
10'-3" x 10'-0"
DN
Walk-In
Closet
Bath
2
Mstr
Bath
Linen
Office/Den
10'-3" x 16'-4"
21'-6"
36
'
-
4
"
2'
-
6
"
38
'
-
1
0
"
3'-8"17'-10"
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE
1" CENTERLINE
AIRSPACE
LA PALMA
UA JOB # 14-066
DATE: 07/01/15
UA " ARCH " PRODUCT
PLAN 4
PLAN 4 - FIRST LEVEL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
PLAN 4 - SECOND LEVEL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
PLAN 4 - THIRD LEVEL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
0 2 4 8 12
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
PLAN 2 PLAN 1
TV
F.R.
20'-0" x 20'-0"10'-10" x 36'-2"
Entry
Entry
PLAN 2PLAN 1
GAS
ELECT
TV
F.R.
Entry
Entry
PLAN 4
Entry
Garage Garage Garage Garage Garage
Office/Den Pwdr
UP
UP
UPBr 3
UP
UP
Office/Den
GAS
ELECT
Stor.
Pwdr
Stor.
10'-10"
37
'
-
0
"
22'-11"21'-8"10'-10"22'-11"
15'-4"19'-11"21'-8"15'-4"19'-11"
37
'
-
0
"
ROOF
ACCESS
LADDER
Bath
3
PLAN 2
Mstr Br
Br 2
Bath
2
Living
Kitchen/Dining
Optional
Island
laund.
PLAN 2
Deck
Mstr Br
Br 2
Living
Kitchen/Dining
Optional
Island
PLAN 4
Kitchen
Dining
Living
Pwdr
Common Wall
Or Open Rail
Mstr
Bath
Deck
Deck
DN.
DN.
UP
Linen
Walk-In
Closet
Mstr
Bath
Linen
Bath
2
Walk-In
Closet
laund.
DN.
Deck
Common Wall
Or Open Rail
10'-10"22'-11"21'-8"10'-10"22'-11"
40
'
-
0
"
36'-3"21'-8"36'-3"
40
'
-
0
"
35'-3"21'-8"36'-3"
PLAN 1 : 1450 s.f. - 2BR/2BA
PLAN 2 : 1495 s.f. - 2BR/2.50 BA + OFFICE/DEN
PLAN 3 : 1688 s.f. - 3BR/2.5BA + OFFICE/DEN
PLAN SUMMARY:
PLAN 3 : 1688 s.f. - 3BR/2.5BA + OFFICE/DEN
PLAN 4 : 1774 s.f. - 3BR/3.5BA + OFFICE/DEN
LA PALMA
UA JOB # 14-066
DATE: 07/01/15
UA " ARCH " PRODUCT
DA
T
E
/
T
I
M
E
O
F
P
L
O
T
:
S:
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
1
4
-
0
6
6
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
L
a
P
a
l
m
a
\
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
\
P
r
e
l
i
m
\
P
e
n
d
i
n
g
S
u
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
\
1
4
-
0
6
6
U
A
A
r
c
h
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
s
.
d
w
g
7/
2
/
2
0
1
5
2
:
3
6
:
4
6
P
M
0 4 8 16 24
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:
5-PLEX COMPOSITE PLANS
5-PLEX COMPOSITE PLANS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"FIRST LEVEL
5-PLEX COMPOSITE PLANS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SECOND LEVEL
PLAN 1
Br 2
Mstr Br
DiningLiving
Bath 2
2Office
Mstr
Bath
PLAN 1
Br 2
Mstr Br
Dining Living
Bath 2
2
Mstr
Bath
PLAN 4
Mstr Br
Office/DenBr 2
Bath
2
Mstr
Bath
Common Wall
Or Open Rail
Walk-In
Closet
Linen
Kitchen
Deck
D
DN.
DN.
DN.
Kitchen
Deck
Walk-In
Closet
Linen
Linen
Office
Common Wall
Or Open Rail
Walk-In
Closet
laund.laund.
21'-7"
40
'
-
0
"
36'-3"
40
'
-
0
"
36'-4"
35'-3"21'-8"36'-3"
6:126:12
6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12
6:
1
2
6:
1
2
6:
1
2
6:
1
2
6:
1
2
FLAT ROOF
AREA WITH
A/C
EQUIPMENT
W
PLAN 1 : 1450 s.f. - 2BR/2BA
PLAN 2 : 1495 s.f. - 2BR/2.50 BA + OFFICE/DEN
PLAN 3 : 1688 s.f. - 3BR/2.5BA + OFFICE/DEN
PLAN SUMMARY:
PLAN 3 : 1688 s.f. - 3BR/2.5BA + OFFICE/DEN
PLAN 4 : 1774 s.f. - 3BR/3.5BA + OFFICE/DEN
LA PALMA
UA JOB # 14-066
DATE: 07/01/15
UA " ARCH " PRODUCT
DA
T
E
/
T
I
M
E
O
F
P
L
O
T
:
S:
\
2
0
1
4
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
1
4
-
0
6
6
A
n
a
h
e
i
m
L
a
P
a
l
m
a
\
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
\
P
r
e
l
i
m
\
P
e
n
d
i
n
g
S
u
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
\
1
4
-
0
6
6
U
A
A
r
c
h
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
s
.
d
w
g
7/
2
/
2
0
1
5
2
:
5
3
:
4
0
P
M
0 4 8 16 24
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
FI
L
E
N
A
M
E
:
5-PLEX COMPOSITE PLANS
5-PLEX COMPOSITE PLANS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"THIRD LEVEL
5-PLEX COMPOSITE PLANS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"ROOF PLAN
07/01/2015
07/01/2015
07/01/2015
07/01/2015
07/01/2015
A6.0
A6.1
A6.2
LOBBY
9'-0" CLG.
UP
27
'
-
8
"
36'-10"
24
'
-
0
"
32'-6"
24'-0"7'-4"15'-5"16'-11"
14
'
-
8
"
52
'
-
1
0
"
RETAIL : 922 S.F.
TOWNHOMES "A" : 2BD/2.5BA - 1620 S.F.
FLAT "B" : 2BD/2BA - 1415 S.F.
FLAT "C" : 3BD/2.5BA - 1942 S.F.
FLAT "D" : 3BD/2.5BA - 1954 S.F.
LA PALMA
UA JOB # 14-066
DATE: 07/01/15
UA " CORNER " PRODUCT
1ST LEVEL
RETAIL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"FIRST LEVEL
0 2 4 8 12
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
W.I.C
9'-0" CLG.
LINEN
SINK
W.I.
PANTRY
9'-0" CLG.
M. BATH
8'-0" CLG.
M. BEDROOM
9'-0" CLG.
BATH 2
8'-0" CLG.
BEDROOM 2
9'-0" CLG.
LAUND
8'-0" CLG.
LAUNDRY
9'-0" CLG.
COVERED DECK
9'-0" CLG.
ENTRY
9'-0" CLG.
LOBBY
9'-0" CLG.
KITCHEN
9'-0" CLG.
STOVE
DW
WD
REF.TECH
LIVING RM
9'-0" CLG.
DINING RM
9'-0" CLG.
11'-2" X 10'-10"
11'-6" X 15'-6"
12'-0" X 16'-0"
16'-6" X 18'-0"
16'-11" X 7'-8"
11'-0" X 14'-2"
5'-0" X 6'-6"
KITCHEN
9'-0" CLG.
LIVING RM
9'-0" CLG.
18'-10" x 10'-4"
13'-4" X 10'-10"
15'-10" X 13'-4"
KITCHEN
9'-0" CLG.8'-0" X 11'-0"
COVERED DECK
9'-0" CLG.
PWDR
8'-0" CLG.
W.I.C
9'-0" CLG.
UP
DN.
PANTRY REF.
STOVE
SINK
DW
RETAIL
VOLUME
CLG.
COAT
10
'
-
4
"
40'-10"
24
'
-
0
"
30'-6"
17
'
-
4
"
24'-0"7'-4"15'-5"16'-11"
11
'
-
8
"
55
'
-
1
0
"
RETAIL : 922 S.F.
TOWNHOMES "A" : 2BD/2.5BA - 1620 S.F.
FLAT "B" : 2BD/2BA - 1415 S.F.
FLAT "C" : 3BD/2.5BA - 1942 S.F.
FLAT "D" : 3BD/2.5BA - 1954 S.F.
LA PALMA
UA JOB # 14-066
DATE: 07/01/15
UA " CORNER " PRODUCT
2ND LEVEL
TOWNHOUSE 'A' / FLAT 'B'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"SECOND LEVEL
0 2 4 8 12
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
LAUNDRY
8'-0" CLG.
D W
COAT
W.I.C
9'-0" CLG.
PWDR
8'-0" CLG.
M. BATH
8'-0" CLG.
LINEN
M. BEDROOM
9'-0" CLG.11'-6" X 15'-6"
BEDROOM 2
9'-0" CLG.9'-9" X 10'-10"BEDROOM 3
9'-0" CLG.9'-9" X 12'-11"
BATH 2
8'-0" CLG.
VEST
8'-0" CLG.
PANTRY
8'-0" CLG.KITCHEN
9'-0" CLG.17'-2" X 9'-6"
DINING RM
9'-0" CLG.13'-0" X 22'-0"
11'-4" X 10'-4"
BATH 2
8'-0" CLG.
REF.
STOVE
DW SINK
COVERED DECK
9'-0" CLG.16'-11" X 7'-8"
ENTRY
9'-0" CLG.
LOBBY
9'-0" CLG.
GREAT RM
9'-0" CLG.
28'-0" X 18'-0"
BEDROOM 2
9'-0" CLG.
W.I.C
9'-0" CLG.
M. BATH
8'-0" CLG.
8'-0" X 11'-0"
W
LINEN
D
COVERED DECK
9'-0" CLG.
LAUNDRY
9'-0" CLG.
TECH.
9'-0" CLG.
NI
C
H
E
M. BEDROOM
9'-0" CLG.16'-8" X 14'-0"
DN.
UP
10
'
-
4
"
40'-10"
24
'
-
0
"
30'-6"
17
'
-
4
"
22'-8"8'-0"15'-5"16'-11"
11
'
-
8
"
55
'
-
1
0
"
RETAIL : 922 S.F.
TOWNHOMES "A" : 2BD/2.5BA - 1620 S.F.
FLAT "B" : 2BD/2BA - 1415 S.F.
FLAT "C" : 3BD/2.5BA - 1942 S.F.
FLAT "D" : 3BD/2.5BA - 1954 S.F.
LA PALMA
UA JOB # 14-066
DATE: 07/01/15
UA " CORNER " PRODUCT
3RD LEVEL
TOWNHOUSE 'A' / FLAT 'C'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"THIRD LEVEL
0 2 4 8 12
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
ROOF
ROOF
WD
ENTRY
9'-0" CLG.
LOBBY
9'-0" CLG.
COVERED DECK
9'-0" CLG.16'-11" X 7'-8"
M. BEDROOM
9'-0" CLG.11'-6" X 15'-6"
BEDROOM 2
9'-0" CLG.9'-6" X 10'-10"
LAUNDRY
8'-0" CLG.
COAT
PWDR
8'-0" CLG.
DINING RM
9'-0" CLG.13'-0" X 22'-0"
GREAT RM
9'-0" CLG.
28'-0" X 18'-0"
DN.
W.I.C
9'-0" CLG.
M. BATH
8'-0" CLG.
LINEN
BEDROOM 3
9'-0" CLG.9'-9" X 12'-11"
BATH 2
8'-0" CLG.PANTRY
8'-0" CLG.KITCHEN
9'-0" CLG.17'-2" X 9'-6"
REF.
STOVE
DW SINK
30'-2"
23
'
-
8
"
32'-10"
22'-8"8'-0"15'-5"16'-11"
55
'
-
1
0
"
RETAIL : 922 S.F.
TOWNHOMES "A" : 2BD/2.5BA - 1620 S.F.
FLAT "B" : 2BD/2BA - 1415 S.F.
FLAT "C" : 3BD/2.5BA - 1942 S.F.
FLAT "D" : 3BD/2.5BA - 1954 S.F.
LA PALMA
UA JOB # 14-066
DATE: 07/01/15
UA " CORNER " PRODUCT
4TH LEVEL
FLAT 'D'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"FOURTH LEVEL
0 2 4 8 12
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6:12
6:
1
2
6:
1
2
6:12
6:12
6:12 6:12
6:
1
2
6:
1
2
6:12
6:
1
2
6:12
6:12
6:
1
2
6:
1
2
FLAT ROOF
AREA WITH
A/C
EQUIPMENTS
LA PALMA
UA JOB # 14-066
DATE: 07/01/15
UA " CORNER " PRODUCT
ROOF PLAN
ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0".
0 2 4 8 12
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
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.